How do you tell

January 26, 2003

I recently drove 110 miles and put out a cache in a little park in Grants Pass. It is a small park. 250'X250'. After I got back home, my cache was archived by Seth. Said it was to close to the other cache. My guestion is, how do you tell if there is another cache near. How do you know if the cache that was there last year is archived.

K.M.A.

5.9k · January 26, 2003

On the main page, just below the box for the zip code, click on "advanced search". Scroll down a bit and enter the latitude and longitude for your cache (the one you want to submit) and enter. A big list should display, look at the distance for the top few entries. If it's less than .5 miles, you may want to reconsider.

EDIT: Typo

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

January 26, 2003

We use a mapping program. Street Atlas or Topo USA. We convert the easyGPS waypoints into csv files and inport the whole lot into the program. If you dont want to put that amount of effort you could look up the nearest cache and click the nearest caches link on the cache page.

As to your problem, I have seen many caches fairly close together. Its possible to change it to a multi and who knows where it ends up?

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

January 26, 2003

My guestion was what if you are not sure where you are going. That is normal for me. You are 100 miles from home and you decide to put out a cache. Any way to tell where to put one out at???

January 27, 2003

Since when do the moderators have the power to archive caches because they are close to another one?

Who are they to dictate what caches are placed where?

Just a thought.

3.1k · January 27, 2003

Happens a lot these days. Rooster recently placed a cache and was denied because it was within .10 miles of another cache. Knowing this I made sure I had the coordinates of the closest cache when I put one out the other day. But sometimes you just pull off the road and place one in a pretty area. Rooster did this and so he left behind a cache that will never be found.

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Syn:
Since when do the moderators have the power to archive caches because they are close to another one?

Who are they to dictate what caches are placed where?

Just a thought.

I sometimes have trouble figuring out if someone is joking or not. What do you think the word moderator means?

24.7k · January 27, 2003

It's simple. Before you are inspired by the park where you place the cache, you look up the park. True you didn't know you would go there yet, but that doesn't matter. Look it up anyway. Determine the Lat/Lon. I know you aren't there yet with your GPS but that doesn't matter. Do it anyway.

Do a nearest caches search and then see if any are 0.1 miles away (the current criteria). Yeah I know you can't do that unless you have every waypoint for everywhere you are going to be before you know you are going to be there, but that's ok do it anyway.

If any are 0.1 miles away or less, don't place the cache.

Alternatly appeal to Seth that the cache is in a worthy location in it's own right. Exceptions to the 0.1 mile rule are on the other side of a river etc. There are exceptions to the rule.

Option 3 is find another geocaching website and list it there so it doesn't go to waste. It's not like you didn't try to use this site.

Wherever you go there you are.

January 27, 2003

Which park??????

January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:
Happens a lot these days. Rooster recently placed a cache and was denied because it was within .10 miles of another cache.

Is that the acceptable minimum spacing? If that's the case, somebody dropped the ball when this cache was approved in November, as it was about 40 feet from an existing cache. (The existing cache was recently archived because of hazardous winter conditions on this pile of rocks.) It's hard to explain the guidelines to new geocachers when the application of them is so inconsistent.

1.5k · January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Rooster_KF & Double C:
My guestion was what if you are not sure where you are going. That is normal for me. You are 100 miles from home and you decide to put out a cache. Any way to tell where to put one out at???

If you are 100 miles from home, and it isn't somewhere that you go on a regular basis, should you really be leaving a geocache?

Part of cache ownership is maintaining the cache.

January 27, 2003

Rooster comes to the Grants Pass area often. Besides that there are plenty of people here that would keep a eye on the cache, myself included! I really think that comment gets away from the point that is trying to be made here!

.

1.5k · January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BDC:
Rooster comes to the Grants Pass area often. Besides that there are plenty of people here that would keep a eye on the cache, myself included! I really think that comment gets away from the point that is trying to be made here!

.

By mentioning that he drove 110 miles to place the cache, the impression I got is that he was trying to gain sympathy over the distance he had to travel.

Eg. "Wow, he went 110 miles, and it got archived? That sucks!"

1.4k · January 27, 2003

If it's a place you go often, get the coordinates the first time, check it out and then place it the next time you go. If it's a plce you don't go to often, this is just ANOTHER of many examples in the forums of the things that can happen when you place a cache you can't maintain.

---Real men cache in shorts.

January 27, 2003

Thank you for your reply. I live about 150 from Bend. I come up to Bend about 3X's a year. I have been feeling guilty because I haven't put out any caches in the Bend area. Now you say I don't have to because it is to far for me to visit on a regular basis. Thanks again, see you next spring.

1.5k · January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Rooster_KF & Double C:
Thank you for your reply. I live about 150 from Bend. I come up to Bend about 3X's a year. I have been feeling guilty because I haven't put out any caches in the Bend area. Now you say I don't have to because it is to far for me to visit on a regular basis. Thanks again, see you next spring.

I hope I didn't offend you.

Its commonly accepted that you shouldn't place caches in areas that you can't readily maintain them.

In the future, I do ask that you not put words in my mouth. Thanks.

3.1k · January 27, 2003

It is proper for Rooster to put out caches away from his home. In fact he has placed many where I live and I'm 70 miles from his home. What those of us in the caching community do is watch each others backs. If one of his gets a no find he'll email me or someone else and we'll go check on it. What do you suggest? Should we all go check on out caches weekly? Daily? What is acceptable to you? After all we want to know your rules.

Don't worry, we won't place any Bend caches lest we offend you.

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

1.5k · January 27, 2003

Once you place the cache, it is your responsibility to maintain the cache and the area around it. You'll need to return as often as you can to ensure that your cache is not impacting the area, and ensure that the cache is in good repair.

http://www.geocaching.com/articles/making.asp

I did not say that rooster should not place caches away from home. This is what I said:

quote:
If you are 100 miles from home, and it isn't somewhere that you go on a regular basis, should you really be leaving a geocache?

Perhaps you should read before you post. As for you placing Bend caches, don't let me stop you. I wouldn't search out one of your black garbage caches in the first place.

January 27, 2003

Is it the moon, the rain, bad satellite constilations, or does everyone just need a timeout? The Northwest posts are starting to look like the ******* posts where everyone is looking for a fight.....OOPS. No offence to the ********people. (edited as to not offend)

Bob G.

Where are we going?......And WHY am I in this handbasket???

3.1k · January 27, 2003

quote:
Perhaps you should read before you post. As for you placing Bend caches, don't let me stop you. I wouldn't search out one of your black garbage caches in the first place.

Oh my loss.

Bet you would

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

January 27, 2003

I dont quite understand how people, who have cached less in a year than some of us did in November, became so snooty?

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

1.5k · January 27, 2003

I'm not going to bother posting here anymore.

Have a nice game, folks.

January 28, 2003

Hey, the Boxers would keep up anything in that valley, and I'd hep you in out this valley (as would lots of others), and Lazee in the hills...

Don't sweat it. I think we Rogue/Klamath/GP folks need more caches between Smith River and Port Orford, not Bend. Why mess with the pumice dust when you can hide it in a fern grotto?!

I'm new to this geocaching thing, but it appears there are areas & folks with "clean Orvis gear and dry fly attitudes" in every sport, eh? Give me my korean-made-swedish-labeled rods and a good stike indicator any day... er, well you get my drift.

Tight Lines and a WAAS Signal to ya, mate!

-Gus

Visit me at http://home.earthlink.net/~piscator

[This message was edited by The Strand Family on January 28, 2003 at 10:24 AM.]

January 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:
It's hard to explain the guidelines to new geocachers when the application of them is so inconsistent.

I don't think that one example is really "so inconistent." We are approving hundreds of geocaches every week and mistakes may occur. I was not the admin who approved the one bigeddy mentions, so I can't really tell you what happened there.

The answer to the original question is clear: Do your homework first. If you aren't able to do that, then don't place a geocache. It would be easy enough to do a pocket query for Bend, OR and ask for the 500 nearest geocaches. Load these into your GPS. Then, if you think you've found a neato spot for a geocache, just look at your GPS for nearest geocaches. As it was pointed out earlier, if it says less than .5 miles, maybe a new spot would be appropriate. If it says under .1 mile, there is a 99.7% chance that it won't get approved.

Here's another solution for those who don't want to do their homework: Mark the waypoint, then get on your cell phone. Call a friend and ask him or her to do a search for nearest geocaches to those coordinates. Really, it works. (If you don't have a friend, send me an e-mail off the forums and I'll give you MY phone number. )

Oh, syn, just FYI "moderators" and "admins" are not the same thing. I got to approve or archive Rooster's geocaches because I'm an admin. I'm only a moderator for the "GPS in Education" forum.

- Seth!

January 28, 2003

People seem to be getting a bit testy on the NW forums in the last few days. I'm glad Rooster was able to get a straight answer without a getting a bunch of guff. It will also help those of us who arent so battle hardened.

Peace through superior firepower

5.9k · January 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:
I dont quite understand how people, who have cached less in a year than some of us did in November, became so snooty?

Please provide the requisite number of finds that enable snootiness. I didn't see anything snootty anyway...

Thanks Seth! for bringing it back to the topic.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

2.6k · January 28, 2003

Don't give up so soon.

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
I'm not going to bother posting here anymore.

For some reason the regulars in this forum think it is their own Private Country Club. No one is allowed to disagree with them, for any reason. All discussions are one sided. When a regular posts something in here they all join in and cheer them on, no matter how wrong they maybe. As long as they share their self righteous values.

For some reason they don't understand what a discussion is. There are two or more points of view. Otherwise it's not a discussion. Even if one or more of the points of view are energetic. If a discussion gets energetic they slam you. Talking down to you. Classifying you as a General.

All of you REGULARS need to get a grip. You have no special claim to this forum. Every member has a right to join in on a discussion. No matter what their point of view is. Slamming other members as GENERALS is still slamming. If the only thing you can add to a discussion is go back to the general forum, then don't post anything.

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

3.1k · January 28, 2003

quote:
I didn't see anything snootty anyway...

Here ya go

quote:
Perhaps you should read before you post. As for you placing Bend caches, don't let me stop you. I wouldn't search out one of your black garbage caches in the first place.

Next spring I will just have to place a cache in Bend I guess. Hopefully it won't be a dissapointment to my elitist buddy.

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

January 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Seth!:

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:
It's hard to explain the guidelines to new geocachers when the application of them is so inconsistent.

I don't think that one example is really "so inconistent." We are approving hundreds of geocaches every week and mistakes may occur.

I can speak for everyone in saying that we do appreciate the work that goes into approving the caches. However, I've seen many questionable caches the past few months -- too close together, in wilderness areas, etc. -- that should not have been approved but slipped through because there was probably not time to check on them as well as we would like. It's confusing and makes it hard to explain to people, including public agency officials, what's going on. More consistency would be welcome. The success of the sport is working against us.

As for pocket queries, I've found them to be a fairly cumbersome process; not all that practical from my perspective although the process is expected to improve. What I generally do is look at the state cache map at the appropriate scale and compare it to a street map of the area I'm interested in. If needed, I'll make a reconnaissance trip before placing the cache. Even that's not foolproof because multi-stage or offset caches may wind up in the same place!

7.4k · January 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:

I've seen many questionable caches the past few months -- too close together, in wilderness areas, etc. -- that should not have been approved but slipped through because there was probably not time to check on them as well as we would like.

It would be appreciated, and a benefit to the sport, if you would contact an admin about any caches you see that are questionable. Some mistakes will of course slip through, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can't be corrected. Rather than complaining about a problem, try working to get it rectified.

Also, there is no hard-and-fast rule preventing caches in wilderness areas. They are generally frowned upon by members, but there is nothing set in the guidelines as yet.

January 29, 2003

I just want comment about wilderness area caches. I personally prefer them and rather tire of the drive-by-a-park-and-walk-the-dog-to-the-cache types that are most common (though I do hunt them as well, more appropriate for caching with kiddo than a 5 mile hike...). I really like hiking and exploring, and finding neighborhood parks is NOT why I have a GPSr. True wilderness caches require more effort on the part of both the hide and the seeker, but more often than not that results in a more satisfying cache experience for all.

I would like to see more effort taken to research an area as has been suggested here. And I would suggest that perhaps folks spend a little more time hunting and figuring this sport out before making that first hide. I know when I was at 10 finds (or less) I still had no idea what makes a good cache hunt. Now at almost 100, I have some idea, but then Demonhead Flats or instrumental version appear and put a whole new twist on things...

One of the main ideas here, IMHO, is to get people to places they may not otherwise go, and the side of the road across the drainage ditch just does not quite do it for me. Perhaps if this was in the minds of more cache hiders we would see better quality caches. Do not get me wrong, there are some great caches out there and sometimes just getting out to hunt is all that drives me as well.

Life is as much a journey of discovery, as it is a discovery of the journey...

**Namaste**

January 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bazzle:
I just want comment about wilderness area caches. I personally prefer them and rather tire of the drive-by-a-park-and-walk-the-dog-to-the-cache types that are most common (though I do hunt them as well, more appropriate for caching with kiddo than a 5 mile hike...). I really like hiking and exploring, and finding neighborhood parks is NOT why I have a GPSr. True wilderness caches require more effort on the part of both the hide and the seeker, but more often than not that results in a more satisfying cache experience for all.

**Namaste**

Just to be clear, Wilderness in the United States is a formally defined concept.

I also like caches in wildlands, but not in wilderness. I personally feel that even the small containers we place violate that concept. I'm hardly alone in this; we have recently heard from the supervisors of Lolo National Forest that they feel the same, and they confirmed that caches should not be in wilderness with their supervisors at the Region One regional offices.

Because of this, one local cache has been archived, and MOOG members have met with the recreation coordinator of the Forest in hopes of working together to avoid problems in the future.

Ron/yumitori

1.5k · January 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:
I also like caches in wildlands, but not in wilderness. I personally feel that even the small containers we place violate that concept. I'm hardly alone in this; we have recently heard from the supervisors of Lolo National Forest that they feel the same, and they confirmed that caches should not be in wilderness with _their_ supervisors at the Region One regional offices.

I've also received information from local land management that, once the "Badlands" area of central oregon becomes a Wilderness area, caches won't be allowed in it. There are six or seven already placed which will have to turn virtual (unlikely) or be archived.

5.9k · January 29, 2003

See what ya get for asking?

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

January 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
It would be appreciated, and a benefit to the sport, if you would contact an admin about any caches you see that are questionable. Some mistakes will of course slip through, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can't be corrected. Rather than complaining about a problem, try working to get it rectified.

My comments were meant to be an observation of the approval process over which I have little control. To be sure, I can point out problems after approval but to whom? Report@geocaching.com, perhaps? If it really bothers me, I usually contact the cache owner with mixed results. Beyond that, there doesn't appear to be a written procedure or a specific contact for reporting problems in private.

I did work to get the locationless cache guidelines refined, but I still see some bad ones get through. There are, of course, substantially more traditional caches that are questionable.

quote:
Also, there is no hard-and-fast rule preventing caches in wilderness areas. They are generally frowned upon by members, but there is nothing set in the guidelines as yet.

I'm amazed. Forest policy in Central Oregon and many other places is to consider caches in designated widerness as abandoned property and remove them. If there is not a geocaching guideline about this, there should be.

7.4k · January 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:

To be sure, I can point out problems after approval but to whom? Report@geocaching.com, perhaps? If it really bothers me, I usually contact the cache owner with mixed results. Beyond that, there doesn't appear to be a written procedure or a specific contact for reporting problems in private.

At the bottom of each of your hidden caches you'll see "Approved By:" and a name. That person is more than likely one of the admins "assigned" to your area of the country, and a person whom you should feel comfortable contacting to make aware of potential issues. Seth! and I are the main approvers for the northwest, so you can contact either of us. You can also contact anyone else that you know to be an admin. Honest, we really want to try to weed out any problem caches!

quote:
I did work to get the locationless cache guidelines refined, but I still see some bad ones get through.

For every person arguing that some bad ones got through, we have another person flaming us for not letting others through. As I hope you understand, it's a tough line to walk and try to keep as many people as possible happy. Hopefully it will all be a moot point soon; I think it is no secret that there is an effort to move locationless caches into their own category similar to benchmarks.

quote:
I'm amazed [that there is no hard-and-fast rule preventing caches in wilderness areas]. Forest policy in Central Oregon and many other places is to consider caches in designated widerness as abandoned property and remove them. If there is not a geocaching guideline about this, there should be.

There is no governing body that has made a blanket declaration ruling against caches in Wilderness Areas like the NPS has with National Parks. Certainly, there are certain ranger districts that have said that caches are a no-no in the WA that they administer, but those are the individual decisions of those districts. Until such a global declaration is made, we treat individual cache submissions as we would any other -- expecting that the cache was hidden with the permission of the land manager.

January 29, 2003

Abandoned property in the *wilderness* or littering in a city park or beside the road???

Dang this was all fun yesterday...

I guess the secret is location..location...location... Oh and some effort on presentation is nice too...

Life is as much a journey of discovery, as it is a discovery of the journey...

**Namaste**

1.5k · January 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
See what ya get for asking?

Heh... the local management was already aware of geocaching, and had visited a few of the badlands caches. I'm working with them to get a cache placement form for BLM-managed lands put together, and a database of off-limits areas (due to plants/animals/projects/etc). Thankfully the majority of BLM land out here is open season.

January 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
Seth! and I are the main approvers for the northwest, so you can contact either of us. You can also contact anyone else that you know to be an admin. Honest, we really want to try to weed out any problem caches!

Good to hear. What exactly do you check for in traditional caches other than the red flags listed in the guidelines:

- National Park

- buried

- active railroad track

- military installations

- public structures deemed target for terrorist attacks (?)

- commercial or solicitation

Cache spacing of a half-mile is evidently checked, at least by you, although I see no relevant guideline. Foul language is an obvious stopper. Anything else?

BTW, it would help to have the contacts posted with the guidelines or FAQs so that people don't have to chance across them in the forums or by word of mouth.

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
For every person arguing that some bad ones got through, we have another person flaming us for not letting others through. As I hope you understand, it's a tough line to walk and try to keep as many people as possible happy. Hopefully it will all be a moot point soon; I think it is no secret that there is an effort to move locationless caches into their own category similar to benchmarks.

Even when locationless caches are moved to their own area -- a mistake IMO -- they will still need to be approved in a consistent manner. That's why concise guidelines and examples are important.

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
There is no governing body that has made a blanket declaration ruling against caches in Wilderness Areas like the NPS has with National Parks. Certainly, there are certain ranger districts that have said that caches are a no-no in the WA that they administer, but those are the individual decisions of those districts. Until such a global declaration is made, we treat individual cache submissions as we would any other -- expecting that the cache was hidden with the permission of the land manager.

Looked at from the perspective of someone hiding a cache, the overlapping jurisdictions and bureaucracies do not encourage research into restricted locations. Most people, assuming they even care, just place a cache without much thought about agencies. The best resource, where available, is active local geocachers. We're lucky in Central Oregon to have a core group of knowledgeable people and a local server to host discussions -- thanks again Mr. Snazz!

I doubt if most geocachers are that fortunate, or they may not know about it. For them, the approvers (like you) are in a much better position to notice if a cache is not where it should be because approvers are very active in the field and on the forums, and are more aware of restrictions than the average geocacher. If I'm overstating this, perhaps there needs to be a network of secondary local approvers that the primary approvers can rely on when a question comes up.

In any case, happy to have you doing all this work and answering questions.

7.4k · January 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:

What exactly do you check for in traditional caches other than the red flags listed in the guidelines:

- National Park

- buried

- active railroad track

- military installations

- public structures deemed target for terrorist attacks (?)

- commercial or solicitation

Cache spacing of a half-mile is evidently checked, at least by you, although I see no relevant guideline. Foul language is an obvious stopper. Anything else?

Those are probably the biggest show stoppers. We also reject caches with a political, religious or possibly controversial agenda, not to mention those that were blantantly hidden without permission (e.g. "I hid this in the plaza of my hotel during my vacation! Be discreet to avoid rousing the suspicion of the management!").

Please keep in mind that we are not robots, and we have to adapt as new, creative and sometimes outright wacky submissions come in. We have to assess every proposal, and the issues that each presents can't always be quantified in a simple list. The guidelines usually cover most situations, but every once in a while something comes along that pushes the envelope or introduces something altogether new. When this happens, the admins generally discuss the situation amongst themselves, and then make a determination as to whether or not to permit the cache.

One note: the restriction on distance between caches is 0.1 mile, not a half-mile. In my own opinion, this is still too close, but that was the majority ruling of the admins. The guidelines right now only show this restriction in the virtual cache section, but it applies to all caches.

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:

Looked at from the perspective of someone hiding a cache, the overlapping jurisdictions and bureaucracies do not encourage research into restricted locations. Most people, assuming they even care, just place a cache without much thought about agencies....For them, the approvers (like you) are in a much better position to notice if a cache is not where it should be because approvers are very active in the field and on the forums, and are more aware of restrictions than the average geocacher.

We do that for those instances where we know of a global restriction (such as in National Parks), but what you are asking for is in essence the offloading of the responsibility of the hide from the hider to the admins. That is unrealistic, not to mention a big legal can of worms for Geocaching.com. With 500 caches coming through in a weekend, we can't possibly know all of the restrictions and regulations involving each. At some point, the cache hider has to be responsible for his or her own hide.

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:

If I'm overstating this, perhaps there needs to be a network of secondary local approvers that the primary approvers can rely on when a question comes up.

Well, you could add a more bureaucracy to the mix in an attempt to prevent any mistakes, but they will no doubt still happen, and in the process approvals will slow. We're instead trying to move the other way and streamline the process, making less work for both cachers and admins. A key component of this process is feedback from local cachers who notify us when a problem cache pops up.

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:

In any case, happy to have you doing all this work and answering questions.

Hey, my pleasure! The admins are all geocachers too, and we want what is best for everyone.

January 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
Please keep in mind that we are not robots ...

Come to Planet Cache where every hunt is enjoyable and there is no poison oak!

quote:
One note: the restriction on distance between caches is 0.1 mile, not a half-mile.

Only 0.1 mile? That's nothing. I'm amazed, again.

Your other comments -- about the responsibility of cache owners, creative caches, streamlining the process, feedback -- make impeccable sense. The trouble is that there is little incentive to learn about land use regulations, and even less to rat on fellow geocachers. A strong incentive would be not getting the cache approved. I'd much rather see some slowdown in approvals to catch bad locations during screening rather than after the fact. Out of curiosity, what percentage of caches are rejected?

7.4k · February 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:

The trouble is that there is little incentive to learn about land use regulations, and even less to rat on fellow geocachers. A strong incentive would be not getting the cache approved. I'd much rather see some slowdown in approvals to catch bad locations during screening rather than after the fact.

Well, we do disapprove caches. To answer your question about how many, I would estimate about 5-10% of the physical submissions, and around 25-33% of virtual submissions.

Again, cache hiders have to take responsibility for their own hides. You simply can't expect to unload that burden onto the admins and Geocaching.com, for reasons I've already given. We adjust and streamline the guidelines as we become aware of new issues, and geocachers like you out there visiting caches and telling us of problems are the best way for us to learn of those issues. We've started regionalizing admins so that they can better stay abreast of regional affairs, and the "Cache should be archived" log type was added so that people can let the site know immediately of any problems.

Adding the kind of bureacracy that you are proposing will catch what -- maybe 1 or 2 additional caches a week that otherwise slip through? Is it worth the added hassle for hiders and the added manpower for the admins to add a bunch of overhead to catch those few extra caches? Personally, I don't think so.

February 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:
A strong incentive would be not getting the cache approved. I'd much rather see some slowdown in approvals to catch bad locations during screening rather than after the fact.

Here on planet Earth, the admins aren't psychic. We really on the cache descriptions, maps, and basic knowledge of the region to determine if a location is suitable.

If you are done badgering the admins, I think we have a cache or two to review...

1.1k · February 1, 2003

Man, is it hot in here!!!

First things first.

You guys in the K. Falls and B. Falls area. Keep your dang ole plastic bags home and do not bring them up here!

Buy some from a local store please!

Bring as many caches as you would like and as long as they are not pre-abandoned caches, I will look after them if need be.

Well, as good as I can if I am working out of town this year again.

Next.

Bigeddy and Mr. Snazz.

I like you guys and all but I think you need to cool your jets just a touch. This game has been up and about for a while now but things change as we go along. Hopefully for the better.

Would one of you guys want to jump in and help approve caches in your spare time?

Next.

To the admin. guys (and gals?)

I think your doing and outstanding job and I hope you stay up and running as well as you have been.

I understand things fall through the cracks.

Big flipping deal.

Did anyone get hurt?

I doubt it.

Feelings?

Maybe, but people need to understand how hard it is on your end.

Does it cost them anything?

Not unless they want to spend it.

Anytime a person can have this much : entertainment:

get some excercise;

See some new and interesting areas:

Meet some new and interesting(?) people;

And only have to spend as much money and time and effort as you want,

Where is the downside at?

TTFRN, logscaler and Red

February 1, 2003

Hey Logscaler, I see you moved back to Deschutes Jct.! Wouldn't it be fun to place a cache at the Funny Farm?

I only recently contacted the admins for the first time about a problem I had, and was pleased with the quick response and understanding of the situation. Given the dynamic nature of the website and the sport, some things will fall through the cracks. But I highly respect the time the admins take after their workday to contribute in a meaningful way. Now, only if some of the other folks who spend countless hours posting on the forums, would contribute in a more meaningful way.

The adventures of Navdog, Justdog, and Otterpup

February 1, 2003

I think all you admin folks do a great job. That's the main reason that I decided to get a membership. You probably don't hear it enough, so here's my two cents worth: THANKS!

-Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in the hospital dying of nothing.-

February 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
Adding the kind of bureacracy that you are proposing will catch what -- maybe 1 or 2 additional caches a week that otherwise slip through? Is it worth the added hassle for hiders and the added manpower for the admins to add a bunch of overhead to catch those few extra caches? Personally, I don't think so.

One poor location can do a disproportionate amount of damage to the sport. Weeding those out doesn't necessarily mean bureacracy, just more efficient ways of evaluating caches. What that might entail, I'm not sure -- I don't know the process details, I just see the results -- but it seems like an area we should pay attention to. At the same time, we can work from both the approver and user perspectives to improve overall quality.

And then:

quote:
Originally posted by Seth!:
If you are done badgering the admins, I think we have a cache or two to review...

quote:
Originally posted by logscaler:
I like you guys and all but I think you need to cool your jets just a touch...

I understand things fall through the cracks.

Big flipping deal.

quote:
Originally posted by Navdog:
Now, only if some of the other folks who spend countless hours posting on the forums, would contribute in a more meaningful way.

Well, that's a pretty clear message. I'll restrain my desire to discuss and learn about the approval process, since you all seem happy with it.

How do you tell

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

Join the conversation