Skip to content

The Next Rant… Just because There isn’t a cache there , doesn’t mean there should be one.

November 17, 2015

I find myself lately staring at the map
on GC.com wishing there was some way to
permanently delete all the lousy caches from the face of the earth.

I have had more than my fair share of
exchanges with lousy cache owners and
reviewers lately. I find myself sitting
back and asking “When did common sense
and decency leave our sport?”

It all seemed to have started about a
month ago. My team and I headed out to
find some of those pesky puzzle caches
that have been solved and in my GPS for
a while now. After arriving at a
location the first thing I noticed right
away is the damage caused by geocachers
to the area. Yes, there was a
distinctive geo trail, but what really
got to me was the damage to the bushes
where the cache was hidden. It was a
lovely long hedge, well trimmed and
maintained except for a very large dead
patch on the end. It wasn’t hard to
figure out where it was hidden and it
did not take a genius to figure out the
damage was due to geocachers poking
around in it. I logged the cache that
night and sent the C.O. a friendly note
saying that if the cache could be moved
just 5 or so feet over to the tree, the
bush could recover from the damage
already done and renew itself.
I must say the last thing I was
expecting as response from the C.O. was
a flat out “No” but that is indeed what
I got. I was told the math wouldn’t
work out for the puzzle if it got moved
and he would have to change the hint as
well. All I could think of in my bitchy
little head was “You asshole!! God
forbid you should actually have to any
maintenence on your own #$%^ing cache!!”
I let it be, knowing full well I
probably won’t be the last cacher to let
him know this. I have had a watch on
this cache ever since, and indeed, I am
not the only one to tell him about the
damage.

Next came my run in with a reviewer,
I naively thought I would get more
common sense from someone trusted by
Groundspeak, but alas, still no joy.

I was on a bit of a road trip from
work checking the GPS along my route for
some quiet caches, when up popped a
graveyard cache on my radar. There was
no one in the cemetery that day, all was
quiet and I could search without
worrying about muggles or mourners
about. The co-rds seemed to lead me to
nothing within grabbing range so the
search expanded to several trees,
fences, and one bench. After giving up
on the obvious spots, I sat down to view
the hint, it indicated something floral
would have what I was looking for. I
stood up , let the compass count me down
to zero, and lo and behold I find myself
staring at a gravestone with a plastic
flowerpot in front. Could someone be
that disrespectful I thought ? Well,
yes, yes they can. There was the cache
directly sitting on top of a grave, with
several signatures in the logbook. I
chose not to log this one, instead of
leaving a log entry for it I contacted
the reviewer who had published this
cache only a few short months ago. I
thought surely they could not have known
when they published this it would be
desecrating a grave. Maybe I’m the first
cacher to find this who has common sense
enough to inform the reviewer. The response from the reviewer came quickly but it was not at all what I had expected. Instead of opening up a dialogue with the C.O. or archiving the cache, I was sent a pre-formed response on how this cache meets the guidelines at G.C.com and blah, blah, blah. I must admit after reading the first lines of the response I did not care to read the rest. Obviously common sense is not a prerequisite for becoming a reviewer. I would like to believe that Groundspeak asks prospective reviewers more than just “Will you do it for free?” In its’ selection process, but history has shown me otherwise.

In ending this rant, just let it be known I will not stop reporting damage to property and disrespectful hides to Groundspeak and C.O.s just because it falls on deaf ears.

Maybe one day these players will get the idea, that just because there isn’t a cache at a certain location, it doesn’t mean there should be one.

Carry on Caching,

Bitchy.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
6 Comments
  1. dragon flyer permalink

    Having a geocache on my grave appeals to my sense of quirk, but I gather this grave wasn’t that of a geocacher… Interesting about cemeteries; where I live we don’t put caches inside them, but I’ve found many inside cemeteries while travelling. I’ve almost given up on caching in general because so many caches aren’t worth finding, and don’t even get me started on supercilious reviewers…

  2. The city where I live often uses short ornamental brick walls at bus stops and intersections, and they are often used for cache hides. But many of them you can spot just by driving by because the bricks are pulled apart almost like a car hit the wall. Sure the city could use tougher bricks and mortar, but they are just ornamental and not made to hold anything back. I fear that the local paper will figure out that these dozen disaster areas are caused by geocaching.

    I see that the UK bans geocaches on rock walls, and I wonder if New England states in the US do that too. In any event, there ought to be a way to report site damage caused by caches.

    • margaret permalink

      Interesting; I didn’t know about caches on rock walls being banned in the UK. Makes sense, though; many of the walls there are dry stone walls – sometimes hundreds of years old – and a few gung-ho cachers could demolish one in no time…

  3. The number of guideline breakers and questionable caches is on the rise in my area. And people love them. They often have double digit favourite points. One cemetery cache I found this summer takes people to a section of the cemetery with small flat stones. Nothing in sight to hide a cache. Turns out you have to lift the geocacher’s father’s stone to find a baggie with a wet logsheet. (The bison tube had disappeared and someone threw down a baggie).

    The pastime is becoming riddled with abandoned caches, junk caches, questionable placements, guideline breakers, irresponsible cache owners. It’s hard to find a decent well-maintained responsible owner geocache anymore. If only there was a way to rate and filter for responsible cache owners who hide quality caches.

  4. Infoferret permalink

    From observation in this neck of the woods, the majority (but not all) of the ‘why did you bother’ caches are placed by relative newcomers to the game / well meaning families / youth groups, without large numbers of finds or a long period of caching.

    Two ways of enforcing a ‘minimum level of experience’ would be to require all cache hiders to be premium members (if you’ve been prepared to pay to find more caches, you should have a better idea of at makes a good one). Alternatively, require cache hiders to have been members for a minimum length of time, or have found a minimum number of caches?

  5. I’m all for a membership minimum length of time. Preferably 2 months to weed out the unsupervised kids, the classroom projects, the fly-by-night geocachers.

    One other problem are new cache hiders that carry a sackful of pill bottles and drop them everywhere. I wonder how many of those don’t get approved because they are too close to an unforeseen cache. My bet is the carpet-bomber pill-bottle cache hiders don’t go back to retrieve the 5 out of 20 caches they dropped that day that don’t get approved. I’d like a limit of 3 cache hides per day. It will also serve to slow down the proliferation of power trails.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: