Jump to content

No More Traveling Caches = VERY BAD. What do you think?


umc
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I personally think that traveling caches should be allowed and am very unhappy that they have been killed.

 

Do you think that traveling caches should be allowed?

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

So far so good, somewhat new owner of a second/new Garmin GPS V 20 plus finds so far with little to no problem. We'll see what happens when there are leaves on the trees again.

Link to comment

Thats correct.

 

You can read more about it in this link

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

So far so good, somewhat new owner of a second/new Garmin GPS V 20 plus finds so far with little to no problem. We'll see what happens when there are leaves on the trees again.

Link to comment

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but caches must be approved to be posted on this site. A travelling cache may conform when first posted, but subsequent finder/hiders have no such process to go through. A finder/hider can place the cache next to a RR bridge, in a National Park, or on private property without any controls. I can see why this website has banned them and I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier.

 

i]"An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill[/i]

Link to comment

If a person picks up a traveling cache, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be put in a bad place. I think they should be LIMITED to a certain space, like fifty miles within the original spot and the owner must closely moniter the cache. I've seen (not visited, saw them on the nearest caches page) two traveling caches that have closely monitered by the owner. They have done great jobs so far. Try and experiment with the concept more before the entire thing is thrown out in the trash.

 

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

 

Faster than a dial-up Internet connection, stronger than any band nerd, look up at the sky! ....is it a bat..... no .....is it my grandma's mustache..... NO! IT'S RADMAN Version 2.0!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but caches must be approved to be posted on this site. A travelling cache may conform when first posted, but subsequent finder/hiders have no such process to go through. A finder/hider can place the cache next to a RR bridge, in a National Park, or on private property without any controls. I can see why this website has banned them and I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier.


 

Your argument is inconsistant, I could place a multi cache with the posted coordinates being totally legal and the final cache could be buried in the middle of a rr track running through a Nat'l Park and it would be approved with no problem. Should we now ban multi-caches? I could place a cache on private property and have it approved. Maybe we should ban traditionals also. GC.com has no more control over placement of a regular cache than they would a traveler. This website is a database, that's what they are good at, period.

 

Rusty...

 

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

Friends don't let friends cache locationless!

 

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Michigan Geocaching Organization

Link to comment

With no disrespect to anyone, anywhere, icon_wink.gifI've pretty much come to the conclusion I should drop plans for placing any type of cache other than an ammo box, tupperware container, or a film canister for the foreseeable future. It just doesn't look like it's going to be worth the time needed to argue for anything else. icon_razz.gif

 

Of course, it's not all bad, but I don't know whether to go ahead and stock up on ammo cans because you never know when they're going to be banned....LOL icon_biggrin.gif. Once someone from the "Green" party figures out plastic is made from petroleum icon_mad.gif products they will probably ban tupperware and film canisters as well, so we'll revert to, what? icon_confused.gif

 

I bet I could make a ton of money if I came up with a biodegradeable container filled with biodegradeable McToys of some kind... hmmm, most logbooks are already of that type, check any soggy leaking cache, the logbook is the first thing to return to pulp...LOL. Then just come up with a material that would begin to degrade after 6 months to a year and completely reabsorbed into the environment after 18 months.... what a concept!!! icon_cool.gif

 

Yes, I'm being facetious, but, it does seem the "purists" are winning out, and those that wish to push the envelope and make the game more interesting to a broader spectrum of participant are going to have to conform or be banished.

 

But don't look at me, I'll conform, I certainly can't afford to start a web site that could hold a candle to this one, it's great. I have no complaint with the intent of the admin crew, I understand they are trying to ride herd on an animal that has grown all out of proportion to what they might have expected and they have to rein it in to get control. No problem. It just seemed like a lot more fun a year or so ago.... sigh icon_rolleyes.gif. I have no idea where the thread might be, but I believe we discussed this some time ago, how we could begin to see the sport bulgeing at the seams and change was inevitable at some point.

 

I have no opinion on whether moving caches should be allowed, or not, it just doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things. I'm too tired right now to argue about it...LOL. icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif

 

texasgeocaching_sm.gif

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

Link to comment

I think travelling caches are great! In my area of the state of Michigan, it is my opinion that there are plenty of caches for the new geocachers and for the occasional geocaching visitors to the area. Yet the regular/ hard core geocachers want more geocaches!!! I think that a travelling geocache is MUCH better than placing many new regular geocaches in the area. PLUS:

 

* travelling geocaches promote fun and camaraderie amoung local geocachers

 

* travelling geocaches can be placed in locations that would not necessarily work for regular geocaches, ie: a spot that might get plundered if the geocache were not going to be sought by the next geocacher very soon, private property where the owner might be willing to grant permission for a one-time "treasure hunt" but not for a permanent geocache, ...

 

The travelling caches that I am familiar with have all been well updated and watched over by their owners. I have not seen any problems.

Link to comment

Thanks to everyone for the input above it is appreciated.

 

I would like to comment on Brian's post.

 

First no parades were rained on and you make good points. I know thats the reason for doing what they have done but I think its a weak reason much the same as the locationless and virt issues. WEAK

 

Rusty made some very good counter points and I think at the rate we're are going here we are going to work ourselves right out of a hobby/sport we all love.

 

My thought on Traveling caches is that they are only in XXX location for one time and one visit (for the most part.) This is much unlike the Trad and Multi caches that are in 'who knows where' locations for a looooong time. A lot more damage is done with the "regular" caches vs. the traveling caches for this reason. In my mind, (as small as it is) because of this a traveling cache is better than the rest.

 

So is that the reason to do away with them? Because we don't want too much of a good thing here!!

 

As others have mentioned since the dawn of this site, there are other sites and maybe thats the answer, I don't know. With the way things are going here I don't see too much future here and that scares me because I use to like spending a lot of time and money here.

 

Anyway thats my rant for the day.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

So far so good, somewhat new owner of a second/new Garmin GPS V 20 plus finds so far with little to no problem. We'll see what happens when there are leaves on the trees again.

Link to comment

As the creator of a traveling cache I say stop whining!! So you went to find this cache and it wasn’t there. big deal, isn’t Geocaching about more than the find? I’ve read lots of logs where people have been unable to find the cache but have enjoyed the area that the cache was in. As I stated before, I have created a traveling cache and I watch it closely and have gone to hunt it at all of its locations. It is restricted to the city that I live in but hay that’s the fun of it. So in short if you cant handle disappointment with adventure don’t hunt for a traveling cache.

 

"The price of freedom isnt Free"

Link to comment

They are right about the multi-stage caches the first stage could be in an approved locaction while the cache is not. Any ways the 5traveling caches we have in GA are supposed to stay in pre-existing caches. And the other two have there cords constantly updated on their cache page.

 

Happy Hunting icon_smile.gif

-Amazingracer

 

"Life is tough, life is tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

Link to comment

 

I just want to state that I like the idea of "moving caches" and that I see no valid reason why they should not be allowed. They're a perfectly reasonable variant on the Geocaching theme and they maintain the spirit of the hunt along with an extra element of mystery. I don't get the comparison to Travel Bugs since I see the two as substantially different concepts.

 

Last year I had to opportunity to go on a hunt for a particularly interesting moving cache: The Corps of Discovery. It involved a considerable drive from home to get there. Half-way along the trail to the cache site I encountered a Geocacher who was making his way out (PezPatrol). In his hand was the cache. Naturally, we stopped for a while and had a pleasant chat.

 

I realized that had it been twenty or thirty minutes later I probably wouldn't have had the knowledge that someone had beat me to the cache. I knew full well beforehand that this was a distinct possibility and figured, "So what?! It would at least provide me with a nice hike along the AT and some great views." I did entertain the hope that the person who took the cache would leave a note or some sort of sign that the cache was in motion again, but it wasn't going to be a big deal to me if he/she didn't. If I'd gotten to it first, my intention was to leave a note.

 

The reality is that there's not much difference if, say, an animal had dragged off the cache container or a non-cacher had found and absconded with it? There are always these potential risks in any cache hunt. I don't whine about it. I simply plan my hunts accordingly.

 

Therefore, I vote emphatically to keep the concept of "moving caches" in play within the simple guidelines of traditional caches.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

1132_1200.jpg

 

=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

 

[This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on March 26, 2003 at 07:49 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Rusty:

This website is a database, that's what they are good at, period.


 

Napster was just "a database" too, look what happened to them... precedent shows that the courts are less willing to grant common carrier status these days. Besides, and I am not a lawyer, but I think that Groundspeak gave up any chance at being just a database (common carrier) the moment that they set their first guideline...

Link to comment

The onlymoving cache that has come close to my area (as far as I know since I've been caching) has the requirement that whoever moved it had to move it 100 miles away from its found location. Or you could just log it and not move it.

 

We drove 50 miles to get to the area but my cache partner refused to hike the 1.5 miles out the trail to the temporary cache location which was incidentally well inside the boundaries of the Smoky Mtns Nat'l Park. Just as well, since another group had gone to the cache that very morning, retrieved it, and later moved it to Colorado.

 

Kinda left me wanting more cache results and less wild-goose chase....

 

I can see the sense in having moving caches that move within the area of a city, I might hunt one like that.

Link to comment

I would say that if you think GC.com is just a database, then why don't you put your full name, address and home phone number in the cache and on the cache page. That way if there is a problem with the cache the person who has the problem with it can contact you personally.

 

Somehow, I don't think anyone will do that. You just have to work within the guidelines that the site sets up.

Link to comment

Being a moving cache owner and hunter, I think that these cache should be allowed as it still follows the spirit of geocaching.

 

You're still using a GPS to search for the "ammo can", the only difference is that it may have been taken and moved or you pack it out with you.

 

The admins. of geocaching have added stipulations of marking a moved/taken cache... with a tepee of sticks, note or flag. This was a good idea that they came up with... this way people who are just behind the times knows that what they are searching for had been taken.

 

Please add this variation back into the geocaching family. It adds a little twist to the original game.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

quote:
Originally posted by Rusty:

This website is a database, that's what they are good at, period.


 

Napster was just "a database" too, look what happened to them... precedent shows that the courts are less willing to grant common carrier status these days. Besides, and I am not a lawyer, but I think that Groundspeak gave up any chance at being just a database (common carrier) the moment that they set their first guideline...


 

I read recently that Napster was coming back, but who cares? They were not that good at what they did, they were simply first. There are any number of alternate 'databases' to chose from nowdays.

 

I support this site and its the only database I use, but I ruffle at the opinion that geocaching.com IS geocaching.

 

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

Friends don't let friends cache locationless!

 

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Michigan Geocaching Organization

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

I would say that if you think GC.com is just a database, then why don't you put your full name, address and home phone number in the cache and on the cache page. That way if there is a problem with the cache the person who has the problem with it can contact you personally.

 

Somehow, I don't think anyone will do that. You just have to work within the guidelines that the site sets up.


 

 

Time to put on your asbestos undies. icon_biggrin.gificon_wink.gif

 

Just kidding. (I think)

 

I'm not quite sure of what you're implying there because gc.com doesn't have an address, phone number that is placed on cache pages or the nice green "official geocache" sticker. All there is, is a URL. I do put my email address on there not yours or Jeremy's so I'm not too sure who would be contacted first in that situation. As a matter of fact I don't even use yours or Jeremys name on that sticker much less the address to gc.com or Groundspeak.

 

So again I don't see what that has to do with this. I don't even pass off responsibility on this site for what I do when it comes to caching.

 

I think it would be nice to know what is going on behind the scenes here because there is obviously issues with the happenings around here that is has a tight lid on it.

 

Does this have anything to do with power tripping around here? I think the grip is being kept a bit too tight for its own good and should be eased up a bit but again thats just my lame dimes worth.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

So far so good, somewhat new owner of a second/new Garmin GPS V 20 plus finds so far with little to no problem. We'll see what happens when there are leaves on the trees again.

Link to comment

I am so glad the debate about the travelling caches is reasoned as well as it is, and in addition, a geocaching debate is even-tempered for a change.

 

I will reiterate my point about travelling caches being excellent, so long as they are confined to a reasonable geographic area.

 

And as I stated before, I'm not lighting my hair on fire and jumping off a cliff if they aren't allowed (back).

 

canadazuuk

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:

I am so glad the debate about the travelling caches is reasoned as well as it is, and in addition, a geocaching debate is even-tempered for a change.

 

And as I stated before, I'm not lighting my hair on fire and jumping off a cliff if they aren't allowed (back).

canadazuuk


 

First part - Agreed, well said.

 

Second part - Oh man!! I'd have paid money to see that!!!! LOL.

 

icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif

 

texasgeocaching_sm.gif

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

Link to comment

From what 'traveling caches' I've seen come thorugh this area, it appears a lot of people have been using this as a method to avoid forking over a few bucks and paying for a travel bug tag. It's often the same general concept, just that one doesn't require you to support the geocaching.com site in any real way. I have no objections to the ban.

 

skydiver-sig.gif

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

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

Link to comment

My two cents:

In the Chicago area, the Busse Woods area has about 14 caches in a 3-mile-square area. Two of those are movers, restricted to Busse Woods.

 

One of them was probably done the best way possible for a mover: If you move the cache, you were to leave behind a microcache (that was in the main box) with a note that it's moving. When you placed the new one and updated the web page, you were to go and get the micro and move it to the new location. That meant that (a) there was always something in the spot listed on the net, and (;) it left a pretty big responsibility on the next hider.

 

The other just moved. My biggest gripe about the wanderers is that a query or printed listing may not have the actual location unless you scour the logs. I went to the wrong place twice before I caught it, then missed it a third time because it was hidden about 90' from what my GPSr said was the actual location.

 

If the PTB are going to support movers, I'd strongly suggest that the cache location can be updated by a log, perhaps with approval by the original hider.

 

I am Arrowroot, son of Arrowshirt. I have many names, you know

Link to comment

quote:

I support this site and its the only database I use, but I ruffle at the opinion that geocaching.com IS geocaching.


 

I second this sentiment! Geocaching is starting to suffer from it's own success and exponential growth. Thus the Groundspeak site is battling a losing war over controlling an entire sport. If this is a truly "Democratic" sport, then the ever elusive travelling caches would be allowed.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by majicman:

I have a virtual, traveling locationless cache... but no one has ever been able to find it...

 

Seems pointless...

 

--majicman


 

Ha! Ha! Ha! Funny

 

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

 

radmanmadewith3dprogram.gif

 

Faster than a dial-up Internet connection, stronger than any band geek, look up at the sky! ....is it a bat..... no .....is it my grandma's mustache..... NO! IT'S RADMAN Version 2.0! See I even have my own neon sign!

Link to comment

Sorry (I do mean it!), I will shut up from now on.

 

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

 

radmanmadewith3dprogram.gif

 

Faster than a dial-up Internet connection, stronger than any band geek, look up at the sky! ....is it a bat..... no .....is it my grandma's mustache..... NO! IT'S RADMAN Version 2.0! See I even have my own neon sign!

Link to comment

majicman, shut up! icon_razz.gif

 

I think its clear in the posts who voted yes but it is unclear who voted no. Since the margin is so slim, I would like to see some reasons why people voted no.

 

Lets hear it and don't be affraid. frog.gif

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

So far so good, somewhat new owner of a second/new Garmin GPS V 20 plus finds so far with little to no problem. We'll see what happens when there are leaves on the trees again.

Link to comment

Me, the majicman being stifled by someone who's background states:

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

I'm a Good looking married man who lives in Michigan. My wife and I have a cat together actually I brought him to the marriage, he is 13 years old or so and is the greatest cat in the world. I know that sounds dumb but I have no imagination.

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

OK, I can understand why you, also, would like for me to be silenced...

 

--majicman

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by majicman:

Me, the majicman being stifled by my own shallow genetic background states:

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

I know that sounds dumb but I have no imagination.

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

OK, I can understand why you, also, would like for me to be silenced...

 

--majicman


 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by majicman:

Me, the majicman being stifled by someone who's background states:

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

I'm a Good looking married man who lives in Michigan. My wife and I have a cat together actually I brought him to the marriage, he is 13 years old or so and is the greatest cat in the world. I know that sounds dumb but I have no imagination.

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

OK, I can understand why you, also, would like for me to be silenced...

 

--majicman


 

 

ROFLMFAO,

 

That is just too funny man and your point is taken. I will now go edit that stupid background because when I see it there it reminds me of your lame @$$ backgound text. icon_wink.gificon_biggrin.gif : and a frog to get my point across. frog.gif

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

So far so good, somewhat new owner of a second/new Garmin GPS V 20 plus finds so far with little to no problem. We'll see what happens when there are leaves on the trees again.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Rusty:

I support this site and its the only database I use, but I ruffle at the opinion that geocaching.com IS geocaching.


This site is not just a database and it is not what geocaching IS (as you say). To me this site is the vision of what the owner of the site wants geocaching to be like on his web site. It seems to me that the owners of things can determine how they are used and presented. That's why people copyright things. I am not saying that you should go elsewhere or start your own site (I'm actually getting tired of hearing that), but why can't people just use the site and respect the wishes of the owner and provider of this site??? That said, discussion is encouraged and user's ideas are considered but it is still the site owners vision of what he wants his web site to look like.

 

umc, I guess this is the point I was trying to make. If this were just a database that I provided to the public for general use, then I would require that you put your name, address, phone number and email contact address on the cache so I would never be bothered. If it is reported that the information was not in there, then I would remove the cache from my database. Despite the fact that the phone number for this web site is not anywhere on the web page, Jeremy has said that he does get phone calls and I can imagine how many complaint emails he gets each day.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by majicman:

It's good to see that SOME of you Michiganers have kept your sense of humor...


Sorry, we Michiganders thought we were supposed to be incensed at your humor. Must be that Okie accent.

 

(meant to be humorous, not looking to enter a flamewar)

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

"Winter's just the curtain. Spring will take the bow"

-- Richard Shindell, Spring

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Despite the fact that the phone number for this web site is not anywhere on the web page...


 

It's listed under Contact Us, linked on every geocaching.com page. Land managers seem to be able to track it down quite often.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by dinoprophet:

Sorry, we Michiganders thought we were supposed to be incensed at your humor. Must be that Okie accent.

 

(meant to be humorous, not looking to enter a flamewar)


 

Is that right: Michiganders ? Shouldn't it be Mishenanigans?

 

--majicman

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by majicman:

UMC - It's good to see that SOME of you Michiganers have kept your sense of humor...

 

After all, this is intended to be a GAME and that is for FUN... Right RadMan?

 

--majicman


 

It is when people around you don't act like five year olds in the forums.....right Majic Man? Besides it's Radman Version 2.0, not RadMan. icon_biggrin.gif

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

Link to comment

quote:

[whois.opensrs.net]

Registrant:

Groundspeak

PMB 243

15600 NE 8th Street, Suite B1

Bellevue, WA 98008

US

 

Domain name: GEOCACHING.COM

 

Administrative Contact:

Administrator, Groundspeak domains@Groundspeak.com

PMB 243

15600 NE 8th Street, Suite B1

Bellevue, WA 98008

US

425-000-0000

Technical Contact:

Administrator, Groundspeak domains@Groundspeak.com

PMB 243

15600 NE 8th Street, Suite B1

Bellevue, WA 98008

US

425-000-0000

 

Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.

Record last updated on 09-May-2002.

Record expires on 03-Jul-2003.

Record Created on 03-Jul-2000.


 

But...whenever I try these numbers, they aren't valid. icon_razz.gif

 

Brian

Team A.I.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

but why can't people just use the site and respect the wishes of the owner and provider of this site???


 

Anytime you have a number of people together, there will be discussions and arguments arounsd the rules, which i think is only right.

 

Ive always been impressed with the fact that jeremy posts here, reads here, and actually seems to care what his visitors think/want.

 

I like travelling caches even though as far as i know, my area only has 1 (my own). I had plans for another one for fun, and possibly use one in a multi idea ive been kicking around for about 6 months, but i guess thats done.

 

I dont see why they should be banned. I can hide a cache halfway down a cliff with no problems as long as i tell people theyll need climbing gear, but i cant hide a cache that moves because someone *might* put it in a bad area? My traveller that i have hidden instructs finders to email me where they plan to put it. I did this for 3 reasons, that i would know where it is at all times for any possible fixing of the container, that i might be able to a degree regulate that its not being put it a bad place, and to make sure it doesnt visit caches its already been placed at.

 

Hiding a cache is a responsibility anyway, i think its only prudent to know where your traveller is, so in the case that someone puts it in the middle of the train tracks you can go get it, and let the person know thats not acceptable. If you dont think you can handle doing that, then you dont need to hide the traveller.

 

My opinions anyway.

 

[Episkipos Enos Shenk, KSC]

[http://enos.deviantart.com]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Brian:

 

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but caches must be approved to be posted on this site. A travelling cache may conform when first posted, but subsequent finder/hiders have no such process to go through. A finder/hider can place the cache next to a RR bridge, in a National Park, or on private property without any controls. I can see why this website has banned them and I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier.


 

True however think about this. Out of 10 logs, maybe one or two might be in an in apropriate place. it only stays there for one find, the next person (theorietically) puts it in a legal spot. There are caches in bad spots, and every single person looking for it has to go to that inapropriate spot. Something to consider....

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by majicman:

Is that right: Michiganders ? Shouldn't it be Mishenanigans?--majicman


 

Nope. Michiganders till the end! A few years ago the media tried to change it, but the will of the people persisted, yea! And isn't Mishenanigans runner up to Miss Congeniality?

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MountainMudbug:

We drove 50 miles to get to the area but my cache partner refused to hike the 1.5 miles out the trail to the temporary cache location which was incidentally well inside the boundaries of the Smoky Mtns Nat'l Park.


quote:
Originally posted by Enos Shenk, KSC:

My traveller that i have hidden instructs finders to email me where they plan to put it. I did this for 3 reasons, that i would know where it is at all times for any possible fixing of the container, that i might be able to a degree regulate that its not being put it a bad place, and to make sure it doesnt visit caches its already been placed at.


One of the bad things about a moving cache is that if it is placed in a bad place, such as well inside the boundary of a National Park that is hundreds of miles from where you live, then you can't do very much about it. If the NP Ranger finds it then it is gone and is yet another black eye. What if a cacher gets the cache and hides it again in the same day? What if they just don't email you? I guess there are just too many variables and if you can eliminate some of the potential of Murphy's law that is a good thing.

 

The moving cache is fun and I just moved one from Atlanta to Orlando. It is trying to get to Miami. I did hide it responsibly. I would think that a moving cache that is a parasite cache could work because it is inside of another existing cache all the time anyway. The potential problems for a moving cache that gets hidden anywhere seem to be pretty great, though.

 

BTW, thanks for catching my error Jeremy and pointing out the Contact Us page information.

Link to comment

Get with it mtn-man, even I knew about that contact info (I made sure I checked before *****ing about it not being thereicon_smile.gif)

 

Anyway, is it going to be possible to recoup the poll counts along with our post counts or is that gone for good?

 

I will also post that question in the right spot.

 

Also let me know when I can begin planning my traveling caches again. icon_wink.gif

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

So far so good, somewhat new owner of a second/new Garmin GPS V 20 plus finds so far with little to no problem. We'll see what happens when there are leaves on the trees again.

Link to comment

Seems way too many users can't even properly log/move a travel bug so it seems that maybe eliminating moving caches is not such a bad idea.

 

I've enjoyed the traveling caches that I have encountered, even though the last had improperly updated coords and I had to return a second time. I think they are a great idea if only everyone had some idea of the responsibilites of the concept. You can't move it today and then decide to update it a week and a half from now.

Link to comment

Just because some don't know what the heck they are doing out there doesn't mean we should all suffer. If thats the case then we souldn't have any caches because they can be done wrong. It much like anything if life.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

______________________________________________________________________________________

So far so good, somewhat new owner of a second/new Garmin GPS V 20 plus finds so far with little to no problem. We'll see what happens when there are leaves on the trees again.

Link to comment

I voted no (ow! stop that!) for reasons already stated: a traveling cache is almost the same thing as a travel bug, and there are no controls over placement of the cache once it leaves its original location. As for the argument about those places where there aren't many caches - what's the point? You can only log it once....

Now, maybe there are acceptable alternatives. There is a cache making the rounds in CT and NY called Town & Country that is a travelling cache, but its travels are bounded - you have to drop it off in one of the many spots listed in the cache description. That seems to cover the "where does it go next" worry.

As for geocaching.com strangling the creativity and freedom of geocachers worldwide - the gall! - hey, it is their site. And if their legal eagles are telling them to CYA by nixing traveling caches, then aren't the admins actually PROTECTING our geocaching privileges by reducing the risk of a rogue travelling cache winding up in the news (in a bad way)?

 

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary numbers, and those who don't.

Link to comment

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...