[Az-Geocaching] Vacation Caches
Rob Brinkerhoff
listserv@azgeocaching.com
Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:03:04 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0051_01C38785.7A380E40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>As far as those people in RV's, if you frequent a certain
route, I think you should be able to place a cache there.
How often do normal caches get >maintained? Twice a year? I
would bet even less than that. Those people in RV's that
want to place a cache and are able to get to it even once a
year >should be allowed to do so. Most of the time cachers
will be able to change out a logbook or fix a small problem
with the cache anyhow. The maintenance >excuse for not
allowing a cache is really a joke. How many caches have you
all seen that are not going to get maintained at all? Caches
on top of >mountains? Or ones way out in the desert? There
are plenty of examples out there. I don't buy that excuse
for cache denial, since MOST cachers never do >cache
maintenance anyways.
Ha! You've finally said something that I agree with 100%,
Team360 of the underground caching movement. I think that
cachers that can prove that they visit an area a few times a
year and have a proven track record for cache maintenance
should be allowed to place these, so called, vacation
caches. My experience with GC.com has proven to me that they
are in align with this viewpoint.
-Rob (Wily Javelina)
------=_NextPart_000_0051_01C38785.7A380E40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>>As far as=20
those people in RV's, if you frequent a certain route, I think you =
should be=20
able to place a cache there. How often do normal caches get =
>maintained?=20
Twice a year? I would bet even less than that. Those people in RV's that =
want to=20
place a cache and are able to get to it even once a year >should be =
allowed=20
to do so. Most of the time cachers will be able to change out a logbook =
or fix a=20
small problem with the cache anyhow. The maintenance >excuse for not =
allowing=20
a cache is really a joke. How many caches have you all seen that are not =
going=20
to get maintained at all? Caches on top of >mountains? Or ones way =
out in the=20
desert? There are plenty of examples out there. I don't buy that excuse =
for=20
cache denial, since MOST cachers never do >cache maintenance=20
anyways.</FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2><FONT face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>Ha! You've finally said something =
that I=20
agree with 100%, Team360 of the underground caching movement. =
I think=20
that cachers that can prove that they visit an area a few times a year =
and have=20
a proven track record for cache maintenance should be allowed to place =
these, so=20
called, vacation caches. My experience with GC.com has proven to me that =
they=20
are in align with this viewpoint. </FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>-Rob (Wily Javelina)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana><BR><FONT =
size=3D2></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0051_01C38785.7A380E40--