Newbies Establishing Caches Then Leaving The Community/Establishing caches 100's of Miles From Home

[+Conejos]

I am getting very tired of "trying" to find abandoned or poorly maintained caches that newbie cachers establish then leave the Geocache community.  I believe that HQs should establish a minimum number of  caches found to their credit before being able to establish a cache.  Also I believe years ago I was denied establishing a cache more than 50 miles from my home site. I have found many needed maintenance or DNF'd caches from people who live to far away to maintain their cache.  Many cachers do not log a DNF on these "Just Cause" so they do not get archived.  I recently replaced a cache in Granby, Colorado that was owned by a person in Florida.  I believe she has passed to the great cache in the sky since it has been years since she was on this site. AND gallery pictures show an age of possible not even currently alive.

[+Max and 99]

20 minutes ago, Conejos said:

I recently replaced a cache in Granby, Colorado that was owned by a person in Florida. 

Why?

[+Conejos]

Why?? Because a couple of people were trying to find it in the few days I was there.  It was established I believe around 2009 and was in a tourist area where people from all over the world come to and look for caches.  Just thought I would be helpful in helping the community of cachers.

[Keystone]

Pretend you're a newbie in Mumbai, India, who just discovered geocaching after talking to a relative who lives in another country.  Mumbai has a metro area population of about 25MM, and a geocache population of 4 active caches.

 

Where does the newbie find the minimum required number of geocaches?  What's your minimum number, and is it four or less?

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, Conejos said:

I am getting very tired of "trying" to find abandoned or poorly maintained caches that newbie cachers establish then leave the Geocache community… I have found many needed maintenance or DNF'd caches from people who live to far away to maintain their cache. .. I recently replaced a cache in Granby, Colorado that was owned by a person in Florida.  

Replacing the cache continues the issue. Placing an NA on the cache would send a better message. Cache owners should maintain their cache and listing or that listing will end up archived by the community, not propped up. 

[+Calypso62]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Replacing the cache continues the issue. Placing an NA on the cache would send a better message. Cache owners should maintain their cache and listing or that listing will end up archived by the community, not propped up. 

 

I agree 100% with this.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Conejos said:

Also I believe years ago I was denied establishing a cache more than 50 miles from my home site. I have found many needed maintenance or DNF'd caches from people who live to far away to maintain their cache.  Many cachers do not log a DNF on these "Just Cause" so they do not get archived.  I recently replaced a cache in Granby, Colorado that was owned by a person in Florida.  I believe she has passed to the great cache in the sky since it has been years since she was on this site. AND gallery pictures show an age of possible not even currently alive.

 

A year ago I placed a cache 150km from home, which I think is almost at the limit for what's generally allowed here without having to provide a remote cache maintenance plan. I designed it so it's unlikely to need maintenance, with a sturdy well-sealed Duratech instrument case container, a stone-paper waterproof logbook and a hiding place that protects it from sun, rain and inquisitive muggles.

 

 

I do drive through that area at least once a year and, if time allows, will do the hike up the mountain to check on it (which I did a few weeks ago), and if it did get an NM log it's really only a 2-hour drive from home. But in a worst case scenario if it went missing or fell into disrepair and I was unable to get to it, I'd rather see it archived than propped up by someone passing through who had a make-do container and log sheet with them.

 

Why should I, or anyone else regardless of their find count, be prevented from placing a cache like this just because there are some abandoned caches in Colarado? Blunt force "fixes" like that suggested seem more about punishing the innocent than actually addressing the underlying problems (often poor container choice and an unwillingless to log DNFs, NMs and NAs when required).

 

 

[+Max and 99]

3 hours ago, Conejos said:

AND gallery pictures show an age of possible not even currently alive.

Dude! You are no spring chicken. 

The way I see it, your actions of propping up these vacation caches are contributing to the exact problem you are complaining about. 

[Keystone]

4 hours ago, Conejos said:

people who live to far away to maintain their cache.

Since this is the Geocaching.com Website Feature Suggestion forum, please define exactly what your request entails. 

 

There is already a Guideline that covers this issue.  Geocaching HQ leaves it to the discretion of the local Reviewer to decide what's "too far."  For example, I would have no hesitation publishing barefootjeff's cache 150km from his home.  I know he has a great record for cache maintenance, and I also know that distances in Australia, outside of major cities, are very different than distances in Germany, Massachusetts or England.  As a Reviewer, I also know that 50 km may be "too far" for a geocacher who finds all their caches using a bicycle, and had their first three caches archived for lack of maintenance.  As a Reviewer, I am also obligated to take at face value any statement like "my parents live nearby and will maintain the cache in between my frequent visits from my home in Florida" - at least until proven otherwise.

 

Text of existing guideline:

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.

 

[RuideAlmeida]

13 hours ago, Conejos said:

I believe that HQs should establish a minimum number of  caches found to their credit before being able to establish a cache.

 

Even without a guideline, there are already plenty of players faking 20 or so Founds all over the world. Then it wouldn't be different.

 

Considering the faraway caches... since I live in the Amazon, I can clearly see some benefits.

[+cerberus1]

19 hours ago, Conejos said:

I am getting very tired of "trying" to find abandoned or poorly maintained caches that newbie cachers establish then leave the Geocache community.  I believe that HQs should establish a minimum number of  caches found to their credit before being able to establish a cache.  Also I believe years ago I was denied establishing a cache more than 50 miles from my home site. I have found many needed maintenance or DNF'd caches from people who live to far away to maintain their cache.  Many cachers do not log a DNF on these "Just Cause" so they do not get archived.  I recently replaced a cache in Granby, Colorado that was owned by a person in Florida.  I believe she has passed to the great cache in the sky since it has been years since she was on this site. AND gallery pictures show an age of possible not even currently alive.

 

I feel your pain on this, as my other 2/3rds no longer caches because of newbs with no finds placing caches. She was a FTF monster.

The best, caches way-off from coordinates.  The worst, not even there because "I thought I hid it when it's approved by a Reviewer...".

Her last was 400 feet off.  She found it and quit that day...

But, Anyone can find two hundred pill bottles, all hidden the same way, in line on a rail trail, and now they're good to go.

 

Was the cache in disrepair and you replaced it, or did you leave a throwdown?  Either way, use of our action logs (DNF, NM) seems warranted.

Did you leave an action log?  For some, It's all about that smiley... 

Replacing a hide for someone no longer in the game only prolongs the inevitable NA and archival.