[GeoStL] Re: [geocache] Happy New Years and caching changes.
- From: Mike Lusicic <lusicic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:30:58 -0600
-
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
Other related posts:
