Touchstone

Maybe the time has come to just turn off the emails going out, since that seems to be where the majority of this annoyance is coming from. Then the CHS becomes just another tool, like GSAK and similar functionality on PGC, which is freely available to the Community, and those that are interested, can check the “health score” of their Listings. Then it goes back to the way it was: a conversation between the CO and the local Reviewer.

Yeah, it's not like I've ever seen an experienced User fat finger the coordinates

My guess is that the 2 NM's and 2 DNF's in the time this cache has been active did very little to nudge the CHS against an ocean of Finds on that Listing. That one appears to be squarely on the Community IMO, for allowing it to continue without reporting it.. Kind of ironic that the Title of the cache also describes the state of the container. Thanks for taking the time to post the NA. Looks like the local Reviewer has already taken some action.

Probably a lot of rejected submissions based on such assumptions. It's probably easier to spend a couple of minutes checking with the Land Manager, since I've noticed there are lots of regulations governing open spaces that are neither logical or rational.

That's kind of my take on it. If the CO is gone and not interested in maintaining the cache, and forced Adoption is not an option, is it such a sin to remove Listings from the database when the physical cache has reached the ends of its useful life. The other option is to bring back throwdowns I guess.

The obvious downside of that solution is that people that want to escape the dreaded email will merely rate all their Listings as a 5/5 regardless of the facts or reality.

Keystone's response for reference:

False positives don't bother me as much as non responsive cache owners.

Nice to see people taking cache ownership more seriously.

Sounds like your local "fiend" hasn't read the following Help Center article: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=427 The flipside of this is the recent local cache owner that deleted several Find logs due to a throwdown that turned their 4 Star Difficulty cache into a 1 Star Difficulty, punishing the throwdown culprit as well as the hapless Finders afterwards.

Rather than dropping the value of X in your first question, I think it's best to Archive the Listing, since it is no longer achievable. To adjust the X in your examples, sounds a bit unfair to those individuals that have completed the Challenge as originally intended. Regarding your second question, the way I read the Help Center guidance, ANY percentage is not allowed, regardless of it's high or low. The Challenge must be based on some "reasonable" discrete number, not a percentage.

So basically, it was a misuse of a system used to report misuse of the system that killed it

My tendency is not to dwell too much on a single User, but to evaluate the bigger picture going on with my Listings, if I suspect one or more bogus logs. My approach would be to update and strengthen the Logging Requirements, and perhaps add a photo requirement (selfie or personal item per guidance). I wouldn't get too hung up on one User or their snarky replies to me, as that has a tendency to devolve into a TOU violation, which normally doesn't end well for either party. Life is too short to stress over it.

Available PQ filters: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=7&pgid=261 I'm guessing the solution will probably involve Project GC or GSAK. If you're using the official App, you can do some sorting of Favorites on the fly.

Link for reference: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=29&pgid=792 I'm not sure a future list of souvenirs exist, but you might be able to extrapolate from historic data.

Interesting discussion on the audit log and how to avoid being "seen":

I read your post and it's a bit confusing. It sounds as if you did not get a souvenir that you were entitled to get. If that is the case, the best way to track down the problem is to provide an example. For instance, if it's a country/region souvenir, provide a link to the Listing page to that is associated with the cache that you Found that demonstrates this discrepancy.

Sorry that this issue is irritating you. Perhaps if you’d known about the backdoor method of logging PM caches, you might have found other ways to prevent people with a legitimate claim to a Find from logging your caches. Unfortunately for you, the guideline is pretty clear: sign the logbook, log a Find. Good luck on on your quest to prevent people from finding your caches.

I was assuming that you had some sort of starting location. If this is incorrect, you’ll have to provide additional information for an unambiguous answer. This is assuming that you are not asking for help on a puzzle/mystery cache, which would be officially discouraged per the TOU.

A well known community member and forum contributor has an application if you prefer not doing the distance/bearing in the field or with pencil/paper: http://www.fizzymagic.net/Geocaching/FizzyCalc/

You get all types in the geocaching community. It sounds easier to just stop communicating with this individual if it bothers you than to close some backdoor method of logging PM caches that has been around for quite some time.

I tend to one for one trading, when I do trade. Trackables, whether their mine or ones I'm moving along, I don't treat as trade items. Likewise when I'm picking up a trackable that I think I can help along. I feel no obligation to trade for something that is intended to move along.

A very limited number of file formats are supported, and unfortunately, none are video:

Must be a Canadian phenomenon, as I only saw four Published Events like the one I linked above, which was the earliest occurrence. The last couple that were done were around 2008, so I'm guessing HQ probably pulled the plug on the idea about then. We had something similar in Nevada, that involved off highway travel on some dirt roads. The caches were used as checkpoints of sorts, in which you had to gather codes to verify that you were at the locations, but all the associated caches were Published after the Event. Probably not Guideline compliant on several levels these days.

Link for reference: https://coord.info/GCXF63