Newbie cachers hiding caches.

July 8, 2017

Should there be some minimum number of finds before a new geocacher is allowed to hide their own geocache? Recently in my area, we have had difficulty with brand new cachers hiding caches and not quite knowing how the game works. This includes caches being published before the new cachers actually get out to place the cache, terrible coordinates which are far off, or cache containers such as cardboard boxes. In all these cases it seems like lack of geocaching experience seems to be the problem. This could be solved by not allowing geocachers to publish caches until they have some experience to know how the activity works. Perhaps you could not publish a cache until you had 50 or 100 finds. What say you?

7.4k · July 8, 2017

This is a recurring topic in the forum.

3.5k · July 8, 2017

Yes - it certainly has been brought up multiple times. Not sure if it ever made it onto the Forum Schedule though.

For reference:

Geocachers hiding before finding

Minimum finds before hiding

Less than ten finds... creating geocaches?

Why are really new cachers able to place caches?

No Cachehides under 100 Finds.

[FEATURE] Set a minimum of 50 caches found before allowed to place one

No-find hiders. There ought be a law...

0 Finds placing caches

How many finds did you have...

How soon is too soon to start hiding caches?

Rules for Placing Caches For Newbies?

Becoming a CO

7k · July 8, 2017

There are many parts of the world where there simply aren't 50 or 100 caches to find without a lot of long-distance travelling.

July 8, 2017

My goal is to get 50 finds before I hide my own (and I am planning on reaching that goal)....and yes, I would agree than anyone who wants to hide one should have some finds under their belt before doing so. Even in places where cache finds are limited, I would think the bare minimum would be at LEAST 10 finds.... If a someone has a hide and no finds, I'd have a hard time taking that seriously and less likely to go out looking for such a hide....

2k · July 8, 2017

I see cachers with thousands of finds hiding poor caches such as those in parking lots, guard rails, or road side.

Experience doesn't mean they will always hide good caches.

14k · July 8, 2017

My goal is to get 50 finds before I hide my own (and I am planning on reaching that goal)....and yes, I would agree than anyone who wants to hide one should have some finds under their belt before doing so. Even in places where cache finds are limited, I would think the bare minimum would be at LEAST 10 finds.... If a someone has a hide and no finds, I'd have a hard time taking that seriously and less likely to go out looking for such a hide....

As was mentioned earlier, there are a lot of places in the world that have very few caches. There are 45 countries in the world with less than 10 caches in the entire country.

In an area already saturated with caches (thus, an area which does not really need more caches) it would very easy to get a minimum of 10, 100 or more finds. In a very cache sparse, area (thus, an area which could use more caches) it would be difficult to qualify to hide a cache, essentially preventing that area from growing. The rich get richer, the poor "remain in poverty".

July 8, 2017

Yep.

I see cachers with thousands of finds hiding poor caches such as those in parking lots, guard rails, or road side.

Experience doesn't mean they will always hide good caches.

5.7k · July 8, 2017

I see cachers with thousands of finds hiding poor caches such as those in parking lots, guard rails, or road side.

Experience doesn't mean they will always hide good caches.

Same here, and they own 100's of listings. Mostly log only P&G's.

7.5k · July 8, 2017

It is reasonable for us to say that people should have some geocaching experience before they hide a cache. But it's still not a good idea for Groundspeak to enforce an arbitrary measure of what can be considered "some geocaching experience".

1.5k · July 8, 2017

Out of curiosity, I looked to see how many I found before my first hide. About 170. And, even more interesting, that one just passed it's 10th anniversary, with 205 finds and 26 DNFs.

13.8k · July 8, 2017

My goal is to get 50 finds before I hide my own (and I am planning on reaching that goal)....and yes, I would agree than anyone who wants to hide one should have some finds under their belt before doing so. Even in places where cache finds are limited, I would think the bare minimum would be at LEAST 10 finds.... If a someone has a hide and no finds, I'd have a hard time taking that seriously and less likely to go out looking for such a hide....

You'd miss out on quite a few very good caches.

Some of the earliest cachers, you know, the ones who placed those caches that folks plan, and take vacation to visit, as well as Virtuals that so many enjoy, are often placed by people who only have a couple finds themselves (some with none).

10.1k · July 8, 2017

My goal is to get 50 finds before I hide my own (and I am planning on reaching that goal)....and yes, I would agree than anyone who wants to hide one should have some finds under their belt before doing so. Even in places where cache finds are limited, I would think the bare minimum would be at LEAST 10 finds.... If a someone has a hide and no finds, I'd have a hard time taking that seriously and less likely to go out looking for such a hide....

You'd miss out on quite a few very good caches.

Some of the earliest cachers, you know, the ones who placed those caches that folks plan, and take vacation to visit, as well as Virtuals that so many enjoy, are often placed by people who only have a couple finds themselves (some with none).

Well, yeah. On good cache hidden ten years ago. This is the muggle app era.

July 9, 2017

One rule I set for myself (base on comments other Geocachers have made) is that I would not hide a Geocache until I found at least 100 Geocaches.

1.4k · July 9, 2017

I have to disagree with this every time I see it come up. Just because my daughter and I went out caching for the first time (She was 11)and after our first day of finding a handful of caches she instantly got excited to hide one! We got to work on a container, a cool location and how to get good coords. Next time she was here we went and hid it. Well I think we did a few and that is the part of the game she loves. She loves to read the logs that came in after we hid that first cache and that is how we learned of doing a streak (The part I like) and made some friends with the CO of hides we had found. We have been hooked for 6 years after that. All of those first hides we made are still active and had more creative thought then some I have put out after learning what others do.

If we would have had to wait for us to get 100 finds she might have lost that interest, if she had lost interest in it I would have as well.

It all depends on the person hiding the cache and how much they care to put into it, no matter how many finds.

1.1k · July 9, 2017

After 5 months in the game and 117 finds I placed my fist Cache back in 2007. It lasted 4 yrs, was archived after I moved out of the area.

Back to the question from the OP - no I dont think there should be a minimum number of finds. If you feel like hiding a Cache and are willing to look after it properly (maintanence etc.) then go ahead and do it.

July 9, 2017

My goal is to get 50 finds before I hide my own (and I am planning on reaching that goal)....and yes, I would agree than anyone who wants to hide one should have some finds under their belt before doing so. Even in places where cache finds are limited, I would think the bare minimum would be at LEAST 10 finds.... If a someone has a hide and no finds, I'd have a hard time taking that seriously and less likely to go out looking for such a hide....

You'd miss out on quite a few very good caches.

Some of the earliest cachers, you know, the ones who placed those caches that folks plan, and take vacation to visit, as well as Virtuals that so many enjoy, are often placed by people who only have a couple finds themselves (some with none).

Well if that's the case, that's the case...I haven't been disappointed in any of my finds yet. I also don't get the time to do this as much as I'd like, so I'm sure I will also miss out on some good ones just because my free time is so limited (2 jobs and a few different hobbies) ;-)

1.5k · July 9, 2017

I have to disagree with this every time I see it come up. Just because my daughter and I went out caching for the first time (She was 11)and after our first day of finding a handful of caches she instantly got excited to hide one! We got to work on a container, a cool location and how to get good coords. Next time she was here we went and hid it. Well I think we did a few and that is the part of the game she loves. She loves to read the logs that came in after we hid that first cache and that is how we learned of doing a streak (The part I like) and made some friends with the CO of hides we had found. We have been hooked for 6 years after that. All of those first hides we made are still active and had more creative thought then some I have put out after learning what others do.

If we would have had to wait for us to get 100 finds she might have lost that interest, if she had lost interest in it I would have as well.

It all depends on the person hiding the cache and how much they care to put into it, no matter how many finds.

Absolutely!

There should be NO numbers put on how many caches found before publishing.

Of course, there will be mistakes made by new hiders .... so what? That's how many people learn.

Many of those people grow into great hiders, who might have lost interest otherwise.

15.4k · July 9, 2017

Should there be some minimum number of finds before a new geocacher is allowed to hide their own geocache?

The number of finds is the wrong measure.

Recently in my area, we have had difficulty with brand new cachers hiding caches and not quite knowing how the game works. This includes caches being published before the new cachers actually get out to place the cache, terrible coordinates which are far off, or cache containers such as cardboard boxes.

I'm not sure how you expect someone to learn, just by finding caches, that cache containers should be in place before cache listings are submitted for publication. I'm not sure how you expect someone to learn, just by finding caches, how to get accurate coordinates for a new cache that they are listing.

For that matter, I'm not sure how you expect someone to learn, just by finding caches, that a cardboard box is an inadequate cache container. If they can't figure that out with just a little thought, then finding more caches isn't going to help.

5.7k · July 9, 2017

It all depends on the person hiding the cache and how much they care to put into it, no matter how many finds.

Then make the number $29.95 and restrict cache placements to Premium Members only.

July 11, 2017

I think I'd rather have the bad hides fixed or archived as necessary than have a system to prevent new players from hiding caches.

Out of curiosity, I just checked my favorites list. Many of the COs have find counts in the thousands, but one CO has only found 25 caches (most after hiding that cache), another has found 37, and another, 50. Were there a strict requirement of say, 100 finds, none of those caches would exist. I'm also proud of my Dad's cache that I helped him make when he had only been caching for two weeks. So far, 60% of its premium finders have favorited it.

If we really wanted to do something to improve the quality of hides, I think requiring the CO to submit a photo of the cache and how it's hidden as part of the review process would be much more effective.

July 11, 2017

Recently I have found where one new cacher in particular is putting bottles of bubbles in caches as swag. I have found a few damp caches since they did this. I think for all new cachers some type of test should be implemented before they can log or even hide a cache. This way they learn the basics and are tested on what to do and not to do.

Who's ready to write a 100 question test?

10.1k · July 12, 2017

Recently I have found where one new cacher in particular is putting bottles of bubbles in caches as swag. I have found a few damp caches since they did this. I think for all new cachers some type of test should be implemented before they can log or even hide a cache. This way they learn the basics and are tested on what to do and not to do.

Sorry. I put bubbles in the first cache I hid. When I went back nine years later (hiding more caches in the area), I removed the bubbles because people say bubbles should not be in caches. No problem. The bubbles were still well sealed.

July 12, 2017

Recently I have found where one new cacher in particular is putting bottles of bubbles in caches as swag. I have found a few damp caches since they did this. I think for all new cachers some type of test should be implemented before they can log or even hide a cache. This way they learn the basics and are tested on what to do and not to do.

Sorry. I put bubbles in the first cache I hid. When I went back nine years later (hiding more caches in the area), I removed the bubbles because people say bubbles should not be in caches. No problem. The bubbles were still well sealed.

No need to be sorry. I just take them out when I find them. I did write to this new cacher and explained that anything liquid shouldn't be left in a cache. Being that they were new I am sure they didn't know even how to check for mail arriving to their account and if they did they ignored my plea. Since then I have found where they are still leaving bubbles. I understand we have all been new at one time or another. But me....I like to help the newbies.

7.4k · July 12, 2017

Recently I have found where one new cacher in particular is putting bottles of bubbles in caches as swag. I have found a few damp caches since they did this. I think for all new cachers some type of test should be implemented before they can log or even hide a cache. This way they learn the basics and are tested on what to do and not to do.

Sorry. I put bubbles in the first cache I hid. When I went back nine years later (hiding more caches in the area), I removed the bubbles because people say bubbles should not be in caches. No problem. The bubbles were still well sealed.

No need to be sorry. I just take them out when I find them. I did write to this new cacher and explained that anything liquid shouldn't be left in a cache. Being that they were new I am sure they didn't know even how to check for mail arriving to their account and if they did they ignored my plea. Since then I have found where they are still leaving bubbles. I understand we have all been new at one time or another. But me....I like to help the newbies.

... by banning them from hiding caches.

5.8k · July 12, 2017

This has yet to become a rule. I don't support it becoming one.

The closest Groundspeak has gotten is a suggestion:

Finding about a hundred caches before your first hide will help you figure out what you like and don't like.

I learned the hard way. My first hide had less than accurate coordinates and was hidden under a step on a busy street in a way that it was hard to retrieve without attracting attention. The area under the steps was not only home to some actual trash that had been blown nor thrown under the stoop, but potential drug needles. I got some blunt but constructive criticism from cache finders, after which I archived it and swore to do better on the next ones. I'd like to think I have. But that first hide was a valuable object lesson.

For the record, I had 126 finds by the time I hid that one -- so even if there was a requirement to find 100 caches before your first hide, I'd've met it and still put out a bad cache.

I am tempted to call out some of the folks in this thread who support a minimum threshold for new finders, as one or two of their own caches appear to be hidden in glass houses...but I'll let y'all look back through your own hides to see who is without sin. (I've already called myself out.)

July 17, 2017

I hid my first cache about three months after starting caching. I don't remember how many I had found by then but my first hiding place turned out to be a poor choice as it was overlooked by houses. The cache went missing after a couple of finders reported a resident making a point of watching them as they looked for it.

It was a learning experience for me and two years later, I have 53 hides. TBH, the quiz isn't all that helpful as I think you need a combination of common sense and experience. I still wouldn't want to see a restriction on newbie cachers hiding though as how else do people learn?

2k · July 17, 2017

I hid my first after finding 2 caches, 14 years ago. It required a 3 mile hike to get it and was an ammo can. Today, 14 years later, it's still there. Glad there was no rule when I placed my first cache.

3.7k · July 17, 2017

Oh geez. Here we go.

I only had 4 or 5 finds when I hid my first (which was actually published after my second). It was apparently difficult enough to generate a few DNFs, but visible enough to get muggled at least two or three times. It got compliments because of its location. The same can all be said about many of my later hides as well. For me, it's possible I was influenced by the variety of those first few finds. Maybe if my first five finds had been LPCs, I might have hidden an LPC as my first cache...but so far I haven't hidden a single cache under a lamp skirt and have no plans to do so. More likely, though...I probably would have still waited until I'd found a variety of cache hides and still hidden it the way I did.

I kinda think it's a 'nature vs. nurture' thing. Some people are just naturally more prone to hiding LPCs and no amount of experience will ever change that.

Edited July 17, 2017 by J Grouchy

July 17, 2017

I seem to remember that there is a recommendation on geocaching.com that caches should be placed using a different ID from the cacher's normal one. I have certainly heard this from a reviewer. Obviously if you do this you are hiding caches when your ID shows zero caches found.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Travelling-MnM

22.1k · July 17, 2017

18 minutes ago, Travelling-MnM said:

I seem to remember that there is a recommendation on geocaching.com that caches should be placed using a different ID from the cacher's normal one. I have certainly heard this from a reviewer. Obviously if you do this you are hiding caches when your ID shows zero caches found.

I'm not aware of this advice. Could you please link to its source?

July 17, 2017

7 minutes ago, Keystone said:

I'm not aware of this advice. Could you please link to its source?

Unfortunately I can not find it now. I think it was in the guidelines for cache placement when I read them about 3 years ago.

The purpose, as I remember, was to separate correspondence for cache placement from other correspondence.

I have checked a couple of reviewers who have published local caches (Long Man & Castagnari) and they have 38 & 44 finds respectively. I imagine that most of their geocaching is done using other IDs.

22.1k · July 17, 2017

Traveling-MnM, I think you're confusing Reviewer accounts with regular Cache Owners. It's true that most Community Volunteer Reviewers maintain a separate account for their volunteer work - I do as well. But when I hide a cache, I use my player account. It has thousands of finds, my reviewer account has one find.

July 17, 2017

1 minute ago, Keystone said:

Traveling-MnM, I think you're confusing Reviewer accounts with regular Cache Owners. It's true that most Community Volunteer Reviewers maintain a separate account for their volunteer work - I do as well. But when I hide a cache, I use my player account. It has thousands of finds, my reviewer account has one find.

Thanks Keystone. You are almost certainly right. I am probably remembering a comment made about reviewer accounts as if it were about cache placement.

July 18, 2017

Quote

On 7/8/2017 at 7:24 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

As was mentioned earlier, there are a lot of places in the world that have very few caches. There are 45 countries in the world with less than 10 caches in the entire country.

In an area already saturated with caches (thus, an area which does not really need more caches) it would very easy to get a minimum of 10, 100 or more finds. In a very cache sparse, area (thus, an area which could use more caches) it would be difficult to qualify to hide a cache, essentially preventing that area from growing. The rich get richer, the poor "remain in poverty".

Maybe have a requirement of finds or a short class. If you want to hide some and your area doesn't have very many, or any at all, you can take a 15-20 minute class on the basic rules, and give you some ideas for hiding. Maybe Groundspeak could come up with some kind of tag that recognizes people who have taken the class, or found over a certain amount and have a good reputation for hiding caches. I would also like to see CO's get more involved in checking on and maintaining their hides. I have found that finding caches where the CO is more active is usually more likely than finding one where the CO hasn't checked on it or done anything with it in a while.

July 18, 2017

1 hour ago, HawkMan1999 said:

Maybe have a requirement of finds or a short class. If you want to hide some and your area doesn't have very many, or any at all, you can take a 15-20 minute class on the basic rules, and give you some ideas for hiding. Maybe Groundspeak could come up with some kind of tag that recognizes people who have taken the class, or found over a certain amount and have a good reputation for hiding caches. I would also like to see CO's get more involved in checking on and maintaining their hides. I have found that finding caches where the CO is more active is usually more likely than finding one where the CO hasn't checked on it or done anything with it in a while.

I'm pretty sure that reading through the Guidelines and Help Center articles on "Hiding a Cache" and watching the applicable videos takes 15-20 minutes. No need to reinvent the wheel.

15.4k · July 18, 2017

2 hours ago, mvhayes1982 said:

I'm pretty sure that reading through the Guidelines and Help Center articles on "Hiding a Cache" and watching the applicable videos takes 15-20 minutes. No need to reinvent the wheel.

There have been suggestions of requiring users to pass a basic quiz before allowing them to submit geocache listings. As long as its required only once per user, and not once per listing, and as long as it is fairly short and unambiguous so users can learn from their mistakes and retake it, I think something like that could be helpful.

But that assumes that the problem we're trying to solve is new cache owners who are uninformed about basic geocache guidelines. If we're trying to solve other problems, then other solutions might be more appropriate.

For example, if we're trying to solve the problem of "one weekend wonders" who find a couple caches, list a cache or two of their own, and then disappear, then it might be more appropriate to have a brief waiting period before new accounts can list new caches. The cache permanence guideline mentions 3 months as the minimum expected lifetime for a cache, and thus the minimum expected maintenance commitment of a cache owner. I don't think it would be unreasonable to require new members to wait 3 months to list a new cache, to show that they're going to stick with geocaching at least that long.

July 18, 2017

I have said for years there should be a minimum number of finds before a cacher can hide one. I stand by that. Would it be a perfect rule? No but it would help tremendously. Yeah people with 10 finds can hide a great cache after a day in the game but I think the good would out-weigh the bad. That's my opinion anyway.

July 18, 2017

You have to learn to find caches.

You have to learn how to hide caches.

IMO, we don't need any more barriers to game entry as I see it.

July 18, 2017

2 hours ago, niraD said:

For example, if we're trying to solve the problem of "one weekend wonders" who find a couple caches, list a cache or two of their own, and then disappear, then it might be more appropriate to have a brief waiting period before new accounts can list new caches. The cache permanence guideline mentions 3 months as the minimum expected lifetime for a cache, and thus the minimum expected maintenance commitment of a cache owner. I don't think it would be unreasonable to require new members to wait 3 months to list a new cache, to show that they're going to stick with geocaching at least that long.

This is an interesting idea, one I had not considered before.

1 hour ago, *GeoPunx* said:

You have to learn to find caches.

You have to learn how to hide caches.

IMO, we don't need any more barriers to game entry as I see it.

True - we don't want additional barriers to the hobby. But the other thing to consider here is how to minimize geo-litter. The "abandoned cache" problem is two-fold.

1) You have an un-maintained cache that may go missing or need maintenance, etc and it is a nuisance to other cachers who might be trying to find the cache.

2) If a cache is abandoned, the chance runs that you have a container of some sort out in the world, with no one to pick it up and dispose of it at the end of its life.

I'm not sure if a waiting period based on time, rather than number of finds, would be any more palatable or more successful -- but it is something different to consider.

July 18, 2017

22 minutes ago, mvhayes1982 said:

1) You have an un-maintained cache that may go missing or need maintenance, etc and it is a nuisance to other cachers who might be trying to find the cache.

2) If a cache is abandoned, the chance runs that you have a container of some sort out in the world, with no one to pick it up and dispose of it at the end of its life.

I'm not sure if a waiting period based on time, rather than number of finds, would be any more palatable or more successful -- but it is something different to consider.

Number 1 happens with even long time cachers.

Number 2...in relation to time...someone could activate an account, sit on for the amount of time and then start hiding.

What about making it be a requirement that you be a Premium Member to hide. While obviously not fool proof; it would at least show some form($$) of investment in the sport.

Just throwing ideas around.

July 18, 2017

6 minutes ago, *GeoPunx* said:

Number 1 happens with even long time cachers.

Number 2...in relation to time...someone could activate an account, sit on for the amount of time and then start hiding.

What about making it be a requirement that you be a Premium Member to hide. While obviously not fool proof; it would at least show some form($$) of investment in the sport.

Just throwing ideas around.

I realize that #1 happens even with long time cachers -- hence my context that I was speaking of the "abandoned cache" problem as a whole -- not just newbie hides.

31 minutes ago, mvhayes1982 said:

True - we don't want additional barriers to the hobby. But the other thing to consider here is how to minimize geo-litter. The "abandoned cache" problem is two-fold.

The "Premium Members are the only ones who should be able to hide caches" argument is most likely on the original Schedule of Forum Topics and was about due to come back around. It is, as it always has been, a terrible suggestion. This is a hobby. There are many users who are not premium members who are responsible cachers, who hide outstanding geocaches, and who maintain their hides well. Putting up a financial barrier to this aspect of the game is unwise. And just as you mentioned "happens all the time with long-time cachers", there are plenty of PM users who hide terrible and abandoned geocaches.

July 18, 2017

11 minutes ago, mvhayes1982 said:

This is a hobby.

Agreed. That's why I originally posted no barriers at all.

15.4k · July 18, 2017

33 minutes ago, *GeoPunx* said:

Number 2...in relation to time...someone could activate an account, sit on for the amount of time and then start hiding.

So?

The point of the waiting period is to see whether the potential cache owner is going to remain interested in geocaching for a month or three, as opposed to the "one weekend wonders" who disappear within a few days of creating their account. There is no requirement that they find a certain number of caches or demonstrate "sufficient activity" in any other way during that waiting period. The only requirement is that they come back.

2.4k · July 20, 2017

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 7:24 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

As was mentioned earlier, there are a lot of places in the world that have very few caches. There are 45 countries in the world with less than 10 caches in the entire country.

In an area already saturated with caches (thus, an area which does not really need more caches) it would very easy to get a minimum of 10, 100 or more finds. In a very cache sparse, area (thus, an area which could use more caches) it would be difficult to qualify to hide a cache, essentially preventing that area from growing. The rich get richer, the poor "remain in poverty".

In those 45 countries the find requirements can be lowered. For the other 151 countries a required find count seems reasonable.

Experience is a good thing.

2.6k · July 20, 2017

On 7/18/2017 at 10:28 PM, niraD said:

So?

The point of the waiting period is to see whether the potential cache owner is going to remain interested in geocaching for a month or three, as opposed to the "one weekend wonders" who disappear within a few days of creating their account. There is no requirement that they find a certain number of caches or demonstrate "sufficient activity" in any other way during that waiting period. The only requirement is that they come back.

This is my preferred approach. I know it is possible that someone can hide a great cache the day they discover geocaching. But I think it is better to have a "cooling off" period to weed out the "one weekend wonders". That cacher who wants to hide that great cache on day 1 can hide it 3 months later. If they are not interested 3 months later, then it is probably best that they weren't allowed to hide it on day 1.

But I don't see it as a BIG problem, as I think most new cachers have the common sense to wait a while anyway.

Edited July 20, 2017 by redsox_mark
typo

July 20, 2017

On 7/18/2017 at 6:46 AM, HawkMan1999 said:

Maybe have a requirement of finds or a short class. If you want to hide some and your area doesn't have very many, or any at all, you can take a 15-20 minute class on the basic rules, and give you some ideas for hiding. Maybe Groundspeak could come up with some kind of tag that recognizes people who have taken the class, or found over a certain amount and have a good reputation for hiding caches. I would also like to see CO's get more involved in checking on and maintaining their hides. I have found that finding caches where the CO is more active is usually more likely than finding one where the CO hasn't checked on it or done anything with it in a while.

How about not. There already is a video to watch, and plenty of reading material on how to hide caches. Just because someone is new to geocaching doesn't mean anything. I've seen caches in my few short years of being active not being properly placed OR maintained by some seasoned geocachers.

July 20, 2017

2 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

This is my preferred approach. I know it is possible that someone can hide a great cache the day they discover geocaching. But I think it is better to have a "cooling off" period to weed out the "one weekend wonders". That cacher who wants to hide that great cache on day 1 can hide it 3 months later. If they are not interested 3 months later, then it is probably best that they weren't allowed to hide it on day 1.

But I don't see it as a BIG problem, as I think most new cachers have the common sense to wait a while anyway.

Right. And what about the geocachers who create an account, and three years later start hiding caches and then decide to move on, and leave behind a bunch of caches?

2.6k · July 20, 2017

2 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Right. And what about the geocachers who create an account, and three years later start hiding caches and then decide to move on, and leave behind a bunch of caches?

You can't address that, other than with NM/NA etc. Some cachers will actively maintain their caches, some won't. Some, who are active for years, will decide to quit. Or have something happen in their life which forces them to quit. Those abandoned caches will eventually be archived if there are issues with them.

That doesn't make the idea of a 3 month period before cachers can hide a cache a bad idea.

15.4k · July 20, 2017

10 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Right. And what about the geocachers who create an account, and three years later start hiding caches and then decide to move on, and leave behind a bunch of caches?

If those are a problem, then Groundspeak will need to figure out some other solution.

Newbie cachers hiding caches.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment