Rules for Placing Caches For Newbies?

[+timbee&suebee]

When we first got back into geocaching last fall, we thought about placing a cache of our own. We read the guidelines that suggested (but not required) that cachers have at least 20 finds before placing a cache of their own. We actually waited until we had close to 100 finds just so we had experience with different types of hides and knew we were going to stick with this hobby. But I find that there are an awful lot of caches in our area that are poorly placed or thought out then later not maintained. And almost all of these were placed by people with just a couple of finds under their belts who then stopped being active with geocaching. I'm sure there has been discussion on the forums about this subject before (I just couldn't find the thread) but I was wondering if geocaching.com has discussed making it a rule that a cacher needs to have at least X number of finds (I would suggest 50 myself) before a cache hide can be approved?

[+Walts Hunting]

You're right about it being discussed many times but not recently since the issue is long settled but a new thread will certainly garner many comments both ways. Just one of the things you have to deal with.

[+Chief301]

If a cache needs attention log a Needs Maintenance on it. This will alert the owner ( I know, they probably won't do anything about it, bear with me). Let a couple of weeks pass and if nothing has been done, or at least a reply from the owner indicating they still exist, log a Needs Archived on it. Explain in your NA log that the cache is not bring maintained and the cacher appears to have dropped out of the game. This will alert your local reviewer of the problem and they can start the ball rolling to archive the cache.

 

We got a new reviewer for our area a few months ago and he immediately got to work clearing out abandoned caches (always first contacting the owner to give them a fair chance to mend their ways). He started with caches that had been disabled for extended periods and then worked up to active caches with numerous NM logs and no sign of owner response. I was able to get a handful of local caches archived when I brought them to his attention.

 

The process might take a little while but eventually the dropout cache owner's caches will all get archived and some hiding spots will be freed up for new caches.

 

I guess that was a little off your actual question, e.g., should a hider need a minimum number of finds before being allowed to hide. While I think it's a good idea to have a few finds under your belt, I don't think it should be a requirement for a couple if reasons.

 

First, I have seen some great hides from cachers with only minimal find counts. Not often, but they're out there. Just like I see many crappy hides, not being maintained, by active cachers with thousands of finds.

 

Second, it you make a minimum number of finds a requirement, and a new cacher is determined to hide a cache, they might go out and find all the easiest, quickest caches in their area just to meet the requirement. Thus they will have only seen all the LPC's and guardrail micros in their area, skipping over a lot of the good stuff, and they will go out and imitate the lame caches they have found, thinking that's what a Geocache is supposed to be....and perpetuating the mediocre cache trend. Just a theory.

 

Third, some cachers don't care to log their finds online...I don't get it, but if that's how they want to play the game it's their choice. So that hider with no finds (or just a few) showing online may actually have hundreds.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Chief301

[+timbee&suebee]

If a cache needs attention log a Needs Maintenance on it. This will alert the owner ( I know, they probably won't do anything about it, bear with me). Let a couple of weeks pass and if nothing has been done, or at least a reply from the owner indicating they still exist, log a Needs Archived on it. Explain in your NA log that the cache is not bring maintained and the cacher appears to have dropped out of the game. This will alert your local reviewer of the problem and they can start the ball rolling to archive the cache.

 

This is just what I have been doing to get these abandoned caches out of our area.

 

 

First, I have seen some great hides from cachers with only minimal find counts. Not often, but they're out there. Just like I see many crappy hides, not being maintained, by active cachers with thousands of finds.

 

Second, it you make a minimum number of finds a requirement, and a new cacher is determined to hide a cache, they might go out and find all the easiest, quickest caches in their area just to meet the requirement. Thus they will have only seen all the LPC's and guardrail micros in their area, skipping over a lot of the good stuff, and they will go out and imitate the lame caches they have found, thinking that's what a Geocache is supposed to be....and perpetuating the mediocre cache trend. Just a theory.

 

Third, some cachers don't care to log their finds online...I don't get it, but if that's how they want to play the game it's their choice. So that hider with no finds (or just a few) showing online may actually have hundreds.

 

Point taken.

[+timbee&suebee]

You're right about it being discussed many times but not recently since the issue is long settled but a new thread will certainly garner many comments both ways. Just one of the things you have to deal with.

 

If someone has a link to the previous thread on this discussion I'd like to read it.

 

I understand that this is probably a common gripe and something I have to live with along with some of my other pet geocaching peeves. I just wanted to know what others thought of it and what geocaching.com's stand was on suggesting rather than requiring a certain number of finds before placment.

[+jamin8]

They have never made a rule because i have found only 14 caches and i have hidden 4.

[+Walts Hunting]

And what would the number be? There are many locations I have seen where a 10 mile bike ride gets you 50 or more. Does picking up 50 micros in bushes make you a better cache placer? I have seen lousy placements by people with hundreds (sometimes thousands) and great hides by noobs. As the hobby has exploded we do see more of the poorly placed by noobs who want to place a cache.

[+fuzziebear3]

Additionally, sometimes hides(or events) are made by a geocaching club, which is not a finder's account; also city parks may create an account for hides related to the parks department. These are actually usually very good hides, but the account does not show finds. Usually the hider is an active geocacher under another account.

[+terrkan78]

You're right about it being discussed many times but not recently since the issue is long settled but a new thread will certainly garner many comments both ways. Just one of the things you have to deal with.

 

If someone has a link to the previous thread on this discussion I'd like to read it.

 

I understand that this is probably a common gripe and something I have to live with along with some of my other pet geocaching peeves. I just wanted to know what others thought of it and what geocaching.com's stand was on suggesting rather than requiring a certain number of finds before placment.

Here's a couple of threads that discuss it:

Link

Link

 

Different solutions have been discussed, such as a minimum time period as opposed to a minimum number of finds, an open book "test" before hiding your first cache, etc.

[+Ike 13]

I've seen both sides. I've seen plenty of hiders who find bunches of easy parking lot caches with no creativity and then they go out and hide parking lot caches with no creativity. I also recently did a cache put together by a local TV show. I don't know if they had a cacher help them, but the account has no finds. Yet the hide was above and beyond almost any other local cache.

 

I'm not in favor of a you must find x number of caches first. I would love to see a guidelines quiz that first time hiders had to take and pass before hiding a cache.

[+Chief301]

I've seen both sides. I've seen plenty of hiders who find bunches of easy parking lot caches with no creativity and then they go out and hide parking lot caches with no creativity. I also recently did a cache put together by a local TV show. I don't know if they had a cacher help them, but the account has no finds. Yet the hide was above and beyond almost any other local cache.

 

I'm not in favor of a you must find x number of caches first. I would love to see a guidelines quiz that first time hiders had to take and pass before hiding a cache.

 

That actually would be a good idea, but of course they could pass the quiz and still go out and make a lousy cache just out of laziness or apathy. After all, they do have to check the box when they submit the cache stating that they have read and understood and agree to abide by the guidelines.

 

I had rather hoped that Favorite points would improve the quality of cache hides. Make the lame hiders at least wonder why all the caches in their area earn Favorite points but theirs have none. I only have a few hides but I'm starting to get to the point where if I don't get any Favorite points on my cache I consider it less than successful.

[+briansnat]

If such a rule was implemented, any newbie who was interested in hiding a cache would probably try to reach that number of finds as soon as possible. That would likely entail their finding a bunch of park and grabs. I'm not sure what they will learn by that other than geocaching is all about film canisters and hide a keys in lamp posts and guardrails next to Home Depots and strip malls.

[+Amorak]

I would like to see a number of hides and time requirement limit, i.e. 100 hides AND 6 months of caching. Just to weed out some of those 3 finds and 10 hides in their first week of caching types.

 

To an earlier point. A lot of CO's do maintenance, but don't clear the NM attribute. It would be a shame to write a NA log and have a perfectly good cache archived - especially if it has TB's.

 

Here's an example, GCTV0D (not trying to pick on CO).

[+Walts Hunting]

I would like to see a number of hides and time requirement limit, i.e. 100 hides AND 6 months of caching. Just to weed out some of those 3 finds and 10 hides in their first week of caching types.

 

To an earlier point. A lot of CO's do maintenance, but don't clear the NM attribute. It would be a shame to write a NA log and have a perfectly good cache archived - especially if it has TB's.

 

Here's an example, GCTV0D (not trying to pick on CO).

 

It wouldn't be archived. Reviewers contact the CO for a response and if it is fixed leaves it alone.

[+kunarion]

I understand that this is probably a common gripe and something I have to live with along with some of my other pet geocaching peeves.

Do you think that waiting til you had 100 finds improved your cache hide? If you'd hidden one right away, what would have been different?

 

The reason I ask is, my first idea was to make the most evil find ever, basically a lamp-post cache. I soon noticed I kinda don't enjoy LPCs, so never hid one. The main reason I waited til I had 50 finds was I worked for a long time building the container, then placed it in its final spot for two months, before activating it. My goal for caches is to have a good first impression. I hope people appreciate "Some thought went into this." And I intend that the cache is as impossible as can be for non-cachers to find, yet as straightforward as possible for Geocachers to find.

 

...and a caching friend's first cache idea: "A box of cereal!". No kidding.

Edited August 6, 2012 by kunarion

[AZcachemeister]

My goal for caches is to have a good first impression. I hope people appreciate "Some thought went into this."

 

Exactly.

 

The most important thing is the sense of the community you are bringing yourself into.

 

Do you want to be known for 'caviar' or 'cornmeal'.

 

Some people know the difference right away, others never quite get the concept.

 

There is just no way to quantify the variables, so it's best to not even try to.

[+briansnat]

Do you think that waiting til you had 100 finds improved your cache hide? If you'd hidden one right away, what would have been different?

 

I placed my first cache after one find and the chief thing I learned since was that I didn't have to put so much effort into choosing the location, container and contents.

[+timbee&suebee]

...Do you think that waiting til you had 100 finds improved your cache hide? If you'd hidden one right away, what would have been different?...

 

Yes... Although our first hide wasn't stellar, by the time we reached 100 finds we had learned a lot about good locations vs bad and good containers vs run-of-the-mill. Since that first hide we have hidden 10 more caches and have three more being published soon. Some caches are fairly straightforward but are in nice locations. Some are much more creative and I can see that finders appreciate that by the number of favorite points we have received.

 

I do agree with many of those who posted since my original post to this thread. Those who only find GRs or LPCs will probably only hide the same type in the same locations so requiring a number of finds to place might not do much good. And since these are low maintenance, they can go on forever even if the cacher doesn't stay active. But since we live in a rural area and don't do much urban caching anymore, these are not the ones that bother me.

 

It's those newbies who get exicted about their first couple of finds (and of course we want them to to stay in the sport) who "know a cool spot" for their first hide but, because they haven't had much experience don't think of things like what the vegetation in an area might be in the summer as opposed to the winter and the spot becomes dangerous becasue of thorns or snakes or ice. Or they haven't read the placement guidelines (which I realize is true for experienced cachers as well as newbies) and place caches in restricted places or on private property without permission. And what we often find is those who haven't found many cache containers and haven't seen the good ones and the ones that don't hold up end up not putting much thought into their own containers or contents and place ones that aren't waterproof, etc. so the containers become a maintenance issue. And if they haven't stuck with the sport, the containers aren't kept up. We have also found that those who haven't had much experience finding also haven't had much experience reading cache listings to get an idea of what is good information to put in a description or a hint to actually help someone find their cache. All of these scenarios are ones we have run accross on multiple occasions and more times than not, when we check the COs stats, we see that they have very few finds and dropped out within a couple of months of starting caching.

 

But my thought into requiring a certain number of finds before placing their own hide isn't just about getting experience but also to know they are going to stay in the game. We have seen so many people with hides that made less than 10 finds then dropped out. By requiring a certain number of finds, or as someone else suggested, a certain time period to be active, there's a better chance that someone will stick with it and maintain their caches or learn more about caching.

 

Again, as I stated earlier, I realize there is no simple answer. I just wanted to see what others thought of this and I see that I'm not the only one with this gripe.

Edited August 7, 2012 by timbee&suebee

[+BAMBOOZLE]

1. Basic members could only " find " caches.

2. After X amount of finds and X months a basic member would be permitted to become a " Premium" member.

3. Only Premium members could hide caches.

[knowschad]

If a cache needs attention log a Needs Maintenance on it. This will alert the owner ( I know, they probably won't do anything about it, bear with me). Let a couple of weeks pass and if nothing has been done, or at least a reply from the owner indicating they still exist, log a Needs Archived on it. Explain in your NA log that the cache is not bring maintained and the cacher appears to have dropped out of the game. This will alert your local reviewer of the problem and they can start the ball rolling to archive the cache.

 

We got a new reviewer for our area a few months ago and he immediately got to work clearing out abandoned caches (always first contacting the owner to give them a fair chance to mend their ways). He started with caches that had been disabled for extended periods and then worked up to active caches with numerous NM logs and no sign of owner response. I was able to get a handful of local caches archived when I brought them to his attention.

 

The process might take a little while but eventually the dropout cache owner's caches will all get archived and some hiding spots will be freed up for new caches.

 

I guess that was a little off your actual question, e.g., should a hider need a minimum number of finds before being allowed to hide. While I think it's a good idea to have a few finds under your belt, I don't think it should be a requirement for a couple if reasons.

 

First, I have seen some great hides from cachers with only minimal find counts. Not often, but they're out there. Just like I see many crappy hides, not being maintained, by active cachers with thousands of finds.

 

Second, it you make a minimum number of finds a requirement, and a new cacher is determined to hide a cache, they might go out and find all the easiest, quickest caches in their area just to meet the requirement. Thus they will have only seen all the LPC's and guardrail micros in their area, skipping over a lot of the good stuff, and they will go out and imitate the lame caches they have found, thinking that's what a Geocache is supposed to be....and perpetuating the mediocre cache trend. Just a theory.

 

Third, some cachers don't care to log their finds online...I don't get it, but if that's how they want to play the game it's their choice. So that hider with no finds (or just a few) showing online may actually have hundreds.

 

I can't add anything to that excellent post!

[knowschad]

If such a rule was implemented, any newbie who was interested in hiding a cache would probably try to reach that number of finds as soon as possible. That would likely entail their finding a bunch of park and grabs. I'm not sure what they will learn by that other than geocaching is all about film canisters and hide a keys in lamp posts and guardrails next to Home Depots and strip malls.

Heck, somebody would surely put out a string of caches soley for the purpose of helping newbies get to that number.

[+Chief301]

If such a rule was implemented, any newbie who was interested in hiding a cache would probably try to reach that number of finds as soon as possible. That would likely entail their finding a bunch of park and grabs. I'm not sure what they will learn by that other than geocaching is all about film canisters and hide a keys in lamp posts and guardrails next to Home Depots and strip malls.

Heck, somebody would surely put out a string of caches soley for the purpose of helping newbies get to that number.

 

Yeah, they're called Power Trails....

[+Chief301]

How about this feature? No minimum # of finds to hide a cache, but if a cache owner has not logged into GC.com for a predetermined period of time, say, a year, their account is automatically flagged to the local reviewer. He reviews the cache owner's history and if it looks like they have "dropped out" the reviewer would send an email to the CO asking politely if they still intend to participate. No reply, the cache gets archived.

 

Or better yet, a notification is posted on the cache page "This cache is available for adoption" and see if one of the local cachers would like to take it over. That way a decent cache that is not having maintenance issues, despite an absentee owner, can be kept alive.

 

We always compare cache ownership to owning a pet, a long term commitment. So what happens when an irresponsible owner abandons a pet? It goes into the pound and gets put up for adoption by someone who will care for it. Same concept.

[+Don_J]

If such a rule was implemented, any newbie who was interested in hiding a cache would probably try to reach that number of finds as soon as possible. That would likely entail their finding a bunch of park and grabs. I'm not sure what they will learn by that other than geocaching is all about film canisters and hide a keys in lamp posts and guardrails next to Home Depots and strip malls.

Heck, somebody would surely put out a string of caches soley for the purpose of helping newbies get to that number.

 

Actually, if it were done by the right person, it could improve caching immensely.

[+baloo&bd]

I was wondering if geocaching.com has discussed making it a rule that a cacher needs to have at least X number of finds (I would suggest 50 myself) before a cache hide can be approved?

 

Not sure how a day or two of caching (i.e. 50 caches) of LPC's would make any difference. Not to mention 1. we have cachers in our area that started hiding after finding less than 10 who hide quality caches and 2. many cachers set up separate accounts strictly for hiding. I think the fixes in place already should be enough.

[+L0ne.R]

It's those newbies who get exicted about their first couple of finds (and of course we want them to to stay in the sport) who "know a cool spot" for their first hide but, because they haven't had much experience don't think of things like what the vegetation in an area might be in the summer as opposed to the winter and the spot becomes dangerous because of thorns or snakes or ice. Or they haven't read the placement guidelines (which I realize is true for experienced cachers as well as newbies) and place caches in restricted places or on private property without permission. And what we often find is those who haven't found many cache containers and haven't seen the good ones and the ones that don't hold up end up not putting much thought into their own containers or contents and place ones that aren't waterproof, etc. so the containers become a maintenance issue. And if they haven't stuck with the sport, the containers aren't kept up. We have also found that those who haven't had much experience finding also haven't had much experience reading cache listings to get an idea of what is good information to put in a description or a hint to actually help someone find their cache. All of these scenarios are ones we have run accross on multiple occasions and more times than not, when we check the COs stats, we see that they have very few finds and dropped out within a couple of months of starting caching.

 

In my experience this especially rings true for caches hidden by children (usually unsupervised by parents). Unsupervised children (pre-teen/early teen) tend to try a cache hide for a lark, having very little experience, a limited area to place caches in (within walking or biking distance so they choose a spot behind their back fence or in the bushes in their cul-de-sac's traffic island, or in the local shopping plaza, etc.), have limited resources so will use free kitchen containers like yogurt or margarine tubs. Personally I think a time restraint would weed out unsupervised children who would most likely not hide a cache if they have to be a member for at least 3 months.

 

But my thought into requiring a certain number of finds before placing their own hide isn't just about getting experience but also to know they are going to stay in the game. We have seen so many people with hides that made less than 10 finds then dropped out. By requiring a certain number of finds, or as someone else suggested, a certain time period to be active, there's a better chance that someone will stick with it and maintain their caches or learn more about caching.

 

Again, as I stated earlier, I realize there is no simple answer. I just wanted to see what others thought of this and I see that I'm not the only one with this gripe.

 

You are definitely not the only one. There will likely never be time restraints so the recourse is constructive criticism logs, NMs and NAs.

[+Chief301]

[]

 

In my experience this especially rings true for caches hidden by children (usually unsupervised by parents). Unsupervised children (pre-teen/early teen) tend to try a cache hide for a lark, having very little experience, a limited area to place caches in (within walking or biking distance so they choose a spot behind their back fence or in the bushes in their cul-de-sac's traffic island, or in the local shopping plaza, etc.), have limited resources so will use free kitchen containers like yogurt or margarine tubs. Personally I think a time restraint would weed out unsupervised children who would most likely not hide a cache if they have to be a member for at least 3 months.

.

 

"Gateway caches".....they start experimenting at a young age and before long they move on to the harder stuff....then the long downward spiral into addiction....

[+Walts Hunting]

How about this feature? No minimum # of finds to hide a cache, but if a cache owner has not logged into GC.com for a predetermined period of time, say, a year, their account is automatically flagged to the local reviewer. He reviews the cache owner's history and if it looks like they have "dropped out" the reviewer would send an email to the CO asking politely if they still intend to participate. No reply, the cache gets archived.

 

Or better yet, a notification is posted on the cache page "This cache is available for adoption" and see if one of the local cachers would like to take it over. That way a decent cache that is not having maintenance issues, despite an absentee owner, can be kept alive.

 

We always compare cache ownership to owning a pet, a long term commitment. So what happens when an irresponsible owner abandons a pet? It goes into the pound and gets put up for adoption by someone who will care for it. Same concept.

 

With regard to paragraph #1 why would you want to archive perfectly good caches with no problems just because the CO has moved on? It would seem better to let them go until there is a problem. There are many great caches out there by no longer active catchers.

 

Paragraph #2. In order for a cache to be adopted the current owner has to submit the request so if he isn't active that can't happen.

 

Paragraph #3. It is more likely that the abandoned pet is put down than adopted. There are far more abandon pets than people looking for them.

[+Amorak]

1st Point:

This post demonstrates why it would be better to have a minimum finds and time caching requirement. Also, here is another cache to demonstrate my point: cache GC1PEDM ,placed April 2009 by a cacher with 16 finds, none since Jan 2010, has had "Needs maintenance" since March 2011 though cache is in good shape. Since it is in good shape it does not warrant a NA. Again, these examples are not meant to offend or embarrass anyone - they are just examples.

 

2nd:

The suggestion to have a minimum number of finds and time is not meant to be an absolute solution - just an improvement. It's like a lock on a door, the lock will keep a vast majority out of the room, but there are always those individuals that no lock or alarm will deter.

 

3rd:

It would be good if GS could put caches that are in danger of being archived up for adoption. Give the original owner a chance to fix the cache, if it's not attended to then put it up for adoption (with notifications/PQ search). The current requirement that the CO put it up for adoption doesn't work so well in the case the owner has passed away ;>) This suggestion may also keep some older, nostalgic, unique caches active.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

When we first got back into geocaching last fall, we thought about placing a cache of our own. We read the guidelines that suggested (but not required) that cachers have at least 20 finds before placing a cache of their own. We actually waited until we had close to 100 finds just so we had experience with different types of hides and knew we were going to stick with this hobby. But I find that there are an awful lot of caches in our area that are poorly placed or thought out then later not maintained. And almost all of these were placed by people with just a couple of finds under their belts who then stopped being active with geocaching. I'm sure there has been discussion on the forums about this subject before (I just couldn't find the thread) but I was wondering if geocaching.com has discussed making it a rule that a cacher needs to have at least X number of finds (I would suggest 50 myself) before a cache hide can be approved?

 

As others have already stated, a minimum number of finds guideline (or requirement) wouldn't have much impact in this day and age of geocaching. Whatever the magical number is, say 100 finds, it can be accomplished in a single afternoon in many cities/states by finding dozens of micros and what has that cacher learned about hiding quality geocaches? If they don't use it as an example of what NOT to hide, then nothing. They learned nothing and now are free to splatter the landscape with more like micros.

 

The whole point of a minimum finds requirement is to try to teach a new hider some of the basics of hiding a quality, long-lasting geocache. I think a better way to do that would be to set a minimum number of finds requirement, with the caveat that they must also find at least three different physical cache types, with a minimum number of each type (I would've said four, but I know Letterbox-Hybrids can be scarce in some areas).

 

So, let's say you have to find 100 caches before you can hide your first. In that 100 caches, at least 5 must be a puzzle or letterbox-hybrid, 10 must be a multicache and the rest can be traditionals. This way they they are at least exposed to something other than a power trail of traditional micros.

[+OZ2CPU]

>I placed my first cache after one find

>and the chief thing I learned since was that I didn't have to put so much effort into choosing the location, container and contents.

 

SUPER !!! I love when someone put the general good advise to a test :-)

you do it well.

[+Lexmarks567]

SO if a person doesn't want to do puzzles or letter boxes they can't hid. fine they will just go to other geocacheing websites that don't have a requirement. I'm not a fan of math so I don't want to do puzzles. Also I do not drive I bike everywhere so I can't do multys cause who knows if the 2nd stage is 1 mile away or 30 miles away. That would be a unfair rule. Also so what if they do find a bunch of puzzles multys and 5/5s. Like that's going to stop them from going out and hiding a 100 micros on a power trail etc.

[+baloo&bd]

3rd:

It would be good if GS could put caches that are in danger of being archived up for adoption. Give the original owner a chance to fix the cache, if it's not attended to then put it up for adoption (with notifications/PQ search). The current requirement that the CO put it up for adoption doesn't work so well in the case the owner has passed away ;>) This suggestion may also keep some older, nostalgic, unique caches active.

 

Can't see this ever flying as it would be theft. GC does not own the cache, it's contents or the container.

[AZcachemeister]

If you want to be restrictive...

A prospective hider needs to have found at least five caches of a 3/3 rating or above.

[+timbee&suebee]

How about this feature? No minimum # of finds to hide a cache, but if a cache owner has not logged into GC.com for a predetermined period of time, say, a year, their account is automatically flagged to the local reviewer. He reviews the cache owner's history and if it looks like they have "dropped out" the reviewer would send an email to the CO asking politely if they still intend to participate. No reply, the cache gets archived.

 

We have a local cacher who has placed over a hundred caches but hasn't been active for more than a year. Although some of his caches are getting archived through a long period of "DNFs" then "needs maintenance" then "needs archived" and the reviewer waits a month for a response from the CO (which isn't forthcoming) before it's officially archived, many of his caches are still being found. So archiving them isn't really necessary. And I don't know what the rules are, but I don't think a reviewer can archive a cache if it's still being found if the CO hasn't given permission. I think the other issue with this plan is that a reviewer would have to keep track of the logins of all the cachers in his ares (which could be thousands) to see if they are still active. A daunting task to say the least.

 

Or better yet, a notification is posted on the cache page "This cache is available for adoption" and see if one of the local cachers would like to take it over. That way a decent cache that is not having maintenance issues, despite an absentee owner, can be kept alive.

 

That's a good idea but unfortunately, a CO has to place a cache up for adoption and/or invite a specific person to adopt the cache before it can happen. We attempted to adopt a cache that had had many DNFs but was in a nice location. We wrote to the CO and asked if we could adopt their cache but they hadn't been active in a long time and they never wrote back to us. Eventually we added a "needs archived" note and after some time the reviewer archived it freeing up the location for a new cache.

[+timbee&suebee]

...

2nd:

The suggestion to have a minimum number of finds and time is not meant to be an absolute solution - just an improvement. It's like a lock on a door, the lock will keep a vast majority out of the room, but there are always those individuals that no lock or alarm will deter.

 

I like this analogy!

[+timbee&suebee]

...The whole point of a minimum finds requirement is to try to teach a new hider some of the basics of hiding a quality, long-lasting geocache. I think a better way to do that would be to set a minimum number of finds requirement, with the caveat that they must also find at least three different physical cache types, with a minimum number of each type ...

 

Interesting idea but I think that would be a lot of work for the reviewers to have to check into all the finds of each person who wanted to place their first hide to make sure they met the minimum requirements.

[+Lexmarks567]

How about this feature? No minimum # of finds to hide a cache, but if a cache owner has not logged into GC.com for a predetermined period of time, say, a year, their account is automatically flagged to the local reviewer. He reviews the cache owner's history and if it looks like they have "dropped out" the reviewer would send an email to the CO asking politely if they still intend to participate. No reply, the cache gets archived.

 

We have a local cacher who has placed over a hundred caches but hasn't been active for more than a year. Although some of his caches are getting archived through a long period of "DNFs" then "needs maintenance" then "needs archived" and the reviewer waits a month for a response from the CO (which isn't forthcoming) before it's officially archived, many of his caches are still being found. So archiving them isn't really necessary. And I don't know what the rules are, but I don't think a reviewer can archive a cache if it's still being found if the CO hasn't given permission. I think the other issue with this plan is that a reviewer would have to keep track of the logins of all the cachers in his ares (which could be thousands) to see if they are still active. A daunting task to say the least.

 

Or better yet, a notification is posted on the cache page "This cache is available for adoption" and see if one of the local cachers would like to take it over. That way a decent cache that is not having maintenance issues, despite an absentee owner, can be kept alive.

 

That's a good idea but unfortunately, a CO has to place a cache up for adoption and/or invite a specific person to adopt the cache before it can happen. We attempted to adopt a cache that had had many DNFs but was in a nice location. We wrote to the CO and asked if we could adopt their cache but they hadn't been active in a long time and they never wrote back to us. Eventually we added a "needs archived" note and after some time the reviewer archived it freeing up the location for a new cache.

 

What should be done is instead of archiving it first the reviewer could post a note saying this cache is up for adoption and after a time if there are no hits then its deleted.

[+jellis]

1. Basic members could only " find " caches.

2. After X amount of finds and X months a basic member would be permitted to become a " Premium" member.

3. Only Premium members could hide caches.

I made a similar suggestion, and got booed. There are some lifers out there who don't want to be PM. And I respect their decision on that now. But I also agree if not 100 finds at least 6 months or more. The problem with that is the sock puppets. I don't like sock puppets if they place caches just for the soul purpose so they can log their finds on them. But ones who do it to hide their identity when placing them for fun is different.

I have had many issues with newbies here. Buried ones, holes drilled through a branch, regular sized containers under mailbox, caches on private property without permission, one a jar was glued to the front of a school building. Caches with coords way off up to 500ft or more, caches not place at the time of publication, cache containers made of cardboard, and caches placed in poison oak.

I keep seeing remarks to just ignore them. I will ignore caches that I just don't like but for the ones that don't belong for such as above mentioned issues then ignoring them doesn't solve the problem. As mentioned in another thread, that leads to other cachers thinking that it's okay to do those and they may want to place them too.

[4wheelin_fool]

Previously, cachers have gotten upset if their property is adopted out without their permission, so they don't do that anymore. A new hide with a link to the old one to add to the history is much better anyway.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

SO if a person doesn't want to do puzzles or letter boxes they can't hid. fine they will just go to other geocacheing websites that don't have a requirement. I'm not a fan of math so I don't want to do puzzles. Also I do not drive I bike everywhere so I can't do multys cause who knows if the 2nd stage is 1 mile away or 30 miles away. That would be a unfair rule. Also so what if they do find a bunch of puzzles multys and 5/5s. Like that's going to stop them from going out and hiding a 100 micros on a power trail etc.

 

This is all pie in the sky thinking, anyway. Groundspeak is not going to restrict cache hiding. It's their bread and butter, after all. My idea isn't to demand that you have to find x amount of multis/puzzles, etc...it's to give someone who downloads the geocaching app and the next day thinks they are ready to hide a cache, a better idea of what geocaching entails. A little seasoning, if you will. Plus, it shows effort and determination to stick with the hobby. If you don't like multi's or puzzles, that's fine. How about, as AZcachemeister suggested, you have to find a combination of difficulty/terrain?

 

...The whole point of a minimum finds requirement is to try to teach a new hider some of the basics of hiding a quality, long-lasting geocache. I think a better way to do that would be to set a minimum number of finds requirement, with the caveat that they must also find at least three different physical cache types, with a minimum number of each type ...

 

Interesting idea but I think that would be a lot of work for the reviewers to have to check into all the finds of each person who wanted to place their first hide to make sure they met the minimum requirements.

 

Actually, it could be coded by Groundspeak developers so that the option to even be able to submit a cache would be greyed out or would not appear at all until the find criteria was met.

[+Lexmarks567]

Some members are more mature then others. I currently have 6 lock n lock type containers ready to go. they got the green geocache labels. I spent hours using Google maps to spot wooded/forestry areas to place them. It was hard work just finding them on Google maps Now I need to physically inspect the areas I spotted from the satellite to double check. some only have 1 or 2 catchs in the areas some have none yet. I did my homework I just now need to wait for it to stop raining so I can inspect the sits I want to hid them at to make sure they will work. I'm picky as to where to hid them. I'm also very picky as to what caches I try to find. if I don't feel comfortable looking for the cache I don't go after it or spend allot of time looking for it ether. if its too close to someones property or has a hi muggle count or high chance of being caught I won't do it.

[+Don_J]

If you want to be restrictive...

A prospective hider needs to have found at least five caches of a 3/3 rating or above.

 

That would wipe out the urban micro quicker than requiring permission for placement. That is, until all those 3/3 LPC caches start popping up.

[+stijnhommes]

I always hesitate to ask for archival. Why can't we have adoption as an intermediate step?

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I always hesitate to ask for archival. Why can't we have adoption as an intermediate step?

Mainly because many if not most archivals come about because of an inactive or unresponsive CO.

 

You need the CO's agreement to adopt their cache. If they are inactive and not responding to emails, how do you get their agreement/assistance?

 

To do it any other way would simply cause problems -- something that I am sure that Groundspeak and geocaching.com would rather avoid.

 

It is a fair system.... wait for archival, place a new cache instead of trying to revive a piece of junk. Add to that: this creates a new listing that all previous finders get another cache to increase their finds with.

[+timbee&suebee]

I have had many issues with newbies here. Buried ones, holes drilled through a branch, regular sized containers under mailbox, caches on private property without permission, one a jar was glued to the front of a school building. Caches with coords way off up to 500ft or more, caches not place at the time of publication, cache containers made of cardboard, and caches placed in poison oak.

 

Sounds all so familiar :-)

 

I keep seeing remarks to just ignore them. I will ignore caches that I just don't like but for the ones that don't belong for such as above mentioned issues then ignoring them doesn't solve the problem. As mentioned in another thread, that leads to other cachers thinking that it's okay to do those and they may want to place them too.

 

The other problem with just ignoring those caches is that if no one is bothering to look for them, no one is posting DNFs or needs maintenance or other logs that indicate a problem and there is nothing to show a cause to request that the cache be archived by the reviewer and that seems to be the only way to get rid of these inappropriate caches.

[+timbee&suebee]

Some members are more mature then others. I currently have 6 lock n lock type containers ready to go. they got the green geocache labels. I spent hours using Google maps to spot wooded/forestry areas to place them. It was hard work just finding them on Google maps Now I need to physically inspect the areas I spotted from the satellite to double check. some only have 1 or 2 catchs in the areas some have none yet. I did my homework I just now need to wait for it to stop raining so I can inspect the sits I want to hid them at to make sure they will work. I'm picky as to where to hid them. I'm also very picky as to what caches I try to find. if I don't feel comfortable looking for the cache I don't go after it or spend allot of time looking for it ether. if its too close to someones property or has a hi muggle count or high chance of being caught I won't do it.

 

Just checked your stats and see that you are a newbie. I'm glad you are getting excited about the sport and it sounds like you are doing a lot of homework before placing the caches you have ideas for. You did not, however, mention anything about requesting permission to place caches in the areas you have selected. If the forested areas you talked about are in a state park, contact the park manager to find out what their cache guidelines are. If the area is on National Forest or Park land you might want to try someplace else for a hide. Although I have heard of some of them allowing caches at the local level, in general, there are no caches allowed on federal property. If these are private property, check the tax maps for the county the property is in to get the owner's names and address to contact them to request permission. There have been enough stories of cachers being confronted by property owners who did not give permission for a cache placement and you don't want to place anyone in any danger because of this. Also, you mentioned that you chose places in the woods. Are there trails to these locations? A little bushwhacking is one thing but if you have selected a spot a mile into the woods with no trail you might not get too many people bothering to look for it.

Edited August 11, 2012 by timbee&suebee

[+timbee&suebee]

I always hesitate to ask for archival. Why can't we have adoption as an intermediate step?

Mainly because many if not most archivals come about because of an inactive or unresponsive CO.

 

You need the CO's agreement to adopt their cache. If they are inactive and not responding to emails, how do you get their agreement/assistance?

 

To do it any other way would simply cause problems -- something that I am sure that Groundspeak and geocaching.com would rather avoid.

 

It is a fair system.... wait for archival, place a new cache instead of trying to revive a piece of junk. Add to that: this creates a new listing that all previous finders get another cache to increase their finds with.

 

Agreed. There was a lovely spot nearby that had a cache that had been missing for some time. The CO was someone like we are talking about - only a couple of finds, placed a cache they never maintained then dropped out. I attempted to contact the CO to find out if I could adopt the cache but as I suspected, he never wrote back. So I posted a "needs archived" and waited the month for the reviewer to close out this cache then placed a new cache in almost the same spot. It not only brought out new cachers but ones who had found the one in this spot previously and who have commented on how nice to have the spot revived and the improvement on the quality of the cache placed now.

[+stijnhommes]

Even though the CO is warned when a needs archive is placed on a cache, I feel it's better to contact them yourself beforehand, just for politeness. I'm glad most people seem to take that approach. So none-responsive COs get a fair chance to fix things up; that's all I want. Well perhaps a response would be nice too.

 

If I had a cache and was unable to visit it, I'd post a note to let people know or perhaps temporarily take it out of circulation until I've had a chance to check. But that's just me.

[+Don_J]

I always hesitate to ask for archival. Why can't we have adoption as an intermediate step?

 

Years ago, they allowed us to forcibly adopt a cache from an absentee owner. Problems came up when the old cache owner would log on and find that the cache that they paid for, constructed, placed, etc, had been assigned to another user. It is their property after all. At some point, the powers that be decided that this was not the proper way to do things and that only the original owner could initiate the adoption process.