Paid geocache creator commission

[+CheekyBrit]

Here is a thought experiment for you:
Suppose someone wants to pay you to build geocaches for them. This isn't people who want you to put out more for them to find themselves, but someone who wants to pay to have them built under their own name on some sort of commission basis.
I could see that happening if the one paying didn't know how to make the containers, the cache page, or getting permission.

I could also see that happening if there is a legendary geocache creator like WVTim with his epic gadget caches.
There are surely a lot more reasons someone would want to hire someone to make caches for them, but what are some of the ethics or issues that could arise from this?

 

This isn't much of an issue if it is just services exchanged, like I'll make a plate of cookies for you if you build this for me, but money could complicate this.

I am not hiring anyone any time soon, but it was a shower thought milling around my head lately.

[+Max and 99]

I've purchased custom made geocache containers, and never thought much of it. Is that considered "hiring" them?

[+CheekyBrit]

Good question Max and 99. I guess I'm thinking of more than just buying the container. Anyone can buy stock and even custom containers. I'm thinking more of the full process taken care of by the commissioned builder. Picking the spot, building and hiding the container, getting permission, designing the cache page, ongoing maintenance possibly, all of it.

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I've purchased custom made geocache containers, and never thought much of it. Is that considered "hiring" them?

 

Yes, there's already a strong cottage industry making and selling geocaching containers and other stuff, so I guess someone doing one-off commissions constructing containers would be a fairly natural extension of that. Perhaps it could be an opening for someone with a 3D printer.

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, CheekyBrit said:

Good question Max and 99. I guess I'm thinking of more than just buying the container. Anyone can buy stock and even custom containers. I'm thinking more of the full process taken care of by the commissioned builder. Picking the spot, building and hiding the container, getting permission, designing the cache page, ongoing maintenance possibly, all of it.

 

Is there anything left for the CO to do? I could see a scenario for at least some of that in a situation where a CO has lost their mobility, but even then it's more likely the local caching community would rally around to help out, at least in this little part of the world.

[+Max and 99]

46 minutes ago, CheekyBrit said:

Good question Max and 99. I guess I'm thinking of more than just buying the container. Anyone can buy stock and even custom containers. I'm thinking more of the full process taken care of by the commissioned builder. Picking the spot, building and hiding the container, getting permission, designing the cache page, ongoing maintenance possibly, all of it.

Oh wow that's not even close to what I was thinking! 

[+kunarion]

3 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

Good question Max and 99. I guess I'm thinking of more than just buying the container. Anyone can buy stock and even custom containers. I'm thinking more of the full process taken care of by the commissioned builder. Picking the spot, building and hiding the container, getting permission, designing the cache page, ongoing maintenance possibly, all of it.

 

I've seen puzzle caches for sale, such as arduino boxes that do various things, ready to place.  And Mega Events and Geotours tend to have fancy caches that receive extra funds to design and build, someone getting special permission for amazing spots that the average cacher couldn't get, even persons or groups maintaining the caches.  So a lot of what you asked happens, to some extent.  It can result in some popular caches that are maintained.  But as to buying the whole package, especially including a maintenance plan, I haven't heard of all of that for a cache.  I'd suppose an issue is what happens when the funds run out.  Or as it applies to Geocaching, who's listed as the Cache Owner... is it the benefactor?  It would normally be the person who did all the legwork, built the cache and maintains it to their own satisfaction.  

 

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

There are surely a lot more reasons someone would want to hire someone to make caches for them, but what are some of the ethics or issues that could arise from this?

I can't even imagine what ethical issues you're thinking of. What possible objection could anyone have to two people making a deal and a nice cache coming out of it?

[+GeoElmo6000]

It would seem counterproductive to pay someone to do all that work under your account and then you don't get the opportunity to actually log the cache as a find.  It's just as new to you as it is for anyone else.  Sounds more productive to pay someone to hide caches under their own account.  I don't see any ethical issue with that, creators within different hobbies get paid for doing their work all the time.

[+MartyBartfast]

9 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Picking the spot,

I can't think of any "ethical" issues, but this would mean it has to be someone local, so probably part of the local caching  community. If someone  local approached me to do what you suggest as a one off then I would be happy to help, and wouldn't consider charging anything more than the materials for making a cache - I certainly wouldn't look to make any profit. If it was more than a one off then I probably wouldn't be interested as it would consume too much time.

 

And given the requirement to be local I can't see anyone taking this on commercially as they would by necessity be restricted to who they can offer the service to and I can't see it being worthwhile; if it were just building custom containers that can be delivered, and building a cache page then perhaps someone would consider doing it for profit.

 

 

[+cerberus1]

14 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

Suppose someone wants to pay you to build geocaches for them. This isn't people who want you to put out more for them to find themselves, but someone who wants to pay to have them built under their own name on some sort of commission basis.
I could see that happening if the one paying didn't know how to make the containers, the cache page, or getting permission.

There are surely a lot more reasons someone would want to hire someone to make caches for them, but what are some of the ethics or issues that could arise from this?

 

We have a friend (that doesn't cache at all anymore) that had others place some of their caches for them.  We'd remove them too.

They did all the paperwork though.  A genius with puzzles, but in a wheelchair most times, and limited mobility walking. 

We'd work as a team sometimes, with him solving other's puzzles (I can't...) and I'd access the hide with him nearby.

 

There also was one here for some time that put out numerous 5T caches.  They had another place most until they gained experience in rope.

Moved a while ago, and some of those caches still remain.   Maintenance now an issue, if anyone ever places action logs (NM, NA...).

There's a bunch of caches that need to go bye-bye around here, but few log those action logs... 

I have a list of caches to start the process when I'm able.

[+kunarion]

I'm available to test the idea.  Someone send me a lot of money and I'll tell you how it goes.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

Something like this might be used to get around the vacation cache restriction. If I wanted to place a cache at a favorite vacation spot, I could pay someone to remotely setup and maintain the cache. With a contract, I would have a documented maintenance plan. Not saying that this would pass a review, but it would be a point in its favor.

 

Also, this could happen with GeoTours. A Tourist Bureau could hire local geocachers to maintain a set of caches as part of a GeoTour. Although, I know that there are geocachers that would and have done this for free.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

5 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

It would seem counterproductive to pay someone to do all that work under your account and then you don't get the opportunity to actually log the cache as a find.  It's just as new to you as it is for anyone else.  Sounds more productive to pay someone to hide caches under their own account.  I don't see any ethical issue with that, creators within different hobbies get paid for doing their work all the time.

 

I think Cheeky's point is that the 'party of the first part' wouldn't care about the Find, just the Hide, as in being able to say, "Look at the cool Cache that I own!"

The 'party of the second part' might get some credit, perhaps, but the ownership and the glory would all belong to the 'party of the first part'.

 

Given the legal and ethical minefield that this would create, whatever contract or agreement negotiated between the two parties better be iron-clad.

 

Here's a guide to how it should work:

 

https://youtu.be/G_Sy6oiJbEk

 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by TeamRabbitRun

[+TriciaG]

Random thoughts:

 

Who would get the notifications of NM logs, etc.? Who would have control over the cache description?

• If it's the "buyer", are they going to diligently notify the contractor of maintenance needed, etc? Is the buyer going to update the cache page as needed? When the contractor says "the cache is no longer viable; archive it" will the buyer do so?
   
• If it's the contractor who has control (if that were technically possible without them owning the cache), then all the buyer gets out of it is a +1 on the Owned Caches stat. *shrug* It's pretty meaningless, IMHO.

 

The fee would have to be sufficient to make it worthwhile to the contractor but low enough to be attractive to the buyer. How many cachers want to pay someone so they can get another cache listing in their "Owned Caches" list?

Edited December 8, 2021 by TriciaG
removed a comma

[+dprovan]

32 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

Who would get the notifications of NM logs, etc.? Who would have control over the cache description?

Nothing about the hypothetical implies anything different about how the cache is submitted and owned.

 

33 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

The fee would have to be sufficient to...

Isn't that a given? Doesn't agreeing to do it *mean* the fee is sufficient?

[Darwin473]

I've come across a situation similar to this, minus the money.

 

There was a person living in State A that wanted to place a series of caches in different states. They contacted me in State B asking if I was willing to place (and maintain) their cache for them. In this case, they would do the on-line stuff since they could do that themselves. Presumably they were contacting people in States C, D, etc for caches there as well.

 

If someone offered me money to do something like this (find a location, assemble and place the cache, submit the listing and maintain) then I wouldn't have an issue with it. It seems to be a fairly straightforward service-for-pay scenario. I'd charge an upfront fee to build, place and submit the cache, then an ongoing fee to monitor. Around here, I'd be happy with a nominal fee of $5 a month, to pretty much cover the fuel. Most caches here seem to only need a visit once a year, if that, for maintenance so the ongoing aspect wouldn't be an issue. Just add that cache listing to the Watch list on my regular account and after the submission I probably wouldn't even need to access their account unless they wanted me to log the CO maintenance logs as well. As for the upfront cost - it'd vary, depending on the materials and complexity of the build. I'm pretty good at scavenging what other people discard as rubbish to re-purpose into caches, so unless it was something like custom arduino boards I could put together some nice ones on the cheap.

 

If they then stopped paying me the ongoing fee, then all I'd need to do is nothing. The cache will coast for a bit, then when it starts needing maintenance it'll get the NM / NA logs. Once archived, I'd CITO the remains and then possibly submit my own cache in that location. I don't see too many ethical issues unless people want to start over-thinking it. It's a bit like wanting to be an author but sucking at it. You can pay a writer / writers to ghost write your novel, then submit to a publisher for printing and distribution. Collect the credit by paying someone else for their ideas. They get the pay, I get the credit for the book.

 

Not that I'd do that; I'd get much more joy from a few sales of my mediocre book that I wrote myself than I would from a best seller that I paid someone else to write.

[+JL_HSTRE]

19 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

Also, this could happen with GeoTours. A Tourist Bureau could hire local geocachers to maintain a set of caches as part of a GeoTour. Although, I know that there are geocachers that would and have done this for free.

 

I think there are some people that have been paid for such services. Especially if the tourist bureau had a grant to create a geotour.

Edited December 8, 2021 by JL_HSTRE

[+TriciaG]

 

12 hours ago, dprovan said:

Nothing about the hypothetical implies anything different about how the cache is submitted and owned.

Doesn't it? See this:

On 12/6/2021 at 9:31 PM, CheekyBrit said:

Picking the spot, building and hiding the container, getting permission, designing the cache page, ongoing maintenance possibly, all of it.

"All of it" is ambiguous and could imply submission as well, especially if the cache page that was designed is complicated. And "ongoing maintenance" may imply maintenance of the cache page as well (removing the NM log with an OM log, updating the description/coordinates, etc.)

 

But I don't want to argue about this. Your thought process and mine are obviously different. If you thought my comments were inane, that's fine.

[+cerberus1]

9 hours ago, Unit473L said:

I've come across a situation similar to this, minus the money.

 

There was a person living in State A that wanted to place a series of caches in different states. They contacted me in State B asking if I was willing to place (and maintain) their cache for them. In this case, they would do the on-line stuff since they could do that themselves. Presumably they were contacting people in States C, D, etc for caches there as well.

 

We've seen similar once in a while in the "All Nations" forum.  Most seemed to simply want to add another country/state w/o actually being there...

[+dprovan]

On 12/8/2021 at 6:20 AM, TriciaG said:

On 12/7/2021 at 5:22 PM, dprovan said:

Nothing about the hypothetical implies anything different about how the cache is submitted and owned.

Doesn't it? See this:

On 12/6/2021 at 6:31 PM, CheekyBrit said:

Picking the spot, building and hiding the container, getting permission, designing the cache page, ongoing maintenance possibly, all of it.

"All of it" is ambiguous and could imply submission as well, especially if the cache page that was designed is complicated. And "ongoing maintenance" may imply maintenance of the cache page as well (removing the NM log with an OM log, updating the description/coordinates, etc.)

As I said, none of that implies a change in how the cache is submitted and owned. You're describing the case where the person who is paid to create the cache also submits the cache. I don't think that's what the OP had in mind -- I took it more as the money bags wanted to be the CO -- but even if the creator submits the cache, that still doesn't change how the cache is submitted and owned,  it just means the money bags pays the creator to put up a cache which the creator then owns, not the money bags (at least not in the geocaching.com sense).

 

On 12/8/2021 at 6:20 AM, TriciaG said:

But I don't want to argue about this. Your thought process and mine are obviously different. If you thought my comments were inane, that's fine.

I don't know where this came from. If you see something in the OP that suggests geocaching.com's existing practices would change, I'd like to hear your thoughts. I don't see it, so I think existing practices answer your questions.

[Darwin473]

I think CheekyBrit could elaborate on what they mean by "have them built under their own name". It could mean:

• Builder Account (BA) uses their account to build and submit the cache, with the cache being "for" the Moneybags Account (MA) (such as a GeoTrail for a government tourist bureau or other agency).
• BA uses their own account but lists the cache owner on the cache page as MA - but if a person clicks on it, it takes them to BA.
• BA logs in with the MA and does all the work, but the cache is "owned" by MA.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Unit473L said:

I think CheekyBrit could elaborate on what they mean by "have them built under their own name". It could mean:

• Builder Account (BA) uses their account to build and submit the cache, with the cache being "for" the Moneybags Account (MA) (such as a GeoTrail for a government tourist bureau or other agency).
• BA uses their own account but lists the cache owner on the cache page as MA - but if a person clicks on it, it takes them to BA.
• BA logs in with the MA and does all the work, but the cache is "owned" by MA.

 

Another option, which might be the cleanest, is for BA to create the cache listing under their account then adopt it over to MA who immediately deletes the auto-generated adoption WN. That way, there's no visible connection to BA and MA doesn't have to give BA access to their account.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, Unit473L said:

I think CheekyBrit could elaborate on what they mean by "have them built under their own name".

Does it really matter? Are there different ethical considerations for any of those three (or four including barefootjeff's suggestion)?

 

As far as I can see, how they actually accomplish the end isn't important. I don't see how we could detect that money changed hands, and I don't understand why we would care, either.

[+fizzymagic]

I'd be happy to make puzzle caches for others for a fee.  I would prefer that they not be in my neighborhood, but even that is negotiable!

[Darwin473]

If they were in your neighborhood, that means you could log the find on them - after someone else FTF's it. Maybe be like the third or fifth person to "find" it. Though in the OP's scenario, if someone is paying you to do most of the work anyway, odds are you'd have the maintenance in the contract anyway. So being close would be an advantage, yes?

[+cerberus1]

23 minutes ago, Unit473L said:

If they were in your neighborhood, that means you could log the find on them - after someone else FTF's it. 

 

When I placed the other 2/3rds 5T hide needing rope to access, quite a few people asked why I didn't log it.  "It's under her account..."

I guess if you're fine with that, sure you could...

[+fizzymagic]

On 12/12/2021 at 12:23 PM, Unit473L said:

If they were in your neighborhood, that means you could log the find on them - after someone else FTF's it. Maybe be like the third or fifth person to "find" it. Though in the OP's scenario, if someone is paying you to do most of the work anyway, odds are you'd have the maintenance in the contract anyway. So being close would be an advantage, yes?

 

On 12/12/2021 at 12:50 PM, cerberus1 said:

 

When I placed the other 2/3rds 5T hide needing rope to access, quite a few people asked why I didn't log it.  "It's under her account..."

I guess if you're fine with that, sure you could...

I don't like adding caches to my ignore list, but I would choose to not log it.