What will kill the game

[CodeJunkie]

@zuma wrote:

I cannot worry too much about posting a spoiler for cache that needs to be spoiled. If someone places a cache on a postal box, do not expect me to keep your little secret.

I agree it’s not right and violates the rules. Please don’t tell anyone about the puzzle near O’Hare that I have on my solved list like this. I want that smiley before it gets archived. 😉

[Walkingadventure]

Not everyone keeps up to date on all gc changes. I try but some just slip past. Pretty sure I was one that found the cache you spoke of in Puzzleton

Following the signals from space.

[Braid Beards Gang]

I have gone back and forth on this issue a few times. I am guilty of Copy and Paste and a few “TFTC” logs. “TFTC” from me means thanks for wasting my gas, but I am being nice. Copy and Paste usually is saved for a series of similar caches (i.e. has anyone visited West Bend lately?). I guess you take the good with the bad because for every log that looks like this http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=472e2596-1254-48a3-834e-c8750167ece7 you get one like this http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=3a3a06dd-1f4c-4430-bd74-c18851c467b7.

Now that you have my two pennies keep cachin’ and havin’ fun.

[GetMeOutdoors]

Zuma, you come around to an excellent point which started this thread and which is a concern about what is a threat to the game.

Personally, I don’t think lazy loggers are a “threat” to the longevity of the sport, but can certainly make it annoying / boring for those that are more willing to invest some time, care, and typing when logging a find.

But the situation you pointed out, Zuma, is a real threat to the sport. We already have enough trouble with caches being mistaken for malicious containers / bombs, we don’t need caches / cachers that are clearly making unwise choices in their placement. Calling them out on it is vital to the health of the sport. If bad (if not illegal) placement happens often enough, pretty soon things will either become very difficult for the geocaching community, or downright impossible.

This sort of goes along with my opinion that cache density is also a threat to the sport. Brian, you made a point that density is attractive and I totally agree – it’s much more fun to park once and get 5 caches than it is to drive 20 miles to get 5 caches, especially with higher fuel prices. And to a certain point, that can be very healthy for the sport. But when cache density begins to cause COs to start making poor choices in placement because the good spots are “running out” (which I think is hogwash anyway) then the general community begins to understand the game as being careless and sloppy and disrespectful of public (even private) property. People will not tolerate having their towns “trashed” by geocachers. I consider that to be a big threat – to which my reply is – more is not necessarily better.

“More” can be fun because we rack up the smileys (hey, I’ve been there and still enjoy a 50+ day!) but we have to be smart and realize the line between “More” and “too much”. “Too Much” is when less creative people begin to place caches in area with heavy traffic, high visibility at any time of day, on landmarks, postal boxes, electrical boxes and things that people have no business poking around.

Yes, when density happens, we are forced to be more creative about or locations, containers, etc, but there ARE places left. Getting lazy and hiding a cache in a guardrail on a highway bridge with no shoulders is not a good idea, no matter how many caches are in the area. Climbing on brides in view of a highway where cops patrol is not a good idea. (Right, Z?)

The other negative thing that happens when there’s too many caches and “muggles” become aware of what’s going on is that caches are vandalized, which is not fun for anybody. It frustrates the owner and anyone looking for the cache.

In summation, my position is that cache density becomes a threat to the game when people start making poor choices and when the general community becomes too aware of what’s going on around them causing them either to have a negative opinion of the game or to vandalize caches.

I suppose it could be argued that it’s not the density itself but rather the poor choices made by COs, but since were dealing with many illiterate people who can’t string 4 words together to make a sentence (right, Z?), we have to face the fact that density contributes to that poor decision making.

PS, Z, you crack me up! 🙂 Can I have your autograph!?

[rtrezrsnhvn]

Wondering if the CO that deleted Zuma’s log at least heeded the warning and took it down/archived it as well?

[GetMeOutdoors]

Speaking of GOOD log writers, One Paddle Short is one of the best log writers I know! Informative, interesting, and gracious. I nominate him for a special “Attaboy” prize.

[zuma]

@rtrezrsnhvn wrote:

Wondering if the CO that deleted Zuma’s log at least heeded the warning and took it down/archived it as well?

Yes, they did archive it. For the record, I had 2 of my logs deleted on my Appleton trip, a new record for me….Woot. For the first time, I have managed 2 log deletions in a single day. However, both cache owners did the right thing and changed their caches, and both are pretty good folks, and while they did not particularly like my opinion, they at least heeded it.

z

[kungfuhippie]

I don’t let it bother me too much, although it does kind of suck on my FTF Roast that people don’t try to play along with the ALR (even if it’s no longer req). Just got a TFTC on that one today. 🙁

[zuma]

@Walkingadventure wrote:

Not everyone keeps up to date on all gc changes. I try but some just slip past. Pretty sure I was one that found the cache you spoke of in Puzzleton

maybe one of the reviewers can cite something more, but it is a federal crime to tamper with a USPS mail box. See

http://www.wikilaw3k.org/forum/Law-Ethics/Mail-boxes-federal-offenses-434447.htm

zuma

[BigJim]

@zuma wrote:

Personally, I am going to continue to log positives on positive caches, and tell it like it is on caches with problems. This particular cache had a dozen previous finders who all failed to let the guy know that placing a cache on a post office box is not allowed. How other to explain the behavior of just letting this go, then fear of offending and fear of loosing a smilie?

I have included comments in my logs about caches that were placed contrary to the rules, and in each case the CO’s have responded that their caches were not in violation of the rules. The caches that I am referring to were placed on or under vehicle bridges. I made the comments based on what I was told by a reviewer on some similar caches that I placed.

Since then I don’t make comments like that any more. If the reviewers approved them, who am I to question them?

All opinions, comments, and useless drivel I post are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of the WGA BOD.

[Timberline Echoes]

Since this thread is titled “what will kill the game for you?” We know there is a huge variety of reasons and ways people cache. We have always enjoyed getting to see great places and like it when caches take us to them. But since one of us is has a disability and is finding it harder and harder to walk we are unable to do the nice hikes like we use to. We are adjusting but it is getting disheartening to hear the “purist” bash P & G’s as if they are only for the “number grabbers” or “lesser cachers” sometimes there are other reasons for why people get these. We sometimes take our handicapped friends caching and long hikes are not always doable for them. Some handicaps sometimes prevent much typing too. So before eveyone is lumped into one box please consider there may be different things for different cachers why things are done the way they are.

[JimandLinda]

If we get a TFTC only, I glance at the # of finds by the logger. Less than 100, so what. More than 500, I wonder if there’s an issue with the cache.
But 1/1’s are necessary for the impaired. Heck, Chanter is blind, and did some 3/3s recently!

Any log tells me that the container is present and I need not worry about it being missing or muggled.

Enjoy retirement, Sloughfoot! 😉

[Sloughfoot]

We did not even get a “.” on one recent log. On 4/23 we received a log for GCV96H one of our “TOTS” caches. It is still out there if you would like to see it. It has nothing except a photo. The photo shows the cache spread out with the log visable. I’m glad it wasn’t raining or we would now have a “Maintenance Required” for a wet log. We sent the visitor a private message explaining why we hide caches and asking for a better log the next time. It was from a new cacher so we hope they will get better at logging.

[Sloughfoot]

Timberland Echo points out an important aspect of this game. To be as inclusive as we can. We enjoy a nice walk and length is not to much of an issue yet. Uphill is another matter. We also enjoy taking our elderly mothers along for an outing. They enjoy a nice ride and cemeterys are a good choice when they are along. As far as park and grabs go we have several but we try to put them in a significant spot, either pretty or historic. We also try for a clever hide. I guess we will let some of our caches go and hold on to the ones that are near and dear to our hearts. Higher gas prices make maintenance runs eat into our caching funds. Oh well, thanks for all the feedback and the slurping sound you hear is team sloughfoot sucking it up. See you all on the trail.

[raslas]

Lots of good points have been brought up in this discussion. I also like to get a log that says more than TFTC but some people don’t log their finds online at all. My daughter is one of those that likes to find them but doesn’t always log her find online. I told her if nothing else just write TFTC. At least then the CO knows the cache is still ok and it lets the finder keep a record of their finds. So I guess my point is I would rather just get a TFTC than no online log at all from someone who finds my cache.

[Author]

Posts