Keystone

Multiple moves of a single cache by the CO, instead of the published advice to contact their Reviewer, has at least two consequences: (1) It's more work for the Reviewer. We have to resolve each and every one of the notifications about a cache with updated coordinates. (2) It creates a degree of distrust by the Reviewer towards the CO. I like the CO's who write to me for assistance, as instructed, better than the CO's who "march" their coordinates to a new location that hasn't been reviewed.

1. This is optional. I don't use this particular automation tool. I never let a cache get archived without my human eyes telling me that it's the right thing to do. 2. Emphasis should be placed on the words "if the CO misses an update." If the CO posts ANY sort of response to the cache page, then a manual review by a human is required again. (Note, however, that many reviewers are dogs.)

The three posts above this one were originally posted as a separate thread. I merged together the two threads about a similar subject.

I moved this thread from the "Trackables" forum section.

I looked at one of your rest area caches that had a note from your local Reviewer. I saw that your update note was posted just six minutes before the Reviewer posted their standard "form letter" note asking about the status of the cache. I hope this is the explanation - the notes "crossed in the mail." Here in Ohio USA, the state highway department is upgrading its rest areas. There's at least six caches that have been temporarily disabled for many months. Reviewers ask for periodic updates so that we know the cache owner is monitoring the situation. Personally, I ask for updates at least every two months. If an update is requested but not provided within four weeks, then I would archive the cache page.

Your own thread from 2022 is a good start. There, you learned that project-gc.com has useful functionality based on Favorite Point percentage. This API partner uses static data provided through the API. Searching also turns up a number of posts, like this one, that explain the limitation. Calculating favorite point percentages for a long list of caches for display in real time search results is too big of a drain on server resources.

This is a much simpler solution for any geocacher who is not obsessed with logging their cache finds in perfect chronological order. (There is nothing wrong with that obsession, if a person is "streaking," or aiming towards a milestone, or trying to meet the requirements for a challenge cache, etc.)

Please note that Geocaching HQ has instructed the Community Volunteer Reviewers NOT to allow mentions of "GCRM" on cache pages, because that would be contrary to the cache maintenance expectations set forth in the Guidelines. If you see a cache page with the GCRM logo or a link to a web page that discusses GCRM, it means that the Cache Owner added this after publication, or that the Reviewer made a mistake when publishing that cache. Please remember that many Reviewers are dogs. Dogs are notoriously bad with deciphering acronyms and following hyperlinks.

You can write to Geocaching HQ via the Help Center, explain the situation like you did in this post, and ask them to help by restoring your archived log. Use "geocacher dispute" as the category for your message, so that your request routes to the correct team. Your friendly Community Volunteer Reviewer also has the power to "undelete" an archived log, but many Reviewers prefer to use that power only to correct mistakes. Geocaching HQ is the "referee" for resolving logging disuputes between cache owners and cache finders.

The conversation in this thread moved away from the narrow question (challenge caches cannot be based on hiding caches) to a broader discussion of encouraging quality cache hides. As the OP has opened a new thread specific to that subject, I'm closing out this one.

I'm often hard on folks who bump very very old threads, but I think this one merits the bump. I am one of "The Usual Suspects." Today, this travel bug miraculously reappeared after more than twenty years! I am, however, using my moderator powers to move this thread from the General Geocaching Topics forum.

It sounds like the OP saw a video about Chairy Tree. That's a rather "one of a kind" cache. Since the OP is asking about local caches in Washington, I am moving this thread from the General Geocaching Topics forum. OP, please stop asking in the worldwide forum discussion section about caches local to you. You might also consider joining a local Geocaching association and then asking these questions in their social media platforms.

I do not see where you logged a find on that Maze Event. I can only see your "Will Attend" log.

I moved this topic of local interest from the General Geocaching Topics forum. FYI, the information about the adoption process on your profile page is incorrect. You do not need to involve a Moderator to get a cache adopted over to a new owner. Read about the "DYI" adoption process in this Help Center article.

I moved this thread from the General Geocaching Topics forum section.

Several posts that were off-topic to the question of multiple bonus caches have been moved to this separate thread.

I split the above posts into a separate thread because the question was off-topic to the thread where the posts were made originally.

The timeline is the same as last year - see the opening post in this thread. Thirty days after the initial note, HQ will disable the Earthcache if the owner did not post an Owner Maintenance log. If the Earthcache remains disabled for a further thirty days, then HQ will archive the Earthcache.

As a forum moderator, I'm moving this thread to the General Geocaching Topics forum, because the suggestion isn't limited to the Official Geocaching Smartphone apps, but also the website. As a Reviewer, I'll be the first to register a strong disagreement with this suggestion, for the same reasons why hiding caches cannot be a requirement for logging a Challenge Cache. There are already two Souvenirs being awarded this year for hiding caches - one specific for publishing a cache in May 2025. Just like some people hid a cache just to get the Souvenir, some people would hide a cache just to unlock a Treasure. Not all of these caches ought to have been hidden, and that often becomes obvious during the prepublication review process. Souvenirs and Treasures should not be the incentives for hiding a cache. The incentive is, "I found a really interesting place and I wanted to share it with other geocachers."

Just a note that any solutions to OP's question must involve functionality provided either by Geocaching.com or by authorized third party API partners like GSAK or project-gc.com.

I'm still the groundskeeper, if that helps. The surprise I felt when I saw you last month was one of the highlights of my GeoWoodstock. It was great catching up with you. In the context of this thread, it's a reminder that there's a separate tree, entirely different from the Geocaching Tree of Angst. This tree is nourished by interpersonal relationships facilitated by geocaching, some of which now stretch back more than two decades. Every time that geocachers reconnect, a blossom flowers on the Geocaching Tree of Goodness. As for adding branches to the Geocaching Tree of Angst, I'd suggest a branch about Adventure Labs. It has five times as many leaves as all the other branches and it seems to be growing faster than all the other branches. Some people love sitting in the shade of this branch, while others are asking the arborist to cut off this branch, or at least to trim back 80% of its leaves. I will leave it to @Snoogans to develop the branch into a Theory for addition to his tree, if he deems it worthy.

I moved this thread from the General Geocaching Topics forum section.

Your cache is rated 2 stars for difficulty and 2.5 stars for terrain, making it an "Advanced" cache for Basic Members who use the official Geocaching smartphone apps. They can still see your cache page on the Geocaching.com website, because you have not marked your cache as a "Premium Members Only" cache. Here is a Chart in the Help Center that compares the features of the official Geocaching apps that are available to Basic and Premium Members. You'll see that Basic Members can only access Event Caches and Traditional Caches, and only caches that are rated 2/2 or lower for difficulty and terrain. "Advanced Caches" not meeting those limits are greyed out. I encourage you to keep the 2.5 star terrain rating if it's accurate, but to "change it, so everyone can find it," you would need to lower the terrain rating. You can also spread the word that the Geocaching.com website is a valuable resource for Basic Members using the official apps. They can get the coordinates and other information about your cache there, and even add the coordinates as an Additional Waypoint on another nearby cache so they can navigate to it.

Considering that the guidance is already provided in the Help Center, and the Geocache Hiding Guidelines link to the Help Center for niche issues like this, I don't see the need for additional public-facing guidance.

Thanks for posting that great link, @HHL. The blog article reminded me of something: "With Project-GC’s script installed on a web browser, county information can be visible on cache pages." I've had this installed for so long, I forgot it wasn't native to the website! Here is a screenshot showing how the cache page looks for Colorado's oldest cache, with the Project-GC script installed. I highlighted the added features in yellow (and I blacked out the "distance from home" info). One of those helpful features: when you view any cache page, it tells you what County that cache is in.