Should we consider putting expiration dates on caches?

[Guest Exocet]

Howdy all,

 

My friends and I have recently been discussing the placement of an "expiration date" on a cache when we post it to geocaching.com. We're hoping Jeremy might add such an option when filling out the online form.

 

The reasoning behind the expiration date is this:

 

Some areas are beautiful, so the placer of the cache wants to show it off to his or her fellow geocachers, but the area itself can't take more than X visits per month before the local plant life is beat up.

 

On the other hand, some areas are well traveled and the traffic created by the cache does a negligable or zero amount of damage to the local plant life.

 

We discussed auto-expiring a cache after, say, 30, 60 or 90 days. However, after more discussion and a bit of research, we found out that such a time-based limitation is probably not a good idea. We found out that rural caches can get as few as 1-2 visits per month, whereas a popular cache in a city park can get up to 10 visits per month.

 

So, we think that instead of calling it an "expiration date" there could be a small area or sub-section where you rate the ground sensitivity in the area around your cache.

 

Ratings might include the general type of plant life, distance from the nearest trail, ground type, terrain type (hilly, flat, etc), etc.

 

In this scenario, after someone completed this sub-section, geocaching.com could give a suggested "expiration date" of X visits or unlimited visits.

 

Otherwise, there might be information on how to rate the cache yourself, if it's too difficult for Jeremy to implement a more automatic method.

 

The reason we started thinking about this is the number of caches that have been placed in the past two months (around 1000 caches), the increase in new geocachers and the idea that a cache is permanent.

[Guest Ron Streeter]

1,000 cache placements in the last 2 months?

 

I don't think so. Maybe you added one too many zeros?

 

As to your expiration idea, it might have some merit, but perhaps the cache hider could simply make that determination and with a few weeks prior notice of removal or relocation, could let people know it was nearing the end of its run.

[Guest fiser]

As of 4:06pm EST the most recent cache on the front page, Fire at Kin Canyon, has Cache ID #1633. Caches placed on or around February 11th (two months ago), have cache ID #s in the mid-low 600s. Approximately one thousand cache IDs fit between those numbers. That includes non-US caches though.

 

That's a lot of rubbermaid.

[Guest Exocet]

Ron,

 

No, I'm pretty sure the number of placements is right around 1,000. I and my friends placed cache ID #604 on 02/10/01. A cache placed today would get an ID in the 1600's. Two months, 1000 ID's.

 

Now, some of those ID's never get issued for whatever reason. When I was doing my research of caches placed with ID's of 600 - 650, I found 3 ID's that had never been issued. But that's a relatively small number of non-issued ID's, so it's still right around 1,000 in two months or 500 caches per month.

 

>As to your expiration idea, it might have

>some merit, but perhaps the cache hider

>could simply make that determination and

>with a few weeks prior notice of removal or

>relocation, could let people know it was

>nearing the end of its run.

 

That's basically what we're saying should be done, but right now there's no way of adding or updating the information regarding a cache.

 

What we're proposing is that people make the determination of how many visits the local area can take before they post the cache. Their determination, in my proposed scenario, would be listed along with the rest of the info on the cache's web page. The expiration could read something like, "There is no time limit on this cache, but it will be removed after the Nth logged visit."

 

The owner of the cache might be emailed when 10 visits have occured and then, at that point, he or she could chose to extend the life of the cache or remove the cache permanently or remove the cache to a nearby, similar location.

[Guest fumble]

trampling and 2)dates are probably not the best indicator of wear and tear. However, a "ground sensitivity" appraisal might be too abstract or complicated for the average geocacher. How about a simpler "ground sensitivity" rating where the user has a few *set* options to choose from, with descriptions of what they mean.

 

During the placing of a cache there is a section marked like this:

Please choose the visit capacity of this cache. How many visits before a negative effect is felt on the landscape?

1-3 visits (very sensitive ground, fragile moss, loose soil)4-6 visits (sensitive ground, off the path, small plants or shrubs)7-9 visits (etc. etc.) etc. etc. Unlimited (no negative effect on landscape)

 

This would give some guidance to users and force people to think about the affects on the land.

 

Ron Streeter posts:

>As to your expiration idea, it might have

>some merit, but perhaps the cache hider

>could simply make that determination and

>with a few weeks prior notice of removal or

>relocation, could let people know it was

>nearing the end of its run.

 

That would be nice, but I offer a big counter point. If this expiration/ground sensitivity/whatever is an option on the geocaching.com cache placement page, this will get people thinking about it. If they are forced(?) to choose an option, maybe they'll actually think about the surroundings. If it is left up to the placer, I think many people would forget or neglect removing the cache. Hey, were human, we forget stuff.

 

This way, the land and nature won't pay the price because of human nature and forgetfulness.

 

-fumble

[Guest jeremy]

There are currently 1,438 active caches in the world. We're at ID # 1636 at the moment.

 

There aren't 198 inactive caches, however. Half of that has been double posts or test cache entries that have been deleted. The others were voluntarily removed, plundered, or removed by officials for many different reasons.

 

We will soon be instituting a policy to send out automated "reminders" to folks to check and decide whether the cache should remain. The problem with each cache is that "it depends" whether a cache needs to be removed.

 

Many times the individual who hides the cache may not know whether ground is considered "fragile" - Deciding on whether it is considered very fragile, not fragile, etc. should be resolved by speaking with a park official about the placement. If that doesn't happen, we're all adults here (or should be). If you see a cache that is negatively impacting the environment, remove it and notify the owner, or contact the owner and ask him/her to remove it.

 

Just make sure to contact the owner to retrieve his/her cache, or contact contact@geocaching.com and I'll let the owner know.

 

Jeremy

[Guest cache_ninja]

is there going to be a retired/plundered cache(s) page(s)? it would be kinda nice, just to have them there to look at, i'm sure some of them have interesting logs and whatnot.

 

c/n

[Guest Cape Cod Cache]

I placed my first cache. I faxed the coordinates to the Town's Conversation Commition.

http://www.yarmouthcapecod.org/

[Guest 300mag]

Good suggestions.I could see this in my area where we get lots of snow.You could post the cache with the expiring date.When it becomes more accessible re-post it with the "ready to hunt" date.Right now i have several geocachers "watching" my cache.I know they are waiting for this snow to go even if it is accessible.But there are places i will add some caches that would just be too much of a hike in winter.

[Guest Silver]

Another idea would be to use a multi-step cache. If the cache gets a bit too much traffic, the final cache location could be changed without changing the original location listed on the web page.

 

This might work for raided caches also. Change the final cache location and update the first hint.

 

Silver

 

[This message has been edited by Silver (edited 22 April 2001).]

[Guest Krepism]

I think all these ideas are heading in the right direction. But lets keep it simple. Why dont we have a spot when publishing the cache, say that after "x" amount of logs it expires. THe server can then automaticly remove the cache from the Active cache page, and move it to an expired or "museum" of caches. Then email the owner to remind him.her to remove it.

I had already planned on removing my cache after 15 visits and relocate it to minimize damage to the area.

[+briansnat]

Hmmmmm

[+The Weasel]

Hmmmmm

Wow, you had to do some digging for this one!!!

[+Lone Duck]

If someone places a cache that he wants to have a limited time, then that can be included in the cache descriptions and the owner can retrieve the cache and archive it at the end of that time period. Having this site automatically archive a cache wouldn't work. There is a virtual on my list that has been archived by the owner and it is still getting Found notices posted to it! Only the removal of the cache will stop people from looking for it once they realize it's not there.

[+greengecko]

???

Edited January 10, 2004 by greengecko

[+sept1c_tank]

.

 

 

.................................brian?...........briansnat?

[+Johnnie Stalkers]

The absurdity of it all.

[+Renegade Knight]

All this time and still a bad idea.

[+Criminal]

Glad I didn't see this request to change the game come up while I was sober....

[+pnew]

I am now telling the computer to find my cache and retrieve it so I won't spoil the fragile fauna...

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

There is a virtual on my list that has been archived by the owner and it is still getting Found notices posted to it! Only the removal of the cache will stop people from looking for it once they realize it's not there.

Huh? How do you remove a virtual cache...so that it is not there?? This is great! LOL!!

[+Lone Duck]

There is a virtual on my list that has been archived by the owner and it is still getting Found notices posted to it! Only the removal of the cache will stop people from looking for it once they realize it's not there.

Huh? How do you remove a virtual cache...so that it is not there?? This is great! LOL!!

I didn't say removed, it's only been archived. Visible Gas Pump Since it's on my watch list, I'm still seeing activity on it even though the Found postings are not showing up on the archived cache.

[+Halden]

In a word no. Let Cache owners manage their caches.

[+wildearth2001]

In a word no. Let Cache owners manage their caches.

Exactly, not everything fits within a linear equation, some must belong to the "Chaos Theory". By this I mean that their is no way to predict the damage done by cachers to an area. The only way is to watch carefully for signs of distruction. In the event you are wondering "Chaos Theory" is a group of scientists who are trying to come up with a formula that can predict everything, quantium mechanics gone even more extream. If a cache owner is a good one he/she would do regular maint. visits and will notice a problem and take of the problem, by moving, removing or temp. disabling the cache.

[+Bob&TheGang]

I would like to see some criterion where a cache owner would have to post some type of update/note on the cache page once every 4 months. This update or note would say that the they checked on this cache and it appears to be OK. If they did not post some type of update, the cache would be automatically archived (i.e., it would not show up the search page). Of course there is no way to prove a person actually went and checked on their cache, but it would at least force then to go to their own cache page to post the update/note. This would a least require people to think about their cache.

 

I think owners of caches need to be responsible. In the San Diego area, their are a bunch caches that owner just forget about. For example their is his cache really near my house. A few people reported that tin cache container has gotten too wet and rusted and it could not be opened any more. So the owner disabled the cache and posted a note saying he will replace it shortly. Well that was back in April, 2003. I went to the cache site about a month ago and I find that the rusted contain is still there. This guy only lives a few miles from the cache site. Since then this guy has hidden 4 other caches. Two of them have been disabled due to some problems.

 

I also think that when an Approver is approving a cache, they should look at how well this person has maintained any previous cache hides.

 

I am not sure if people know this, when you disable a cache (i.e., there is a line though it on the cache search page), it suggests that there is something wrong with cache, but the owner will fix it as soon as possible. A disabled cache still shows up on a search page.

 

When you archive the a cache, you are saying the cache is no more and you don't plan on replacing it. Archived caches don't show up on a search page.

[+HartClimbs]

The funniest thing to me is - I'm reading this thread where someone posted that there are currently some 1,400 caches active worldwide and I'm thinking there's probably 1,400 caches in the state at this point!!!

 

Then I checked the date of the post. Talk about an idea that's germinated!