Jump to content

what is your thought on gcrm


HHD
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

Having read the many thoughts regarding this topic and the Caches currently being posted by the Ecorangers in Wisconsin, I personaly believe that there is a difference between the original concept of GCRM Caches and how they are being advertized in current postings. Originally, I have to believe that the guy in Colorado Springs that started the GCRM site was just trying to promote other Cachers in helping out CO's in performing maintenance on Caches needing it. The problem is that most of us are already doing that when we can (there are times that I go into the woods without my Cache bag). Where my dislike of this comes is that somehow it has Morphed into the concept that it is acceptable to hide a Cache and in your posting basically relieve yourself from any responsibilty of that Cache's maintenance as required by Groundspeak (and by common sense). As stated in my earlier posting, the day's of needing the "Few" to hide "Many" so that there were plenty to find is in the past. Bottom line, I believe that all Cache Reviewer Volunteers who spend countless hours approving our (normally responsible) Caches, should band together either by forum or other means to come to an agreement, that any Cache where the CO basically states in their posting that it is the responsibility of other Cachers to maintain the Cache WILL NOT BE APPROVED!

Link to comment

Bottom line, I believe that all Cache Reviewer Volunteers who spend countless hours approving our (normally responsible) Caches, should band together either by forum or other means to come to an agreement, that any Cache where the CO basically states in their posting that it is the responsibility of other Cachers to maintain the Cache WILL NOT BE APPROVED!

I could get behind that.

Link to comment

Bottom line, I believe that all Cache Reviewer Volunteers who spend countless hours approving our (normally responsible) Caches, should band together either by forum or other means to come to an agreement, that any Cache where the CO basically states in their posting that it is the responsibility of other Cachers to maintain the Cache WILL NOT BE APPROVED!

I could get behind that.

I could, too, with the exception of caches placed by cachers deployed to forward locations.

Link to comment

What a bunch of carpola. Log is one thing, but a container? "Well cammoed ammo can" will morph in a film canister and who the heck will know? It sure as heck won't be in the cache description....

 

And you can bet that 'well cammoed ammo can' will be '''missing''' when I get there, so I'll be 'forced' to drop a pill bottle in it's place! :lol:

 

Not really, but you see where this is leading.

I doubt anyone lining-up behind the GCRN theory would actually use a decent quality container in the first place.

Link to comment

One with how many cachers are visiting Power Trails I don't think they will be going down. In fact more are popping up.

And Hmmm I remember not that long ago in one of the GCNewsletters that GC was encouraging others to help out cachers with maintenance. Bring extra logsheets, containers etc. I am sure most of you who are saying negative things here probably have extra logsheets with them when they go out and replace wet or full logs.

So how is that different?

Link to comment

One with how many cachers are visiting Power Trails I don't think they will be going down. In fact more are popping up.

And Hmmm I remember not that long ago in one of the GCNewsletters that GC was encouraging others to help out cachers with maintenance. Bring extra logsheets, containers etc. I am sure most of you who are saying negative things here probably have extra logsheets with them when they go out and replace wet or full logs.

So how is that different?

This isn't a matter of doing the neighborly thing and performed Cache maintenance on Caches that you visit that may be in need of a new log etc.. Or even about the times we may have actually replaced a Cache container for one that the lid may be broken and so on. Typically, in those cases a responsible CO would be heading out to their Cache to do their own maintenance after the temporary fix was performed. This is about a Cache Owner posting a Cache and stating in the Cache description how everyone is SUPPOSED to maintain it for them and how they are to do it. Yes, most of us are good to each other and help out when needed, but it is just wrong and quite irritating when a Cache is posted that EXPECTS me to do their job of maintenance. The bottom line is that it is in violation of the guidelines most follow when posting a new Cache to basically state that they will not be doing their part in maintaining their own Cache and as such it should not even have gotten approved with out a very good explanation in their posting notes to the reviewer. Quite sure that if the reviewer questioned them prior to approval as to their intentions, the reviewer would most likely recommend a diffent wayh of wording it in the Cache description.

Link to comment

What a bunch of carpola. Log is one thing, but a container? "Well cammoed ammo can" will morph in a film canister and who the heck will know? It sure as heck won't be in the cache description....

 

And you can bet that 'well cammoed ammo can' will be '''missing''' when I get there, so I'll be 'forced' to drop a pill bottle in it's place! :lol:

 

Not really, but you see where this is leading.

I doubt anyone lining-up behind the GCRN theory would actually use a decent quality container in the first place.

If someone placed a well cammoed ammo can and didn't want it replaced by an inferior container couldn't they just not put a gcrm icon on their page?

 

I can understand the frustration of some (particularly cache owners) when someone leaves a replacement container because they couldn't find the cache and they didn't get prior consent from the cache owner. I thought the purpose of the GCRM was to provide a way for cache owners to give consent or give limited consent. If the icon isn't there, cachers might still help out, but they should be aware not all cache owners will be appreciative and some may not accept a find log.

Link to comment

Here is an example of what happens...

GC2QW47

log is soaked and needs to be replaced, the co is responding in the typical manner for them

"will the next geocacher please replace the wet log...it will keep the game going & help out your fellow geocacher (thanks)."

This cache is close to the co's home and obviously they aren't willing to do the maintenance. This is a gcrm cache and I get that it is only a wet log, the problem I have is that this is a habit for this co. Not for all their caches but for a good majority. I appreciate having hides to find but it is not my responsibility to maintain them. It is the co's job to do the maintenance. I can list probably 40 caches from this co that have this same note for assistance. Pair down your hides if the burden is too much.

Edited by HighHeeled Dutchess
Link to comment

One with how many cachers are visiting Power Trails I don't think they will be going down. In fact more are popping up.

And Hmmm I remember not that long ago in one of the GCNewsletters that GC was encouraging others to help out cachers with maintenance. Bring extra logsheets, containers etc. I am sure most of you who are saying negative things here probably have extra logsheets with them when they go out and replace wet or full logs.

So how is that different?

This isn't a matter of doing the neighborly thing and performed Cache maintenance on Caches that you visit that may be in need of a new log etc.. Or even about the times we may have actually replaced a Cache container for one that the lid may be broken and so on. Typically, in those cases a responsible CO would be heading out to their Cache to do their own maintenance after the temporary fix was performed. This is about a Cache Owner posting a Cache and stating in the Cache description how everyone is SUPPOSED to maintain it for them and how they are to do it. Yes, most of us are good to each other and help out when needed, but it is just wrong and quite irritating when a Cache is posted that EXPECTS me to do their job of maintenance. The bottom line is that it is in violation of the guidelines most follow when posting a new Cache to basically state that they will not be doing their part in maintaining their own Cache and as such it should not even have gotten approved with out a very good explanation in their posting notes to the reviewer. Quite sure that if the reviewer questioned them prior to approval as to their intentions, the reviewer would most likely recommend a diffent wayh of wording it in the Cache description.

If the cache owner were to actually say that he wasn't going to maintain the cache and that if people wanted it maintained, then they should do it themselves, then I would agree with you. However, that is not what is being presented in this thread. Instead, we have cache owners who welcome cachers help in maintaining their caches. I have not seen evidence that showed that these cache owners wouldn't themselves maintain the cache if the community didn't.

Link to comment

One with how many cachers are visiting Power Trails I don't think they will be going down. In fact more are popping up.

And Hmmm I remember not that long ago in one of the GCNewsletters that GC was encouraging others to help out cachers with maintenance. Bring extra logsheets, containers etc. I am sure most of you who are saying negative things here probably have extra logsheets with them when they go out and replace wet or full logs.

So how is that different?

This isn't a matter of doing the neighborly thing and performed Cache maintenance on Caches that you visit that may be in need of a new log etc.. Or even about the times we may have actually replaced a Cache container for one that the lid may be broken and so on. Typically, in those cases a responsible CO would be heading out to their Cache to do their own maintenance after the temporary fix was performed. This is about a Cache Owner posting a Cache and stating in the Cache description how everyone is SUPPOSED to maintain it for them and how they are to do it. Yes, most of us are good to each other and help out when needed, but it is just wrong and quite irritating when a Cache is posted that EXPECTS me to do their job of maintenance. The bottom line is that it is in violation of the guidelines most follow when posting a new Cache to basically state that they will not be doing their part in maintaining their own Cache and as such it should not even have gotten approved with out a very good explanation in their posting notes to the reviewer. Quite sure that if the reviewer questioned them prior to approval as to their intentions, the reviewer would most likely recommend a diffent wayh of wording it in the Cache description.

If the cache owner were to actually say that he wasn't going to maintain the cache and that if people wanted it maintained, then they should do it themselves, then I would agree with you. However, that is not what is being presented in this thread. Instead, we have cache owners who welcome cachers help in maintaining their caches. I have not seen evidence that showed that these cache owners wouldn't themselves maintain the cache if the community didn't.

If you check the above listed GC code you will see an example of the co saying just that.

Link to comment

So how is that different?

It's the difference between common courtesy and entitlement.

Me and Karma are on pretty good speaking terms these days, as I don't mind replacing a log, replacing a baggie, sprinkling in extra swag, etc, (on those caches I enjoy... I won't be a crappy cache enabler), and many of my peers feel the same way, occasionally saving me a maintenance trip. In my mind, this is a good thing. But someone expressing the idea that others should do their job for them just sounds wrong, in my mind.

Link to comment

One with how many cachers are visiting Power Trails I don't think they will be going down. In fact more are popping up.

And Hmmm I remember not that long ago in one of the GCNewsletters that GC was encouraging others to help out cachers with maintenance. Bring extra logsheets, containers etc. I am sure most of you who are saying negative things here probably have extra logsheets with them when they go out and replace wet or full logs.

So how is that different?

This isn't a matter of doing the neighborly thing and performed Cache maintenance on Caches that you visit that may be in need of a new log etc.. Or even about the times we may have actually replaced a Cache container for one that the lid may be broken and so on. Typically, in those cases a responsible CO would be heading out to their Cache to do their own maintenance after the temporary fix was performed. This is about a Cache Owner posting a Cache and stating in the Cache description how everyone is SUPPOSED to maintain it for them and how they are to do it. Yes, most of us are good to each other and help out when needed, but it is just wrong and quite irritating when a Cache is posted that EXPECTS me to do their job of maintenance. The bottom line is that it is in violation of the guidelines most follow when posting a new Cache to basically state that they will not be doing their part in maintaining their own Cache and as such it should not even have gotten approved with out a very good explanation in their posting notes to the reviewer. Quite sure that if the reviewer questioned them prior to approval as to their intentions, the reviewer would most likely recommend a diffent wayh of wording it in the Cache description.

If the cache owner were to actually say that he wasn't going to maintain the cache and that if people wanted it maintained, then they should do it themselves, then I would agree with you. However, that is not what is being presented in this thread. Instead, we have cache owners who welcome cachers help in maintaining their caches. I have not seen evidence that showed that these cache owners wouldn't themselves maintain the cache if the community didn't.

If you check the above listed GC code you will see an example of the co saying just that.

 

I agree. Even though it originally took us to an archived CITO event in Europe. :laughing: I know, you explained that. So yeah, I don't like that example. If you have to resort to that, you don't really need to own 600 caches, or whatever the grand total is there.

Link to comment

I suppose there are probably some, but I really can't imagine a cache owner who WOULDN'T appreciate a damaged log being replaced, or even the whole container (if the damaged remains were located).

 

I can see how it all might have started as innocent encouragement to go ahead and provide assistance. Do we really need to be told it's OK to help?

 

Although the 'Delaware Powertrail' didn't have the 'gcrn' icons when I last checked, it's a prime example of a cache owner side-stepping their responsibilities.

 

'No need for a DNF, just drop a replacement film canister'

 

Isn't this why 'vacation caches' are not allowed?

Link to comment

It is exactly the reason they are not allowed.

Actually the guidelines state

Geocaches placed during travel may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan, which must allow for a quick response to reported problems. An acceptable maintenance plan might include the username of a local geocacher who will handle maintenance issues in your absence. Alternatively you might train a local person to maintain the cache.

So it seems that according to the guidelines, geocache owners can ask others for help in maintaining their cache. While the ultimate responsibility for maintenance remains with the cache owner, don't try to read more into it than is there. A GCRM link in the description is not a violation of the guidelines for cache ownership no matter how much you wish it were so.

Link to comment

I agree with you tozainamboku, it isn't a violation of the rules...yet. I'm hoping that at some point Groundspeak will come out against the practice.

I will say that if this concept were not being used as a way to get around doing the co maintaining in my area I might have a different opinion. However, the only experience I have with it is this negative impression.

Edited by HighHeeled Dutchess
Link to comment

A GCRM link in the description is not a violation of the guidelines for cache ownership no matter how much you wish it were so.

 

No, it certainly isn't a violation.

But it appears to come awfully close to saying,'I'm not going to maintain this cache, so why don't you guys do it for me.' Which IS a violation since you agree to maintain the cache when you submit it, do you not?

 

Since it has always been my understanding that maintenance assistance is always usually appreciated, it would make more sense (to me) to have a 'Hands Off, please DON'T help maintain my cache.' instruction/link/disclaimer included on the page (if the owner felt that way).

Link to comment

I agree with you tozainamboku, it isn't a violation of the rules...yet. I'm hoping that at some point Groundspeak will come out against the practice.

I will say that if this concept were not being used as a way to get around doing the co maintaining in my area I might have a different opinion. However, the only experience I have with it is this negative impression.

 

Well, you don't necessarily have to agree with him. :D Groundspeak may in fact some day take a stance against this. But probably not with what would surely be a Premium member for life who hosts an annual Mega event. :o

Link to comment

I agree with you tozainamboku, it isn't a violation of the rules...yet. I'm hoping that at some point Groundspeak will come out against the practice.

I will say that if this concept were not being used as a way to get around doing the co maintaining in my area I might have a different opinion. However, the only experience I have with it is this negative impression.

 

Well, you don't necessarily have to agree with him. :D Groundspeak may in fact some day take a stance against this. But probably not with what would surely be a Premium member for life who hosts an annual Mega event. :o

 

So you believe that because of what he and his wife have given to the caching community they get to play by different rules? Seems like they should be held to a higher standard if you ask me.

Link to comment

Actually the guidelines state...

Yeah, we know.

The guidelines require that a cache owner demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan.

Groundspeak has decided that posting "I'm not going to maintain this cache, 'cuz I'm too dang lazy to do the job I agreed to do when I submitted it for publication. As such, I expect others to take on these duties for me." in big honking letters, on the cache page, is an acceptable maintenance plan. While I don't agree with their stance, I recognize that it's not my sandbox. :unsure:

Link to comment

I agree with you tozainamboku, it isn't a violation of the rules...yet. I'm hoping that at some point Groundspeak will come out against the practice.

I will say that if this concept were not being used as a way to get around doing the co maintaining in my area I might have a different opinion. However, the only experience I have with it is this negative impression.

 

Well, you don't necessarily have to agree with him. :D Groundspeak may in fact some day take a stance against this. But probably not with what would surely be a Premium member for life who hosts an annual Mega event. :o

 

So you believe that because of what he and his wife have given to the caching community they get to play by different rules? Seems like they should be held to a higher standard if you ask me.

 

No comment. Oops, I already did. Did I say that out loud? :ph34r:

 

But seriously, if we have enough high profile examples of cases like this, most notably with the State of Delaware Power trail (which contains similar language, but just doesn't mention this GCRM website), I believe Groundspeak will eventually take a stance against it.

Link to comment

Actually the guidelines state...

Yeah, we know.

The guidelines require that a cache owner demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan.

Groundspeak has decided that posting "I'm not going to maintain this cache, 'cuz I'm too dang lazy to do the job I agreed to do when I submitted it for publication. As such, I expect others to take on these duties for me." in big honking letters, on the cache page, is an acceptable maintenance plan. While I don't agree with their stance, I recognize that it's not my sandbox. :unsure:

There are plenty of cache owners who in order to avoid maintenance turn their caches into virtual "virtual caches". They allow finds even if you don't find the container (or replace it). When such a cache is reported to a reviewer or to Groundspeak, some action is always taken. Generally the reviewer will disable the cache and give the owner 30 days to replace the container and archive the cache if this doesn't occur.

 

It should be clear there is a difference between that and a cache owner who says "If the container is missing you have my permission to leave a replacement and claim a find on the cache". If nobody were to leave a replacement, the cache owner is either going to have to replace the container himself or let the cache be archived.

There are a number of geocachers who are more than willing to help out with maintenance so that others will have a better experience at the cache. While many people (including myself) have given reasons why replacing a cache just because you couldn't find it isn't a good idea, especially without owner consent, GCRM is an easy way for owners to give consent. Nobody is forced to leave a replacement for a GCRM cache. It is entirely voluntary. Using GCRM, the cache owner still has the primary responsibility for maintaining the cache, they are simply letting anyone who wants to help with maintenance that they as an owner are OK with it.

Link to comment

Actually the guidelines state...

Yeah, we know.

The guidelines require that a cache owner demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan.

Groundspeak has decided that posting "I'm not going to maintain this cache, 'cuz I'm too dang lazy to do the job I agreed to do when I submitted it for publication. As such, I expect others to take on these duties for me." in big honking letters, on the cache page, is an acceptable maintenance plan. While I don't agree with their stance, I recognize that it's not my sandbox. :unsure:

There are plenty of cache owners who in order to avoid maintenance turn their caches into virtual "virtual caches". They allow finds even if you don't find the container (or replace it). When such a cache is reported to a reviewer or to Groundspeak, some action is always taken. Generally the reviewer will disable the cache and give the owner 30 days to replace the container and archive the cache if this doesn't occur.

 

It should be clear there is a difference between that and a cache owner who says "If the container is missing you have my permission to leave a replacement and claim a find on the cache". If nobody were to leave a replacement, the cache owner is either going to have to replace the container himself or let the cache be archived.

There are a number of geocachers who are more than willing to help out with maintenance so that others will have a better experience at the cache. While many people (including myself) have given reasons why replacing a cache just because you couldn't find it isn't a good idea, especially without owner consent, GCRM is an easy way for owners to give consent. Nobody is forced to leave a replacement for a GCRM cache. It is entirely voluntary. Using GCRM, the cache owner still has the primary responsibility for maintaining the cache, they are simply letting anyone who wants to help with maintenance that they as an owner are OK with it.

 

Here is where I have to say shananagins. The concept might be that but the specific situation mentioned above is just one example of gcrm gone wild. The cache owner has no intentions of replacing the log and that's why they used gcrm...it is a throwdown style cache to start and if it goes missing the co will just archive it rather then maintain it. So he is hiding behind this concept of community involvement maintaining rather then co responsibility.

Link to comment

I learned something. I was under the impression that if you created a "power trail", that you also maintained it...even if it was a big chore.

 

I know that not every cache owner is a good cache owner. But I now have the impression that no power trail out there is currently being maintained by the people that created it. Is that the case?

Link to comment

As for this thread's original subject, I also agree with the previous posters who say that the intentions of the idea are good. It's the execution that's a nightmare.

 

If cachers had been allowed to replace caches they couldn't find and assumed muggled, we'd have a mess of throw-downs all around GZ of several of our caches. It's bad enough that they write in their logs that it's "without a doubt compromised", or that "the coords are bad", when it's there and they just couldn't find it. (Major discouragement to the next cacher who comes along..who probably could have found it, but decides not to because they assume it needs maintenance.)

Imagine being the next person to try to find it, and you go out there with a couple of family members, and you ALL find it.. or find containers, anyways. That doesn't seem very fun. Not to me, anyways. Others may have a different opinion.

Link to comment

Here is where I have to say shananagins. The concept might be that but the specific situation mentioned above is just one example of gcrm gone wild. The cache owner has no intentions of replacing the log and that's why they used gcrm...it is a throwdown style cache to start and if it goes missing the co will just archive it rather then maintain it. So he is hiding behind this concept of community involvement maintaining rather then co responsibility.

OK I hadn't looked at the particular example you gave before. Now I have.

 

Perhaps you refering to the GCRM statement in description which is simply a quote from the GCRM site. It certainly could be made clearer that this is a request and not a demand to replace a potentially missing cache. However it does not seem to indicate abdication of the owner's ultimate responsibility.

 

Perhaps you are refering to the note the owners posted on 11/1 after a Needs Maintenance log was posted due to a signable but wet log. First of all there are a lot of cache owners who will may feel that a signable wet log is not a needs maintenance situation. Logs get wet and dry out, even in Wisconsin, though I suspect that if a log is getting wet often there is a problem with the container that needs to fixed. The cache owner has not said that they are not going to fix the cache, they are simply asking for the next geocacher to find it to replace the log. The remaining comment about keeping the game going and helping out your fellow geocachers is precisely the idea behind GCRM. The sooner something is fixed, the sooner cachers can find a cache with a dry log in place. Perhaps if the situation isn't fixed in few weeks you can complain the cache owners is shirking their responsibility, but it has been four days and perhaps a finder this weekend will bring a dry log with them.

 

Actually I think the problem you have is that you simply don't like this sort of Park and Grab hide. Now, I can sympathize in that I will usually say that hides made simply to increase the density of caches in an area and using cheap containers tend to get archived as soon as they go missing. So it's possible that by putting GCRM on these caches gives them a longer life then they might otherwise have. However, that would be a personal view of such hides. I realize that some cachers really enjoy these because they are into "numbers". I see the cache owner is a well known "numbers" cacher, so it doesn't surprise me that they would be hiding cache caches others might view as junk and that they might put GCRM on them to encourage others to help maintain the caches. One simply has to accept that some people enjoy finding these cache and despite any personal preference to see them archived sooner, stop making up rules :mmraspberry:.

Link to comment

Imagine being the next person to try to find it, and you go out there with a couple of family members, and you ALL find it.. or find containers, anyways. That doesn't seem very fun. Not to me, anyways. Others may have a different opinion.

I find it a lot of fun to keep looking after I find a replacement cache to see if I can find the "real" cache. My favorite example was one where I found a replacement cache left by the cache owner doing maintenance and then found the original container only about six inches away.

 

I would think that you and your family would have more fun finding multiple containers or even just the replacement container than you would having to DNF the cache because the container is missing. But it's certainly your right to think otherwise.

Link to comment

Imagine being the next person to try to find it, and you go out there with a couple of family members, and you ALL find it.. or find containers, anyways. That doesn't seem very fun. Not to me, anyways. Others may have a different opinion.

I find it a lot of fun to keep looking after I find a replacement cache to see if I can find the "real" cache. My favorite example was one where I found a replacement cache left by the cache owner doing maintenance and then found the original container only about six inches away.

 

I would think that you and your family would have more fun finding multiple containers or even just the replacement container than you would having to DNF the cache because the container is missing. But it's certainly your right to think otherwise.

I do think otherwise. Who made "the find"? Where was it originally supposed to be? I would like to find it where the cache owner hid it, because it would probably be hidden better than a replacement throw-down would ever be. The cache owner may have a very clever hide, but the people who couldn't find it might think it should have been hidden in a hollow of a tree like every other cache they've ever found, so they hide a replacement there. Ho-hum.

My family tends to be a bit competitive as well, so everyone coming up with a cache would put a damper on our spirits just a bit.

But, like I said, I have my reasons for not liking the idea. Others have reasons for liking it. I will never be employing the idea with any caches I hide, others can do as they wish. I just hope that people don't get the wrong idea and start throwing down replacements for our caches because it's "generally accepted". It wouldn't be accepted. In a case like that, somebody's feelings are bound to be hurt, and it won't be mine.

 

edited to add.. As previously mentioned, DNFs matter more to the cachers in it for the numbers, and as you can clearly see, I am not in it for the numbers. DNFs are just as much a part of the game for us as finds, and we log every one. sometimes our DNFs are funnier and better logs than the finds. So, a DNF would actually not be as much of a horrible thing as you seem to assume it would be.

Edited by RhinoInAToga
Link to comment

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCTB63

Here is an example of a hide by the same cacher. It is not a throw down cache. It is a well thought out hide in a nice location. However....it has been nm flagged several times almost all of the logs from the last year have been stating the poor condition of the hide and there is yet another note from the co asking for us to maintain the hide for them. I don't mind p&g hides. I love them in the winter since we get snow here and a lot of it. This has nothing to do with the type of hides. It has to do with owners trying to come up with ways to get around maintaining their hides. Note this one was placed before gcrm so its not in the listing but clearly the co is advocating for it...and still a year later nothing.

Edited by HighHeeled Dutchess
Link to comment

edited to add.. As previously mentioned, DNFs matter more to the cachers in it for the numbers, and as you can clearly see, I am not in it for the numbers. DNFs are just as much a part of the game for us as finds, and we log every one. sometimes our DNFs are funnier and better logs than the finds. So, a DNF would actually not be as much of a horrible thing as you seem to assume it would be.

I didn't say that a DNF is a horrible. I said that I thought you and your family would have more fun finding multiple caches or even just the replace than a DNF. Obviously most people prefer to find something which is why they keep looking. Funny thing is I know a numbers cacher whose rule is that if they don't find the cache in seven minutes they log a DNF. It's nonsense to assume that DNFs are horrible for all numbers caches. Many have learned that to find lots of caches you don't "waste" time looking for ones that are either missing or a bit harder to find and there is no shame in logging a DNF if your time limit for searching expires.

 

Obviously there are some numbers cachers who might jump at the opportunity to help out because it means they can get a smiley for a cache they didn't find. But this is not what we're discussing. The issue that some people seem to have is that the cache owner is allowing this as a way to get others to maintain their cache.

 

If a cache owner has a clever hide then they are not likely to list it as GCRM. Why would they want a throw down by someone who simply doesn't want to spend time looking for their well hidden cache? Most cachers who leave throw downs without getting the consent of the cache owner (something I agree shouldn't be done), are doing this only for hides they believe are nothing unusual. From the description or the hint, they will have a pretty good idea the cache is missing. Many will not leave a replacement unless there are several DNFs in a row prior to their looking.

 

You may worry that the use of GCRM might leave some with the impression that throw downs are widely accepted or that all cache owners would appreciate a replacement if you don't find their cache. I see it at just the opposite. Finders will now avoid helping out except for caches that have a GCRM statement. They will soon learn that if there is no GCRM statement they shouldn't be leaving a replacement and if they do, their log might be deleted.

Link to comment

edited to add.. As previously mentioned, DNFs matter more to the cachers in it for the numbers, and as you can clearly see, I am not in it for the numbers. DNFs are just as much a part of the game for us as finds, and we log every one. sometimes our DNFs are funnier and better logs than the finds. So, a DNF would actually not be as much of a horrible thing as you seem to assume it would be.

 

Obviously there are some numbers cachers who might jump at the opportunity to help out because it means they can get a smiley for a cache they didn't find. But this is not what we're discussing.

 

This is exactly what we are discussing. I stated my opinion on why I don't like the idea. (that's what the OP was about) You disagreed, and this is exactly what we have been discussing since. I stated very plainly that it is my opinion that what other cache owners decide to do with their own caches is completely up to them. That includes whether or not they wish to maintain them. I stated that the only issue I have with it is when it bleeds over into others' games, and effects the caches that they own and do not wish for others to "help" with their maintenance.

 

If a cache owner has a clever hide then they are not likely to list it as GCRM. Why would they want a throw down by someone who simply doesn't want to spend time looking for their well hidden cache? Most cachers who leave throw downs without getting the consent of the cache owner (something I agree shouldn't be done), are doing this only for hides they believe are nothing unusual.

 

Some people believe that every hide is "nothing unusual". Sometimes, that's the very reason why they're having trouble finding it.

 

From the description or the hint, they will have a pretty good idea the cache is missing. Many will not leave a replacement unless there are several DNFs in a row prior to their looking.

 

I've had several caches that have had several DNFs and their difficulty has been a two. They were right where I left them. And what if a group of number cachers had just come through and couldn't spare that eighth minute?

 

You may worry that the use of GCRM might leave some with the impression that throw downs are widely accepted or that all cache owners would appreciate a replacement if you don't find their cache.

 

I don't worry that it might. It will. But like I said, it will not be tolerated with our caches.

 

I see it at just the opposite. Finders will now avoid helping out except for caches that have a GCRM statement. They will soon learn that if there is no GCRM statement they shouldn't be leaving a replacement and if they do, their log might be deleted.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. Like I stated previously, that idea is a very good one. The execution of it will not go as swimmingly as you hope. People assume. It's just what they do. If your area is flooded with GCRM caches, people will assume that your cache is one of them. It never fails. It will lead to people's feelings getting hurt. I don't like to hurt people's feelings, but I own those caches. I put my time, money, and effort into them. I have them set up a certain way for a certain reason. I don't need anybody messing with that. I do my own maintenance, and plenty of it.

Link to comment

This is exactly what we are discussing. I stated my opinion on why I don't like the idea. (that's what the OP was about) You disagreed, and this is exactly what we have been discussing since. I stated very plainly that it is my opinion that what other cache owners decide to do with their own caches is completely up to them. That includes whether or not they wish to maintain them. I stated that the only issue I have with it is when it bleeds over into others' games, and effects the caches that they own and do not wish for others to "help" with their maintenance.

OK. You may object to GCRM because you believe that replacing of caches causes problems with multiple caches etc. Others have argued that GCRM caches should be archived because cache owners are using it to avoid doing maintenance - which is a requirement of cache ownership.

 

I agree that leaving a throw down replacement just because you couldn't find a cache is not a good idea. It certainly should never be done without the cache owner's consent. GCRM is no more than a way for a cache owner to give consent to have his cache replaced. If you don't want your cache replaced then don't post a GCRM statement on your cache page. If your cache is replaced by a well meaning geocacher anyway, feel free to delete their find log and let them know their help was not appreciated. They will soon learn not to replace caches without first getting consent.

 

Some people believe that every hide is "nothing unusual". Sometimes, that's the very reason why they're having trouble finding it.

There is a reason that caches get rated 1/1 or that cache owners give a spoiler hint. Granted there may be some cachers who will leave a throw down in the case of a more difficult cache - but around here that is very rare. Again cache owners who know their hide is supposed to be a little tricky will not put a GCRM statement on the page. They might even delete finds if they see a replacement was left. And if their cache gets several DNFs in a row, they might check the cache and post a note saying the it is still there.

 

I've had several caches that have had several DNFs and their difficulty has been a two. They were right where I left them. And what if a group of number cachers had just come through and couldn't spare that eighth minute?

Perhaps your caches are underrated or you need to leave better hints? But in any case, did someone leave a throw down? Probably not. People who are leaving throw downs have a pretty good idea that a cache is missing or if it just hard to find. A series of recent DNFs is just one indication. BTW, as a cache owner, you can always check your cache if it gets a couple of DNFs and post a note saying the cache is there.

 

You may worry that the use of GCRM might leave some with the impression that throw downs are widely accepted or that all cache owners would appreciate a replacement if you don't find their cache.

I don't worry that it might. It will. But like I said, it will not be tolerated with our caches.

I disagree strongly. You have not presented any evidence that GCRM will leave this impression. As it turns out, a few cachers already seem to believe that by leaving a replacement they are helping out cache owners and other finders. This attitude preceded GCRM. As power trails and other so-called "for the numbers" hides have proliferated, a number of cache owners have indicated that they have no objection to getting this kind of help. GCRM seems to be intended to limit the use this sort of action to caches where cache owners are OK with it. Instead of people saying "Oh this is a power trail so the owner wants me to leave a replacement if a cache is missing", they will instead look and see if the owner has a GCRM message on the cache page. The ideas here is that if there is no GCRM message, you should not be leaving a replacement cache.

 

If you don't want replacements for you caches, just don't make them GCRM. I'm not sure why you need to say "it will not be tolerated with our caches." You aren't given permission, so a person who subscribes to the GCRM principles will not replace your cache. If someone leaves a replacement anyhow, then they would likely have done so whether or not GCRM existed. You can always delete their find log if you discover they left a replacement and let them know that next time they should be checking if is OK with the cache owner before leaving a replacement.

 

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. Like I stated previously, that idea is a very good one. The execution of it will not go as swimmingly as you hope. People assume. It's just what they do. If your area is flooded with GCRM caches, people will assume that your cache is one of them. It never fails. It will lead to people's feelings getting hurt. I don't like to hurt people's feelings, but I own those caches. I put my time, money, and effort into them. I have them set up a certain way for a certain reason. I don't need anybody messing with that. I do my own maintenance, and plenty of it.

Since GCRM hasn't caught on in my area, I can't really comment on what people may assume. I suppose if 99% of caches have GRCM on them people may stop looking to see if it says GCRM and will replace all caches. I doubt that it will ever come to this, though I suspect the use of GCRM on power trails and other high-density cache placements may swamp an area. My hope is that the system gets used as intended and that cachers learn not to leave a replacement cache unless the cache owner consents. Perhaps GCRM could change their statement and add that cachers should not leave a replacement without first getting the cache owner's consent; just to make it clear that because many cache owners in a area are OK with this, it doesn't mean all of them are.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

It should be clear there is a difference...

Obviously you are OK with the concept of cache owners blatantly advertising the fact that they will not be doing the maintenance duties they've agreed to when they submitted the cache for publication. Such is your belief system, and while I might not agree with you, I respect your right to have and voice your opinion. Neither of us are employed by The Lily Pad, so neither of our opinions matter in the long run.

 

The only certainty is, Groundspeak is OK with the notion.

 

You can blast it all over the cache page, and TPTB just don't care.

Link to comment

 

I agree that leaving a throw down replacement just because you couldn't find a cache is not a good idea. It certainly should never be done without the cache owner's consent. GCRM is no more than a way for a cache owner to give consent to have his cache replaced. If you don't want your cache replaced then don't post a GCRM statement on your cache page. If your cache is replaced by a well meaning geocacher anyway, feel free to delete their find log and let them know their help was not appreciated. They will soon learn not to replace caches without first getting consent.

 

 

And indeed this is the final answer, and as such it is what I have done.

Throw-down replacements on my caches are not welcome.

I am truly sorry if my cache was missing when you attempted to find it.

Stuff happens.

I will replace the cache within a few days, and you are welcome to look for it then.

Link to comment

This is exactly what we are discussing. I stated my opinion on why I don't like the idea. (that's what the OP was about) You disagreed, and this is exactly what we have been discussing since. I stated very plainly that it is my opinion that what other cache owners decide to do with their own caches is completely up to them. That includes whether or not they wish to maintain them. I stated that the only issue I have with it is when it bleeds over into others' games, and effects the caches that they own and do not wish for others to "help" with their maintenance.

OK. You may object to GCRM because you believe that replacing of caches causes problems with multiple caches etc. Others have argued that GCRM caches should be archived because cache owners are using it to avoid doing maintenance - which is a requirement of cache ownership.

 

I agree that leaving a throw down replacement just because you couldn't find a cache is not a good idea. It certainly should never be done without the cache owner's consent. GCRM is no more than a way for a cache owner to give consent to have his cache replaced. If you don't want your cache replaced then don't post a GCRM statement on your cache page. If your cache is replaced by a well meaning geocacher anyway, feel free to delete their find log and let them know their help was not appreciated. They will soon learn not to replace caches without first getting consent.

 

Some people believe that every hide is "nothing unusual". Sometimes, that's the very reason why they're having trouble finding it.

There is a reason that caches get rated 1/1 or that cache owners give a spoiler hint. Granted there may be some cachers who will leave a throw down in the case of a more difficult cache - but around here that is very rare. Again cache owners who know their hide is supposed to be a little tricky will not put a GCRM statement on the page. They might even delete finds if they see a replacement was left. And if their cache gets several DNFs in a row, they might check the cache and post a note saying the it is still there.

 

I've had several caches that have had several DNFs and their difficulty has been a two. They were right where I left them. And what if a group of number cachers had just come through and couldn't spare that eighth minute?

Perhaps your caches are underrated or you need to leave better hints? But in any case, did someone leave a throw down? Probably not. People who are leaving throw downs have a pretty good idea that a cache is missing or if it just hard to find. A series of recent DNFs is just one indication. BTW, as a cache owner, you can always check your cache if it gets a couple of DNFs and post a note saying the cache is there.

 

You may worry that the use of GCRM might leave some with the impression that throw downs are widely accepted or that all cache owners would appreciate a replacement if you don't find their cache.

I don't worry that it might. It will. But like I said, it will not be tolerated with our caches.

I disagree strongly. You have not presented any evidence that GCRM will leave this impression. As it turns out, a few cachers already seem to believe that by leaving a replacement they are helping out cache owners and other finders. This attitude preceded GCRM. As power trails and other so-called "for the numbers" hides have proliferated, a number of cache owners have indicated that they have no objection to getting this kind of help. GCRM seems to be intended to limit the use this sort of action to caches where cache owners are OK with it. Instead of people saying "Oh this is a power trail so the owner wants me to leave a replacement if a cache is missing", they will instead look and see if the owner has a GCRM message on the cache page. The ideas here is that if there is no GCRM message, you should not be leaving a replacement cache.

 

If you don't want replacements for you caches, just don't make them GCRM. I'm not sure why you need to say "it will not be tolerated with our caches." You aren't given permission, so a person who subscribes to the GCRM principles will not replace your cache. If someone leaves a replacement anyhow, then they would likely have done so whether or not GCRM existed. You can always delete their find log if you discover they left a replacement and let them know that next time they should be checking if is OK with the cache owner before leaving a replacement.

 

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. Like I stated previously, that idea is a very good one. The execution of it will not go as swimmingly as you hope. People assume. It's just what they do. If your area is flooded with GCRM caches, people will assume that your cache is one of them. It never fails. It will lead to people's feelings getting hurt. I don't like to hurt people's feelings, but I own those caches. I put my time, money, and effort into them. I have them set up a certain way for a certain reason. I don't need anybody messing with that. I do my own maintenance, and plenty of it.

Since GCRM hasn't caught on in my area, I can't really comment on what people may assume. I suppose if 99% of caches have GRCM on them people may stop looking to see if it says GCRM and will replace all caches. I doubt that it will ever come to this, though I suspect the use of GCRM on power trails and other high-density cache placements may swamp an area. My hope is that the system gets used as intended and that cachers learn not to leave a replacement cache unless the cache owner consents. Perhaps GCRM could change their statement and add that cachers should not leave a replacement without first getting the cache owner's consent; just to make it clear that because many cache owners in a area are OK with this, it doesn't mean all of them are.

 

A lot of what you say makes sense. I'm not denying that it does. However, you must also see where I am coming from by now.

I'm adopting a "wait-and-see" attitude about this one. I like the idea.. I'm just not sure it's as practical in use as what we all wish it will be.

 

As far as what I can do to make my caches better: Please don't insinuate that I'm not a considerate cache owner. I put a lot of thought, hard work, research, money, and footwork into them. What I will not do is hold somebody's hand while searching for them. There's supposed to be a certain level of a challenge in them, per rating. I will not post spoilers in the hint section or all over my cache page just because they would prefer me to be in the field with them saying "hot" or "cold".

 

I'm not a purist. I'm not strict in any other aspect of this game. I like everyone to have as much fun as possible. But I'm proud of my caches. And I know the cachers are smart enough to find them. They just have to try.

Link to comment

Bottom line, I believe that all Cache Reviewer Volunteers who spend countless hours approving our (normally responsible) Caches, should band together either by forum or other means to come to an agreement, that any Cache where the CO basically states in their posting that it is the responsibility of other Cachers to maintain the Cache WILL NOT BE APPROVED!

I could get behind that.

I could, too, with the exception of caches placed by cachers deployed to forward locations.

 

I am guessing that "deployed to forward locations" is a military euphemism for "gone to war". If so, then this so-called GCRM is not the answer. Find somebody to adopt your cache, or archive and remove it.

Link to comment

One with how many cachers are visiting Power Trails I don't think they will be going down. In fact more are popping up.

And Hmmm I remember not that long ago in one of the GCNewsletters that GC was encouraging others to help out cachers with maintenance. Bring extra logsheets, containers etc. I am sure most of you who are saying negative things here probably have extra logsheets with them when they go out and replace wet or full logs.

So how is that different?

 

Encouraging others to help is a far cry from placing a cache with the expectation that others will maintain it for you.

Link to comment
Here is where I have to say shananagins. The concept might be that but the specific situation mentioned above is just one example of gcrm gone wild. The cache owner has no intentions of replacing the log and that's why they used gcrm...it is a throwdown style cache to start and if it goes missing the co will just archive it rather then maintain it. So he is hiding behind this concept of community involvement maintaining rather then co responsibility.

Two thoughts:

  1. No where on the example cache page did it say that the cache owner had no intention of maintaining his cache. The mere fact that you welcome assistance from the community doesn't prove that you are unwilling to maintain your cache.
  2. People should stop using cache pages as forums.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Here is where I have to say shananagins. The concept might be that but the specific situation mentioned above is just one example of gcrm gone wild. The cache owner has no intentions of replacing the log and that's why they used gcrm...it is a throwdown style cache to start and if it goes missing the co will just archive it rather then maintain it. So he is hiding behind this concept of community involvement maintaining rather then co responsibility.

Two thoughts:

  1. No where on the example cache page did it say that the cache owner had no intention of maintaining his cache. The mere fact that you welcome assistance from the community doesn't prove that you are unwilling to maintain your cache.
  2. People should stop using cache pages as forums.

 

Hmm. I guess dog with glasses won't be attending the next Cash Bash. :ph34r:

 

It should be clear there is a difference...

Obviously you are OK with the concept of cache owners blatantly advertising the fact that they will not be doing the maintenance duties they've agreed to when they submitted the cache for publication. Such is your belief system, and while I might not agree with you, I respect your right to have and voice your opinion. Neither of us are employed by The Lily Pad, so neither of our opinions matter in the long run.

 

The only certainty is, Groundspeak is OK with the notion.

 

You can blast it all over the cache page, and TPTB just don't care.

 

Don't care yet, I think. It's relatively new, and in my opinion, came about with Power Trails, which have only been allowed for what, maybe a year and a half?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...