Jump to content

what is your thought on gcrm


HHD

Recommended Posts

There are a bunch of caches showing up in my area that are gcrm. If you are familiar it apparently means the owner placed the cache for the community to maintain. So if you dnf they ask you to replace it. Just wondering what the forums think about this.

Link to comment

There are a bunch of caches showing up in my area that are gcrm. If you are familiar it apparently means the owner placed the cache for the community to maintain. So if you dnf they ask you to replace it. Just wondering what the forums think about this.

I think that if I DNF'd it and was asked to replace it, I'd log an NA on it as well. Give the spot over to someone who knows what it means to be a cache owner.

Link to comment

I've never heard of "gcrm" before - What does it stand for?

 

I suspect that if the local reviewer had been aware of the cache owner's intentions regarding maintenance (and "throw down" replacements) before publishing the caches then I doubt they would have been published.

 

MrsB

Same here??? Obviously something that hasn't reached down under yet :P

Link to comment

http://gcrm.gocacher.com/

 

I think it is a bad idea. If you don't want to maintain a cache don't place it.

This has GOT to be against the guidelines. If this sort of thing is allowed to happen then the quality of caches will drop significantly. Well i'm glad i know about it.

 

For those that may think this is a good idea let me remind you of the caching guidelines.

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to maintain proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable amount of time – normally a few weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

The territory in which a geocacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person. A geocacher who has previously logged many geocaches within a wide range of their home may be considered able to maintain a geocache 200 miles (322 km) away. However, someone whose geocaching activities have primarily been within 25 miles (40 km) of home may not be. This determination is at the discretion of the cache reviewer.

Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, we ask that you place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while on a vacation or business trip. It is best when you live within a manageable distance from the cache placements to allow for return visits. Geocaches placed during travel may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan, which must allow for a quick response to reported problems. An acceptable maintenance plan might include the username of a local geocacher who will handle maintenance issues in your absence. Alternatively you might train a local person to maintain the cache. Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache page. This will auto-delete on publication.

 

I doubt that listing a cache as GCRM or GCRL is an acceptable maintenance plan.

Link to comment

Just wondering what the forums think about this.

 

Well, it's probably not going to be too pretty. :ph34r:

 

Some guy from Colorado started that website a couple years ago. It's been discussed a few times. I don't think I've seen a single supporter, but then again, this is the forums.

 

I see you're halfway across the Country. I'm quite surprised it spread anywhere.

Link to comment
This has GOT to be against the guidelines. If this sort of thing is allowed to happen then the quality of caches will drop significantly.

Yup. If this principle of enabling cache owners who are unwilling or unable to do the maintenance they agreed to perform when they submitted the listing is allowed to continue, it could lead to long strings of such caches spewed out by the hundreds, possibly even the thousands, along mundane roadways... Oh... Uh... Nevermind. Too late. Powertrails are already in fashion, and Groundspeak is seemingly OK with the practice of owners shirking their maintenance duties. <_<:ph34r:

Link to comment

There are a bunch of caches showing up in my area that are gcrm. If you are familiar it apparently means the owner placed the cache for the community to maintain.

 

That's not exactly how I read it based on the webpage. The way I read it the intent is not that the owner is handing over the maintenance for the community to deal with, rather he/she is saying "I'm OK if the community wants to give me a hand before I can get there if a problem arises with this cache."

 

Presumably the cache owner makes an effort to do the same for others, hence the "cooperative" part.

 

We often see cachers come into the forums and ask if it is OK to do maintenance on someone else's cache. In the case of the GCRM they are simply stating right up front that if someone wants to help them out they can do do without risk of angst.

 

Now, before the flames begin...

 

The whole thing sounds great in theory, but I can see where lazy cache owners would look at this as a way to avoid doing any maintenance at all. And the idea of throw-down containers is just a recipe for trouble. "Look five minutes for each level of Difficulty"? So, for a tricky Difficulty 3 I can throw down a container after just 15 minutes? Wow. :unsure: And, how does the good Samaritan know how the cache was hidden in the first place?

 

I don't mind the idea, I love the theory but in the real world it ain't going to work.

Link to comment

The GCRM website appears to be very poorly phrased. It's a little hard to judge intent without seeing an example Listing or hearing from the Cache Owner what exactly they had in mind.

 

Given the brief description in your OP, I would agree that it does not sound like a great idea, just as I feel that rewarding people with an extra smiley for fulfilling an ALR is contrary to the Guidelines and general etiquette of the game :anibad:

Link to comment

The GCRM website appears to be very poorly phrased. It's a little hard to judge intent without seeing an example Listing or hearing from the Cache Owner what exactly they had in mind.

Got some examples for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=site%3Awww.geocaching.com+http%3A%2F%2Fgcrm.gocacher.com%2FGCRM.gif&oq=site%3Awww.geocaching.com+http%3A%2F%2Fgcrm.gocacher.com%2FGCRM.gif&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=27512l33225l0l33591l24l22l0l0l0l8l380l4100l3.11.6.2l22l0
Link to comment

But Groundspeak is endorsing cache finder maint. on some trails. You always have the people that say "precedence doesn't matter" , but then the opposite of "if you allow cacher A to do something, then you can't not allow cacher B to do the same thing" argument. Thats the old proverbial slippery slope and why we need rules to protect ourselves from ourselves.

Link to comment

I like the idea of carrying logs and helping out as needed, but this is carrying that WAY too far.

 

So now should I just run out and throw a container down for all those 5 difficulty caches I haven't been able to find and claim I thought they were gcrm???

 

Throw-down containers are never a good idea.

The cacher doesn't know if it's really gone, and they don't know where it was before.

 

I suppose if you've got a power trail, no one really cares where it was or whether it's really gone, but if you've got a real cache in a good place, soon you could have 5 or 6 throw downs in one area.

 

Bad idea, no matter how you look at it.

 

A new way to shirk responsibility.

Link to comment

Finder maintenance is a fact of life for caches placed by deployed military in Southwest Asia, because of the natural turnover. Outside of that, I disagree with this principle.

 

Cache owners are responsible for their hides -- that's why they "own" them, and that's why many caches get archived. Responsible cache owners have a maintenance plan. Irresponsible cache owners leave it to the whim of the cosmos.

Link to comment

NOOOOO......got enough on my plate already. I don't have a problem with helping maintain caches for cachers I know who go out of town for several months...and I do that. But not strangers.

 

ok, I am editting... I'd "adopt" caches of a local military person....

 

Finder maintenance is a fact of life for caches placed by deployed military in Southwest Asia, because of the natural turnover. Outside of that, I disagree with this principle.

Edited by FloridaFour
Link to comment

I say, if you find one.... take it. Forget the NA.

 

Unfortunately, I've seen this type of thing with some of my local letterboxers.... you log a DNF and they say...oh I guess I won't have a chance to replace/maintain it until I'm down in Florida for that one week next August.... what the heck? So they just leave them to rot with bugs in them all year, gross.

Edited by FloridaFour
Link to comment

I don't think I would like that. I wouldn't want to be responsible for somebody else's cache. What if it really wasn't missing, & I had replaced it, thinking it was? I personally would think it was in bad sense to leave something, anything, with the intent of not maintaining it. If somebody can't maintain a cache any longer, that is one thing to transfer ownership; it's completely different to plan it that way from the beginning.

Link to comment

NOOOOO......got enough on my plate already. I don't have a problem with helping maintain caches for cachers I know who go out of town for several months...and I do that. But not strangers.

 

ok, I am editting... I'd "adopt" caches of a local military person....

 

Finder maintenance is a fact of life for caches placed by deployed military in Southwest Asia, because of the natural turnover. Outside of that, I disagree with this principle.

 

I was actually talking about caches placed "downrange," i.e., military cacher deploys to Afghanistan, hides a few caches on a given base, then rotates back. These caches get published with the understanding that the cache owner will not be hanging around and that subsequent finders will have to help out with maintenance.

 

Hopefully, a military geocacher would set up a maintenance plan on their home station caches prior to deployment -- but things like this can certainly slip off the radar screen, and it's good to know that folks like you would help step up to maintain their hides while they were gone.

Link to comment

How is that much differnet from mega powertrails and the state owned trails that ask for cacher maint.

 

I'm not sure that it *is* any different from the mega powertrails and state "owned" trails which encourage community maintenance, nor *should* there be a difference. Perhaps one of the things I dislike most about mega power trails is the fairly common belief that there is one set of acceptable caches for "regular" caches and, in the pursuit of racking up a large number of finds, a different set of acceptable practices applies to mega power trails. There are numerous examples of practices which occur frequently on mega power trails that many would consider bad form on "regular" caches. The guidelines don't say, "You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to maintain proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). ...unless it happens to be part of a mega trail".

 

To me, every cache has a "maintenance plan" (not just vacation caches) and if I were a reviewer wouldn't consider a request to the community to replace logs or containers to be a viable maintenance plan.

Link to comment

The idea of carrying a few spare logs to help out is a nice idea.

 

Placing caches as 'community maintenance' seems like a horribly ill thought out concept.

Certainly on first thought it seems good - if you can't find the cache, or it needs a new logbook, then drop a new one and keep the cache active. In reality I can only see it being a bad idea though, the concept basically removes the responsibility of the owner to keep a cache good (which is against the guidelines) and while replacing the logbook is a good idea, replacing the cache itself I can only see resulting in multiple caches appearing at the location when someone can't find the original (their fault, not a missing cache) and then leaves a new one, which then means there are now two caches that could be found, which can then be multiplied by as many people that can't find the real one, look in the slightly wrong place or whatever other excuse they have for DNF'ing.

It also means caches are kept active long, which is both good and bad - in low density areas it means more 'sport' for finders, but in many areas now we seem to be reaching saturation point, where we are hoping all the poor and ill maintained caches will drop off and be archived, clearing space for a new cache for a (hopefully) more caring owner. This way keeps poor caches active longer leaving us with lots of what I will guess will be uninteresting find cluttering up the space.

 

It also sounds to me like a recipe for lack of care by the owner - if they don't have to maintain it and replace it over time, what care do they have for putting out a nice container, hiding it well or giving us a nice location?

Link to comment

This has been informative as we now know what GCRM stands for and also that there are many who agree (as we do) that it's a bad idea. Fortunately, the practice is not widespread. However, if more and more cachers were to adopt this practice it would be detrimental to the game. The caches referenced by the OP are owned by a very well-known caching team that should be setting a better example for newer members of the community.

Link to comment

The days when Caches were few and far between and a small handful of Cachers who were thankfully willing to hide many, many, many Caches for us to find are in the past. Now is the time that there are tons of Cachers (growing everyday) and they are adding to our sport many new Caches that have been well thought out and creative. These Caches are being maintained as they should. Any CO that is willing to post a Cache that states right in the description how to maintain it for them goes right in the face of our guidelines. As much as we appreciate the occasional maintenance done on one of ours by a finder, I will run right out and check on it myself. I look at it as my responsibility as a CO. Surprised to see reviewers let these type of Caches get posted. I will say that I haven't gone back to check if there were any Owner Maintenance logs done on them. But if I did that I would also be looking to see if any of the Cache Owners have also logged finds on them... But that is another can of worms for another day.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...