A Bridge Over Troubled Waters Cache

[AuntieNae]

Okay, with the success of the last abandoned cache .. let’s try this one. Is the owner of the Bridge over Troubled Waters #GCGN96 in the house?

Your cache is missing due to the Parks Dept cutting down trees to create a path along the bridge.

[Ray]

I spoke w/ the cache owner’s sister yesterday and she was going to leave a message for him to get back to me regarding the cache. That hasn’t happened. I would take this as evidence that there is no longer any interest on his part in this cache. I have suggested that it be archived based on this.

[AuntieNae]

Thank you! I have offered to place a new one, moved slightly due to the construction in the area ..

[skarolek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy & the beast:
I spoke w/ the cache owner’s sister yesterday and she was going to leave a message for him to get back to me regarding the cache. That hasn’t happened. I would take this as evidence that there is no longer any interest on his part in this cache. I have suggested that it be archived based on this.

---

Yowsa! You spoke with a relative a day previous, who was “going to” leave a message for the person to get back to you and you haven’t heard anything one day later so that means no interest? What if the relative took a day or two to contact the owner? What if the owner takes another day or two to get back to you?

I’m trusting that I don’t know the whole picture because from my outsider perspective, your judgement seems awfully harsh.

Steve K

[Cathunter]

I think the fact that the cache owner has not logged into geocaching.com since last August is reason enough to archive the cache.

This is another example of where some policy would be good. A person finds 1 cache and then goes out and hides his own. After a month or so, he abandons the sport altogether.

I always recommend to others to find at least 20-30 caches before placing one of your own. At least then they will have some kind of a clue of what makes the sport.

[This message has been edited by Cathunter (edited 06-14-2004).]

[Green Bay Paddlers]

I agree that we need to come up with some type of policy on archiving caches.

1. There are far too many forgotten, soaking wet tupperware containers out there.

2. How many caches have been out there for 2+ years? How many worn out paths to these caches are there? How about some mandatory turnover?

I think that the above two issues are what is going to kill this hobby in the public’s eye.

We need to not only “archive” old, abandoned caches but we also must delegate WGA members to go out and clear them out of the woods. I’m worried that we do too much “archiving” and then leaving some old tupperware or ammo box out in the wild…

I looked at the Brillig map the other day and couldn’t believe how full it is of caches… I realize that archived caches show up there as well – but have they been cleaned out? Also – how many posts do we see out there where “log book is full” or “log book is soaking wet”? Let’s adopt those caches or clean them out entirely. I worry that we sometimes are doing more damage than good…

Just my two cents worth…

Jeff

[AuntieNae]

In Trudy & the Beast’s defense here, I had emailed the owner of the cache several times. After I found it the first time, I emailed that I replaced the baggie on the log book but they do need a new container. No reply. I emailed the second time I was at the cache, with a friend and commented that the trees in the area had been cut down.

I agree, it has been quite some time since they actually were on the geocaching site, and several no replies, is good enough.

I found a neat hiding spot near the bridge tonight for a new cache .. watch the listings.

[AuntieNae]

Jeff, that is how this whole thing got started. I emailed concerned about the cache condition.

You are totally correct, the geo-litter out there should be everyone’s concern.

[Ray]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skarolek:

I’m trusting that I don’t know the whole picture because from my outsider perspective, your judgement seems awfully harsh.

Steve K

---

Steve,

The fact that there had been other attempts and the sister’s intent was to contact the cacher that day. I think that 24 hours should have been enough. Admittedly, We energies or SBC Ameritech would give a customer a greater notice, but we aren’t talking about a paid service here. If the cache owner would like to restore the cache, it can be brought back up with a simple request to bring it out of Archived status.

After ten months of owner inactivity, posted DNF, and e-mails, my personal call to a cacher is a last resort. If the cacher has an interest, then taking the cache away from him may be the best way to get him to heed our concerns.

tb

[This message has been edited by Trudy & the beast (edited 06-16-2004).]

[Green Bay Paddlers]

Agreed 100% I wasn’t talking about this specific cache at all. I was responding to Cathunter’s point about the need for a policy. There are few people who have done as much for the hobby as have Trudy & the Beast. I didn’t mean to disparage them at all.

In hindsight, I see how that could have been read in that way though.

I guess that’s just more beer I’ll have to pass out at the next gathering. (My way of apologizing for poorly written forum posts…)

Jeff

[skarolek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skarolek:
I’m trusting that I don’t know the whole picture because from my outsider perspective, your judgement seems awfully harsh.

---

Dear Beast et.al.,

As has become obvious from reading the subsequent posts, I didn’t know the whole story. That’s OK. I didn’t intend to second guess…just wanted to point out that some of us don’t know the whole store so sometimes things going on seem “odd” or “harsh” to us.

Perhaps the original posts could have included more information about contact attempts to make it clear this is really ready to be archived. Perhaps I should have just kept my nose out of it entirely.

Steve K

[skarolek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green Bay Paddlers:
1. There are far too many forgotten, soaking wet tupperware containers out there.

2. How many caches have been out there for 2+ years? How many worn out paths to these caches are there? How about some mandatory turnover?

---

I would like us to proceed extremely cautiously regarding mandatory turnover. As I’ve mentioned in other posts, I’m currently visiting Washington state. I am fascinated by some of the terrain 4+ caches I’m reading about. In fact, I spent hours Sunday trying to get to a terrain 2 cache. I’ve spoken with some locals and I’m going to try from a different side of the mountain on Thursday afternoon. Some of these caches only get 1-2 visits per year! If there were some mandatory turnover rule, only a few individuals would seek them. I’ve got to let you know I’m only going to the top of the hill for GCD because GCD is there! If the cache weren’t there, I wouldn’t be killing myself to get to the top…I’ve seen the views from 150-200 feet below the top and I don’t think they’re going to be very different from the top…it’s that darn cache that’s pulling me.

Since as near as anyone here can figure out GCD is the 2nd oldest cache still active in Washintgon, any mandatory turnover rule would have taken this one offline long ago. I guarantee you there is no “beaten path” to the cache. It looks like only 9 people have been there before me. It sounds like the cache is still in good shape – I’ll certainly let the owner know and probably repair it if it isn’t – and I wouldn’t want caches like this to go away with only 9 people having been there!

Steve K

[Green Bay Paddlers]

That is only if the rule is based on “time”. Perhaps the policy could be that the cache must be relocated after a certain number of “visits” in lieu of a certain period of time?

For example – a cache is located in a perfect spot on a mountain or under the ocean and only gets 1-2 visits a year. Based on that, it should be able to remain almost indefinitely. However, if you have a cache in a state park that is off the beaten path (but over time a beaten path has been formed directly to the cache) then the rule would be worded that the cache can remain for the first 30-40 visits then it has to be relocated.

My wife and I travel to the Boundary Waters every year and love the remote feeling of wilderness that we find there. One thing the National Forest Service does is shut down portage trails and relocate campsites from time to time – in order to let things grow back.

Sometimes I worry that we don’t have an “endgame” strategy for many of our geocaches. There are so many out there that I’m concerned that we need to start putting limits on things.

I liked the suggestion that one can only place a cache after finding 30 or so first? I also like the idea of perhaps limited each team to maybe 10 caches. That would force teams to either keep up their current caches or retire old ones in order to place new ones.

The other idea, albeit somewhat drastic, would be to stop teams from logging new finds if they have their own caches that are in disarray. There are a lot of times I’ll see a cache owner post a note (after several posts claiming wet logbook or missing cache) saying that they are going to come check on the cache in a few weeks. Well, a few months go by and they don’t check on their cache. In the meantime, they’ve logged 30 new finds.

I know that I probably sound pretty harsh to some, but I really worry about the public’s (and the state government’s) perception of geocaching.

What do others think? Maybe I’m way out of line?

[Geoffnsara]

I agree with you Jeff. I also think that caches should be removed after some time. The cache that started this forum was one we found right after it was placed and we can not believe it lasted this long. I gave it 1 month before it would disappear. There are a lot of caches out there that may be in good shape, but I think they should be removed for new caches in the same park. There is only so much green. I know some people who have good ideas for new caches but can not find a place to put them that is not a 40 minute drive from home.Okay I feel better now. This is only the thoughts of 1 dumb lectrician.

[Ray]

Steve,

I took no offense by your remarks. My post should have been an e-mail to Auntienae or it should have included greater detail. I have learned from your response.

Jeff,

I have mixed feelings about the topic of limits. If we had a rule stating 10 or 20 or 100 finds before placing a cache, we would never have gotten the game off the ground in the beginning. Certainly we learn to make better caches from our experiences along the way. Then too, there are those who have an inate ability to do them well from the start. I am reminded of a cache on the Carroll College campus placed by a cacher with zero finds. It is one of the better urban multi-caches that we have had the opportunity to visit. I think that the greatest damage to the environment that we see is the volunteer trails that are formed while a cache is still new. Once the caches in our area reach a year old, visits become sparse and the damage is greatly reduced. I think that the cachemeister should be given as much freedom in determining when to archive as possible.

Other cachers have adopted their own sets of rules regarding this. Badlatitude retires his caches at the end of the year and brings out a new crop the next year. We look forward to this. We have chosen to retire ours when we feel the time is right. Hence, the decision to archive our Brown Deer Park caches. Some caches are icons: Pike Powder Hike and should not be archived unless absolutely necessary.

This topic has been an issue before and will be again. I believe we will see disagreement then too. My greatest concern is that we not place restrictions on the game that become difficult to live with in the future… eg: No Virtuals.

Keep on caching,
tb

[Author]

Posts