 |
| A Poor Geocache Placement Can Be Upsetting |
I obviously can't speak for everybody but for me a poorly placed geocache can really tick me off. I'm not talking how the geocache is placed. Everybody has the right to place a geocache the way they see fit. No, I am talking about where they place a geocache especially when it comes to areas that the hider either did not get permission to place or when they are placed on no trespassing property.
Would it be too much to ask for a guideline such as this?
What do you think?
GeoCache: I'm NOT Obsessed... Right?
http://headhardhat-geocache.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------
Twitter me at
@headhardhat
Please don't forget to visit our GeoSnippits Geocaching Tutorial Videos Website at
http://www.geosnippits.com
8 comments:
I would have to disagree with your idea of requiring X number of finds before you can place one. One of the most exciting parts of geocaching is placing your own hides. For me, I wanted to return the favor to all of the people whose caches I had found near my house so I was placing caches right after I started finding. It's great to get those email comments about your cache and I enjoy hiding as much as finding. I believe this is a case of needing to do your homework and taking some personal responsibility. No matter how many finds this person may have they may have still made the same mistake. Just my thoughts.
While I agree that there should be something in place, an X number may not be the best method. I've seen veteran cachers with well over 5,000 finds who can't seem to follow guidelines. I've heard good suggestions about a some kind of "mentor", a cacher hider who reviewers feel follows the rules that would help to review your first, say 5 caches, to ensure you understand guidelines. Then, if you have too many placements that are archived for not following guidelines, you should have your privilages revoked, requiring a "mentor" again until you can follow the guidelines.
I disagree about having a certain number of finds before placing a hide. Maybe a low number, but if you have 100 drive-up easy finds, or have hunted only caches that are themselves poorly placed,then you can and likely will place caches that are poor. The newly suggested rating system (voting on caches) may help some of that. A post to the cache page should also be made. And besides, isn't that what the local reviewer is for?
This particular cache worries me, though - it is on a HUNTING preserve- cachers could easily be wandering about during a hunt and could be mistaken for a deer and been shot. This cache should never have been approved!
@TripCyclone and Jonathan, I agree.
I have to agree with a minimum number of finds. That won't stop everyone from bad placement but at least it will help give a "feel" for how the game is played. With this particular scenario, someone could be hurt or killed while hunting the cache so it merits a "should be archived" with a very clear note to the reviewer on why. It might be good to have the reviewer add these hiders to a list of people who need extra scrutiny before being allowed to place another cache. IMHO, this hider was incredibly irresponsible.
I don't think it would be a good idea to require a minimum number of finds before one can hide a cache. Such a rule would have shot down geocaching in Ecuador before it could have ever taken off. There needs to be an opportunity, however poorly done in the beginning, to hide some caches and start the game. I do think that the issue of poorly placed caches is worth further discussion. Love your show HHH!
Jonathan said: "One of the most exciting parts of geocaching is placing your own hides. For me, I wanted to return the favor to all of the people whose caches I had found near my house so I was placing caches right after I started finding."
As a CO for the last 9 years, I agree that being a CO can be the best part of geocaching. However, there's a responsibility to the caching community attached to hiding a cache. Placing a cache on private "no trespassing" land is not "returning the favor". There are so many who plant and do not read (or choose to ignore) the guidelines and their numbers are increasing.
There are also too many that plant, get bored and drop the game within days of planting. I'm also seeing new (usually young) COs who plant poorly then become argumentative via the cache logs when the complaints come in about poor placement. One new CO said "Screw private property" after people commented that the cache coordinates were taking them to the middle of an apartment buildings parking lot.
It's become too easy for anyone to plant a cache - online maps, google earth, cell phones.
First and foremost I'd like to see a time period of at least 3 months registration before anyone can plant a cache. Then allow one initial hide. After 3 more months, once the CO has experienced the responsibilities of ownership and hasn't become bored, restrictions are lifted. This should weed out the fly-by-nighters.
I'd also like to see a small amount of cache finds required.
Do we really need COs who wouldn't wait 3 months before hiding a cache? Anyone who would quit geocaching because they had to wait a few months would likely not be a responsible owner. If you're really itching to plant a cache without experiencing this pasttime, use another caching service: 0penCaching.com, Opencaching.us but let's make geocaching.com about quality caches placed by responsibile, knowledgeable, caring COs.
I 'found' a few urban caches that should never have been approved. One was on a large electrical box by a very large mall. Somehow too many caches are being approved which should never be approved. To me it says that more than one person isn't doing their homework: the person placing the cache and the reviewer who approves the cache.
If the cache was approved as being inside a hunting area, it's not just the CO's fault, it is also the reviewer's fault.
One thing I wish would be added would be a requirement for the reviewers to actually FIND the cache before approving it.
Post a Comment