Given Gale's note that the MO guy spends significant time in AZ, I take back my criticism of him. If you spend enough time in the area, I think you can maintain caches in the area. I was thinking about placing some physical caches up near Flagstaff when we were there at the beginning of summer, but the opportunity didn't quite materialize and I was having second thoughts anyway because we don't get up to the Flagstaff area often enough to probably support such a cache (though the area I had in mind was remote enough that the rate of visits would be low and an annual visit might have been sufficient combined with watching the logs). I also think there are conditions where the Vacation cache rule can be stretched, for example the caches down in Antarctica. I think if Ken can attend to the cache in a reasonable time, then there's no reason to call the caches he's concerned with "vacation caches".... It seems like Vacation caches are the ones you might think of placing while on a perhaps once-in-a-lifetime trip to Hawaii or Bermuda or wherever and you may not ever get back to such a location. In that case, the cache can be considered as "abandoned" rather than "placed" if you have no intention to return to it..... Unfortunately there are some wonderful places that don't have any/many local geocachers to populate an area with physical caches. In those cases, virtual caches are quite appropriate. Instead of physical caches near Flagstaff at the start of summer, I had no trouble placing three virtual caches up there. Jim. On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Trisha wrote: > Hey Ken, > I wouldn't consider the two AZ caches "vacation" caches even tho' they > aren't that close to home....it's still the same state, at least. The > Calif one, well, I have no intelligent comment on that > one...wait...come to think of it, I haven't had an intelligent comment > today yet! :) > Trisha > Still in a rare good mood Jim Scotti Lunar & Planetary Laboratory University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 USA http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/