- Well, you say I've never been bothered by caches being disabled for a few months if they'reeventually fixed, anyway. Which is why you do it. But the question isn't whether it is you that is bothered. Just as an extreme example, the guyshooting someone may not be bothered, but the guy getting shot may not think much of it at all. If someone is wanting to place a cache in a park youare using and he can't because of the distance rule, then you deprive manypeople of hunting the cache for months because you are not maintaining it. It isn't all about where you live, but it is the disservice to others. Itisn't the reason for months to fix the cache, it is the fact that it is months before they are fixed regardless of the reason. The residence rule is to avoid ONE of the reasons for slow maintenance and has nothing to do with where you live. Myotis makes a valid point about caches that take a long hiketo get to. I can see that point because of the nature of the cache itself. So I can see the exceptions. Not giving up caches and not maintainingthem for months is for your convenience and doesn 't address the inconvenience to many others that it causes. MBG wrote: - Well, the caches are close to my house, I'm just not in town 3/4th of the year these days. If a reviewer told me that the caches needed tobe fixed immediately or archived I could probably find someone to fix them for me. But I think its preferable to not archive caches if possible, and since I might be moving back there in a few years I don't see why I should let someone adopt them. I don't see what's wrong with having caches in two places if you're living in both for part of the year. I've always thought therule requiring you to live nearby was to prevent vacation caches, not multiple residences. I've never been bothered by caches being disabled for a few months if they're eventually fixed, anyway. There are of course exceptions... user "bennet" travels between Texas and Ohio frequently and hashundreds of hides in each place. Which I think would be okay in theory, but he rarely maintains any of them. If they need maintenance he just archives them. Quote "When they are gone, they are gone." I like to think of caches as somewhat permanent. I thought it used to say something about that in the gc.com hiding guide. mbg On Jan 12, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Mike Lusicic wrote: - I think that the rules state that you need to be near by so you can maintainthe cache, or have someone near who can. Otherwise you take up space where another nearby cacher could place a cache that won't go for months needing repair. Or am I remembering something wrong here? **************************************** For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from this list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching[1] Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw[2] Missouri land use policies --> www.MoCache.net[3] Mogeo forums -->http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php[4] "NGRLIST" --> //www.freelists.org/list/mga[5] --- Links --- 1 //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching 2 http://tinyurl.com/87cqw 3 http://www.MoCache.net 4 http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php 5 //www.freelists.org/list/mga **************************************** For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from this list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw Missouri land use policies --> www.MoCache.net Mogeo forums -->http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php "NGR LIST" --> //www.freelists.org/list/mga