Place a cache to log a cache?

[+MartyFouts]

I'm sure that "place a cache to log a cache" is going to be abused as a concept by someone sooner or later, but I have to agree with those who've pointed out that Ron Streeter's caches and those who find them aren't the sort that will abuses this.

 

I'm not one of the California Central Valley cachers in question, but I do admire them and all of their cleverly hidden caches. I can't imagine that group of people placing anything other than quality caches in response to Ron's Fac Pac cache.

 

Marty Fouts

ae6ip

[robertlipe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

I'm not going to point to a specific cache, but lately I've seen two caches which have the requirement to place another cache nearby in order to count a find as a find.

---

I wouldn't dismiss the idea categorically. "Fill in the Blanks" http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=23044

has encouraged me to acquire my first topo maps ever and really stare at them. It's already resulted in at least one cache in our area code and has another in the planning stage.

 

I'm pretty sure that if I saw a requirement to place a cache within N feet of an existing cache that I'd likely be unamused. But "FitB" does a pretty admirable job of getting people to log ones where no cache exists, IMO.

[+Green Achers]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fattuhr:

I think before you make reference to a cache being lame, maybe you should find it. As far as

Ron's caches being lame, I would have to say that I have personally found about twenty of his caches and not a single one has been lame. Ron takes great pride and time in placing a cache, he does alot of research to where he places them. You will see some very beautiful places when you look for his placements.

---

 

I'm in agreement with Fattuhr and the rest of the local CVC cachers... Ron's caches are great and I'm going after his cache of topic. I would have alreaady but my stupid mortgage company expects monthly payments and my darn boss says he'll only send those big checks when I show up. But as time allows, I'm hunting and planting it.

 

Quality over quantity? I say, skip the 1/1 caches and hunt the 5/5's. Everyone can choose their path and it doesn't bother me when I pass up several 1/1's.

 

We're behind you Ron. We have to be... He has over 400 finds and over 100 hidden.

 

Bill of Green Achers

 

"Happy Trails become happy tales."

[+kusanagi]

Without hiding a cache to claim your find, then wouldn't that be a restriction. And if I find it and hide one to claim my find, can I set restrictions on the one I hide. i.e. If you found my cache, you can not claim finding it if you wish to claim the cache that forced me to hide my cache. Or You may post a note but can not claim it found if your name starts with (pick a letter). I have driven 2 hours or more to find a particular cache that I found interesting. Does this mean that I should hide one near there, and assume the responsibility of maintaining it, checking on it when it turns up not found and actually care about it? Personally I have not hidden a cache and after reading this and other threads on how many caches I should hide, along with the peer pressure that should be applied to make people hide a cache. I don't think that I want to hide a cache. It is nice to note that although I can decide for myself what caches to hunt for; I can also now decide who should hunt for any cache that I hide, if I decide to do so.

 

My other question is if some one hides a cache ( in order to claim found on cache (A), what is to stop the cacher that hid (A) from deleting the log for the hider of ( because he can not find cache ( and therefore it must not exist.

Sorry if I don't make sense.

Your caching cry baby

[+Dan_Edwards]

While I don't think the idea is that hot, and there should be some mention of it in the FAQ, I don't think there should be a rule saying absolutly NO. Someone might come up with a interesting twist and the best way to vote against a cache is to simply not do it.

 

If someone wants to say, "In order to claim this cache you must get a picture of yourself standing on one foot while waving the flag of Mexico." Well that is in that persons right, just don't expect me to applauld your cache.

 

A = A

[+Dan_Edwards]

While I don't think the idea is that hot, and there should be some mention of it in the FAQ, I don't think there should be a rule saying absolutly NO. Someone might come up with a interesting twist and the best way to vote against a cache is to simply not do it.

 

If someone wants to say, "In order to claim this cache you must get a picture of yourself standing on one foot while waving the flag of Mexico." Well that is in that persons right, just don't expect me to applauld your cache.

 

A = A

[+ClayJar]

Okay, time for a thread summary by an uninvolved third party. I am not claiming to have a complete lack of opinion; I am only claiming that I have read the entire thread and that I posess the language skills to have understood what has been said. Now for my summary:

 

The Opponents' View:

 

The opponents of the "hide a cache to log this cache" idea have one basic objection. Simply stated, their opinion is, "If you find a cache, you have the right to log a find on that cache." This belief proceeds directly from the belief in the absolute sovereignty of the Find.

 

The opinion of the opponents is, basically, that any extra steps that are required to log a cache should only exist to verify that the alleged find actually occurred. Requiring a picture, the name on a plaque, or any such thing falls into this category.

 

To the opponents, requiring a new cache hide in order to log is fully distinct from requiring validation of a find. Validation exists to attempt to ensure that you to have been to the cache location, but placing a new cache at X distance from the cache to be logged is completely orthogonal to the fact or fiction of an alleged find.

 

The Proponents' View:

 

The seeming majority of the posts advocating the hide-to-log cache idea are completely irrelevant. The question posed was not whether J. Random Cacher is a good cacher; the question was whether hide-to-log caches should exist. It is irrelevant that Ron Streeter is a vintage cacher in good standing, and it is equally irrelevant whether those people who search for his caches are as nice as Jesus, Ghandi, Mohammed, and the Dalai Lama or as bad as Attila the Hun, Hitler, or your favorite political entity. That said (*phew*), let's move on to the facts at hand.

 

The general contention of the proponents of hide-to-log caching is as simple as that of the opponents. The proponents believe that, "*Any* condition may be required by a cache owner in order to allow a log on the cache." This belief proceeds directly from the belief in the absolute sovereignty of the Hider.

 

The opinion of the opponents is basically that a hider can do as a hider pleases, and that if the hider wants to require conditions to call a find a legal find, that is the hider's business. A "find", according to this line of thinking, is a loosely-defined concept that can be specified by the hider at the hider's discretion.

 

Closing Remarks:

 

In this short post I have explained, to the best of my momentary ability, what the root disagreement actually is. It would seem wise to pause the current discussion, at least for a few moments, and ponder this root disagreement.

 

Only one can be sovereign, the Find or the Hider. We need to decide which philosophy we want to adhere to. Either the Find is sovereign, in which case external requirements violate that sovereignty and must therefore be disallowed, or the Hider is sovereign, in which case "finding" a cache can mean whatever the hider wants.

 

My *OPINION* (in italics):

 

In my *opinion*, the Find *should* be sovereign on Geocaching.com. That is the only thing that makes sense *to me*. The essence of geocaching, to me, is:

1. go somewhere
2. find something
3. leave something if I take something
4. log the cache

To me, it does not seem logical to add requirements to that list. Adding verification to the "find something" step does not alter the basic essence of geocaching, but adding a completely new "do something else" step *does*, whether that extra condition is "stand on your head and bark like a dog", "you **MUST** take the longer left fork of the trail", or "pay me 3 easy payments of $39.95".

 

Again, the part in italics (for easy reference) was purely my opinion. Now let the level-headed, logical, and enlightening discussion commence.

[+ClayJar]

Okay, time for a thread summary by an uninvolved third party. I am not claiming to have a complete lack of opinion; I am only claiming that I have read the entire thread and that I posess the language skills to have understood what has been said. Now for my summary:

 

The Opponents' View:

 

The opponents of the "hide a cache to log this cache" idea have one basic objection. Simply stated, their opinion is, "If you find a cache, you have the right to log a find on that cache." This belief proceeds directly from the belief in the absolute sovereignty of the Find.

 

The opinion of the opponents is, basically, that any extra steps that are required to log a cache should only exist to verify that the alleged find actually occurred. Requiring a picture, the name on a plaque, or any such thing falls into this category.

 

To the opponents, requiring a new cache hide in order to log is fully distinct from requiring validation of a find. Validation exists to attempt to ensure that you to have been to the cache location, but placing a new cache at X distance from the cache to be logged is completely orthogonal to the fact or fiction of an alleged find.

 

The Proponents' View:

 

The seeming majority of the posts advocating the hide-to-log cache idea are completely irrelevant. The question posed was not whether J. Random Cacher is a good cacher; the question was whether hide-to-log caches should exist. It is irrelevant that Ron Streeter is a vintage cacher in good standing, and it is equally irrelevant whether those people who search for his caches are as nice as Jesus, Ghandi, Mohammed, and the Dalai Lama or as bad as Attila the Hun, Hitler, or your favorite political entity. That said (*phew*), let's move on to the facts at hand.

 

The general contention of the proponents of hide-to-log caching is as simple as that of the opponents. The proponents believe that, "*Any* condition may be required by a cache owner in order to allow a log on the cache." This belief proceeds directly from the belief in the absolute sovereignty of the Hider.

 

The opinion of the opponents is basically that a hider can do as a hider pleases, and that if the hider wants to require conditions to call a find a legal find, that is the hider's business. A "find", according to this line of thinking, is a loosely-defined concept that can be specified by the hider at the hider's discretion.

 

Closing Remarks:

 

In this short post I have explained, to the best of my momentary ability, what the root disagreement actually is. It would seem wise to pause the current discussion, at least for a few moments, and ponder this root disagreement.

 

Only one can be sovereign, the Find or the Hider. We need to decide which philosophy we want to adhere to. Either the Find is sovereign, in which case external requirements violate that sovereignty and must therefore be disallowed, or the Hider is sovereign, in which case "finding" a cache can mean whatever the hider wants.

 

My *OPINION* (in italics):

 

In my *opinion*, the Find *should* be sovereign on Geocaching.com. That is the only thing that makes sense *to me*. The essence of geocaching, to me, is:

1. go somewhere
2. find something
3. leave something if I take something
4. log the cache

To me, it does not seem logical to add requirements to that list. Adding verification to the "find something" step does not alter the basic essence of geocaching, but adding a completely new "do something else" step *does*, whether that extra condition is "stand on your head and bark like a dog", "you **MUST** take the longer left fork of the trail", or "pay me 3 easy payments of $39.95".

 

Again, the part in italics (for easy reference) was purely my opinion. Now let the level-headed, logical, and enlightening discussion commence.

[+Allen_L]

The was very well thought out ClayJar. My comment on your statement "Only one can be sovereign, the Find or the Hider" is that the software behind the scenes at www.geocaching.com makes the Hider sovereign. A hider can delete any find log. A finder can create a new find log, but if the hider wants, he can delete it as well. The hider can delete any log for any reason, or no reason, that sounds like sovereign to me.

 

I am not saying the hider should be sovereign or not, I am saying the current logging process makes the hider sovereign.

[ikayak]

quote:

---

In my *opinion*, the Find *should* be sovereign on Geocaching.com. That is the only thing that makes sense *to me*. The essence of geocaching, to me, is:

go somewhere

find something

leave something if I take something

log the cache

---

Count me in! I know I am new to this sport, but I think ClayJar says it all. It's what I am in the sport for. Go/Find/TSLS or TNLN/Log.

 

****************************************************

Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted.

[+Crusso]

IMHO There are already enough rules. BUT Jeremy has made a suggestion which I'm sure everyone beleives should be pretty much taken as an almost rule (does that make sense?).

ON THE OTHER HAND...

I've read many times in reference to Virtual or Locationless caches that the person who posts the cache can have any set of requirements they like. I would hate to think that we now need to start having one set of rules for those caches & one set for 'real' caches. I'm sort of torn on the issue but would have to say that my vote would have to be cast with Jeremy's suggestion. In other words, good try, no cigar. However, a cacher as well regarded as yourself should be able to entice others to place quality caches without making it a requirement.

(geez, now that I read that response, could I be any more PC?)

 

Wherever you go, there you are!

[MTU_Cache_Spot]

It seems that all the arguments here are all missing one key thing... If you want to go find the cache just for "the hunt" or "the enjoyment of seeking" then go ahead, who says you have to officially log the cache? The only thing that this "hide to find" requirement changes is that your found total won't go up....and honestly, who really caches for their found total instead of the enjoyment? So go find the cache, sign the logbook, maybe even post a note, you'll get just as much enjoyment out of it. If you really care about your "found" total, I'm sure you could pick up about a hundred locationless caches on the way.....High standards may be just as bad as Low standards, but if you ignore the standards anyway....who cares?

[+sbell111]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MTU_Cache_Spot:

... The only thing that this "hide to find" requirement changes is that your found total won't go up....and honestly, who really caches for their found total instead of the enjoyment?

---

 

There is a difference between individuals not competing with one another and not being interested in how many caches they've found. I believe that many, if not most, cachers are very interested in their own find count.

 

We may not be in competition with one another, but we still compete with ourselves.

[+ClayJar]

Regarding logging something other than a find at a cache that I did, in fact, find... I would consider that to be as dishonest (to myself and the world) as if I didn't log a "not found" or if I skipped out on logging a note. *That* is what bothers people. They consider the fact that they found the cache to be grounds for logging a find, and if they are not allowed to log that find, they feel as if they have been wronged. It not so much the find *count* as this find in particular.

 

So, the question (to steer this back to the topic at hand) is whether or not finding the cache (and validating that find, if necessary) is indeed enough to count as a find. While I don't particularly care for long lists of rules, I think this is one case where a line *must* be drawn. Will we, from this time forward, decide that finding a cache counts as finding a cache, or should we come up with a different name for the process formerly called a "find"?

 

Basically, I just have a problem with people being allowed to redefine "Find". I *don't* have *ANY* problems with making caches that, by design, require you to do whatever the cacher wants, but once the cache is found, that is *by definition* a find.

 

[This message was edited by ClayJar on October 17, 2002 at 01:57 PM.]

[+Ish-n-Isha]

However I must disagree. The hider is Sovereign.

The caches are the cachers. He maintains them, sets the clues and conditions, disables them, deletes logs and ultimately decides if he will hide anymore and where.

The cache pages all clearly show the location, requirements and all things pertaining to the cache.

It seems to me that those who rate quality over quantity may truly be less interested in their "Count".

In that case, they may simply choose not to do caches that do not appeal to them. Those who are cache hunters that focus on the find count can also do as they please.

I simply don’t buy into the argument that these types of caches are necessarily a bad thing in and of themselves.

This is still a country where you can pretty much do as you please is it not? Why then should anyone consider it offensive if a person plants a cache like this?

Necessity is the mother of invention. I have read many of the posts of caching dieing out in southern Oregon. If things were going along swimmingly there would be new caches coming out every once in a while. What would you do if you lived in a stagnant cache area? Simply go out and find all the “Quality” caches again? Move to another city?

Simply put….. If you want to find these caches do….If it offends you don’t. Rules that dont deal with relevant safety or State park issues are a matter of taste in large part. Why burden the game with any extra stuff?

[+worldtraveler]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

...Why burden the game with any extra stuff?

---

Seems many of us have the same desire but opposite solutions. To the many who don't want additional "rules" imposed by Jeremy/geocaching.com and insist the cache placer is sovereign, consider this: you are actually taking a position in favor of more rules that can be made in an arbitrary manner by anyone who places a cache. "In order to log a 'found it' for this cache, you have to hide another cache." That is a new "rule" my friends! We've never had that rule imposed before as a requirement for logging a "found it". And as others have said, what's to stop the next hider from adding yet another rule (or several) for logging their cache? Don't you see how rules can quickly multiply? And if I place a cache with the "rule" that you must not actually find the cache in order to log a "found it", is it right for me to do that because I am the "sovereign cache hider"?

 

As I stated in my first response to this topic, Jeremy does not need to create a new rule; rather he should refuse to approve any caches that impose new "rules" for logging "found it", and he should archive any existing ones that do not remove all such rules that have nothing to do with actually finding the cache or verifying the find.

 

Worldtraveler

[+sbell111]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

... Necessity is the mother of invention. I have read many of the posts of caching dieing out in southern Oregon.

---

 

I don't live in Oregon, but a quick check of the caches in the state doesn't lead me to believe that caching there is 'dying out'. In fact, it looks pretty target rich to me.

 

As far as new caches go, all areas go through periods where few caches are placed. Give it some time. If you've found all the caches in your area, it sounds like a good time for a road trip.

 

Back on topic...

 

Obviously, based on my past and current experience, I am not in favor of a cache hider having complete and total control over whether someone can log a find. We already have hiders who delete logs for completely personal reasons. This is not appropriate. If a person finds a cache and signs the log, it should be logged as a find on the website.

[+T-storm]

When ClayJar (rightly) redirected the discussion from defense of Ron as a cacher to back to the discussion of the merits of a cache with the requirements of FAC_PAC, the key point on which my opinion turns was lost. I don't care for the &quothide a cache to log an existing one&quot concept. But not because the cache hider asks finders to complete a task in addition to finding the box. I don't like the concept of making the task that of hiding a new cache, particularly in so narrow a range and in so sort a timeframe.

 

It has been stated that there are 1000 caches within a zipcode search of this area (which I will assume means within 100 miles). No one has logged this cache yet but there are already 5 additional caches in the specified range. I just have to wonder what will happen not only with this cache, but other similar caches which will certainly crop up. My concern is that what develops over time is a concentration of poorly conceived caches near the fac-pac type cache. You may get a couple of neat ones, but probably also a fair bit of geo-trash. I won't go so far as to say there should be a rule against such caches just yet, but only that I think it's a bad idea. My understanding of the &quotbreeder&quot caches makes me think that is a better execution of the wish to encourage cache setting. Just my lil' ol' $0.02.

 

T-storm

 

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

 

[This message was edited by T-storm on October 18, 2002 at 09:28 AM.]

[+Green Achers]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

Okay, time for a thread summary by an uninvolved third party. I am not claiming to have a complete lack of opinion;

---

 

It's funny that you would attempt to summarize in such a polarized way. One can already detect your options before they get to that part.

 

The real question that should be at hand here is, "Why is someone that has no intention of hunting a given cache, so involved in ruining this cache for others?" I understand why Jeremy would be pondering such a question as he wants to keep some order (Thank you Jeremy). To everyone else I say... just like a restaurant, if you don't like it, STOP GOING TO IT! If everyone stops, they go out of business.

 

If you're just trying to protect yourself from this type of cache from infesting your State, (BTW, this one's in California... and where do you hunt caches???) consider the fact that there are 31716 active caches in 149 countries and TWO of them have ruffled everyone's feathers!

 

Well, I have good news and bad news. The good news it that leaves 31714 caches for you to enjoy! The bad news (or more good news) is that Jeremy and the creator of a cache are the only two that absolute sovereignty over a cache. The finder only gets to choose to participate and then enjoy (or not) the experience.

 

I choose to hunt this one. Don't tread on me!

 

Bill of Green Achers

 

"Happy Trails become happy tales."

[+Markwell]

The point of this discussion is not whether we as individuals like this type of cache or not. The point is whether it will be permissable on Geocaching.com to create caches that have extra guidelines for logging a find, even though the seeker has indeed found the traditional cache box.

 

In the case of virtual caches (and locationless - eww) there's a necessity for verification. But should the precident be set that Jeremy allow cache hiders to put extra guidelines on finds?

 

No matter how the issue of this FAC_PAC cache is decided, other cachers will look to this thread and its outcome for their guidelines for placement and additional requirements.

 

Jeremy asked our opinion because he wants to steer this hobby/activity to the best ends. Please don't stifle someone else's opinion because you disagree with it.

================

 

That being said, I disagree with this type of cache. Taken to the farthest extent...

 

I'd like to place a cache that requires the finder to go out to the spot, take a knife and slice their hand. Only logs with these photos will be OK'd for finds.

 

...or...

 

I'd like to place a cache that requires the finder to donate $50 to my church. We're trying to build an addition and it's a really good cause.

 

I'd much prefer that if I find a cache in the wilderness by using my GPS, that I be allowed to log it as a find.

 

Here's some historical threads that I believe have some bearing on the subject...

World Trade Center Cache, please visit.

A new kind of cache.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

[+Ish-n-Isha]

I agree with Green Archers post. Find it if you want, dont find it if it is not your cup-o-tea.

To those who simply want to call a find a find, I suspect dont go in for multicaches. Arent multicaches in effect another "RULE" for a particular cache? In effect, You must find the first waypoint cache and any others in the series to log the final cache?

[+worldtraveler]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

...Arent multicaches in effect another "RULE" for a particular cache? In effect, You must find the first waypoint cache and any others in the series to log the final cache?

---

Do you honestly not see the difference here?

Multicaches involve a series of "finds" using a GPSr to arrive at the final "find". That is completely different from tacking on additional requirements having nothing to do with finding the cache.

 

Worldtraveler

[+ClayJar]

Green Achers, I did not ever claim to be impartial. In fact, I made it a point to be sure that I did not say anything that I could interpret as saying I was impartial. What I *did* call myself was an uninvolved third party. That was, by definition, a true fact, as I had neither posted in this thread nor commented on it before my post.

 

Now, as to your question: "Why is someone that has no intention of hunting a given cache, so involved in ruining this cache for others?"

 

First, let me take issue with your phrase, "runing the cache for others". Note that I did *not* say, nor did I mean to say, "take offense"; I expressly said, "take issue", meaning that although I am not offended, I do not agree with that phrase. Why do I not agree with that phrase? Simply this: The fact that I may or may not hide a new cache has nothing at all to do with whether I enjoy the cache I am hunting.

 

If we ignore the act of logging online, there is no difference between finders of the cache whether they hide a new cache or not:

1. Those who found the cache and hid a new cache.
2. Those who found the cache and didn't hide a new cache.
3. Those who didn't find the cache.

Now, if you throw in an extra condition (in this example it would be that you **MUST** hide a new cache in order to log the cache), you get this result instead:

1. Those who found the cache and hid a new cache.
2. Those who found the cache and didn't hide a new cache.
3. Those who didn't find the cache.

Groups #1 and #3 have not changed and can therefore be eliminated from the system, but as you can see, group #2, the group that found the cache but did not hide a new cache, is now denied the pleasure of logging a find (and is therefore represented as a sad face). Since group #2 is the only remaining factor, it is readily apparent that the extra requirement added by the hider is actually responsible for a net decrease in enjoyment, or, to use your words, is "ruining the cache for others" (those "others" being Group #2).

 

This is a volatile topic, I know. It ranks up there with our favorite political and religious debates -- scores or the lack thereof, locationless caches, etc. I am not saying that you are wrong, dumb, ill-advised, well-advised, smart, correct, or purple. What I *am* doing is trying to explain *WHY* some of us disagree with you. I would be very grateful if you or someone else can explain why you think the way you do. (Hey, if Buck8Point and I could come to a mutual understanding, ***ANYBODY*** can. )

 

Note: I've been ignoring a great many caches for some time now. Most people know me as a hydrocaching loony. I would gladly ignore any new cache that I don't care for, but what holds my attention here is that, *to me*, this is a violation of the Golden Rules of geocaching. *NOT* Jeremy's rules, but the basic fundamental tenets of geocaching:

1. Go somewhere.
2. Find something.
3. Leave something if you take something.
4. Log the cache.

Those rules are the bedrock on which geocaching is built. Regular caches obey them. Multicaches obey them (although in the plural). Locationless caches even obey them (even if the "something" is loosely defined). Requiring extraneous things in order to log a cache... *that* breaks them.

 

Anyway, I'll be at an event+camp cache this weekend, so don't anybody burn the house down until I come back, okay? (Just because we disagree doesn't mean we're not one big semi-dysfunctional family! )

 

(Oops, typed a number wrong... it's better now.)

 

[This message was edited by ClayJar on October 18, 2002 at 11:48 AM.]

[+Ish-n-Isha]

I love the way you organise your thoughts and present them. I wish I had more of your gift.

 

On the multicache thing, I simply wanted to point out the fact that there already are caches that require you to do a number of things in excess of finding the first cache. Why is asking a person to do one thing after they find a cache any diffrent than asking them to do something else, more or less?

I know of a few cachers that dont own digital camaras yet. Are they effectively discluded from most virtuals requireing a pic?

No you say. They can take a regular picture and go down to someplace with a scanner and put it on a disk to then take home.

But isnt that in itself another hurdle that those without digital camaras go through that we (with digital camaras) dont?

 

I still see no effective reason for someone who doesnt like these type of caches to make a "rule" that would restrict the finding of these types by others.

If you like it find it. If you dont go to a diffrent one.

[Ron Streeter]

...and have not read all the posts here. Will do that when I get back, but for now...

 

Here is the url for a cache I placed on Friday the 18th. It should be approved soon.

 

Enjoy !

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=40236&Nocache=0.7055475

 

Ron

 

I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

[+sbell111]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

I still see no effective reason for someone who doesnt like these type of caches to make a "rule" that would restrict the finding of these types by others.

If you like it find it. If you dont go to a diffrent one.

---

 

Your argument is we should not create rules that could infringe on peoples right to enjoy this type of cache. Doesn't this type of cache, by definition, create rules that infringe on people's ability to log it, and therefore enjoy the cache?

 

Isn't there a fundemental flaw in this logic?

[+sbell111]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

I still see no effective reason for someone who doesnt like these type of caches to make a "rule" that would restrict the finding of these types by others.

If you like it find it. If you dont go to a diffrent one.

---

 

Your argument is we should not create rules that could infringe on peoples right to enjoy this type of cache. Doesn't this type of cache, by definition, create rules that infringe on people's ability to log it, and therefore enjoy the cache?

 

Isn't there a fundemental flaw in this logic?

[+Ish-n-Isha]

My ability to have "enjoyment" by logging a find, is much more restricted by time and oppertunity to geocacche than anything else.

I'm a cache shopper.

I read the discriptions, the length of hike, the log ins, the type, and I as the finder, CHOOSE if I wish to seek this cache or not. I've been to enough caches by now to know some peoples version of a great hide is to hide a cache in the middle of a dense jungle with no coverage and terrible hints. Others have fancy web pages that have nothing to do with the cache site, theme or location. Many of these I CHOOSE not to do. To discourage freedom of "CACHE" denies those interested an oppertunity. Those not interested wouldnt go find it anyway.

 

If you are not interested in finding a cache that requires you cut your hand and take a pic, then dont find it. When you go to the cache page it should be no supprise to you what the conditions are. You are not forced to do anything you dont want.

 

Have you all seen caches that sit for years with maby 2 finds? Why? Cache economics. Not enough demand for the theme, location, hike, or requirements.

Why cant we let the "market" decide?

[+JaimeeG]

Alrighty then......

 

[This message was edited by LuvOzzy on October 18, 2002 at 08:29 PM.]

[+worldtraveler]

...call 'em names and use lots of pseudo-profanity (is that a big enough word to rile you?

 

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Have you read the post that started it? It didn't mention a specific cache; it was about the general concept, so your "none of your business if it's not near you" argument is groundless.

 

Going to call some more names now?

 

Worldtraveler

[+kusanagi]

If you find a cache you should be able to log a cache, in my opinion.

 

If I don't like it then I shouldn't do that cache. Maybe or Maybe I should create my own rules. With that line of thought comes another problem, it's called selfishness. What is going to happen when people start leaving empty gladware containers with a notebook and pen, most people don't mind leaving something even if they take nothing. It would also qualify as a cache.

 

The other option is that people will just get tired of all the caches that they are not suppose to do, since a trend of hiders posting their own rules has been started. In that case instead of posting their displeasure on the forum where they will just get blasted on how wrong they are, they could just go out and remove the cache.

 

Coming home and posting your find on the cache is not suppose to matter. Go ahead, find the cache and enjoy yourself. After all you go caching for yourself do you not? With that in mind, why not just remove that function from the website and nobody has to worry about it. If you can not post a smiley then nobody can take it away from you. Also if posting a find as a find is not important then why am I being denied that ability. I call it a ability because it is not evidently a right.

 

The hider is Sovereign, true. Only problem is that if and or when people get tired of your caches and stop looking for them, the hider may feel more like a Fool and somewhat lonely.

 

With all the rules I read about. Whether they be fact or just considered. I keep thinking of one basic rule of life. That rules and laws were made to be broken. Before a law is passed it is voted on. It was nice of Jeremy to start this thread instead of just denying the caches.

 

As to Luvozzy, Ron Streeter already tried to make this thread personal. ClayJar tried to point this thread back to what it was intended to be about. The people that have defended hiding a cache to log a find are cachers that know Ron. I am also wondering why you would want to do a newspaper interview letting people know about geocaching when there are already enough morons here.This topic is in the general forum and no caches were named until Ron decided it was all about him. Last point is that if you don't like it, Then don't read it.

 

Personally I think that I am done reading and posting to this thread. In the end what I have to say is the meaningless whining of a crybaby. Not to mention that this thread seems to have started as statement posted to invite the thoughts of others.

[+fizzymagic]

There is a completely trivial solution to this whole conundrum that nobody seems to have considered: how about if a hider wants to make hiding another cache a requirement, they make the cacher do it before giving them the actual coordinates of the cache? That way, everybody is happy: the hider can require that a new cache be placed, and the finder can log the cache when it has been found and the log signed.

 

This preserves the power of the hider while at the same time preserving the concept that a find is a find.

 

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[+JaimeeG]

Alrighty then...part 2

 

 

[This message was edited by LuvOzzy on October 18, 2002 at 08:30 PM.]

[+JaimeeG]

Alrighty then...part 2

 

 

[This message was edited by LuvOzzy on October 18, 2002 at 08:30 PM.]

[+Ish-n-Isha]

I find your solution reasonable.

 

The assumption some make is the requirement to plant a cache is a flippant or onerous task that someone is forced to make to log a cache.

 

How many of us only hunt? Most? All? None? Or some ratio, (as in another thread).

I have no idea what the proportion is for all users @ geocaching.com, but I have caches made up in advance of when I need them. If I stumble on a worthy site I decide if I want to place it.

The point being that a large percentage of us hide as well as hunt.

 

So someone asks you to plant another cache somewhere. It's not like we wouldnt plant one somewhere anyway is it?

I agree in some instances it could lead to overcrowding as in another thread, but honestly I tell you, I'm going on a hike this weekend that I probably wouldnt have if there was only 1 cache there. There. The simple honest fact.

 

In eastern washington we put on the miles to have a triple diget count. On the wet side of the state you might easily find 100 caches in a 8-10 mile radius. I recognize the fact that some areas have diffrent concerns than others.

[+ClayJar]

fizzymagic, I think the idea of requiring a hide *before* you give the (final) coordinates is an excellent solution. Why? Because it makes *finding* the cache harder, but it doesn't attempt to redefine "find". Making it hard to find a cache, whether by puzzles, terrain, equipment, or what-have-you is, and has always been, perfectly fair. As long as the hider doesn't attempt to redefine "find", life is good.

 

Thanks for the idea, and amazingly enough, no, it hadn't even entered my mind. (hehe)

[+Ish-n-Isha]

Check this Cache.

"Fill in the Blanks".

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=23044

In service since 5/19/02

10 finds and it would seem no complaints.

And obviously approved 7 months ago.

 

[This message was edited by Ish-n-Isha on October 20, 2002 at 01:18 PM.]

[+ClayJar]

I've seen others as well. I can't remember which one, but I paddled over the fictional coordinates to one cache that required you to get coordinates from the hider after finding several other caches. (I just hadn't remembered things like that during this particular thread. )

[+Mopar]

I had been steering clear of this issue, but while discussing spam mail, the subject of Multi Level Marketing came up. We came up with a great cache idea in the spirit of this topic, what ya all think?

I want to place a cache nearby. I am going to make it a "place a cache to log this cache" with a twist. According to the one line of thinking here, the cache hider reigns supreme, and can make ALL the rules, so here is going to be my rule:

Not only do you need to place this cache within 10 miles of my zipcode (07080 in case your wondering, there are already 50+ caches within that range, but I've found most of them, and I don't feel like driving) BUT; you must also require the same logging criteria as this cache has. In other words, the cache YOU place must be a place to log cache, and it must require that all loggers place a cache with the place of cache criteria, etc, right down the line. I figure this way I shall always have a steady stream of local caches. If I am to believe the MLM spam I got the idea from, there should be hundreds of caches within biking distance in a matter of weeks! Hows this idea sound?

 

PS: For anyone who didn't pick up on the sarcasm, This is my example of why we do need some rules in geocaching.

 

Illegitimus non carborundum!

 

[This message was edited by Mopar to correct a tiny little spelling error pick out by some nameless nitpicker (coughdrumorgancough)]

 

[This message was edited by Mopar on October 21, 2002 at 10:44 AM.]

[+Mr. Snazz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mopar:

If I am to believe the MLM spam I got the idea from, there should be hundreds of caches within biking distance in a matter of weeks! Hows this idea sound?

---

 

Evil! Mayhem!

 

How can you even suggest such a thing? Do you think this is FUNNY? Are you LAUGHING?

 

[+Web-ling]

The biggest problem I see with this type of cache is the distance restriction. How many good places can there possibly be within a given radius? Especially a 5 or 10 mile radius, or in a single town/county? On my older caches, 50-60 finds is not uncommon. How can people hide 50-60 new caches in a small area without making some really lame caches?

 

Most people hide caches fairly close to where they live, in order to maintain them. Most cachers also hunt the majority of their caches fairly close to home. Therefore, even without the distance restriction, I'd assume the majority of the "child" caches would be reasonably close to the "parent" cache.

 

If the distance restriction were removed, I'd have a whole lot less problem with it. One of our local cachers, Geovamp, has created several "task caches" which involve finding the container, plus also finding one or more virtual components. The virtual components are not needed to find the container, they are in addition to finding it. Sort of a "reverse multi", where instead of finding virtual waypoints to locate the cache, you find the cache, then find the virtual components. Although it's certainly NOT my favorite format, I've found them to be an interesting twist. Not entirely different than the Hide-a-cache to find-a-cache concept.

 

I really don't have a problem with the hide-a-cache to log-a-cache concept, just the distance restriction.

 

[+Ish-n-Isha]

Originally posted by Mopar:

Not only do you need to place this cache within 10 miles of my zipcode (07080 in case your wondering, there are already 50+ caches within that range, but I've found most of them, and I don't feel like driving) BUT; you must also require the same logging criteria as this cache has. In other words, the cache YOU place must be a place to log cache, and it must require that all loggers place a cache with the place of cache criteria, etc, right down the line. I figure this way I shall always have a steady stream of local caches. If I am to believe the MLM spam I got the idea from, there should be hundreds of caches within biking distance in a matter of weeks! Hows this idea sound?

PS: For anyone who didn't pick up on the sarcasm, This is my example of why we do need some rules in geocaching.

 

Click your Find a cache hide a cache button and type in a zipcode of my area 98848. enter a 20 mile radius. That is eastern washington where i live. Then enter the zipcode of 98052 with the same radius which is western washington where all the caches and people with the opportunity for high find counts. You will find: as of this posting, a total of 14 for me and 216 for them.

 

[This message was edited by Ish-n-Isha on October 21, 2002 at 02:22 PM.]

[+Ish-n-Isha]

Originally posted by Mopar:

Not only do you need to place this cache within 10 miles of my zipcode (07080 in case your wondering, there are already 50+ caches within that range, but I've found most of them, and I don't feel like driving) BUT; you must also require the same logging criteria as this cache has. In other words, the cache YOU place must be a place to log cache, and it must require that all loggers place a cache with the place of cache criteria, etc, right down the line. I figure this way I shall always have a steady stream of local caches. If I am to believe the MLM spam I got the idea from, there should be hundreds of caches within biking distance in a matter of weeks! Hows this idea sound?

PS: For anyone who didn't pick up on the sarcasm, This is my example of why we do need some rules in geocaching.

 

Click your Find a cache hide a cache button and type in a zipcode of my area 98848. enter a 20 mile radius. That is eastern washington where i live. Then enter the zipcode of 98052 with the same radius which is western washington where all the caches and people with the opportunity for high find counts. You will find: as of this posting, a total of 14 for me and 216 for them.

 

[This message was edited by Ish-n-Isha on October 21, 2002 at 02:22 PM.]

[+Trafcon]

I love reading threads such as these especially when it get to the mudslinging stage. Reminds me of Jerry Springer. Just kidding. Seriously though Jeremy, I think we as a group should do some self policing. I for one would not hunt a cache if it required me to hide another or at least I might look for it and if I found it post a note that I was there and leave it up to the owner to delete it or not.

 

If I was unfamiliar with an area and only there for a short time ie: quick vacation I don't think I would be able to do a quality cache just because I wouldn't know the area and where a good spot would be.

 

The bottom line is it would be up to me whether I wanted to search for it or not. I would applaud the owner for letting me know this restriction in advance so I could decide, but ultimately I would be the one making that decision. It would be hard for me because I find myself slipping into the numbers addiction from time to time.

 

I then remember what this game/hobby/addiction is all about and that is the fun of doing something I love and enjoy, getting out and seeing sights I didn't know were even there and lastly for me, meeting the people like those I have met in the last year. See post 1 year mark

 

Happy caching to all and to all a good time !!!

 

KTF !!! GBWY !!!

[+ClayJar]

quote:

---

Solicitations are also off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, or social agendas will not be listed. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

---

Um, just a little thought that came to me... Wouldn't requiring you to place a new cache be a solicitation? Sure, it's soliciting something that we'd like more of, but it's certainly soliciting.

 

In other words, this particular question ("Place a cache to log a cache?") is, in fact, already covered by the guidelines.

 

Anyway, just a thought.

[Ron Streeter]

...but what a deal caused by my cache and apparently one other.

 

I can't imagine all this hub-bub about one cache. It's not (in my opinion) going to lead to a rash of similar caches around the country for crying out loud.

 

To date this cache has been found by one of my fellow valley cachers and I think his placed cache will be approved soon.

 

Let it go guys...it's still a tempest in a teapot as I suggested weeks ago.

 

Meanwhile I am in Italy placing physical and virtual caches. Want to convert this thread to...you shouldn't place caches you can't maintain. Wait a minute, my children are here, and there are other cachers here who will help out too! Geez...now what will we cry about !

 

***********

Cinque Terra

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=40857

 

Villa D’ Este (WILL BE APPROVED SOON)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=40930

 

cIAO ! Ron Streeter

 

I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

[+Capt. Jack & 1st Mate]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fizzymagic:

There is a completely trivial solution to this whole conundrum that nobody seems to have considered: how about if a hider wants to make hiding another cache a requirement, they make the cacher do it _before_ giving them the actual coordinates of the cache? That way, everybody is happy: the hider can require that a new cache be placed, and the finder can log the cache when it has been found and the log signed.

 

This preserves the power of the hider while at the same time preserving the concept that a find is a find.

 

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

---

 

Back up a page and you'll see that we have done just that.....

 

" posted October 01, 2002 02:53 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Place a cache to log a cache

 

So what does anyone think about placing a cache to FIND a cache, not just to log it? Same difference? Maybe not. Would like your opinions on our Oregon's Rank cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=24876

 

This one has not been visited by a ton of cachers to date, but I know that the caches that have been placed to meet the requirements have been good ones!"

 

The goal has not been met yet but waas very, very close at one point. Everyone that has placed a new cache to get the final clues for "Oregon's Rank" has done a great job and we have visited most of them!

 

Capt. Jack