Jump to content

Making Vacation Caches acceptable


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

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.]


 

Would that be like the caches you did in Texas and DC?

 

The whole point of this was not something that I wanted or planned on doing. It was a hypothetcial situation as to what Coast Cachers did with somewhat difference.

 

If someone wantsd to place a cache in a different town, they are going to do it. Bottom line. And until there is a system to prevent or help prevent it, you will never know.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

What is considered a local? Someone who lives there, right now? Is there a time frame that a person must live in an area that constitutes them a local? I moved 1000 miles back in January. I lived in the previous place for over 20 years of my 34 years. I've lived here, what 6-7 months? Which area do i know more about? The place I moved from is my hometown. Am I no longer a part of them because I moved away for what may be a short period of time?

 

I agree, someone that is traveling, on vacation, or have no real sense of the area and has no way of keeping a physical cache maintained, should not place a physical one. Can they place a virtual? Sure why not? Let virtuals be seperate from physicals, just as benchmarks are. It won't add #'s to your physical finds, which so many portray that their experience is higher because of. But it will add to the fun of the sport to try and find places that others have marked. It doesn't have to be maintained. If the coordinates are wrong which happens sometimes to the veterans on their own caches which are in their local area, then they get deleted, archived or whatever unless someone corrects it.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

What is considered a local?


 

I would think someone who lives within 50 miles (perhaps 100 miles in sparsely populated areas) would be considered a local.

 

As far as geocaching is concerned, the length of time one has resided in an area is irrelevant ... only the ability to maintain a cache is.

 

As far as the other "locals" are concerned, there's a good chance you'll never be considered a "real" local ... but perhaps the children of any children born to you there will be. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

Ok so by the definitions you defined as a local. Then you are only a local of where you are residing. I can see what you are saying. But the problem is you have people that know nothing about an area that place caches. Some cache finders miss out on some great places to see and maneuver to, because someone who just left an area they lived in most of their life knows better. I also mentioned before that what is a person could maintain a cache like that?

 

I've not placed a cache and I have no plans too. But how often does a cache placer, go to their cache physically? Do they do it on their own or by reading the online log? A person could live 150 miles away or farther, but travel home every week or every other week. I doubt if those who place many caches or even many those that place a couple go to their caches every week or every other week. I know of a person here in this area that goes to one of his own often, but it is only a little more than a 1/10th of a mile on a path. He merely goes from what it appears to swap out travel bugs that get in there. Those who have 10 or caches would have a hard time going to their cache anymore often than that depending on the difficulty.

 

There are different circumstances all around. I'm not discussing this point as a fact of something I want to do, but of a point that sometimes we become narrowminded on some things and certain subjects. I've experienced living in an area for a long time, and i've experienced living somewhere for a short time. Peoples life events change. Should those people in the military not place caches? After all they move around or could be sent off to places like Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention a few others. Military get sent TDY all the time. I went to Panama for 3 months. That is obviously a period of time that I could not properly maintain a cache. It happens all the time and sometimes suddenly without warning. It's nothing you can do to stop. Just as you aren't going to stop those who do it. By saying "you have to place a cache local to you" is not going to make people place caches only local to them. It's paddling upstream. Go with the flow and accept the obstacles that there are. Work on making the system foolproof. And goodluck on that.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Ok so by the definitions you defined as a local. Then you are only a local of where you are residing. I can see what you are saying. But the problem is you have people that know nothing about an area that place caches.


 

Yes, but such a person is probably learning a great deal about their new area by placing those caches. That's a positive, right?

 

quote:
Some cache finders miss out on some great places to see and maneuver to, because someone who just left an area they lived in most of their life knows better.

 

Then it's too bad that person hadn't placed caches when they were a resident there ... but I've already made it clear previously that I don't have a problem with people placing caches in areas they frequent.

 

I don't understand why you would waste so much time, effort, and apparently passion arguing against policies and processes you have "no plans" or interest in utilizing.

 

The rest of your post degenerated into a rant, so perhaps you should follow your own advice and "go with the flow."

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:

Yes, but such a person is probably learning a great deal about their new area by placing those caches. That's a positive, right?


Not necessarily. A lot do not know of areas that others may.

 

Then it's too bad that person hadn't placed caches when they were a resident there


But people learn about it after they left or later down the road.

quote:

I don't understand why you would waste so much time, effort, and apparently passion arguing against policies and processes you have "no plans" or interest in utilizing.


 

Because it's something I believe in. Why waste your time disagreeing with me now? Why do others waste their time in disagreeing with me when someone can easily make a fake profile and place a cache whereever they want? I'm sure there are many people who do it. There was also a point that Coastcachers made that was misinterpreted by many on here that saw 2 words and became offended.

 

quote:

The rest of your post degenerated into a rant, so perhaps you should follow your own advice and "go with the flow."


No it was not a rant. It was a statement. People get set in one way and believe there is no other way. I think it would be best to help the sport grow and be more friendly for many new cachers to come. I am "flowing"!

 

icon_biggrin.gif

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

hehe...some people all take it a little personal, glad you and a few others don't.

 

Someone has a tag line of something like "I've never learned anything from a man I agree with". And it is so very true.

 

We all have to agree that the system is not perfect. And people do bring up good ideas that can enhance the system and the experience, whether they just signed up on the board or have been here 2 years. Work smarter and not harder. I agree I would hate to go and find a cache that isn't maintained. That day is coming, and I know it.

 

A little sceario: You have an inmate. You tell him don't go over there. Will they listen to you? No. They will eventually go over "there" for some reason. Maybe just to spite you. But if you put up a deterence, lets say a fence, will they go over there? Perhaps one day they will make it over the fence if hte guard is let down, but more than likely not. At least not as easily. Is it going to be easier on you with the fence or just having to tell them "Not to do it"?

 

You also have to look at the future of the sport and it's growth. The site has been around 3 years and there are already over 58,000 caches in 177 different countries. Where will it be in 3 more years? With the help of all the media and the acceptance it's getting, who knows? You have to work towards the future and not for today. I used to work for the State of Georgia for about 8 yrs. They worked on a system that didn't work on preventing things. They waited till someone got hurt or even killed and then changed the rules. They may still work that way, I don't know, I haven't worked for them in over 3 or 4 years.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

Glad you are looking around on the site more Brian. You actually looked at my profile. I'm touched! Of course, the DC and TX virtuals more than conform with the current guidelines since both are historic and in NPS areas. Please note that they were also created before the guidelines regarding virtuals were tightened up in November of 2002. My TX virtual was the first one for the missions and the 8th cache in San Antonio. Please read the description. If you don't think my virtual in DC is a good one, then you did not read Harrald's post from yesterday. I bet it is hard to log a find when you have a tear in your eyes.

 

Uh, did you miss my virtual in CA by the way? What about the cache in IN?

 

 

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

You're right; anyone who tries to reason with you is clearly wasting their time. My apologies. Rant on, brother!


BassoonPilot is *so* right. I will plan my caches for Saturday instead. "Rant on, brother!"

Link to comment

I didn't see the caches for the other 2 states and didn't read the 2 I mentioned. I was backing my point as that people can find a place that is a good virtual while traveling and make it such. I'm sure plenty of people can come up with some good ones as well.

Yes I did look at the profile. Others do that when pointing fingers and saying "get more finds under your belt" or "place a cache and you will understand". Puhlease!

 

If you have read my posts, I stated that no physical cache should be placed by someone that has no knowledge of htat area or does not have a means to maintain it. i.e. the infamous "Vacation Caches". There's no reason why anyone can't place a virtual cache. I agree about it being historic of NPS. But I can tell you from cache pages I've seen that there are virtuals that have gotten approved recently that are not of such things. I believe virtuals belong in a seperate area than physical caches.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

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._


 

I see that I forgot the very obvious point that the entire world is just like the New York City area. My apologies; I just can't imagine how I could have neglected something so very important.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

 

I see that I forgot the very obvious point that the entire world is just like the New York City area. My apologies; I just can't imagine how I could have neglected something so _very_ important.


 

I don't know what is wrong with some of you people; I really don't. If you want to argue that this is not how I have found the situation to be in the New York area, then go ahead. Obviously, you know better than I. If you would like to present an argument that the situation is different in your caching area, then by all means, please go ahead. But do try to refrain from assinine comments similar to the one quoted above.

 

If that is not possible, then continue as you have been, and my only comment to you will be what I stated earlier to another malcontent: Rant on, brother.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I don't know what is wrong with some of you people; I really don't. If you want to argue that this is not how I have found the situation to be in the New York area, then go ahead.


You're the one arguing for a global ban on out-of-area caches; your comments about your area in support of that global ban clearly imply that you believe the situation to be the same everywhere else.

quote:
But do try to refrain from assinine comments similar to the one quoted above.

The comment you quoted wasn't asinine (note the spelling there!). It was sarcastic and rather biting, however.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

<snip>

 

You are correct, I have not placed any caches.

 

<snip>

 

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

 

<snip>

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Brian,

 

I am not finger pointing about numbers, but let's face it...

 

If you have never placed a cache, what credibility do you have in a discussion about where caches should be placed?

 

Place a local cache and let's talk :-)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

You're the one arguing for a _global_ ban on out-of-area caches;


 

Let's get down to the very basics: Is that an accurate statement?

 

quote:
your comments about your area in support of that _global_ ban clearly imply that you believe the situation to be the same everywhere else.

 

That's ridiculous. The sun is up and the sky is blue here in the NYC area as I write this. According to you, I therefore must also believe the same conditions apply globally.

 

quote:
The comment you quoted wasn't asinine (note the spelling there!). It _was_ sarcastic and rather biting, however.

 

Main Entry: as·i·nine

Pronunciation: 'a-s&n-"In

Function: adjective

Etymology: Latin asininus, from asinus ***

Date: 15th century

1 : marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment <an asinine excuse>

2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ***

 

Sorry about the spelling, but clearly your comment was asinine. Sarcastic, too, but "vapid" rather than "biting."

Thanks for including more asinine commentary.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by solohiker:

If you have never placed a cache, what credibility do you have in a discussion about where caches should be placed?

 

Place a local cache and let's talk :-)


 

The point I was making makes no difference whether you've placed one, two or a hundred. It's a common sense thing. If you can follow the rules of placing a physical cache on property where it is allowed, and have a means of maintaining it, then who cares if you live next to it, near it or not? It has has already been stated by others that there are other unforeseen circumstances that cause caches to go un maintained. Of course there are going to be idiots who place one not knowing where to place one, or even care to maintain it, but you aren't going to stop it with the current system that is in place. Keystone has mentioned some obvious ones that, um no , should not get approved. But who's to tell me that I can not maintain a physical cache that is not near my home? I've suggested a simple system of making more of a verification system that will make it easier to keep people near their caches. With the current way of doing things, people will be dishonest, cheat the system easier and everyones (approvers and cache seekers) wheels will be spinning rather than turning. I've also suggested a rule of only a certain amount of caches to be placed by each member. That way it allows future members the chance and experience of placing a cache. Especially when they argue about a cache and someone mentions for them to place a cache first. Where will they end up placing one? In the last 3 years of Geocaching, some areas have become so saturated with with caches. In another 3 years there will be no where for them to place them, giving the fact of rules of not placing them in certain places or rules that land managers put out against placing caches on their lands. Perhaps there should be a time limit (6 months -1 year) placed on caches. And only a few caches placed by one person at a time. That way the sport can still grow and allow those same vetures that the others have had in the last 3 years?

 

Just because I haven't placed a cache does not mean that I don't have an opinion or good ideas. It also doesn't mean that I don't know how to properly place a cache or how to maintain it.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by solohiker:

If you have never placed a cache, what credibility do you have in a discussion about where caches should be placed?


Duh. Hiding some caches doesn't give any credibility in this discussion. I didn't gain any magical hiding abilities with credibility certificate after placing my first few caches.

 

After having found a few different kind of caches and reading the guidelines, FAQs and these forums I knew pretty much all of the basics of cache hiding. Sure, the more caches I find & hide, the more caching stories and threads I read & hear etc, the more nuances and ideas I keep learning. Having 'credibility' to join a discussion like this, it has very little to do with.

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Divine:

Duh. Hiding some caches doesn't give any credibility in this discussion. I didn't gain any magical hiding abilities with credibility certificate after placing my first few caches.

 

After having found a few different kind of caches and reading the guidelines, FAQs and these forums I knew pretty much all of the basics of cache hiding. Sure, the more caches I find & hide, the more caching stories and threads I read & hear etc, the more nuances and ideas I keep learning. Having 'credibility' to join a discussion like this, it has very little to do with.

 

-


 

This discussion concerns maintaining caches.

 

I think spending time and money to support a cache is relevant to the discussion.

 

Anyone can hide a cache. What matters is the maintaining of the cache.

 

This discussion is a direct parallel to my favorite Seinfeld episode.

icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by solohiker:

quote:
Originally posted by Divine:

Duh. Hiding some caches doesn't give any credibility in this discussion. I didn't gain any magical hiding abilities with credibility certificate after placing my first few caches.

 

After having found a few different kind of caches and reading the guidelines, FAQs and these forums I knew pretty much all of the basics of cache hiding. Sure, the more caches I find & hide, the more caching stories and threads I read & hear etc, the more nuances and ideas I keep learning. Having 'credibility' to join a discussion like this, it has very little to do with.

 

-


 

This discussion concerns maintaining caches.

 

I think spending time and money to support a cache is relevant to the discussion.

 

Anyone can hide a cache. What matters is the maintaining of the cache.

 

This discussion is a direct parallel to my favorite Seinfeld episode.

icon_smile.gif


 

Still think that if placing a cache makes a differnece, then the more you place makes a difference...if all that has to do credibility.... well....i'm not going to point fingers.

 

Anyone can hide a cache...so it takes an expert or brain surgeon to maintain one?

 

Let me get this straight...to maintain a cache, it needs to be checked periodicallly. It needs to be checked that it's : 1) in good order, 2) in good condition, 3) not adversly affecting it's surroundings, 4) is still allowed to be there, 5) log is there and still has adequate supply of paper to log on in it. , 6) one may even want to double check it's coordinates and ensure that it hasn't been moved.

 

So where does it take anyone other than the person who placed the cache to maintain it? Is there any other special rules to doing it that aren't posted? If so, please give us a lesson and enlighten us...

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

just went to the page about maintaining a cache and it says:

 

Step 5 - Maintain the cache

 

Once you place the cache, it is your responsibility to maintain the cache and the area around it. You'll need to return as often as you can to ensure that your cache is not impacting the area, and ensure that the cache is in good repair. Once people have visited the cache, inquire about the cache and their opinion of the location. Does the area look disturbed? Are visitors disrupting the landscape in any way? If you have concerns about the location, feel free to move or remove it from the area.

 

 

hmmm I think I gave a pretty good synopsis myself and even added some...

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

just went to the page about maintaining a cache and it says:

 

_Step 5 - Maintain the cache_

 

Once you place the cache, it is your responsibility to maintain the cache and the area around it. You'll need to return as often as you can to ensure that your cache is not impacting the area, and ensure that the cache is in good repair. Once people have visited the cache, inquire about the cache and their opinion of the location. Does the area look disturbed? Are visitors disrupting the landscape in any way? If you have concerns about the location, feel free to move or remove it from the area.

 

 

hmmm I think I gave a pretty good synopsis myself and even added some...

 

Brian Wxxd

Wxxdsters Outdoors

http://www.wxxdsters.com

 

I am somewhat certain that you will be an adequate cache maintainer if lighting strikes and you actually place a cache.

 

I would normally advise you of the first rule of geocaching, but you seem to have all the bases covered.

 

Except for the placing of the cache, which is really the essence of geocaching.

 

(sorry, Jerry could not resist.)

Link to comment

Well, If a cache is going bad for lack of maintenance, I sure hope the owner would quietly accept a recommendation for archival. It would be pretty immature to whine and make excuses like "I just haven't been able to get out there, it's a long drive, you know."

 

eyes.GIF

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"

Link to comment

As a "neocacher" with three "did not finds" and no Founds...

 

I do have 4 travel bugs and four caches looking for A GOOD SPOT.

 

I have been READING the forums for 7+ months, and recently have started to actually LOOK.

 

I am in a area saturated with MOUNTAIN Top caches and relatively few "drive-bys". the only drive-bys we have around here are deadly.

 

So I beg the question, when does a cache placement become a "vacation cache", and when does a locally unmaintained cache actually get removed once it is archived, or is it just abandoned in place?

 

It seems to me that left behind abandoned caches, not on the active lists should be PHYSICALLY removed before they become bad press for us

 

Esecially if they are Marked http://www.geocaching.com

 

geocan.jpg

 

Trash-out, EVERYtim

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

I will plan my caches for Saturday instead. "Rant on, brother!"


OK, Friday night pocket query is in...

caches loaded into the GPS...

PDA has been sync'd...

 

 

Oh look, the rant continues!!! icon_eek.gif

Maybe you all should take a day off and go find a cache. icon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

What a concept!!! icon_razz.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by GeoCan:

So I beg the question, when does a cache placement become a "vacation cache", and when does a locally unmaintained cache actually get removed once it is archived, or is it just abandoned in place?


A cache is a vaction cache, when its placed without being able to return to it, or with no set plan for maintaining the cache. Part of maintaining a cache, is being able to check on the cache with a 'resonable' amount of time(but I dont know that resonable is a set amount of time).

 

quote:
It seems to me that left behind abandoned caches, not on the active lists should be PHYSICALLY removed before they become bad press for us...


Generally I think the caches are physically removed. If its archived its probly already missing, or is damaged and the owner can't be contacted, so its set up that someone will collect whatevers left of it(ie: the approvers says, "if youll got pick it up, ill archive it, ok?"), and it will be archived.

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

It has a lot to do with how the position is presented. A lack of focus tends to undermine that individual's position. For example, some posts ramble on and on, touching on several unrelated (or perhaps tangential) topics. A total lack of experience in an area also tends to undermine that individual's position. Geocaching is, after all, a participatory sport. Fair or not, I give greater consideration to the opinions of those who participate, and less consideration to the opinions of those who are 'desktop experts.'

 

I also consider whether the opinion/position presented was intended to benefit the entire geocaching community or merely some self-interest of the individual presenting the argument.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on July 05, 2003 at 07:32 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

It has a lot to do with how the position is presented. A lack of focus tends to undermine that individual's position. For example, some posts ramble on and on, touching on several unrelated (or perhaps tangential) topics. A total lack of experience in an area also tends to undermine that individual's position. Geocaching _is_, after all, a _participatory_ sport. Fair or not, I give greater consideration to the opinions of those who participate, and less consideration to the opinions of those who are 'desktop experts.'


 

Ok, if you want to look at numbers, then lets do. I've been on here a month. I have 12 finds already. I've dropped 2 travel bugs, I've found 3. Some people who have been here over 2 years, own no travel bugs, and grabbed barely anymore than I have. On their found cache counts they average less than 4 a month? And their hidden count is barely more than their travel bug grabbed count and a 1/3 of those are archived or at least put on hold because they are placed somewhere they weren't allowed to be? Numbers mean nothing. If you do look at that, then who participates more?

 

I agree that it takes more "know how" of placing a cache than maintaining one. But for someone to jump in and make things personal right off the bat and state things like "place a cache and we will see" or "we will see when you place a cache", not to mention "why does he care so much about vacation caches(when it was not such a cahce as spoken in the explanation of the messages), is it because he has a vacation website?" is childish. First of all that person never bothered to look at my website and only saw a word that said vacation. Which was referring to cabins. If camping, fishing, hunting, bike riding, rollerblading, geocaching, and other outdoor activities are considered things you only do on vacation, then yep he got me there.

 

To insinuate that a person has a lack of knowledge of geocaching (which I still don't see what a timeframe, number or "knowledge" of caching has to do with being able to find a cache or place one), because of a number or date on profile, doesn't necessarily mean that they are lessa knowledgable. There are those out there that I am sure that don't place these type of things in profiles, just for simple things like this.

 

I have not claimed to be an expert. I know I'm not and would never even say I am even if I had 1000 finds. I do have an opinion, knowledge, and ideas. Just because I don't agree about something that there is, doesn't make those attributes any less. I've received email from the topic starter, thanking me for actually reading the message s and understing them. I've maintained focus on the thread. Point being that the topic starter shouldn't of used the words Vacation cache. I've stated that there should be no reason that there is no rule that says that a cache has to be within a certain amount of distance from where you reside. They state that they should be maintained. They say that to maintain them that they should be checked periodically along with the other rules. There is no definition as to "periodically". What one may define as Periodicially, another will define it different. I might think that it means weekly, you may think it means every other week or once a month. A person who owns a 5/5 may have a different viewpoint. If there is going to be such rules, then define to greater extent. But if you aren't then you can not hold anything agaist them as long as the rules are followed. If a cache becomes disarrayed and it appears that it is not being maintained properly, then archive it. I use a lot of analogies and hypothetical situations to make my points. Do not confuse them with not being focused.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

watch out alan, the words vacation cache will come with adverse remarks and possible personal attacks. icon_biggrin.gif

 

My OPINION is that a distant placed cache is a better term. Since that it does say no caches are to be placed on vacation. But then again, what constitutes a vacation?

 

Glad to see someone with more "credibility" than me agrees somewhat.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by alan2:

If I choose to hide a vacation cache and have enlisted locals to help me maintain it, what business is it of anyone?


 

Ultimately, it's the business of the person who exercises control over the site the cache is listed on. Simple, isn't it?

 

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

 

I do have an opinion, knowledge, and ideas. Just because I don't agree about something that there is, doesn't make those attributes any less.


 

Is that an example of your opinion, knowledge, or ideas? (I think the entire post fits squarely into the "rant" category ... an extremely undisciplined rant, at that.)

 

quote:
I've maintained focus on the thread. ... I've stated that there should be no reason that there is no rule that says that a cache has to be within a certain amount of distance from where you reside. They state that they should be maintained. They say that to maintain them that they should be checked periodically along with the other rules. There is no definition as to "periodically". What one may define as Periodicially, another will define it different. ...

 

At least you don't ramble on and on incoherently. Oh, wait, he's not finished; not unlike the energizer bunny, it's still going and going and ...

 

quote:
... I might think that it means weekly, you may think it means every other week or once a month. A person who owns a 5/5 may have a different viewpoint. If there is going to be such rules, then define to greater extent. But if you aren't then you can not hold anything agaist them as long as the rules are followed. If a cache becomes disarrayed and it appears that it is not being maintained properly, then archive it.

 

zzz ... zzz ... zzzSNX! Sorry; did I miss something there? So your real complaint is that you want the word "vacation" replaced with "distant" or "out of area?" Right. Okay. I agree.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I use a lot of analogies and hypothetical situations to make my points. Do not confuse them with not being focused.


 

And here I thought you were using them to obfuscate your opinions that were based on your lack of knowledge and ideas. Oops. My bad.

Link to comment

My whole thing with this was that coast cachers were referring to a cache they placed in their hometown, although they do not reside there. They made the mistake of calling it a vacation cache as it really wasn't a random cache drop. They also made the mistake of not being able to keep it maintained as they should be. I stated that way earlier in the start of this thread. My opinion which later, as coast cachers referred to me in an email, was thrown on a grenade, was why can't someone place a cache in an area in which they are knowledgble of, taken the time to research, and especially if there is a lack of caches there. The rules say no vacation caches. No problem, my definition is one that you randomll drop without any research, in an area that you do not frequent or have no way, means or care to bother to maintain. That was my definition which I have to derive, since there really wasn't one for a short sentence of "No vacation caches". After all, why would you place a physical cache that can't be maintained? That's part of placing a physical cache, is that you have to keep them maintained. As Alan stated, why would it matter if you place a cache and keep it maintained? Whether it's you, your friend, a relative or whoever that has agreed with you? Jeremy posted a point that if hte land manager wanted to place their info for contact in those cases. Why not place the contact info of those who are maintaining it, if not the actual cache placer themself. If it doesn't remain maintained, then it gets archived like all the other caches that people don't maintain that are in their town of residence. There are no rules stated about a radius that caches must be in, in the residence you currently live in. And if ther ewas and move outside a radius that prescribed, would your cache be archived? Even if you moved a few miles outside of the area? No one can say whether or not a person can or can not maintain a cache. I might be capable of traveling 1000 miles on the whim to check on a cache. Who's to say I won't? Who's to say I will on a cache in my backyard?

 

Like I said, it becomes a rant to someone who doesn't believe in it. And what is funny that those that say it is a rant, keep replying to it.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by alan2:

If I choose to hide a vacation cache and have enlisted locals to help me maintain it, what business is it of anyone?


 

Ultimately, it's the business of the person who exercises control over the site the cache is listed on. Simple, isn't it?


 

That's true, I suppose BP. SO let me modify my question. What business is it of anyone else? I didn't realize Jeremy needed so many lawyers to protect him!

 

Alan

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Like I said, it becomes a rant to someone who doesn't believe in it. And what is funny that those that say it is a rant, keep replying to it.


 

That's because your eagerness to continue beating a dead horse, your lack of brevity, and the total breakdown of your command of the english language in your rants are hilarious.

 

Sorry if I let the "cat out of the bag."

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on July 05, 2003 at 09:22 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

 

That's true, I suppose BP. SO let me modify my question. What business is it of anyone else? I didn't realize Jeremy needed so many lawyers to protect him!


 

Well, Alan, "Are we not our brothers' keepers?" On a different level, your statement questions the very premise of discussion boards.

 

I suppose you should really direct it to the individuals who make such queries in open forums, knowing that the actual decision making is done elsewhere.

 

Certainly, these forums have influenced the decisions of TPTB from time-to-time, but mostly, the discussions that take place in these forums are not unlike having a similar discussion with your spouse, in-laws, or down at the neighborhood tavern; it's not going to change anything, but it's fun. The current position of TPTB concerning the topic of this thread has been made clear numerous times.

Link to comment

Here in Kentucky, our organization has worked with the major land management agencies and put a lot of effort into getting total bans on GeoCaching turned into rules that allow GeoCaching under certain circumstances.

 

Unfortunately, if someone places a cache in those areas while ignoring the rules, our organization and GeoCaching both lose credibility, and it becomes that much harder to negotiate with the management agencies.

 

We publish the rules that each land management agency has established, and have no problem with anyone placing a cache as long as reasonable efforts are made to follow those rules. Unfortunately, a few people have been unable to resist the temptation, and we occasionally get requests from the Kentucky approver or the Land Management Agencies to coordinate contacting the Cacher and fixing a problem with a cache.

 

I guess the point is that anyone is welcome to place a cache as far as we are concerned (placing caches is not the exclusive domain of "locals"), as long as they know and understand (and FOLLOW) the rules established in the state of Kentucky, and can make arrangements to have the cache maintained by someone.

 

Many areas have organizations that are aware of these rules and happy to help, but a "drive-and-dump" can really make it tough to deal with the local Land Management people, and we have had to deal with a bit of "geo-trash" left by cachers who placed then abandoned a cache.

 

Placing a cache and THEN contacting the local organization and expecting them to maintain it for you is not the way to go in my opinion, no matter how well-thought-out the cache is. It gives the person who dropped the cache all the credit for placing it, and does not give any credit to the person who is putting the real work into the cache - the ongoing care and maintenance. Generally, when we are contacted and asked for remote maintenance, we find a local volunteer willing to adopt the cache (ie. get the credit for the ongoing effort of maintenance), and request that the cache be transferred to that account.

 

As far as doing maintenance of caches we find, this is highly encouraged within our organization, and my cache kit includes spare pens and pencils, a spare log book, Ziploc baggies, paper towels, and everything I think I could possibly need to help maintain a cache. Few cachers mind doing a bit of maintenance on a cache they find from time to time, but if someone is expected to be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the cache, then I feel they deserve the credit for that on their profile.

 

Team Hoys

President, Geocachers of Kentucky

http://www.geocky.org

Link to comment

I'm with mtn-man on this one. I spent yesterday afternoon GEOCACHING, and found almost as many caches as some of the experts here have total. I just got done mapping out today's trip. by the time I get home tonite, I should have found more caches in in the last 30 hrs then some of these experts have total. Maybe some people need to spend more time in the woods and less time in the forums. C-ya!

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

... by the time I get home tonite, I should have found more caches in in the last 30 hrs then some of these experts have total.


 

Well, Chris, as you know, I consider anyone with fewer than 1,000 finds a "newbie," so I know I'm no expert!

 

quote:
Maybe some people need to spend more time in the woods and less time in the forums.

 

You're absolutely right! I'm outta here for good!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

That's because your eagerness to continue beating a dead horse, your lack of brevity, and the total breakdown of your command of the english language in your rants are hilarious.

 

Sorry if I let the "cat out of the bag."

 


Dead horse or rant....it becomes the same thing whenever a person disagrees. If you feel it is a rant or beating a dead horse, then don't read or reply.

 

Lack of brevity? Once again, don't wanna read what I've got to say, then please don't bother to respond.

 

Breakdown of the command of the english language? Wait are you my English teacher? Do you understand what I'm saying? If so, then ok, what's the problem then. If not, then you don't know what i'm talking about and move on.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

I agree BP that the forums are to discuss things. It's just that a lot of objections to vacation caches by members are just "nosy bodies" telling others what to do and what rules to follow.

 

While I'm sure you're not one of them, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that most of the people complaining about people breaking the rules of vacation caches continually break the rules against placing caches without permission.

 

It's just a matter of whose ox in being gored!

 

By the way Kentucky, good point about what you're doing down there. Now I'll take the other side. If someone places a cache (local or visiting geocacher) that violates the rules by the park service, they it would sem reasonable to have it pulled by Jeremy. However, in other areas where "no one" is getting approval to place caches I stil say it's up to the individual. As long as he makes arrangements one way or the other for maintenance, it should be OK!

 

Cache on!

 

Alan

Link to comment

"periodically" was originally used in Military circles to indicate a frequency of 30 days (28.3 for a lunar period, in celestial navigation).

 

Probably why the military still calls a thirty day inspection a "periodic".

 

In fact "periodic" inspections are schedued for 28 day cycles, because of the way weeks fit into a month...

 

geocan.jpg

 

Trash-out, EVERYtime

Link to comment

Non-locally maintained caches are not a problem with this group, since they tend to get archived. HOWEVER this is not the only Geocaching group out in the wild, and the independants are pretty much clueless. I hesitate to mention other groups by name, because if I did this post would filter out and none of you would ever see it. But do a Google search, and you will see that this site is MUCH better organized, closer to evironmentally friendly, and in an overall sense "responsible".

 

Sure you can OVERDOSE on caches in some areas, and with several caching groups doing it independently of each other I can see where problems may occur when random drops are done, or if one group makes an arrangement, and another group just drops a cache...Nothing WE can do except deal with it WHEN it happens.

 

The world is not always geocachng friendly, and anytime you leave a "valuable" cache just lying around it may get plundered, moved, removed, or "lost" due to weather and natural events, fire flood, landslide, earthquake. or animals.

 

It's part of the Game. sometimes your plans are sidetracked, but you adjust and continue

 

geocan.jpg

 

Trash-out, EVERYtime

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

If someone places a cache (local or visiting geocacher) that violates the rules by the park service, they it would sem reasonable to have it pulled by Jeremy.


 

I agree. Our state approver, KYADMIN, is actually "the guy" instead of Jeremy in our case. We investigate caches when asked to by the Land Management Authority or by KYADMIN.

 

If we happen to see a new one that goes in that is clearly in violation, we send someone up to verify the problem (with strict orders to NEVER TOUCH the cache in any way, even if it contains food or some other prohibited item - which has happened). We then quietly report the violation to KYADMIN so they can work with the cacher before the Land Management Agency notices it and pulls it. It makes for a less unpleasant scene all around, most of the time.

 

We did start out by contacting the cachers directly and informing them of the violation and trying to educate them about the Land Management rules in the hopes we could get the problems corrected before GeoCaching got involved. That was a HUGE mistake in a few cases. We don't do that any more.

 

The local Land Management Agencies agreed to work with us and accept input from us on the rules because we could at least try to answer for the sport. If we had not agreed to this, we would likely be faced with a series of bans that were put into place before the Agencies learned of us and some more restrictive rules where caching WAS allowed, and a lot of bad press for the sport. If our relationship with the agencies sours, we could rapidly go back there.

 

On the other hand, we do not want to be "Cache Nazis" and start yanking caches. It's not our responsibility, and it's not the role we want to take. We are an advisory and assistance organization, not a police force.

 

quote:

However, in other areas where "no one" is getting approval to place caches I stil say it's up to the individual. As long as he makes arrangements one way or the other for maintenance, it should be OK!


 

No argument here, and I was certainly not arguing against anyone placing a well-planned cache that follows the rules and includes a maintenance plan, even if the maintenance is to be done by someone else. That's cool by me. HOW a placer arranges their maintenance is frankly none of my darned business, nor should it be, as long as it gets done and the amount of geolitter stays low. High geolitter rates make an area undesirable, and we want to prevent that as much as possible, but we can only "police" our members and make recommendations to others that they can follow, or ignore. We are not in any form of power, and we don't pretend to be. We're just a bunch of people hoping to keep the activity as fun as possible for everyone.

 

When appropriate, we will ask for a volunteer to take over abandoned caches or those that the owner cannot maintain effectively. If the cache owner does not want to do this, then we leave it up to GeoCaching what they want to do about it. If Jeremy or his agent is OK with leaving the cache there, then the matter drops.

 

If we get a notification from GeoCaching to go out and pick up a container because the owner has indicated no interest in it or has vanished, we will do so, though we will try to reactivate the cache first where possible under a new volunteer owner if we can. We would never yank a cache or do a "hostile takeover" of a cache on our own.

 

Anyway, enough rambling. I agree that a "vacation/visitor cache" is not necessarily a bad thing IF it is planned ahead of time and done correctly. I have no preference as to locally owned or "foreigner" caches, I do them both. A poorly-executed cache is a bad cache no matter WHO places it, and the person could live 5 feet from the cache, or 5 thousand miles. If it's not maintained when necessary, it's a bad cache.

Link to comment

hoys, very good practices! I see some people do think logically.

 

Bassoonpilot, since you emailed me and told me you filtered my email address, i will answer you here. Here's what you said:

quote:

User BassoonPilot has contacted you with the following message:

 

< Dead horse or rant....it becomes the same thing whenever a person disagrees. If you feel it is a rant or beating a dead horse, then don't read or reply. >

 

Just as you are free to post your mostly pointless, incoherent rants, I am free to comment as I see fit. If you don't like it, that's YOUR problem. It's amusing that you have consistently failed to notice that I agreed with part of what you had stated; you chose instead to whine on, pointlessly and incoherently, about mere semantics. You should be embarrassed.

 

< Lack of brevity? Once again, don't wanna read what I've got to say, then please don't bother to respond. >

 

See my above comment. You have had very little of substance to say, but you have posted it as often, and in as many places, as possible. You should be embarrassed.

 

< Breakdown of the command of the english language? Wait are you my English teacher? Do you understand what I'm saying? >

 

No, often times it is impossible to discern your mangled grammar and syntax. You should be embarrassed.

 

< If so, then ok, what's the problem then. If not, then you don't know what i'm talking about and move on. >

 

The problem is, it is obvious that you didn't bother to do even a seconds research on any of the topics you post on, and haven't a clue as to what YOU are talking about. You should be embarrassed.

 

Don't bother responding; you're being filtered.

 

Have a nice life, and think before you post.


 

Not that it matters, but your messages have not shown that you consistently agree with me in part. As a matter of fact you have taken pleasure in persecuing me, my ideas, and along with another have taken what Jeremy would call "cheap shots". Not to include emailing and then filtering me out as a cheap shot. I hope you feel better using your choice words in hopes to make you sound intelligent. Once again, another shot at me for the words in which I have used. Research on the topic in which I've posted? What research is there to be done? Show me where it says that a person has to place a cache within a certain amount of distance from their residence? You can't. Embarassed? Not at all. Am I the one that should be embarassed at taking shots at people personally?

 

I don't care if you don't like my views, ideas, or how many times I say it, how many different ways I say it, or what I say. It's a forum open for discussion. That's what I intend to do.

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

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