Jump to content

New Geocachers


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I have noticed in the Harrogate/Leeds area, there has been a large increase In the number of cachers since Christmas which is welcome, as we could all do with new caches, HOWEVER

 

There has also been a number of bad caches appearing. In some cases these new cachers, place a box without even finding one first !

 

How do they know what geo-caching is about?

 

Cornwood Walk is atypical example of this.... just read the notes.....

 

I also notice this morning that Ba Tat Box has also appeared by a new cacher, although to date this is not in the same league as Cornwood Walk

 

These people seem to log on, place a box, and disappear as fast, leaving geo-trash, when problems occur.

 

I would like to propose that all new placements be only approved, once the cacher has logged up a certain number of finds e.g. 10

 

Any ideas..... ?

Link to comment

I can certainly concur with Harrogate Hunters with regard to Cornwood Walk.

 

The cache owner became a member a couple of days before his cache was approved and he hasn't even logged on to the website since April! :(:(

 

He has never logged a "find" of his own either! :huh:

Edited by Leoness
Link to comment
A good case for using the "Needs Archived" choice.

 

I set out to be FTF on Cornwood Walk, the day after it came online. The co-ords provided were for a place over half a mile away from the actual cache and the hint was exaggerated to say the least and of no help at all. I used the "needs archived" facility and, indeed, it was archived within the first week, without anyone having found it. Only when the co-ords were corrected (provided by someone who had managed to find the cache) was it unarchived.

Link to comment

I agree 10 or so finds before placing a cache. Shows a commitment to the sport and a higher likelehood of the cache being maintained and if the cache shown above is read carefully possesion of a GPS?. I have seen a lot of names appear and disapear as active cachers after 3 or so caches. Still doesn't guarantee a good cache but does give a degree of certainty.

Link to comment

I agree too. I wanted to place my first cache after doing two caches. I went and bought a box and collected some goodies to go in it. However over three months later I still haven't placed it because I have found that where I would have put it is wholly unsuitable. I have learned a lot since and still only have 25 finds.

 

I would recommend 10+ finds before allowing placement.

 

The Hokesters...

Link to comment

If "holiday caches" are outlawed on presumed grounds of lack of maintainability, surely there needs to be some sort of reassurance that a novice cacher will be willing to maintain their caches?

 

It's simply not fair to assume that someone with hundreds of finds and caches won't make arrangements for maintenance when it is assumed that someone who has just registered will maintain their local ones!

 

Bob Aldridge

(who hasn't placed a cache yet, even after 175 finds...)

Edited by Belplasca
Link to comment

As far as the two caches mentioned, I reviewed them both. In the case of Corwood Walk, if there's a problem (and there certainly seems to be) then as Slytherin says, a "Needs Archived" note will bring it to my attention (as would a quick e-mail). Now I know about the situation I'll look into it.

 

Ba Tat Box is a newish cache which I released after a friendly and positive e-mail conversation with the cacher. I'm not aware of any problems with it.

 

"Holiday" caches are not allowed becasue of the difficulty/impossibility of maintenance as Belplasca says. This is clearly laid out in the guidelines.

 

However there is NOTHING in the guidelines that specifies how many caches you should have found before being allowed to place one. This is a topic which has been discussed many times before and no doubt will be debated again in the future.

 

When reviewing caches one of the things I look at is the owner's stats. Where I see a relatively new cacher placing his/her first cache I usually place it on my watch list so I can keep an eye on it once it's been released. What I wouldn't want to get involved in when reviewing new caches is using a sujective judgement to decide whether a cache is a "good" one or not. If it meets the guidelines it gets approved. Sure, I see caches I think "this looks a bit lame" but I'll still release it.

 

I'd also like to say that I've enjoyed plenty of first time caches so generalising about the subject can be very risky.

 

All I'd say is, if you come across a "dodgy" cache PLEASE let me (or Eckington when he comes back from holiday) know about it. We'll do our best to sort it out.

 

Ta.

Link to comment

I would agree with Lactodorum on the point that it's not realistic to have a 'limit' on caches found in order to be allowed to place caches. I would give myself as an example...

 

I had found several geocaches with a friend who introduced me to geocaching. After a number of finds which I never logged as I was accompanying another cacher I then registered on gc.com and logged several finds on my own, or with friends. After a while I thought that I would plant my own - a rather ambitious multicache... and I made all the mistakes!

 

From a wrong datum, to tree cover, to a lack of hints, to bad hiding places, to a last leg which had a road leading to it (which I knew), but which- following your GPS - would lead you right across a PGA Golf Course. And the main (final) cache was really visible and obvious - and was then finally nicked.

 

And I thought I knew it all - so I disabled the cache and eventually got back to reinstating it - but as a less ambitious regular cache.

 

There were notes and DNF's posted - many from tourists who were disappointed, and this was disappointing for me as the owner - as I really wanted people to find the cache. But I learned from my mistakes.

 

What I am trying to say is that it's one thing to have 100+ finds and then getting up on your high horse when something does not live up to your expectations and standards, but it's another thing to be starting out and not having the knowledge and know-how of a seasoned cacher.

 

There really is far too much of an 'attitude' displayed to new cachers. Yes, of course, if a cache is not being maintained, then post a reviewer note - but maybe if it's an isolated thing then perhaps mail the person with an offer of help, or a recommendation for a better cache box. Everyone should look back at their first cache - or a cache that went wrong - and see if they had teething problems.

 

I would think that most people/cachers would respond to a friendly e-mail - but there are those who just don't respond - or who just placed a cache as a novelty and then forgot about it. But there's nothing that can be done about that, except give feedback to the admins.

 

Right - back to work...

No - back to the weekend...

I'm outta here! :P

Link to comment

Even having found 80+ caches I still view myself as a newbie...and although I have bought umpteem containers ... I hesitate to place my first cache.

 

I would have thought that some experience of geocaching was a reasonable request to anyone before placing their first cache.

 

Just thought I would add my twopence worth :P

 

Ullium.

Link to comment

My viewpoint:

 

Personally I'd found only five caches - all without the luxury of a GPSr - before I hid my first. I was very pleased and surprised/flattered to see it got a maximum five stars on Dan Wilson's well regarded BucksCaching.co.uk web site. My point is a good cache is a good cache and a bad cache is a bad cache, regardless if the planter has found none or a thousand. I have done several 'weaker' caches by relative newbies and politely noted that they couldn't come highly recommended in my log. I'd only bother to inform The Powers That Be if the cache was in a clearly iffy location, dangerous, wildly inaccurate co-ord-wise or otherwise questionable. What's dull (or horrible and smelly, thinking of a cache I did near Oxford recently!) to one person might be an interesting location to another so I'd not suggest a cache is archived for that reason. If a cache needs a clue but doesn't have one on the page, maybe I'd leave a little pointer in my log?

 

Ultimately, a bad cache will get bad logs and others just won't come and do it. The quality is self-policing.

 

SP :D

 

P.S. The only *really* bad feedback I've ever had on my caches has been from people who'd not placed their own at the time. Read into that what you will... :P

Link to comment
I also notice this morning that Ba Tat Box has also appeared by a new cacher, although to date this is not in the same league as Cornwood Walk

Been here today, cache is well hidden, in a good box and generally nice. I noticed that the cache was hidden by a noobie as well. The REASON I noticed was that the cache was unavailable on wednesday night and stuck out like a sore thumb in GSAK. By Thursday evening Two finds had been logged.

 

The cache doesn't look to me like the work of someone with no finds, must be a pseudonym.

Link to comment

Ouch!

No "one solution fits all here" I guess ....

and in reality, its an impossible task to approve a cache without visiting it

 

Maybe , just maybe, it could be resolved if "1st" caches , irrespective of how many the placer had found, were "validated" by a local cacher ...just a thought ...ouch ! this thinking hurts!

 

And despite the "guidelines" I'm sure the Gruesome Twosome could co-opt someone ...

ps I volunteer for postcode KA....

 

( that should boost my FTF's)

Link to comment

I'm ashamed to admit I brought a travel bug first, then placed my own cache, then found one (all without a handheld GPS- we used a dodgy one in the car to get the co-ordinates for the hide)!

I've archived the first cache now though, as it *was* rubbish!

MarcB

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...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...