Jump to content

0.1 Mile Distance Between Caches


Recommended Posts

This is from a complaint I heard from a tadpole cacher recently. It is not a new complaint, I first heard it two years ago, but at that time it was less significant.

 

The Complaint – I would love to place a cache in X Park, but Cacher SO-AND-SO has five of them there only a little over 0.1 mile apart. He/She/They have dominated the park, so no one else may have the fun of hiding a cache there.

 

Rule Change – No cacher may hide a cache with 0.5 miles of any other cache that he/she/they own. Exceptions would include various legs of a multi-cache.

 

In addition to the opinion of other cachers I would like to hear the opinion of the approvers. Would this rule create any hardships for them?

Link to comment

Like many/most on here, the thought of more 'rules' curls my teeth. However, this one makes some kind of sense. The problem with more rules is (apart from the restrictions it places on every one) for the approvers. I don't know what the approach to checking this kind of thing would be but in a cache dense location a radius of .5 of a mile could encompass quite a few caches which would have to be checked for ownership.

I know exactly why you have raised this point though. Oh yeah!!!!!

Link to comment

No more rules, please.

 

The change would prevent someone from going in and placing some nice caches in an area that no one else wants to put any in.

 

In a recent post someone mentioned something about archiving some of his caches so others could place. Thing is, no one else has.

 

I've got 3 in a smallish park that has a lot to see. There is more opportunity for someone else to come along and place more, but no one has. I'm think about putting more. In the end, there will be a variety of cache types in there. Not just more of the same.

 

Besides, .1 mile rule is pretty restrictive in some urban areas to begin with.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
Like many/most on here, the thought of more 'rules' curls my teeth. However, this one makes some kind of sense. The problem with more rules is (apart from the restrictions it places on every one) for the approvers. I don't know what the approach to checking this kind of thing would be but in a cache dense location a radius of .5 of a mile could encompass quite a few caches which would have to be checked for ownership.

I know exactly why you have raised this point though. Oh yeah!!!!!

i'm with bugs&snakes here. i only have 2 hides, and i usually stay out of the rules debates, but i can see your point on this one.

Link to comment

The workability issue is difficult. If we used UTM the approvers could set some triangulation process in place as this measures the number of meters east and north. You could say no two caches closer than 750 meters by the same owner.

 

The problem with rules changes is that we have so many people who reflexically react to any rule change suggestion in the negative that you get flamed for anything, and there are the majority of cachers who don't use these forums, thus don't find out about the rule change till they violate it. This happened to me after a prolonged period off forums and traveling caches. Torqued me off no end to find that the cache I had worked so hard on was rejected in about a nanosecond.

 

The thing about caches in parks is that you don't have to put a cache in a given park, you don't even have to hide at all if you live in a cache dense area. Try looking for places that are not used that would be good. I have quit hiding caches in Omaha due to the extreme number of them already here. I would no more try to hide one in Lincoln than I would try on shoes that are 2 sizes too small as there are already about a zillion caches in that town and in several areas some that BARELY make the 0.1 mile rule. Heading rural for my next and probably last three.

Link to comment

No more rules please. .

 

If I placed the first caches in the area and some cacher comes along at a later date, and complains that Tahosa has too many caches in that area. Now what does Admin do for this request, does he archive the existing caches so they can place some new ones. If they were archived so some new ones could be placed, I could guarantee that they would be muggled quite quick.

Link to comment

I don't want a rule because there are a few times where it wouldn't be too bad. For instance we just placed two caches in big park that really didn't have any and they are .25 apart. But in general I agree with you. It's frustrating in very cache dense areas when you discover a newish area and it's full of caches from one person. I don't really think there is a solution though. I don't think those people are thinking of new people comming to caching or moving into the area and wanting to hid caches. I say place a few and let others have their shot too.

Link to comment
This is from a complaint I heard from a tadpole cacher recently. It is not a new complaint, I first heard it two years ago, but at that time it was less significant.

 

The Complaint – I would love to place a cache in X Park, but Cacher SO-AND-SO has five of them there only a little over 0.1 mile apart. He/She/They have dominated the park, so no one else may have the fun of hiding a cache there.

 

Rule Change – No cacher may hide a cache with 0.5 miles of any other cache that he/she/they own. Exceptions would include various legs of a multi-cache.

 

In addition to the opinion of other cachers I would like to hear the opinion of the approvers. Would this rule create any hardships for them?

Dear tadpole,

FIND ANOTHER PARK.

Thank you.

Link to comment
I have quit hiding caches in Omaha due to the extreme number of them already here. I would no more try to hide one in Lincoln than I would try on shoes that are 2 sizes too small as there are already about a zillion caches in that town and in several areas some that BARELY make the 0.1 mile rule. Heading rural for my next and probably last three.

 

Actually, I can think of plenty of places in Lincoln that would support caches. I'm not as familiar with Omaha, but I think Lincoln is more cache dense. Anyway, I still go rural with mine simply because I like to get out and walk. I like the rural caches best, especially ones at WMAs since I like the prairie setting of many of those.

Link to comment

While I can understand your point as well as the tadpoles frustration, I have to agree with the others. No more rules/guidelines. I think a better solution would be for the noob to email the owner of the other caches and ask if they would archive or move one of theirs. Alright, I know that probably won't work. I just don't like the idea of running to Groundspeak every time I don't like something and ask them to make a new guideline for it. There are certain things we should try and work out our selves rather than look for intervention from TPTB. To be honest, if someone emailed me and said they have a great idea for a cache and they'd like to hide it in X park but they can't because of me, I'd probably archive one of mine. Make room for another cache for me to find? Why not? I'd even offer any help or advise I could give.

Link to comment
I don't want a rule because there are a few times where it wouldn't be too bad.  For instance we just placed two caches in big park that really didn't have any and they are .25 apart.  But in general I agree with you.  It's frustrating in very cache dense areas when you discover a newish area and it's full of caches from one person.  I don't really think there is a solution though.  I don't think those people are thinking of new people coming to caching or moving into the area and wanting to hid caches.  I say place a few and let others have their shot too.

(emphasis is mine) That is what the first post is about. Unfortunately it only takes one to ignore that concept and an area is gone as far as others are concerned.

This attitude of 'NO MORE RULES' is admirable. As you can see from my previous post above, I support it completely. So, what do we do if some people ignore the etiquette? We can add rules/guidelines or we can just suck it up and move on.

The other option is to contact the person/team doing the saturation thing and asking them to be a little more thoughtful in the future. Chances are, however. that they believe that their caches are the ones everyone wants to see anyhow and will carry on regardless.

 

OK, lets lets bury a few of them up to their necks in ant hills and..... sorry! Getting carried away here!

Link to comment
This is from a complaint I heard from a tadpole cacher recently.  It is not a new complaint, I first heard it two years ago, but at that time it was less significant.

 

The Complaint – I would love to place a cache in X Park, but Cacher SO-AND-SO has five of them there only a little over 0.1 mile apart.  He/She/They have dominated the park, so no one else may have the fun of hiding a cache there.

 

Rule Change – No cacher may hide a cache with 0.5 miles of any other cache that he/she/they own.  Exceptions would include various legs of a multi-cache.

 

In addition to the opinion of other cachers I would like to hear the opinion of the approvers.  Would this rule create any hardships for them?

I am FOR this change of rule, not because it would open up an urban area to other people, but because it would encourage people to put some more thought into the caches they place, and improve the quality ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN DEFINITION. (Please note: I'm absolutely not bashing micros, I'm against lameness of all sorts)

If someone is going to have only one cache in a certain area, Chances are that they will concentrate their creative energy on that one.

 

I think this would be hardly a problem on the approvers, and no UTM is needed. All an approver needs to do is what s/he does anyway: click on the 'nearby caches' link on the page, and check the few top caches to see whether one of them is owned by the same person.

 

'No more rules' has become a catch-all objection. I too don't want more complexity, but with the explosion of the game some refinement becomes necessary, just as with traffic rules. Change happens no matter what, even when you don't refine the rules. Refinement can help you direct the change in a desirable direction, though.

 

I agree with the problem raised by bigred med, though: Beyond the Pavlovians, a refinement will irk those who are not aware of it, in particular those who don't read the forums. If such a refinement will be made, I suggest it be posted in bold on the cache submission page.

Edited by Shunra
Link to comment

So...say we have a new geocacher who find a nice little area, studies it, and finds there are no caches hidden there. He gathers what he needs, and places 4- 5 regular caches, all within the rules and guidelines of Geocaching.com

His caches are well hidden, well maintained, and by the number of logs, and positive comments, well liked.

 

A year goes by, and along comes another new geocacher...finds the same area, and thinks it would be a neat place for some caches, only to find out someone has already done it. They cry foul....someone has hogged all the good spots in this area, and they should not be allowed.

 

Cache density is cache density for gosh sakes!

 

Why demand a proven cachers' GOOD caches be pulled so someone else can place one.

 

Solution: Find the caches, log them, and move on......This is a big country ! B)

 

If at some point you see that some of the caches are archived, for whatever reason, jump at it...

Link to comment

The less rules the better. There are plenty of parks. Find a park with fewer or no caches. It's not that difficult. B)

 

(Of course, once you find a park in need of a cache, it's not always the easiest thing to find a good cache location.)

 

--Marky

Link to comment

Reduce the 0.1 mile rule to 100ft. Problem solved. But only on GC.com

 

The problem is a GC.com invented problem. Not a cacher invented problem. That park is most likely wide open on Navicache.

 

One thing about a cacher dominitating an area is that sometimes that's what it takes to get caching going in an area. Hopefully when newbies come along and start placing caches they will pull some of their caches and make some room.

Link to comment

To get cachers to visit my caches I tend to like to place them in groups. With several caches available in the same spot they are more likely to be visited. It is not an effort to dominate an area on my part. For new cachers it is a challenge to find spots to hide caches, I know this from experience, but that is a challenge you'll have to overcome as the game grows in popularity. Even if one cacher didn't have 5 caches in one park chances are by now the park would be full of caches anyway and a new cacher would still face the same problem, but with no one person to blame.

 

To help open up space I do tend to be quick on the archive button when my caches come up missing or needs replacing. I don't like the idea of hiding and rehiding the same cache unless it is an especially nice spot. In my area there are many abandoned caches, as they come up missing I make sure to place archive notes on them.

Link to comment

i see where the poster is coming from, but... no one places any caches in my town. If I can place more caches, more people will visit, and log my caches (a lot of people seems to do 'chunks' of caches at once).

 

i'd be bummed if I could only place another cache a whole half mile away from another one of mine, so, maybe this would be bad in an area that's really low in cache density.

Link to comment

The new geocacher, obviously is frustrated by seeing the same name pop up in his area. Although I can sympathize with the new geocacher, I doubt the suggested rule would have any effect at all. Who is to say that someone else would have put another cache in the area preventing any other new cacher from placing a new cache in the park.

 

No, IMO cache approvers should not be burden with this task. The rules as they are to govern cache density is already too generous already (IMO).

Link to comment

>

If someone is going to have only one cache in a certain area, Chances are that they will concentrate their creative energy on that one.

>

 

I don't see how this will change anything. A cache is suppose to bring someone to a particular place of interest (since this thread referring to a park). If a cache is bad, it will be reflected in the logs and worse case it will be discovered, removed by muggles with the ultimate end of the cache being archived.

Link to comment

please bear in mind, whether this is a rule or not, this shouldn't burden the approvers. A good site should have good code that CHECKS the coords given by the cache-placer and validates them against the database's existing coords.

 

If an approver has to click on "nearest caches" then the developer of the GC.com tool should be looking into writing code to solve that problem.

 

Software can solve the enforcement of these math oriented rules, be it the .1 mile rule or the .5 mile proposal. The advantage being, the cache place could find out instantly if their idea is valid.

 

Janx

Link to comment

I vote no to adding a .5 mile rule... Oh, we're not voting?

 

I doubt if anyone is placing caches just so that they can block other people from placing caches. As long as the caches are maintained then I don't think there is anything to complain about. I can see where grouping caches makes it easier for the cache owner to maintain them. Introducing the rule you propose might work for a year but then the area is likely going to be saturated any way. Then what? Are we going to have to have a 5 mile rule?

 

*Give me full power to the shields!!!*

A better "guideline" (not that I'm proposing it) is that caches should expire. I know some caches are unique sites or great hides and they draw cachers from far away and consistantly get founds, but the majority are just a place to hide a container. I'm a newbie but when I try to cache with my brother we have to keep driving farther away to do ones he hasn't done. As caching gets more popular I see this as being a bigger issue than the density one brought up here. Once you've done all the caches in your area you can't play any more unless your willing and able to travel to get to them. You could further complicate this by saying that any cache that hadn't been found for a certain period of time, like after a year, should be archived. Though I bet there are some incredible caches that only get hit once a year. The problem then becomes with making sure the archived caches don't become trash and that they get picked up. I am willing to bet there are a significant number of caches that are no longer maintained by their owners but rather are maintained by their visiters. I can see where the popularity of the game may push it to something like this. I predict by the end of this year it is going to be harder to get a cache approved.

 

The state parks in Michigan are proposing a 12 month rule on caches(along with requiring permits). In some ways it makes sence and for some locations its important. By making sure the cache is removed after a year you can limit the amount of damage caused by visiters to it. They origanelly proposed a 3 month limit but have since raised it to 12.

Link to comment
I think this would be hardly a problem on the approvers, and no UTM is needed. All an approver needs to do is what s/he does anyway: click on the 'nearby caches' link on the page, and check the few top caches to see whether one of them is owned by the same person.

No, it wouldn't be that simple. When you create a cache page, you can use a different name than your profile name. It's that name, not the true profile name, which shows up in the search list.

 

All this rule would do is encourage people to use aliases when creating caches.

Link to comment

JeepCachr,

 

Interesting idea (expiring caches). Although I'm not terribly keen on this idea, I do see some merit on this (more merit than the .5 mi rule). I doubt many others would agree with me, but I think this idea would be better applied to urban micro caches. But then again, would we want to give this task to cache approvers or should this be done by some soulless program?

Link to comment
please bear in mind, whether this is a rule or not, this shouldn't burden the approvers. A good site should have good code that CHECKS the coords given by the cache-placer and validates them against the database's existing coords.

 

If an approver has to click on "nearest caches" then the developer of the GC.com tool should be looking into writing code to solve that problem.

 

Software can solve the enforcement of these math oriented rules, be it the .1 mile rule or the .5 mile proposal. The advantage being, the cache place could find out instantly if their idea is valid.

 

Janx

You're absolutely right.

My point was that even without such technology it wouldn't be a burden.

Link to comment
I think this would be hardly a problem on the approvers, and no UTM is needed. All an approver needs to do is what s/he does anyway: click on the 'nearby caches' link on the page, and check the few top caches to see whether one of them is owned by the same person.

No, it wouldn't be that simple. When you create a cache page, you can use a different name than your profile name. It's that name, not the true profile name, which shows up in the search list.

 

All this rule would do is encourage people to use aliases when creating caches.

Few people would do that, because people want credit for their hides. If the credit goes to a different name, why would they bother?

Besides, it's against the rules, for some reason (although I don't know why).

 

If someone wants to circumvent such a 0.5 mile per hider rule by hiding under a different name, I say let them.

Link to comment
Interesting idea (expiring caches).

If someone were forced to archive their caches upon expiration, it would only create geolitter.

 

But thinking of it: I'm all for the rehabilitation and reintroduction of virtuals, and applying the expiration date suggestion to those.

Link to comment
Interesting idea (expiring caches).

If someone were forced to archive their caches upon expiration, it would only create geolitter.

 

But thinking of it: I'm all for the rehabilitation and reintroduction of virtuals, and applying the expiration date suggestion to those.

Not really.

 

Cache owners would ultimately remove their to be expired caches within a reasonable amount of time (3-4 months - during this time the cache should be suspended). If the cache owner has not removed the cache, let the a cacher community take possesion/scavenge the cache and it's content so that it can be reused or discarded.

Edited by adampierson
Link to comment
Interesting idea (expiring caches).

If someone were forced to archive their caches upon expiration, it would only create geolitter.

 

But thinking of it: I'm all for the rehabilitation and reintroduction of virtuals, and applying the expiration date suggestion to those.

Not really.

 

Cache owners would ultimately remove their to be expired caches within a reasonable amount of time (3-4 months - during this time the cache should be suspended). If the cache owner has not removed the cache, let the a cacher community take possesion/scavenge the cache and it's content so that it can be reused or discarded.

Now THAT would be an intrusive interference.

Link to comment

When I'm out hunting, I don't care whose caches I'm looking for within a given area. One guy out here in So Calif placed 24 caches every .15 miles or so along a single trail--doing the whole trail was one of the best days of caching I've ever had, one which I never would have been able to enjoy had the proposed rule been in effect.

 

When I'm placing caches, I don't cry foul if someone else has already "claimed" a particular area--I find another place to put them. It's not that hard...

Link to comment
What if the cache is crosslisted?

I'm stunned, I never thought of that and its a great point. I knew their would be a problem with it. Having it expire on GC.com would work but you couldn't send a rescue mission after it. The state of Michigan has a organized cache rescue, I don't know how they handle the cross posted issue. They automatically add it to a rescue list when it gets archived unless it has a note that the cache owner retrieved it. They then give points to people that rescue them which to me just encourages people to go places where a cache may have been archived for a valid reason. In that case it would be better to leave the trash than to cause further harm to the area searching for something that may not be there.

 

Another problem would be what if someone else used the same spot to place a new cache when the old one expired? If that were allowed you wouldn't be able to prevent the origanel owner from creating a new cache with the same coordinates. I don't see a easy way to prevent that from happening or if it should be prevented.

 

Thats why I said I wasn't proposing it as a rule change just an idea. As an idea I think its got more holes than the .5 mile rule. The .5 rule could be implemented but I don't see the benefit since the area could get saturated just as easily or in cache poor areas it could prevent caches from being placed.

 

Honestly I don't know how the state of Michigan is going to enforce its 12 month rule. Are they going to actively check the caches and hunt out the ones in violation? But thats a whole different discussion.

Link to comment

 

Rule Change – No cacher may hide a cache with 0.5 miles of any other cache that he/she/they own. Exceptions would include various legs of a multi-cache.

 

In addition to the opinion of other cachers I would like to hear the opinion of the approvers. Would this rule create any hardships for them?

Geeshe you rule changers.

 

Leave the game alone. It's just fine. Go elect a President that will take care of you the rest of your life but please let me just enjoy the game as it is now.

Link to comment

A question for those who do not want any more rules or regulations.

 

In my home state of Pennsylvania the DCNR (Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) regulates the caches in State Parks and Forests. This is true in several other states, with more to follow.

 

QUESTION – Is it better to have an outside agency regulate caching or to have GC.com do its own police work?

Link to comment
A question for those who do not want any more rules or regulations.

 

In my home state of Pennsylvania the DCNR (Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) regulates the caches in State Parks and Forests. This is true in several other states, with more to follow.

 

QUESTION – Is it better to have an outside agency regulate caching or to have GC.com do its own police work?

Nice leap there. It's either go to your new rules or we'll be regulated by outside forces? You claim that if we don't go to .5 miles we'll lose control?

 

To quote my daddy, you're borrowing problems that don't exist.

 

I'd let it go.

Link to comment
Go elect a President that will take care of you the rest of your life

Yeah, let's elect a REAL small-government president who doesn't waste billions of tax payer's dollars to search for non-existing WMDs, and meddles in the afairs of other nations and in the private affairs of US citizens. I'm all for small government and few rules.

 

So far for demagoguery.

 

Back to the subject, Lazyboy: If you think that no change will mean that the game will stay as it is now, then you'll be in for a surprise.

Link to comment
Go elect a President that will take care of you the rest of your life

Yeah, let's elect a REAL small-government president who doesn't waste billions of tax payer's dollars to search for non-existing WMDs, and meddles in the afairs of other nations and in the private affairs of US citizens. I'm all for small government and few rules.

 

So far for demagoguery.

 

Back to the subject, Lazyboy: If you think that no change will mean that the game will stay as it is now, then you'll be in for a surprise.

So just how will this .5 mile rule keep things the same? How will it honestly help?

 

I get surprised all the time, but never on the forums. Some things always stay the same.

Link to comment
I think this would be hardly a problem on the approvers, and no UTM is needed. All an approver needs to do is what s/he does anyway: click on the 'nearby caches' link on the page, and check the few top caches to see whether one of them is owned by the same person.

No, it wouldn't be that simple. When you create a cache page, you can use a different name than your profile name. It's that name, not the true profile name, which shows up in the search list.

 

All this rule would do is encourage people to use aliases when creating caches.

Few people would do that, because people want credit for their hides. If the credit goes to a different name, why would they bother?

Besides, it's against the rules, for some reason (although I don't know why).

 

If someone wants to circumvent such a 0.5 mile per hider rule by hiding under a different name, I say let them.

You obviously don't seem to understand how it works. When you create a cache page, there is a place to enter the owner's name. If you leave it blank, it will default to the profile name of the person creating the page. Or you can enter something else, if you wish. This is not against the rules (unless you try to pretend to be another cacher). It IS counted as a hide on their account. The only difference is that a different name shows up on the cache page. When you click the profile link, you're taken to the true owner's profile page.

Edited by Prime Suspect
Link to comment
Go elect a President that will take care of you the rest of your life

Yeah, let's elect a REAL small-government president who doesn't waste billions of tax payer's dollars to search for non-existing WMDs, and meddles in the afairs of other nations and in the private affairs of US citizens. I'm all for small government and few rules.

 

So far for demagoguery.

 

Back to the subject, Lazyboy: If you think that no change will mean that the game will stay as it is now, then you'll be in for a surprise.

So just how will this .5 mile rule keep things the same? How will it honestly help?

 

I get surprised all the time, but never on the forums. Some things always stay the same.

I never said it would. <_<

 

I don't think it is possible to keep the game the same, over time.

 

The question is where you want the game to go to, and *which* rules would get you there. Reducing this to a question of more rules vs. less rules is utterly simplistic.

 

And indeed, if you'll oversimplify things to stupid black/white issues, and as long as other people will bite, there won't be anything new or surprising in the forums. You're absolutely right about that.

 

<rest of rant deleted> :ph34r:

Link to comment
A question for those who do not want any more rules or regulations.

 

In my home state of Pennsylvania the DCNR (Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) regulates the caches in State Parks and Forests. This is true in several other states, with more to follow.

 

QUESTION – Is it better to have an outside agency regulate caching or to have GC.com do its own police work?

Let's not get over dramatic here.

 

Just because PA's DCNR regulates certain aspects of geocaching on their land doesn't mean GC.COM will loose control of the rules. If you think PA DCNR can make the rules to govern geocaching outside of their juristiction, then you better get ahold of a civics book to see how this really works.

 

This hobby, just like any other hobby, is subject to the laws statues set by where the cache resides. There is no need for the rules to change just to abide the laws set by state of PA.

 

Is this gripe over the .5 mi rule you suggested?

Link to comment
Few people would do that, because people want credit for their hides. If the credit goes to a different name, why would they bother?

Besides, it's against the rules, for some reason (although I don't know why).

 

If someone wants to circumvent such a 0.5 mile per hider rule by hiding under a different name, I say let them.

You don't seem to understand how it work. It IS counted as a hide on their account. The only difference is that a different name shows up on the cache page. When you click the profile link, you're taken to the true owner's profile page.

You're right. I hadn't thought of that.

(Hey, when I'm wrong I admit it!)

 

But wouldn't be a simple fix to have the name of a hider show up as

 

Shunra (The Shunra Team + Paul)

 

instead of the current

 

The Shunra Team + Paul

 

for instance?

Link to comment
This is from a complaint I heard from a tadpole cacher recently. It is not a new complaint, I first heard it two years ago, but at that time it was less significant.

 

The Complaint – I would love to place a cache in X Park, but Cacher SO-AND-SO has five of them there only a little over 0.1 mile apart. He/She/They have dominated the park, so no one else may have the fun of hiding a cache there.

 

Rule Change – No cacher may hide a cache with 0.5 miles of any other cache that he/she/they own. Exceptions would include various legs of a multi-cache.

 

In addition to the opinion of other cachers I would like to hear the opinion of the approvers. Would this rule create any hardships for them?

Ok so 3 cachers fill a area to saturation and along comes newbie cacher. Then what? Do you change the rule again?

Link to comment
...Let's not get over dramatic here.

 

Just because PA's DCNR regulates certain aspects of geocaching on their land doesn't mean GC.COM will loose control of the rules. If you think PA DCNR can make the rules to govern geocaching outside of their juristiction, then you better get ahold of a civics book to see how this really works.

 

This hobby, just like any other hobby, is subject to the laws statues set by where the cache resides. There is no need for the rules to change just to abide the laws set by state of PA....

Geocaching should be more or less the same no matter where you go to find a cache. Every time a park makes it's own rules instead of borrowing a suggested set of rules from the appropriate cache organization that's one more set of rules that geocachers need to live by. No big deal at the local level but across a state? It can get cumbersom if ever podunk town in Idaho has it's own rules. Plus a listing site such as GC or Navicache is also subject to those rules and that makes it worse still.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...