Jump to content

Define Geolitter


Ish-n-Isha

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
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.
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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 by bug&snake
Link to comment
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

Link to comment

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?

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...