Groundspeak's Ban On Vacation Caches

January 8, 2004

Not knowing how to contact Groundspeak personnel directly, I am hoping that they are monitoring and thus will read this message. I am writing to request that the Groundspeak "approvers" reconsider the guideline barring the placement of caches by persons who do not live nearby. I believe I understand the reasons for this policy, and they are good reasons. However, I believe that an unintended consequence is a proliferation of caches that are easily accessible and a dearth of caches in remote areas that actually require some effort to get to. Some of the most rewarding caches I have ever found required several hours of hiking in and back and knowing that other visitors have taken the time and made the effort to do the same. These kinds of caches are most likely to be placed by backcountry hikers who are purposefully and necessarily far away from urban areas and home. The relatively few visitors to these caches are generally the type who are respectful of the environment and thus the cache is not as exposed to the risk of vandalism as are the more common "drive-up" caches.

The policy also contributes to what might be called a "dumbing down" of the sport by encouraging caches that are easily placed and discouraging those that are more difficult. This is particularly true near urban areas, where finding a large natural area not already overrun with caches might require driving an hour or two, prompting many would-be cache placers to opt for placing another easy cache in a local park instead of taking the trouble to place a more difficult cache further away and risk disapproval because they don't live within a certain distance of the cache.

Perhaps Groundspeak policy makers would consider relaxing the proximity guideline for caches that are placed in more remote locations and, if so, let me know. At the least, I would appreciate a response that addresses the issues I have raised. Thanks!

January 8, 2004

Who takes care of these remote caches when a problem arises?

2.1k · January 8, 2004

The vacation policy is not applied to affect these caches so long as you can convince the approver that you *can* regularly hike through the area you place the cache in.

In other words, I (being solely on the East coast) would not be allowed to place a cache of this nature in Utah, because I do not regularly even visit the state let alone the area. BUT, I would be allowed to place one in NH, if I could convince them that I am often in NH and able to reach the cache in a reasonable modicum of time (by the next weekend or so) should a log note the need for upkeep.

I think the concern you have over the "dumbing down" of the geocaches is more a problem of LCD (lowest common denominator) than the vacation rule. With a few hundred people playing the game in your area, chances are there are only a few willing to hike a day's trip to hide a box and maintain it should the need arise and a hundred or so willing to drive to the local park and walk 500 feet from the car to place or find a cache. People like when a lot of other people visit their site and so they will often place them where they are available to the most people.

1.4k · January 8, 2004

It seems you have misunderstood the "No Vacation cache" policy. I can name at least 3 caches that would require a 5 hour hike to complete. One of these caches was placed by someone who lives over 3 hours away from the trailhead. While this cache would be considered "Out of the cachers area" this particular person checks it once or twice a year whether it needs it or not and is willing to make the long trip in case of a problem.

The "No Vacation cache" policy is in order to stop people from going to a place they will never visit again and dropping a cache there for someone else to take care of if a problem arises (or worst case leave it as trash).

If you have the ability to care for a "Wilderness" style, cache contact your local admin and work with them in placing it. Those are (in my humble opinion) the best sort of geocache.

January 8, 2004

I see the point here from both sides. I think if a cache is remote it has very little chance of being plundered therefore very little maintenance would be required. Having said that if a problem did arise the owner MUST be prepared to sort it IF it's reported. After all what is Geo-caching REALLY about.......Robert Louis Stevenson wrote Treasure Island, how easy was it to find?

2.2k · January 8, 2004

I haven't placed a vavation cache yet but I know from vacation caches which were approved because the cache owner found someone living in the area who maintains the cache.

I also know a cache which had been archived because the owner did not check the cache after some not found logs. The cache owner was told to find a local cacher to maintain the cache.

38.2k · January 8, 2004

I love remote caches that require long hikes, but I really don't see how the vacation cache ban affects the placement of these caches. You seem to be saying that only vacationers visit remote areas, but I disagree. Most of the remote caches that I've found, or know about, were placed by people who lived within an hour or two of the trailhead.

2k · January 8, 2004

Brian has it right. My understanding is that it isn't so much a matter of remoteness, but maintainence. This cache is an extreme example of a vacation cache that could not be maintained. I volenteer to retrive the cache if anybody will cover my travel expenses.

January 8, 2004

I agree with the ban on vacation caches. If you see a spot that is dying to have a cache place there but is out of the area why not try contacting a local cacher in advance to see if someone would be willing to maintain it. I recently adopted a cache from an individual that was not maintaining it and when I emailed to request why, they admitted that they live more than three hours away and only visited the area once a year. It was a great spot for a cache but was quickly turning into Geotrash.

21.9k · January 8, 2004

The earlier responses are correct. We look at the ability to maintain the cache. For some folks, that means asking questions to find out how often you hike in that remote area.

After awhile, cache hiders acquire a reputation based on their prior hides. I had the pleasure, for example, of approving a four-star cache on the Appalachian Trail that was placed yesterday by "Waterboy with Wife." They are trail maintenance volunteers and hike all over the AT in Pennsylvania. I have absolute confidence in their ability to maintain a cache along the AT, even if it's 150 miles from their house and it requires a 5 mile uphill hike from the nearest road.

If you are a new hider who wishes to place such a cache, tell your volunteer cache reviewer a little bit about your background in a private reviewer note when you make your submission. For example: "I'm new to geocaching, but I've been hiking in these mountains since I was 12 and this is one of my favorite spots to visit every year. If there was a problem with the cache, I could arrange a trip to check on it within 2 or 3 weeks."

These examples are very different than people who go to Island XYZ on their honeymoon, drop off a cache, and have no plans to ever be there again.

9.4k · January 8, 2004

Not knowing how to contact Groundspeak personnel directly...

contact@Groundspeak.com

I can set up a 10 mile hike starting 20 minutes from my house. If my cache requires maintenance, I can get to it in a few hours. I don't have to spend any money (other than a couple of gallons of gas and maybe some water and snacks) in getting to my cache location.

If I set that same hike up 1000 miles away from home, I can't get to the cache as quickly. I will have to spend a considerable amount of money getting to the trailhead (airfare, hotel, rental car, meals, etc.). I would probably need to take a couple of days off from work and/or make daycare arrangements for the kids. I could probably get all of this done within a few months, but I couldn't go out this weekend and do it.

The first cache example would be approved. The second would be considered vacation. It has nothing to do with the hike or placing caches in remote areas. It has to do with my ability to maintain it in a reasonable amount of time.

Edited January 8, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

3.1k · January 8, 2004

I'm certain that approvers would also allow a non cacher to maintain a cache for you. I have a cache on Maui and I now have two locals who will check it out of me. One is a cacher and the other a friend.

It is true that quite often tourists go to some gorgeous areas. But you need local information. My first cache on Maui washed away as soon as the rains came, and I mean my cache was under about 10 feet of water before you knew it. Now that I'm visiting Maui a couple of times a year I know the island very well and have some ideas for caches during our next visit. But I'll assure the approver that I do have plenty of help maintaining it.

24.7k · January 8, 2004

A reasonable amount of time is subject to some debate. An urban cache should have a quick turn around. A remote cache that see's two visits a year, what's the rush? You have a trip to plan, the trail is snowed in, and the road is closed anyway.

5.3k · January 8, 2004

I should know better than to respond, but I am unable to resist.

Yes, the perseveration on maintainability has indeed resulted in a significant shift towards lame, easily-accessible urban caches. Just take a look at the cache maps.

No, you will not get anybody to admit that Groundspeak policy has contributed to the problem.

It is not worth discussing in the forums, as the culture (not the moderation) in the forums is more than a little punitive towards any who dare question this particular orthodoxy, as you have no doubt seen.

Edited January 8, 2004 by fizzymagic

9.4k · January 8, 2004

A reasonable amount of time is subject to some debate.

That's the subjective part of the guidelines and why a specific timeframe is not listed.

2.1k · January 8, 2004

While I disagree with the whole "vacation cache" thing and the way it is handled, my feelings are that if you aren't going to maintain a cache, then don't place it. Plain and simple.

Put the responsibility on the owner of whether it is maintained properly or not. Who give's a rat's butt if they give a name of someone. They could make up a name. Let them be responsible for it's maintenance, whether if they do it or have someone do it for them. If it falls into direpair, then archive it like many other caches out there.

1.4k · January 8, 2004

<<SNIP>>. If it falls into direpair, then archive it like many other caches out there.

There's the rub. I think (my opinion from reading the various posts from GC.com admin) that the idea is to cause less Geo-litter.

To many people get excited about placing a cache, showing off something they feel is cool or (in rare instances) padding thier hide count. In all their excitement they forget the guidelines for posting a cache on this listing site.

The most common being the maintance thing. It's pretty selfish to place a cache and just "let someone else worry about it". Like Woodsters said "if you aren't going to maintain a cache, then don't place it. Plain and simple."

2.7k · January 8, 2004

For what its worth, I just got one approved that is a 4 hour drive from my house.

I don't consider it a vacation cache, even though it is in a place I have only visited twice in the last 20 years.

Here is how I got it done:

First, I asked permission from the land manager.

Then I asked on the forums if anyone in the area would help; got a volunteer.

I also noted that I have other caches in the same state, am a native of that state, used to hang at the new cache site and other nearby places a lot and am very familiar with it, and I VISIT my caches as often as I pass through their areas, more often when a no-find is reported.

Besides, I got a company vehicle with free gas. So an all day trip at least only costs me my meals and snacks.

It all adds up, but I wouldn't try to get one approved so far away that it would REQUIRE an overnight stay- even if I had help.

The rule is a good rule and the approvers exercise wide discretion to APPROVE anything that is reasonable to approve.

Just make your case and live by the decision.

2.1k · January 8, 2004

There's the rub. I think (my opinion from reading the various posts from GC.com admin) that the idea is to cause less Geo-litter.

To many people get excited about placing a cache, showing off something they feel is cool or (in rare instances) padding thier hide count. In all their excitement they forget the guidelines for posting a cache on this listing site.

I agree about the people getting excited and placing a cache. I see no rush into it. I suggested having a required amount of caches found before listing one here. The idea is that it will get peoples feet wet. Let them see some caches first and experience what a finder does. Then once they reach the limit, then they are allowed to list one. Perhaps that will slow down on those who get excited or circumvent the process with fake user accounts just to place one. There are thousands of caches. No one has found them all. There are many new ones placed each day. They might not be within a certain distance of you, but what good is it going to do you if you place one? Get to know the sport some and then place one, then maybe there may be a little more respect for the whole thing.

As far as geolitter. Well you can try to stop it, but you aren't. I commented a while back and I think Jeremy added a line somewhere in the guidelines that your cache could be removed. To me that's great. Then when a cache gets "archived", let the cachers go out, find it and remove it and get a point for it. Heck add another type of cache category just for it...lol

3k · January 8, 2004

The most common being the maintance thing. It's pretty selfish to place a cache and just "let someone else worry about it". Like Woodsters said "if you aren't going to maintain a cache, then don't place it. Plain and simple."

Gee, two new magnetic micros were dumped in our area by a visitor from central PA recently. Regardless of the fact that a local cacher has agreed to assume maintenance of the caches, it is my opinion that they should not have been approved.

January 8, 2004

Hide it anyway and let me know about it. I travel a lot and soon or later I will be where the cache is. Trying to change things around here is like pulling teeth. Post it on the other geocaching sites as well, they are more laid back.

1.6k · January 8, 2004

AS for trads and micros, I agree with the ban. Too much risk of making geotrash.

As for Virtuals, I am not so sure that the ban shouldn't be amended for certain areas of the country. If you look at states in the midwest, there are large areas of rural country without caches. Many times that is because the public land that is available, is limited. Many times, its because of the ban and the need to place caches close to where you live concentrating caches into the areas around cities.

This also has the effect of creating a barrier to further expansion of the game. If you go out and find 10 caches, you might well have found all the caches in your area that you didn't place. Hard to sell this sport/hobby in that climate.

I might be in favor of creating an exception for virtuals.

1.3k · January 8, 2004

One major reason for the restrictions on vacation caches that has not been brought up yet is local regulations. There are many areas of the country that require a permit to place a geocache. In some cases local cachers have worked for years to get total geocaching bans reversed by working with land managers and setting up guidelines.

A visitor to the area may not know about these guidelines and could jepordize all the work the locals have done to make geocaching acceptable to the land managers.

January 8, 2004

subigo has a website where he lists caches he steals and then you have to find them to get them back

January 9, 2004

Next year I plan to spend several months in a foreign country. Would it be alright for me to hide a cache shortly after I arrive, leave it for four or five months, then either archive it or find someone to adopt it when I go? Would that violate the bans on vacation caches and temporary caches? It seems to me that quite a few caches that people hide near their own homes don't even last that long. I really want to hide a cache, but haven't thus far. There are so many caches in my home city that I feel that I can't hide any around here without being redundant.

24.7k · January 9, 2004

Next year I plan to spend several months in a foreign country. Would it be alright for me to hide a cache shortly after I arrive, leave it for four or five months, then either archive it or find someone to adopt it when I go? Would that violate the bans on vacation caches and temporary caches? It seems to me that quite a few caches that people hide near their own homes don't even last that long. I really want to hide a cache, but haven't thus far. There are so many caches in my home city that I feel that I can't hide any around here without being redundant.

Nope. I think you are within the guidelines. You can maintain it while you are there and it will be listed long enough to be a permananet cache and not considered temporary.

2.1k · January 9, 2004

One major reason for the restrictions on vacation caches that has not been brought up yet is local regulations. There are many areas of the country that require a permit to place a geocache. In some cases local cachers have worked for years to get total geocaching bans reversed by working with land managers and setting up guidelines.

A visitor to the area may not know about these guidelines and could jepordize all the work the locals have done to make geocaching acceptable to the land managers.

That would be up for debate. First of all, from recent discussions on the forums, not very many people even ask permission to place a cache. It wouldn't make a difference if the person lives 1000 miles away or 1 mile away, as they can both place a cache in a place where people are working with others. And then in those cases, either the approver should be aware of those bans or problems (simply let the local approver know of an area tha is a problem that you are working on). The approver should be able to catch those things most of the time. And even then if they don't then the people who are working towards these goals or know of problems should report the cache.

On top of my statement of "don't place a cache if you aren't going to maintain it", I should also include "don't place a cache without doing your research and ensuring it's ok or you have permission to place a cache". But attributing it as a problem of people who live an x amount of miles away is ludicrous. Mileage has nothing to do with it. It's not a factor. The common factor is the people who do these things.

21.9k · January 9, 2004

RK is correct; at the community's request, the last revision to the cache listing requirements added a three-month period as a bright line test as to whether a cache is "temporary."

January 9, 2004

Gee, two new magnetic micros were dumped in our area by a visitor from central PA recently. Regardless of the fact that a local cacher has agreed to assume maintenance of the caches, it is my opinion that they should not have been approved.

Sounds familiar. I don't know if it makes me feel better or worse to know that this particular rash is spreading in all directions.

4.5k · January 9, 2004

Most of the local caches hidden by locals that require maintenance around here from the web posts have been fixed by finders who visited the cache.

So much for concern that caches won't be maintained or that somehow the locals hide by a higher standard and take more responsibility.

My point is not so much that locals irresposibility justifies vacationer's irresponsibility as much as caches will be maintained anyway because finders are just plain helpful regardless of who placed it and who's not maintaining it.

(What did I say?)

Alan

38.2k · January 9, 2004

I have two caches in Vt that were approved without a problem. Vt is a 4 hour drive from my house, so why were they approved? First, I have a number of finds in the area over several years, which shows that I frequent the region. Second, I set up a PayPal account and sent the local admin $50.

2.5k · January 9, 2004

Doesn't it seem a bit strange that the person who started this thread has not made even one response to it?

2.1k · January 9, 2004

No, not really. It's only been here for 8 hours as of your response. Alot of people don't check here more than maybe once a day.

1.3k · January 9, 2004

I think much of the dislike for vacation caches stems from a sense of territory. The idea that someone miles from your location could plop down a quick cache (virtual?) and never look back brings up images of dogs and fire hydrants.

Rather than place a cache on vacation, why not just post the coordinates in the regional forum for that area, and say "Hey, I saw this great spot while travelling in your area". If you feel the spot needs a cache that bad, what's the difference if someone local to the area places it? They are in a much better position to maintain it.

As for virts being allowed as vacation caches, I think that would be fine if virts had their own section, and didn't interfere with the .1 mile rule for regular caches. Vacationers ought not to be able to tie up locations that locals could use for regular caches. Obviously, the only reason anyone would suggest that virts be excluded is to have a way to place a cache without maintaining it.

Speaking about excitement and eagerness to place caches, many people want to place virts just because the option is there. They don't realize that virts are not intended to be a first choice. They are there to allow people to place a cache when all else fails. Abusing them by using them as a means to place caches you do not wish to maintain is not going to fly with the approvers. If you absolutely have to place a cache in another state, pack up and move there.

January 9, 2004

I was recently in St Louis for a week and found a bunch of caches. The area of town I was in had few caches so I hid a micro close-by. The local approver (*gln) was concerned that since I would only be in St Louis 5-6 times per year I wouldn't be able to maintain the cache. So he put the word out to local cachers from SLAGA (St Louis Area Geocaheing Assoc) and found a volunteer to maintain it.

I am happy the cache was approved and it is getting steady business. I didn't think of this cache as a "vacation" cache, but on reflection agree that 5-6 visits a year on a micro in an urban setting would not have been enough. (And I was unlikely to travel from western NC to eastern Missouri to replace a damp logbook...)

I suppose it boils to common sense. And aren't common sense and geocaching almost mutually exclusive?

OzGuff

2.1k · January 9, 2004

Bloen hit on part of the reason I think is the real reason on the downward look on "vacation caches". I think it was more of a territroial thing. Of course there may have been some maintenance issues as well, but I think those were used to back the justification of the main reason.

It's time to get over the territory thing. Unless you own the land. If a person can maintain a cache, then there is no problem. I say prove that they can't maintain it. I think all four corners of the earth are reachable within a week or so. There is no method set in place to determine if someone will maintain a cache or not. Whether local or not. Distance is not a factor. The people are the factors. Work on it as a case by case basis. Not case by case of whether you are going to allow it, but on the maintenance problems. If a cache is not being maintained properly and no one is willing to do it, then archive and have it removed.

Once again, if you aren't going to a good owner of a cache and properly maintain it, then don't place one.

Heck I would be in favor of requiring owners to physically tend to their caches on a predetermined timetable. That might stop some people to stop throwing out hundreds of caches that they probably couldn't maintain. Mainly because they would be doing a lot of going to their own caches and not bagging some finds of their own. It's great that the sport is growing and will continue to grow, but let it do it at it's own pace. Don't force it to grow. It will soon reach a burn out at the rate it's going in another 10 years or so.

January 9, 2004

Thanks to all who responded to my query. I agree that there are many good reasons why maintenance should be a high priority in the approval of a cache, not the least of which is public relations. I am also encouraged by the impression I received from various responses that proximity of the cache "owner" to the cache is only one of several important variables in the approval decision and that the approver(s) have discretion to approve a cache that may be far from the owner's home location by considering other mitigating facts and circumstances. For a cache in a remote location, for example, the fact that those willing to make the effort to visit it are likely to be few and that such visitors are likely to be the environmentally responsible type who would be most likely to clean up/restore a cache that needed such attention might be enough to outweigh a far-off owner. Should a problem arise that could not be solved in any manner other than a visit by the original owner, the cache could simply be temporarily archived for the period during which the owner was not able to get to it, provided that the owner is committed to returning for maintenance at the earliest opportunity.

Again, thanks for all the comments! Two final questions: (1) What is the best way to identify/contact my local Groundspeak "approver"? (2) One of the responses mentioned other geocaching Web sites. What are they?

21.9k · January 9, 2004

A nice summary of your topic, paraclete. I'm glad you appreciated the good advice and debate, and I hope you'll consider hiding a challenging cache that you're able to maintain.

I looked at your profile and your finds have been in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. I'm the regional reviewer for Pennsylvania. Honeychile covers cache submissions for Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. If you had a different state in mind, just ask.

You can search the forums for discussions of other websites, such as navicache.com. I'd hope, however, that you could work with the appropriate volunteer to get your cache idea listed HERE.

Groundspeak's Ban On Vacation Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation