Jump to content

Scam?


JoesBar

Recommended Posts

Posted

I received this message through GC today,  I wonder if this is legit.

 

  1. TownsOfAmerica 2:43 PM

    Hello, good afternoon! Greetings from the East Coast. There is a new concept called Towns Of America. The goal is to get a cache in as many towns or cities in America as possible. The problem is that one individual can't do that by themselves. That is why we are reaching out to geocachers across the nation! We are picking out cachers from different cities and towns. Cleveland would be an amazing place to feature this series! If you would like to participate, what you would have to do is place a cache, and give me the info so it can be published on this account. You would be the person maintaining it. If you are interested please reach out to me! No pressure on this at all!
  2.  
  • Surprised 1
Posted

Anyone receiving such a message on or after January 25th should report this to Geocaching HQ, either by posting here or by writing to Geocaching HQ via the Help Center.

  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Posted

Is there a known issue with this?  While it sounds unusual, it doesn't sound like a scam to me.

 

I've used GC messenger to reach out blindly to geocachers who don't know me to ask for help with things many times, and I've found geocachers to be very helpful.

Posted

If I create a cache, I want to publish it myself, and I accept the responsibility of maintaining it.  If I create a cache and have someone else publish it I assume they would want me to maintain it.  

 

There are caches in many towns in the US but not in all of them.  Let this CO do some legwork and find towns without caches and work on them.  

 

This does not sound like something I would get involved in. 

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Posted

Cache Across America caches are owned and maintained by geocachers local to each of the 50 states.  A proposal for a single account to own a cache in "every town in America" is a bird of a different feather, and it's a bird that cannot fly.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 3
Posted
14 hours ago, Keystone said:

Cache Across America caches are owned and maintained by geocachers local to each of the 50 states.  A proposal for a single account to own a cache in "every town in America" is a bird of a different feather, and it's a bird that cannot fly.

 

Coming from a country whose national symbol is a bird who cannot fly, I'm slightly curious as to why the particular bird that is the subject of this topic can not fly, if hypothetically everyone involved in this agreed to it.  Is it materially different to a geocacher having a geocache hidden far away from them with an agreed maintenance plan in place with a local geocacher?

 

  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Smitherington said:

The difference may be the scope and quantity. 

 

I wouldn't expect that is the case at all - there is no such guideline I'm aware of, and how in any case would one be enforced?  This "spam/scam/whatever" could have happily gone ahead and probably no one would have noticed, if everyone who was contacted was either keen to participate, or simply ignored it.

 

Hence my question directed to Keystone, a reviewer, as to why he thinks it cannot fly at all.  I'm curious as to what guideline might be breached or if there is some other reason.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Posted
3 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Is it materially different to a geocacher having a geocache hidden far away from them with an agreed maintenance plan in place with a local geocacher?

 

I think it's quite a bit different, since they are wanting to submit caches for publication without ever even visiting the location where they'll be hidden. A geocacher hiding a cache far away from them has almost always still done the hiding part themselves. 

 

It makes no sense why they would want to publish the cache on their own account when the other cacher is doing everything, including the hiding and maintaining. 

  • Upvote 2
Posted (edited)

I am not a reviewer, and Keystone can provide the justification from the reviewers' perspective, but it seems to me that this would fall afoul of the vacation cache guideline:

 

Quote

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.

 

The idea is that the best case is that a cacher hides and maintains a cache themselves. The next best (and as stated in the guideline, to be used rarely) is for one cacher to hide the cache and have someone else maintain it. To have a cacher not have any involvement with a cache other than being the registered owner would seem to be taking it too far. At that point, it might as well be the local that owns it.

 

Edit: cross-posted with x7Kevin, and we seem to agree

Edited by The A-Team
  • Upvote 2
Posted
4 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Coming from a country whose national symbol is a bird who cannot fly, I'm slightly curious as to why the particular bird that is the subject of this topic can not fly, if hypothetically everyone involved in this agreed to it.  Is it materially different to a geocacher having a geocache hidden far away from them with an agreed maintenance plan in place with a local geocacher?

 

 

It's one thing to publish a vacation cache. It's quite another to publish hundreds or thousands of vacation geocaches across the country. 

 

In addition to the classic Cache Across America series where each listing is individually owned, there is also a newer Cache Odyssey series set up in every state which also has individual, local owners.

 

I also wonder if "Towns Of America" is just an enthusiastic individual, or if there's some kind of 'league of cities' type organization behind it. A commercial or political motive would be an issue.

 

And of course using the Message Center for spam may have disqualified TOA from any negotiations with Groundspeak. 

Posted
7 hours ago, Keystone said:

It would seem that community members are doing an excellent job of explaining why the bird is flightless.  Thank you to @Smitherington, @JL_HSTRE, @x7Kevin and @The A-Team for your thoughtful posts.

 

I can see why it's unlikely to fly, because it's unlikely that enough of the people contacted will want to join in, if any at all.  What I can't see is why it definitely can't fly, as in there's a specific guideline/rule preventing it from flying.

 

I don't care either way, I'm not the one behind it and it doesn't affect me at all.  I was just curious if there was a guideline based reason why it couldn't happen.

 

I didn't post my question to diss anyone or try and prove anyone wrong.  Just genuine curiosity, which will go unanswered.

 

Yes unanswered because it is not without precedent to have a cache published in a remote location without even setting foot there, byt getting the involvement of a local hider/maintainer - I know of people and caches where that was the case.  The motivation for it?  I don't know, it's not for me, but it does happen occasionally, and it's not outlawed apparently.

Posted
3 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Yes unanswered because it is not without precedent to have a cache published in a remote location without even setting foot there, by getting the involvement of a local hider/maintainer - I know of people and caches where that was the case.

 

I wonder how many of those COs were honest and in full disclosure with their Reviewer?

 

The only way I've seen this done is for event teams. One group of people hides a bunch of caches then divides up the cache pages among other members of the event team to create the cache pages. But that's very localized. 

 

Ultimately, this is an example of how exceptions are bad and slopes are slippery. If one of these hides is allowed, surely two are okay? If two, why not ten? If ten then why not a hundred? The best place to draw the line is at zero.

Posted (edited)

I think a cache/series like this should follow a similar setup as the church micro series or sidetracked. Keep an external list of all caches in the series, owned by individuals in their own local areas.  That would be a setup that would fly.

Wouldn't say scam; spam? Depends on how widely sent and wide received this message is, if there isn't already a TOU violation

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think a cache/series like this should follow a similar setup as the church micro series or sidetracked. Keep an external list of all caches in the series, owned by individuals in their own local areas.  That would be a setup that would fly.

There is a series in Scotland (UK) called Haggis Highway.

 

Placed by, includes:

Highland Haggi

Highland Haggi Banffshire Breed

Highland Haggi Respectful breed

Dalirada Haggi

 

Whilst they may seem to be placed by a few cachers, click on the name and they are individual cachers, or group of local cachers, placing and maintaining their own caches which cover a large area of Scotland.

Edited by Bear and Ragged
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I wonder how many of those COs were honest and in full disclosure with their Reviewer?

 

I'm not sure what would have needed to be disclosed, other than their local maintenance plan....?

 

10 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Ultimately, this is an example of how exceptions are bad and slopes are slippery. If one of these hides is allowed, surely two are okay? If two, why not ten? If ten then why not a hundred? The best place to draw the line is at zero.

 

I'm curious about this, like why it's bad and best to draw the line at zero.  Such a cache might end up being the best maintained in the area - without a crystal ball, who could know?

 

And what I've been trying to find out, and no one thus far has been able to answer, is which guideline disallows these caches from publication.

 

I've got no interest in hiding such a cache - I am simply curious because I like to maintain a good understanding of the hiding guidelines and when I see something like this (a reviewer saying a certain hide scenario is not allowed), that I had no idea was not allowed, it is quite jarring (that's the best way I can describe it) and I want to understand it.

 

Edit to add: Notwithstanding the spamming is not allowed. I'm just talking about a cache itself.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Posted
8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think a cache/series like this should follow a similar setup as the church micro series or sidetracked. Keep an external list of all caches in the series, owned by individuals in their own local areas.  That would be a setup that would fly.

Wouldn't say scam; spam? Depends on how widely sent and wide received this message is, if there isn't already a TOU violation

 

I've been pondering starting a series like this - a theme with individual cache owners joining and growing the series.  Agree there's no apparent issue at all with that approach.

 

Still just wondering what guideline would be violated (aside from TOU violation for spamming) for the scenario in the OP example.

Posted
1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Still just wondering what guideline would be violated (aside from TOU violation for spamming) for the scenario in the OP example.

 

The A-Team has already quoted the relevant Guideline but here it is again:

 

image.png.5519167a1fba96bc2f44fec0111a42e2.png

 

I guess the scenario described in the OP isn't one of those "rare circumstances a vacation cache (note singular) with an acceptable maintenance plan might be published".

 

I think the reviewers have a fair bit of latitude in this to treat each individual application on its merits. One of my friends has placed half a dozen or so caches on a remote island but he has family living there permanently and also generally visits the island every couple of years. I have a cache at Bulahdelah, 150km from home as the crow flies or 185km by road, but I used a sturdy container with a thick logbook. If it requires immediate attention, it's only a 2 hour drive up the motorway, otherwise I generally drive through there a few times a year and will do the walk up the mountain to check on it if I have time and the weather's suitable.

  • Upvote 2
Posted (edited)
On 2/3/2025 at 7:32 PM, The A-Team said:

The idea is that the best case is that a cacher hides and maintains a cache themselves. The next best (and as stated in the guideline, to be used rarely) is for one cacher to hide the cache and have someone else maintain it. To have a cacher not have any involvement with a cache other than being the registered owner would seem to be taking it too far. At that point, it might as well be the local that owns it.

I have a recently published cache (published within a year or so) that is across the country (US) from me. I got the container as a 'prize' for being FTF and the CO asked the hide to be local. I explained I was not local and asked if she wanted to maintain it. She said yes and now she maintains it. Explained this to the reviewer and they were fine with it and gave me no second thoughts. I still own the cache.

 

Meanwhile, the same reviewer did not let me publish a cache that a family member (non-cacher) was going to maintain. And I also know a geo-friend who had a maintanence plan to place a cache on an island with a cruise ship company and some locals look after it and it was not approved.

Edited by The_Jumping_Pig
Posted
3 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

I'm not sure what would have needed to be disclosed, other than their local maintenance plan....?

 

Did the CO admit they have never been to GZ or seen the cache? Or did they simply submit a cache away from home with a maintenance plan, as if it were a normal vacation hide?

 

 

Posted
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The A-Team has already quoted the relevant Guideline but here it is again:

 

image.png.5519167a1fba96bc2f44fec0111a42e2.png

 

 

I fully understand this guideline, but it doesn't outlaw such caches.  I mean, you've listed some examples of "vacation" caches, and I could list them too.  It doesn't say such a cache, or by extension, the scenario in the OP, "cannot fly".

 

Please understand, I'm not trying to argue these caches should be encouraged, or that they are anything but a pretty sub-par idea, certainly if done in volume, I was looking to understand if there was a specific guideline outlawing them.  It seems it's not as black and white as that.  And that's an ok answer to my curiosity.  More of a should not fly, than a cannot fly.

 

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Did the CO admit they have never been to GZ or seen the cache? Or did they simply submit a cache away from home with a maintenance plan, as if it were a normal vacation hide?

 

The latter, as I expect they wouldn't have even thought to mention the former.  I mean *if* I was to have considered this myself, I wouldn't have even considered the former to be relevant info - the relevant info being the cache exists, at such and such coords, and there is a solid maintenance plan in place by such and such person.  Doesn't mean I'd do this, but yeah, it wouldn't have crossed my mind to add that further info.

 

Anyway, I'll leave it there - my conclusion is that no guideline specifically outlaws it, the closest we get being the vacation cache guideline.

 

  • Upvote 1
Posted
8 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

The latter, as I expect they wouldn't have even thought to mention the former.  I mean *if* I was to have considered this myself, I wouldn't have even considered the former to be relevant info - the relevant info being the cache exists, at such and such coords, and there is a solid maintenance plan in place by such and such person.

 

What you're saying is you wouldn't even think to mention something about your cache that's out of the ordinary, and thus might cause publication to be delayed by additional questions or denied outright.

 

If you withhold any information about your cache that would prevent its publication that's careless at best and usually dishonest.

 

Anything unusual about a cache container or placement should be shared with the Reviewer to make sure there aren't problems that didn't occur to you.

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

I've been pondering starting a series like this - a theme with individual cache owners joining and growing the series.  Agree there's no apparent issue at all with that approach.

 

Still just wondering what guideline would be violated (aside from TOU violation for spamming) for the scenario in the OP example.

From the section on Submission and Review Process:

"Get accurate GPS coordinates.

  • GPS usage is an essential element of hiding and seeking caches.
  • The cache owner must visit the geocache location to get accurate coordinates with a GPS-enabled device." (bolding mine)

The scenario outlined by the OM* would have some volunteer get the coordinates (as well as perform all the other things necessary for cache placement including placing the container) and then send all the information to the OM who would submit it for  publication with the OM as CO

 

Not sure what would happen if the volunteer submits for publication and then allows the OM to adopt the cache but I suspect that a large scale attempt at circumventing the "vacation cache" rule in that manner would attract some serious scrutiny.

 

* I am using OM to indicate whoever sent the message to JoesBar to begin with

Edited by Michaelcycle
  • Upvote 2

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...
×
×
  • Create New...