Addictive Cache Ownership

[+L0ne.R]

Edit --- The looked again and I was wrong about the number of cache hides....I'm sure I saw pages and pages of hides but there weren't thousands. Anyway, the question is still relevant.

 

I was just looking at some of my NMs/NAs. I noticed that one cacher posted an OM to clear an old NM that I had posted last year. Recent logs before the OM said the log was too wet to sign, that the cache needed maintenance (yet no one else posted an NM), after his OM the each logger continues to not that the log is too wet to sign.

When I visited the area to search for pioneer cemetery caches, all of this cacher's cache hides were wet (dollar store containers). None were being maintained.

 

Realistically, shouldn't there be a cut-off?

Some cache owners are literally addicted.

Is there nothing that should be done to stop some owners from hiding 1000s of caches, saturating areas and never maintaining those caches--maintained by enablers who support the addiction, with more leaky containers.

As a finder I don't want to enable this behaviour and have stopped searching for caches by addicted cache hiders. But I may be the only one that sees this behaviour as a detriment to the pastime.

Edited June 1, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+candlestick]

Yep I've seen this too! There are so many nice spots and then they are taken by one owner who doesn't really put much thought into the hides. You'd think there would be a cut off . How in the world do you maintain that many hides?!? I barely have time to go out for a maintenance run for only 30 hides I can't imagine having more than that and having them be in good shape.

Edited June 1, 2017 by candlestick

[+fuzziebear3]

Seems like the 'fake' OM logs are more of the issue.

 

If you get tagged with an NM (legit or otherwise), you really are on the hook to go out and visit and check and fix up the cache, not just couch log an OM.

[+niraD]

Sounds like a candidate for a Placement ban due to Divisiveness?

[Keystone]

Sounds like a candidate for a Placement ban due to Divisiveness?

I was going to link to that same January thread as evidence of Geocaching HQ's policy to suspend certain geocachers' rights to hide additional caches. This is part of the overall 2017 strategic emphasis on cache quality.

 

I think that the title of that thread is misleading. The primary reason for the suspension is that the owner had placed way too many caches. "Divisiveness in the community" is sometimes an effect of this, but the root cause is a large number of placements. The January thread quoted part of a larger conversation, out of context.

 

Other geocachers have also been notified of restrictions on their ability to hide additional geocaches, but those other cases did not lead to dramatic threads in these Forums.

 

As a Community Volunteer Reviewer, I now know that I can seek assistance from HQ if and when a cache owner in my review territory has hidden way more caches than they are reasonably able to maintain.

 

It's not possible to establish a universal "cut off" as suggested in the OP, because different hiders have different maintenance abilities. For example, Owner #1 has 500 active hides, many of which are in poor containers and/or a decent distance from the owner's home, and the owner is very busy between their full-time job and their activity in finding lots of geocaches. Owner #2 also owns 500 active hides, many of them are ammo cans and other sturdy containers, most of them are hidden within the CO's "home territory," and the owner responds promptly to maintenance issues because he is retired. While it might be appropriate to cut off Owner #1 from listing additional caches on Geocaching.com, that would not be a fair limit to impose on Owner #2.

[+The A-Team]

Realistically, shouldn't there be a cut-off?

As Keystone mentioned, there can't really be a set cut-off, because everyone's abilities are different. Rather, you should be asking "shouldn't some COs be cut off?", to which the answer is yes. Personally, I feel that if a reviewer archives a CO's cache due to lack of maintenance, that CO should be barred from submitting any new hides for a period of time (to be debated). Too often I see COs let their existing hides fester and get archived, only to then throw out some more new caches and the cycle continues. That cycle needs to be broken in order to get the point across that the CO isn't doing their job and won't be allowed to create more geo-trash until they get their game in gear.

[+Touchstone]

Perhaps a special tab could be added to the User Profile for everyone, where badges could accumulate on the page, much like fighter pilots in both world wars would keep track of their "kills" on the fuselage of the planes they flew. Here is just a random sampling of the type of "badges" people could *earn* for not taking care of their caches:

 

[+lee737]

Personally, I feel that if a reviewer archives a CO's cache due to lack of maintenance, that CO should be barred from submitting any new hides for a period of time (to be debated).

 

+1

[+Team Microdot]

Personally, I feel that if a reviewer archives a CO's cache due to lack of maintenance, that CO should be barred from submitting any new hides for a period of time (to be debated).

 

+1

 

+1

[+redsox_mark]

Personally, I feel that if a reviewer archives a CO's cache due to lack of maintenance, that CO should be barred from submitting any new hides for a period of time (to be debated).

 

I like what Keystone said, that reviewers can involve and get the support of Groundspeak if they see a hider in their area not coping with their number of hides and requesting to hide more.

 

I'm not sure about the quote above. It's not a bad idea, and would make COs more likely to respond to the reviewer archive notices. But that may not solve the problem.

 

The only CO I know of in my area who I feel has a lot and doesn't maintain, archives the caches himself when there are issues reported. I.e. he is active on the website and won't let a reviewer archive the cache, but he still lets their existing hides fester and then archives them, only to then throw out some more new caches and the cycle continues. His initial hides tend to be good, so they last for some years before this happens, so no issues with permanence.

[+Team Microdot]

I'm not sure about the quote above. It's not a bad idea, and would make COs more likely to respond to the reviewer archive notices. But that may not solve the problem.

 

I suppose that depends on what you perceive the problem to be.

[+redsox_mark]

I'm not sure about the quote above. It's not a bad idea, and would make COs more likely to respond to the reviewer archive notices. But that may not solve the problem.

 

I suppose that depends on what you perceive the problem to be.

 

I'm replying to problem as defined in the same post as that solution. "Too often I see COs let their existing hides fester and get archived, only to then throw out some more new caches and the cycle continues. "

[+Team Microdot]

I'm not sure about the quote above. It's not a bad idea, and would make COs more likely to respond to the reviewer archive notices. But that may not solve the problem.

 

I suppose that depends on what you perceive the problem to be.

 

I'm replying to problem as defined in the same post as that solution. "Too often I see COs let their existing hides fester and get archived, only to then throw out some more new caches and the cycle continues. "

 

Then indeed it might not fix the problem but:

 

1. It might well (probably will?) curtail it.

2. I don't see 'might not fix the problem' as a good reason for not trying it - in this instance.

[+redsox_mark]

I prefer reviewer judgement as described by Keystone to specific rules.

 

I would not want to see a generally good CO banned from new hides because of a single oversight which caused a cache of his/hers to be archived by a reviewer.

 

While at the same time, the "bad" CO who doesn't maintain anything but archives caches him/herself can continue to hide more.

[+Team Microdot]

I prefer reviewer judgement as described by Keystone to specific rules.

 

Have specific rules been mentioned?

 

I would not want to see a generally good CO banned from new hides because of a single oversight which caused a cache of his/hers to be archived by a reviewer.

 

Agreed but I didn't think we were talking about generally good CO's or single oversights.

 

While at the same time, the "bad" CO who doesn't maintain anything but archives caches him/herself can continue to hide more.

 

That's another problem.

[+barefootjeff]

I prefer reviewer judgement as described by Keystone to specific rules.

 

I would not want to see a generally good CO banned from new hides because of a single oversight which caused a cache of his/hers to be archived by a reviewer.

 

While at the same time, the "bad" CO who doesn't maintain anything but archives caches him/herself can continue to hide more.

It depends on the circumstances, of course, but is that necessarily a bad thing? If the caches are of reasonable quality to start with, last a year or three, and are promptly archived when they fail or disappear, that approach could provide some refreshing turnover in a stale area where everyone's found everything.

 

Here we tend to cop severe weather events every few years which wipe out quite a few caches and, rather than just replace the lost containers, it might be better to take that as an opportunity to write them off and try something new. I've done that with a couple of mine that were storm-damaged.

[+Team Microdot]

I prefer reviewer judgement as described by Keystone to specific rules.

 

I would not want to see a generally good CO banned from new hides because of a single oversight which caused a cache of his/hers to be archived by a reviewer.

 

While at the same time, the "bad" CO who doesn't maintain anything but archives caches him/herself can continue to hide more.

It depends on the circumstances, of course, but is that necessarily a bad thing? If the caches are of reasonable quality to start with, last a year or three, and are promptly archived when they fail or disappear, that approach could provide some refreshing turnover in a stale area where everyone's found everything.

 

Here we tend to cop severe weather events every few years which wipe out quite a few caches and, rather than just replace the lost containers, it might be better to take that as an opportunity to write them off and try something new. I've done that with a couple of mine that were storm-damaged.

 

I thought the context of the discussion revolved around caches which had been left to fester for an extended period, rather than those of the type I think you're describing here.

[+barefootjeff]

I prefer reviewer judgement as described by Keystone to specific rules.

 

I would not want to see a generally good CO banned from new hides because of a single oversight which caused a cache of his/hers to be archived by a reviewer.

 

While at the same time, the "bad" CO who doesn't maintain anything but archives caches him/herself can continue to hide more.

It depends on the circumstances, of course, but is that necessarily a bad thing? If the caches are of reasonable quality to start with, last a year or three, and are promptly archived when they fail or disappear, that approach could provide some refreshing turnover in a stale area where everyone's found everything.

 

Here we tend to cop severe weather events every few years which wipe out quite a few caches and, rather than just replace the lost containers, it might be better to take that as an opportunity to write them off and try something new. I've done that with a couple of mine that were storm-damaged.

 

I thought the context of the discussion revolved around caches which had been left to fester for an extended period, rather than those of the type I think you're describing here.

Yep, fair call, I didn't read far enough back.

[+Team Microdot]

I prefer reviewer judgement as described by Keystone to specific rules.

 

I would not want to see a generally good CO banned from new hides because of a single oversight which caused a cache of his/hers to be archived by a reviewer.

 

While at the same time, the "bad" CO who doesn't maintain anything but archives caches him/herself can continue to hide more.

It depends on the circumstances, of course, but is that necessarily a bad thing? If the caches are of reasonable quality to start with, last a year or three, and are promptly archived when they fail or disappear, that approach could provide some refreshing turnover in a stale area where everyone's found everything.

 

Here we tend to cop severe weather events every few years which wipe out quite a few caches and, rather than just replace the lost containers, it might be better to take that as an opportunity to write them off and try something new. I've done that with a couple of mine that were storm-damaged.

 

I thought the context of the discussion revolved around caches which had been left to fester for an extended period, rather than those of the type I think you're describing here.

Yep, fair call, I didn't read far enough back.

 

No worries

Edited June 2, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+redsox_mark]

I prefer reviewer judgement as described by Keystone to specific rules.

 

Have specific rules been mentioned?

 

 

Yes. There was a suggestion of a new rule change, and that is what I have been replying to.

 

"I feel that if a reviewer archives a CO's cache due to lack of maintenance, that CO should be barred from submitting any new hides for a period of time (to be debated). "

 

I don't want to argue the semantics of the words "rule change". What Keystone stated is very general, reviewer judgement that a CO should have a hiding "time out". The suggestion in italics is a specific idea, if X happens then Y should happen. That is what I meant my a specific rule.

[+Team Microdot]

I prefer reviewer judgement as described by Keystone to specific rules.

 

Have specific rules been mentioned?

 

 

Yes. There was a suggestion of a new rule change, and that is what I have been replying to.

 

"I feel that if a reviewer archives a CO's cache due to lack of maintenance, that CO should be barred from submitting any new hides for a period of time (to be debated). "

 

I don't want to argue the semantics of the words "rule change". What Keystone stated is very general, reviewer judgement that a CO should have a hiding "time out". The suggestion in italics is a specific idea, if X happens then Y should happen. That is what I meant my a specific rule.

 

You don't want to argue the semantics of the words "rule change" - just provide your definitions? OK, it's not the first time I've noticed this sort of approach here in the forums.

 

I won't argue the semantics of the words "rule change" then if you don't want to. I'll just say that I assumed we were discussing allowing reviewers to ban serial maintenance shirkers from placing more caches.

[+redsox_mark]

 

You don't want to argue the semantics of the words "rule change" - just provide your definitions? OK, it's not the first time I've noticed this sort of approach here in the forums.

 

I won't argue the semantics of the words "rule change" then if you don't want to. I'll just say that I assumed we were discussing allowing reviewers to ban serial maintenance shirkers from placing more caches.

 

I will opt out of this discussion and I don't like the way this is going. I think I was pretty clear. There was a specific suggestion, and I explained why I am not in favour of it.

[+Team Microdot]

 

You don't want to argue the semantics of the words "rule change" - just provide your definitions? OK, it's not the first time I've noticed this sort of approach here in the forums.

 

I won't argue the semantics of the words "rule change" then if you don't want to. I'll just say that I assumed we were discussing allowing reviewers to ban serial maintenance shirkers from placing more caches.

 

I will opt out of this discussion and I don't like the way this is going. I think I was pretty clear. There was a specific suggestion, and I explained why I am not in favour of it.

 

Fair enough.

[Keystone]

I'll just say that I assumed we were discussing allowing reviewers to ban serial maintenance shirkers from placing more caches.

No one has suggested that. But, you are entitled to your assumptions, I suppose. Please don't let them drown out civil discussion by others.

[+Team Microdot]

I'll just say that I assumed we were discussing allowing reviewers to ban serial maintenance shirkers from placing more caches.

No one has suggested that. But, you are entitled to your assumptions, I suppose. Please don't let them drown out civil discussion by others.

 

I wouldn't dream of it.

[+edexter]

Moderator Keystone wrote:

 

"...This is part of the overall 2017 strategic emphasis on cache quality..."

 

Could you say more about this process? Or direct me to it any written material on it? I am very interested in any efforts Groundspeak is making to improve cache quality and limit the quantity of poor and unmaintained caches. Thanks

[+The A-Team]

I prefer reviewer judgement as described by Keystone to specific rules.

 

Have specific rules been mentioned?

 

 

Yes. There was a suggestion of a new rule change, and that is what I have been replying to.

 

"I feel that if a reviewer archives a CO's cache due to lack of maintenance, that CO should be barred from submitting any new hides for a period of time (to be debated). "

 

I don't want to argue the semantics of the words "rule change". What Keystone stated is very general, reviewer judgement that a CO should have a hiding "time out". The suggestion in italics is a specific idea, if X happens then Y should happen. That is what I meant my a specific rule.

 

You don't want to argue the semantics of the words "rule change" - just provide your definitions? OK, it's not the first time I've noticed this sort of approach here in the forums.

 

I won't argue the semantics of the words "rule change" then if you don't want to. I'll just say that I assumed we were discussing allowing reviewers to ban serial maintenance shirkers from placing more caches.

 

Geocaching forum law - "As an online discussion in the Geocaching forums grows longer, the probability of an argument about the definition of a term or word approaches 1"

 

The discussion at hand is about dealing with COs who hide more caches than they can adequately maintain. My proposed solution is just one way that could potentially handle some of these COs. Whether you want to call it a rule change, policy change, or something else, the label doesn't matter at this point. Let's see if we can come up with a solution first and then worry about the semantics of what to call it later.

[Nicc from KS]

Many of these "so-called" maintenance issues involve wet log sheets. (Oh-Boo-Hoo). So the log is wet. Leave a replacement log in a baggy or don't fuss about it with a NM. REMEMBER geocaching is about the journey/adventure to some place that you might have never been, not making your mark on some piece of paper.

 

"2017 strategic emphasis on cache quality..."- Yes, what does this mean? Is Groundspeak trying to clean up; missing caches, caches with bad coordinates, caches hidden under bridges where transients live, caches hidden by inexperience newbs who just downloaded the app? I went to do maintenance on a cache about a month ago because of a NM log complaining about a wet log. A reviewer placed an archive threat on the cache. I found the container; intact, in place and with a dry logsheet. Wet log sheets should not be the sole reason for a NM.

 

Based on my recent experience here in Kansas, it seems there are some side games going with reviewers and the administrators at geocachinghq. Their wanton desires to archive caches for 'not legitimate' reasons is causing divisiveness in the community.

 

Maybe the problem isn't with cache ownership.

[+cerberus1]

Many of these "so-called" maintenance issues involve wet log sheets. (Oh-Boo-Hoo). So the log is wet. Leave a replacement log in a baggy or don't fuss about it with a NM. REMEMBER geocaching is about the journey/adventure to some place that you might have never been, not making your mark on some piece of paper.

 

"2017 strategic emphasis on cache quality..."- Yes, what does this mean? Is Groundspeak trying to clean up; missing caches, caches with bad coordinates, caches hidden under bridges where transients live, caches hidden by inexperience newbs who just downloaded the app? I went to do maintenance on a cache about a month ago because of a NM log complaining about a wet log. A reviewer placed an archive threat on the cache. I found the container; intact, in place and with a dry logsheet. Wet log sheets should not be the sole reason for a NM.

 

Based on my recent experience here in Kansas, it seems there are some side games going with reviewers and the administrators at geocachinghq. Their wanton desires to archive caches for 'not legitimate' reasons is causing divisiveness in the community.

 

Maybe the problem isn't with cache ownership.

The hobby is (I believe) "all about the journey"...

However, one of the few rules is "sign the log", which actually means making your mark on some piece of paper if that cache type requires it.

- That's explained as basics in Geocaching 101...

 

A wet log becomes a moldy log/container. A moldy log, besides being gross, can make some folks very sick.

Luckily (I guess) we don't live elsewhere, as we appreciate our Reviewers getting some of this carp out of our hobby.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Locally, I see two types of addictive cache owners.

One has hundreds of hides. Generally interesting. But all of a sudden one sees the archive with "Good bye". No reason for the archive. Lots of the caches are maintained. Many are not. I DNFed three of four in a series. Those three got archived. I'd guess 30-40% of the hides are archived.

Then we have the recycler. Archive the caches here, I'm hiding new ones. New event here. Archive all the old ones and hide new ones. Again, 30-40% of the more than 400 hides have been recycled. I've spent a lot of time geocaching in that park. Do I really need to go back for recycled caches?

[+justintim1999]

I prefer reviewer judgement as described by Keystone to specific rules.

 

Have specific rules been mentioned?

 

 

Yes. There was a suggestion of a new rule change, and that is what I have been replying to.

 

"I feel that if a reviewer archives a CO's cache due to lack of maintenance, that CO should be barred from submitting any new hides for a period of time (to be debated). "

 

I don't want to argue the semantics of the words "rule change". What Keystone stated is very general, reviewer judgement that a CO should have a hiding "time out". The suggestion in italics is a specific idea, if X happens then Y should happen. That is what I meant my a specific rule.

 

You don't want to argue the semantics of the words "rule change" - just provide your definitions? OK, it's not the first time I've noticed this sort of approach here in the forums.

 

I won't argue the semantics of the words "rule change" then if you don't want to. I'll just say that I assumed we were discussing allowing reviewers to ban serial maintenance shirkers from placing more caches.

 

Geocaching forum law - "As an online discussion in the Geocaching forums grows longer, the probability of an argument about the definition of a term or word approaches 1"

 

The discussion at hand is about dealing with COs who hide more caches than they can adequately maintain. My proposed solution is just one way that could potentially handle some of these COs. Whether you want to call it a rule change, policy change, or something else, the label doesn't matter at this point. Let's see if we can come up with a solution first and then worry about the semantics of what to call it later.

 

+1

[Nicc from KS]

Which is worse? A cache owner with 50 hides that he/she does not maintain, or 50 newbs who downloaded the app, dropped a pill bottle and then disappeared a month later?

 

Should Groundspeak do something about one and not the other? Or both?

 

If Groundspeak and the reviewers want to curb the behavior of the former, why are they promoting the behavior of the latter?

[+Team Microdot]

Which is worse? A cache owner with 50 hides that he/she does not maintain, or 50 newbs who downloaded the app, dropped a pill bottle and then disappeared a month later?

 

Should Groundspeak do something about one and not the other? Or both?

 

If Groundspeak and the reviewers want to curb the behavior of the former, why are they promoting the behavior of the latter?

 

A. A cache owner with 50 hides that he/she does not maintain.

[+jellis]

I just did a big maintenance run on Saturday. I would say a loop of 100 miles maybe more. I had to replace some that were missing. One I knew wouldn't be missing unless the object the cache was on was removed and no one mentioned it or a (heaven forbid)a cacher took it. But after 3 DNFs I had to prove to others it was still there. Sure enough it was. I photographed the logsheet and noticed one cacher did not sign the logsheet. Sorry but had to delete their log. And the last cache is probably still there but a very prickly Oak tree made it impossible to reach it so I had to replace in a different location. Two caches were reported as they had to bushwack some weeds. I'm sorry but in the wild I will not go out and cut down weeds. Nature will take it's course and do it.

I did a run a few months ago where a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

 

And I own 266 and still can maintain them.

Edited June 5, 2017 by jellis

[+Team Microdot]

I did a run a few months ago were a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

 

How do you know they were 'stolen' by other cachers?

[+jellis]

Which is worse? A cache owner with 50 hides that he/she does not maintain, or 50 newbs who downloaded the app, dropped a pill bottle and then disappeared a month later?

 

Should Groundspeak do something about one and not the other? Or both?

 

If Groundspeak and the reviewers want to curb the behavior of the former, why are they promoting the behavior of the latter?

And worse even is the cachers trying to find them and replacing the caches prolonging their life.

[+Team Microdot]

Which is worse? A cache owner with 50 hides that he/she does not maintain, or 50 newbs who downloaded the app, dropped a pill bottle and then disappeared a month later?

 

Should Groundspeak do something about one and not the other? Or both?

 

If Groundspeak and the reviewers want to curb the behavior of the former, why are they promoting the behavior of the latter?

And worse even is the cachers trying to find them and replacing the caches prolonging their life.

 

I have known CO's encourage this and even try to fuel it in a bid to avoid doing their own maintenance

[+jellis]

I did a run a few months ago were a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

 

How do you know they were 'stolen' by other cachers?

In positions I placed them would not be found by a muggle. The one with the fake rock was placed under a concrete slab. The fake bolt was under a gate hinge, not in the open. It was there for a long time. I don't leave my evil caches in the open in areas I believe would be knocked off or taken by muggles

[+jellis]

Which is worse? A cache owner with 50 hides that he/she does not maintain, or 50 newbs who downloaded the app, dropped a pill bottle and then disappeared a month later?

 

Should Groundspeak do something about one and not the other? Or both?

 

If Groundspeak and the reviewers want to curb the behavior of the former, why are they promoting the behavior of the latter?

And worse even is the cachers trying to find them and replacing the caches prolonging their life.

 

I have known CO's encourage this and even try to fuel it in a bid to avoid doing their own maintenance

I prefer to replace most of my own. But if someone offers I don't mind. I just don't like cachers replacing them without asking because most of the time my cache is still there.

[+Team Microdot]

I did a run a few months ago were a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

 

How do you know they were 'stolen' by other cachers?

In positions I placed them would not be found by a muggle. The one with the fake rock was placed under a concrete slab. The fake bolt was under a gate hinge, not in the open. It was there for a long time. I don't leave my evil caches in the open in areas I believe would be knocked off or taken by muggles

 

Sometimes the magnets used in magnetic caches become weaker over time and just fall off whatever they are attached to and end up swept away / washed away / hidden in undergrowth / roll down slopes....

[+paleolith]

Many of these "so-called" maintenance issues involve wet log sheets. (Oh-Boo-Hoo). So the log is wet. Leave a replacement log in a baggy or don't fuss about it with a NM.

 

The purpose of putting the log in a plastic bag is to help finders identify the log when a variety of other items are in the cache. 99% of the time, plastic bags do nothing to keep the log dry, and often do far more to prevent it from drying out.

 

There are bags which can keep a log dry, but you can't buy them at the supermarket. The purpose of supermarket food storage bags is to prevent MOST of the moisture from migrating (in or out) for relatively short periods of time under controlled conditions. But long term (as in a cache), the tiniest hole will allow water through. The plastic itself isn't totally resistant to water passing through -- anything less than 4 mil PE is almost a sieve, and you really need thicker than 4 mil. And it only takes water vapor migrating to leave something wet. A difference in vapor pressure results in a strong force to equalize that pressure. Once water vapor infiltrates, it eventually condenses as conditions change.

 

The upshot is that there are four common reasons a log is wet:

 

1) Someone found the cache in the rain and did not adequately protect it.

 

2) Over the course of multiple finds, water vapor entered when the cache was opened, and later condensed inside.

 

3) A bit of vegetation (eg blade of grass) got caught in the seal when the cache was being closed, and acted as a wick.

 

4) The cache container is insufficiently waterproof for the placement and weather conditions.

 

None of these issues can be addressed by adding a plastic bag. When you have time and weather conditions allow, you can address the first three cases by allowing the log and all other items in the cache to dry thoroughly before reclosing it (and removing the "wick" in the third case). In the last case, NM is in order -- you can't fix it for the CO.

 

Unfortunately, at least 90% of cache containers are insufficiently waterproof. The percentage is higher in wet climates -- a decon works fine in SoCal but is a disaster in Florida. Even waterproof match cases usually leak when left outdoors for a long time in wet weather. Even some of the containers sold by Groundspeak do poorly over the long run. The only containers I've observed consistently keeping water out are ammo cans (in excellent condition), Lock-n-Locks (brand only), and preforms. And even those are subject to the first two problems.

 

Edward

[+jellis]

I did a run a few months ago were a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

 

How do you know they were 'stolen' by other cachers?

In positions I placed them would not be found by a muggle. The one with the fake rock was placed under a concrete slab. The fake bolt was under a gate hinge, not in the open. It was there for a long time. I don't leave my evil caches in the open in areas I believe would be knocked off or taken by muggles

 

Sometimes the magnets used in magnetic caches become weaker over time and just fall off whatever they are attached to and end up swept away / washed away / hidden in undergrowth / roll down slopes....

I understand that. But a bolt is heavy. The area has not been swept up in a long time and it is flat ground. And I searched the area. The magnetic is strong.

[+The Magna Defender]

I did a run a few months ago were a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

 

How do you know they were 'stolen' by other cachers?

 

I am having the same issue with my hides. They are randomly being targeted by cachers who tight to go buying containers on ebay.

[+Team Microdot]

I did a run a few months ago were a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

 

How do you know they were 'stolen' by other cachers?

 

I am having the same issue with my hides. They are randomly being targeted by cachers who tight to go buying containers on ebay.

 

Randomly targeted?

 

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[+The Magna Defender]

I did a run a few months ago were a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

 

How do you know they were 'stolen' by other cachers?

 

I am having the same issue with my hides. They are randomly being targeted by cachers who tight to go buying containers on ebay.

 

Randomly targeted?

 

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

possibly. they are nicking caches of random ages in random places so there is no pattern to be found to incriminate who it is.

[+Team Microdot]

I did a run a few months ago were a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

 

How do you know they were 'stolen' by other cachers?

 

I am having the same issue with my hides. They are randomly being targeted by cachers who tight to go buying containers on ebay.

 

Randomly targeted?

 

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

possibly. they are nicking caches of random ages in random places so there is no pattern to be found to incriminate who it is.

 

So random caches are going missing.

 

I don't think I've ever met a CO who didn't have a cache go missing at some point.

 

I have though found caches by some CO's which were still right where they were meant to be despite claims that they'd been stolen.

[+The Magna Defender]

I did a run a few months ago were a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

 

How do you know they were 'stolen' by other cachers?

 

I am having the same issue with my hides. They are randomly being targeted by cachers who tight to go buying containers on ebay.

 

Randomly targeted?

 

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

possibly. they are nicking caches of random ages in random places so there is no pattern to be found to incriminate who it is.

 

So random caches are going missing.

 

I don't think I've ever met a CO who didn't have a cache go missing at some point.

 

I have though found caches by some CO's which were still right where they were meant to be despite claims that they'd been stolen.

 

aye you did well on that one. it wasn't where I put it when I placed it. Perhaps the issue of double containers at GZ wouldn't be an issue if people actually did as the guidelines requested and put it back where it should go. Still its a nice walk through the fields to go and remove the throwdown, ha thats a new one, a throwdown left by a CO !

[+cerberus1]

I did a run a few months ago where a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

Feel bad for the CO, and I agree.

- But I find it interesting to see that these newer cachers feel a container is a nano or fake bolt.

Guess they feel they can supply their own pill bottles...

 

Now that urban/roadside is the popular thing, we have noticed ammo cans in the woods lasting a bit longer.

[+Team Microdot]

I did a run a few months ago were a fake rock,a nano,and a fake bolt were stolen. I wish these cachers would just buy their own and not steal from others.

 

How do you know they were 'stolen' by other cachers?

 

I am having the same issue with my hides. They are randomly being targeted by cachers who tight to go buying containers on ebay.

 

Randomly targeted?

 

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

possibly. they are nicking caches of random ages in random places so there is no pattern to be found to incriminate who it is.

 

So random caches are going missing.

 

I don't think I've ever met a CO who didn't have a cache go missing at some point.

 

I have though found caches by some CO's which were still right where they were meant to be despite claims that they'd been stolen.

 

aye you did well on that one. it wasn't where I put it when I placed it. Perhaps the issue of double containers at GZ wouldn't be an issue if people actually did as the guidelines requested and put it back where it should go. Still its a nice walk through the fields to go and remove the throwdown, ha thats a new one, a throwdown left by a CO !

 

Caches - plural.

 

Another example of caches found which were supposedly missing (stolen?) tiny plastic centrifuge tubes blown out of the tree they were perched in, found in the long grass below.

 

Also caches unvisited for a long time which turned out to have become buried as a result of naturally occuring processes.

 

Then, as you say, there's cache creep - it's amazing how far a cache can travel in tiny steps over the course of a year with no visit from the CO - and I speak from personal experience on that one.

 

Caches placed too close to bodies of water and washed away after spells of heavy rain...

 

Then there's situations where I've arrived at a cache which has not been rehidden at all - perhaps a previous finder couldn't be bothered or perhaps a muggle discovered the cache by accident and just left it lying there on the ground... someone else picks it up out of curiosity as they're walking by, tosses it on the ground away from GZ... their dog thinks it's a toy and grabs it and runs off with it...

 

There are probably more innocent reasons caches go missing than malicious reasons.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+hzoi]

Until I saw a cache container I could identify as one I hid being used for someone else's cache, I think I would hesitate to accuse other cachers of theft. Suspicion isn't proof, and making baseless accusations is not exactly a way to win friends and influence people.

 

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

And since this is getting waaaaay off topic, perhaps a course correction.

 

As far as cache ownership, just as there should be no minimum to find before owning a cache (though I understand that the 101 video pretty much "highly recommends" 100 finds first), there should not be a hard and fast rule on how many caches one can own. Everyone's situation is different; if someone has the ability and motivation to hide and maintain a thousand caches, then so be it. But if a cacher is unable to maintain their hides adequately, I would support having that be a factor in determining whether they get more hides published. (Yes, that rather brings us back to the "maintenance shirkers" threads, but it's relevant.)

Edited June 7, 2017 by hzoi