Clusters of Unmaintained Caches.

[+Totem Clan]

I was just looking at the caches I have on my 'Ignore' list because of maintenamce issues and non-responsive CO's. The caches are within 70 miles of my home coords, which is what I concider my prime caching area. I noticed that even the though the caches in each group had different CO's there were locations that had several such caches. There were the one or two off on their own, but most seemed to be grouped together in five or six locations. Is that just a freak thing or is that something you see often?

 

 

Edit to add: I just noticed that all the groups are near urban and suburban areas. That may be the key to it.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Totem Clan

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I think new hiders tend to saturate areas that are convenient to them, around their home, on their way to work, etc.....when they burn out and move on these clusters get abandoned.

[+Totem Clan]

I think new hiders tend to saturate areas that are convenient to them, around their home, on their way to work, etc.....when they burn out and move on these clusters get abandoned.

Each group of caches has more that one hider. Some CO's have caches in two or more of the groups.

[+Sol seaker]

Your observation could be the key there.

 

There are areas that are more prone to muggles. If it's a well populated area with a lot of foot traffic walking right by, sure they're going to get muggled by accident more often than the lone ammo can out hiding in the woods.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I've noticed this around events. A bunch of people place "for the event" and after the event, that cache is just not real to them anymore.

[+Totem Clan]

Muggles activity would account for why the caches go 'bad' that's for sure. The more rural caches would not be as likely to be disturbed. Some of the worst COs do have a few rural caches that have been abandoned as well.

 

As far as the Events attracting caches, that is not the case here but when I think of it, it might be something very similar. Some caches attract caches. The few runs in the area have other hanger on caches put out in the areas around them. Cachers come to get the numbers and toss out more caches while they are there.

 

Nice observations. Thanks.

[+Team OPJim]

IT is unfortunate that Groundspeak continues to reject the concept of requiring a certain amount of activity (# of finds, time in the game, etc) as a prerequisite to hiding caches. I think that most of these issues could be solved by not allowing newbies with 5 finds to drop a cache somewhere. Alas, the issue has been discussed ad nauseum without any effort to address it.

[+Totem Clan]

IT is unfortunate that Groundspeak continues to reject the concept of requiring a certain amount of activity (# of finds, time in the game, etc) as a prerequisite to hiding caches. I think that most of these issues could be solved by not allowing newbies with 5 finds to drop a cache somewhere. Alas, the issue has been discussed ad nauseum without any effort to address it.

I agree with the concept but wouldn't want to see them do it. There are State Parks that have 0 finds but hide caches. My daughter has an acount just for her hides. There are no finds on it but she has found hundreds of caches with me. Her hides are enjoyed around here. I could go on.

 

A blanket rule liked that, no matter how well intended, has too many problems built into it than it would solve.

 

We just need cachers to do what they said they would. That is not only for the CO to do maintenance, but for the cacher to log NMs and NAs when they should. The system works when used right.

[+Don_J]

I was just looking at the caches I have on my 'Ignore' list because of maintenamce issues and non-responsive CO's. The caches are within 70 miles of my home coords, which is what I concider my prime caching area. I noticed that even the though the caches in each group had different CO's there were locations that had several such caches. There were the one or two off on their own, but most seemed to be grouped together in five or six locations. Is that just a freak thing or is that something you see often?

 

 

Edit to add: I just noticed that all the groups are near urban and suburban areas. That may be the key to it.

 

You are probably looking at areas where the local cachers have found all of these caches and are not paying attention to them, or, they simply don't wan't to get involved. If the local reviewer doesn't have time to actively seek out caches that have NM logs, and none of the locals are willing to report them, you'll see these clusters.

[+Don_J]

I think the issue of people not maintaining their hides is one topic. I think that you were asking why there are clusters of these caches by different owners and that would be because they are not being reported to the reviewers. If the cache owner is long gone, or simply unwilling to do maintenance, the best thing to do is report the cache. If no one is willing to take that step, then nothing gets done.

 

We had a situation a few cities over where several well respected, long time cachers all kind of lost interest about the same time. A few years later, there were clusters of caches in disrepair that no one would report because they didn't want to disrespect the cache owners. It took newer cachers that didn't know the history of the area to come along and report the caches for them to get archived.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Don_J