Jump to content

Time limit on caches?


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

It was mentioned in another thread about that Arkansas state parks were imposing a time limit on caches in their parks. This brings up a good point. How long should a physical cache be left out? Should there be a time limit on a cache? In just 3 years there have been over 58,000 caches placed (I assume that includes virtuals as well), but some areas become so saturated with caches. Many people feel that only locals should place caches, which is their opinion, but what happens when it becomes too difficult or even impossible for even a local to place one? Especially when you look into the future of geocaching down the road. Will there be any places left to put caches? Will people who would like to place a cache, get the experience that some feel others need?

 

My opinion is that a cache should have a time limit. Perhaps, 6 months or a year at the most. I think that once the time goes by, then it is the responsibility of the owner to remove it and that it will be archived. Then there should be a time limit, before that cache placer can replace a cache there.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

Personally, I don't like the idea of a time limit on caches. There are some excellent caches out there...why not leave them.

 

Maybe a limit on how many caches a user can place in a defined time limit would work.

 

I do recognize the problem you're discussing and with the rapid growth of geocaching it will only get worse. I live in an area that has 9 caches in a two mile radius. (And, yes, I am part of the problem)

Link to comment

I don't see any need for a limit on caches. Given that the caches are all properly maintained, and that the land owner doesn't object to them, I think caches should be allowed to stay as long as the cache owner wants to maintain them.

Running out of cache hiding spots is harder than you might think. You just have to get creative. All of my caches are located in urban areas, and I'd have no problem finding nearby hiding spots if I needed too. Microcaches are even better, they can be hidden in plain sight. As for interesting places to put a cache, there doesn't seem to be any great shortage of those either. How about setting up a series of famuily oriented caches by placing one in every public playground around you? I'm sure that would take more caches than you'd be willing to maintain.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

My opinion is that a cache should have a time limit. Perhaps, 6 months or a year at the most. I think that once the time goes by, then it is the responsibility of the owner to remove it and that it will be archived. Then there should be a time limit, before that cache placer can replace a cache there.

 

What are your thoughts?


I don't a time limit needs to be imposed by gc.com. Six months is too short, and one year will only work for some caches. If its a 1/1, then yea anyone wanting to visit can probly do it in a year easy. But what about those caches that are more difficult or just remote. There are some caches that have been out there for months or years even and no one has found them. So placing a blanket time limit wouldn't work for eveyone.

 

I think if an area does have a limit, it should be self-imposed by the locals, but only if they want one. And there are already some parks that have set up their own times, so those places have no need for another.

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

Time Limit?

 

Naw, to many remote caches way out with only a couple finds. I have one that has been out over two years with only one find. And another half a dozen with less then ten finds in the basic same time frame.

 

Now if you wanted to put a limit by the amount of finds, that would be different and more workable.

 

Factor in the cache density for a given area by the amount of finds tweaked by the cache ratings and comments per cache. A lot of easy caches with a lot of finds and a lot of local cachers could be removed and replaced with a new cache.

 

And that way, If you wanted your cache to stay out for a long time, you would have to come up with a better hide. The higher the ratings and the comments would give the cache a longer "best if used by" date.

 

Any caches plundered would be given an extention, but the third time plundered would kill it. This might cause problems with other cachers wanting your spot and "removing" your cache so they can put one there but it could be happening now anyway.

 

logscaler.

Link to comment

Well, at first glance it might look like a good idea - but after a little thought, I would be against it.

 

Seems to me that some of the best caches are ones that have been around a long time (relatively speaking icon_wink.gif ).

 

And a limit on the number of caches an individual can hide sounds good too. But I know of at least one prolific cacher who manages to find locations that no one else will. So is it really fair to say he has to stop at any certain number?

 

I think the whole thing will be self-regulating anyway. A really good cache, hidden well and in a good spot, may endure long enough to be a "local legend". Lesser caches that may seem to proliferate like rabbits will likely die a natural death (plunder, wear&tear, owner disinterest).

 

Perhaps the only limitation I might like to see would be a maximum time between either "found it" logs or "checked it and it's still there" logs. Maybe...six months for urbans and once a year (give or take) for more rugged locations?

 

...clear as mud?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

 

What are your thoughts?


 

I think you should search the forums for the huge number of posts already dicussing this. Maybe go back further then the few weeks ago you joined?

Then you would already know what LOTS of people thought about it starting a new topic.

 

Just my thought on the subject......

 

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

Link to comment

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

There are perfectly awesome caches that deserve to live as long as they possibly can.

 

However, where I live, DCNR does put a time constraint on a cache. I don't think the cache has to be removed (i'm not really sure though) at the end of this time limit, but i think the permit has to be renewed or the cache has to be moved to a different spot.

 

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator."

- Louis Pasteur

Link to comment

quote:
This brings up a good point. How long should a physical cache be left out? Should there be a time limit on a cache? ....My opinion is that a cache should have a time limit. Perhaps, 6 months or a year at the most. I think that once the time goes by, then it is the responsibility of the owner to remove it and that it will be archived. Then there should be a time limit, before that cache placer can replace a cache there.


 

Why? Most of my caches are placed for a reason. Generally it's to introduce to people to an area that I think is special. The reason for placing it doesn't go away after 6 months, so why should the cache?

 

If the cache is having a negative impact on its surroundings, or if the owner is no longer interested in maintaining it, then by all means remove it. But to make a blanket rule? Nah.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

Link to comment

I'm sure 99% of the topics have been already discussed before, Mopar. I wanted my own topic.

 

Yes there are some great caches out there that have been around for a while. You can't simply just place a cache in a public playground. You have to make sure it's allowed there. Just because it's a public place does not automatically make it a place where you can place a cache. There may be ordinances against it, or the manager may be against it. The idea of time limited caches may not be for everywhere, but due to others feelings on that only "locals" should place them, and with the fact that many areas do get saturated, it won't allow people in the future to place them.

 

Some of you who have followed one or two of the latest thread will see that some think that if a person doesn't place a cache then they have no credibility as to caches (placing/maintaining). Which is fine. But when you start to think about it, what about down the road if the placement of caches doesn't slow down? Then others will not have the chance to place a cache in those local areas.

 

The idea of limiting how many a person places was a thought as well. Someone mentioned somewhere else that most caches visits are within the first couple months, and then after that they usually slow down. I've looked in my area and that seems to be somewhat true here, but may not be in all areas. I would say a year is a decent amount of time.

 

Just remember these are opinions, don't hold what someone says against them....lol

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

I hate the idea of an artifical time limit. However if there needed to be one, then I propose 3 or 4 years. Why so long? The more rural caches don't get visisted as often and to be blunt it takes longer to get to them. I'm in my hometown every day, but outside that, I get to the Sawtooths once or twice a year, I get to Twin Falls 3 or 4 times a year and so on. There are a lot of areas and a lot of caches that will just take that long to get to. I'd hate to miss them just because 6 months became the magic lifespan.

 

I'll archive mine when I feel they are played out and let others fill the gap.

Link to comment

Hey, great idea! I say we set up all kinds of arbitrary rules so that the sport becomes so cumbersome and expensive that all of those less dedicated individuals will decide to get out of it and leave it to the rest of us.

 

Oh, wait, we're already doing that.... sorry.

 

LOL.

 

It's just a fun activity folks, quit taking this stuff so seriously, especially those of you who have been doing it such a short time. Good grief, calm down, it'll be okay. Life as we know it will not come to an end if a cache or two sits out there too long. Sheesh.

 

texasgeocaching_sm.gif

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

It was mentioned in another thread about that Arkansas state parks were imposing a time limit on caches in their parks. This brings up a good point. How long should a physical cache be left out? Should there be a time limit on a cache?


 

Isn't anyone going to markwell on the thread from a year ago where Choberiba/Eric_O was pushing the idea of cache expiration?

 

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

Becky Davis

San Jose, CA

Buy Tupperware for cache containers.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by beckerbuns:

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

It was mentioned in another thread about that Arkansas state parks were imposing a time limit on caches in their parks. This brings up a good point. How long should a physical cache be left out? Should there be a time limit on a cache?


 

Isn't anyone going to markwell on the thread from a year ago where Choberiba/Eric_O was pushing the idea of cache expiration?

 

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

Becky Davis

San Jose, CA

Buy http://my.tupperware.com/beckydee for cache containers.


 

Nah, it has been expressed by certain people they have no interest in past discussions of various topics... so why waste your time...?

 

texasgeocaching_sm.gif

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

Link to comment

Cache expiration is a bad idea. There really is no reason a cache should expire if it's maintained.

 

However, I would be in favor of a cache renewal process. Something like an automated annual email to the owner with check boxes:

 

keep it (I still maintain this cache)

archive it (container is already removed)

adoption (container is still there but I'm not. Put it up for adoption or retrieval by a local cacher)

 

If you have time to go hide a box in the woods a simple email requiring a response shouldn't be too much to ask. Of course, this would require considerable effort to implement.

 

Just my opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...

 

-Vb

Link to comment

Just a short timer, but yes short timers can have opinions - Sounds like Verboten's idea would be the way to go to at least help the situation and maybe force people to think about the caches once a year. One question, what do you do if they don't respond to the email? Archive it? Bet that would clean things up - if you can't take enough resposibility to respond to an email, how can you take the responsibility of maintaining a cache.

 

[This message was edited by geopug on July 06, 2003 at 09:49 AM.]

Link to comment

Good point geopug. There is a cache locally that I won't bother to go and try to find due to the decsriptions that people make on the cache page. Actually it hasn't been visited in over 8 months and it's rated a low rating of no more than a 2/1.5 and may be lower than that. People remark as they feel they are on private property or they had to cross private property kind of throws up a red flag to me and obvious many others, as there are only a handful of finds there and the time that has passed since people find. Perhaps one of those who found it, should of questioned it.

 

Also should a person who owns a cache make a remark on the cache page when they go to maintain it? I think it's a good practice, but the cache I referred to has no remarks as such and keeps me from going after it as well. Especially when there has been such a long time of no find there.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

Excellent suggestion, Verboten.

 

As to the cache density reaching a point where there is a cache every .01 miles, and a new player can't place one... think how upset he would be if there were a couple of good spots taken up by caches placed by someone 500 miles away, who HAS room in their hometown. icon_biggrin.gif

 

eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"

Link to comment

The DNR or whoever is putting time limits so the area doesn't get to trodden by cachers, from what I've read in here, and it does make sense.

 

Yes, they should be happy people are interested in nature, but those groups are often more reactive than pro-active. It is "their land", though, so we have to work with them.

 

IMHO, cache in/trash out and courteous caching can help them see that we're on the same side.

 

=====

It is the tale, not he who tells it."

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:

Excellent suggestion, Verboten.

 

As to the cache density reaching a point where there is a cache every .01 miles, and a new player can't place one... think how upset he would be if there were a couple of good spots taken up by caches placed by someone 500 miles away, who HAS room in their hometown. icon_biggrin.gif

 

http://angelfire.com/pro/bloen/images/eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"


 

But there are no rules against it. As there are none for you to go and place one in theirs. It would be one thing if it were your property, then you would have a say-so. They may not be aware of that room in their hometown or it's not a place where they want to place one.

 

The idea I threw up here, was in reference to fast growth of the sport. People already complain about so much of us newbies on here as it is. Imagine all the ones that don't post, or ones that don't bother with the forums. One day there will be very few place to place caches. Sure some along the way will get archived, but if every cache placer had the idea that theirs should be there forever, then the only places left will be in peoples yards. Especially those who don't live in big urban areas. It may never get to that point. But it will become more difficult for people to place caches near them or in their own localities.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The Falcon:

The DNR or whoever is putting time limits so the area doesn't get to trodden by cachers, from what I've read in here, and it does make sense.

 

Yes, they should be happy people are interested in nature, but those groups are often more reactive than pro-active. It is "their land", though, so we have to work with them.

 

IMHO, cache in/trash out and courteous caching can help them see that we're on the same side.

 

=====

It is the tale, not he who tells it."


 

That is my thoughts about it as well. But it brought up the thought in my idea of time limited caches. There are some great caches out there that have been out there a couple years and are very useful. But there are many that go without visits or very few visits. Perhaps a reason could be, that while it may fall within the guidelines, that it was not in the best spot or it contains a lot of junk in it. People follow others on the cache pages. When someone reads it was a great place or cache, then others will want to go and find it.

 

Better yet, rather than a time limit on all caches, what about a time limit on caches that see no or very few visitors over a certain amount of time? Should they become archived and allow someone else to place one there?(not saying that someone elses cache will be any better, but gives a chance) Or perhaps there could be a notice placed on a caches page when that time comes that it will be archived and the area will be open for a new cache. People can put a watch on it or keep an eye. The cache goes archived, then there is a time limit (1 month or so)that if someone else doesn't take that spot, then the first cache owner can place their cache back there if they wish to do so. They may be frustrated with no visitors previosuly and not wish to place one back there at all and look for a new spot for it.

 

It's not necessarily a problem now, but could become one down the road.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

Let's make a rule that virtuals can be "usurped" by a physical cache. If you can find a way to put a micro within .01 of the coords of the virt, it gets arhived immediately.

 

(I'm not being serious)

 

eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"

 

[This message was edited by BloenCustoms on July 06, 2003 at 08:18 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:

 

As to the cache density reaching a point where there is a cache every .01 miles, and a new player can't place one... think how upset he would be if there were a couple of good spots taken up by caches placed by someone 500 miles away, who HAS room in their hometown. icon_biggrin.gif


 

But there are no rules against it. As there are none for you to go and place one in theirs. It would be one thing if it were your property, then you would have a say-so. They may not be aware of that room in their hometown or it's not a place where they want to place one.


 

OMG! Have you already forgot about the vacation thread you are so fond of? No, I doubt it! So you already know there are rules against placing that cache 500 miles away, unless you can maintain it. I'm truly startying to agree with the others, your posts are making less and less sense, and your opinion is like a revolving door; whatever works for the moment.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

hehe bloen, but not on virtuals...as virtuals require no physical, on location, maintenance other than to check that the virtual is still there. But then my opinion is virtuals are in a totally different category than physical caches with containers.


They still require the owner to verify the virtual location is still there, and more importantly (and I guess if you would actuually READ those dadgum guidelines that all the other experienced cachers except for you have spent years hammering out, you might know this), the hider of a virtual cache has the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the logs. That means they have to read the emails with the verification answers, and delete any logs that are wrong, or are never verified. Personally, I think maintaining a virtual, especially a popular one, is A LOT more work then visiting my physical caches every few months.

 

 

And lets make another rule that if cacher A lives closer then cacher B to cache location D, then A over-rides B and gets spot C.

 

Yea, more rules!

 

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

Link to comment

Aweful bunch of rule happy people about these days!

Take a breath. Think. Quite trying to change the world for everyone into your own image. So many want to do that from Sunday to Saturday.

 

Let me provide some guidelines here. Guidelines! Yes, not rules, but suggestions on how things may work best. A roadmap, if you will, where you still let others drive the car.

 

Rules are often uninforcible, involve legal issues, irritate people, usually become a thing in themselves and become overbearing. Guidelines are none of these things. They are meant to help people along, not bang them over the head. Much more helpful.

 

Time limits are a great suggestion AS a suggestion. Every now and then I pull some of mine because they have been out there too long, others that have been out there longer clearly have not run the lengnth of their life.

 

Time limits, yes, but that limit should be left up to the owner of the cache. I do think it would be helpful to confirm every now and then that the hider is still active. If not, then adopt or archive.

 

4497_300.jpg

 

"See the wonderous works of Providence! The uncertainty of human things!" Geo.Washington

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

 

OMG! Have you already forgot about the vacation thread you are so fond of? No, I doubt it! So you already know there are rules against placing that cache 500 miles away, unless you can maintain it. I'm truly startying to agree with the others, your posts are making less and less sense, and your opinion is like a revolving door; whatever works for the moment.


 

I don't think you understand was what said. From the exerpt you quoted, Bloen stated that one should not place caches 500 miles away when they have room in their hometown. I stated that there are no rules that state someone can not place a cache 500 miles away as you referred from the vacation cache thread. I also stated that if it was their private property that it would be something different as they are the land owner and can say whether or not a cache is allowed. A land owner of private property has the right to allow one person to place a cache and not another.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

hehe bloen, but not on virtuals...as virtuals require no physical, on location, maintenance other than to check that the virtual is still there. But then my opinion is virtuals are in a totally different category than physical caches with containers.


quote:
From Mopar:

 

They still require the owner to verify the virtual location is still there, and more importantly (and I guess if you would actuually READ those dadgum guidelines that all the other experienced cachers except for you have spent years hammering out, you might know this), the hider of a virtual cache has the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the logs. That means they have to read the emails with the verification answers, and delete any logs that are wrong, or are never verified. Personally, I think maintaining a virtual, especially a popular one, is A LOT more work then visiting my physical caches every few months.


I have read the guidelines, did you read and understand MY remark? I had said no physical, on location maintenance except to make sure that it is still there. Of course there will be an online log and emails to answer, but my remark was referring to actual physically going to a virtual. I might also add to this that depending on the virtual that you would need to check the surrondings to make sure that traffic is not impacting the environment. But since virtuals are of "an existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue" then it is highly unlikely that there will be any more impact that what is caused by normal traffic in the area. Of course some situations will be different and the placer should use better judgement on physically checking on it more often. Also note that people have and stil ldo place virtuals when away from their homes, even the more "experienced" cachers on here....

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

Eraseek, it was a question of others opinion on the matter. I posted my opinion, it may come as a suggestion if they want to take it that way.

 

There was nothing saying that I wanted to start an alliance of time limits or anything. It was an opinion of concern for the future of caching.

 

Right on the front page of Geocaching it states "There are also plenty of people to help answer your questions in the online forums." I had a question and I asked it.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

Doesn't anyone read the FAQ?

 

How long do caches exist?

 

It all depends on the location of the cache and its impact on the environment and the surrounding areas. Caches could be permanent, or temporary. It's up to the cache owner to periodically inspect the cache and the area to ensure that impact is minimal, if not nonexistant. When you find a cache, it's always a good idea to let the cache owner know the condition as well.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

The implication of your post was ''what do you think about creating another rule about this?:''

 

Not, ''How long should I leave a cache out there''

 

You asked, here is the answer: No, you should not make another rule. Over regulate and you kill the fun. Regulate and you put Geocaching at risk. How? You take respondsiblity away from the cacher (where it should be!) and lay it upon Geocaching.com.

 

Ask away. I'm happy to give a helpful opinion about anything. But remember.. Each of us are responsible for our own actions. Guidlines and peer pressure are the best way to maintain the quality of where we are headed.

 

Should there be a time limit on caches? Yes. When they have lived too long, are trashed, no longer have an interest factor, then pull YOUR cache. Some of these are day one. Some may never reach that terminal point.

 

Vacation caches are much the same. Some should never be placed. Some are worthy indeed. If a cache is a problem, make a point of it in the post when you log it. (Where there is a maintainance issue, I like micros. Less impact.)

 

4497_300.jpg

 

"See the wonderous works of Providence! The uncertainty of human things!" Geo.Washington

Link to comment

Jeremy; Yes I did read the FAQ, but my question was just to here what others thought. What the faq states works just fine for now. My intentions of my opinion is for the future of the sport.

 

Eraseek; There was no implication of trying to start a rule. AS stated above it was a question of others opinion. Just as people ask, what is the best GPS to buy. Everyone has a different opinion. No one is wrong. No one is right.

 

Thanks for your input and opinion. As far as peer pressure, I tend to not agree with that. The fact being that you have some that try to overrun most of the crowd with what you can and can't do. When most of the time it deals with their opinion. Geocaching.com is not their site and they don't have the control over it. Then of course we all respect Jeremy and the time nad energy he has put forth. But you get those who try to influence the "peer pressure' as they are a board nad try to run things. If there is a rule for something, then fine. Follow it as it is published. But don't try to make your own (not you) opinion the rule. Perhaps Jeremy will see peoples opinions, whether mine or yours and use them to the advantage of the site. But your idea does not have to meet a time frmae of being on the site, nor a number on your profile. I would much rather prefer that the number of posts be removed as well as the number of finds. Someone's opinions or thought with larger numbers of either makes no difference in it or their credibility.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

It's not a protest Jeremy. It's a thought or opinion. I could of easily posted a poll as others do. Whether its a recent one like "Is night time caching a good idea" or one of the many others. I asked a question for peoples opinions. If I wanted to protest, I would of emailed you.

 

Just because I don't agree with everything as they are, doesn't mean i'm protesting. Just as because people don't have the same opinion does not mean they are protesting either.

 

I've read the fac on time limits. I stated I agree with what they say on it for now. My question on opinion was directed towards peoples thoughts of future. I have not disagreed with anyone and have thanked them for their opinions, whether I agreed or not.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Take it as you may Jeremy. It is your opinion.


 

In 30 days you have managed to have 284 posts. I would call that an informed opinion.

 

I'll let you get the last word since you are obviously compelled to do so.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

Thanks for the last words. I don't think the amount of posts means anything in a given time. But that is my informed opinion. Your front page says to ask questions. I ask questions. Do I ask the wrong ones? Half of those 284 posts was defending myself at what you refer to as "cheap shots" and personal attacks. It also includes having to repeat myself as others have failed to read and understnad my point. Someone quotes me, I will respond. Whether it is in disagreement or to say yep. Don't hold it against me if i like to discuss things.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

You make a good point on peer pressure, and I have run into that. However, peer pressure has its good points and bad points. If you go to a party ever someone says ''Hey, lets smoke dope'', bad peer pressure! If someone there says ''Stupid idea! I'm outta here!'' Good peer pressure.

 

Don't trash caches, cache in trash out, good peer pressure.

 

''Directed towards peoples thoughts of the future''. I wonder what that means.

 

If I may insert a thought here. What is Geocaching? A web site. It provides information. It defines the sport. It provides guidelines for how the game should be played.

What it cannot do is pull a cache for you,

stop you from jumping off that cliff to get a cache,

prevent you from trespassing,

stop you from leaving trash,

check to make sure you don't get hurt,

stuff like that.

How could it possibly?

 

Guidelines, individual responsibility, information. The life blood of Geocaching.

 

Ok. I said my piece.

 

4497_300.jpg

 

"See the wonderous works of Providence! The uncertainty of human things!" Geo.Washington

Link to comment

292 posts in 30 days!! Very impressive for a newbie. Is that a record? Someone out there do some research and let us know.

 

As far as time limits go...how about newbies having to post in the "Getting Started" Thread for the first 30 days after they become members?

 

I can sense it...here comes post 293!

 

El Diablo

 

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

http://www.geo-hikingstick.com

Link to comment

As far as time limits go for caches absolutely not. I have three caches two of them are in low traffic areas. That means I will be able to maintain them easily and they could last for years.I think Jeremy has some great guide-lines for cache time limits if needed.Thats all that is needed more rules just takes away the fun and when that happens people will give it up.My two cents for whats its worth. (4 post in six months for me).

Link to comment

quote:
292 posts in 30 days!! Very impressive for a newbie. Is that a record? Someone out there do some research and let us know.

 

I think he's trying to catch up with me.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

Link to comment

We have been working several months on getting a multi cache ready and it will be another month or two before we're ready to submit it and you think after only 6 months or so it should be removed. After three to four months work It should be allowed to have as many visitors as it will sustain. As long as the owner takes care of his caches and there are no problems with it there is no need to have someone arbitrarily decide when it should be pulled. Just my opinion. Also I'm a newbie.

 

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

Link to comment

Well, please let me make a point here that was denied in another forum subject post...heheheh.

 

1. No one objects to newbies, they are welcome just as we were when we were new.

 

2. No one objects to newbies asking questions. It is a good idea, but when you follow your questions with an absolute statements, such as "I think night caching gives our sport a bad name" and give no evidence to back it up, that leaves an impression of negativity, not positive input as a new member. (No, that thread was not yours Woodster, it's just an example).

 

3. No one objects to newbies bringing up topics in the forums, more than welcome, but at the same time you cannot say previous discussions are of no worth to you as there are some very involved exchanges in those old threads that might have given you some idea of where Geocaching has come from, thus educating you and making your arguements have more credibility. Please consider researching topics and seeing what has gone before and then jump right in if you have a new aspect that hasn't already been bludgeoned do death.

 

4. None of us are the final word, so just consider what it looks like when we post these "opinions". If every other forum subject is some kind of negative feedback concerning our little "sport" here, how long before everyone starts to reflect that negativity.

 

5. Geocaching is not evil! Some newbies seem to think it is, at least a little bit. The few number of cachers is not going to result in the environment being trashed and trampled! I would like to hear more ideas about what will make Geocaching more fun and interesting, not more regulated and restricted. Common sense should rule.

 

6. Woodster, you do make life in the forums more interesting, good on you for that at least. Now, if we could just tweak some of you guys sense of humor...lol.

 

Take care all,

 

Mac McKinney aka Breaktrack

 

texasgeocaching_sm.gif

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

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...