tozainamboku

Locationless caches are different from virtual caches. Think of them more as Waymarking categories. Before there was Waymarking there was the idea of a locationless cache where the the listing said "Find an example of X and post the coordinates for it". Since this was almost exactly the idea behind a Waymarking category, anyone who owned a locationless was given the opportunity to create an identical Waymarking category, and a short time later all locationless cache were removed from Geocaching.com. Virtual cache were not moved to Waymarking as they would first have to be put into a category.

Or maybe we could focus the discussion on responses that could stop the vandalism/theft by "power cachers" who swap containers indiscriminately. I hear that public shaming is back in fashion. The problem is that some are insisting that "power caching" is what needs shaming. There is no shame is enjoying going on a road trip with a group of friends and trying to find as many caches as possible. There is no shame in using certain tatics that some 'puritans' object to on certain series where cache owners accept these tatics. The problem is when those tatics cause additonal maintenace issues for cache owners or for cachers trying to enjoy a non-generic caching experience and a non-generic cache has been replaced or swapped with a generic cache. The issue should not be to criticize people because they do "power caching" or "speed caching", but to convince people that treating all caches as generic to justify these techniques results in in real problems. Clearly, the group in this case was willing to apologize that they didn't realize the caches weren't generic. That's a start. Now how to get groups like this to change their approach and rather than assuming caches are generic, assume that that cache are not generic and only use the tatics for caches they are certain are part of a series where the cache owner allows them. The problem is that there are no generic caches. The logsheet is supposed to indicate the finders of the cache, not just the last finder. Swapping them around to save an additional 15 seconds per cache is unacceptable, but seemingly becoming common. I know some people are desperate to impress others with high numbers, and I feel sorry for them. As I do for people who believe the names on the logsheet are magical. While I enjoy looking at the names of people who have signed the log before me at a non-generic cache, I can't imagine doing do for each cache on a powertrail. And if the logs got switched so that the names no longer accurately reflect who found the cache at this location, I certainly wouldn't get my knickers in a twist over it.

Or maybe we could focus the discussion on responses that could stop the vandalism/theft by "power cachers" who swap containers indiscriminately. I hear that public shaming is back in fashion. The problem is that some are insisting that "power caching" is what needs shaming. There is no shame is enjoying going on a road trip with a group of friends and trying to find as many caches as possible. There is no shame in using certain tatics that some 'puritans' object to on certain series where cache owners accept these tatics. The problem is when those tatics cause additonal maintenace issues for cache owners or for cachers trying to enjoy a non-generic caching experience and a non-generic cache has been replaced or swapped with a generic cache. The issue should not be to criticize people because they do "power caching" or "speed caching", but to convince people that treating all caches as generic to justify these techniques results in in real problems. Clearly, the group in this case was willing to apologize that they didn't realize the caches weren't generic. That's a start. Now how to get groups like this to change their approach and rather than assuming caches are generic, assume that that cache are not generic and only use the tatics for caches they are certain are part of a series where the cache owner allows them.

Apparently what annoys people more than any product of the asinine, stupid, silly, and cheesy behavior is that the "numbers" are wrong. No one gives a hoot about some inconvenience to the cache owner or other cachers who are expecting to find the not-so-generic geocache, it's all about the numbers.

Have you posted your evidence about the "caching in parallel" accusation? I can't find it. Until then I would hope that everyone here is be treating your input as potentially false rumor-mongering. I'm not sure NanCycle is refering to splitting up and claiming caches found by only part of the group as "rampant bad behavior". She seems to be refering more to the treating of individual caches or several small series as being part of one powertrail and moving caches from one location to another to speed up their find rate. When the first powertrails were put out, I thought it was cute that people came up with clever ways to reduce the time spent at each cache and use the time traveling from cache to cache to handle "mundane" tasks like signing logs. At the time people using the powertrails to set personal records for the number caches found in a day. Swapping containers allow the rate of finds to be bumped up. I'm sure the people on this team have all sorts of records for number of caches found in a day or the like. What I don't get is why continue with these tactics on a trip that perhaps allowed for a high find count due to the density of caches, but where they certainly weren't going to set any records. Why not slow down and show some consideration for the many cache owners who hid something not intended to be generic - where throwdowns and cache shifting would not be appreciated. It wasn't a simple mistake that should be waved aside with an apology but an arrogant assumption that tactics that may be appropriate on a real powertrail are appropriate anywhere there are a lot of caches.

Then the point should not be to tie swapping with numbers but with the issues it can cause for cache owners and other cachers. If caches are "generic" then swapping one generic cache with another has no ill effects. But not all caches are generic. The issue is how these generic cachers determine which caches can be swapped and which can't be. What needs to be done to educate cachers that is might not be a good idea to treat all caches as generic and then apologize when it turns out some were not?

Doing this kind of math is certain to put one's knickers in a figure 8. I makes it difficult to discuss why leaving a generic replacement for a cache when the owner hid something other than a generic hide is not good geocaching etiquette when the puritans want to question the find counts. I get it that a puritan may believe that throwdowns are motivated because they change a DNF into a smiley. I believe that even if you could convince cachers not to post a find on a throwdown they left, there would still be many throwdowns. The generic cacher believes that a find is better than a DNF. For a cacher with a high count the +1 smiley they get is not really what motivates the throwdown, rather they believe that the have made the world a little better for the next cacher so that their cache search will not be a waste of time. Blaming numbers for throwdowns is a generic throwdown response that doesn't look a the real issues and problems that are caused by throwdowns. High numbers cachers tend to be generic cachers (at least in viewing each find as a generic WIGAS point) and maybe be more likely to view a missing cache as a replaceable generic. I believe that many cachers with lower numbers have similar views and believe that leaving a generic replacement for a missing cache is good. And there are plenty of high number cachers who don't view caches a generics and don't replace caches without the owner's permission. Unfortunately this generic blame has become so ingrained that even the Groundspeak lackey who wrote the help center article says that "Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing"

A scary Halloween story. Trees that disappear and reappear. Thanks for putting us in the mood for the season.

The issue is not numbers cachers but generic cachers. These are cachers who view caches as being generic. Replacing a missing generic cache is not a problem (and may in some case even be good). But in deciding which caches are generic, generic cachers take a risk. The hide might not be generic. Perhaps is is just more difficult. Maybe the CO threw on different cache in in the middle of the power trail just to break it up. Or perhaps that cache in the middle isn't even a part of the powertrail. A CO might even have hints for a bonus or other puzzle hidden in what otherwise appears to be a generic cache. I don't mind generic caches. Sometimes I get vanilla ice cream. I can even understand why the store puts more vanilla in the freezer when the pistachio sold out, I would really prefer they just order more pistachio. If geocachers are going to replace missing generic caches, I'd like them to be certain that what they are replacing is really a generic cache. I think this is only possible if they get permission from the owner first.

http://coord.info/GC1F414 Uh that one has an uncleared NM log, which is one of the things that community supported caches can't have fixed. Volunteer reviewers have the ability to clear NM logs.

Did a very quick read of some interesting stuff. Preferring wine versus beer corrolates very strongly with higher intelligence. Comments, anyone?! I predict that preferring Formula-1 to NASCAR also has a strong correlation with higher intelligence.

But they are optional. You don't have to find them. ALRs are Additional Logging Requirements, not Additional Finding Requirements. If there was a way to implement additioal finding requirements, that is what I would do. But even hiding the coordinates until you qualify to find a cache wouldn't stop someone who has gotten the coordinates from sharing them. Since I can't think of a way to implement AFRs, if I were Jeremy I'd sell geocaching.com to Facebook or Google and go retire someplace nice where I wouldn't have to listen to all the whining.

OMG, correlating moving boulders to wanton destruction?? This thread has just gone over the deep end. moving rocks That's a National Park. Do you think they'll stop banning geocaches now that we can show it wasn't geocachers moving the bolders?

Of course you're expected to fill in those holes when you're finished using them. IMO, the no holes/no digging guideline is based on a fallacy. The story is that in the early days of geocaching, the NPS decided to ban geocaches because some park ranger was convinced that geocaches were buried and imagined cachers to be much the same as treasure hunters with metal detectors. Many national parks are historic and have a problem with treasure hunters looting archeological artifacts. And the NPS also doesn't want people destroying the pristine natural areas in parks by digging a bunch of holes. I suspect that the NPS was going to ban caches anyhow. When TPTB made a guideline that caches are never buried, the NPS proclaimed that caches are illegally abandoned property and pointed to existing regulations. A blanket "no buried" rule has resulted is convincing geocachers that rather than work with park managers we should just not even try anything that might remotely anger a park manager. Then we get requirements creep when someone asks if it's OK to remove a rock that leaves a depression. It used to be that digging meant using a shovel, trowel, or other tool to dig. Now it has become "don't make holes". The next update to the guideline will surely say "don't move anything".

I find both options distasteful. One side wants to base challenges on the ability to log a find online. I'll accept that the real intent may be that the challenge cache is meant to be sought only by someone who has already done the challenge. The WIGAS point is not for doing the challenge but for finding a resricted cache. The problem here is caused by Groundspeak wanting to an enforce a rule that you don't need ot contact the cache owner to find the cache - so the challenge cache is listed with the real coordinates. This of course means that anyone who wants to can go find the cache. Some challenge owners find it hard to believe that anyone would bother to look for something that they can't log online, so I like to mess with them by logging TFTC in a Note log. The other side objects to the fact that you can't log a find on cache you have found and physically signed the log. They love to point out that you don't have to solve a puzzle or climb a tree to log these caches, only that you need to sign the log. I think this is a side effect of what I consider poor choice of words in the physical cache logging requirements that was solely meant to prevent arbitrary ALRs. Rather than deciding which ALRs were arbitrary and which were related to finding the cache, TBTB made signing the log the only thing a cache owner could delete a log for. Yet they realized that if they wanted to still allow challenge caches without going back to emailing the owner for coordinates, that they needed a exception for these. I think the idea is that most geocachers would abide by reasonable request for logging a cache. If the cache owner really wanted you to climb a tree or even to have solved the puzzle, most people would not log the cache unless they did so. But the TPTB chose to word the guidelines so that people feel entitled to log the cache and ignore any request. Challenges are different only because the request is not optional. Here the cache owner can still delete your find. I'd like to see the challenge part of challenges be optional - and perhaps a separate count for challenge completed is a way to do this. But that would conflict with the view of many challenge cache owners who see the cache itself at the motivation/reward for completing the challenge and not the WIGAS point.

I find both sides childish (or at least arcane). You are arguing over an online log that was added by Geocaching.com with no intent to either support the idea of ALRs (geocaching challenges or other types) or the the idea that the count of Found logs is some score and that finding a cache and signing a physical log somehow gives you the right to be able to log an online find without the cache owner's interference. At some point early on, Groundspeak realized that the online log could be misused - perhaps by spammers or by someone who wanted to insult the cache owner, or more likely by someone who sat in front of a computer entering bogus logs for caches they never even looked for. TPTB gave the cache owner the ability to delete logs and told them to delete any logs that were bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within stated requirements. The italicized section has since been changed to 'otherwise inappropriate', but the original language gave cache owners the ability to have ALRs and delete logs that didn't follow these ALRs. For years, people complained about ALRs and TPTB did nothing. Eventually they went through a number of iterations to deal with various issues people had with online found logs being deleted. One of these was to require that caches with ALRs be listed as mystery caches so people would read the page before searching for the cache and know if there were additional requirements for an online log. This resulted in many new geocaching related challenges. Prior to this, challenges almost always required a special exception from the guidelines and thus the number of challenges was kept small. At some point, TPTB decided that allowing ALRs as mystery caches was one of their better mistakes and changed the rules again - adding a poorly worded section (IMO) to the guidelines on when physical caches could be logged. The also decided to make an exception if the ALR was a geocaching related challenge and later added information in the help center as to what a geocaching related challenge can be. So here's the current rules: When you find a cache: If you take something, leave an item of greater or equal value ( who decides value? can a cache owner delete your online log if he thinks you traded unfairly?) Write about your find in the cache logbook ( write about your find? on a nano scroll? I can't even fit my name on a nano scroll. And what if I write a whole page and forget to sign my name - can a cache owner delete my find?) Log your experience at geocaching.com ( it says log your experience - not log a find. Seems I could find a challenge cache and follow this rule by logging a note. But - what happens if I don't log anything online? Can the cache owner cross my name off the physical log because I didn't follow the rules?) So the 'rules' (sorry I have to use quotes here) aren't really rules. They're more of a description on how the game is most commonly played. And rather than being inconsistent with the guidelines for when the cache owner can delete the online found it log, they seem to allow the game to be played with at least some types of ALRs. Athough I believe the online find was not originally intended as a score or a way to support making challenge caches, I've long accepted that there is a significant part of the community who chose to view the online found log as the WIGAS log. Rather than letting them get in the way of my enjoying the game, I make an allowance for these players and log notes on challenge caches that I find. If you want an accurate count (per whatever definition) of the caches you found, I suggest keeping your own tally and not relying on the WIGAS count.

Let me see if I understand the question. If you want to use (enjoy) some feature of geocaching.com unrelated to finding geocaches, and it doesn't work the way you would like, do you spend spend your time arguing your point in 6 different threads in the forums on why they should change the feature to suit you, or do you accept that this is the way it is and go find some caches? I wouldn't expect any site that has so many features would have features that everyone enjoys or likes. Sure you can change it, but then someone else will prefer it had been left alone.

Was it a balancing boulder. If was a balancing bolder you can move it but only if you're a Boy Scout leader.

One interpretation is that the OP doesn't really care about Waymarking. Rather than a pitch to breath some life into the moribund Waymarking site by adding features to promote Waymarking as an mobile activity. the OP seems to fear that more mobile features will "break" the kind of geocaching they like, and they see Waymarking as a vast wasteland that they couldn't care less about. Groundspeak is a business and while they have made some attempts to expand the geolocation games and activities they support with Waymarking and Wherigo, they quickly found that creating entirely new websites for these activities is difficult. Instead their strategy now is to use the very successful Geocaching.com platform to grow their business by attracting new players. It should be obvious to everyone that mobile apps are where the the biggest opportunities to grow geocaching come from. So they have spent effort over the last few years developing the API and adding hokey things like souvenirs and labcaches that might appeal to app users. I don't fear that they are will go so far as to 'break' geocaching. In the simplicity of the idea of players hiding caches for other players to find, they have a game that has broad appeal and frankly is addicting enough to keep many people playing it. Sure, with apps you might grow the player base to where the product becomes the players and hitting them with ads or selling their geolocation information might become Groundspeak's business. So long as Groundspeak remains privately held by the founders, I doubt this will happen. These people are geocachers who remember just how this sport started and I believe they will stick to promises they have made to always allow the pure game to continue as the basis of what ever else they do. That said, I think the idea of "mobilizing" Waymarking is a good one. There is already competition from apps that let you search for place of interests (POIs) from your smartphone. Taking a trip? Forget the guidebooks, just click and see if there are any interesting places to visit nearby. The current organization and many of the categories in Waymarking don't lend themselves to such an app. But with a little work, some existing categories and some new categories could be reworked in to things someone might use a smartphone app to search for. The idea that the listing are contributed by users and then reviewed by the category managers makes it interesting in that you don't rely on experts, yet there is some review to keep people from listing junk.

Really? It's in Groundspeaks interests to ensure a continuous influx of new geocachers. I don't think they would want to make it any harder for scout troops to set up caches or to try to dictate to scouting what the requirements should be for a merit badge. Any change needs to come from withing scouting themselves. If there is a problem that's in Groundspeak's court its the more generic problem of abandoned caches. Though most cachers find it acceptable to DNF a few caches because they are missing, or find a few containers that have not fared well over time and are not being maintained - others have higher expectations. Eventually this leads to one of two responses - leave a throwdown or give up on caching because there are too many disappointments. Of course Groundspeak's (and many forum members) know that the preferred action is to report first that the cache needs maintenance and then escalate this to a needs archive if the cache owner is unable to respond. If people followed the procedures for these caches then we would not have to vilify scouts, intro app users, or any other group. We would just recognize that some people may hide caches with the best of intentions to maintain the cache but that for what ever reason are unable to do so. When a cache needs maintenance report it. If the maintenance isn't done get it archived. Once a cache is archive (and is still not being maintained) it is abandoned. Feel free to "do a good deed" and remove the trash.

You can already hide caches that are 'unlocked', in a manner of speaking, based on the number of caches someone has found. It's called a challenge cache.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? For half of the existence of geocaching, the "rule" in the FAQ didn't even mention online logging. When Geocaching.com was created online logs were included as way for people to share their experiences hunting for caches. It wasn't part of the game. It certainly wasn't meant to be used as a score. There were few complaints about bogus logs. There was no real reason to log a bogus log (though some people did - the internet seems to attract hoaxes). No cache owner even thought about having ALRs for logging caches, because there was no reason for a person to actually do the ALR. I don't know when, but some people began to view the onlinr log as the goal of the game. Not only did some imagine there was a value in posting bogus logs, but cache owners imagined that they could get people to silly things in order to log a find. Getting rid of ALRs, even if that had included Challenge caches, doesn't stop people from viewing the online find log as a WIGAS. It may have only strengthened the idea that logging the find online is part of geocaching. Certainly changing the FAQ by adding #3 doesn't help (though if you read it, it says to log your experience - not log your find). I've come the conclusion the there is this thing called an online log that was never meant to be part of the game and that what people are arguing over are the rules for posting on a social media site, not geocaching rules. For someone who is more interested in going out and finding geocaches (and perhaps even achieving a particular goal in geocaching) this whole debate is not very meaningful. Sure, I'd like to use the online find to keep track of what I've found. But there are probably better ways to do this than rely on a log that means different things to different people.

Yuck, yeah, I checked out the profile. Not trying to sound mean and insensitive, as she does seem like a well intentioned lady, but a deliberate and inappropriate throw down is just that... It depends on how one views the game. For many, the point is simply to get out and have fun. You look for caches and when you find one, you feel like you've accomplishedd something. Perhaps its' the smiley you get for the online log, perhaps its something else. Now caches sometimes go missing. When you look for a missing cache you can't possibly find you don't get that good feeling of accomplishment. Perhaps you even feel 'cheated' because you 'wasted' your time. Now, we know that cache owners are supposed to maintain their cache and replace (or archive) them when they are reported missing. But, this is a game and life gets in the way. Some cache owner leave the game altogether, others simply just don't have the time to run out everytime their is a DNF. So some cachers see an opportunity to help out others. They help the cache owner by replacing the missing cache and savine the cache owner that maintenance trip. They help out other cachers by ensuring their is a cache to find, so they don't 'waste' their time looking for an impossible to find. As to whether they should log this as find, my guess is that many people don't actually view the smiley as a score. Since they have left a replacement, it doesn't make sense to leave the cache 'unfound'. The find log not only takes this off the list but tells others that the cache is no longer missing. The question often arises as to how the person leaving the throwdown can be so sure the cache is missing and needs to be replaced. For the people leaving a throwdown, you don't have to be 100% certain. They use their judgement and experience finding caches to make their best guess. If the cache is still there, they are convinced that people will have fun finding either the original cache or the throwdown. Eventually someone may find both caches and decide to remove one. While I haven't seen people leaving throwdowns putting these caches on a watchlist, I suspect that some might and they might even change their find to a DNF if the original shows up. Others take a different view. The point of the game for them is to find caches. You either find a cache or you don't. They view the smiley you get for a find as the prize you get for finding a cache. And a DNF as not a failure or a waste of time, but simply a statement of fact. So when someone posts a find for leaving a throwdown they tend to get upset. While one may post a Needs Maintenance or even Needs Archive, if they feel the cache is likely missing, this often takes a long time to resolve and in the meatime there is still no cache to find. Many also view the game as one of cache owners creating a special experience for searchers. If they find a replacement instead of the original cache, they may feel they have been denied the experience the owner had intended for them; and if they are the owner of the cache, they may feel that instead of helping the throwdown has interfered with the experience they were trying to share. I refer to this as genericizing caches. Leaving a throwdown is a statement that cache finds are generic: you don't have know exactly how the orginal cache was hidden or how the container was camouflaged, the next finder will get the generic find experience either way.

You forgot Challenge geocaches should have their own type Edit: I predict that Keystone will do something about this.

There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy for winning in the forum. I don't care what you say.