+Ish-n-Isha Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 On another thread Geolitter was defined as a cache someone placed, who is not in close enough proximity to maintain it. Please give your 2 cents on these 2 examples. For the first example; Someone places a cache in a remote area that they frequent often. The cache goes a year with 1 find. Second example; Someone places a cache in an area they frequent 1 time a year. The cache has 67 finds in a year. Which one is truely geolitter? Since geocachers (most) see themselves as people who would help out their fellow cachers and carry spare plastic baggies, goodies, ect, doesnt cacher traffic count as a factor in maintainance? Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 (edited) Neither in the cases you mention, but both would become geolitter if they were archived and left out there. Being that there is nobody to maintain the latter cache though, the chance of it becoming geolitter is drastically increased. Edited December 18, 2003 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
+RobertM Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 I agree with BrianSnat (is that BS for short? ;-) Anyway, GeoLitter I'd think is the litter someone leaves while geocaching (either placing or finding). GeoLitter, IMO, is neither of the 2 you've put down. My 2c. RobertM Geo 104, 25 Quote Link to comment
+bons Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Since geocachers (most) see themselves as people who would help out their fellow cachers and carry spare plastic baggies, goodies, ect, doesnt cacher traffic count as a factor in maintainance?If it isn't maintained it's abandoned, therefore it's litter in my book. It's just that instead of hauling it out of there I try to repair it instead. Kind of like those people who buy junk bikes, repair them, and give them away to kids on the wrong side of the tracks instead of filling up the local dump. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Since if the cache is ok you don't need to maintain it at all even if it's been 10 years, it's not the maintenance that makes it litter. An abandoned cache can be adopted so the abandonment doesn't automatically make it litter. The moment it's archived and its still out there it's litter. It's the lack of a listing so that anyone can visit it, remove it, or know it needs adopted that makes it litter. One exception. If it's listing is rejected or removed but arrangments are made to retrieve the cache, it's not litter. Quote Link to comment
+RobertM Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I still don't think it's litter that you are referring to. From Dictionary.com Carelessly discarded refuse, such as wastepaper: the litter in the streets after a parade. I don't think a cache is discarded refuse. RobertM Geo 118, 139 Quote Link to comment
bug and snake Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 (edited) It becomes somewhat of a semantic argument if, as RK says, it is not listed. It is not a cache on the accepted sense. i.e. if it is not listed then finds are accidental and therefor the cache was not SEARCHED FOR. Neither can it be searched for in the conventional way. In that light, though there may some intrinsic value in the box and contents, it is to all intent, litter. (not to get into strict legalism and semantics) Too many of the threads on here lately have become semantic arguments and lost the value they may have had if people would only accept the obvious and intended contextual meaning that the writer intends. Reminds me of a certain President who wanted to have 'is' defined..... We can still have some healthy debate in here if we can drop the legalism and the hair splitting semantic aspect of the thing. Edited December 19, 2003 by bug&snake Quote Link to comment
+RobertM Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 It becomes somewhat of a semantic argument if, as RK says, it is not listed. It is not a cache on the accepted sense. i.e. if it is not listed then finds are accidental and therefor the cache was not SEARCHED FOR. Neither can it be searched for in the conventional way.In that light, though there may some intrinsic value in the box and contents, it is to all intent, litter. (not to get into strict legalism and semantics) Too many of the threads on here lately have become semantic arguments and lost the value they may have had if people would only accept the obvious and intended contextual meaning that the writer intends. Reminds me of a certain President who wanted to have 'is' defined..... We can still have some healthy debate in here if we can drop the legalism and the hair splitting semantic aspect of the thing. There's no such word as Geolitter anyway, so what's the big deal. He's made up a term and tried to define a meaning to it. He's got a meaning, but by adding "litter" to the made up word I believe is wrong, as the meaning he's describing is not litter as defined by the dictionary. Maybe look up in a thesaurus a word for "abandonded" and prefix that with Geo and perhaps that would more accurately describe the word he is trying to define. RobertM Geo 109, 103, 46, 45, 44 Quote Link to comment
+Ish-n-Isha Posted December 20, 2003 Author Share Posted December 20, 2003 OK. After the input so far let me further refine the subject. How in the context of the 2 examples does a vacation cache fit in. If it is getting regular logs (per the second example) it would seem logical that it would lead out a semi normal lifespan. If it is up in Timbuktu and the effective hunting season is 1 month in the middle of the summer (per example 1) does logic suggest that simple lack of use implies a higher degree of abandonment? Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 In my book neither is really a vacation cache. Once a year is enough for a cache unless it's urban. But the truth is I'd rather set a truly minimal standard of maintenance and make it absolute than deal with 10,000 nuances and leave all kinds of "personal" judgement in the mix. That just invites trouble. In your example there isn't a problem with either cache and so the vacation cache issue isn't a real issue. If there is a problem then give them a year (or 6 months inside city limits if that's the community standard) and at the end of the year adopt it out or arange for the cache to be pulled. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.