This topic contains 21 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
First, let me start by saying what a nice, civil discussion this thread has. There is a lot of differing opinions, but everyone has stated them clearly, concisely, and in no attacking manner. KUDOS!
I think our approvers do alot and approving caches is not as simple as many newer cachers think. One discussion we’ve had in our household is regarding the amount of caches a ‘new’ cacher puts out. We’ve seen instances where someone gets the caching bug, completes 10 caches, then puts out 3,4, or 5 of their own. They have little experience as to the styles and really have no idea what it takes to maintain a cache. Many people feel they can maintain many caches when they are still so new at the sport/hobby that they really still don’t know all that is involved. We’ve often wondered if there could be some type of ‘orientation period’ where new cachers can only have so many approved within their first 50 or 100 finds. Then, after they reach those milestones, they’ve personally learned alot and their continuation shows interest and dedication in geocaching.
I know there are both hiders and seekers and don’t want to squelch the enthusiasm of either. We need both to make this work. Good hiders become that way from experience…experience from the geocaching workshops, learning from other geocachers, and just being out on the trails.
I’m all for limiting placements to one cache a week placed during the spring/summer/fall months.
The hobby can certainly grow even with those numbers. In addition, it will encourage those to place caches during the non-peak times of year (winter).
Just my thoughts…
I agree that our approvers do a lot. When I hid my first cache, we had only one approver, at it took four hours between hitting the submit button and the cache having its first find! Lately, I’ve never had to deal with 2-3 week waiting times for caches; the average seems to be a day or two which is borderline between “just right” and “Mrs. Cheesehead is going to throw out my computer if I check my email one more time to see if my cache has been approved yet”.
I think trying coming to a consensus for a guideline for how many caches someone should be able to place in a period of time will be about as successful as a guideline for how many caches a person should find before they hide their first cache. It will be different for everybody.
I think there are plenty of people who would volunteer to be reviewers, either as primary reviewers or as backups for when the primaries need a break. I also don’t see why those people would have to be board members, although it would certainly be useful for them to at least be WGA members so that everyone is on the same page with our state hiding guidelines.
Everyone has very good points. While adding approvers may serve as a temporary solution, I can’t help but to ask….
If the WGA can come up with our own state guidelines that would result in an increase of well thought out cache placements across the state, shouldn’t this should be proposed to Jeremy Irish by the WGA board?Much of the purpose of having an association such as ours is to guide the sport in a positive direction. The people that have been around for the long haul have a good idea what they like. Why sit and talk amongst ourselves when we could be doing something that will make a change for the better?
Here are my thoughts, I agree with a limited number of placements, either a max number per month per team, or a max limit at submittal. Or even a minimum number of finds prior to placing your own.
I have to agree also that how many Gc’s can a team really maintain, I not bashing anyone, many keep well maintained GC’s, I am worried about the newbie that is gun-ho now and places 1.1 million film canisters and then bails the sport in a year.
Too bad there wasnt a way to meet some criteria prior to submitting, something that could tell you when you submit that you are to close to a exsisting cache or would tell you that you to close to road or tracks. I guess that would be quite a database to build, just a thought.
If the lead time for approval is going to stay on the long side, perhaps give everyone a submittal number to tell you how many are if front of you, or even tell you a number of days till your is reviewed.
Ok Im done.
I’ve stated on more than one occasion that I think our approvers are doing a good job. They have a lot to deal with in this mess. And let’s not forget that they have lives of their own. Jobs, family, friends, with any luck some time on the trails…
Do I think they need help? Absolutely! They are doing what they can, and if their progression doesn’t suit some, they catch grief for it. With the numbers of cachers increasing, and the desire for hiding caches on the rise, why shouldn’t they have some help. And it’s not because they are being lax, it’s because times and demands are changing and growing.
I’m not sure that I agree with “part time help”…I think if someone else is going to become an approver, they should get in there full time like the other guys. As stated so many times in this thread, one can only get stronger with experience. Shouldn’t this apply to the approvers as well as the hiders? The more one does the job, the easier it will become for them. Having people “floating” in and out of the position is not such a great idea. There wouldn’t be any consistency.
As for the new approver being a WGA Board member, I say NO WAY! The WGA Board has enough to do already. And while this may tick some off, I’d like to remind people AGAIN that WGA members do not make up the complete body of cachers in our state. Yes, there are those who think the WGA should “govern” all that is WI Geocaching, but I say that’s not how it is. Groundspeak does…in fact, they do it in many states and countries…check out their site at www dot geocaching dot com. And from what I’ve seen, they’re pretty good at it!
As much as it stinks, there are hundreds of people out there who want nothing to do with the WGA. They just want to seek and/or hide caches. Why not find someone who has time to sit in front of their computer every day. Someone who is willing to follow the guidelines set forth by Groundspeak. It DOESN’T have to be a WGA Board Member. It doesn’t even have to be a WGA member. I would like it to be someone who is out there on the trails though. Someone who has first hand knowledge of how the sport is changing and growing. Someone with experience as both a seeker and a hider. If Groundspeak, after reviewing the possible candidates for approver, decides to make it a board member, then that’s their idea…not ours!
Brian and Brian, thanks again for doing what you can. Sorry if some give you a hard time about “being slow” when approving caches. I have to ask one thing, how much time could you guys save if the hider did their research right before submitting the cache to you for approval?
eg.
quote:
Originally posted by Geojiggs:
Too bad there wasnt a way to meet some criteria prior to submitting, something that could tell you when you submit that you are to close to a exsisting cache or would tell you that you to close to road or tracks. I guess that would be quite a database to build, just a thought.
While it is up to the approvers to “check” this out before approving a cache, the above mentioned are all things that the placer is responsible for researching prior to submitting. That’s where mapping comes in. By running a query of the hide area you can place your cache on the same file and check distance there. Your GPSR’s mapping should also show you where tracks and roads are. Mapsend and Mapsource both have this ability, as do so many other programs. If the hider hasn’t coughed up the $30 for membership, they should either do it or use the old fashioned method of mapping from one location on Groundspeak, loading the GPSR, uploading this info to the computer, adding their waypoint to their software, checking the distances, then submitting…oh heck…just cough up the 30 bucks and make it easier on yourself!
I’m done for now…sorry if I repeated someone else, sorry if I overstated something, sorry…oh forget it, we all know I’m not sorry about speaking my mind!
MajorBrat
I agree that it is time for another approver and it doesn’t have to be a WGA board member.
But where are we going to find somebody else named Brian?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.