scorpio_dark

I agree with this concern in my area. I came upon a micro hidden in the form of a medicine tube the other day. Someone had thrown down another cache even though the original container was still in the zone. Some of our group found the original cache, while others found the new one. Neither was in the right spot according to the hint we checked afterward. Some people need to be less afraid to post a DNF if they aren't even willing to take the time properly search a 30' GZ. Of course, maybe the original cache was missing at the time and was brought back later by a muggle? Either way, I am not interested in just dropping a new container (especially for a C&D) simply because I cannot find it. I never plan to assume am 'that good', no matter how many finds I end up with. Also, I would wait until digital logs of NM or other issues were a least two weekends old before acting on behalf of a cache owner I do not know. Just sayin' Sounds like a lot of cachers do check the logs before they just butt in though. I think that's nice. I would appreciate it if I just wasn't able to get out there in a reasonable amount of time.

I can't see the unpublished listing, but it sounds like you link to or otherwise point users to this site with crude language to be used in association with your listing. How can your page be innocent while it points to a site that would not be considered family-friendly? Just because you don't have any of that content listed directly on your page, you're suggesting that it should be outside what the reviewer considers in the listing? At the same time you want to incorporate its use as part of the caching experience? I would suggest that's a double-standard. Your other argument is much stronger. Let the parents be the censors. It would be cool if there were search options or account setting sfor filtering out "not kid friendly" caches so that parents can still feel safe letting kids navigate the site -or so I can avoid those same caches if I wish . . .

I've got to say, I'd love to do this too!

No thanks. When that happens, sure. Otherwise, don't annoy me with an added step. I already log in to log a cache.

On the OP: Yeah I don't think hobo quite hits it. But I don't think you're overstepping by using it nor is it in bad taste. And I would search for this one for sure. I'd curse with a smile while doing it, lol.

That happened to my cache. The TB with the combination was supposed to stay in my county. The attached laminated card said that in big letters and even had a map of the county on the back so there was no doubt what towns were in the county. The third person to find it took it to Connecticut. I also found a TB in NJ that was the key to a cache in MA. It said so right on the tag. As soon as I grabbed it I received an e-mail from the owner asking me to mail it back to him, so I did. Yeah. The key mystery cache (GC1310K) I found had 7 duplicate key TBs floating around (and/or lost) and also completes the coords on the attached, laminated card. The TB (TB13DEX) I found for it was one of the last ones left at the time and has since disappeared. From watching a couple of motels/hotels' interaction with local bugs, I'd recommend requesting they stay out of those as they can have high tourist traffic (not that they'll read that request either . . .). Looking at the still low find rate on it, I'd recommend multiple companion TBs for yours at the same time too.

That could be useful and alot of fun -especially depending on how little information you can choose to include. Thanks for pointing it out.

Very good point. I'd recommend an alternative - drop off one card a day for 52 continuous days. But play whatever way you like. Unless the numbers are what make you smile, these guys are right on! I did 18 in an afternoon a couple of days ago and finally broke 100 finds after 2 1/2 years. It helps if you can e-mail or log directly from the field. Or just take a notepad. Then you can leave yourself notes about each cache. Of course I see alot of those sad simple "TFTC." or "nice." logs from numbers runners too.

Agreed on old vs. historical. I guess there'd have to be a list of organizations/programs that are accepted as verification of historical value. Then the hider can include a link in a note to the reviewer that "this location is listed 'here' as a historical landmark" or whatnot. I know probably a pipe dream and would still be angst from those who are upset that this or that would not fit the guideline. That makes sense, but if it is a "sensitive" area I think one could still hide a cache within sight of the site with the historical information.

Well, I kind of went on hiatus to avoid divorce. But now I think getting back into geocaching improves my mood to again avoid dumb issues.

+1 another +1. I understand the idea that some historical sites would have a placement issue. But I think you could still just place one nearby and leave information in it. Or maybe get a program going with the fed and/or state to place caches within the visitors center at these locations. Make it a puzzle cache where answers about the historical site grant you access to the cache at the front desk/kiosk or something?

We are moving and I am seriously thinking on place one near the new digs. Sometimes COs don't tell that it's their property nearby on the page though. I usually try to act casual and avoid those if I see someone staring right at me. Don't want to incite a "scare".

Great thread to open OP! And guys, organizing CITO events with press invites is of course a great suggestion. Whatever you do, press cheat sheets are your friend. I'll be blunt and say that many of the reporters I work with will fail to do a correct or fair story for cachers for a whole grab bag or reasons which include, sloth, low comprehension, and sensationalist tendencies. The main reason is that they don't comprehend the information that is on the site. This is usually because they first hear a police PIO tell them the wrong information and then don't catch the differences when they read from the primary source. Another reason in this area is because most of the time a reporter even "cares" about geocaching, it is because of a breaking news bomb scare that they have to turn a package for in less than a couple of hours. Then there are the sensationalist freaks that will always find the downside. They'll do that on their own. So I completely agree with making sure to magnify the tangible positives on the media forums. Remember to send copies of your comments and contact info for you or your caching group's PR guy to the News Director, Assistant News Director, the reporter and the Assignment Editor. Most of those contacts can be found on the stations or paper's website. When you give the reporters or photographers a simplified cheat sheet and/or well put together packet, that is likely what they will write from. If the station previews your event, they will write directly from the PRESS RELEASE that is in their e-mail inbox. No, you can't control what the assignment editors, producers and news directors focus on. But, you can sure the heck affect it GREATLY! EDIT: Make sure to say the same things on the cheat sheet and geocaching.com explanations in recorded interviews too!

meh. nevermind.

You mean no one logged a find on-line between last Tuesday and this cacher's log. I understand you are annoyed by this. I will say ranting about how long you have to drive to maintain you cache makes me want to bring up the argument about caches being close enough to maintain. If it's skin off your rear, maybe it's too far? I know, I know. You were just there! So that's the annoying part. Anyone you can ask that lives closer? Any previous finders you know live closer and you can buy them a coffee later?

I've found altoids tins that are called "small". Never a "small" 35mm film canister though in my finds as I recall. I wonder if the mistake sometimes comes from bad recollection of the size guideline? Before I read your quote of the guidelines I only recalled the portion that says "...containing only a logbook or a logsheet". Of course it has been 2007 or 2008 since I last referred to that part specifically. I bet people retain and believe that the intent of the guideline is to specify whether the cache could conceivably contain any trade items whatsoever. I know people have recommended reading, then re-reading before placing a cache. A good idea which I intend on doing before placing one myself soon.

I think the suggestion that a large number of finds can give the new hider a chance to experience many types of hides, good and bad, can work. Much better would be to suggest they check off X types of attributes and such from a list and or worksheet packet. Then you can better ensure that they are getting the experience you've deemed necessary for them. Not that we want to dump more responsibility on the volunteer reviewers, but maybe they can create a bookmark list of "what to do" type caches? Again I think these can be added as suggestions. Requirements? Well I can see a probationary period from the time of joining and/or a find minimum before the site even allows a submission. Not 100, mind you. Sorry if some of this was covered already. Suddenly a bit swamped at work to catch up on the thread post by post ATM. EDIT: Agreed

Well. I think it's what you make of it. The log I posted for this one was just a result of being in the right circumstances with another creative mind: While I agree with the idea that acting too suspicious will arouse suspicion, I also believe that walking right up to the back of a grocery store like you belong there can get you a bomb scare in a heart beat. I suppose if you are observant enough to actively engage any muggle who sees you, you're good to go. These observations come from a newsie in an uber-conservative city with a small-town attitude (the town, not me). I'm willing to buy what others with big city experience have to say there.

Technically a virtual cache that has been abandoned like this is in violation of the guideline for maintaining a virtual. When Groundspeak finds out about these, they are archived. Not only can they not be adopted because of the policy of no forced adoptions but Groundspeak also has made a policy that should the owner be around and be willing to adopt out the cache, because it is grandfathered it is no longer allowed. Groundspeak's policy is to archive all the virtual caches this way. Cachers who enjoy virtuals caches simply log their finds and don't tell TPTB that there is nobody to answer their email. Because if you do, the cache will be archived. I am sure that we will be seeing fewer virtual caches in the days to come. If you love virtual caches just keep your mouth shut and no one has to know these should be archived. Of if you agree with Groundspeak that all virtual caches should eventually go away, post an SBA and get rid of these abandoned caches. Makes sense. Personally I say please don't SBA it unless you plan to follow behind it with a "real" cache. I've enjoyed the few virtual finds I've had. It doesn't hurt anybody to send to info out into cyberspace unanswered. I can't see why one would just "Just slap an SBA on them and be done with it." Not labeling that. Just saying I don't understand the motivation.

Not likely. That icon just refers to caches that can be legally walked up to and accessed 24/7. Some parks and other locations have hours where you are trespassing or they'll even gate up completely.

Guess you can either close this or the other thread. Yeah we kind of already got the answer before you even commented over here Mr. moderator But this seems to be the cool group, 'cause you have more comments! Just messin'

If you are looking for specifics, it may be best to post in a local/regional forum. From some quick research and surmising: It looks like all the caches in the said park on that island have a "DCNR" seal of approval A google search with the terms "DCNR" and "geocaching" led me to a specific page within a few clicks! Maybe it fell obviously foul of one of the DCNR requirements. Maybe the Park Manager for that park can tell you. Since the PA state goverment knows about and allows caching, it'll be easier for yor to ask! Hope that helps!

Just from reading here and from obervations on the trail: A- Be prepared to lose the cache and contents. No matter what you do, things can happen. B- Make it a cache with effort needed so that maggots and pirates may be slightly detered. C- I've never seen a cache with specific swag types stay "pure". Another thought: If you can work it out with your reviewer and a place, maybe it could serve your purpose. You can perhaps get someone to tend the cache for you if, say, it's behind the counter at a local video store. The reason I say work with your reviewer is that you have to be careful not to be seen as soliciting or placing a commerical cache as noted in the guidelines and requirements. EDIT: BTW, just curious; would you be asking for a specific genre or category of DVD? Sounds like it could be fun in any case. (EDIT: Grammar and Spelling)

+1 I've also seen "Thanks for the smiley." I like it 'cause it says the one thing the hide was good for -doesn't uneccessarily dis anything. And I will say. "TFTC. Good 'ole cache and dash" note it as such if the hider left it off the description.

I totally agree on logging a find after a change by an act of nature. I especially would do it if the tree is felled for example. That tree probably is never going back up, so there's (at least around here) a likelihood that the CO will make it eligible for a new find if/when he/she rehides it anyway. I mean the CO may decide to archive it or completely change things up anywho. . . And on the developed discussion: I go back and forth on the cheese factor with logging challenges without going through the physical part. Yeah. I think if someone made it a parisitic habit where cacher A always goes and fetches for me, that fails. But if I were part of a group of adventurers, and we each took turns, or had specific team assignments that actually contributed to the goal, that could be kind of cool. It especially wins if you put together a team of friends who each have some expertise and/or handicap. Someone else is always there to fill in the blank for you while you do so for them. I kind of think of it like an RPG group or mercenary team maybe. One guy makes the killing blow, or maybe infiltrates X in a particular situation, but the whole team gets something out of it. BTW, I undestand of the whole thing is leaking cheese in your opinion It's a step up from couch potato caching, more like plain potato caching. If they have the CO's permission, then it's sweet potato caching. If it's a bunch of micros, then I'd call it tater tot caching... love it! Glad to see that you relaxed your stance in later posts to condone people having fun in their own way. For some, the "fun" is the social aspect of going out with a group of friends on an adventure. I love to read their logs and have no problem with them claiming finds. And I'm glad they don't find a new hobby. This group of people is much more interesting than it would be if it were only people who could climb trees and cliffs. Relaxed my stance? Not sure what exactly you're referring to by that. If one person solves a puzzle, and someone goes along with them for the ride, I can understand to a certain extent. If that person just got the solution from someone else and claimed a find, that's pretty crass and shows a lack of character. By the same token -- getting someone else to climb a tree so a whole herd of people can sign a log is ridiculous. What's the point of putting it up a tree, then? Just set it on the ground and let everyone sign away. No -- these people will still claim the high terrain rating find, even though they did nothing to warrant their find. As I've stated before, I'm definitely in favor of ALR's. Since it's up to each of us individually how and where we place caches, we should be able to say what's necessary for claiming a find on them. It seems a lot of folks feel entitled to not be excluded from anything, so we have to enable them by not actually requiring them to do any difficult tasks to claim a smilie for a difficult cache. This does not make sense. You say this group of caching people is much more interesting than it would be if only comprised of those who can climb trees and cliffs. While that may be, it's not a valid reason for allowing people to let others get a cache and then sign the log. By that reasoning, NASA would be a lot more interesting if they didn't set such high standards for the astronauts. If you can't climb a tree/cliff, don't claim a find on a cache there! Good grief. If I place a cache with a high terrain rating, I will expect people to actually do the work to get it. Do you see geocaching as a competition? I do... I see it as a competition between myself and any challenges that have been set befor me by other players. Am I competing against other players, No. I don't compete, I do it for fun. However when I see many profiles full of charts and graphs of find counts and terrain levels, it's fairly evident that many others do compete. If they are waving their find count around like a banner and then having someone else retrieve the caches for them.... I agree with hukilaulau. And on the NASA analogy. The Discovery Shuttle team consists of more than just the astronauts on board. The team gets credit for accomplishments - and individuals get copies of awards. Yeah I do it for fun too. I like see other people charts and such. But if you do proactively shove your stats in my face or wave a flag around about how accomplished you are (I don't see the presence of charts as that) , I will find holes. Not competing, and probably won't start poking holes publicly. But I'll have my opinion and will move on.