Standards are slipping..

6.1k · September 17, 2013

There is a rather nice geotrail near here. I don't want to say powertrail, as the hides are all unique, even though it does have identical descriptions on each page. The other day I received an e-mail from a cache on my watchlist that was not on the trail, but near it.

Replaced Quite a few missing Containers.

There shouldn't be any DNF's on this trail because you are asked to replace any missing caches. we replaced quite a few today ,some of them are just a log in a pill bag under a rock.

I checked and it does say something to that effect on the pages now, although I don't think it did when I did part of it. However, I don't think its such a good idea to be replacing containers on geotrails that do not have identical hides. And I don't think leaving a pill bag under a rock is a good idea for any cache. The next finder, and several others would report that it needs maintenance. Then the cache is found right where it should be, and in fine shape.

If you are going to leave a throwdown, how about using an actual container? And keep it limited to the geotrail? With the copy and paste logs, nobody can tell which ones, or how many were "replaced" this way. The finders probably do not remember either.

</rant>

7.3k · September 17, 2013

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427

4.5k · September 17, 2013

This is not anything new,, the standards have been slipping for a while and are now beginning to avalanche.

September 17, 2013

There is a rather nice geotrail near here. I don't want to say powertrail, as the hides are all unique, even though it does have identical descriptions on each page. The other day I received an e-mail from a cache on my watchlist that was not on the trail, but near it.

Replaced Quite a few missing Containers.

There shouldn't be any DNF's on this trail because you are asked to replace any missing caches. we replaced quite a few today ,some of them are just a log in a pill bag under a rock.

I checked and it does say something to that effect on the pages now, although I don't think it did when I did part of it. However, I don't think its such a good idea to be replacing containers on geotrails that do not have identical hides. And I don't think leaving a pill bag under a rock is a good idea for any cache. The next finder, and several others would report that it needs maintenance. Then the cache is found right where it should be, and in fine shape.

If you are going to leave a throwdown, how about using an actual container? And keep it limited to the geotrail? With the copy and paste logs, nobody can tell which ones, or how many were "replaced" this way. The finders probably do not remember either.

</rant>

I have been kicking around an idea for a geotrail along a bike trail and every couple of miles having an ammo can with logsheets, baggies, and some pill bottles so that if cachers want to, they can stock up and replace as needed. I am a little less sure about the pill bottles just because they take up so much room.

6.1k · September 17, 2013

Pill bottles are fine. Small cellophane pill baggies though?

2.8k · September 17, 2013

Pill bottles are fine. Small cellophane pill baggies though?

Pill bottles are not watertight and will eventually leak.

6.1k · September 17, 2013

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427

Technically is it really a throwdown, if an actual container was not used?

September 17, 2013

This topic brought something to mind. I think I will set up a powertrail by looking at Google Maps and determining a stretch of road that I can use. Figure out where the 528' spacing would be. Record the coordinates and publish. Place two buckets of film canisters, one at each end of the trail. Then put the "Help with maintenance........" in the description. Now as people go to search for the caches along the trail they will set the trail up and I won't have to waste gas placing the containers. The FTF's will have that chore. :rolleyes: What do you think?

September 17, 2013

There is a rather nice geotrail near here. I don't want to say powertrail, as the hides are all unique, even though it does have identical descriptions on each page. The other day I received an e-mail from a cache on my watchlist that was not on the trail, but near it.

Replaced Quite a few missing Containers.

There shouldn't be any DNF's on this trail because you are asked to replace any missing caches. we replaced quite a few today ,some of them are just a log in a pill bag under a rock.

I checked and it does say something to that effect on the pages now, although I don't think it did when I did part of it. However, I don't think its such a good idea to be replacing containers on geotrails that do not have identical hides. And I don't think leaving a pill bag under a rock is a good idea for any cache. The next finder, and several others would report that it needs maintenance. Then the cache is found right where it should be, and in fine shape.

If you are going to leave a throwdown, how about using an actual container? And keep it limited to the geotrail? With the copy and paste logs, nobody can tell which ones, or how many were "replaced" this way. The finders probably do not remember either.

</rant>

How about changing that sentence to: "If you are going to leave a throwdown, DON'T!" Saves a lot of discussion about what is a valid/legal/correct/etc. container.

Edited September 17, 2013 by rosebud55112

September 17, 2013

This topic brought something to mind. I think I will set up a powertrail by looking at Google Maps and determining a stretch of road that I can use. Figure out where the 528' spacing would be. Record the coordinates and publish. Place two buckets of film canisters, one at each end of the trail. Then put the "Help with maintenance........" in the description. Now as people go to search for the caches along the trail they will set the trail up and I won't have to waste gas placing the containers. The FTF's will have that chore. What do you think?

NOW THATS FUNNY

1.1k · September 17, 2013

This topic brought something to mind. I think I will set up a powertrail by looking at Google Maps and determining a stretch of road that I can use. Figure out where the 528' spacing would be. Record the coordinates and publish. Place two buckets of film canisters, one at each end of the trail. Then put the "Help with maintenance........" in the description. Now as people go to search for the caches along the trail they will set the trail up and I won't have to waste gas placing the containers. The FTF's will have that chore. What do you think?

NOW THATS FUNNY

LOL :laughing:

I have a cache that is a mile or so from the start of a power trail. Every so often someone drops a film can and fails to find the cache or sign the log. I make a point of checking the log book against the on-line logs and delete the log for any throw downs.

September 17, 2013

There's nothing wrong with helping a CO to maintain their trail, but before you place a replacement container, you need to make very VERY sure the original is in fact missing. It wouldn't be the first time I found two caches in the same location.

9.3k · September 17, 2013

Groundspeak should archive any cache with that text on the page.

6k · September 17, 2013

Groundspeak should archive any cache with that text on the page.

I would bet that that wasn't on the page when the reviewer saw it. Maybe a NA log commenting on the violation of guidelines require the CO to maintain the caches. Or if you want to do it quietly just a note to the reviewer. Personally I prefer open warfare.

September 18, 2013

Im the co-owner of a large challenge trail in Nebraska and we do not allow throw downs, we maintain our caches and the hides are tough! If you do the work to setup a power trail maybe you should take care of it

6.1k · September 18, 2013

This topic brought something to mind. I think I will set up a powertrail by looking at Google Maps and determining a stretch of road that I can use. Figure out where the 528' spacing would be. Record the coordinates and publish. Place two buckets of film canisters, one at each end of the trail. Then put the "Help with maintenance........" in the description. Now as people go to search for the caches along the trail they will set the trail up and I won't have to waste gas placing the containers. The FTF's will have that chore. What do you think?

It's funny now, but who knows what another five years in this direction what will occur?

I have provided some actual containers at the beginning and end of the trail for you old fashioned traditionalists who like to find containers. Feel free to place them where you may, but please don't sign any logs as they may get filled up quickly and need maintenance. They are only placed for nostalgic purposes.

And after some more time..

This page is to represent the Eastern geotrail x which starts at point A and ends at point B, 3000 miles away. As you know, powertrails are out, as writing up that many pages is a silly waste of time. Simply record how many tenths of a mile you drive along this route, and log all of your mileage right here with multiple logs. Why bother with all of the copy and paste cache pages and logs scattered in different places? Just log it all right here.

Edited September 18, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

9.3k · September 18, 2013

Virtual tours via Google Earth?

No need to drive that pesky power trail...

38.2k · September 18, 2013

Groundspeak should archive any cache with that text on the page.

I would hope so. It is a violation of the maintenance guideline. Unfortunately it has become part of the power trail ethic and that "ethic" is now seeping into the geocaching world.

September 18, 2013

Groundspeak should archive any cache with that text on the page.

I would hope so. It is a violation of the maintenance guideline. Unfortunately it has become part of the power trail ethic and that "ethic" is now seeping into the geocaching world.

So why isn't anything being done about it? all the crying and whining that was done over how bad virtual were gave way to what - power trails? More LPC's? My pill bottles in guardrails and whizbangs in trees?

otherwise all that is ever done about it is complaining to no end or result in the forums.why does Groundspeak insist on allow this kind of garbage into the game?

(and if i hear one more time, different people play the game different ways - you dont like it go somewhere else...or "just ignore those caches" i am going to spew - too bad there isnt a vomiting frog emoticon)

Edited September 18, 2013 by nthacker66

2.6k · September 18, 2013

How do you guys feel about this situation....I find a cache container that I know to be a throwdown (log sheet says "A Cache By ________" (thrower's handle). When I sign the log I find there is only one sig on it, but when I visit the listing online to log it, there have been several finds since the throwdown, none of whose sigs were on the log sheet. So obviously there is (or at least WAS) an original container still in play since the throwdown (and I didn't find it). This has happened to me a couple of times now (same thrower, oddly enough)

So claim a find or no? Discuss.....

6.1k · September 18, 2013

How do you guys feel about this situation....I find a cache container that I know to be a throwdown (log sheet says "A Cache By ________" (thrower's handle). When I sign the log I find there is only one sig on it, but when I visit the listing online to log it, there have been several finds since the throwdown, none of whose sigs were on the log sheet. So obviously there is (or at least WAS) an original container still in play since the throwdown (and I didn't find it). This has happened to me a couple of times now (same thrower, oddly enough)

So claim a find or no? Discuss.....

I wouldn't. Perhaps the other finders found a different throwdown. Who knows?

38.2k · September 18, 2013

why does Groundspeak insist on allow this kind of garbage into the game?

Because most "geocachers" seem to like it.

September 18, 2013

Virtual tours via Google Earth?

No need to drive that pesky power trail...

What if I 'thought' about doing that power trail?

That should earn some smilies too!

September 18, 2013

zzzzz.....mmmm.. powertrail zzzzzz.....mmmm.. powertrail zzzzz

September 18, 2013

why does Groundspeak insist on allow this kind of garbage into the game?

Because most "geocachers" seem to like it.

Ah yes, it makes me bow to the nobility of the cacher riding a lark around an event, oxygen tank hooked on bragging about having 22,000 finds, to my paltry 1380.

As I said, the "language of location" needs to be spoken a little bit better.

September 18, 2013

I also doubt anyone can say honestly, the quality of caches and caching in general has increased.

Besides the usual high profile, high impact aspect of PT's this is what worries me - I am now seeing hiking trails become PT's of sorts. I just did dragons tooth yeterday and was on the AT. I cringed to think someone is going to get it in there heads to take a section of the AT and start hanging wisents in trees every 528 feet.

Its being done on lesser trails already.

6.5k · September 18, 2013

Pill bottles are fine. Small cellophane pill baggies though?

Pill bottles are not watertight and will eventually leak.

I guess it depends on when you start the time line claiming that 'only high quality caches are going to be listed'?

I saw camo taped pill bottles in LP skirts back in '04. I saw small duct taped ziplocs called pouches or joeys back in '05.

I found a quart sized pouch cache this past Sunday that's been in the woods for 3+ years; the log was dry and in good shape.

Groundspeak should archive any cache with that text on the page.

I agree, how do you suggest it is enforced? Particularly when CO's can edit the page after it's published.

I also doubt anyone can say honestly, the quality of caches and caching in general has increased.

Besides the usual high profile, high impact aspect of PT's this is what worries me - I am now seeing hiking trails become PT's of sorts. I just did dragons tooth yeterday and was on the AT. I cringed to think someone is going to get it in there heads to take a section of the AT and start hanging wisents in trees every 528 feet.

Its being done on lesser trails already.

Last time I checked, there weren't any caches on the AT anymore, and aren't likely to be in the near future unless something changes with the people who claim to manage that piece of land.

September 18, 2013

Last time I checked, there weren't any caches on the AT anymore, and aren't likely to be in the near future unless something changes with the people who claim to manage that piece of land.

That is interesting, because I could have sworn I just did a cache on the AT yesterday.

September 18, 2013

Last time I checked, there weren't any caches on the AT anymore, and aren't likely to be in the near future unless something changes with the people who claim to manage that piece of land.

That is interesting, because I could have sworn I just did a cache on the AT yesterday.

mmhmm, pretty sure I did

http://coord.info/GCPKHG

9.3k · September 18, 2013

Groundspeak should archive any cache with that text on the page.

I agree, how do you suggest it is enforced?

Maybe the same way Groundspeak enforces other guideline violations? :unsure:

It doesn't seem all that complex to me.

6.1k · September 18, 2013

Last time I checked, there weren't any caches on the AT anymore, and aren't likely to be in the near future unless something changes with the people who claim to manage that piece of land.

That is interesting, because I could have sworn I just did a cache on the AT yesterday.

mmhmm, pretty sure I did

http://coord.info/GCPKHG

There may be a few that remain accidentally, although there wont be any new ones published. A group gave Groundspeak a list of offending caches, and all were archived. They missed a few (such as that one), and even included some that were not on the trail or near it, but which were archived anyway.

6.1k · September 18, 2013

Groundspeak should archive any cache with that text on the page.

I agree, how do you suggest it is enforced?

Maybe the same way Groundspeak enforces other guideline violations?

It doesn't seem all that complex to me.

The actual wording is

If you would like to help maintain this trail series, please bring extra containers and extra logs with you. If you see that a container is damaged or missing, please replace it. This allows you to not only log the find but helps cachers that follow you.

7.5k · September 18, 2013

How do you guys feel about this situation....I find a cache container that I know to be a throwdown (log sheet says "A Cache By ________" (thrower's handle). When I sign the log I find there is only one sig on it, but when I visit the listing online to log it, there have been several finds since the throwdown, none of whose sigs were on the log sheet. So obviously there is (or at least WAS) an original container still in play since the throwdown (and I didn't find it). This has happened to me a couple of times now (same thrower, oddly enough)

So claim a find or no? Discuss.....

I would log the find in most cases. Even with those elements that make it questionable, I can't really be sure I didn't find the authorized cache. Who knows what the other people found, if anything? If there was enough evidence to convince me what I found absolutely wasn't the right container -- like one of the other logs saying, "I found a stupid throwdown, but also found the real cache" -- then I probably wouldn't.

This has only happened to me once so far. (Throwdowns aren't done very often in my area.) I'd already logged the find, but it was convenient for me to go back and look again to find and sign the real cache. Then I logged a note making sure everyone knew what was going on.

Edited September 18, 2013 by dprovan

9.3k · September 18, 2013

The actual wording is

If you would like to help maintain this trail series, please bring extra containers and extra logs with you. If you see that a container is damaged or missing, please replace it. This allows you to not only log the find but helps cachers that follow you.

Since the intent of such carefully crafted wordsmithing is to demonstrate to any who can read that the owner has no intention of performing the maintenance they agreed to perform when they submitted the cache page for review, that seems like grounds for not just archival, but locking as well, since, presumably, the cache owner changed the listing post publication.

14k · September 18, 2013

The actual wording is

If you would like to help maintain this trail series, please bring extra containers and extra logs with you. If you see that a container is damaged or missing, please replace it. This allows you to not only log the find but helps cachers that follow you.

Since the intent of such carefully crafted wordsmithing is to demonstrate to any who can read that the owner has no intention of performing the maintenance they agreed to perform when they submitted the cache page for review, that seems like grounds for not just archival, but locking as well, since, presumably, the cache owner changed the listing post publication.

Assuming that the cache owner changed the listing post publication such that it violates maintenance guidelines it's up to the geocaching community to notify the reviewer that the listing is no longer in compliance with the guidelines.

The problem is that there are too many cachers which place a higher value on getting a find (and incrementing their find count) than having a cache listing which complies with the guidelines so the listing remains as it is.

6.5k · September 18, 2013

Last time I checked, there weren't any caches on the AT anymore, and aren't likely to be in the near future unless something changes with the people who claim to manage that piece of land.

That is interesting, because I could have sworn I just did a cache on the AT yesterday.

mmhmm, pretty sure I did

http://coord.info/GCPKHG

Cool you managed to find one that was overlooked during the great AT Cache Purge of 2008. Ask me about it next time we're at an event together.

Don't make too much noise about it, otherwise they might force that one to be archived too.

Here's five pages of reading material in case you can't wait until the next event that we're both at to discuss it.

38.2k · September 18, 2013

Last time I checked, there weren't any caches on the AT anymore, and aren't likely to be in the near future unless something changes with the people who claim to manage that piece of land.

That is interesting, because I could have sworn I just did a cache on the AT yesterday.

mmhmm, pretty sure I did

http://coord.info/GCPKHG

Cool you managed to find one that was overlooked during the great AT Cache Purge of 2008. Ask me about it next time we're at an event together.

Don't make too much noise about it, otherwise they might force that one to be archived too.

Here's five pages of reading material in case you can't wait until the next event that we're both at to discuss it.

Actually there were a lot missed by that purge. I own two that are still out there. There are close to a dozen more in NJ and I've found AT caches in NY, MA and VT since 2008. That purge left hundreds of caches in the AT corridor and went after caches nowhere near it. It was a strange list. Some caches in parking lots were on the list and some caches hidden in or near shelters were not.

Edited September 18, 2013 by briansnat

September 19, 2013

at any rate, it was a bad snap judgement to just jump to purging them....the AT runs on lands managed by federal, state and local entities as well as private land owners. Since then, policies have changed to more positive and welcoming attitudes towards caching.

I don't think it is healthy to hold any grudges for people simply being misinformed.

Heck, we have a 50 start geoart published in national forest land (and in designated wilderness area) that the land manager was more than happy to allow.

3.2k · September 19, 2013

Last time I checked, there weren't any caches on the AT anymore, and aren't likely to be in the near future unless something changes with the people who claim to manage that piece of land.

That is interesting, because I could have sworn I just did a cache on the AT yesterday.

The AT is a long trail with different managers in charge of various sections. Unfortunately the rules seem to up the the local Czar.

6.1k · September 19, 2013

The actual wording is

If you would like to help maintain this trail series, please bring extra containers and extra logs with you. If you see that a container is damaged or missing, please replace it. This allows you to not only log the find but helps cachers that follow you.

Since the intent of such carefully crafted wordsmithing is to demonstrate to any who can read that the owner has no intention of performing the maintenance they agreed to perform when they submitted the cache page for review, that seems like grounds for not just archival, but locking as well, since, presumably, the cache owner changed the listing post publication.

Well, it's a very nice trail with unique hides all along it and I'd hate to see that happen. Several are creative. I just don't think that asking for maintenance on such a trail is a good idea. You would have about 100 NA logs to submit, and that would likely get the CO upset, and I doubt the reviewer would act on it.

Edited September 19, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

6.1k · September 19, 2013

There also is nothing in this thread that should be about the AT.

4.6k · September 19, 2013

Assuming that the cache owner changed the listing post publication such that it violates maintenance guidelines it's up to the geocaching community to notify the reviewer that the listing is no longer in compliance with the guidelines.

The problem is that there are too many cachers which place a higher value on getting a find (and incrementing their find count) than having a cache listing which complies with the guidelines so the listing remains as it is.

The other problem is that the type of cachers in my bolded above are the same ones who brand anyone who speaks up FOR decent standards as caching police, and so the culture slowly becomes one of keeping one's head BELOW the parapet - and the steady decline continues.

I cringe slightly when I hear the term geocaching community - I'm not sure it actually exists. Population is probably a better description.

14k · September 19, 2013

Assuming that the cache owner changed the listing post publication such that it violates maintenance guidelines it's up to the geocaching community to notify the reviewer that the listing is no longer in compliance with the guidelines.

The problem is that there are too many cachers which place a higher value on getting a find (and incrementing their find count) than having a cache listing which complies with the guidelines so the listing remains as it is.

The other problem is that the type of cachers in my bolded above are the same ones who brand anyone who speaks up FOR decent standards as caching police, and so the culture slowly becomes one of keeping one's head BELOW the parapet - and the steady decline continues.

I cringe slightly when I hear the term geocaching community - I'm not sure it actually exists. Population is probably a better description.

I think the notion of the geocaching community exists, but not as a global hive mind that all look at geocaching in the same way. The geocaching population is made up of many disparate communities.

September 19, 2013

The actual wording is

If you would like to help maintain this trail series, please bring extra containers and extra logs with you. If you see that a container is damaged or missing, please replace it. This allows you to not only log the find but helps cachers that follow you.

Since the intent of such carefully crafted wordsmithing is to demonstrate to any who can read that the owner has no intention of performing the maintenance they agreed to perform when they submitted the cache page for review, that seems like grounds for not just archival, but locking as well, since, presumably, the cache owner changed the listing post publication.

Assuming that the cache owner changed the listing post publication such that it violates maintenance guidelines it's up to the geocaching community to notify the reviewer that the listing is no longer in compliance with the guidelines.

The problem is that there are too many cachers which place a higher value on getting a find (and incrementing their find count) than having a cache listing which complies with the guidelines so the listing remains as it is.

and there are too many reviewers willing to allow guidelines to slip in terms of publishing these power trails. i have seen 400 feet between container placements.

4.6k · September 19, 2013

I think the notion of the geocaching community exists, but not as a global hive mind that all look at geocaching in the same way. The geocaching population is made up of many disparate communities.

I think that's a fair analysis.

Given the degree of disparity I've experienced though, I struggle to map the concept of community as a group of people with common interests onto any particular subset of individuals. In fact I have to wonder if disparity and community aren't mutually exclusive?

2.1k · September 19, 2013

Heck, we have a 50 start geoart published in national forest land (and in designated wilderness area) that the land manager was more than happy to allow.

Sorry OT, but just want to correct some persistent errors in NC and beyond that I think give property managers the wrong impression. The only designated Wilderness (Birkhead) in the Uwharries is to the north of the Star. The Star is not in the Wilderness area, but in National Forest. I would be surprised if they had allowed 52+ dense caches in the Wilderness area.

Yes, to your general point, there is progress and while NC National Forests did want ALL caches gone a few years ago (about 1,500 prime hiking caches across the state back then)...and back on topic, this progress was made a state wide organization pulling together with folks willing to (and empowered to talk by the state cacher community) communicate quickly to the NC National Forestry Service.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Maingray

2.1k · September 19, 2013

and there are too many reviewers willing to allow guidelines to slip in terms of publishing these power trails. i have seen 400 feet between container placements.

"Willing" to let guidelines slip just for power trails? Please give examples.

2.1k · September 19, 2013

I think the notion of the geocaching community exists, but not as a global hive mind that all look at geocaching in the same way. The geocaching population is made up of many disparate communities.

I think that's a fair analysis.

Given the degree of disparity I've experienced though, I struggle to map the concept of community as a group of people with common interests onto any particular subset of individuals. In fact I have to wonder if disparity and community aren't mutually exclusive?

I think that it is fine to have different views on caching, but a community SHOULD exist which advocates the general hobby. If anyone pushes their own personal agenda at the expense of other's enjoyment and (for example) invokes a ban on a certain aspect of caching, then that is wrong. Hopefully community pressure and a general want for geocaching to persist will win out.

6k · September 19, 2013

Groundspeak should archive any cache with that text on the page.

I agree, how do you suggest it is enforced?

Maybe the same way Groundspeak enforces other guideline violations?

It doesn't seem all that complex to me.

When spotting text like that you could notify the publisher or a NA for guideline violations.

September 19, 2013

There is a rather nice geotrail near here. I don't want to say powertrail, as the hides are all unique, even though it does have identical descriptions on each page. The other day I received an e-mail from a cache on my watchlist that was not on the trail, but near it.

Replaced Quite a few missing Containers.

There shouldn't be any DNF's on this trail because you are asked to replace any missing caches. we replaced quite a few today ,some of them are just a log in a pill bag under a rock.

I checked and it does say something to that effect on the pages now, although I don't think it did when I did part of it. However, I don't think its such a good idea to be replacing containers on geotrails that do not have identical hides. And I don't think leaving a pill bag under a rock is a good idea for any cache. The next finder, and several others would report that it needs maintenance. Then the cache is found right where it should be, and in fine shape.

If you are going to leave a throwdown, how about using an actual container? And keep it limited to the geotrail? With the copy and paste logs, nobody can tell which ones, or how many were "replaced" this way. The finders probably do not remember either.

</rant>

I have been kicking around an idea for a geotrail along a bike trail and every couple of miles having an ammo can with logsheets, baggies, and some pill bottles so that if cachers want to, they can stock up and replace as needed. I am a little less sure about the pill bottles just because they take up so much room.

And just why would you put out a bunch of caches and expect everyone else to maintain them? If you put out a cache you should be responsible enough to go out and check on them and replace when needed I personally am getting tired of people doing this Just plunk down a bunch of caches and let everyone else take care of them. Part of the responsibility of placing caches is to take care of them. Geotrail, powertrail or just a single cache When you place a cache of any kind you are agreeing to maintain them.

Standards are slipping..

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation