About geocaches far from home

[poikää & butterfly]

  Butterfly and I (poikaa) have been in the game since 2002. We were told not to have hides away from home where it is tough to maintain them....  Now we find that some cachers live in Europe but have caches in Africa?? What is this a double standard or??

   We have seen this quite a few times and wonder about what we were told. Please let us know.

 

P&B

[+niraD]

From the guidelines (emphasis added):

Quote

• Don't hide caches far from home.
  • Vacation/holiday caches are usually not published because they are difficult to maintain. It's best to place physical caches in your area so you can respond quickly to maintenance needs. In rare circumstances a vacation cache with an acceptable maintenance plan might be published.

So one possibility is that the CO presented an acceptable maintenance plan to the volunteer reviewer.

 

Another possibility is that the CO lived in Africa when the cache was submitted and published,  but later moved to Europe without archiving the cache or adopting it to someone else.

 

Another possibility is that the cache was published when the prohibition against vacation/holiday caches wasn't enforced as strongly as it is today.

Edited September 23, 2018 by niraD

[+pingurus]

Also, Earthcaches can be hidden away from home, if you visited the place in the last three months.

[+Touchstone]

7 hours ago, poikää & butterfly said:

We have seen this quite a few times and wonder about what we were told. Please let us know.

You were told correct.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 9/23/2018 at 12:43 AM, niraD said:

Another possibility is that the cache was published when the prohibition against vacation/holiday caches wasn't enforced as strongly as it is today.

 

I have found a couple of caches that were good examples of this.  A couple were by a CO from around 2003 that had hides all over the world and some how many of them are still active.   The guidelines have changed since then.  Even though in some cases, a vacation cache "works" and manages to be community maintained for many years, most likely will  become trash the first time a container needs maintenance. 

[+hzoi]

I have come across a (Dutch?) cacher who states on their profile that they have hidden caches in over 30 countries.  The one cache I looked at had a note on cache maintenance that a local was taking care of it.  (I didn't check 'em all, I'm not their reviewer, I was just idly curious.)

 

Since this means depending entirely on 30+ other geocachers to do their work for them, I'm skeptical of the long term viability of this, but again, not my lane.

[+L0ne.R]

Saw one recently when one of his caches was mentioned in a forum topic. For some reason, he has been allowed to hide caches in 4 different US states and one province (1000s of miiles apart). Those caches were not being maintained. 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Saw one recently when one of his caches was mentioned in a forum topic. For some reason, he has been allowed to hide caches in 4 different US states and one province (1000s of miiles apart). Those caches were not being maintained. 

 

When I first started I only hid caches within 10 miles or so of where I live because that's where I did the majority of my geocaching.  Among other reasons, I haven't hid a cache in 10 years, partially because I don't geocache in my local area much.   A few weeks ago we bought a new (2nd) house, a bit less than 2 hours from where I currently live and am thinking about hiding a few caches in the area.   Generally, trying to hide a cache two hours away from ones home coordinates would get a response from a review asking about a maintenance plan.  In this case,  I'll likely be spending almost have of my weekends at our new house and could easily maintain any caches I hid there.   There may be many other scenarios which would allow a geocacher to adequately maintain hides hundreds of miles from home.  Some people just have jobs which allow them to travel a lot (especially if one works in the airline industry).  

 

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, hzoi said:

Since this means depending entirely on 30+ other geocachers to do their work for them, I'm skeptical of the long term viability of this, but again, not my lane.

 

Statistically speaking, 30+ maintaners are better than one only and it is good to know that long term is only three months

Edited September 24, 2018 by arisoft

[+Viajero Perdido]

My farthest hides are about 5 hours from home (not including the hike).  But then, my geo-map for that area shows plenty of smileys, so clearly I do get out that way from time to time.  I think that's what the reviewers look at, at least in part: your pattern of travels.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

Statistically speaking, 30+ maintaners are better than one only and it is good to know that long term is only three months

 

Statistically speaking 30+ maintainers do minimal work. They put a bit of paper in a broken container. They replace a cache that has gone missing with a leaky container. They replace a 300ml container with a 30cent dollar store bead jar. They replace an ammo can with a candy tin. And they never return to maintain what they left behind. It's all just litter on top of litter. 

[+arisoft]

28 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Statistically speaking 30+ maintainers do minimal work. They put a bit of paper in a broken container. They replace a cache that has gone missing with a leaky container. They replace a 300ml container with a 30cent dollar store bead jar. They replace an ammo can with a candy tin. And they never return to maintain what they left behind. It's all just litter on top of litter. 

 

Try to find better maintainers next time. At least they did something to save you from premature archiving or did they?

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

premature archiving

 

What is premature archiving?

[+arisoft]

32 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

What is premature archiving?

 

Archiving before three months have passed from the publishing.

[+Team Christiansen]

38 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

What is premature archiving?

 

3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Archiving before three months have passed from the publishing.

I think the basic presumption is that the reviewers know what they are doing and won't archive unless there is a justifiable reason to do so, such as an unresponsive CO or a CO unwilling to correct a reviewer-identified problem. As such, there is no such thing as a premature archiving.

[+DerDiedler]

I have one abroad cache too, placed on holiday. I was a bit suprised that a reviewer contacted me, pointing out that the cache can not be published since it is to far away from my home coordinates and I must convince him that propper maintenance will be done.

I´ve then contacted a local Geochacher who kindli give his Contact, even along with telefonenumber, and i forwarded it to the reviewer. Without further questions or crosschecking the given informations the cache was published.

So, I see 3 Options to get a Far away cache online:

1. Find a local who will give you a hand maintaining the cache (best option)
2. Make up a story about a local who will give you a hand maintaining the cache (not a good option)
3. Change your home coordinates prior to submit the cache, so that you seem to be close (well, cheeky I guess and not a good option either)

[+hzoi]

3 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

• Make up a story about a local who will give you a hand maintaining the cache (not a good option)
• Change your home coordinates prior to submit the cache, so that you seem to be close (well, cheeky I guess and not a good option either)

 

I know you're (probably) not serious, but #2 and #3 sound like good ways to (1) get your cache archived when the foreign reviewer finds out, (2) lose all trust with your local reviewer(s) when the the foreign reviewer lets your local reviewer(s) know you are not to be trusted (reviewers talk all the time, you know), and (3) potentially have Groundspeak suspend your account or take other sanctions.

 

I would recommend instead:

1.  Plan a non-physical cache, such as an earthcache or (if you have one) virtual reward, and plan it so that maintenance will not be necessary.

2.  Plan a meaningful event that will give local geocachers and other travelers a chance to meet and greet.

3.  Find a local maintainer who will actually maintain your cache BEFORE hiding the container and submitting the cache for review.

4.  Failing #1, #2, and #3, don't hide a cache.

Edited September 25, 2018 by hzoi

[+arisoft]

13 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

 

I think the basic presumption is that the reviewers know what they are doing and won't archive unless there is a justifiable reason to do so, such as an unresponsive CO or a CO unwilling to correct a reviewer-identified problem. As such, there is no such thing as a premature archiving.

 

Premature archiving is done by the CO before the three month expected lifetime of the cache has been passed. I have seen a reviewer to unarchive, without a request from the CO,  a cache which was arcived prematurely by the CO before this important time limit.

Edited September 25, 2018 by arisoft

[+TriciaG]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

Premature archiving is done by the CO before the three month expected lifetime of the cache has been passed. I have seen a reviewer to unarchive, without a request from the CO,  a cache which was arcived prematurely by the CO before this important time limit.

This is a totally different issue than placing a vacation cache.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, TriciaG said:

This is a totally different issue than placing a vacation cache.

 

I must agree. Nevertheless the CO must have plan how to keep the cache available at least the required three months before archiving the cache. Vacation cache may not last long enough without help from someone nearby the cache.

Edited September 25, 2018 by arisoft

[+TeamRabbitRun]

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Premature archiving is done by the CO before the three month expected lifetime of the cache has been passed. I have seen a reviewer to unarchive, without a request from the CO,  a cache which was arcived prematurely by the CO before this important time limit.

 

I KNOW I'm gonna regret this.

 

PLEASE, SOMEBODY stop me before I ask this question!!!

 

(sigh)  OK, Ari, please explain the part I highlighted.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I must agree. Nevertheless the CO must have plan how to keep the cache available at least the required three months before archiving the cache. Vacation cache may not last long enough without help from someone nearby the cache.

 

On the other hand, I know of a vacation cache that was placed in 2001, has 1200 finds, (as recently as yesterday)  and only 1 NM log.  

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 minute ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

I KNOW I'm gonna regret this.

 

PLEASE, SOMEBODY stop me before I ask this question!!!

 

(sigh)  OK, Ari, please explain the part I highlighted.

 

Not Ari, but I suspect it would be a case of a CO placing a cache, then self archiving it less than 3 months after it was published (premature archive), and a reviewer unarchived to cache to keep it in play.   I've never seen it happen, and am surprised that a reviewer would do that.  I *would* expect a message from the reviewer reminding the CO of the permanency guideline though.  

[+TeamRabbitRun]

1 minute ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Not Ari, but I suspect it would be a case of a CO placing a cache, then self archiving it less than 3 months after it was published (premature archive), and a reviewer unarchived to cache to keep it in play.   I've never seen it happen, and am surprised that a reviewer would do that.  I *would* expect a message from the reviewer reminding the CO of the permanency guideline though.  

 

Without a request from the CO?

 

Who has to maintain it? Who's the de facto owner is the original CO ditches it?

 

That must be one impressive geocache!

[+Max and 99]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Premature archiving is done by the CO before the three month expected lifetime of the cache has been passed. I have seen a reviewer to unarchive, without a request from the CO,  a cache which was arcived prematurely by the CO before this important time limit.

That's very surprising!

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Not Ari, but I suspect it would be a case of a CO placing a cache, then self archiving it less than 3 months after it was published (premature archive), and a reviewer unarchived to cache to keep it in play.   I've never seen it happen, and am surprised that a reviewer would do that.  I *would* expect a message from the reviewer reminding the CO of the permanency guideline though.  

 

This is exactly what happened.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

This is exactly what happened.

 

Please cite the Cache.

I'd like to see a case where a cache was put back into play after the CO archived it, without his or her OK.

[+arisoft]

There is very little to see because other related logs have been removed but the reviewer log is still visible stating that it is not correct to archive cache before three months.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

37 minutes ago, arisoft said:

There is very little to see because other related logs have been removed but the reviewer log is still visible stating that it is not correct to archive cache before three months.

 

That's nonsense.

 

Google Translate is probably a little imprecise, but what was shown to me was:

Quote

"However, Anneta should be sought for at least 3 months when the cache is still in perfect condition. I recommend the author of the cache to read the rules on Geocaching.com's site :)."

 

As far as I know, the only thing the guidelines say about that 'three month' thing is that caches must be placed for longevity;

Quote

"Temporary caches intended to stay active for fewer than three months will not be published."

 

Grammatically terrible, but pretty clear. You cannot place a cache with the INTENTION of yanking it after less than three months.

 

But, if I put out a cache, then I determine that I can't maintain it and don't want to (or can't) adopt it out, then I'm perfectly within my rights to archive it; it's MINE.

 

Maybe that reviewer should do some reading, himself.

 

There must be more to this story, especially since we're missing log entries, including the archival. Without all the details, this doesn't stand as an example of anything.

Edited September 25, 2018 by TeamRabbitRun

[+MNTA]

I placed a cache this summer at a corner of a street. Well first day of school arrived a month later, and a school bus stop was right there. It went missing immediately and after double checking decided the best bet was to archive after a month. 

[+The A-Team]

43 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

There must be more to this story, especially since we're missing log entries, including the archival. Without all the details, this doesn't stand as an example of anything.

Exactly. If the archive log and some other logs have been deleted, then there's definitely more to the story. After all, what if something happens to the cache before that 3 months elapses, like in MNTA's case? Let's say a cache is hidden in a wooded area and then a month later the area is bulldozed for a housing development. Would a reviewer seriously unarchive the cache? Of course not. Something else must have happened in the Finnish case.

[+arisoft]

16 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

That's nonsense.

 

It is the way the google translator works

 

19 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

There must be more to this story, especially since we're missing log entries, including the archival. Without all the details, this doesn't stand as an example of anything.

 

It is example of premature archiving, purely offtopic by the way.

 

I have copy of the archived log in my e-mail. There was only a note that the owner have no time to do maintenance.

[+Team Christiansen]

50 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Maybe that reviewer should do some reading, himself.

What's worse is the reviewer unarchiving a cache that the CO no longer wanted. What is the maintenance plan then? Can't force the CO to do it. What can a reviewer do when CO refuses to do maintenance? Archive it. What a silly wasted cycle.

[+colleda]

9 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

What's worse is the reviewer unarchiving a cache that the CO no longer wanted. What is the maintenance plan then? Can't force the CO to do it. What can a reviewer do when CO refuses to do maintenance? Archive it. What a silly wasted cycle.

That is speculation. Without knowing what correspondence (if any) took place between the CO and reviewer. The CO may have agreed to maintain it after unarchival for at least the three months cited. This is also speculation.

[+arisoft]

2 minutes ago, colleda said:

That is speculation. Without knowing what correspondence (if any) took place between the CO and reviewer. The CO may have agreed to maintain it after unarchival for at least the three months cited. This is also speculation.

 

In that case the reference to guidelines would be unnecessacy but you are right that we do not know. More propably someone reported this incident to the reviewer and told that the cache is in good condition and this premature archiving is not needed at all.

[+hzoi]

If I came across such a situation like that and had the power to actually do anything about it, I would not unarchive a cache that was archived prior to 90 days of publication.  No way to force a CO to maintain a listing, so the only people who this would really negatively impact would be anyone looking for the cache.  But I wouldn't publish any future submissions from that CO until 90 days had passed, at least in the area around the archived cache.