+dprovan Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Your earlier point (which is that geocachers see a disabled cache, assume that it's had something terrible happen to it, and look no further) seems to contradict other claims that mountain geocachers do not care about the condition or even the presence of the geocache in the first place, since they intend to bring a cache with them anyway. In that case, I disagree. I don't know these people or this culture, but I would expect that when nothing seems to be wrong, they're willing come prepared to deal with possible problems, but if the cache is disabled, they'll go somewhere else. They don't come prepared because they want to encounter a problem or expect to encounter a problem. They come prepared because there might be a problem, and since they're already on scene, it will take very little effort for them to deal with it, but a great deal of effort for the CO to go out there to deal with it. I don't see any reason, beyond sentimentality, why these geocaches actually should be treated much differently than others. Well, I agree with you there, but for the opposite reason as you: I think it's wrong for reviewers to treat any cache, easy to reach or remote, as something they should monitor and clean up unilaterally. They shouldn't disable any cache just because they have some flimsy reason to guess it could possibly have a problem. And the fact that people who seek remote caches have a different attitude is a good example of why I say that: the reviewer shouldn't get involved unless someone in the local community who has the relevant perspective asks them to get involved. Quote Link to comment
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.