Friendship Series

[+clarinetqueen]

Hello everyone,

 

I am thinking about creating a series in which I will put out numbers 1-10. I would make #10 a mystery/challenge in which the person who claims FTF agrees to put out #11-20 in the series. He/she then agrees to follow suit making #20 a challenge, and so forth. I was hoping to create some collaboration between some of our local cachers.

 

I know that the idea inherently has some problems, such as out-of-towners claiming FTF and putting out caches, but I would list on the page not to create caches unless you are willing to maintain them.

 

My only question is - is this legal according to ALR language? I would not keep anyone from signing the log...just the agreement that claiming FTF will ask you to put out the caches.

[Clan Riffster]

As it is written? I'd say it wouldn't pass muster.

But if you work with your Reviewer, they may be able to get you close.

[+Touchstone]

Short answer: No

 

Longer answer:

 

Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches. This is considered an agenda and the listing will not be publishable.

 

Best of luck!

[+CanadianRockies]

One of the likely reasons why Groundspeak doesn't allow you to require people to create new caches is that forcing people to create caches often would result in poor quality caches. There are enough poor quality caches that result when people voluntarily create new caches. Requiring them to do so would only compound that problem.

Edited December 20, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+Totem Clan]

I don't know about a series but look at the cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4a9dfd87-27a8-45e3-a198-7231c162a6f4

 

Edit: to add the link for the TB

 

http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=2485910

Edited December 20, 2012 by Totem Clan

[Pup Patrol]

Hello everyone,

 

I am thinking about creating a series in which I will put out numbers 1-10. I would make #10 a mystery/challenge in which the person who claims FTF agrees to put out #11-20 in the series. He/she then agrees to follow suit making #20 a challenge, and so forth. I was hoping to create some collaboration between some of our local cachers.

 

I know that the idea inherently has some problems, such as out-of-towners claiming FTF and putting out caches, but I would list on the page not to create caches unless you are willing to maintain them.

 

My only question is - is this legal according to ALR language? I would not keep anyone from signing the log...just the agreement that claiming FTF will ask you to put out the caches.

 

Help Center → Geocaching → Review Process: Hiding a Geocache

 

4.3. Getting Your Cache Listed Quickly

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=77

 

Make sure your cache text is appropriate

 

3. Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of caches, particularly chain-letter type series (find this, then plant another in the series). This is an agenda.

 

 

B.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[+Touchstone]

I don't know about a series but look at the cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4a9dfd87-27a8-45e3-a198-7231c162a6f4

 

Edit: to add the link for the TB

 

http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=2485910

 

Published over a year ago and most of the Description is irrelevant:

 

After this cache is found for the first time, the curse does

not apply to anyone else who finds it later (i.e. it reverts to a

traditional cache like all others).

 

I doubt something like that would get Published under the current Guidelines.

 

Edit to add....

 

Edit: to add the link for the TB

 

TB's and Trackables are not usually subject to the same Guidelines as Listings and caches, although I wouldn't be surprised if Groundspeak would discourage such practices.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Touchstone

[+Totem Clan]

I don't know about a series but look at the cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4a9dfd87-27a8-45e3-a198-7231c162a6f4

 

Edit: to add the link for the TB

 

http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=2485910

 

Published over a year ago and most of the Description is irrelevant:

 

After this cache is found for the first time, the curse does

not apply to anyone else who finds it later (i.e. it reverts to a

traditional cache like all others).

 

I doubt something like that would get Published under the current Guidelines.

How about one only 4 days old

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=72905c72-eee9-49ad-9720-f0cc217fcab8

[+Touchstone]

I said I doubt something like that would get Published. I didn't say it was impossible

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I don't know about a series but look at the cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4a9dfd87-27a8-45e3-a198-7231c162a6f4

 

Edit: to add the link for the TB

 

http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=2485910

 

Published over a year ago and most of the Description is irrelevant:

 

After this cache is found for the first time, the curse does

not apply to anyone else who finds it later (i.e. it reverts to a

traditional cache like all others).

 

I doubt something like that would get Published under the current Guidelines.

How about one only 4 days old

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=72905c72-eee9-49ad-9720-f0cc217fcab8

 

If I was FTF I would purposely "break the chain", curse be damned.

[+clarinetqueen]

Thanks! I am still relatively new to all of this. I just thought it would be a good way to promote some collaboration. I will think of another way to do it.

[+wimseyguy]

Another way to encourage collaboration would be to copy the method used in this cache.

The correct coords and lock combo where attached to tags on several Travel Bugs.

The tags also requested that the TB's stay in the general Triangle area, and get passed from cacher to cacher and not just dropped into another cache. Be prepared to replace MIA TB's and/or the lock if you want to keep something like this running for a long time.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't know about a series but look at the cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4a9dfd87-27a8-45e3-a198-7231c162a6f4

 

Edit: to add the link for the TB

 

http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=2485910

 

Published over a year ago and most of the Description is irrelevant:

 

After this cache is found for the first time, the curse does

not apply to anyone else who finds it later (i.e. it reverts to a

traditional cache like all others).

 

I doubt something like that would get Published under the current Guidelines.

How about one only 4 days old

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=72905c72-eee9-49ad-9720-f0cc217fcab8

 

Rule #6 allows the FTFer not to participate if they choose. There is no threat of log deletion, so it is only a strong suggestion to participate and not necessarily an ALR.

 

I suppose the original poster could suggest and encourage the same thing. As long as there was no enforcement or log deletions it probably would be fine.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Do you know a cacher in a different part of the country/world? Try something like this:

 

Sea to Shining Sea (Atlantic)

[+CanadianRockies]

Rule #6 allows the FTFer not to participate if they choose. There is no threat of log deletion, so it is only a strong suggestion to participate and not necessarily an ALR.

"3. Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of caches, particularly chain-letter type series (find this, then plant another in the series). This is an agenda."

Edited December 20, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[4wheelin_fool]

Rule #6 allows the FTFer not to participate if they choose. There is no threat of log deletion, so it is only a strong suggestion to participate and not necessarily an ALR.

"3. Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of caches, particularly chain-letter type series (find this, then plant another in the series). This is an agenda."

 

Well, they didn't put it in bold font or all caps.

[+ras_oscar]

If you're looking for colloboration with another cacher, there is a series nearby that cachers set out together. One sets the even numbers, the other sets the odds. There are also breeder caches. A regular container filled with micro containers all ready to go. If someone chooses, they can take one, set it and submit for publication.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If you're looking for colloboration with another cacher, there is a series nearby that cachers set out together. One sets the even numbers, the other sets the odds. There are also breeder caches. A regular container filled with micro containers all ready to go. If someone chooses, they can take one, set it and submit for publication.

 

It seems to me that a large cache filled with smaller containers (a breeder cache), even without specific verbiage in the cache description about what to do with those containers, is a strong suggestion for finders to hide a geocache using one of the containers. I suppose that the CO could claim that the smaller containers are trade item, but that would just indicate to me that the CO is intentionally trying to circumvent the guideline.

[+Gustav129]

Now I know why a local "seed" cache doesn't have anymore "seeds" in it. I thought it was neat when I read the description, and some really neat caches have come out of that seed cache. It got to 6 generations.

Edited December 20, 2012 by gustav129

[AZcachemeister]

 

How about one only 4 days old

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=72905c72-eee9-49ad-9720-f0cc217fcab8

 

The reviewer obviously knows a joke when they see one.

[+Maconb]

I said I doubt something like that would get Published. I didn't say it was impossible

[+Totem Clan]

 

How about one only 4 days old

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=72905c72-eee9-49ad-9720-f0cc217fcab8

 

The reviewer obviously knows a joke when they see one.

...and that's the spirit it's done in.

 

There's one TB/series in the Tulsa area, one in the Oklahoma City area, and one in the Lawton area. The FTFer's are normally locals that play the 'curse' game and are in it for the fun. The 'ALR' can be ignored by anyone and everyone that does want to be part of it.

[Clan Riffster]

Thanks! I am still relatively new to all of this. I just thought it would be a good way to promote some collaboration. I will think of another way to do it.

Something you might run by your Reviewer is an adaptation of this cache:

With "Proliferation", the concept was a large ammo can final which is filled with small preloaded caches. (Used to be decon kits, now camo Lock & Locks), and if you found the cache, you were invited to take one of the caches with you, to hide. It did result in several new hides, but it was worded as a request, instead of a directive.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Do you know a cacher in a different part of the country/world? Try something like this:

 

Sea to Shining Sea (Atlantic)

 

I've done a cache like this and I thought it was a GREAT experience. I really enjoyed it. Obviously, it's harder to set up as you need to have a partner cacher that resides in another state/country, but it seems to be embraced by anyone who finds the cache.

[+NeecesandNephews]

I have to say... I am amazed by the "troublemaking power" of these forums. Earlier in this thread Totem mentioned a series of caches placed locally, similar to the one the OP was inquiring about. These caches, in the sense of fun, insinuated a "curse" would fall on the FTF if they did not choose to place another cache. Again... this was done in the sense of fun. This WAS NOT an ALR and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would have read it as such. The CO clearly states that it is NOT a requirement. And it only applied ( if that person chose to play along) to the FTF.

As a result of some disgruntled Forum reader's complaint, our Reviewer has announced that no more caches of this nature shall be published. Thanks a lot.

 

I have not participated in these Forums for some time, although I do come and read quite often. This is one of the reasons. I would venture a guess that the "complainant" probably doesn't even live in this area, has never found these caches, and doesn't really give a crap about the local groups promotion of the sport.

 

I have watched the Southwest Area Geocachers, of Oklahoma form and grow into a wonderful group of cachers, dedicated to promoting friend and fellowship between cachers, promoting good stewardship of their respective caches, and the local area, through MANY events such a CITO, trail maintenance, cemetery rescues, pot luck dinners ect. They have done more to promote Geocaching as a whole in this area, than has been done before. As a result Geocaching has a great reputation in Lawton and the surrounding area, and many new players have been added to the sport, together with a proliferation of many great new caches.

 

I am saddened that anyone would take away from this in any way. And I struggle to understand the motivation behind it.

 

The cache listing was posted above in a previous post, and I think if you read it you would see that no listing guidelines have been violated. At least... IMHO they haven't.

edit to add: While you are on the cache page, read the logs. These are many of the locals, who obviously enjoy playing this game together.

Edited December 21, 2012 by NeecesandNephews

[Keystone]

It's nice to hear that Oklahoma will now be following the same guidance given by Groundspeak to reviewers worldwide. There are many details involved in cache reviewing and it's easy to miss a memo. Consistency is a good thing, but if humans* are involved, that won't occur all the time.

 

*Many reviewers are dogs. They aren't consistent, either.

[+NeecesandNephews]

It's nice to hear that Oklahoma will now be following the same guidance given by Groundspeak to reviewers worldwide. There are many details involved in cache reviewing and it's easy to miss a memo. Consistency is a good thing, but if humans* are involved, that won't occur all the time.

 

*Many reviewers are dogs. They aren't consistent, either.

 

Thanks for chiming in Keystone!! Just curious...could I inquire as to exactly what guidance you are referring to? I can't see any violation, nor am I being antagonistic. What was it about those listings that was unacceptable?

 

edit to add: ummm... never mind. I can see where the insinuation of "bad juju" is most definitely "strongly encouraging" the placing of another cache. And seeing that this is our last day on the planet and all... I guess it really is a moot point.

Good grief.

Edited December 21, 2012 by NeecesandNephews

[+CanadianRockies]

Just curious...could I inquire as to exactly what guidance you are referring to?

As others have already noted earlier in this thread, here is one Groundspeak guideline that applies:

 

3. Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of caches, particularly chain-letter type series (find this, then plant another in the series). This is an agenda.

Emphasis added.

 

...nor am I being antagonistic.

Well, you did imply that the series reviewer was not "in their right mind."

 

What was it about those listings that was unacceptable?

It appears to me that the cache listing page strongly encourages the placement of a chain-letter type of series:

 

Guidelines for this series are below:

 

1) FTF'er should place the next cache in the series (The Curse of the FTF (T-Town)#(next # in sequence) within 2 weeks.

[Pup Patrol]

One thing to note about the Guideline is that it specifies that these types of cache listings are considered to be promoting an agenda.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=77

 

3. Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of caches, particularly chain-letter type series (find this, then plant another in the series). This is an agenda.

 

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

Thanks! I am still relatively new to all of this. I just thought it would be a good way to promote some collaboration. I will think of another way to do it.

 

One thing I was thinking of suggesting is that you attend events and get to know your local cachers. You could let folks know that you would be interested in placing new hides in a team effort.

 

You could get together at another time to make up new containers and place them in a collaborative effort. *This would not be an official event, but a private meeting to pool talents, resources and knowledge.*

 

Just a thought.

 

 

B.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Just curious...could I inquire as to exactly what guidance you are referring to?

As others have already noted earlier in this thread, here is one Groundspeak guideline that applies:

 

3. Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of caches, particularly chain-letter type series (find this, then plant another in the series). This is an agenda.

Emphasis added.

 

...nor am I being antagonistic.

Well, you did imply that the series reviewer was not "in their right mind."

 

What was it about those listings that was unacceptable?

It appears to me that the cache listing page strongly encourages the placement of a chain-letter type of series:

 

Guidelines for this series are below:

 

1) FTF'er should place the next cache in the series (The Curse of the FTF (T-Town)#(next # in sequence) within 2 weeks.

 

Speaking of antagonistic... yeah I added my conveyance of understanding in the edit to my post. But thanks for taking up the slack for Keystone, and speaking for him. I'm sure he was busy with the end of days preparation.

"strongly encourage"??? You actually believe bad juju is a "strong" encouragement?? Thats funny right there!!

Where did I imply that the series reviewer was not in his right mind??? He published the cache over a year ago. And you call me antagonistic.

[+niraD]

Where did I imply that the series reviewer was not in his right mind???

My guess is that this is a reference to the following:

This WAS NOT an ALR and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would have read it as such.

 

But I think the ALR issue is secondary in this case. The ALR ban is under section III. 1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches. The restriction on requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches is under section II. 4. Solicitation and Commercial Content.

[+CanadianRockies]

"strongly encourage"??? You actually believe bad juju is a "strong" encouragement?? Thats funny right there!!

No, as I noted earlier, I think this part of the cache listing guideline strongly encourages: "FTF'er should place the next cache in the series (The Curse of the FTF (T-Town)#(next # in sequence) within 2 weeks."

 

You might disagree, but neither you nor I are the ones who determine whether a particular cache meets Groundspeak guidelines. It is the reviewers and Groundspeak. Apparently your reviewer has made a decision you disagree with. That doesn't mean you should belittle them.

 

Where did I imply that the series reviewer was not in his right mind???

In a previous post, you wrote:

 

Earlier in this thread Totem mentioned a series of caches placed locally, similar to the one the OP was inquiring about. These caches, in the sense of fun, insinuated a "curse" would fall on the FTF if they did not choose to place another cache. Again... this was done in the sense of fun. This WAS NOT an ALR and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would have read it as such.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Where did I imply that the series reviewer was not in his right mind???

My guess is that this is a reference to the following:

This WAS NOT an ALR and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would have read it as such.

 

But I think the ALR issue is secondary in this case. The ALR ban is under section III. 1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches. The restriction on requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches is under section II. 4. Solicitation and Commercial Content.

 

Thanks Nira!! I was just being rhetorical. Just to clarify... I understand the guidelines quoted, and their application in this instance, even though I think its a stretch. It doesn't really matter. The official word has been issued. I just came on to voice my opinion and feelings on the matter. Debating the guidelines or their application is pretty much pointless, and that was not really my intent. I simply voiced my disagreement. Happy reading, posting, and caching to all of you!!! And Merry Christmas!!!

 

edit; spelling

Edited December 21, 2012 by NeecesandNephews

[+NeecesandNephews]

"strongly encourage"??? You actually believe bad juju is a "strong" encouragement?? Thats funny right there!!

No, as I noted earlier, I think this part of the cache listing guideline strongly encourages: "FTF'er should place the next cache in the series (The Curse of the FTF (T-Town)#(next # in sequence) within 2 weeks."

 

You might disagree, but neither you nor I are the ones who determine whether a particular cache meets Groundspeak guidelines. It is the reviewers and Groundspeak. Apparently your reviewer has made a decision you disagree with. That doesn't mean you should belittle them.

 

Where did I imply that the series reviewer was not in his right mind???

In a previous post, you wrote:

 

Earlier in this thread Totem mentioned a series of caches placed locally, similar to the one the OP was inquiring about. These caches, in the sense of fun, insinuated a "curse" would fall on the FTF if they did not choose to place another cache. Again... this was done in the sense of fun. This WAS NOT an ALR and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would have read it as such.

 

I guess there is a communication breakdown between what I am writing and how you are interpreting it. I DID NOT "belittle" my Reviewer. He PUBLISHED the cache over a year ago. Therefore he obviously APPROVED it.

ONLY after the mention of this series earlier in this thread, did he receive notification that no further caches of this sort should be published. So the decision was obviously NOT his own.

Anything else I need to clarify for you, or do you choose to continue to read more into my posts than is actually there?? Feel free to PM me if you wish to continue, as this is really derailing the original topic.

Edited December 21, 2012 by NeecesandNephews

[+CanadianRockies]

I guess there is a communication breakdown between what I am writing and how you are interpreting it. I DID NOT "belittle" my Reviewer. He PUBLISHED the cache over a year ago. Therefore he obviously APPROVED it.

You posted your complaint after your reviewer announced no more caches of this nature will be published. You wrote, "This WAS NOT an ALR and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would have read it as such." It appears to me as that you did belittle your reviewer.

 

ONLY after the mention of this series earlier in this thread, did he receive notification that no more caches of this sort should be published. So the decision was obviously NOT his own.

Consider another possibility -- one that gives a little more credit to your reviewer. Perhaps your reviewer wasn't aware of how other reviewers were applying the guideline in question. (As Keystone noted, humans won't always be perfectly consistent.) When your reviewer became aware of how others were applying the guideline, he decided that such an application made sense. Your reviewer then decided on his own that no more caches of this sort should be published.

[+NeecesandNephews]

I guess there is a communication breakdown between what I am writing and how you are interpreting it. I DID NOT "belittle" my Reviewer. He PUBLISHED the cache over a year ago. Therefore he obviously APPROVED it.

You posted your complaint after your reviewer announced no more caches of this nature will be published. You wrote, "This WAS NOT an ALR and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would have read it as such." It appears to me as that you did belittle your reviewer.

 

ONLY after the mention of this series earlier in this thread, did he receive notification that no more caches of this sort should be published. So the decision was obviously NOT his own.

Consider another possibility -- one that gives a little more credit to your reviewer. Perhaps your reviewer wasn't aware of how other reviewers were applying the guideline in question. (As Keystone noted, humans won't always be perfectly consistent.) When your reviewer became aware of how others were applying the guideline, he decided that such an application made sense. Your reviewer then decided on his own that no more caches of this sort should be published.

 

Do you have reading comprehension issues??? I mean really... I asking a serious question, not "belittling" you. Are you reading my posts completely, or just glossing over it?? As opposed to what you are doing , I am not speculating what happened. Please note the bolded portion in the quote above. Couple quick questions for you, also...What part of "why don't we take this to PM?' did you not comprehend?? What is your compelling need to continue to debate this topic?? Do you need to have the last word?? Post away then..

Stick a fork in me... I'm done!!

[+CanadianRockies]

What part of "why don't we take this to PM?' did you not comprehend?

First, your suggestion wasn't a requirement. You made some comments in a public forum that deserved to be answered in a public forum.

 

Second, you're perfectly capable of taking this to PM yourself. You started this derailment. You continued it. If you wish to stop it, then just stop.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Where did I imply that the series reviewer was not in his right mind???

My guess is that this is a reference to the following:

This WAS NOT an ALR and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would have read it as such.

 

But I think the ALR issue is secondary in this case. The ALR ban is under section III. 1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches. The restriction on requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches is under section II. 4. Solicitation and Commercial Content.

 

Thanks for making this distinction. There have been at least a couple of responses in the thread which have implied that a series such as what the OP proposed and the mention of breeder caches fall under the ALR guideline, and are thus okay, as long as the finder isn't *required* to place a new cache using one of the containers. The ALR guideline may come into play, depending on the language used on the listing, but it's the section II. 4 guideline is still relevant even if the cache adheres to the ALR guideline.

 

Is it just me or does the inclusion of "This is considered an agenda " in reference to caches which strongly encourage the placement of new caches seem out of place? I don't see strongly encouraging the placement of new cache as an agenda, but rather that it the purpose of the guideline is to avoid encouraging someone that might not be ready to become a cache owner feel that they are obligated to become one simply because they are in possession of something that can be used as a container.

[+M 5]

I for one do not agree with the rule/guideline. Is it truly a rule, or just a guideline? I also don't agree with calling them guidelines and then enforcing them to different degrees. I may attempt to continue the "curse" series in question by referencing the "rules" on the TB page (which are not subject to the same guidelines/rules) and not on the cache page itself, in a similar way that other guidelines are loopholed by geocachers and Groundspeak themselves.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Where did I imply that the series reviewer was not in his right mind???

My guess is that this is a reference to the following:

This WAS NOT an ALR and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would have read it as such.

 

But I think the ALR issue is secondary in this case. The ALR ban is under section III. 1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches. The restriction on requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches is under section II. 4. Solicitation and Commercial Content.

 

Thanks for making this distinction. There have been at least a couple of responses in the thread which have implied that a series such as what the OP proposed and the mention of breeder caches fall under the ALR guideline, and are thus okay, as long as the finder isn't *required* to place a new cache using one of the containers. The ALR guideline may come into play, depending on the language used on the listing, but it's the section II. 4 guideline is still relevant even if the cache adheres to the ALR guideline.

 

Is it just me or does the inclusion of "This is considered an agenda " in reference to caches which strongly encourage the placement of new caches seem out of place? I don't see strongly encouraging the placement of new cache as an agenda, but rather that it the purpose of the guideline is to avoid encouraging someone that might not be ready to become a cache owner feel that they are obligated to become one simply because they are in possession of something that can be used as a container.

 

NY I share the same sentiment about the "required" part. It is my humble opinion the CO on the curse caches satisfied the prohibitions of that particular guideline by stating clearly it WAS NOT a requirement. I also can't see the listing as it stands as an agenda.

As far as "encouraging new cache placements" being considered an "agenda"... isn't the Geocaching website itself promoting the "agenda" of cache placement??? If not, they surely devote a lot of server space outilining the definition of a "cache", its proper sizing, its location, dificulty and terrain definitions, ect...ect. Define "irony"!! If it were not for someone promoting this agenda, we would have a lot fewer caches to seek out. Their sandbox... their rules. So it is.

[+niraD]

As far as "encouraging new cache placements" being considered an "agenda"... isn't the Geocaching website itself promoting the "agenda" of cache placement???

Actually, one of the things I respect about Groundspeak is that they avoid promoting new cache placements by people who aren't prepared to own and maintain them for the long term.

 

People who are prepared to own and maintain caches for the long term will come up with the idea of hiding caches all on their own. They really don't need anyone (Groundspeak, Garmin, a Curse of the FTF, an "ideal" ratio of hides to finds, an "ideal" ratio of FTFs to finds, etc.) telling them that they should hide caches. And it isn't a good thing to encourage hides by those who are not prepared to own and maintain caches for the long term. (They list--or try to list--enough caches as it is.)

[+clarinetqueen]

I am truly sorry I started a controversy. Next time I'll learn my lesson...when I have a question I won't put in on the forum. :-(

[+Sol seaker]

ClarinetQueen, don't take this on.

 

This is not uncommon and has nothing to do with you. It is good these issues come out.

 

You can post in the Getting Started Forum and have a much friendlier exchange. I'm sure some of these people are having fun by debating this stuff, so let them have their fun and don't take it on.

 

 

As far as my opinion on the original question,

We've got a series near my house where the cache owner wanted to hide a monopoly game series. He decided to let others help him, and left cards for other players to create those caches (like railroads, or utilities).

 

The problem was a lot of the cards were removed from the cache (probably with good intentions) and the caches never created. Only a few in the series ever were made.

 

Now it is a few years later, and we have an incomplete series and the original cache owner is no longer even playing. He had promised a 100.00 prize for the one who won the game (although I don't remember what that entailed) and it all has fallen apart. Some of the caches created will be beginning to be archived soon, if some haven't been already.

 

So we have a small handful of monopoly caches with instructions that make no sense, and a final that people can log, but no one can complete.

 

 

I like the idea, that if someone has an idea they should play it out.

 

If you'd like to create a series with other caches, try finding some cachers at local events or on your local forums. Otherwise, you came up with one great idea, I'm sure you will come up with some other great ideas too.