+Bob&TheGang Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I would like to see a feature that would require a cache owner to have to post a note on their cache page once every 4 months saying that they checked on their cache and everything seems fine. If they go longer then four months without posting a "Cache OK" note, the cache is automatically archived. I know there is no way to actually prove that someone actually went to their cache, but if they have to least go through the process of logging on and saying they checked it, at least they are thinking about their cache. I live in San Diego, there are a bunch of caches that are not maintained or are flat out gone.,but they still show up on the search lists. I know you can post a note saying, "This cache should be Archived" and that will give a heads up to the Admin., but I really think the owners should be required to have more responsibility too. I would also like to see a feature that when a cache is "disabled" by an owner, they have up to 90 days to check and/or fix the cache and un-disable it. When I see a disabled cache, that suggests to me that there is something wrong with the cache, but the owner plans to fix it in the near future. Remember, a Disabled Cache still shows up on the search list. 90 days is more then enough adequate time for someone to have check and/or fix a cache. I know there maybe some exceptions to that rule, because a cache area maybe off limits for a time. For example, in San Diego County, since the end of Oct. 2003, there are a bunch of cache in the wild fire burn areas. Many of these areas are off limits due to fire restoration at least until April, 2004 (some areas likely much longer). So there is no way to find out if the cache even survived the fires. In cases like that (and cache can not be checked on within 90 days), the owner can just ask an Admin. for an extension. At the very least, require the owner to have to post a note as to why the cache is being disabled. I see a ton of caches that were disabled, but no note was posted as to why. An Archived Cache generally means the cache is no more and there are no plans to fix or replace it. Archived caches do not show up on any search list. I think a lot of people get confused of when to use the "Disabled" or "Archived" feature. Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I brought up some similar requests several months ago. Glad I'm not the only one. The caching community ends up being responsible for all caches. When you visit a cache, it is your duty to log any problems with the cache (leaking, logbook full, etc). Some cachers carry cache repair kits (extra logbook, pencils, etc) to fix problems on the spot. These fixes, although useful, take the responsibility away from the cache owner and place it on the community. Because so many people will take care of someone else's cache, the owner really doesn't have to do much after he places it. Owners become complacent and stop maintaining their caches altogether causing the community to continue repairing caches. Is that right? no, but that's how the community works. Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 (edited) This is very similar to the idea discussed in this thread a few weeks ago. I wasn't too big of a fan largely because there are some caches that the owner would be renewing more often than cachers would be visiting. I believe a 'This cache needs maintenance' flag or 'this cache should be archived' choice are better options. Edited January 22, 2004 by sbell111 Link to comment
+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I would like a feature where cachers would quit asking for new rules. We have plenty already. Link to comment
+Stunod Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I would like to see a feature that would require a cache owner to have to post a note on their cache page once every 4 months saying that they checked on their cache and everything seems fine. If they go longer then four months without posting a "Cache OK" note, the cache is automatically archived. So what happens when someone places a cache, and then quits the activity? 4 months pass, and your wonderful idea archives the cache automatically. If the cache still exists (however well maintained), it has just become litter that no one will ever hunt down. Link to comment
+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 So what happens when someone places a cache, and then quits the activity? 4 months pass, and your wonderful idea archives the cache automatically. If the cache still exists (however well maintained), it has just become litter that no one will ever hunt down. Exactly right. There is a cache in our area that was placed 3 years ago by a cacher who has never been back. It's one of the best caches around. I have replaced the original container and so has another cacher. We can police our own area without being burdened down with more silly rules. Of course if this rule were to be placed into effect it would remain litter forever. I have one on top of a mountain. I visit it a couple of times a year and right now it's under about 8 feet of snow. It will be that way until June. It's a great cache. Please the activity doesn't need anymore policing that it already has. Before long the GC rulebook will be the size of the constitution. Common sense will see us through not a silly list of rules. Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Are you suggesting that I need to do a maintenance check every 4 months on a chache of mine that only gets 2 or 3 visits a year? Why does so many people want so many new rules? Maybe if they would spend more time caching and placing caches they would not have time to come up with all these useless rules. Or maybe they are trying to drive people away from caching. John Link to comment
+Bob&TheGang Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Why does so many people want so many new rules? Maybe if they would spend more time caching and placing caches they would not have time to come up with all these useless rules. Or maybe they are trying to drive people away from caching. Your point is well taken. No one likes too many rules. I just think its too easy for someone to place a cache and then forget about it. Its very frustrating to see so many caches that essentially are abandon. For example there is one cacher is San Diego that has just 12 finds and has hidden 22 caches. Of those 22, 13 of are disabled. My suggestions are aimed at people who getting Geocaching as a passing fad. When you hidding a cache, you are should committ to maintain it. Maybe there should be a guideline that you can not hide a cache until you have at least 25 finds. Someone with at least 25 finds, is more likely to be committed to Geocaching for the long haul. At the very least, maybe the Admins., when approving a new cache, should look at the an owner's history of maintaining their other caches. If someone has a bunch of disabled caches, the Admin. should think twice about approving any new caches for that person. Link to comment
The_Brownies Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 (edited) Oh Noooo!!!... This may work for certain caches, but for other caches, this is a baaaaaaaaaaaad idea. If you find a depleted cache, let the owner know the pickings are slim and maybe they should restock the contents. However, I thought caching was not about what is inside the box. It's about the find and having fun. If the contents are so la la, then remove the swag and replace it with some good items. I've done this a number of times. It should not be solely the stasher's job to make sure there are good items in the cache. Cachers need to stop swapping swag for good items. By the way, how many caches do you own and do you check your caches reguarly? Honestly, there are other things on the GC.com site that need more attention then forcing a cache owner to log a note every 4 month saying "YES there are cache contents of good quality in my cache" Here's a Technical Point as to why this is a bad idea. Before we begin, let me give you my credentials. I'm a veteran Relational Database Technician that works with databases in the range of 1 to 15+ gigabytes. The object to maintaining effeciency in a database is to cut out unnecessary log entries. Why? Becuase they take up unnecessary hard drive space. How much you might ask? Let me give you an example. Say each Log to a cache page eats up 2kb of GC.COM's server hard drive space. Say there are 25,000 regular caches out there and each owner has to log a note to their regular cache every 4 months. 2kb * 25,000 = 50,000kb of additional notes to the website. Multiply this by 4 and this adds up to an additional 200,000kb of hard drive space being eaten up every year just by notes from cache owners. To combat this, GC.COM buys more servers, and bumps up the membership charge to cover the cost. Now instead of $12 a year as a plat. member, now it's $36. As you can see from a technical, and financial aspect, this is a very bad idea. Also think about the rural geocachers. Not everyone has 500+ caches within a 20 mile radius of their home. We have to drive for our caches. Again, if GS made a rule like this, count on the number of caches placed to dramtically decrease and the number of archived caches to increase. In short, A wise person once said.. IF IT AINT BROKE DON'T FIX IT. -- That's my $1.25 cents on this thread.. Edited January 22, 2004 by The_Brownies Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Why does so many people want so many new rules? Maybe if they would spend more time caching and placing caches they would not have time to come up with all these useless rules. Or maybe they are trying to drive people away from caching. Your point is well taken. No one likes too many rules. I just think its too easy for someone to place a cache and then forget about it. Its very frustrating to see so many caches that essentially are abandon. For example there is one cacher is San Diego that has just 12 finds and has hidden 22 caches. Of those 22, 13 of are disabled. Email your approver about this. If that many caches have been temporarily disabled for a long time, they should be archived. Then again, is it possible that they were in the fire area and the owner is still unable to check on them because of restricted access? My suggestions are aimed at people who getting Geocaching as a passing fad. When you hidding a cache, you are should committ to maintain it. That's the intent, but every sport/hobby/game has people quit everyday. Their reasons aren't always shared with the rest of us. Maybe there should be a guideline that you can not hide a cache until you have at least 25 finds. Someone with at least 25 finds, is more likely to be committed to Geocaching for the long haul. There you go with another rule... At the very least, maybe the Admins., when approving a new cache, should look at the an owner's history of maintaining their other caches. If someone has a bunch of disabled caches, the Admin. should think twice about approving any new caches for that person. I think they do check these things. It is possible that you don't have the entire story on this particular cacher. Email him or the approver for your area with your concerns. Link to comment
+Criminal Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 If you see a problem with a certain cache, deal with it using the tools provided. You idea is..........hmmm, how can I say this nicely.......uh.....I guess I can't. Anyway, that rule would require the removal of a number a caches around here (including two of mine) that are buried under a ton of snow right now. The rules we have are working fine. Link to comment
+travisl Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 (edited) I would also like to see a feature that when a cache is "disabled" by an owner, they have up to 90 days to check and/or fix the cache and un-disable it. Maybe not a 90 day restriction, but it would be really, really nice if "My cache page" showed that I disabled one of my caches. It's a good reminder that I need to go out there and fix it. For now, the list of "My hidden caches" shows active caches, and is one click away (http://www.geocaching.com/my/default.asp?archived=y) from showing active AND archived caches, but there's no way for a cache owner to find out which of his caches are disabled without going through them cache by cache. Couldn't the name of the cache in "My hidden caches" list get <strike>strikethru</strike> tagging? Edited January 22, 2004 by travisl Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 While we are wishing let me add a couple, I wish I could force finders to not let water in when they sign the log, trade right, sign the log, log online, close the container correctly, log DNF's, not move the cache, and perhaps most important of all re-hide the cache correctly. Then I'd have them stop complaining so much. Your GPS being off 15' isn't a problem. Junk at a cache with Junkyard in the name isn't a suprise, yes the snow is deep but you should of guessed when the cache was in the mountains, no a 4.5 difficutly probably isn't missing when you can't find it and only have 5 finds to your name, no I didn't use WAAS and probably won't next time either, sorry you got hurt watch your step next time, why are you suprised at homeless at a "hobo resort" cache?, thats why I called it a lame urban micro no need to use that DPM phrase, there is no log because the cache is small, if I can't get a stubby pencil in, odds are you can't sign the log either, no it doesn't meet current rules but I was around when this wasn't a rule yet, yes I got permission I just didn't tell you about it, hey there don't be using that archive this cache button when you don't bother to email me first... Yeah, that's what I'd do, if only reality didn't rear its ugly head at every turn. That's what I like about these forums. All that healthy venting going on. Link to comment
+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 BobKat you need to go have some fun. Find some caches, enjoy yourself and allow us to enjoy the game as it is right now. It doesn't need more changes. There are thousands of caches to be found. Once in awhile you'll find a cache that is gone or hasn't been maintained. So what? I suggest you concern yourself with the rising price of gasoline and taxes. That's way more serious than your concerns. Link to comment
+EraSeek Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 BobKat you need to go have some fun. Find some caches, enjoy yourself and allow us to enjoy the game as it is right now. It doesn't need more changes. There are thousands of caches to be found. Once in awhile you'll find a cache that is gone or hasn't been maintained. So what? I suggest you concern yourself with the rising price of gasoline and taxes. That's way more serious than your concerns. I get tired of new rules myself. Laws have been passed and passed again since the Romans and before, to stop crime, murder, mayhem... yet crime, murder, mayhem continues unabated. Point is laws are good. More laws do little. One law does a better job than two laws. Point is the best place to start is with yourself. Point is if you come across a cache that is not there or maintained why not replace it yourself. Clean it up yourself. Bring along a few helpful items when you go caching. Then you can praise yourself on the cache page for your good works. What! Why should you? Then don't. But it is just as easy to blame yourself as the cache hider. He is not the one to blame for the cache being degraded. When he placed it I'll bet it was in pretty good shape. He's not the one that left the lid open, or traded a used McToy for a compass. Point is you can leave it better for the next guy as easily as him. Link to comment
+bons Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Cool! A rule that causes caches to disappear right after someone finds them and logs them as being in perfect condition simply because the person doing the log wasn't the cache owner! All we need is a few more rules that make cache listings go away and soon the only caches left will be the ones maintained by the people who keep proposing all these new rules. Link to comment
+planetrobert Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 i dont like it BUT maybe if a cache has 5 DNF consecutivly the admin are notified and they could contact the owner to see what is happening and contact a local who has found it to help verify its location or missing status caches seem to repair each others caches well enough if they still ekist Link to comment
+southdeltan Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 If the cache is abandoned and in good shape I see no reason to worry about it. If it's in bad shape or missing - click the "archive" button. If it needs maintainence or adoption - contact your local approver or bring it up on your local geocaching groups webpage. We make it a habit to adopt caches that need adopting or to do maintainence. There are some nice caches that the owners have disappeared on - but the caches are still in good shape. There's an archive feature - use it. southdeltan Link to comment
+flask Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 i have a couple of caches that are disabled for a long time. to give a note as to WHY would give away more than i want told. sometimes a location just needs to lie fallow for a while, especially if a cache has been plundered. because i am an active cacher and i put great care into my caches, i'd like people to assume that when it is prudent to return the location to service, i'll do it. Link to comment
+Sparky-Watts Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 A few weeks ago, I was able to get out and find some caches. One of them had several previous logs complaining about the cache needing maintenence, and sure enough, when I found it, it was in awful shape. I had intended to bring a few repair items, but nothing I could have gotten in my coat pockets would have been enough. I am currently planning on adopting the cache, as I like the location, however, it is also in a State Park that requires a $5.50 fee to get in.....no mention of this on the cache page. I usually buy a yearly permit, so I wouldn't be charged for going to maintain it, however, I don't want anyone to have to pay for finding my caches. That's the debate bouncing around the hollows of my cranium right now. I've emailed the local approver, and he's taking the proper steps, I'm sure. It's a nice location, lots of visitors, and a pretty good little walk in the woods, so I would hate to see it automatically archived. As the office door to my office where I work in the Department of Redundancy Department at work says, "DO NOT ADD NEW RULES THAT HAVE NOT ALREADY BEEN ADDED!" Link to comment
+La Paloma Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Let's see here... You want to "require" a person to maintain a cache that was put out voluntarily for your entertainment? Why do you want to punish the cache owner?? So what if it was a little wet. Take ziplog bags with you and a new log in your backpack. Fix it. Link to comment
+Amazingracer Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 <rant> What is with you people and seeing how many rules you can make for caching?!?!? Auto-archiving has probably been one of the worst requests for the site. As stated before it cause geo-litter and can take out ssome good caches. If you go to a cache and you see thats it damaged wet dont archive it, email the owner or fix it yourself. We are a community, just because one person doenst do their job doenst mean restrict us all. We can just pick up the slack. If the cache is in bad shape and you cant get in touch with the owner just adopt it! Its simple process and just repair the container. Seems you been frequenting damaged caches carry a repair kit with say, a ziploc bag or two, a pen and logbook. This would add maybe 2-3 ounces in your pack and would prevent dumb suggestions like this. As I said in another post, "Why does seem like some cachers want to take a simple thing and go screw it up?"! </rant> Link to comment
+cacheKidds Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 (edited) <rant>What is with you people and seeing how many rules you can make for caching?!?!? Auto-archiving has probably been one of the worst requests for the site. As stated before it cause geo-litter and can take out ssome good caches. If you go to a cache and you see thats it damaged wet dont archive it, email the owner or fix it yourself. We are a community, just because one person doenst do their job doenst mean restrict us all. We can just pick up the slack. If the cache is in bad shape and you cant get in touch with the owner just adopt it! Its simple process and just repair the container. Seems you been frequenting damaged caches carry a repair kit with say, a ziploc bag or two, a pen and logbook. This would add maybe 2-3 ounces in your pack and would prevent dumb suggestions like this. As I said in another post, "Why does seem like some cachers want to take a simple thing and go screw it up?"! </rant> I love that post. I'm sick to death of these "rules". If people cannot govern themselves, they beg for some all-knowing power to handle their affairs for them. Pretty soon we'll have 5-year plans for geocaching just like the old USSR had for everything. I support Libertarianism in geocaching instead of government regulations. Edited January 26, 2004 by cacheKidds Link to comment
+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Well times are changing here I think. Over the years I have seen those complaining about too many rules being shouted down. Now I'm seeing those asking for more rules being shouted down. I like this. Oh and as far as asking for a cache to be archived because it's in bad shape?????? What??? It's still there but soggy and you want it gone? Good grief, bring a piece of paper and a plastic bag with you if that's all you can afford. I once had a dingdong post an archive note on one of my cache pages because he saw broken glass in the area. Well I guess clicking a button is easier than picking up some broken glass. Then again he never found my still active cache so how would he really know there was broken glass? Link to comment
ATMouse Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I like the tenor of this thread. One hopes that the community has pride and that issues like a damaged cache can be self-correcting through good modeling. I was brought into geo-caching by brownout. Some of the first caches I went on with her had bad plastic bags. Wet, nasty, ugly stuff. brownout re-bagged and dried out routinely. Impressed the heck out of me. I mean, how classy! When she replaced a filled log book and shelped it out to send it to the owner, I was over-the-top impressed. I now ALWAYS carry extra bags (and sometimes re-bag the whole cache), paper towels, a new logbook and extra pencils. Good practices are much cooler than being a slob cacher. Now we just need to find mentors for them. Link to comment
+SoCalAdmin Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Bobkat, Please email me about any caches in your area that you have concerns with and I'll be happy to look into them. Though I do try to look around for caches that have been disabled for some time, the area I'm in charge of is pretty extensive. Several people have compiled lists of caches that have been disabled in their area for a long time and emailed them to me. Be sure to include both the name of the cache and the waypoint number so I can find them in the system. SoCalAdmin Link to comment
+cacheKidds Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I once had a dingdong post an archive note on one of my cache pages because he saw broken glass in the area. Well I guess clicking a button is easier than picking up some broken glass. Wow! Are you serious? I would never, EVER do something that absurd. I don't particularly care for that "needs to be archived" option. There could well be some more broken glass jerks on the loose! Link to comment
+beejay&esskay Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Though I do try to look around for caches that have been disabled for some time, SoCalAdmin What is the definition of "for some time". As caches that have been "temporarily" disabled start to creep onto my first unfound cache page, I start to get more annoyed by 1-year-old temporaries. Link to comment
+SoCalAdmin Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I think 3 months is about the max I like to see them go. If the problem hasn't been corrected by then, I think it's appropriate for an admin to see if the cacher is going to replace it or if they just want to archive it. I'll try to contact the owner at least twice by email over a period of a couple of weeks. If I don't hear anything back, I'll archive it for them. If archiving it generates a response and they want to replace it, then I can unarchive the cache. Link to comment
Recommended Posts