Limit owners to placing caches in their home area.

[+Falamazar]

We have seen a number of hides that were placed by someone because they were "in the area" and "thought it needed a cache". Unfortunately, often times these cache owners are just passing through the area and won't be able to do any maintenance on the cache after its placement. Just this morning, there was a new cache published in Conneaut, Ohio, and it looks like the CO is from the Columbus, Ohio area. With a 3 to 3 1/2 hour drive one-way, it seems highly unlikely that this owner will be doing any maintenance on this cache.

 

So I suggest limiting the placement of new caches to within some specified radius of the owners home location. My first thought is to limit cache placement to within a 25 mile radius of the home location so that we can have some assurance that the cache is close enough for the CO to maintain.

 

Of course, as with all of the geocaching guidelines, owners could still place caches outside of the specified distance if they provide sufficient justification to the reviewers.

[Pup Patrol]

Already in the Guidelines:

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307

 

2. Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to maintain proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable amount of time – normally a few weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

 

The territory in which a geocacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person. A geocacher who has previously logged many geocaches within a wide range of their home may be considered able to maintain a geocache 200 miles (322 km) away. However, someone whose geocaching activities have primarily been within 25 miles (40 km) of home may not be. This determination is at the discretion of the cache reviewer.

 

Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, we ask that you place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while on a vacation or business trip. It is best when you live within a manageable distance from the cache placements to allow for return visits. 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.

 

Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache page. This will auto-delete on publication.

 

As I understand things, the reviewer can also look at the hider's geocaching history, to see if they spend a lot of time in the area where they want to hide a cache.

 

For example, if you look at our finds, you will see that we have very few finds close to home. The majority of our finds have been in an area 2 hours or so away. Our finds are located in the areas we prefer to spend our time, so we don't have a lot of finds that are "local" to us.

 

Your local reviewer may have already discussed this issue with the cache owner, and been satisfied with the information supplied by the cache owner.

 

Having a distance limit for placing caches would not be a "one size fits all" solution. I hope that this is not something that Groundspeak would consider, although I do understand where you're coming from with this suggestion.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[Moun10Bike]

Since this forum section is for feature requests and bug reports rather than policy and guideline change requests, I'm moving this thread to the community discussion forum section.

[Keystone]

In fact, the cache owner DID have a dialogue with the reviewer prior to publication. The cache is a memorial to a deceased relative buried nearby. The cache owner explained that he will be in the area frequently to help in settling his family member's affairs. Moreover, his family owns property on Lake Road. This is a popular area along Lake Erie for vacation homes and summer camps. I've driven to this area twice each year for many years to take my daughter to a summer camp near Conneaut.

 

So, the owner gave a satisfactory answer on how the cache would be maintained. The system worked as designed, and the guidelines provide the needed flexibility for exceptions.

 

Are you saying that the owner of this cache should not be able to honor his departed family member in this manner?

[+Chokecherry]

I don't know about that particular cache but I know that I live in an area frequented by vacationers. Some of these people decide to sprinkle their caches up here stating they are here a couple times a summer and will maintain them or that they have family or friends or plans or what not to maintain them... ultimately these caches fall into disrepair with no one maintaining them. I watched a handful of them get archived this summer.

 

Just because people visit an area to go fishing or recreate doesn't mean that they're going to spend their precious vacation time maintaining the caches they put out there. I wish the vacation guideline was taken more seriously.

[Keystone]

What would folks suggest that reviewers do, above and beyond asking the owner about their maintenance plan, and then trusting them to be truthful?

 

How does a reviewer tell in advance, and quickly, which "vacation caches" won't be maintained later on?

[+Chokecherry]

Get rid of the guideline then? Why bother having it if it really isn't going to be enforced. I would guess the hider of the hot messes where I am will come sprinkle more here with no intention of actually maintaining them and they'll get approved again with no thought to the guideline.

 

Either start being serious about it or get rid of it is my thought. Then people can't really complain.

[jholly]

Get rid of the guideline then? Why bother having it if it really isn't going to be enforced. I would guess the hider of the hot messes where I am will come sprinkle more here with no intention of actually maintaining them and they'll get approved again with no thought to the guideline.

 

Either start being serious about it or get rid of it is my thought. Then people can't really complain.

And how is this different from cache owners in the area that don't take care of their caches? I side with Keystone.

[Keystone]

I've been keeping track of all "vacation caches" that I've published for the past six years or so. The rate of archival is not very different from caches in general. Some owners take particular pride in their distant cache, because it's near their childhood home, hunting cabin, parents' graves, or other location that's very special to them. Other owners lie through their teeth when they say that a "friend who lives in the area" will maintain the cache for them. I can catch that second group through a series of rigorous questions and requests for written proof, at the expense of turning off or angering the first group. I prefer to trust people until proven otherwise.

 

Sometimes when I archive a vacation cache, I leave a customized note that comments on the failure to honor the pre-publication promise.

[+Chokecherry]

I still say get rid of the guideline completely if it's not going to be adhered to. What is the point of having the guideline if it's absolutely meaningless?

[+larryc43230]

I still say get rid of the guideline completely if it's not going to be adhered to. What is the point of having the guideline if it's absolutely meaningless?

It's not "absolutely meaningless," and it's a guideline not an ironclad rule. Why does everything have to be black and white? Personally, I'll trust the reviewers to make this judgement call, and I'll vote for the guideline to remain just as it is.

 

--Larry

[+Chokecherry]

It's a guideline that is rarely if ever enforced. If they're going to allow vacation caches then get rid of the guideline and just let it be. It doesn't have to be black and white I just find it silly to have a guideline and then have numerous defenses as to why that guideline is not enforced at all. It seems to me it would be much much simpler to just get rid of it and then it's a non-issue. I live with people's hot messes of vacation caches. I know they will never stop and only continue. So I look at that guideline and think it's arbitrary and stupid placed there.

[jholly]

It's a guideline that is rarely if ever enforced. If they're going to allow vacation caches then get rid of the guideline and just let it be. It doesn't have to be black and white I just find it silly to have a guideline and then have numerous defenses as to why that guideline is not enforced at all. It seems to me it would be much much simpler to just get rid of it and then it's a non-issue. I live with people's hot messes of vacation caches. I know they will never stop and only continue. So I look at that guideline and think it's arbitrary and stupid placed there.

And I live with the mess of caches dropped around by local cachers. Perhaps the best way of dealing with the unmaintained caches is to stop listing caches.

[+larryc43230]

I just find it silly to have a guideline and then have numerous defenses as to why that guideline is not enforced at all.

How exactly do you know that this guideline "is not enforced at all"? Are you a reviewer?

 

I'm not a reviewer, and don't think I'd want to be one, but I'll hazard a guess that there are a whole lot of caches submitted for review that never see the light of day because they violate this guideline.

 

--Larry

[+NanCycle]

In fact, the cache owner DID have a dialogue with the reviewer prior to publication. The cache is a memorial to a deceased relative buried nearby. The cache owner explained that he will be in the area frequently to help in settling his family member's affairs. Moreover, his family owns property on Lake Road. This is a popular area along Lake Erie for vacation homes and summer camps. I've driven to this area twice each year for many years to take my daughter to a summer camp near Conneaut.

 

So, the owner gave a satisfactory answer on how the cache would be maintained. The system worked as designed, and the guidelines provide the needed flexibility for exceptions.

 

Are you saying that the owner of this cache should not be able to honor his departed family member in this manner?

 

Uh oh! I smell an AGENDA here.

[team tisri]

Get rid of the guideline then? Why bother having it if it really isn't going to be enforced. I would guess the hider of the hot messes where I am will come sprinkle more here with no intention of actually maintaining them and they'll get approved again with no thought to the guideline.

 

Either start being serious about it or get rid of it is my thought. Then people can't really complain.

And how is this different from cache owners in the area that don't take care of their caches? I side with Keystone.

 

Likewise, where I live I see all sorts of caches placed by a new and enthusiastic geocacher who then moves on to other things and their caches fall into disrepair.

 

There really is no way of telling who will maintain their caches and who won't, regardless of whether the cache is placed 1 or 1000 miles from their home.

[+cerberus1]

Most hides in our area are cache & dashes.

For the higher terrain ratings and hike distances we enjoy, our "circle" is now 45-100 miles - one way.

I'll also drive further for a good "5" terrain hide.

Luckily, folks in this radius put out a fair amount of hides and we'll stay busy for some time.

We may also place a hide in one of those areas someday and believe that the "locals" would welcome it.

I also believe I have a fair reviewer who can easily access finds and pics (we have a ton), to see maintenance wouldn't be a problem. We have some in the 50 mile range now.

If we could only play in our own yard, there wouldn't be much out from us.

[+GeoBain]

I still say get rid of the guideline completely if it's not going to be adhered to. What is the point of having the guideline if it's absolutely meaningless?

 

What's not being adhered to? The guideline states:

 

The territory in which a geocacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person. A geocacher who has previously logged many geocaches within a wide range of their home may be considered able to maintain a geocache 200 miles (322 km) away. However, someone whose geocaching activities have primarily been within 25 miles (40 km) of home may not be. This determination is at the discretion of the cache reviewer.

Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, we ask that you place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while on a vacation or business trip. It is best when you live within a manageable distance from the cache placements to allow for return visits. 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. Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache page. This will auto-delete on publication.

 

That part of the guideline leaves a LOT of discretion to the reviewer.

 

I used to own a cache roughly 400 miles from home. We visited my aunt several times a year up there. My cousin and her son lived in the same town and were not geocachers. But they agreed to help me maintain the cache. A couple of times I got an NM log and they were able to go out within a few days and fix the problem.

 

That cache was well maintained until my aunt passed away at which time I archived it.

 

As Keystone pointed out, there is nothing wrong with a cache placed long distance as long as there is a REAL maintenance plan in place.

 

The problems arise when COs lie about maintenance. Or when they place it at that critical distance where it's close enough they don't THINK they need help maintaining it, but it turns out to be just far enough away that it really needs someone closer to maintain it.

Edited January 5, 2012 by GeoBain

[+GeoBain]

BTW, this thread should probably be moved to the regular geocaching board. I feel like I'm violating the instructions pinned at the top of this section by discussing this topic without actually answering a question that was never asked.

[+sbeelis]

I still say get rid of the guideline completely if it's not going to be adhered to. What is the point of having the guideline if it's absolutely meaningless?

 

The point of the guideline is that a potential hider may think about where he is going to place his cache and how he is going to maintain it. He may come to the conclusion that he won't place a cache he can't maintain (good); he may come up with a valid maintenance scheme that he will adhere to (good); he may make up some lie to get his cache published (bad).

 

If the guideline is gotten rid of, potential hiders may not even realise they will place a cache that won't get the expected maintenance.

 

I say keep it as it is.

 

If you come across a badly maintained cache, you always have the option of alerting the reviewer to the fact using a "needs archived" log.

[+Frank Broughton]

I still say get rid of the guideline completely if it's not going to be adhered to. What is the point of having the guideline if it's absolutely meaningless?

 

Please can we just get on without drama for once on this forum. Keystone explained this excellently yet you persist in continuing on....

[+Frank Broughton]

It's a guideline that is rarely if ever enforced. If they're going to allow vacation caches then get rid of the guideline and just let it be. It doesn't have to be black and white I just find it silly to have a guideline and then have numerous defenses as to why that guideline is not enforced at all. It seems to me it would be much much simpler to just get rid of it and then it's a non-issue. I live with people's hot messes of vacation caches. I know they will never stop and only continue. So I look at that guideline and think it's arbitrary and stupid placed there.

And I live with the mess of caches dropped around by local cachers. Perhaps the best way of dealing with the unmaintained caches is to stop listing caches.

 

Bingo.... we have a winner, that would be the only way to make sure.

[+Sol seaker]

I still say get rid of the guideline completely if it's not going to be adhered to. What is the point of having the guideline if it's absolutely meaningless?

 

I'm sorry you have been having a really hard time with this issue in your area.

 

Getting rid of the guideline will just cause the same problem to proliferate in other areas as well.

 

Perhaps you need to talk to your local reviewer about this.

[+Sapience Trek]

It's a guideline that is rarely if ever enforced.

 

That is completely untrue. As Keystone already explained, we ask for a maintenance plan and trust the response the cache owner gives. I'm sure there are a number of cases where people lie and say their great aunt lives near the cache and will take care of it, but the vast majority of people aren't going to make up a story about a maintenance plan.

 

For every 1 vacation cache that does have a stated maintenance plan, there are probably 5-10 that never see the light of day.

 

If you are seeing caches that are not properly maintained, post a Needs Archived on it and the reviewer will take care of it. Likely that cache owner will have a harder time getting a cache listed away from their home coordinates next time.

[+kantear]

this is one reason why i made this suggestion ...

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287835

[+tozainamboku]

What I find amazing is that people come up all sorts of solutions for caches that aren't maintained when we have one already. POST A NEEDS ARCHIVE if the cache is missing or in need of other serious maintenance and the cache owner isn't responding in a reasonable time.

 

Creating new rules for who should or should not be allowed to place cache is not going to stop the problem that caches need maintenance or that some cache owners will ignore these needs for too long. I guarantee that if caches were only published if placed by a local who had found at least 50 caches and has been caching for more that three months and has no needs maintenance flags on any of their other caches (and any other "rules" you can think of) there will still be caches that aren't maintained. The solution for the problem is to 1) accept that not every cache is going to be found or found in perfect shape and 2) if you see a cache that is in need of maintenance and the cache owner has been informed in the logs and has not responded in a reasonable time, log a NA and let the reviewer take care of it.

[+-CJ-]

Let me drop a couple of thoughts from a person who've been playing geocaching in Russia for nine years. Our country 'combines' very large distancies and quite a few geocachers. In most of Russian cities there are just no players at all - and not many people actually know what the game is. So, the only way of the development of the game has been its expanding by a local geocaching community from Moscow, Saint-Petersburg and some other cities. Most of the distant caches (e.g. in Siberia) have been placed by these people. Call them 'vacation caches' or not, they actually do not have a maintenance plan. Many caches have been placed in quite uninhabited areas where there were no chances to meet a human at all, not mentioning any 'local maintainer'. So, here in Russia we rely mostly on visitors. Each geocacher is strongly advised to have a 'geocaching repairing kit' at hand and a contact phone number of the cache owner (if phone connection is available in the area, of course). There are recommendations on how to repair a cache and it's quite common to ask a cache owner if he/she needs assistance with some specific cache before leaving for a hunt. This seems to be the only way to maintain the majority of geocaches in our country. In some other republics of the former USSR, like Uzbekistan or Tajikistan, the situation is even more difficult. I personally own about 90 geocaches at our local Russian geocaching website (geocaching.su), most of them pretty far from my home location, and I doubt that I could provide a suitable 'maintenance plan' for them if I tried to cross-post them to geocaching.com (and I'd love to). Of course we could wait for new generations of geocachers to grow in Russian province but not in this life.

Edited January 14, 2012 by -CJ-

[+dakboy]

What I find amazing is that people come up all sorts of solutions for caches that aren't maintained when we have one already. POST A NEEDS ARCHIVE if the cache is missing or in need of other serious maintenance and the cache owner isn't responding in a reasonable time.

People are afraid of getting labeled "busybody cache cops" for doing this. So they invoke "there oughta be a law..." to take the responsibility off of them and put it on someone else.

 

But it is the right thing to do. We are all partially responsible for the quality of everyone's geocaching experience. If a cache needs to be archived, get bring it to someone's attention so that the proper action can be taken - and maybe a local can put a better one there. Or maybe that spot just doesn't need a cache in the first place.

Edited January 20, 2012 by dakboy

[+OZ2CPU]

I think it is better to have a few good maintained caches -

than alot of old non maintained wet rotten and impossible to find or log caches.

 

Power to the users, If they are the only one who see what goes on at a cache site,

they MUST repport it, if a CO refuses or neglect maintenence, so be it, better it gets archived !

so the space can be used by other caches, who other people love to maintain and love to visit.

--

there is also another trick,

when you make a PQ simply make sure all the transfered caches to your GPS

do not have the needs maintenence attribute sat, this way you waste less time on bad stuff

and get less disapointments, this is what I do all the time..

How ever it also seem like many CO do not know how to remove this attribute after a service

or after another cacher did a little service to make it all fine to visit again.

Edited January 24, 2012 by OZ2CPU