Parasite Caches?

[+Amazingracer]

I now there are only a handful of parasite caches and havent seen any new ones in the past year and was wondering if these things are still allowed?

(This is just a curiosity question.)

[+Renegade Knight]

What is a parasite cache?

[uperdooper]

What is a parasite cache?

thank goodness i'm not the only one that doesn't know.

[Broncoholics]

This is going to be a good one.

[+Johnnie Stalkers]

Parasite cache or parasite cacher?

[+Cache Viking]

Interesting topic. Does anyone know the answer here or do we need to get the warning sign ready?

[+Amazingracer]

Thought that term was well known, apparently not.

A parasite cache is a small cache (say a small tupperware container) that is smaller than the average traditional cache. It is placed in a cache and that cache is "infected" with the parasite cache. Meaning that some one who goes to find the regular cache will get two finds because the parasite cache has its own logbook and trade items in itself. And anybody can pick the cache up and palce it in another cache. But it must be placed in a cache. Here some examples:

The Parasite

The Parasite Spawn

And sorry Duane its not something evil, just a twist on the game.

[+wildearth2001]

that would fall under traveling caches, and are not allowed anymore

[+bons]

Looks like they fall under the category of travelling caches: grandfathered but no longer allowed. You could do the same thing with a travel bug though.

Edited April 18, 2004 by bons

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I thought I was going to have to rinse all my caches out with bleach.

[+Polgara]

This is kinda neat! And it does behave alot like a travelling cache, but if its placed in a cache that already has permission (if needed), then so what. Travelling caches are different cause they get their own coordinates, these just go in already placed caches. I think its a cool idea.

Edited April 18, 2004 by Ce'Nedra

[bug and snake]

I don't think that is a 'normal' type of travelling cache - more like somewhere between a traditional and a travel bug. Also, I am not sure why it would need to be 'allowed'. It's not like it would have to be a certain distance away from another placement. Only 'allowed' in the sense that it has a page on the site for logging finds.

I think it is a fascinating concept and even if it is not 'allowed' by GC.com it could still be implemented with the proviso that it would not contribute to a cachers 'finds' total.

 

Edit to run the speel chucker - DUH me!

Edited April 18, 2004 by bug&snake

[+TeamK-9]

I think it falls under mostly like a travelbug. I was thinking about doing something like this, but I noticed it wouildn't really count as a find, because bugs dont count as caches found...

[Broncoholics]

Amazingracer's quote:

 

And sorry Duane its not something evil, just a twist on the game.

 

All I do is hide great caches and trade fair. Don't judge a book by it's cover.

 

I had no clue what a parasite cache was. First thought that came to my mind was parasite cachers. LOL

 

D

[+Team GPSaxophone]

A parasite cache (the way you described it) sound like a travelbug with an attached logbook. I've seen a few of these, but none that are pretending to be caches.

[bug and snake]

Amazingracer's quote:

 

And sorry Duane its not something evil, just a twist on the game.

 

All I do is hide great caches and trade fair. Don't judge a book by it's cover.

 

I had no clue what a parasite cache was. First thought that came to my mind was parasite cachers. LOL

 

D

Same here, I was wondering if it might be some kind of pirating variation.....

[+Renegade Knight]

Thanks

 

They are moving caches and while they move like Travel bugs they are just as banned as the ones that move to new locations.

[+SamLowrey]

When I first started, I was going to put a micro inside a normal cache. I wouldn't call it parasitical, per se. Just being a smarta**.

[bug and snake]

Thanks

 

They are moving caches and while they move like Travel bugs they are just as banned as the ones that move to new locations.

I see what you are saying but when they don't need the involvement of an approver at each move..... Well, anyhow. Other things don't suit me too so I will try to be quiet on this one too.

[+BadAndy]

Why not just attach a travelbug to a minicache and drop it into an ammocan sized cache?

[+BadAndy]

Hmmm...I might just do that.

[+Amazingracer]

They are traveling caches but not like the ones that created problems. These caches can only be placed in a physical cache that has already been placed and approved. So i didnt see a reason for them to be banned. I just didnt see any new ones recently. We need an approiver or admin in here to answer this.

Sorry Duane wasnt trying to be offensive.

Edited April 19, 2004 by Amazingracer

[+sbell111]

They are traveling caches but not like the ones that created problems. These caches can only be placed in a physical cache that has already been placed and approved. So i didnt see a reason for them to be banned. ...

It kinda violates the .10 mile guideline, doesn't it?

[+Hemlock]

They are traveling caches but not like the ones that created problems. These caches can only be placed in a physical cache that has already been placed and approved.

Which is exactly what a travel bug is. Why bother trying to allow some types of moving caches but not others, when the travel bug works just fine?

[AJK]

Which is exactly what a travel bug is. Why bother trying to allow some types of moving caches but not others, when the travel bug works just fine?

As it would be a find, rather than just a travel bug, people would go out to grab it. I know we're not about the numbers (speak for yourselves ). As others have noted, it is very different from the concept of a travelling cache.

 

It would be interesting to get an admin's opinion.

[+Amazingracer]

The parasite caches i pointed to where pre-travel bug caches. The days when a travel bug had its own cache page (How many people remember thiose days?).

Yeah i was hoping it would got an admins attention by now.

[+Renegade Knight]

Caches are free. Travel Bugs cost money. Besides it's about the numbers and the find. It's harder to find a moving cache in the form of a hitchiker.

[+fly46]

Technically caches aren't free... You have to get the container, which you purchased at some point, the contents, which you purchased at some point, the log book, which you purchased at some point.. unless you stole evrything, then it cost you jail time....

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

Which is exactly what a travel bug is. Why bother trying to allow some types of moving caches but not others, when the travel bug works just fine?

As it would be a find, rather than just a travel bug, people would go out to grab it. I know we're not about the numbers (speak for yourselves ). As others have noted, it is very different from the concept of a travelling cache.

 

It would be interesting to get an admin's opinion.

That was an approver's opinion (and an awsome approver at that)

Edited April 19, 2004 by cache_us_if_you_can

[AJK]

That was an approver's opinion (and an awsome approver at that)

Cool, now we know. I would hypothesize that the issue with parasitic caches is not the same as that with travellers. Maybe it's just that too many of these would change the nature of the game, or that people who had already found the 'host' cache would go out and find the parasite - not exactly a difficult find.

[+bigredmed]

Tried to set some of these up for our cache bash last year and they were not approved and the home cache was not approved till it was cleared of them and all mention of them.

 

Too bad as these serve a niche beyond travel bugs in that they carry their own log book and can carry sig items and so on.

 

Travelling caches are banned for good reason. It may be difficult to carve these out so probably won't get changed.

[CoyoteRed]

It's funny how so many "authorities" spout off on what is and isn't allowed.

 

In fact, I had a discussion with an approver a while back and they were, in fact, allowed. Parasites and travelers are two different animals is what was explained to me. One is allowed, the other isn't. I was wanting to use both a cache page and a travel bug page to track the cache. The reason for using a TB page was the ability to see what cache it is in. The reason for it being a cache is so the cache shows up on people's Nearest list. The approver discouraged me from using both a cache page and TB because it caused more work on the finder's side. The verdict was one or the other. But, then again, they only approve caches, not TBs.

 

It was never placed because I lost interest. To me, it didn't add to the game. The container is back in the bin with the rest of the caches ready to be placed.

 

The above examples of them not being allowed is yet another instance of the approvers not all being on the same page.

 

However, if there is now a concensus among all of the approvers that parasite caches are not allowed, it would be nice to know. (Not ignoring Hemlock's non-answer, just want a to know yes or no.)

[Keystone]

CR,

 

How long ago was "awhile back"? If it was March 2003 or even summer 2003, then what you heard was accurate at that time. But today, and for the past six months or so, it is simply *not possible* to create a moving cache or a parasite cache on this listing site. That is because the coordinates cannot be updated when the cache moves, except by involving one of the volunteer reviewers.

 

Like Hemlock said, if you want to do this, make a travel bug. I've found some cool travel bugs that had storage capacity for small trade items collected as part of the journey.

 

As for the comment that the volunteer reviewers are being inconsistent, I'd sure like to know how another reviewer is listing new parasite caches when the coordinates cannot be changed.

 

And as for the "it'd be nice to know about it" comment, please refer to the following excerpt from the Cache Permanence section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines:

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) may not be approved.

 

I don't see that changing the name from "traveling cache" to "parasite cache" makes any difference, because both "have the goal to move."

[CoyoteRed]

Thank you the definitive answer. It would make sense parasite are no longer feasible because of not being able to change the coords.

 

It must have been longer ago than I remember then!

 

As for the differences, it was explained to me that travelers can be placed in unapproved places while parasites are only placed in places already approved. Two major issues with travelers being moot with parasites; legal placement and site destruction.

 

Again, thanks for the authoritive answer!

[Find Now, Log Later?]

please refer to the following excerpt from the Cache Permanence section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines:

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) may not be approved.

 

I don't see that changing the name from "traveling cache" to "parasite cache" makes any difference, because both "have the goal to move."

And I point out for about the 150th time that "may not be approved" is not synonymous with "shall not be approved" or "are prohibited."

 

It does appear that the approvers are on the same page, but the page they are on does not correspond to the actual wording of the guideline. Issues similar to this one keep recurring because the guideline gives people "false hope." It also gives you approver-folk one heck of a lot of grief that could be easily avoided.

 

So how about somebody in a position of power taking it upon him/herself to either revise the guideline to accurately reflect the manner in which the guideline is actually applied ("realized"), or revise the interpretation and application of the guideline to be in agreement with the actual wording of the guideline?

Edited April 19, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+Mopar]

please refer to the following excerpt from the Cache Permanence section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines:

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) may not be approved.

 

I don't see that changing the name from "traveling cache" to "parasite cache" makes any difference, because both "have the goal to move."

And I point out for about the 150th time that "may not be approved" is not synonymous with "shall not be approved" or "are prohibited."

 

It does appear that the approvers are on the same page, but the page they are on does not correspond to the actual wording of the guideline. Issues similar to this one keep recurring because the guideline gives people "false hope." It also gives you approver-folk one heck of a lot of grief that could be easily avoided.

 

So how about somebody in a position of power taking it upon him/herself to either revise the guideline to accurately reflect the manner in which the guideline is actually applied ("realized"), or revise the interpretation and application of the guideline to be in agreement with the actual wording of the guideline?

When I was a kid, my mom used to tell me; "You may not leave the dinner table until you eat your green beans.". Even at 7yrs old, I knew what "may not" meant in the context it was used.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

If you think that is what the guideline states, then you must have written it. And/or repeatedly misinterpreted it.

Edited April 19, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+Mopar]

If you think that is what the guideline states, then you must have written it.  And/or repeatedly misinterpreted it.

So, I'm the only person here (outside of approvers and the author of the guidelines page) that would know what to do if I was a pilot and the air traffic controller told me I may not land on runway 12 at the moment?

 

.

Edited April 19, 2004 by Mopar

[+Mopar]

may not v : be not allowed to [synonym: must not] [ant: may]

 

BTW "synonym" means:

• 1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
  
• 2. A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another.
  

[+Nurse Dave]

Dang, does Jeremy need to hire lawyers to write the guidelines/rules? Is it totally out of the range of ability for people to use common sense and not try to get around these things at any given moment?

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Air traffic controllers, like lawyers, are trained not to use ambiguous terminology ... when they do, confusion results and bad things happen. Nice analogy; it suggests to me that you didn't bother to check the facts before voicing (another) uninformed opinion.

 

may not v : be not allowed to [synonym: must not] [ant: may]

 

I must say I'm surprised to see "must not" listed as a synonym for "may not." "Must not" is an imperative. "May not" is not. Out of curiosity, Mopar, in what tense is the sentence from the guideline we are discussing written? It's rather important to its meaning.

Edited April 19, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+Mopar]

Nice analogy; it suggests to me that you didn't bother to check the facts before voicing (another) uninformed opinion.

If you think that is what the guideline states, then you must have written it.  And/or repeatedly misinterpreted it.

Gee, make up your mind! One minute you claim I'm an authority on a subject, and the next my opinion is uninformed!

[AJK]

Given that parasite caches probably won't be approved, here are three caches that use other caches as a means to distribute another cache coordinates. Not the same I know, but if the hider is looking for someting different:

 

You will need a bug

 

Thoreau Hitchhiker

 

Follow that bug

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Gee, make up your mind! One minute you claim I'm an authority on a subject, and the next my opinion is uninformed!

To the contrary, Chris: I would never accuse you of being an authority on anything.

[+Nurse Dave]

Okay now, how are people pissed about the language here, but not comments like these.

[+bigredmed]

[When I was a kid, my mom used to tell me; "You may not leave the dinner table until you eat your green beans.". Even at 7yrs old, I knew what "may not" meant in the context it was used.

A good point is made about the language. If I had read "May not", instead of "will not", I would have gone ahead with the planned parasite caches, thinking that they would be moving to other caches and would be OK, unlike true travelling caches that are not OK.

 

The ambiguity is unnecessary if all travelling caches ARE banned, then the instructions should say so, not "may be" which implies that some are OK and not banned.

[+Mopar]

Okay now, how are people pissed about the language here, but not comments like these.

Guess if a known sock-puppet account for a banned user does it, it's ok.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

...you didn't bother to check the facts before voicing (another) uninformed opinion.

 

There's no need to repeat myself ... Gotta head off for work. Chris, just bookmark that comment.

Edited April 19, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+Mopar]

...you didn't bother to check the facts before voicing (another) uninformed opinion.

Hey Mark, you're right this time!

It appears I really AM uninformed!

 

It's always nice to know that if you get banned from gc.com, you can always hold a few caches and TB's hostage, until TPTB unban you. I wanted to insert a smiley here, but I couldn't find one for disgust.

CONGRATS!

[apogee]

Like Hemlock said, if you want to do this, make a travel bug. I've found some cool travel bugs that had storage capacity for small trade items collected as part of the journey.

It would appear then that you can make a parasite "legal" simply by registering it as a travel bug. Let it be treated as just another cache item to be taken and traded or left in the original cache. Does that solve the problem?

 

Part of the fun of creating a cache is finding a unique location and hiding it yourself. That would be my choice, anyway. One log per cache is enough.