Rules Rules Rules

[PC Medic]

Actually more than one has come along

 

As for the Vacation cache issue, I often wonder just how many 'Vacation Caches' ever actually turned into litter? Because a cache owner can not (or does not) visit their cache monthly, does not make it litter. If the cache continues to get regular hits it is in effect still being maintained (by the visitors). While many of the owners of the local caches in my area are local people, I can also think of several that are not. Those that are not owned by locals continue to get regualar visits (are maintained) and a few are actually quite popular. So all (or should I say most) 'Vacation' caches are not and never would be litter.

Edited March 4, 2004 by PC Medic

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I don't think the minimum should be raised to 1 mile, though, as suggested by bigredmed.

1 mile? Yeah I agree, that wouldn't be any good.

 

Rules are fine, I just like the time when we only needed a couple.

[+Mopar]

As for the Vacation cache issue, I often wonder just how many 'Vacation Caches' ever actually turned into litter? Because a cache owner can not (or does not) visit their cache monthly, does not make it litter. If the cache continues to get regular hits it is in effect still being maintained (by the visitors).

In a perfect world, this might be true. I'm sure people in popular vacation areas will be able to point you to tons of vacation caches that have not been maintained. If I can dig them up, I'll point you to a few I've come across that have never even been found (and so, no chance of being maintained) because the cache owner had poor coord or made a typo entering them on the page, and never intends to return. If those were hidden by a local hider, it would be no problem to return to the cache and take new readings.

As far as the visitors maintaining the cache, again, only in your perfect world. When a website only has a few thousand caches listed, having 1% of them unmaintained might not be that big of a deal. Once the site grows to 10s and 100s of thousands of caches, that 1% is a huge pile of trash. They need to find ways to show land managers that they are doing everything possible to prevent that from happening. Obviously people who hide a cache in places they are never or rarely going to return to are not going to maintain the cache themselves. That's a fact. Disallowing those hides shows the land managers we care about maintaining the caches, and won't allow ones we know the owner isn't going to maintain properly. Like it or not, most of the guidelines on this site have come about directly because of complaints and concerns voiced by the people that regulate the places we usually like to hide caches. If you don't address their concerns, they WILL outlaw geocaching.

[+Mopar]

I'm sure people in popular vacation areas will be able to point you to tons of vacation caches that have not been maintained.

"Krusty Krab"

I'm sure the locals in Orlando, Fl can point to 100, I don't want to single out any one hider, this just happened to be one I ran across.

Since the hider's first cache placement says its near home, I can guess the Orlando cache is about 100 miles or so away. Not that far, but obviously not close enough to maintain. Notice the continued problems. Sure, 1 out of every 10 finders tried to maintain it, but most were on vacation themselves, and not prepared to do it. The hider archived it after a few DNFs, but since its been found since then, it's obviously still there. Since the owner archived it and didn't pick it up, it's litter, plain and simple.

I'm sure it's not the only one.

Edited March 4, 2004 by Mopar

[+Mopar]

A different example

 

Tyler park

This cache was placed by a cacher from another state who was not familiar that PA state parks require a permit to place a cache. Guess he didn't have one. Wonder if he ever went back to get the archived cache, or if it's still there?

[CoyoteRed]

First off, let's not muddy this discussion by lumping illegal activity in with policy rules like one-time caches and the .1 mile rule.

 

It's clear that there should be rules about preventing illegal activity. No question about it what so ever. However, having a blanket rule of, say, no knives does a disservice to those cachers who can legally place knives in caches. I use knives only as an example. You can't make blanket rules like that and expect everyone to be happy about it.

 

No question, caches in USNPs should not be listed. Caches on rail right-of-ways should not be listed. Caches on military installations should not be listed, or at least made very clear that only authorized personnel should go after it. Caches should not be placed where a cacher has to break the law to place or hunt the cache. All of thoses are there for a reason. There is simply no questioning those.

 

It's not those that I'm concerned about.

 

Here's a partial list of the rules that I don't like:

 

- When submitting a cache, you must submit each and every stage for approval. Why? I've heard it is so people don't accidently find the wrong stage or cache. Big whoop! Didn't find the right cache? Go back and hunt it again. Don't be a baby. If all of the caches are properly marked and you were paying attention you would have known you screwed up! If you found the wrong one you got a bonus!

 

This rule is completely unnecessary and is aimed at handholding the lowest common denominator. Bad rule.

 

If fact, it hinders legitimate caches. Cities with lots of history, like just about any city on the east coast, can have very interesting points of interest--read stages--well under .1 mile from each other. If I wanted to make a multi that toured the city and highlighted the city's dead famous people, I could be trumped by a multi that highlighted the cities fountains. Bad rule.

 

- No cache should be within .1 mile of another cache. See above. I can easily place caches well under .1 mile from each other in a city and you won't get them confused. In fact, one cache can block another cache in an adjacent park! Might seem like a good rule, but isn't. At the very least, change it to "it's not a good idea to place a cache within .1 mile."

 

And don't give me this thing about walking every 100' and picking up a cache. Who cares if someone did put out a series like that?

 

- No virts unless it's really, really, good and there's absolutely no way to put a physical there. Let me tell ya, I was in on that. I complained that virts can block physical caches. Some people throw out a virt who would rather not bother with a physical and now that spot is blocks from a creative someone who can. Plus, the .1 proximity of stages blocks doing an offset to bring a person throught he area and going on to the final physical stage. So, TPTB's answer to that was to make people jump through hoops to get a virt out. Bad rule!

 

Should have been at the very least a physical cache trumped a virt and is allowed to go in. Implement that rule and the virt owner will have no reason to complain if someone comes in with a physical. Who cares that you get to do a virt and physical in the same park?

 

- No vactions caches. Yet another bad rule that doesn't address the real problem of unmaintained caches. Everyone has caches around them that go unmaintained even though the owner is a local! I've had to adopt some caches because they were either unmaintained or the owners moved away. Heck, we even have caches that aren't maintained and the owners are active! I can understand where people are coming from about vacation cache being hard to maintain, but banning what I would rather call "remote caches" does not address the issue of unmaintained caches. The issue is maintenance, not "remoteness." Create a policy about unmaintained caches and the "vacation cache" problem goes away.

 

- No moving caches. Bad rule. Why? Because if they were so bad, then you should have archived the ones that exist! No, the arguments against traveling caches can be easily addressed. This is a bad rule.

 

- No temporary/one-time/self-depleating caches. Yes, I know the argument of why they aren't allowed. It's easily addressed except for the fact TPTB refuse to do so.

 

There you go. A simple list of just 6 rules that are bad ideas and could be the cause of a new system to pop up. There are others. These are only the ones that spring to mind at this moment. A new system could cause a lot problems here.

 

You want to protect geocaching from being over regulated? Do away with the reasons that another site would come to life. Implement sensible rules.

 

For you people who's answer is "don't like it, go somewhere else," my answer to you is, "I'm learning to program in PHP and MySQL so I can list my own caches the way I want to." So, yes, I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

 

Here's another way to look at it. If TPTB didn't tick off some people or if they had provided what others wanted, then nv.com and a host of other related sites wouldn't likely to even exist. Think about it.

[+cacheKidds]

That was a beautiful post, CoyoteRed! Your thoughts mirror my own on these matters. Thank you.

[+briansnat]

When submitting a cache, you must submit each and every stage for approval. Why? I've heard it is so people don't accidently find the wrong stage or cache. Big whoop! Didn't find the right cache? Go back and hunt it again. Don't be a baby. If all of the caches are properly marked and you were paying attention you would have known you screwed up! If you found the wrong one you got a bonus!

 

Actually part of the reason for this is that people were using multis to get around the approval process and place caches in illegal, or restricted areas. Stage one would be in a legal spot and the final cache would be in a national park, or some other place where caches aren't allowed.

 

No cache should be within .1 mile of another cache.

 

Come on, minimum of 528 feet apart? That's pretty reasonable. Does a 2 acre park really need 10 caches?

 

- No vactions caches. Yet another bad rule that doesn't address the real problem of unmaintained caches. Everyone has caches around them that go unmaintained even though the owner is a local!

 

It may not fully address the problem of unmaintained caches, but it will weed out the caches that are placed with absolutely no intent whatsover of ever returning to maintain it. I like to think that most people at least intend to maintain their caches when they place it.

 

It does however address the problem of people who are ignorant of local rules and place caches illegally, creating problems for local geocachers.

 

 

No moving caches. Bad rule.

 

Good rule, because GC.COM has no control over where they are placed after approval. There is nothing to keep people from placing them near RR tracks, in national parks or other poorly chosen areas. I thought the reasons for this rule were so compelling that I retreived and archived my only moving cache, despite its popularity and the fact that it was grandfathered.

 

 

- No temporary/one-time/self-depleating caches.

 

OK, I'll give you this one to a point. But I think from the point of fairness to geocachers a cache should be expected to be there for a reasonable amount of time. I don't want to be heading off on wild goose chases every few days looking for a one time cache.

 

No virts unless it's really, really, good and there's absolutely no way to put a physical there

 

I support the crackdown on virts and the return the the tradition of a cache being a container with a logbook. People were making virts out of fence posts, flagpoles and of course there is the famed sneaker in the woods and rotting animal carcass.

 

Virtuals can be interesting. I've been introduced to many interesting sites thanks to virts, but in retrospect, I can't think of one that couldn't have incorporated a real cache somehow.

Edited March 4, 2004 by briansnat

[+Mopar]

Once again, "what BrianSnat said".

CR, it appears you skipped right over my last few posts, where I addressed some of the rules you dont feel are problems.

You agree caches placed illegally should not be allowed, yet, unless you check to see where the various stages of a multi are, not just the first stage, how would you know that the final isnt on RR tracks, a NPS, a military base, or placed in a permit required park sans permit?

You agree caches placed illegally should not be allowed, but after approval, how do you garantee a moving cache doesnt get placed on RR tracks, a NPS, a military base, or placed in a permit required park sans permit?

You seem to agree caches have a need to be maintained, so why allow the one type of cache that you know for a fact the owner is not going to maintain?

With knives, is your site going to research every single park and town ordinance to see what caches can allow knives, and what ones cant? Will you be able to do that when you are dealing with 1000-1500 new caches submitted every week?

Are you and your staff going to want to take that time to research 100's of caches every week (to make sure they at least meet your specified guidelines), post them on your site, only to have then archived the very next day because they were one time only caches?

 

The only guideline we have in place here that could realistically be relaxed is the Virtuals. I have heard promises that there will be an improvement to that section of the site here that will allow that to happen. There are already sites less restrictive about virtuals out there. If virtuals were the "killer app" so to speak, then navicache or ecoscavenger.com would be dealing with the 50,000+ logs a week, not gc.com.

Edited March 4, 2004 by Mopar

[+mtn-man]

Here's a partial list of the rules that I don't like:

 

- When submitting a cache, you must submit each and every stage for approval.  Why?  I've heard it is so people don't accidently find the wrong stage or cache.  Big whoop!  Didn't find the right cache?  Go back and hunt it again.  Don't be a baby.  If all of the caches are properly marked and you were paying attention you would have known you screwed up!  If you found the wrong one you got a bonus!

 

This rule is completely unnecessary and is aimed at handholding the lowest common denominator.  Bad rule.

 

- No vactions caches.  Yet another bad rule that doesn't address the real problem of unmaintained caches.  Everyone has caches around them that go unmaintained even though the owner is a local!  I've had to adopt some caches because they were either unmaintained or the owners moved away.  Heck, we even have caches that aren't maintained and the owners are active!  I can understand where people are coming from about vacation cache being hard to maintain, but banning what I would rather call "remote caches" does not address the issue of unmaintained caches.  The issue is maintenance, not "remoteness." Create a policy about unmaintained caches and the "vacation cache" problem goes away. 

 

- No moving caches.  Bad rule.  Why?  Because if they were so bad, then you should have archived the ones that exist!  No, the arguments against traveling caches can be easily addressed.  This is a bad rule.

I only have a few minutes, but I wanted to address what you've heard with facts. What you've heard is incorrect. The problem with the items I have quoted above is illustrated clearly by Keystone's post. I will also take it a step further so you don't have to rely on what you've heard.

 

Caches will be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

• 
   
  
• Caches on land maintained by the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges)
   
  
• Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.
   
  
• Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.
   
  
• Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.
   
  
• Caches near or on military installations.
   
  
• Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings and airports.
  

 

Those are the reasons why we want to know about each stage. What if the second stage is in a NPS area or on airport property or a banned state or local park? Moving caches also take the same chance of getting into banned areas. Rather than upset the NPS more, why not take some simple steps to help eliminate that problem. Since you think vacation caches are OK, can you quote for me all of the regulations for each state in the US? Frankly, I can't. Since I don't know the regulation for Florida, I'm not going to place a cache there this weekend while I am down there on business. I am perfectly content with just looking for caches.

[+mtn-man]

Once again, "what BrianSnat said".

Boy, briansnat is a fast typist!

[+carleenp]

I think the reason why there is a lot of confilct over rules is that there are always going to be responsible cachers who can explain why the rule should not apply to his or her situation. The problem is that there will be many more who, without the rules, will either (1) do something (possibly even something illegal) that will cause other cachers to complain, or (2) complain about something that could be prevented by a rule. For example, without the vacation cache rule, there would be plenty of abandoned vacation caches and other cachers would complain. Without the .1 mile rule, cachers who found the wrong cache would start complaining. At some point, I figure rules become necessary, not just to address situations that might make caching look bad (e.g. abandoned caches becoming litter), but to quiet people down. I figure if I owned a site like this and I started hearing the same complaints over and over, I would try to make a rule to address the problem simply to get some peace and quiet (I am thinking more along the lines of the .1 mile rule here)! I don't think that is the driving the reason for having rules here, but if it is a factor, I really can't blame them!

 

Regardless, I'm not a fan of overly restricting things, but I see valid reasons for the rules and think the reasons for the rules outwiegh any reasons against them.

Edited March 4, 2004 by carleenp

[+mtn-man]

Regardless, I'm not a fan of overly restricting things, but I see valid reasons for the rules and think the reasons for the rules outwieght any reasons against them.

[+Sparky-Watts]

I just started caching in November, long after the rules you complain about were instituted. I have a wonderful time caching, and have never had a problem with any of the rules. Perhaps it's because I didn't know what it was like before the rules, but I doubt it. It's a fun hobby, and I enjoy it. Just don't see your point......

[+Team GPSaxophone]

After having been away From Geocaching for almost a year I was surprised to come back and see that my club (geocaching) has changed for the worse and has started to become exclusive from some members... (blah, blah, blah)

You go away for a period of time and expect everything will remain the same? Wow, how naive.

 

Do you watch sports? Rules change every year. Why should Geocaching be different?

[CoyoteRed]

Okay, I'm going to address some of these rebuttals one at a time, when I have time.

 

Submitting stages: I can see idea behind requiring submitting the stages of a multi. However, this is trivially circumvented either through lying or later changing stages. Heck, even in good faith it can be gotten around if a stage needs changing for whatever reason. It's, at best, a good faith effort. I would have less of a problem with it if it was only to prevent illegal placements, but enforcing the .1 rule on stages is too much.

 

Vacation cache ban: yet another one that has little merit. Okay, so I don't know all of the regulations on placing caches in Florida. Well, apparently neither do some of the locals! Just because you live near your placement doesn't automatically make you an expert on placing caches.

 

And if knowing the regulations was the real reason, why is it that not being able to find someone local to look after it a deal breaker? I'd say, don't worry about if I can maintain it, only worry about that I am maintaining it, regardless of where it is.

 

Okay, true a cache that is placed but not approved can become litter. Perfect opportunity to reclassify it as a one-time cache. Problem comes though, will the finder have to do something illegal ot retreive it. But, that's the same if a local put it out. They might have to do something illegal to retrieve the cache. Remoteness is only an issue of the frequency of maintenance visits and then is still not an accurate test.

 

...okay, so I'll address more than one at a time, just over a longer period...

 

Moving caches: So it might be put somewhere inappropriate. People place nonmoving caches in inappropriate places all of the time. Of course, they don't get approved, but still it's done. This argument doesn't really hold water.

 

The trampling issue is the same with any limited placement, steps can be taken to prevent this.

 

Proximity: Does a 2 acre park really need 10 caches? Does any park need any cache? Come on. What kind of answer is that?

 

I think many here don't see the problems as what they are. They've been so close to the game for so long they can't see the forest for the trees. We've been putting bandaids on minor problems and then when it adversely affects something else, they put a bandaid on that, too.

 

I think it time to step back and ask ourselves just why the rules that are in place are in place and if it actually cures the ill for the reason it's in place. Vacation cache ban, moving/temporary cache ban, proximity rules all are bandaids that don't really fix the underlying problems.

 

One issue I have is that newcomers aren't introduced to the basic tenants of geocaching properly. That's the reason we have the rules we have and the problems we have. People have come up with tonque in cheek Geocaching Ten Commandments, but that's exactly what we need. Take for instance, in letterboxing, you (should) know that you move away from the hiding spot to stamp up. This is so if someone comes up on you they have no clue where the hiding spot is. How many cachers know to move away from the hiding spot to trade? How many trade right next to the hiding spot? Many of the things that forum regulars know about, the others are clueless about.

 

That's the major underlying problem. There is no concise list of good geocaching pratices. This list needs to be prominent. On the front page. The gc.com home page reads like a tech manual. While the user interface of gc.com is pretty good with respect to finding caches, it sucks at getting useful information out.

 

Many of the rules I have a problem with wouldn't be needed if someone concentrated on the front end, instead of the back end.

[MOCKBA]

One big problem with the rules is that their enforcement is spotty. Some hides are given an exception, and some rule violations are simply overlooked, and in the end the approval system doesn't impress anyone as being fair.

 

Perhaps in a better world, cache hiders would be ranked by their level of adherence to guidlines and good caching practices, with the most outrageous hiders' privelleges suspended for a period of time, and the most trustworthy cachers given a wider berth in hiding the unusual or harder-to-maintain caches.

 

Another problem is that gc.com is commercial, and, therefore, legally vulnerable entity. A lot of land management problems would become mute if the listings of caches were maintained by a more underground site.

[+nelsotob]

I don't know about you all but it does seem to me that all of this is very much about ownership and control. The history of it all helps one to see what the real intentions are, Check out the history from another perspective.

 

http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/

[+carleenp]

don't know about you all but it does seem to me that all of this is very much about ownership and control. The history of it all helps one to see what the real intentions are, Check out the history from another perspective.

 

http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/

 

Regardless of the views there, which I have no personal knowledge about and don't care about anyway, I don't think the rules being discussed here are implimented for the sake of being some kind of controlling corporate entity. I have heard plenty of valid reasons for having the rules. I have also seen decent arguments against them. Of course, I already stated my over-all view, which is that I think the reasons for the rules outweigh the reasons against them. Anyway, I seriously don't see it as some kind of corporate control thing.

Edited March 4, 2004 by carleenp

[+yumitori]

Okay, I'm going to address some of these rebuttals one at a time, when I have time.

 

 

CR, where do you live?

 

 

Submitting stages:  I can see idea behind requiring submitting the stages of a multi.  However, this is trivially circumvented either through lying or later changing stages.

 

 

They sure can. And I expect that when the news of this gets out that they are doing so they are going to have a much harder time getting their next submission approved.

 

Geocaching relies strongly on trusting the participants. If your attitude is 'people are bastards' then you are arguing for more rules, not less. The approvers would have to verify everything before accepting any submission.

 

 

Vacation cache ban: yet another one that has little merit.

 

 

I live in one of the vacation destinations, Montana. Vacation caches do become garbage, and writing the owner requesting they do something about it has no hope of success.

 

I'll say again what I said earlier in this thread. Every cache needs maintenance, and for the vast majority of vacation caches the only way that's going to happen is if someone else goes out and does your job for you.

 

Don't dump your spur-of-the-moment gladware in my backyard for me to take care of and I won't do the same to you.

 

 

Okay, true a cache that is placed but not approved can become litter.  Perfect opportunity to reclassify it as a one-time cache.

 

 

And what happens to the number of caches that will need to be sorted, considered and approved or rejected every week? What happens to approval time when people who don't want to be bother with the responsibility of maintaining a cache use this option? What you are proposing isn't even a geocache, it's a treasure box.

 

Again, there's treasure hunting sites on the web. I'm sure at least some of them will appreciate new submissions.

 

 

Moving caches: So it might be put somewhere inappropriate.  People place nonmoving caches in inappropriate places all of the time.  Of course, they don't get approved, but still it's done.  This argument doesn't really hold water.

 

 

Of course it does. If a cache gets put somewhere inappropriate, the owner is told that by the approvers, and is expected to go out and recover it. There's not the same sort of oversight over moving caches.

 

Personally, I like moving caches. I had a submission rejected the weekend the ban went into effect. But they rely heavily on people doing what they are supposed to. Head over to the travel bug forum to see if that happens.

 

You don't like the current number of guidelines. But you don't offer solutions to what have been real life problems, not just theories. You just keep saying, 'doesn't have merit', 'doesn't have merit'.

 

I've been there, I've dealt with some of those real, honest-to-god situations, and the guidelines do have merit. They were created in response to real problems. Address that. Got a better solution, such as your education idea? Cool! Show us how to impliment it successfully and we can talk.

[+briansnat]

Another problem is that gc.com is commercial, and, therefore, legally vulnerable entity. A lot of land management problems would become mute if the listings of caches were maintained by a more underground site.

 

How's that? The problems with the NPS came in the very beginning when GC.COM was pretty much an underground site.

[ju66l3r]

Come on, minimum of 528 feet apart? That's pretty reasonable. Does a 2 acre park really need 10 caches?

Even under the current rules, a 2 acre part could easily hold 10 caches.

 

 

 

 

It would just have to be an 18 foot wide rectangle...

 

 

Proof: 2 acres is 87120 square feet. 10 caches can fit in a single line at 528 ft apart at a distance of 4752 ft. That leaves apx. 18 ft of width to a length of 4752 ft. So, a park that extends a little less than 1 mile down the bank of a river or a beach could hold 10 caches within our current limits without a problem.

[+Sparky-Watts]

Come on, minimum of 528 feet apart? That's pretty reasonable.  Does a 2 acre park really need 10 caches?

Even under the current rules, a 2 acre part could easily hold 10 caches.

 

 

 

 

It would just have to be an 18 foot wide rectangle...

 

 

Proof: 2 acres is 87120 square feet. 10 caches can fit in a single line at 528 ft apart at a distance of 4752 ft. That leaves apx. 18 ft of width to a length of 4752 ft. So, a park that extends a little less than 1 mile down the bank of a river or a beach could hold 10 caches within our current limits without a problem.

Dang, and I thought I had a lot of spare time on my hands!!!

[ringbone]

This is my point: A one time cache isnt unmaintained if the 1st person who finds it takes it with them. If I leave a one ounce silver coin and the 1st person who finds it removes it how on earth is this an unmaintained cache. If that is the case I now have several expensive unmaintained caches out there waiting for history to find them. In this scenario there are tow reseponsible parties, The person who left it and the person who finds it, period. In a regular cache 10 people may find it and it still gets left behind. Now how on earth is my one time cache any worse than a regular cache. example: If I leave a one time cache and I die a week later my cache will probably be found, If I leave a regular cache and die a week later who cleans up the mess. This is an extreme case of course but how about someone who gets bored with the game, quits geocaching or is just plain lazy or responsible. Who's cache end up being less Eco friendly. Not mine!!!

[+Mopar]

I don't know about you all but it does seem to me that all of this is very much about ownership and control. The history of it all helps one to see what the real intentions are, Check out the history from another perspective.

 

http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/

Intersting prospective, alright.

Isn't that written by someone who slams gc.com on every other related forum on the 'net?

Isn't that written by someone who has only found a few caches, yet still seems to know the "right" way this site should be run should be done?

 

Somehow, I don't think thats exactly an unbiased story there, do you?

Edited March 4, 2004 by Mopar

[uperdooper]

I don't know about you all but it does seem to me that all of this is very much about ownership and control. The history of it all helps one to see what the real intentions are, Check out the history from another perspective.

 

http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/

Intersting prospective, alright.

Isn't that written by someone who slams gc.com on every other related forum on the 'net?

Isn't that written by someone who has only found a few caches, yet still seems to know the "right" way this site should be run should be done?

 

Somehow, I don't think thats exactly an unbiased story there, do you?

mopar is right on target as usual. IMHO.

[ringbone]

Mopar

 

You should clarify who you are talking about because it certainly isnt me. I have put my money where my mouth is. This is my only post in more than a year

[+ironman114]

This is my point: A one time cache isnt unmaintained if the 1st person who finds it takes it with them. If I leave a one ounce silver coin and the 1st person who finds it removes it how on earth is this an unmaintained cache. If that is the case I now have several expensive unmaintained caches out there waiting for history to find them. In this scenario there are tow reseponsible parties, The person who left it and the person who finds it, period. In a regular cache 10 people may find it and it still gets left behind. Now how on earth is my one time cache any worse than a regular cache. example: If I leave a one time cache and I die a week later my cache will probably be found, If I leave a regular cache and die a week later who cleans up the mess. This is an extreme case of course but how about someone who gets bored with the game, quits geocaching or is just plain lazy or responsible. Who's cache end up being less Eco friendly. Not mine!!!

now suppose I research some caches to do on the weekend on a wed. night cause that's when I have time to do it , then head out on sat. to find them. If they were a one time find then I wouldn't find anything and just waste my time looking for something that isn't there.

 

I may want to look for a cache with a cool FTF PRIZE. If I'm not FTF then the cache and log book is still there so I get some satisfaction for looking.

 

And yes caches get muggled and go missing but if people are allowed to do one time only caches then it will get more frustrating than it already is with missing caches.

 

btw, silver is worth just a few dollars an ounce so if the coin isn't collectable it is not worth alot of money.

[+carleenp]

Ringbone wrote:

Mopar

 

You should clarify who you are talking about because it certainly isnt me. I have put my money where my mouth is. This is my only post in more than a year

 

Ringbone: he wan't referring to you. If you look at the quote, he was quoting/referring to nelsotob.

Edited March 4, 2004 by carleenp

[+Sparky-Watts]

This is my point: A one time cache isnt unmaintained if the 1st person who finds it takes it with them. If I leave a one ounce silver coin and the 1st person who finds it removes it how on earth is this an unmaintained cache. If that is the case I now have several expensive unmaintained caches out there waiting for history to find them. In this scenario there are tow reseponsible parties, The person who left it and the person who finds it, period. In a regular cache 10 people may find it and it still gets left behind. Now how on earth is my one time cache any worse than a regular cache. example: If I leave a one time cache and I die a week later my cache will probably be found, If I leave a regular cache and die a week later who cleans up the mess. This is an extreme case of course but how about someone who gets bored with the game, quits geocaching or is just plain lazy or responsible. Who's cache end up being less Eco friendly. Not mine!!!

Pardon me if I'm incorrect, but I think perhaps you've confused the concerns of one-time caches with vacation caches. The concerns over one-time caches are that between the time the first finder locates it, logs it, and the listing is removed or archived, other cachers may be out looking for something that is not there, which is frustrating for them, and may potentially cause unnecessary destruction as they look for it. The concern over vacation caches are that they will become geo-trash as no-one is around to do maintanence on them.

[ringbone]

Ironman and the lot

 

You keep implying that this game is about you and only you. "if it was a one time cache I wouldnt find anything and just waste my time" You might not find any cache anyway. You dont have to look for my caches or anyone elses caches That is your choice. And also since you are a professional numimatist (coin collector) what value would you put on a an 1884 Morgan Silver Dollar with a Carson city mint mark in say ms-60. Dont try to be a know it all

[CoyoteRed]

Mopar is talking about Scout's take on the history of geocaching. You'll find a link at the bottom of his page to another take. It falls in line, but is less slanted.

 

Quite frankly, I've been in touch with Scout and I can understand his feelings. While I've only heard his side of things certainly does sound like what I've tasted.

 

Anyway, the complete history is still online in the Google archives and in the original talklist if anyone cares to wade through it. Geocaching history is not without controversy.

 

However, little of that is relevant to this thread except maybe the slant that if Irish accepted a little help from the community, then things might be better.

 

I'm not talking about "input," I'm talking tapping the massive amounts of resources available at his fingertips. For instance, there are at least a half dozen competent webjockies that would be all over it if Irish asked for web design submissions.

[+Gorak]

The concerns over one-time caches are that between the time the first finder locates it, logs it, and the listing is removed or archived, other cachers may be out looking for something that is not there, which is frustrating for them, and may potentially cause unnecessary destruction as they look for it.

That is a problem that arises with moving caches and is easy to resolve. If the cache owner leave a small piece of biodegradable flagging tape in the cache the finder can tie it to a suitable tree limb or whatever when they have found the cache and that will be a signal to the next person who comes along that the cache has already been found. This system worked well for a local moving cache until it was taken out of service.

 

_____________

Gorak

[+Sparky-Watts]

Ironman and the lot

 

You keep implying that this game is about you and only you. <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>"if it was a one time cache I wouldnt find anything and just waste my time" </span>You might not find any cache anyway. You dont have to look for my caches or anyone elses caches That is your choice. And also since you are a professional numimatist (coin collector) what value would you put on a an 1884 Morgan Silver Dollar with a Carson city mint mark in say ms-60. Dont try to be a know it all

You just summed it up pretty well. It is a game of choice. If you don't like the rules, it is your choice to post your caches elsewhere and not complain about the rules here that were implemented for the betterment of the entire community as a whole, not just to appease a handful of people who think the rules are made just to exclude them.

 

BTW, the word is numismatist.....don't be such a know-it-all if you can't spell it correctly.

Edited March 4, 2004 by Sparky-Watts

[+Mopar]

This is my point: A one time cache isnt unmaintained if the 1st person who finds it takes it with them. If I leave a one ounce silver coin and the 1st person who finds it removes it how on earth is this an unmaintained cache. If that is the case I now have several expensive unmaintained caches out there waiting for history to find them. In this scenario there are tow reseponsible parties, The person who left it and the person who finds it, period. In a regular cache 10 people may find it and it still gets left behind. Now how on earth is my one time cache any worse than a regular cache. example: If I leave a one time cache and I die a week later my cache will probably be found, If I leave a regular cache and die a week later who cleans up the mess. This is an extreme case of course but how about someone who gets bored with the game, quits geocaching or is just plain lazy or responsible. Who's cache end up being less Eco friendly. Not mine!!!

No, but a one-time only cache has OTHER issues. If you are going to agree that caches should not be placed in illegal places, then that means a human being must take the time to review your one time only cache. Then the page is posted on a worldwide site for everyone to see. In many places, it is now common for a new cache to be found within hours of being posted on the site, even in the middle of the night. So it's entirely possible for a one time only cache to be found and removed in the amount of time it took someone to go through the trouble to make sure it was legal. Now, remember you arent the only one. This site has grown. There were something like 52,000 caches logged in the last WEEK. Not everyone of those people wants to hide expensive caches. What about the guy who's idea for a one time only cache is an old sneaker? You would soon see hundreds of those type of "one time only" caches submitted and then being archived a few hours later. Or not. I would guess many of us would eventually not even bother, expecting someone else to get it first, or that the cache is really trash, not treasure. Geo Spotter offered you a solution. His non-geocaching treasure hunt has been pretty sucesssful. Perhaps you could even arrange to sponsor some of his hunts in your area. There are lots of things you can find/do with a GPS, they dont ALL need to be listed here as geocaches.

[+nelsotob]

While once again everyone is taking way to seriously something that is supposed to be fun Trying to put your own spin on why people should be monitored/goverened by rules rather than realizing you truly cannot protect everyone from everything and if GC.com would have been thinking (or would start) there are much more creative ways to govern these issues, that are losing all of you a lot of respect. An example so you cannot go on babbeling that I'm not trying to provide a solution, put up a vote to your paying members. Let them decide the fate of geocaching, make the site or company user owned. Just a few suggestions.

[ju66l3r]

I don't know about you all but it does seem to me that all of this is very much about ownership and control. The history of it all helps one to see what the real intentions are, Check out the history from another perspective.

 

http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/

Intersting prospective, alright.

Isn't that written by someone who slams gc.com on every other related forum on the 'net?

Isn't that written by someone who has only found a few caches, yet still seems to know the "right" way this site should be run should be done?

 

Somehow, I don't think thats exactly an unbiased story there, do you?

There is nothing that I read in that history that isn't validated by an e-mail/usenet source. While it may not be a complete history, it is certainly a valid one. That being the case, it is unimportant who the author is so long as you are willing to read his sources.

 

Also, there is nothing about finding caches that gives insight into running a website for geocaching or the proprietariness of the data a website like that might hold and the limits that site might set for submissions. (...and how do you know exactly how many anyone has found, since beyond GC.com online logs or going to every cache they could have ever possibly been to, there is little way for you to do so...)

 

No "story" is totally unbiased. Scientific observation is about the only unbiased journaling. As the original poster pointed out, this was the history of geocaching from another perspective (why I quoted them too)...so what's your point, Mopar...other than tossing out some denunciatory comments and leading questions in your usual manner simply to swat at a poster you do not agree with by means of dubious logic...

[ringbone]

Typing too fast i guess

 

How does change come about? Discussion and debate in a true democracy. Communism (did I spell that one right?) fell when the wall fell my sarcastic little friend. If you like the status quo, fine, that is your choice. I request change and the only way I'll get it is through healthy discussion and debate. When the rules change to your disliking, who will be the first person voicing your opinion on this web site? I'll bet my Morgan silver Dollar on you. As Forest Gump said" Thats all I have to say about that"

[+Sparky-Watts]

While once again everyone is taking way to seriously something that is supposed to be fun Trying to put your own spin on why people should be monitored/goverened by rules rather than realizing you truly cannot protect everyone from everything and if GC.com would have been thinking (or would start) there are much more creative ways to govern these issues, that are losing all of you a lot of respect. An example so you cannot go on babbeling that I'm not trying to provide a solution, put up a vote to your paying members. Let them decide the fate of geocaching, make the site or company user owned. Just a few suggestions.

Why on Earth would Jeremy want to do that? Look at the number of users compared to the number of folks that complain about the rules!! If it ain't broke, don't break it!

[+ironman114]

Ironman and the lot

 

You keep implying that this game is about you and only you. <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>"if it was a one time cache I wouldnt find anything and just waste my time" </span>You might not find any cache anyway. You dont have to look for my caches or anyone elses caches That is your choice. And also since you are a professional numimatist (coin collector) what value would you put on a an 1884 Morgan Silver Dollar with a Carson city mint mark in say ms-60. Dont try to be a know it all

this game isn't about me. I have read many comments on displeasure of looking for and not finding missing caches by others. It seems most of the people who use this site feel this way. There is always is a chnce of not finding a cache, but if more people did one time only caches this would increase this chance.

 

If I ( I don't but many do) use software to download waypoints to liik for caches I might not see that this is supposed to be a one time find.

 

I never said I was a numimatist (I'm not). But you mentioned just a silver coin. I was just showing there is a difference between an 1884 Morgan Silver dollar and a non U.S. mint silver dollar sold for an overpriced amount on t.v. (PLEASE DON'T THINK THAT I AM IMPLYING THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD DO)

 

You have an idea that has some merit. Maybe something like a link (in your sig line) to a web page that is yours with listings there where those interested can go to look for those kind of caches

 

I don't know it all but am willing to learn as much as I can.

 

edit : I must type slow already 8 more responses since I started typing

Edited March 4, 2004 by ironman114

[+Sparky-Watts]

I request change and the only way I'll get it is through healthy discussion and debate.

 

I haven't seen much healthy discussion from you yet. Yes, I am sarcastic and little, but I am not your friend.

Edited March 4, 2004 by Sparky-Watts

[+Gorak]

I request change and the only way I'll get it is through healthy discussion and debate.

 

I haven't seen much healty discussion from you yet. Yes, I am sarcastic and little, but I am not your friend.

Actually, think his posts have been well thought out and presented. However, your characterization of ringbone's posts does seem to be a fairly accurate description of your own posting style, but by several orders of magnitude.

 

___________

Gorak

[ju66l3r]

Geo Spotter offered you a solution. His non-geocaching treasure hunt has been pretty sucesssful.

 

Sparky wrote:

The concerns over one-time caches are that between the time the first finder locates it, logs it, and the listing is removed or archived, other cachers may be out looking for something that is not there, which is frustrating for them, and may potentially cause unnecessary destruction as they look for it.

 

Um, so which is it?

 

People who hunt one-time caches are aware that they might not find anything and there's been no undue land havoc because of GeoSpotter's game. If you don't want to rush out just to be disappointed, you won't...or you're a masochist (running out hoping to find something, and then getting mad at the system when you don't find it because it was already taken).

[+RichardMoore]

3. The Cleveland MetroParks and the Geauga County MetroParks are pro-caching, but they place their OWN caches and don't allow caches from individuals.

Keystone,

Thanks for the summation of the caching situation in the Cleveland area, and acknowledging the efforts of the members of NEOGeo. They are a great bunch of people, and dedicated to working within the system to advance geocaching in Ohio.

One small correction:

The Cleveland Metroparks does allow individuals to place caches within its parks. The hider must obtain a permit and someone goes out and checks the site before it is approved, but the process of obtaining the permit is simple and cost-free.

 

 

RichardMoore

[+carleenp]

While once again everyone is taking way to seriously something that is supposed to be fun Trying to put your own spin on why people should be monitored/goverened by rules rather than realizing you truly cannot protect everyone from everything and if GC.com would have been thinking (or would start) there are much more creative ways to govern these issues, that are losing all of you a lot of respect. An example so you cannot go on babbeling that I'm not trying to provide a solution, put up a vote to your paying members. Let them decide the fate of geocaching, make the site or company user owned. Just a few suggestions.

 

Whether anyone likes it or not, GC.com is a business. I am not particularly anti-business and so that doesn't bother me. I figure people deserve to earn a living and if it is through a fun hobby that they like, more power to them! Of course I also support the idea of non-profit geocaching organizations at both the local and national level. I also recognize that some people disagree with me on the issue to varying degrees.

 

Anyway, because it is a business, I don't think you will be seeing any kind of vote to make it user owned. But more important, the fact that it is a business is irrelevant to the issue about rules in my opinion. I suppose as a business, some rules must be in place because of issues of liability, such as refusing to list caches placed in illegal areas. But that would be a good idea even if the site was user owned or non-profit. After that, I still think the rules are made to address various issues that have arisen over time. I agree with you that GC.com cannot protect everyone from everything, and at times, it's rules will discourage some people. But rules can help avoid situations that might cause more probems without the rules in place. At that point it is a balancing of the reasons for the rule and the effect it will have on people who will be hindered by the rule.

 

No matter who owned the site or the financial status of it, I think rules would need to be in place and debates over whether they were good or not would always exist.

Edited March 4, 2004 by carleenp

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Ironman and the lot

 

You keep implying that this game is about you and only you. "if it was a one time cache I wouldnt find anything and just waste my time" You might not find any cache anyway. You dont have to look for my caches or anyone elses caches That is your choice. And also since you are a professional numimatist (coin collector) what value would you put on a an 1884 Morgan Silver Dollar with a Carson city mint mark in say ms-60. Dont try to be a know it all

I don't care if you place a coin worth $50,000 in a one-time cache. If the cache doesn't fit the guidelines of this site, then it won't be listed here.

 

The rules of this site have developed over time as a response to the concerns of both geocachers and land managers. If you don't like how this site is operated, go somewhere else.

 

edited to remove HTML from quote

Edited March 4, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

[+Sparky-Watts]

I request change and the only way I'll get it is through healthy discussion and debate.

 

I haven't seen much healty discussion from you yet. Yes, I am sarcastic and little, but I am not your friend.

Actually, think his posts have been well thought out and presented. However, your characterization of ringbone's posts does seem to be a fairly accurate description of your own posting style, but by several orders of magnitude.

 

___________

Gorak

I don't see anything healthy for bashing folks that don't agree with him, no matter how long he thought about the right words to use to do so, nor is it healthy to call someone "my sarcastic little friend". I stand by my statement, and take no shame in my posting style. I'm not the one trying to change rules that are placed for a well-substantiated purpose, therefore, my posting style is not the one in question here. I have seen hundreds of people in these forums and others that can discuss an issue at length without resorting to attacks and snide remarks when other disagree. As of yet, I have only seen him respond to a minimum of arguments, totally ignoring those posts that have blown his attempts at change clean out of the water.

[+Mopar]

I don't know about you all but it does seem to me that all of this is very much about ownership and control. The history of it all helps one to see what the real intentions are, Check out the history from another perspective.

 

http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/

Intersting prospective, alright.

Isn't that written by someone who slams gc.com on every other related forum on the 'net?

Isn't that written by someone who has only found a few caches, yet still seems to know the "right" way this site should be run should be done?

 

Somehow, I don't think thats exactly an unbiased story there, do you?

There is nothing that I read in that history that isn't validated by an e-mail/usenet source. While it may not be a complete history, it is certainly a valid one. That being the case, it is unimportant who the author is so long as you are willing to read his sources.

 

Also, there is nothing about finding caches that gives insight into running a website for geocaching or the proprietariness of the data a website like that might hold and the limits that site might set for submissions. (...and how do you know exactly how many anyone has found, since beyond GC.com online logs or going to every cache they could have ever possibly been to, there is little way for you to do so...)

 

No "story" is totally unbiased. Scientific observation is about the only unbiased journaling. As the original poster pointed out, this was the history of geocaching from another perspective (why I quoted them too)...so what's your point, Mopar...other than tossing out some denunciatory comments and leading questions in your usual manner simply to swat at a poster you do not agree with by means of dubious logic...

No there isnt anything there that can't be appear to be validated by a specific post. I could, if I took the time, create a page that said the exact and total opposite and back it with "proof". Come on, politicians, play this game all the time. You have to be truly gullible to think every thing you read is unbiased. And that's what I'm pointing out. That page is put together by someone with an obvious bias. I first found out about geocaching in the summer of 2000. Since there were no caches within 500 miles of me back then, I didnt register. I remember Dave Ulmer, even chatted with him. I remember when Mike Teague was a forum mod here. I've talked to Quinn in IRC, and I've had several email discussions with Scout. Even parcipated in the early Minute War games of his. I KNOW everything that happened back then, and I KNOW that Scout's history page has a distinct bias, and many things posted there are taken somewhat out of context. Since EVERYTHING, the old gc.com forums, old usenet posts, Mike's old site, everything is still all cached in various places online, take a few days and learn the full history, not just as Scout sees it.

[+TEAM 360]

If you don't like how this site is operated, go somewhere else.

How about: "If enough people call for the rules to change, then this site will actually listen to the masses and change them?", rather than "If you don't like it, go away"....

 

Listening to your customers. What a concept!

[+nelsotob]

If you don't like how this site is operated, go somewhere else.

How about: "If enough people call for the rules to change, then this site will actually listen to the masses and change them?", rather than "If you don't like it, go away"....

 

Listening to your customers. What a concept!

 

Hmmmm, what a concept. Try to rule by what the people want not by the mantra "my way or the highway".