[GeoStL] Re: Our boy BruceS/Cache Expiration

  • From: "Dan Eubanks" <deubanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 13:52:52 -0500

Why the interest in making rules? Let the cache hider decide how long to
leave out a cache.

THE MEXICAN by Prime Meridian has been in place over a year, it has been
found 89 times. Still lots of people, especially newbees, keep finding it
and logging visits. Why would this cache need to be removed? Just because
someone thought we need rules. That's not too bright.

In the St. Louis Metro area there are currently 338 caches. I can't do 338
caches in 90 days. I have found some caches close to one another. Like 40
Fox & Beaver Dam but I was not offended that they were a short walk apart? I
don't know of a place that I would consider "overpopulated" with caches.

Let's just have fun.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bruce S
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:49 PM
To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Our boy BruceS/Cache Expiration



Me being mentioned here is not important, but rather should there be some
kinda of expiration date on caches.  I know Paul has implemented this on
his.  Should this be the norm rather than the exception?  I think the author
of the newsgroup posting makes some valid points that should be considered.
By having "expiring" caches it "frees-up" areas for new caches either by the
owner of the current cache or a new cacher without over populating areas
with caches.

Any thoughts on this?



>From: GC-RGS <gc-rgs@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: GC-maillist <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [GeoStL] Our boy BruceS
>Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 21:39:41 -0500
>
>He got mentioned in this newsgroup thread in "Alt.Rec.Geocaching".
>
>Someone was commenting that caches should have a life of 90 days and then
>be pulled and the contents and container recycled for another cache. Other
>"problems" are in this message but I just wanted to point out Bruce being
>mentioned concerning nearby caches.
>
>Rich
>
>
>
>"Scout" wrote:
>
> >If Jeremy Irish loosened his grip a little, he would receive more
>volunteer
> >assistance. But he's running his site as a for-profit business, so he
>limits the
> >number of people who work on the site (and would have a claim on a piece
>of the
> >revenue). Given this, being overworked is not a valid excuse for delay,
>it is a
> >direct consequence of his business model. Expect the number of neglected
>caches
> >to grow exponentially, too.
>
>
>I agree with you Scout......and....and.....and........ Why do seasoned
>cachers
>need to be approved anyway?
>
>Does anyone think that ClayJar, BassoonPilot, Markwell, or anyone who's
>found/hidden a total over 30 caches will suddenly start placing pranks?
>
>I agree that locationless need to be scrutinized carefully before being
>automatically rejected. :-)
>
>Cachers after a trial period should be given a free hide a week...
>This would help prevent someone from blanketing an area with bogus caches,
>without requiring any need for human intervention.
>
>Once a problem has been reported, act on it.
>
>One thing that bothers me about the approval process is that it's so easy
>to get
>around.
>
>Type up or copy a cache page that looks legit, get it approved, then change
>everything on it to your liking. If people want to cause harm the current
>system
>offers no protection.
>
>ObTopic:
>Another reason I like the idea of expiration dates... Caches can degrade
>and
>become weathered. I've been to several caches that were on their second or
>third
>container. None of these would have been less enjoyable if they'd been
>moved 100
>yards or so.
>
>If you look at the experienced cachers like BruceS or Stayfloopy.
>They have to travel over 100 miles now to find a cache. If the owners were
>moving them every ninety days then everyone could still play without these
>massive voids.
>
>Caches can only be so close together and once a mountain peak has been
>claimed,
>nobody can hunt it twice. That leaves fall/spring hikes off the table for a
>cache found in the winter. (Yeah you can still hike for leisure but ya'll
>know
>what I mean.)
>
>90 days.... chant it with me brother...
>
>I'm not asking for the world... Just that people hide only what and where
>they'll have occasional access. Remote boondockie caches might  need as
>much as
>a year but I can't see why anything under a 3/3 should.
>
>
>The cache I hunted just yesterday was over a year old. It's container and
>logbook had to be replaced a few months ago so what exactly is the point?
>In this case 200 feet to the East would have given the cache seekers an
>entirely
>different experience but that whole area has been sucked up by cache
>proximity.
>
>I'm not saying I'm right about this issue, but I've yet to see an argument
>other
>than "That would be hard..." to counter it.  Hiking in a scenic spot every
>few
>months is a brutal task.... I know..... but I think you folks can handle
>it.
>
>--
>''You got your Jesus in my peanut butter!!'' - Travis
>




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

****************************************************************************
*
Our NEW WebPage!   WWW.GeoStL.com
Mail List & Archive Info.
//www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=geocaching
Msg. of the day, "These days, I spend a lot of time thinking about the
hereafter...
I go somewhere to get something and then wonder what I'm here after.
****************************************************************************
**

*****************************************************************************
Our NEW WebPage!   WWW.GeoStL.com 
Mail List & Archive Info. 
//www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=geocaching
Msg. of the day, "These days, I spend a lot of time thinking about the 
hereafter...
I go somewhere to get something and then wonder what I'm here after.
******************************************************************************

Other related posts: