Cache Approvers In Canada

[South Surrey Scavengers]

A recent cache which was approved in Port Coquitlam was in bad taste and has resulted in some discussion about who is approving caches in the Vancouver, Canada area. Surely no one who lived in the Vancouver area would have approved it. Which seems to indicate that approvers are likely back east or from the US. If we don't have a local approver may I suggest that we get one for this area. Anyone else think the same?

[+Gorak]

Since the cache in question met all of the GC cache placement guidelines, I'm not sure that having a local approver would have made any difference. If an approver was to reject a cache for "bad taste" that otherwise met all the guidelines I'm sure there would have been another hue and cry in the forums over approvers making up their own rules. Setting the bar for "good taste" or political correctness is a slippery slope as both "good taste" and political correctness are pretty subjective and vary from one person and/or region to the next.

 

I think the way this particular situation was handled, via peer pressure, was appropriate and the best way to deal with caches that meet the guidelines but are inappropriate for subjective reasons. The last thing we need are more rules, especially ones that rely on an approver basing their decision on his/her own set of ethics or morality.

[South Surrey Scavengers]

I agree that the cache was handled appropriately after the fact and we don't need more rules. But the question still remains, do we have local cache approvers or not and/or should we have local cache approvers?

[+Gorak]

But the question still remains, do we have local cache approvers or not and/or should we have local cache approvers?

The answer to the first half of your question is no. There are no BC approvers any longer since CacheAdvance ceased being an approver.

 

You might find the answer to the second half of your question in one of these threads:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=78624

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=76524

[+The Blue Quasar]

Perhaps including a link to the cache in question might help people understand why there is an issue.

 

I would like to point out that Cache-Advance, Cache-Tech and the undercover Cache-Agent are volunteers.

 

I don't know they are compensated in any fashion, and frankly I don't care.

 

We have the Bruce Trail Association out here and they had a recent article on "Volunteer Burn-Out", which basically is when the demands placed upon those that initially signed on because of love of the activity get more than the fair share of work loaded onto them and eventually they cannot cope and resign.

 

Is this a wise direction to undertake? While it is true that Geocaching is growing and we are entering a slower time for new cache placements, remember that the approvers have spent entire evenings reading cache page after cache page to get all the new caches posted as quickly as possible.

 

When they 'move too slowly' everyone whines that their cache took too long to get approved and it doesn't get NEW posted beside it long enough

 

When they approve one that some people have concerns over, we have to hear about "They don't know my area" or "Are they locale? No local would allow this"

 

I like to think that the approvers are relatively fair.... and don't get me wrong, I've done that dance too of trying to get a cache approved. I've had the dozen emails back and forth. I've said it before, I don't always agree with their decisions.... but guess what....

 

"I DON'T HAVE FINAL SAY.... THE APPROVER DOES!"

 

The Blue Quasar

Edited December 21, 2004 by The Blue Quasar

[+Red90]

As stated, the approver's job has nothing to do with determining that a cache is in "bad taste". That is a subjective opinion and you know what opinions are like.

 

There are simple set of rules that the cache must meet and that is it. It is not right to force your views of good and bad taste on others.

Edited December 21, 2004 by Red90

[+Couparangus]

This is probably not the right place but I'll say it anyway as I suspect the cache approvers will see it. I think there are w-a-a-a-y too many caches out there now. I think they should tighten up on them and not approve new ones unless they fall into one or more of these categories:

 

- are in a truly unique or interesting location, preferably backed up with research

- take at the very least 20 minutes for the average healthy cacher to complete

- are in an area where cachers' behaviour will not be seen as suspicious, or is not likely to be seen at all.

- hidden in such a manner as to aviod serendipitous discovery

 

Not too surprisingly, all of my caches would be given the green light.

 

Cheers!

Coupar-Angus

[+Klondike Mike]

The person that approved all of my caches this fall doesn't live anywhere near Canada. I found it odd but quite frankly I don't care as long as they are getting approved in a timely mannor. In order to achieve what you desire, they would have to have an approver in every major city across Canada not to mention the same for every other country.

 

Without seeing a link to the mentioned cache we can not draw our own opinions as too it's " bad taste". Did the cache get logged past the FTF hound ?( those guys don't care what it is as long as they get to stake a claim lol)

 

now lets see the link!!!

 

happy cachin,

[+Klondike Mike]

Not too surprisingly, all of my caches would be given the green light

 

perhaps but I doubt you'd have a cache count of 200 finds

[+Half-Canadian]

Without seeing a link to the mentioned cache we can not draw our own opinions as too it's " bad taste". Did the cache get logged past the FTF hound ?( those guys don't care what it is as long as they get to stake a claim lol)

 

now lets see the link!!!

 

happy cachin,

Here's the link to the cache

[+Red90]

Ah, exactly my point. There is nothing wrong with that cache at all. It is interesting and those are the best. I happen to have grown up in PoCo and think that is perfectly fine.

 

You guys need to learn to relax. If you don't like a cache, don't go to it. Stop trying to force your morals on the rest of the community.

[+Halden]

I must say I thought the cache was in Poor taste and offensive...to me. I would simply ignore the cache and let those that feel this is how they like to spend their time do it.

[+Couparangus]

Boy, that Pig Farm one is a tough call. I certainly can understand the merit in reflecting upon the atrocity of it all. It wouldn't be at the top of my list of "must do" caches, but I'd likely do it if I were in the area. Not a cache for young players though.

 

CA

[+Renegade Knight]

I read the cache page and don't get it. Evidently I don't know enough about the history to know what the cache page is saying.

 

All I can get out of it is that a person said something politically charged and a bunch of people posted SBA logs when it would appear the cache itself is fine creating more charged politics on nothing more than opinions.

 

The protest was over the wording on the cache page.

[+Gorak]

I read the cache page and don't get it. Evidently I don't know enough about the history to know what the cache page is saying.

 

All I can get out of it is that a person said something politically charged and a bunch of people posted SBA logs when it would appear the cache itself is fine creating more charged politics on nothing more than opinions.

 

The protest was over the wording on the cache page.

I think the SBA logs had little to do with any comments by the cache owner but more to do with the location and subject matter of the cache itself.

 

In a nutshell, one of the owners of the pig farm is charged with murdering around a dozen street women and disposing of their remains on the pig farm. You can use your imagination to figure out how they were disposed of. The situation is a political hot potato because the plight of the missing women, over 20 of them, was ignored for years by the local authorities supposedly because they were mostly drug addicted street people and/or prostitutes. That is the 100,000 foot view of the issue. If you're really interested in the story, do an internet search on Robert Pickton.

[+eroyd]

Here's a link to this "point of interest".

 

http://www.geocities.com/quietlyinsane5/robertpi.html

 

It one day may very well be a sad part of our local history, but as it stands now, it is a very fresh gaping wound in the local community. The nutball hasn't even been to trial yet, and evidence is still being compiled. In my opinion, there is a lot of closure that has to take place before this site can become a tourist attraction for sicko's.

 

The approver did there job by approving it, those that were strongly opposed did there job by posting archive notes. System seems to have worked this time.

Edited December 21, 2004 by eroyd

[+nicolo]

Yikes, talk about bad taste. I just can't see any wholesome value in looking for this cache.

 

I certainly wouldn't look for this one, it'd just be too depressing, not what I'm looking for in geocaching. I get out to get AWAY from the trash of the world.

[cachewidow]

Actually, it is even worse than that link states. Now the trial has been further delayed, the charges have been upped to 15 victims, and the DNA of another seven women has been identified but not yet entered into the charges. This is totally different from a cemetary cache or a memorial cache, as it is still very current, and the family members of the victims and another couple of dozen missing women have to live with this on a daily basis.

[+The red-haired witch]

I would not be inclined to go visit this place, but , still, I see no reason to blame the cache approvers.

 

The cache approvers check if the cache follows the guidelines. It does. There is nothing in the guidelines saying "the cache must be in good taste". Actually, bad taste is a very subjective thing, I would not want the cache approvers to systematically judge that.

 

If you must blame someone, blame the person who placed the cache. In defense of this person, I would like to note that the nature of the location seems to be indicated clearly on the cache page, clearly enough for any local cacher to know what it is about, at the very least, and not go there if they did not want to. It would have been much worse if the cache page had said nothing specific about the place other than the coordinates. Then, unsuspecting cachers might have realised where they were only once near the cache.

[McKenzie Clan]

Approvers have to worry about commercial caches, potential damage to plants and moss, proximity to schools, but to say they should not decide if a cache is in poor taste or not is wrong.

 

IMO an approver is deciding if a cache placement not only falls within the guidelines but also within the sprit of the activity.

 

Making a place like this part of a "family oriented game" is wrong in so many ways. Who would want to go there?

 

My $0.02

 

Scott

[+JabbaTHutt]

This is probably not the right place but I'll say it anyway as I suspect the cache approvers will see it. I think there are w-a-a-a-y too many caches out there now. I think they should tighten up on them and not approve new ones unless they fall into one or more of these categories:

 

- are in a truly unique or interesting location, preferably backed up with research

- take at the very least 20 minutes for the average healthy cacher to complete

- are in an area where cachers' behaviour will not be seen as suspicious, or is not likely to be seen at all.

- hidden in such a manner as to aviod serendipitous discovery

 

Not too surprisingly, all of my caches would be given the green light.

 

Cheers!

Coupar-Angus

 

I guess that would be the end to all pub nights and anything to do with christmass or newyears cache parties.

 

We of course could not condone drinking and driving or have 50 or more people show up all in a matter of minutes at a pub night or heaven forbid a dozen cars suddenly park in an area near a house to do some after pub night caching.

Edited December 30, 2004 by JabbaTHutt

[+The Blue Quasar]

While I do agree that Geocaching is considered by most to be a "Family oriented activity", there are certainly avenues that are not.

 

Many Events occur at a tavern or bar. Some geocachers use graphic language on occation.

 

Not much different than any other sporting event, be it a baseball game, or tractor pull or even a day at the beach.

 

People have to guide themselves, and just because a dozen people go for a night cache hardly invokes the idea of a gang swaming.

 

As for the PIG FARM, while I don't see a need to have a cache there one must bear in mind that many of the current approved and loved cache locations have been at areas that in their time would not be acceptable. I think it is a matter of timing.

 

This area (PIG FARM) is fresh in the locals minds, as would a cache near Christen French or Leslie Mahofey (sp) but no one seems to raise concerns about caches that require info from a gravestone, or a monument to World War 2, or the Underground Railroad.

 

Both of those were times of brutality on a large scale, but since time heals all wounds we celebrate that we have learned from those.

 

PIG FARM will never be like that, but I bet you that the anniversary date will be mentioned for years, just like 9/11 is.

 

Bet there are lots of 9/11 style caches, inspite of the memories it draws forth.

 

The only thing that separtes PIG FARM is that the wound is still fresh, and has no historical significance. That is what makes it inappropriate.

 

The Blue Quasar

[South Surrey Scavengers]

My original question was never really answered and the topic was completely changed from "Do we have local cache approvers?" to "is the pig farm a suitable location?" I purposely did not provide a link to the cache now being discussed because it was not relevant to the original question. I guess I shouldn't have mentioned what prompted me to ask the question in the first place. So I'll try to be more concise now.

 

Are cache approvers located in local regions such as one in BC to approve BC or even one for the western provinces or do we have an approver that calls home ONTARIO but approves all of Canada. Or are the approvers located in the US and approving all of Canada.

 

My preference would be to have cache approvers as local as possible however, I'm sure geocaching.com does not have an unlimited number of cache approvers. So what kind of balance between local representation and limited resources should be struck? If there isn't a cache approver for just BC I would think we could find a local geocacher that would volunteer for the position or am I wrong?

[+Gonzo-YT]

Consider the other possibility: Maybe it is BETTER to have non-local approvers.

 

Using digital maps, photos, common sense and asking questions of the hider, they seem to be able to figure out if the cache meets the guidelines or not. On the occasion that they miss something, it seems like local cachers are pretty good about letting them know about it and they can correct it.

 

On the other hand, they aren't -- or shouldn't -- be involved in any local politics, rivalries, disputes, factions, or indeed involved on any personal level, and this is a *good* thing, I think.

 

They've basically got a set of rules that they apply and if they meet those rules, the cache gets approved.

 

Using the Pig Farm example, I think it worked out the way it should have. There really was no reason, under the guidelines, NOT to approve the cache. When people did find it offensive, they contacted the hider who withdrew it.

 

This was an issue beyond the scope of the geocaching.com guidelines and website and was settled in an appropriate way, within the local caching community. Everyone seems happy in the end, no?

 

Just my thoughts though... I could care less who approves my caches. I am more concerned with who is hiding and finding caches in my area.

 

Regards,

Anthony

[+The Blue Quasar]

In the past there was originally Eric-88 that approved all caches in Canada, and Eric-88 did not live here (I believe).

 

Then came Cache-Advance... the first Canadian approver, and Cache-Advance did not let it be known where they were located.

 

Eventually Canada got too busy for one approver and Cache-Tech came on board.

 

Cache-Advance took Western Canada, which I believe is Manitoba to British Columbia, and the Territories if relevant.

Cache-Tech took Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.

 

Canada was well covered, but of late Cache-Agent came on the scene as a part-time approver and about that same time Cache-Advance seemed to take a break. Cache-Agent didn't seem to do anything much as the season had been slowing down and Cache-Tech was able to handle it all.

 

That brings us to now.... Cache-Tech is doing all the approving as far as I know, and Cache-Agent seems to have disappeared, and Cache-Advance is on holiday.

 

As for the 'local' question... I agree fully with Gonto-YT

 

The approvers have a template of rules or guidelines to follow and other issues that we may or may not be privvy to.

 

As for the 'social acceptability' or 'appropriateness' of a cache, that is left to creative license and as a self monitoring entity, geocachers give feedback both directly and indirectly about their feelings regarding certain caches.

 

I think on the whole, geocachers are rather polite in their log entries. I've been to some really lame caches, but I don't complain. I am happy someone made the effort in the area, and maybe that is all they could expect to maintain or set up due to circumstance.

 

I don't think 'local approvers' would be a good idea.... people would figure it out and then it would get annoying for all.

 

If I was an approver, the last thing I would want is to have to justify my decisions when I was just following rules, and having an alter-ego would make that much easier until people figured it out.

 

Maybe that is why Cache-Advance and Cache-Agent are not as visible anymore.

 

I don't know if I could be an approver or not. It would be fun, but at times frustrating. I like the idea, but I like where I am too.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+LostNewf]

What sort of qualifications would be needed to become a Canadian approver?

[+Gonzo-YT]

What sort of qualifications would be needed to become a Canadian approver?

From what I've observed, basically a willingness to take abuse in the forums.

 

Regards,

Anthony

[+Gonzo-YT]

...and the Territories if relevant.

Are you implying that we are irrelevant? I hardly think so! Irreverent, maybe...

 

Speaking for Yukon, we had caches placed in early 2001, and right now there are 23 caches, over 30 if you count places that are closely linked to Yukon. Of course, we are talking an area of about 500,000 square km.

 

Check out my Yukon caching page for everything you'd ever want to know.

 

Our biggest problem is not lack of caches, but lack of local cachers. I am the only regular local, and the only one with more than a few finds. Our second most prolific cacher was a visitor from Newfoundland who found 5-6 caches this summer. We do get some traffic in the summer from tourists and summer residents who are cachers though.

 

My other big pet peeve is vacation caches. People seem to think that, since there are so few caches up here, they ought to place one. Glad they cracked down on that. We don't need a million park-n-grabs at every pullout along the Alaska Highway.

 

Really, I don't want to see too many caches up here. We have many that take a lot of planning and travel, anywhere from a full day to several weeks, and I look forward to spending the next couple of years finding every cache in the territory.

 

Looks like there are some regular cachers in the Yellowknife area, and NWT has 17 caches. I don't think there is much happening in Nunavut -- 5 caches and only one has actually got a find posted.

 

To bring this slightly back on topic, I think I've had 3 different approvers for the five caches that I've placed this year. Don't know if we have a "local" approver or not. Don't care either.

 

 

Regards,

Anthony

[+The Blue Quasar]

LOL, no I didn't mean that Yukon cachers or their caches were relevant.

 

I meant I didn't know if there were any at the time of my posting. I have mapped all of the caches in Ontario and they only reach about 3/4 of the way north. Unless I have missed some but I don't think so.

 

I'm glad you have caches in the Yukon.

 

Maybe someday I'll do one!

 

BQ

[+dogbreathcanada]

A recent cache which was approved in Port Coquitlam was in bad taste and has resulted in some discussion about who is approving caches in the Vancouver, Canada area. Surely no one who lived in the Vancouver area would have approved it. Which seems to indicate that approvers are likely back east or from the US. If we don't have a local approver may I suggest that we get one for this area. Anyone else think the same?

Just learned about Pig Farm.

 

This cache should never have been archived. The cache owner was not trying to sensationalize or degrade the history represented at the site. He was simply pointing out a piece of BC history. I'm sure all the morality police who worked hard to shutdown the cache will be surprised to learn that history is composed of both morally acceptable eventss as well as immoral and heinous events. In representing BC history, one cannot (and should not) be able to pick and choose between the historical events that are most appealing to them.

 

Good work Xopster. We should never forget what happened at the Pickton farm. And the memory of it will hopefully allow us to be more vigilant against such crimes in the future. I viewed your cache as a memorial of sorts.

[+Tidalflame]

Just learned about Pig Farm.

 

This cache should never have been archived. The cache owner was not trying to sensationalize or degrade the history represented at the site. He was simply pointing out a piece of BC history. I'm sure all the morality police who worked hard to shutdown the cache will be surprised to learn that history is composed of both morally acceptable eventss as well as immoral and heinous events. In representing BC history, one cannot (and should not) be able to pick and choose between the historical events that are most appealing to them.

 

Good work Xopster. We should never forget what happened at the Pickton farm. And the memory of it will hopefully allow us to be more vigilant against such crimes in the future. I viewed your cache as a memorial of sorts.

I don't know. I agree with you to a point, but this is hardly seems like a piece of history when it's such a recent event. I think there's a difference between putting a cache up in memory of someone who died long ago and putting a cache at the scene of several murders before the trial's even finished...

[+CasheKicker]

Well I do not know where to start.

1st I should start that I do not usually get involved with such subjects but this one did get me fired up. NOT so much on the original topic but more so with some of the comments.

 

Nest I will give my 2 cents worth on the Cache itself. To put it simple in my opinion (and it is just that "MY opinion, and we all have one) The cache is wrong at this time. There may be a time in about 1000 yrs where we can call this a place to remember and learn from but until the dust settles let these people rest in peace and give the familys a chance for closure.

 

Now on the MY real issues with some of the coments.

 

- "take at the very least 20 minutes for the average healthy cacher to complete"

 

Well not every one is able bodied and a average healthy cacher. It is narrow minds like yours that restrict so many individuals from being able to participate in the sport. Perhaps you should take a look at this website and read some of the reviews and ideas contained there. Handicaching

 

I myself am not handicapped but try to place cachers for all different levels of cachers. Some very difficult and others that are accesable to those in a wheel chair. Your comments are just unacceptable.

 

Next comment:

"I agree that the cache was handled appropriately after the fact and we don't need more rules".

 

Bang on the mark.  We do not need more rules.  However, the approvers are bound by these rules.  If you are having a hard time getting a cache approved it is because you are trying to push the envelope. (usually)  Also remember that this sport is orginated in the states and they make most of the rules based on dangerous or stupid actions of others.

 

"I think there are w-a-a-a-y too many caches out there now. I think they should tighten up on them and not approve new ones"

 

Hmm you again.. Well that is subjective on where you live. Perhaps where in the 50km or so around your home is over populated (in your opinion) however, there are many areas outside of Ontario that have yet to even come close to having Way to many caches.

 

"Canada was well covered, but of late Cache-Agent came on the scene as a part-time approver and about that same time Cache-Advance seemed to take a break. Cache-Agent didn't seem to do anything much as the season had been slowing down and Cache-Tech was able to handle it all.

 

That brings us to now.... Cache-Tech is doing all the approving as far as I know, and Cache-Agent seems to have disappeared, and Cache-Advance is on holiday."

 

Well I can not agree with all of this:

Cache agent is very active and very busy and has taken over the Maritimes along with some spillage of Cache-Techs area of responsibility. Seems to be Quebec and westward to points I am unaware.

 

I also agree that it would be great is every province and territory cold have its own approver. Hey why not volunteer. Not sure how it works but ask an approver near you.

 

Well I have already said to much and should be shot for my comments so I shold go.

 

But before I do I must say once more that not all cachers are healthy, able bodied individuals that can hike into parts unknown for at laest 20min to find a cache. Do not have such a narrow mind Coupar-Angus.

 

I also appologise to the orginal poster for strying off subject.

 

You are right we need more approvers!!!!!

PS. I am able bodied and still hold this opinion.

 

Well my quotes did not work as they should. GUess I do not know what I am doing. How you all can figure it out.

Edited August 20, 2005 by CasheKicker

[+parker2]

In my opinion it would be nice to have 1 aprover per province or state. Even when things get busy or an aprover needs time away, one of the aprovers from the neighboring area can cover. It would also facilitate caches being aproved quicker than some have been and would also help out with the soon to be implemented policies affecting federal, provincial, municipal, etc... lands.

 

parker2

[South Surrey Scavengers]

I see some discusson has arisen again on this topic. My real question was concerning having local cache approvers. It seems clear that we do not have any here at this time. My opinion is that cache approvers should be appointed by region. And by region I would break it down to approximately one per province in Canada. Is this practical given the current setup? Probably not as it would require many more approvers (although with less workload each) but more work to manage them all.

 

The cache that I referenced was not meant to be the topic of discussion hence I did not post a link to it. I'm not even saying that I think it should or should not have been approved. But I expect GC would not have wanted to approve it given their guidelines. If they had a local cache approver I would think that it would not have been approved.

 

If anyone would like to comment on the merits of local cache approvers versus non-local please do so. Look at the title of the topic please.

[+The Blue Quasar]

For myself, I don't see any reason to need a reviewer to be local to the area.

 

Most of the time, all you have to do is explain yourself well enough either in your cache description, or in the 'note to reviewer' section then anyone could see if it is suitable.

 

The same 'warning flags' would come up either way. Proximity to another cache, or rail line, or if it is a park that doesn't allow caches.

 

I have even heard that because our local reviewer has been at it long enough that they will request that a new cache placement could check at a previously archived location to see if anything remains and remove it.

 

Besides, local is pretty subjective. I live near Niagara Falls, and that doesn't give me any more insight into being a suitable reviewer of caches in Toronto, let alone Swift Current Sask. Unless the cache is within 100km of me, I doubt I would know the nuances any better. Probably more like 25km.

 

Sure there have been caches listed that maybe shouldn't have been, but this is the exception.. and in most cases get removed by locals that know better. Then the reviewer is able to learn too.

 

Why risk that? Can you imagine if the current reviewers had to off load their databases of information to a new set of newbie-reviewers and then train them on everything?

 

The other problem is that if we all knew that our reviewer was 'local' to us, some people would make it their mission to uncover them and some would even go so far as to pester them. I'm sure that the current reviewers get enough harsh email over things like Virtuals (R.I.P. - See www.Waymarking.com) or other silly comments like "This cache is just like one that Eric-88 approved, why won't you do it?" Now the cachers figure out who the reviewer is and torment them at Events and spread the word to any cacher that will listen... then the reviewer ends up quitting and no one gets caches approved until they find a replacement.... guess what... in the interum, it will be someone even farther away than it is now.

 

I like that my reviewer doesn't see where I cache. I would hate to see 'preferrential treatment' given to cachers, just because they are local and like them. I'm not saying this would happen, but you can bet that would get thrown around too.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+CasheKicker]

WHen it come right down to it sure it would be nice for a MORE reviewers. Don't really matter where they are from. As long as the cache is approved or not in accordance with the "rules and regulations" that Groundspeak has in place. It is a shame that some ignorant fool would even think of placing such a cache as to be unfavorable. Hoeever we all have different tastes and the approvers can not nor should not discriminate because they don't like it. The rules guide them. We are the police of our sport. If is in in bad taste, poor repair, unsafe, or just unmaintained it is our job to report such things so action can then be taken.

 

I applaud the approvers for doing their job and taking appropiate action when called upon.

 

TGHe only reason we need more approvers it to lighten the load of some very heavy and abused sholders.

 

I have said my piece. Goodbye.

[+VO2WW]

Quote...... I think they should tighten up on them and not approve new ones unless they fall into one or more of these categories:

- are in a truly unique or interesting location, preferably backed up with research

...........To each their own opinion, in general I agree but there are a lot of players who want a few finds in walking distance of their home, in a local park, along a popular hiking trail, suitable for childern to get to, are able to be accessed by people with limited mobility etc. I find that my 'interesting locations' get good comments but often they are the least found ones too.

- take at the very least 20 minutes for the average healthy cacher to complete

.................Take a bit of exception to "healthy" not all in the game are, some because of age, build, physical limitations, some caches I have found were marginally safe only for a very dexterious person. Some required a hike of over 10 miles, yes I know each Geocacher can pick the ones they try for based on published information. If I want to do a hike I won't pick a drive up, if I am time limited I won't tackle a 5 km hike. I would rather that the description give better estimates of time/distance and accessibility that the 20 minute time suggestion. I like the use of accessibility icons.

- are in an area where cachers' behaviour will not be seen as suspicious, or is not likely to be seen at all.

..................Sort of agree but it is not always possible, discretion is the better part of valor. Suspicious activity can mean many things and one can be watched from a distance or close up by many unseen people. Maybe my background as a hunter and bird watcher makes me too observant of things in the wilderness but I see a lot more activity which be suspicious in the wild than in urban settings.

- hidden in such a manner as to aviod serendipitous discovery

..................Durn near impossible if you want it to be found at all. The use of common sense when placing along with size and color of container helps but always have a copy or two of the "Geocache" sheet in the cache. I also give my name and contact number and do regular maintenance, still there checks.

Just my comments, not a demeaning critism

Oh yes, I sort of think the Pig Farm was not the best in taste. I would not object to it but than I live far away. I would log it if I was visiting.

[+Xopster]

Well here I am 200+ cache finds later, the hider of The Pig Farm cache.

 

I am sorry some of you have such a bad taste in your mouth, I know that none of you watch Gerry Springer, and that you are all good citizens so this must have really offended you.

 

I was very resolved to just letting this go away quietly but things have been said that really pissed me off from sanctimonious, off the cuff responders that dont have a clue about free speech, and they dont understand the old proverb, "Those who forget their mistakes are condemned to repeat them." They also dont understand the tragedies that affect some people on a daily basis until their worlds are rocked by a New Orleans scale tragedy.

 

I do not like being told what to:

 

Think

Say

Write

or Feel.

 

So go to hell if you intend to tell me otherwise, I should bring that cache back just out of spite but I have better things to do with my time.

 

Now I suggest you all move on to more important topics.

[+Cache-tech]

Please keep to the forum posting guidelines on respect and keep the thread on topic. Thank you.

[+Couparangus]

To each their own opinion, in general I agree but there are a lot of players who want a few finds in walking distance of their home, in a local park, along a popular hiking trail, suitable for childern to get to, are able to be accessed by people with limited mobility etc. I find that my 'interesting locations' get good comments but often they are the least found ones too.

Hey, I don't have a problem with that. For nearby caches, work a puzzle into the cache location to make it more interesting and thereby approximate the 20 minutes.

Take a bit of exception to "healthy" not all in the game are, some because of age, build, physical limitations, some caches I have found were marginally safe only for a very dexterious person.

That's fine. That would make finding the 20 minute cache a little more challenging. If a cache isn't safe for you then don't go for it. I wouldn't go for GCKTF2, even at gunpoint!

I like the use of accessibility icons.

I'll drink to that. For my next cache I think I'll employ these.

my background as a hunter and bird watcher

You have to admit this is a rather unusual mix of hobbies.

I see a lot more activity which be suspicious in the wild than in urban settings.

I find quite the opposite myself, but of course YMMV.

Durn near impossible if you want it to be found at all.

I have to disagree with this one. You can certainly hide a container that won't be found by accident yet still be easily found by a cacher.

 

Just my comments, not a demeaning critism

Absolutely! Everyone has their own opinion and they aren't necessarily the same as mine. Resolving these issues is what boxing gloves were invented for. (just kiddin')

 

I guess I just feel its a bit of a shame that some of the better caches get less traffic than drive-by ones. I can't help but wonder if some new cachers find a couple of easy ones and think to themself, "Gee that was mildy amusing but I think I'll stay home next time and watch TV".

 

Cheers!

C-A