Expiration dates
Eric O'Connor
Should *ALL* caches have expiration dates?
Default set at 90 days.
Give all the local cachers a chance to find the cache while lowering the risk of
social trails.
I'm really enjoying my "one week" cache and the response has been impressive.
Even my favorite cache of all times (Stumped by Chuguy) could be moved to
another park were he to be so motivated. It would give many a chance to find it
again.
I have 1020 caches within 100 miles (Last time I peeked) so this might be
effecting my stance, but if people could recycle the ammo boxes and logbook, the
cost is minimal.
Remote caches might need longer than ninety days, so maybe the setting should be
reflected as 120 days from the first find or whatever makes sense.
mrcpu
where the owner is unresponsive. I'll give you an example:
I have placed a cache up about a mile away from my parents house in the area
I grew up in. While I do go up to my parents house regularly, actually
walking a mile out to the bush and back is not usually on my agenda. I'm
usually quite busy spending time with family.
That said, if a cacher reported a problem with my cache I would be there
ASAP. In addition if someone emailed me I would get back to them right
away. That said, no one has visited my cache (or at least told me they have
by loging a find) in a couple of months?
Should I archive it? NO!!! The cache is in a really nice part of a trail
system. Just because no one has travelled out of the main urban area to
visit it doesn't mean it's any less worthwhile a trip!
Should I go there and check on it? Well, probably yes, I plan to sometime
in August, BUT would I want to be forced to a schedule? No, and in fact I'd
just log a bullshit message saying I checked it when I really didn't. IF I
was forced to do so to keep the cache active.
MY idea is to scan the login audit trail and look for dormant accounts. If
an account has been dormant for 3 months start trying to ping it with an
email. If the person doesn't respond after another 3 months of pinging (or
if their email bounces) then their caches are automatically put into an
Adoption system. The adoption system is a whole other thread but I believe
that Jeremy needs to put time into making the back end maintainence of the
site as automated as possible
Rob
"Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aj6ur1$197kkb$1...@ID-127818.news.dfncis.de...
> "Eric O'Connor" <er...@waypoints.org> wrote in message
> news:8rodlu8t439tkmpr5...@4ax.com...
> > Should *ALL* caches have expiration dates?
>
> For what purpose?
>
> I'd like to see cache owners required to periodically check on their
caches,
> perhaps on a regular schedule or perhaps when a log entry reports a
problem.
> So long as the cache site is still OK, why not let the cache stay in one
> place indefinitely? But if the cache owner fails to check it or address a
> reported problem, a cache should be declared abandoned and other
geocachers
> encouraged to adopt it or retrieve its remains.
>
> ---
> Scout http://www.geocities.com/gc_scout/Geocaching
>
>
Burglar
Leave the expiration time up to the person who owns the cache. He or
she is in the best position (from the onset) if traffic may harm the
area. If the traffic is more (or less) than expected they could
revise the expiration time.
Obviously a lot of caches won't be monitored by their owners, so if
there was some place to post doubts about the cache's positioning by
searchers then it would soon become apparent which caches need to be
expired. Of couse these post would have to be monitored so I'm not
sure of the logistics involved.
Douglas
with caches and I recently was the first one to log a cache which had been
placed a year earlier. Had it been limited to a certain time as is being
discussed I would not have had the opportunity to visit it. I recently asked
this question on the forums about two caches which I had placed and which
had not been visited in 60 days. Shortly after the post both were visited
twice. As I was told many times on the forum "patience".
mrcpu
> there was some place to post doubts about the cache's positioning by
> searchers then it would soon become apparent which caches need to be
> expired. Of couse these post would have to be monitored so I'm not
> sure of the logistics involved.
This already exists. When you click the log a find button you get an option
"Should Be Archived" that causes a flag to go up and the Admin volenteers
review the cache. I have personally seen to the archiving of two or three
caches this way. Within a day of recommending the cache be archived, Jeremy
does it.
Rob
Burglar
Thanks Rob, I wasn't aware of that option, I rarely get to the log a
find. :-(
Eric O'Connor
>That said, no one has visited my cache (or at least told me they have
>by loging a find) in a couple of months?
The cache that's being used as "One Week" sat for five months.....
A bunch of people logged it during the first few months that it was in place but
after a while the numbers dwindled to a trickle.
It's been receiving several a week now.
If the cache really is only a mile from houses and nobody has found it in more
than 60 days.... Seriously think about giving it a new home.
Finding the same cache again doesn't count, climbing the same mountain during a
different season can be wonderful. Hide the cache 1000 feet from it's original
spot and give it a new name. (Puborevon has a nice ring to it)
People will come check on it for you.....
The only problem and I mean the only problem I'm having is that people (okay,
it's not "people" it's Kablooey and he's riding my ass) find logging the same
cache page over and over to be frustrating since it shows up with the current
name in all the finds.
Asking someone to "approve" of a one-week cache seems silly too......
I'm thinking that three weeks is a fair compromise until they hand out keys to
us old timers and let us self-approve caches. (Caches that can be manipulated
anyway)
I still think that moving caches is a great idea.... It's a blast to do and
people seem to love it.
No social trails to worry about and with the added pressure of time, people seem
to get their butt in gear and hunt them.
Nicola Straub
mrcpu wrote:
> That said, if a cacher reported a problem with my cache I would be there
> ASAP. In addition if someone emailed me I would get back to them right
yipp, so would we, exept for one cache on La Palma,
where we can't go on regulary basis.
> Should I archive it? NO!!! The cache is in a really nice part of a trail
Shouldn't we have placed this La Palma-Cache? That
would have been a pity for La Palma is a beautiful
island with most beautiful trails - it simply cries
for geocaching.
I'll give an exaxmple how we handled things on a rotten
cache, where the owner didn't respond:
We went for 'N49E4' one time and found it after a lot
of searching. It was a tin box, which was rosted
and rotten and had some water in it. On the location
we tried to reach the owner, which was difficult, as
there was no mailadress given. We had peaple search
on the web and in the telephone directory without
success.
So we packed the box and took it with us to give it to
another geocacher from the area (which wasn't our
home area). We as well as he tried to reach the
Cache owner but to no avail. So the cache was simply
'adopted' by this other Geocacher of the area, who
restored the cache and placed it back to the original
location.
> I'd just log a bullshit message saying I checked it when I really didn't.
> IF I was forced to do so to keep the cache active.
I guess a lot of cache owner would...
> If the person doesn't respond after another 3 months of pinging
> (or if their email bounces) then their caches are automatically put into
> an
> Adoption system. The adoption system is a whole other thread but I
> believe that Jeremy needs to put time into making the back end
> maintainence of the site as automated as possible
I'd see no necessity to act, as long as no problem with
the cache is reported. And IF there is some problem
reported, it already IS possibel to mail Jeremy (or
navicache.com or...) to deactivate the cache.
And I don't see why we would _need_ a system for adoption,
though it might be a nice thing, ok.
Greetings from Cologne, Germany
Nicola
aka nici-of "Vinnie & nici-"
mrcpu
more
> than 60 days.... Seriously think about giving it a new home.
Not well put. What I ment to say was that it is about a mile from my parents
house, which is out in the country. It is about 60 miles North by North West
of Toronto.
Actually, I got a log entry this morning that it was found in good
condition!
mrcpu
> cache owner is unresponsive is adequate. The remains of that cache are
still
> out there contributing to the perception that geocaching litters the
> landscape with trash. Unless there is an organized effort to retrieve the
> remains of archived caches, that perception has validity, in my opinion.
I concure... I would much rather see the cache put on some sort of "auction
block" where cachers in the area can adopt the cache. This would solve both
the dormant cacher and the trash-cache problem as the new owner would be
expected to go out an change the log book and clean up the cache.
Rob
mrcpu
I'm thankful that you did something but I disagree with what you did.
I would recommend the following guidelines based on what I've seen in the
official site and the general agreement of the forums:
1. If you find a cache that is in a bad way and have a container to donate
this is OK.
2. If you go back to the cache later and supply a new container this is OK
but don't log another find.
3. If you try to contact the owner while you are standing there I doubt you
are giving them enough time to respond which is unfair.
4. If you take the cache with you, without officially adopting it first via
emails to geocaching Admin then you are stealing the cache and may be
hurting a finder who comes by before you can replace it.
5. If you want to adopt a cache, wait a week or two for the owner to
respond, then email Jeremy with your "evidence" that the owner is
unresponsive and he will try to contact the owner and then switch the cache
over to you.
That said, I would like to see a "This Cache Needs to be Adopted" choice
added to the "Log a find" page under the "Archive this cache" choice.
Like I said, you had the best intentions but even though you tried in
realtime to contact the owner, you should not have walked off with the
cache. At the very least you might have screwed up anther finder.
> I'd see no necessity to act, as long as no problem with
> the cache is reported. And IF there is some problem
> reported, it already IS possibel to mail Jeremy (or
> navicache.com or...) to deactivate the cache.
There is already an "Archive this" selection on the log a find page. BUT as
has been pointed out, if the cache is still there it then becomes abandoned
geotrash!
> And I don't see why we would _need_ a system for adoption,
> though it might be a nice thing, ok.
1. Some of Jeremy's volenteers work over 30 hours a week on cache approvals
and checking on "this cache is abandoned" emails.
2. Jeremy and others have real jobs. They are not able to provide 100%
attention to the site, no matter how good they are doing right now as the
site grows (which it is doing exponentially!) things will start to get worse
and worse and fall through the cracks.
3. When a cache does need to be adopted there is currently no public forum
for deciding who gets to adopt it. For example, there is a cache or two in
my area that I would be more than happy to adopt if a problem arose, BUT how
would I know? Perhaps the new cache owner would be further from the cache
then me and not realize that I could have helped out.
Saying that we don't need automated systems in place for these things means
that people are not grasping how fast this thing is growing or how little
time Jeremy and his cohorts have to spend on it. 20 or 30 hours of
develpment time on an automated janitor process with adoption features would
save Jeremy and crew hundreds of hours in the future and make our experience
an even more awsome one!
Cheers,
Rob
Nicola Straub
mrcpu wrote:
> 1. If you find a cache that is in a bad way and have a container to donate
> this is OK.
Well, we didn't.
> 2. If you go back to the cache later and supply a new container this is OK
> but don't log another find.
We wouldn't have been able to return soon (as I said,
this wasn't our home area).
There was water inside the cache. Most of the items were
rotten already, the logbook was just (just) still ok.
It was storm announced for the night (which came, it
was strong and wet and caused some deaths).
> 3. If you try to contact the owner while you are standing there I doubt
> you are giving them enough time to respond which is unfair.
Trying to phone him wouldn't give him time to react?
Hmmmm... When we didn't find a phone number we'd send him
a email alright - anyway we spend a lot of time on this
trying to contact him, we had trouble to reach the
hotel before the storm started!
> 4. If you take the cache with you, without officially adopting it first
> via emails to geocaching Admin then you are stealing the cache and may be
> hurting a finder who comes by before you can replace it.
Anyway, the decision was this: Take it and rescue the log-
book (everything else was litter already) oder leave it
for another night - and there wouldn't have been a lot
to find afterwards! Plus: We had an event cache the next
night, where we gave the cache to a geocacher from the
region. Of course we logged a note, saying, the cache was
out of order for some time ASAP! Another note announced
the cache beeing in place again some weeks afterwards, when
it had been replaced.
> 5. If you want to adopt a cache, wait a week or two for the owner to
> respond, then email Jeremy with your "evidence" that the owner is
> unresponsive and he will try to contact the owner and then switch the
> cache over to you.
Now, then there wouldn't have been something to adopt.
and anyway - why all this trouble with 'switching over'?
The cache is in place again. If there should be some
trouble again, there are two possible reactions
a) original cache owner jumps in again
b) someone else from the community - most likely someone
from the area - will look for it
c) the next cacher to go for it will find the note and
will bring necessary equipment on his tour to fix
the problem.
c) is something, that happens all the time, e.g. if you
find a cache, where wrapping bag is rotten or box is
broken, people tell this in there log. Normally the
next cacher brings things to fix the problem. So what
need is there for some bureaucratic acts?
> That said, I would like to see a "This Cache Needs to be Adopted" choice
> added to the "Log a find" page under the "Archive this cache" choice.
Oh really...
> Like I said, you had the best intentions but even though you tried in
> realtime to contact the owner, you should not have walked off with the
> cache. At the very least you might have screwed up anther finder.
Unlikely and no, we didn't. And as I said, there wouldn't
have been anything to adopt, if not for taking it to rescue
at last the logbook.
> There is already an "Archive this" selection on the log a find page. BUT
> as has been pointed out, if the cache is still there it then becomes
> abandoned geotrash!
No, the cache is frequently visited and I doubt, the community
will let it down.
>> And I don't see why we would _need_ a system for adoption,
>> though it might be a nice thing, ok.
> 1. Some of Jeremy's volenteers work over 30 hours a week on cache
> approvals and checking on "this cache is abandoned" emails.
> 2. Jeremy and others have real jobs. They are not able to provide 100%
> attention to the site, no matter how good they are doing right now as the
> site grows (which it is doing exponentially!) things will start to get
> worse and worse and fall through the cracks.
Yeah, I guess so. That's why it's ok with me, if there was
such a system. Because of there needs. Our community
did it all on thereself without involving Jeremy, just by
posting notes on the cache page. And I think it can be
done this way - without 'system' and rules, but with
common sense of the geocaching community.
> 3. When a cache does need to be adopted there is currently no public
> forum
> for deciding who gets to adopt it. For example, there is a cache or two
> in my area that I would be more than happy to adopt if a problem arose,
> BUT how would I know? Perhaps the new cache owner would be further from
You'd have it on your watch list or look at the page
frequently. If ever there pops up a note 'needs maintainance'
you mail the poster of the note and tell him, you'd would.
Or - if the cache is in place still - you just go there
and fix things.
> Saying that we don't need automated systems in place for these things
> means that people are not grasping how fast this thing is growing or how
Yeah - here you might have a point. The community here
is very nice, growing really fast but still I trust people
to be sensibel and responsible. Maybe, things grow worse
when geocaching grows further. I hope not.
> little
> time Jeremy and his cohorts have to spend on it. 20 or 30 hours of
> develpment time on an automated janitor process with adoption features
> would save Jeremy and crew hundreds of hours in the future and make our
> experience an even more awsome one!
Then it's to _there_ need. And this I can really understand,
being webmaster of geocaching.de - where we do NOT have
any databases but still it already catches a lot of my
time to administrate things...
Greetings from Cologne, Germany
Nicola
aka nici- of "Vinnie & nici-"
--
Linus has arrived, we're so glad!
Pic: http://www.physalia.de/Linus/
mrcpu
> "mrcpu" <evils...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:jNQ59.705$In4.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > I would recommend the following guidelines based on what I've seen in
the
>
> There isn't any official site. There's Jeremy Irish's site and there's the
> http://Navicache.com site. Neither is official.
Sorry! Symantics!!! What I could have said is "The official Geocaching.com
rules"
> > 2. Jeremy and others have real jobs. They are not able to provide 100%
> > attention to the site, no matter how good they are doing right now as
the
> > site grows (which it is doing exponentially!) things will start to get
worse
> > and worse and fall through the cracks.
>
> If Jeremy Irish loosened his grip a little, he would receive more
volunteer
> assistance. But he's running his site as a for-profit business, so he
limits the
> number of people who work on the site (and would have a claim on a piece
of the
> revenue). Given this, being overworked is not a valid excuse for delay, it
is a
> direct consequence of his business model. Expect the number of neglected
caches
> to grow exponentially, too.
Well, no to step on your sour grapes my usenet fiend um, I mean , friend...
IF J.I. was trying to run for PROFIT he would be charging $100/year AND have
banner ads etc etc etc. I think Groundspeak Inc may someday amount to
something but Geocaching.com is for better or for worse NOT a profititable
thing.
As for volenteers, I chatted with a couple who cleared my recent caches and
they said that they just emailed Jeremy and volenteered. Personally, I
think that Jeremy is NOT a very good marketing person. He is very much your
typical introverted geek. Take the "Geocaching Announcments" forum that
NEVER has anything in it. I think the last announcment was that there was
going to be a forum for annoumcments!!! Jeremy needs to hire (for money or
fame!) a marketting person who can help him. Heck, I'm not a marketting
person and I could help him! He needs to keep the general population up to
date with new things coming for the site and he needs to run a more
organized volenteer system.
Bottom line is, he does have volenteers and doesn't seem to be adverse to
people helping but he is not doing it very efficently in my opinion.
Rob
mrcpu
situation, but I still think you were wrong to take the cache and giving
someone even 4 or 6 hours to reply to an email is far from enough.
> Trying to phone him wouldn't give him time to react?
> Hmmmm... When we didn't find a phone number we'd send him
You sure won't find most peoples phone numbers on their caches!
> a email alright - anyway we spend a lot of time on this
> trying to contact him, we had trouble to reach the
> hotel before the storm started!
>
> > 4. If you take the cache with you, without officially adopting it first
> > via emails to geocaching Admin then you are stealing the cache and may
be
> > hurting a finder who comes by before you can replace it.
>
> region. Of course we logged a note, saying, the cache was
> out of order for some time ASAP! Another note announced
> the cache beeing in place again some weeks afterwards, when
> it had been replaced.
I'm glad you logged a note asap. That was a great idea.
> > 5. If you want to adopt a cache, wait a week or two for the owner to
> > respond, then email Jeremy with your "evidence" that the owner is
> > unresponsive and he will try to contact the owner and then switch the
> > cache over to you.
>
> Now, then there wouldn't have been something to adopt.
> and anyway - why all this trouble with 'switching over'?
> The cache is in place again. If there should be some
Exactly how does the new "owner" maintain the cache if it isn't switched
over?
> c) is something, that happens all the time, e.g. if you
> find a cache, where wrapping bag is rotten or box is
> broken, people tell this in there log. Normally the
> next cacher brings things to fix the problem. So what
> need is there for some bureaucratic acts?
Bureaucratic acts? No. I've had a cache with a problem (forgot the cache
note!) and I posted a note asking the next visitor if they would mind adding
a cache note as I wouldn't be able to do it myself right away.
You are mixing up three different things!
1. A cache has a real live owner but the cache is in need of some repair
2. A cache's owner is Missing in Action, and a cache needs some repair
3. A cache's owner is missing and so is the cache.
The first one is what you encountered. I personally don't think that you
gave the cache owner a chance to respond. I don't care if you stood at the
cache and called 50 people and asked them to try and track the owner down
through email etc. Maybe the guy is out geocaching :-)
In the third case, we already have an "Archive This" option when logging a
note on the cache. When this is set an admin person notices and comes to see
what is up.
The second case, a missing owner is where a Cache Adoption system makes
sense. If you just fix the cache up then a) you don't get any credit for it
except for a warm fuzzy feeling and b) You do not have the ability to manage
the cache entry.
> Unlikely and no, we didn't. And as I said, there wouldn't
> have been anything to adopt, if not for taking it to rescue
> at last the logbook.
Well then if there wasn't anything to adopt was the cache archived?
According to your statements the cache was fixed up and replaced. The
"cache" is not the box or even the log book as much as it is the point on
the earth where it was hidden. Did the GC number change? If it did then
something different then what you are describing happened.
> No, the cache is frequently visited and I doubt, the community
> will let it down.
Great. Then if the REAL owner was unresponsive after giving him a reasonable
amount of time then the cache should have been brought to the attention of
the geocaching.com admin so they could switch it over.
> Yeah, I guess so. That's why it's ok with me, if there was
> such a system. Because of there needs. Our community
> did it all on thereself without involving Jeremy, just by
> posting notes on the cache page. And I think it can be
> done this way - without 'system' and rules, but with
> common sense of the geocaching community.
Just posting notes doesn't change the ownership of the cache. Someone has to
do it. I would much rather see a system whereby the cache is announced to
everyone within a 20 mile radius as being up for adoption. An open
discussion ensues with people volenteering for ownership and only at the
last moment when the community has decided does a volenteer actually step in
and flip the switch.
> You'd have it on your watch list or look at the page
> frequently. If ever there pops up a note 'needs maintainance'
> you mail the poster of the note and tell him, you'd would.
> Or - if the cache is in place still - you just go there
> and fix things.
It is one thing to email the owner or put up a note that the cache needs
maintainence. It is the MIA owner problem that I'm trying to solve.
I like your ideas and I think your heart is really in the right place, I
just think that it needs to be done in a official manner. The idea behind
making it an automated system is to eliminate or at least reduce human
interaction in the business process so that it is consistant and doesn't
hurt or anger anyone because they think it is biased.
Cheers!
Rob
Eric O'Connor
"Scout" wrote:
>If Jeremy Irish loosened his grip a little, he would receive more volunteer
>assistance. But he's running his site as a for-profit business, so he limits the
>number of people who work on the site (and would have a claim on a piece of the
>revenue). Given this, being overworked is not a valid excuse for delay, it is a
>direct consequence of his business model. Expect the number of neglected caches
>to grow exponentially, too.
I agree with you Scout......and....and.....and........ Why do seasoned cachers
need to be approved anyway?
Does anyone think that ClayJar, BassoonPilot, Markwell, or anyone who's
found/hidden a total over 30 caches will suddenly start placing pranks?
I agree that locationless need to be scrutinized carefully before being
automatically rejected. :-)
Cachers after a trial period should be given a free hide a week...
This would help prevent someone from blanketing an area with bogus caches,
without requiring any need for human intervention.
Once a problem has been reported, act on it.
One thing that bothers me about the approval process is that it's so easy to get
around.
Type up or copy a cache page that looks legit, get it approved, then change
everything on it to your liking. If people want to cause harm the current system
offers no protection.
ObTopic:
Another reason I like the idea of expiration dates... Caches can degrade and
become weathered. I've been to several caches that were on their second or third
container. None of these would have been less enjoyable if they'd been moved 100
yards or so.
If you look at the experienced cachers like BruceS or Stayfloopy.
They have to travel over 100 miles now to find a cache. If the owners were
moving them every ninety days then everyone could still play without these
massive voids.
Caches can only be so close together and once a mountain peak has been claimed,
nobody can hunt it twice. That leaves fall/spring hikes off the table for a
cache found in the winter. (Yeah you can still hike for leisure but ya'll know
what I mean.)
90 days.... chant it with me brother...
I'm not asking for the world... Just that people hide only what and where
they'll have occasional access. Remote boondockie caches might need as much as
a year but I can't see why anything under a 3/3 should.
The cache I hunted just yesterday was over a year old. It's container and
logbook had to be replaced a few months ago so what exactly is the point?
In this case 200 feet to the East would have given the cache seekers an entirely
different experience but that whole area has been sucked up by cache proximity.
I'm not saying I'm right about this issue, but I've yet to see an argument other
than "That would be hard..." to counter it. Hiking in a scenic spot every few
months is a brutal task.... I know..... but I think you folks can handle it.
--
''You got your Jesus in my peanut butter!!'' - Travis
Marty Fouts
Eric O'Connor <er...@waypoints.org> writes:
> Another reason I like the idea of expiration dates... Caches can
> degrade and become weathered. I've been to several caches that were
> on their second or third container. None of these would have been
> less enjoyable if they'd been moved 100 yards or so.
Not every cache is in a location where it can be moved 100 yards. Some
are in about the only local location that will work. This is
especially true for many puzzle and multicaches.
> If you look at the experienced cachers like BruceS or Stayfloopy.
> They have to travel over 100 miles now to find a cache. If the
> owners were moving them every ninety days then everyone could still
> play without these massive voids.
Except those people who live in sparsly populated areas. There are
more caches within 15 miles of my house than there are in the entire
state of Montana. You could move every cache in Montana once a week
and not make a big difference to cachers there.
Anyway, it's not so obvious that in dense areas that every cache hider
could move a cache every ninety days, and there are caches around here
that don't get visited often that shouldn't be moved, because their
splendid isolation is their attraction.
> Caches can only be so close together and once a mountain peak has
> been claimed, nobody can hunt it twice. That leaves fall/spring
> hikes off the table for a cache found in the winter. (Yeah you can
> still hike for leisure but ya'll know what I mean.)
>
> 90 days.... chant it with me brother...
It's a lame idea. Cache I went to this morning hadn't been visited in
more than 90 days and there was no reason it should have been moved.
Caches in places where winter makes them inaccessible for many months
shouldn't have to be moved.
Caches that are being maintained, are still getting visited and
aren't causing a social-trail problem shouldn't have to be moved.
and almost no cache is ripe to move in 90 days.
> I'm not asking for the world... Just that people hide only what and
> where they'll have occasional access. Remote boondockie caches might
> need as much as a year but I can't see why anything under a 3/3
> should.
Because you're not taking into account that the hobby is growing and
that in populated areas there'll be both new cachers and new hiders
along any day now. There have been about 150 new caches added within
100 miles of me in the four months I've been involved in the
hobby. that's nearly as many as the total number of caches I've found
in that time, and I'm slowing down.
> The cache I hunted just yesterday was over a year old. It's
> container and logbook had to be replaced a few months ago so what
> exactly is the point?
what, exactly is the problem?
> In this case 200 feet to the East would have given the cache seekers
> an entirely different experience but that whole area has been sucked
> up by cache proximity.
that may be. on the other hand, the caches in the OSPs on the san
francisco penninsula don't need to be moved. 200 feet to the left
isn't going to make a difference to the experience of finding a cache
that you had to do an eight mile round trip to get to.
> I'm not saying I'm right about this issue, but I've yet to see an
> argument other than "That would be hard..." to counter it.
How about:
1) There's no reason to move caches that are well maintained
and not causing impact
2) Some caches were hard to locate in the first place
3) Not every site is suitable for 'move it 90 yards'
4) Not every site would benefit from 'move it 200 feet'
5) 90 days is the wrong length of life for almost every cache
6) #5 can apply even in urban areas
> Hiking in a scenic spot every few months is a brutal task.... I
> know..... but I think you folks can handle it.
With almost 1000 caches within 100 miles, why should I go back to a
place I've already visited just because somebody moved a cache 100'?
Why don't I just go to one of the 850 caches I haven't visited yet?
Other than *very rare* people like BruceS, most of us do at most one
or two caches a week. That means that it will take me 10 years to get to
all the caches that are already out there. by then, I'll have
forgotten the locations of the first batch and I can start all over
again.
You're trying to fix a problem that just doesn't exist.
Nicola Straub
mrcpu wrote:
> and giving someone even 4 or 6 hours to reply to an email is far from
> enough.
He never reacted - not at once, nor weeks later
> You sure won't find most peoples phone numbers on their caches!
But Realnames and thus one can find out the phone number
normally. Which we tried.
>> > 4. If you take the cache with you, without officially adopting it first
>> > via emails to geocaching Admin then you are stealing the cache and may
> be
>> > hurting a finder who comes by before you can replace it.
No. If a cache is mere litter, there is noone hurt,
who comes in between taking it and posting the note.
But - anyway, we might not agree on this special
situation and that doesn't matter.
> Exactly how does the new "owner" maintain the cache if it isn't switched
> over?
And that's the point, I think we see differently: I don't
see necessity for maintainance, as long as no problems
are logged or told by mail. To be crude: A cache doesn't
need his owner! Everything can be done by the caching
community, if people are sensible enough. Like - as
happens often - one cacher finds the cache and sees that
there is some problem - he postes it with his log - next
cacher fixes it on his way - and so on.
Of course it's nice, if there is an owner, as it garantees
a backup for the cache (well, really it doesn't, we wont
discuss this thing here if it would, wouldn't we?).
Even cameras could get developed, if no owner responses
for a long time: let anyone else who likes to develop
the film and post the pics.
'Normally' I don't think people will give there caches
up - it's so much fun to return and read logs etc.
But there may be gaps in the maintainance which not
necessarily causes problems. IF the community feels
responsible enough. AND all this _can_ be done by
posting notes - no _need_ to bother Jeremy.
But if there are people, who like to do it via centralized
management - and if Jeremy gets this much mails, this
may be so - that's ok with me. Still _I_ see _no _need_.
>> c) is something, that happens all the time, e.g. if you
>> find a cache, where wrapping bag is rotten or box is
>> broken, people tell this in there log. Normally the
>> next cacher brings things to fix the problem. So what
>> need is there for some bureaucratic acts?
> Bureaucratic acts? No. I've had a cache with a problem (forgot the cache
> note!) and I posted a note asking the next visitor if they would mind
> adding a cache note as I wouldn't be able to do it myself right away.
Yeah. But any other one could have posted the note
('cache note has gone') and every other one could have
fixed this. There wouldn't be need for YOU to interfere.
Other than that you want as it's YOUR cache.
> You are mixing up three different things!
[...]
Nope. I just don't think it's so important, _who_ exactly
fixes a problem on a cache, as long as it IS fixed soon.
>> Unlikely and no, we didn't. And as I said, there wouldn't
>> have been anything to adopt, if not for taking it to rescue
>> at last the logbook.
> Well then if there wasn't anything to adopt was the cache archived?
> According to your statements the cache was fixed up and replaced. The
> "cache" is not the box or even the log book as much as it is the point on
> the earth where it was hidden. Did the GC number change? If it did then
> something different then what you are describing happened.
It was as I wrote: We took the remains, the only thing
- as far as I know - that could be saved was the logbook
and (after some repair) the old box. Everything was replaced
some weeks after and this has been posted. The cache is
still in place and is frequently visited. Nothing had
been changed on the cache-page but the note 'is out of
order at the moment' in our log and the note 'is back
in place again, have fun' some time later.
As I wrote:
>> No, the cache is frequently visited and I doubt, the community
>> will let it down.
> Great. Then if the REAL owner was unresponsive after giving him a
> reasonable amount of time then the cache should have been brought to the
> attention of the geocaching.com admin so they could switch it over.
Over to whom - the 'german GC community' - can't, can it?!
>> Yeah, I guess so. That's why it's ok with me, if there was
>> such a system. Because of there needs. Our community
>> did it all on thereself without involving Jeremy, just by
>> posting notes on the cache page. And I think it can be
>> done this way - without 'system' and rules, but with
>> common sense of the geocaching community.
> Just posting notes doesn't change the ownership of the cache. Someone has
Exactly that's the point ;-)
> to do it. I would much rather see a system whereby the cache is announced
> to
> everyone within a 20 mile radius as being up for adoption. An open
> discussion ensues with people volenteering for ownership and only at the
> last moment when the community has decided does a volenteer actually step
> in and flip the switch.
And the cache is rotten until then?
And: Things can be discussed here too, or by mail
between people - maybe by mailing list (but that would
be an 'system' as well)...
>> You'd have it on your watch list or look at the page
>> frequently. If ever there pops up a note 'needs maintainance'
^^^^^^^^^^^
note on the cache page - no mail to anyone
>> you mail the poster of the note and tell him, you'd would.
>> Or - if the cache is in place still - you just go there
>> and fix things.
> It is one thing to email the owner or put up a note that the cache needs
> maintainence. It is the MIA owner problem that I'm trying to solve.
Yes, this we were debating. And what I've written is
meant to this situation when there is no owner. As I said,
then it's something that can be fixed by another one.
Other example: One cache was found lying openly, box
destroyed, things all over the place. Should the cacher
have left it this way and contact the owner? No. And he
didn't, he took things, thus saved logbook and camera, logged
a note at the cache page and contacted the owner. THIS owner
responded and collectes things and restored the cache.
If he'd had not responded, I'm sure, someone else would
have jumped in and restored the cache (it's a very favorite
one).
> I like your ideas and I think your heart is really in the right place, I
> just think that it needs to be done in a official manner. The idea behind
> making it an automated system is to eliminate or at least reduce human
> interaction in the business process so that it is consistant and doesn't
And this debating things, human interaction in the community
is what I do like as much as the caching itself ;-)
> hurt or anger anyone because they think it is biased.
Hurt and anger are part of life. And if people are sensible
with what the do, even if some owner may be angry at one
moment, when he finds out, that everything has been done
in order to save his cache, he soon will appreciate it.
Communication is the best way to avoid hurt and anger.
I haven't found 'systems' to be only half as good at
this point ;-)
Cheers
nici-
Eric O'Connor
>No. If a cache is mere litter, there is noone hurt,
>who comes in between taking it and posting the note.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with MrCPU here, but I still fail to grasp where
Nicola did anything remotely wrong.
Sounds like (she?) did everything in her power to keep this alive for the
community and that's all we can ask of any geocacher.
Marty Fouts wrote:
>With almost 1000 caches within 100 miles, why should I go back to a
>place I've already visited just because somebody moved a cache 100'?
Why should you drive 99 miles when that cache three miles down the road looks
completely different in the Spring than the fall?
"It's hard" is a great answer in porn flicks, we're geocachers.
Nicola Straub
Eric O'Connor wrote:
> Sounds like (she?)
jipp
> did everything in her power to keep this alive for the
> community and that's all we can ask of any geocacher.
thanks ;-)
> "It's hard" is a great answer in porn flicks, we're geocachers.
I like this one - may I use it as a sometime-
signature?
Greetings
Nicola
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:Marty Fouts wrote:
:
:>With almost 1000 caches within 100 miles, why should I go back to a
:>place I've already visited just because somebody moved a cache 100'?
:
:Why should you drive 99 miles when that cache three miles down the road looks
:completely different in the Spring than the fall?
Why should I refind a cache just because it "looks different"?
I hike for the view and I might prefer the way Spring looks somewhere
else.
I geocache to see if I can locate a particular spot based on
coordinates, clues, etc. Geocaching, to my husband, is merely a way
to find new places to hike; he tolerates the search part. A new or
different cache in a spot already visited will not draw me back unless
we both liked the scenery and its hike enough to do it again. Even
then, places we liked more or new places with geocaches would rank
higher on our "to go" list.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Eric O'Connor
Wendy wrote:
>Why should I refind a cache just because it "looks different"?
>I hike for the view and I might prefer the way Spring looks somewhere
>else.
Most caches look the same within a 20 mile radius.
Some of the views are spectacular, but rarely is the flora all that different.
A far bigger change to me seems to be the season. If you have to drive 20 miles
to find tupperware called "Happy fun time" because "Cindy's cache" was found by
you during the Thanksgiving holiday. That's fine with me.
What about five years, or even twenty years from now... Are you ever going to
hike the areas of these caches again? You've already seen them after all..... I
mean 20 years isn't that long in the span of time. You'll have to move.
How long is long enough?
Marty Fouts
Eric O'Connor <er...@waypoints.org> writes:
> Wendy wrote:
>
> >Why should I refind a cache just because it "looks different"? I
> >hike for the view and I might prefer the way Spring looks somewhere
> >else.
>
> Most caches look the same within a 20 mile radius.
Not where I live.
> Some of the views are spectacular, but rarely is the flora all that
> different.
Let me think. Within 20 miles of here, I've got both sandy and rocky
beaches, swamps, salt ponds, suburban and industrial settings, groomed
parks, wild parks, japanese tea gardens, four kinds of forests, and
two kinds of meadows. Terrain height varies from sea level to 2200'
and there's at least one place where you could put a cache that would
require technical climbing gear.
There's pretty much every kind of flora from semi-arid to rain-forest
in about six different classes of environment.
Oh, and did I mention that each one is a different kind of bird
watcher's paradise?
> A far bigger change to me seems to be the season. If you have to
> drive 20 miles to find tupperware called "Happy fun time" because
> "Cindy's cache" was found by you during the Thanksgiving
> holiday. That's fine with me.
Season? In CA, we only have three: rainy, smoggy, and
most-of-the-year
> What about five years, or even twenty years from now... Are you ever
> going to hike the areas of these caches again? You've already seen
> them after all..... I mean 20 years isn't that long in the span of
> time. You'll have to move.
>
> How long is long enough?
When the cache owner gets tired of maintaing the cache, or when the
environmental damage from visits justifies moving it. period.
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:
For hiking, depends on our moods and what we want to do.
(We've done Berea Forest three times this year.) I have less than one
year geocaching and have no desire to refind any caches, even if they
have been moved around a bit.
Should I ever get to the point where I've found every cache
possible to find in the area, maybe I'll rethink my stand. OTOH, we
tend to move frequently, so this may be a moot point.
:
:
Jon Barry
archive a cache.
In South Carolina anyway, there are times during the summer when a long hike
can be an invitation to heat stroke, particularly for less fit individuals.
A predictable result is that geocaching activities seem to slow down in the
hot part of the summer here, at least for remote caches with some degree of
terrain difficulty.
The second thing to take into account is that new geocachers suddenly appear
in response to newpaper articles. Several of our more remote multi-caches
have gone 60-70 days with no visit, then suddenly got 3 visits in 5 days by
newcomers to the game.
Jon
"mrcpu" <evils...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:1wQ59.692$In4.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Eric O'Connor
Ron wrote:
>One person "solved" his issues with these slightly-relocated caches by deleting his found logs on
>the archived versions and relogging them on the new versions. I think you'd
>see a lot of that from people who just wanted to get them off their list.
You'll never make everyone happy with any decision.
An ammo can replaced by a tree stump 800 feet away is an entirely new cache.
A box-n-bush replaced by a 35mm film canister as the first leg of a multi cache
that begins 500 feet away is an entirely new cache.
Currently these would be frowned at for being to close,
If people want to write off these caches because they've already hiked in these
areas than the area was ugly to begin with, or they really aren't into hiking in
the first place.
I propose that the rating be the guide, so that a 2/3 be cycled after ten
months, a 3/4 after fourteen.
This might discourage a lot of the 1/1 caches or at least give them another
motive for getting creative.
I'd prefer that these times were halved so that a 2/2 would cycle in four months
but I doubt this would fly.
It's been stated that social trails pop up after only a few visitors, maybe I'm
being entirely too liberal with these times. I couldn't track an animal if my
life depended on it but geocachers at times have made seeking previously found
caches to be entirely too easy. The stomped grass is every bit as effective as a
neon sign. Recently the stomped grass provided a laugh as it showed I wasn't the
only one fooled by the old elevation trick.
How many caches would this currently effect? Mostly the drive up ones.
Wheelchair accessible caches would automatically be given a free-for-life ticket
since we need more of those.
Eric O'Connor
Some dweeb with access to a keyboard wrote:
>You'll never make everyone happy with any decision.
To quote the mighty Markwell... (from February 19)
"One cache, however, was in a great forest preserve. As I'm trekking along, I
see deep ravines to my left and 50 foot sloping hills to my right. One hill was
basically and island with 60' slopes on all sides. That would have been PERFECT
for a cache. Nope. It was 75 feet off the level trail, next to a fallen log. "
Marty Fouts
Eric O'Connor <er...@waypoints.org> writes:
> Ron wrote:
>
> >One person "solved" his issues with these slightly-relocated caches
> >by deleting his found logs on the archived versions and relogging
> >them on the new versions. I think you'd see a lot of that from
> >people who just wanted to get them off their list.
>
> You'll never make everyone happy with any decision.
>
> An ammo can replaced by a tree stump 800 feet away is an entirely
> new cache. A box-n-bush replaced by a 35mm film canister as the
> first leg of a multi cache that begins 500 feet away is an entirely
> new cache.
But, alas for you, people who move caches will simply put similar
caches in nearby locations. And, as you've pointed out, moving a
cache 100 feet rarely makes it more interesting or interesting again.
The # of tree stumps and multicaches is tiny compared to the number of
ordinary traditional caches, after all.
> If people want to write off these caches because they've already
> hiked in these areas than the area was ugly to begin with, or they
> really aren't into hiking in the first place.
There's something like 1500 *miles* of trails in the Santa Cruz
mountains. The way I hike, that's something like 15 years worth of
once a weekend hiking. Why go back to the same place when I can hike
a different trail?
> I propose that the rating be the guide, so that a 2/3 be cycled
> after ten months, a 3/4 after fourteen.
Ratings are arbitrary. Yesterday I did a 2/3 that took 2 hours. A
week ago I did another one that took 10. One of the next caches on my
list is a 1/1 that should be a 2/3. and so on.
> This might discourage a lot of the 1/1 caches or at least give them
> another motive for getting creative.
1/1 caches are fine and shouldn't be discouraged. They're great for
people who cache with small children, and they encourage people to get
started.
> I'd prefer that these times were halved so that a 2/2 would cycle in
> four months but I doubt this would fly.
No arbitrary expiration date is going to fly. You're trying to force
a personal solution to an unusual problem that's relatively unique to
a few areas on the entire geocaching community -- most of whom would
love to have the problem of 'too many caches'.
> It's been stated that social trails pop up after only a few
> visitors, maybe I'm being entirely too liberal with these times.
I visited a cache yesterday. It's three days old. I was
first-to-find. There was already a social trail there. I've often seen
caches less than a week old with significant social trails. If you
make social trails an issue then you need to get rid of a very large
percentage of caches.
[snip]
> How many caches would this currently effect? Mostly the drive up
> ones.
Have you any actual numbers to support his? It would effect almost
every cache I've been to this month -- the only ones it wouldn't
effect would be the drive up ones, since they're pretty new.
> Wheelchair accessible caches would automatically be given a
> free-for-life ticket since we need more of those.
I think that more wheelchair accessible caches is a good idea (three
of mine are) but I also think that kid accessible caches are as well
and that the hobby should be weighted towards easy caches while it's
young.
Not to put too find a point on it, but from what I can gather from
your postings, a fair description of the "problem" you want to solve
seems to be that you want to keep hunting 'new' caches but you don't
want to have to go too far from home to do it.
This appears to stem from your living in an area with a high cache
placement density, apparently one where the good places are all gone.
The only people you're going to help with such a plan are the very
small minority who want to keep going back to the same place looking
for caches hidden slightly differently.
But even that would only be true if you didn't end up discouraging
people from hiding caches in the first place.
Eric O'Connor
Marty wrote:
>But, alas for you, people who move caches will simply put similar
>caches in nearby locations. And, as you've pointed out, moving a
>cache 100 feet rarely makes it more interesting or interesting again.
There you go with 100' again....
Stop with the 100', think of 800 feet as a minimum that I had in mind.
Unless you think it's okay for new cachers to hide their creations within 500
feet of current caches, we'll need to respond.
Maybe not in Flagstaff, but most likely in Salt Lake City.
If another person that lives in the area has a clever idea, I say they should be
afforded the opportunity. This sense of entitlement, that because a cache was
placed in a spot it should remain there is un-American. (you can stop smirking
now)
Seriously, I'm not specifically worried about myself here.
I have a ton of caches I can hunt, but the growth rate of caches is exponential
and something with the philosophy of cache hiding needs to change.
It's tripled this year alone.... If you live in a remote area then this isn't so
much an issue but most folks live near other groups of people, large populations
in fact.
It's you Marty who are seeing things from a tainted view.
We live in a paradise for caching and the hobby is still new enough that we're
not yet seeing people get in arguments over placement rights.
I'm trying to limit how often these arguments happen.
The Santa Cruz mountains are the exception to what most geocachers have to work
with. I've hunted caches there and I love the fact that they're there.
Many smaller communities don't offer a lot of places to hide a cache unless
there are woods nearby.
>The # of tree stumps and multicaches is tiny compared to the number of
>ordinary traditional caches, after all.
I'm hoping this will encourage people to value quality over quantity.
Currently there isn't anything to discourage people from setting a dozen 1/1
box-n-bush caches with no planning of any sort.
You can't force people to pick up trash, trade evenly, or maintain their caches
the way they should, but the community should pressure people to stay on top of
what they've placed. Land management would definitely prefer an expiration date.
>Ratings are arbitrary. Yesterday I did a 2/3 that took 2 hours. A
>week ago I did another one that took 10. One of the next caches on my
>list is a 1/1 that should be a 2/3. and so on.
That's something that should be addressed.
A little more objectivity needs to be incorporated into ratings as well.
Distance hiked and elevation changes are not subjective items...
If there are other ways to a cache that lower the rating (happened to me on one
of my caches) than this should be addressed.
>> This might discourage a lot of the 1/1 caches or at least give them
>> another motive for getting creative.
>
>1/1 caches are fine and shouldn't be discouraged. They're great for
>people who cache with small children, and they encourage people to get
>started.
Small kids can't handle far or steep but a little challenge once you get there
can be fun. I brought an entire group of newbies to a cache that was listed as a
1/2, they were holding my GPS units. They literally stumbled into the cache
before I could catch up to them. I was only 20' behind.
It was properly rated, so I was happy, but I've never really appreciated a cache
that didn't take at least five minutes to find. (GC821) Make sure you verify
that your guest know how to close tupperware.... Sheesh!
>No arbitrary expiration date is going to fly. You're trying to force
>a personal solution to an unusual problem that's relatively unique to
>a few areas on the entire geocaching community -- most of whom would
>love to have the problem of 'too many caches'.
Too many caches is never a problem.... not for those hunting caches.
Too many children in China is only a problem for those that want more.
Almost every cacher will want to create their own.
>I visited a cache yesterday. It's three days old. I was
>first-to-find. There was already a social trail there. I've often seen
>caches less than a week old with significant social trails. If you
>make social trails an issue then you need to get rid of a very large
>percentage of caches.
I'm not sure how to handle the social trail issue.
Maybe leap-frogging? Cache finder places cache somewhere else....
Leaves little sign where cache previously was located for next finder to move in
case two or more hunt caches in the same day... Lot's of problems with leap
frogging so I doubt that'd even work.
>> How many caches would this currently effect? Mostly the drive up ones.
>Have you any actual numbers to support his? It would effect almost
>every cache I've been to this month -- the only ones it wouldn't
>effect would be the drive up ones, since they're pretty new.
Most every cache you've been to this month?
I'm not trying to make this personal, I'm actually trying to see if you're right
about this..... so I counted.
You've found 19 caches since the 14th of July,
17 of those would be fine as of this writing.
These two.....
"Pigeon's Roost" (GC3EA1) 1/1 - 3/1/2002
"Old Coyote Bike Trail" (GC48C8) - 1/1 - 4/2/2002
They'd have been earmarked for expiration under the 1/1 = four scheme.
Admittedly from your logs you seemed to enjoy both of these.
Pidgeon's Roost stumping you seemed very familiar to me since XIII took me three
tries last week.
Just past a month....
"Jen and Charlie's Flies cache" (GC1B4D) 2.5/2 - 9/3/2001
"Cat's Locker" (GC2DD4) - 1/2.5 - 12/24/2001
I went a little beyond a month since these were close and I didn't want to be
seen as skirting the issue.
Tresokies was recently used and abused on the Flies cache,
so that should stay :-) Plus I'm a fan of guns so the range noise wouldn't be
an issue with me.
You seemed to like Cat's Locker and Buxley scored an LCD TV from that cache as a
FTF.
Maybe a stay of execution should be handed out as well... each cacher gets to
pick a cache each month and add a 30 days to the countdown.
If a really enjoyable cache was placed and people seem to enjoy it, no reason to
remove it. Might keep hiders motivated to keep things fun as well.
Fun is good! Stagnate isn't....
>> Wheelchair accessible caches would automatically be given a
>> free-for-life ticket since we need more of those.
>
>I think that more wheelchair accessible caches is a good idea (three
>of mine are) but I also think that kid accessible caches are as well
>and that the hobby should be weighted towards easy caches while it's
>young.
It's already bottom heavy, we need more challenging caches.
I found a microcache the other day and it was a real treat to have to walk
around and scratch my head while muttering WTF?
Placing an easy cache takes all of ten minutes.
Finding an easy cache usually takes less than a minute.
>Not to put too find a point on it, but from what I can gather from
>your postings, a fair description of the "problem" you want to solve
>seems to be that you want to keep hunting 'new' caches but you don't
>want to have to go too far from home to do it.
I like hiking more than driving....this is true.
Plus a 20 mile radius of caches can reflect much longer drives than 20 miles.
Roads may go straight, but rarely straight towards a cache. A cache that's ten
miles away might take an hour to drive to. A cache that's 50 miles away might
take all day to drive to and return from.
Some people are past that 100 mile default radius.
This just doesn't make any sense at all to me.
The enthusiasm I've received with my "one wee" caches tells me I'm not alone
since they've been placed closer to other caches than a regular cache would
have.
>This appears to stem from your living in an area with a high cache
>placement density, apparently one where the good places are all gone.
Not all of them are taken up yet, but we aren't deer and the headlights are
still a ways off so I vote we step out of it's path while we have plenty of time
to act.
>The only people you're going to help with such a plan are the very
>small minority who want to keep going back to the same place looking
>for caches hidden slightly differently.
Everybody wants caches nearby but you.
That you have plenty of caches to find still is wonderful, but talk to me when
you have to drive a couple hours to find the nearest.
I tossed out 20 years to show you the absurdity of limiting the number of times
you can hike a hill, your response actually surprised me... I'll give you that.
I'm not the only one that sees we're heading into problems, right now we have
time to react. Not every cache that's older than XXX days needs to be archived,
but many of them could be with a majority of the people enthusiastic about
another trip up a hill.
>But even that would only be true if you didn't end up discouraging
>people from hiding caches in the first place.
They may be discouraged from hiding their tenth cache, but most people want to
take a stab at it. Those that don't, shouldn't.
Marty Fouts
Eric O'Connor <er...@waypoints.org> writes:
> Marty wrote:
>
> >But, alas for you, people who move caches will simply put similar
> >caches in nearby locations. And, as you've pointed out, moving a
> >cache 100 feet rarely makes it more interesting or interesting
> >again.
>
> There you go with 100' again....
>
> Stop with the 100', think of 800 feet as a minimum that I had in
> mind.
Unless it's vertical, the difference between 100' and 800' is
negligable.
> Unless you think it's okay for new cachers to hide their creations
> within 500 feet of current caches, we'll need to respond.
You're grossly overstating the case.
>
> Maybe not in Flagstaff, but most likely in Salt Lake City.
Not in the south bay. Not in most of the west. Not, as far as I can
tell, in the California Central valley.
> If another person that lives in the area has a clever idea, I say
> they should be afforded the opportunity. This sense of entitlement,
> that because a cache was placed in a spot it should remain there is
> un-American. (you can stop smirking now)
'entitlement' as an argument doesn't wash, cuz that sword cuts both
ways. Just because you *think* you have a more clever idea, doesn't
mean that someone else should have to give up a cache location for
you.
And the reality is, as I pointed out already, the vast majority of the
new caches aren't going to be any more clever than the vast majority
of the existing caches.
> Seriously, I'm not specifically worried about myself here.
You're the only one I've encountered who thinks that this is a
problem, except for BruceS, who's in a completely different class than
the rest of us. There's no one else you could be thinking of.
> I have a ton of caches I can hunt, but the growth rate of caches is
> exponential and something with the philosophy of cache hiding needs
> to change.
The growth rate of caches is on a classic asympototic decaying
curve. And nothing in the *philosophy* has to change to address that.
> It's tripled this year alone.... If you live in a remote area then
> this isn't so much an issue but most folks live near other groups of
> people, large populations in fact.
It's early days in the hobby. Trippling is no big deal. Come back in
five years when we've had a chance to see what the growth is really like.
> It's you Marty who are seeing things from a tainted view.
Un huh. But it's a 'tainted' view that everyone but you seems to
share.
> We live in a paradise for caching and the hobby is still new enough
> that we're not yet seeing people get in arguments over placement
> rights.
If there are ever such arguments, that will be the time to 'solve' the
problem.
>
> I'm trying to limit how often these arguments happen.
I can't really tell what you're trying to do. Every time someone
points out that what you are proposing will accomplish the opposite of
what you are trying, what you seem to be trying changes.
But you're not going to avoid any placement argument by making up
expiration rules. As soon as you do, someone will think of ways
around them. Then you'll have to make more clever rules, and so forth,
until the rules of Monopoly will look simple compared to your rules of
cache placement.
> The Santa Cruz mountains are the exception to what most geocachers
> have to work with. I've hunted caches there and I love the fact that
> they're there.
It's a pretty big exception. I've hunted in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming,
and Nevada, and all have similar features with respect to making
caching a joy -- and no where near the population density. If there's
an exception, it's the East bay you seem to be living in.
> Many smaller communities don't offer a lot of places to hide a cache
> unless there are woods nearby.
Smaller communities almost always have woods nearby.
> >The # of tree stumps and multicaches is tiny compared to the number of
> >ordinary traditional caches, after all.
>
> I'm hoping this will encourage people to value quality over quantity.
Even though everyone who has responded to you has pointed out ways in
which it will do the opposite.
> Currently there isn't anything to discourage people from setting a
> dozen 1/1 box-n-bush caches with no planning of any sort.
And yet they don't.
> You can't force people to pick up trash, trade evenly, or maintain
> their caches the way they should, but the community should pressure
> people to stay on top of what they've placed. Land management would
> definitely prefer an expiration date.
I've seen no evidence of this, nor is it consistent with my experience
with land management. *some* land managers want to see expiration
dates. Some don't want caches on their land at all. Others seem quiet
happy to accomodate caching.
> >Ratings are arbitrary. Yesterday I did a 2/3 that took 2 hours. A
> >week ago I did another one that took 10. One of the next caches on
> >my list is a 1/1 that should be a 2/3. and so on.
>
> That's something that should be addressed.
It can't be addressed. The whole idea of difficulty is subjective.
> A little more objectivity needs to be incorporated into ratings as well.
> Distance hiked and elevation changes are not subjective items...
Sure they are. Because not everyone who goes to a cache will go the
same way, so there's no one answer for most caches.
There's a cache around here that for most people is a 2+ for
hiking. If you know the sekret route, it's a .25 mile straight flat
line.
There are other caches that can be approached literally from a dozen
directions, each one of which with a different challenge.
There are two caches with nearly identical distances and elevations
involved, except that one of them is entirely on the open slope of a
mountain and the other is mostly through wooded trails.
> If there are other ways to a cache that lower the rating (happened
> to me on one of my caches) than this should be addressed.
So how do you balance the tradeoff between driving time and distance
hiked? or between driving time and elevation gain? There's a cache
around here that has 10 possible starting points, with a 45 minute
variation in driving time between them, a 1000' difference in
elevation gain, and a 1.5 mile difference in hiking times.
> >1/1 caches are fine and shouldn't be discouraged. They're great
> >for people who cache with small children, and they encourage people
> >to get started.
>
> Small kids can't handle far or steep but a little challenge once you
> get there can be fun. I brought an entire group of newbies to a
> cache that was listed as a 1/2, they were holding my GPS units. They
> literally stumbled into the cache before I could catch up to them. I
> was only 20' behind.
>
> It was properly rated, so I was happy, but I've never really
> appreciated a cache that didn't take at least five minutes to
> find. (GC821) Make sure you verify that your guest know how to close
> tupperware.... Sheesh!
So don't look for those sorts of caches. What you (or I) do or don't
appreciate is not the source of truth and beauty in the hobby.
[snip]
> Too many caches is never a problem.... not for those hunting caches.
> Too many children in China is only a problem for those that want
> more. Almost every cacher will want to create their own.
Sure doesn't look like it. Do you have any hard numbers on what
percentage of cachers hide caches?
[snip]
>Have you any actual numbers to support his? It would effect almost
> >every cache I've been to this month -- the only ones it wouldn't
> >effect would be the drive up ones, since they're pretty new.
>
> Most every cache you've been to this month?
>
> I'm not trying to make this personal, I'm actually trying to see if
> you're right about this..... so I counted.
and you got it wrong. I said 'this month', not 'in a month.'
[snip of Eric's misunderstanding]
> It's already bottom heavy, we need more challenging caches.
Then plant them. You can't force other people to plant the sort of
caches you want to find.
[snip]
> Plus a 20 mile radius of caches can reflect much longer drives than
> 20 miles. Roads may go straight, but rarely straight towards a
> cache. A cache that's ten miles away might take an hour to drive
> to. A cache that's 50 miles away might take all day to drive to and
> return from.
Or not. You're not going to get any sympathy from me because you
don't want to go any distance to find cleverly hidden caches. If it's
a work of art it should be worth going the distance for.
> Some people are past that 100 mile default radius.
Not enough to matter.
> This just doesn't make any sense at all to me.
It's because you want contradictory things. You want a lot of clever
caches close to you. You can't have 'lot' and 'clever' in a small
area.
> The enthusiasm I've received with my "one wee" caches tells me I'm
> not alone since they've been placed closer to other caches than a
> regular cache would have.
But the response you've gotten here and the IRC channel pretty much
suggest you're alone in wanting the solution you're proposing.
[snip]
> Not all of them are taken up yet, but we aren't deer and the
> headlights are still a ways off so I vote we step out of it's path
> while we have plenty of time to act.
The principle cause of problems is solutions -- Eric Severaid.
And I think several people have eloquently described the problems
you would create to a problem that even you admit doesn't exist yet
and that I, frankly, don't think is going to happen.
> >The only people you're going to help with such a plan are the very
> >small minority who want to keep going back to the same place looking
> >for caches hidden slightly differently.
>
> Everybody wants caches nearby but you.
Try reading what I wrote, rather than what you think you want to
respond to. Very few people want to keep going back to the same place
over and over again. In fact, you seem to be the only in this
discussion.
> That you have plenty of caches to find still is wonderful, but talk
> to me when you have to drive a couple hours to find the nearest.
As long as you're having so much fun looking at my caching stats, take
at my logs for 5/16. I drove 350 miles that day, the first cache was
2 hours out, the trip took 15 hours, and I hit 12 caches.
Two days earlier, I made a 2+ hour round drive to San Francisco and
hit 7 caches, and the day before that, on a similiar 2+ hour round
trip I hit 7 others.
In all three cases there were a lot of caches closer that I hadn't yet
done.
I've made four or five hour round trips to half moon bay and santa
cruz to pick up caches, again while easy caches were closer.
I
> I tossed out 20 years to show you the absurdity of limiting the
> number of times you can hike a hill, your response actually
> surprised me... I'll give you that.
It has, in fact, been twenty years since i've been to some of the
parks I'm now caching in, and I probably wouldn't have gone back if
there hadn't been caches in them.
> I'm not the only one that sees we're heading into problems, right
> now we have time to react.
You don't actually have any hard evidence to back these beliefs of
yours up, by any chance, do you?
> Not every cache that's older than XXX days needs to be archived, but
> many of them could be with a majority of the people enthusiastic
> about another trip up a hill.
That sentence no sense.
> >But even that would only be true if you didn't end up discouraging
> >people from hiding caches in the first place.
>
> They may be discouraged from hiding their tenth cache, but most
> people want to take a stab at it. Those that don't, shouldn't.
Evidence for this claim? It may be true, but I haven't seen anything
to suggest that it is.
But even so, I don't see it as a problem, and I don't see expirations
as solving anything. You just haven't made your case.
Eric O'Connor
>I think I've finally figured out this thread. It was started by Mitsuko's
>evil twin, wasn't it?
Part of the problem of being a prankster is that everyone assumes you're always
pulling their leg.
I spotted something to be concerned about and offered up what might be a
solution. That's all that happened here.
Burglar
<snip>
>a classic asympototic decaying curve.
An old girlfriend accused me of that once. :-)
Brian Sniatkowski
>
> Most caches look the same within a 20 mile radius.
> Some of the views are spectacular, but rarely is the flora all that >different.
I have caches that are no more than 10 miles apart. Some are in a
lowland swamp consisting of mostly swamp grass, phragmites, cattails and
some wooded areas. The trails are flat and wet.
Just a few miles away I have some caches in the mountains (well New
Jersey's version of mountains). Heavily forested, rocky, sometimes
steep climbs with magnificent views. There can be quite a difference
within a 20 mile radius.
> How long is long enough?
As long as the cache owner feels that it should be there. If he/she is
willing to maintain it for 10 years, then why not? There are always new
Geoacachers joining the sport and visitors to the area. If the cache
isn't hurting anything and the owner is willing to maintain it, then why
should it be expired after a certain period of time?
I place my caches in an area for a reason. Usually to draw people to a
place that is special to me. A nice view, interesting flora and fauna,
historical interest, whatever. My reason for placing it doesn't go away
after 90 days, so why should my cache? Now if a housing development
goes up in front of my nice view, then I'd probably remove the cache,
but other than that, it stays.
You seem to be pretty obsessed with this subject, considering your
numerous posts about it. How about if you remove your caches after
a set period and let the rest of us take care of our caches in a manner
we see fit.
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:Eric O'Connor wrote:
:>
:> Most caches look the same within a 20 mile radius.
:> Some of the views are spectacular, but rarely is the flora all that >different.
:
:I have caches that are no more than 10 miles apart. Some are in a
:lowland swamp consisting of mostly swamp grass, phragmites, cattails and
:some wooded areas. The trails are flat and wet.
:
:Just a few miles away I have some caches in the mountains (well New
:Jersey's version of mountains). Heavily forested, rocky, sometimes
:steep climbs with magnificent views. There can be quite a difference
:within a 20 mile radius.
There can be quite a difference in a one mile radius. I'm
thinking through some caches in a local park--one could be in woods on
a hilly path, another in tall weeds in a large meadow, yet another a
series of micros along a paved walkway in a mown area. All would have
different ratings and appeal to different people.
Eric O'Connor
>My own hypothesis is that each and every month since the hobby began (which was before
>geocaching.com, by the way, back when access to the raw data was available),
>there were more caches within 100 miles available for you to hunt, even after
>filtering out caches you had already visited. So, I don't think your hypothesis
>is true. But, will it ever be true? Almost certainly. But when? Should we start
>a pool?
I've said before that I'm fine.
I have something like 950 caches within 100 miles to find still, and have all
the caches I care to place out already. This was never about me or my needs
other than my general concern for my fellow man.
This wasn't about BruceS either since he would have nabbed any cycled caches
anyway. He's not doing anything different, he's just doing it at a vastly
accelerated pace. I'm wondering how some of you will feel in a few years when
the nearest unfound cache is more than 100 miles away?
I've said my piece, you all have said yours, unless someone has some new take on
this I don't see any point on continuing this conversation.
Marty Fouts
"Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Now's there another example of this "frog boiling" approach to
> making money off geocachers. After a few months of selling those dog
> tag "bug" trackers for $5.99 plus shipping and handling,
> geocaching.com is now proposing to do away with the physical tags
> and just sell the serial numbers.
Actually to sell either.
> Send money to geocaching.com and you get a number in return,
> guaranteed unique, for you to use any way you want. People who might
> have questioned why they should pay for numbers in the first place
> are now seeing this as a good idea because geocaching.com promises a
> lower price and no wait for the mailman. Easing his customers into
> it... A winning strategy.
so he's supplying a service for a market that appears to want
one. This is wrong in what way?
Marty Fouts
"Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Eric O'Connor" <er...@waypoints.org> wrote in message
> news:k2hnlus2n6bkaa19u...@4ax.com...
> > I'm wondering how some of you will feel in a few years when
> > the nearest unfound cache is more than 100 miles away?
>
> Let me generalize my own hypothesis, so it doesn't focus on you. My
> own hypothesis is that each and every month since the hobby began
> there were more caches within 100 miles of each geocacher, even
> after filtering out caches they had already visited. In other words,
> your own hypothetical will never happen.
This turns out to be demonstrably not true. There are places in
Montana where far more than a month goes by without a new cache being
placed within 100 miles, for example.
> Actually, if it does, it will be because geocaching proves to be a
> fad, not because all the nearby places are already taken. I guess
> now we just have to sit back and see which projection comes true.
Not necessarily. Even if you don't expire caches artificially, they
tend to have natural life times. A third possibility is that a given
area will reach a steady-state in which new caches get placed at about
the same rates as old caches die off naturally.
Marty Fouts
"Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Marty Fouts" <usenet_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uptwkq...@yahoo.com...
> > This turns out to be demonstrably not true. There are places in
> > Montana where far more than a month goes by without a new cache being
> > placed within 100 miles, for example.
>
> I'll give you that. I bet there are lots of counter-examples to my
> hypothesis. But I bet there are many more places where my
> hypothesis still holds true. And not so many places where
> steady-state has been reached yet or where the fad is already dying
> out and the number of new caches is dropping. I don't have any idea
> how to project when those stages might arrive.
I definitely agree that steady state has probably not been reached
anywhere. The cache count within 100 miles of me has gone from 800 to
950 in the past four months, and this is a pretty busy area. I can't
imagine that there's anyplace yet much more dense.
> I'd be interested in doing some analysis of the data, but the raw
> data is not publicly available (protecting the revenue stream and
> all that). So, it's all idle conjecture, at least on my part.
yup.
Brian Sniatkowski
most areas look the same in a 20 mile radius. I explained how within a
few miles of each other, there can be a wide variety of habitat, ranging
from swampland to mountainous forests. Which seems to agree with what
you are saying.
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:For some inexplicable reason? I was responding to Eric's argument that
:most areas look the same in a 20 mile radius. I explained how within a
:few miles of each other, there can be a wide variety of habitat, ranging
:from swampland to mountainous forests. Which seems to agree with what
:you are saying.
:
It does. That phrase is my standard attribution line. Agent lets me
customize it.
My apologies for adding to any confusion.
Eric O'Connor
>My apologies for adding to any confusion.
I at one point a few years back I had my attribution line set as something like
"While playing with Mommy's computer, %from% managed to bang out:\n"
Some guy that I had responded to informed me that his Mother had recently passed
away and that my post (which was otherwise completely tame) had caused him
grief.
I don't know if he was pulling my leg but it's been "%from% wrote:\n" ever
since.
Marty Fouts
"Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Marty Fouts" <usenet_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ulm78q...@yahoo.com...
> > I definitely agree that steady state has probably not been
> > reached anywhere.
>
> Steady state is likely to be reached well before the database
> reflects it. The number of undetected defunct caches must be
> growing. These are caches that are no longer there for a variety of
> reasons, but they are still listed in the database. Occasionally,
> they might gather a "not found" log, but not enough over a long
> enough time for someone to take the initiative to archive them. Such
> cases can only grow as the number of caches grows into the tens of
> thousands. If these were detected and scrubbed from the database,
> the onset of steady state would be noticeable sooner.
good point. around here it seems like most caches get attended to if
people note that they're missing, but there are a few around with many
'couldn't find' logs and no note from the owner.
Brian Sniatkowski
> It does. That phrase is my standard attribution line. Agent lets me
> customize it.
>
> My apologies for adding to any confusion.
>
> --
> Wendy Chatley Green
> wcg...@cris.com
Ahh, now that's funny. Though it can create some confusion.
Nicola Straub
Scout wrote:
> I'd be interested in doing some analysis of the data, but the raw data is
> not publicly available (protecting the revenue stream and all that). So,
we don't have raw data too, but nevertheless:
statistical view on the development of Geocaching
_in Germany_ is available:
http://www.geocaching.de/ and click on "Statistiken"
(or directly:
http://home.debitel.net/user/geocaching/stats.shtml )
At the start it looked exponential, now it's a staight
line. I'm curious, how it will continue...
Greetings from Cologne, Germany
Nicola