Dovre

it's on again

I agree that we sometimes should encourage people to watch their caches, and that caches that are not functioning, should be seen after, and eventually be archived. However, in Denmark, a lot of caches are placed beyond immediate reach of the owner. I own a few of these. I travel the country perhaps 2 or 4 times a year, but not every week. If the logs indicate a problem with one of my caches, I disable it, and take care of it the next time I am around. My impression from fellow geocachers in DK is that this practice is considered OK. I think many of us have searched a cache whose last successful find was one year ago, and perhaps with one non-finder in between. Sometimes we succeed, but more often we don't. The failed caches are among these ones. My strategy with these caches is to search them when I am around for other purposes, perhaps searching nearby caches which I am more confident of. This works very well. I waste little time, and report to the log so others can read that the problem (or my failure) persists. I admit that in a small and densely populated country like DK it is more easy to rely on such a strategy than in the Northern parts of the Nordic countries - and the Baltics - where geocachers may drive 200 km in vain for an unkept cache. If we should pursue a "cleansing programme" for caches, I suggest that we concentrate on caches which have not been found for the last 6 or 12 months. In this way, we target caches which seem problematic, and we do not bother cache owners whose caches are OK. The second subject of the thread is the physical standard of caches, that is, wet logbooks, missing lids, etc. It is obvious that serious geocachers report such missings, and that serious cache owners act accordingly within few weeks or months. I think very few cache-owners who do not respond to critical logs, would ever respond to a cache-purge. All the best, Dovregubben og Snöflingan (DogS), Denmark.

Hello, does anyone know of a Garmin or Mapsource dealer in Turku/Åbo, Finland? Street address or just the name would be fine. Greetings DogS Denmark

There seems to be a 1000 caches' limit on the size of the watch list for premium members. Is this intentional? The feature page for premium members mentions no limit. I know, one may comment, 'you'll get buried in e-mail'. This is not true. Watching 998 caches in DK and southern Sweden generates on average 10 to 20 e-mails a day, a little more on week-ends. Though I may not read every single log, the mails give a very good impression of the activity around each cache. So for me, the limit of a 1000 caches is a little awkward. If there has to be a limit, 2000 or 5000 caches would fit in better with my needs. Regards, DogS

I may not really read every single mail, but use them to watch everyone's progress and anybody new entering the area (=Denmark and Southern Sweden). Actually, there are a lot of caches but not that many geocachers in the area. Most caches are visited 3-5 times a year (but increasing). Regards Dovregubben

I have just discovered that the watchlist for premium membership is not unlimited - contrary to what is stated at gc.com. There is a limit of a 1000 caches. Regards, Dovregubben

Mopar, thanks for pointing that out, and for the discussion of cache-owners' pride. Sbell111, thanks for commenting on the email notification part. Sure this work-around works. I will try and see the amount of flooding. Thanks Dovregubben og Snöflingan.

I keep a folder in my car with printouts of all the roughly 200 caches in my country (Denmark). I do not plan my searches very carefully. I try to keep the folder up-to-date, but quite often I happen to search for caches which are disabled or archived, or caches where previous searchers have given a clear indication that the cache is missing og broken and should be archived or maint-checked. In Denmark, caches very often seem to disappear. I thought it would be a nice feature if users are notified weekly about not only new caches, but also archived, disabled and reenabled caches. Usage would be greatly improved if a special logging category "Not found. Should be checked by owner" was introduced. Of course this category should only be used when the searcher is absolutely certain or has physical evidence of the state of the cache - for example a broken or emptied case - and I think the geocaching community is able to impose this discipline onto the users. I would be willing to pay for such a feature, for example as a charter member. Regards Dovregubben og Snöflingan