Changes To The Sport, Wanted

October 31, 2005

I would like to see automatic expiry on new caches, that would be a switch controled by Cache approval persons.

I think that a two year term is great.

Misha

8.4k · October 31, 2005

Yeaaaaa, umm, NO. I certainly DON'T want that.

And whyyyy? Why do you want this? C'mon. Don't leave us hangin'.

Got your eye on a location that someone else has had for a long time? :huh:

Edited October 31, 2005 by Snoogans

October 31, 2005

Yeah, why???? I don't see the need. One of my favorite caches was one that had been around for a while. Signing the logbook and seeing entries from 3+ years ago was very cool.

October 31, 2005

:huh: ....Why? I know of many caches that have been in place for 4 years, that are still great caches!

If the reason for this, is that many caches are not maintained after two years in your area, SBA logs are made for that. I really couldn't think of any other erason for a "2 year term".

October 31, 2005

It would be great too if Density guidelines were relaxed to 80 meter (0.05 Miles) seperation in urban settings. When the existing 0.1 mile was our sensors were 15 meters on a good day. Comming soon (2006-2007), we will have the Galileo navigation. It will boast 2 meter accuracy on a bad day.

:huh:

Misha

6.4k · October 31, 2005

It would be great too if Density guidelines were relaxed to 80 meter (0.05 Miles) seperation in urban settings. When the existing 0.1 mile was our sensors were 15 meters on a good day. Comming soon (2006-2007), we will have the Galileo navigation. It will boast 2 meter accuracy on a bad day.

Misha

I seriously doubt you will see much better accuracy in an urban setting. The tall buildings block too much of the sky to get a good fix. When I've been caching in New York City and Philadelphia we were lucky to get a lock at all, and even if you did get a lock, anything better then 50 meters accuracy was pure luck.

Besides, as has been discussed plenty of times (try using the forum search) GPS accuracy is only a small part of the reasons for the density guidelines.

October 31, 2005

The reason I see this as a good thing we need to grow, Not stay the same forever.

IMHO maybe we should not be able to adopt caches either

BTW I am not interested in any other cachers "spots" I just want more new finds without wasting tonnes of fuel, I have to go a bout 10 miles to locate new caches, and I have friends who have to travel furthur than 80, he has 1431 caches found

Misha

8.4k · October 31, 2005

It would be great too if Density guidelines were relaxed to 80 meter (0.05 Miles) seperation

That I can almost agree with. In the small Texas park, near my home, we're full up with GC caches because of the rules. Many of the spaces in between are filled with terracaches. I have a micro terracache just 8ft from one of my GC.com caches and Non-TCers are none the wiser, because they are all looking for a LARGE cache.

But why ask for changes when you can just use an alternate cache listing site? That's what many folks around here do.

A cache is a cache is cache and there are many lanes on the geocaching highway. :huh:

October 31, 2005

Another thought; premium membership seams to be lacking. Pocket queries are a great feature but it would be a better incentive to not release hints unless the cacher is a premium member. Being a premium member is not expensive, but it is what keeps the ball rolling, they need cash to provide this great service. cachers need more incentive to join up as premium.

Misha

:huh:

October 31, 2005

what are terracaches?

8.4k · October 31, 2005

what are terracaches?

Terracaching.com

But don't stop there. There a MANY alternate listing sites depending on what you're up for.

Of course, this one is still the biggest and the best.

Edited October 31, 2005 by Snoogans

7.2k · October 31, 2005

what are terracaches?

It's what Bush calls the place where the WMDs are hidden.

7.2k · October 31, 2005

cachers need more incentive to join up as premium.

Why?

Personally, I'd rather give my cache data away for free and I'm working on that.

2.9k · October 31, 2005

I just want more new finds without wasting tonnes of fuel,

Set up a new account a refind them all.

Go TB hunting in ones you have allready found with the purpose of helping the TB's out on thier mission.

Do them again but at night.

Plan clusters of caches for each day out.

FInd some really hard all day caches

Find local ones in dissrepair and get them archived and replaced.

Would you really want to see caches like this one archived automatically ?

1.6k · October 31, 2005

what are terracaches?

It's what Bush calls the place where the WMDs are hidden.

:huh:

OMGTHAT IS FUNNY !

Star

1.6k · October 31, 2005

I would like to see automatic expiry on new caches, that would be a switch controled by Cache approval persons.

I think that a two year term is great.

Misha

mmmmm NO , I think we have far enough "rules" coming down at us now . Also there are many many fine caches that I for one would not like to see a time limit set on.

Star

1.1k · October 31, 2005

I have to go a bout 10 miles to locate new caches,

I have to drive twice that far just to pick up a gallon of milk.

38.2k · October 31, 2005

If its a good cache, its not impacting the surrounding area and the owner is still willing to maintain it, I see no reason for placing arbitrary limits on cache's lifespan.

That being said, I'd wouldn't mind seeing abandoned caches removed. Some caches need to be put out of their misery. Also, outside of certain caches that have an "historic" value, I agree that adoptions should be limited. I mean who really cares if JoeCacher takes over that Walmart lamp post hide from GPSMan? Archive it and if JoeCacher wants to place an new one there, go for it.

The reason I see this as a good thing we need to grow, Not stay the same forever...BTW I am not interested in any other cachers "spots" I just want more new finds without wasting tonnes of fuel, I have to go a bout 10 miles to locate new caches, and I have friends who have to travel furthur than 80, he has 1431 caches found

If this is your reasoning, then how does archiving caches after a certain time period help matters? It will result in fewer caches, not more.

Edited October 31, 2005 by briansnat

7.3k · October 31, 2005

Most of the best caches I've found and the one I own that folks seem to enjoy the most were fairly time consuming and/or expensive to set up. If I knew that the cache only had a 2 year life expectancy I'd be less inclined to go to that much effort and expense. Automatic cache expiration would likely lead to even more carelessly placed caches.

2.5k · October 31, 2005

No cache expiration isn't a good idea, there are many caches that have been in place for longer than 2 years and are still going strong. Plus the idea of having them expire will mean areas will die and there will be NO caches.

I have to go on trips to get new caches, and I'm talking in the 40-50 mile range to find new territory. If you want more activity in your area, place caches and try to draw people in. Maybe they will place a few for you to hunt while they are in the area. (Given they will be able to maintain them.)

Edited October 31, 2005 by Airmapper

2.1k · October 31, 2005

no

October 31, 2005

Misha, A couple of things if I may.

- It's time to think outside the box. If the parks are saturated, then there is always an alternative. You have a 100 mile radius around your home coordinates to work with. Some people are adding caches to cemetaries. Some are placing them around churches. Sometimes the hunt is more about ability to stealth. Universities are another prime location.

- Look up those caches that are disabled or archieved and see if you can start a new cache on that site. It's a little work but what isn't? :huh:

- Check for caches that should be SBA. Send it in, wait 30 days for the Reviewer/Approver (2 things that mean the same). Once it gets Archieved, set one up yourself, provided the area meets the criteria set forth by this listing service.

With all that said, I do not believe a 2 yr minimum sentence is the answer. There isn't a boundary on what we can take this to. I also believe the .1 mile guideline is perfect.

Hang in there.

1.8k · October 31, 2005

I would like to see automatic expiry on new caches, that would be a switch controled by Cache approval persons.

I think that a two year term is great.

Misha

What about GC.com sending out a two year renewal for the cache? The renewal would give the hidder two weeks to log-on and verify the coords or the cache will be archived? This could weed out a lot of those crappy caches that people run out and hide then they lose interest and the rest of us are stuck with them forever. For those really good caches, chances are that the hidder will still be involved and will follow the renewal guidelines.

7.3k · October 31, 2005

This could weed out a lot of those crappy caches that people run out and hide then they lose interest and the rest of us are stuck with them forever.

Naw, not forever. Just til they disappear & somebody logs an SBA.

9.5k · October 31, 2005

The reason I see this as a good thing we need to grow, Not stay the same forever.

IMHO maybe we should not be able to adopt caches either

BTW I am not interested in any other cachers "spots" I just want more new finds without wasting tonnes of fuel, I have to go a bout 10 miles to locate new caches, and I have friends who have to travel furthur than 80, he has 1431 caches found

Misha

Ah... so it's about the numbers... every two years, old hides expire so new hides can go in and then double up the density to up your find count without having to leave your comfort zone.

October 31, 2005

I would like to see automatic expiry on new caches, that would be a switch controled by Cache approval persons.

I think that a two year term is great.

Misha

What about GC.com sending out a two year renewal for the cache? The renewal would give the hidder two weeks to log-on and verify the coords or the cache will be archived? This could weed out a lot of those crappy caches that people run out and hide then they lose interest and the rest of us are stuck with them forever. For those really good caches, chances are that the hidder will still be involved and will follow the renewal guidelines.

Nah. no point in bothering the hider if it's an active, well-maintained cache. If ANYTHING, maybe something should get kicked off to the local reviewer if there's been no find and no note of any kind after X amount of time, a possibly unmaintained listing. But even then, if it ain't broke, why try to fix it.

3.2k · October 31, 2005

The reason I see this as a good thing we need to grow, Not stay the same forever.

IMHO maybe we should not be able to adopt caches either

BTW I am not interested in any other cachers "spots" I just want more new finds without wasting tonnes of fuel, I have to go a bout 10 miles to locate new caches, and I have friends who have to travel furthur than 80, he has 1431 caches found

Misha

I would rather have new caches in new places. Why go back to the same park when there are so many that you have never visited? It kind of bothers me when a new cache shows up in an old area that I'v been to many times before.

1.8k · October 31, 2005

No, no, no, no, no, no, and no.

I dare say I disagree with everything you've said so far, Misha.

Automatic archivals will turn a perfectly good, maintained 2-year-old cache into litter. A couple of my caches just had their second birthday this month. There's no shortage of areas for new caches where they are. So what good would archiving those do?

Do a search in the forums for the basis for the 0.1-mile rule. I agree that there need not be a cache every 200 feet, whether it's in an urban area or not. At some point things become too much...and, well, that's just too much.

And can you provide statistics to show that premium membership is lacking? Only Jeremy and his colleagues know whether that's true, and he sure doesn't seem to be that concerned. I'll just have to trust that he knows what he's doing.

3.8k · October 31, 2005

I would like to see automatic expiry on new caches, that would be a switch controled by Cache approval persons.

I think that a two year term is great.

Misha

Here’s the way to do it. Offer a voluntary test; if a cacher chooses to take it before placing his cache, it is grand fathered and the cache receives an unlimited license. If the cacher ignores the test his new cache receives a two-year license, renewable when he retakes the exam.

In reality, I find your proposal as distasteful as so many here have in response to my concept of providing a voluntary test for hiders of new caches.

I’ll make you a deal, I’ll forget about my test if you’ll forget about your cache longevity limitations. :huh:

1.4k · October 31, 2005

The reason I see this as a good thing we need to grow, Not stay the same forever.

IMHO maybe we should not be able to adopt caches either

BTW I am not interested in any other cachers "spots" I just want more new finds without wasting tonnes of fuel, I have to go a bout 10 miles to locate new caches, and I have friends who have to travel furthur than 80, he has 1431 caches found

Misha

You can still enjoy Geocaching by moving around Travel Bugs, and you can visit and revisit the caches you've already found.

There's plenty of growth in collecting, and trading Geocoins, if you haven't noticed. It seems many of the people there lament NOT caching outdoors when they stay home and participate in eBay bidding wars, or try to get in on a coin purchase order.

There's still room for growth for number of visits to caches located in remote areas. It is OK to go find some caches without hiding any. Don't listen to people who INSIST on your hiding caches in order to retain good standing with TPTB.

7.2k · October 31, 2005

Hello Misha, and welcome to the forums.

One thing we ask is that you keep on topic. You started a topic and then posted other off topic ideas. It is best to open a new topic for a different discussion for different ideas. Random thoughts on changes you would like to see dilute the original post and create confusion within the topic. Stick to one idea so you can get a better feel on the community's thoughts. I would highly recommend using the search feature in the upper right part of every forums page since all of your suggestions except one have been discussed at great length in the past. The suggestion of hints for Premium Members will not happen I would doubt.

</moderator mode>

Regarding the original topic, I hope old caches are not archived. You would then take a bunch of my viable caches out, including some of mine. A prime example would be to archive a great virtual cache that is more than 2 years old where the owner is active. It would then have to be recreated and those that had found it would have to find it again to get it off of their nearest caches lists. It could be put on an ingore list, but then ignore lists would mushroom to an unmanagable size. Again, the idea has been discussed at great length and rejected by the community and the site.

(This is not a discussion about virtual caches, so don't even try to turn it into one. No off topic comments regarding virtual caches please.)

Edited October 31, 2005 by mtn-man

2.1k · October 31, 2005

I think that in many cases, a cache that has withstood the test of (2 years) time may well be a good one. Lots of ill-conceived caches may be SBA'd or muggled to death long before 2 years, so why would we want to get rid of the good ones that remain?

3.9k · October 31, 2005

I would like to toss in an analogy. If all houses were required to be destroyed once they were 50 years old, then we wouldn't have any of those great old homes.

Here in the US, "old" is 100-400 years, in Europe, anything built since 1500 is new.

What I am trying to say is that it's perspective. We have some old caches (houses) that have fallen into disrepair and perhaps have become eyesores. But there are some really great old caches (houses) that are well kept and are worth repeat visits.

2.5k · October 31, 2005

It is a good thing caches can be adopted, that way an active cacher can make a neglected cache back to what it was origionaly intended to be.

9.4k · October 31, 2005

I would like to see automatic expiry on new caches, that would be a switch controled by Cache approval persons.

I think that a two year term is great.

Misha

As soon as there is a World API that will allow me to physically remove a cache container through an Internet application, this feature will be provided.

Man, what I'd give for that API.

3.9k · October 31, 2005

I would like to see automatic expiry on new caches, that would be a switch controled by Cache approval persons.

I think that a two year term is great.

Misha

As soon as there is a World API that will allow me to physically remove a cache container through an Internet application, this feature will be provided.

Man, what I'd give for that API.

I think I saw that API on Star Trek.

October 31, 2005

A prime example would be to archive a great virtual cache that is more than 2 years old where the owner is active. It would then have to be recreated and those that had found it would have to find it again to get it off of their nearest caches lists. It could be put on an ingore list, but then ignore lists would mushroom to an unmanagable size.

Thanks for pointing this out. Not only would this list balloon (although, at 2 years it would recycle and growth would be limited), the fact that the caches are there would drive some of us bonkers. Yes, yes, I know, that is what ignore is for... yet, surely, I am not the only one out there that goes crazy knowing there are caches within 10 miles of my caching headquarters. These just HAVE to be found...

Someone has already suggested this next point to the OP: while the OP would be content to revisit the same spots to log new caches due to term limits, most cachers probably enjoy finding new spots to which caching takes them. Additionally, there are always more neat spots in which to place a cache! My latest cache is an example of this, where I thought an area of logical places for caches (logical defined as "not parking lot micros") was dried up, I found yet another great spot, that most folks in the area did not know existed. The value of the site as a neat spot worthy of spending some time is highlighted in the logs.

To summarize, I think "term limits" on caches would be counter-productive to our sport. With term limits, I fear we would see the same cache regugitated every two years (or whatever the term limit would be). Without term limits, we are more or less forced to find the out-of-the-way spots that are worthy of caches, keeping the sport in our area entertaining and valuable.

2.6k · October 31, 2005

When I placed this cache the buzzing might be rattlesnakes

it was the 3rd cache in the canyon there are now over 30 caches in the canyon and it gets visited about once a month by new cachers or by out of area cachers, and I get remarks about how its nice to find an older cache. Although a lot of cachers would rather hit the easier ones this is still visited so I keep it going.

9.2k · October 31, 2005

I would like to see automatic expiry on new caches, that would be a switch controled by Cache approval persons.

I think that a two year term is great.

Misha

'that would be a switch controled [sic] by Cache approval persons."

What does that even mean? It's automatic, but it's a switch? What is being switched? And why?

There doesn't seem to have been a lot of thought put into this. Most caches have no problem expiring on their own, without the "help" of some artificial expiration date.

Edited October 31, 2005 by Prime Suspect

3.9k · October 31, 2005

Here in the US, "old" is 100-400 years, in Europe, anything built since 1500 is new.

Um... not quite. A "new" home round here is anything less than, perhaps, 20 years old.

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but we don't all live in Ann Hathaway's cottage over here.

Nick (1800 sq ft home in France, with American-style forced-air heating no less, built in 1968, and with apologies for the off-topic reply)

Edited October 31, 2005 by sTeamTraen

1.1k · October 31, 2005

I would like to see automatic expiry on new caches, that would be a switch controled by Cache approval persons.

I think that a two year term is great.

Misha

This is an old topic with the basic conclusion that there is no bases for an automatic archiving feature. There are some old caches here i.e. more then 4 yrs so why o'why????

cheers

6.4k · November 1, 2005

Just an interesting observation I made tonite.

I just ran the new "All My Finds" PQ.

When I run the results of the PQ online, my finds are sorted by hide date.

Looking at the 20 oldest caches I've found (the first page), the hide dates range from December 2000 to July 2001. Of those 20 caches, all but 3 are still active.

Of those 17 active caches, 13 of them had been found in the last 2 weeks.

Of the 3 archived ones. 2 of the 3 had been archived do to geocaching being banned in those parks (so auto-archiving them would not have opened up new hiding places).

The 3rd archived cache was archived almost 2yrs ago. It's in a cache-dense area (almost 5000 caches within 100 miles, almost 100 caches within 10 miles, 10 caches within 1.5 miles), yet after 2yrs there still isn't a cache within 1000ft of where that cache had been.

What do I make of all this?

1: The vast majority of 4-5yr old caches I've found are still perfectly viable at twice your term limit and should not be archived.

2: Archiving one cache does not guarantee that a new one will be placed nearby for you to find.

7.2k · November 1, 2005

Just an interesting observation I made tonite.

...

Oh, come on, Mopar! You can't use logic in an argumnet around here! You know that!

November 1, 2005

OK I see I have opened a few cans of worms!!!!

How about this.....hmm!

If a new cache is never for six months or once an existing cache has not been found for maybe 2 years it is then automatically archived

would this be ok?

maybe this one would be removed in the winter GCQ2QD

November 1, 2005

What about GC.com sending out a two year renewal for the cache? The renewal would give the hidder two weeks to log-on and verify the coords or the cache will be archived? This could weed out a lot of those crappy caches that people run out and hide then they lose interest and the rest of us are stuck with them forever. For those really good caches, chances are that the hidder will still be involved and will follow the renewal guidelines.

Nah. no point in bothering the hider if it's an active, well-maintained cache. If ANYTHING, maybe something should get kicked off to the local reviewer if there's been no find and no note of any kind after X amount of time, a possibly unmaintained listing. But even then, if it ain't broke, why try to fix it.

Renewing caches sounds great, thats perfect.

Misha

November 1, 2005

OK I see I have opened a few cans of worms!!!!

How about this.....hmm!

If a new cache is never for six months or once an existing cache has not been found for maybe 2 years it is then automatically archived

would this be ok?

maybe this one would be removed in the winter GCQ2QD

Actually, that cache you mention is one that would show a good reason NOT to implement a rule like that! Some caches are set up to be exceptionally challenging and are designed to not be found for a while! It can become a challenge and quest for local cachers to get that FTF!

I'm working on a concept for a cache now that I'm not expecting a find for, at a minimum, several months. It will be a 10-part multi, but there will be 100 different potential spots to look!

(Disclaimer in case anyone wants to ask: I'm not pure evil, I like easy ones once in a while, and I like really hard thinkers once in a while!)

7.2k · November 1, 2005

If a new cache is never for six months or once an existing cache has not been found for maybe 2 years it is then automatically archived

would this be ok?

No, it would not.

This cache is one of my all time favorite. I doubt it will be visited again anytime soon considering it has only 2 finds in the over three years of it's existence. That's not to mention it requires a powerboat or a very serious paddler. It's not as if it really needs a bunch of maintenance, either. It can exist for a long, long time without any worries.

Additionally, it's not as if you'd be opening up any room. The nearest cache is over 11 miles away.

You wouldn't be opening up any room in the database as no cache ever goes away.

Plus, automatic archival would create tons of geo-litter. Many caches are community maintained and those caches orphaned would be forgotten.

No, automatic archival is not a good idea. It's not even a workable idea.

9.4k · November 1, 2005

OK I see I have opened a few cans of worms!!!!

How about this.....hmm!

If a new cache is never for six months or once an existing cache has not been found for maybe 2 years it is then automatically archived

would this be ok?

maybe this one would be removed in the winter GCQ2QD

Misha, I'm going to create a rule that if you don't log in to the site every day your account will be banned. Will that work for you?

3.8k · November 1, 2005

Misha, I'm going to create a rule that if you don't log in to the site every day your account will be banned. Will that work for you?

Cool beans, when are you going to implement the test? <_<

November 1, 2005

Misha, I'm going to create a rule that if you don't log in to the site every day your account will be banned. Will that work for you?

Yikes! Will this rule grandfather current users? Oh, oh! Perhaps PMs are exempt, yet another benefit for PM!

Or, perhaps instead of worrying about grandfathering current users, move them over to Waymarking after not logging on for a day? <_<

Changes To The Sport, Wanted

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment