cache guidelines?

[+RoadAndTheSky]

Does anyone know for sure why it is that there are no enforceable rules or guidelines concerning the number of caches you have found before you can hide one? Like you must have found at least thirty (or more)caches before you can set one. We have guidelines for distance, private property, schools, and so on. This is all Groundspeak has to say on this subject.

 

"The more geocaches that you have found, the better you will understand the various elements that make up a great geocaching experience. This knowledge will be invaluable when you place a hide, and likely make your geocache more enjoyable for the community. We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

I think it's great that caches are being set, but sometimes the caches being set are frankly lame.

Example, a cache was recently set near me by someone with no finds logged. I know this doesn't mean they haven't found any, but this cache shows me that it can't be many. Every thing about it has been done poorly. It's rating T/D is out of line with the hide, size listed is not matching the cache, no cache note, no camo, (it's in a park) set poorly "in my opinion".

 

So whats up with the guidelines concerning setting caches,and the number found?

[+StarBrand]

Back when I started caching there were exactly 4 caches within 100 miles of my house. I found all 4 within 2 months. The game would have ended long ago if such a rule had been in place.

 

Even now there are only 39 within 20 miles of my house. In rural areas it would take a very long time to get to 30 or 40 caches. On the flip side, if you live near one of the modern "power Trails", you can get to 30 in about 45 minutes. Either way, no measure at all whether anybody is ready to hide caches.

 

Some veterans place bad caches with bad coords. Some newbies place excellent well thought out hides. Not a good indication either way.

 

Long ago, I proposed that IF some measure be required then a guidelines quiz of some kind would be better than any arbitrary number. I even put together a sample test.

http://www.wnag.net/checklist

Edited April 6, 2012 by StarBrand

[+firestronaut]

I placed my first cache today, after just 16 finds.

A small number, I know.

 

But I put a lot of thought into it, asked questions and researched. There isn't a cache in 0.5 miles within any other, and what I think is a good, but easy hiding spot. I didn't just place it in the first hiding spot I thought was good, I searched the whole place until I found the one I liked best.

 

I think it depends on how much thought and effort goes into it, not the number of caches found.

[knowschad]

I know of a multitude of caches that were hidden by cachers with hundreds or more of finds that most would classify as "lame". I also know a few cachers that stunned everybody with their hides after only finding a handful (or less in one case)

[+TerraViators]

Where's ambient skater when you need him to do s topic schedule check. Joking aside, I will never support this argument for many reasons, but mainly because it has no merit, in my opinion.

[+captnemo]

Back when I started, I placed my first cache after finding 3 caches, DNFing 1, and after being a Geocacher for only 43 days. There were just not enough caches to find back then.

 

There was even talk back then about how many caches you SHOULD place based on the number of finds. Seems that the general feeling was one hide for every 10 finds you had! Can you imagine today, if that had become a rule?

[+zodiac73]

Lame thread, already been done to death many times, go find or don't bother... up to you.

 

Try being glad that someone spent time and money doing something for others. If they didn't get it right then if you can offer advice then go for it. I have 120 finds and 50 hides. I give people something to do, and they appreciate it. This game and some of its players have gone way up it/their own backsides it really is unbelievable.

 

Chill our and enjoy !!

[+firestronaut]

Lame thread, already been done to death many times, go find or don't bother... up to you.

 

Try being glad that someone spent time and money doing something for others. If they didn't get it right then if you can offer advice then go for it. I have 120 finds and 50 hides. I give people something to do, and they appreciate it. This game and some of its players have gone way up it/their own backsides it really is unbelievable.

 

Chill our and enjoy !!

 

I like your attitude, good sir.

[+StarBrand]

Back when I started, I placed my first cache after finding 3 caches, DNFing 1, and after being a Geocacher for only 43 days. There were just not enough caches to find back then.

 

There was even talk back then about how many caches you SHOULD place based on the number of finds. Seems that the general feeling was one hide for every 10 finds you had! Can you imagine today, if that had become a rule?

You mean it didn't?

[+wimseyguy]

Does anyone know for sure why it is that there are no enforceable rules or guidelines concerning the number of caches you have found before you can hide one?

Because the number would be arbitrary, it wouldn't be a good measure of the ability to hide good caches, and would encourage people to find a bunch of routine LPC's and guard rails just so that they could place the one their muse told them to hide deep in the woods.

 

Like others have posted, I know of cachers that have tens of thousands of finds, yet place ordinary or less than ordinary hides. One in particular with more finds than anyone else in this thread uses throwaway shampoo bottles from their travels, and even once the disposible Swiffer refill box as a cache. I know of some great hiders who nailed it with their first efforts when they had only a small handful of finds.

[+T.D.M.22]

Why? to improve the quality of caches? Seems a good idea. But what about the Teams, husband and wife that divorce and one starts a new account? or the kid that just turned old enough to get his own GPsr and doesn't have to always go with mom and dad? or just those that don't log? or those that live in the middle of Saskatchewan, with 3 caches in 250Km? There are a lot of people that don't have all finds on their account for whatever reason, and for the rest, they would just cheat and log finds that they didnt even look for.

[Pup Patrol]

Does anyone know for sure why it is that there are no enforceable rules or guidelines concerning the number of caches you have found before you can hide one? Like you must have found at least thirty (or more)caches before you can set one. We have guidelines for distance, private property, schools, and so on. This is all Groundspeak has to say on this subject.

 

"The more geocaches that you have found, the better you will understand the various elements that make up a great geocaching experience. This knowledge will be invaluable when you place a hide, and likely make your geocache more enjoyable for the community. We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

I think it's great that caches are being set, but sometimes the caches being set are frankly lame.

Example, a cache was recently set near me by someone with no finds logged. I know this doesn't mean they haven't found any, but this cache shows me that it can't be many. Every thing about it has been done poorly. It's rating T/D is out of line with the hide, size listed is not matching the cache, no cache note, no camo, (it's in a park) set poorly "in my opinion".

 

So whats up with the guidelines concerning setting caches,and the number found?

 

What's the point in requiring that a set number of "found it" logs be recorded? What does that prove?

 

So someone goes out and finds 30 "lame", "poor quality" caches...they then assume that all caches are like that, and they go out and hide the same way. Monkey see, monkey do.

 

Pointless, no?

 

Long, long time ago, caches were hidden by rank newbies. Had to be, or else how the heck did this game start?

 

 

 

B.

[+ForTheLoveOfSunrises]

Certainly, the game would have never gotten started if it weren’t started by “newbies.” It is ten years later, and in some areas discrimination guidelines need to be considered. For example, in Indiana where I live, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is going to start requiring permits, which is the case in many states. This brings up issues about which caches stay and which ones don’t. The DNR is probably going to enforce a rule in which a CO can only have 2 caches per so many acres. As the game becomes more and more popular and space becomes limited, what kind of caches do you want set?

Of course, we are generalizing here and there are exceptions to every rule, but one sure way to know that someone setting a cache knows what they are doing is to have a requirement of finds. Also, as Road and the Sky points out, people who quit the game seem more likely, in my experience, to have fewer finds. They aren’t those who have found 1,000 finds or more.

This is simply an idea, a consideration. Like any great concept or notion or game, things need tweaked as it matures and ages. Perhaps this isn’t the best way to proceed, but it is a legitimate way to discourage poorly set caches. What would be a better way? This is a forum, after all.

[+StarBrand]

...

Perhaps this isn’t the best way to proceed, but it is a legitimate way to discourage poorly set caches. What would be a better way? This is a forum, after all.

In that many poor hides are placed by veteran cachers -I don't think a minimum would have much effect.

 

As for an alternative - see my first post in this thread.

[+briansnat]

There is no guideline because the number of finds you have has little bearing on the quality of the caches you place. There are people with a handful of finds who place great caches and some of the most uninspired caches out there are hidden by people with hundreds, or thousands of finds.

 

For the sake of argument imagine there was a guideline that said you had to find, say 25 caches before you were allowed to hide one. What's a new geocacher going to do if he is eager to hide a cache? He is going to try to reach those 25 finds as fast as possible, which means he's likely to hit every strip mall and guard rail park n grab in his area. So when he reaches the threshold, what would he have learned about geocaching other than it's all about hide-a-keys and film canisters in strip malls and guard rails? That is going to improve the quality of caches?

[+power69]

Does anyone know for sure why it is that there are no enforceable rules or guidelines concerning the number of caches you have found before you can hide one? Like you must have found at least thirty (or more)caches before you can set one. We have guidelines for distance, private property, schools, and so on. This is all Groundspeak has to say on this subject.

 

"The more geocaches that you have found, the better you will understand the various elements that make up a great geocaching experience. This knowledge will be invaluable when you place a hide, and likely make your geocache more enjoyable for the community. We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

I think it's great that caches are being set, but sometimes the caches being set are frankly lame.

Example, a cache was recently set near me by someone with no finds logged. I know this doesn't mean they haven't found any, but this cache shows me that it can't be many. Every thing about it has been done poorly. It's rating T/D is out of line with the hide, size listed is not matching the cache, no cache note, no camo, (it's in a park) set poorly "in my opinion".

 

So whats up with the guidelines concerning setting caches,and the number found?

Something to remember: that 0 finds hider might be a sock puppet[that person could actually have thousands of finds]

[+L0ne.R]

I think it's great that caches are being set, but sometimes the caches being set are frankly lame.

Example, a cache was recently set near me by someone with no finds logged. I know this doesn't mean they haven't found any, but this cache shows me that it can't be many. Every thing about it has been done poorly. It's rating T/D is out of line with the hide, size listed is not matching the cache, no cache note, no camo, (it's in a park) set poorly "in my opinion".

 

So whats up with the guidelines concerning setting caches,and the number found?

 

Personally I've come to realize that Groundspeak will not set a number of caches that must be found before a new cacher can post a hide on their site - it's bad for business. If anything I'd like to see a time restraint - before posting a cache on GC.com you need to have been registered for at least 2 months. This should weed out the fly-by-nighters. But again, that might be considered bad-for-business.

 

Instead, I suggest a bit of "tough love". Leave constructive criticism in your online log. Outline the problems with the cache. If the new hider does nothing to fix the cache at least the next finders who read the logs will be warned and can choose to put it on their ignore list.

[+Totem Clan]

My wife hides caches under her own account but she only caches with me, so her account has no finds at all. My daughter has a hide and it is a very good one too. She only log the hiking caches we do together, so she has only a few finds.

 

There are even more examples. I understand what you are saying and why. I have found caches hidden by 'new' cachers that are horrid, like a carboard box taped to a telephone pole. However I have seen some that are very good as well.

 

Broad blanket rules just don't work well.

[+Walts Hunting]

Using your logic if someone goes out and finds 1000 in a day on a power trail they are more qualified than someone who has found ten of various types.

This issue comes up quite frequently and the end result is always the same.

[+hukilaulau]

My first hide was not very good. But it was due to inexperience HIDING CACHES, not with finding them. Just something I had to work out.

There was a cacher around here who found a fair number of nice caches, mostly in the woods with decent D/T ratings. Then he placed his first hide, a nano on a stop sign. Go figure...

[Pup Patrol]

Perhaps this isn’t the best way to proceed, but it is a legitimate way to discourage poorly set caches. What would be a better way? This is a forum, after all.

 

If ALL cachers read the forums, then maybe this could be productive.

 

But since the number of cachers who actually read the forums is probably very small, then the frequent threads over the years complaining about "lame" caches have proven to be fruitless, no?

 

L0ne R made the best suggestion that might be the most effective approach:

 

Instead, I suggest a bit of "tough love". Leave constructive criticism in your online log. Outline the problems with the cache. If the new hider does nothing to fix the cache at least the next finders who read the logs will be warned and can choose to put it on their ignore list.

 

 

 

B.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Pup Patrol