Jump to content

tozainamboku

Members
  • Posts

    7970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tozainamboku

  1. Quite the opposite, actually. If, as mentioned above, you make the limit 10k caches spread across up to 10 PQs, instead of 10 PQs of 1k each (which is the same total number of results), I would expect the server load to be significantly decreased. To get those 10k caches now (which you can do today), you need to hit the server 10 times, with more complicated queries -- extra WHERE clauses in the SELECT to limit by date, for example. If one query with less WHERE clauses returning the same number of rows causes more load than ten more complex queries, then there is Something Very Wrong with the database[1]. As an aside, I have heard it claimed that the 1k PQ limit is due to a commercial agreement with a certain GPS vendor. Would be interested to hear if anyone else has any information on this (or can debunk it.) [1]although this would come as no great surprise.... With memory inexpensive, this is probably a correct assessment. However if the query becomes large enough, splitting it into smaller pieces that each require less resources could result in something that requires less resources. When running many queries that each require lots of resources like memory, you run in to the situation where a query is blocked because the resources it needs to run are not available. You may even get into a situation with deadlock or at least a lot of churning as queries are suspended so others can run. With smaller queries not only can these situations be avoided but the smaller queries can more easily be distributed over multiple servers. It may seem counterintuitive, but smaller queries most definitely can result in more efficient use of servers than big ones. However, I don't think that server load is really what constrains the size of PQ anymore. Whether there is some agreement with a GPS vendor, the fact remains that some older units were limited to GPX files of 1000 or 2000 geocaches. It may simply be easier to leave the size of the GPX file at 1000 so that users don't have an issue loading a GPX file on these units. Units that allow bigger files also alow multiple files to be used.
  2. Maybe, maybe not. A local cache owner committed geocide a few years ago. A number of local cachers wanted to preserve his caches. Since the listings were already archived, and since he wasn't around to initiate the adoption anyway, the only option was to create new listings. The volunteer reviewers insisted that the relisted caches use new containers, not the containers owned (and abandoned) by the original owner that committed geocide. Did the reviewer give instruction on what to do with the abandoned containers? Should they be left in place since that was the "owner's" wishes? Did the owners of the new caches have to keep them as bailment in case their "owner" asked for them back? Or were they just suppose to toss out the geo-trash? I find it amazing how much effort is spent on insisting that the cache is somebody's property and the owner intends to recover that property at some point in the future. IANAL, and this may in fact pass legal muster. But the reality is that hardly anybody really expects to have a something of value to collect when the cache gets archived. Most caches are archived because the container is missing in the first place. And many others are simply left as litter. Seems to me it would make more sense to recycle the litter than to pretend someone owns it.
  3. If $bigplace is cache dense, chances are that you will have wifi where you're staying, so you can download a more targeted PQ before you set off. Or you can get a prepaid SIM card to use there for relatively cheap. Yeah, I can't imagine a place in the world where caches within a small area (or say 50km radius) would be more dense than a couple thousand caches, with absolutely no cheap or free means to access the internet. If not an open wifi, not even an internet cafe or coffee shop with wifi; or even McDonalds, which is worldwide? But how many people have a device that can download the PQ and then load it onto a GPS. Essentially people would be forced to geocache with smartphones and we can't have that. The Super PQ user simply wants a GPS pre-loaded with every cache so they never have to find the free WiFi. And who's to say that the free WiFi in $bigplace, doesn't block Geocaching.com
  4. coachstahly was proposing the non-consensual adoptions be grandfathered for old caches as if the non-cosensual archive was a change in the guidelines (which are often, but not always, grandfathered). I don't see this change in policy as a guidelines change. Instead I agree with you that cache owners had never relinquished their rights to adopt out their caches to Groundspeak. The policy simply recognized what was already a part of the TOUs. One problem has been that after archiving a cache, some owners would delete everything on the cache page, including logs. Groundspeak will occasionally lock cache pages after archiving to prevent this, which raises the question of whether the ownership rights include the right to remove the material after it is published. Groundspeak policy may still be inconsistent.
  5. Was that true in 2003 or earlier, since those are the caches we're mostly talking about? Nothing is stopping someone from place a cache and listing it here in 2003, then in 2009 cross listing it on a different site, and finally simply stop responding to emails from this site. My guess however it that it would be extremely rare for someone who has crosslisted a cache to stop responding to Geocaching.com while still actively participating in another site. What happens more likely is that they have a dispute with a reviewer and decide to archive all their caches on GC.com and then list them somewhere else. The argument that an abandoned cache on GC.com may be actively maintained on another site seems specious. Even if you completely disregard the possibility of someone staying active on other geocaching websites, the fact remains that their caches still don't belong to Groundspeak. And, since Groundspeak doesn't own the caches, they don't have the authority to give them to other geocachers. Another specious argument. If the cache listing is archived, one could simply submit a new listing. Groundspeak and the reviewers aren't going to question what you did with the original cache container or even if you used it for the new listing. They may claim that by submitting the listing you imply that you have the necessary rights and permissions to use the container. You could simply indicate it was abandoned and you claimed it. I think the non-consensual adoption policy has more to do with the rights retained by the cache listing originator under the Groundspeak Terms Of Use. It is much easier to archive a listing than to transfer it without consent.
  6. Was that true in 2003 or earlier, since those are the caches we're mostly talking about? Nothing is stopping someone from place a cache and listing it here in 2003, then in 2009 cross listing it on a different site, and finally simply stop responding to emails from this site. My guess however it that it would be extremely rare for someone who has crosslisted a cache to stop responding to Geocaching.com while still actively participating in another site. What happens more likely is that they have a dispute with a reviewer and decide to archive all their caches on GC.com and then list them somewhere else. The argument that an abandoned cache on GC.com may be actively maintained on another site seems specious.
  7. Once, requests for very large PQ and/or canned pocket queries would be met with the explanation that Groundspeak didn't want to make it easy to copy their database. It is the constantly up to date database of geocaches that attracts people to geocaching.com and makes this the preeminent geocaching site. At one time they may have really feared people would abuse the ability to download cache information; and by limiting the data you could download and making you work to get and significant number of caches, they felt the were protecting this information. You still have to agree to the license that says you will not share the data. I think overtime, Groundspeak has realized there is a small but active subset of geocachers who "need" to have a large number of caches to cover the areas they cache in. On several occasiong they have increased the number of PQs and the size of each. One now can run 10 PQ of 1000 caches each per day. I remember when we could only run 5 of 500 per day. In addition they have released an API that allows premium members to get 10000 cache per day and people are creating new apps and tools that use the API. Most people who are geocaching over a broad area and don't know in advance where they are going end up using a smartphone with an app using the API. I don't believe the number of people who would be helped by Super Pocket Queries has ever been that great, and with smartphone apps I'm sure it is much smaller now. It does seem a silly workaround now. One advantage of the current system is that if you have too many cache being returned in a circle you can limit these to the closest to the center. There are several ways to limit the number of caches besides distance, but the date place was a simple one to implement. This field seldom changes, and for most areas, few enough caches are placed per day that it also give a fine granularity on the number caches being returned. (Power trails have thrown a bit of a wrench in that now people may published 500 caches all placed on one day). It's a bit of a pain to set up the dates, but most people will do this once and only have to updated this once a year or so (depending on how many new cachers get placed in your area). Maybe. But see the issue with Groundspeak being protective of their database. When you load up an enormous number of caches on your device, it is probably with the intention to this once and not keep it up to date. What will happen then is that you will miss new caches and you won't know if the old cache have been disabled or archived. Most people eventually decide that having current data is more important than having a lot of data. It's far more common to decide, just before you leave, where you are going for the day and download just the caches for that area. If that doesn't work for you, then most people find the solution of a smartphone where the App always has the latest data works best. I understand that some people won't use a smartphone for geocaching on principle, or may be in an area without service so the smartphone needs to be preloaded anyhow. And that some people may not care that they don't have the latest caches and might sometimes have data for caches that aren't there anymore. But, forgive my snarkiness, this is the exception. One nice thing in the forums is that people can share how they address these issues using existing tools with "workarounds". Since Groundspeak does seem to understand that there are geocachers who feel they need a super PQ, you might get some response in the way of implementing some ideas. The most likely thing to happen is that they increase the limits on the current system since that isn't too much work. They have stated that they don't plan to make any major changes to PQs as they see the API as the modern way to get data. I think that we might see more tools like GSAK that use the API to create GPX and other types of files that can be loaded on GPS units as a replacement for PQs.
  8. http://www.geocaching.com/blog/2014/10/faq-your-new-geocaching-account-settings/
  9. Don't know what that refers to. Despite my previous post which seems to have touch a nerve with Keystone, I'm actually quite convinced that the policy Bryan stated when the change to no longer support non-consensual adoptions was made is still the official policy. Reviewers do not archive caches simply because an owner is non-repsonsive. Instead they are given descretion that allows them to remove needs archive attributes and make other minor changes, while still deciding that there are cases when a cache needs to be archived because the owner is not maintaining it. The issue is not whether reviewers are doing their job. It is in discussing how and when that discretion is applied. On one side are those who believe that reviewers are too lenient. They feel than an absent owner is in itself reason to archive a cache, or that a least that when a minor maintenance issue is not responded to do by the absent owner it should trigger the archival. On the other end are those who would like the reviewers to err on the side of not archiving caches on the chance there is something to find or that a good samaritan will perform the maintenance. My previous post was meant to indicate that certain attitudes have changed as Geocahing has matured. In the past helping out with caches that may have been abandoned was often seen as good thing. Nowadays we get our knickers twisted because someone leaves a throwdown when they think a cache is missing. And even trying to repair a leaky container or replacing a wet log is seen as supporting the lazy cache owner who can't be bothered with the maintenance guidelines. Even though I dislike throwdowns, I generally prefer the idea that cachers help out with minor maintenance and that we don't have unrealistic expectations on cache owners for whom geocaching is not their highest priority. But my attitudes may reflect any earlier more carefree attitude toward geocaching.
  10. But this is just the point. An active owner, can post a response explaining why they believe the cache is there, or why they can't go do maintenance on it right away. If the reviewer pulls the trigger too quickly on such a cache it might not be archived. A cache where the owner is no longer in the game or unable to check their email as often, will be quickly archived despite many believing the the cache is still there and the finder simply missed it. I think the issue is that the mix of reviewers tends to lag the mix of geocachers in general - but still follows it. Long time cachers who may also enjoy looking for seldom found caches have a pretty good idea that a single DNF is not really indicative of those caches being missing. In addition they may be more willing to search for a cache even though it has one or more DNFs. Newer cachers tend to look for caches that are easier to get to and may avoid caches with even just one DNF as a way to avoid what they perceive as a waste of time searching for a cache that might not be there. I think more reviewers are viewing geocaching as about the find and the WIGAS points. They see it as the "right thing" to get caches than might be missing off the listings as these "waste people's time". The expectation now is for every hunt to end in a successful WIGAS point and not to have an adventure going to a remote place that is seldom visited with a chance that you might not find the cache. In the "old vs. new" thread, I've tended to take the position that despite the majority of cachers being motivated by generic WIGAS points of caches in strip mall parking lots and other easy to get to places, there are still plenty of old caches to find in remote places and certainly a reasonable number of new cachers who enjoy the adventure of searching for a well hidden cache in a remote place and will continue to hide these. But realizing that the generic view of the WIGAS being the whole point of geocaching is now the official Groundspeak view that is shared by a growing number of reviewers, is disappointing. I have from time to time, kept some archived caches around in my GSAK dats base when I think there is a good chance the cache is still there or I think the cache location would be worth visiting anyhow. I may have to do this more often.
  11. No, you might actually be a majority. Amongst the Forum Elistists, to coin a new term invented by Toz in this thread. Even I have said in this thread that if a cache is missing and there is no one maintaining it, reviewers should go through the process of archiving it. Please look at the topic of the thread. If you have a cache that is rarely found or searched for, 1 DNF should not trigger the process. Those of us who look for rarely searched for cache know that one with a single DNF the cache is likely to still be there. This is true even if the last find was over a year ago. The forum elitists that I refer to are those who think that abandoned caches should be archive because nobody will check on the DNF. I've found a few caches I've checked on after they were archived by over zealous reviewers. I'd rather see the reviewers wait for a second or third DNF or a comment from a previous finder that verifies the cache is missing.
  12. It's already been discussed several times that non-profits were at one time treated separately from for-profit businesses. It was Groundspeak that made the final call on the city park that cost you $30 just to get in the gate. Excessive park fees can both discourage potential finders, and also impact the frequency of owner maintenance. In my 10 years of reviewing, it's the only municipal park that's ever been denied for this reason, so it's very much an outlier. Exactly. If you want to know if cache are allowed in the LA Zoo, just email the reviewer. Forget the LA zoo (I'm sorry I brought it up as it is off topic to the point I was trying to make). The issue is what is government. There are many places where a city or state government will create an unelected agency to run the zoo, museum, etc. That agency will get no budget from the taxpayer. Instead they create a non-profit to charge fees and raise funds. Of course there is still government oversight, usually in form of appointing the board and sometimes in approving the fees. Not clear to me if reviewers would view this a a government fee or not. It makes little sense to me (and IMO, another example of hair splitting) to allow caches in a zoo that is run by the city vs a zoo run by an non profit zoologiccal society. My guess is that a cacher would not know who the fees are going to. There are zoos that are run for profit as well. It may just be easier to say no zoos, museums, etc. that charge a fee. With regard to municipal parks with exorbitant fees, I hear you. The cases I've seen involve weekend entrance fees. Both have caches. One is a county park that is free during the week but has a car entrance fee on weekends and holidays (less than $30, but if I recall more than $10). No parking is available within a reasonable walking distance, but you can walk in if you are willing to park far away. The other was a municipal park. Again free on weekdays but closed to anyone not a resident of the city on weekends and holidays. The park was patrolled on weekends and they wrote expensive tickets if you didn't have proof of residency. High fee parks are generally using fees to control crowds and the fee structure may allow cachers who are willing to search on weekdays to do so with no fee. I've no problem with reviewers making the "wow" judgement call if they are willing, just so long as they consider the whole fee structure and not just the worst case.
  13. It's not. The language was first put in over 10 years ago (as an Internet Archive search shows). The only real difference is that, as has already been noted in this thread, non-profits are treated the same as for-profit businesses. The phrase dealing with going inside and purchasing a product or service may have been added 10 years ago. And as far as I can recall it has never distinguished between profit, non-profit, or government. What has change is interpretation. Maybe it is due to a different reviewer with a different opinion, or perhaps the reviewer changed his mind. Or maybe Groundspeak sent out a memo All I know is 10 years ago caches were being published in zoos, botanic gardens, and a few other place that had an entry fee collected by a non-profit organization. It could be that caches are still published in places like these, though you've seen to indicate that government run parks are treated differently than some public space operated by a non-profit. You also have indicated that there is some "wow" requirement where reviewers judge if the fee is reasonable. A lack of submissions in the zoo, is an indication of a lack of submissions in the zoo. It doesn't necessarily mean they're banned. Ask the local reviewer about it, if you really want to know. How would I know if there is a lack of submission of zoo caches? I only know there used to be several caches and overtime they were all archived and no new caches published. Sure the I can ask my local reviewer for his/her interpretation of guidelines. He/she may choose to share it with me, or I may just be told to submit a cache a wait to see what happens. In any case, even if there are submissions being denied, and given that the zoo is run by the city, it was not a good example for discussing the commercial guidelines. There are many other reasons why caches may not have been published at the zoo in recent years.
  14. Yes, just like it's been for the last 10+ years. May true in recent years, but 10+ seems an exaggeration. When the decision to allow some fees was made, cache were often allowed in zoos, botanic gardens, and some museums. These are not always run by the government. It is common for a non-profit organization to run these places and collect fees. Many reviewers continued to allow cache in such places. Recently I've noticed that there are no longer caches in the Los Angeles zoo (there is one in the parking lot). In LA the zoo is city property, so it seems that, government or not, caches are no longer permitted. Once again any specific changes in the guidelines that might be responsible for the change aren't exactly obvious. Was another memo from Groundspeak to reviewers that the rest of us don't know about? Forum posts like this seem to be the only way the general community finds out there is some new interpretation (or if there was a change made in the guideline, just how it will be interpreted). I thank the reviewers who have posted in this thread, although their responses seem a little glib. They are after all just doing what Groundspeak told them. So long as Groundspeak refuses to come to forum and present the rationale behind changes in guidelines interpretation and so long as they continue to communicate these changes in "secret" memos to the reviewers that are not shared with the community, there will be people complaining about hair splitting.
  15. What would you plot for the cache types I have zero finds? (hint: log(0)=-∞) Sure log scale has the effect of squeezing large numbers together that they don't overpower the smaller numbers. If you were plotting something that had fractions (as opposed to whole number cache counts), it would also squeeze very small fractions together so that common fractions like ½ or ¼ get more room on the plot. Log scale makes sense if you are looking a ratios and you might have some very large or very small ratios but are mostly interested in the ratios closer to 1. For example, you might plot the ratio of finds for each type relative to the number of multi-cache finds. But most people are probably more interested in the actual number of each cache and not that they found twice as many multi-caches as EarthCaches and 10 times a many traditionals as multi-caches. What is probably a better and more intuitive solution is to use a broken bar for tratiditional caches to indicate that they don't fit on the same linear scale as the other types. Then you can spread out the other kinds of caches to see more detail, with the traditional cache bar showing a break to indicate that it is much larger.
  16. Sure, after awhile nobody noticed that this cache was maintained by me and kept thanking dave85 - who apparently geocached one weekend back in 2001. And of course people were giving dave85 favorite points for an ammo can when he had only left some cheap tupperware. This cache was a favorite to me because of the hike. When I found it it was the only cache on the top of a rarely climbed mountain. I had to figure out the trailhead from dave's hint and then figure out the approach on primitive trails and climbing. It was a real adventure. Those who find this today have a different experience. The route is now 'marked' with caches every .1 miles. A reviewer even updated the coordinates (originally dave had put the coordinates for the summit and in the hint says the cache is south of the summit), so people don't have to spend time searching a large area like I did. One can argue that none of the finders who came after me, didn't really find dave's cache or experiences what he may have wanted them to experience. Yet people still get excited when they go after this cache. It is a hike they would not have done except for geocaching; and they get to find the oldest active cache in Los Angeles county. If the cache were to have been archived when I found the broken tupperware, eventually there may have been another cache. Perhaps even one of the new style cachers would have left his signature trail of pill bottles up to the summit. A few people would climb, but it would not likely attract nearly as many as the current cache. One can pooh-pooh the notion of historic caches all you want and argue that if the original owner is no longer active the cache should be archived. The fact is that many people will look for old listings even if the original container has beem replaced by a cheap pill bottle. (BTW someone took my ammo can and left a small tupperware). Maybe it is to qualify for a Jasmer challenge or maybe it just because they think older caches were in more interesting places. Sure you could have a new cache in the same place as an old cache, but I'd guess that just seeing the date placed be 14 years ago is enough for people to feel that there is something special.
  17. But it won't count for the Jasmer challenge If they used that excuse for not archiving caches, then we'd have A LOT of old, unmaintained caches that were falling apart, giving geocaching a bad name. At some point, no matter how much folks protest, there will be some blank spots in the Jasmer grid. If it's that important to someone, they should either fill it up now or just accept that at some point in the future the Jasmer will have to be modified to account for those gaps. Of course my comment on Jasmer challenges was tongue-in-check, but I will say that I'm not so much of a stickler to expect every cache I find is perfectly maintained. Geocaching is just a game. There seems to be a rather vocal group posting now in several forum threads who think that any "abandoned" caches should be archived immediately. In the past, the common practice was just the opposite. Instead of trying to archive as many caches as possible just because the owner wasn't logging in to Geocaching.com, people went out of their way to help out the old caches, even so far as replacing containers. The more caches to find, the better. I think nowadays there are area with more caches than anyone will ever find, so there isn't so much of a reason to help out old caches to keep them listed. Some people may even view archiving old caches as creating space for new caches to be placed. If you've been caching for a long time, you might have found the old cache many years ago. Archiving it and replacing with a new cach meant you have another cache to find. While I can see that in many places the old arguments for helping out with maintenace of old caches aren't as strong as they used to be, I still miss the good old days when being helpful was a good thing. Like when I replaced this with this
  18. But it won't count for the Jasmer challenge
  19. You do understand what distinct count means? If only 200 people want the distinct number back.. no. Groundspeak has already indicated that the distinct number was confusing and they spent far more time trying to explain what it meant and how to 'fix' the number to those who wanted it to be the same as the total number than it was worth. It does seem we are seeing far few thread asking why their numbers don't match. Even this thread had a quiet period of 3 months. It just isn't that important to most people - no matter what you think. For those who say it's important, the reason most often given is to be able to find caches that were accidentally logged more than once. Posting the distinct count doesn't actually help find these caches/logs. If that is really the issue wouldn't another solution make more sense? Perhaps a warning if you log a find on a cache you have already found (though I don't know if this is possible in the app API), or a button "Find caches I've logged 'Found' more than once". Restoring something that was confusing and didn't do what people really wanted doesn't make sense no matter how easy it would be to put back.
  20. If those people stop looking for it, that's their decision. There might be reasons to check a cache, but that people might stop looking for it is not a legitimate reason for a cache check for me in its own right. That's a bit like if you'd argue that someone who has a very difficult puzzle cache where the locals who can solve it have already visited the cache should be made easier or archiv it once the visits become very rare. For whatever reason, I'm attracted to recent DNF caches as it is. I see them as a challenge I guess. I'm always fine with adding another one on if I am unable to locate. Warning, you just stepped into the lion's den in this forum! Yes, I can see how the comment could be read out of context. I meant I'm fine with having another DNF under my belt... not that I'm cool with adding a new cache in that location. That's wrong in my book. I updated that post to ensure I won't be eaten alive.... It has often been said the forums don't reflect the general geocaching community. For many people leaving a replacement for a missing cache is seen as a good deed. There are people out there whom I refer to as generic cachers. To them the enjoyment is not in the searching for caches but is instead tied to finding caches. For each cache you find your find count goes up one. Doesn't matter if the cache was a difficult well camoed cache at the end of a long hike or an LPC in the supermarket parking lot. They all count the same. And if a cache happens to be missing, that not only denies you a point, but it denies a point to everyone who comes after you. Since the cache owner doesn't seem to be paying attention to the DNFs, these cachers figure they are doing the right thing by replacing the cache. They help out other cachers by ensuring there is a cache and they help the cache owner by maintaining the cache. And other cachers and most cache owners encourage this by thanking them and allowing them to log a find. Now, the forum regulars will argue that altruism has nothing to do with leaving throwdowns. It's all about getting a smiley. But I contend that they have never had a serious discussion with people leaving a throwdown. If a cache owner declares "no find" or deletes their log, they seem quite able to suck-it-up and accept that there are people who play different. However, they view anyone who says a throwdown is always a bad thing as an ungrateful bastard that doesn't understand how the game is played. In the early days of geocaching when there were few caches to be found, the community viewed helping out other cachers as a good thing. In particular as cachers left the game, others would take over maintenance of some caches (before Groundspeak even had adoption, and even afterward without adopting the cache). People were quite happy as this kept more caches in play and attracted more players. Nowadays, in many areas there are more caches than most people will ever find and not much reason to keep old caches in play. So many people now are more likely to argue it's preferable to log NM and NA to clean up old unmaintained listings. But many people long for the old days when being helpful was encouraged and not referred to as "cheating".
  21. If someone wants to filter the caches they look for based on whether or not the last few logs are DNF, they certainly may do this. On the other hand, if you choose to go to caches without looking at the logs, and then when you see the last few logs are DNFs, you blame the previous hider for wasting your time by not posting a NM or NA is arrogant. You personally may feel that some number of DNFs or some number of DNFs by "experienced" cachers is enough to convince you the cache isn't there. Other people may have a different opinion of how long to wait before escalating the issue with a Needs Archive. I happen not to look at a DNF as a waste of time, even if there are a few DNFs just before I looked; there is a chance I might find it and at least I got to visit the place and think about why someone thought it would be a good place to put a cache - even if I don't agree.
  22. The OP already gave the example of caching in the rain with his family. He doesn't sign the log (and maybe doesn't even open the container) in order to keep it dry. I've had many examples where the log was so soaking wet that one could not write on it. Maybe I didn't bring a replacement, or maybe there was no room to add a dry log. I didn't sign the log (yet I logged a find online ) There are also many times I forgot a pen or the pen I had stopped working. Sure the "puritans" here would say that if I was "geocaching" I would have brougt a working pen and a backup. If I didn't have a working pen I must not have been "geocaching." And then there are time when I forgot to sign the log. I know of one case where I wrote something in the log book but didn't include my name. When I got to the next cache I realize that I might not have signed my name. So being the "puritan" I am, I went back to the last cache and sure enough I hadn't written "toz". In another case, where I was second to find a subsequent find said the only saw one signature in the cache. The guideline was put in to disallow code word caches (which not seem required for Lab Caches ). It has been used more recently to prevent a traditional cache from being turned into a virtual. At one time, virtual caches and code word caches were allowed. So sure, now a cache is defined by a container and a log sheet. But that was not always the case and there are grandfathered examples of both. TPTB have put into the guidelines for cache listing that the owner is responsible for the quality control of posts to their cache page. They are told to "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate." The problem has been in determining what is a bogus log. Being an internet game there are sometimes people (teenagers ) who will log online just for the heck of it without ever looking for a cache. There are also people who log the wrong cache online by mistake. Some cache owners are actively looking for bogus logs and will, as the guidelines state, delete any log that appears to be bogus. This results in legitimate logs being deleted. In order to resolve the conflict when they happen, TBTP have instituted the practice of saying that if the cacher has signed the log, the owner cannot delete the log [for being bogus]. Most owners however, delete only logs they know to be bogus. Someone logging "Greetings from Germany" in the online log is not enough to know the log is bogus. Someone using a 'bot' to log 10000 caches in one day, is enough reason to know the log is bogus.
  23. Too bad this was in the getting started forum. Lots of good advice but also some silliness from what I call "geocaching puritans". As the OP points out this is just a game. He doesn't keep score and finds it strange that a cache owner would delete someone's log just because the physical log book wasn't signed. The "puritans" on the other hand have decided that you haven't found the cache until you perform the actual act of physically signing the log, and they generally regard an online 'found' log when the physical log isn't signed as "cheating". Geocaching started in 2000 and ever since geocaching.com started there was online logging. Even before the website, people reported their find by posting in the newsgroup. So there was never an "old day" where the physical log was the only way to report you found the cache. The logbook was something Dave Ulmer put in the first cache, probably because he was familiar with summit logs that hikers and mountain climbers sign. Finding the cache and opening it up to trade and to find and sign the logbook provides a confirmation that you have found the cache and not something else like a letterbox or a summit register. Cachers have used this to create some alternative game play, like a cache that requires solving a puzzle to open, or one where you have to climb a tree to retrieve. There are even caches where the cache owner hides decoy containers and you have to find the right one. If you are finding a cache like this, I would say it's a good idea to sign the log to know you have completed the tasks the cache owner has set out for you. For traditional caches, however, I agree with the OP that the log is extraneous. However, even here I would try to sign the log as the cache owner might be a "puritan". But if you don't care about the online log being deleted, then there is no reason to sign. The guideline that requires that caches have a log book predates the grandfathering of virtual caches. There was an earlier attempt to have "codeword" caches where you needed to find the code in the cache in order to log it online. This caused all kinds of problems with people forgetting the codeword or writing it down wrong and not being able to log finds. (Lab caches that are part of some events use codewords and already have seen the same problems). TPTB decided to disallow codewords and made it a requirement to have a log. This guideline is now often use to prevent people from turning a traditional cache into a virtual by allowing online logs even if the cache goes missing. The reference to armchair logging in the video has to due with the way virtual caches worked. Since there was no cache to find and no log to sign, people wanted to have a confirmation that you "found" the virtual cache. That was usually by answering a question that could only be answered by visiting the cache site. Many cachers decided that if you could figure out the answer there was no need to visit the cache. That was called armchair caching or couch potato logging. It bothered the "puritans" even more than a physical log not being signed.
  24. If your caches are archived 31 days after you die, then you will have left geolitter. Do you really think that anyone will see that your caches have been archived and will go collect the containers? The cache is there, it can be found, and people will log it. Only when there are multiple DNFs and/or logs reporting problems like the cache site is no longer accessible does the reviewer even need to get involved. I was FTF on a cache someone hid in a place they knew previously had a cache. The owners of the first cache had stopped geocaching and after a few DNFs over a relatively short period, someone posted a NA and the reviewer archived it. Here's my log
  25. The forum elitist may not have children who they have to take care of and provide transport to, they may not have a chronic disease the occasionally confines them to bed, they may not have to take care of a sick spouse or parent, they may not have a demanding job where they have to be on call 24/7, then may not be in the military and subject to oversea deployments. 30 days is more than enough time to read emails and to respond (even by saying "I can't fix this right now because my child is in the hospital with a serious illness, I'll get to it right after the funeral.") Drop everything because, if you're cache owner, nothing is more important then responding to issues with your cache. And if it happens to be your funeral, and your cache is still sitting there where it can be found, well we can't has some crybaby cacher who won't even go to look because there is one DNF; the reviewer should archive the cache if you can't check on it.
×
×
  • Create New...