"Vacation" Caches

4.5k · October 31, 2003

The issue seems to come down to finding a local who will acknowledge in advance to maintain your vacation cache. I can live with that.

If you're planning a vacation cache, contact locals cachers before you leave on vacation and line him up so when you place the cache you're already "pre-approved" as described by erik.

That leaves the other situation where it's a new area where caching hasn't taken hold. One idea would be to just allow it. There probably aren't going to be many caches placed anyway. And it could grow into a local hobby where the locals will then pick up the slack.

Alan

October 31, 2003

Hi all, I'm from Italy, a country where geocaching is still rather unknown, and the placed caches rather sparse (I'm in fact an absolute newbie, as you may notice from the profile... Sorry about, but had passed very few time in Italy since I discovered geocaching...).

I substantially agree with Alan (and many others): is clear that, if an agreement exist with a local for the management of the cache,no real issue exist. I also agree on the fact that this will allow an easier "export" of the hobby.

What concerns me is the proposed solution of allowing "vacation virtuals". Italy, like many other countries where gocaching is even less known, fills every year of american tourists (I say american because it seems clear to me that they will probably contain the higher fraction of geocachers), which may find much easier to place a virtual than an actual cache, for which they would need to contact a local cacher for the subsequent manteinance. The only thing that would then save places like Venice, Florence and Rome from being filled with virtuals would be the stricter regulation existing for posting a virtual.

This has nothing to do with a "local vs. tourist" battle. I said it because I first would be VERY tempted to place virts in nice places seen while far from home.

The bottom line for me is: a virtual should not be allowed basing on the fact that "I cannot mantain a regular cache there because I live at 10000 km from that place". Especially in places with high tourist pressure.

Just my opinion...

Acaro for Team TAR

5.3k · October 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:
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 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?

There clearly was a problem in Hawaii and other popular destinations with locals being asked to maintain too many poorly-placed caches. But the solution of banning all vacation caches placed anywhere seems to me very Draconian and simplistic. It implies to me that Groundspeak considers cache hiders to be primarily a nuisance.

What else was Jeremy to do? I can think of at least three possible solutions that would have still allowed placing caches in cache-poor areas while protecting popular tourist spots from cache inundation. One idea (which would additionally solve a lot of other problems) would be a change in the cache posting process to go from approval after the fact to approval before cache placement. The site would be set up to make the approval a process, so that the hider can post information about a planned placement before leaving on vacation and have it conditionally approved. In this case, the hider and the approver can work together beforehand to determine what would be approrpiate.

For example, let's say I was heading off to Belize. I look for nearby caches and discover that there are none within 20 miles of where I'll be staying. So I post a provisional cache description saying where I will be going and what kind of container I'm taking with me. In this case, let's say it is a decon box just big enough to hold a travel bug. My log is waterproof paper, and I won't put anything in that would get wet or moldy. The approver responds that it sounds OK as long as I place it somewhere safe and get permission. When I get there, I obtain permission to place the cache from the resort management, and place it in a spot where it will be protected from the elements and people searching for it won't tear up any bushes, etc. When I return, I post the coordinates and the cache is approved.

So I submit that the "killing the ant with a sledgehammer" approach is not, in fact, the only way to approach the problem. It is the easiest for Groundspeak, but not for the approvers or the hiders. Just a little creative thought about how to appreciate those who put a lot of effort into placing caches could go a long way towards eliminating the corrosive attitude I have seen coming from Groundspeak.

October 31, 2003

Here's a suggestion that I have posted elsewhere, why not allow Vacation Micro's if there are no regulars within 10 miles, and then have a handful of specific rules for saturated areas such as no vacation caches in hawaii, alaska, niagra falls area etc., these exceptions could be posted from a link on the guidelines page.

We must not forget that this sport has spread across the world because of vacation caches.

Now, when I previously mentioned Vacation spots, I did not mean tourist spots. the average geocacher probably wouldn't be interested enough in tourist traps to go to the effort of placing a cache.

Please also remember that one person's local gas station could well be another's favourite landmark that tells them there's only 15 miles to go to their favourite annual get away from it all place.

As for Vacation Virtuals, as far as I can tell from the policies, these are allowed, as a virtual doesn't need maintenence and is more likely to be somewhere locals would take for granted anyway. From what I have read, the rules for Virtuals are pretty stringent, and make them the ideal cache for environmentally friendly caching. They also say that you have to make a good case to the approver for why a regular cache isn't appropriate, and vacation is not a valid case.

October 31, 2003

The powers that be have decided that virtual caches placed "on vacation" are also not allowed. I tried one in CO this summer that involved a really cool train history virtual with three stops, the last of which was a not yet restored roundhouse. Even if I had been local, I would not have wanted to place a real cache there, as the roundhouse was not yet available to the public. It was denied on the grounds that it was a vacation cache, even though it req

<tr>

<b>This cache was placed by a <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NM_Geo/" target="_blank" style="font-size:8pt;color:black;">New Mexico Geocacher</a>.</b><br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NM_Geo/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.9key.com/images/nm_button.gif" border="0" alt="New Mexico Geocacher" vspace="3"></a>

</td>

</tr>

</table>

October 31, 2003

uired no maintenance. These limitations by admin are unreasonable, and I am on strike for placing caches anywhere, including locally. Who are they to decide where we live and where we can place caches?? It may be easier for admin to just deny any cache they can, but what will happen to the game when people stop placing caches? They will all implode as predicted and the game will end, too bad.

<tr>

<b>This cache was placed by a <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NM_Geo/" target="_blank" style="font-size:8pt;color:black;">New Mexico Geocacher</a>.</b><br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NM_Geo/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.9key.com/images/nm_button.gif" border="0" alt="New Mexico Geocacher" vspace="3"></a>

</td>

</tr>

</table>

October 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by DaJagman:
Here's a suggestion that I have posted elsewhere, why not allow Vacation Micro's if there are no regulars within 10 miles, and then have a handful of specific rules for saturated areas such as no vacation caches in hawaii, alaska, niagra falls area etc., these exceptions could be posted from a link on the guidelines page.

I forgot to mention that I think if the 10 mile rule was adopted, it would spawn a new game for us, ie that of finding a spot in the world with no caches in a 10 mile radius. We'd then go to this place that we have never been (after checking it's not Area 51 or something) and try to find a spot near the middle to place a micro. Could be real Fun.

3k · November 1, 2003

Here's a new game for you: Take it upon yourself to seek out, maintain or replace every lame "vacation" cache that already exists that has never been revisited by its "owner."

When you've finished with that, tackle the similarly abandoned caches in your home region.

Have fun.

November 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
Here's a new game for you: Take it upon yourself to seek out, maintain or replace every lame "vacation" cache that already exists that has never been revisited by its "owner."

When you've finished with that, tackle the similarly abandoned caches in your home region.

Have fun.

You know what, what's wrong with Took full/Wet log, left new dry log. or perhaps, took rusty altoids can, left new altoids can.

hmmm, sounds like what most geocachers do anyway, I went to a cache in Oregon recently that had been destroyed by a grass fire a few days before. A fellow Geocacher (not the owner) had found the molten remains of the tupperware and replaced it with a new ammo can, talk about a trade up. Another I went to has a note on the cache page from the owner (a local) to take up a new coffee can lid. nobody could get one up there, but the last finder had wrapped the cache in a trash bag to keep it dry. Had I a coffee can lid with me, I would have taken it there.

I generally carry film containers anyway, & when locally caching, I carry tupperware. I'd carry ammocans, but they aren't that easy to find in the UK. I also now carry spare logs, pencils, Ziploc bags, Geocaching.com letters, Navicache letters, and of course trades etc.

Now, I doubt that I'd carry Ammo cans if I had more than a mile to hike, but if it was less than a mile to the cache, I would have no objection to returning to the car if I had to, to fetch a new container.

Of course, there is still the issue of what classifies as a vacation cache? Perhaps restricting cache placing to a user's own State, can't see RI cachers being happy with that, but TX & CA wouldn't mind much.

Perhaps it could be restricted to say 200 mile radius. But hey, that means I could place caches On a dozen or so different islands that cost a fortune to get to. It would also mean Alaska geocachers could place caches in Siberia or the Arctic.

Perhaps limit it to one's own country, Fine for Americans, what about cacher who live in Monaco or Luxemourg. But hey, New Yorkers could place cache's on Vaction In Hawaii, or Hawaiians could place them in Maine.

So what is a vaction cache? is it the cache placed by the long haul airline pilot away from home at the destination he flies to every week, or is it the cache placed 30 miles from home by the Movie Director who's away in Tunisia filming his latest blockbuster for a year?

From what I can see, all the vacation rule does is encourage sock puppets. At least if vacation caches were allowed to the extent of Micro's, there would be a cache owner to email on DNFs to check that the cacher was looking in the right place.

I've just taken a scan through the thread and found the following, Those dead set against Vacation Cache Rule Changes 9

Those in favour of RELAXING the rule in some way 9

Those on the fence 7

So far the arguments by several of the against have been of the "unflinching won't listen to any reasons to move and all vacation cachers are the same." type, wheras all of the for are trying to negotiate a compromise of some kind with constructive suggestions.

Lets not forget that if you take the "Like it or leave" attitude, back in time about 8 months, Vaction caches would be allowed and hawaiians who didn't like it would be told where the door is. People speaking out put the rule in in the first place. now people are trying to adapt the rule to be a little less absolute.

Welcome to Democracy. I've seen a thread where someone posted an amazed comment that people are allowed to be so vocal against the rules and the way the site is arranged, and every other post was defending this behaviour, saying that it was what made this site so great. I happen to Agree.

OK, I'm done for this one for tonight.

3k · November 1, 2003

quote:
People speaking out put the rule in in the first place. now people are trying to adapt the rule to be a little less absolute.

Was the rule brought about by "people speaking out" against vacation caches, or was it brought about by the sheer number of vacation caches in missing or in deplorable condition, effectively abandoned by their absentee "owners?"

quote:
Welcome to Democracy.

Indeed. Everyone got to voice their positions/opinions on the subject. Unfortunately for those in favor of vacation caches, their arguments have apparently not been found persuasive by those who make the decisions ... to the contrary, they seem to have only strengthened the resolve against vacation caches.

Your argument in favor of vacation caches is a good example ... how persuasive is an argument in favor of vacation caches by someone who has never even placed a cache in his home region? Is such an argument even worthy of consideration?

November 1, 2003

I'm a "resident" of PA, but also own homes in NJ and FL. We spend time at them all, making several trips throughtout the year. Since leaving my NJ "residency" status in 1961, I've been returning there many times each year for the past 42 years. I'm now wondering if it was a mistake to list my profile location as PA because the 2 micro caches I placed near my NJ home have not been approved..."vacation cache". I think there should be some consideration given to each situation.

November 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Was the rule brought about by "people speaking out" against vacation caches, or was it brought about by the sheer number of vacation caches in missing or in deplorable condition, effectively abandoned by their absentee "owners?"

OK, sounds like the same thing to me, GC would only know they were in bad condition if someone spoke out. The same could be said for a lot of "local placed" caches, are they gonna ban them too?

quote:
Indeed. Everyone got to voice their positions/opinions on the subject. Unfortunately for those in favor of vacation caches, their arguments have apparently not been found persuasive by those who make the decisions ... to the contrary, they seem to have only strengthened the resolve against vacation caches.

I'm Sorry, but GC encourages people to voice their opinions. I think what you mean is that the arguments for vacation caches have only seemed to strengthen your resolve. I was encouraged to contribute to this thread by a moderator.

quote:
Your argument in favor of vacation caches is a good example ... how persuasive is an argument in favor of vacation caches by someone who has never even placed a cache in his home region? Is such an argument even worthy of consideration?

Oh boy, here we go. isn't that a little bit elitist? are you saying that when it's time to elect a new President, all the vote's of those who have never voted before don't count? Or perhaps when it's time to elect a new Governator, people who moved into the state in the last 6 months should have their votes go un-counted because they haven't been around that long?

I could also throw it back that all your caches are archived, out of your home state (although not by much) and premium members only. Now, I am sure you have good reason for this, but if I was to judge without knowing what that reaon was, I would probably assume that it was elitism. Like I say, I'm not judging because I haven't got all the facts yet.

PS I have some caches posted elsewhere, in my home region that I'm going to combine for a multi here, that's why they're not here yet.

If you must know why I am pushing this thread along, I have a "vacation" cache that is in the USA near a town where I go for a week every month on business. It's been turned down by GC, even though I am perfectly able to maintain it myself. So, it's posted elsewhere and others can find it as a bonus if they check more sites before they go out caching for the day.

Now then, there are several caches in my area, that were placed by american tourists before the rule. All of the active Local cachers have been to them, and no-one complains about them. they are well looked after by the community, rather than by arrangement. they are also in places that quite frankly the locals (myself included) wouldn't have thought to hide a cache. It's amazing what someone visiting your home area will find that you will disregard as uninteresting, that is until someone places a cache there, you go find it and realise what an amazing place was just on your doorstep.

I know that I will not convince BasoonPilot, but I will continue to state my case. What I am trying to get going here is a set of Responsible Guidelines for placing remote caches, and allowing for their maintenance by the community. If enough people in the world started doing good deeds (of any kind) on the basis that someone else would probably do it for me, the world would be a nicer place.

If people don't want to help out with other people's caches, they should remember that one day they might not be able to get to one of their own caches that needs maintenance quickly for some reason, and how much would they appreciate me on my quest to fix all the broken caches in the world []

But, Like I said, in a previous post, what's rong with "Took broken Film Container, Left new film container, signed log" If you find dangerous or environmentally unfriendly materials left in or around a cache by a previous visitor, do you leave them and mail the cache owner to come get rid of them, or do you get rid of them yourself incase the next cacher that day has small children with them?

As for missing caches, if it went missing this morning, you're not going to find it this afternoon, however close the cache owner lives (unless it's in his garden that is)

I agree with banning vacation caches in places that are saturated with them, but what I'm proposing is spreading the sport to new areas that have very few caches. If Geocaching doesn't spread to new areas, those areas that have caches will become saturated and newbie locals won't be able to find anywhere to hide theirs. what's the result? people will become dis-illusioned with the sport and give it up for something else. If that happens, they won't be buying TB tags & other merchandise, and GC will struggle. Nobody wants that to happen. perhaps we could even allow Vaction virtuals in the 10 mile radius proposal, and when more than 5 new "local" caches appear within 5 miles, the virtual is archived but still shown so the placer can keep credit for spreading to that area. Perhaps one of the newbie locals could even hide a cache there and credit the original founder of that cache.

3k · November 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by DaJagman:

OK, sounds like the same thing to me, GC would only know they were in bad condition if someone spoke out.

Nonsense. Some approvers are actually known to periodically review the logs of caches they approved. Shocking, isn't it?

quote:
The same could be said for a lot of "local placed" caches, are they gonna ban them too?

Do you mean TPTB should consider not allowing people with a reputation for not maintaining their caches to place new ones? I wouldn't have a problem with that.

quote:
I'm Sorry, but GC encourages people to voice their opinions.

Yes; but how many times does one need to state the same time-worn arguments that have been voiced so many times before? Those same arguments were apparently not persuasive in the past; why would they be now?

quote:
I think what you mean is that the arguments for vacation caches have only seemed to strengthen your resolve.

My resolve for what? I have no interest in placing a vacation cache ... but I HAVE plenty of experience with caches left by vacationers: Look at the number of caches that have been dumped in Central Park, NYC, by vacationers, for example. I found most, if not all, of them; also helped fix a few with poor coordinates or other problems. Many of the vacation caches have been haphazardly hidden in poorly considered locations, and it was never a surprise when one of those caches was quickly plundered ... and it was left for us locals to ascertain the situation and restore or archive the cache. Personally, I wouldn't restore a plundered cache placed by a vacationer; they forfeited ownership the moment they abandoned it here.

quote:
Oh boy, here we go. isn't that a little bit elitist?

No. Because you have never taken advantage of your opportunity to list a cache in your home region on this site, it would appear you only want to place vacation caches because you know the practice is unacceptable.

quote:
I could also throw it back that all your caches are archived, out of your home state (although not by much) and premium members only.

They were my caches to archive at the times and for the reasons I deemed appropriate. And because all of my caches had been hidden well within my caching region, I was able to remove the caches.

Unfortunately, a few of my caches were stolen. But because those caches had been hidden well within my caching region, I was able to personally ascertain that the caches were, in fact, missing and was able to take the action I deemed appropriate.

Also, one of my caches suffered from poor coordinates at the time it was approved. Because the cache had been hidden within my caching region, I was able to return to the location the very next day and correct the coordinates, thereby minimizing the number of cachers inconvenienced by my error.

Incidentally, only one of my caches was a MOC while active. The rest of my caches were changed to MOCs after having been archived for reasons I deemed appropriate. In other words, I accepted full responsibility for my caches; I didn't make them someone else's problem.

quote:
I would probably assume that it was elitism. Like I say, I'm not judging because I haven't got all the facts yet.

Don't care a wit what you assume.

quote:
Now then, there are several caches in my area, that were placed by american tourists before the rule. All of the active Local cachers have been to them, and no-one complains about them. they are well looked after by the community, rather than by arrangement.

The people who placed the caches forfeit ownership the moment they placed them; they not only abandoned the caches but also any and all responsibility they had for them. And you think that is a good thing?

quote:
It's amazing what someone visiting your home area will find that you will disregard as uninteresting, that is until someone places a cache there, you go find it and realise what an amazing place was just on your doorstep.

Perhaps a geocacher more interested in exploring his home region in order to place a well thought out and well implemented cache than placing caches outside his home region would have made the discovery for himself.

quote:
If enough people in the world started doing good deeds (of any kind) on the basis that someone else would probably do it for me, the world would be a nicer place.

I agree, if one is repairing a cache they happened upon in the normal course of their geocaching. Placing a vacation cache is not the same; in most cases a vacation cache is merely the creation of a new obligation for local geocachers.

quote:
If people don't want to help out with other people's caches, they should remember that one day they might not be able to get to one of their own caches that needs maintenance quickly for some reason

That would fall under the category of "doing a good deed" or "random act of kindness," because it is not an obligation forced upon the geocacher doing the repair. The difference IS significant.

quote:
I agree with banning vacation caches in places that are saturated with them, but what I'm proposing is spreading the sport to new areas that have very few caches.

"If you plant them, they will come?" It doesn't appear to work that way ... geocaching becomes established in an area as locals develop an interest in the sport, and it dies off in an area as local interest wanes. The cycle repeats. I've been geocaching long enough to see some areas already enjoying their second 'renaissance'; and each time more people have become involved in those areas, and a higher number of caches was placed ... by locals.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on November 01, 2003 at 08:58 PM.]

1.3k · November 2, 2003

Caching is a way to share interesting locations with like-minded people. It is natural to want to place a cache at a great spot you discover while on vacation. As we go about our daily lives in our hometowns, we tend to overlook all of the great places in our own backyards. While vacationing, we leave all of our concerns behind, and focus on absorbing the beauty of our chosen destination.

With the slower pace of vacation life, people are free to explore, and discover places that cry out for a geocache.

So, I have a solution that might just fit the bill. It would require a massive addition to the website, but it would be a way to allow cachers to take credit for finding the "great spot" they wish to share, and eliminate all of the maintenance issues involved with placing caches.

A geocache waypoint catalogue.

While vacationing, a cacher finds an awesome spot that they feel must have a cache. They take a waypoint, and post it to the catalog. Local cachers who are looking for a good place to hide a cache can search the catalog for waypoints in their region, and place one at the suggested coordinates. A note can be left on the cache page giving the vacationer credit for discovering the location, and all are happy.

Yes, I know about waypoint.org, but I don't believe most people search there when considering places to hide a cache. It might not be a bad idea to consider a cooperative effort with them to link to their database, rather than create a geocaching specific waypoint catalogue. I think the whole appeal of placing vacation caches (or local caches for that matter) is to get credit for finding and sharing a location. If the cache is thousands of mile away, you know you won't be able to maintain it as diligently as one a few miles from home. So credit for the location is the real reason for placing the cache. With a waypoint catalogue, you can get the credit for th coordinates, and never have to maintain the cache, or even shell out the bucks for the container. The local cacher will will do all of that for you.

Now if any of that sounds unfair to the local cacher, who has actually committed to maintaining a cache at the selected location, that's because it is unfair. They do all the work, and the tourist takes the credit.

So, vacationers want to get credit for finding a cool spot, and are upset that they are not allowed to do so.

I know there are exceptions, there always are. There are probably exceptions made in cache approval for those cases where a cacher can prove they will maintain a remote cache. That's ok by me. But if you think it is unreasonable to expect a cacher who lives thousands of miles from their cache to check on it whenever the slightest issue arises, you must see that the request to place such a cache is equally unreasonable.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

2.6k · November 2, 2003

Add my name to the - childish list - because I want to improve the trending rules of Geocaching. Yes, it would be easier to vote with my feet (as others have done). But I think there's a solution to the problems stated in this thread.

It looks like the problems all boil down to two issues. (1) Geocaching wants Stashers to be more responsible for their work. (2) Stashers don't believe their not being allowed to be responsible.

Take away all the (childish) name calling and standing on your campaigns. Are there any Geocachers that are intelligent enough to solve this problem?

Bill of Green Achers

''I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." -- Albert Einstein

November 2, 2003

Great idea from bloencustoms, a bit like my virtuals in 20 mile circles idea. I'm not sure whether he's for or against it though, I'll have to read the post a couple more times.

In reply to Green archer, I thought that was what some of us were doing in this thread, being grown up and responsible and negotiating an idea into approval. It's also hammered out a few good suggestions from the for crowd.

That's all for tonight, too tired for the usual mega post.

2.6k · November 2, 2003

Sorry, but there are some personal digs that have been thrown and they are anti-producive. I'm glad most people are here to work out (if needed) any problems. I agree Dajagman there are (and will be) good suggestions. I look forward to reading more as the solution is agreed opon.

The following is a clip from a thread I shouldn't have started (as this thread is working on the same issues). I believe it address' vacation-virtuals in a way that will provoke more good suggestions.

_________________________

[First, let me correct my opening post. It was intended to read, Current Geocaching Policies are unhealthy for future caching (IMO).]

quote:
Originally posted by pnew:

Maybe that approver should have mentioned you have to be nearby to upkeep that virtual. Not all virtual's stay the same just as traditional's are taken or ruined.

Actually, he did mention this. He was really nice (as I mentioned before) and informative as to the concerns and rules. I appreciate the way he does business. It's the evolving rules I have contention with.

But lets explore up-keeping a cache. Virtual or Physical. Does anyone contact every finder to inquire about...

quote:
the cache and their opinion of the location. Does the area look disturbed? Are visitors disrupting the landscape in any way?

as it's suggested in the Geocaching rules? No! So how does a caring cacher upkeep their caches...

According to Geocaching,

quote:
7. Understand that although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries. You should also return to the web site at least once a month to show you are still active.

Looks like you can maintain a virtual cache by reading logs and interviewing finders as needed. That's how I maintain my physical caches and I'll bet that how everyone (that cares about their caches) do it as well.

Regardless, my cache was rejected based on two issues. I was on vacation and the area can support a physical cache. I believe I supported myself well enough regarding a vacation-virtual cache. [Although Geocaching doesn't buy my logic.]

As far as ''the area could support a physical cache.'' Let's face it, there's no location on the planet that can't support a physical cache [with in a few feet of any virtual] so no virtual should ever be allowed. Since virtual's are so harmful, why not make a rule that any virtual can be archived if it infringes on any new physical cache?

Bill of Green Achers

''I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." -- Albert Einstein

3k · November 3, 2003

quote:
Stashers don't believe their not being allowed to be responsible.

That sentence belongs in either the "Abject Silliness" or "The Language of Geocaching" thread. Translated, it says "Stashers do believe they're being allowed to be responsible."

Not incidentally, the type of cache placement DaJagman mentioned several posts back (a cache in a distant area the cache owner returns to frequently) has been approved many times before. A stipulation for approval was that the cache owner arranged for a local surrogate to contact geocaching.com and agree to accept responsibility for the cache during those times the owner was absent from the area.

One reason that scenario may no longer be acceptable is because cache owners arranged for fake surrogates or surrogates who failed to honor their agreements, and it soon became evident that cache owners were not, in fact, the "frequent visitors" they claimed to be.

November 3, 2003

Oh, why not?

Let's see... Some options offered by those who support vacation caches -

Allow physical caches, and hope the locals take care of them -

Sometimes there's no locals. When this issue came up awhile back, someone posted a link to a cache that was apparently hidden inside an archelogically significant village, in one of the dwellings. The person posting the cache didn't understand why this might be a bad idea. I'm sure the local authorites will have a high opinion of geocaching after it's discovered. But there was no one available to ask to remove it.

Then there's the vacation cache placed here in Montana (one of those places popular with vacation cachers), where the cache page noted that the container might float away come Spring. (Now there's a responsible attitude, isn't it? Geotrash floating downriver...) Problem was, after doing the math to get the coordinates, they led to some farmer's field, miles from any water. Who was supposed to do the maintenance, when they couldn't even find the cache, and the owner wasn't in a position to correct his mistake himself?

Allow vacation cachers to place micros -

Another Montana vacation cache was placed by a skier on holiday. After a year and a half of No Finds (the owner didn't want to just archive his trash, I mean cache), someone discovered a film canister lid nearby. The owner told the guy to post a Find and finally archived it. Trash is trash. Putting a logbook inside doesn't make up for poor placement.

Allow virtuals because they don't require maintenance -

Based on a fallacy, since maintenance is indeed required. Another vacation cache was placed in an area that became off-limits (let's hope the owner wasn't such an *** that it was that way when he submitted the virtual). The owner declined to change the cache so that entering the off-limits area was no longer necessary, though there were other options that would have made the hunt just as interesting. He did change the page to note that binoculars might be required to log the cache, but otherwise the page continued to speak of entering an area he knew required trespassing. When people continued to break the law and he was again asked to fix the cache page, he threw a fit and archived the cache.

These are the sorts of vacation caches we see, and the behavior being defended. There will always be irresponsible geocachers, but at least when a problem arises and the owner contacted, he can't beg off on dealing with it if the cache is nearby. If someone has a better idea on how to insure that vacationing geocachers remain responsible, active, and willing to maintain their caches, I'd love to hear it.

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

5.3k · November 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:
These are the sorts of vacation caches we see, and the behavior being defended.

No, that is not the behavior being defended. It would be extremely helpful if you would read the posts to which you are responding.

I don't think there is a single person in this thread who is supporting so-called "vacation caches" in places with a significant indigenous caching community. The issue is about places without local cachers.

5.3k · November 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
One reason that scenario may no longer be acceptable is because cache owners arranged for fake surrogates...

This statement, along with your gratuitous grammar pedantry, is once again illustrative of the contempt for cache placers that I find so objectionable.

But in any case, the two "sides" in this thread seem to be talking past each other. I think the problem may lie in the term "vacation cache," which is much broader than what Bill and I are talking about.

I don't think anybody here supports the placement of "vacation caches" in areas where there are existing caches and caching communities. That is, for the purpose of this discussion, a strawman argument.

The issue is more one of inaccessible caches; that is, caches that are extremely difficult to get to or in places without a significant indigenous caching community.

Using the logic that's been espoused for the requirement that caches be actively maintained by the placer, consistency would imply that caches in inaccesible places should also be disallowed. If reaching a cache requires a multi-day hike, then it's likely that the hider won't be able to maintain to the standards set by geocaching.com. It's very comparable to a cache placed in an area of the world without any local cachers.

Unfortunately for those against their placement, these caches tend to be the very best caches out there! I know that on a recent trip to the Carribbean, the caches placed by people on vacation before me were the only caches available, and they were some of the best I've ever done; not because of the containers, but because of the adventure.

Right now, we are in an awkward position where the justification for rejecting caches placed by travelers in cache-poor areas is conveniently ignored for caches hidden in inaccessible but relatively nearby locations.

So let's stop lumping all "vacation caches" into a single group. I propose that we start calling the types of caches I am referring to as "inaccessible" caches.

November 3, 2003

Yumitori, I won't fill the forum by quoting your excellent post, but I have to say, from reading the posts around the forum, these are issues as equally valid, and common, for locally placed caches as any other.

As has already been said, who mails their finders to find out the condition of the cache & surrounding area? It's in the guidelines. In 19 cache finds logged here, I have not received a single contact from a cache owner. By my math that says that less than 5% of hiders do this. I'm not saying they are irresponsible or anything. In the case of the only cache I have found that needed maintenence, I mailed the owner and they dealt with it. Unfortunately, it was my first day's caching, and hadn't put together my cache maintenence supplies, or I would have left a new logbook, which was all it needed.

I would definately agree that a virtual that needs binoculars to log, needs archiving. The guy who posted a note that his cache might float away in spring should have never gotten approval, whether they lived 100 feet away or 10,000 miles. as for the waypoint error, hasn't anyone here ever found or placed a cache and then been unable to find their way back to it without using the GPS, how easy would that have been if the first waypoint they recorded was wrong?

As for the skier, you're right, nothing makes up for poor placement, which includes distance from cache. How good a cacher would I be if I placed a cache 1 mile from home that I had to go back to every week because it kept going missing. The skier was lucky that even the lid was found.

I have repeatedly read posts regarding sending a hider back to find a missing film container. what's the fuss?, if the hider contacts the DNF and confirms they were looking in the right place, what makes anyone think the hider has any more chance of finding a missing film container than the frustrated searcher who looked everywhere around the waypoint area for it? If a micro is confirmed as missing, do what any responsible person would do regardless of distance, archive it until it can be replaced.

I didn't say I'd hope the locals would look after it, I said I'd hope the geocaching community would, which includes travelling cachers like myself.

And finally, the archcheological site used to place a cache, what was he thinking?? You're right, it's this kind of irresponsibility that got Vacation caches banned in the first place, but equally, I am sure there are just as many local cachers who are just as irresponsible. after all, the people who feature in your examples have to live somewhere, and I am sure they've placed caches locally too. If they've placed caches as badly as that on vacation, what's going to stop them doing exactly the same at home?

2.5k · November 3, 2003

I would think that you would need permission from the Pope to place a Vatican cache.

November 3, 2003

quote:
I would think that you would need permission from the Pope to place a Vatican cache

Now that's funny

1.3k · November 3, 2003

quote:
Right now, we are in an awkward position where the justification for rejecting caches placed by travelers in cache-poor areas is conveniently ignored for caches hidden in inaccessible but relatively nearby locations.

So let's stop lumping all "vacation caches" into a single group. I propose that we start calling the types of caches I am referring to as "inaccessible" caches.

I like this new angle of approach. I think that access is the biggest issue as well. The term "vacation cache" most likely came into use due to the stereotyping of caches placed on vacation. Most caches placed on vacation have access problems for the hider. It is plain that different people have different resources at their disposal, and one person might be able to maintain a given cache at a given distance, while another person could not maintain the same cache at the same distance.

The problem is that it would be too big a task to deal with every remote, or inaccessible cache on an individual basis. So, untill a solution can be found that will both allow people to place remote caches who are in a position to do so, and at the same time screen out irresponsible placements, disallowing "vacation caches" makes sense. It might not be the best solution, but when implemented, it does prevent maintenance problems.

People do place irresponsibly in their own hometown. That's no reason for everyone to throw their hands up and give up trying to ensure that caches will be properly cared for.

Let's suppose for a minute that there is a shift in policy from banning caches placed on vacation, to caches placed in areas where access is difficult. (Distance will naturally be a factor.) This system would be more "fair", but as fizzy pointed out, some of the most enjoyable caches are those that are difficult to get to. Difficulty is relative to the individual. The guy who placed the cache might own a helicopter, and can check up on it within a few days. One of my favorite caches required a five mile round trip hike, or a thirty second crossing in a canoe to reach the vicinity of the cache. I didn't own a canoe at the time, so I hiked, and had an awesome time. The person who hid the cache used an ATV to get to the cache site, and it was not placed on vacation. Maintenance is no problem for them. I would not be inclined to check on that cache frequently as problems arise, because access for me would be a lot more difficult. That's why all of my hides are ones I can get to in a reasonable amount of time.

One of the biggest complaints being voiced by people who have been denied approval on caches ranging from virtuals to vacation caches, to vacation virtuals, is that there are active caches that would not have been approved under the current guidelines. One way to let the steam out of that argument would be to go ahead and review caches for compliance with current guidelines, and after giving the owner a reasonable opportunity to make the necessary changes, archive the caches that don't comply. This would not go over well, I'm sure.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the vacation cache issue will rear it's ugly head again and again untill someone figures out a way to make everyone happy. I'll be caching under the current guidelines while anyone who cares to, can wait for that to happen.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

November 3, 2003

Bloencustoms & green Archer, you guys have given me some great ideas and, in a way, i give a little credit to bassoonpilot too. I am working on a website based on Bloencustom's suggestion about "needs cache" waypoints. I don't want to compete with GC, or NC for that matter, I want to complement them.

There'll be a link within the month on my profie that'll take you to my site so come on over and see how construction's going.

3k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
One reason that scenario may no longer be acceptable is because cache owners arranged for fake surrogates...

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:
This statement, along with your gratuitous grammar pedantry, is once again illustrative of the contempt for cache placers that I find so objectionable

My statement is entirely accurate. The "faked surrogate" scenario has occurred. In fact, I offered the scenario precisely because one of the proponents of "vacation caches" participating in this thread did precisely that.

The grammar comment was not gratuitous; the sentence I commented upon was presented by the same individual who questioned the intelligence of thread participants a few posts earlier. The quoted sentence reinforced the absurdity of the earlier post.

I do not find it surprising that in most cases the rule/guideline under attack in threads such as this one was instituted or made more restrictive precisely because of the egregious behavior of a small minority of geocachers. And it's a sad fact that rules/guidelines must be tailored to "the lowest common denominator."

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on November 04, 2003 at 05:54 AM.]

2.1k · November 4, 2003

How about calling them "Dump" caches. People just dump them with no intentions of being properly maintained. Makes no difference if it's while on vacation far away or in your own hometown. Both present the same problems.

The real issue is of them being maintained properly. It's not hte caching community responsibility to maintain the caches. It's the responsibility of the owner. I own pets. It's my responsibility to take care of them, not my community. If cachers in the community want to help out on caches, then so be it. But don't try to make me feel responsible for someone who dumps a cache container. I won't.

There are many who place caches a distance away and possibly while on "vacation" and keep them properly maintained. So why ban those type of people like that? There are many people who can't maintain a cache in their own backyard, so does that mean they need to be banned too? There is no absolute verification process that will ensure these problems are avoided. Deal with the problem as they come. If a cache is not being maintained, archive it and remove it from the website. It may also help to define what properly maintaining is as well. Is there a period of time that a cache should be checked on? Should it only be checked when people report problems? What is the time period for an owner to go and check their cache, when they are notified?

Brian

www.woodsters.com

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

November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

No, that is _not_ the behavior being defended. It would be extremely helpful if you would read the posts to which you are responding.

I don't think there is a single person in this thread who is supporting so-called "vacation caches" in places with a significant indigenous caching community. The issue is about places _without_ local cachers.

DaJagman has been advocating for 'permission' for vacation micro caches to be placed where there are no others within a 10 mile radius.

Have you looked at a cache map of Montana?

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

1.3k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Deal with the problem as they come. If a cache is not being maintained, archive it and remove it from the website.

Then you're left with litter in the woods somewhere miles from the person who left it.

quote:
It's not hte caching community responsibility to maintain the caches. It's the responsibility of the owner.

Well, if the cache is alredy out there, and the owner won't pick it up, then who's responsibility is it?

quote:
If cachers in the community want to help out on caches, then so be it. But don't try to make me feel responsible for someone who dumps a cache container. I won't.

Well, I guess the best thing to do is stop the situation from occurring in the first place by banning vacation caches.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

5.3k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
Well, I guess the best thing to do is stop the situation from occurring in the first place by banning vacation caches.

Actually, since there are a fairly large number of caches abandoned by people who are local to them, I propose we stop the situation from occurring in the first place by banning all caches.

Can someone explain to me why the logic that leads to banning vacation caches (that a minority of those placing them do so irresponsibly) shouldn't be applied to all caches?

1.3k · November 4, 2003

I guess it goes back to what you said earlier about "remote, or inaccessible" caches. Even if a cache is ten miles from the hider's residence, they might still have difficulty getting to it often enough.

What is usually the biggest problem with caches that require maintenance? Around here, it is a wet, soggy logbook. I think that requiring a type of container that has proven itself durable will go a long way to eliminating maintenance problems. Another problem is caused by the logbook filling up. By stocking the cache with a thick logbook, and asking cachers to limit their logs to one page, you will increase the useful life of the logbook. Pencils are far superior to pens because they work in temperature extremes that pens can't handle. It would be good to require the inclusion of pencils, rather than pens, and one or two sharpeners.

The cache hider can only paritally control the other problems. By using a sturdy container, they can avoid the destruction of the cache by animals. By hiding it well, and far from the eyes of muggles, they can reduce the chances of accidental finding.

But, they have no control over what a person places in the cache when it is found. They have no control over whether a pirate steals it. They have no control over a freak accidental finding by a muggle who takes it out of ignorance.

Theese problems can only be fixed by the owner, or another kind person.

Perhaps all caches should be held to the same standard. I don't think banning the placement of all caches would be much fun for anyone, but I do think that requiring better materials for caches is a good start. Sure, there are people who place caches in their own backyard and neglect them. Those people have no business placing caches, let alone any remote ones.

If it can be proven that a given cacher will maintain a remote cache to the same good standards they do their local hides. It need not be prevented.

quote:
I don't think anybody here supports the placement of "vacation caches" in areas where there are existing caches and caching communities.

As long as this is taken into consideration as well.

The problem is, how do you determine if a person is going to properly maintain a remote cache before they even place it? If you use their other hides as a measure, you will see how they maintain local caches, not remote ones. Still, that might be a good enough indicator of how they will treat their remote caches.

The problem with requiring people to have a good maintenance record on their existing caches is that they would not be able to place a remote cache untill they had placed several local ones to see how they fare. This could be construed as elitism by some. So, we are back to square one.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.3k · November 4, 2003

"The issue is about places without local cachers."

No. The issue is about places without local cachers YET.

Now let's think about this. If it's a physical cache then there is no one to maintain it, period.

But let's pretend it's a virtual cache, just to get rid of that sticky problem. There is still no one to make sure that the area is still safe and accessable. There's no one there to update the site if it needs to be updated.

But here's the fun part. What happens when someone eventually gets interested in geocaching there? What happens when geocaching catches on in that region and there are people willing to maintain caches what do they discover?

They discover that perfectly good placements have been taken by people who simply didn't have the patience to wait for someone responsible to do they job.

5.3k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bons:
They discover that perfectly good placements have been taken by people who simply didn't have the patience to wait for someone responsible to do they job.

Nonsense. That argument assumes that the number of good places to hide caches is so limited that even a couple will ruin the area for everyone else. It also assumes that someone placing a cache out of their own area is by definition irresponsible. If you define irresponsibility that way, then the argument is completely circular.

1.3k · November 4, 2003

Ok. I've thought this over a bit more and this is where my mind, weak as it is, is going.

1) Benchmarks are treated completely different from caches. This seems to work well.

2) Virtuals aren't really "caches". It's alrealy been said that virtuals will not be approved if it's belived a physical cache could be placed there. The painted boulder in Iowa comes to mind.

3) Vacation caches are similar. There seems to be obvious reasons to have local people place caches instead.

So...

What if a 3rd section, sort of a cross between benchmarks and caches is placed for "Geosights". These would be virtuals placed by people for places of interest where the person placing it has decided not to place a cache either because they couldn't get permission or because they felt they couldn't maintain it properly.

The sights in this section wouldn't limit the .1 mile cache rule since they would be in a completely different section (much like a cache could be placed right next to a benchmark and no one would care). I suspect they would become poplular with a completely different, but equaly cool, geocaching crowd.

It would be a way of having places like the Iowa boulder and great places in National Parks listed without impacting traditional geocaching as a hobby. Most existing virtuals could be moved there without anything other than a LOT of technical work.

"Leave nothing, take out trash, photos, and memories."

1k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bons:
...What happens when someone eventually gets interested in geocaching there? What happens when geocaching catches on in that region and there are people willing to maintain caches what do they discover?...

They discover there are already a few caches for them to find, and they are grateful. They even post nice logs like "Thanks for leaving this microcache! Enjoyed finding it.." and "I found the new one! It's not hard..." and "...the view was fantastic...more stars than I ever realized..." and "...Thanks for the fun..." and "What a fun cache. It is in my top 10...I had a great time and my mom was laughing at me the whole time..." and "Oh My, what a fun cache to hunt for. The best for me so far..." and "...It was a fun hunt." and "...This was fun to decipher..." and "...Great spot and clever.." and "...It was in a great place. How clever! Thanks for a great time..." and "...Well Done! This is the toughest cache i've hunted..." and "We had a great time searching for this one..." and NOT A SINGLE COMPLAINT OR NEGATIVE WORD WHATSOEVER! These are all actual quotes logged online by local cachers for caches I placed while traveling. They were either the first or among the first caches placed in those areas (usually no other caches within at least 100 miles when placed.)

worldtraveler

1.3k · November 4, 2003

quote:
What if a 3rd section, sort of a cross between benchmarks and caches is placed for "Geosights". These would be virtuals placed by people for places of interest where the person placing it has decided not to place a cache either because they couldn't get permission or because they felt they couldn't maintain it properly.

Take a look at this previous post to this thread...

quote:
With the slower pace of vacation life, people are free to explore, and discover places that cry out for a geocache.
So, I have a solution that might just fit the bill. It would require a massive addition to the website, but it would be a way to allow cachers to take credit for finding the "great spot" they wish to share, and eliminate all of the maintenance issues involved with placing caches.

A geocache waypoint catalogue.

While vacationing, a cacher finds an awesome spot that they feel must have a cache. They take a waypoint, and post it to the catalog. Local cachers who are looking for a good place to hide a cache can search the catalog for waypoints in their region, and place one at the suggested coordinates. A note can be left on the cache page giving the vacationer credit for discovering the location, and all are happy.

And this one by DaJagman

quote:
I am working on a website based on Bloencustom's suggestion about "needs cache" waypoints. I don't want to compete with GC, or NC for that matter, I want to complement them.

There'll be a link within the month on my profie that'll take you to my site so come on over and see how construction's going.

It will be a great resource for people who wish to share locations with other cachers, and can't, or don't wish to place, or maintain a cache at a given location. The only thing is, how do you get people to use it once it's up and running? More importantly, how do you get the word out about it?

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.3k · November 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by worldtraveler:

quote:
Originally posted by bons:
...What happens when someone eventually gets interested in geocaching there? What happens when geocaching catches on in that region and there are people willing to maintain caches what do they discover?...

They discover there are already a few caches for them to find, and _they are grateful._ They even post nice logs like "Thanks for leaving this microcache! Enjoyed finding it.." and "I found the new one! It's not hard..." and "...the view was fantastic...more stars than I ever realized..." and "...Thanks for the fun..." and "What a fun cache. It is in my top 10...I had a great time and my mom was laughing at me the whole time..." and "Oh My, what a fun cache to hunt for. The best for me so far..." and "...It was a fun hunt." and "...This was fun to decipher..." and "...Great spot and clever.." and "...It was in a great place. How clever! Thanks for a great time..." and "...Well Done! This is the toughest cache i've hunted..." and "We had a great time searching for this one..." and _ NOT A SINGLE COMPLAINT OR NEGATIVE WORD WHATSOEVER!_ These are all actual quotes logged online by local cachers for caches I placed while traveling. They were either the first or among the first caches placed in those areas (usually no other caches within at least 100 miles when placed.)

worldtraveler

Strictly for the sake of the discussion, (which is centered on the maintenance of caches placed at a distance) I must ask a question. Have you been able to perform maintenance on all of your remote caches to the same standard, and with the same speed that you can on your locally placed caches? Has any cacher other than yourself performed maintenance on any of your remote caches to correct a situation you were unaware of, or were aware of but unable to remedy expediently?

If you have not had any of these problems, I congratulate you, and your caches deserve the praise that cachers have lavished upon them.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.4k · November 4, 2003

So... here's a new cache in Alabama:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=2f70a54e-8570-4210-8a56-8dce2de30c07

Apparently, it was placed by someone from Indiana, but it states that it is being looked after my some friends that live near the cache location. Wouldn't it have been better if the people looking after the cache had submitted it rather than someone from Indiana?

Are the people 'looking after' the cache geocachers?

Jeff

http://www.AlaCache.com

1.4k · November 4, 2003

Not only was my above mentioned cache placed in Alabama by someone from Indiana, it was placed at a cave site. I thought cavers were against this practice....

Jeff

http://www.AlaCache.com

November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
So... here's a new cache in Alabama:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=2f70a54e-8570-4210-8a56-8dce2de30c07

Apparently, it was placed by someone from Indiana, but it states that it is being looked after my some friends that live near the cache location. Wouldn't it have been better if the people looking after the cache had submitted it rather than someone from Indiana?

Are the people 'looking after' the cache geocachers?

Jeff

http://www.AlaCache.com

Dooes it matter if they are or not? We have a cache in Holland (we live in the UK) near my Wife's parents house. It's off a path where they walk their dog 2 or 3 times a day. They look after it for us (and have done some maintainence). We had no problems getting it approved.

I don't see any reason why it would be better for them to submit it. Why is it a problem to have friends doing the same thing?

________________________

What is caches precious?

1.4k · November 5, 2003

Dooes it matter if they are or not?

I don't know if it matters or not... I can argue the point from both sides. I just find it strange that someone from Indiana would leave a cache in Alabama. There are people discussing in this thread that they can't get a vacation cache approved, maybe all they should do is mention that they have friends in the area that will 'look out' for it...

I just playing devil's advocate here, as I don't plan on placing or submitting any vacation caches, rather just adding to the discussion at hand. Cheers!

Jeff

http://www.AlaCache.com

1k · November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
...I must ask a question. Have you been able to perform maintenance on all of your remote caches to the same standard, and with the same speed that you can on your locally placed caches?

No, and that is not a requirement even under the current guidelines.

quote:
Has any cacher other than yourself performed maintenance on any of your remote caches to correct a situation you were unaware of, or were aware of but unable to remedy expediently?

Yes. Current guidelines REQUIRE the cache placer to prearrange for someone to fulfill this function in his absence, so why would you view this as a negative?

I placed three caches in areas that already had local (within 100 miles) cachers and caches. This was okay under the old guidelines. The other five were placed to introduce geocaching to the areas; there were no other caches or cachers within at least 100 miles, and I did not prearrange for anyone to act as cache guardian in my absence. That would be viewed as "irresponsible" and disallowed under the current guidelines, but it wasn't such a big deal back then.

Some of my remote caches have required maintenance during my absences. Sometimes they would have to wait until I returned, sometimes other traveling cachers would lend their assistance, and sometimes a new local cacher (who started caching because he found out someone had placed a geocache in his part of the world) would help out and even become the cache's new guardian. And guess what? They were all glad to help out. I never caught flak from anyone who searched for my caches or helped maintain them; but I was labeled as "irresponsible" by one approver who viewed my profile. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn't aware the caching climate had changed since those caches were placed.

worldtraveler

5.3k · November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by worldtraveler:
I _never_ caught flak from anyone who searched for my caches or helped maintain them; but I was labeled as "irresponsible" by one approver who viewed my profile. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn't aware the caching climate had changed since those caches were placed.

What a concise and trenchant summary of the situation: "the caching climate has changed."

Seems to me, as I said above, that assuming someone is irresponsible for placing such a cache is not only circular reasoning, but also indicative of that contempt toward cache hiders that seems to suffuse the cache approval process now.

1.3k · November 5, 2003

quote:
"Has any cacher other than yourself performed maintenance on any of your remote caches to correct a situation you were unaware of, or were aware of but unable to remedy expediently?"

Yes. Current guidelines REQUIRE the cache placer to prearrange for someone to fulfill this function in his absence, so why would you view this as a negative?

I forgot to add "without prior arrangement" to my question.

As I understand it, a cache hider is responsible for the care of their hides. If they can arrange for their caches to be cared for, (no matter who does it) to the same good standards as their hometown hides, no problem. But if local cachers are fixing problems the hider is unaware of, or that their prearrangements cannot cope with, then the cache is a burden on the local community. (In my opinion.)

I have performed maintenance for a cacher who has moved away to another part of the country. They asked me to, and I was glad to help. When the cache was placed, they were able to maintain it themselves. However, If I encounter a cache that was placed on vacation, or by someone who has moved away, and it is obviously in disrepair, is it my responsibility to maintain it? The good, polite, kind thing to do is go ahead and replace those ziploc bags, put in a new pencil, dry out the soggy container, etc. Apparently cachers are a good, polite, kind bunch of people. Maybe I'm mean, but I believe that a cache that needs to be looked after by people who haven't been asked to, has overstayed it's welcome.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

"Vacation" 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

Join the conversation