-CJ-

OK, I apologize for asking. I missed the beginning of the sentence.

Whom are you addressing this question?

I see, thank you. Yes I can. The problem is however that (as a CO) I usually don't know when the problem appeared. Cacher 1: Found it Cacher 2: Found it Cacher 3: DNF Cacher 4: Found it Cacher 5: I only found a string but TFTC With the last log I know (almost) for sure that the cache needs maintenance. However, I have no proof from any other sources to decide upon which logs are bogus. So, if I delete the last log (cacher 5) it happens that my decision is based on his own words only. In very simple words: one who did at least something (shared info about the problem) looses his smiley, others (who probably didn't sign any logs too but didn't mention the problem) keep their smileys.

Yes, my example had the only purpose to highlight that situations can be different. The topicstarter provided two examples but the question itself was a general one ("What sort of maintenance is Good"). So, the general answer should be "depending on circumstances". Sometimes even a small maintenance isn't worth doing (like with an abandoned cache which was mentioned above). Sometimes is may be OK to do full maintenance (like the situation I described). Yes, but there are variants depending on circumstances. If I believe that the cache isn't abandoned I can replace the wet log as a temporary solution and add a NM log so that the CO visits his cache ASAP and make full maintenance. Or (in some cases) I can call him and describe the problem and offer my help. Solutions can be rather flexible.

I said that I find something challenging but I didn't say that I myself implement the very same "challenging" tricks in my own caches Strangely, you're right. There always will be people who will find some of my cache frustrating. Even a simple traditional one with no ambiguity at all. By all means we could discuss how to place caches which more people are bound to enjoy but I think we should do it in a different thread.

Yes. What we talk about here is just a simple logical mistake when some people make the following conclusion: COs are responsible for maintenance (true) - only COs should do maintenance, not anyone else (false) And this wrong conclusion appears again and again in this forum when someone (usually a newbie) asks his innocent questions. Once I tried to find a cache but failed. It seemed obvious to me that the cache has gone but I couldn't be 100%. I knew the owner and I also knew he was active in the game. So I called him by phone and said his cache was in trouble. He asked me to describe the place in details. I did. With additional hints he concluded that the cache had really been muggled. I had a micro container with me and suggested replacement. He agreed and the cache got back to game quarter an hour later. I wouldn't call it minor replacement since I replaced the whole container, not just a damp logsheet. I'm quite sure I didn't violate any guidelines. So, not only minor maintenance can be done by seekers. Full replacement is also worth doing in certain circumstances.

And I find that challenging Anyway, we're (again) getting back to those who search for caches, and the original question was addressed to COs.

Yes, this was one of my points in the thread. There's no such thing as absolute ambiguity. Once I look at the map I immediately see that some variants just aren't possible (or very much unlikely). Then I look around and exclude more variants. And so on. Let me provide a simple example from one cache in Estonia. The coordinates led me to a big impressive stone (with its own history). From this stone cachers were suggested to make 50 steps and find the hidden container. The text didn't even mention the direction though it was said that I would find another stone (a smaller one). This simple task could be solved by brute force of course. I could make 50 steps in any direction and walk along the circle (keeping the same distance from the stone). I acted differently. First, I excluded the path I used to get to the stone because there were no stones along it. The area around the large stone was mostly flat (field) and no stones were visible. I walked to a lone tree which seemed 50 steps away and found nothing under it. While walking through this high grass I thought that since the cache was rather popular there should be some path between its steps made by geocachers. So I switched to searching for a path and soon found one in bushes nearby. 50 steps along this path into the forest brought me to the second stone 2 and to the cache. It was really simple but my experience was quite limited at that time (and still is). I remember that I was disappointed first when I knew that no direction was given. I can also understand a cacher who has found hundreds of hides with exact GPS coordinates and runs into a cache with some level of ambiguity.

What exactly logs?

"Needs Maintenance" is obviously for letting COs know that their caches need maintenance and they (CO) should take care of them (caches). However, it's not stipulated anywhere (AFAIK) that maintenance is something totally exclusive that must be done by COs only. Vice versa, it's quite common that maintenance plans involve other cachers and even non-cachers. This is allowed and advised by Groundspeak itself. You mentioned consent - right, it's more about consent and some other important circumstances, not about maintenance itself as an action. For example, there are situations when one can both perform some temporary maintenance and add a NM log for the owner to come and fix everything permanently (e.g. move the container to a safer location). It's quite common I'd say.

Thank you, what you meant was clear from your first post. I learned nothing new from this example. I knew that before from my visits to different countries where I got acquainted with local customs/traditions/etc. I didn't think there could be any discussion or misunderstanding out of my first post. It seems so obvious that one gets more fun once he gets acquainted with the place he wishes to go. If the visitor only did anything of the list I added to this thread, he would (probably) find the cache, make friends with local cachers, know more about hides in the city, and more, perhaps even spend unforgettable time by joining a guided tour. He did nothing of that for no good to anyone.

Thank you Manville Possum. Once you find this in the guidelines I will say that our discussion moved to a new point.

I've been to Istanbul several times and used every chance to meet with local geocachers. I've even got some small souvenirs from their community. I can only say big thanks to omaggo and his friends for warm attitude and all events they organize in Istanbul - and for geocaches of course. The city has many of them. Though the majority of tourists come to the European side I strongly recommend using your chance to get to the Asian side and enjoy some geocaches there. Please don't forget to download/use photo spoilers published by owners, they often work as hints. Nice city, lovely nature, great local company of cachers. If you're in Istanbul and there is an event in the downtown don't hesitate attending it.

NYPaddleCacher is right. My question was about maintenance, not throwdown. The link you provided Manville Possum only confirms that throwdown is not maintenance; moreover, maintenance is required to remove a throwdown.

Is this stipulated in any rules/guidelines?

Interesting. I really liked your answers.

Drop me a message. Use the "All nations" forum. Make your own meet-and-greet event and get acquainted with locals. Read the previous logs for this cache and probably other caches in the area. Contact the owner by the Message center before adding a NM or NA log to his listing. This is what many cachers do. As it was said, use it as a chance to learn about how geocaching works in the region you visit.

Though the thread seems to be generally on the same wave as some other recents posts of mine the question is different. As I see many cachers who go for puzzle caches like to confirm their calculated coordinates with the owner or with a geochecker. There are some folks that usually don't even attempt a puzzle cache which lacks geochecker (subj). We have "traditional puzzles" in mind: a) we solve something at home, we calculate coordinates, c) we confirm coordinates, d) we go outdoors and grab the container. A puzzle cache can be different however. Coordinates can be calculated not for the final step but somewhere in the middle of the puzzle. There can be puzzles without any calculated coordinates (say, you solve the puzzle at home to know distance and direction from the given coordinates or you can get some textual information which helps you to move further). And there are field puzzles where everything is done once you're in the area, not at home. I address my question to those who use geocheckers as a criteria when choosing caches: do you apply this approach to the puzzles mentioned above?

OK. Some job you need to do at home so you get final coordinates of the container. I don't remember.

Let me add that ambiguity in caches isn't that hard as soon as one is in the area and uses their experience and intelligence to find out the most probable variant. As soon as I remember there always were some minor signs and details that could help geocachers to deduce that the ambiguity isn't symmetric. However, there were newbies or those who hurried somewhere or those who came after dark, etc. etc., and some of these people blamed the CO for adding "unnecessary and disappointing ambiguity" to his puzzle. One part of my old puzzle/multi-step quest involved a story about soldiers capturing a building. The capsule was hidden in one of the rooms. There was a transcript of radio communications between soldiers in this squad. The text consisted of phrases like "What you see Jack?" - "A big room, two windows, one more door to the right", etc. It was impossible to make any sense from that without going outdoors. One could try and draw a plan of this building but there was not enough information and the ambiguity seemed so large. Once you were inside the building the level of ambiguity decreased quickly. And though there remained some uncertainty the majority of cachers was able to decrease the number of possible locations to 2 or 3 rooms. (And if one was really cool he could deduce the solution to 1 variant only). So, what seemed a big ambiguity at a first glance proved to be not that hopeless after visiting the place. On the other hand, I got complaints once from a cacher who suffered from cold weather and snow and darkness and crying kids while trying to find one of my traditional caches in the city. He said my description was too vague and the absence of a spoiler photo made him suffer from ambiguity. I was (seriously) worried about poor little kids and asked several questions. It happened that the guy actually lived 2000 kms away and never visited my cache. He just decided to join our online discussion because he hated ambiguity.

I actually waited for the discussion to come to field puzzles Placing a field puzzle is a good option in this case - cachers usually don't need verification as they are already in place. However, let's talk about tasks, not field puzzles. Just for fun: an email dialogue between me (CJ) and an unknown geocacher (GC) from some different country. GC: - Hello, I'm Dan from country N and I like your caches! Could you please confirm that I calculated coordinates of your puzzle cache XYZ correctly? (N ... E ...) CJ: - Hi, welcome to Russia! Are you here in Moscow at the moment? GC: - Nope, I'm at home. CJ: - Are you going to visit our country soon? We could organize something special for you if you like. A small guided tour for example... GC: - No, I have no plans to visit Russia. I'm just fond of puzzles and I wish to know if my answer to your riddle is correct.

As it was said, not replying at all may seem rude. My case is a bit different because I've done much (and hope to do more) to welcome geocachers who come from abroad to hunt in our nice rural area. So people often send me messages about meet-and-greet events, I organize small walking tours, share ideas about caches in Moscow, etc. It's common. Not answering to anyone may really seem rude and I don't want this. No. I don't think this would be a good idea. True. Good point but this wasn't exactly my question. I understand that there are two approaches. The question was more about experience that COs of the "first type" have in communications with visitors of their caches who asked for verification.

Well, you say it's extra make-work, I say it can be part of the game. Both approaches work in geocaching AFAIK. The problem is that sometimes people who used to rely on verification feel offended when being refused in a most polite manner. I want to know why (and I can already make some conclusions from responses to my topic here). Another goal is to find people who aren't happy confirming coordinates for their puzzles and find out what words/illustrations/hyperlinks they use in communications with a disappointed cacher who doesn't want to do "extra make-work".

BTW, one of the most controversial ideas IMHO is to discuss such topics openly in a public forum. The vandal immediately feels that he's a no.1 event in the geocaching world.

I forgot. It's another reality.