Jump to content

Prohibiting "cache Machines" At Your Caches.


SE7EN

Recommended Posts

Excuse me, but this is nuts. Why does it even matter? Yes, I have been on a few of those myself and really enjoyed it. As a matter of fact, I very seldom go without at least my wife or a friend. I have been with as few as myself and as many as 8-10 when caching and would much rather go with others when hunting. The way I look at it, what does it matter? To each is their own.

 

I have been with some very experienced cachers before such as JoGPS, Southpaw, Monkeybrad, AngelFly, Rob, Groundsquirrel, P-Herm and several others that I won't bore you with all the names. I really enjoyed the company and learned from each experience. Like what was said above, if you would rather that the CM's not look for your cache, then post it as such on the page. As far as the caches that I have out there, GO FOR IT, CM's or singles, doesn't matter to me. I enjoy reading the logs and take enough pride in my caches that I want many people to visit them, even as a group.

 

In closing, no pun intended but I would also suggest that you go out and find some caches. It's fun, alone or in my opinion, with others regardless of the size of the group.

 

Happy cachin'!! <_<

Link to comment

I'm guessing the reason for all of the stir is a percieved "unfairness" about cachers logging finds that were found with a team effort, rather than relying on their individual prowess.

Personally, I think it's silly. Let them log the find. If I ever hit a "no cache machine" cache with a group, it's ok to leave my find log. I'm not competing for finds with anyone, so I officially forfeit. <_< Let me know who wins geocaching this year.

Link to comment

I wrote a longer response earlier, but the machine ate my post before I could send it. (Aren't you all lucky?)

 

Jamethiel has already commented on our experiences in Spokane. The entire day it was just the four of us, so yes, with proper planning a small group can indeed find 60 - 70 caches on their own.

 

I can think of only a couple of times when the folks we occasionally crossed paths with were heading to the next hide at the same time we were. Most of the rest of the day we were just passing each other on the way to and fro. We've met other cachers before while on the hunt; it was the same sort of situation. Being on a cache machine didn't change our behavior when it happened.

 

As for deleting logs of anyone on the cache machine, you might want to think twice. Although we were all mostly from outside Spokane, a number of us visit regularly so we added or subtracted to our list as needed. Yep, that's correct - several of the small groups including ours hit not only the caches on the machine, but others in the area as well. Were those not legitimate finds? Why not?

 

And on what grounds would you feel it to then be appropriate to delete their logs?

Link to comment
I'm guessing the reason for all of the stir is a percieved "unfairness" about cachers logging finds that were found with a team effort, rather than relying on their individual prowess.

Personally, I think it's silly. Let them log the find. If I ever hit a "no cache machine" cache with a group, it's ok to leave my find log. I'm not competing for finds with anyone, so I officially forfeit. <_< Let me know who wins geocaching this year.

Yuppers..... :D

Link to comment

I have not yet hidden a cache nor have I participated in a cache machine so I can't speak from practical experience. I'm planning to hide a cache in the not too distant future. I have the spot picked out and it will probably be a multi- and somewhat difficult. Therefore, its not a likely subject for a cache machine. Were I to have a cache in a cache machine accessible location that was not in a sensitive area, then I would not object to a cache machine stop nor would I delete cache machine logs. Hey, I'm not the boss of the world as my kids occasionally remind me (I'm the boss of my house, though). If, for some reason, I felt that a cache was not appropriate for a cache machine then I would indicate so on the cache page.

 

I think being on a cache machine hunt would be fun from a social aspect but it doesn't seem to fit in with the way I like to find caches. I kinda like to be with family or a friend, or out on my own on my own clock, no cares, no rushing, no conflicts - just me doing my thing. After spending all week dealing with people, I can't think of anything better than peace and quiet and a little caching.

Link to comment

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.  <_<

Please...it's a cartoon.....

It looks like a Boris Vallejo poster. Kinda cool, actually. I've put some Boris Vallejo fantasy collector cards in one of my caches for swag.

Link to comment

Just a thought,

 

Which would have more inpact? 10 people searching 10 square inches seperatly or 10 people each searching 1 square inch each and then passing the log book to each other. Seems to me that 10 cachers searching seperatly would have 10 times the impact.

 

BTW I know this is greatly simplified and that not all 10 inches would be searched each time just trying to illustrate a point.

Link to comment

I feel the same way about the cache machines as I do about the locationless caches. How hard is it to have someone hand you the book to sign and log? About as hard as it is to find a yellow jeep, or a Baptist Church.

 

As far as the cache machines, not everyone can say that they would have found it either, after all there are such things as a DNF.

 

but then if I had it my way, I would do away with the public viewing of cache numbers, as to me, my 40 or 50 legitimate finds mean alot more than your 300 which were from cache machine hunts and locationless.

 

 

at least that's one man's opinion...........

Link to comment

Personally, I think it's silly. Let them log the find. If I ever hit a "no cache machine" cache with a group, it's ok to leave my find log. I'm not competing for finds with anyone, so I officially forfeit. <_< Let me know who wins geocaching this year.

The deal is this guy expects you to look at everyones profile. If the organizer doesn't look at his profile and it you show up by yourself during a cache machine this guy is going to delete your log.

 

Too bad he doesn't have the guts to use his caching profile, if he really has one. That would make it easy to avoid his caches totally just in case he has some other rules we don't know about yet. I certainly don't check profiles before I go caching.

Link to comment
...just trying to illustrate a point.

I think you're missing an important point.

 

When I scout locations, I look at the site to see if it can handle caching traffic. While I do tend to favor durable surfaces, this is not always an option. Next, I make a determination if the site can handle traffic. I'm thinking the max traffic might be two or three people at once and visited maybe twice a week. If I think the site can handle two or three people at once and then is able to recover in a day or two, then it's a candidate.

 

See, the main difference is 30 people, all on one day, versus 30 people, each a week or better spread out over a few months.

 

Grass can only handle so much traffic at once. It takes time to recover. Forest debris takes time to rebuilt and cover evidence of someone walking by. Large numbers of people disappearing into the woods over a short period might attract the attention of bystanders and they may follow--who's know who are cachers and who are not?

 

I don't scout cache sites with a cachemachine in mind. To head off anyone's next comment, no, I don't think I should be either. I place caches for individuals and small groups spread out of a long time period, not a horde on one day.

Link to comment

Personally, I think it's silly. Let them log the find. If I ever hit a "no cache machine" cache with a group, it's ok to leave my find log. I'm not competing for finds with anyone, so I officially forfeit. <_< Let me know who wins geocaching this year.

The deal is this guy expects you to look at everyones profile. If the organizer doesn't look at his profile and it you show up by yourself during a cache machine this guy is going to delete your log.

 

Too bad he doesn't have the guts to use his caching profile, if he really has one. That would make it easy to avoid his caches totally just in case he has some other rules we don't know about yet. I certainly don't check profiles before I go caching.

Maybe you need to go back and read my posts. I didn't say I would delete your logs if your are part of a cachemachine. I said I would delete logs of everyone who are part of the cachemachine that hit my cache.

 

Quoting myself, "...let them know I plan to back it up with a deletion if necessary--especially if the cache is compromised. " Note that I left myself an out, but made it clear if you and your group screwed up my cache site expect me to follow through.

 

Don't be putting words in my mouth.

Link to comment
And on what grounds would you feel it to then be appropriate to delete their logs?

See above. There is a difference between a cache getting hit by a cachemachine and getting hit by a person participating in a cachemachine.

 

If my cache is not on the cachemachine list, then you shouldn't have to worry.

Link to comment
Maybe you need to go back and read my posts. I didn't say I would delete your logs if your are part of a cachemachine. I said I would delete logs of everyone who are part of the cachemachine that hit my cache.

Yeah that's a huge difference all right? What did you think I meant when I said you'd delete the logs if you're part of a cache machine anyway? Delete logs of previous caches of yours they found? I never suggested that so stop putting words in my mouth?

 

Regardless as I stated, according to you, if I participate in a cache machine, if the cache machine organizer neglects to read the profiles of say, 40 pr 50 cachers and then if I log your cache with your nasty attitude towards cache machines, I'll get deleted.

 

So I wish you'd put up your real profile so I could avoid your caches, if you have any, like the plague.

Link to comment

I'm not sure what the intentions were of the original post, however as I stated before, I do see some legimitate issues raised here. I have no problem with CM's. They are not my cup of tea, except for the before and after social aspects. My reaction to them is "Whatever floats your boat". I also have little concerns for the "environmental impacts" from any type of caching. Unless a bulldozer is blazing your trail for you...the forest and fauna can recover quite easily from 50 pairs of feet in a short amount of time (No off topic flames about environmental impacts please - email me and we can debate it).

 

The cache I own that would raise concerns with me if included in a cache machine is located on property where the primary recreational use is fishing. These lands are purchased soley by fishermans $$$ and not by any general tax monies. They are similar to Pennsylvania Gamelands and both are open to other "regulated" uses but are primarily managed for fishing and hunting. Geocaching has been going on on these properties relatively at will and un-permitted...so far. I'm sure the relatively low-impact of normal geocaching and its lack of conflicts with the primary users of these lands have not raised the concerns with the managing agencies of these lands that have been raised eleswhere in PA.

 

So far this cache has never had more than two visits a day. However, if I were fishing in the area and small groups of people kept showing up all day wondering around the woods looking for something, I might feel a bit "bugged" about it. If you don't fish, that may not make sense to you. But, it is very real. There have already been issues raised, where this cache is located, concerning dog training and kayacking interfearing with the primary rec activity of angling. For some reason, dog owners and Kayackers felt they had a right to do what they wanted even though they had not supported the purchase and maintenance of the lands they were doing it on. This eventually resulted in excessive regualtions for those activities on these types of lands. You can agree or not with the regulations...but that is the reality. I would not like to see geocaching added to that list of "regulated" activities because of a cache machine event.

 

Additionally, the increased activity around the cache area in this type of area may catch the eye of a non-geocacher and the cache may be compromised. Although this may be a way to introduce people to the sport, I think we all agree its not a very good way to go about it.

 

Here is the cache I mention.

 

So, if you have concerns about your cache being included in a CM event, post something on your cache page where it most likely will be seen. If your a CM organizer, have the courtesy to contact the cache owners to see if they have concerns with their cache being part of your event.

 

Don't delete logs or cause animosity amongst cachers...that's just stupid.

 

Salvelinus

 

edit: Spelling and added a thought.

Edited by Salvelinus
Link to comment
Don't delete logs or cause animosity amongst cachers...that's just stupid.

I agree with the majority of your post.

 

I would hate to have to delete logs, but that really is the only enforcement tool any of us have.

 

Someone mentioned earlier that putting up such request for no cachemachine visits may cause me to be perceived as "a grump." You mention that deleting logs of cachemachiners might cause animosity.

 

Let's look at it from the other side. How much of a grump would I be if my cache were compromised by a cachemachine? How much animosity would I have if a cachemachine visited my cache even after I requested it not to?

 

The only thing necessary is for all cachemachine coordinators make sure that the cache owners of caches on their list approve of their caches being hit. It's really not that hard. If someone is going to take the time to plan an event like what's been mentioned, it is nothing to click on the profile to see if there is no prohibitions.

 

I applaud the coordinators up to this point for being gentlemen and removing caches upon request. However, what's to prevent someone coordinating an event who is not as much of a gentleman. Like I said, the only real enforcement tool any of us have to force compliance with our wishes is the delete button.

Edited by SE7EN
Link to comment

I'm confused. You asked for the advise of the community. You then went contrary to all advice given. What was the point of this thread?

 

While we're on topic, why did you choose your course of action?

 

If you are primarily concerned with environmental damage, why not identify the 'endangered' areas on the cache pages?

 

Putting the warning on your profile will not stop CMs from visiting your cache. In my opinion, most cachers don't read profiles at all. I rarely even pay attention to who placed a cache until I've already found it (or can't find it).

 

In my opinion, if a cacher signs the log book, its a find. You have no moral right to delete the log.

Link to comment

I agree that putting a note on only your profile page is not likely going to do much. A person planning a cache machine will see cache pages, but not likely profiles. I suggest the cache page route. Regardless, I also agree that it would be good for people planning cache machines to notify the owners of caches that they want to include and not include any if they are asked not to. As for deleting logs, I am uncomfortable with the idea, but I realize that it is the enforcement mechanism. I question whether it is really fair though if the warning about finding the cache during a cache machine is not on the cache page. In any case, I wouldn't do it and I would guess that deleting logs would cause some annomosity, but in the end, it is the cache owner's choice.

 

Hopefully this thread will make people more aware that an issue with cache machines can arise. If people are aware that an issue can occur, it is more easily prevented.

Link to comment
Like I said, the only real enforcement tool any of us have to force compliance with our wishes is the delete button.

 

Exactly what gives you the right to force cachers to submit to complying with your wishes. Get over yourself. If a person signs your log book, they found your cache and it is wrong to delete their logs. You are wrong to penalize them for sharing this activity with their spouse or even a group of friends. What next, are you not going to allow african american cachers to log your caches? What about fat guys in slacks and dress shoes, they certainly look suspicious walking into the woods, someone might follow them to see what they are doing. I know that as a fat guy who often caches on the road in business attire i look suspicious heading up a trail, are you going to delete me. And don't reply with your standard "you don't cache in my area, so don't worry about it". I cache everywhere, I just have not gotten to your neighborhood yet. Or maybe I have, since you will not post under your real name, what are you afraid of?

 

I know what you are afraid of, you know you are wrong. You are here looking for someone to say it is OK to do something that in your heart you know is wrong. Well here is the news sunshine, we ain't gonna do it. I am truly sorry if this post is offensive, but I cannot believe we are even discussing this.

Link to comment

Not wanting 30 or more people trampling the area of ones cache at the same time/day and possibly giving away the location is perfectably acceptable. Personally I think you should put the notice on your cache page, if cache machines happen in your area. Then like I said earlier, instead of deleting "legit" finds, go out a couple days before the cache machine, remove your cache, disable it online, the replace after the event.....then there won't be any "legit" find logs to worry about.

Link to comment
I'm confused.  You asked for the advise of the community.  You then went contrary to all advice given.  What was the point of this thread?

 

In my mind, not everyone has a valid opinion. I completely disregarded the opinions of those who are prone to snide remarks. I also completely disregarded those who I have unpleasant histories with. I put very little weight on those that didn't really have a reason for opinion.

 

Besides, how much stock would you put in a smart aleck's opinion?

 

Of course, some folks opinions have more weight than others as I've read more of their posts and they tend to be level headed and thoughtful.

 

One such person genarally supported my view.

 

Given that I already had a viewpoint and not enough people that I respected gave me reasons to change my mind, my mind didn't change that much.

 

Trust me, I'm not so stubborn that I would never admit to being wrong. I just haven't been presented with any other workable solution to cachemachines potentially compromising a cache without leaving it in the hands of another.

 

EDIT: I forgot the quote.

Edited by SE7EN
Link to comment

As I was writing my last post, two people have made posts that were constructive. The other was not. A prime example of what I meant.

 

I have been thinking about revising one of my points I posted. Level headed posts above confirmed my thoughts.

 

When cachemachines come to my area I will be putting my request directly on the cache page. I do have to agree, it's only fair. Why should anyone be penalized for the failure of a coordinator? With it directly on the cache page, they will know tha cachemachines aren't welcome, but would be free to hunt it at any other time.

 

For the other solution of removing the cache, it's a good one, but not one that could be relied on. I might not get a notice about the event. Also, it would deny those that are not part of a cachemachine from hunting it. But if i did, I'd probably put down a yellow laminated card stating the cache is offline. That way, they wouldn't (hopefully) tear up the area looking for the nonexistent cache.

 

Thank you two for the feedback.

Link to comment

I am sorry my post did not live up to your exacting standards. Perhaps, if I work hard and study, I will someday be able to write a well-reasoned post that asks questions you feel you can answer. I will have to admit that I took it as quite a blow to find out that I do not have the respect of a sock puppet. If in your infinite wisdom you could forgive my unworthiness and answer a few of my points I would appreciate it. How else am I to learn?

 

It must be very comfortable in a world where only the opinions that agree with your own matter. Let me know how that works out for you.

Link to comment
In my mind, not everyone has a valid opinion.  I completely disregarded the opinions of those who are prone to snide remarks.  I also completely disregarded those who I have unpleasant histories with.  I put very little weight on those that didn't really have a reason for opinion.

 

Besides, how much stock would you put in a smart aleck's opinion?

 

Of course, some folks opinions have more weight than others as I've read more of their posts and they tend to be level headed and thoughtful.

 

One such person genarally supported my view.

 

Given that I already had a viewpoint and not enough people that I respected gave me reasons to change my mind, my mind didn't change that much. 

 

Trust me, I'm not so stubborn that I would never admit to being wrong.  I just haven't been presented with any other workable solution to cachemachines potentially compromising a cache without leaving it in the hands of another.

You have raised legitimate issues concerning cache machines. You have been presented with various things you can politly do to prevent your caches from becoming involved in these events. However, as you pointed out, your cache may still, unknownilgly, become part of an CM event and be compromised?

 

Once that happens it cannot be undone.

 

Please explain how deleting the logs after the fact would help the situation? Again, a stearn response to the event organizer or a note in your cache logs, articulating your feelings and the reasons for them, would be much more respected by everyone and likely not cause much animosity. It also would likely prevent a similar situation from occurring in the future.

 

Your choice, your cache. But if you don't agree with what seems to be the overwhelming community view. Maybe you shouldn't ask the community their opinion in the future.

 

Good Luck,

Salvelinus

Link to comment
For the other solution of removing the cache, it's a good one, but not one that could be relied on. I might not get a notice about the event. Also, it would deny those that are not part of a cachemachine from hunting it. But if i did, I'd probably put down a yellow laminated card stating the cache is offline. That way, they wouldn't (hopefully) tear up the area looking for the nonexistent cache.

You could post a sign down the trail from the cache, or even at the parking coords, that says "XYZ Cache has been temporarily disabled for maintenance"

Muggles would have no idea what it means and cache machines would turn around and head somwhere else. Since the average cache gets visited once every two weeks, the chances of sending a solo cacher home empty handed is quite small.

Link to comment

As the organizer of five cache machines so far, yes, they have eveolved. I've said it in other discussions, but if any cache owner doesn't want their cache on the Cache Machine route, a quick e-mail to me or a note on the cache page will keep it off the route. For the record, I will never Machine a cache where the owner clearly asks us not to.

 

I also am not going to look at the profile page for every cache hider. I'd guess that most profile pages don't have any useful information on them. My knowledge about a cache location comes from the GC.com cache page and pocket queries of the area.

 

I'm a strong, strong believer in the cache owner's right to set whatever rules they want for their cache. You want me to whistle Moonlight Sonata as I open the container, and I admit that I don't? Delete my found log.

 

I also submit the route to the community -- in the Northwest forums, 'cause that's where my machines have been -- for feedback before the final route. At the most recent Olympia Cache Machine, one of the caches on the original route, Sister Yashiro, turned out to be a small Japanese garden. A local cacher knew of it, and questioned whether it should be on the route at all. Once I read the page and asked a few questions, I knew it shouldn't be. I didn't even bother to check with the cache owner.

 

As others have pointed out in this thread, my Cache Machine events now have rules in place to require that the cache is re-hidden exactly where it came from, in the same manner (the "finder has to rehide it" rule), and that bison capsule caches are re-closeable (the "no stickers in bisons" rule). For Olympia and future caches, I've also aimed to have the starting few caches outside of residential areas, so as to not irritate the neighbors.

 

The Vancouver (BC) cache machine is coming up in a couple of months (March 27). No event page yet, but stay tuned. "Watch" the Olympia Cache Machine if you want an e-mail notification of the Vancouver page's existence.

 

Oh -- one last thing. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that it's the dinner at the end that counts as the "find" for the Cache Machine event. As the owner of the event cache, I'm more lenient than that. If someone participated in the event during the day -- whether they were at the start point, the end point, or served us coffee at lunch -- and if they want to log it as a find, I'm not gonna delete their log.

Link to comment

Yes, the event is posted as an event cache, with the event coordinates either at the first cache (done in Yakima, Olympia, and Victoria), at a convenient meeting point (Spokane), or at the trailhead to the first cache (Bremerton).

 

At the risk of undermining my allegation that most profile pages don't have useful information on them, my profile page lists all past and upcoming cache machine events, with links to the past ones.

 

How far out do I plan it? It depends on what you mean by "plan". I can tell you that I plan to be caching in the Grays Harbor, Washington area on September 30, 2006. For more than just a pushpin on the calendar, though, I usually start planning for an event about two months in advance. The upcoming Vancouver Cache Machine (March 27) is a good example.

 

Sometime in the next couple of weeks, I'll suck down a pocket query for the Vancouver area, import it through MapPoint, figure out where a good start point is and which Red Robin to end at, plot a route, skim each cache page for red flags (e.g., "this should take about an hour" or "admission fee is $x" or "sensitive ecological area"), delete stops that won't work in a cache machine setting, plot a new route, dump it into a PDF, and post it to a newly created "Vancouver Cache Machine" page, with appropriate trumpets going off in the Northwest forums, and as notes to the two most recent cache machine pages (to fire off e-mails to folks still watching those event caches).

 

Over the following weeks, I'll tweak the route based on feedback from other cachers -- especially locals -- and I'll add caches that get created in the interim (the "placed in last 7 days" checkbox in the pocket query is good for this). Finally, the weekend before the event, I'll post a final route, and a packet containing the "print friendly" pages for each cache on the route. As I'm creating this, I'm finding caches that have been disabled or archived and deleting them from the route.

 

Finally, the night before the event, most of the cachers meet for dinner, and I'll announce any last minute additions, deletions, or changes.

Link to comment

See above. There is a difference between a cache getting hit by a cachemachine and getting hit by a person participating in a cachemachine.

 

If my cache is not on the cachemachine list, then you shouldn't have to worry.

 

Hmmm. So you don't want to do the front work to mark your caches as 'off-limits' and you don't want to be responsible for keeping track of official events in your area, even though they are readily available on your state's page...

 

But one day your cache gets hit by a dozen people. Now you have to go see if there was a cache machine, and if your cache was listed among the targets. Then you have to 'punish' the participants for violating your wishes.

 

Maybe you could help us out, here. Define what you mean by a cache machine. How many caches need to be on the list? How many folks getting together to hunt caches makes it a 'machine'?

 

Since your concern seems to be solely for the integrity of your hides specifically, the former question is presumably immaterial. Then the question becomes how many people visiting your cache in a day is too many? How will anyone know what your limits are if you don't let them know?

 

On occasion folks will post to regional forums the intent to visit an interesting cache. At what point would one of these outings offend you and endanger your hide? At six people? A dozen? Twenty? How are we to know if you don't tell us? Just posting 'No Cache Machines' on your profile page doesn't answer this. A bunch of people visiting a single cache is usually not what is meant by the term. Nor will all of your caches be equally delicate, so a single value is unlikely to be universally applicable.

 

So how will the ban of a single geocaching activity announced on your profile page address these issues?

Link to comment
As the organizer of five cache machines so far, yes, they have eveolved.  I've said it in other discussions, but if any cache owner doesn't want their cache on the Cache Machine route, a quick e-mail to me or a note on the cache page will keep it off the route.  For the record, I will never Machine a cache where the owner clearly asks us not to.

 

If you won't if the cache owner doesn't want you to, what about the land owner or manager? Do you ask them ? Maybe every land owner/manager should be asked and have the final authority.

 

Do you think they would allow any caches placed on their land if we said "we are part of this hobby geocaching and want to place a cache on your property, oh and by the way there will be times when 30 or 40 cars will pull up and 60 to 80 people will tear over to it.

 

I just believe this form of caching is going to hurt the hobby in the long run.

 

 

at least that's one man' opinion............

Link to comment
Not wanting 30 or more people trampling the area of ones cache at the same time/day and possibly giving away the location is perfectably acceptable. Personally I think you should put the notice on your cache page, if cache machines happen in your area. Then like I said earlier, instead of deleting "legit" finds, go out a couple days before the cache machine, remove your cache, disable it online, the replace after the event.....then there won't be any "legit" find logs to worry about.

This is the best advice of the whole thread. DO it if you feel you need to.

Link to comment
For the record, I will never Machine a cache where the owner clearly asks us not to.

If you won't if the cache owner doesn't want you to, what about the land owner or manager? Do you ask them ? Maybe every land owner/manager should be asked and have the final authority.

 

I will never Machine a cache where the land owner or manager clearly asks us not to.

 

Also, see Criminal's prior discussion on permission. He and EraSeek have discussed permission issues much more eloquently than I'm able to.

Link to comment

I have only done one CM (thanks Travis) but I think some of you have the wrong idea of what actually happens.

 

With the exception of the first couple of caches there is not a huge group hitting every cache together. As previous posters have noted people get spread out quickly. As Travis said the first couple are chosen with this in mind. We started at the state capitol where there are usually large crowds anyway (later in the day anyway).

 

Also there were WAY more caches on the route than could get done. Everyone in the machine does not hit every cache. And not everyone follows the posted route. From the log entires on Olympia caches for 1/3/4 I would guess most of the caches only got hit 15 -20 times and they were spread out over several hours. Many of them were owned by a couple of prolific cachers. I guess one downside was DubYaDee got 500 emails that day.

 

Remember that the planners and participants of Cache Machines are cache owners themselves. They understand the concerns expressed here and take much effort not to harm the sport.

Edited by MarcusArelius
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...