Jump to content

What kind of Cache is it?


Rhoeny
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Hello Geocaching Forum,

 

I have a question about a geocache type.

I wanted to create a geocache a few days ago, without a can as a final. The task was to collect different stamps along the way and then send them with a photo to the owner.

Since I already own several caches, I didn't want to deposit a can with a logbook again because of the maintenance.

What kind of cache is this then? Definitely NOT a traditional cache, a multi cache, a mystery cache?

Many thanks in advance :-)

LG Rhoeny (Hesse, Germany)

 

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

  • Funny 3
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Rhoeny said:

Hello Geocaching Forum,

 

I have a question about a geocache type.

I wanted to create a geocache a few days ago, without a can as a final. The task was to collect different stamps along the way and then send them with a photo to the owner.

Since I already own several caches, I didn't want to deposit a can with a logbook again because of the maintenance.

What kind of cache is this then? Definitely NOT a traditional cache, a multi cache, a mystery cache?

Many thanks in advance :-)

LG Rhoeny (Hesse, Germany)

 

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

This is not allowed.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Rhoeny said:

Hello Geocaching Forum,

 

I have a question about a geocache type.

I wanted to create a geocache a few days ago, without a can as a final. The task was to collect different stamps along the way and then send them with a photo to the owner.

Since I already own several caches, I didn't want to deposit a can with a logbook again because of the maintenance.

What kind of cache is this then? Definitely NOT a traditional cache, a multi cache, a mystery cache?

Many thanks in advance :-)

LG Rhoeny (Hesse, Germany)

 

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Geocache container

Choose container wisely

The container must hold the logbook. The ideal container is waterproof.

 

To avoid confusion or suspicion if your cache is found by a non-geocacher, follow these tips where possible:

 

Label your container as a geocache.

Choose a transparent container to show that the contents are harmless.

Include "instructions for finders".

Do not place containers that could be perceived as bombs or other dangerous items.

If the container has military markings, permanently cover or remove them.

Geocache contents

Must include logbook

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook for geocachers to record their visit. The logbook must be

 

Physical

Replaceable

Easy to sign

Enclosed within a container

Examples: Notebook, paper scroll.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

The OP does not describe a virtual cache, because OP proposes to place stamps in the environment that must be collected by the seeker and sent to the cache owner.  Even if the OP described a valid virtual cache design, this cache type is not available except as part of the Virtual Rewards program.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 9/22/2021 at 5:11 PM, Rhoeny said:

I didn't want to deposit a can with a logbook again because of the maintenance

 

If you are not willing - or able - to maintain a cache you should not be a geocache owner. That's part of the game as the cache container is part of a geocache.

 

By the way you are owning three caches and from the logs it looks as if none of them has had any problems so far so I really can't understand your problems with maintenance? I do not think that you had to do too much to keep your caches running (which is good).

 

Best wishes from Baden-Württemberg

Jochen

 

PS: There is a German-speaking forums part here if you do not want to use the English language. ;-)

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment

Thanks for all the comments on my question.

 

Then I will add another container with the logbook to the geocache and publish it then. I don't have any problems with maintenance, of course, but cycling and walking all the caches every week (even if there are more to come) is exhausting.

 

Thank you very much and see you hopefully soon ;-)

 

LG Rhoeny from Wüstensachsen

 

P.S. Thanks for the tip about the German forum. I must have overlooked it :-)

 

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Rhoeny said:

I don't have any problems with maintenance, of course, but cycling and walking all the caches every week (even if there are more to come) is exhausting.

 

You do not have to. As long as there are no problems with your caches you don't have to do anything. :-)

Usually you can find out from the logs when one certain cache needs your help. And as long as nobody logs something saying so (some consequent DNF logs or a needs maintenance log) no action is needed!

 

Jochen

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Max and 99 said:
18 hours ago, Rhoeny said:

but cycling and walking all the caches every week (even if there are more to come) is exhausting.

Every week??? Why?

 

I agree.  If you use a good container and it's hidden well enough to prevent non-cachers from discovering/taking it, then there's no need to visit it weekly.  As others have mentioned, the logs (usually) should provide you with enough information to determine whether or not it needs a visit.  However, if you know you've used a container that typically has issues or is placed in a manner that leads to frequent discovery/removal, then a weekly check is probably a good idea.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

However, if you know you've used a container that typically has issues or is placed in a manner that leads to frequent discovery/removal, then a weekly check is probably a good idea.

Hum if that case you have to archive it. Not sure why you suggest to let it in play if muggles frequently remove it.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 9/24/2021 at 10:58 AM, Lynx Humble said:

Hum if that case you have to archive it. Not sure why you suggest to let it in play if muggles frequently remove it.

 

You're under the assumption that it gets taken/moved regularly.  I'm under the assumption that it might have the potential for issues, which is why a weekly check might be needed.  If it truly is getting taken regularly, then yes, archive it as that spot is not good.  However, if it gets taken/moved once or twice and then the issue seems to resolve itself, weekly checks are warranted and if those keep coming back all clear, then a gradual lengthening of time between checks becomes more realistic, keeping in mind that there has been a history of issues and that it just might come back again .  Some COs are more than happy to throw money away to keep a location active. 

 

A crappy container would need weekly checks in order to keep the cache in decent shape.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 10/4/2021 at 3:46 AM, coachstahly said:

You're under the assumption that it gets taken/moved regularly.  I'm under the assumption that it might have the potential for issues, which is why a weekly check might be needed.

When you recommend weekly checks, you're implying that a seeker will be much more likely to find it missing than not. If the cache rarely disappears, then that's not the case, so frequent checks are pointless. It's based on the idea that if you check it often enough, it will always be there for any seeker. This is incorrect thinking because the cache can disappear at any time, even between the last check and the next search, as well as being an unnecessary concern because it's OK for the cache to occasionally be missing when a seeker goes to find it.

 

There's something really wrong if "good cache maintenance" means the CO needs to visit the cache more often than people look for it. In any reasonable situation, it will always be more likely for a seeker to visit when the cache is missing before the CO visits to discover and replace the missing cache. It's wrong to believe that the effort the CO puts into checking the cache is minimal or that the impact on a seeker looking for a cache that's missing is huge. It's actually the reverse: the CO's effort is significant, but not finding a cache, whether it's there or not, is a normal part of the game.

On 10/4/2021 at 3:46 AM, coachstahly said:

A crappy container would need weekly checks in order to keep the cache in decent shape.

I don't think any frequency will keep a crappy container in decent shape.

 

Of all the things one might do to improve a geocache, visiting it frequently is the least likely to make a difference no matter what deficiencies you think the visits will make up for.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

There's something really wrong if "good cache maintenance" means the CO needs to visit the cache more often than people look for it. In any reasonable situation, it will always be more likely for a seeker to visit when the cache is missing before the CO visits to discover and replace the missing cache.

 

Three of my caches have had no finds this year (one was last found in 2019) and another eight were last found over six months ago, so it's not unusual for me to visit my hides more often than people look for them. We had some seriously heavy rainfall and flooding in April, which prompted checks on most of my hides after the waters receded, and there are other natural calamities that can impact either the caches themselves or access to them like fires, rock falls, tree falls and even rodent attack, not to mention inquisitive muggles who can sometimes turn up at the most unexpected places. My caches tend to be in places I like visiting, more so in the current COVID lock-down when visiting my hides is about the only caching-related activitiy I can do (my current slump has just past 100 days), so for a lot of them I'm often the most recent visitor.

  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Three of my caches have had no finds this year (one was last found in 2019) and another eight were last found over six months ago, so it's not unusual for me to visit my hides more often than people look for them. We had some seriously heavy rainfall and flooding in April, which prompted checks on most of my hides after the waters receded, and there are other natural calamities that can impact either the caches themselves or access to them like fires, rock falls, tree falls and even rodent attack, not to mention inquisitive muggles who can sometimes turn up at the most unexpected places. My caches tend to be in places I like visiting, more so in the current COVID lock-down when visiting my hides is about the only caching-related activitiy I can do (my current slump has just past 100 days), so for a lot of them I'm often the most recent visitor.

Sure. I don't rule out a CO visiting his cache more often than seekers. There are lots of reasons that might happen. I'm just saying that it's not required for "good maintenance".

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 10/6/2021 at 1:22 PM, dprovan said:

When you recommend weekly checks, you're implying that a seeker will be much more likely to find it missing than not.

 

I wasn't even contemplating this from a finder's perspective, only from a CO's perspective. And I'm not recommeding weekly checks unless certain specfiic situations arise - cache taken and you put out a replacement, not knowing if it's a one off discovery or someone knows it's there - or use of a crappy container (more on this later) that requires a weekly check to make sure things are ok with the cache (which I'd strongly urge against) - and the resumption of a more elongated CO check as things return to normal. 

 

On 10/6/2021 at 1:22 PM, dprovan said:

If the cache rarely disappears, then that's not the case, so frequent checks are pointless......the cache can disappear at any time

 

Of course.  See above.  If it rarely disappears, then there's no need to continually visit.  I was advocating for an increased frequency of checks after a disappearance and a subsequent replacement, in order to make sure that it's a one off rather than a site that's known/discovered and will result in its disappearance once again. Of course it can disappear at any time.  I know only too well, having caches go MIA despite the fact that it's in a location that I believe very few muggles would willingly wander into. 

 

On 10/6/2021 at 1:22 PM, dprovan said:

There's something really wrong if "good cache maintenance" means the CO needs to visit the cache more often than people look for it.

 

I don't know if this was specifically addressed to me or to a general audience but I certainly did NOT mean to imply that good cache maintenance means frequent checks.  I hide my caches, using good containers and placing them in a manner that hopefully reduces the risk of accidental discovery/removal, so that I DON'T have to perform maintenance unless something comes up in finders' logs that leads me to believe there might be an issue.

 

On 10/6/2021 at 1:22 PM, dprovan said:

I don't think any frequency will keep a crappy container in decent shape.

 

Here's where I disagree with you, to some extent.  While I discourage the use of crappy containers, I realize that many COs use them for a variety of reasons.  Let's use a coffee can (plastic Folgers) as an example.  You appear to be saying that a weekly visit to the cache won't keep it in decent shape.  I believe that a CO that comes with a towel to dry the interior (due to the inevitable moisture that will get in - arid environments excluded) and swag, a replacement log in case the one in there is too damp or wet to sign, new swag to replace any that has been ruined by moisture, and inspects the lid and container for animal gnawing, holes, or deterioration (and has a replacement ready in case) can keep a crappy container in decent shape.  You could say the same thing about a pill bottle, a film container, or any other container that we may consider to be a crappy container. Anything that happens to it between checks would be rectified in the next check. There's no guarantee that the next finder will find it in good shape, as things certainly happen, but the odds go up quite a bit when compared with the CO of a crappy cache who doesn't frequently visit their cache.

 

That being said, there's absolutely NO way I'd be interested in spending this much time performing maintenance and I'd also be impressed if there were a CO this concientious and devoted to a weekly visit that involves this much maintenance to a cache. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, coachstahly said:

You appear to be saying that a weekly visit to the cache won't keep it in decent shape.  I believe that a CO that comes with a towel to dry the interior (due to the inevitable moisture that will get in - arid environments excluded) and swag, a replacement log in case the one in there is too damp or wet to sign, new swag to replace any that has been ruined by moisture, and inspects the lid and container for animal gnawing, holes, or deterioration (and has a replacement ready in case) can keep a crappy container in decent shape.

I can't imagine a CO that uses crappy containers but is then conscientious enough to work this hard to maintain them. But if they are that conscientious, they'll soon figure out that they shouldn't use crapping containers.

 

10 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I wasn't even contemplating this from a finder's perspective, only from a CO's perspective.

OK. I guess I'm a little confused about the conversation, then. I generally think the CO's perspective should imagining the cache from the finder's perspective. Otherwise, what's the point?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

While it's veered from the OP, most of the recent posts within this thread are about maintenance (weekly or otherwise) which really isn't the purview of a finder.

No, sorry, I disagree. Maintenance choices should be made based on what a finder is likely to experience. I think it's misguided to make your maintenance decisions based exclusively on how you feel about maintenance regardless of whether it has any impact on the finders' experiences, although I understand some COs can't help but think that way. Even someone that likes to check their caches once a week "just because" should consider the geotrail they're maintaining and whether they want that to be part of the seeker's experience, for example. Certainly when you *recommend* a maintenance schedule to someone else, it should take into account whether the proposed schedule will in any way improve what the seekers encounter. One thing I always worry about is that if the CO visits GZ 10 times more often than anyone seeks the cache, that increases by a factor of 10 the chances of a muggle seeing something they shouldn't and investigating.

 

Yeah, it is odd that this conversation took this turn, although there wasn't much to say about the OP beyond "no, you can't do that".

Link to comment

A bit late to the conversation, but I had a thought on the OP's idea.

 

What about having four regular, unrelated caches but in each there is a stamp to find a Bonus cache. Each stamp has alignment markers so that the four can be stamped on top of each other to create a new stamp. So one stamp could have the first, third and eighth numbers. The second could have the second, fourth and fifth numbers, and so one. All four stamped onto a bit of paper give the complete coords for the Bonus cache.

 

That's the closest I can come up with to something that vaguely resembles what the OP was talking about - other than the ALR and no-container virtual idea. Pretty sure it's been done before.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...