Cache Maintenance

[+GeoBain]

PTs are a different animal from regular geocaching and people seem happy to visit them and are more than willing to replace damaged or missing containers.

 

I'm not intending to be a PT defender by any means. I just think the maintenance angle is not the same for a PT as for regular caching and probably not worth all this concern. I didn't care for the PT cache linked above where the CO requested that people replace missing caches but I have no problem with people wanting to do that.

 

It seems that if you build a PT they will come... and they will replace.

 

If they are that different, perhaps they are not really geocaches and should not be listed on this site. I would think all geocaches should adhere to the guidelines and there should not be one maintenance requirement for one and no maintenance requirement for the other.

 

But if you're going allow solicitation of maintenance help by PT owners, then why not allow the occasional request for finder maintenance by all CO's.

[knowschad]

Why should anyone get a pass just because they did a lot of up-front work creating 500 caches at once or setting up some silly geo-art?

I know it doesn't sound right. It's the perception of a problem that seems to be the reason for all the flak.

 

PTs are a different animal from regular geocaching and people seem happy to visit them and are more than willing to replace damaged or missing containers.

 

I'm not intending to be a PT defender by any means. I just think the maintenance angle is not the same for a PT as for regular caching and probably not worth all this concern. I didn't care for the PT cache linked above where the CO requested that people replace missing caches but I have no problem with people wanting to do that.

 

It seems that if you build a PT they will come... and they will replace.

 

Re: the bolded portion

 

I don't think anybody disputes that. The issue, as I see it, is that they are all Traditional caches... no other distinction aside from proximity, and even that isn't necessarily true. But one set of traditional caches get one set of rules, while the other set of traditionals gets a different set?

[+dprovan]

So why does someone who puts out a string of identical, uninventive caches get a pass on maintenance while someone who puts out a lot of unique caches is held to the same standard as someone who puts out 1 cache?

I think you're not understanding the requirement. The requirement isn't that the CO personally maintain each and every cache. The requirement is that the CO has a maintenance plan that keeps the caches in good shape. With a power trail, the plan is sometimes to encourage seekers to maintain the caches, and it works because the seekers are expecting to maintain the caches and are willing to maintain the caches. The same plan would be less likely to work for someone just dropping stray caches. They'd tend to go missing, no one would care, and the caches would be archived because they are no longer viable.

 

I don't know anything about reviewing, but I guessing that reviewers would reject the seeker maintenance plan on a run-of-the-mill cache because of that low probability of success, not because there's a special place in their hearts for power trails.

[+J Grouchy]

So why does someone who puts out a string of identical, uninventive caches get a pass on maintenance while someone who puts out a lot of unique caches is held to the same standard as someone who puts out 1 cache?

I think you're not understanding the requirement. The requirement isn't that the CO personally maintain each and every cache. The requirement is that the CO has a maintenance plan that keeps the caches in good shape. With a power trail, the plan is sometimes to encourage seekers to maintain the caches, and it works because the seekers are expecting to maintain the caches and are willing to maintain the caches. The same plan would be less likely to work for someone just dropping stray caches. They'd tend to go missing, no one would care, and the caches would be archived because they are no longer viable.

 

I don't know anything about reviewing, but I guessing that reviewers would reject the seeker maintenance plan on a run-of-the-mill cache because of that low probability of success, not because there's a special place in their hearts for power trails.

 

They don't make it nearly so vague a requirement as you describe.

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time generally up to 4 weeks in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

 

The region in which a cacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person. A cacher who has previously logged caches within a wide range of their home may be considered able to maintain a geocache 200 miles (322 km) away. However, someone whose geocaching activities have primarily been within 25 miles (40 km) of home may not be able to maintain a geocache this far from home. This factor is determined at the discretion of the cache reviewer or Groundspeak.

 

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

 

It seems pretty clear to me...the owner or their designated agent is responsible for maintenance. There is no "understanding" (winkwinknudgenudge) that finders are part of the maintenance plan...unless the reviewers choose to ignore the guidelines.

Edited August 4, 2015 by J Grouchy

[+Sagefox]

...and it works because the seekers are expecting to maintain the caches and are willing to maintain the caches.

Pretty much sums it up. They work and doggone it, people like them.

[+GeoBain]

...and it works because the seekers are expecting to maintain the caches and are willing to maintain the caches.

Pretty much sums it up. They work and doggone it, people like them.

 

Same could be said for virtual so too, but they were not considered geocaches and moved to Waymarking site.