tozainamboku

Sounds like someone's knickers got in a twist over the increase in the number of flash mob style events. Not sure if people were upset because people could log multiple flash mob events on the same day, or if reviewers felt they were being swamped by the shear number of events. Another possibilty may be that someone who shows up 5 minutes late to a flashmob couldn't log. Once again TPTB create a new guideline and we get to speculate on what problem they are trying to solve. Guidelines have become arbitrary and capricious. A Groundspeak representative providing some background on the need for a guidelines change would help.

I was going to say that should read "at least 15%", but then there'd be an issue with caches left out in the open. Then I thought maybe it should be "at most 15%", but then there'd be the issue that it's too hidden, and caches should be findable by everyone and without unintentionally damaging property or digging holes. Nope, 15% is perfect. And to avoid vague linelessness and slippery slope arguments - not 16%, not 14% - 15% exactly. Except if its a nano cache because then there isn't enough cache to have 15%.

O Cache Owner! Don't expect more from me! I found your cache and you get TFTC. Irrational to expect more, My log for all to see! From far and wide, Oh caching log, we'll write TFTC. God keep our log glorious and free! O caching log, we'll write TFTC. O caching log, we'll write TFTC!

Really? You don't care if the efforts you made to hide a good cache were well received? Don't you want to live vicariously through your cache placement and hear who the finder experienced it? Isn't that a fun part of cache ownership for you? I care that they were able to find it. I don't need flowery descriptions of gratitude and I'm not about to go on a mad spree through someone's profile because they didn't use enough words to thank me. Hyperbole, much? I think there are some cache owners who don't care what is in the log. They just want to know if their cache was found or not. And others who relish that people take a bit more time to write something about their experience. I appreciated it when someone has an interesting story to tell about searching for one of my caches or when they say that it made them laugh or that they especially enjoyed it. But I don't expect every log to be this way. The fact that they are rare makes getting them all that much better. Anyone can write a paragraph of meaningless words just to please a cache owner who thinks that four letter logs are rude. TFTC might really be a a heartfelt thank you and not "I'm too lazy to write more". What ever happened to DPM? Wasn't that the way you were supposed to tell someone their cache stunk?

Seems that we have an increasing number of geocachers that are having trouble expressing themselves. We could go blaming the generation of cachers who grew up with cell phones and text messaging for having difficulty expressing themselves except with short abbreviations and acronyms. But I can recall a group hike where one of the cacher's father came along. Well all had a blast, but this guy simply wrote "Thanks" for all his online logs. He was about 10 years my senior and I'm 60. The fact is few people are good writers and many people will avoid having to write anything. Another cacher my age thinks being made to write a paragraph for an online log is too much like school, and he hasn't been in school for 40 years.

Yeah, but if someone is routinely violating basic geocaching etiquette, then there's a chance they're doing it out of ignorance, rather than malice. If they're doing it out of ignorance, then letting them know how their actions are perceived by others might actually help them. As with most attempts to define geocaching etiquette, there are things that are going to be controversial. Write a Great “Found It” or “Didn’t find It” Log - seems like a lot to ask from someone playing a simple game. Some people are not great writers, they may have trouble expressing themselves. Some people don't log at all (and everytime I read the forums I come a step closer to deciding that may be the best way to play the game). It's fine to remind newbies that the game is made possible by people who are leaving caches to find and that most of these cache owners prefer a log sharing your experience over one that says "I found it", or that some may not read "TFTC" as "thanks for the cache" and instead think it's an insult. Maybe some don't realize that cache owners get a copy of the log or that the owners read them. Maybe they don't realize that other cachers may look to the logs to provide information about the cache and that at TFTC log doesn't provide this. On the other hand a TFTC log isn't going to be a spoiler. I think it is just as much a breach or etiquette to try to "correct" someone's actions by telling them they're ignorant of "basic geocaching etiquette". Sending links to "rules of etiquette", even from the official Groundspeak blog doesn't seem likely to educate anybody - and reminds me why I seldom read the blog.

It certainly is a bug that souvenirs that were awarded base on a find log are not retracted if that find log is deleted. However, in English we have an expression; "Don't get your knickers in a twist". It means don't get upset over things that are not very important. The fact is that that souvenirs have no real value. Perhaps some will look at their souvenirs to remember that cache they really did find on a trip to Luxembourg. But few pay much attention to someone else's souvenir. And if someone has the souvenir for Luxembourg, it isn't hard to check elsewhere in the stats to see whether they really cached in Luxembourg or not. I don't get my knickers in a twist because Grandma has a picture of some child on the wall who isn't a cousin.

Obviously the OP looks. Sure, I'm one of those who think souvenirs are hokey and probably we'd be better off if we didn't have them. But clearly there are some people who look at them as s "souvenir" that you you get because you achieved something. If you really didn't find a cache in Luxembourg, then it makes no sense to have a souvenir for finding a cache in Luxembourg. TPTB can decide that they aren't going to fix the bug because it would be too costly to scan someone's finds when a log gets deleted. They should, and I believe they have, acknowledge this is a bug. My personal opinion is that while checking for souvenirs than a user may no longer qualify for when a found log is deleted is an expensive operation, I doubt it happens often enough to bring down the servers. But the Groundspeak developers are better able to answer this.

I thought this topic was about the Wherigo cache type. In fact it seem that what may be the real point being discussed are the guidelines about refering people to third party apps or websites in order to solve mystery/puzzles. I'll be curious as to what the Wherigo community thinks about Geocaching guidelines. Or maybe I'll watch Keystone and RangerFox play "hot potato"

I suspect that in light of other geolocation games like the "Game who must not be named" QR code game, the reveiwers have been told not to publish any cache that references a third party app. I've heard that you can't even tell someone that your "beacon" cache uses Chirp because that's a advertisment for Garmin. It would be nice if Groundspeak could come up with an open source type license for Wherigo apps and builders and work with the Wherigo foundation to identify apps that could then be mentioned.

Grandfathered makes sense. Existing Wherigo would continue to exist until they get archived. Just no new Wherigo caches. But I'm not sure the point of this. It seems you can setup a mystery type cache that depends on playing a Wherigo. Sure the guidelines say that the information needed to solve a mystere cache must be available to the general community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page, and that caches that require the installing or running of data and/or executables will likely not be published. But the evidence is that various types of caches exist that rely on people using a particular GPS (e.g. 'Chirp' caches) or use some smartphone app that doesn't require registration or collect personal information. While you might need an account to download Wherigo, it can be stated that geocachers already have this account. It isn't clear at all that just grandfathering the Wherigo type would stop new Wherigo caches, or that Groundspeak would even want to consider tightening the guidelines on app use or special equipment any more than they already have.

Reviewers publish all caches that meet the listing guidelines, regardless of whether the hider has zero finds or 10,000. Once you point me to a place in the listing guidelines where a minimum finds requirement is specified, I'll stop doing that. While not given as a reason for not publishing - the very first paragraph in the guidelines (after the briansnat quote about finding a better spot) is: Frankly, I'd prefer the space be used for providing the rationale for some of the guidelines the reviewers do enforce. But apparently TPTB think it's important to make some suggestions that they aren't going to enforce.

I never ever would do that for many reasons. I almost managed to do this once. And in a situation where cezanne would never have done so. The cache was the final of a multi. Part I involved getting some information from a nearby sign and working a field puzzle to get the final's coordinates. I believe the sign was destroyed in a forest fire and never replaced. The original owner had moved away but allowed the cache to be adopted by someone who said they would try to fix the problem. But after being disabled for over a year the local reviewer archived the cache. When I got the archive notice, I saw that you could figure out the final without the information from the sign, so I went off and found the cache. I made an attempt to contact the adoptive owner and while I was waiting, the reviewer contacted me that someone else tried to place a cache near where the orignal stage 1 was and my unsubmitted entry was blocking this cache. So I removed my listing and when I went to get FTF on the new cache, I grabbed the container from the archived one, which I later hid elsewhere.

On the dark side, an adverturous cacher who might enjoy the option to look for an unmaintained cache and possibly find it despite several recent DNFs, may not know of that opportunity because it has been archived. I know that more people claim that it is a "waste of time" to look for a cache that may not be there than feel, as I do, that the adventure is more important that whether you get a WIGAS point. And I suspect that people who like taking a risk looking for unmaintained caches may keep a bookmark list of such caches or not remove them from their GSAK database when they are archived. I suspect as well that most of the caches you archived were mundane urban hides of which there are plenty to find and not much an adventure to go look for. So I'll grant that at some point it makes sense to archive these caches and allow active geocachers in your review territory to hide new caches.

Code words have their own set of problems. Some are arguably more vexing than wet logs.

I've seen reveiwers make minor changes to T/D or even fix coordinates for "abandoned" caches. Put me down with those who find it hard to accept disabling or archiving a viable cache just because the T/D is off or the container has been replaced with one of a different size. I do understand that some people will use PQ or search to find (or eliminate) caches with particular T/D or size (and not just to fill in a challenge grid). If they go looking for a 1.5/1.5 and discover it is now a 3/3 that may result in disappointment. So I understand the need for some control. The problem is that if the owner were active, and insisted that their original rating or coordinates were still accurate, no reviewer would archive the cache. If the official line from Groundspeak has changed from Bryan's response I got when non-consensual adoptions were ended and the goal now is to archive abandon caches for reasons that reviewers would not apply to a cache with an active owner, they should state this is the new policy. I beleive the policy has not changed and that reviewers have descretion. Some will make the changes to the cache page, some may leave the page as is so long people can still find the cache, and some may feel the conditions have changed enough to warrant the cache be archived.

Honest = bad ? Truth = bad ? Nitpicky = bad? I agree the OP shouldn't delete the logs. But something like dog poo or litter occasionally shows up in an otherwise good locations through no fault of the cache owner. If the finder DNFs the cache it often means they searched a bigger area and maybe did a closer inspection than otherwise. I recall one cache in nice park on the palisades overlooking the Pacific ocean that took me several trips to find where you don't want to know what I did find hanging in a bush. Guess watching the sunset can be really romantic

There's no doubt, I've never hidden my disdain for people who believe the almighty WIGAS point (i.e, online find log) needs to be defended against some kind of abuse and demand some minimal standard so your finds are comparable to my finds or whatever. I think it is absurd to to burden a fun light activity with arbritrary opinions about when an online log is earned. It is perfectly acceptable to say "here are the standards I use when deciding to log a find online". But I don't have any sympathy for someone trying to force their standard on others. Too bad if your knickers are twisted because I logged finds on a group hike when I wasn't actually the first to spot any caches. I'm even disdainful of the guidelines Keystone posted; mainly because they are worded in a way that appeals to those who are demanding standards. You know what changed in 2009? Prior to that, individual cache owners could set up what ever rules they wanted for their cache. These were often called "Additional Logging Requirements" because the went above and beyond simply finding the cache and signing the log. The guidelines were written specifically to forbid cache owner from having additional requirements (although the can still make optional requests). The guidelines simply prevent owners from deleting logs once someone has signed the log. It may be that the new guidelines cause more problems then they solved. There may be more owners who will insist on having the log signed (even in those case where your proposal says you should still be able to log a find), and there may be more case of people who log online when someone else has written their name in the log (and where you may feel they didn't actually find the cache). I don't let this get in my way of enjoing geocaching. I'm sorry your underwear is twisted because others refuse to play your way. Perhaps geocaching is not for you. Why not take up a sport with rules like how much air to put in the football; we'll see how that one gets enforced

I agree and proposed better standards back in 2005. Those didn't fair much better. This is a light fun game. It's not a competition. The online log is not the goal. Getting out and having fun is the goal. Some people have more fun caching solo and feeling a sense of accomplishment that they found somthing. Some have more fun just socializing with friends as they join forces to find caches. Sure, some seem to have fun when they can yell "Woohoo! I got another smiley" and log online. Different people may have a different opinion of what constitutes a find. I know someone will point to 3rd party statistics sites or even Geocaching.com statisics showing the number of finds, when I post this quote from a wise man

Tell me you're not serious. Do you really want to write a rule book for when WIGAS points are awarded? This used to be a simple, fun, activity. You go out and search for caches. Alone or with friends. Sometimes maybe even with the cache onwers. Then you go online an share your experiences. Why make this complicated?! Just have fun.

The proximity guideline no longer applies to virtual caches.

There is no requirement you log the find online and get a WIGAS (Woohoo! I Got Another Smiley). If you feel bad the cache wasn't the experience the owner intended, or that the cache was just too easy, you can always just post a note. On the other hand, if someone else wants to say that since they found the container and signed the log they can log the find online, that seems legitimate as well. Perhaps this is the real danger of defining silly rules for logging finds online. If you say signing the physical log = find for the purpose of logging on line, then some people are going to feel guilty about making an online log. At the same time, people who legitimately found the cache (and had fun doing so) get called cheaters because their pen didn't work or the log sheet was too wet to write on.

How far away are the stairs?

Really? I pay $30 a year for a premium membership. Sure. I get it that Groundspeak is a private company and can have guidelines for what caches they will publish or not publish. But I reserve my right to argue about guidelines that I don't agree with. I've stated elsewhere that the blanket ban on "burying" caches (whatever that means, since it keeps changing) also makes no sense to me. It amazes me that geocachers so easily accept bans on various caches without knowing what issues led Groundspeak to come up with the guidelines. I accept that is likely that there were a few cases where a utility asked for a cache to be removed from a tower. The problem is that usually it is easier to ban an entire class of hides rather than address the real concerns of some property owner/land manager. It may not be Groundspeak's job to educate property owners/land managers about geocaching. But without the information that was given to Groundspeak when a request was made to remove a particular cache, it is impossible for the community to know if this is even a fight worth fighting. (And now we have to fight with not only the utility to get permission but with Groundspeak who may come back to say they don't want to make exceptions) I also understand that even if all areas on or near towers (though nobody seem to want to say what "near" means) are banned there there are still plenty of places to hide caches. When the State of Virginia Dept. of Transportation decided to ban all guardrail caches, there are still plenty of places in Virginia to hide caches. When states, cities, or archdioceses ban caches in cemeteries (or even access to cemeteries) there are still places to hide cache besides cemeteries. It isn't the end of the world to ban transmission towers. But I'm the sort of person who prefers fewer rules and restriction and likes to know the rationale for any restrictions that may really be necessary.

Maybe, but I'll say again that my experiences it exactly the opposite. While I've seen "Keep Off" and "No Climbing" signs on towers themselves and sometimes seen powerline ROW in urban areas fenced off, many places actual require the utility to allow use of their access roads. The road on which the TOG power trail was placed was utility access road, but the BLM requires the utility to allow the public use of the road. I'll agree that the utility company may have some rights to prevent stuff being left on or near towers, but I don't think the reasons given in the TOG case apply everywhere. OK. Groundspeak certainly has reasons to abide by the wishes of a land manager or even a ROW user and archive caches when asked. What I question here is a blanket ban on transmission line towers. When Cracker Barrel asked that caches no longer be placed on their property did Groundspeak issue a blanket ban on caches at restaurants? There are many companies involved in the transmission of electricy and different high voltage lines used for different purposes. It just seems that a one-size-fits-all restricition based on a few requests doesn't make a whole lot of sense.