Traveling Caches

[+The Roc & Stone]

I would like to know how others feel about Traveling Caches. I posted one to travel from roadside rest area to rest area and was told that traveling caches are no longer allowed. Please vote and let this web site know how you feel so we can keep the sport going all year long.

[+Harrald]

I think this has been covered before. Traveling/roving caches are no longer being approved at GeoCaching.com

 

I don't believe any vote will change this either.

 

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

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

Sydney J. Harris

[robertlipe]

I wouldn't mind travelling caches if they had their own cache type so they could be filtered. But since they've been essentially banned, I don't see adding a cache type at this point, so it's just idle musing.

 

More than a few times I've gone to where a travelling cache was supposed to be to find it had travelled on. Finding a cache that IS where it claims to be is a challenge I like. Finding a cache that ISN'T where it claims to be isn't. The footage of these searches tends to be rated R for language.

[+Frolickin]

Jeremy posted about this here.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

[+briansnat]

I had a popular travelling cache that was grandfathered when the rules changed. The reasons for banning them were so compelling, that I archived mine.

 

Are they popular? Yes. Are they a bad idea? Definitely.

 

"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

[+JohnnyVegas]

I for one see nothing wrong with a moving cache, if a person does not like them just do not look for them. There is no real valid reason not to allow them. There are to many rules now, it seems that the term guideline has come to mean rule rather than guidline. Maybe we need open minded approvers. I was turned down for a virtual a while, the approver wants me to make it a reg. cache, How the hell does an approver know if a reg. cache will work in a location unless they go and look at the location. It would appear that virtuals are no longer permitted in N. Cal.

[+Renegade Knight]

They are a PITA.

 

Naturally I've gone one I'm goint to re-release into the wild once I confirm it's really not located in a remote cache.

[+sept1c_tank]

Originally posted by The ROC:

"...Please vote and let this web site know how you feel so we can keep the sport going all year long."

 

Even if voting would cause a change in the rules, (and I don't believe it will) how would that affect year-round geocaching?

 

I say, if you can't geocache in your area during a particular season, either go on a vacation where you can, or read a good book.

 

============="If it feels good...do it"==============

 

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")

 

.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

I for one see nothing wrong with a moving cache, if a person does not like them just do not look for them. There is no real valid reason not to allow them. There are to many rules now, it seems that the term guideline has come to mean rule rather than guidline.

---

 

The problem with moving caches is that the owner has no control over the placement. Someone can move it next to a RR, military base, or put it in a national park, or someplace else where caches are not allowed.

 

There is an approval process in place to weed out these caches and a moving cache circumvents that process.

 

quote:

---

Maybe we need open minded approvers. I was turned down for a virtual a while, the approver wants me to make it a reg. cache, How the hell does an approver know if a reg. cache will work in a location unless they go and look at the location.

---

 

We have them. If you take the time to explain exactly why a real cache won't work, they will usually approve it. The thing is that there are few places where real caches are impossible. Using cleverly placed micros and/or offsets, nearly anyplace can accomodate a real cache. Maybe what we really need are more imaginitive cache hiders.

 

"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 22, 2003 at 03:05 AM.]

[+JohnnyVegas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

quote:

---

I for one see nothing wrong with a moving cache, if a person does not like them just do not look for them. There is no real valid reason not to allow them. There are to many rules now, it seems that the term guideline has come to mean rule rather than guidline.

---

 

The problem with moving caches is that the owner has no control over the placement. Someone can move it next to a RR, military base, or put it in a national park, or someplace else where caches are not allowed.

 

There is an approval process in place to weed out these caches and a moving cache circumvents that process.

 

quote:

---

Maybe we need open minded approvers. I was turned down for a virtual a while, the approver wants me to make it a reg. cache, How the hell does an approver know if a reg. cache will work in a location unless they go and look at the location.

---

 

We have them. If you take the time to explain exactly why a real cache won't work, they will usually approve it. The thing is that there are few places where real caches are impossible. Using cleverly placed micros and/or offsets, nearly anyplace can accomodate a real cache. Maybe what we really need are more imaginitive cache hiders.

 

 

_"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 22, 2003 at 03:05 AM.]

---

No what we need are open minded approvers. Being that you are in NJ how would you know what the problems are with approvers that you do not deal with. I explained the problem with placing a reg. The approver never answered my e-mail, it is kind of hard to communicate with some one if they will not talk to you.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

No what we need are open minded approvers. Being that you are in NJ how would you know what the problems are with approvers that you do not deal with. I explained the problem with placing a reg. The approver never answered my e-mail, it is kind of hard to communicate with some one if they will not talk to you.

---

Did you consider the possibility that approvers get hundreds of e-mails a day and it might have been possible that your issue wasn't at the top of their list?

 

Did you consider the possibility that your cache idea was in violation of the rules of this website?

 

Did you consider the fact that you don't have to adhere to this website's rules; that it's a listing service with its own rules and you can place your own cache and list it wherever you want?

 

"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

[Jomarac5]

I like moving caches. And they serve a good purpose in the caching community.

 

Typically, one specific moving cache around here (Vancouver Transit) is picked up on a daily basis (many times within an hour or so of being moved), Which means that if the hide is less than stellar, it's not a big deal because it won't be there long before someone picks it up.

 

Without a doubt, the biggest advantage to a moving cache is that it gives new cachers a chance to develop skills for hiding caches. It makes you think about where you're going to hide it. I personally found our local moving cache 4 or 5 times before I placed my own caches and I have no doubt that it helped me to do better hides on permanent caches.

 

They also create a good amount of competition -- around here, you'd better be quick if you want a shot at hiding it.

 

*****

[+JohnnyVegas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

quote:

---

No what we need are open minded approvers. Being that you are in NJ how would you know what the problems are with approvers that you do not deal with. I explained the problem with placing a reg. The approver never answered my e-mail, it is kind of hard to communicate with some one if they will not talk to you.

---

Did you consider the possibility that approvers get hundreds of e-mails a day and it might have been possible that your issue wasn't at the top of their list?

 

Did you consider the possibility that your cache idea was in violation of the rules of this website?

 

Did you consider the fact that you don't have to adhere to this website's rules; that it's a listing service with its own rules and you can place your own cache and list it wherever you want?

 

_"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_

---

 

In N. Cal. virtuals are in violation of the rules of this website. It would appear that they are not allowed anymore. I am not the only person who is having problems getting virtuals approved. Sure I have list my virtual on the other web site (If I put the name of the web site on the post my post will not be allowed to appear) Unless you have tried to have a virtual approved in N. Cal. your opinion is little value

to me.

[+Paul Ag]

If you want a traveling cache so bad why don't you just attach a travel bug to a cache and drop it off another cache. A cache in a cache, get it. It is close to the same thing.

 

I can explain it to you; but I can't make you understand it.

[Keystone]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnnyvegas:

In N. Cal. virtuals are in violation of the rules of this website. It would appear that they are not allowed anymore. I am not the only person who is having problems getting virtuals approved. Sure I have list my virtual on the other web site (If I put the name of the web site on the post my post will not be allowed to appear) Unless you have tried to have a virtual approved in N. Cal. your opinion is little value

to me.

---

We approvers would like to think that we all follow the same guidelines for listing caches. Granted, there is some human judgment involved, but there is not one set of standards for California and a different set for New Jersey.

 

Rather than just saying that this person or that person doesn't have a valid opinion, let me offer some cold hard facts: Thus far in July, 33% of the virtual caches submitted in California have been approved for listing on the website. In the same time period, the approver for the area where BrianSnat lives and caches (NJ/NY) only approved 20% of the virtual caches submitted in those two states.

 

It is hard to get a lame virtual approved anywhere. It should be easy to get a cool virtual approved anywhere... one that makes you say "WOW" when you see it, a truly unique spot, where a traditional cache cannot be placed.

 

I am honestly happy to see positive logs on the virtual caches that I approve. It makes up for all the arguments about caches that don't meet the current listing standards.

 

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

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

[+canadazuuk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ag:

 

If you want a traveling cache so bad why don't you just attach a travel bug to a cache and drop it off another cache. A cache in a cache, get it. It is close to the same thing.

 

---

 

No, they are not close to being the same thing.

[+canadazuuk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

I had a popular travelling cache that was grandfathered when the rules changed. The reasons for banning them were so compelling, that I archived mine.

 

Are they popular? Yes. Are they a bad idea? Definitely.

 

---

 

Sounds like WAY too big of a generalization, but can you provide a link for YOUR cache, as I am curious. I'd like to look at it before responding further.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

Sounds like WAY too big of a generalization, but can you provide a link for YOUR cache, as I am curious. I'd like to look at it before responding further.

---

 

Here it is.

 

quote:

---

Thus far in July, 33% of the virtual caches submitted in California have been approved for listing on the website. In the same time period, the approver for the area where BrianSnat lives and caches (NJ/NY) only approved 20% of the virtual caches submitted in those two states.

---

 

Heeey, why the discrepency? This is unfair!!! We need open minded approvers in NJ!

 

"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

[+JohnnyVegas]

Ca. is a very large state, In my post I said virtuals are not allowed in N. Cal. I did not say the entire state.

[+canadazuuk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

Here it is: Pyramid Mtn. Roaming Cache

---

 

Hmm, interesting idea... so you kept it confined to one park of how big? The location card was interesting, seems to deal with the 'but what if someone else has it already' objection.

 

You say in your log: I stopped by for a maint visit and decided to archive this cache. Although the concept was popular with the finders, I was always concerned about the possibility of someone making an ill-advised placement, or a simple mistake where the cache could be lost.

 

I take it you arrived there to maintain it, and then looked at the locations it HAD been perhaps, and then killed it? Your cache, your choice, but IMO, 1/4 of newbie caches suffer the same problem you allude to.

 

Anyway... life goes on. I think some guidelines for travelling caches would have been better than just eliminating them. They have more benefits than some people admit.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

so you kept it confined to one park of how big?

---

 

The park is almost 2,000 acres.

 

"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