Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
CCSGA

Waiving or reducing listing requirements in special cases.

Recommended Posts

Searched for this suggestion in the forums, with no luck.  I have just returned from a trip that included Myanmar (a country with 25 traditional caches) and Laos (a country with 15 traditional caches).  Myanmar has 5 earth caches, one virtual, and one multi.  Laos Also has 5 active earth caches, one virtual, and one multi.  In Myanmar, I hid one traditional cache with the permission of the property owner, who spoke no English, with the help of a guide who travels through the village each week and who agreed to be the guardian of the cache.  Unfortunately, he has not responded the the reviewer's emailed request for confirmation, and I suspect that, perhaps partly because of the recent history of the military government there, he may be afraid of the consequences.  In Laos, I was unable to obtain the consent to serve as guardian by the manager (or anyone else) of a B&B that had a perfect place for a micro on a sign owned by the B&B.  I understand the need for longevity in the placement of caches, but wonder if some relaxation of the manager requirement might be in order in countries with a very small number of existing caches.  If local folks appear to be afraid or unwilling to serve in that capacity (check out the caches in Somalia, or Yemen, or North Korea, for example), or unwilling to put that commitment in writing, would an exception to the rule be in order?

Edited by CCSGA
Clarification of consent of manager to consent to serve as guardian--no problem with allowing placement, but no one would serve as guardian

Share this post


Link to post

Whatever the reason, a cache not able to be maintained shouldn't be published.   

If an unwilling someone isn't responding to a Reviewer, what makes anyone think they'd respond to a required action later?   If fear is a reason behind  no maintenance, curious why someone would want a finder to go through whatever issues there are to create that fear for the locals. 

There was a recent thread where one thought there should be exceptions in certain cases ...      :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CCSGA said:

If local folks appear to be afraid or unwilling to serve in that capacity (check out the caches in Somalia, or Yemen, or North Korea, for example), or unwilling to put that commitment in writing, would an exception to the rule be in order?

I appreciate your effort in trying to foster geocaching in some underrepresented places, but I have to agree: if they're not going to be maintained, there's not much sense in listing them and just hoping for the best that they'll still be there down the line.

In theory, it's great to get a cache published for an underrepresented area and give others the chance to find a cache in the area.  I think it'd be awesome to get the chance to find a geocache in Laos or Myanmar.

In practice, if geocaching hasn't taken root in a place yet, caches just tend to grow legs.  Without a way to ensure that the cache is actually there, exceptions to policy have the potential to lead to disappointing scenarios -- I get my hopes up that there are caches to be found, only to discover an empty spot where there used to be a cache.

It doesn't hurt to ask - but the answer is still likely to be no.  If you're not the lucky recipient of a new virtual cache to publish, then take a look at the local geography and plan an earthcache based on a durable feature.  Maintenance thus becomes a lot easier to guarantee.

That said, there have been exceptions: military caches in Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind.  Those were published with the expectation that the original CO would not be there longer than a year and that subsequent finders would have to provide their own maintenance.  I don't know if, with operations drawn down from where they used to be, reviewers are still publishing as many downrange caches as they did in, say, 2009.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, CCSGA said:

Searched for this suggestion in the forums, with no luck.  I have just returned from a trip that included Myanmar (a country with 25 traditional caches) and Laos (a country with 15 traditional caches).  Myanmar has 5 earth caches, one virtual, and one multi.  Laos Also has 5 active earth caches, one virtual, and one multi.  In Myanmar, I hid one traditional cache with the permission of the property owner, who spoke no English, with the help of a guide who travels through the village each week and who agreed to be the guardian of the cache.  Unfortunately, he has not responded the the reviewer's emailed request for confirmation, and I suspect that, perhaps partly because of the recent history of the military government there, he may be afraid of the consequences.  In Laos, I was unable to obtain the consent to serve as guardian by the manager (or anyone else) of a B&B that had a perfect place for a micro on a sign owned by the B&B.  I understand the need for longevity in the placement of caches, but wonder if some relaxation of the manager requirement might be in order in countries with a very small number of existing caches.  If local folks appear to be afraid or unwilling to serve in that capacity (check out the caches in Somalia, or Yemen, or North Korea, for example), or unwilling to put that commitment in writing, would an exception to the rule be in order?

Who decides if a cache is a "special case"?  It seems to me that it would be a reviewer, who would be putting into a position of telling some geocachers that the cache they want to place, with no maintenance plan, isn't special enough.  

If you were unable to obtain consent by the manager of a B&B to place a cache on their property, is it really a good idea to place one there without their consent?  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

In the case of the  B&B manager, he was more than willing for me to place a cache at the B&B; he just would not agree to serve as manager.  Of course you would not place a cache without the consent of the landowner!

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×