Jump to content

"Vacation" Caches


MedicOne

Recommended Posts

When placing caches I've always tried to comply with all the posted guidelines for placing caches. One that comes to mind is the following: Placing caches on vacation is unacceptable and these caches will NOT be approved on the web site. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. Please be responsible. That having been said I repeatedly see caches placed in areas such as the Frank Church Wilderness area by obvious vacationers on float trips etc. Two that come to mind are Cold Hard Cache and Cache me if you can. Both of these caches were placed by a Maryland resident yet both were approved "on the web site." How would that be different from say me placing a cache in Hawaii when I visit this December - afterall, I'll be back next year to "maintain" it. Just a thought. Be interested in hearing others thoughts on this subject.

 

(Admin didn't edit. Trying to reset General Forums)

 

[This message was edited by Jeremy (Admin) on November 03, 2003 at 01:54 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MedicOne:

When placing caches I've always tried to comply with all the posted guidelines for placing caches. One that comes to mind is the following: Placing caches on vacation is unacceptable and these caches will NOT be approved on the web site. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. Please be responsible. That having been said I repeatedly see caches placed in areas such as the Frank Church Wilderness area by obvious vacationers on float trips etc. Two that come to mind are Cold Hard Cache and Cache me if you can. Both of these caches were placed by a Maryland resident yet both were approved "on the web site." How would that be different from say me placing a cache in Hawaii when I visit this December - afterall, I'll be back next year to "maintain" it. Just a thought. Be interested in hearing others thoughts on this subject.


You didn't provide waypoint IDs or links to these caches, so we can't tell when they were placed. These could be caches that were grandfathered in when the rules changed.

 

3608_2800.gif

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

Link to comment

I'd like to say that first off, I agree with the policy of "no vacation caches". Of the two caches you mention, I'd have to agree that they are both vacation caches and should not have been approved. The approver either was asleep or wasn't attentive when reviewing those two caches.

 

Coincidentally, we frequent the area of these two caches every year, but I'd hesitate putting a cache there becuase of the policy. I'm not of the opinion that the whole planet has to be blanketed with caches every 528 feet. Those two caches are so remote that it'll be a miracle if they get one visit a year. My thought on seeing caches like that is, "what's the point".

 

BTW, it looks like Hawaii has a bunch of caches already icon_biggrin.gif

 

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

Link to comment

In answer to Prime Suspect Cold Hard Cache (GCGYA4) was placed on 9/21/2003. Cache Me If You Can (GCGY9Z) was also placed on 9/21/2003. Neither of these should have been "Grand fathered" under the old system as I know the vacation cache clause has been in effect throughout the summer if not longer. Cold Hard Cache is 38 miles into the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in the Franch Church River of No Return Wilderness Area. As such, NO ONE will maintain this cache least of all someone from Maryland. Point being if this ISN'T a "vacation" cache then what is it?

 

In reply to Touchstone - I agree, there are a bunch of caches in Hawaii already. A lot of the ones I found last December were in poor shape because of the fact that they ARE vacation caches. Since I whole heartedly agree with the Vacation Cache polity I wouldn't consider placing one in Hawaii - mine was a rhetorical question.

Link to comment

As an approver I can't speak to these specific caches, but I can tell you in general we won't approve a cache placed on vacation. It's easy to tell in places like Hawaii, but in other cases it's not.

 

Pick ten caches at random, go to the cache owner's profile page, and see if he or she has filled in where they live. That's one of the problems. The second is in looking at the cache placer's recent activity. If he found 20 caches in your state does that mean he now lives there and can maintain a cache there?

 

It's tough. We try to give people the benefit of the doubt and give them a link to the rules on the submission page, but we do question the obvious vacation caches. Some do sneak by though.

 

If the ones you've cited weren't in such a remote place I'd also remind you that many vacation caches do have local "sponsors" or "guardians" who can check on the cache if needed. I try to document that on the vacation caches that I do approve, but as I said.... we aren't perfect and some get through.

 

Thanks!

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

Link to comment

It's no secret how I feel about vacation caches for anyone who reads the forums regularly, but I'll jump here and say it again anyway in support of MecidOne.

 

I hate 'em!

 

Really can't put it any simpler than that.

 

Now to respond to Erik.

 

First let me say that I totally understand the approvers have a rough and thankless job, and I have great appreciation for what they do. There would be a lot more vacation caches and obscenely lame virtuals if it weren't for the approvers taking the heat and filtering out the riff-raff before the rest of us need to see it?

 

So, that said, I have this question for the approvers and the public in general. For those true vacation caches that do sneak through the cracks, would it be appropriate for the approvers to alert the cache owner of the issue, and give them reasonable opportunity to make corrections (i.e. find a volunteer sponsor), and if corrections can't be made, post that it be removed by the next finder and archived.

 

Seems to me that would be more appropriate than saying "Whoops! Well, it's too late now." Just my thoughts on the subject.

 

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

"We never seek things for themselves --

what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

Link to comment

This all makes sense when viewed from Groundspeak's perspective.

 

The important thing to realize here is that as a cache hider, your needs and desires are of no consequence to Groundspeak. You will be allowed to place a cache only if you can convince them that you will be at their beck and call to do whatever they request whenever they request it.

 

Thus, unless you promise them that you will buy a ticket to Hawaii to go check on the cache if somebody reports a DNF, you won't be allowed to place the cache.

 

Remember: as a cache hider, you are scum, and not to be trusted. Keep that in mind, and act accordingly.

Link to comment

Whoa! I didn't intend for this to turn into a flame Groundspeak administration. Those individuals do what they do as VOLUNTEERS for a sport/hobby that THEY love. What I meant to get across in my initial post was the fact that it should be incumbent upon the individual who place caches to know the guidelines and follow them. Apparently I didn't impart my thoughts well. There is a T-shirt that states the difference between cache and trash is maintenance. If you can't maintain it don't place it! Fairly simple.

I was contacted by the individual who approved these caches (a gentleman whom I know personally and for whom I have utmost respect); he had this to say: "I was responsible for posting these caches and the only excuse I have is that they are ones that slipped through." He goes on to say "Vacation caches are among the hardest to determine. So few people have their location listed on their profiles that it is hit-or-miss when checking there. You can sometimes check the person's previous finds and hides to see where they are located but this can also give vague results. In the case of these caches, the results are quite clear, but when reviewing hundreds of caches a month and finding that these methods only provide helpful information a fraction of the time it is easy to slip and drop those process from a review."

My hat is off to the volunteer work the admin guys do to proliferate this sport. Appears to be a thankless and time consuming job with very poor wages. The guidelines for hiding a cache are, in my opinion, fairly straight forward and easy to follow. If we police ourselves Groundspeak won't have to do it for us.

Link to comment

quote:
Those individuals do what they do as VOLUNTEERS for a sport/hobby that THEY love.

The staff of Groundspeak are volunteers? Gee, I could just swear I sent them money.

 

My comments are not directed at the approvers, who are indeed volunteers. They are directed at those responsible for the demeaning and insulting policies the approvers are forced to implement. Those people are not volunteers.

 

It's probably hopeless, but maybe it's worth pointing out that those who hide caches are also volunteers, you know.

 

[This message was edited by fizzymagic on October 28, 2003 at 03:05 PM.]

Link to comment

I had an opportunity to visit 3 or 4 "vacation" caches earlier this year in Mexico. Finding caches on foreign soil was a vacation highlight for us, and apparently for the several other visitors who have found these same caches. I think it would be terrific if special consideration could be allowed for caches in resort areas which are unlikely to have a sufficient base of resident cache maintainers.

Link to comment

quote:
You will be allowed to place a cache only if you can convince them that you will be at their beck and call to do whatever they request whenever they request it.

 

Wrong, you can hide a cache any place you darn well please. Nobody is stopping you. You just have to list it someplace else if it doesn't adhere to the guidelines developed by Groundspeak.

 

I think the vast majority of geocachers think Groundspeak's requirements are reasonable, sensible and have the best interest of this sport in mind (hence the popularity of this site). There is a small, vocal minority who stomp their feet like little children, demanding that they be allowed to list any cache they want on this site. They just don't get it icon_rolleyes.gif.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on October 29, 2003 at 07:24 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

There is a small, vocal minority who stomp their feet like little children, demanding that they be allow to list any cache they want on this site.


Argument by personal insult is not likely to further discussion. Besides, I thought it was supposed to be against the forum guidelines. Apparently for Mr. Snat, "reasonable" rules only apply to other people.

 

I find it especially interesting that Mr. Snat's insult du jour consists of comparison to small children; my objection to Groundspeak's policies is precisely that they treat cache hiders as if they were small children. Mr. Snat may be happy being treated like an irresponsible child, but his sanctimonious exhortation to the rest that we allow it is uncalled-for.

 

Remember: the ends do not always justify the means.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

 

Remember: the ends do not always justify the means.


 

So, do you have any useful suggestions to offer, or just a rant about the the website?

 

There are caches out there that were placed while on vacation. If a problem develops with them, who do you think is responsible for fixing or removing the container?

 

Ron/yumitori

 

---

 

Remember what the dormouse said...

Link to comment

My all-time favorite cache is a "vacation cache." It sat there nice and dry for 2 long years before I came along. I doubt anyone will ever have any trouble with the cache as it is.

 

BTW, there will be those who say I didn't find it, or I should have just posted a note because I didn't sign the log. Well, tongue.gif to them. If I'd have opened the zip lock bags in the falling slush, I could have never dried the contents back out. Hopefully, I'll get back up there in 2 years, and I'll sign it then. Bet noone visits the cache between now and then....

 

I would have loved to place about 4 caches on the loop we hiked. There were awesome locations - an old abandoned miner's cabin, a rock cairn at the top of Hunchback Pass, numerous waterfalls.... None of these would have been approved, but they would undoubtably be someone else's favorite find...

 

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."- Jim Elliot

Texas Geocaching

Link to comment

Seems to me, if you don't like the rules here, you can always go and start your own Cache Hunting site, with your own rules.

 

I'm not being snarky - there is nowt to stop anyone from putting a link in a post here to "vacaching" or something along those lines.

 

But if you want it posted under this site, you should follow this sites rules - however frustrating they may appear to you.

 

I have to go go out tomorrow after work to double check mine (a rock in the woods), as it's had its first "not found" and it's pretty easy... couldn't do that if it were far away, so the rule makes sense to me. On the other hand... a specific "vacation run cache system" might be cool too. But on another site.

 

My two cents - keep the change :-)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by skydiver:

 

So, that said, I have this question for the approvers and the public in general. For those true vacation caches that do sneak through the cracks, would it be appropriate for the approvers to alert the cache owner of the issue, and give them reasonable opportunity to make corrections (i.e. find a volunteer sponsor), and if corrections can't be made, post that it be removed by the next finder and archived.

 

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

http://www.skydivergear.com/cgibin/cpshop.cgi/pascal2

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


 

No, don't remove the caches already out there. There are cachers out here who enjoy finding them. If a problem with a cache develops, post a note on the page for the next finder to remove the cache. I have planned trips and a vacation around finding caches, including a trip with a single cache find in mind.

 

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."- Jim Elliot

Texas Geocaching

Link to comment

quote:
Argument by personal insult is not likely to further discussion. Besides, I thought it was supposed to be against the forum guidelines. Apparently for Mr. Snat, "reasonable" rules only apply to other people.

 

I find it especially interesting that Mr. Snat's insult du jour consists of comparison to small children; my objection to Groundspeak's policies is precisely that they treat cache hiders as if they were small children. Mr. Snat may be happy being treated like an irresponsible child, but his sanctimonious exhortation to the rest that we allow it is uncalled-for.


 

I'm sorry, I thought this was Keystone Approver's job.

 

quote:
Argument by personal insult is not likely to further discussion.

 

Personal insult? Only if you take it personally. I don't recall mentioning your name. But if you feel the shoe fits, feel free to put it on.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on October 29, 2003 at 07:28 PM.]

Link to comment

First let me thank BP for pointing out it’s “Toeing the company line” and not “towing” The geocaching rules already seem easier to follow. I always pictured myself towing a huge ship into port belonging to Norwegian Lines. Whew. I’m glad I don’t have to do that anymore!

 

Having gotten past that, let me add a few more childish caching beliefs about vacation caches. (My wife thinks any cacher over 10 is already childish so I’m being redundant in her mind.) I could call myself a rebel from The Bronx instead of childish but a “northern rebel” sounds like an oxymoron.

 

I digress. So your vacation cache needs maintenance. Well, I’ve replaced containers and dried them out here locally for others. I never looked to see whose cache it was – could have been placed from California, but I didn’t care. I just helped out. I know that if I asked those who visit my plundered cache, they would help. What business is it of anyone that I asked. Isn’t that just being friendly or are we such independent geeks that we refuse to socialize in that way? You know, you might actually make new friends in foreign places by asking them to help with your vacation cache.

 

I’ve also childishly mentioned before that much of the complaint about vacation caches are just NIMBY. People not wanting others to take valuable caching areas from their turf. NJ Admin brick would have been a lightweight response to some barbs I got for previously suggesting that! Heck, the truth is I’m jealous too when a local places a cache in a place before me that I had my eye on. Let’s get honest about that.

 

In Central Park in Manhattan, loads of visitors to NYC place vacation caches. Gives me an opportunity to do some easy caches with my dog while my wife shops in Bloomingdales. And they really enjoy it too. I think it’s great. Who says New Yorkers aren’t friendly?

 

Frankly, this is a tempest in a teapot. Rules will never be changed if no one complains about them. Plus the forum would be boring without controversy and everyone would stop coming. Arguments and competition keeps the juices flowing and interest peeked.

 

By the way, the vacation cache I placed in Florida (currently archived) was called "Greetings from New York". Talk about broadcasting a vacation cache! I wonder what my chances are of getting that one by the approvers if I was to try to do it again? icon_cool.gif

 

Alan

Link to comment

I would like to see some moderation to the policy. I understand the reasoning for the current policy, and I believe it is appropriate for most circumstances; but I also think "vacation" or "business trip" caches can be a legitimate way of introducing geocaching to new areas, especially outside the U.S. I also think they can be done in such a way to minimize, or even eliminate, the negative aspects usually associated with this kind of cache.

 

I think two appropriate types of caches to introduce geocaching to a new area are virtual caches and small coin caches. I placed this virtual cache nearly two years ago. It was the first cache "hidden" on this island, but now there are ~65 there for both visitors and locals to enjoy. Well-placed virtual caches don't require a physical presence for routine maintenance.

 

I also placed this coin cache on another island a year ago. At the time, there was only one other (a virtual) cache and NO local geocachers. Now there are 20 caches and a small but growing number of local geocachers. One of them, "rjt", has graciously checked in on my cache when questions have arisen during my absence. If coin caches ARE found by non-cachers, I think they are likely to be either left alone or removed entirely; I don't know of any that have been trashed.

 

In conclusion, I think "vacation" and "business trip" caches can be valuable "seeds" that introduce geocaching to new areas IF they are planted carefully and with forethought. I'll be going to Kazakhstan in a few weeks, and I'd love to introduce geocaching to that country by leaving a virtual or coin cache; but unless some moderation is allowed, it will have to wait until a local resident decides to hide one.

 

worldtraveler

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by worldtraveler:

I would like to see some moderation to the policy. I understand the reasoning for the current policy, and I believe it is appropriate for most circumstances; but I also think "vacation" or "business trip" caches can be a legitimate way of introducing geocaching to new areas, especially outside the U.S. I also think they can be done in such a way to minimize, or even eliminate, the negative aspects usually associated with this kind of cache.

 

I think two appropriate types of caches to introduce geocaching to a new area are virtual caches and small coin caches. I placed http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=15950 nearly two years ago. It was the first cache "hidden" on this island, but now there are ~65 there for both visitors and locals to enjoy. Well-placed virtual caches don't require a physical presence for routine maintenance.

 

I also placed http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=17064 on another island a year ago. At the time, there was only one other (a virtual) cache and NO local geocachers. Now there are 20 caches and a small but growing number of local geocachers. One of them, "rjt", has graciously checked in on my cache when questions have arisen during my absence. If coin caches ARE found by non-cachers, I think they are likely to be either left alone or removed entirely; I don't know of any that have been trashed.

 

In conclusion, I think "vacation" and "business trip" caches can be valuable "seeds" that introduce geocaching to new areas IF they are planted carefully and with forethought. I'll be going to Kazakhstan in a few weeks, and I'd love to introduce geocaching to that country by leaving a virtual or coin cache; but unless some moderation is allowed, it will have to wait until a local resident decides to hide one.

 

worldtraveler


 

A bit OT but...DANG you get to some cool cache locations!!

 

"Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!"

Link to comment

Sorry, i'm in hurry and i have no time to read the whole thread, but the situation with vacation caches is nowadays like this:

 

They are not approved, UNLESS there is someone who can maintain the cache. To put it on other words: feel free to place a vacation cache, but BEFORE you place it, make a deal with local geocacher, relative or who ever, and arrange the maintenance of the cache. Remember that the maintainer must be reached either directly or via you. And please state clearly on your cache page, who is the maintainer and how to reach him / her.

Link to comment

Vacation caches....now that is something to debate.

 

First of all, is the term "vacation cache" correct, or should there be another term used? Not everyone goes somewhere when on vacation. Somepeople may travel for something, but don't consider a vacation. There are many instances that could relate to a "vacation cache". The reasoning for not allowing a "vacation cache" is mainly because they are not maintained and become geolitter. That happens to regular caches that people place just a few miles from their homes as well, and can not be stopped. I think the term "vacation cache" should be dropped and another term put in it's place. something like "unmaintained cache", as that is really what it's all about. That way, you don't single out people who can place caches and keep them maintained from a distance. Then there is the thing on the distance. Some think a vacation cache is one that is placed a distance away from where one lives. But there is no mention of what a distance is. Where is the line drawn? As Erik stated, it's hard to catch those who place caches from a distance away, when they don't enter where they are from. Well they could lie about it even if they did put where they are from and then even change it before submitting the cache to make them look like they live in that spot. Then there are the caches that when you look at the profile, the placer doesn't have nay finds at all. Can you say sock puppet? And why? Because they know that if they placed a cache under their regular name in a plce that was a distance from them, that it would be denied. So in turn they can cheat themselves and the system and be someone else to obtain their goal. I can place a cache somewhere and tell the approver that I travel there once a week or that I have arrangements for someone else to check on it when it needs it. According to statements from approvers, this would be accepted. But I could easily lie about that, if my goal is to list a cache that I placed there. It's an uphill battle for the approvers. I say drop the "vacation" term and stop worrying about the distance thing. Make them unmaintained caches and work on weeding out those. And then even at that....good luck.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

Link to comment

I read in a forum the other day in a post on a similar subject that a cache placer should be able to reach it within the approximate average time between finds of that cache. ie if it is found once every week, they should be able to get to it within a week. By that standard, the caches that started this topic would be fine, as per touchstone's quote:

quote:
Those two caches are so remote that it'll be a miracle if they get one visit a year.
.

 

On a further note, if geocaching.com don't approve them, they'll just get posted on navicache and not be visited so often. Although I check both sites before I go out caching, i know that most don't.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

I think the vast majority of geocachers think Groundspeak's requirements are reasonable, sensible and have the best interest of this sport in mind (hence the popularity of this site).


 

Hmmmmm, it could also be something to do with the amazing co-incidence that it has a domain name the same as the sport.

 

seriously though, I personally support the viewpoint that micro's should be placeable by vacationers, especially in vacation spots.

 

Hey, how about working out some geocacher vacation resorts, someplace amazing that has no caches.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak could introduce a rule saying that a micro "un-maintained cache" is placable if there are no existing caches within say 10 miles of that spot. Perhaps as some have said, this would encourage placing of maintained caches in the area and bring new challenges and followers of our sport.

 

Such a rule could even start a new branch of geocaching, finding a 10 mile radius circle in which there are no caches, then going to the centre and trying to find a valid spot to hide a cache, in a place you've never been before. Sounds like great fun to me.

Link to comment

quote:
DaJagman

Geocacher

posted October 30, 2003 05:42 PM

quote:

... and the spirit of the sport is to help out your fellow geocacher if you can, in thanks for the fun of finding their cache.


 

I copied this part of your post from your other topic thread as I felt it best distilled the most important point about a vacation or any other cache I was trying to make above. Thanks DaJagman for doing it for me.

 

Alan

Link to comment

quote:
Perhaps Groundspeak could introduce a rule saying that a micro "un-maintained cache" is placable if there are no existing caches within say 10 miles of that spot.

 

OK, you dump a micro cache while on vacation.

 

1. Who will check out the cache after several DNF's to make sure its still there?

2. Who will check out the coordinates, if they turn out to be bad?

3. Who will replace the log book if it's soggy or full?

4. Who will replace the container if its broken or leaking?

5. Who will deal with local authorities if it's illegally placed, or if they develop geocaching rules?

6. Who will remove the cache at the end of its life?

7. Who is going to placate locals who find out that some clueless vacationer placed a cache in a bad spot and screwed things up for them?

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

OK, you dump a micro cache while on vacation.

 

1. Who will check out the cache after several DNF's to make sure its still there?

2. Who will check out the coordinates, if they turn out to be bad?

3. Who will replace the log book if it's soggy or full?

4. Who will replace the container if its broken or leaking?

5. Who will deal with local authorities if it's illegally placed, or if they develop geocaching rules?

6. Who will remove the cache at the end of its life?

7. Who is going to placate locals who find out that some clueless vacationer placed a cache in a bad spot and screwed things up for them?

 

_"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm_


 

Good answer. Did you save that somewhere so you can just copy/paste next week, and the week after, and the week after that.... when this comes up again in another thread?

 

Not holding back icon_biggrin.gif

Link to comment

quote:
OK, you dump a micro cache while on vacation.

 

1. Who will check out the cache after several DNF's to make sure its still there?

2. Who will check out the coordinates, if they turn out to be bad?

3. Who will replace the log book if it's soggy or full?

4. Who will replace the container if its broken or leaking?

5. Who will deal with local authorities if it's illegally placed, or if they develop geocaching rules?

6. Who will remove the cache at the end of its life?

7. Who is going to placate locals who find out that some clueless vacationer placed a cache in a bad spot and screwed things up for them?


 

All good points if yu're doing this all by yourself. Like said previously,"...... and the spirit of the sport is to help out your fellow geocacher if you can, in thanks for the fun of finding their cache."

 

Ever ask for help? When I placed a local cache in a NRA park and then learned it was illegal, I asked another cacher if he would like to get it for me and log the last find and use the container to create his own cache somewheres?. He agreed. Unfortuntaely, it was gone by the time he got there.

 

Did you ever dry out and/or replace a damaged or wet container in someone else cache?. I have and I'm sure many have done the same. Seeing the logs from my watch list, I hit the cache taking along an extra container.

 

It's just a matter of thinking outside the box and be willing to ask for help. Most people would be glad to give you a hand.

 

Alan

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

1. Who will check out the cache after several DNF's to make sure its still there?

2. Who will check out the coordinates, if they turn out to be bad?

3. Who will replace the log book if it's soggy or full?

4. Who will replace the container if its broken or leaking?

5. Who will deal with local authorities if it's illegally placed, or if they develop geocaching rules?

6. Who will remove the cache at the end of its life?


 

These are all valid. (7 was removed) They can all be summed up in the ability to maintain the cache.

 

Alan2 while geocachers can and do come along and do cache maintainance you can't plan on it as a cache placer. Someone who plants a cache needs to be able to say "I am responsible for this cache" and be able to back it up.

Link to comment

quote:

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

Originally posted by Mopar:

While you were vacationing in an unfamiliar area, did you know that park your eyeing for a micro requires a permit (with a steep fine for not getting one!) to place a cache? The locals do.

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

 

In my general experience, "Locals" are just as likely not to know this as anyone else. Also, someone from out of town is far more likely to check local park regs than the local who drives past it every day and takes it for granted.

 

quote:

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

Did you know the spot you picked out is 10ft away from the final location of that cool multi listed as starting .2 miles away that you didn't look for because you didn't have time for a multi between business meetings? The locals do.

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

 

The nearest Cache to my house is the start of a really fun looking Multi, but I haven't had time yet to go do it. the only time I have that ammount of time spare is when I am away on Vacation.

 

quote:

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

Did you know that cute little spot with nobody around today is usually a hang-out for drug dealers? The locals do.

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

 

Or perhaps someone from out of town is more likely to spot something that looks out of place than the local that takes it for granted. Or perhaps the resident of San Francisco or Brighton (UK), vacationing in Texas is more likely to spot the signs of a clandestine meeting place for Gay men to meet for annonymous sex than the locals (I read an example of this on another thread)

 

 

quote:

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

Gee, the coords you submitted for the cache don't look right. Everyone seems to be searching in the wrong place. Maybe you made a mistake? Can you run back out and recheck your coords? The locals can.

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

 

Personally, I check my GPS against nearby cache locations to see how good the co-ords are that day before i take readings for a cache location, then I leave the GPSr averaging for at least 15 minutes stationary before I start taking co-ords (always at least 6 satelites in view and a least one WAAS). If the co-ords are out, there is every chance the hardware used to get them is inaccurate, no matter how many times that hardware goes back to the spot, there's little chance the co-ords are going to be any better. My simple advice for this is to find the place, waypoint it, then go back another day to place the cache, using your original waypoint as if you were hunting for a cache. if you can find it, chances are someone else can.

 

quote:

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

 

+ _"This is gc.com, love it or leave it "_

 

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

 

This is GC.com, it is where it is because of user feedback and if that stops, so will GC.com

 

All of my answers to your comments are simply plucked from the essence of the guidelines for placing a cache prior to the no vacation caches rule coming into force. And all make good sense for any cache to be placed, no matter how far from home. My Current multi cache project has so far taken me 2 weeks of research along these guidelines, so far I only have the co-ords for a third of the caches and none have yet been actually placed. (and this is in my home town)

 

responsible placing of caches does not have to rule out vacation micros, and the spirit of the sport is to help out your fellow geocacher if you can, in thanks for the fun of finding their cache.

 

I have copied the above from the other thread, which ends in the quote Alan2 quoted me on. I think whilst the wordings are a little different, mopars comments are similar to mr Snat's

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DaJagman:

responsible placing of caches does not have to rule out vacation micros, and the spirit of the sport is to help out your fellow geocacher if you can, in thanks for the fun of finding their cache.


Yes, but vacation cache hiders have shown that they are NOT responsible.

Vacation caches used to be allowed before some people were irresponsible and ruined it for everyone else.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

1. Who will check out the cache after several DNF's to make sure its still there?

2. Who will check out the coordinates, if they turn out to be bad?

3. Who will replace the log book if it's soggy or full?

4. Who will replace the container if its broken or leaking?

5. Who will deal with local authorities if it's illegally placed, or if they develop geocaching rules?

6. Who will remove the cache at the end of its life?

7. Who is going to placate locals who find out that some clueless vacationer placed a cache in a bad spot and screwed things up for them?

 


1: The next geocacher who emails the placer to get better location clues, after seeing a lot of DNFs. or perhaps the local who found it a couple of months ago.

2: I'd rather someone else did, maybe there's a problem with my GPSr and it's not going to be any different a second time.

3: Generally, the geocacher who finds it will probably have a spare log, after thinking how nice it was that when someone found that in one of his/her caches, they replaced it for them then emailed to ask if they'd like the now dried old one mailed.

4: See 3 (this is only Micros we're talking about here, and film containers/altoids cans are otherwise waste items recycled, not cost items.)

5: See my other post, RESEARCH first, don't place them where this can happen (applies to local caches too)

6: More precisely, who removed the cache and ended it's life?

7: See 5

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by skydiver:

So, that said, I have this question for the approvers and the public in general. For those true vacation caches that do sneak through the cracks, would it be appropriate for the approvers to alert the cache owner of the issue, and give them reasonable opportunity to make corrections (i.e. find a volunteer sponsor), and if corrections can't be made, post that it be removed by the next finder and archived.

 


 

I don't think it's appropriate to remove a cache just because it doesn't fit with GC's Rules, There are other sites in this sport, if you start removing caches listed on them because your site doesn't like them, you'll start a geocaching war.

 

On a note from another post, in a way there is a site that "vacaches" can be posted on www.navicache.com (lets see how long that link survives intact)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

Yes, but vacation cache hiders have shown that they are NOT responsible.


Thanks for posting this. I was having a hard time explaining to some people the supercilious and condescending attitude I find so objectionable in the Groundspeak policies. You articulated it perfectly.

 

Naturally, you don't have any actual evidence to support your claim that most people who would hide so-called "vacation caches" are irresponsible. That's no problem; around here, assuming that most cache hiders are clueless morons is de rigeur.

 

They may in fact be; but I'll bet that most of them don't walk around congratulating themselves about how much better and more responsible they are than all those other cachers.

 

----

 

I know exactly how you will respond, so I figure I'll save you the embarrassment. You likely will claim that you never claimed that most hiders are irresponsible, and that the actions of a few mean that vacation caches must be banned for everyone. Sorry. That's a very poor argument. By simple application of it, you would have to conclude that since a few hiders don't maintain their caches near home, nobody should be allowed to place any caches.

 

What's really going on here is what is known as "argument by lack of imagination." Since you can't think of any way to deal with vacation caches short of banning them outright, you conclude that no other solution exists. Unfortunately, in this case, you're wrong.

 

[This message was edited by fizzymagic on October 31, 2003 at 02:55 AM.]

Link to comment

I thought I would add a little to DaJagman's excellent post above.

 

Groundspeak's current policies actively discourage the kind of community responsibility that he describes. The official Groundspeak policy is: if there is any question about a problem with a cache, archive it first and ask questions later.

 

Thus, if a cache has a problem, it gets archived so that no other cachers can see it. Thus, other cachers don't even have a chance to help out. This policy is especially a problem if the cache owner is no longer active in geocaching.

 

My local admin has tried to deal with this policy problem by making a special cache that contains a list of the local defunct caches. But while his effort is laudable, it is awkward. The sad thing is that there are pretty simple ways to deal with the problem (ways that would work for vacation caches, as well), but implementing those solutions is apparently viewed as less important than changing the cache icons and background colors on the web pages.

 

[This message was edited by fizzymagic on October 31, 2003 at 03:26 AM.]

Link to comment

I'd sure like to know where this official Groundspeak policy is published, because following it would be a whole lot easier and a lot less work for me.

 

Instead, I'm about to write an e-mail to a geocacher buddy of mine on the other side of the state. He's one of the volunteers who help me occasionally when there is a question about a cache nearby. My e-mail will describe the experienced geocacher who came from a neighboring state and dumped a cache in a Pennsylvania State Park. I haven't heard a word from the hider since I asked him for information about the permit which is required for all caches hidden in PA State Parks and Forests. Now it's time for me to follow up and send someone to pick up the geo-litter.

 

In contrast, I've had two productive e-mail exchanges this week with distant hiders who made acceptable arrangements for the maintenance of their cache by a local. But yeah, it would've been a lot less effort for me to just have archived the caches and not asked questions.

 

That's reality from where I sit. Folks don't see much of what goes on with vacation caches, since the approvers try their best to spot them and resolve the problems in advance.

 

|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|

Keystone Approver, Geocaching.com Admin

"Eschewing Entropy and Ensuring Enthalpy in the Groundspeak Forums"

Link to comment

Let's not forget why the vacation cache policy was implemented.

 

It was at the request of those who's area was being inundated by such caches, which they were expected to maintain. Those requests came to Jeremy via e-mail from places such as Hawaii.

 

I haven't seen any Hawaiian geocachers speak up in this forum thread, but they (and others in Florida and other vacation destinations) were recieving the brunt of abandoned caches. Many of these were placed by honeymooning couples who apparently had nothing better to do.

 

I personally think that banning "vacation caches" also has the negative side effect of slowing growth of the sport in cache poor areas, but what else was Jeremy to do? Should we have banned "honeymoon caches" but allowed those placed by traveling salesmen or by older couples on cruise ships?

 

Some honeymooners may well return frequently to the place where they planted their away-from-home-cache, but unless it's stated on the cache page the approvers have no choice but to ask.

 

We do not archive the cache and ask questions later. We put the cache on hold and ask. My note posted to the cache page goes something like this:

quote:
Hi,

 

Please see the rules for Geocaches posted here

 

http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp

 

Please see the section on

Placing Caches on Vacation

 

Thank you for your cache submission. Your contribution to our sport is appreciated, however………

I suspect you'd be unable to maintain this cache from your home, so please assure me of how you are going to provide for its maintenance, check on it if it is reported missing or damaged, etc..

I want to post your cache, but not if it will become geolitter.

 

Unless you have already made other arrangements I suggest using the "find nearest cache" feature on the site to find other caches and hopefully other local geocachers. Then e-mail one and see if they would look after your cache for you. If they can let me know and I'll be happy to post it. While you're looking at those nearby caches see how often they are visited for a guide on how frequently you should be able to visit your cache for maintenance. Caches found every weekend really should be reachable within a week for example.

 

Please be sure to reference your cache URL or GCxxxx number when you reply.

 

thanks,

erik - geocaching.com admin

 

NOTE: do not select "reply" in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail erik88L-R from the log there. Be sure to reference your cache URL or GCxxxx waypoint number so it can be found.


 

Now, that leaves the door open for a reply on who's already designated to look after the cache, or for those who missed the guideline it gives the opportunity to find someone local to help them out.

 

I'm not sure what else we can do here. We want to post every cache, but we also don't want geolitter.

 

Regards,

erik - geocaching.com admin

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...
×
×
  • Create New...