Geocachers hiding before finding

[+TheHarleyRebel]

Should geocachers have to find a resonable amount of caches, say 20, before hiding one, because then they may not know a single thing about waterproofing, good places etc.

 

What are your thoughts???

Edited December 30, 2013 by TheHarleyRebels

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

No.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Actually, I think that very few in the world know good "waterproofing". It's quite likely that many don't care, either.

Number of Finds has little to no bearing on the issue.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+niraD]

Should they find a reasonable number of caches? Yes. As the guidelines put it, "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

Should they be required to find any specific number of geocaches? No.

[+L0ne.R]

Should geocachers have to find a resonable amount of caches, say 20, before hiding one, because then they may not know a single thing about waterproofing, good places etc.

 

What are your thoughts???

 

The general consensus in the forums is no to the cache finds requirement. But people haven't objected to the idea of a wait period as a possible solution to fly-by-nighters who don't play the game, don't understand the game, haven't experienced quality cache containers, haven't read the guidelines, hide caches during the honeymoon phase (first 2-3 months), then promptly abandon the game, the listings and the caches. However, it's doubtful that Groundspeak would implement a wait period because that might affect the coffers. Doubtful though - anyone who wouldn't stick around for 2-3 months to post their cache would likely not buy a premium membership.

[cachman9]

I have placed 5 caches with only 17 finds. My caches are creative and a joy to the cachers in my area. I think maybe a few caches should be found, but many people THINK before hiding. They have good ideas about how and where to place one. Actually, sometimes its better to place one FIRST, due to bad examples.

[Mr.Yuck]

Should they find a reasonable number of caches? Yes. As the guidelines put it, "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

Should they be required to find any specific number of geocaches? No.

 

Did they eventually put that in the guidelines? That's good, and it should stay as it is, a suggestion. Previously, some "unofficial" pronouncements of finding 20 before hiding one appeared in the weekly newsletter, and in the excellent, but little known, official powerpoint presentation on Geocaching. Which I once used at a Church I gave a Geocaching presentation to.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Yes.

 

Having said that, finding 20 caches does not guarantee anything. I think the quality of the hide has alot more to do with the personality of the hider. I have seen good caches put out by people with less finds. If you're a lazy hider, finding 20 caches probably won't change much.

 

I agree that there should be a waiting period of several months before someone's allowed to hide a cache. We have waaay too many people here that 1) join 2) hide a cache 3) disappear 4) lots of ignored DNFs/needs maintenance requests 5) get archived by the reviewer. The cache is generally poor quality, not maintained, and eventually goes missing which wastes everybody's time.

 

Example - hide was a film cannister at the base of a telephone pole - cache was placed his 2nd day of caching

Edited December 30, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[+niraD]

Should they find a reasonable number of caches? Yes. As the guidelines put it, "We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

Should they be required to find any specific number of geocaches? No.

Did they eventually put that in the guidelines? That's good, and it should stay as it is, a suggestion. Previously, some "unofficial" pronouncements of finding 20 before hiding one appeared in the weekly newsletter, and in the excellent, but little known, official powerpoint presentation on Geocaching. Which I once used at a Church I gave a Geocaching presentation to.

It looks like that sentence was added to the guidelines in the update from February 11, 2011.

[+Walts Hunting]

You might want to read the multitude of previous topics on this issue. In the end nothing will be done.

[team tisri]

Should geocachers have to find a resonable amount of caches, say 20, before hiding one, because then they may not know a single thing about waterproofing, good places etc.

 

What are your thoughts???

 

Imagine if someone found an ammo box at the end of a trail overlooking a beautiful vista, then solved an intricate puzzle to find an ammo box along a strenuous hike that took in several vistas. Would you rather they hid a cache similar to the ones they had found, or went out and found 18 soggy film pots behind signs and figured they were easier, so started hiding more soggy film pots behind signs?

[+Manville Possum]

Anyone with 0 finds can hide a cache, but I won't look for it. It should be a requirement to be a PM of have some knowledge of geocaching before hiding one. Groundspeak has good reviewers and moderators, so I'm sure a few things that we don't see get filtered out.

[+colleda]

Occasionally some can get it right once. Consider this one GC17C.Placed 16/1/2001. The PO has only one find logged and it is this one, their own! Their one and only placement. It's one of the oldest caches in this area, and its an ammo can. When we found it it had several old log books still in it as well as swag. As the CO has never done any maintenance its other cachers that have been placing new log books when needed. It's not in a particularly pleasant setting although it is rural. There's nothing there but an airstrip.

Amazing it has lasted, possibly because it's in a place where muggles are unlikely to ever trip over it.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

So many people cry that new cachers usually put out lame caches but what kind of caches do new cachers usually find? Lame caches. Finding 20 lame caches isn't going to help them learn the game.

 

The onus is on us, the veteran, experienced cachers to put out better caches and lead by example. Put your money where your mouth is...if you don't want lame, crappy caches then stop hiding and finding them.

 

[Schnitzle]

Should geocachers have to find a resonable amount of caches, say 20, before hiding one, because then they may not know a single thing about waterproofing, good places etc.

 

What are your thoughts???

Yes.

[+Tassie_Boy]

Anyone with 0 finds can hide a cache, but I won't look for it. It should be a requirement to be a PM of have some knowledge of geocaching before hiding one. Groundspeak has good reviewers and moderators, so I'm sure a few things that we don't see get filtered out.

 

Get stuffed! We've all seen it in topic after topic after topic that someone perceives an issue, generally with new geocachers, and 999 Times out of 1000 the suggested answer is "make ... PM only" like paying $30 makes you some kind of special geocaching god who suddenly does no wrong.

 

Well wrong! PM's still create (if you can call it that) bad caches, they still lose/hoard TB's, they still don't read descriptions. All being PM proves is that they can use a payment system to transfer money from their own bank account to that of Groundspeak's.

 

Same goes for high find cachers. there are many out there who have done the hard work and got thousands of fair dinkim finds over the years of all different types in many different places, but we all know there are plenty who rack up their count with wee easy finds every 500 odd feet. Is three thousand film canisters really better than a hundred finds that took hunting, especially when we know that many of these types of cachers will pass over caches with difficulties of more than one because they take too long to find (i.e more than thirty seconds).

 

If you want higher quality hides its going to take work from cachers, hiders and reviewers.

First cachers need to report bad caches in the first place, a reviewer can't take action if nothing is said. Also, if it's a really bad cache (a plastic bag crammed between a sign and it's post) don't log it as found at all, many many found logs only suggests that this sort of thing is ok.

At the stage where potential caches are submitted for review why not have a requirement for a photo of the container to be used at the potential cache site. This gives the reviewer more to go on than some text on a form that is easy to fudge.

 

When I was at school we had a "moderation" day once a year. Basically we got the day off but the teachers got together with teachers from all the other schools to make sure they were all marking at the same level. Ground speak could do a similar thing here. Send out a fictitious submission (a case study if you like) to a group of reviewers and see how they act on it, make sure everyone is on the same page.

 

There's plenty of options for improving caches and you should learn the game and get a feel for it before hiding but an arbitrary number or a title that you pay to get will not improve things at all.

[+niraD]

If you want higher quality hides its going to take work from cachers, hiders and reviewers.

First cachers need to report bad caches in the first place, a reviewer can't take action if nothing is said.

What do you expect the volunteer reviewers to do when someone reports a "bad cache"?

 

The volunteer reviewers assess compliance with the guidelines. They do not assess quality. They do not want to assess quality.

[+tozainamboku]

You might want to read the multitude of previous topics on this issue. In the end nothing will be done.

While nothing has changed in the past, that is not a reason to believe that no change is possible. TPTB make guideline changes all the time. Even suggestions, like the one to find 20 caches before hiding were not always part of the guidelines.

 

There are a couple of reasons why a quota for finds before hiding isn't going to work very well, however.

• There are cachers who do not wish to log finds.
  
• There are cachers who cache as a team but hide individually, or visa versa. They may have many finds, but under a different account name.
  
• In countries with few caches, it would be hard to get the hobby started if everyone had to have at least a certain number of finds
  
• In areas with power trails, it would be easy to meet the quota without really experiencing a variety of finds
  

 

For almost as long as there has been caching, there have been people blaming newbies for placing lower quality cache or for placing caches and then losing interest in a few months.

 

I don't know if Groundspeak has statistics or not for what percentage of accounts go dormant after a short period, and how many of these have hid caches. I tend to think that the numbers are not as great as it seems to a newbie. Many people stay active several years, hide many caches, and then leave the game (move away, start families, get sick, die) I'd bet this accounts for a significant number of AWOL cache owners. In addition, there are cache owners who take a break or for the above reasons (other than dying) go inactive and then start up a again. If you are a beginner and the cache owner hasn't logged in since before you started caching there is a tendency to think the cache is abandoned.

 

Still the fact is there is perception that newbie geocachers who hide caches before they have logged any finds are the source of some problems. One suggestion has been to require a time period after signing up before you can hide a cache. Not everyone will find caches during this period, but it will give someone thinking about hiding caches some time to reconsider and perhaps to peruse the forums and other sources for advice. Another suggestion is to require the first time hider to take a brief quiz to show familiarity with the guidelines. It would not stop someone determined to place a cache from just retaking the quiz till they pass, but hopefully they will learn something in the process.

[+Manville Possum]

Anyone with 0 finds can hide a cache, but I won't look for it. It should be a requirement to be a PM of have some knowledge of geocaching before hiding one. Groundspeak has good reviewers and moderators, so I'm sure a few things that we don't see get filtered out.

 

Get stuffed! We've all seen it in topic after topic after topic that someone perceives an issue, generally with new geocachers, and 999 Times out of 1000 the suggested answer is "make ... PM only" like paying $30 makes you some kind of special geocaching god who suddenly does no wrong.

 

Well wrong! PM's still create (if you can call it that) bad caches, they still lose/hoard TB's, they still don't read descriptions. All being PM proves is that they can use a payment system to transfer money from their own bank account to that of Groundspeak's.

 

Same goes for high find cachers. there are many out there who have done the hard work and got thousands of fair dinkim finds over the years of all different types in many different places, but we all know there are plenty who rack up their count with wee easy finds every 500 odd feet. Is three thousand film canisters really better than a hundred finds that took hunting, especially when we know that many of these types of cachers will pass over caches with difficulties of more than one because they take too long to find (i.e more than thirty seconds).

 

If you want higher quality hides its going to take work from cachers, hiders and reviewers.

First cachers need to report bad caches in the first place, a reviewer can't take action if nothing is said. Also, if it's a really bad cache (a plastic bag crammed between a sign and it's post) don't log it as found at all, many many found logs only suggests that this sort of thing is ok.

At the stage where potential caches are submitted for review why not have a requirement for a photo of the container to be used at the potential cache site. This gives the reviewer more to go on than some text on a form that is easy to fudge.

 

When I was at school we had a "moderation" day once a year. Basically we got the day off but the teachers got together with teachers from all the other schools to make sure they were all marking at the same level. Ground speak could do a similar thing here. Send out a fictitious submission (a case study if you like) to a group of reviewers and see how they act on it, make sure everyone is on the same page.

 

There's plenty of options for improving caches and you should learn the game and get a feel for it before hiding but an arbitrary number or a title that you pay to get will not improve things at all.

No need to be rude and tell me to get stuffed because of my opinion. Be civil about it, just because we don't agree about the subject does not make me right or you wrong. I did not start out as a PM hiding PMO caches. I started out as a basic member leaving TB's in caches just to see them end up missing. I started giving back to the community by hiding nice caches, then ammo can theft became an issue. I see the 0 finds and 1 hide users often on another listing service, and most of the time it is because their geocache was rejected by a volunteer reviewer here. I have a good feel for geocaching with a few hundred placements, and I have made all of my listings here PMO and I have stopped placing new hides. I only seek PMO hides, and there is a difference, and I favor Waymarking and Virtual geocaching over seeking Alotids tins under lamp skirts. Been there, done that, formed my own opinion with experience that I have gained as a geocacher.

[+Tassie_Boy]

If you want higher quality hides its going to take work from cachers, hiders and reviewers.

First cachers need to report bad caches in the first place, a reviewer can't take action if nothing is said.

What do you expect the volunteer reviewers to do when someone reports a "bad cache"?

 

The volunteer reviewers assess compliance with the guidelines. They do not assess quality. They do not want to assess quality.

 

"Bad" comes in many flavours but a bad "quality" cache often leads to a "plain Bad" cache that is wet and strewn across the paddock, surely if a cache or even caches by the same CO keep coming up for maintenance then it's fair to ask them to stop flogging the same dead horse which obviously isn't working.

Then there's abandoned caches where the owner has given up the game. It's quite normal to see someone leave the game with several caches still out there and just like an abandoned building a small issue quickly leads to large issues and it doesn't take long for the list of owned caches to fill with spanner icons and the risk opens up of one or two of them ending up in the cycle of "oh cache missing, we'll leave another one" only for it to turn to poo because nobody is responsible for it which turn to "oh cache missing, we'll leave another one". Why not just archive them all and make a game of it called "Last to Find" where the winner gets to souvenir what ever they want from the cache and then bin the rest.

Result in both cases is that average quality of caches in the wild rises so theoretically better caches are put out by those placing caches for the first time because what they've seen is better in the first place.

A photo for the reviewer at submission time would also give them a chance to question the quality of the container, that may not currently be their job by if it saves them work in the future.

 

Anyone with 0 finds can hide a cache, but I won't look for it. It should be a requirement to be a PM of have some knowledge of geocaching before hiding one. Groundspeak has good reviewers and moderators, so I'm sure a few things that we don't see get filtered out.

 

Get stuffed! We've all seen it in topic after topic after topic that someone perceives an issue, generally with new geocachers, and 999 Times out of 1000 the suggested answer is "make ... PM only" like paying $30 makes you some kind of special geocaching god who suddenly does no wrong.

 

Well wrong! PM's still create (if you can call it that) bad caches, they still lose/hoard TB's, they still don't read descriptions. All being PM proves is that they can use a payment system to transfer money from their own bank account to that of Groundspeak's.

 

Same goes for high find cachers. there are many out there who have done the hard work and got thousands of fair dinkim finds over the years of all different types in many different places, but we all know there are plenty who rack up their count with wee easy finds every 500 odd feet. Is three thousand film canisters really better than a hundred finds that took hunting, especially when we know that many of these types of cachers will pass over caches with difficulties of more than one because they take too long to find (i.e more than thirty seconds).

 

If you want higher quality hides its going to take work from cachers, hiders and reviewers.

First cachers need to report bad caches in the first place, a reviewer can't take action if nothing is said. Also, if it's a really bad cache (a plastic bag crammed between a sign and it's post) don't log it as found at all, many many found logs only suggests that this sort of thing is ok.

At the stage where potential caches are submitted for review why not have a requirement for a photo of the container to be used at the potential cache site. This gives the reviewer more to go on than some text on a form that is easy to fudge.

 

When I was at school we had a "moderation" day once a year. Basically we got the day off but the teachers got together with teachers from all the other schools to make sure they were all marking at the same level. Ground speak could do a similar thing here. Send out a fictitious submission (a case study if you like) to a group of reviewers and see how they act on it, make sure everyone is on the same page.

 

There's plenty of options for improving caches and you should learn the game and get a feel for it before hiding but an arbitrary number or a title that you pay to get will not improve things at all.

No need to be rude and tell me to get stuffed because of my opinion. Be civil about it, just because we don't agree about the subject does not make me right or you wrong. I did not start out as a PM hiding PMO caches. I started out as a basic member leaving TB's in caches just to see them end up missing. I started giving back to the community by hiding nice caches, then ammo can theft became an issue. I see the 0 finds and 1 hide users often on another listing service, and most of the time it is because their geocache was rejected by a volunteer reviewer here. I have a good feel for geocaching with a few hundred placements, and I have made all of my listings here PMO and I have stopped placing new hides. I only seek PMO hides, and there is a difference, and I favor Waymarking and Virtual geocaching over seeking Alotids tins under lamp skirts. Been there, done that, formed my own opinion with experience that I have gained as a geocacher.

 

Apologies for coming across a bit course but the sentiment still stands, a $30 payment does not make anyone a better cacher and while that solution may work in your area it does affect everyone be it the next valley over or the other side of the world where that sort of thing is not such an issue and it ends up stuffing everyone about.

 

People seem to forget what it's like to be new to something and that in learning new skills/hobbies you are going to make mistakes. One way or another people need to learn what to do when finding a cache, what works and doesn't when placing a cache. Any other hobby it's easy because there's others around to show you what to do but Geocaching is generally a solo effort so you need to expect more of what the more experienced would call mistakes. And before you say it Yes there are those who are out only to make trouble but you will get that with anything you do whether they are actually involved or not.

[+L0ne.R]

While nothing has changed in the past, that is not a reason to believe that no change is possible. TPTB make guideline changes all the time. Even suggestions, like the one to find 20 caches before hiding were not always part of the guidelines.

I'm happy that, over the years when this discussion takes place, no one has objections to a wait period. I'm hopeful that Groundspeak may some day consider the idea. In my area I expect it will help decrease unsupervised child/minor caches, scout caches, school assignment caches, and dip-toe caches (try geocaching tentatively because they are not sure whether they will like it or not).

Edited December 31, 2013 by L0ne.R

[+Manville Possum]

$30 a year only gives me a better geocaching experience. After a few finds I wanted to run PQ's and look for some of the better PMO hides. It also helps on the Waymarking site to be a PM, and I really enjoy the history categorys there, so I'm more into Waymarking than geocaching. I do mentor a few basic members, my childern enjoy geocaching also. So I have not forgot where I started out, I had a cache mentor myself in the beginning that shoewd me the ropes before I logged a cache on line or ever thought of hiding one. That was back in the day when I did not own a personal computer, but did know my way around a GPS unit as a hiker/hunter.

[+niraD]

If you want higher quality hides its going to take work from cachers, hiders and reviewers.

First cachers need to report bad caches in the first place, a reviewer can't take action if nothing is said.

What do you expect the volunteer reviewers to do when someone reports a "bad cache"?

 

The volunteer reviewers assess compliance with the guidelines. They do not assess quality. They do not want to assess quality.

"Bad" comes in many flavours but a bad "quality" cache often leads to a "plain Bad" cache that is wet and strewn across the paddock, surely if a cache or even caches by the same CO keep coming up for maintenance then it's fair to ask them to stop flogging the same dead horse which obviously isn't working.

That's really a matter of maintenance, rather than a matter of quality though. And IMHO, the current system of NM and NA logs works, as long as people are willing to post them. (But that's another topic of discussion.)

 

Why not just archive them all and make a game of it called "Last to Find" where the winner gets to souvenir what ever they want from the cache and then bin the rest.

The geocaches and their contents are not Groundspeak's property, and they do not have the right to give them away to anyone. Groundspeak can archive the listing, but they can't do anything with the container or the contents. And there are people who archive their listings on the geocaching.com site and continue to list the caches on other listing services.

[^up]

I think my find to hidden ratio and the success of those hides speaks for itself. But feel free to ask any of the ones who have found mine their opinion. My opinion is self-serving.

[+fizzymagic]

The proposal of some minimum number of finds before a hide is never going to happen. Likewise, the idea that a hider cannot hide more caches without clearing all maintenance will probably never happen either.

 

Why? Because gc.com's role is a listing service. This role was chosen very carefully (and, in my opinion, very wisely) by the founders. They don't control the caches; they only provide a listing service for those who wish to place caches.

 

When you think about it this way, many of the existing restrictions on cache listings make sense. Gc.com does a reasonable check to verify that the cache is legal, but they do not perform any check that the cache is safe. Why? Because ensuring cache safety is not a function of a listing service. Likewise, the listing service can choose not to list caches closer than some minimum distance from each other, but it does not make sense that they would try to determine whether a particular cache is lame or not.

 

Because gc.com is a listing service, the requirement that hiders find a certain number of caches listed by the service before being allowed to list one themselves does not make sense. It amounts to requiring users to make use of the service in a particular way, and would indicate that gc.com is no longer a listing service but has some ownership of the listed caches, which has legal ramifications that they don't want.

 

Likewise, requiring hiders to clear "needs maintenance" logs before being allowed to hide a cache brings unintended consequences. What happens if one cacher decides he doesn't like another cacher, and keeps putting NM logs on every one of the other cacher's caches to prevent them from hiding more? It turns into a big nightmare that gc.com has to arbitrate, once again changing their role from listing service to being responsible for the caches. It is conceivable that a cacher could sue gc.com for not allowing them to list caches in such a case, and that is a headache gc.com does not need.

 

Personally, I commend gc.com on the wisdom and thoughtfulness of their positions. They are doing an admirable job of treading that fine line between listing service and responsible party.

[+GopherGreg]

I'm not sure whether it should or should not be necessary to find 20 or 30 caches before placing your own. Around my area it's usually a few bad new cachers placing bad hides that gives these one-hide no-finds cachers a bad rep. I've found caches before that were amazing, and I got home to log them, only to find out that the CO hasn't found any caches at all.

 

However last summer a High-School in my area decided to do geocaching as a project, and as a result there were a few bad cache placements.

 

One (now archived) was a tic-tac bottle taped to the back of a stop sign. the stop sign was removed, and so was the bottle. An other one (still active) was a pill bottle almost buried under rocks in a big field of thorns. At least these two were find-able. The other two that were published were soooo bad that instead of being archived they were UNPUBLISHED. one of them, the coords took you to the middle of the school's soccer field. There was nothing around to put a cache on, and after a 20 minute search, with a search radius of probably almost 60 or 70 meters... Nothing. The other one was called P-Bowl. The coordinates took you to a hollow stump that smelled vile. Turns out it smelled that way because because kids from the High-School used it as a... P-Bowl, if you will.

 

Basically there's newbies that will put out good hides, and some that won't. I don't think putting rules on how many caches you need to find will help because I'm sure some new cachers will just armchair log. Making Premium memberships a must won't do much either, because even some older members might not place the best hides. It's really seems like it's hard to do something about. The best solution is to ignore the bad ones, and find the good ones. Don't let a few bad apples ruin the whole basket!

[+ShaunEM]

Bad caches tend to destroy themselves without any assistance from Groundspeak. Leave it as it is. If you find some soppy gooey mess, post a NM log and move on.

 

I have seen more than a few waterproof caches compromised by swag trades that prevent the otherwise good container from closing properly. What would resolve that? Swag size requirements?

 

Meh.. its a fun game.. sometimes because of the margarine containers full of mud, in the woods.

 

Shaun

[+L0ne.R]

I'm not sure whether it should or should not be necessary to find 20 or 30 caches before placing your own. Around my area it's usually a few bad new cachers placing bad hides that gives these one-hide no-finds cachers a bad rep. I've found caches before that were amazing, and I got home to log them, only to find out that the CO hasn't found any caches at all.

 

However last summer a High-School in my area decided to do geocaching as a project, and as a result there were a few bad cache placements.

 

One (now archived) was a tic-tac bottle taped to the back of a stop sign. the stop sign was removed, and so was the bottle. An other one (still active) was a pill bottle almost buried under rocks in a big field of thorns. At least these two were find-able. The other two that were published were soooo bad that instead of being archived they were UNPUBLISHED. one of them, the coords took you to the middle of the school's soccer field. There was nothing around to put a cache on, and after a 20 minute search, with a search radius of probably almost 60 or 70 meters... Nothing. The other one was called P-Bowl. The coordinates took you to a hollow stump that smelled vile. Turns out it smelled that way because because kids from the High-School used it as a... P-Bowl, if you will.

 

Basically there's newbies that will put out good hides, and some that won't. I don't think putting rules on how many caches you need to find will help because I'm sure some new cachers will just armchair log. Making Premium memberships a must won't do much either, because even some older members might not place the best hides. It's really seems like it's hard to do something about. The best solution is to ignore the bad ones, and find the good ones. Don't let a few bad apples ruin the whole basket!

 

Assuming the above was a result of a class assignment, a 2-3 month wait would mean teachers would be less likely to create a geocaching class project - especially one that requires each student to register an account and post a cache individually. The teacher could put the caches under his/her name (assuming they actually geocache and registered at 3 months prior) then at least the teacher would be responsible for these caches.

[+GopherGreg]

I'm not sure whether it should or should not be necessary to find 20 or 30 caches before placing your own. Around my area it's usually a few bad new cachers placing bad hides that gives these one-hide no-finds cachers a bad rep. I've found caches before that were amazing, and I got home to log them, only to find out that the CO hasn't found any caches at all.

 

However last summer a High-School in my area decided to do geocaching as a project, and as a result there were a few bad cache placements.

 

One (now archived) was a tic-tac bottle taped to the back of a stop sign. the stop sign was removed, and so was the bottle. An other one (still active) was a pill bottle almost buried under rocks in a big field of thorns. At least these two were find-able. The other two that were published were soooo bad that instead of being archived they were UNPUBLISHED. one of them, the coords took you to the middle of the school's soccer field. There was nothing around to put a cache on, and after a 20 minute search, with a search radius of probably almost 60 or 70 meters... Nothing. The other one was called P-Bowl. The coordinates took you to a hollow stump that smelled vile. Turns out it smelled that way because because kids from the High-School used it as a... P-Bowl, if you will.

 

Basically there's newbies that will put out good hides, and some that won't. I don't think putting rules on how many caches you need to find will help because I'm sure some new cachers will just armchair log. Making Premium memberships a must won't do much either, because even some older members might not place the best hides. It's really seems like it's hard to do something about. The best solution is to ignore the bad ones, and find the good ones. Don't let a few bad apples ruin the whole basket!

 

Assuming the above was a result of a class assignment, a 2-3 month wait would mean teachers would be less likely to create a geocaching class project - especially one that requires each student to register an account and post a cache individually. The teacher could put the caches under his/her name (assuming they actually geocache and registered at 3 months prior) then at least the teacher would be responsible for these caches.

 

Each cache was under a different account. After all the caches were unbublished or archived, apparently one of our local reviewers received an apology email from the High-School's students that placed the caches. The note was posted on the forums for our area, and said:

 

 

''Dear geocaching,

 

I apologize for creating my childish, disgusting and misinformative geocache

on your website. I now realize all the trouble I have caused for your company, my school and the geocachers who have attempted to find my cache. If I ever decide to create another cache I promise to take it seriously and make it safe for others to find. I hope that you can forgive me, my partner for the cache and the school and one day let our school use your site once again.

 

Sincerely, (name removed)''

 

So that's how we figured out it was a student, and that it was for a school project, though we had our suspicions before since all the caches were clumped around the school...

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Each cache was under a different account. After all the caches were unbublished or archived, apparently one of our local reviewers received an apology email from the High-School's students that placed the caches. The note was posted on the forums for our area, and said:

 

 

''Dear geocaching,

 

I apologize for creating my childish, disgusting and misinformative geocache

on your website. I now realize all the trouble I have caused for your company, my school and the geocachers who have attempted to find my cache. If I ever decide to create another cache I promise to take it seriously and make it safe for others to find. I hope that you can forgive me, my partner for the cache and the school and one day let our school use your site once again.

 

Sincerely, (name removed)''

 

So that's how we figured out it was a student, and that it was for a school project, though we had our suspicions before since all the caches were clumped around the school...

Actually, this is outstanding! The student(s) learned something. Perhaps not necessarily the way it was intended, but they learned something nonetheless.

More than likely, the teacher learned something, also. It does seem that the teacher may have taken it upon him/herself to extend the lesson of humility.

While it's just a guess, I would say the entire class was aware and learned the same lesson, indirectly.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm not sure whether it should or should not be necessary to find 20 or 30 caches before placing your own. Around my area it's usually a few bad new cachers placing bad hides that gives these one-hide no-finds cachers a bad rep. I've found caches before that were amazing, and I got home to log them, only to find out that the CO hasn't found any caches at all.

 

However last summer a High-School in my area decided to do geocaching as a project, and as a result there were a few bad cache placements.

 

One (now archived) was a tic-tac bottle taped to the back of a stop sign. the stop sign was removed, and so was the bottle. An other one (still active) was a pill bottle almost buried under rocks in a big field of thorns. At least these two were find-able. The other two that were published were soooo bad that instead of being archived they were UNPUBLISHED. one of them, the coords took you to the middle of the school's soccer field. There was nothing around to put a cache on, and after a 20 minute search, with a search radius of probably almost 60 or 70 meters... Nothing. The other one was called P-Bowl. The coordinates took you to a hollow stump that smelled vile. Turns out it smelled that way because because kids from the High-School used it as a... P-Bowl, if you will.

 

Basically there's newbies that will put out good hides, and some that won't. I don't think putting rules on how many caches you need to find will help because I'm sure some new cachers will just armchair log. Making Premium memberships a must won't do much either, because even some older members might not place the best hides. It's really seems like it's hard to do something about. The best solution is to ignore the bad ones, and find the good ones. Don't let a few bad apples ruin the whole basket!

 

Assuming the above was a result of a class assignment, a 2-3 month wait would mean teachers would be less likely to create a geocaching class project - especially one that requires each student to register an account and post a cache individually. The teacher could put the caches under his/her name (assuming they actually geocache and registered at 3 months prior) then at least the teacher would be responsible for these caches.

 

Each cache was under a different account. After all the caches were unbublished or archived, apparently one of our local reviewers received an apology email from the High-School's students that placed the caches. The note was posted on the forums for our area, and said:

 

 

''Dear geocaching,

 

I apologize for creating my childish, disgusting and misinformative geocache

on your website. I now realize all the trouble I have caused for your company, my school and the geocachers who have attempted to find my cache. If I ever decide to create another cache I promise to take it seriously and make it safe for others to find. I hope that you can forgive me, my partner for the cache and the school and one day let our school use your site once again.

 

Sincerely, (name removed)''

 

So that's how we figured out it was a student, and that it was for a school project, though we had our suspicions before since all the caches were clumped around the school...

 

"...take it seriously"

 

That's an important part of the students apology. It addresses the 3 month wait proposal - if someone sticks with the game for 3 months before planting, it's more likely that they will take the game and cache ownership seriously and less likely that they will plant as a lark/goof/prank/to-test-the-waters.

Edited January 1, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+The_Incredibles_]

"...take it seriously"

 

That's an important part of the students apology. It addresses the 3 month wait proposal - if someone sticks with the game for 3 months before planting, it's more likely that they will take the game and cache ownership seriously and less likely that they will plant as a lark/goof/prank/to-test-the-waters.

 

I have no problem with kids placing caches...as long as there is proper supervision, for the hide and the maintenance. It sounds like the teacher in charge did not take *their* responsibility seriously, which is to check that the container and location were suitable. There is no way I would allow any child under my supervision to tape a tic-tac container to a stop sign or place a cache in a local potty.

[+Manville Possum]

I'm all for the 3 month wait proposal vs the create an account today and list a geocache placement.

[team tisri]

Because gc.com is a listing service, the requirement that hiders find a certain number of caches listed by the service before being allowed to list one themselves does not make sense. It amounts to requiring users to make use of the service in a particular way, and would indicate that gc.com is no longer a listing service but has some ownership of the listed caches, which has legal ramifications that they don't want.

 

Really? I'd have said it was just another entry in the terms of listing. How does saying "you must find 10 caches before placing a cache" create ownership in a way that, say, "do not hide caches in the bushes outside a school" does not?

 

Likewise, requiring hiders to clear "needs maintenance" logs before being allowed to hide a cache brings unintended consequences. What happens if one cacher decides he doesn't like another cacher, and keeps putting NM logs on every one of the other cacher's caches to prevent them from hiding more? It turns into a big nightmare that gc.com has to arbitrate, once again changing their role from listing service to being responsible for the caches. It is conceivable that a cacher could sue gc.com for not allowing them to list caches in such a case, and that is a headache gc.com does not need.

 

Requiring all NM logs to be clear for new caches to be placed is silly for the reasons you describe. That said if a particular cacher has had more than a certain number of caches archived by reviewers for non-maintenance it seems reasonable to apply additional terms before letting them list any more caches.

[+GopherGreg]

"...take it seriously"

 

That's an important part of the students apology. It addresses the 3 month wait proposal - if someone sticks with the game for 3 months before planting, it's more likely that they will take the game and cache ownership seriously and less likely that they will plant as a lark/goof/prank/to-test-the-waters.

 

I have no problem with kids placing caches...as long as there is proper supervision, for the hide and the maintenance. It sounds like the teacher in charge did not take *their* responsibility seriously, which is to check that the container and location were suitable. There is no way I would allow any child under my supervision to tape a tic-tac container to a stop sign or place a cache in a local potty.

 

I know some kids who geocache and place caches on their own. It really depends on

 

a) If the kid has cached before and

how seriously the kid takes it.

 

I'm not sure how old you have to be to not be a kid, but I've placed many caches, and I'm only 15. I'm not a 'kid' but not really an adult either. Again, it really depends on who the cacher is. Some people with lots of hides have still placed bad caches.

[+ADKer]

Perhaps the feature to hide caches should be removed from the intro app?

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Perhaps the feature to hide caches should be removed from the intro app?

Does it provide a mechanism to hide caches? I wouldn't think so, their paid app doesn't do that. For that matter, my Delorme nor any Garmin that I have owned doesn't do that... yet I have caches placed.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+cerberus1]

Perhaps the feature to hide caches should be removed from the intro app?

Is there a feature to hide caches on the intro app?

I'd think the paid app folks would be ticked.

 

 

Ahh, see G-G covered it.

Edited January 2, 2014 by cerberus1

[+ADKer]

Perhaps the feature to hide caches should be removed from the intro app?

Does it provide a mechanism to hide caches? I wouldn't think so, their paid app doesn't do that. For that matter, my Delorme nor any Garmin that I have owned doesn't do that... yet I have caches placed.

 

I'm not positive. I've never used it myself. I know a cacher around here that only uses the intro app and has hidden several caches. One time I was going for a FTF on his, after a couple DNFs. I happened to run into him right after I found it. He said he was here to see if it was still there. I told him the coords were off, and he said he used the app on his phone, so they couldn't be off.

 

(I did add better coords to my log, and people have said used those is much better)

[+GopherGreg]

Perhaps the feature to hide caches should be removed from the intro app?

Does it provide a mechanism to hide caches? I wouldn't think so, their paid app doesn't do that. For that matter, my Delorme nor any Garmin that I have owned doesn't do that... yet I have caches placed.

 

I'm not positive. I've never used it myself. I know a cacher around here that only uses the intro app and has hidden several caches. One time I was going for a FTF on his, after a couple DNFs. I happened to run into him right after I found it. He said he was here to see if it was still there. I told him the coords were off, and he said he used the app on his phone, so they couldn't be off.

 

(I did add better coords to my log, and people have said used those is much better)

 

Taking that away wouldn't do to much really. A cache near my house was listed by a cacher with 15 finds. It was a D5/T3. On the cache page he/she said that the coordinates were taken with a road GPS, which lots of people have now days. (The cache was 30 meters off the coords and was really more of a 3.5/2.) So even if they don't have the ability to hide caches on the intro app, there's many other things cachers can use to take coordinates.

[+ADKer]

Perhaps the feature to hide caches should be removed from the intro app?

Does it provide a mechanism to hide caches? I wouldn't think so, their paid app doesn't do that. For that matter, my Delorme nor any Garmin that I have owned doesn't do that... yet I have caches placed.

 

I'm not positive. I've never used it myself. I know a cacher around here that only uses the intro app and has hidden several caches. One time I was going for a FTF on his, after a couple DNFs. I happened to run into him right after I found it. He said he was here to see if it was still there. I told him the coords were off, and he said he used the app on his phone, so they couldn't be off.

 

(I did add better coords to my log, and people have said used those is much better)

 

Taking that away wouldn't do to much really. A cache near my house was listed by a cacher with 15 finds. It was a D5/T3. On the cache page he/she said that the coordinates were taken with a road GPS, which lots of people have now days. (The cache was 30 meters off the coords and was really more of a 3.5/2.) So even if they don't have the ability to hide caches on the intro app, there's many other things cachers can use to take coordinates.

 

But at least it would take away the convince. Instead of just using their new app for a couple of days, they would have to log onto geocaching.com. Doing so might give them the feel that this is more than a little iphone game that will be defunct within the next few months.

[+NeverSummer]

Perhaps the feature to hide caches should be removed from the intro app?

Does it provide a mechanism to hide caches? I wouldn't think so, their paid app doesn't do that. For that matter, my Delorme nor any Garmin that I have owned doesn't do that... yet I have caches placed.

 

I'm not positive. I've never used it myself. I know a cacher around here that only uses the intro app and has hidden several caches. One time I was going for a FTF on his, after a couple DNFs. I happened to run into him right after I found it. He said he was here to see if it was still there. I told him the coords were off, and he said he used the app on his phone, so they couldn't be off.

 

(I did add better coords to my log, and people have said used those is much better)

 

Taking that away wouldn't do to much really. A cache near my house was listed by a cacher with 15 finds. It was a D5/T3. On the cache page he/she said that the coordinates were taken with a road GPS, which lots of people have now days. (The cache was 30 meters off the coords and was really more of a 3.5/2.) So even if they don't have the ability to hide caches on the intro app, there's many other things cachers can use to take coordinates.

 

But at least it would take away the convince. Instead of just using their new app for a couple of days, they would have to log onto geocaching.com. Doing so might give them the feel that this is more than a little iphone game that will be defunct within the next few months.

There is not a "hide a cache" feature in the official apps.

 

One can, however, take coordinates from the display while using the compass mode to record a location. Other apps can also provide coordinates on a smartphone.

 

As for a smartphone discussion, I'd recommend taking it to this topic about the Intro App, or to the Website and Apps Subforum.

 

To get back on topic: No is the answer I would give. Encouraging new cachers to learn from others (via events, and accomplished cachers reaching out to mentor new cachers) is the best answer. Even 20 caches doesn't give the background I would call necessary for hiding a "good" cache. Only the community-based input from others and mentored study will be complimentary to find counts.

 

I could find 20 "bad" caches and think that is how the game is played. I could read the blog and think that I can bury a cache. There are many nuances, and the community working in a positive way to better the game is what needs to be the norm.

 

See a new cacher finding your caches? Reach out to them. Offer to go on a cache outing. Throw an event in the honor of new cachers in your area. Get involved. Be involved.

[+L0ne.R]

See a new cacher finding your caches? Reach out to them. Offer to go on a cache outing. Throw an event in the honor of new cachers in your area. Get involved. Be involved.

 

Just a word of caution. Sometimes you could be reaching out to a preteen girl or boy who hasn't told their parents that they're hiding caches. Suggesting a meet up so you can show them the ropes could get someone into trouble.

 

Which brings me back to the wait period idea. Kids have short attention spans. A 3 month wait period should weed out a lot of the unsupervised kids.

Edited January 4, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+NeverSummer]

See a new cacher finding your caches? Reach out to them. Offer to go on a cache outing. Throw an event in the honor of new cachers in your area. Get involved. Be involved.

 

Just a word of caution. Sometimes you could be reaching out to a preteen girl or boy who hasn't told their parents that their hiding caches. Suggesting a meet up so you can show them the ropes could get someone into trouble.

 

Which brings me back to the wait period idea. Kids have short attention spans. A 3 month wait period should weed out a lot of the unsupervised kids.

Uhhh...

 

Then methinks Groundspeak should address the user age issue, especially in light of the bad (stupid) press they got over the sex offender/geocaching "threat" to kids.

 

Geocaching.com is a listing service, and has guidelines to protect them legally. We are the community that Groundspeak relies on to keep the game going. There has to be some common ground here about how to keep the game going while making sure that the community aspect of the game is fostered.

 

We're not here to babysit or be parents for some kids with smartphones. The guidelines state that kids must use the site and geocache under the supervision of an adult. If a kid geocaches without that supervision, it isn't my fault; Groundspeak should be looking into how to design the game to deal with this eventuality. Remember, there is a difference between "family friendly" and "kid-friendly" or a "game for kids".

 

But, back to the topic again. Mentoring, community.

[+GopherGreg]

See a new cacher finding your caches? Reach out to them. Offer to go on a cache outing. Throw an event in the honor of new cachers in your area. Get involved. Be involved.

 

Just a word of caution. Sometimes you could be reaching out to a preteen girl or boy who hasn't told their parents that their hiding caches. Suggesting a meet up so you can show them the ropes could get someone into trouble.

 

Which brings me back to the wait period idea. Kids have short attention spans. A 3 month wait period should weed out a lot of the unsupervised kids.

Uhhh...

 

Then methinks Groundspeak should address the user age issue, especially in light of the bad (stupid) press they got over the sex offender/geocaching "threat" to kids.

 

Geocaching.com is a listing service, and has guidelines to protect them legally. We are the community that Groundspeak relies on to keep the game going. There has to be some common ground here about how to keep the game going while making sure that the community aspect of the game is fostered.

 

We're not here to babysit or be parents for some kids with smartphones. The guidelines state that kids must use the site and geocache under the supervision of an adult. If a kid geocaches without that supervision, it isn't my fault; Groundspeak should be looking into how to design the game to deal with this eventuality. Remember, there is a difference between "family friendly" and "kid-friendly" or a "game for kids".

 

But, back to the topic again. Mentoring, community.

 

I think I, and a few others around my age would be upset if Groundspeak put age limits. There's cachers who are two or three years younger than me who have put out fine hides. I started caching when I was 11 going on 12 and I waited until I'd found a decent amount of caches before placing my own. My parents don't geocache, and neither do my friend's parents who are the ones who often take us, even though they stay in the car. I think the problem isn't really the age of the cacher, or the supervision they're under, but more of how experienced they are and how dedicated they are to the game. I think really it's just a few bad apples ruining the whole basket.

[+K13]

See a new cacher finding your caches? Reach out to them. Offer to go on a cache outing. Throw an event in the honor of new cachers in your area. Get involved. Be involved.

 

Just a word of caution. Sometimes you could be reaching out to a preteen girl or boy who hasn't told their parents that their hiding caches. Suggesting a meet up so you can show them the ropes could get someone into trouble.

 

Which brings me back to the wait period idea. Kids have short attention spans. A 3 month wait period should weed out a lot of the unsupervised kids.

Uhhh...

 

Then methinks Groundspeak should address the user age issue, especially in light of the bad (stupid) press they got over the sex offender/geocaching "threat" to kids.

 

Geocaching.com is a listing service, and has guidelines to protect them legally. We are the community that Groundspeak relies on to keep the game going. There has to be some common ground here about how to keep the game going while making sure that the community aspect of the game is fostered.

 

We're not here to babysit or be parents for some kids with smartphones. The guidelines state that kids must use the site and geocache under the supervision of an adult. If a kid geocaches without that supervision, it isn't my fault; Groundspeak should be looking into how to design the game to deal with this eventuality. Remember, there is a difference between "family friendly" and "kid-friendly" or a "game for kids".

 

But, back to the topic again. Mentoring, community.

 

I think I, and a few others around my age would be upset if Groundspeak put age limits. There's cachers who are two or three years younger than me who have put out fine hides. I started caching when I was 11 going on 12 and I waited until I'd found a decent amount of caches before placing my own. My parents don't geocache, and neither do my friend's parents who are the ones who often take us, even though they stay in the car. I think the problem isn't really the age of the cacher, or the supervision they're under, but more of how experienced they are and how dedicated they are to the game. I think really it's just a few bad apples ruining the whole basket.

 

Careful there kiddo, you are sounding more mature than many of the adults around here.

[+SirDonB]

I have talked to a few groups about what geocaching is and touched on what I think are the most important aspects of the game and I always start out telling the group that I have not been caching that long and consider myself to still be inexperiaced comparedd to most others who cache. I have been caching for about 2 years or so now, I have found my fair share of nano's, micro's, and "bad" caches. I have said it before, and I will agree with it here, I am in support of the mentoring idea. it would have been nice to have a mentor when I first started and I waited almost 2 years and 100 finds before I hid my first cache.

 

Granted my first hide was a lamp post with a pill bottle, the locations and container types I will still find, but do not enjoy and roll my eyes at. I have a few future hides in planning that will be more what I would prefer to find in hopes of swaying my area out of the lame containers and locations. I may be one tiny drop in the bucket, but I figure if I start to hide better caches, the trend may catch on again.

 

Back to topic though, some one started the trend of lame caches becasue they were bored shopping with their other half, and the parking lot hide location took off. I read and agree that we as a community need to step up and not find what we feel is lame. If enough of us do it, maybe, just maybe more will take notice. Is it a long shot, yes, but it could work. Maybe I am just different from most of the other newbies, but I never liked the lame caches, and got more enjoyment out of larger containers especially since since it is said that "if you take an item, you must put an item back into the cache," this has lead to my perception that caches my be large enough to allow for SWAG. To my dissapointment, I was wrong and end up finding much smaller than desired caches. What does this have to do with the topic, not sure... you can take what you want from it.

 

My personal opinion is this, and maybe this is what I was saying, It is not always the newbies fault. I would see it as being more the veteran cachers at fault. It was not the newbie with a cell phone that placed the first pill bottle cache or first hid one in a lamp post in a parking lot. Maybe it was, I was not around at that time, but since I entered the community, they have existed and from my view point, it was a verteran cacher that first placed them. How do you define who is a newbie and who is not, number of finds, lenth of membership, a combination of the 2? I personally have just over 100 finds and have been caching a bit over 2 years and I still consider myself to be a newbie. Am I? I think I am, you may think differently. I think that a good hide is one that either has awesome camo or an awesome location or both. Because of the lack of awesome locations in my area, I am gonna make up for the lack of location in the cache's camo.

 

I also think that there should be a limit on how many hides one person can place. Without looking it up and quoting the guidelines, I think I read there that when you hide a cache, you agree that you will adiquitly maintain that cache. My understanding is that if you place/hide 100, 200, or more caches, you are adhearing to the guidelines. How can one person maintain 100+ caches by themselves? I think it is impossible. The excetion being the "team" accounts where there is more than one person caching under that account. I understand that there will almost always be away to skirt around the rules, guidelines, or what ever you want to call them, but atleat that should help some.

 

Do I expect Groundspeak to take an action and place a hide limit, absolutely not. As others have said, it has to deal with their bottom line and their position as a company. Like everyone else out there, I am just tossing out my thoughts, ideas and opinions for everyone to pick apart, agree with or dissagree with as they feel fits theirs.

[+ADKer]

I think I, and a few others around my age would be upset if Groundspeak put age limits. There's cachers who are two or three years younger than me who have put out fine hides. I started caching when I was 11 going on 12 and I waited until I'd found a decent amount of caches before placing my own. My parents don't geocache, and neither do my friend's parents who are the ones who often take us, even though they stay in the car. I think the problem isn't really the age of the cacher, or the supervision they're under, but more of how experienced they are and how dedicated they are to the game. I think really it's just a few bad apples ruining the whole basket.

Careful there kiddo, you are sounding more mature than many of the adults around here.

 

Amazingly true!

[+niraD]

I also think that there should be a limit on how many hides one person can place. Without looking it up and quoting the guidelines, I think I read there that when you hide a cache, you agree that you will adiquitly maintain that cache. My understanding is that if you place/hide 100, 200, or more caches, you are adhearing to the guidelines. How can one person maintain 100+ caches by themselves? I think it is impossible.

How long is a piece of string? How deep is a hole? How much maintenance does a geocache need?

 

Regarding the distance from home a geocacher can hide caches, the guidelines say, "The region in which a cacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person." The same thing applies to the number of caches a geocacher can hide: The number of geocaches which a cacher is considered able to maintain responsibly will vary from person to person.

 

Some caches need multiple maintenance visits every month. Others can go years between maintenance visits. A lot depends on the locations and containers and hide techniques chosen by the cache owner.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Should geocachers have to find a resonable amount of caches, say 20, before hiding one, because then they may not know a single thing about waterproofing, good places etc.

 

What are your thoughts???

Yes!!!

In the past few weeks I have found 3 caches with very bad coordinates 30 - 60 feet off and one of those was a buried sprinkler head cache. Then there are the two with coordinates that are so far off that no one has found them, the CO has disabled them about 3 weeks ago but has not fixed the problem. Now part of the problem could be the use of cell phones to place the caches but there is no way to know for sure if that is the problem.

Edited January 4, 2014 by JohnnyVegas