Cache Placing Limitations?

[+Yerocrg]

In our area there are so few new caches being hidden that if we must have cache limits I say every cacher is required to hide 10 new caches.

Place a drive-by breeder cache

[+New England n00b]

Well now, lets see if I understand the concept of drive by caches - You get out of your car and walk a short distance, if at all, to the cache. With very many of these, I can see an overpopulation problem.

 

Given that the guidelines specifically state caches not be closer than 528 feet, and if all the drive-by-able places are taken, then does that not leave 528 (minimum) feet into the woods for you to place that better cache?

 

EDIT: Get crackin'!

Edited December 24, 2004 by New England n00b

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

What is a lame cache? As they say - "one mans trash is anothers treasure". I hope that people would be honest in the comments about the caches I place. While some are in easy locations, I try to theme them or take people on a walk -- however, maybe they are lame? I don't think so, but maybe they are.

 

My concern is in limiting the amount of caches that someone can place. If someone does a good job, this limit will punish them.

[+briansnat]

What is a lame cache? As they say - "one mans trash is anothers treasure"

 

I'd have to say a leaky Gladware container with a wet, moldy log book, filled with rusty key rings that is hidden under a rotting piece of plywood in a feces and debris strewn lot, next to a homeless encampment would fit that category.

 

Of course there is a segment of the population who are thankful for any opportunity to log a smiley and would not find that to be lame, but I'd bet the vast majority of geocachers would.

Edited December 24, 2004 by briansnat

[+horsegeeks]

What is a lame cache? As they say - "one mans trash is anothers treasure"

 

I'd have to say a leaky Gladware container with a wet, moldy log book, filled with rusty key rings that is hidden under a rotting piece of plywood in a feces and debris strewn lot, next to a homeless encampment would fit that category.

 

Of course there is a segment of the population who are thankful for any opportunity to log a smiley and would not find that to be lame, but I'd bet the vast majority of geocachers would.

With that description a nice micro at the edge of the woods where that mess is sounds like it would be in order. A bison tube would be nice and dry with a dry log.

[+ibycus]

One extra 'rule' that I would be for would be for people to have to have a certain number of finds before they are allowed to hide a cache. After all, if you've never found a cache, how can you truthfully expect to know what to hide? This would obviously have to be somewhat flexible though, to accomodate areas with few/no caches.

A while back we had a guy go out who had never found a cache decide to hide one. It seems the guy hid a plastic bag full of cache pages at the site and nothing else. His profile says he was around July 6th to August 20th, and his one and only hide was on July 7th... You can see his one and only hide at GCJY3M. It's a shame really? He might have turned out to be a great cacher, but with the trashing his cache got (and frankly deserved), its not surprising he didn't stick around. (Or maybe he is around under a new name....) If he'd had more experience, I can't imagine that he ever would have hidden the way he did.

[+briansnat]

One extra 'rule' that I would be for would be for people to have to have a certain number of finds before they are allowed to hide a cache. After all, if you've never found a cache, how can you truthfully expect to know what to hide?

 

I totally disagree with this. There are veteran geocachers out there who place terrible caches and some people with no, or few finds who place excellent caches. Also, people tend to hide the kind of caches they find. That's why some regions have little more than lame lamp post micros, while other areas have predominantly regular caches in interesting areas. Sometimes its better if a newbie comes along and hides a cache or two without first being influnced by the other caches in the area. They could well have something unique to contribute.

 

Personally, I placed my first cache after only one find and 3 years later it compares favorably to any of my subsequent caches, or any other cache in the area for that matter. The only thing I've learned subsequently was that I didn't have to put so much thought into the container, contents and location.

 

It also wouldn't work in areas with few caches, because if you need a certain number of finds, there is no easy way to reach that number

Edited December 24, 2004 by briansnat

[+Team Perks]

One extra 'rule' that I would be for would be for people to have to have a certain number of finds before they are allowed to hide a cache. After all, if you've never found a cache, how can you truthfully expect to know what to hide? This would obviously have to be somewhat flexible though, to accomodate areas with few/no caches.

A while back we had a guy go out who had never found a cache decide to hide one. It seems the guy hid a plastic bag full of cache pages at the site and nothing else. His profile says he was around July 6th to August 20th, and his one and only hide was on July 7th... You can see his one and only hide at GCJY3M. It's a shame really? He might have turned out to be a great cacher, but with the trashing his cache got (and frankly deserved), its not surprising he didn't stick around. (Or maybe he is around under a new name....) If he'd had more experience, I can't imagine that he ever would have hidden the way he did.

So how many is "enough"? Frankly, I think peoples' caching skills are too variable to come up with a magic number.

 

And bear in mind that not everyone logs their finds online. I'm sure certain people would not be happy to discover they were suddenly disqualified from placing new caches because they have 0 logged finds...or maybe just 1 logged find...

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Personally, I do not think there is a magical number we can use to determine if someone should be allowed to place caches or the number of caches they should be able to place. A rule just won't solve what I see as the problem described in the post.

 

What would help?

 

I like the idea of a rating system for finders. This would be similar to the book rating systems at sites like Amazon and Audible. It would allow you to see what others think and also provide a feedback tool for the cache placer. This would allow people to compete for placing the best, most interesting and well-recieved cahce! 5-star cacher! I'd really like to know what people think about the caches I have placed.

 

Another idea I like is to hold people accountable for cache maintenance. When you place a cache, I notice that you agree to maintain it. I think this is important to avoid useless litter. How to actually do this is beyond my feable mind to figure out. Thoughts?

 

In my short caching life, I have placed about 7 caches. They are all in various containers (mostly good-quality tupperware-type stuff that seems to be holding up very well). They are pretty "standard", but were also part of a learning process for some more involved caches that I am creating for spring. (the 7 Seas Cache is in the works!)

 

Without this learning, would not have known that a certain type of container was subject to cracking, or that caches placed on the ground get stepped on and may crack. (both fixed through cache maintenace!)

[+Kai Team]

An alternative to more rules is to promote voluntary guidelines that educate new and experienced cachers alike (as do posts in the forums, like this one - if I didn't already know better, I'd be more thoughtful about the next cache I hide after reading this thread!).

 

Community norms and the desire to "fit in" are more powerful than a thousand rules. The desire to fit in is part of human nature - just look at how many times people break laws or rules, for better or for worse, under the influence of their peers. That's also why modeling works - place the types of caches you'd like to find, and others will learn by your example.

 

As geocaching grows, the challenge is in communicating a positive set of norms before it gets taken over by another, less desirable set of norms. For one effort in that regard, see: The Geocachers' Code

 

Promote the code!

[thereitis]

all this talk and no action.

[+ATV Trail Girl]

Ahhhh....my first post. I am no longer a lurker!!! Three months ago I found my first cache. That was the day that I also began planning for my first hide. Today, 70 finds later I am still seeking that perfect location for the three caches that I have ready to go. I have searched the forums. I have read the books and I have asked other cachers but have not been able to locate a list anywhere that suggests what a nicely stocked cache might contain. What are the cool trading items??? I have decided that the best thing to fill MY caches with is something that I would like to find myself.

 

I have been to wonderful caches that have taken me to breath taking views and I have been to a few caches that just added to my numbers. I choose to learn from them both. I know that I want my containers to be proper in size and labeled correctly. I would like my log book to be unique. I want good quailty trade items in my cache that will appeal to a variety of people and I want them located in cleverly hidden places.

 

I do not think that you need to limit the number of caches that a person has, or judge them how much merrit you think they have. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

I think that even newbies like myself, can tell the difference between a really great cache and one that is not.

 

Lets not discourage people from the sport. Lets find a place on the site to give suggestions!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Geocaching is growing. With growth comes diversity, but also, paradoxically, comes uniformity.

 

Can you say WalMart, McDonalds, Chevrolet? These icons to bland sameness have pushed all thoughts of quality and difference out of the American retail mindset.

 

Any retailer that seeks quality, uniqueness, fresh ideas, has a tough row to hoe or has already been killed off.

 

Parking lot light-pole micros are the WalMart of geocaching, and, like the stores, appear to be here to stay.

 

People like the above-named icons because they are cheap, easy, ubiquitous and the same everywhere you go.

 

Placing and chasing high-quality, expensive and/or difficult caches is like shopping Nieman-Marcus instead of WalMart - it will be relegated to the few.

[+SixDogTeam]

Wal*Mart is sucessful because it gave people what they WANT-- and did it better than anybody else--Do your hated lamp post caches go unfound?--or do they attract a lot of cachers? The hobby is doing just fine without elitist cache cops telling cachers what to do--The more caches the merrier!

[+horsegeeks]

Wal*Mart is sucessful because it gave people what they WANT-- and did it better than anybody else--Do your hated lamp post caches go unfound?--or do they attract a lot of cachers? The hobby is doing just fine without elitist cache cops telling cachers what to do--The more caches the merrier!

That was a great post. Like Wal-Mart and shopping, you can do any kind of caching you want. Either shop at Wal-Mart or Sears or Neimann-Marcus or in caching hunt for parking lot micros, long hikes, 5 star terrain or puzzle caches. The choice is yours but......leave us the choice.

[+Bloencustoms]

Rather than limit the number of caches a person can place, why not limit the number they can place within a certain amount of time?

 

Before everyone gets bent out of shape, consider this;

 

Good caches take time to research and prepare before they are placed. Bad caches take no preparation and can be placed quickly and easily. By limiting the frequency rather than the number of placements, you will give those hiders who put a lot of time into preparing a cache the opportunity to use locations that would otherwise be taken up by a quickie cache.

 

How many cachers have planned a great cache at a great location, only to discover that one of the stages in their multi has been "usurped" by a quickie cache while they were putting the final touches on their masterpiece? I'll bet it happens pretty often.

 

By limiting the frequency of placements, it will allow potential hiders more time to think about their next hide, and hopefully improve the end rsult. It also stops a frantic hider from tieing up all the "good spots" in a matter of days while some great potential caches lose great potential locations.

 

Fire at will...

[+Kit Fox]

Rather than limit the number of caches a person can place, why not limit the number they can place within a certain amount of time?

 

Before everyone gets bent out of shape, consider this;

 

Good caches take time to research and prepare before they are placed. Bad caches take no preparation and can be placed quickly and easily. By limiting the frequency rather than the number of placements, you will give those hiders who put a lot of time into preparing a cache the opportunity to use locations that would otherwise be taken up by a quickie cache.

 

How many cachers have planned a great cache at a great location, only to discover that one of the stages in their multi has been "usurped" by a quickie cache while they were putting the final touches on their masterpiece? I'll bet it happens pretty often.

 

By limiting the frequency of placements, it will allow potential hiders more time to think about their next hide, and hopefully improve the end rsult. It also stops a frantic hider from tieing up all the "good spots" in a matter of days while some great potential caches lose great potential locations.

 

Fire at will...

While I have problems with the time limitations, I do have experience with losing a prime spot due to a lame cache placement.

 

In my case, Team Perkyperks was also planning a nice cache in the same park.

 

Another cacher placed a magnetic, log only micro, in the center of the park next to a skate park. In my opinion, the park was perfect for a multi, with a regular sized container at the end.

[+horsegeeks]

Rather than limit the number of caches a person can place, why not limit the number they can place within a certain amount of time?

 

Before everyone gets bent out of shape, consider this;

 

Good caches take time to research and prepare before they are placed. Bad caches take no preparation and can be placed quickly and easily. By limiting the frequency rather than the number of placements, you will give those hiders who put a lot of time into preparing a cache the opportunity to use locations that would otherwise be taken up by a quickie cache.

 

How many cachers have planned a great cache at a great location, only to discover that one of the stages in their multi has been "usurped" by a quickie cache while they were putting the final touches on their masterpiece? I'll bet it happens pretty often.

 

By limiting the frequency of placements, it will allow potential hiders more time to think about their next hide, and hopefully improve the end rsult. It also stops a frantic hider from tieing up all the "good spots" in a matter of days while some great potential caches lose great potential locations.

 

Fire at will...

While I have problems with the time limitations, I do have experience with losing a prime spot due to a lame cache placement.

 

In my case, Team Perkyperks was also planning a nice cache in the same park.

 

Another cacher placed a magnetic, log only micro, in the center of the park next to a skate park. In my opinion, the park was perfect for a multi, with a regular sized container at the end.

Isn't there a way you can work with your approver to "stake your claim" on the portion you need. Also if I was the culprit that put a micro in the park that you were planning a multi. I would be glad to archive mine. In Raleigh we've worked together like that before.

[+BigWhiteTruck]

I think your idea is crap.

You are operating under the unfortunate assumption that averyone has the same amount of free time or energy to dedicate to caching as you do, hence your conclusion that the more caches a person places, the less quality each one will be. As counterpoint to your narrow-minded idea of limiting the number of caches each person can place, in hopes of increasing the quality of them, I would call to your attention a cacher named "Mama Bear" who lives and caches in Central New York. Mama Bear has, at the time of this writing, 173 caches hidden all around the area. Of the thirty or so of Her's I have found, all of them are high-quality, and of the few that were in need of attention, all were atended to promptly with just a quick email or post a note. Limiting her hides to however many you think is appropriate would no doubt decimate the cache population in my area, not to mention the growing interest caching has seen in the area.

You need to remember that one of the best things that get cachers started is logging onto the site and seeing that they have a cache 422 feet from their back door (as was the case with me, and yes, it was a Mama Bear hide). Someone who sees that is going to be hooked. Someone who sees the nearest cache is 10 miles away isn't going to bother. I don't like bad caches as much as the next guy, but the fact is, there wasn't a cache there before, and now theere is.

[+Breaktrack]

Its hard telling someone their cache sucks. A cache is like a gift in a way and griping about someone's cache is similar to scorning someone's gift. I was always taught that if you don't like the gift, you still say thank you. Its also a surefire way to make an enemy and if you make a habit of it, you have a good chance finishing out of the running at the next event's "most popular" contest.

 

Having said all this, I still think arbitrary limits are a bad idea. As I said earlier, if someone has the time and inclination to place and maintain quality caches I'd hope they place 300 of them if they could. I agree with the others here who say the answer is to lead by example. If you don't like the quality of caches in your area, start placing quality caches of your own.

Brian, as usual, you are pretty darn good at this stuff....lol.

 

So, if a cache is like a gift, and we would have some kind of rating system for gifts, wouldn't these fall under the "oh my, you shouldn't have, no, really, you SHOULDN'T have...."? LOL.

 

So, in our cache log, simply use the code phrase, "Thanks for the cache, but really, you shouldn't have!!!" LOL.

 

I also agree with the "lead by example" idea, true leaders do that.

 

Mac

[cwoper]

What is a lame cache? As they say - "one mans trash is anothers treasure"

 

I'd have to say a leaky Gladware container with a wet, moldy log book, filled with rusty key rings that is hidden under a rotting piece of plywood in a feces and debris strewn lot, next to a homeless encampment would fit that category.

 

Of course there is a segment of the population who are thankful for any opportunity to log a smiley and would not find that to be lame, but I'd bet the vast majority of geocachers would.

I'm trying to hit a hundred finds here...Geezul-peat...Now thats what I call a ROTFLMAO reply.Your killing me dude...

[Mvillian]

Some peoples first cache is a lot worse than others 40th cache!! I say leave it up to the individual to decide, let the logs be your guide!!!!

[+Jeeocacher]

I agree. I like to find cool memorabillia (?) who wants a sock that wa worn on the way to the cache?

[+briansnat]

Good caches take time to research and prepare before they are placed.

 

Not always. I know most of my caches are born simply out of my passing by and saying to myself "what a great place for a cache". I assume many others do the same.

 

Bad caches take no preparation and can be placed quickly and easily. By limiting the frequency rather than the number of placements, you will give those hiders who put a lot of time into preparing a cache the opportunity to use locations that would otherwise be taken up by a quickie cache.

 

And what about the people who spend months researching spots for caches and wait until they have a few days off from work to place a bunch of them?

[+Team Perks]

Not always. I know most of my caches are born simply out of my passing by and saying to myself "what a great place for a cache". I assume many others do the same.

 

<snip>

 

And what about the people who spend months researching spots for caches and wait until they have a few days off from work to place a bunch of them?

Both of those describe my cache placing habits perfectly.

 

I tend to carry at least one ammo can in the Jeep on every off-roading trip just in case the moment hits. Some of my favorite cache placements have been impulse hides.

 

On the other hand...I also have a large stash of specialized cache containers that need just the right spot (which requires a lot of driving around), or a lot of time to put together at the cache site. I'll normally go several months without hiding any locally, and then one weekend I'll have nothing to do and I'll hide 8 or 9 of them at once.

 

I don't see why my schedule should have to work around some arbitrary rule as to when I should have the time to hide a cache. That's just silly.

[thereitis]

yeah, once a few of your well placed, well thought out caches get trashed over and over again, you wont care anymore about placing good caches. we have a real problem with caches sticking around more than a couple of weeks in my area and it gets real annoying to put alot of thought into good caches when you know they wont' last very long. aarrrghh!

[+bigredmed]

The logical progression of what you have observed in two years is that caches will grow and grow and good placement locations will be taken. One can only hope that pride, personal or otherwise, will compel players to hide with skill, stock with care, log with panache and trade with enthusiasm as they do grow.

 

One saving grace is that you will not be able to find them all, as placements will grow to outpace a person's ability to find them. So, what others write about a cache will be how players differentiate one from another. Eventually, there will be a steady state reached and then quality will force the "also ran" caches to be removed.

 

It is unclear under what circumstances that a cache should be archived. Should a good location be reserved? Is the locale borrowed for a period of time and then it gets freed up for a new cache by someone who reserved it? Sounds a bit like domain names on the Internet. Should we create a blackmarket that deals in prime cache locations? I do jest, but you get the idea.

 

Should we begin looking at cache traffic to determine archival candidates? Some caches because of their difficulty to terrain do not attract beginner players. These caches may go a month without a visit. Are these to be archived to free up the location for a more conspicuous cache?

 

You have posited an interesting question but it has complex ramifications in the long term. Right now the rules are simple. Chaotic systems have a way of exhibiting surprisingly intelligent behavior. The quality of caches in your area may improve on their own as new players in your area enter the game.

 

Cheers,

 

The Callan Crew Patriarch

This has been discussed in depth before. My favorite is that all caches are given a subpurpose by the owner (TB motel, event memorial, etc). The local cache groups either accept that subgoal as the cache's total subgoal or add to it.

(For example, an event memorial may be a great example of a well hidden micro and the group may want to keep it going not only as the event mem., but also to help new players learn what a good micro is..)

 

As long as the subgoal of the owner and group are met, and the cache continues to get visitors at some locally agreed upon frequency (with a min of 2-4 visits per year), the cache stays active.

[+Mikel & ErinsWeb]

Maybe there should be a pinned thread titled: "I don't like your cache, tb, McToys, golf ball, soap, WG?, logbook, name, GPSr <yada, yada, yada> and I want a rule to make it better for me!"

 

What about the first cache? Didn't it contain a can of beans? Oh my! That just wouldn't do today! First it's food, then someone wouldn't like the type of beans. Then someone might. Then someone wouldn't like that particular brand. But then there wasn't a can opener included. And why wasn't it Chilli?

 

Ok, That is a bit over the top I guess. The fact of the matter is that it is really a about the hunt. Not the trinkets, not the person, not the GPSr.

 

In certian ways Jeremy and TOPTB have tried to help you avoid these caches that you don't like by having logs on the site that can be read. There are difficulty ratings. There is even a cache size.

 

Sometimes, sometime, at least every now and then you need to sit back, take a breath and remember... it's just a game. A game that started off with "no rules", Only "recommendations".

 

If we keep it up, we might just "rule" the fun out of it. For whose benefit?

 

 

I could go on, but let's hope I don't

[+Team Perks]

What about the first cache? Didn't it contain a can of beans? Oh my! That just wouldn't do today! First it's food, then someone wouldn't like the type of beans. Then someone might. Then someone wouldn't like that particular brand. But then there wasn't a can opener included. And why wasn't it Chilli?

Let's not also forget that the first cache was placed on private property without permission...AND buried.

 

Egads!

 

I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. You can't legislate fun.

[+R-100-GS]

I give thumbs up to anyone who places a cache.

Iv'e seen lame urban caches, and done hikes to caches that were ohhs and haas.

sometimes I'm only looking for park and grapes. (you know for the stats.)

I won't look down at anyone for trying to do what I have yet to do.

My two cents.