Relocating a cache after approval

6.4k · April 25, 2003

I recently had a cache show up in my local area. It wasn't new, it was placed 4 months ago and has a number of logs already. Odd thing was, I hadn't noticed it before, and I didn't recognize the hider, or any of the people who had logged the cache already. The cache description states:

quote:
Due to overcrowding this cache was moved effective 4-19-2003.

*********NO PENCIL IS INCLUDED PLEASE BRING WITH YOU*******

This one is in a 35mm film tube wrapped in high tech protective see through device protector.

Extra logsheets are included.

Well, when I start looking at the profiles for the hider and other finders, they are all hundreds of miles and several states away.

Its a trashy cache, a 35mm with a couple of post-it notes inside, wrapped in a plastic bag. There are no previous logs in it from when it was in the other state. The hider has triple digit hides, it appears to me they just recycled a cache ID that had already been approved, to bypass the cache approval. It's obvious to me they practically tossed this out the window as they drove by, and they didn't even bother to stop and find any of the THOUSANDS of caches within 150 miles of where they dumped this one.

A cache like this would have never been approved if it had been submitted thru the proper channels, so they slipped it in the backdoor, taking away plenty of great hiding spots for the people that DO geocache here.

I hate to bring up the R word, but there really should be a rule against getting a cache approved, then changing it to a cache that is not allowed on geocaching.com after the fact

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

April 25, 2003

I believe I had a similiar experience with this hider and a cache placed in an area most NJ cachers would consider Off limits.

A lot of these things were apparently made to move which I am not a fan of either.

5k · April 25, 2003

Regardless of whether it's a trashy cache or not, I think it's inappropriate to move a cache any significant distance. If it's a different cache, it ought to be a new cache.

I had the same experience. Read this log of a cache I found. I only noticed it because all of the sudden I had a find in New Mexico.. and I've never even been there.

Seems the owners picked up the cache, brought it to New Mexico and just changed the coords.

Jamie

2.6k · April 25, 2003

I wonder if changing states would change your stats?

Moving a cache can compromise all the placement rules. i.e. railroads, .1 of a mile, national parks.

Maybe the recourse of this practice should be archival?

I am the result of genetic manipulation of superior Geocacher DNA. Faster, stronger with superior reasoning and logic.

Mokita!

38.2k · April 25, 2003

Moving it a few hundred feet is one thing, but to move it to another state! That's wrong. I don't think there should be a rule against moving a cache, but in this case, it shouldn't be allowed, rule, or not.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on April 25, 2003 at 10:09 AM.]

6.4k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
Regardless of whether it's a trashy cache or not, I think it's inappropriate to move a cache any significant distance. If it's a different cache, it ought to be a new cache.

You are right, I guess the rules allow trashy caches, I'm afraid. But I think it does show WHY we needed the bit about vactaion-type caches added to the guidelines. Someone placing a cache that he will never return to, in an area he doesnt cache in, has little incentive to hide a quality cache. If all they want to do is boost their hide count, a 35mm and a scrap of paper is the same as an amno can with trinkets and rite in the rain logbook

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

6.4k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
I had the same experience. Read http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=22614&log=y#612311 of a cache I found. I only noticed it because all of the sudden I had a find in New Mexico.. and I've never even been there.

Seems the owners picked up the cache, brought it to New Mexico and just changed the coords.

Jamie

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:
_I wonder if changing states would change your stats?_

I never even considered how that could effect the stats! Judging by Jamie's comment, it looks like it does

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

2.6k · April 25, 2003

I know I had to manually add a couple of caches to Dan's stats page.

That's what I was thinking about when I mentioned stats.

Sounds like the GC site is dynamic enough to change the state ID of the find log.

I am the result of genetic manipulation of superior Geocacher DNA. Faster, stronger with superior reasoning and logic.

Mokita!

6.4k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Moving it a few hundered feet is one thing, but to move it to another state! That's wrong. I don't think there should be a rule against moving a cache, but in this case, it shouldn't be allowed, rule, or not.

I think there should be room to tweak the coordinates, or the hiding spot, but in previous threads about relogging a cache you have already found, most people agreed that anything more then a few hundred feet or so is a significant enough change to warrant logging a second find on it.

If its enough of a change to be considered a new cache for the finders, then it reasons to me it should be considered a new cache for the hider as well. If I hide a new cache, I have to get allow a cache approver to review it before it's posted. A cache moved far enough that it could now violate the placement guidelines should really be reviewed by an approver too

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

[This message was edited by Mopar on April 25, 2003 at 10:20 AM.]

1.6k · April 25, 2003

I doesn't have to be a rule that you can't move a cache, it could be built into the site.

When you submit a cache and it is approved, the site could "fix" the coords in a field that holds the original coords and this can not be changed without an approver doing so. Then, to allow for coords adjustment, the Edit Page will not allow for more than a .1 mile (or whatever) deviation from these original coords.

This would prevent caches from moving any distance, but would allow for coords adjustment within a .1 (or whatever) mile radius.

A win-win if you ask me.

Well, except for the guys pounding the keyboards trying to get the new site up. I can just hear them now, "WHAT!? Yet another feature? Sheesh!"

CR

6.4k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
I doesn't have to be a rule that you can't move a cache, it could be built into the site.

When you submit a cache and it is approved, the site could "fix" the coords in a field that holds the original coords and this can not be changed without an approver doing so. Then, to allow for coords adjustment, the Edit Page will not allow for more than a .1 mile (or whatever) deviation from these original coords.

This would prevent caches from moving any distance, but would allow for coords adjustment within a .1 (or whatever) mile radius.

A win-win if you ask me.

Well, except for the guys pounding the keyboards trying to get the new site up. I can just hear them now, "WHAT!? Yet another feature? Sheesh!"

CR

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif

I had actually sugggested that once, several months ago. It didnt seem to get much of a reaction then, and I hesitated to bring it up now, with so much other stuff going on to bring the new site online. I'm guessing the database would also need to retain the approved coordinates, to prevent someone from just walking a cache away, 500ft at a time

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

9.4k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
I had the same experience. Read this log of a cache I found. I only noticed it because all of the sudden I had a find in New Mexico.. and I've never even been there.

Seems the owners picked up the cache, brought it to New Mexico and just changed the coords.

As long as it doesn't suddenly appear on my closest caches list...

Now if I find it, then it moves to another state, will my stats for New Mexico go down by 1?

April 25, 2003

quote:
When you submit a cache and it is approved, the site could "fix" the coords in a field that holds the original coords and this can not be changed without an approver doing so. Then, to allow for coords adjustment, the Edit Page will not allow for more than a .1 mile (or whatever) deviation from these original coords.

Playing the devil's advocate here, what about someone in the military or who otherwise lives a nomatic lifestyle? What about someone who wants to be able to place a cache that he can maintain but knows he'll be relocated in a year?

We don't want him to abandon it like a vacation cache, nor should he have to jump thru huge hoops to update the coords. small hoops, maybe.

(I guess I'm envisioning all the personnel in the 101st Airborne Division e-mailing the cache approvers to let them know that they're being redeployed - as the worst case scenario)

~erik~

April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
I doesn't have to be a rule that you can't move a cache, it could be built into the site.

When you submit a cache and it is approved, the site could "fix" the coords in a field that holds the original coords and this can not be changed without an approver doing so. Then, to allow for coords adjustment, the Edit Page will not allow for more than a .1 mile (or whatever) deviation from these original coords.

...SNIP...

CR

I would agree with this in principle. A .1 mile change should allow for the vast majority of valid reasons to relocate a cache.

I can see where that might be a real pain to program, though. Also, would you have to limit the number of times you can relocate a cache? How many .1 mile jumps would be too many?

Having the cache reapproved for minor changes puts more stress on the approvers...

In reality, I have to wonder if this happens often enough to justify making any changes to the rules or the site.

Maybe a stern note in the FAQ saying that moving an existing cache waypoint to evade the approval process for a new cache demonstrates that the person doing so is devoid of principle and destitute of honor?

I firmly believe in picking your battles. Whether the cache owner moves an existing cache, or makes a new crappy one that that sounds good enough to approve, you are always going to have half of the caches out there fall below average in quality (or perhaps below mean...).

Is the "problem" enough of a problem to justify taking action? Do TPTB have more important issues to address?

Dave_W6DPS

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

5.3k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:
Playing the devil's advocate here, what about someone in the military or who otherwise lives a nomatic lifestyle? What about someone who wants to be able to place a cache that he can maintain but knows he'll be relocated in a year?

We don't want him to abandon it like a vacation cache, nor should he have to jump thru huge hoops to update the coords. small hoops, maybe.

(I guess I'm envisioning all the personnel in the 101st Airborne Division e-mailing the cache approvers to let them know that they're being redeployed - as the worst case scenario)

~erik~

He should submit a new cache and get it approved. Traveling caches are not allowed anymore...why would this be any different?

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

9.4k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Stunod:
He should submit a new cache and get it approved. Traveling caches are not allowed anymore...why would this be any different?

Exactly. Archive the original cache and post a new one somewhere else. Your hide count goes up by one and it eliminates the problem of someone finding the cache in both locations and only being able to log it once.

April 25, 2003

hey, i just wanted to let you know that my friend and i are making and moving caches as we move with the military. we have 8 travel bugs. they were let go in out home town and their goal is to end up in one of our "moving" caches. these caches move with us as we move with the marine corps. geocaching wouldnt approve it but after talking to a few people they thought it was a good idea so we did it.

5.3k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by DevilDogs:
geocaching wouldnt approve it but after talking to a few people they thought it was a good idea so we did it.

Wow...I'm sure if you ask the right people anything, you will get the answer you want.

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

6.4k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Stunod:
He should submit a new cache and get it approved. Traveling caches are not allowed anymore...why would this be any different?

I do understand the point Erik is bringing up, but I have to agree with the Donut Dude. If someone moves out of an area and they can no longer maintain it, they have the option to archiving it, recover the cache, and submit a new cache page for approval. Or, they can leave it and find a local cacher to adopt it.

There was one cacher I used to chat with often in clayjar's chat room often. Guy traveled heavily for work. He basically lived in hotels, for a month or 2 at a time, then onto the next job in another state for a few months. By erik's point of view, this guy should be allowed to post one cache, then relocate it to another state every 2 months, without any chance for GC.com to check to see if its now buried under a RR trestle running thru a National Park. I don't buy that, and I don't think it helps GC.com's relationship with land managers to allow it.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

6.4k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by DevilDogs:
geocaching wouldnt approve it but after talking to a few people they thought it was a good idea so we did it.

Explain this please?

Do you mean that one approver wouldn't approve it so you found a different one that would? Or do you mean they wouldn't approve it so you changed the cache so they would approver it, then changed it back?

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

[This message was edited by Mopar on April 25, 2003 at 11:34 AM.]

April 25, 2003

I actually just found this cache which seems to be the one you're referring to.

It shows up as an Ohio cache on Dan's stats page, but has been renamed and relocated.

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home. - Ken Olsen, President, Digital Equipment, 1977

April 25, 2003

I think the donut dude needs to be archived for commercial content. just kiddin'

quote:
He should submit a new cache and get it approved. Traveling caches are not allowed anymore...why would this be any different?

That was my assumption when I turned down a cache of that kind. The guy appealed to me based on the fact that he was in the military, wanted to retain the cache history when he moved, etc. I forwarded the case to Jeremy who felt that an exception should be made in cases like that.

I guess the difference is between traveling caches moving to locations beyond the control of the cache owner and caches traveling with the cache owner and staying where he can control it. Both situations can be abused, but what can't?

I don't mind reapproving a cache if coords are changed, I just hate to see the digressions of the few make it awkward for the rest of us.

erik - geocaching.com admin

5.3k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:
I guess the difference is between traveling caches moving to locations beyond the control of the cache owner and caches traveling with the cache owner and staying where he can control it. Both situations can be abused, but what can't?

Good explaination, however there still needs to be some sort of approval of the new location.

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

6.4k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Stunod:
Good explaination, however there still needs to be some sort of approval of the new location.

True, something automated that forces a re-approval if it moves greater then .1 mile would catch the shady people, and should be no big deal to a cache hider who follows the rules.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

1.6k · April 25, 2003

I agree with most of what's been said. If it's a new location it needs to be approved.

My idea is basically along those lines and really isn't much different than archiving the cache and making a new one somewhere else.

The idea of moving the cache within the .1 mile radius would include a special field that would hold the original coords. These can only be reset by an approver. This would preclude anyone from "inch worming" his cache somewhere else. (Besides inch worming a cache a few hundred miles would take a while.)

I don't really see this as adding to an approver's workload much. It would prevent recycling of waypoints on a whim as some cachers have had their finds thrown out by someone recycling. It would be a relatively major change to the database, though.

CR

1.4k · April 25, 2003

quote:

I guess the difference is between traveling caches moving to locations beyond the control of the cache owner and caches traveling with the cache owner and staying where he can control it. Both situations can be abused, but what can't?

erik - geocaching.com admin

Of course this doesn't address the problem of a cache that moves from state to state with messing up your stats.

---Real men cache in shorts.

2.6k · April 25, 2003

How about just using the 'archive this cache' feature to bring it to attention of the admin and let them decide. If it flies with them then delete your 'archive' request and be done with it.

george

Wanna go for a ride?

38.2k · April 25, 2003

quote:
Playing the devil's advocate here, what about someone in the military or who otherwise lives a nomatic lifestyle? What about someone who wants to be able to place a cache that he can maintain but knows he'll be relocated in a year?

I don't see the issue. If you move the cache, it's basically a different cache. Just archive the old and post a new one. Why is it so important to keep the original cache going?

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

April 25, 2003

quote:
Why is it so important to keep the original cache going?

Personally, if I moved away and it were important to me to keep a cache going I'd find somone to adopt it.

The only reason I can imagine wanting to do that is probably the same reason someone would keep the original cache going elsewhere - to preserve the cache's history. I think most of us cherish the history of both the online logs and those in the cache's log book. Some might also be attached to a particularly old cache - like if you had cache #50 you might resist arbitrarily archiving it and creating a new one with number 65,874 or whatever.

Those are some of the arguements I can imagine hearing in defense of keeping an original cache going.

quote:
Of course this doesn't address the problem of a cache that moves from state to state with messing up your stats.

How would that mess up your stats? The find count would stay the same, you'd just have credit for finding a cache in a state that you didn't. Sort of like logging a locationless cache I guess. Whoops, sorry I brought that up!

~erik~

38.2k · April 25, 2003

quote:
the only reason I can imagine wanting to do that is probably the same reason someone would keep the original cache going elsewhere - to preserve the cache's history. I think most of us cherish the history of both the online logs and those in the cache's log book

If you archive the cache, the history doesn't go away. You can still read the logs. As far as the real log book goes, it still doesn't make any sense. The people who are logging will be recounting entirely different experiences. Different route, different place and possibly different container and contents. If the log book for your cache is important, just keep it and start a new one for the new cache.

Anyway, the with cache tht Mopar was originally referring to, there was a new log book in it.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

2.4k · April 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:

quote:
Of course this doesn't address the problem of a cache that moves from state to state with messing up your stats.

How would that mess up your stats? The find count would stay the same, you'd just have credit for finding a cache in a state that you didn't. Sort of like logging a locationless cache I guess. Whoops, sorry I brought that up!

~erik~

It wouldn't affect total find count, but it would have an effect on stats according to Dan's stats site. I find the cache in Pa, then it moves to say California. I now have one less find in Pa, and a find in a state I've never been to. And in my opinion, I lost a find on a cache I found, and got a find on a cache I never found. It seems to me that the new location should be a new cache page.

I also agree with someone else, Mopar, post a should be archived note, maybe it'll disappear...particularly if it's in a poor location, or fits the 'vacation cache' scheme... although it may take a while, archival notes don't seem to be a high priority right now.

Just because you're paranoid DOESN'T mean they're not ALL out to get you.

April 26, 2003

We DON'T need yet ANOTHER rule. Thats what the "should be archived" note thing is for!

Mopar, post a should be archived note. why are you making such a big deal about it?

Noel

W8TVI's Geocaching Pictures

GeoX Geocaching gear!

That torpedo did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull. And I....was never here.

6.4k · April 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by W8TVI:
We DON'T need yet ANOTHER rule. Thats what the "should be archived" note thing is for!

Mopar, post a should be archived note. why are you making such a big deal about it?

I haven't posted an archive note on it, and I brought it up here, because there IS no rule against it. Technically it doesn't violate any rules or guidelines. I think it violates the INTENT of them, and the intended purpose of having a cache approved in the first place.

Since it doesn't violate the CURRENT guidelines, even I am unsure if it should be archived without an "official" reason in place.

So, I posted it here to see how others felt about it. Hey, it's a new topic, better then posting another "what GPS should I buy when I try to change my avatar" thread, isn't it?

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

April 27, 2003

quote:
what GPS should I buy when I try to change my avatar?

Well, since you brought it up: a Garmin of course!

Seriously, despite my attempts to raise and advocate possible opposing views the majority does seem to feel that another rule is in order here.

I agree in principle, just hope the cache approvers have enough flexibility to approve legitimate variances and aren't inundated with requests for illegitimate variances.

erik-geocaching.com adminion

April 27, 2003

i can live with a cache that has to be moved, maybe even as much as a mile or 2, im thinking about new subdivisions or changes made in the land use regulations could make the original placement inappropriate. this in my mind would be fair enough and should be left to the discretion of the cache owner, but to move across state/provincal borders simply to be able to maintain it or at a whim? id suggest archiving/adopted out and getting a new cache, the approval process cant be that difficult, can it?

i guess the problem is that we are all on the honor system here and some of us are less honorable than others...and as erik said, the system can be abused as all systems...

'Get to the point---speak English!!!!'

2.3k · April 27, 2003

I tend to agree with Mopar on this one. A cache that has to be moved from it's original coords should be archived and then renamed and re-approved when it gets moved to a new spot. Right now you can change the coords of any cache without re-approval, just look at the very first original cache. It is now located in the middle of the ocean.

[This message was edited by TEAM 360 on April 27, 2003 at 08:08 PM.]

Relocating a cache after approval

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation