Geocache Exiled

[+MikeofKorea]

There is a travel bug hotel I want to go to, and the cache page seems normal, people have found it and logged and taken/dropped TBs there, but the name has the word "exiled" in it in parentheses. Does these mean something I should know, or did the creator of the cache have some esoteric notion in mind?

[Pup Patrol]

There is a travel bug hotel I want to go to, and the cache page seems normal, people have found it and logged and taken/dropped TBs there, but the name has the word "exiled" in it in parentheses. Does these mean something I should know, or did the creator of the cache have some esoteric notion in mind?

 

I couldn't possibly guess, without any context.

 

Post the GC code and we can all take a look at the cache page.

 

 

B.

[+kunarion]

There is a travel bug hotel I want to go to, and the cache page seems normal, people have found it and logged and taken/dropped TBs there, but the name has the word "exiled" in it in parentheses. Does these mean something I should know, or did the creator of the cache have some esoteric notion in mind?

I found one where the Cache Owner specifies that the cache was not allowed at the intended location (an airport). So the cache is as close as possible, but not at the named location, "exiled". But that one has special Trackable trading requirements, so I wouldn't place a TB there.

Edited August 13, 2013 by kunarion

[+Colonial Cats]

 

I found one where the Cache Owner specifies that the cache was not allowed at the intended location (an airport). So the cache is as close as possible, but not at the named location, "exiled". But that one has special Trackable trading requirements, so I wouldn't place a TB there.

Is that even allowed?

[+Don_J]

There is a travel bug hotel I want to go to, and the cache page seems normal, people have found it and logged and taken/dropped TBs there, but the name has the word "exiled" in it in parentheses. Does these mean something I should know, or did the creator of the cache have some esoteric notion in mind?

I found one where the Cache Owner specifies that the cache was not allowed at the intended location (an airport). So the cache is as close as possible, but not at the named location, "exiled". But that one has special Trackable trading requirements, so I wouldn't place a TB there.

 

Since this cache is in the OP's area, it's likely the cache that he is inquiring about.

[+niraD]

But that one has special Trackable trading requirements, so I wouldn't place a TB there.

Is that even allowed?

No, on two levels. First, it violates the guidelines against additional logging requirements. Second, trackables belong to their owners, not to the CO, and no one needs to trade to help a trackable move.

[+Walts Hunting]

 

I found one where the Cache Owner specifies that the cache was not allowed at the intended location (an airport). So the cache is as close as possible, but not at the named location, "exiled". But that one has special Trackable trading requirements, so I wouldn't place a TB there.

Is that even allowed?

Go there. Take all travelers. Log and move them. Repeat until restrictions removed.

[+wmpastor]

 

I found one where the Cache Owner specifies that the cache was not allowed at the intended location (an airport). So the cache is as close as possible, but not at the named location, "exiled". But that one has special Trackable trading requirements, so I wouldn't place a TB there.

Is that even allowed?

Go there. Take all travelers. Log and move them. Repeat until restrictions removed.

Let's lighten up about the "restrictions. " They're a request that's not enforceable. No big deal. He even says take more TBs if you'll take them far.

[+MikeofKorea]

GC2E2DB

[Pup Patrol]

GC2E2DB

 

Yup, kunarion linked to it in his post.

 

Ignore the cache owner's ridiculous restrictions on trackables. Take as many as you can and free them from that trackable prison.

 

Trackables belong to the trackable owner, and their movement shouldn't be "controlled" by a cache owner.

 

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

 

I found one where the Cache Owner specifies that the cache was not allowed at the intended location (an airport). So the cache is as close as possible, but not at the named location, "exiled". But that one has special Trackable trading requirements, so I wouldn't place a TB there.

Is that even allowed?

Go there. Take all travelers. Log and move them. Repeat until restrictions removed.

Let's lighten up about the "restrictions. " They're a request that's not enforceable. No big deal. He even says take more TBs if you'll take them far.

 

The problem is that not all cachers know that a cache owner has no right to post those types of restrictions on trackables.

 

It doesn't matter if one can take a trackable far or not. That is an even more ridiculous thing to post about trackables.

 

Take them, log them properly, move them on according to the trackable owner's wishes (if any), no matter what a cache owner posts in their cache page.

 

 

B.

[+kunarion]

GC2E2DB

Even though it has a somewhat TB Prison-like cache description, I'm still thinking that "exiled" is about the cache location. That it was not allowed at the airport, therefore "removed to a remote location", or said to be "exiled". It's not as close to the airport as the Cache Owner had hoped. If there's still a question, you could state the guess in your log, "I'm guessing 'exiled' means it's away from the terminal?", or better yet, ask the CO.

 

This is the text on the cache page that I felt was the clue:

 

"Note: I intended to have the cache nearer to the Terminal building in order to allow geocachers to run out from the Terminal to log it even if they do not stay in Korea. The original position did not pass, so this is the closest possible."

Edited August 13, 2013 by kunarion

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I found one where the Cache Owner specifies that the cache was not allowed at the intended location (an airport). So the cache is as close as possible, but not at the named location, "exiled". But that one has special Trackable trading requirements, so I wouldn't place a TB there.

Is that even allowed?

 

No, that is not allowed, and this cache owner has just about the strongest "it's a rule" language I've ever seen on a "travel bug prison", as such caches have been referred to for many years in the Travel Bug sub-forum.

 

"Take one leave one" travel bug rules conveniently became illegal the day ALR's were outlawed. So who knows what that date was? This cache was placed in 2010. And by the way, I've seen several with "take one leave one" language that get by the reviewers anyways. Sometimes, one would almost think they don't even read the cache page.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Sometimes, one would almost think they don't even read the cache page.

More likely the CO edits the listing after it is published.

[Mr.Yuck]

Sometimes, one would almost think they don't even read the cache page.

More likely the CO edits the listing after it is published.

 

Yes, people pull that one all the time. I don't want to get in any trouble here. I'm not saying a lot, and that any sizable portion of the reviewer team doesn't read the body of the cache description. But some of the "mistakes" I've seen over the years (blatant admissions of vacaction caches, caches that should be "mystery or puzzle caches" submitted and published as a traditional), have lead me to believe "no way in heck reviewer dude read the cache description".

[+MikeofKorea]

I'm American, but got started in geocaching here in Korea, and the Korean situation is a little different. It's a tiny country, so a Travel Bug isn't going to travel very far anyway unless people who are leaving can get to the TBs and take them. I like the idea of a TB hotel near the airport, though. I wish it were bigger, though. It's a fake rock and holds only a couple regular size TBs at a time.

[+Kacher82]

 

I found one where the Cache Owner specifies that the cache was not allowed at the intended location (an airport). So the cache is as close as possible, but not at the named location, "exiled". But that one has special Trackable trading requirements, so I wouldn't place a TB there.

Is that even allowed?

 

No, that is not allowed, and this cache owner has just about the strongest "it's a rule" language I've ever seen on a "travel bug prison", as such caches have been referred to for many years in the Travel Bug sub-forum.

 

"Take one leave one" travel bug rules conveniently became illegal the day ALR's were outlawed. So who knows what that date was? This cache was placed in 2010. And by the way, I've seen several with "take one leave one" language that get by the reviewers anyways. Sometimes, one would almost think they don't even read the cache page.

I've seen a few caches around here that request TBs to be traded, but they're worded in such a way that it's a request, not a rule. I still don't like it, but that would probably pass.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm American, but got started in geocaching here in Korea, and the Korean situation is a little different. It's a tiny country, so a Travel Bug isn't going to travel very far anyway unless people who are leaving can get to the TBs and take them. I like the idea of a TB hotel near the airport, though. I wish it were bigger, though. It's a fake rock and holds only a couple regular size TBs at a time.

 

I can see that. And no one is going to report this cache owner (or at least I hope not, sometimes knuckleheads who just read and don't post report stuff), but you are most definitely not allowed to put RULES on your cache page. And this guy definitely refers to them as rules.

[+tallglenn]

Imagine the restrictions it would have if it were in NORTH Korea.