How Many Caches Can One Person Maintain?

[Midnight Rider]

Ok, I have to admit that Im a bit in the dark on this issue. If you are going to hide a cache, it becomes your responsibility to maintain it as I understand it. This means periodical visits to ensure it's still there, is clean, etc. Additionally, this website is really, really good about informing you of when you might need to take a look at your caches to determine if attention is needed (DNF). How can anyone effectively maintain over a hundred caches and have time for other things like breathing, eating and general survival?

 

When is too much, too much?

[+briansnat]

Some people can't maintain one cache. Others have no problem maintaining dozens. Personally, I have 77 curently active caches (102 total) and do a pretty good job of responding to reported problems. I'm usually there in under 5 days to address whatever has been reported.

 

I'm able to maintain the caches becase I place most of them in spots that I frequent for one reason or another. I usually put them fairly close to where I live, or in areas that I like to hike, or in places where I do trail work.

 

Most of my caches involve hikes of a mile or more and I enjoy hiking, so maint visits for me are great reason to get out and go for a hike. My wife and I hike 1 or 2 days a week, so when we're looking for a place to go hiking our choice will often revolve around a cache that I want to check on.

 

Also, being that I'm a parks volunteer, I know of "secret" shortcuts to many of my caches and have access to certain roads that are off limits to the public. Because of this, if I'm short on time I can sometimes drive to within a short distance of many of my caches.

Edited November 8, 2004 by briansnat

[Midnight Rider]

Wow... seems like it would be very time consuming to maintain them given the amount of issues that can occur. The reason I ask is that I went to a cache the other day and DNF. I simply want to know if its still an active cache. Ive watched the cache page and the log..nobody has posted since me. I realize this might not mean much, but Im just curious as to whether or not I failed to find it or if it simply wasnt there to find.

[+Mopar]

The quality of the cache and the placement is a factor too.

A well-hidden ammo can cache 2 miles from parking and 150ft off the trail will most likely go years without requiring any maintaining, whereas a gladware container tossed under a bush 5ft off the trail in a suburban park may need to be checked monthly.

[+briansnat]

Wow... seems like it would be very time consuming to maintain them given the amount of issues that can occur

 

I mostly use ammo boxes and hide them well off the beaten path, so common problems like wet caches and muggelization (hey, did I coin a word?) are rarely an issue for my caches.

 

But yes, a lot of the time I could be out geocaching is instead devoted to cache maintenance, which is probably why I have so few finds considering how long I've been at this sport.

Edited November 8, 2004 by briansnat

[+Team GPSaxophone]

But yes, a lot of the time I could be out geocaching is instead devoted to cache maintenance, which is probably why I have so few finds considering how long I've been at this sport.

I wonder if your post count is another contributing factor

 

While ultimate maintenance responsibility falls on the cache owner, many cachers will help caches they find by replacing logbooks, plastic bags, pencils, etc.

[+Salvelinus]

I too shake my head at some cachers with 200, 300 and 400 hides. Personally, I could probably handle about 15 caches as long as they were relatively nearby, placed as not to require maintence checking up on every two weeks or so, and not a mini M&M (or similar) container. Currently I have 9, and when 4 went down because of the recent flooding, it was a real scramble to get them up and running again.

 

I notice that many of the caches whos owners have hundreds of hides usually stay active even after numerous logs are posted saying things are going bad. This is my biggest pet peeve. Knowing your cache is having problems and doing nothing about it. At least temporarily archive it until you can fix it up!!!

 

I personally think there should be a rule/guideline that no new caches will be approved when that person has caches that are temporarily archived becuase of maintence issues. I actually feel guitly about going out and finding any caches when I know I have caches that are archived because of maintence issues. Maybe this idea would bog down the approvers too much, but, when I was growing up, I was never allowed to go play until my chores were done.

 

Salvelinus

 

edit: Semantics

Edited November 8, 2004 by Salvelinus

[+briansnat]

I wonder if your post count is another contributing factor

 

Don't think so because I don't hunt caches late at night, early in the morning or while at work when I do most of my posting.

 

I personally think there should be a rule/guideline that no new caches will be approved when that person has caches that are temporarily archived becuase of maintence issues

 

This is a very good idea. I think some approvers already do it.

Edited November 8, 2004 by briansnat

[+vree]

when I was growing up, I was never allowed to go play until my chores were done.

So true!

 

But it's not always about the number of hides. I don't want to disparage anyone, but there is a local cacher who has two hides. Two. One of them hasn't been found since May 15th. My DNF was the 4th logged. Because I couldn't find it and it hadn't been found in such a long time, I took a cacher who had been to this cache previously and she verified that it was, in fact, missing.

I emailed a picture of the cache site sans cache container and he still hasn't done anything about it and it's been over a month. His last visit to GC.com was yesterday, so he's still active with caching. Should I try contacting the cache owner again or post a "should be archived?"

 

That's just owner neglect which has nothing to do with numbers. We have another local cacher who has 24 hides who keeps them well maintained, another with 52 who doesn't acknowledge when people write logs that say the cache container is damaged, muggled, or wet inside. It's all over the board and I don't think lack of cache maintenance absolutely correlates with the number of hides, just the level of commitment of the placer.

[+fly46]

I too shake my head at some cachers with 200, 300 and 400 hides. Personally, I could probably handle about 15 caches as long as they were relatively nearby, placed as not to require maintence checking up on every two weeks or so, and not a mini M&M (or similar) container. Currently I have 9, and when 4 went down because of the recent flooding, it was a real scramble to get them up and running again.

Yes, but the difference is that you had to totally replace 4 caches, not just go to the spot and see if they were there. And you had to do it all at once.

 

Most cache maintenance is very simple. A cacher goes to the location, sees that it needs baggies, replaces them. You don't have to. The log book gets wet, they leave something temporary until you can go back to it.

 

I'll use JoGPS as an example since he has 200 cache hides (note, some are archived, some are events)... He caches on the weekends. The evenings after work are reserved for if he has to go do maintenance.

 

Not only that, here in cacheville, we're a pretty tight knit group of people, so if we see problems with something, we help each other out.

 

 

Also, let's use briansnat for an example. He has 77 active caches. Even if he has problems with 10% of those (which I think is probably the norm), that means that while there are problems with 7 caches, the other 70 are running smoothly and he's just getting emails every now and then saying that someone has found the cache.

 

I have 9 active caches. I haven't had to do maintenance on any of mine in more than a month.

 

 

Vree - if he hasn't responded, try him one more time just in case he didn't get the email. Then if he still doesn't respond, post a SBA.

[+planetrobert]

I personally think there should be a rule/guideline that no new caches will be approved when that person has caches that are temporarily archived becuase of maintence issues.

disabled caches because of fire season, snow, temporary dangers, should not count against a person, only maintance related issues...

 

back OT: totaly depends on the user.

[+Team Perks]

It also depends on the TYPE of hides. Micros tend to require more work to replace log sheets, for instance. An ammo can in your local urban park might not last too long either.

 

I'm an adherent to caching Darwinism: If a cache turns out to be high-maintenance, I will get tired of taking care of it and remove it myself after too many maintenance trips.

 

So, I've had some that didn't turn out to be as quality containers, or as good hiding locations, as I've thought. I much prefer the kind of cache that can last. That allows me to not have to spend much time worrying about how my active caches are doing.

[+SixDogTeam]

How can anyone effectively maintain over a hundred caches

Your question can be answered in a variety of ways. There are so many variables, that I don't think you can make any generalizations...A hundred is possible tho, especially if you have help from your finders...

[+Nurse Dave]

I'm usually there in under 5 days to address whatever has been reported.

Wow, that would be nice. Some of the big number hiders around here keep racking up finds while they have logs on caches stating over and over that the log is wet or full or DNFs in a row. It does depend on the person and if they are willing to put time into keeping their caches in good shape or not. I agree if people have disabled caches they shouldn't be able to hide any more, but maybe there needs to be a "seasonal disabled" button for people with fire season, snow issues and such. I feel it's pretty selfish to leave caches unmainted while spending time hinding or finding others.

[+Ambrosia]

Wow... seems like it would be very time consuming to maintain them given the amount of issues that can occur. The reason I ask is that I went to a cache the other day and DNF. I simply want to know if its still an active cache. Ive watched the cache page and the log..nobody has posted since me. I realize this might not mean much, but Im just curious as to whether or not I failed to find it or if it simply wasnt there to find.

If I have a cache with just one or two DNF's, especially if that cache has had periodic DNF's, I'll usually wait and see. I've had too many times as a cache owner that I've gone out of my way to check a cache because I had one or two people DNF and say that it must not be there, only for me to check it and find that it's fine. So I usually wait a little and see, unless I'm going by the cache and it's not out of my way to glance at it.

 

In this case, you'll probably just have to watch it for a bit. The owner is probably not going to do anything after just one DNF. Put the cache on your watchlist and see what the next couple of people say.

 

Also, it seems that when you own caches, things come in fits and starts, which can be bad. I can go for months and months with no problems, and then it can happen all at once. Or it can be spread out over time. I'm just coming off of a time where two caches that I'm helping to maintain had to be replaced, two of my own had to be replaced (one is still about to be replaced), one of them had to be checked again and be fixed after it was placed, and I'm looking into adopting a local cache that is having owner issues. Whew! All at once. But then, it's been pretty quiet for the last year.

[+Salvelinus]

Yes, but the difference is that you had to totally replace 4 caches, not just go to the spot and see if they were there.  And you had to do it all at once. 

 

Most cache maintenance is very simple.  A cacher goes to the location, sees that it needs baggies, replaces them.  You don't have to.  The log book gets wet, they leave something temporary until you can go back to it. 

 

I'll use JoGPS as an example since he has 200 cache hides (note, some are archived, some are events)...  He caches on the weekends.  The evenings after work are reserved for if he has to go do maintenance. 

 

Not only that, here in cacheville, we're a pretty tight knit group of people, so if we see problems with something, we help each other out. 

 

 

Also, let's use briansnat for an example.  He has 77 active caches.  Even if he has problems with 10% of those (which I think is probably the norm), that means that while there are problems with 7 caches, the other 70 are running smoothly and he's just getting emails every now and then saying that someone has found the cache. 

 

I have 9 active caches.  I haven't had to do maintenance on any of mine in more than a month.

 

 

Vree - if he hasn't responded, try him one more time just in case he didn't get the email.  Then if he still doesn't respond, post a SBA.

Actually, I personally checked all of my active caches except 1 following the floods. One of my caches is a Multi covering 70 miles with nine stages. Four needed replaced and 2 needed simple maintence.

 

Frankly, I don't care whether someone has 2 or 2000 hides. My idea was that If a cacher has caches that need maintence and they are still actively caching, they should not get any new ones approved until they properly maintain the ones they have.

 

Yeah, we help each other out around here too.. But a leaky cache will still leak if not replaced with a better container.

 

Additionally, its been my experience, with some exceptions, that low hide count cachers that have maintenance issues, are usually cachers that have fallen out of the game...but thats a seperate issue.

 

Salvelinus

[+Salvelinus]

I'm an adherent to caching Darwinism: If a cache turns out to be high-maintenance, I will get tired of taking care of it and remove it myself after too many maintenance trips.

This is what should happen. But around here they tend to stay active and become soggy junk.

 

Salvelinus

[+Salvelinus]

I'm usually there in under 5 days to address whatever has been reported.

Wow, that would be nice. Some of the big number hiders around here keep racking up finds while they have logs on caches stating over and over that the log is wet or full or DNFs in a row. It does depend on the person and if they are willing to put time into keeping their caches in good shape or not. I agree if people have disabled caches they shouldn't be able to hide any more, but maybe there needs to be a "seasonal disabled" button for people with fire season, snow issues and such. I feel it's pretty selfish to leave caches unmainted while spending time hinding or finding others.

Exactly my point!

 

I have temp archived caches for non-maintence reasons and a note on the cache page or a quick e-mail to my Approver usually takes care of it.

 

Salvelinus

[Midnight Rider]

Great info here everyone, thanks!

 

Its kind of funny because Im thinking about how to do my first hide and the first thing that came to mind was how to maintain it. I dont want it be a burden to me or cachers that might go to find it. If they want to help me maintain it, like I did day one with caches I found, then thats great too, but its certainly not expected although its appreciated. :-)

[+briansnat]

Great info here everyone, thanks!

 

Its kind of funny because Im thinking about how to do my first hide and the first thing that came to mind was how to maintain it.  I dont want it be a burden to me or cachers that might go to find it.  If they want to help me maintain it, like I did day one with caches I found, then thats great too, but its certainly not expected although its appreciated. :-)

While regular maintenance visits are nice, the more important thing is to be able to promptly respond to problems.

 

It is a good idea to periodically visit your cache and the more frequently its found, the more frequent your visits should be. As Mopar mentioned earlier, an ammo box in a remote area that gets 4-5 finds a year generally doesn't require much in the way of maintenance. A cache in a popular park that gets 4-5 finds a week will probably need frequent visits.

 

As I mentioned earlier there are few things you can do to cut down on on the number of visits you will need. First, stock your cache well so you don't have to go back as often to re-seed it with tradeables. Next, use a quality container like an ammo box, so moisture and cracked containers aren't issues. Finally, place it far enough off the beaten path where it's very unlikely to be accidently discovered and where searchers are not likely to be observed.