Vacation Caches (apparently, the horse isn't dead yet)

July 22, 2003

We all (should) know that vacation caches are banned. (If this is news to you, then you should be reading the guidelines before placing caches.)

However, I'm still seeing vacation caches getting approved near me, about one a week lately, and the latest just minutes ago. Why???

When I see another one of these pop up, I can only assume it's because of one of two possible reasons.

The cache approver was slacking, and didn't look to see how far from home the owner was.

Or, the cache approver checked with the owner and confirmed that the owner has already made arrangements with someone local to take care of maintenance for them.

If the owner has made prior arrangements for maintenance, and checked with local geocachers first to make sure they weren't placing the cache in a park that has any geocaching restrictions, then I'm generally OK with vacation caches (not happy, just OK).

However, only one vacation cache I've seen this summer had anything on the cache page mentioning something like 'my father-in-law lives in the area and has agreed to maintain the cache for me'.

So, as a responsible geocacher, who wants to make sure the sport maintains it's good reputation in the area, what should I do about the other vacation caches with no maintenance plans mentioned?

Relax, assume that the cache approver was doing their job, and just wait until these caches fall into disrepair before worrying about it? (not likely gonna happen)
Check up on the approver everytime and email the owner asking about maintenance plans (getting very monotous), and what about when I do and the owner ignores my query? And even if they do respond and say 'Nope, I don't plan to maintain it. Maybe you can for me?'

I think I'd feel better if I knew the approvers were actually enforcing the vacation cache ban, and in cases where the owner made special maintenance arrangements, insisted that the arrangements be listed on the cache page.

Listing maintenance arrangements on the cache page serves two purposes, in my opinion.

It serves as a good example to other would be vacation cache hiders that they need to make special arrangements first, or they shouldn't hide it, which will ultimately save both the approvers and hunters a lot of time and grief.

It lets those local cachers who are sick and tired of being volunteerd to maintian yet another inconsiderate tourist's thoughtless dump relax a little and continue to enjoy the sport more.

So, how about it approvers? I'm not suggesting any new 'rules' here, just a little courtesy to those of us who will be hunting, and eventually maintaining, other people's junk. Check that they've made maintenance arrangements, insisit they mention the arrangements on the cache page, or enforce the ban and reject the garbage. Please!

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

7.2k · July 22, 2003

I approved the cache from today that you are questioning. They are retired and live less than 100 miles from where the cache is placed. I am watching the cache too. I approved it based on those things and the fact that people in Montana complain that they don't have enough caches. It is borderline in distance, but being retired I let it go. If there is an issue with that then the forum flames can ensue.

There is a third option for this one, "what should I do about the other vacation caches with no maintenance plans mentioned?" You can offer to adopt the cache or suggest someone that can. I love that option myself and gc.com has been getting that going lately in a big way to help.

We are human and will make mistakes. I don't think I did in this case, but we will see.

1.2k · July 22, 2003

Hey Mtn-Man!

Who is that A$$ above you.

Lapaglia

Muga Muchu (forget yourself, focus)

July 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
I approved the cache from today that you are questioning. They are retired and live less than 100 miles from where the cache is placed. I am watching the cache too. I approved it based on those things and the fact that people in Montana complain that they don't have enough caches. It is borderline in distance, but being retired I let it go. If there is an issue with that then the forum flames can ensue.

There is a third option for this one, "what should I do about the other vacation caches with no maintenance plans mentioned?" You can offer to adopt the cache or suggest someone that can. I love that option myself and gc.com has been getting that going lately in a big way to help.

We are human and will make mistakes. I don't think I did in this case, but we will see.

Thanks for the info mtn-man. And although the cache you mention was one that concerned me, it was only the straw that broke the camels back, and by far the lesser of the evils I've seen. Other vacation caches I've seen placed just this MONTH were by tourists from Washington State, Arizona, California, and China.

Plus, I hope you'll notice that the overall tone of my original post was not (or at least wan't intended to be) that you, or any of the other approvers aren't trying. The message I was trying to convey is that these 'borderline' caches should say something on the cache page about it... so that it's not a mystery to the rest of us how/why it got approved.

However, I disagree with a couple of your points. I am the moderator for the MOOG forums, which has members from mostly Western Montana, but also Eastern Montana, North Idaho, Eastern Washington, Wyoming, and Utah. If poeple in Montana were complaining that there's not enough caches here, I think I'd hear about it first. I've not heard one complaint from anyone that there's not enough caches in Montana. The would-be complainers have been out placing caches.... and there's still too many for any one person to hunt. Montana is the 4th largest state, so we have a lot of space to place caches, but population wise we're very small, and so naturally aren't going to have nearly the same quantity of caches that Atlanta is going to have. We are also a huge tourist destination, with people comming from all over thinking 'Montana has hardly any caches compared to where I'm from, so I'll just dump one or two there and help out.' Thanks, but No Thanks.

Also, the 'third' option you suggested is exactly the problem that surrounds vacation caches. The placer just figures 'Somebody local can take care of it for me.' Personally, I'm a little offended when people keep putting stuff in my back yard and expecting me, or my neighbors, to take care of it for them. If they ask around first for a volunteer, then that's ok (I actually accepted such a request recently), but just assuming that the locals will take care of your garbage is completely inconsiderate. The guidelines don't say 'Vacation caches will be approved in the hopes that someone local will adopt it for you.' The guidelines say...

quote:
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.

In regards to the cache you approved yesterday, knowing the details now, I don't think you made a mistake either. It sounds like they can probably take care of it. But I'd be much happier with it if something were mentioned on the cache page to set a good example and alleviate any concerns up front.

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

July 23, 2003

I can't speak for all the admins, but it isn't always obvious that a cache placer isn't local. If I sense that he's not I'll look at the profile page, but even that doesn't always display the geocachers home state. If I'm really suspicious I'll look to see where he's found caches in the past. If a cache is placed in Italy and all the guy's caches have been found in New York it'll get put on hold.

The cache owner will get the following:

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

I know you can't maintain this cache from your home, so please assure me of how you are going to do so.

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

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.

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

thanks,

erik - geocaching.com admin

That's pretty harsh to some, but I'm sorry. If I don't get a reply within a few days telling me that cousin Maria lives there and helped hide the cache, or some other believable scenario, I'll archive it. Unfortunately that also results in geolitter, so it's Catch 22.

Luckily most figure out a way to find someone to adopt their cache, or remove it and take it back home. Some undoubtedly do slip through though. Lastly, I try to put a note on the caches that I approve following an e-mail exchange to document what the cache owner said, like on this cache.

erik - geocaching.com admin

July 23, 2003

Sure am glad I don’t have there jobs it’s thankless and someone is always *****ing about something they think they can do better, lighten up ya’ll ………………..JOE

July 23, 2003

I've never heard anyone who lives in Montana complain that there are too few caches. What I HAVE heard is the complaints about crappy caches placed by non-locals who just leave them and expect us to take care of them. There are enough new folks coming into the sport here in Montana that we realy don't need the vacation caches to keep us busy.

And the new cachers are just starting their placements and we don't want to disuade them from teh hobby by having lots of poor quality or unremarkable caches to bore them.

I have no problem with the new one by Glacier, the owners are from Alberta and retired, that is why I didn't question the placement. If I remember the area, it is uite pretty.

But I do see Skydiver's point (Damm, I may even agree with him a little on this one) of PLEASE confirm maintenance plans with the placers before approving a vacation cache Anywhere! And post to that effect somwhere on the page.

-Jennifer

Age does not bring wisdom, but it does give perspective.

July 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:
Lastly, I try to put a note on the caches that I approve following an e-mail exchange to document what the cache owner said, like on http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=7443d2ad-1f0e-4032-835d-054b30c0c08b

Perfect! That's exactly what I'd like to see more of.

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

July 23, 2003

quote:
Perfect! That's exactly what I'd like to see more of.

Easy for you to say.

It's a lot of work for the admin though. It would be nice if those who placed the cache would put that sort of info on the page. It would make everyone's life a lot easier. Unfortunately those who neglect to read the rules also generally don't spend a lot of time on the cache submission either. There are exceptions, and the admins do try to work with people to get their cache posted regardless, but it would be nice if people gave the cache approvers all the info up front.

erik - geocaching.com admin

7.2k · July 23, 2003

I understand totally, skydiver and Jamethiel. I'm sure you remember the Woodsters Outdoors discussion regarding the potential cache in Augusta. I was very outspoken about that and my argument was totally along the lines of yours here. Anyone who followed that topic knows my stand on vacation caches -- no thanks.

I guess I remember LB&MM complaining about not having enough caches, among all of the other complaining they did before they were banned. It seemed there were others, but I have not heard anyone lately. Your right about that. That's a good thing and it is good to hear!!!

July 23, 2003

It has been neat to watch Montana and the rest of the country slowly fill with caches. I really love being able to travel to a new area and learn what the locals like instead of relying on hotel clerks to point me to interesting areas.

I have found so many more neat places through caching than I would have otherwise.

You guys do such a great job keeping cache approvals flowing, don't get too discouraged!

Anymore the complaints I hear are about the length of hikes and the weather- and those are the complaints I make to my better half anyway. Not about lack of caches to go find.

-Jennifer

Age does not bring wisdom, but it does give perspective.

24.7k · July 23, 2003

Anything inside your reasonable territory isn't a vacation cache. In my case my terrirory is changing since I moved, still I get around in an area about 200-300 miles round with an outpost in Kingman AZ due to family. Anything in that area is not a vacation cache for me.

Other areas where I might make arrangments I'm not going to post the arrangments. "My uncles brothers, sisters, second cousin twice removed, ex husbands sisters sons daughter is going to maintain this cache". That's just worthless information except for approvals.

In other words, relax and assume the admins are doing the right thing.

For now Montana is safe from my geocache placing. Utah has so many odds are I'll be heading south for the near future and Montana is safe from my 'empires' fringe caches.

24.7k · July 23, 2003

double post.

July 23, 2003

Trust the admins to do their job and enjoy the caches. I've held a position of responsibility for an all-volunteer organization with 1000s of members and I know how difficult it can be. I urge everyone to be respectful of the job done by the admins as well as Jeremy, et al. I have seen way too many disrespectful attacks on how/when/why/what an approver has done. They are doing their jobs as best they can and we should be appreciative. If we disagree with something they do, then handle it nicely and avoid accusatory and demanding language.

If any cache falls into disrepair, then recommend that they be archived. Organize an event cache to gather archived caches and Tracsh Out the areas. It's fun and and is a very productive day. I've seen more caches, placed by locals, abondoned in urban centers than anything else. Seems some cachers loose interest or get too busy to maintain caches they have placed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I want to see a sunrise, I'll STAY up for it!

July 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
Other areas where I might make arrangments I'm not going to post the arrangments. "My uncles brothers, sisters, second cousin twice removed, ex husbands sisters sons daughter is going to maintain this cache". That's just worthless information except for approvals.

What's so hard about...

quote:
I have realatives in the area that have agreed to maintain the cache for me.

? You can even copy and paste it from here if it's so hard to type.

It's most certainly NOT worthless information. It's sets a good example for other geocachers, and makes the process easier for the approvers (both by making your cache easier to approve, and by making other's easier as more people follow your excellent lead).

Even if the cache is within your 'territory' but far enough away that some might question it, then why not a friendly note explaining the situation on the page. Certainly, you don't think people are going to complain about you mentioning your maintenace plans?

Relaxing and assuming that someone else is doing the right thing is not what responsible members of a 'self-policing community' do. So, unless you're advocating more rules and tighter restrictions....

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

24.7k · July 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by skydiver:

quote:
I have realatives in the area that have agreed to maintain the cache for me.

Other than it's my cache, and I don't want too? Nothing. My only obligation is to meet the minimum rules for getting a cache listed on geocaching.com. Once those minimums are met, my muse tells me what to put on the cache page, and that's the only thing I want telling me what to put on my cache page.

As a cache placer I don't want any cache finder second guessing my cache, why it was approved, or how it got an apparent exception to the rules. That battle I only want to fight once with the admin.

Don't suck the fun out of placing caches. Do keep coming up with new and creative things like your point system that adds some fun to the sport. And remember, the more you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets

July 23, 2003

Unless you know the cacher personally how do you know it's a vacation cache? What if I fly to LA once every two weeks for my job. Just becuase my home is 2000 miles away doesn't make it a vacation cache.

I've been planning and doing research for a cache in my hometown which is 200 miles away. I visit regularly, why should that cache be approved?

This space for rent

4.7k · July 23, 2003

as long as there keep being thread about this, i'll keep saying it. if vacationers take up the spots in my neighborhood, where will our local newbies place caches? these guys are really excited, and well, people who really know the terrain ought to be placing them.

i'd be plenty hacked off if a vacationer wrecked my careful negotiations with a local parks department.

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

24.7k · July 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by flask:
i'd be plenty hacked off if a vacationer wrecked my careful negotiations with a local parks department.

Night Stalker had that happen. After months of working things out with the NPS at initial point he got the thumbs up from the NPS he submitted the cache and it was approved. Meanwhile during the negotations a vacationer did a cache saw later than Night Stalker got his approved and demanded that it be archived. The vacation cacher won. The person who visited the area several times a year lost. See "Cache Wars" if you are interested in the 'debate' that went nowhere.

1.5k · July 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by skydiver:
Thanks for the info mtn-man. And although the cache you mention was one that concerned me, it was only the straw that broke the camels back, and by far the lesser of the evils I've seen. Other vacation caches I've seen placed just this MONTH were by tourists from Washington State, Arizona, California, and China.

Yep, I'm the Arizona cacher responsible for placing the caches in Montana. Personally, I don't think there's enough in Montana because the state is just HUGE, and there are SO MANY potential locations that nobody has bothered to place one. West Rosebuzz and Stagecoach were locations picked by my father-in-law, after I took him and another relative on a caching trip while visiting Sheridan, WY. Since he wasn't into caching yet, we drove to the areas and scouted the cache spots, placing one at each location. I made sure he was aware that vacation caches were no longer permitted unless he local chose to maintain it. He willingly agreed, and absolutely loves geocaching. I'm not sure when he'll take up the sport as a hobby, but time will tell. For him, he has that much more reason to visit the areas we placed caches in. If this is a problem, I'm sorry. I own the caches, but both were his ideas.

Brian

Team A.I.

BTW, I even stated in both that he would be maintaining them, in the event that the admin did notice I live 871+ miles from the caches I've placed.

July 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
As a cache placer I don't want any cache finder second guessing my cache, why it was approved, or how it got an apparent exception to the rules. That battle I only want to fight once with the admin.

Which is exactly why you should add one simple little sentence to your caches mentioning how you plan to, or have arranged, maintenance for caches people are likely to second guess... so they don't need to. If you don't want people second guessing your caches, then don't give them a reason to. And if you only want to fight that battle once, then answer peoples questions before they even ask them... before they need to email you asking how you plan to maintain that thing you left in their back yard. It's the curteous thing to do, and it's not a hard concept to grasp.

But if you insist on only doing the minimum required, then you may get your wish, and one day we'll have even more rules, and that will be a requirement. You ask that I continue to come up with new and creative things????? But that's not the minimum required!!!! I don't have to! Stop telling me what to do!

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

July 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Brian - Team A.I.:
Yep, I'm the Arizona cacher responsible for placing the caches in Montana.

And you're the one I tried to applaud in my original post for outlining maintenance plans. See my statement...

quote:
Originally posted by skydiver:
However, only one vacation cache I've seen this summer had anything on the cache page mentioning something like 'my father-in-law lives in the area and has agreed to maintain the cache for me'.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! You set a very good example for everyone to follow!

quote:
Originally posted by Brian - Team A.I.: Personally, I don't think there's enough in Montana because the state is just HUGE, and there are SO MANY potential locations that nobody has bothered to place one.

Here's where I have to disagree with you. How does the size of the state have anything to do with it? It's not as if you personally ran out of caches to hunt, seeing as you only found 5 of the 294 we have to offer. Could it possibly be that in actuality there are so few active cachers per square mile here that we're putting out caches as fast as we can! Give us a break already. There's only so many of us, and we actually would like to hunt some occasionally too. But what we don't want to do is maintain caches left by tourists who think we've got nothing better to do.

quote:
West Rosebuzz and Stagecoach were locations picked by my father-in-law, after I took him and another relative on a caching trip while visiting Sheridan, WY. Since he wasn't into caching yet, we drove to the areas and scouted the cache spots, placing one at each location. I made sure he was aware that vacation caches were no longer permitted unless he local chose to maintain it. He willingly agreed, and absolutely loves geocaching. I'm not sure when he'll take up the sport as a hobby, but time will tell. For him, he has that much more reason to visit the areas we placed caches in. If this is a problem, I'm sorry. I own the caches, but both were his ideas.

Absolutely no appology necessary. My whole point with this thread is to get people (and the approvers to enforce) mentioning on the cache page how they have already planned maintence. You did exactly that, and get the award as the only tourist hider this month to get it right. Kudos!!!

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

July 23, 2003

double post

July 24, 2003

I understand that issue of Vacation caches, but the Approvers have fair judgement and will ask before approving anything that seems like a vacation cache. I placed a few caches a couple hours from my home, but it was approved because, A) I go up there ever other weekend, if not less. and :smile: My brother is maintaining the caches for me (and he is a GeoCacher himself). To outwardly say, "The cache has to be within 60 miles (example)" I think is a little too strict as there are other factors that play in. I think the main issue besides maintaining the cache is to be sure that you are aware of the laws regulating the sport in the location(s) where you place caches outside of your normal home area.

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

Pardon me Sir, but there is a Wild GeoCache in this area.

www.neurocache.com - NeuroNomad & Sublonde's Page

24.7k · July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by skydiver:
...You ask that I continue to come up with new and creative things????? But that's not the minimum required!!!! I don't have to! Stop telling me what to do! ...

Exactly!

1.5k · July 24, 2003

To top off my vacation adventures, a reporter from the Billings Gazzette posted a note on the Black Otter Trail cache asking for some 'local' cacher(s) to contact him for a story and possibly guide him on a hunt. Not being local and just feeling curious, I left the guy a message, and he called me the next day.

The day before I left, we met up, he interviewed me for the story and a photographer accompanied us on a couple of caches (one I had already found, and the Stagecoach cache I had placed while there).

I think the interview went pretty well, and the photographer took quite a few pictures. The only downside is, some of the shots may very well reveal the EXACT location of my Stagecoach cache, as I was away from them 30-40', while they both remained on the trail.

If it wasn't bad enough a tourist placed some caches (just ribbing you skydiver), but I was even interviewed for an article on MONTANA geocaching!

On a side note, the reporter was quite surprised there were so few caches in Billings, and will be taking up the sport as soon as he purchases a GPS. The photographer also appeared very interested, and has extensive knowledge of GPS systems from the equipment he uses to fly with. My guess is they're going to be Garmin users, since they didn't seem to like the size of most of the Magellan units, and really liked my Vista.

Once again, you are welcome Garmin for the free plug.

Brian

Team A.I.

July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jamethiel:
I've never heard anyone who lives in Montana complain that there are too few caches.

There are too few caches in Montana.

.

What? You thought I'd leave that alone indefinitely?

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

July 24, 2003

I was just waiting for you to come out and play. Knew you'd have something to say on the subject when you finally responded.

Later all,

Jennifer

Age does not bring wisdom, but it does give perspective.

2.1k · July 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
I understand totally, skydiver and Jamethiel. I'm sure you remember the Woodsters Outdoors discussion regarding the potential cache in Augusta. I was very outspoken about that and my argument was totally along the lines of yours here. Anyone who followed that topic knows my stand on vacation caches -- no thanks.

I guess I remember LB&MM complaining about not having enough caches, among all of the other complaining they did before they were banned. It seemed there were others, but I have not heard anyone lately. Your right about that. That's a good thing and it is good to hear!!!

Ok, once again it was a hypothetical question then to a different situation. More or less had to do with distance caches rather than "Vacation Caches". There are those on here that have caches in their name, but that they do not maintain(others maintain them). They have been doing that before I even came along and it appears that it is "ok".

As far as the vacation cache thing goes, Jeremy did state that they would be ok as long as certain requirements were met. Those requirements are stated in his post in that thread. I won't repeat them here. Maybe someone will markwell them or paste them here. I do not agree with placement of any cache that is not going to maintained or is placed with intentions of not being able to maintain it.

I have noticed that the approvers are very much different in what they will allow and disallow. I think it all comes down to their own opinion on approving and not really any guidelines or regs. If so, then the guidelines change with the areas. Just my own observation.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

6.4k · July 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I have noticed that the approvers are very much different in what they will allow and disallow. I think it all comes down to their own opinion on approving and not really any guidelines or regs. If so, then the guidelines change with the areas. Just my own observation.

Here we go again!

When did you notice this about the approvers? When you dealt with various approvers on all your various cache hides? That's an awefully big blanket you have there. I doubt many of us have dealt with more then 1-2 approvers while hiding caches (I have about 12-14 hides between 2 accounts), and without any hides, I wouldnt think you would have any 1st hand knowledge at all of what the various approvers allow or disallow.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

2.1k · July 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

Here we go again!

When did you notice this about the approvers? When you dealt with various approvers on all your various cache hides? That's an awefully big blanket you have there. I doubt many of us have dealt with more then 1-2 approvers while hiding caches (I have about 12-14 hides between 2 accounts), and without any hides, I wouldnt think you would have any 1st hand knowledge at all of what the various approvers allow or disallow.

I'm speaking of the comments that have been made on the board by approvers along with those who have tried to place caches and get denied. I can compare that to some of the caches I've found which were approved through the different approvers. I've tried to not be specific, on these, but here are a couple examples. In Augusta there is a cache on a Military Installation. Guidelines state that "Caches will be quickly archived if we see the following: Caches near or in military installations" . Freedom Park Trail there is clearly on Fort Gordon, which is a Military Installation. Someone else mentioned about their virtual not getting approved in their hometown. The approver stated it was a statue and that there are many. The cache placer thought it to be unique and interesting. It was clearly acceptable according to the guidelines. This was obviously a matter of opinions. And there are caches around around where I live now. A virtual that you will notice driving down an interstate(just tell them what the unique object is) and one that is obviously on private property (have to go into a apartment complex to reach). These are just a few right off the top of my head. To each their own, my only comment is that some appear to approve on basis of their own opinion and not within the acceptable and unnacceptable guidelines.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.1k · July 27, 2003

Just kinda wondering a couple things here.

1) Any distance factor to the vacation cache placements?

2) If I move 350 miles away from my caches, are they now vacation caches or are the ones I am placing now?

3) Along the same line as 2). If I work 350 miles North of my house and then start working 250 miles South of there and 140 miles from my home, do I have to pull the older caches?

And now for a little more fire. Why not allow LOCALS who can place a physical cache at a location with a current VIRTUAL cache placed by a vactioning cacher? I was at several location last weekend where very few locals, if any, cachers where active last year. Several vacationers came through, dropped of a few virtuals and went home. Now, those areas have a core of local cachers who could put out cache boxes - and maintain them - in those locations. Myself, I think the locals should be able to supersede the vactioning cache.

Fire away.

logscaler.

21.9k · July 27, 2003

Logscaler, I'll try to respond to some of your questions.

There is no hard and fast distance-based rule for what constitutes a vacation cache. That is why it's a guideline, meant to be applied with good judgment, after a dialogue between the cache hider and the admin. The concept is based more on the likelihood that you'll return to the area regularly, and how quickly you could get out to check on the cache if it needed maintenance. For some people, that distance could be 50 miles and for others it could be 500 miles. We try to judge based on the cacher's demonstrated "range" from looking at their previous hides and finds. If the hider has 100 finds and 10 hides in Illinois, and is hiding a cache in Pennsylvania, you bet that I'll be questioning that cache. On the other hand, if the hider has finds every couple of months on the one side of the state where a new cache is hidden, but I know he lives on the other side of the state, that one will probably go through. I'll ask if I'm not sure.

As for moving, it is up to you to arrange for responsible maintenance if you leave the area. That can occur several ways. First, you could keep ownership and be prepared to drive a ways to check on your cache if needed. Second, you could keep ownership but arrange for a local cache nanny to check on the cache if needed. Third, you could arrange for the cache to be adopted (formal ownership transfer).

I'm not gonna touch the question about a physical cache superseding an existing vacation virtual.

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

Saving the day and approving all the caches... before bedtime!

2.1k · July 28, 2003

I don't completely agree with this policy. I didn't respond earlier this year because I understand the potential for caches being placed where they shouldn't be. For our out of area caches we now make maintenance arrangements and place a hidden HTML note on the page for the approver to see.

I suspect most people commenting on this subject don't travel and live in remote areas like we and many other cachers do. We love to make frequent stops for caching while on 700 to 2500 mile trips. It makes a long, sleepy drive much more fun. We have discovered some very wonderful places in the Mojave Desert, Owens Valley, Central Oregon, and Northern California because vacationing cachers left their marks.

I pray for out of area cachers to place new caches in our remote Northern California County even if they are from out-of-state because there are too few local cache placers. How else are we going to get new caches to find here?

I would like to see special consideration given for remote areas because if this policy is strictly adhered to, attrition will take a big bite out of our future vacations. We plan to place caches in the California deserts next spring but I haven't yet figured out how to get them approved.

6.4k · July 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

Here we go again!

When did you notice this about the approvers? When you dealt with various approvers on all your various cache hides? That's an awefully big blanket you have there. I doubt many of us have dealt with more then 1-2 approvers while hiding caches (I have about 12-14 hides between 2 accounts), and without any hides, I wouldnt think you would have any 1st hand knowledge at all of what the various approvers allow or disallow.

I'm speaking of the comments that have been made on the board by approvers along with those who have tried to place caches and get denied. I can compare that to some of the caches I've found which were approved through the different approvers. I've tried to not be specific, on these, but here are a couple examples. In Augusta there is a cache on a Military Installation. Guidelines state that "Caches will be quickly archived if we see the following: Caches near or in military installations" . Freedom Park Trail there is clearly on Fort Gordon, which is a Military Installation. Someone else mentioned about their virtual not getting approved in their hometown. The approver stated it was a statue and that there are many. The cache placer thought it to be unique and interesting. It was clearly acceptable according to the guidelines. This was obviously a matter of opinions. And there are caches around around where I live now. A virtual that you will notice driving down an interstate(just tell them what the unique object is) and one that is obviously on private property (have to go into a apartment complex to reach). These are just a few right off the top of my head. To each their own, my only comment is that some appear to approve on basis of their own opinion and not within the acceptable and unnacceptable guidelines.

Brian

_As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump_

OK, so you have NO actual knowledge of who approved those caches? It could very well be the same approver. The guidelines are constantly changing and evolving, caches that would not be approved today are grandfathered in under the guidelines that were in effect when they were approved. Some cachers also change or move the cache after it's approved. I've seen quite a few "well, the cache is missing, so I'm converting this to a virtual" caches, which should not be allowed, since a virtual would obviously not be approved there otherwise. As for private property, YOU try looking at a map and determine 100% what's public and what's private. Besides, there is nothing against the rules in placing a cache on private property, WITH PERMISSION. You can't possibly know what dialog the cache hider and the cache approver had leading up to a cache being approved.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

2.1k · July 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
OK, so you have NO actual knowledge of who approved those caches? It could very well be the same approver. The guidelines are constantly changing and evolving, caches that would not be approved today are grandfathered in under the guidelines that were in effect when they were approved. Some cachers also change or move the cache after it's approved. I've seen quite a few "well, the cache is missing, so I'm converting this to a virtual" caches, which should not be allowed, since a virtual would obviously not be approved there otherwise. As for private property, YOU try looking at a map and determine 100% what's public and what's private. Besides, there is nothing against the rules in placing a cache on private property, WITH PERMISSION. You can't possibly know what dialog the cache hider and the cache approver had leading up to a cache being approved.

Your right, I do not know who approved. But we are talking about 2 different states and from my knowledge it's not the same approver. Matter of fact from one approvers comments on the forum(and the states they mentioned they approve and my current state was not mentioned) I would take it that they would not approve some of the caches in this state where I currently live. Yes I understand the constant changes and have heard the mention of the grandfather clause. But the one virtual cache on the military installation was placed at the end of January this year. The virtual cache I was speaking of that you drive down the interstate near me was placed since I've joined geocaching.com, the other one on the private property issue I can understand what you are stating about the approver not knowing about the private property issue there. Just looked and this cache was "Temporarily Removed", perhaps to reasons I stated on it's online log. The fact of it was that the account it was on was a sock puppet with no finds and only this as a hide. The person on the end of the account was a girl who who's boyfriends dad placed the cache and I guess she was supposed to check on it. She told she didn't even know if it was still there and the she has only checked on it once or twice in over a year. It was in the woodline right behind the apt complex she lived in.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

4.1k · July 28, 2003

Hey skydiver, define a vacation cache for me. I have one cache that's over 150 miles from my house. I do regular check-ups on it myself.

It sounds like you need to relax and let the approvers do their job. If a cache (vacation or otherwise) needs attention then try notifing the owner.

Try spending more time cacheing and less time worrying, It makes life more fun.

Just my opinion.

John

Smile, make others wonder what you're up to!!!

July 28, 2003

OK, I'll beat the nag some more.

The ban on vacation caches is moronic. There are plenty of "local" caches that aren't maintained. We have "local" caches placed in our area by people utterly unaware of the local scene or even local laws that are approved because the placer is within some arbitrary distance that makes it 'unvacationlike'.

At the same time, what requires maintenance for a virtual cache that happens to be created on vacation? What's the harm?

Along with the ban on moving caches and the moratorium on locationless, this is all part of a disturbing trend of overregulating the wrong way. At the same time, I've seen HIDEOUSLY dangerous caches approved because they don't violate the rules (placed in active roadways, amidst broken glass and syringes, etc.)

Geocaching is about finding a certain spot at a certain time. The experience, even if extended to only one more person, is sharing that spot and perhaps that moment. It's one thing to be sensitive to local requirements. It's quite another to declare 90% of the world off-limits just because there are no locals with GPSrs and the amount of leisure time required to follow our sport of choice. And it's quite another still to say that an experienced geocacher with a good track record of sensible placement can't in turn place a cache someplace more than XXX miles from her or his home.

I just think this is pure laziness by the admins, or maybe a form of control freakiness. It certainly is a pointless restriction without the goal clearly defined as a consequence of the policy.

I've made this suggestion before: if you REALLY want to worry about the QUALITY of caches, have a review process for the first five caches placed by a new cacher, and make a requirement that you can't place a cache until you've found, say, 25 caches of at least two different types.

Coming soon: bootleg caches everywhere and competing geocaching websites if these silly restrictions keep popping up.

== Alt Dot Air ==

July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by AltDotAir:
OK, I'll beat the nag some more.

The ban on vacation caches is moronic. There are plenty of "local" caches that aren't maintained. We have "local" caches placed in our area by people utterly unaware of the local scene or even local laws that are approved because the placer is within some arbitrary distance that makes it 'unvacationlike'.

At the same time, what requires maintenance for a virtual cache that happens to be created on vacation? What's the harm?

Montana is one of those areas that seem to encourage quite a few folks to drop containers, nver planning to return. Who cleans then up when they inevitably degrade and become useless? The locals? Why should we take care of someone else's poorly planned mess? Expecting us to do so is just rude.

With local cachers, if such a problem develops we have more direct contact. The Montana community is pretty small overall, and most of us know each other, or at least someone who knows someone.

This isn't just theorizing or doomsaying. There's been several instances of problems, always involving out-of-state folks dropping and leaving, even ones where people create new caches without even bothering to stop and find the existing one they passed on the way.

As for virtuals, I've brought this up before, but one example is a particular virtual in Great Falls. Placed by someone from out-of-state, public access to the area is not allowed (it's in a dam spillway). Perhaps the area was not signed at the time (I hope that's the explanation), but it is now. The owner has consistently declined to make simple changes to allow the cache to continue to work both successfully and legally (there's a location at the top of the cliffs that is both open to the public and worthy of a visit).

So what is your opinion, AltDotAir? Should I be a jerk and request this virtual be archived?

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

July 29, 2003

OMG!!! I think I agree with everything Ron said for once! Somebody slap me!

Re: The illegal virtual.

I can't say for sure, as I've not been to that cache yet... but I'd be inclined to be that jerk. If it's really illegal, and the owner really won't fix it, then yes, the only remaining option is archive. But really a different subject altogether, since local cachers can just as easily place an illegal virt as a tourist can.

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

July 29, 2003

*slap*

Just doing what you requested. I think you should go nap on the nearest couch and then come back to the computer and TRY to disagree with something that Ron said. I mean, what if people find out you agreed?

I also agree with Ron, and have been to the cache he mentioned, and have contacted the owners. Who wrote back a "none of your business" note and told me to keep my nose out of it.

As you said Skydiver, even local cachers can place a virtual poorly.

On a side note, we had no problem placing our cache in Great Falls (Railcar Stowaway, recently archived) as we go there every other month. The approvers do a good job with watching for vac. caches, and we even had my aunt convinced to watch it. Until the spiders. Once she saw the 5 large black widows outside the hiding area, there was no way she was going to reach past them into the unknown. Good thing we went up soon afterwards to rescue it.

Vacation caches are a small part of the game, and no more or less annoying than local, junky, abandoned caches. BTW, thanks again for taking Don't Slip when it was abandoned.

-Jennifer

Age does not bring wisdom, but it does give perspective.

2.1k · July 29, 2003

Bottom line... a cache shouldn't be placed locally, on vacation or whatever, if it's not going to be maintained. I think it doesn't lie on the locals to clean up anything. If it so happens comes to that, then it will make a nice cache in trash out event. I don't think it's fair to say that those who reside locally are going to do any better of a job maintaining it.

As far as the virtual you mentioned of: I would be a jerk. I would make the requests as you stated directly. After a period if time, I would mark it and notify geocaching or whoever about it. I do agree that illegal caches should not be allowed. Especially if there is a sign posted (and that's the only way there) or if there is question about trespassing to get to the cache itself (which I questioned a local cache on private property or at least the only access to it was from private property and the person archived it).

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.5k · August 3, 2003

Ok, so I guess Montana cachers are a tad territorial of their area. Granted,

we all are it seems, but then again I don't know why it's so pronounced in MT

than anywhere else. Granted, I was given kudos for placing TWO caches while up

there, because my father-in-law wanted to, and agreed to maintain them.

I do think it's a bit over the top with disclaimers such as the one on this cache. If I were looking for caches to visit while vacationing/traveling through the area, this would reek of 'we don't want YOUR kind here' if you want to place a cache. I understand the guidelines prevent it, which is fine and good, but to make such a statement on a cache that outsiders are going to view as well as 'locals', it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Rather than making such a blunt statement, perhaps a more mellow response would

be in order, like dropping an e-mail to an admin regarding the vacation cache,

or even corresponding with the cache hider to get it archived, and call it a day. Depending

on the mood of the cacher in the area, perhaps a CITO could be made of the unwanted cache, and a cache left in its place by someone who lives there.

Even though I'm not a MT resident, I'm thinking that the elitist tone exhibited by some of this could be an anti-caching maneuver when as a sport we're all struggling to get the powers-that-be to shine a favorable light on it, rather than snuffing it out like an abandoned campfire. I think we all need to be aware of the potential ramifications of some actions, and this may come to backfire on us (think about a reporter viewing this and the slant that the article may be written with).

.98 left

Brian

Team A.I.

5.3k · August 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Brian - Team A.I.:
If I were looking for caches to visit while vacationing/traveling through the area, this would reek of 'we don't want YOUR kind here' ...

I think that is exactly the message it is meant to convey.

August 3, 2003

Yah! And the ramifications if a reporter had come across this cache would have been so much better.

I've talked to the admins, I've emailed cache placers, I've adopted abandonded caches... but all for not as they still keep showing up. So, maybe this will help educate people. Seems to me a dearth of abandonded traches would be a GOOD thing for the sport, which is the ramification I'm going for.

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

[This message was edited by skydiver on August 03, 2003 at 10:18 PM.]

August 3, 2003

Hey fizzymagic - where have I seen that avatar before......

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

Black holes are where God divided by zero.

1.5k · August 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

quote:
Originally posted by Brian - Team A.I.:
If I were looking for caches to visit while vacationing/traveling through the area, this would reek of 'we don't want YOUR kind here' ...

I think that is _exactly_ the message it is meant to convey.

My problem with that is in my statement. I meant it to imply that the statement(s) made by skydiver might send the impression that they don't want non-residents to even seek the caches, let alone place any of their own.

Brian

Team A.I.

5.3k · August 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Brian - Team A.I.:
I meant it to imply that the statement(s) made by skydiver might send the impression that they don't want non-residents to even seek the caches, let alone place any of their own.

That's what I meant, too. I think that the impression you cite is exactly the impression that the statement was meant to impart.

August 4, 2003

Hey! Don't throw ALL MT geocachers into this as anti-vacationers! We like having folks searching for our caches. And would love to have more people playing in Montana. AND, we are not against people searching while on vacation. Not me and my husband anyway...most of our vacations are planned around searching in new areas. We'd never think of taking the time from geocaching to Place a cache while on vacation though, that action wouldn't even be an option.

-Jennifer

Age does not bring wisdom, but it does give perspective.

August 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

quote:
Originally posted by Brian - Team A.I.:
I meant it to imply that the statement(s) made by skydiver might send the impression that they don't want non-residents to even seek the caches, let alone place any of their own.

That's what I meant, too. I think that the impression you cite is exactly the impression that the statement was meant to impart.

I think you both are reading a whole lot more into it than is there to be read. The first portion is a direct quote from the geocaching.com guidelines, and says nothing about seeking caches. The second part specifically says that vacationers are "invited to enjoy" the caches already placed by locals. There is nothing about the statement that says or implies otherwise.

It's a sad fact that most geocachers don't follow the forums and don't read the guidelines, and therefore have no idea that vacation caches aren't allowed. If that little note on may cache pages prevents one piece of tupperware from being abandonded in the woods as a would-be cache that never got approved and becomming litter, then it's well worth it.

And let me reiterate, it's not vacation caches that I'm opposed to, it's ABANDONDED caches placed with no intent by the placer to maintain them or arrange ahead of time for a friend, family member, or a fellow geocacher to do the maintenance for them. It just so happens that caches placed on vacation make up nearly all of the caches I've ever seen with this problem.

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

Vacation Caches (apparently, the horse isn't dead yet)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment