Gan Dalf

My Dog is trackable too. I would support a feedback posting of this idea with some votes.

+1 If many experienced cachers are having trouble finding a supposedly EASY cache, then it's 99.9% likely gone. AND in this case the CO has the responsiblity to check it out within a reasonable time frame. I've seen caches go for 9 months+ like this with NO action from the CO! Like I said, I would only suggest posting a Needs Archived IF the cache was supposed to be an EASY find AND many experienced cachers couldn't find it. I wouldn't see the need to go searching myself, what a WASTE OF TIME!! That doesn't mean that someone that has never even looked for it should post a Needs Maintanence or Archive request on the cache page. Here is one example of where a cache was there the whole time even though it had a string of 13 DNF's over close to a year from cachers who had collectively found more than 28,000 caches, including myself. I posted a Needs Maintanence after I DNF'd for the second time but I would never do that unless I had actually gone to look for the cache...

My percentage goes up depending on where I am caching and whose caches I am looking for. Shoreline, Lynnwood, Marysville, lots of DNF's. Other places where the area owners don't think that the only way to hide is the "evil" way, not so much...

I know of one person that did this and he posted above on this thread. Among those that actually post their DNF's I don't think it is a very common practice.

Sorry to stray off topic but I've gotta ask if their was a thread about this back in February. I have a hard time believing a geocache was approved in Disneyland unless it was ancient and grandfathered... If there was a thread and someone knows where it is I'd appriciate a link pointing to ti.

First just want to throw out the idea that it is quite possible that the person is not an 'self-appointed wilderness police' but an actual 'appointed-by-you wilderness police' aka a forest ranger. The post really speaks like my encounters with rangers: they want to inform you on how your actions are having a negative impact; they also tend to leave the door open for you to adjust your actions so you can still enjoy them while being more in line with what is appropriate for the area; the tone post is generally quite caring of the environment and the well being of people (traits I prefer in people even if sometimes misguided). Also, this person clearly has spent a lot of time in the area and will continue to do so in the future. Granted if it is the ranger, they should have stated such. I also agree, of course, that they are way off on their assessment of the impact of the cache which is more likely positive then negative as cachers will often clean up an area when trash is found; I know I do. And for the facts, the placement of a cache in the wilderness IS illegal. The grandfathered status for caches in the wilderness is NOT a forest service grant but only a Groundspeak devised scheme to both be legal with future placements but also not cause you a lot of anger by removing your postings. In other words, we should possibly consider that rather then feeling entitled to these older caches we should instead consider ourselves lucky that they are even there at all. Personally, I'm bummed that this cache went away, it’s been on my to-do list for years and have recent plans to grab it. I hope that you replace and that somehow it works out that it is left alone. Regarding the opinion that ‘it’s these kind of people that are removing caches,’ I have to strongly disagree. I think this case is completely separate from the others along the I90 corridor and is just coincidental in timing. Given the statements here, the others would have remained as many were easily accessed from the trail thus no ecological issue. Gotta agree with Shaddow, (although probably should have started a new thread) this person seems not to have an agenda against geocaching but to be more concerned for the safety of those trying to get to it and their impacts on the island on which it was placed. I don't agree however with his assesment that they are being attracted there by the geocache. I think it much more likely that those going out to the island are finding it incidentaly and signing the log book. Have you considered writing to them and trying to come to an agreement about the placement? Maybe if you modify the page some and change the hide slightly as he suggests would help him to relax? I'd also ask him what his role is with regards to the Lake and/or Wilderness area. He's righ tabout Lake Dorothy. I've been going there since th e80's and they have done a lot of work restoring much of the shorleine. Perhaps he belongs tot eh group that has helped with that...

So what about caches that do not get disabled that have multiple DNF's and Needs Maintanence logsd that the owners are not responding to. Do you do a PQ for those as well?

Reviewers are not responsible for monitoring caches, that is left up to the community. Reviewers rely on the community to report problems with caches and then act on reports of neglect or abanodonment. Just because a cache has gone unfound for and extended period does not mean that a cache owner has abandoned it. Caches tend to get fewer and fewer finds on them over time once all of the active area cachers have found them. After the "honeymoon period" they will only get found by new cachers or someone that is just visiting the area.

I think there are many factors that can impact the ratio. I tend to cache by myself, not exclusively, but the overwhelming majority of the time. People that are FTF hounds or often cache with one or more other cachers probably log fewere DNF's than I do. Also I travel a lot and subsequently, PAF's are not an option when I am on the road. I've logged twice as many caches that are 1000 miles from home than I have that are 20-30 and so inability to use A PAF has undoubtedly scewed my results some. Finally I think that a basic minimum number of finds should be considered when looking at this as newbies undoubtedly DNF more caches although they are alos less likely to log them then someone that has cached for a while.

A recent thread got me wondering about what is a normal DNF rate. I did some figuring and I am wondering how this compares to other cachers. My DNF rate is 10.7% so a little more than 1 out of 10 caches that I look for I do not find. In analyzing that a little deeper, 32.1% of those were actually missing when I looked for them and were either disabled, archived and/or replaced after I DNF'd them. I subsequently went back and found 33% the ones that were missing when I went to look for them. Most of the remainder ended up getting archived although there are a few that were replaced that I did not go back and look for due to them being to far away from home for me to retrun and look again. Just wondering what others DNF rate is and if mine is about right or if I am more inept at finding caches than others...

Sorry, not quite sure what you mean by this

I doubt that any reviewer is going to give much creadance to complaints or archive requests on a cache that does not have a single DNF on it. With the proliferation of caches in the last couple of years it is farely easy to get 1000 finds in less than 6 months without driving more than 5 miles form your home and I know of several that have found more than that that I would not consider experts. I've heard your argument before about not claiming a DNF, whether it's pride, uncertainty or laziness it is not a good practice. My DNF rate is greater than 10%. Of those, around 50% either get disabled or archived after I've looked for them. About half of the rest I have gone back again and found them. In many of those cases the cache was in pllace where I had already looked, I just missed it. I don't see anything wrong with that. It is impossible for a reviewer to judge the validity of searchers claims that a cache is missing or the coords are gone on a cache that only has 5 logs on it, none of which are DNF's. If you want them to do anything about it you should post your DNF's and encourage the others that have looked for it to do the same thing.

The easiest way to do it is too click the click the link on your profile page that says Search for nearest geocaches from your home location (filter out finds). When the results pop up, click the top of the favorites column and you will see the nearest caches to you sorted by the most favorited that you have not found. You can do the same thing on any other search you do, including PQ's but there is no query that you can do (yet) that will allow you to Query by favortie point. Maybe in the furture...

So-called "safe fonts" go back to before the time of smart phones, Nuvis, and other paperless devices. Do you know if they also honor safe fonts? I don't know, but I would assume yes since I have never encountered an unreadable cache page on my smart phone other than ones that utilized poor color choices with regards to the background. The style of the Font is not usually an issue. It wouldn't be unreadable. As you said, if the font wasn't available, the browser would fall back to a default font. Sorry, goes to show what I know. Apparently not, I almost always utilize Verdana as the font for my cache write ups. It's a nice bold block style font that is a Safe Font. I just checked one of my cache pages on my phone and it looks like Halveltica on there and so I would say that phones must utilize some other criteria than what is in my computer web browser

So-called "safe fonts" go back to before the time of smart phones, Nuvis, and other paperless devices. Do you know if they also honor safe fonts? I don't know, but I would assume yes since I have never encountered an unreadable cache page on my smart phone other than ones that utilized poor color choices with regards to the background. The style of the Font is not usually an issue.

There are lists of fonts that are common to most computers known as HTML Safe Fonts. A quick google search will lead to dozens of sites that list the most common fonts. If you've created your own font then following the others instrucitions is really your only option. I did something like that on this cache. I made the written part of th epuzzle using a script font that I liked in Microsfot Paint, saved the file as a jpeg and then inserted to jpeg into the cache page using the standard methods. Feel free to copy my technique by viewing the source. Have Fun!

I know the cache that you placed those in and the person who found it right before you posted your note a few days ago is a friend of mine. If the trackables had been there, he would have at least discovered them. You are right to think that they are gone and the chances are good that the person eluded to earlier in the thread is responsible for taking them, that cache is within his sphere and you placed those trackabless at a time when he was actively visitng caches and taking bugs out. The good news is that they will make it back into circulation eventually if he is the one that took them, it just might take longer than anyone else would like...

I'm not sure what you are eluding to with this post. Are you saying that owners of travelers wishes are immaterial and should only be considered if the current holder of the trackable wants to help it out or are you saying that if someone finds a trackable in a cache, again, despite the wishes of the person that released it, they are perfectly justified if they decide to keep it and not move it along to help it towards it's goal?

What Fizzy said. Also remember that Challenges are a different ballgame. They now allow the creator to be listed (which I feel is important), but there is no owner, no start date, few/no guidelines. When I read the OP I immeididately assumed Challenge Cache, you know, like to Delorme, the Counties, the WSGA COTM challenge... Now I'm not so sure. Are we talking about Geocaching Challenges, the new thing released by GS last month, or about Challenge Caches?

I went to an event once where as part of the raffle (usually using donated prizes) the organizer drew a name for the right to claim FTF. Maybe you could do something like that so that the FTFers that don't attend your event don't get bent about not being treated fairly...

I know several cachers that post those types of logs only for caches that they feel exactly that way about... Another oft used passive aggressive technique, "Cute Puzzle" means, I think it's stupid.

Does it only bother you if they are cachers? No, But I was trying to stay OT...

There is a great graphical representation on the linked to page that you should look at. I tried to post it here, but it isn't in a form that the forums allow (unfortunately). The simple answer is no, legs of a multi do not have to follow the 0.1 mile rule for other listings. The longer answer is no, they do not need to follow the 0.1 mile rule with regards to legs within the multi but each leg of the multi (that uses a physical container containing the coords of the next leg) can not be within the 0.1 mile distance from other caches. Furthermore if a particular leg is a virtual leg (usually defiend as a question to answer) where coords for the next leg must be deciphered from something at the paricular location like a kisok or reader board then the 0.1 mile rule does not even apply to othr listings...

That would be a question you should ask the owner of the bug. Or are you suggesting that the trackable should not be allowed? Perhaps I'm not fully understanding. Is this a travel bug, or a geocoin? Travel Bugs are developed by the people that own them and are not developed or reviewed by Groundspeak but by the person that buys the tag and attaches it to a hitchhiker. Now if a trael bug was in some way offensive or promotes an agenda then that could be a violation of the terms of use, in which case GS could then deactivate the bug if requested to do so.

It's a known issue in the area. I'm actually surprised that others from other areas of the country to whom trackables are important or of interest are not aware of it. It seems to have gotten a little better lately although there is a reason for that. It's not something we like to talk about here...