"Vacation" Caches

[+MedicOne]

When placing caches I've always tried to comply with all the posted guidelines for placing caches. One that comes to mind is the following: Placing caches on vacation is unacceptable and these caches will NOT be approved on the web site. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. Please be responsible. That having been said I repeatedly see caches placed in areas such as the Frank Church Wilderness area by obvious vacationers on float trips etc. Two that come to mind are Cold Hard Cache and Cache me if you can. Both of these caches were placed by a Maryland resident yet both were approved "on the web site." How would that be different from say me placing a cache in Hawaii when I visit this December - afterall, I'll be back next year to "maintain" it. Just a thought. Be interested in hearing others thoughts on this subject.

[+Prime Suspect]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MedicOne:

When placing caches I've always tried to comply with all the posted guidelines for placing caches. One that comes to mind is the following: Placing caches on vacation is unacceptable and these caches will NOT be approved on the web site. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. Please be responsible. That having been said I repeatedly see caches placed in areas such as the Frank Church Wilderness area by obvious vacationers on float trips etc. Two that come to mind are Cold Hard Cache and Cache me if you can. Both of these caches were placed by a Maryland resident yet both were approved "on the web site." How would that be different from say me placing a cache in Hawaii when I visit this December - afterall, I'll be back next year to "maintain" it. Just a thought. Be interested in hearing others thoughts on this subject.

---

You didn't provide waypoint IDs or links to these caches, so we can't tell when they were placed. These could be caches that were grandfathered in when the rules changed.

 

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

[+Touchstone]

I'd like to say that first off, I agree with the policy of "no vacation caches". Of the two caches you mention, I'd have to agree that they are both vacation caches and should not have been approved. The approver either was asleep or wasn't attentive when reviewing those two caches.

 

Coincidentally, we frequent the area of these two caches every year, but I'd hesitate putting a cache there becuase of the policy. I'm not of the opinion that the whole planet has to be blanketed with caches every 528 feet. Those two caches are so remote that it'll be a miracle if they get one visit a year. My thought on seeing caches like that is, "what's the point".

 

BTW, it looks like Hawaii has a bunch of caches already

 

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

[+Stunod]

Cold Hard Cache and Cache Me if You Can were placed 9/21/03.

 

I'm assuming (and hoping) that the approver confirmed that there was an arrangement made for someone to maintain these.

 

______________________

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand. - Homer Simpson

ChiTown Cachers * Keenpeople.com Stats

[+MedicOne]

In answer to Prime Suspect Cold Hard Cache (GCGYA4) was placed on 9/21/2003. Cache Me If You Can (GCGY9Z) was also placed on 9/21/2003. Neither of these should have been "Grand fathered" under the old system as I know the vacation cache clause has been in effect throughout the summer if not longer. Cold Hard Cache is 38 miles into the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in the Franch Church River of No Return Wilderness Area. As such, NO ONE will maintain this cache least of all someone from Maryland. Point being if this ISN'T a "vacation" cache then what is it?

 

In reply to Touchstone - I agree, there are a bunch of caches in Hawaii already. A lot of the ones I found last December were in poor shape because of the fact that they ARE vacation caches. Since I whole heartedly agree with the Vacation Cache polity I wouldn't consider placing one in Hawaii - mine was a rhetorical question.

[+erik88l-r]

As an approver I can't speak to these specific caches, but I can tell you in general we won't approve a cache placed on vacation. It's easy to tell in places like Hawaii, but in other cases it's not.

 

Pick ten caches at random, go to the cache owner's profile page, and see if he or she has filled in where they live. That's one of the problems. The second is in looking at the cache placer's recent activity. If he found 20 caches in your state does that mean he now lives there and can maintain a cache there?

 

It's tough. We try to give people the benefit of the doubt and give them a link to the rules on the submission page, but we do question the obvious vacation caches. Some do sneak by though.

 

If the ones you've cited weren't in such a remote place I'd also remind you that many vacation caches do have local "sponsors" or "guardians" who can check on the cache if needed. I try to document that on the vacation caches that I do approve, but as I said.... we aren't perfect and some get through.

 

Thanks!

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

[skydiver]

It's no secret how I feel about vacation caches for anyone who reads the forums regularly, but I'll jump here and say it again anyway in support of MecidOne.

 

I hate 'em!

 

Really can't put it any simpler than that.

 

Now to respond to Erik.

 

First let me say that I totally understand the approvers have a rough and thankless job, and I have great appreciation for what they do. There would be a lot more vacation caches and obscenely lame virtuals if it weren't for the approvers taking the heat and filtering out the riff-raff before the rest of us need to see it?

 

So, that said, I have this question for the approvers and the public in general. For those true vacation caches that do sneak through the cracks, would it be appropriate for the approvers to alert the cache owner of the issue, and give them reasonable opportunity to make corrections (i.e. find a volunteer sponsor), and if corrections can't be made, post that it be removed by the next finder and archived.

 

Seems to me that would be more appropriate than saying "Whoops! Well, it's too late now." Just my thoughts on the subject.

 

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves --

what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

[+fizzymagic]

This all makes sense when viewed from Groundspeak's perspective.

 

The important thing to realize here is that as a cache hider, your needs and desires are of no consequence to Groundspeak. You will be allowed to place a cache only if you can convince them that you will be at their beck and call to do whatever they request whenever they request it.

 

Thus, unless you promise them that you will buy a ticket to Hawaii to go check on the cache if somebody reports a DNF, you won't be allowed to place the cache.

 

Remember: as a cache hider, you are scum, and not to be trusted. Keep that in mind, and act accordingly.

[+MedicOne]

Whoa! I didn't intend for this to turn into a flame Groundspeak administration. Those individuals do what they do as VOLUNTEERS for a sport/hobby that THEY love. What I meant to get across in my initial post was the fact that it should be incumbent upon the individual who place caches to know the guidelines and follow them. Apparently I didn't impart my thoughts well. There is a T-shirt that states the difference between cache and trash is maintenance. If you can't maintain it don't place it! Fairly simple.

I was contacted by the individual who approved these caches (a gentleman whom I know personally and for whom I have utmost respect); he had this to say: "I was responsible for posting these caches and the only excuse I have is that they are ones that slipped through." He goes on to say "Vacation caches are among the hardest to determine. So few people have their location listed on their profiles that it is hit-or-miss when checking there. You can sometimes check the person's previous finds and hides to see where they are located but this can also give vague results. In the case of these caches, the results are quite clear, but when reviewing hundreds of caches a month and finding that these methods only provide helpful information a fraction of the time it is easy to slip and drop those process from a review."

My hat is off to the volunteer work the admin guys do to proliferate this sport. Appears to be a thankless and time consuming job with very poor wages. The guidelines for hiding a cache are, in my opinion, fairly straight forward and easy to follow. If we police ourselves Groundspeak won't have to do it for us.

[+fizzymagic]

quote:

---

Those individuals do what they do as VOLUNTEERS for a sport/hobby that THEY love.

---

The staff of Groundspeak are volunteers? Gee, I could just swear I sent them money.

 

My comments are not directed at the approvers, who are indeed volunteers. They are directed at those responsible for the demeaning and insulting policies the approvers are forced to implement. Those people are not volunteers.

 

It's probably hopeless, but maybe it's worth pointing out that those who hide caches are also volunteers, you know.

 

[This message was edited by fizzymagic on October 28, 2003 at 03:05 PM.]

[+Pharmadude]

I had an opportunity to visit 3 or 4 "vacation" caches earlier this year in Mexico. Finding caches on foreign soil was a vacation highlight for us, and apparently for the several other visitors who have found these same caches. I think it would be terrific if special consideration could be allowed for caches in resort areas which are unlikely to have a sufficient base of resident cache maintainers.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

You will be allowed to place a cache only if you can convince them that you will be at their beck and call to do whatever they request whenever they request it.

---

 

Wrong, you can hide a cache any place you darn well please. Nobody is stopping you. You just have to list it someplace else if it doesn't adhere to the guidelines developed by Groundspeak.

 

I think the vast majority of geocachers think Groundspeak's requirements are reasonable, sensible and have the best interest of this sport in mind (hence the popularity of this site). There is a small, vocal minority who stomp their feet like little children, demanding that they be allow to list any cache they want on this site. They just don't get it .

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

[+Alan2]

I agree! I think we should shoot any childish cacher from that small vocal minority who stamps his feet and posts his beliefs in disagreement with rules and does not tow the company line.

 

Please use a large caliber. I want to go fast and not suffer.

 

Alan

[+NJ Admin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan2:

 

Please use a large caliber. I want to go fast and not suffer.

 

Alan

---

Sorry Alan, I only carry my company-issue brick.

Personal slave of The Frog.

[+Touchstone]

I'd call the Admin Brick a pretty large caliber Although I haven't seen any guns that could load that sucka! LOL

 

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

[BassoonPilot]

And now for something completely different: Here is someone else's rant. Enjoy.

[+fizzymagic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

There is a small, vocal minority who stomp their feet like little children, demanding that they be allow to list any cache they want on this site.

---

Argument by personal insult is not likely to further discussion. Besides, I thought it was supposed to be against the forum guidelines. Apparently for Mr. Snat, "reasonable" rules only apply to other people.

 

I find it especially interesting that Mr. Snat's insult du jour consists of comparison to small children; my objection to Groundspeak's policies is precisely that they treat cache hiders as if they were small children. Mr. Snat may be happy being treated like an irresponsible child, but his sanctimonious exhortation to the rest that we allow it is uncalled-for.

 

Remember: the ends do not always justify the means.

[+yumitori]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fizzymagic:

 

Remember: the ends do not always justify the means.

---

 

So, do you have any useful suggestions to offer, or just a rant about the the website?

 

There are caches out there that were placed while on vacation. If a problem develops with them, who do you think is responsible for fixing or removing the container?

 

Ron/yumitori

 

---

 

Remember what the dormouse said...

[+fizzymagic]

Yes, I do have constructive suggestions.

 

No, I will not put them out here. They are being addressed through the appropriate channels.

[+Sissy-n-CR]

I wonder if this "small vocal minority" are only the ones that like the sport enough to just not put our tails between our legs and run. How many have just gone away without a word because of the things that some of us "stomp our feet" about?

 

CR

[+ShaneN4Girls]

My all-time favorite cache is a "vacation cache." It sat there nice and dry for 2 long years before I came along. I doubt anyone will ever have any trouble with the cache as it is.

 

BTW, there will be those who say I didn't find it, or I should have just posted a note because I didn't sign the log. Well, to them. If I'd have opened the zip lock bags in the falling slush, I could have never dried the contents back out. Hopefully, I'll get back up there in 2 years, and I'll sign it then. Bet noone visits the cache between now and then....

 

I would have loved to place about 4 caches on the loop we hiked. There were awesome locations - an old abandoned miner's cabin, a rock cairn at the top of Hunchback Pass, numerous waterfalls.... None of these would have been approved, but they would undoubtably be someone else's favorite find...

 

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."- Jim Elliot

Texas Geocaching

[Dave Lucas]

Seems to me, if you don't like the rules here, you can always go and start your own Cache Hunting site, with your own rules.

 

I'm not being snarky - there is nowt to stop anyone from putting a link in a post here to "vacaching" or something along those lines.

 

But if you want it posted under this site, you should follow this sites rules - however frustrating they may appear to you.

 

I have to go go out tomorrow after work to double check mine (a rock in the woods), as it's had its first "not found" and it's pretty easy... couldn't do that if it were far away, so the rule makes sense to me. On the other hand... a specific "vacation run cache system" might be cool too. But on another site.

 

My two cents - keep the change :-)

[+ShaneN4Girls]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skydiver:

 

So, that said, I have this question for the approvers and the public in general. For those true vacation caches that do sneak through the cracks, would it be appropriate for the approvers to alert the cache owner of the issue, and give them reasonable opportunity to make corrections (i.e. find a volunteer sponsor), and if corrections can't be made, post that it be removed by the next finder and archived.

 

---------------------------------------

http://www.skydivergear.com/cgibin/cpshop.cgi/pascal2

---------------------------------------

---

 

No, don't remove the caches already out there. There are cachers out here who enjoy finding them. If a problem with a cache develops, post a note on the page for the next finder to remove the cache. I have planned trips and a vacation around finding caches, including a trip with a single cache find in mind.

 

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."- Jim Elliot

Texas Geocaching

[iryshe]

Moved the topic to the General Forum since it isn't related to this forum.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™