Vacation Cache Evolution

24.7k · December 15, 2003

The rules now cover vacation caches and maintainable distance. If you placed outside your maintainable distance it’s a vacation cache and you either need to show that:

1) You really can maintain the cache.

or

2) You have made arrangements to maintain the cache, however you should post the name of the person doing the work and provide their goecaching name.

My take is that the real issue is being able to maintain the cache. The rest is just fluff that might be nice to know but isn’t needed.

I can back up my assertion but lets see what discussion develops.

2.3k · December 15, 2003

Your ability to respond to a cache problem within a reasonable time will determine your maintainable distance. If you travel weekly to a town that is 6,000 miles away from your home, that town would certainly be within your maintainable area. However, an area 500 miles from home that you can only get to twice a year would not be within your maintainable area. It is dealt width on a cache by cache basis.

4k · December 15, 2003

Do you have a definition of "reasonable time"? I own some timber and farmland that is 200 miles away, but only get there about 2 or 3 times a year, however, if I were to place a cache there, I could be there within a week of the time a problem is reported. Is that "reasonable time"?

2.3k · December 15, 2003

Do you have a definition of "reasonable time"? I own some timber and farmland that is 200 miles away, but only get there about 2 or 3 times a year, however, if I were to place a cache there, I could be there within a week of the time a problem is reported. Is that "reasonable time"?

Being able to get there within a week would certainly fit into the reasonable time frame.

The guidelines say the following:

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for checking on your cache periodically, and 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 hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

For some people it may be difficult to reach a cache 100 miles away that includes a 3 hour one way hike in a "few weeks". For others this cache might be reachable the next day. It really depends on the person and the cache. If you feel that you can maintain a cache that would normally appear outside of the normal range feel free to discuss it with your approver in detail. You also need to be in the area often enough to do normal cache maintenance and not simply wait for someone to point out a problem.

4k · December 15, 2003

Alrighty, then! Thanks for the info. I still don't know if I'll plant one there or not. It's quite a ways off the beaten path, and only a handful of locals know it even exists, so it's still pretty pristine. Don't really want a bunch of people running around the area, although I know most cachers are pretty eco-conscious. I'm afraid that increased cacher traffic will tip off unwanted muggles, as there's really not anyone near enough to make sure the area isn't abused.

December 15, 2003

I wanted to help out with a cache only 67 miles away from my home and which is in my hometown (visit once a month), but I never heard back after the approver forwarded it on. It was a cache possibly in need of adoption. I think its owners are long gone.

Hope we hear something soon, could use a refirb when we are there for Christmas.

Edited December 15, 2003 by SoMDCacherz

December 15, 2003

Thanx RK for asking for clarification. And thanx CO ADMIN FOR quoting from the placing and maintaing a cache guidlines. I had planned on re-reading these to see what all the fuss was about on how far a cache could be and not be a vacation cache when iwas done surfing the forums.

2.3k · December 15, 2003

Alrighty, then! Thanks for the info. I still don't know if I'll plant one there or not. It's quite a ways off the beaten path, and only a handful of locals know it even exists, so it's still pretty pristine. Don't really want a bunch of people running around the area, although I know most cachers are pretty eco-conscious. I'm afraid that increased cacher traffic will tip off unwanted muggles, as there's really not anyone near enough to make sure the area isn't abused.

In my personal opinion if you have concerns about the site it might best to not place a cache in that area. That however is a personal opinion and not a response from a Geocaching.com Approver.

4k · December 15, 2003

The only reason I would place a cache there is so that I could launch a TB that I have for my Dad. He was born in a house on that land that my great-great-great grandfather built when he homesteaded the place back in 1856. Dad passed away in March of this year, and I want a TB with a pic of him and a little info about him to travel the world. I would like it to start where he was born, but as I said, I'm still debating that with my own personal convictions. There are other caches nearby, the closest being 11 miles south, so I may just start the TB there rather than placing my own cache for that one purpose. If I could do a one-time cache, I most likely would do that, but since they aren't allowed I must come up with some sort of plan on what, where, how, etc.

2.3k · December 15, 2003

Thats going to be a tough call. Good luck.

December 15, 2003

could you make it some where not too far away, and give the FTF the coordinates where you want the bug to start and a cool FTF prize. That way others can come to the cache but only the FTF will visit your special place?

4k · December 15, 2003

Yeah, I hadn't thought of that. That would keep out unwanted traffic, get the bug launched, and satisfy someone's desire to get an "extra bonus" search for another location. I'll keep that in mind, thanks!

December 15, 2003

I'm glad some one who is new could help. I enjoy reading the forums and writing down notes for caches I intend to hide. I have a number of ideas and places ,now i'm checking on ways to improve them.

2.1k · December 15, 2003

2) You have made arrangements to maintain the cache, however you should post the name of the person doing the work and provide their goecaching name.

What if the person looking after it for you is not a geocacher?

2.3k · December 15, 2003

2) You have made arrangements to maintain the cache, however you should post the name of the person doing the work and provide their goecaching name.

What if the person looking after it for you is not a geocacher?

No one has said they have to be a geocacher. No one has said you have to post their name on the cache site.

I will normaly ask for the persons geocache nickname. If I am told they are not a member thats fine.

2.1k · December 15, 2003

No one has said they have to be a geocacher. No one has said you have to post their name on the cache site.

I will normaly ask for the persons geocache nickname. If I am told they are not a member thats fine.

Ok...I was just going off what was initially posted at the top. It said you should. It didn't say that you can if you want or it might be a good idea. It says you should (I take that it's needed) as well as says their geocaching name. That's presuming they are a geocacher I guess.

So what I gather then is that you don't have to post their name or geocaching name and they don't even have to be a geocacher. Right?

December 15, 2003

So what I gather then is that you don't have to post their name or geocaching name and they don't even have to be a geocacher. Right?

That's right. You do have to be somewhat specific and believable though. I don't think if you said "I'll get my cousin Jed who lives near here to check on it" would be accepted quite as readily as "My cousin Jed lives 5 miles away, was with me when I hid it, and will respond quickly to any alerts he gets by phone or e-mail"

One thing I look for is how often the closest caches to a submitted vacation cache are found. I had one earlier this week: The owner of the cache under review stayed at the same resort annually for two weeks. The nearest cache was found 114 times in the last 20 months and the second closest 87 times in 18 months. It was obvious that being able to react to a problem within a week or two was required here and that annual visits wouldn't hack it. Other caches are found only three or four times a year, and there probably being able to get to the cache within a few months would be fine. We try to be flexible and realistic, however not post caches that will become geolitter.

erik - geocaching.com admin

December 15, 2003

So what I gather then is that you don't have to post their name or geocaching name and they don't even have to be a geocacher. Right?

It comes down to contact info and being responsible. Caches require maintenance, so the person must be willing to do maintenance on the cache on an as needed basis.

If it is a geocacher, then link to their profile so people know who is helping you out and who to send the quick email to that says there is water in the cache or the log book is full.

If it is a relative or friend and you will be responsible for contacting them, then no placing their name on the page is not necessary. You can take care of sending them out to check on the cache when needed.

But if it is a hotel manager near your cache location then you should consider putting their name and contact info on your page (with permission of course).

In the case that we get notified a cache is to be removed immediately we must be able to contact someone within a reasonable amount of time.

When a cache is submitted you will be asked by the admin 'who' will be helping you. You must provide this info to the admin or your cache is not approvable.

Please be responsible with your cache placement, the vacation guideline was added to discourage abandonded caches and caches not being properly maintained.

2k · December 15, 2003

We recently had a post to our local caching forum from a cacher (+2500 finds) who was looking to find a "sponsor" for some caches they wanted to place while in town. Isn't this kind of "back dooring" the system?

I can see placing a cache in my home town (450 Miles away), in some location special to me, then asking a local to act as care taker. I'm not so sure about trolling the local cacher sites for help placing a cache some where I have no connection to. (Not to say this cacher did any of these things, just one way it could be interpreted.)

24.7k · December 15, 2003

Hydee, that's the kind of information I was looking for. If it will not be approved if you do not provide the names, is much different than the names should be provided. It moves from a guideline to a rule of law on this site. It removes all question and gives less flexability than even the 528' rule has.

Rusty_tlc, that is a back door but does address the maintenance problem up front. I sponsor a local cache on behalf of CCCooperagency. There were no issues with the cache. Who will maintain is clear as I have credit in the placed by portion of the cache listing.

Back to the main question.

Here is why I think should is only a suggestion, and not a rule a listing will live or die by. I made an arrangment with a local couple who live within two blocks of the cache. They often go for walks in the area. They will maintain the cache at my request. The couple is elderly. They have concerns for their privacy that I chose to honor by not specifying who they are when the information was requested. There was no negotiating the point. Either I respect their privacy or I don't and I wasn't going to cross that line. They don't know the approver and quite frankly neither do I, not in any real sence.

This is why I really don't think the name required rule makes any sence. As a suggestion, it's fine. As an ironclad rule of GC.com law it serves no higher purpose.

For the record the cache was archived per my request. The approver was enforcing the rule exactly as Hydee clarified it. They required the name and I would not budge on divulging it, thus the cache was not approvable. It's not geo litter either since I have already made other arrangments for the cache.

2.1k · December 16, 2003

When a cache is submitted you will be asked by the admin 'who' will be helping you. You must provide this info to the admin or your cache is not approvable.

If it is not necessary to list friends or relatives owho will be checking on the cache for you, then when asked by the approver of "who" will be maintaining it, will it suffice to say "a friend" or "my brother"? Will it be a thing where the approver will want to know their names, phone, or email? If so, does it go in some log? As RK stated, some people have a problem with privacy thing. And as you stated that if we have someone we can call to check on it, then the info wouldn't be nescessary, correct?

2.3k · December 16, 2003

Hydee said:
When a cache is submitted you will be asked by the admin 'who' will be helping you. You must provide this info to the admin or your cache is not approvable.

Seemed pretty clear to me.

24.7k · December 16, 2003

Hydee said:
When a cache is submitted you will be asked by the admin 'who' will be helping you. You must provide this info to the admin or your cache is not approvable.

Seemed pretty clear to me.

Very clear. That's not what the guidelines say though. That's what Hydee said to clarify the situation in this thread. However to get this back on track, the topic isn't whether its clear. It's whether it should even be a guideline.

Let some members get some licks in!

38.2k · December 16, 2003

Alrighty, then! Thanks for the info. I still don't know if I'll plant one there or not. It's quite a ways off the beaten path, and only a handful of locals know it even exists, so it's still pretty pristine. Don't really want a bunch of people running around the area, although I know most cachers are pretty eco-conscious. I'm afraid that increased cacher traffic will tip off unwanted muggles, as there's really not anyone near enough to make sure the area isn't abused.

If the area is that off the beaten path, the cache probably won't get many visitors anyway. Heck, I live in a metropoitan area with some 15 million people within an hour of most of my caches and anything that takes more than 10 minutes to get to will go 3-4 months between finds.

Edited December 16, 2003 by briansnat

4k · December 16, 2003

If the area is that off the beaten path, the cache probably won't get many visitors anyway. Heck, I live in a metropoitan area with some 15 million people within an hour of most of my caches and anything that takes more than 10 minutes to get to will go 3-4 months between finds.

And I thought my city was big at 987!

Yeah, that's true, briansnat. As was mentioned earlier, if the cache gets visited 10 times a month, as opposed to 10 times a year, you adjust your "availability" to do maintanence to suit the situation.

5.3k · December 16, 2003

It comes down to contact info and being responsible. Caches require maintenance, so the person must be willing to do maintenance on the cache on an as needed basis.

I'm sorry, but that dog don't hunt. If cache maintenance were really the issue, then other hard-to-maintain cache types would also be verboten. But they are not. So would it be too much to ask that TPTB stop blowing smoke and at least be honest about their real reasons for this ban?

From my perspective, it looks like an effort to keep geocaching from growing to new parts of the world, but I can't for the life of me figure out what TPTB have to gain from inhibiting the growth. In any case, the net effect is that if I have the opportunity to go somewhere new and different, the chance that a geocache will await me there is next to zero.

If TPTB wish to continue to insist that the reason is about maintenance, then all I can say is that the magnitude of their hypocrisy is truly stunning.

Edited December 16, 2003 by fizzymagic

1.3k · December 16, 2003

I'm curious and ignorant. What hard-to-maintain cache's are allowed?

4k · December 16, 2003

I'm curious and ignorant. What hard-to-maintain cache's are allowed?

Yeah, me too! I'd like to think you have some examples to go on, because I think the guidelines are pretty much self explanatory, and the posts here pretty much seem to back them up and shed more light on the thread topic.

December 16, 2003

If TPTB wish to continue to insist that the reason is about maintenance, then all I can say is that the magnitude of their hypocrisy is truly stunning.

I think that's a little extreme. Really, we all know that these sorts of rules exist in order to keep the rawest newbies from doing stupid things - like finding one cache, then hiding some they'll never deal with. 'GeoLitter'. The state of Hawaii would be covered in it.

What is needed is more room for judgement calls by the approver, and more inclination to make them. If someone with 10 finds and 1 hide wants to hide a cache 1000 miles from home, that's a pretty obvious 'no'. If someone with 1000 finds and 100 hides suggests the same thing and has a reasonable argument, then more allowance should be for the experience and dedication (to the game) of the second hider.

I'm hearing, in short, is that GC needs to stop blindly applying newbie rules to experienced geocachers.

I can agree with that, sorta, but what do they do when they run across an experienced twit? We are fortunate not to have any of them in NorCal, but I'm told that they exist in other places.

December 16, 2003

It just occured to me that GC could make money by selling "Indulgences", like the catholic church did before the reformation. For a fee, you can get a letter (or a code) that allows you a one-time exception from the rules.

4k · December 16, 2003

I think that's a little extreme. Really, we all know that these sorts of rules exist in order to keep the rawest newbies from doing stupid things - like finding one cache, then hiding some they'll never deal with. 'GeoLitter'. The state of Hawaii would be covered in it.

What is needed is more room for judgement calls by the approver, and more inclination to make them. If someone with 10 finds and 1 hide wants to hide a cache 1000 miles from home, that's a pretty obvious 'no'. If someone with 1000 finds and 100 hides suggests the same thing and has a reasonable argument, then more allowance should be for the experience and dedication (to the game) of the second hider.

I have to disagree. Just because they only have 10 finds and one hide doesn't mean that they will not be able to do maintanence on a cache 1000 miles from home. That decision should be, and is, based upon their argument and evidence that they can do that type of maintanence. Strictly denying them based solely on experience would vastly limit the amount of caches placed anywhere. If that reasoning were used from the start of geocaching, it in essence would not even exist, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

1.2k · December 16, 2003

It just occured to me that GC could make money by selling "Indulgences", like the catholic church did before the reformation. For a fee, you can get a letter (or a code) that allows you a one-time exception from the rules.

I can see the reasoning behind applying rules as we all know there are those that push the outside of the envelope even from their first day geocaching. I do see some merit on relaxing some of the initial rules for those who have been around for a while and demonstrated some knowledge and experience.

It seems there might be an opportunity here to grow the sport a little more. Have graduated memberships based on time and experience perhaps. Nothing based on money or anything, but actual participation in the sport. Having been around for some determinate amount of time, and having placed caches within the most restrictive rules during that time, and having hunted all different types of caches could eventually allow you some leeway in the interpretation of the rules, or even a special permit to do things like a virtual, or locationless, or even a vacation cache.

What the requirements might be would be something TPTB could work out with an advisory panel of experienced cachers perhaps. I really do think this is worth looking into and I'd be happy to contribute.

Or, we could just keep doing what we're already doing....LOL.

5.3k · December 16, 2003

I'm curious and ignorant. What hard-to-maintain cache's are allowed?

Caches that are near you but very difficult to get to are still allowed. Caches that you cannot reach during the winter months, but that others (with better equipment) can are still allowed.

A good example would be a cache in a place that takes a multi-day backpack trip to reach. For most people, it is unlikely that you would be able to respond to a problem within a month. Yet such a place could be within a hundred miles of you, and so the cache would still be approved.

Please understand: I think that the type of caches I described above are the best kind of caches, and I think they should be approved. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of Groundspeak's stated reasons for prohibiting so-called "vacation" caches.

The "vacation cache" problem started when people from out of an area would come into an area that already had geocaches and place their own, leaving it to the locals to do maintenance. I agree with Groundspeak that such caches should not be approved.

Where I differ is in the situation in which a cacher wishes to place a cache in an unpopulated, remote or otherwise cache-free location. Technically, such a cache is prohibited by the guidelines if it is farther than a couple hundred miles from your home. Yet I think those caches should be allowed, even if the person placing it may never be back. I also think that a pre-approval process should be used for them. That allows for quality caches to be placed in those "once in a lifetime" spots.

1.3k · December 17, 2003

Caches that you cannot reach during the winter months, but that others (with better equipment) can are still allowed.

If I placed a cache that I couldn't get to during winter and there were reported problems, I would simply disable the cache until I could get to it. There are caches that have been in forest fires, caches underwater now that the water level of the lake has risen 10' and all sorts of caches where unexpected events have prevented maintainence. On the other hand, if I expect winter to render the cache inaccessable, I can simply pick it up and archive it for the winter. That seems to be common around here. Neither of these circumstances strikes me as being unable to reasonably maintain a cache.

A good example would be a cache in a place that takes a multi-day backpack trip to reach. For most people, it is unlikely that you would be able to respond to a problem within a month. Yet such a place could be within a hundred miles of you, and so the cache would still be approved.

What makes a multi-day hike prohibitive? If I was going to place such a cache it would probably be because I hike that region often.

I'm failing to see the hypocrisy here. If someone can't maintain the cache, they shouldn't place it. If the approver feels the person can't maintain the cache, they shouldn't approve it for listing. And if, as humans, they both make mistakes, then we do our best to fix it and get on with our lives.

4k · December 17, 2003

Your ability to respond to a cache problem within a reasonable time will determine your maintainable distance. If you travel weekly to a town that is 6,000 miles away from your home, that town would certainly be within your maintainable area. However, an area 500 miles from home that you can only get to twice a year would not be within your maintainable area. It is dealt width on a cache by cache basis.

Fizzy, did ya miss this one? I think it pretty well covers your last post.

5.3k · December 17, 2003

Fizzy, did ya miss this one? I think it pretty well covers your last post.

No, I didn't miss it, and no, it doesn't cover my last post.

Maybe if you had read my post it would have helped.

5.3k · December 17, 2003

I'm failing to see the hypocrisy here. If someone can't maintain the cache, they shouldn't place it. If the approver feels the person can't maintain the cache, they shouldn't approve it for listing.

The hypocrisy arises from a double standard. The double standard is in setting different standards for cache maintenance. Vacation caches are forbidden unless you can prove that you can get to them in a very short amount of time. Other cache types, which may take longer to reach, are approved without this consideration.

The hypocrisy comes from the self-righteous posturing about cache maintenance while using the issue as an excuse to ban a certain cache type.

I think all the ways people have said that they maintain hard-to-reach caches are fine. The problem is that those plans don't meet the standards that have been set for so-called "vacation" caches.

2.4k · December 17, 2003

Where I differ is in the situation in which a cacher wishes to place a cache in an unpopulated, remote or otherwise cache-free location. Technically, such a cache is prohibited by the guidelines if it is farther than a couple hundred miles from your home. Yet I think those caches should be allowed, even if the person placing it may never be back. I also think that a pre-approval process should be used for them. That allows for quality caches to be placed in those "once in a lifetime" spots.

No, it doesn't matter how far from your home it is, if you show through your caching histroy, or other means, that you frequent the area.

And I for one (and I know there are many others) disagree that anyone should be allowed to place a cache anywhere they have no intention of returning. To me, that's barely more than littering. Especially if it's in a "cache free" area. Who's going to look after it? You have no intention of doing it.....what if caching doesn't "catch on" in that area?

4k · December 17, 2003

Fizzy, did ya miss this one? I think it pretty well covers your last post.

No, I didn't miss it, and no, it doesn't cover my last post.

Maybe if you had read my post it would have helped.

Yes, I did read your post, and the quote I included DOES cover your post. I don't think the guidelines covering vacation caches is all that hard to understand....if you don't intend to return to the area you place it, whether it's 100 miles or 10,000 miles, you shouldn't be placing it. It's not rocket science. Second, the guidelines make no mention of a set distance in determining what makes a vacation cache. It simply states that you must be able to respond to problems within one or two weeks, and as hydee stated, you can plead your case depending on the number of times a cache is visited as to whether that time frame can be extended. The ultimate decision is up to the approver, based upon the guidelines and the probability that you will be able to maintain the cache or not. Pretty clear to me.

5.3k · December 17, 2003

The ultimate decision is up to the approver, based upon the guidelines and the probability that you will be able to maintain the cache or not. Pretty clear to me.

You're so right. I forgot the most important thing:

The rules at geocaching.com are there for my own good. Questioning them or the motivation behind them is bad. The nice people there only have my best interests at heart, and anyone who disagrees in any way with any of them is a whiner, period.

I feel so much better now. But how do I get this brown stuff out of my nose? Please help me, Sparky. I can see that you have a lot of experience with this problem.

9.4k · December 17, 2003

Cut out the personal attacks. I don't see any references of anyone being called a whiner, and calling someone a brown noser (especially *gasp* Sparky-Watts of all people) crosses the line of civil discourse.

Keep it civil and to the topic, please.

9.4k · December 17, 2003

I'll stay out of the debate. Suffice it to say if you don't plan on maintaining a cache, don't hide it. If you intentionally place vacation caches and don't plan to maintain them, don't list them on the site.

Edited December 17, 2003 by Jeremy

5.3k · December 17, 2003

To summarize, you want the rule to change that if it is another country and there aren't any caches there, you should be able to place them wherever you want, even though you never intend to return.

Nope.

But thank you for playing.

If you had actually read my post, you might have seen that I said:

I think those caches should be allowed, even if the person placing it may never be back. I also think that a pre-approval process should be used for them. That allows for quality caches to be placed in those "once in a lifetime" spots.

Did you notice that "pre-approval process" part? How about the "quality" part? That's to keep caches from being placed willy-nilly all over the place.

Is it really that hard to keep from mangling other people's positions?

Apparently the idea of not having absolute rules for all occasions is just too much to handle for those of you who have taken it upon yourselves to create the rules for the rest of us. And the notion that we might (gasp) not react with anything but undying gratitude for your munificence in imposing those rules on us seems strangely surprising to you.

I actually believe that you are trying to do the right thing. I just don't believe that multiplication of rules is an appropriate response to the challenges that geocaching has been facing. Clearly, you disagree. Also clearly, you get to make the rules. To me, it also seems clear that our opinions of the rules are of little consequence.

I find the whole situation quite sad; a fun, independent sport has been turned into another hand-holding exercise for the incompetent. I'm sad that I'll never get a chance to find caches in interesting, out-of-the-way places because you've so effectively forbidden them. Thanks to the new rules, urban micros will increasingly dominate.

And no, I don't plan on hiding any vacation caches. Actually, at this point I can't see the point of putting up with the abuse involved in hiding any caches, really.

Edited December 17, 2003 by fizzymagic

1.3k · December 17, 2003

I'm sure that if your geocaching ideal is people abandoning a cache for future generations to find, there's a site out there that will cater to that. I'm just glad it isn't this one.

For those people in favor of such a thing do you think that the cache is:

1) "abandoned" or not?

2) still "personal property" or not?

3) "litter" or not

I'm curious because a lot of the "permission" threads seem to reference these terms and I'm having a hard time thinking that you would ask someone for permission to leave a cache in such a place. (If there was someone to ask permission from, wouldn't they be able to place it and maintain it?)

4k · December 17, 2003

Thanks, Jeremy. I'm glad that someone knows I'd never brownnose anyone!

1.7k · December 17, 2003

While we're asking Fizzy what he did or didn't miss, how about this part of Erik's post?

It was obvious that being able to react to a problem within a week or two was required here and that annual visits wouldn't hack it. Other caches are found only three or four times a year, and there probably being able to get to the cache within a few months would be fine.

Still not in the same league as "never plan to go back," perhaps, but evidence that the admins do exercise some discretion in their interpretation of the guidelines.

9.4k · December 17, 2003

To summarize, you want the rule to change that if it is another country and there aren't any caches there, you should be able to place them wherever you want, even though you never intend to return.

I think those caches should be allowed, even if the person placing it may never be back. I also think that a pre-approval process should be used for them. That allows for quality caches to be placed in those "once in a lifetime" spots.

Anyone see a difference? Let those two quotes stand alone and see what others think.

4k · December 17, 2003

No comment.

Well, ok, one comment: I think they speak volumes!

1.7k · December 17, 2003

To summarize, you want the rule to change that if it is another country and there aren't any caches there, you should be able to place them wherever you want, even though you never intend to return.

I think those caches should be allowed, even if the person placing it may never be back. I also think that a pre-approval process should be used for them. That allows for quality caches to be placed in those "once in a lifetime" spots.

Anyone see a difference? Let those two quotes stand alone and see what others think.

You left out exactly what "those caches" means; without it, Fizzy's quote really can't stand alone:

Where I differ is in the situation in which a cacher wishes to place a cache in an unpopulated, remote or otherwise cache-free location.

That's not necessarily another country.

Even given that, there's that "pre-approval" thing. Of course, there's nothing stopping me from writing to the approver for that area and asking for at least a verbal commitment to an approval when the time comes. I might even get such a pre-approval, even for a cache that appears to violate the guidelines, if I can justify the placement. So I don't think I see the problem here.

One could almost read Fizzy's post as saying he would be in favor of more guidelines governing the placement of hard-to-access caches, regardless of their location relative to the placer. The thing about pointing out what you consider to be double standards is that they can usually be resolved in at least two ways, and one of them is usually not what you really wanted.

December 17, 2003

Where I differ is in the situation in which a cacher wishes to place a cache in an unpopulated, remote or otherwise cache-free location. Technically, such a cache is prohibited by the guidelines if it is farther than a couple hundred miles from your home. Yet I think those caches should be allowed, even if the person placing it may never be back.

-- "even if the person placing it may never be back".

That's the rub there.

------------------------

I can see Mr Magic's intervening point and am willing to argue it. The slavish maintainence requirement hinders the placement of "this WAS a beautiful spot" caches - you can only list "this IS a beautiful spot" caches. That really does limit the game in an unfortunate way - there will be less beautiful spots to cache to overall, many less, and personally it's the beautiful spots that do it for me, not the film cannisters.

It can be argued that hard to reach caches are much more rarely the sort that become "little more than litter". It can also be argued that caches, maintainance rule or not, seem to be somewhat temporary affairs. I've seen them come and go in the short time I've been persuing the game. I've also seen them go "unmaintained" regardless of their distance from their hider.

I guess what I'm saying here in a weak sort of way is that a remote vacation cache wouldn't be much different than most other caches over time, when all is said and done. Sure it wouldn't be maintained by the hider, but that happens alot anyway. It might be a worthwhile tradeoff, at least worthwhile enough to talk about - in a civil way.

Vacation Cache Evolution

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