Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: 1 year life span on caches

  1. #1
    Third-Degree-Witch Guest

    Default

    Having read several threads regarding damage. wear & tear etc at cache sites recently i put forward an idea of limited cache life in rural areas and nobody really picked up on it.
    My suggestion is this....Would it not be a good idea to limit rural caches to a maximum of 1 year lifespan ?.Firstly....in my humble opinion i think a cache has been visited by most ardent cachers by then in any case.Secondly..A old 'worn out' cache hogs the general area stopping the introduction of new caches..Thirdly..the whole area around any rural cache is usually knackered after 6 months,with destruction and a super highway in great evidence,thus taking any enjoyment out of the area and hunt itself.
    Limiting cache life in the countryside would allow new caches for us to find and far more importantly allow the old sites to 'heal' and recover from the wear & tear inflicted by over zealous hunters.I believe something like this would benefit the sport greatly and also our flora & fauna.
    just an idea........discuss

    TDW (jon)

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Strangely, I agree with Jon here.

    having seen the damage accessing some caches causes. I think it would give the area chance to recover.

  3. #3
    SSC&B Guest

    Default

    I'm relatively new to this game but can understand where you're coming from.

    mebbe a yearly review of caches would be a good idea (i.e. moving them about)

    I think a review should be mandatory personally, as it appears there are many caches where people just "dump" them and then don't bother visiting them again. Also, people leave the game and their caches remain unadopted.

    i can understand that where someone has lots of caches, it's probably hard to visit them monthly, but a local pair to me (I'm sure you know who I mean TDW) seem to visit theirs on a regular basis and also encourage others to help maintain them

  4. #4
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    don't like the idea that it has to be moved after one year as some really good ones still exist that have been arround far longer.
    would agreeto a mandatory review, requiring a visit and repair of any damage by the owner.
    responsible owners visit more than that and it would set a precident to archive long abandoned caches.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    St Helens, Lancs, UK
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Sorry I don't agree with the idea of "resting" caches after a year. As has been stated, most of the "ardent" cachers have created the geocaching motorway trails to the cache in the first few weeks and visits are much reduced after that so natural recovery can take place anyway. If there is a real problem in this respect maybe a small move in the location could be undertaken, and this need not wait for the year to be up. But really if this is necessary the original hiding place might have been a bit unsuitable.

    It would be wrong in my opinion to deprive new cachers of the opportunity to find some of the old caches which have become classics. I am hoping to revisit at the weekend four caches which were originally hidden as part of an event four years ago and there are parts of the country which I visit fairly regularily but at intervals of more than a year.

    In some cases I accept that archival may be desirable, but not automatically on an annual basis.
    Enjoy your caching!

  6. #6
    Third-Degree-Witch Guest

    Default

    John,

    I read and take onboard your comments ..I agree that some classic caches would be affected..But surely the welfare of our countryside comes before a plastic tupperware box ?.We all know of the problems encountered with some authorites or landowners when setting caches,hardly suprising when they see the resulting damage etc caused in such a short time.i remember when i was a 'noob' finding worn out n obvious caches and it didnt fill me with a warm glow it has to be said.
    I was just suggesting that as our 'hobby' 'addiction' grows that maybe it would be responsible to show a more forward looking attitude as regard cache placing.Im sure any cache can be tweaked under the existing guidelines / rules,moving a waypoint micro or final cache is permissable and easily achieved.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    I'm with John here; cachers should review their caches regularly and withdraw those which have motorways, disturb the environment or are not successful for some reason. Indeed I do exactly this and have archived 30 so far for various reasons (oh no, only 71 left : ). However, I don't agree with an automatic archive.

    I don't think the idea of reserving or "hogging" an area exists in my area; there are several places whre I've had caches since 2002 that now have more than one within a mile. That's understandable because they are along escarpments in Wiltshire / Berkshire and providing they don't get closer than 0.1mile, it's not an issue.

    I've not heard a single complaint from landowners about legally placed caches so far despite being the only person on the GAGB committee since the start and having personally negotiated 10 agreements.

    I've just placed a 5/5 cache which took me nearly a year to plan and implement and the visitor frequency is going to be quite low because it's hard. If there were an automatic archive requirement then I'd not have spent so much time on it and it probably wouldn't have happened at all.


    Dave (Posting my own views&#33

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    St Helens, Lancs, UK
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Of course I agree with Jon that the countryside comes before caches - but Dave makes the point more clearly than I did that the damage can occur in much less than a year, often in the first few weeks, and should be monitored by proper maintenance by the owner - and, dare I suggest it, by subsequent visitors for example not always following the obvious track to the cache.
    Enjoy your caching!

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Land of the Bear and Ragged Staff!
    Posts
    843

    Default

    I'm with John Stead on this.

    I don't agree with the idea of "resting" caches after a year.
    It's down to us all as cachers to not make a too visable a track to the cache -or maybe one track is better than several? -and after the initial "First To Find" influx, surely the majoity of caches only get a relativly small number of cachers visiting, unless Geocoins or TB's are placed in the cache on a regular basis.

    In that case surely a request should be made for coins and TB's not to be left in that cache for a short period of time?

    Maybe it's the more popular/regularly visited caches that should be rested?

    G
    I have a Geocaching problem...
    Work gets in the way!

    * Cache Walker -Caching by byway, not highway! CacheWalker.co.uk
    Walking and Caching in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire areas

  10. #10
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Now this is an interesting thread and I read with some fascination the various points put forwards. I am replying in my capacity as an individual, and not in my capacity as a GAGB comittee member. These are not necessarily the views of the GAGB.
    On balance I have to say I disagree with the idea that rural caches (or any caches for that matter) should come with what's often known as a "sunset clause". I'll try to take the points made above one at a time:

    - TDW said "Firstly....in my humble opinion i think a cache has been visited by most ardent cachers by then in any case.". No I disagree. My three caches are now ancient (in the history of geocaching) and even now I am getting people visiting them two or three times a week. heck I have had to replace the logbook in one of them now three times since I planted it, because the old ones got full up. I'm always amazed at the number of new cachers who were not in the game when I planted them, coming and doing my caches and saying how much they enjoyed it. I turns out (in my experience) that the flow of cachers never seems to let up. There is a pretty constant flow at all three of mine and it would be daft to say about any of them that they should be retired just because the cachers that were around when they were planted had all had their bite at the cherry. I planted all of mine with a view to maintaining them for many years and have done so. When there is a problem reported at any of mine, I visit usually with a few days even though one of mine is over 60 miles away from where I live. I would say it was far better to try and identify abandoned caches and archive them on the basis of abandonment rather than age.

    - Then Jon (TDW) said "Secondly..A old 'worn out' cache hogs the general area stopping the introduction of new caches..". I also don't see this. The area around a cache that that cache "hogs" is only 180 yards radius. Anything outside this small area is fair game. I don't think we have a problem with overcrowding for many years to come.

    - TDW's third original point was "Thirdly..the whole area around any rural cache is usually knackered after 6 months,with destruction and a super highway in great evidence..." Now this could be worrying. All along, we as a community have made the point to the outside world that caching was good for the countryside, that we protected the environments we placed caches in and did no damage in our activities. If we are now admitting that some of our activities are actually causing local damage then I think we should be doing something to stop such caches being placed in the first place. When choosing a place to plant, the cache owner should have thought of all these possibilities and monitored the site for at least a few months to see how the terrain and environment changed over the course of the seasons, with regard to weather, visitors, foliage and suchlike. Before I placed my first cache I waited a year to see what the surroundings would be like in all weathers and all seasons. I knew when it was placed then that it would be safe, accessible and not prone to local damage no matter how many people visited it.

    Again, if caches need to be archived on the basis of bad acceessibility then absolutely do so. But not on basis of age criteria. Its simply the wrong sized spanner for the job.

    - Mongoose39 then remarks "having seen the damage accessing some caches causes. I think it would give the area chance to recover." Maybe so but again wouldn't it be better to identify these caches as problem caches and archive them for *that* reason rather than a blanket sunset clause which discriminates on grounds of age rather than the real fault which is poor planning and bad cache placement? It seems to me that you are trying to cure the symptom not the cause. John Stead sums it up better: "But really if this is necessary the original hiding place might have been a bit unsuitable."

    - SSC&B suggest "I think a review should be mandatory personally, as it appears there are many caches where people just "dump" them and then don't bother visiting them again." Very true, they do, and these should be quickly identified by the subsequent visitors and asked to be archived. Remember, *we* are the policemen of each other's caches. The system has mechanisms for a cache to be reported to both its owner privately, and to the approvers at GC.COM and I think these mechanisms, if used properly should be more than enough. Again bad caches should be weeded out and reported. There is still no need for a sunset clause. Wrong sized spanner again. Also, I can imagine the reaction of our already overworked approvers Dave and Peter if it was suggested they carry out a mandatory review of all caches after a particuler time period. Crikey, they'd never get off their seats and down the pub would they? Let alone out to do some caching of their own!

    TDW comes back with the following response: "I was just suggesting that as our 'hobby' 'addiction' grows that maybe it would be responsible to show a more forward looking attitude as regard cache placing."

    Point of order Mr Chairman, but actually the honourable gentleman wasn't suggesting any such thing. That's not what it says in the original post at all. The original post calls for the automatic removal of rural caches after a fixed time (post suggests 1 year). Subsequent comments by others (including myself in this one) have suggested that it is in fact better cache placing that is required and that people who place them need to be more forward thinking in their appraisal of a potential site. If TDW had indeed suggested the more forward thinking attitude I would have agreed with him without hesitation. As it was, he didn't, and so I don't.


    In summary then, We should all be more ready to report a cache as being unsuitably placed or whatever, when we visit it. Use the system facilities to do this, that's what they are there for. To burden our approvers with another layer of admin is just a new form of slavery (not the original TDW proposition I know, but made subsequently by someone else) , and finally a sunset clause on rural caches is, in my own opinion, just a really really bad idea.

    Now I'll run and hide...

  11. #11
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    well said.

  12. #12
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by nobbynobbs@May 2 2006, 04:20 AM
    well said.
    wot, the run-and-hide bit?

  13. #13
    Kitty Hawk Guest

    Default

    1 year life span?

    Against

    I have a feeling that most of the very best caches take a great deal of effort to set up and the level of effort diminishes as cache quality diminishes.

    Would a cache setter go to any great lengths to set a cache that was only going to be around for a year? Probably not I'd have thought.

    I would expect to see a prevalence of film cannister micro's and 1:1 traditionals. Tricky multis and puzzles will no longer be set.

    For

    You can buy cheaper tupperware as lifespan ceases to be an issue.
    You could take the 4th and 5th stars off the cache ratings making this system easier.
    Tricky multis and puzzles will no longer be set

    I don't think the sunset clause is a solution, but TDW has a point in that in many cases the location does suffer.

    What about a suggestion/guide that good practice would be to move the cache a few meters every year or so if possible?

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Glad to see this has caused some debate!

    MCL sorry i haven't read your response, it is far too long to get beyond my boredom threshold. Not having a go, just a statement of fact.

    I think the answer seems to be: review your caches regularly and take the appropriate action.

    Cheers

    Tony

  15. #15
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by MCL+May 2 2006, 10:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MCL @ May 2 2006, 10:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nobbynobbs@May 2 2006, 04:20 AM
    well said.
    wot, the run-and-hide bit? [/b][/quote]
    of course. you don&#39;t think i was being sensible for once do you?


    the idea does seem to be one of these huge sledge hammers to crack a hazlenut ideas. easier and more simple options available to try first.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •