Caching while traveling?

[Henderson713]

Now I know it is not allowed to place a cache while traveling but I have a fellow geocacher in the area that will maintain my cache for me would that be acceptable?

[+niraD]

Why doesn't the fellow geocacher place and list the cache?

[kanchan]

1.14. Can I Hide a Cache While on Vacation?

[+Touchstone]

Probably a good idea to hide one closer to home so you know what it's like to maintain a cache before you saddle the responsibility on a friend.

[+ChileHead]

Help to your friend hide it, but list it in their name.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Vacation spots are littered with poor-quality caches in disrepair, with faraway owners.

 

Please don't.

 

Just don't.

[+Michaelcycle]

Vacation spots are littered with poor-quality caches in disrepair, with faraway owners.

 

Please don't.

 

Just don't.

 

To extend that a bit:

 

Vacation spots are literally littered with ARCHIVED poor-quality caches with faraway owners.

 

Please don't.

 

Just don't.

 

I feed my ego by finding caches in faraway places not by adding to the problems listed above.

[+hzoi]

Or, consider an earthcache. One of our first was placed in Norway, in Naerofjord. I've never returned to the fjord after the day we took the ferry through, but I can still maintain the listing all these years later, no matter where I move. In fact, as a military cacher, all of my listings will eventually become vacation caches, which is why lately we've concentrated more on earthcaches than physical ones.

[TahoeJoe]

As long as your friend agrees to maintain the cache or you frequent the area on a regular basis, I don’t see what the issue is. I live in a resort area and when I first started geocaching, I wouldn’t have had many geocaches to look for if it wasn’t for vacation caches. Many of these caches are still around and well maintained. You shouldn’t just assume that a vacation cache is going to be an inferior cache. A good CO is what makes a cache.

[+Tassie_Boy]

A good CO is what makes a cache.

 

Correct. A good CO is one who who can respond to issues with the cache and perform maintenance on a regular basis, even preventive maintenance. A CO cannot respond to "I Stood on the cache and crushed it" when they are half a world away, which only leads to propping up crappy caches.

 

I know everyone has "A friend" who can look after it.... but why doesn't that friend place it instead?

[TahoeJoe]

A good CO is what makes a cache.

 

Correct. A good CO is one who who can respond to issues with the cache and perform maintenance on a regular basis, even preventive maintenance. A CO cannot respond to "I Stood on the cache and crushed it" when they are half a world away, which only leads to propping up crappy caches.

 

I know everyone has "A friend" who can look after it.... but why doesn't that friend place it instead?

The OP stated he has a friend who will maintain the cache. Your ludicrous over the top reply is irrelevant to the question that was asked. As for the popping up of poor caches, I think that ship has long set sail. Edited May 10, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+NYPaddleCacher]

A good CO is what makes a cache.

 

Correct. A good CO is one who who can respond to issues with the cache and perform maintenance on a regular basis, even preventive maintenance. A CO cannot respond to "I Stood on the cache and crushed it" when they are half a world away, which only leads to propping up crappy caches.

 

I know everyone has "A friend" who can look after it.... but why doesn't that friend place it instead?

The OP stated he has a friend who will maintain the cache. Your ludicrous over the top reply is irrelevant to the question that was asked.

 

I disagree. The OP asked whether it would be acceptable to place a cache while traveling if they had a friend that would take care of it.

 

Several of the responses (many based on actual experience) discouraged doing so with the premise that someone that is only acting as a care taker for someone elses cache will not likely maintain the cache as well as if the placed, and owned the cache themselves. If there are issues with the cache only the cache owner can disable/enable the listing (unless they share their username/password with the caretaker).

While there are exceptions of vacation caches, maintained by someone other than the cache owner that are actually maintained, I suspect that the percentage is so low that it doesn't justify encouraging the OP to go ahead and place some while traveling. As others have suggested, why not suggest to the friend that they create their own account and hide the cache themselves.

 

As for the popping up of poor caches, I think that ship has long set sail.

 

So you're saying that because poor caches of other types are being propped up already we shouldn't discourage a different practice that props up poor caches?

 

Do you see a flaw in that logic?

 

 

 

[TahoeJoe]

A good CO is what makes a cache.

 

Correct. A good CO is one who who can respond to issues with the cache and perform maintenance on a regular basis, even preventive maintenance. A CO cannot respond to "I Stood on the cache and crushed it" when they are half a world away, which only leads to propping up crappy caches.

 

I know everyone has "A friend" who can look after it.... but why doesn't that friend place it instead?

The OP stated he has a friend who will maintain the cache. Your ludicrous over the top reply is irrelevant to the question that was asked.

 

I disagree. The OP asked whether it would be acceptable to place a cache while traveling if they had a friend that would take care of it.

 

Several of the responses (many based on actual experience) discouraged doing so with the premise that someone that is only acting as a care taker for someone elses cache will not likely maintain the cache as well as if the placed, and owned the cache themselves. If there are issues with the cache only the cache owner can disable/enable the listing (unless they share their username/password with the caretaker).

While there are exceptions of vacation caches, maintained by someone other than the cache owner that are actually maintained, I suspect that the percentage is so low that it doesn't justify encouraging the OP to go ahead and place some while traveling. As others have suggested, why not suggest to the friend that they create their own account and hide the cache themselves.

 

As for the popping up of poor caches, I think that ship has long set sail.

 

So you're saying that because poor caches of other types are being propped up already we shouldn't discourage a different practice that props up poor caches?

 

Do you see a flaw in that logic?

I don't see vacation caches as a bad thing if you are able to provide for it. The poor quality caches I have in mind are the ones thrown down by locals for power trails or other ways to inflate find counts. In the past, I've had positive experiences with vacation caches. Vacation caches in my experience are not going to be part of a PT or a leaky pill bottle. A few of the vacation caches I logged were placed because of some special meaning the location had for the CO. The first cache I ever found that got me into geocaching just went inactive after a 15 year run. It happened to be a vacation cache.

Edited May 10, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+colleda]

A good CO is what makes a cache.

 

Correct. A good CO is one who who can respond to issues with the cache and perform maintenance on a regular basis, even preventive maintenance. A CO cannot respond to "I Stood on the cache and crushed it" when they are half a world away, which only leads to propping up crappy caches.

 

I know everyone has "A friend" who can look after it.... but why doesn't that friend place it instead?

The OP stated he has a friend who will maintain the cache. Your ludicrous over the top reply is irrelevant to the question that was asked.

 

I disagree. The OP asked whether it would be acceptable to place a cache while traveling if they had a friend that would take care of it.

 

Several of the responses (many based on actual experience) discouraged doing so with the premise that someone that is only acting as a care taker for someone elses cache will not likely maintain the cache as well as if the placed, and owned the cache themselves. If there are issues with the cache only the cache owner can disable/enable the listing (unless they share their username/password with the caretaker).

While there are exceptions of vacation caches, maintained by someone other than the cache owner that are actually maintained, I suspect that the percentage is so low that it doesn't justify encouraging the OP to go ahead and place some while traveling. As others have suggested, why not suggest to the friend that they create their own account and hide the cache themselves.

 

As for the popping up of poor caches, I think that ship has long set sail.

 

So you're saying that because poor caches of other types are being propped up already we shouldn't discourage a different practice that props up poor caches?

 

Do you see a flaw in that logic?

I don't see vacation caches as a bad thing if you are able to provide for it. The poor quality caches I have in mind are the ones thrown down by locals for power trails or other ways to inflate find counts. In the past, I've had positive experiences with vacation caches. Vacation caches in my experience are not going to be part of a PT or a leaky pill bottle. A few of the vacation caches I logged were placed because of some special meaning the location had for the CO. The first cache I ever found that got me into geocaching just went inactive after a 15 year run. It happened to be a vacation cache.

That's not our experience. We have traveled to many countries, on vacation, where the larger percentage of caches are vacation type. They are often missing or have been poorly maintained by other cachers to the point where you are often looking for leaky baggies of mush. You post a NM, if one hasn't already been posted, or a NA hoping another throwdown doesn't appear afterwards. Often the original cache was of poor quality due to the CO just using whatever they had to hand rather than a placing something properly thought out or constructed. Ironically, the best ones we've found were those being "closely" looked after by a local business operator contrary to guidelines but still a pleasure to find. They are often a good size, with swag and TBs that are less likely to go missing.

[+Tassie_Boy]

A good CO is what makes a cache.

 

Correct. A good CO is one who who can respond to issues with the cache and perform maintenance on a regular basis, even preventive maintenance. A CO cannot respond to "I Stood on the cache and crushed it" when they are half a world away, which only leads to propping up crappy caches.

 

I know everyone has "A friend" who can look after it.... but why doesn't that friend place it instead?

The OP stated he has a friend who will maintain the cache. Your ludicrous over the top reply is irrelevant to the question that was asked.

 

I disagree. The OP asked whether it would be acceptable to place a cache while traveling if they had a friend that would take care of it.

 

Several of the responses (many based on actual experience) discouraged doing so with the premise that someone that is only acting as a care taker for someone elses cache will not likely maintain the cache as well as if the placed, and owned the cache themselves. If there are issues with the cache only the cache owner can disable/enable the listing (unless they share their username/password with the caretaker).

While there are exceptions of vacation caches, maintained by someone other than the cache owner that are actually maintained, I suspect that the percentage is so low that it doesn't justify encouraging the OP to go ahead and place some while traveling. As others have suggested, why not suggest to the friend that they create their own account and hide the cache themselves.

 

As for the popping up of poor caches, I think that ship has long set sail.

 

So you're saying that because poor caches of other types are being propped up already we shouldn't discourage a different practice that props up poor caches?

 

Do you see a flaw in that logic?

I don't see vacation caches as a bad thing if you are able to provide for it. The poor quality caches I have in mind are the ones thrown down by locals for power trails or other ways to inflate find counts. In the past, I've had positive experiences with vacation caches. Vacation caches in my experience are not going to be part of a PT or a leaky pill bottle. A few of the vacation caches I logged were placed because of some special meaning the location had for the CO. The first cache I ever found that got me into geocaching just went inactive after a 15 year run. It happened to be a vacation cache.

 

Great, so it's not a Crappy cache that's a part of a PT or dropped for numbers, it just becomes a Crappy cache when the "friend" loses interest in putting their time and money into someone else's hobby that they have no interest in.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

A good CO is what makes a cache.

 

Correct. A good CO is one who who can respond to issues with the cache and perform maintenance on a regular basis, even preventive maintenance. A CO cannot respond to "I Stood on the cache and crushed it" when they are half a world away, which only leads to propping up crappy caches.

 

I know everyone has "A friend" who can look after it.... but why doesn't that friend place it instead?

The OP stated he has a friend who will maintain the cache. Your ludicrous over the top reply is irrelevant to the question that was asked.

 

I disagree. The OP asked whether it would be acceptable to place a cache while traveling if they had a friend that would take care of it.

 

Several of the responses (many based on actual experience) discouraged doing so with the premise that someone that is only acting as a care taker for someone elses cache will not likely maintain the cache as well as if the placed, and owned the cache themselves. If there are issues with the cache only the cache owner can disable/enable the listing (unless they share their username/password with the caretaker).

 

While there are exceptions of vacation caches, maintained by someone other than the cache owner that are actually maintained, I suspect that the percentage is so low that it doesn't justify encouraging the OP to go ahead and place some while traveling. As others have suggested, why not suggest to the friend that they create their own account and hide the cache themselves.

 

As for the popping up of poor caches, I think that ship has long set sail.

 

So you're saying that because poor caches of other types are being propped up already we shouldn't discourage a different practice that props up poor caches?

 

Do you see a flaw in that logic?

I don't see vacation caches as a bad thing if you are able to provide for it. The poor quality caches I have in mind are the ones thrown down by locals for power trails or other ways to inflate find counts. In the past, I've had positive experiences with vacation caches. Vacation caches in my experience are not going to be part of a PT or a leaky pill bottle. A few of the vacation caches I logged were placed because of some special meaning the location had for the CO. The first cache I ever found that got me into geocaching just went inactive after a 15 year run. It happened to be a vacation cache.

That's not our experience. We have traveled to many countries, on vacation, where the larger percentage of caches are vacation type. They are often missing or have been poorly maintained by other cachers to the point where you are often looking for leaky baggies of mush. You post a NM, if one hasn't already been posted, or a NA hoping another throwdown doesn't appear afterwards. Often the original cache was of poor quality due to the CO just using whatever they had to hand rather than a placing something properly thought out or constructed. Ironically, the best ones we've found were those being "closely" looked after by a local business operator contrary to guidelines but still a pleasure to find. They are often a good size, with swag and TBs that are less likely to go missing.

 

The pretty much mimics my experience as well. I had a watch on a cache in Cuba for a couple of months that I thought I might find (turned out my travel never took me to the town in was in). During that time, the cache had multiple throw downs (usually just a piece of paper in a plastic baggie) that only seemed to last a couple of finds before it was muggled. I have also seen several exceptions, including caches inside a business with a caretaker that would give you the box when asked. There's one near a cruise ship port that was originally placed in 2001, has over 1000 finds and seems to be available. Those are, however, exceptions and are not common enough for me to encourage someone to place another vacation cache with a friend that will take of it.

[+Manville Possum]

Simple, if you can't maintain it don't place it.

[+dprovan]

I don't see vacation caches as a bad thing if you are able to provide for it.

The basic claim isn't that they're inherently bad so much as that they're pointless: if a local is willing to maintain it for you, it makes no sense for you to be the owner instead of him. That's just a fundamental observation even before we start enumerating the kinds of failures remotely owned caches are subject to.

 

The poor quality caches I have in mind are the ones thrown down by locals for power trails or other ways to inflate find counts.

Power trails aren't relevant to this conversation.

 

In the past, I've had positive experiences with vacation caches. Vacation caches in my experience are not going to be part of a PT or a leaky pill bottle.

Actually, most of the vacation caches I've seen have in fact been leaky pill bottles or something similar.

 

A few of the vacation caches I logged were placed because of some special meaning the location had for the CO. The first cache I ever found that got me into geocaching just went inactive after a 15 year run. It happened to be a vacation cache.

What I typically find is precisely what you say: the cache is placed because of the special meaning of the location, so there's no regard whatsoever for the quality of the container or the hide. And certainly no consideration of survivability.

 

Yes, I agree there can be exceptions, but they are too rare to encourage the practice. Although, to be fair, even caches owned by locals have a low survival rate in tourist areas.

[+noncentric]

I don't see vacation caches as a bad thing if you are able to provide for it.

The basic claim isn't that they're inherently bad so much as that they're pointless: if a local is willing to maintain it for you, it makes no sense for you to be the owner instead of him. That's just a fundamental observation even before we start enumerating the kinds of failures remotely owned caches are subject to.

I think most of the exceptions are for locations where "local cachers" are rare or non-existent. There are plenty of countries where there aren't many, or any, cachers. Allowing vacationers to place caches in such locales may be a way to introduce the hobby to others. Certainly, the intro isn't great if such caches are not maintained. However, I think maintenance of online logs should be emphasized for such CO's. For example, if it's clearly evident from the online logs that people are not finding the cache and still claiming finds, then the CO should delete those "Found It" logs and/or disable/archive the cache listing. Those false find logs misrepresent the true status of the cache.

 

I would hope that Groundspeak would be less flexible with someone in Seattle or Hamburg or London that wanted to place a vacation cache, as there are plenty of "local cachers" in such areas.