What Irks you most?

[+Goldenwattle 1609]

34 minutes ago, lee737 said:

When newbies with 2 finds pick up a TB from a cache, then stop caching....

 

Yes some people have no conscience. Even a newbie should be aware not to hang onto it.

[+niraD 3162]

44 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Even a newbie should be aware not to hang onto it.

Have you ever gone geocaching with newbies when they find trackables?

 

They don't see the TB tag; they just see the cute toy it's attached to. They don't see the geocoin; they just see a cool medallion. And these were newbies that I had just explained geocaching to (including trackables), just before we left the trailhead. They were all set to trade for the cool trinkets they'd found.

 

This isn't an uncommon thing in my experience. I don't expect newbies to know what to do with trackables.

[+GeoElmo6000 225]

Similar to a previous post and hopefully not already covered.

 

When someone logs your cache and writes "This gets a favorite point!" but your cache doesn't get a favorite point.  Let it go?  Send a reminder?

[+cerberus1 3213]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Yes some people have no conscience. Even a newbie should be aware not to hang onto it.

 

We're not seeing that in any area.   Sometimes things get "fixed" at events, or sending an email.

 - But we still have long-time pm cachers that trade trackables for swag...   

[+cerberus1 3213]

21 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

When someone logs your cache and writes "This gets a favorite point!" but your cache doesn't get a favorite point.  Let it go?  Send a reminder?

 

Guess I'd ask, "Do you really wanna be that guy ?"    It's a favorite point.  It's not cash, and there's no award...   

We keep hard-copy lists.  One is people who ask for FPs.  We won't on any after that, maybe skip their caches too.

 - But when I'm ticked and go basic a while, I'll mention "this gets a favorite", and when pm again will add it.

[+Goldenwattle 1609]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Have you ever gone geocaching with newbies when they find trackables?

 

They don't see the TB tag; they just see the cute toy it's attached to. They don't see the geocoin; they just see a cool medallion. And these were newbies that I had just explained geocaching to (including trackables), just before we left the trailhead. They were all set to trade for the cool trinkets they'd found.

 

This isn't an uncommon thing in my experience. I don't expect newbies to know what to do with trackables.

I was a newby once. I didn't know any geocachers and went out on my own to find caches without a GPS, but from the first cache I found I knew to take a pen, and the first TB I found I knew to pass it on.  (I think I might have had all of about 30 finds.) I was thrilled when I found my first TB and felt it a responsibly to not lose it and place it in another cache. I found nothing mysterious or difficult to understand what it was. It had a tag which had a number. The caches had numbers too, which does help focus the mind that this tag also has a number and it means something.

[+L0ne.R 1738]

Especially the travel bugs. The tag clearly says not to keep it.

 

[+on4bam 1461]

Yes, but that was the time you had to read the listing on the website, learn how to use coordinates, have to find out what geocaching was about. These days clicking on a "suggestion" in the appstore will get you started in seconds so you can follow that arrow and find a box of goodies.

[+niraD 3162]

14 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Yes, but that was the time you had to read the listing on the website, learn how to use coordinates, have to find out what geocaching was about. These days clicking on a "suggestion" in the appstore will get you started in seconds so you can follow that arrow and find a box of goodies.

Even before Groundspeak's apps, back when I had to hand newbies a preprogrammed GPSr, I still saw plenty of newbies want to trade for trackables. I had explained what trackables are and even passed around examples, but when they found a trinket in a cache, they forgot all that. It was treasure a trade item, and they wanted to trade for it.

[+IceColdUK 976]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

2 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

When someone logs your cache and writes "This gets a favorite point!" but your cache doesn't get a favorite point.  Let it go?  Send a reminder?

 

Guess I'd ask, "Do you really wanna be that guy ?"    It's a favorite point.  It's not cash, and there's no award...   

We keep hard-copy lists.  One is people who ask for FPs.  We won't on any after that, maybe skip their caches too.

 - But when I'm ticked and go basic a while, I'll mention "this gets a favorite", and when pm again will add it.

It’s happened on my caches a few times, but I’ve always resisted the urge to point it out to the finder.  Just seems too needy.

 

That said, if I was contacted by the CO in the reverse situation, then assuming they were being nice about it, I’d probably go ahead and award the forgotten FP.  I certainly wouldn’t blacklist them for asking.

 

(A request for a FP when none had been offered...  Well, that would be different!)

[+barefootjeff 3634]

7 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

When someone logs your cache and writes "This gets a favorite point!" but your cache doesn't get a favorite point.  Let it go?  Send a reminder?

 

The two occasions I've done that have been when it was someone I knew really well and one of those was at a time when FPs awarded with the log (rather than added afterwards on the cache page) weren't sticking. Other times I just let it go. On one of my caches, the only person who hasn't given it an FP was the FTF who said in his log that he would, so the thought has crossed my mind once or twice, but I don't know him well enough to bother pursuing it.

[+TmdAndGG 313]

6 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

It’s happened on my caches a few times, but I’ve always resisted the urge to point it out to the finder.  Just seems too needy.

 

That said, if I was contacted by the CO in the reverse situation, then assuming they were being nice about it, I’d probably go ahead and award the forgotten FP.  I certainly wouldn’t blacklist them for asking.

 

(A request for a FP when none had been offered...  Well, that would be different!)

I 100% agree with this.

[+lee737 323]

11 hours ago, lee737 said:

When newbies with 2 finds pick up a TB from a cache, then stop caching....

 

I just checked the page - it was their first find, and they haven't found one since (2 months).... I'm less hopeful now for a return of this TB.... initially I was positive, as they had logged it properly, and it was a fair out-of-the-way cache, not your usual newbie cache (which is why we put the TB in it!).....

 

[+Goldenwattle 1609]

10 hours ago, on4bam said:

learn how to use coordinates,

I didn't use coordinates, except the car GPS (which many people have) to get me close, or to the parking spot, until I bought a hand held GPS. I had found 180 caches before that though without using coordinates for the walk to GZ. I was selective in the caches to do, and then used the hint and tried to read the ground and bushes to follow previous people to GZ. The success of that last part varied, with how often the cache was visited, ground cover, and how hard the cache was to find. With hard to find caches, I noticed that people had walked all over the place; around the bush, around that boulder, etc, which made a very confusing search. Also, I considered where would I hide a cache. This time without a GPS did teach me to look at my surrounds, but it was nice to finally get a GPS and then I learnt about those coordinates.

[+lee737 323]

This has irked me on a few occasions now - as a CO, the inability to edit/reliably censor a log on an owned cache. I'm mostly talking about spoilers, like virtual answers. A newbie with half a dozen finds found my virtual today, and posted the answers in their log. I messaged them and asked them to edit it (most can't do that anyway), but didn't hear back from them, so deleted their log. I'd much prefer to be able to blank out part of a log, I know I can 'encrypt' their log, but with a decrypt button right there it is hardly an encryption. 

[+barefootjeff 3634]

45 minutes ago, lee737 said:

This has irked me on a few occasions now - as a CO, the inability to edit/reliably censor a log on an owned cache. I'm mostly talking about spoilers, like virtual answers. A newbie with half a dozen finds found my virtual today, and posted the answers in their log. I messaged them and asked them to edit it (most can't do that anyway), but didn't hear back from them, so deleted their log. I'd much prefer to be able to blank out part of a log, I know I can 'encrypt' their log, but with a decrypt button right there it is hardly an encryption. 

 

I don't use the app much, but having just had a bit of a play, it doesn't look like there's a way to edit your logs on it once you've submitted them. With most of the newbies now being app-only and never visiting the website (they probably don't even know there is one), I fear it's going to be a growing problem.

[+lee737 323]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I don't use the app much, but having just had a bit of a play, it doesn't look like there's a way to edit your logs on it once you've submitted them. 

 

I only use the app for messaging and souvenir hunting really, so wasn't sure of that part.... I was assuming that... no need to edit "TFTC!" 

[+L0ne.R 1738]

When the cache is described as:

 

Quote

Very ingenious style of cache. Love it! Koodoos

Quote

Wow nice cache construction!

 

And this is what it looks like—a pipe bomb:

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26 by L0ne.R

[+CAVinoGal 633]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't use the app much, but having just had a bit of a play, it doesn't look like there's a way to edit your logs on it once you've submitted them.

This is true.  And one of the reasons (the primary reason) I use a draft when caching with the app, then write a real log when I get to my computer.  

[+dprovan 1499]

7 hours ago, lee737 said:

This has irked me on a few occasions now - as a CO, the inability to edit/reliably censor a log on an owned cache. I'm mostly talking about spoilers, like virtual answers. A newbie with half a dozen finds found my virtual today, and posted the answers in their log. I messaged them and asked them to edit it (most can't do that anyway), but didn't hear back from them, so deleted their log. I'd much prefer to be able to blank out part of a log, I know I can 'encrypt' their log, but with a decrypt button right there it is hardly an encryption. 

I think it would irk me much more if the CO could edit my logs and change what I said. I don't see anything to be irked about for your case: you gave them a chance, they didn't correct it, so you had to delete it entirely (a.k.a., "reliably censor"). I don't think you should feel bad about that. It's just a log. I don't have any Virtuals, but I'm guessing I would have done it the other way: immediately delete their spoiler log and tell them they can relog it without the spoiler. Not only does that immediately solve the very real problem they have created for your cache by giving away the answer, it also avoids the problem of them having to know how to edit their log because they don't edit their log, they just enter a new one.

 

What irks me is the idea that deleting a log is an inherently negative action by the CO, as if it hurts someone's feelings. The seeker made an honest mistake, the CO is sincerely helping them fix it, and if anyone's getting bend out of shape about it, they need to reconsider what's going on.

[+cerberus1 3213]

7 hours ago, lee737 said:

 I'd much prefer to be able to blank out part of a log, I know I can 'encrypt' their log, but with a decrypt button right there it is hardly an encryption. 

 

Not to interfere with your irk, but for us, if I say " boy, this cache could really use some work...", I wouldn't want to  see that deleted later if I ever went back.

While it sounds nice to be able to delete spoilers, the same option would allow COs to control what folks say about anything.

 

 

On encrypted logs...  since I do caches singly, when I see a log encrypted,  they're the first I'd read.  Kinda defeats the purpose.  

[+niraD 3162]

8 hours ago, lee737 said:

This has irked me on a few occasions now - as a CO, the inability to edit/reliably censor a log on an owned cache.

I have to agree with dprovan on this one. Delete the whole thing, encrypt the whole thing, or let the whole thing stand. Otherwise...

 

8 hours ago, lee737 said:

This has irked me on a few occasions now - as a CO, the inability to edit/reliably censor a log on an owned cache. I'm mostly talking about spoilers, like virtual answers. A newbie with half a dozen finds found my virtual today, and posted the answers in their log. I messaged them and asked them to edit it (most can't do that anyway), but didn't hear back from them, so deleted their log. I'd much prefer to be able to blank out part of a log, I know I can 'encrypt' their log, but with a decrypt button right there it is hardly an encryption. 

 

[+TeamRabbitRun 495]

 

 

 

Agree - Technically, lee737 typed it! YOU just erased some letters!  (Sorry, Lee)

Like Michaelangelo said (maybe): "'David' was always in there - I just took out the extra parts."

Edited August 21 by TeamRabbitRun

[+barefootjeff 3634]

I'm just watching events unfold on Lee's virtual, with the newbie whose log he deleted now posting a note. So I wonder, if the CO deletes a log, does the app allow you to post a new find or does it think you've already done that so only allows a WN?

[+lee737 323]

20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm just watching events unfold on Lee's virtual, with the newbie whose log he deleted now posting a note. So I wonder, if the CO deletes a log, does the app allow you to post a new find or does it think you've already done that so only allows a WN?

Amusing hey! Newbies do the darndest things! I've sent them another message.....

 

[+lee737 323]

5 hours ago, niraD said:

I have to agree with dprovan on this one. Delete the whole thing, encrypt the whole thing, or let the whole thing stand. Otherwise...

The encryption would be fine, but how it currently stands, is akin to sticking a post-it note over the text, and hoping nobody peeks.... If they change it to a one-time-pad cipher, and let the CO pick the key, I'll be happy!

[+Harry Dolphin 1129]

25 minutes ago, lee737 said:

The encryption would be fine, but how it currently stands, is akin to sticking a post-it note over the text, and hoping nobody peeks.... If they change it to a one-time-pad cipher, and let the CO pick the key, I'll be happy!

 

A CO encrypted one of my logs.  In the edit log, I decrypted it!

[+lee737 323]

3 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

A CO encrypted one of my logs.  In the edit log, I decrypted it!

Yes, its useless - its an honesty encryption system....

 

Edited August 21 by lee737

[+niraD 3162]

3 hours ago, lee737 said:

The encryption would be fine, but how it currently stands, is akin to sticking a post-it note over the text, and hoping nobody peeks.... If they change it to a one-time-pad cipher, and let the CO pick the key, I'll be happy!

ROT13 had never been used for secure encryption. The point isn't to prevent someone from reading something. The point is to allow people to choose whether or not they want to read something.

[+ecanderson 550]

11 hours ago, niraD said:

ROT13 had never been used for secure encryption. The point isn't to prevent someone from reading something. The point is to allow people to choose whether or not they want to read something.

Yes, but which of us doesn't recognize the word 'magnetic' in ROT-13 at a glance, now?

[+IceColdUK 976]

7 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Yes, but which of us doesn't recognize the word 'magnetic' in ROT-13 at a glance, now?

I hate spotting ‘vil’ in a hint.  E-vil more like!

[+barefootjeff 3634]

This is the latest log on one of Barrenjoey headland caches I adopted a couple of years ago:

 

 

What charming people these modern day app-wielding cachers are. Looks like I'd better postpone my planned caching trip up north tomorrow and instead take the ferry over to Palm Beach to check on it. Why did I ever want to be a CO?

Edited August 23 by barefootjeff

[+colleda 832]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This is the latest log on one of Barrenjoey headland caches I adopted a couple of years ago:

 

 

What charming people these modern day app-wielding cachers are. Looks like I'd better postpone my planned caching trip up north tomorrow and instead take the ferry over to Palm Beach to check on it. Why did I ever want to be a CO?

Perhaps you could wait for other logs to establish if there is really anything wrong. Pissant can have several meanings.

[+Goldenwattle 1609]

2 minutes ago, colleda said:

Perhaps you could wait for other logs to establish if there is really anything wrong. Pissant can have several meanings.

I suspect many of these caches are not found very often. barefootjeff might be waiting for months to find out.

[+colleda 832]

3 minutes ago, colleda said:

Perhaps you could wait for other logs to establish if there is really anything wrong. Pissant can have several meanings.

There's a Found It log today  stating all is good.

[+colleda 832]

Just now, Goldenwattle said:

I suspect many of these caches are not found very often. barefootjeff might be waiting for months to find out.

the cache is in a popular spot for visitors.

[+The Jester 561]

It brought to mind some advice I heard a long time ago:  If someone calls you a horse, ignore him.  If two people call you a horse, think about it.  If three call you a horse, buy a saddle.  So I'd hold judgement until a second or third make comment...

[+colleda 832]

20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This is the latest log on one of Barrenjoey headland caches I adopted a couple of years ago:

 

 

What charming people these modern day app-wielding cachers are. Looks like I'd better postpone my planned caching trip up north tomorrow and instead take the ferry over to Palm Beach to check on it. Why did I ever want to be a CO?

I've just noticed that the finder has logged finds on a few of my caches. At least the log on yours is a real word. This is a one word log they left "Ldmsbfkelsn". Other logs had similar nonsense(?).

Nonsense logs irk me.

[+barefootjeff 3634]

1 hour ago, colleda said:

There's a Found It log today  stating all is good.

 

That log might have today's date, but it was posted at 1am and their signature in the logbook precedes the "pissant" one. So yes, I did go and check and, apart from it again not being placed back correctly, it was otherwise okay. This is the cache and contents:

 

 

The view from GZ:

 

 

and the close-by historical marker where the first lighthouse on the headland was built, after which the cache is named:

 

 

So I don't know why that logger thought it was worthless, contemptible, insignificant or an ant that smells of urine. At least they didn't piss in it, which is something I suppose; after what happened a week ago, I was half expecting that. Maybe they were expecting the Great Wall of China and the Lighthouse of Alexandria, the latter being an appropriate Wonder for this cache to have I guess.

 

Edited August 24 by barefootjeff

[+colleda 832]

38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

That log might have today's date, but it was posted at 1am and their signature in the logbook precedes the "pissant" one. So yes, I did go and check and, apart from it again not being placed back correctly, it was otherwise okay. This is the cache and contents:

 

 

The view from GZ:

 

 

and the close-by historical marker where the first lighthouse on the headland was built, after which the cache is named:

 

 

So I don't know why that logger thought it was worthless, contemptible, insignificant or an ant that smells of urine. At least they didn't piss in it, which is something I suppose; after what happened a week ago, I was half expecting that. Maybe they were expecting the Great Wall of China and the Lighthouse of Alexandria, the latter being an appropriate Wonder for this cache to have I guess.

 

This is a cache I should have as I've been to Patonga a few times, as recently as two weeks ago but never at a convenient time to get the ferry over. I'll get there one day.

Lethargy irks me. I've been meaning to post that for a while now.

[+on4bam 1461]

Same irk as before.

Cache placed July 25th 2020, archived August 24th 2020 CO log: Too much maintenance

Cache placed July 24th 2020, archived August 23th 2020 CO log: cache destroyed a few times... removed

Cache series placed June 16th 2020, archived August 24th 2020 CO log: Too much maintenance  (the whole series of 28 caches was archived)

 

Second irk: logs in the above series "didn't find but found" (found log)

 

Wouldn't it be nice if CO's who don't keep their caches active (and maintained) for at least 3 months got a "time out" for placing new caches?

 

While we're at it, one traditional cache in a series had posted coordinates about 50m  off. The listing said "cache is really at N***** E***** but that's too close to GCxxxxx so cache is not at posted coordinates".

The cache was found and DNF'd several times before someone posted a NA. A reviewer quickly archived the cache.

 

 

[+coachstahly 681]

9 hours ago, on4bam said:

Same irk as before.

Cache placed July 25th 2020, archived August 24th 2020 CO log: Too much maintenance

Cache placed July 24th 2020, archived August 23th 2020 CO log: cache destroyed a few times... removed

Cache series placed June 16th 2020, archived August 24th 2020 CO log: Too much maintenance  (the whole series of 28 caches was archived)

 

Second irk: logs in the above series "didn't find but found" (found log)

 

Wouldn't it be nice if CO's who don't keep their caches active (and maintained) for at least 3 months got a "time out" for placing new caches?

 

While we're at it, one traditional cache in a series had posted coordinates about 50m  off. The listing said "cache is really at N***** E***** but that's too close to GCxxxxx so cache is not at posted coordinates".

The cache was found and DNF'd several times before someone posted a NA. A reviewer quickly archived the cache.

 

 

 

While I have an issue with "too much maintenance", there are times when a new cache just isn't feasible for the location it was placed and it should be archived.  I don't know if that's really grounds for a temporary ban on new placements.  If it's a regular thing, then maybe but even then the best laid plans don't always succeed.  I think your second example is one that was most likely out of the CO's hands since it was destroyed repeatedly rather than a maintenance expectation that exceeded their original thought.

 

I would be curious to know if the "not really at posted coordinates" was added after publication, as I expect it probably was.

[+on4bam 1461]

Some more

Placed by CO with 17 finds: placed Aug 16th, archived by reviewer. Listing: Cache can be found 30m to the right of posted coordinates  (archived by reviewer).

 

[+Goldenwattle 1609]

23 hours ago, on4bam said:

Cache placed July 25th 2020, archived August 24th 2020 CO log: Too much maintenance

Some COs lack the intelligence and imagination to see that a cache of that size (say nano)/placed in that location/etc would need lots of maintenance. It's not just inexperience; there should be some common sense (intelligence) by those COs.

 

23 hours ago, on4bam said:

Wouldn't it be nice if CO's who don't keep their caches active (and maintained) for at least 3 months got a "time out" for placing new caches?

 

Agreed. Also, need to have a minimum of finds before being able to place a cache. This could be flexible, depending on the location.

 

23 hours ago, on4bam said:

While we're at it, one traditional cache in a series had posted coordinates about 50m  off. The listing said "cache is really at N***** E***** but that's too close to GCxxxxx so cache is not at posted coordinates".

The cache was found and DNF'd several times before someone posted a NA. A reviewer quickly archived the cache.

Ha, ha, I had 'conversations' both with logs and private messages with one CO with a cache that had off-coordinates. Others were doing similar. I think 150 to 200 metres off in this location. I carefully and patiently explained how to fix the coordinates a number of times. They called me a troll, and said they would report me. I can't remember what I replied, but I might have said, 'go ahead', knowing the reviewer would not side with them. Turns out there was another cache near where they placed their cache and so they couldn't have that spot, but they thought it was their right to have that spot. Meanwhile several cachers were messaging each other about this CO. One messaged me to say, "They're mad". The reviewer came in and disabled the cache. The CO immediately re-enable it without moving their cache. The reviewer came back and said they were not playing games and disabled it again. It was archived.

Edited August 27 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff 3634]

On 8/26/2020 at 7:24 PM, on4bam said:

Wouldn't it be nice if CO's who don't keep their caches active (and maintained) for at least 3 months got a "time out" for placing new caches?

 

Sometimes things can go bad in spite of the CO's best intentions. My Nemophilist Challenge cache, published last October, was only active for a month before I had to disable it for most of the summer as the surrounding national park was closed due to the extreme fire risk. It was only a fortuitous wind change that kept the Three Mile fire from spreading east into the park, otherwise it would have been curtains for that cache. Should I have been given a "time out" for that?

 

Natural calamities, and even man-made ones like a tree-climb cache having its tree cut down, can happen at any time. I've lost a few due to huge seas, floods and a rock fall, fortunately the caches concerned had a reasonable lifespan before those things forced their achival but that was just good luck rather than any foresight on my part.

[+TeamRabbitRun 495]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

<...>

 

Agreed. Also, need to have a minimum of finds before being able to place a cache. This could be flexible, depending on the location.

 

<...>

 

GW - As attractive an idea as this is, it's been argued six ways from Sunday in these fora and it always comes down to being an unworkable concept for a whole passel of very valid reasons. 

 

I DON'T want to open up the whole debate again, but I urge you to do some research in here and catch the arguments, both for and against.

[+Goldenwattle 1609]

1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

GW - As attractive an idea as this is, it's been argued six ways from Sunday in these fora and it always comes down to being an unworkable concept for a whole passel of very valid reasons. 

 

I DON'T want to open up the whole debate again, but I urge you to do some research in here and catch the arguments, both for and against.

I don't need to do the research, as I have read them, both for and against, but I am still entitled to reiterate my point of view in passing. If you hadn't unnecessarily commented in the way you did, that would have been it. Just a casual, passing comment; nothing more; slotted between other comments. You made it more.

[+NYPaddleCacher 1774]

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Agreed. Also, need to have a minimum of finds before being able to place a cache. This could be flexible, depending on the location.

 

It would have to be.  My issue with the minimum number of finds before placing a cache suggestion is that for a cache dense area, which may not need more caches, it would be very easy to get enough finds to place more caches.  For cache sparse areas, places which could use more caches, it could be a challenge to nearly impossible to place a new cache without traveling elsewhere to finds a few caches.  

Edited August 27 by NYPaddleCacher

[+niraD 3162]

25 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

It would have to be.  My issue with the minimum number of finds before placing a cache suggestion is that for a cache dense area, which may not need more caches, it would be very easy to get enough finds to place more caches.  For cache sparse areas, places which could use more caches, it could be a challenge to nearly impossible to place a new cache without traveling elsewhere to finds a few caches.  

Also, spending a weekend on a numbers trail with some geocaching buddies teaches a newbie very little about geocaching or about cache ownership. Finding half a dozen varied caches would teach a newbie a lot more. But guess which newbie would qualify to hide a cache under these "minimum number of finds" suggestions that keep popping up...

[+Goldenwattle 1609]

30 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

For cache sparse areas, places which could use more caches, it could be a challenge to nearly impossible to place a new cache without traveling elsewhere to finds a few caches.

That's why I said it would need to be flexible. I was thinking of areas with few caches, and especially areas where people are only beginning to cache. Someone has to place the first caches there, and that might need to be beginners, because there is no one else who can. However, in areas with lots of caches to find, I think beginners should be given the opportunity to get more experience finding caches, before they can place a cache.