Jump to content

Prohibiting "cache Machines" At Your Caches.


SE7EN

Recommended Posts

I'm not a fan of the "cache machine" concept. I'm sure they are fun socially and you can rack up a lot of finds in a short amount of time.

 

I have a problem with the concept. If I'm understanding correctly. A bunch of people show up at the predetermined spot and at a certain time head off to the first cache on a list. The first ones there start looking. Once the cache is found and logged you head off to the next one.

 

So, I take it that stragglers in the group could just be handed the logbook to sign when, in fact, they were never even on site when the cache was found. Then take into account the large number of people concentrated at one spot in a short amount of time, prompting the cache owner to move the cache because of maintenance issues.*

 

I know this has been debated, but I didn't see an answer to the following questions:

Can you designate your caches, either directly on the cache page or in your profile, as "no cache machines?"

 

Further, if a cache machine hit a cache that you've declared free from cache machines, can you morally** delete find logs of those cachers?

 

And, if someone did participate in a cache machine and had a log deleted, can they come back later and log it as a find without having it deleted?

 

 

* Because the surrounding area can be trampled and because cache owners are supposed to be looking for ill effects the visitors are causing to the cache site, a social trail or signs of wear are supposed to prompt a removal of the cache, either permanantly or temporarily.

 

**Trying to side-step the rightfully issue as I already know that a cache owner can do anything he wants with the logs. I'm asking is it can be considered proper among the majority of the community. No religious undertones implied.

 

EDIT: imperfect command of the English language.

Edited by SE7EN
Link to comment

The easy way to sovle this is to place your cache far away from any other caches. Make it a long and interesting hike. That way "Cache Machines" won't be able to add your cache to the list.

 

Can you designate your caches, either directly on the cache page or in your profile, as "no cache machines?"

I would say "No" you can't

 

Further, if a cache machine hit a cache that you've declared free from cache machines, can you morally** delete find logs of those cachers?

I would say "No" you shouldn't

 

And, if someone did participate in a cache machine and had a log deleted, can they come back later and log it as a find without having it deleted?

Of course.

Edited by Harrald
Link to comment

I would say if someone's name is in the log, they can log it as a find.

 

I've never come across a 'cache machine' concept before, but it sounds like a great outing to take occasionally. Surely different people will find different caches during the hunt?

 

We were part of three teams searching caches at the weekend, and although one or other team found it we were all at the location, and went on the hunt, and had a look for the cache, so why not log it? We all went out for the caching experience, and we saw your favourite location.

 

The only reason to disallow finds is if you're purely interested in numbers. I'd be happier for someone to take our suggested route to a cache and not find it, than to blindly walk to the cache and not enjoy their surroundings.

 

The only downside of a cache machine that I can see is that it may trample the area around, and may fill the logbook quicker.

 

Just my thoughts,

 

Cheers,

 

Stu

Link to comment

Since "cache machines" usually occur in urban areas where there is a high cache density, impact on the area of most of these caches is a non issue. Like Harrald said, the remote caches (where impact can be an issue) aren't likely to be included in cache machine hunts.

 

After that, the only problem you seem to have with the cache machine concept is people logging finds who weren't present when the cache was found. I'd assume if they were able to sign the logbook, they were present, or very close by. I've been on group hunts many times, where I wasn't the one who actually found the cache, but I signed the log. I don't see it as cheating, or padding. These hunts are a cooperative effort, so why can't everyone present claim a find?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I have both urban and rural caches. Many of my urban ones are off the beaten path for security reasons--an attempt at preventing muggle discovery--therefore the area is sensitive to trampling. It can handle the occasional visitor, just not a horde at one time.

 

Second, a new reason for them to be discouraged at my caches, as mentioned above, cache machines happen in high density, urban areas. Wouldn't this draw undue attention and with it the much higher risk of them being compromised?

 

Anyway, back to the topic. I'm not wanting to ban cache machines, just discourage them from my caches. Can I enforce a "no cache machine" request?

Link to comment

I agree with your concerns on damaging the area around the cache by having many visitors over a short period of time.

 

However, event caches actually encourage this type of caching. Set some temporary caches up for the event, have 20, 30, 50 people find the cache, then remove it and go home. If you ban cache machines, then you should also ban event caches where there are caches. Doesn't quite work, does it?

 

Your other points on deleting logs don't work for me. If the person was physically there and signed the log, they have proven to have visited the cache. That's considered a "find" by every cacher I know.

 

What difference would it make if they happened to run into another cacher at the cache site who already had the logbook open? Should they have to come back later in order to claim a "find"? Also, suppose they were caching by themselves and spent hours at the cache site having lunch, playing frisbee golf with the trees or something. They might be doing more damage than 10-20 cachers on a "machine", but you wouldn't delete the solo cacher's find for that. You probably couldn't even prove it was him.

 

In any event, cache machines should be careful to follow the geocaching guidelines more closely than average cachers because they do tend to leave evidence of their visit due to the number of visitors in a short period of time.

Link to comment

I don't see the problem with cache machines. Alot of the caches I've found were when I was on my own but I've also found quite a few when with a geo-buddy. You're basically saying that I shouldn't count any finds that my buddy found first even though I was just feet from the cache myself. This could be considered a mini-cache machine and is the same as any husband/wife caching team. If a find is logged at the cache, then it's a find.

Link to comment
<<SNIP>>

When one found the cache they would wander off and say they found it. Everyone had to find the container.

<<SNIP>>

Good point. I was with 5 other uber-cachers on a 8 cache 10 mile hunt. At each cache everyone had to find the cache. One after another someone would chime in that they're "having Coffee" he would walk far enough away from the cache to not give up it's location first.

 

All I can say is.....It sucks to be last. You take a lot of grief.

Link to comment
Anyway, back to the topic. I'm not wanting to ban cache machines, just discourage them from my caches. Can I enforce a "no cache machine" request?

 

Has this been a major problem for you in the past? If so, go ahead and make the request and if people iinclude it in a cache machine anyway, delete their logs. Its your right as a cache owner, but if you do you might not be voted "most popular" at the next event cache.

 

When one found the cache they would wander off and say they found it. Everyone had to find the container.

 

I've done this as well on some group hunts. It probably isn't possible with "cache machines" though, due to the large number of people and the goal of finding a lot of caches, quickly.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Cache machines and group hunts are way toooooooooooo cool you are out there running around with new and old friends alike and having a blast, sure the numbers are good to but for me it’s the enjoyment of playing with your peers and seeing how they hunt caches.

 

SE7EN it looks like you need to go on a good hunt, from your stats

 

Heeeeeee Heeeeeee ………………….. JOE

Link to comment

I've got to agree with the majority here, (if you'll take a response from someone with only 22 finds), that if a person is present and signs the log, then it's a legitimate find. Hopefully, cachers will be smart enough not to trample down large trees or buildings and paint neon orange arrows pointing to the cache. And, since it's not about the numbers (to most of us, obviously not all), then I don't see a problem with it being considered "padding" the numbers, either.

Link to comment

First, I would say to work it out with the cache machine organizer if this ever came up in your area. The most famous cache machines are those organized by Travisl in the Pacific Northwest. He always publicizes the route well in advance, and IIRC he offers to remove any cache from the route if the cache owner objects. That's classy. Hopefully if someone organized a cache machine in your area, they would follow a similar policy.

 

Second, a comment on the definition of "cache machine." The term refers to organized events, but isn't any hunt by a large group a "cache machine" that carries with it the possibility of environmental damage? A group of three newbies, a family with six kids or some "adults" who bushwack with machetes can cause as much or more damage as a group of 10 experienced geocachers who know how to walk in the woods and conduct a low-impact search. People go on group hunts all the time, as prior posters have noted, without organizing a formal event. Why not post a notice that your cache can only be hunted by groups of 2 people or less, who have completed "Leave No Trace" training? (Just exaggerating to play Devil's Advocate.)

 

I'd be curious to hear from cache owners in Washington who had their cache visited by a cache machine. Any adverse impact besides needing to replace a full logbook? My only experience has been with groups of 10 or so, hunting at regular event caches. There were other groups in the woods, too. I did not notice any adverse impact.

Link to comment
**Trying to side-step the rightfully issue as I already know that a cache owner can do anything he wants with the logs. I'm asking is it can be considered proper among the majority of the community. No religious undertones implied.

 

 

A cache owner has the *ability* to do whatever they want with logs, simply due to the fact that they cn press the delete button.

 

That doesn't mean that they are *allowed* to do whatever they want.

 

You try deleting logs en masse, and you'll likely find gc.com deletes your account and adds the logs back.***

 

***Speaking of which, you are a sock puppet as previously admitted.

Link to comment

I don't have anything against cache machines. I haven't done one, and don't know if I would do one though. Anyway to give my opinion on the questions:

 

Can you designate your caches, either directly on the cache page or in your profile, as "no cache machines?"

 

Certainly you can make this request. I guess it is hard to enforce it, but you can ask. I would hope that someone planning a cache machine would respect the cache owner's wishes not to have his or her caches included in the event. That is simply the polite thing to do.

 

Further, if a cache machine hit a cache that you've declared free from cache machines, can you morally** delete find logs of those cachers?

 

I think if you make it clear from the begining that you will delete logs if the cache is found during a cache machine, that this is fair. It really is your best enforcement tool. If people are warned it will happen, they will be less surprised. Of course, doing this also runs the risk of annoying folks, but that is your choice to make.

 

And, if someone did participate in a cache machine and had a log deleted, can they come back later and log it as a find without having it deleted?

 

I say yes. Consider that if you ask that a cache not be included and then it is, it is the event planner's fault and not necessarily the attendee's fault. They might not actually see the cache pages ahead of time and could be unaware of your wishes. So why punish them by making it so they can never log your cache? Of course, if they were completely aware, then maybe it is more fair to always delete future logs. I am unsure on this one.

 

Overall, I personally would not ask that my urban caches be left out of a cache machine, but I can see your point and can see why others might not want their caches included. I hope those who plan such events respect those who might want their caches left out of it.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment

As one that has participated in two of Travisl's famous cache machines out here in the Pacific NorthWest, let be explain a little bit about how they work.

 

The whole group meets at one location at way-to-early-oclock to get started. We head to the first cache. Some people get lost or take the wrong route and get to the cache late. This ends up breaking the group down into smaller groups. By the time we hit the 4th or 5th cache, it's now half a dozen people at once showing up at the cache. By the time you get a few more in, it's one car load at a time.

 

At the recent Olympia Cache Machine, out of ~30 finds I had that day, only 5 were with the original group. The rest were just me and my caching partner for the day. Occasionally we would run into a few other cachers that were either just leaving as we showed up or just arrived as we were leaving, but for the most part, it was just like a regular caching day.

 

Then of course there is the dinner at the Red Robin afterwards to brag about cache finds and swap stories.

Link to comment
I don't see the problem with cache machines. Alot of the caches I've found were when I was on my own but I've also found quite a few when with a geo-buddy. You're basically saying that I shouldn't count any finds that my buddy found first even though I was just feet from the cache myself. This could be considered a mini-cache machine and is the same as any husband/wife caching team. If a find is logged at the cache, then it's a find.

I agree.........After all, it's not ALL about adding finds to your list. My main goal is to VISIT places of interest, and GeoCaching has provided my wife and I with some very cool experiences and made us say many times: "Gee I didn't even know about this place....". We usually end up taking turns on who finds the cache first (mostly because one of us happens to see the hiding spot), but we log them as a team.

 

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.....

 

JayBee

Link to comment
As one that has participated in two of Travisl's famous cache machines ...

Are you aware of any problems that have occured during these events? I'm more interested in the integrity of the cache and surroundings. As mentioned above, my biggest fear is loss of a cache, either by having to move it or being stolen.

 

I cache with a partner. I also have cached in the groups of up to 8 eight members. Multiple, responsible cachers at one time doesn't bother me. It's the thought of 20-30 cachers in the area all on one day that bothers me.

 

What do these cache sites look like the day after?

 

Thanks for your input.

Link to comment
If I can't hunt with my wife and friends, I don't want to hunt anymore. Where are the cache-nazis going to stop.

going OT, but what are cache-nazis? Those that want to control all the caches themselves?? :huh:

 

As for the cache machines, you *can* do whatever you want with the logs, but if they found the cache *should* you delete them?

If I was concerned about a mass group visit to my cache, I would put something on the cache page about careful of the area. Then no cache machines should put it on the list (right?).

Link to comment
I'm more interested in the integrity of the cache and surroundings

 

There are things you can do.

 

1. Don't hide your cache in a marginally mugglable area. Put 'em out in the woods (where they belong, imo).

 

2. When you hide a cache, don't inadvertantly create a 'needle in a haystack' situation. That's how areas get torn up. Generally there will be a few places in your target area that say 'geocache' to passing geocachers. you don't have to pick the most obvious one, but by picking one you will prevent visitors from having to move every stick and pry up every rock.

Link to comment

As to deleting logs, I don't think that's a good approach, for much the same reasons others have expressed.

 

The potential harm to the area and exposure of the cache to geomuggles are real issues. With my caches, there are some that would not be a good idea for a cache machine, and some that would be fine. I know TravisL is planning a cache machine in this area, so I'll wait and see if any of my caches end up on the proposed list. If they are, and they're ones of concern to me, I'll let him know. I'm confident that he'll be reasonable about it.

 

Bottom line is I guess you can't really do anything about it if you don't know in advance, but cache machines are usually widely publicized to get lots of people participating. This also gives you as a cache owner a chance to raise any red flags that might be necessary, and I believe CM organizers would be willing to listen to your concerns.

 

SylvrStorm

Link to comment
As one that has participated in two of Travisl's famous cache machines ...

Are you aware of any problems that have occured during these events? I'm more interested in the integrity of the cache and surroundings. As mentioned above, my biggest fear is loss of a cache, either by having to move it or being stolen.

 

I cache with a partner. I also have cached in the groups of up to 8 eight members. Multiple, responsible cachers at one time doesn't bother me. It's the thought of 20-30 cachers in the area all on one day that bothers me.

 

What do these cache sites look like the day after?

 

Thanks for your input.

The first couple of cache machines there were complaints about caches not being put back where they belonged. This was because the finder was not always the person that put it back. Since then a rule was put in place, if you are the finder, you stick around to put the cache back, not matter how long it takes.

 

I won't say there have not been other problems, but I am not aware of them.

 

Oh... there is one problem..... when 75 people hit your cache in one day, the log book tends to fill up rather quickly :huh:

Link to comment

One big difference between a Cache Machine and a Cache Event is that the Machine targets specific caches (the easy ones) along a specified route. I'm sure that not everyone shows up at a cache at the same time but no one can honestly tell me that 70+ people visiting a cache in one day isn't going to have some negative effects on most caches. The cache owner is the best one to decide if their cache can take this punishment, therefore I suggest the event planners contact every owner personally prior to the event.

 

There is also the aspect of respect. Hopefully the cache owner spent some time and effort placing the cache. There is a reason they put the cache there, something they wanted you to take a moment to enjoy, not just rush in and out. My post cache machine experience has demonstrated that most participants don't even take the time to personally sign the log book, they just slap in a sticker or one person slaps in everyones sticker just to speed things up. Many online logs consist of a cut/paste "did as part of ****** CM, thanks". Is this what Geocaching is about?

 

I can certainly see the enjoyment of the social part of CM's but I'd rather see events where participants have there get together and then set off and do their own thing, then meet again at the end of the day sharing different stories. Some folks, no doubt, would skim the easies where others may pic a few more challenging ones to get a better sample of a new area. It would be a more random hit! Cache machines differ in that they are about padding numbers.

Link to comment

First, I'd do as Lep says, and ask any organizers of 'cache machines' to exclude your caches from the list. If they have ANY respect for their fellow cachers, they'll abide by your request. IF you notice that they haven't, and still have your cache on the list, you could always disable and remove it the day before the 'machine' then replace it the day after, and re-enable it. :huh: Then there shouldn't be any 'found' logs to worry about, and definately no signatures in the logbook to verify any.

Link to comment
... IF you notice that they haven't, and still have your cache on the list, you could always disable and remove it the day before the 'machine' then replace it the day after, and re-enable it. :huh: ...

This procedure would almost certainly increase the risk of damage to the area as the large amount of hunters thoroughly search the area.

 

I've never been part of a CM. Is it common for these to be announced to the community at large, or are they organized informally among groups of friends?

 

Also, if they are announced to the community, is the list of caches delivered prior to the day of the event?

 

Is it common for the organizer to contact the owners of the caches on the list prior to the event?

Link to comment

Some excellent points eroyd!

 

If you have concerns about cache machine impacts on your cache and surrounding area, I don't think you would be out of line to post a message in big bold letters on your cache page, requesting that your cache not be included in cache machines.

 

However, if it IS included in a cache machine after you have requested it not be, the "damage" may have already been done. What good would deleting their posts do?

 

If it were me, I would post a firmly written note in the logs expressing my disapproval after my request for non-inclusion in a cache machine was not respected...but leave the logs alone. If the impacts from the cache machine event are to bad, you may need to archieve the cache until the area recovers.

 

Maybe they will "get the hint" after that.

 

I do have one cache that could someday get put on a cache machine list. An event like that would definatly over impact the cache area, so I may eventually consider putting a request to not include it in any cache machine on my cache page. Right now, local cachers I know are mostly appalled at the cache machine concept. So I think I'm safe for awhile. :huh:

 

Salvelinus

Link to comment
Anyway, back to the topic. I'm not wanting to ban cache machines, just discourage them from my caches. Can I enforce a "no cache machine" request?

Cache machines are planned well in advance, at least the ones I've paid attention to. When I heard that a machine was being planned in an area where I had active caches I became concerned about one of my placements. I wrote the organizer an email asking if my cache was going to be hit as part of the machine and outlined my concerns, we exchanged several emails in which he responded and eased my concerns. It turned out he arranged the large group in to small teams, only a half dozen or so visited the cache that day. Had I decided that I didn't want my cache listed as part of the activity, he would have removed it from the list. Comunication with the organizer can be a valuable tool.

Link to comment
First, I'd do as Lep says, and ask any organizers of 'cache machines' to exclude your caches from the list.  If they have ANY respect for their fellow cachers, they'll abide by your request.  IF you notice that they haven't, and still have your cache on the list, you could always disable and remove it the day before the 'machine' then replace it the day after, and re-enable it.  :huh:  Then there shouldn't be any 'found' logs to worry about, and definately no signatures in the logbook to verify any.

I thought of that too. But, I think you can still log archieved caches...and you know some cachers will.

 

Also, what about someone who wants to find it who is not part of the "event"?

 

Sometimes, I hear about cache machines "after the fact". Like this recent cache machine event. So putting a note on your cache page may be the way to go.

 

I would of been concerned if any of mine were on their "radar" that day. Fortunatly, this did not occur in my normal caching area.

 

Salvelinus

Link to comment

I know of specific caches that say on the cache page, "No cache machines please"

These have been respected.

There has been an evolution to them. I went on a Yakima area hunt just after the cache machine went through. There was some damage which is to be expected as 70 people search an area. I dont mean damage as in broken shrubs flower beds ect. I mean more of a herd of cattle concentrating in an area of brush or even weeds. We didnt need a gps for a few of them because we just followed the trail. It made a lot of the caches easier to find when you can read the trail sign.

 

I havent been on one. The community aspects of them would seem to be a blast, but the padding of the numbers is a concern for me since comming from a cache poor area we have had to work hard for all our finds.

 

The logical test is this: If you only find the first 5 enmass and the rest are in regular small groups then why have none of these people ever done 65 caches a day on their own? The fact is that many eyes find caches quick and everyone logs.

 

Historically cache machines were offered the final coords to multicaches, (which were declined by travis) a short lunch stop was even worth a cache, getting together the night before a cache machine was a cache, ect. GC has reined this in with allowing only 1 event cache for the machine which they envision as the Red Robin party afterward. (If I am not mistaken)

 

I wish there was a way of having the group experience with out the other stuff.

I believe I have found it. The Champoeg 2004 Trilla in yurtvilla event weekend. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=34493 It is a weekend event with community hunts, activities, and from what I have read, some of the most intricate once in a lifetime caches ever. Its growing to be a legend from what I hear.

 

To each his own

Link to comment
Sometimes, I hear about cache machines "after the fact". Like this recent cache machine event. So putting a note on your cache page may be the way to go.

 

I would of been concerned if any of mine were on their "radar" that day. Fortunatly, this did not occur in my normal caching area.

 

Salvelinus

OK, as someone who took part in the event 'Linus just mentioned, I guess I'll toss out my 2 cents worth.

Like others have mentioned, I'm the type the usually would rather find the cache on my own,and in small groups (like caching with Harrald and Briansnat) we usually play that way. Because of that, Geo Ho and myself made it our own little side game to strive to be the first one to the cache area, and first to find. So does my log get deleted because I got there 5 minutes before everyone else?

As someone else mentioned, after a bit, the pack breaks up, and most of my day was spent with just a handful of cachers, not a huge group.

FWIW, I noticed no damage from cachers at any of the sites. It's possible the sites that DID have a large group had even less damage, because rather then 1-2 people tearing up an area every day, with a larger group SOMEONE also spotted the cache within a few seconds, just emiminating the need to disturb the area.

At least in this event, most of the cachers tended to be experienced, and I think the avg cacher there probably had at least 200-300 finds, with many well over 500 finds. They tend to know where, and how, to look for a cache.

I don't know how this relates to other CM type events, but even though I can't see myself caching like that on a regular basis, it was a lot of fun for a day.

Link to comment
As one that has participated in two of Travisl's famous cache machines out here in the Pacific NorthWest, let be explain a little bit about how they work.

 

The whole group meets at one location at way-to-early-oclock to get started. We head to the first cache. Some people get lost or take the wrong route and get to the cache late. This ends up breaking the group down into smaller groups. By the time we hit the 4th or 5th cache, it's now half a dozen people at once showing up at the cache. By the time you get a few more in, it's one car load at a time.

 

At the recent Olympia Cache Machine, out of ~30 finds I had that day, only 5 were with the original group. The rest were just me and my caching partner for the day. Occasionally we would run into a few other cachers that were either just leaving as we showed up or just arrived as we were leaving, but for the most part, it was just like a regular caching day.

 

Then of course there is the dinner at the Red Robin afterwards to brag about cache finds and swap stories.

I was his partner for that day. I'm a veteran of these cache machines and he pretty much hit it on the nail about groups getting smaller and smaller as the day goes on. I've done all except for trhe original Bremerton Cache machine. Naysayers should try before judging. It's a lot of fun!

Link to comment

The logical test is this: If you only find the first 5 enmass and the rest are in regular small groups then why have none of these people ever done 65 caches a day on their own? .

In part because of the work that goes into routing such a trip. Plotting such a day of caching takes lots of planning, and a familiarity of the region and the caches that most of the participants don't have.

 

The one I attended had a goal of 50 caches for the day.

I think I hit 21 of them. Many others ther logged 30-40 finds. I think that supports that at least in the case of the one I attended, there were smaller groups working at their own pace.

Link to comment

In part because of the work that goes into routing such a trip. Plotting such a day of caching takes lots of planning, and a familiarity of the region and the caches that most of the participants don't have.

 

The one I attended had a goal of 50 caches for the day.

I think I hit 21 of them. Many others ther logged 30-40 finds. I think that supports that at least in the case of the one I attended, there were smaller groups working at their own pace.

The machine you went on would be more in line with what a person might do semi easily on his own. We have done 30-40 in a day a few times ourselves. Not in DC either!

 

I agree the planning aspect has a lot to do with it. Actually planning our hunts is one thing that I enjoy. Making little goals for yourselves. For example we are going to Hawaii in mid Mar. I would like to try and get every cache on Maui in 9 days here and there with out ticking Isha off to much. It looks like its totally doable except for 2 which the car we are renting wont get there and 1 other is scuba.

Link to comment

I've never done a cache machine, and probably won't. I'm not a naysayer, it's just my preference. Personally, I'd rather find my own caches, and I like taking my time. I happened to be geocaching in a city the same day of a cache machine. The people I saw race by us looked exhausted from running from cache to cache. As we were walking to a cache, we almost got run over by the herd racing to the next cache. As we got to the cache location, the last person in the group gave us the cache and took off. I think he thought we were with the group. I had to guess where to put it back. That one incident turned me from ever wanting to participate in a cache machine. As far as the social aspect, there are cache events (pizza parties, etc). I attended one and got to meet and visit with fellow geocachers which I enjoyed.

 

Anyway, one way to prevent your cache from being hit by a cache machine is to either make it a multi cache, or hide it in the mountains somewhere, or a half mile from a road or parking lot. Cache machines never include multis and they only seem to hit urban areas within 1/4 mile or less from a road.

Edited by The Navigatorz
Link to comment

Isn't excluding cachers from visiting your cache against geocaching.com guidelines?

 

If you don't approve of a cache machine visiting your cache (you are probably in the minority), why don't you just ask TravisL or whoever the organizer is to exclude it from the official event?

 

That, or REMOVE the cache for a couple days.

 

Deleting logs is not right. I am surprised to see some folks in here advocating such actions.

Edited by canadazuuk
Link to comment

I want to thank everyone who responded with constructive comments, both pro and con.

 

After weighing your comments and thoughts I some thoughts of my own.

  • I don't think the onus should be on the cache owner to watch for upcoming cachemachine events. Cachemachines are not part of the ordinary caching realm and therefore the onus is on the cachemachine coordinator to make sure these events are acceptable to the cache owner. Some cache owners might not get notified of upcoming events unless contacted directly.
  • I'm not going to clutter up each of my cache pages with requests to not include my cache in a cachemachine event. It's up to the coordinator to find out if he can include any of my caches. Cachers complaints of deleted logs should be toward the coordinator for failing to plan properly.
  • I will be putting my desires on my profile so when a coordinator views it he will not have to waste his time asking. A properly planned event wouldn't have any problems from me because I deleted log as there wouldn't be any logs from a cachemachine.
  • I will tactfully make the request to not include my caches, but firmly let them know I plan to back it up with a deletion if necessary--especially if the cache is compromised. It would be sad if I had to follow through with deletions, but because my caches were included when I clearly didn't want it, then they've shown a lack of respect and left me with no choice.
  • While I already do check online logs against paper logs, I will be extra diligent when it comes to those whose logs I've had to delete. I will allow finds at a later period, but only if they actually visit the site and sign the paper logbook.
  • I already have caches that run the gamut of beginner-style caches to fairly extreme, both urban and rural. However, I will not plan a cache with the thought of avoiding a cachemachine.
  • While I do enjoy meeting others and going to meetings, I doubt I would ever participate in a cachemachine. I don't see the point in it and I would worry too much about compromising someone's cache by giving it too many visits in one day. Temporary event caches, I don't have a problem with as they are just that and I don't expect them to last long.

Again, thank you everyone who posted constructive comments; especially carleenp and Lep, both of whom I have fair amount of respect. Also, thanks to Right Wing Wacko for explaining things and not getting all defensive over it.

 

I'm leaving this thread open for further comment.

Link to comment

I've done one cache machine. After the first stop the group dwindled rapidly. Many had already done several of the caches in the area, some were skipping virtuals, some were having map following issues, and some were running ahead as fast as possible to get all they could. The biggest complaint I heard was from a neighbor of the first cache on the Spokane CM, the group was too noisy at 6 am ona Saturday and woke up the neighborhood with the laughing and car door slamming.

As to the finding, mainly we were a group of either 4 or 7 depending on who we had caught up with/ who had cought up to us. Our group of 4 had 2 parties, my husband and I and Yumitori and Leonata. We had previoulsly visited 36 of the caches on the machine, they had about 36 as well. But few actually aligned. We had more of the Idaho, they had more Spokane. So we ended up visiting about 68 cache locations that day and really had a nice time. Lots of on the trail encounters and parking area laughs but rarely were we with a large group.

I replaced 2 full log sheets as they would not fit back into the micro caches (bison tubes) due to the stickers folks were using to log. We had known they would be filled and had brought replacements. The owners didn't mind when I contacted them.

Overall, it was an enjoyable experience and I totally recommend it. You don't have to follow the crowd, we ended up skipping entire sections we had already hit and mainly the fun was in the opportunity to do a planned hunt and meet afterwards for dinner.

And yes, you can designate caches an "not for machines". But you should define machine as I have seen the term used for a single cacher trip that goes to all the caches they can during their trip to the area.

-Jennifer

Link to comment

I suppose we'll know who SE7EN really is at some point... <_<

 

I believe that the organizers, TravisL in particular, DO contact the cache owners ahead of time...

 

As well, what are you going to do if 75 cachers at a CM on a Saturday don't visit your cache as part of the event, but 25 visit it the next day?

 

What is the limit? Is this entirely motivated by a desire to protect the environment, or is it just that you wish to exclude cachers from logging your cache because you have a philosophical barrier up when it comes to cache machines?

 

And sorry to pick on you again, but what's with the avatar? This is a family site. Perhaps you should contact all the cachers that use the forums ahead of time about your intention to display an avatar like this. :D

Edited by canadazuuk
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...