Jump to content

Making Vacation Caches acceptable


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

quote:
I'd like to give something back to this sport and want to place a cache locally. It would be a nice 3/1. I haven't placed it yet (and may never), because it's hard to continue an interest in a hobby that will expire by the end of the summer due to a lack of local caches and an unwillingness to travel long distances. I would be delighted to place a cache to encourage the sport, but just don't want to maintain it for years.

 

Maybe there are too many people in your area with the same attitude. Place a few caches and it could jumpstart the sport in your area. You never know until you try.

 

There is no need to maintain a cache for years. You can archive it at any time for any reason.

 

"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

While I understand the reasons for the ban on vacation caches, there are problems with it that I find quite annoying. Here are a few:

  • * What if there are no locals? (example: Castaway cay)

* What if the location is such that the locals avoid it because it's a tourist spot? (example: rest areas)

* What if the locals are into placing geocaches that only locals can find? (examples: puzzle caches, many-stage multicaches)

* What if no locals own a GPS unit?

 

I find the notion that vacation caches shouldn't be placed because they might use up the "good spots" absurd. Whenever I travel, I see hundreds of cool spots for caches that are unoccupied. If the locals are so unimaginative that the only places they can think of to place caches are the obvious ones that the tourists use, then I think the locals have a problem.

 

Maintenance is important, but only having caches placed in locations with indigenous geocachers seems to me to be limiting the enjoyment of those who'd like to go someplace unusual and find a cache.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

* What if there _are_ no locals?

* What if no locals own a GPS unit?


 

If there are no locals, who is going to visit the cache besides the occasional tourist?

 

Ditto if no one owns a GPS.

 

I think the 'no vacation caches' rule was imposed to eliminate the 80% of the problem caches that show up... leaving as you can see, the 20% that are quite likely okay.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

* What if there _are_ no locals?


If there are no locals, who is going to visit the cache besides the occasional tourist?
BruceS?icon_biggrin.gif

 

- I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. -

Link to comment

quote:

How about this... instead of having to have found 20 caches to be able to hide a cache, how about a test of 20 questions regarding the guidelines for placing caches!?!?! icon_eek.gificon_wink.gificon_biggrin.gif


 

An open book test? LOL I'm sure people will have trouble doing that, just as people will have trouble marking finds on cache pages for 20 caches that they didn't step a foot out the door to go after. And then on top of that as one stated, there are some that have only a few caches near them within a certain distance and that would be harsh to say you gotta go far out to find the cache and make it a certain many.

 

After all, how does caching get started in a certain area?

 

I think there is some confusion still going on here. Coastcachers called it a vacation cache and I don't think that is the proper term for this instance that they were referring to. They were not talking about putting a cache in a place that they nothing about and leaving it there. They are talking about putting one in a place that they know better than the place they currently live more than likely. They did make the mistake of plpacing it and not already have a form of it being properly maintained and they realized that now and admitted to it and are trying to fix that.

 

There's no way anyone is going to avoid it. As some have stated, some of the best caches are those that were placed by someone who doesn't currently live in that area. Does it mean that their cache is not taken care of? No. I think each cache has to be taken for what they offer, where they are and not by how far away the person lives away. What about Truck drivers who cache? A lot of them drive the smae route countless times and sometimes as far as 2000 miles away. Does it mean that they can't maintain a cache that far away? Not necessarily.

 

The next thing is that GC is going to start asking for your address upon sign up. Then they are going to pin you out on a map and place a cordon of a certain distance. Then you aren't going to get approved for placing caches that aren't in that area.

 

This may not be a bad idea. GC can send a letter that has to be signed and sent back. The process may take a while to do it, but it will give some benefit of the doubt. To waive costs of postage, GC could require that the cache placer send a self addressed stanped envelope. Then GC places the card or letter in the envelope and mails it back. Then once the owner receives it and signs it, they have to return it. Once GC receives it back, they are an approved cache placer in a certain radius of that area. This will keep the cache placers legite somewhat and the approvers will take into consideration that they are within a certain distance. I imagine certain circumstances could be looked as special and applied accordingly.

 

How you like them apples?

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

Why, again, is it important that every cool spot be filled with a cache? I don't understand the mindset that drives people to place at a distance. If you never knew about the location untill you you found it while travelling, you probably dont know enough about the spot to put a cache there. We've all seen compelling new terrain, and scenic vistas (pun intended) icon_biggrin.gif while travelling, but do we really need to "claim" them for ourselves. Give the locals a chance, and don't mistake caution, and patience for apathy or lack of imagination.

Why can't a vacationer take the time to find a multi stage or puzzle cache? Most of the more challenging caches in my (limited) experience have been among the most scenic and rewarding. If the goal is to blast through the area finding 1/1's to jack up find counts, then puzzles might slow you down. But who wants a tourist to place another boring 1/1 in an area that deserves much more creativity and the attentive maintenance of a cacher who has an intimate knowledge of the place?

 

eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"

Link to comment

poor coastcachers... man - you had no idea this would happen, did you? icon_wink.gif unfortunately you set up a popular soap box here... perhaps a local will adopt it soon, and all will be well again. still, it's interesting to me how some immediately assume the worst when anyone owns up to an error... give these peeps a break.

 

___________________________________

 

who's got the pig?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:

Why, again, is it important that every cool spot be filled with a cache? I don't understand the mindset that drives people to place at a distance. If you never knew about the location untill you you found it while travelling, you probably dont know enough about the spot to put a cache there. We've all seen compelling new terrain, and scenic vistas (pun intended) icon_biggrin.gif while travelling, but do we really need to "claim" them for ourselves. Give the locals a chance, and don't mistake caution, and patience for apathy or lack of imagination.

Why can't a vacationer take the time to find a multi stage or puzzle cache? Most of the more challenging caches in my (limited) experience have been among the most scenic and rewarding. If the goal is to blast through the area finding 1/1's to jack up find counts, then puzzles might slow you down. But who wants a tourist to place another boring 1/1 in an area that deserves much more creativity and the attentive maintenance of a cacher who has an intimate knowledge of the place?

 

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

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"


 

Bloen, read what we are ferring to. We are not talking about a place that they think is cool that they come upon. We are talking places that they know better than most of the locals. Places they have lived most of their life, but no longer.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by team travel pig:

poor coastcachers... man - you had no idea this would happen, did you? icon_wink.gif unfortunately you set up a popular soap box here... perhaps a local will adopt it soon, and all will be well again. still, it's interesting to me how some immediately assume the worst when anyone owns up to an error... give these peeps a break.

 

___________________________________

 

who's got the pig?


 

Excatly pig. People read the title and misinterpret the real subject of the matter. I believe some do not even read all the posts.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CoastCachers:

<chop>

Welch: We agree that unless everyone agreed to this, it would only exacerbate the abandoned cache problem. "Mandatory" hardly applies to our hobby, since there are so many ways to "cheat" if one wanted to. This game is something that needs the willing concensus of the players. That's why we posted originally to get feedback.

<chop>

CoastCachers


Just giving some feedback icon_smile.gif

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
How about this... instead of having to have found 20 caches to be able to hide a cache, how about a test of 20 questions regarding the guidelines for placing caches!?!?!

 

A much better idea than the 20 finds concept.

Enfanta, where would I be if there were a 20 find rule, and dont say I would be an exemption because once there are exemptions then everyone will want to be exempt. two of my caches, one placed after one find, have been very popular in teh state.

 

Michael

 

Lapaglia icon_cool.gif

Muga Muchu (forget yourself, focus)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:

Why, again, is it important that every cool spot be filled with a cache?


 

They don't. I'm just tired of the "locals" whining that vacation caches take up all the good spots.

 

quote:
Why can't a vacationer take the time to find a multi stage or puzzle cache? Most of the more challenging caches in my (limited) experience have been among the most scenic and rewarding. If the goal is to blast through the area finding 1/1's to jack up find counts, then puzzles might slow you down.

 

That's just offensive. I suggest that the next time to respond to a post, you take the time to actually read it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Bloen, read what we are ferring to. We are not talking about a place that they think is cool that they come upon. We are talking places that they know better than most of the locals. Places they have lived most of their life, but no longer.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

 

You're pulling that out of you *$$ just to try and defend them, and you know it. There is no way of knowing that they know the area better than ANY of the locals, let alone MOST of them. And if they don't live in the area any more, and didn't have the time to FIND any caches, how likely is it that they took the time to check on local regulations related to geocaching? There are regs and permits and stuff coming up NEW all the time as the sport grows, and it's important that these be followed, so the hobby isn't BANNED entirely from areas. Vacationers, and yes even though the USED to live there they are vacationers now, coming in a dropping caches run the risk of undermining all the hard work of the local cachers to get solutions that work well for both geocachers and land managers. I fully support the ban on vacation caches, and for that matter, think mtn-man has a good idea with the test before cache submission...make it include questions on local regulations/permits.

 

Nothing to see here, move along.

Link to comment

quote:
Enfanta, where would I be if there were a 20 find rule, and dont say I would be an exemption because once there are exemptions then everyone will want to be exempt. two of my caches, one placed after one find, have been very popular in teh state.

 

I guess it would have had to wait, huh? icon_wink.gif

 

I'm not hung up on the Find 20 Before Placing First idea. I'd be very happy to draw up a test, instead! (And include a special sub-section on TBs.)

 

But it's not up to me, or you (probably) or any other cacher, is it? It's up to the administra--

 

HEY!

 

How'd this cache get approved!?!!?

 

Care the Deception of Imitative Administrator

Link to comment

What is this irresistable urge to drop a cache everywhere you go? Is is the same thing as peeing on a tree to mark your territory? Leave caches around where you live and can maintain them. Don't put so many out that you can't possibly maintain them. What's so hard about that?

 

sigavatar.gif

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." - Benjamin Franklin

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by IV_Warrior:

You're pulling that out of you *$$ just to try and defend them, and you know it. There is no way of knowing that they know the area better than ANY of the locals, let alone MOST of them. And if they don't live in the area any more, and didn't have the time to FIND any caches, how likely is it that they took the time to check on local regulations related to geocaching? There are regs and permits and stuff coming up NEW all the time as the sport grows, and it's important that these be followed, so the hobby isn't BANNED entirely from areas. Vacationers, and yes even though the USED to live there they are vacationers now, coming in a dropping caches run the risk of undermining all the hard work of the local cachers to get solutions that work well for both geocachers and land managers. I fully support the ban on vacation caches, and for that matter, think mtn-man has a good idea with the test before cache submission...make it include questions on local regulations/permits.

 

Nothing to see here, move along.


 

Read what happened with them a little more in depth. They now live in California. They are from pennsylvania. I'm sure they know areas of where to place caches, than a lot of folks that live in the area. Never the less, perhaps they didn't check more into placing the cache before they did it.

 

Read the example of what I stated. I've lived in Augusta, Georgia for over 20 of my 34 yrs. From the looks of the number of caches in that area and the online logs, I can come to the fact that most of the people that post there do not know a lot about the area. I just left there the 31st of December and moved over 1000 miles north to Massachusetts. I have never heard of Geocaching before. Even running an outdoors website for over a year, I hadn't heard of it until about 6 months ago.

 

No matter if you are a local that has lived in an area your entire life or part of your life, you still have to check what the rules and permissions are before placing a cache. Just because your mail is not delivered to that location or local zipcode, does not mean that you can not check out the rules, regs, and permissions. The topic of dropping a cache, then trying to register it with the intent you aren't going to maintain it or have it set to be maintained is wrong and shouldn't be done.

Just because someone does not find a cache in a local area does not mean that can't place one. As in some areas, there really aren't any or very many. But if I know of places to put a cache and the rules permit after research of course, then there's no reason. With that said, I must also state that a cache should not be placed and registered if they have no way of going to check on it or maintaining it. I stated before about using the message board to find people to take a cache for themselves that you want to place. Find someone willing to do that ahead of time. Place the cache and let them know about it. Let them confirm it and the coordinates. Let them register it. It's their cache. They are responsible for it. Or if you have someone (land manager, friend or relative) that maintain it for you with their contact info on it as Jeremy stated, then it can be under your name. Why would people do that? Why do people like to place caches in the first place? Why do people like to place caches but not go and search for them? Everyone has their own thoughts and goals.

 

As stated before, the term VACATION CACHE should not be used in reference to this type of situation. A vacation cache is one purely on a "vacation" more than likely in an area that they have either: never been to before, don't have plans on necessarily returning, and somewhere they can not keepa cache maintained. i.e. if I decide to go Disneyworld and want to place a cache and drop one there. I have no reason to go back there. It's not an area I frequent. I know nothing about the area.

 

As far as the exam thing. It's sounds good. But, people are going to cheat on it. Perhaps search for the answers here before placing a cache. Just as people can cheat and make their #'s go up. Having it have questions on local regulations is too much trouble. Every area has different regulations. Many land managers work differently. If I remember correctly a post on the message board from a park manager that said that the state or area left it up individually to each manager. So you would need 1000's of different tests with 1000's of different answers.

 

Why not allow a vacation cache to be only a virtual? Someone stated that a virtual has to be a place that a physical one can't be placed at. If true, then let vacationers post one of a beautiful spot or special monument with some significance. If virtuals are pushed t othe side to make priority for physical caches, then so be it. But a virtual is something that doesn't have to be maintained.

 

Think out of the box...

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by FullOn:

What is this irresistable urge to drop a cache everywhere you go? Is is the same thing as peeing on a tree to mark your territory? Leave caches around where you live and can maintain them. Don't put so many out that you can't possibly maintain them. What's so hard about that?


 

I don't think the subject of this topic intended it to be like (dropping caches everywhere you go). What would be the requirement of the length of distance from your residence? One could easily place one 5 miles from their house in an area they never go to. They may know it's a good area for a cache, but never go there at all. Then there could be someone who works in another town 50 miles away or more and is in the area every workday. If they had a cache in both areas, which one do you think would get more attention?

 

And as I stated before. People will cheat the system and make bogus accounts for the area if they want to put a cache in a certain area anyway that isn't local to them. Unless of course you implement a system like I described where they have to receive mail at an address. Then when getting approved on a cache, the cache has to be within a certain distance of that residence. The mail would have to signed and certain information put on it and returned to the GC approvers for verification. In order to get it going the person wanting to place the cache would have to send a SASE envelope with a copy of a form printed off the website. The approver would then in turn make notes or whatever they need to on it and place it in the SASE envelope. The person receives it and fills out necessary info and mails it back. Once the approver gets the form back, they place the person as approved for that location. Then later the approver checks with maps that it is a certain distance of their residence. Specifics could be worked on but it is an idea that places a little more strictness on those trying to cheat the system.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
How about this... instead of having to have found 20 caches to be able to hide a cache, how about a test of 20 questions regarding the guidelines for placing caches!?!?!

 

Here ya go!

 

 

1.It's OK to place food caches if:

a) It's well wrapped

:P it can withstand extremes of temperatures

C) it tastes good

d) All of the above

e) None of the above

 

2.If you are placing a cache on private property

make sure you:

a) do it late at night so nobody sees you

:P camoflage it well so the owner won't

stumble on it by accident

c) ask permission

 

3. When placing caches on vacation:

a) Make sure its placed in an interesting

spot

:P Ask local Geocachers if they mind

c) just don't do it.

 

4. When choosing a cache container:

a) make sure its cheap in case its stolen

:P make sure its easy to open

c) make sure it's solid, watertight and an appropriate size.

 

5. The best places to hide caches are:

a) in garbage strewn lots under a sheet of

rotten plywood

:P next to railroad tracks, bridges or

military installations

c) in an area that others may find

interesting

 

6. When choosing trade items for your cache:

a) always use broken toys from the bottom of

your kids toy chest since its all about the hunt anyway.

B) dump discards from your junk drawer in the

into the cache

c) thoughtfully chose items that might be of interest to adults and children

 

7. When using old food containers as cache containers always:

a) wipe the inside clean with your t-shirt

B) shake out the crumbs

c) run it through several diswhasher cycles and soak it in bleach, Oxy Clean or baking soda for a few days.

 

8.After placing your cache you should:

a) leave it be, it will take care of itself

B) visit it at least once a year

c) visit it every few months, or if someone reports a problem.

 

9. If a visitor reports a problem with your cache:

a) post a note asking that the next visitor fix it.

B) let it go. Some people actually like caches with soaked log books and 2 inches of slimy water inside.

c) Visit the site at the next possible opportunity to check on the cache

 

10. If your state park implements rules regarding cache placement, you should:

a) Ignore them. Rules are for fools.

B) place a multi with the first leg outside the park

c) Follow the rules

 

11. If your 1 dificulty cache has several consectuive "not founds" you should:

a) Ignore it. They were probably newbies

B) Ask someone who found it before to check on it for you.

c) Promptly check for yourself to see if its still there.

 

12. If you choose not to replace your missing cache:

a) Leave it active so others can still enjoy the hunt

B) Disable it and leave it that way for at least 2 years.

c) Archive the cache

 

13. If your local park bans geocaching:

a) screw 'em and place your cache anyway

B) try to discuss the benefits of geocaching with the park manager

 

14. When placing a cache deep in the forest:

a) use a micro and hide it so well, people have to turn over every rock and log to find it.

B) hide it well enough so it won't be accidently discovered, but so a geocacher can find it.

 

15. When placing a geocache in a popular city park:

a) use a big ammo box, stuffed full of goodies

B) use a PVC pipe, or morter shell

B) use a small cache container, or micro and hide it carefully.

 

16. When placing a cache in an environmentally sensitive area you should:

a) walk on your tip-toes

B) forget about it and look elsewhere

 

17. If you notice social paths and trampled plants around your cache you should:

a) leave it. It will make it easier for others to find it.

B) post a note on your cache page asking people to be careful.

c) move the cache to an area with more durable surfaces.

 

18. If you find a denned bear in the cave where you placed your cache you should:

a) hide there with a camera and take pictures of the look on people's faces when they see the bear.

B) grab a stick and drive the bear out of your cave.

c) disable the cache until the bear's left the den for the season.

 

19. You picked up some ammo boxes for your caches. You should:

a) leave them as is. They're already green and the military markings on the side are pretty cool.

B) paint them hunter orange so people can find them easily

c) paint over the military markings in a subdued color, so non geocachers won't notice it.

 

20. An admin has failed to approve your cache as posted:

a) post a note in the forums ranting about how unfair the approvers are.

B) call Jeremy at home and discuss it with him.

c) Try to work with the approver to determine a way to make it acceptable.

 

"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

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on July 02, 2003 at 10:51 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by enfanta:

quote:
Enfanta, where would I be if there were a 20 find rule, and dont say I would be an exemption because once there are exemptions then everyone will want to be exempt. two of my caches, one placed after one find, have been very popular in teh state.

 

I guess it would have had to wait, huh? icon_wink.gif

 

I'm not hung up on the Find 20 Before Placing First idea. I'd be very happy to draw up a test, instead! (And include a special sub-section on TBs.)

 

But it's not up to me, or you (probably) or any other cacher, is it? It's up to the administra--

 

HEY!

 

How'd this cache get approved!?!!?

 

Care the Deception of Imitative Administrator


 

if they instate that rule...I think for the 20th cache they should be required to find one of Enfanta's finders keepers!!!! LOL! That is, find it if they can!

 

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

- Louis Pasteur

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CoastCachers:

Woodsters remains a voice of reason. Allowing a Virtual Cache as a "vacation cache" or "away from home area cache" or whatever y'all want to call it, seems pretty reasonable to me, and believe me, that is what I wish we had done! icon_eek.gif


No, virtuals shouldn't get approved either. They still have issues. Just like a normal cache, what if your coordinates are off? Should the locals fix that for you? What happens if the subject of your virtual moves/changes/disappears? Should previous finders come verify that for you too? Place you caches "at home" or areas you frequent, FIND caches while on vacation, visiting....whatever you want to call it. What's so difficult about that?

 

quote:

Coastcachers

 

ps to IV_Warrior: He didn't "pull it out of his *$$," he actually read our posts. Why ya gotta get crude?


 

uhhh...yeah he did. I read your posts too.

 

Nothing to see here, move along.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Swanlakers:

Well, this no vacation cache rule does make one thing certain, it forces caches to be near the cachers. The rule pretty well ends the possibility of very remote caches. While I can not personally hunt the remote caches, I feel that something important in the game is lost when there are no more "wild caches"

 

Swanlakers


 

Given the rules that we are dealing with, and the increasingly hostile view of park rangers and the federales toward the sport, there may be no place for wild caches soon. Of course, given the usage record of my caches, the wild ones tend to be the least visited.

 

I also worry about these, as I could see this game imploding back to the coastal woodsy set if caches get limited to city parks and roadside drops. We all do these 1/1's to keep active, but we all yearn for a really good hike through deer trails to find a wild cache.

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nebraskache/

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

While I understand the reasons for the ban on vacation caches, there are problems with it that I find quite annoying. Here are a few:

* What if there _are_ no locals? (example: Castaway cay)

 

quote:
If there are no locals, who will maintain it?

 

* What if the location is such that the locals avoid it because it's a tourist spot? (example: rest areas)

 

* What if the locals are into placing geocaches that only locals can find? (examples: puzzle caches, many-stage multicaches)

 

quote:
I was referring to the above point, and I'm sorry that you were offended by my post. I suppose I was not able to understand why only locals can find puzzles or multis. Please explain this. The only reason I could come up with was a quick 1/1 breeze through, but there might be other reasons I'm missing.

 

* What if no locals own a GPS unit?

 

I find the notion that vacation caches shouldn't be placed because they might use up the "good spots" absurd. Whenever I travel, I see hundreds of cool spots for caches that are unoccupied.

 

If the locals are so unimaginative that the only places they can think of to place caches are the obvious ones that the tourists use, then I think the locals have a problem.

 

quote:
That's just offensive.

 

Maintenance is important, but only having caches placed in locations with indigenous geocachers seems to me to be limiting the enjoyment of those who'd like to go someplace unusual and find a cache.


 

Hey, if it's your "home away from home" or hunting camp, or summer home, I say go for it. I'm not opposed to people placing in areas they frequent and are familiar with. I don't recall ever "whining" about tourists taking all the good spots. I just don't think I need a tourist to show them to me.

Some people do have legitimate, unique situations where they are able to maintain caches placed far from their permanent residence. After they run out of cool spots at home, place away.

 

eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"

 

[This message was edited by BloenCustoms on July 02, 2003 at 04:11 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by BloenCustoms on July 02, 2003 at 05:29 PM.]

Link to comment

Some of the complaints, not all, are frankly locals protective about their turf and not wanting "foreigners" invading THEIR areas, how dare you? They're for me, us, not you outsiders!! Never mind you may have placed a thoughful, well stocked cache, and made arrangements for local maintenance, just stay outta our lands!!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by IV_Warrior:

No, virtuals shouldn't get approved either. They still have issues. Just like a normal cache, what if your coordinates are off? Should the locals fix that for you? What happens if the subject of your virtual moves/changes/disappears? Should previous finders come verify that for you too? Place you caches "at home" or areas you frequent, FIND caches while on vacation, visiting....whatever you want to call it. What's so difficult about that?

 


 

If I find an interesting spot while traveling and post a virtual cache and the co-ords are off and the first couple of logs say, "No, there is no historical cemetary there, and no headstone epitaph to report." Then I archive it. If the cemetary or historical landmark or the Hoover Dam moves that gets logged, too, and I archive it. How and why would I impose on a "local" to "fix" either of those situations?

 

Most situations where co-ords are off (rare as they seem to be) come to the attention of the cacher by logs on the page. Do you really go back and check the co-ords of your caches if the logs don't indicate a problem? And if one of your physical caches goes missing wouldn't you most likely learn about it from the log page? Would you feel that was imposing on previous finders (seekers, actually?)

 

I hardly think I'm going to be pre-empting a local from creating a virtual cache at say Ft. Tejon or a rock formation in the middle of the Mojave. And no local laws about caching could be broken if there is no physicl cache.

 

Placing Physical caches at home and finding any kind of cache anywhere is basically what it's all about. But creating a Virtual cache for some interesting place or thing you find anywhere is just sharing that with other cachers. No?

Link to comment

How many vacation caches are puzzles, or multi's? Something really special that makes for a great hunt? Postcard scenery alone doesn't make a great cache. Someone recently placed a five terrain cache about 5 miles from my house. It was a blast to find, and I believe they will take good care of it. It was original, fun, and interesting. And I'm glad they put it there. There are also a few "read the plaque at this statue" virts that the area could do without. All of the above were placed by visiting cachers.

 

eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"

Link to comment

None,Zip,Zero,Nada vacation caches.We really don't need you planting caches in our area if you are only passing through on vacation. If the caches we have aren't cool enough for you pleasedon't help us out with a cache that won't be maintained on a REGULAR basis. Why impose on the locals in a area to maintain your cache until you can make it back to do it your self if you ever come back. Maybe some people who are local don't maintain their caches but why add more lovely vacations caches to the mess. Good rule leave it as is.

team sidewinde

 

LOST AND FOUND DEPT.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:

Most of them can be easily researched on the internet without leaving the couch.


 

Then they are poorly done...the ones I have seen usually ask something like "Which letter in the third word is defaced?" or "What is directly behind you when you face the (whatever)?"

 

But what you wrote makes me wonder about something: the fun we get is finding the caches. It really doesn't take anything away from our pleasure if someone else "cheats". Heck you could "cheat" on a physical cache: "Found it! TNLN" How many cachers actually compare logbook entrys to the reports on the cache log page? Getting a (well done)virtual cache find okayed by the cacher is probably more stringent than just report a find of a physical cache.

 

Obviously some players enjoy finding as many caches as possible, and have an informal competition going, but a cheater would have to work pretty hard and to no purpose to to "outscore" some of the teams whose personal stats I've seen. And if they did, so what? It would be pretty obvious to the people who care.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:

Would anyone wanting to place a "distance" cache like to have the area picked out for them by a local, and maintained by a local. How is this different than picking the area yourself and letting someone else adopt it?


Very little difference. Except that you could mail the cache rather than placing it yourself icon_wink.gif

 

Note that CoastCachers have joined the concensus on 'away from home physical caches.'

Link to comment

Why is woodsters making such a case for vacation caches? Is he just trying to promote his vacation website with his signature tag?

 

He has not placed any caches!@!!

 

Place a cache woodster and find out what is involved in maintaining a cache, before you climb on a soap box.

 

I suggest this thread be killed.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CoastCachers:

quote:
You're not supposed to leave a virt if you could have left a physical.


 

Missed that rule, too!


That's part of the problem unfortunately. People don't read the guidelines, the FAQ's and the guide to hiding a cache.

 

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

http://www.geocaching.com/faq.asp

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

 

Read these pages. My suggestion of a test was sort of a joke, but in a way I was serious. This is directly from the "requirements" link above.

quote:
Virtual Caches

 

A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of an object at a location which was already there. Typically, the cache "hider” creates a virtual cache at a location where physical caches are not permitted. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit.

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why a regular geocache – perhaps a micro or only a log book - couldn’t be placed there?” If there is a good answer, then it may be a valid virtual cache opportunity. Also, consider making the location a step in a multi-stage cache, with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

There have been virtual caches approved in the past on the basis that "a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained" at the location, often by a user who is traveling through the area. This essentially "blocks" the area for later placement of a physical cache. Physical caches have priority, so virtual caches of this nature will usually not be approved.


It is right there in paragraph number 2.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

quote:
Originally posted by CoastCachers:

quote:
You're not supposed to leave a virt if you could have left a physical.


 

Missed that rule, too!


That's part of the problem unfortunately. People don't read the guidelines, the FAQ's and the guide to hiding a cache.

 

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

http://www.geocaching.com/faq.asp

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

 

Read these pages. My suggestion of a test was sort of a joke, but in a way I was serious. This is directly from the "requirements" link above.

quote:
_Virtual Caches_

 

A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of an object at a location which was already there. Typically, the cache "hider” creates a virtual cache at a location where physical caches are not permitted. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit.

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why a regular geocache – perhaps a micro or only a log book - couldn’t be placed there?” If there is a good answer, then it may be a valid virtual cache opportunity. Also, consider making the location a step in a multi-stage cache, with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

There have been virtual caches approved in the past on the basis that "a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained" at the location, often by a user who is traveling through the area. This essentially "blocks" the area for later placement of a physical cache. Physical caches have priority, so virtual caches of this nature will usually not be approved.


It is right there in paragraph number 2.


 

That is a lot broader than your original posting. AND it points out that one reason for approval may be the maintainance issue. Obviously there are a lot of situations where a virt is MORE appropriate, especially given the problem that physical caches seem to have complying with the law in many areas some of the posters here use.

 

I'm not clear on how large an area a virt would "block," but as physical caches have priority, it seems a virtual cacher would just have to accept the archiving of that cache if someone placed a physical within that area.

Link to comment

I am the admin who archived CoastCachers' recent cache submission. We have exchanged very pleasant e-mails. I would like to publicly thank these geocachers for accepting so much criticism in a constructive fashion, and also for being responsible by arranging for their cache to be picked up.

 

If CoastCachers desires to close the discussion, I'd hope that everyone could respect their wishes. They've probably bookmarked the cache listing requirements by now.

 

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

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by solohiker:

Why is woodsters making such a case for vacation caches? Is he just trying to promote his vacation website with his signature tag?

 

He has not placed any caches!@!!

 

Place a cache woodster and find out what is involved in maintaining a cache, before you climb on a soap box.

 

I suggest this thread be killed.


 

First of all if you read my post, I'm not defending vacation caches as you are interpreting them to be. My whole statement on this entire thread was that the topic of this thread should of not of been a vacation cache. I think there is a difference in a vacation cache and a cache in an area you frequent and know better than a lot of other cachers.

 

You are correct, I have not placed any caches. I have not made any plans to do so and you will be the first to know when I do. My point on the whole matter was that Coastcachers was note merely dropping a cache and running. They put one in an area that they know very well. I'm in a similar situation(not cache wise). I moved over 1000 miles away from my hometown. I've only have heard of geocaching since I've been up here. I've looked at at caches online for my hometown. They seem to be lacking inspite of the size of the town (2nd largest in Georgia). You read the logs and you can tell that the people are not from the area. Matter of fact many that visit the caches are visitors in the area. My point was of a hypothetical nature. If I was there and placed a cache properly, and it was maintained properly, then what is the big deal? I'm not taking anything from anyone. That would be like telling people they could only place one cache, because you need to give others a chance. What about those 2 or 3 years down the road from today? If we all that attitude then there would not be any caches to place for anyone.

 

My website is not a vacation website. It is an outdoors website. And just as many others post their URLs , I chose to do so.

 

And don't start pointing fingers about numbers and who hasn't done what or who has.

 

IV_Warrior: As many others have stated, even the veterans make errors on coordinates. It happens. If people don't find the intended object then the cache can be archived. If a person that knows what it is and posts the correct coordinates then it can help. It happens with physicals alot. Physical caches can be moved as well. I would think that a virtual should be something that is not moved. If something happens then it gets archived.

 

Bloen Customs: your statement of "Hey, if it's your "home away from home" or hunting camp, or summer home, I say go for it. I'm not opposed to people placing in areas they frequent and are familiar with. " is exactly what we are talking about.

 

Sidewinder: Was not what we were referring too.

 

Coast Cachers: I'm sorry, but it seems a lot of people don't get the idea and remain to stay one sided in a box with many sides to it. I applaud you for your ability to remain straight forward with the whole thing. Myself, I've bitten my tongue enough on this and have done a lot of deleting while answering this message.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:

They've probably bookmarked the cache listing requirements by now.


 

Bookmarked it, maybe. It appears they STILL haven't read it. I'm sure I'll be accused of picking on them again, but they keep saying they made a mistake, but have read the rules now and know better. Great, then how come they keep saying things like below that I'm sure everyone else here whoo HAS bothered to read those guidelines knows the answer to?

 

quote:
Originally posted by CoastCachers:

I'm not clear on how large an area a virt would "block," but as physical caches have priority, it seems a virtual cacher would just have to accept the archiving of that cache if someone placed a physical within that area.


Anyone wanna answer that for them?

And unless the guidelines have changed since the last time I read them (this weekend, right before I went out and placed a new cache), there is nothing in there about archiving an existing virtual if someone wants to place a physical nearby. That's the problem. Chances are the virtual is now there forever, grandfathered in against any future changes in the guidelines, and blocking all geocachers, now and in the future, for placing a new cache in the area.

 

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

Link to comment

Bubbles prefers cute little ponies to dead horses. She did see that last rule slip-up but chose to ignore it. But, since Mopar asked....

 

The guidelines do say that the approvers use a standard of 528 feet for the distance between caches. And a virtual doesn't get archived if a physical cache is placed nearby. That's one of the reasons so many virts are getting archived when they are submitted! A virtual cache, whether placed by a local or a non-local, "blocks" an area in a circle with a radius of .1 miles for other caches. Please be sure that a physical cache CANNOT be placed in the general area before thinking about submitting a virtual cache. It helps to provide an explanation to the approver as part of your submission. It also helps to send me money by PayPal, but Professor Utonium always makes me share it with Blossom and Buttercup so I just quit asking.

 

Any other rules you wish to test me on, folks?

 

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

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

Link to comment

One last reply. I can see that there are many people of the opinion that so-called "vacation caches" should never be allowed.

 

I doubt that these people have really thought hard about the consequences, which will include:

  • Most caches will be urban caches in high-population zones.

  • The proportion of high-terrain-difficulty caches will decrease.

  • Unpopulated areas will have few or no caches.

  • The number of truly interesting caches that take real exploration will decrease.

 

I am upset over this because several of my favorite caches would not be approved today. I think that geocaching is heading toward insipid monotonization, which is sad, since it had the potential to be an adventurous sport.

 

Here are some of my favorite caches that would be considered "vacation caches":

 

Patty's Mount Battie

Cool Britannia

Kenny in the Dunes

Oh Say Can You See?

Orient Yourself To Orient Beach

GordaMickey

Castaway Cache

 

Take a look at the above caches. Notice how few of them have maintenance issues. Notice how interesting and fun each is. Consider that none of them would be approved today.

 

'nuff said.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

 

Bookmarked it, maybe. It appears they STILL haven't read it. I'm sure I'll be accused of picking on them again, but they keep saying they made a mistake, but have read the rules now and know better. Great, then how come they keep saying things like below that I'm sure everyone else here whoo HAS bothered to read those guidelines knows the answer to?

 

quote:
Originally posted by CoastCachers:

_I'm not clear on how large an area a virt would "block,"_ but as physical caches have priority, it seems a virtual cacher would just have to accept the archiving of that cache if someone placed a physical within that area.


Anyone wanna answer that for them?

And unless the guidelines have changed since the last time I read them (this weekend, right before I went out and placed a new cache), there is nothing in there about archiving an existing virtual if someone wants to place a physical nearby. That's the problem. Chances are the virtual is now there forever, grandfathered in against any future changes in the guidelines, and blocking all geocachers, now and in the future, for placing a new cache in the area.


 

Golly gee, Mopar, you ARE right. Not planning on creating a virtual cache today, I didn't memorize that one could not be placed with 528' of an ezisting cache. We are soooo ashamed, and humbled befor your wisdom and greatness, not to mention your pleasant co-operative demeanor.

 

And since it wasn't crystal clear, let me reword the second part: "...as physical caches have priority, it seems a virtual cacher should just have to accept the archiving of that cache if someone placed a physical within that area" Again, it was a suggestion, based on the concern expressed that a virt would block a preferable physical cache. You yourself say that the lack of such a rule is a problem.

 

Ya know, sarcasm and derision may be the normal mode of discussion for you, but I'm just fed up with it. I hope you log thousands of caches and no one ever imposes on you in any way.

 

We are out of here.

 

CoastCachers

Link to comment

Mopar and keystone you bring up good points about the distances and the fact that if a virtual is made somewhere within the prescribed distance then it messes up the chance for a physical. Perhaps someone that wants to place a physical within that distance of a virtual that is already there can contact the owner of the virtual and ask if they mind if they archive their virtual so they can place a physical and make mention of the virtual in the cache page?

 

There is no way for approvers to allow or disallow on that rule unless they know the exact area themselves. I would say virtuals and physicals are 2 different things. And that they should be looked at differently. Virtual is more or less saying hey look at this cool spot. Perhaps virtual finds should not be counted with physical finds. Make them another category, like benchmarks.

 

I don't mind the 528' rule as far as physicals go. The only problem I see with the whole idea of people should only place caches in areas within a prescribed distance to their house will limit the possibilities of the sport growing as far as placing physical caches. A few years down the road, people just joining the sport will not be ableto experience placing a cache and maintaining it due to the oversaturation of caches placed. Perhaps a cap on cache placing per person should be instilled? But then those who are the veteran expert cache placers will not like that and not like being able to place another cache.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

A few years down the road, people just joining the sport will not be ableto experience placing a cache and maintaining it due to the oversaturation of caches placed. Perhaps a cap on cache placing per person should be instilled?


Perhaps we should not allow caches placed while traveling first. Oh, we already do that don't we. icon_wink.gif

 

This is a point I have been thinking about but have not mentioned. I placed a lot of caches locally in my county. No one else was doing it really and I wanted to get some caches out for people to find. Recently I slowed way down. A few new cachers placed some and now I have some caches to find. These areas that are 1000 miles away from you will eventually have caches placed by people who live in the area and can maintain them properly. Why not be patient and allow the area to grow naturally and be developed by locals?

 

[This message was edited by mtn-man on July 03, 2003 at 08:01 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

I doubt that these people have really thought hard about the consequences, which will include:

 

+ Most caches will be urban caches in high-population zones.

+ The proportion of high-terrain-difficulty caches will decrease.

...

+ The number of truly interesting caches that take real exploration will decrease.


 

In my caching area, these types of caches ("high terrain difficulty/truly interesting caches that require real exploration") have been placed exclusively by "locals." On the other hand, a high percentage of the "urban" caches, especially in NYC, have been placed, and abandoned, by vacationers.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...