Jump to content

[FEATURE] Set a minimum of 50 caches found before allowed to place one


Team Perrito Blanco
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

Better caches mean better communication and user self-regulation. If a cache is "bad", post a NM or NA. Reviewers should respond quickly, timely, and clearly every time.

 

What's to stop someone armchairing 50 finds? Perhaps only finding traditionals? Or only Virtuals? Doesn't matter in any case, as number of finds does not always mean a good hider.

 

Why not have a script, not unlike the "recommended beginner cache" lists, that presents a notification to brand-new users. This could include a video link to cache hiding 101, and links to resources to help them be well prepared for placing a cache that lasts, and isn't an unintentional headache to find.

Link to comment

Better caches mean better communication and user self-regulation. If a cache is "bad", post a NM or NA. Reviewers should respond quickly, timely, and clearly every time.

 

...

 

I don't agree with this two ideas, because;

 

1) if someone doesn't like one cache, or one type of caches or has issues with one cache owner, posting NMs or NAs could be a gun to be used in situation that has nothing to do with the quality of the cache or its adherence to the guidelines.

 

2) isn't it to ask to much to the Reviewers? They are geocachers like us - I think they like to have time to search for caches and enjoy geocaching as a hobby and not as an obligation.

Link to comment

I prefer to see a length of time as a member instead of a number of hides.

 

Three months as a member would solve so many of these fly-by-night, one-fail-wonders. After three months, most people who really weren't all that interested in caching would have moved on and forgotten all about it.

 

Nice in theory.

 

There's a cacher not all that far from me who put out a lot of caches and routinely fails to maintain them. Usually they are pretty good caches for the first couple of months. Once the log gets wet, the box cracks, or something goes wrong with it, it's usually just a question of time before it gets archived for non-maintenance. Unfortunateliy along the way it often ends up missing for quite some time before being marked disabled.

 

The trouble is this same cacher has been known to be out finding caches within a short distance of their own caches that are marked as needing maintenance.

 

It won't be full-proof but it will have an effect on fly-by-night types. Someone who places one or two caches, to see if they're going like geocaching. People need to cache for a few months, then decide if they like the game enough to commit to the responsibility of cache ownership.

 

For the type of deliquent owner in your example, I'd like to see them prevented from hiding more caches, unless they can explain to a reviewer the extenuating circumstances.

 

Perhaps, it's hard to say. I must admit I'm undecided between the stances of new cachers typically leaving out poor quality caches and being more likely to try it, decide they don't like it, and give up, and the idea that if we expect new cachers to find a certain number or cache for a certain period they'll end up either faking finds or basing their first hide on the damp film pot behind a sign that they keep finding.

 

I'd like to see cachers with a track record of not maintaining their caches restricted from hiding more caches, it's just a question of how to enforce it. An obvious way to do it would be to add a field to the user profile that would be incremented every time a reviewer archived a cache specifically for non-maintenance (as opposed to archiving because of an issue that arose that might not have been foreseen), and if that counter got to a certain level the user would have to justify why they should have another cache. That would have to work in conjunction with some restrictions on new users so it couldn't be circumvented by simply starting a new account.

 

Come to think of it, a lot of message boards restrict all new users for the first few days to keep spammers reined in, and it's just accepted that a side effect of that is that a new genuine user can't send a private message or post a link until they have a certain membership time and a certain post count.

 

Maybe a user's first few caches, however long they have been caching, should be tagged with reviewers so they can check in quickly if there are any reported problems. Otherwise you still have the chance that a user like me (I've been a member for 9 years with 2000+ finds but no hides except a single event some years back) would pass all the tests but could still put out a cache that didn't work very well because I hadn't considered some aspect of it.

 

The other consideration is making sure features to report issues with caches aren't abused. I've personally seen a NA log on a cache that I can only assume was a revenge log because what it said about the CO simply wasn't true.

 

Maybe the answer is to add a new feature to allow people to ignore all cache hides by a particular user. That would mean the people who were happy to go out and hunt something that might prove to be a cracked takeaway box full of mould could still do it, but those who had decided that user X's hides are lame and not worth the effort could simply filter them all out.

Link to comment

Better caches mean better communication and user self-regulation. If a cache is "bad", post a NM or NA. Reviewers should, in most cases, respond quickly, timely, and clearly every time.

 

...

 

I don't agree with this two ideas, because;

 

1) if someone doesn't like one cache, or one type of caches or has issues with one cache owner, posting NMs or NAs could be a gun to be used in situation that has nothing to do with the quality of the cache or its adherence to the guidelines.

 

2) isn't it to ask to much to the Reviewers? They are geocachers like us - I think they like to have time to search for caches and enjoy geocaching as a hobby and not as an obligation.

You misunderstood me.

 

If a cache is in need of maintenance, or is against a guideline, or is questionable and needs a re-Review, why wouldn't you post a NM or NA? A gun?! Really? It's a tool in the tool box that people are too afraid of using in many cases. Many need to get over the fear of using the tools we have to be better communicators and self-regulators of this game. Reviewers can't "police" everything, so we should all work to make the game better. Why hesitate with a NM or NA log, if an owner does their duty to check on a cache and assure that everything is ok if it is ok, and fix it and log an OM if it isn't. Simple.

 

Also, I said "Reviewers should respond quickly, timely, and clearly every time" to mean that once a NA is posted, the norm is that Reviewers respond quickly and clearly. Should meaning that it is the most likely outcome, not should as in "they better change their behavior and get on that NA log faster..." I edited the quote above to show you what I meant. (Hope it worked)

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

1) In the real world I think it will happen as I described if visitors follows your suggestion to signal "bad" caches - please note that You used the term "bad", instead of bad. I have no problem identifying a bad cache: it is a cache that doesn't comply with the guidelines. But, what is a "bad" cache?

 

2) I understood what you wrote, "Reviewers should respond quickly, timely, and clearly every time". So, if you change what you wrote, and it is perfectly normal that You clarify it, please don't attach my words to the new version of your sentence. I wouldn't raise my concerns, about the extra work to the Reviewers, if you wrote your sentence in the new way right from the beginning.

 

Sorry if I take too much attention on the details of the writing but when I don't know the person in the other side, I can only know what it is written and not what it was meant to be written. Unless my english skills have betrayed me. :)

Link to comment

1) In the real world I think it will happen as I described if visitors follows your suggestion to signal "bad" caches - please note that You used the term "bad", instead of bad. I have no problem identifying a bad cache: it is a cache that doesn't comply with the guidelines. But, what is a "bad" cache?

 

I'd say a "bad" cache is one that doesn't comply with the guidelines, a cache that clearly isn't being maintained, or a cache that needs archiving for some other reason.

 

The NA log type does have potential for abuse although it should be pretty clear from the historical logs if someone is posting NA because the cache has a dozen DNFs and a scattering of NM logs going back several months and no sign of the owner doing anything about it, or if they are trying to stamp out film pots behind signs because they don't like film pots behind signs.

Link to comment

1) In the real world I think it will happen as I described if visitors follows your suggestion to signal "bad" caches - please note that You used the term "bad", instead of bad. I have no problem identifying a bad cache: it is a cache that doesn't comply with the guidelines. But, what is a "bad" cache?

Umm...well..."bad" leaves it up to interpretation of each geocacher. "Bad" can mean lots of things, but when it comes down to it, it is the fear that your NM or NA log will be looked on with shame, anger, or whatever that causes problems where caches are not reported properly. "Bad", to me, is very easy to describe. For you, however, it likely means something slightly different. Essentially, I chose "bad" against bad to be clear that it isn't a clearly defined subject.

 

2) I understood what you wrote, "Reviewers should respond quickly, timely, and clearly every time". So, if you change what you wrote, and it is perfectly normal that You clarify it, please don't attach my words to the new version of your sentence. I wouldn't raise my concerns, about the extra work to the Reviewers, if you wrote your sentence in the new way right from the beginning.

If you understood, then why did you say what you said in response to me in the first place? :blink: See below...

 

Sorry if I take too much attention on the details of the writing but when I don't know the person in the other side, I can only know what it is written and not what it was meant to be written. Unless my english skills have betrayed me. :)

I think they may have. But that's ok. You and I haven't interacted much within the forums (I don't think...), so I can understand that you may not see the care I take to say things in the way I mean on these threads, and not in a way that can be misunderstood. This time, unfortunately, my words didn't come across clearly. I'm sure you understand that something like this can happen from time to time. However, jumping on the offensive isn't the best way to handle something that causes some cognitive dissonance in your mind.

 

You read my words as loaded, based on your feelings about Reviewer workload, unjustified criticism of Reviewers, and the common topic of deriding Reviewers for "slacking off" when it comes to assisting with NM or NA logs and caches needing repeated maintenance or archival. I get understand and know the paradigm and the classic related discourse here on the subject.

 

I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my meaning. My clarification was necessary, and my use of your quote attached to my edits gave context to the follow-up post I presented. Don't take it so personally. You misunderstood me, jumped to a conclusion, and my clarification showed that misinterpretation. We're on the same page. Let's move along.

Link to comment

I searched but came up empty on this subject.

 

I've been finding a some crappy cache containers lately and they mostly turn out to be from inexperienced cachers. Chinese food containers and other non-waterproof items make for a lousy caching experience. Not to mention bad coordinates.

 

I think that a minimum of 50 cache finds before being allowed to place a cache would serve as an education in geocaching for newbies. The quality of the game is suffering.

Everyone has to start somewhere. Instead of bemoaning the fact that they are crappy, do you live in the area? Why not take the new cacher under your wing and show him a few better ways to hide one. As someone else pointed out, finding 50 film canisters isn't going to improve anything. I helped my sister put her first one out.She has 13 finds to her name, but after a visit to me she now knows how exciting cache containers can be, because I took her to some really cool ones (not mine either), and then helped her set up her first one. Yes, it was a box but it had a purpose for moving TBs and yes, it was camoed but now she has some idea of what to do. She isn't going to race out and put a lot up but if they are keen to build up the sport, let them... and educate them instead of complaining.

Link to comment

I searched but came up empty on this subject.

 

I think that a minimum of 50 cache finds before being allowed to place a cache would serve as an education in geocaching for newbies. The quality of the game is suffering.

 

50 cache finds before placing a cache is too high. Somewhere on the official site I saw a "recommendation" of finding 20. I followed that (or was close). I STILL don't have 50 finds, but my 3 caches have a good number of favorites.

Link to comment

I read all the post and realize that if the proposed rules would be implemented, I would never be able to become a geocacher.

I live on a small island in the Pacific ocean. When I learned about the geocaching half year ago, there were 6 caches on the island. I found them all :) Some short travel allowed me to find some off island caches and now I have 16 found.

 

I really love geocaching and would love to see it developed here. The only way for me to do it is to start hiding caches myself to give reason for traveling geocachers to visit our island and for newbies - to play. I do my best promoting geocaching through different media and activities. Now we have 20 caches and more and more off island visitors come for geocaching, which makes me happy. Some also leave behind a cache or two, and I am the one to take care for these caches as for the moment I am the only active geocacher on the island.

 

I have learned the wrong way that my Android can bring me to a cache I look for, but would not give me correct coordinates when I hide. My first cache coordinates were faraway from the actual location. I was really ashamed. Fellow cachers from a Facebook group helped me understand how the Android GPS work and where was my mistake. They helped me find a cheap Garmin Oregon and even brought it to me on the island so I could continue doing geocaching in a better manner. Simply said: when I felt, they gave me a hand and supported me. This is a geocachers' fellowship in action, isn't it?

 

When you discuss such matters as limiting the freedom of geocaching by some rules, please remember that not the entire Earth is covered by geocaching and there are places where this outdoor activity just begin its development. Don't discourage newbies just because they haven't done something the way you expect it - help them be better if you are near by, physically or virtually.

If you are angry with cache of a fellow cacher because it is not maintained, don't rush to judge as you don't know what have happened in that person's life. Maybe you can invest in the well-being of the geocaching and help that unknown cacher by changing the container, or the logbook, or leaving a pencil? This would be a random act of kindness that may be more educational and inspirational for that cacher and fellow cachers than just marking someone as "bad".

Link to comment

I searched but came up empty on this subject.

 

I've been finding a some crappy cache containers lately and they mostly turn out to be from inexperienced cachers. Chinese food containers and other non-waterproof items make for a lousy caching experience. Not to mention bad coordinates.

 

I think that a minimum of 50 cache finds before being allowed to place a cache would serve as an education in geocaching for newbies. The quality of the game is suffering.

Disagree. Somebody that does such a thing is clueless and seeing better caches won't change that. The idea is simply elitist. I placed a lot and got called for it. Thing was, I was placing the same type or better than what I found. And I know for a fact that many of mine were placed more appropriately so as to further ensure integrity of the container. In fact, my elitist friend seemed to be under the impression that I thought my containers were unique. Not at all, copied what I saw and made an effort to place them even better.

 

Golfers are supposed to repair ball marks on greens and the problem of not doing so, at least from where I am, is not a matter of being a newbie. It is a matter of being a mentally lazy slob. And seeing 50 caches, that have no guarantee of quality themselves, isn't going to do squat to change that attitude. I've repaired many the ball mark of some guys I have been grouped with, when their ball marks were either in the line of my putt or close enough to serve as a distraction, and they had already marked their balls and retreated. When I repair the marks myself I ususally get a 'thank you'. Clueless, inconsiderate morons. Not a matter of being a newbie, it is mental attitude.

Link to comment

I read all the post and realize that if the proposed rules would be implemented, I would never be able to become a geocacher.

I live on a small island in the Pacific ocean. When I learned about the geocaching half year ago, there were 6 caches on the island. I found them all :) Some short travel allowed me to find some off island caches and now I have 16 found.

 

I really love geocaching and would love to see it developed here. The only way for me to do it is to start hiding caches myself to give reason for traveling geocachers to visit our island and for newbies - to play. I do my best promoting geocaching through different media and activities. Now we have 20 caches and more and more off island visitors come for geocaching, which makes me happy. Some also leave behind a cache or two, and I am the one to take care for these caches as for the moment I am the only active geocacher on the island.

 

I have learned the wrong way that my Android can bring me to a cache I look for, but would not give me correct coordinates when I hide. My first cache coordinates were faraway from the actual location. I was really ashamed. Fellow cachers from a Facebook group helped me understand how the Android GPS work and where was my mistake. They helped me find a cheap Garmin Oregon and even brought it to me on the island so I could continue doing geocaching in a better manner. Simply said: when I felt, they gave me a hand and supported me. This is a geocachers' fellowship in action, isn't it?

 

When you discuss such matters as limiting the freedom of geocaching by some rules, please remember that not the entire Earth is covered by geocaching and there are places where this outdoor activity just begin its development. Don't discourage newbies just because they haven't done something the way you expect it - help them be better if you are near by, physically or virtually.

If you are angry with cache of a fellow cacher because it is not maintained, don't rush to judge as you don't know what have happened in that person's life. Maybe you can invest in the well-being of the geocaching and help that unknown cacher by changing the container, or the logbook, or leaving a pencil? This would be a random act of kindness that may be more educational and inspirational for that cacher and fellow cachers than just marking someone as "bad".

Very well put. Yet another good example for not having simplistic, limiting rules that won't address the problem.

Link to comment

I'm pretty new to geocaching, but being an outdoorsman and military vet I'm not new to the outdoors and camo.... I hid my first cache after about 10 finds, mostly guardrails and light skirts, and the FTF added it to their favorites.. It's not how long you've been doing it as long as you hide one that you'd like to find yourself!!

Good point. And it's not hard to duplicate what you have found. Though that doesn't ensure a good cache. Which brings us back to it being more of a person thing than a number of finds thing.

Link to comment

 

I have learned the wrong way that my Android can bring me to a cache I look for, but would not give me correct coordinates when I hide. My first cache coordinates were faraway from the actual location. I was really ashamed. Fellow cachers from a Facebook group helped me understand how the Android GPS work and where was my mistake. They helped me find a cheap Garmin Oregon and even brought it to me on the island so I could continue doing geocaching in a better manner. Simply said: when I felt, they gave me a hand and supported me. This is a geocachers' fellowship in action, isn't it?kindness that may be more educational and inspirational for that cacher and fellow cachers than just marking someone as "bad".

 

I doubt that Groundspeak will ever put a limit on new cache ownership - not good for business. At least the monthly "limit new COs" posts gets the message out that poorly placed first caches can irritate the caching community.

 

Your experience shows that constructive feedback, instruction and help work well with some new cache owners.

 

Now that so many people start geocaching with a cell phone app, a quiz that includes information about the importance of good coordinates would help. Perhaps a recommendation that a CO test their coordinates by trying to find their own cache. If not a quiz, then maybe a pop up box in the cache submission form that asks if the coordinates have been tested and are accurate.

Edited by l0n3 r
Link to comment

I'm pretty new to geocaching, but being an outdoorsman and military vet I'm not new to the outdoors and camo.... I hid my first cache after about 10 finds, mostly guardrails and light skirts, and the FTF added it to their favorites.. It's not how long you've been doing it as long as you hide one that you'd like to find yourself!!

Good point. And it's not hard to duplicate what you have found. Though that doesn't ensure a good cache. Which brings us back to it being more of a person thing than a number of finds thing.

 

... which is why I think it would be better for the first few hides a new user puts out to be flagged for special ongoing reviewer attention for a time however many finds they have.

Link to comment

OK, so I'm a newbie. Yesterday I found my first cache. It happened to be a creatively camoed Tupperware container in a nearby park. So today I spent several hours making and attaching some creative camo to a container of my own, and I went and hid it in a greenbelt behind the houses on the next block. I go to submit it to the site, but I'm given an error that says "You must find at least 10 caches before you can submit a new hide."

 

Darn. OK, I need to find some caches. Quick. I do a search on the website, and click that little filter box for easy caches. I load them into my GPS and head out. First find is an lamp post cache. Then I find a cache in a guardrail. Then 3 more LPCs. A film can tossed in a bush, and a magnetic key container on a garbage can follow that. Then 2 more guardrails and 2 more LPCs round out the 10.

 

Based on those 10, I've learned that creative caches are not the norm, so I retrieve my cache and throw it away. Tomorrow I'll put a film can under a LPC and submit that.

 

Is this what you really want to happen?

A good point is being made here. Except an intelligent newcomer would have realiazed that his container was superior and placed it anyway. A moron would do as described. The regulation did nothing useful.

Link to comment

... which is why I think it would be better for the first few hides a new user puts out to be flagged for special ongoing reviewer attention for a time however many finds they have.

When I started logging find and hiding caches on geocaching.com, I had a great Reviewer in my area. They were local, and coached me through submission issues, and how to handle possible other issues that might arise based on my listing and apparent placement (meaning: they only saw it on a map, not in person).

 

I think most Reviewers will take the time to note a newer cacher placing caches in their queue. I also would guess that most Reviewers will pay closer attention to a newer cacher placing a cache, and the subsequent NM or NA logs that are placed on it.

 

That said, so long as we use the tools provided to "police" the caches we are seeking, everything works out. Email the owner if you have a concern. Be constructive and polite. Email the local Reviewer if there is an issue you worry about. Post NM logs if the coords are off, or the hide is compromised. Post a NA if it is placed where it shouldn't be, breaks the law, or is clearly against the guidelines. So long as you are considerate, polite, and use the guidelines as your guide, what's the problem?

Link to comment

OK, so I'm a newbie. Yesterday I found my first cache. It happened to be a creatively camoed Tupperware container in a nearby park. So today I spent several hours making and attaching some creative camo to a container of my own, and I went and hid it in a greenbelt behind the houses on the next block. I go to submit it to the site, but I'm given an error that says "You must find at least 10 caches before you can submit a new hide."

 

Darn. OK, I need to find some caches. Quick. I do a search on the website, and click that little filter box for easy caches. I load them into my GPS and head out. First find is an lamp post cache. Then I find a cache in a guardrail. Then 3 more LPCs. A film can tossed in a bush, and a magnetic key container on a garbage can follow that. Then 2 more guardrails and 2 more LPCs round out the 10.

 

Based on those 10, I've learned that creative caches are not the norm, so I retrieve my cache and throw it away. Tomorrow I'll put a film can under a LPC and submit that.

 

Is this what you really want to happen?

A good point is being made here. Except an intelligent newcomer would have realiazed that his container was superior and placed it anyway. A moron would do as described. The regulation did nothing useful.

 

It's entirely possible that the intelligent newcomer would look at the caches, realise the creatively camoflaged cache was an old cache and all the newer ones were film pots and keysafes behind signs and figure the game had evolved, and that film pots and keysafes were the current standard.

Link to comment

... which is why I think it would be better for the first few hides a new user puts out to be flagged for special ongoing reviewer attention for a time however many finds they have.

When I started logging find and hiding caches on geocaching.com, I had a great Reviewer in my area. They were local, and coached me through submission issues, and how to handle possible other issues that might arise based on my listing and apparent placement (meaning: they only saw it on a map, not in person).

 

I think most Reviewers will take the time to note a newer cacher placing caches in their queue. I also would guess that most Reviewers will pay closer attention to a newer cacher placing a cache, and the subsequent NM or NA logs that are placed on it.

 

That said, so long as we use the tools provided to "police" the caches we are seeking, everything works out. Email the owner if you have a concern. Be constructive and polite. Email the local Reviewer if there is an issue you worry about. Post NM logs if the coords are off, or the hide is compromised. Post a NA if it is placed where it shouldn't be, breaks the law, or is clearly against the guidelines. So long as you are considerate, polite, and use the guidelines as your guide, what's the problem?

 

Not so much a problem but more a means of being able to flag caches placed by a new hider in case they do need mentoring. I'm aware that reviewers publish a lot of caches and in my area end up archiving a lot of caches for non-maintenance. A flag that lets them know a cache is placed by a new hider may just provide them with a useful tool to spot the cacher who may need some help from the cacher who has maybe given up caching and not archived their caches.

 

The flag would also allow the less responsible hiders (and there have been a few in my area) who don't maintain their existing caches but still keep putting out new ones. I'd really like to see something whereby if a person doesn't maintain their caches they effectively get demoted to "new cacher" status (or have another status option) which means they get a bit more vetting before they can place any more caches.

Link to comment

... which is why I think it would be better for the first few hides a new user puts out to be flagged for special ongoing reviewer attention for a time however many finds they have.

When I started logging find and hiding caches on geocaching.com, I had a great Reviewer in my area. They were local, and coached me through submission issues, and how to handle possible other issues that might arise based on my listing and apparent placement (meaning: they only saw it on a map, not in person).

 

I think most Reviewers will take the time to note a newer cacher placing caches in their queue. I also would guess that most Reviewers will pay closer attention to a newer cacher placing a cache, and the subsequent NM or NA logs that are placed on it.

 

That said, so long as we use the tools provided to "police" the caches we are seeking, everything works out. Email the owner if you have a concern. Be constructive and polite. Email the local Reviewer if there is an issue you worry about. Post NM logs if the coords are off, or the hide is compromised. Post a NA if it is placed where it shouldn't be, breaks the law, or is clearly against the guidelines. So long as you are considerate, polite, and use the guidelines as your guide, what's the problem?

 

Not so much a problem but more a means of being able to flag caches placed by a new hider in case they do need mentoring. I'm aware that reviewers publish a lot of caches and in my area end up archiving a lot of caches for non-maintenance. A flag that lets them know a cache is placed by a new hider may just provide them with a useful tool to spot the cacher who may need some help from the cacher who has maybe given up caching and not archived their caches.

 

The flag would also allow the less responsible hiders (and there have been a few in my area) who don't maintain their existing caches but still keep putting out new ones. I'd really like to see something whereby if a person doesn't maintain their caches they effectively get demoted to "new cacher" status (or have another status option) which means they get a bit more vetting before they can place any more caches.

Well, I suppose that makes me glad that you don't call the shots... :huh:

 

We have tools to report caches: NM and NA logs. We can also email the owner and Reviewer. I think what is in place is plenty good for monitoring and reporting "bad" caches.

 

As for your preference, you can already "flag" caches by adding them to your ignore list.

 

Reviewers already get "flagged" caches with NA logs, and can make note of caches to look at when a cacher emails them with concerns. Some Reviewers even monitor caches with long-standing unresolved NM issues.

Link to comment

... which is why I think it would be better for the first few hides a new user puts out to be flagged for special ongoing reviewer attention for a time however many finds they have.

When I started logging find and hiding caches on geocaching.com, I had a great Reviewer in my area. They were local, and coached me through submission issues, and how to handle possible other issues that might arise based on my listing and apparent placement (meaning: they only saw it on a map, not in person).

 

I think most Reviewers will take the time to note a newer cacher placing caches in their queue. I also would guess that most Reviewers will pay closer attention to a newer cacher placing a cache, and the subsequent NM or NA logs that are placed on it.

 

That said, so long as we use the tools provided to "police" the caches we are seeking, everything works out. Email the owner if you have a concern. Be constructive and polite. Email the local Reviewer if there is an issue you worry about. Post NM logs if the coords are off, or the hide is compromised. Post a NA if it is placed where it shouldn't be, breaks the law, or is clearly against the guidelines. So long as you are considerate, polite, and use the guidelines as your guide, what's the problem?

 

Not so much a problem but more a means of being able to flag caches placed by a new hider in case they do need mentoring. I'm aware that reviewers publish a lot of caches and in my area end up archiving a lot of caches for non-maintenance. A flag that lets them know a cache is placed by a new hider may just provide them with a useful tool to spot the cacher who may need some help from the cacher who has maybe given up caching and not archived their caches.

 

The flag would also allow the less responsible hiders (and there have been a few in my area) who don't maintain their existing caches but still keep putting out new ones. I'd really like to see something whereby if a person doesn't maintain their caches they effectively get demoted to "new cacher" status (or have another status option) which means they get a bit more vetting before they can place any more caches.

Well, I suppose that makes me glad that you don't call the shots... :huh:

 

We have tools to report caches: NM and NA logs. We can also email the owner and Reviewer. I think what is in place is plenty good for monitoring and reporting "bad" caches.

 

As for your preference, you can already "flag" caches by adding them to your ignore list.

 

Reviewers already get "flagged" caches with NA logs, and can make note of caches to look at when a cacher emails them with concerns. Some Reviewers even monitor caches with long-standing unresolved NM issues.

 

What's there is fine for reporting caches that need attention. What would be nice would be some way to slow people down (or stop them entirely) when their existing caches are archived for non-maintenance but they still put out more caches and while those are disabled (by the reviewer, after numerous DNFs prompt someone to log NA) they put out more.

Link to comment

For almost every single "what if" scenario people mention, I can also envision a completely justifiable reason to legitimize the rules as they are.

 

I think the simple answer is that perhaps a quick note to the cacher to invite him/her (or they in some cases) to a tutorial, or just become an elmer. Local cache groups should try to outreach to new cachers in the area as soon as they sign up.

Edited by TheWeatherWarrior
Link to comment

I read all the post and realize that if the proposed rules would be implemented, I would never be able to become a geocacher.

I live on a small island in the Pacific ocean. When I learned about the geocaching half year ago, there were 6 caches on the island. I found them all :) Some short travel allowed me to find some off island caches and now I have 16 found.

 

I really love geocaching and would love to see it developed here. The only way for me to do it is to start hiding caches myself to give reason for traveling geocachers to visit our island and for newbies - to play. I do my best promoting geocaching through different media and activities. Now we have 20 caches and more and more off island visitors come for geocaching, which makes me happy. Some also leave behind a cache or two, and I am the one to take care for these caches as for the moment I am the only active geocacher on the island.

 

I have learned the wrong way that my Android can bring me to a cache I look for, but would not give me correct coordinates when I hide. My first cache coordinates were faraway from the actual location. I was really ashamed. Fellow cachers from a Facebook group helped me understand how the Android GPS work and where was my mistake. They helped me find a cheap Garmin Oregon and even brought it to me on the island so I could continue doing geocaching in a better manner. Simply said: when I felt, they gave me a hand and supported me. This is a geocachers' fellowship in action, isn't it?

 

When you discuss such matters as limiting the freedom of geocaching by some rules, please remember that not the entire Earth is covered by geocaching and there are places where this outdoor activity just begin its development. Don't discourage newbies just because they haven't done something the way you expect it - help them be better if you are near by, physically or virtually.

If you are angry with cache of a fellow cacher because it is not maintained, don't rush to judge as you don't know what have happened in that person's life. Maybe you can invest in the well-being of the geocaching and help that unknown cacher by changing the container, or the logbook, or leaving a pencil? This would be a random act of kindness that may be more educational and inspirational for that cacher and fellow cachers than just marking someone as "bad".

 

If you can make it ove to Guam there's alot more caches there! I loved deploying there, but I wasn't aware of geocaching then, unfortunately...

Link to comment

What's there is fine for reporting caches that need attention. What would be nice would be some way to slow people down (or stop them entirely) when their existing caches are archived for non-maintenance but they still put out more caches and while those are disabled (by the reviewer, after numerous DNFs prompt someone to log NA) they put out more.

I just can't see that being as big of a problem that it warrants a feature or guideline change. The processes in place might be too cumbersome to you that they verge on being inadequate or annoying, but it works if you persist.

 

That, and if you don't worry about others and things you can't change, you're sure to enjoy the game more.

Link to comment

I read all the post and realize that if the proposed rules would be implemented, I would never be able to become a geocacher.

I live on a small island in the Pacific ocean. When I learned about the geocaching half year ago, there were 6 caches on the island. I found them all :) Some short travel allowed me to find some off island caches and now I have 16 found.

 

I really love geocaching and would love to see it developed here. The only way for me to do it is to start hiding caches myself to give reason for traveling geocachers to visit our island and for newbies - to play. I do my best promoting geocaching through different media and activities. Now we have 20 caches and more and more off island visitors come for geocaching, which makes me happy. Some also leave behind a cache or two, and I am the one to take care for these caches as for the moment I am the only active geocacher on the island.

 

I have learned the wrong way that my Android can bring me to a cache I look for, but would not give me correct coordinates when I hide. My first cache coordinates were faraway from the actual location. I was really ashamed. Fellow cachers from a Facebook group helped me understand how the Android GPS work and where was my mistake. They helped me find a cheap Garmin Oregon and even brought it to me on the island so I could continue doing geocaching in a better manner. Simply said: when I felt, they gave me a hand and supported me. This is a geocachers' fellowship in action, isn't it?

 

When you discuss such matters as limiting the freedom of geocaching by some rules, please remember that not the entire Earth is covered by geocaching and there are places where this outdoor activity just begin its development. Don't discourage newbies just because they haven't done something the way you expect it - help them be better if you are near by, physically or virtually.

If you are angry with cache of a fellow cacher because it is not maintained, don't rush to judge as you don't know what have happened in that person's life. Maybe you can invest in the well-being of the geocaching and help that unknown cacher by changing the container, or the logbook, or leaving a pencil? This would be a random act of kindness that may be more educational and inspirational for that cacher and fellow cachers than just marking someone as "bad".

 

If you can make it ove to Guam there's alot more caches there! I loved deploying there, but I wasn't aware of geocaching then, unfortunately...

Link to comment

I just saw your post and I agree with you I know you made it 2 years ago but I just had to reply. the Mrs. and I just were on your wonderful island and managed to find 19 caches in just 2 days. I really want to return someday. our only regret is as of this writing there is no Guam souvenir, it would be kinda nice for those of us who track that sort of thing. The other thing is while there we replaced a number of logs that had deteriorated to an unusable state. This is,I would assume due to the high humidly rather than lack of maintenance. we the Mrs. and I make it a practice to repair or even replace caches when we are able to.

I just wish more cachers would do so. Many newbies really don't really yet understand the ins and outs of caching etiquette and as the more experience cachers we need to help them out, show them the ropes so to speak.

Link to comment
The other thing is while there we replaced a number of logs that had deteriorated to an unusable state. This is,I would assume due to the high humidly rather than lack of maintenance. we the Mrs. and I make it a practice to repair or even replace caches when we are able to.

I just wish more cachers would do so. Many newbies really don't really yet understand the ins and outs of caching etiquette and as the more experience cachers we need to help them out, show them the ropes so to speak.

For alternative views, see:

Why are people afraid to post NM/NA logs?

Would it be rude? To post an educational note about 'crappy cache enabling'?

Throwdowns a very brief overview of why in my opinion they are a pain.

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...