Since when do we allow moving caches?

1.1k · March 21, 2003

No offense to the owner who placed this cache, but since when do we allow moving caches? I thought if a cache was in one spot, it had to be in that same spot the next time you visit...this one is not:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=55420

ID = GCD87C

At first when I read it I thought, hey this was a cool new idea, but then after more thought, I figured, well whats the point if only 1 person in each country can go find it. it would take forever to get to all the countries.

I think this should be a travel bug and not a cache.

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

1.1k · March 21, 2003

There have been quite a few of these in the past. Today, actually, the guidelines were updated indicating that moving caches were no longer appropriate due to the logistical difficulties. As usual the older caches have been grandfathered.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

March 21, 2003

Isn't this what a travel bug is for?

1.6k · March 22, 2003

Again I say:

quote:
THANK YOU EVERYONE WHO WHINES AND SNEERS AND JIBZ AND JABZ FOR MAKING GEOCACHING OUT TO BE SOME KIND OF WORLD REGIME.

ARE YOU AMERICAN OR TERRORIST?

Seriously folks, thanks for pushing this so freakin far that now, rather than having interpretable guidelines, we are now going to have CONCRETE FREAKIN RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be careful what you ask for.

The lobbying against what you fear, has caused such grief, that you now get the credit for the 12" thick binder of addendums and interpretive bulletins that will be applied against future caches.

It is time for sane individuals to carry out a preemptive strike and ask you to all shut-up before you cause this site to explode and wipe out whatever we think it is we are doing, here or in the field.

Phew. Sorry, I had to say it twice.

In my mind, moving caches which are confined to a local geographic territory are part of the solution for all the ground clutter we either see in certain areas, or will see in future times.

As I now understand it, it seems that this option will not be available on the site.

And I blame this on all those who are asking for rules and black and white and concrete.

canadazuuk

March 22, 2003

I hid a cache like this myself around 6 months ago, i think its a fun idea. I dont see the point in outlawing caches like these, logistical difficulties? As i see it, its up to the cache owner to take care of any logistics. If the cache owner feels they cannot keep up with whatever they designed the cache to do, then they should archive it.

My cache of this sort is http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=34671

Great, i was planning something sortof like this for a fun new cache that wouldnt work as a travel bug. Guess its not happening now.

[Episkipos Enos Shenk, KSC]

[http://enos.deviantart.com]

March 22, 2003

Thanks canadazuuk for stating the obvious twice and it seems that is what some people need. I can't believe all the pissing and moaning about this and that. So that is my pissing and moaning about all that other p and m.

sidewinder

LOST AND FOUND DEPT.

March 23, 2003

I agree with you 100%, just what we need more frickin rules ahhhhh even worse set in cement to boot aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh... as for transit caches....I hope that the PTB will reconsider the transit caches...BC now has at least 5 transit caches and I do not remember hearing any problems with them, besides the usual, missing, allready scooped etc...I've been preparing one for the Similkameen and now NOT ALLOWED...Bummmer...hope things change..Ha HA...R

Without your brain, a map is a piece of coloured paper, a compass is a glorified magnet, and a GPS is a waterproof battery case." " FSAR "

March 23, 2003

but could someone explain the difference between moving caches and travel bugs?

Really, I'm just curious. As far as hunting goes, I can't see much of a difference.

thanks.

X is for X, and X marks the spot, On the rug in the parlor, The sand in the lot, Where once you were standing, And now you are not.

March 23, 2003

I recently placed a moving cache and have had no problems.I checked here on the forums and on moving cache pages and found very few negative issues.

What's the deal! I thought these things were decided here?

If somebody doesn't want to take the chance that the cache might already be moved they shouldn't do a moving cache.

The moving element is just part on the difficulty.

Come on people let's keep it a GAME!

March 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
There have been quite a few of these in the past. Today, actually, the guidelines were updated indicating that moving caches were no longer appropriate due to the logistical difficulties. As usual the older caches have been grandfathered.

I don't understand what you mean by logistical difficulties. What are these 'difficulties'? I have a 'moving cache' that is doing quite well. Not a single complaint about it. Everyone who's looked for it has had a blast. I update its coords as soon as I can once it's placed. I also say on the page that the seeker should check the logs before going out to see that they do, in fact, have the correct coords. There's only been one case of two folks going after it and one person looking for something that's not there but that's part of the fun. Every time it is found it's a first find.

The cache referenced in the original article should never have been approved as it is duplicating the function of a TB. A cache such as mine does not get placed in other caches. It gets placed on its own in a new place every time.

--

Not Necessarily Interesting News

March 23, 2003

Just read the tourist caches thread... now how do moving caches compare to the tourist caches?

It seems to me that all the arguments against tourist caches can be applied to moving caches:

- the owner has a little control how it will be rehidden - what if an irresponsible cacher places it on a private land or other inappropriate location?

- the owner can't actually verify if the cache is missing or not

Is the moving cache considered as re-adopted by the last hider? Maybe this concept is working fine and I am missing something, I have never come across a moving cache.

6.4k · March 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Bohica:

I don't understand what you mean by logistical difficulties. What are these 'difficulties'?

First, lemme start off saying I have 2 moving caches sitting here right now that I just picked up, waiting to be moved, so you know I like the idea.

Logistically though, the problem I see is the cache location changes each time without getting approval. So, it was safe and legal when it was first placed, but after that TPTB have no idea if it moves to a safe spot, or if it's buried under a bridge in a National Park.

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

1.6k · March 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
First, lemme start off saying I have 2 moving caches sitting here right now that I just picked up, waiting to be moved, so you know I like the idea.

Logistically though, the problem I see is the cache location changes each time without getting approval. So, it was safe and legal when it was first placed, but after that TPTB have no idea if it moves to a safe spot, or if it's buried under a bridge in a National Park.

Right, this is what I expected to hear as the reason, although I have not heard it officially.

This begs the question then:

Will *any* cache be allowed to be edited without *re-approval*?

Surely the answer would be *no*, following the same logic. (It was okay when originally placed, but now that it has 'moved', or even been *re-described*, it must now be approved again...)

As far as what the *logistical* problems are, who knows really. (To me, 'logistical' doesn't imply a reason that would cause non-approval.)

Moving caches ought to be subject to a reasonable geographic confinement. If it were possible (simply by programming), cache hiders ought to have a set # of reasonable qualifications *imposed* that must be met before caches can be either submitted or approved. (ie: time since registration, # of hides or finds... something that is 'automatic', as well as reasonable... but I know, this smells like 'more rules'... and perhaps this is a difficulty, because how would this apply in a country like Bolivia that only has 15 caches?)

Despite all of this:

I'm not going to jump off the face of the earth with my hair on fire just because I can't place another travelling cache.

I'll leave that to someone else.

canadazuuk

March 24, 2003

Good points Zuk

Maybe make them Member Only Cache ...???

Heh Jeremy???

Without your brain, a map is a piece of coloured paper, a compass is a glorified magnet, and a GPS is a waterproof battery case." " FSAR "

March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MercRocks:
Maybe make them Member Only Cache ...???

That seems like a reasonable way to do moving caches. I realize it will not guarantee each new hide will be a great new location. But being a Member Only cache I would at least think it would be done by someone that knows and follows the rules. I personally have never found or hidden a moving cache, but I have one on my radar and hope to find it this coming weekend if someone doesn't beat me to it. Seems like another fun type of cache that I hope can be saved for all to enjoy.

SilverRubicon

March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
Today, actually, the guidelines were updated indicating that moving caches were no longer appropriate due to the logistical difficulties.

I do not understand what the above means in reference to the following three approvals on 23 March.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59375

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59993

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59377

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

2k · March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
There have been quite a few of these in the past. Today, actually, the guidelines were updated indicating that moving caches were no longer appropriate due to the logistical difficulties. As usual the older caches have been grandfathered.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

I've noticed several postes having those frogs on their posts. What's the deal with the frogs?

Get your trackable USA geocoins at http://www.usageocoins.com

March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
Today, actually, the guidelines were updated indicating that moving caches were no longer appropriate due to the logistical difficulties.

I do not understand what the above means in reference to the following three approvals on 23 March.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59375

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59993

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59377

Fro.

Must be a Jersey thing! Be nice if admin would explain it?

Salvelinus

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

Ralph Abele

March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by enfanta:
but could someone explain the difference between moving caches and travel bugs?

Really, I'm just curious. As far as hunting goes, I can't see much of a difference.

thanks.

X is for X, and X marks the spot, On the rug in the parlor, The sand in the lot, Where once you were standing, And now you are not.

Not much except that a moving cache seems much more likely to get moved along.

I like them if they have a decent theme and not just move for the sake of moving. Like the Lewis and Clark one you missed...te he!

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

Ralph Abele

1.1k · March 24, 2003

Lots of talk here on moving caches, and people seem to like them. But what I want to know what makes them any different than a travel Bug? Seems like a moving cache is nothing more than a glorified travel bug, one that someone gets credit for as a find, for moving along. Hence I just don't see the point, and maybe that is why they are no longer around.

Another question, what is to stop anyone now from making a regular cache and then deciding to make it into a moving cache at some point.

Next observation...there seems to be 2 kinds of moving caches...those that move from existing cache to existing cache and those that move to a completely new location where no cache currently is.

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

8.9k · March 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by res2100:
But what I want to know what makes them any different than a travel Bug?

Next observation...there seems to be 2 kinds of moving caches...those that move from existing cache to existing cache and those that move to a completely new location where no cache currently is.

I think the second part of your observation answers the first part. Caches that move independent from other caches are not glorified Travel Bugs.

Scoob and Shag are Pre-Travel Bug Hitchhikers. Back in the old days before bugs, this was the only way to handle hitchhikers on the website.

My Photographer's Caches (listed below) move independent of other caches (and are virtual). They've done quite well, but it is a lot of work to keep up with them, and I've got a lot of the system automated. Here's the hub for the Photographer's Caches.

The Photographer's Cache

The Photographer's Cache II

The Photographer's Cache III

The Photographer's Cache IV

The Photographer's Cache V

The Photographer's Cache VI

The Photographer's Cache VII

The Photographer's Cache VIII

The Photographer's Cache IX

The Photographer's Cache X

The Photographer's Cache: Chicago Style

All that being said, I've only found one moving physical cache. The guidelines and rules that have to go in place are cumbersome and really tough to follow through on. I'm OK with them, but I won't go out of my way to try to find one.

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

3k · March 25, 2003

More rules, great.

Not to sure I am going to renew my membership on the next go around. This is bs.

I do like the frog though.

______________________________________________________________________________________

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.

March 25, 2003

I think we all need to take a breath here, and think through what all these rules mean. Rules are made because people whine and complain about something that rubs them the wrong way, and Admin feels (in their defence, rightfully so, sometimes) that something must be done to rectify the situation. Sometimes people are just debating a point, sometimes they truly feel passionate about a subject. Regardless, sometimes the result is rules that are hastily placed, and regretted at length. Travelling caches are a great idea, and I know of no problems with cache owners failing to update coords in a timely fashion. This is a great loss to all of us, and while we still have one to do in this area (as the rule has been Grandfathered) all of us have now lost another facet to our sport.

Let's whine less, and cache more.

March 25, 2003

I just tried to post to this thread, but it was queued pending approval. what is up with that censorship.

Maldar

March 25, 2003

I have not used it as of yet, but does n/a/v/i/c/a/c/h/e allow traveling caches? If they allow it and gc doesn't change their mind I would suggest a change in where we cache from. Maybe we could also set up our own TravelingCache website.

Maldar

March 25, 2003

A lot of people from Michigan support moving caches! Yay!

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

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!

1.6k · March 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by marinerBC:

Let's whine less, and cache more.

Amen brother!

canadazuuk

March 25, 2003

I like the idea of traveling caches, too!

W8TVI's Geocaching Pictures

GeoX Geocaching gear!

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

5.7k · March 25, 2003

In the S.F. Bay Area, we are a pretty active group and if a cache pops up, a bunch of people will go for it. If that cache is a moving cache, that means that 4 or 5 people will miss the cache at the initial coords, with more missing it as it moves around. I personally don't care for them. In less active areas, maybe the frustration level is lower.

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

March 26, 2003

Originally posted by umc:
More rules, great.

Not to sure I am going to renew my membership on the next go around. This is bs.

This is why I havent sent any money. Its too much like our friend the dictator. I thought gun laws were tuff. What country do we live in? Is there a lawyer season?

Rino 110

MeriGreen 128

3k · March 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Marky:
In the S.F. Bay Area, we are a pretty active group and if a cache pops up, a bunch of people will go for it. If that cache is a moving cache, that means that 4 or 5 people will miss the cache at the initial coords, with more missing it as it moves around. I personally don't care for them. In less active areas, maybe the frustration level is lower.

--Marky

Here's a solution for that, don't go after them!!

Seriously I understand what you are saying and there are those around here who don't hunt traveling caches because of that reason. To me it makes it more exciting to get there in a timely manor. I think there is a similar issue with Travel Bugs and that they should probably be banned also. They move and from what I've learned that is bad.

There are people who don't care for locationless, virtual, multi, micro, and any other kind of non-traditional cache, oh wait, those people are the reason that we are getting rid of all of those caches. Ok nevermind I was going to say that its their obligation to hunt for them or not but they rather complain about them and have them removed from the list. That makes better sense anyway. Why clutter up this database with nonsense.

Is it a matter of money and not enough volunteers???

If so I will send more and volunteer my time to approving caches or watching dogging anything that goes on here in MI if that would help.

Let me know.

______________________________________________________________________________________

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.

March 26, 2003

I agree with you umc. Don't search for it if you don't want the headache. I personnally like the fact that I could miss a cache. It is only the same pain as not being able to find a taditional cache because it was stolen. Maybe a new icon to represent traveling caches from the rest would help. Just don't do the cache if you cannot handle disappointment.

Another thing that helps and what I did, but the cache owner deleted not to long after, is to post a note on the cache page telling people that you are on the way out the door to go look for the cache. This way others that are interested can be spared the time of missing the cache..

Maldar

5.7k · March 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by maldar:
I agree with you umc. Don't search for it if you don't want the headache. I personnally like the fact that I could miss a cache. It is only the same pain as not being able to find a taditional cache because it was stolen. Maybe a new icon to represent traveling caches from the rest would help. Just don't do the cache if you cannot handle disappointment.

It's not the disappointment I mind but the waste of my time. If there were a way (and in some cases of good moving caches, there is a way) to indicate that the cache has moved so I don't spend 30 minutes looking around for something that isn't there, I would have less of a problem with them. As it is, I don't go for the ones that aren't on my closest 500 caches and for the ones that are in my closest 500, I usually wait to see if they will move out on their own and only if the stop for a few days will I go and find them to get them off my list.

I'm pretty sure that if there were a 50% chance that a cache isn't there, a lot of people would get fed up with geocaching as a big waste of time. I'm not sure if I'm fully getting my point across, but hey, that wouldn't be the first time.

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

March 26, 2003

As an owner of a moveable that would not work as a travel bug, here's my 2c ...

There are several moveable caches in my area, and to my knowledge there have been no logistical issues caused by the fact that a cache is moveable. I seriously hope that Jeremy's post can be taken as read that it is only a _guideline_ and not that moveables are banned outright. If there are logistical problems with a moveable, then the cache owner should be responsible for resolving it. I'd like to think that gc.com can be more trusting of it's users and be accomodating of the unique caching flavours that are found in different clusters of cachers. Otherwise, we'll all eventually end up looking for plastic boxes shoved in tree trunks because that's all that is allowed.

The nature of geocaching is such that there is an onus on both cache owner and finder to act responsibly. I respect that there is some need for moderation and approval to keep things in check, but to suggest rules in place of respected guidelines pushes the limits of what people want to do effectively, at the expense of denying others what might be a great experience.

If a cache is specifically stated as a moveable, what's the problem? If people have some dire issue with something different that someone else might beat them to, they don't have to go after it. Perhaps this is a gap in the system that needs to be addressed so that people don't get confused (although if anyone reads the cache page, I don't see how).

In my area, cachers who don't like moveables don't do them, simple. For the time being, unless an attempt is made to actually stifle the flexible spirit of geocaching, it's business as usual for me.

Cheers,

- Mind Socket Geocaching

March 26, 2003

You beat me to it Mind Socket...

Yet another "rule" to limit the choice and creativity within geocaching...

As MS said, there are many moveable caches within the Sydney area and they are very popular. Unless they don't read the cache page before they go on the hunt, most people accept the challenge of getting there before their caching colleagues and that is part of the fun...

Some of these caches (such as MS's) have very interesting themes and should be embraced rather than suppressed.

I think that I speak for the vast majority of Sydney cachers when I say to Jeremy, please reconsider this absurd decision, or at least try to explain your reasoning in more than 2 words...

If, as some other contributors to this thread have already said, the reason for this decision is that the approvers don't have any control over the location of the cache, isn't this also the case for the second and subsequent waypoints of multi-caches - are they to be banned too???

We are perfectly capable of policing geocaching on a local basis, and bad / unwise cache placement is swiftly commented on and corrected...

If this decision is not reconsidered or if further "rules" are introduced I regret to say there will be another member who will not be renewing his subscription...

One angry Leek in Sydney, Australia...

You will seek the Cache, and you will find it if

you seek it with all your heart and with all your soul...(with apologies to Deuteronomy)

March 26, 2003

You know I've been caching for a little over a year and I love it. When rules started being written about no dangerous items in caches(guns, knives, lighters, etc.) I had no problem with it (it just reminded me of my college sculpture professor telling me "you have to idiot-proof your work") ...it's the same thing as making drugs illegal - we are preventing people from killing themselves, what is next - making butter illegal because it contributes to heart disease??? I know these are extreme comparrisons - but it is in the same vein. Do we really have to idiot-proof the world? Isn't that what the Darwin Awards are for?

OK ...so fine, ban dangerous items. But what is the point narrowing the field of play in geocaching and creating some kind of predictable sport. Won't it get boring???

People whine wqy too much -- people have become weak and forget that you have a mind and the purpose of that mind is to make decisions. With those decisions you will hopefully take some action and that action will have consequences. Take responcibility for the consequences of your actions and stop whining that you have to LOOK at a cache that you don't like on your cache page.

I don't usually go off like this but enough is enough! ..I'm thinking I'm going to stop reading the forums (it's a constant b*tch session! I feel like i;m still @ the office!!!) and I'm going to get out in the woods and do what I enjoy ...hunt treasure.

March 26, 2003

Ok when you plan to visit a moving cache log a note with the time your going to be there. That way someone else will know. Just because someone doesnt like something is no reason to ban it. Thats what wrong with this country. Everybody wants to be a dictator!!

Rino 110

MeriGreen 128

4.7k · March 26, 2003

i'd like to go on record as being in favor of moving caches. if you know you're chasing a mover, you assume the risk that you might get beaten to it.

go ahead, try to out-weird me.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

March 26, 2003

I was probably the person to have the first moving cache archived. I actually submitted it before Jeremy disclosed that they were no longer permitted. The people around here (West Michigan) thought it was a good idea. We're running out of caches that we haven't found. I worked on the concept and how it would be best to operate it for 2 weeks or more. I got the perfect size cache, painted it camo, filled it, wrote a note in the log about how it would work, then went out in the rain to place it. And then it gets archived because someone decided THAT DAY that they were no longer allowed. How about a nice mailing to all your charter members when you're going to unilaterally decide to change the rules? By the way, I have been a member since May 2002 and have never whined before. I don't think I've ever even posted before. Perhaps it is time for Michigan to secede.

March 26, 2003

quote:
It's not the disappointment I mind but the waste of my time. If there were a way (and in some cases of good moving caches, there is a way) to indicate that the cache has moved so I don't spend 30 minutes looking around for something that isn't there, I would have less of a problem with them.

You are right about a way to indicate that the cache has been moved. I have done 2 traveling caches. The first had biodegratable markers with a number that a searcher could use to log the find if they missed it. The second was a micro traveling cache and was not capable of holding a marker. The use of popsicle sticks as markers is recommended, and as my last post on this topic read, Post a not to the cache page when you leave to search for the cache. Readers should give the poster 24hrs to post a find and then consider the cache fair game.

Maldar

1.1k · March 26, 2003

I'm neither for nor against moving caches. They are fine by me, but when reading the guidelines, I thought that moving caches were not allowed for awhile already, on the simple guidelines that if you placed a cache at one location, it had to be there for the next person, and the next and the next, etc. Hence my original question as to since when do we still allow them, which obviously we don't as of about a week ago. So I guess moving caches were always allowed, and were considered an exception to the guidelines...I don't know, but that sorta sounded contradicting. if I knew they were allowed, I would have placed one myself.

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

1.1k · March 26, 2003

One comment I see is that by allowing moving caches, there is the potential that the cache would be moved to a banned area, foregoing any approval process. A couple of people have compared it to multi's in that you don't know where the final stage of the multi is and could be in a banned place too. I think an EXCELLENT idea for multis would be a requirement for the person creating the cache to tell the approver where each stage is...this only makes sense, the problem would be solved in this case with multis.

Ok an issue with moving caches that move to a completely new location (as opposed to those that move from existing cache to existing cache). What happens if a cacher finds it, and then 5 other people go to attempt to find it that day too, because the person that found it hasn't logged it yet as being gone. How long do these 5 people have to search for it in vain until they give it? In this case I think moving caches are a bad idea. Simply posting a note telling others that you are going for it, does not mean much...what is to stop someone else from trying to beat you there, because they want to find it too?

As for moving caches that move from cache to cache location...I would like someone to provide me an example as to how that moving cache is different from a travel bug?!

These are just curious questions I have to understand the sport more, and I am all for the more caches and the more unique and different types the better. However, in certain situations, some guidelines are needed for the better of the sport.

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

1.6k · March 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by res2100:

Ok an issue with moving caches that move to a completely new location (as opposed to those that move from existing cache to existing cache). What happens if a cacher finds it, and then 5 other people go to attempt to find it that day too, because the person that found it hasn't logged it yet as being gone. How long do these 5 people have to search for it in vain until they give in? In this case I think moving caches are a bad idea.

How long does an experienced geocacher have to look for a cache hiden by a newbiw hider who took their readings with the wrong datum, and the cache is 300 metres away?

How long does a cacher have to look for a cache hidden really well, but with an under-rated difficulty? Or when there is bad reception?

How long does any cacher have to spend looking for a cache that has been plundered, and gone missing?

In these cases, most geocaches are a bad idea.

canadazuuk

1.6k · March 26, 2003

I know of one prominent travelling cache where folks are requested to leave behind a small bit of red flagging tape so others know it is gone.

My travelling cache does NOT require this, as my area is less active. Generally, folks look for 15 minutes, and if it isn't there, oh well.

I stand by these caches that are *confined* to a geographical area.

I'm not really in support of caches that travel from cache to cache, or have unrealistic boundaries.

I think a *confined* area should be defined as: "within 50 miles or less"

The benefits of this type of cache is that it has the potential of reducing geoclutter, while providing additional find attempts for cachers. It also can allow for some folks, the chance to hide a cache.

canadazuuk

1.4k · March 26, 2003

I think a better alternative for approving multis (and caches in general) would be to include local geocachers and preferably organizations in the approval process. This may be in the works, I don't know. But that's honestly the best route. How can someone from Washinton keep track of the allowances and limitations active in each state? They can't and it's not reasonable to expect they can. Perhaps that is why in many cases a 'safest route' approach is taken on things.

It's not easy to 'route' the requests for approval based on regions either though. I can understand the challenges with doing that.

I initially felt that the ban on moving caches was logical, but the point that the end point of multis is unknown changed my mind. There has to be a certain level of trust placed in the placer of a cache and then in the community seeking the cache. We should trust that #1 the placer will not endanger the sport and #2 that if #1 fails, the community will step up and use the archiving features to help TPTB understand the problems with the cache.

In at least one case that I know of though... the archive feature has not triggered an action on the part of either the owner of the cache or TPTB. What's my point? I dunno. Take from this what you can.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

3k · March 26, 2003

I agree with ya trippy and I think I've mentioned this in the past here and elsewhere that more approvers are needed. Well its obvious to me but maybe not to anyone else. Why is that?

I can't wait until geocache chaperones are needed for each traditional cache placement. I say traditional because thats all that will be left by that point but then again maybe there will be halt to cache placements of any kind all together.

______________________________________________________________________________________

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.

March 27, 2003

We need more LOCAL approvers! I will donate my time for the cause!!!

Rino 110

MeriGreen 128

March 27, 2003

Intresting. I never heard of that other site. I see that Animal Magnetism appears there as well but most of the others are over 25 miles away from me.

Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

March 27, 2003

if we always stuck with how things were done we would still have slavery, black and white televisions and driving yugos.

things MUST evolve, change, adapt.. in order for things to keep going. I placed a lot of movings caches, and yes, i had logistical difficulties.. but that is the learning process.. eventually a system will be found that is perfect, but we wont achieve that if we ban them.

change is good ya know... it helps mix things up.

April 7, 2003

When I discovered geocaching a year ago I was very excited about such a creative idea! And since then have had much fun discovering the creative ideas that other cachers have come up with... locationless, virtual, moving, etc... as well various containers, themes, hiding places. That variety and the excitement of creative thinking have made it fun.

I suspect that the creaters of the site know the great satisfaction from their own creativity. That same satisfaction comes to those with other creative ideas in the sport, and the new facets of the sport have provided a very fun sense of discovery in the rest of us.

I applaud the site for fostering such creativity and hope that the PTB don't overlook that appeal to many of us that venture here.

** **

Since when do we allow moving caches?

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

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