Jump to content

Create then abandon a cache? Absentee COs.


Recommended Posts

I visited a friend who lives in a low income neighborhood in the San Francisco Bay area.

There are no caches for many blocks around his house.

 

I was considering posting a few key-hides or small caches in the neighborhood, and then

when the log is full I would abandon them, or more correctly archive them.

I visit the area at best only once every 6 months, so I would not be able to

responsibly maintain the caches, but at least it would provide a visitor with

some caching opportunities.

 

Good idea? Or is that kind of thing frowned upon?

Link to comment

Good idea? Or is that kind of thing frowned upon?

Do you really need to ask?

 

There's probably a good reason why there aren't any caches in that area.

 

And even if you were seriously considering doing this, publicly announcing your plan wouldn't be a smart move. The reviewers can see the stuff on here, you know...

Link to comment

I visited a friend who lives in a low income neighborhood in the San Francisco Bay area.

There are no caches for many blocks around his house.

 

I was considering posting a few key-hides or small caches in the neighborhood, and then

when the log is full I would abandon them, or more correctly archive them.

I visit the area at best only once every 6 months, so I would not be able to

responsibly maintain the caches, but at least it would provide a visitor with

some caching opportunities.

 

Good idea? Or is that kind of thing frowned upon?

 

troll.free.jpg

Link to comment

Something sounds like there is more behind this post then the obvious.

ding, ding, ding!

 

Do you really need to ask?

 

There's probably a good reason why there aren't any caches in that area.

 

And even if you were seriously considering doing this, publicly announcing your plan wouldn't be a smart move. The reviewers can see the stuff on here, you know...

Does a reviewer really think they should not approve something because of a question/intent said on the forum.

 

Heck, I'm already having an issue with a reviewer that won't publish a cache series I've set up only because of the fact I mentioned I am moving. Yes, I will be able to maintain them, but I am NOT going into my private life to justify how or why (that is too much information a reviewer doesn't need to know).

 

Frankly a cache in a so-called dangerous neighborhood is AWESOME. I love challenging people's perceptions. Besides...if it is so bad...and people are too scared to go to a place here in America, than the log won't likely ever fill up, so no worries.

Link to comment

Something sounds like there is more behind this post then the obvious.

ding, ding, ding!

 

Do you really need to ask?

 

There's probably a good reason why there aren't any caches in that area.

 

And even if you were seriously considering doing this, publicly announcing your plan wouldn't be a smart move. The reviewers can see the stuff on here, you know...

Does a reviewer really think they should not approve something because of a question/intent said on the forum.

 

Heck, I'm already having an issue with a reviewer that won't publish a cache series I've set up only because of the fact I mentioned I am moving. Yes, I will be able to maintain them, but I am NOT going into my private life to justify how or why (that is too much information a reviewer doesn't need to know).

 

Frankly a cache in a so-called dangerous neighborhood is AWESOME. I love challenging people's perceptions. Besides...if it is so bad...and people are too scared to go to a place here in America, than the log won't likely ever fill up, so no worries.

 

Don't worry, that cache will be muggled in the first week!

 

And thanks for stirring up controversy! People think train wrecks are, as you would put it, "AWESOME. "

Link to comment

Does a reviewer really think they should not approve something because of a question/intent said on the forum.

 

If a cache owner were to serve notice that he does not intend to maintain a cache, I would not publish it regardless of how he informed me.

 

Heck, I'm already having an issue with a reviewer that won't publish a cache series I've set up only because of the fact I mentioned I am moving. Yes, I will be able to maintain them, but I am NOT going into my private life to justify how or why (that is too much information a reviewer doesn't need to know).

 

 

Sounds more like a reviewer who his doing his job as instructed is having an issue with a cache owner who refuses to provide a maintenance plan.

Link to comment

...

There are no caches for many blocks around his house.

...

 

 

EGADS, MAN! :yikes:

 

Surely you jest? :o

 

A blank area on the map? Something MUST be done! :P

 

Seriously, if someone who CAN maintain caches there hasn't/didn't/won't place them, there is probably a good reason.

Perhaps you can get your friend interested by taking him on a trip to an area that already has some caches. ;)

Link to comment

Would your friend be willing to maintain the cache(s) you place?

 

Here is the relevant Groundspeak guideline:

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

...

Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, please place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while traveling. Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan. This plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems, and might include the username of a local cacher 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 listing.

Link to comment

]Does a reviewer really think they should not approve something because of a question/intent said on the forum.

Absolutely. In fact, just such a scenario played out about a month ago. Someone in the forums publicly stated that they were planning on hiding something that was unequivocally against the guidelines (and possibly illegal, too). I brought that information to the attention of the primary reviewer in this area, and they thanked me profusely for letting them know. The cache in question hasn't yet been published.

 

I've also read in the forums before that reviewers in different regions will give each other a heads-up if they come into such information. I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of the reviewers that's active in the forums has already notified the California reviewers of the OPs post here.

 

It doesn't matter how a reviewer finds out about a guideline violation. If a cache violates the guidelines, it violates the guidelines.

Link to comment

Wow! Guess I really got an earful, aye?

 

"Lame" "Jest" :o

 

Not even a HINT of a Thank You for trying to serve the game in a poor neighborhood.

 

Oh well . . . It certainly was an enthusiastic response, and I didn't get burned or flamed,

so I guess that's a tribute to the kindness of cachers.

 

Scratch THAT idea.

Let's see what other atrocity I can come up with . . .

 

:lol:

Link to comment

Wow! Guess I really got an earful, aye?

 

"Lame" "Jest" :o

 

Not even a HINT of a Thank You for trying to serve the game in a poor neighborhood.

 

Oh well . . . It certainly was an enthusiastic response, and I didn't get burned or flamed,

so I guess that's a tribute to the kindness of cachers.

 

Scratch THAT idea.

Let's see what other atrocity I can come up with . . .

 

:lol:

 

If it is any consolation I don't think the neighborhood matters. If you aren't going to maintain them it is best you don't place them.

Link to comment

Sounds more like a reviewer who his doing his job as instructed is having an issue with a cache owner who refuses to provide a maintenance plan.

If you are speaking about me...I never said nor plan on not doing maintenance myself. I have made arrangements. They will be maintained. I don't need to get into my personal life to justify that. If you meant the original poster, I understand. I was fine with not publishing if when prompted, the cacher said no maintenance would be done. But posting here on the forum is NOT a valid justification for denying w/out prompt. Edited by TheWeatherWarrior
Link to comment

But posting here on the forum is NOT a valid justification for denying w/out prompt.

Not for outright denial, but it's certainly probable cause for questioning a cache placement. If a reviewer was aware through alternate sources that you were moving, I see no problem with them asking if you have a maintenance plan. They need to use whatever information is available to review caches.

Link to comment

But posting here on the forum is NOT a valid justification for denying w/out prompt.

Not for outright denial, but it's certainly probable cause for questioning a cache placement. If a reviewer was aware through alternate sources that you were moving, I see no problem with them asking if you have a maintenance plan. They need to use whatever information is available to review caches.

Yeah, no problem with asking, but when answered "yes, they will be maintained", that should be the end of it!
Link to comment

Yeah, no problem with asking, but when answered "yes, they will be maintained", that should be the end of it!

If a reviewer knows you won't be living near the cache and likely won't be doing the maintenance yourself, they'd probably categorize it as being like a vacation cache and want to know what the maintenance plan is:

Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, please place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while traveling. Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan. This plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems, and might include the username of a local cacher 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 listing. This should include contact information of the maintainer. The note will auto-delete on publication.

"It will be maintained" isn't a plan.

"Cacher XYZ will be maintaining it" is.

 

...or at least that's how I see it.

Link to comment

That is too much private information in my case. The arrangements may or may not even include someone else in my case.

 

If that is too much information, then don't hide the cache.

 

The reviewer is supposed to make sure you do have a plan, and just saying "I got a plan" ain't enough.

Link to comment

That is too much private information in my case. The arrangements may or may not even include someone else in my case.

 

Yeah.

And I shouldn't need to explicitly tell the reviewer I will be flying my private jet to Jamaica every weekend in order to get my caches there published.

 

'They will be maintained' is all they need to know. :lol:

 

You may think your case is a special case, but it isn't. <_<

Link to comment

The arrangements may or may not even include someone else in my case.

I'm confused by this. Are you saying your plan for the maintenance of a cache too far away for you to maintain includes nobody else? That sounds like an unmaintained cache like the OP was proposing. Or do you mean you would be able to maintain it? If so, then why not just say so? Sorry, your "plan" is just plain confusing to me, and I can see why the reviewer hasn't published it/them yet.

 

I have to agree with uxorious. If you're unwilling to share the necessary information with the reviewer, it's probably best that you not hide the cache at all. Also, you might want to review this page, especially the part titled "Work with the reviewer, not against him or her." Cache submission is a cooperative effort, not a battle.

Link to comment

Yeah. If you're going to hide a cache that you cannot maintain, rather detailed information needs to be given. Who will maintain this cache if necessary? (Though I have seen COs who have lied and said that their deceased Aunt would do the maintenance.) Those caches do not seem to last very long.

Yeah. There are a lot of empty areas on the maps. Look at Bed-Stuy (Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn). There are good reasons why these areas are empty.

Someone once called us 'fearless cachers.' Until we got back from finding a cache ina low class neighorhood. (Interesting cache.) And we found someone stopped next to the cachemobile. As we approached, they sped off. No. It wasn't the guy selling drugs from the back of his SUV down the block. (It is noted the the CO lives in the neghborhood, and maitains his caches.) With the perceived threat to the cachemobile, we are now avoiding those areas.

If you cannot maintain the cache, then you ned totell the reviewer who willbedoing them aintenance. "Create then abandon"? Nope. That is not acceptable.

Link to comment

That is too much private information in my case. The arrangements may or may not even include someone else in my case.

 

The more this question gets clouded with intrigue, privacy issues & vagueness, the more I know that there is an interesting backstory.

 

Who's the friend in the "bad neighborhood"?

Link to comment

Wow! Guess I really got an earful, aye?

 

"Lame" "Jest" :o

 

Not even a HINT of a Thank You for trying to serve the game in a poor neighborhood.

 

Oh well . . . It certainly was an enthusiastic response, and I didn't get burned or flamed,

so I guess that's a tribute to the kindness of cachers.

 

Scratch THAT idea.

Let's see what other atrocity I can come up with . . .

 

:lol:

 

Initiative. I can get behind that.

Link to comment

That is too much private information in my case. The arrangements may or may not even include someone else in my case.

 

If that is too much information, then don't hide the cache.

 

The reviewer is supposed to make sure you do have a plan, and just saying "I got a plan" ain't enough.

 

I applaud the reviewer. If a reviewer knows that you're placing a cache and then moving from the area, he/she has the obligation to question how you're going to maintain it.

Saying "I'll be returning twice a year to visit and will do maintainence then. If anything more urgent comes up, a local friend, Joe, has agreed to help out" sounds like a plan. Saying "it will be maintained" might be a stone cold promise on your part, but it's not a plan.

Link to comment

But posting here on the forum is NOT a valid justification for denying w/out prompt.

Not for outright denial, but it's certainly probable cause for questioning a cache placement. If a reviewer was aware through alternate sources that you were moving, I see no problem with them asking if you have a maintenance plan. They need to use whatever information is available to review caches.

Yeah, no problem with asking, but when answered "yes, they will be maintained", that should be the end of it!

 

"Trust me" is not a maintenance plan. If you are unwilling to provide the reviewer with information regarding your capability to maintain the cache, that's your prerogative, but then guess what.

Link to comment

That is too much private information in my case. The arrangements may or may not even include someone else in my case.

 

If that is too much information, then don't hide the cache.

 

The reviewer is supposed to make sure you do have a plan, and just saying "I got a plan" ain't enough.

 

I applaud the reviewer. If a reviewer knows that you're placing a cache and then moving from the area, he/she has the obligation to question how you're going to maintain it.

Saying "I'll be returning twice a year to visit and will do maintainence then. If anything more urgent comes up, a local friend, Joe, has agreed to help out" sounds like a plan. Saying "it will be maintained" might be a stone cold promise on your part, but it's not a plan.

 

Yeah, I don't think you really NEED to get into personal stuff to give some sort of plan...only some sort of schedule and backup like described above. I doubt the reviewer cares about what is taking you away or bringing you back, just so long as you DO come back (or have assistance from a local) when maintenance is necessary.

Link to comment

That is too much private information in my case. The arrangements may or may not even include someone else in my case.

 

Apparently the maintenance plan has been accepted, as three of the micro in the woods series were published today.

Yup...so in the end it was not an issue. Which I'm glad. I don't have to explain anything else. Perhaps it was just a backlog and not a real issue at all.
Link to comment

Wow! Guess I really got an earful, aye?

 

"Lame" "Jest" :o

 

Not even a HINT of a Thank You for trying to serve the game in a poor neighborhood.

 

Oh well . . . It certainly was an enthusiastic response, and I didn't get burned or flamed,

so I guess that's a tribute to the kindness of cachers.

 

Scratch THAT idea.

Let's see what other atrocity I can come up with . . .

 

:lol:

 

What amazes me is that you think you were the firsst one to think of this , heck we have a ton of these in NJ, a lot of them aren't even in urban areas. I think we have more caches by inactive owners than we have from active ones.

Link to comment

I was considering posting a few key-hides or small caches in the neighborhood, and then when the log is full I would abandon them, or more correctly archive them.

By the way, since I don't think anyone else mentioned it: you seem to think archiving the caches means you wouldn't also be abandoning them. This is more wrong thinking. If you archive a cache without going to retrieve the container, you are littering. Almost as bad as putting it out without planning to maintain it to begin with.

 

I didn't want you to go away thinking there was anything redeeming in your question. :)

Link to comment

The thing about a bad neighborhood is, it's a bad neighborhood. If you hide a cache there, those who know it's a bad neighborhood are much less likely to come find it.

 

More to the point, those who are not familiar with the area may not appreciate finding out the character of the neighborhood only when they drive up looking for your geocache.

 

My first find in the USA was a micro hidden in brush outside what turned out to be a crackhouse. I visited it on a Sunday morning at 7 AM, having just been up all night with jet lag, so I was not as aware of my surroundings as I could have been. It was not the greatest neighborhood in the world. I was glad I was there at 7 AM on a Sunday.

 

One of the other cachers who looked for this one put it pretty well.

 

Looked for a few and I mean a few minutes and left. The first thing I asked myself was this "If a cache was not here would I be in this area. Answer: nope.

 

When people ask me why I spend time on what would appear to many to be a child's game, I reply that it takes me to places I'd never see, but for someone pointing them out to me. That's what I value in a geocache. So if the sole purpose for your hide is "there isn't a geocache within 528 feet," please rethink it. Especially if it's in a bad neighborhood -- but even if it's in a nice or fair to middlin' one.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

I guess there is a difference between:

 

'This cache brought me to a place I would never have visited without Geocaching!'

 

and

 

'This cache brought me to a place I would never have wanted to visit without Geocaching.'

 

'Tis sad to think there are neighborhoods in America where nobody feels safe. :(

 

Oh, I know it's always been like that, but still sad.

Link to comment

Most peoples fears of 'bad neighborhoods' is FALSE anyway. There are some pretty-white-people (euphemism) could use a little discomfort to better understand how silly their POV is. I learned this without geocaching. I would think geocachers would be a little more adventurous and willing to put away preconceptions. Maybe I'm wrong.

Edited by TheWeatherWarrior
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...
×
×
  • Create New...