RobDJr

I had only one log deleted. I posted it in the evening, and the next morning I found two emails from the CO that simply said, "Please delete your log" and a third stating that the log had been deleted, all within the span of a few hours during the night. Because I had found the cache and had signed the log, I contacted the CO to find out why the log was deleted and was told that my log contained a spoiler. The CO basically said, "any mention of XXXX is a spoiler", which I disagreed with because the mention of XXXX in my log was a direct reference to something that was stated on the cache page in a large and bold red font. It wasn't worth fussing over, so I simply did a new log. In my opinion, it was a loss for the CO because I replaced a long and creative log with a simple paragraph about how much fun the cache was, and it is unlikely that I'll ever invest much more effort than that in future logs for that person's caches. A more polite and personable email in the first place, including an explanation of why the log should be deleted, would have been better. I would still have disagreed, but would also have been willing to write better logs in the future for caches by that particular CO. I make an effort to not give anything away in my logs, but I never assume others do the same. This is why I never read logs in advance. If I get stuck and am in danger of a dnf, I check the hint and the logs and I often pick up a great deal of information even if there are no hints, subtle or outright, in the logs. Mention of incorrect coordinates or posting more accurate coordinates is not a spoiler in my opinion. If I did that and the information was deleted because it was deemed a spoiler, at the very least I would send an email to the local reviewer to inform them of the situation.

There is a cache in my area like this, which I haven't yet done but probably will someday. It's actually two separate multicaches, with cache A in my area and cache B far away. The idea is that I find stage one of cache A and get the final coords for cache B, while someone else finds stage one of cache B and gets the final coords of cache A and we swap coords so I can log a find on cache A and the other person logs a find on cache B. I have no issues with that, and if I were ever in the area of cache B I would log a find on that one as well (because they are two separate caches). But if they were two parts of the same cache, I would only log it once (although I might still at least visit the second part if I had the chance and post a note just for the fun of it). Regarding the guidelines for logging a cache, arguments can be made whether the sun is the moon or the moon is the sun, but the gist of it is that an online "Found" is generally expected to be paired with (and usually preceded by) a signed physical log. That isn't so complicated that the average person will unintentionally misinterpret it.

For the most part, the main problem I have with the original posted set of rules is that it attributes a level of significance to geocaching that is unmerited. Intentionally or not, attempting to define what exactly constitutes a find carries an unspoken implication that a find has meaning beyond the person who made the find (and to a lesser extent the person who hid the cache). Those who enjoy making it a competition are very welcome to do so, and naturally those people would need to agree on their standards within the circle they move in. But it is an error to assume that any one way is the only way or the best way. I, for example, made a conscious decision when I started caching that it was something I would do only for fun, and that I wanted nothing to do with competition within my caching experience. So, although my personal caching code is in many ways similar to the posted list, I do not project it on others. Why would I? I find a cache my way, I have fun. Someone else does it their way, which I might not agree with, they have fun. And most importantly, their fun doesn't change my fun. (I know this is an oversimplification, but you get the point. There are exceptions.) It's like reading a book. People read books in different ways, and we don't really have (or need) a definition of what constitutes having read a book. I read and enjoy a book, someone else reads the same book and maybe checks the ending first to see what happens, or skips sections, or maybe delves deeper into the subtleties of plot and punctuation than I care to. So what? Even if it's in a situation where how one reads is actually important, such as a professional or educational setting, those who don't read carefully only hurt themselves. Rules of this sort are really only needed when something is actually at stake.

In a somewhat similar situation, I recently posted an NA on a cache that was obviously hidden in an area marked as off limits/no trespassing. I checked for information and confirmed that it wasn't merely a question of approach but an entire zone that had been declared closed by the DEC and Dept of Health. After posting the NA (including a picture of one of the signs and a link to a DEC pdf giving details of the closure), I noticed in the logs that this area had actually been posted as no trespassing several years ago and people had been logging finds on it since, including an owners maintenance visit. There are large signs posted every hundred or so feet for almost half a mile along the trail warning not to enter the area off the trail and it would be very difficult to approach that area without seeing at least one of those signs. The main reason I posted the NA is because, if/when the DEC and Dept of Health find out people have been ignoring that no trespassing order, the likely result is going to be a blanket "no caching" policy on any lands that fall under the control of the DEC. As far as I can tell, nothing has been done about that NA log. I don't know what's happening there, or if I should do anything more about it. I don't have anything against the cache or the owner, and personally I think that the closure of the area has far more to do with an attempt to keep the public out of a dangerous area than the cited health reason (lead contamination). I don't know much at all about lead contamination, but the signage and pdf give the impression that a single exposure could have serious health consequences, which I find dubious at best. For example, merely entering the unrestricted sections of that park is enough that you should thoroughly wash hands afterwards, footwear should be cleaned before bringing into the house, and pets should be bathed. Makes one wonder if the restricted area glows in the dark or something... Just in case anyone is thinking of asking, I did not search for, find, or log this cache.

No doubt. It just becomes annoying when someone finds the cache 15 minutes after it comes out, but doesn't log it for days. I'm not sure I see the logic in this. I mean, someone finds it within 15 minutes after it comes out and doesn't log it. And...? The cache is still there, it can still be found by others, it can still be logged by others, nobody has to wait for days until the FTF log is posted before they do anything. If the cache is new, it will likely be found by several people within a short time, and usually someone is going to post a timely log and everyone will know it has been found. And, just as importantly, aside from the concept of 'being first', nobody's enjoyment should be any less. I can see it becoming a source of angst if, for example, it is a difficult cache in some way which was found quickly by one person who didn't log it. As days pass, others might be prompted to expend a lot of time and effort and possibly even travel some distance to get the cache thinking it was unfound. But even in that situation, you would have found a difficult cache. Not a complete waste of time and effort by any means. Unless, as has been touched upon repeatedly, one considers anything less than an FTF to be a waste of time. Personally, if I find a cache, any cache but specifically one that I had thought unfound, only to find that the physical log had been signed even though that person never logged it online, I wouldn't be wasting any time or energy focusing on what the other person was doing or why. I'm not first, they didn't post a find, oh well, sign the log, yeah baby, and move on.

I'll admit to having at times been disappointed by something that resulted from not preparing in advance, but I never read logs in advance unless I have a good reason to. I never check hints in advance either. I'm in it for the fun and the challenge, and I find that reading logs in advance gives too much away and lessens the fun for me. In a situation like this one, I would likely arrive, see the location and situation, and leave. No disappointment, just a shake of the head and thoughts about why someone would even think that was a good place for a cache. My preferred style of caching is to have a cache or group of caches that is my main goal of the day, these usually don't disappoint. And when I'm done, I'll pick off anything else nearby as time permits. This cache in the original post would likely have fallen into the 'target of opportunity' group and I honestly wouldn't feel bad about passing it up. And if I did pass it up, I would likely post a note on the cache page saying so and why.

It would seem to me that, within the very specific circle of cachers who go for the FTF, logging ASAP could reasonably be called an expectation (a courtesy at the least). That, I can understand. But extending that expectation beyond the borders of that circle is where I feel it crosses over into entitlement, because that is where it begins to sound like "I play the FTF game. I expect everyone to play by the rules of the FTF game" (as opposed to, within the FTF circle, "We play the FTF game and we expect everyone who plays the FTF game to play by these rules"). I would argue that when speaking of things like expectations, courtesy, and doing things for the commmon good of the group, you are speaking of the group as a whole, not any specific subset of that group. And by the same token, speaking of things that degrade the game would be best viewed from the perspective of what degrades the game as a whole, not merely what degrades the game for any specific subset of the game while leaving the rest of the game mostly or wholly unaffected. It is mostly a moot point when speaking of me specifically, or cachers like me who don't care about FTF's. I have (I think) nine FTF's, and every one of them was a product of sheer coincidence and happenstance. Pure accidents. The likelihood of me getting an FTF and in any way affecting anyone else with my slower logging habits is incredibly low. Although this is somewhat tangential to the original post, since a great deal of the argument over logging FTF's arises from the impact of smartphones and the ability to log rapidly from the field, I wonder if there have been similar arguments over the years when things happened that changed the way people could cache. Two that come to mind are: posting of parking coordinates (which was once a rarity if it was done at all), and use of the geochecker.

There is a GSAK macro called 'Lonely Caches', although I haven't used it and can't tell you how well it works. I think it only works on caches you've already found.

My brand of selfishness: For the most part, writing good logs that often get email comments from those who read them. Doing minor cache maintenance such as replacing full logsheets, torn baggies, emptying water out, etc, without being asked. Offering to help cachers who have needed assistance with their caches. I'm not much for the swag game, so I don't trade, and I even once passed up a hundred year old silver dollar that the CO said was to be taken by the next finder regardless of trade value. And, just as important, NOT hiding any caches because circumstances in my life would prevent me from being a good owner (for a large part of the year I would be unable to do any maintenance). My consideration of others and fair play: I try to respect cache owner wishes. I don't trespass knowingly. I replace caches as found, or if I find a cache out of place, in the most likely place and I note that in the log. If I find a problem, I fix it if I can or make a note of it in the log. On more than one occasion when out caching with a group and an FTF was on the line, I let others claim the FTF when I actually made the find, simply because they value it and I don't. And I have, on more than one occasion, delayed going after a cache because I knew it hadn't been found yet. I don't do trackables much either for mostly the same reason as I don't hide caches, because I might find myself in a situation where I am unable to return it for a long time, but when I find one that is languishing in a difficult cache I liberate it. My ability to cache at all is limited for a great deal of the year, for the same reasons I don't hide caches and don't pick up trackables. So when I can cache, I cache. I don't let something that I see as trivial (the FTF) dictate my fun. As I've said, if you play that game, you know the risks and need to accept them. I do not use my phone to do logs. Why would I? In the heat, humidity, and bugs of summer? In rain? In the cold of winter? Do you have any clue how many "perfect" days there are that I have the opportunity to cache on? To be honest, picking out a message on the phone is the last thing I'm going to be doing out in the field. I hike, I find, I enjoy the company of those who might be with me, or the solitude if I'm alone. That is the whole reason I got into caching in the first place, not to, while in the woods, find myself still tangled up in the web of things I tried to leave behind in the parking area! You're right. I really am selfish, unfair, and inconsiderate. Look, I wasn't saying I'm going to intentionally go out of my way to sandbag an FTF'er by witholding my log until they find out the hard way. That, I agree, would be rude at the least (because it was done with intent). But, with apologies, I am not going to allow the FTF game to dictate my caching in any way. I log when I can, and usually in a fairly timely manner, but once again those pesky circumstances in life come into play and I might not be able to. Even so, my logs are rarely same day. If you are going to define a "taker" as someone who finds and doesn't hide, yes I am a taker. I try to give back in other ways, and as I said in an earlier post, I do have a few cache ideas on the back burner for "someday". Do you really want me hiding caches when I know I won't be able to do anything about any issues or problems for long stretches of time? Is someone who refrains from hiding for this reason worse than someone who hides anyway and leaves a string of poorly conceived and unmaintained caches littering the area? Truth be told, I highly doubt anyone who has been caching for years can be defined completely as a taker. I suspect the issue the original post speaks of has a great deal more to do with the influx of new cachers, many of whom are not cut from the same "outdoor enthusiast" mold as cachers from past years were, and many of whom are not invested in the hobby the way cachers like you and I may be. This, unfortunately, has the effect of changing the types of caches and (what many would call) the quality of caches being placed.

This is called a Sense of Entitlement. Please explain to me why I should change the way I play the game to accommodate you in your little side game? If you're going to play at FTF's, you should be prepared for not being the FTF. Whether you actually are or not makes no difference to me. But to suggest that I have to go about my caching day with your needs firmly in the front of my mind? Entitlement. Maybe even arrogance.

Tried it. Hated it. As someone who usually leaves a lot more than a sentence or two, got annoying quick. I've never considered STF or failure to grab a trackable a wasted trip. - The location is what I search for. Hopefully the hobby hasn't degraded that far... I'm sure most realize that life goes on even with a 3rd-to-find and no trackable in sight. The point is you are being asked to extend a courtesy to someone who might be going out at a specific time just because an FTF or trackable is in play. In response you have basically said you do not care to be courteous. Perhaps you never thought about it that way but the lack of courtesy and honor among cachers is no small problem. There are too many cachers doing whatever they please without considering the larger community. Maybe that is not you but the post left that impression. Plundering stash, failing to re-hide a cache carefully, refusing to post a DNF, thoughtless hiding of caches, failure to post timely logs (when possible) - these are all behaviors that degrade Geocaching. . I respectfully disagree with the idea that I owe any courtesy to the FTF crowd. I usually log my caches in a fairly timely manner, but because I try to write good logs, that could be anywhere from a few days to a few weeks (or rarely, even a month or more). Those who play the FTF game are, to me, injecting an unnecessary artificiality to the game. That's my personal viewpoint, but it means I don't play the FTF game and I don't cater to the FTF players. No lack of courtesy intended, just the reality that if you play the FTF game, you add your own rules on top of the existing concept of geocaching, and you assume the risks that follow, including the fact that those who do not play the FTF game are not likely to fall over themselves to accomodate you and save you a trip.

Regarding the original post, a few thoughts: It seems a little extreme to extrapolate anything about the future of caching from such a limited survey, when most cachers never even visit the forums. At any rate, 5/26 is almost 20%, and if 20% of all cachers in the world have a stated goal of hiding a cache this year, we're in pretty good shape. It is also a little bit of a stretch to assume that because a cacher didn't say outright that they have a goal of hiding a cache, it means they won't. It simply means that hiding a cache is not their main goal of the year. If I had to pick a point when the "future of caching" arrived, I would say it was the day a handheld GPSr became affordable. Those things were expensive, and specifically used by the outdoor crowd for the most part, and the early days of the game reflect that. Now everyone has one, the game is available to a far wider audience, and as a result, the cache demographic shifted. I'm not going to waste time bemoaning the fact, as much as I miss the way things were when I first started caching. I'll simply work harder to find what I want to look for and adapt to a changing caching world. I call the ones who didn't adapt and left the game 'dinosaurs' because, like dinosaurs, they went extinct. Sadly, a bunch of the best cache hiders I've ever seen are among that group. My stated goal for this year, as for every year since and for every year to come, is simply to have fun. If that eventually means I'll start hiding caches, then I'll hide caches. I haven't hidden any to date because I'm one of those who would, for most of the year, run into serious issues with maintaining any caches. I think about it though, and I have a few ideas on the back burner. When I get around to actually doing it, I plan to do quality stuff, like the kind of caches I enjoyed the most. Creative stories, puzzles, locations, and good containers are among the things that I will try to emulate. I even have one nearly fully formed cache plan, for a multi-stage puzzle cache with a complete storyline, puzzles of mostly high difficulty, and plans for custom containers that fit the story. This one will require mental and physical effort to complete. Someday I'll inflict it upon the caching world... So, I'd say the numbers may have shifted, but the end isn't quite here yet.

When I first started caching and realized how much I enjoyed it, I made a decision to keep it that way. To that end, my goal is the same as always: To Have Fun.

Even though it may be taking the game too seriously, the cache should always be replaced as found. I enjoy the challenge of high terrain caches, and on more than one occasion I went out to look for a tree climb cache only to be disappointed to find it at eye level or on the ground under a pile of sticks. It's the same feeling I get when I'm watching a good movie on tv and the ending gets preempted by a 'breaking news' announcement, or buying a newspaper and finding that someone thoughtfully 'borrowed' it, did the puzzles, clipped a few things, and put it back on the rack. On the other hand, a cache owner who hides a cache up in a tree like that should secure it so that it cannot be knocked out of the tree. It is not that difficult to create a tether or clamp that will hold a cache in place without damaging the tree. And it helps to hide the cache high enough that a stick isn't going to knock it out of place. When I find a tree cache that is obviously out of place, I try to put it back where it should have been if at all possible. I check cache description and logs for how high, look for pictures, look for obvious clues like a loose tether. Failing that, the cache is liable to end up even higher than the original placement. I got a late start in tree climbing because my Mother was very protective, but to her dismay, once I got into trees I climbed everything I could. I climbed well into my teens, and slowly tapered off from there. I don't climb anymore just for the joy of it. It isn't fear of heights that did me in, but an aversion to gravity.

New York has a similar policy, slightly less restrictive in some ways, but with at two year limit. You can see the difference in cache density if you look along the border of NJ and NY. I won't be surprised if, after the NJ policy goes into effect, the cache density drops to a similar level as NY. In my opinion, this kind of policy is the kiss of death for caching on state lands. The time limit, even three years, will stop anyone from placing caches that require much effort, imagination, or creativity. Combine that with having to stay close to trails and close to ground, all that will be left are unimaginative, cookie cutter caches. It is true that old caches will be cleared out and room will be made for a new generation of caches, but it will be a new generation that will not be as good as the old generation was. The sad thing is that this kind of policy will be hard to change once it is implemented, because it promotes the exact type of caching that has a higher impact on the environment (in my experience). Unfortunately, easy caches in predictable locations along the trails are the ones that get the most visits. A high difficulty, high terrain cache that is a significant hike and bushwhack from parking will see far fewer visits and have less impact. . This policy appears to have been designed to be implemented and maintained with minimum time or effort on the part the park management. I would actually prefer to see a pay for permit system in place if it would allow more flexibility, such as archival being dependent on environmental impact (i.e. low impact caches are allowed to stay, high impact ones need to be moved or archived), allowing placement in areas that have few or no trails (i.e. bushwhacking required), and so on. To reverse this, cachers will need to work hard at it, the way mountain bikers did back when land managers started banning biking. Behaving properly, obeying rules, policing themselves, forming relationships with park management,and giving back, all of that eventually made a difference.

Pretty much. The first couple bites are always the best. When I started out, and began to realize that I actually enjoyed this odd little hobby, I made a decision that I would only do this for fun, for myself. I can be highly competitive and I didn't want to introduce the complications that come with competition into something that was rapidly growing into a relaxing diversion from the vagaries of life. I only have a handful of FTF's, and not a single one was intentional. On the other hand, I have intentionally given up a handful of FTF's. You won't catch me mucking up my enjoyment of caching by pouring competition all over it. That would be like pouring chocolate syrup on a hot pizza.

Change is the only constant, isn't it? It seems to me that a lot of the 'old timers' who are complaining about the way things are today compared to the past are really complaining more about the fact that they need to work harder to find things they like to seek now (to separate the wheat from the chaff, in their eyes) than they used to. I find that even in my relatively short geocaching 'career', the amount of effort I have to put in to find a quality cache has increased dramatically. Used to be, I could just point at any cache on the map and almost be assured of finding something worthwhile (or at least it seems that way in the rose-tinted goggles of hindsight). I don't mind doing the work, because I want to have fun, and when caching is fun I enjoy it a lot. Two things that rub me the wrong way about the direction caching has gone are: The rise of flash-in-the-pan cachers, who find a few, hide a few (usually poor), and then disappear. This results in a clutter of poor, unimaginative, and unmaintained caches. The lamentable and inevitable fading away of old caches. They're a dying breed, it seems, and I've been watching many of those supremely enjoyable caches of my "early days" disappearing as their owners move away from the game. But if you look hard enough, there are still many caches worth seeking, and there are still people putting out high quality caches. To flip the old saying, "If you wanna do the crime, you gotta do the time". My caching has changed in a few major ways as an effect of the changes in the game: I very rarely cache on the spur of the moment anymore. You can still get pleasantly surprised this way, but more often it's begging for disappointment. I 'build' many of my caching trips around a specific cache that I want to seek, which I think will be a good and fun one. I'll often pick up other caches nearby in that area along the way, without really considering whether or not they might be what I call "good". I reserve large clusters of caches (i.e. power trails, large series) which might be generally forgettable, for caching in groups. The caches may not be all that, but the day often turns into a very enjoyable social outing. I usually remember those days for the people and the conversations, and for the life of me cannot recall a single cache detail (this makes logging them an almost comically frustrating process sometimes because I don't do cut and paste logs). The solution to this problem, as has been pointed out many times, is to 'take back caching' by hiding more of the kind of caches you like to seek. I haven't yet hidden any, because I'm in a position where there are serious obstacles to being able to maintain them for large portions of the year, but I have a few ideas on the back burner just waiting, including one almost fully fledged multi-stage puzzle and mystery cache with a complete story line and custom containers including two ammo cans. If and when I place that one, I expect to get a lot of hate mail from the numbers folks and others of that ilk, and it'll be music to my ears...

I do agree that the structure provided by grammatical rules is invaluable, and that it would not be a bad thing at all if more people were aware of those rules and used them properly. But a great deal of the time, the beauty of this language we call English comes from the ways we bend and break the rules. If you care to look, you will find rules that were once considered proper which are now archaic due to the growth and change of the language. That is not a bad thing. The point upon which I think grammatical rules should be rigid and inflexible is when doing otherwise introduces uncertainty, confusion, or outright misunderstanding. Poor grammar is still poor grammar, yes, but nobody will really misunderstand "me and my friend went" or "he helped my dad and I". Six feet from concrete does imply an exactness that apparently wasn't intended, so that phrasing should be avoided. That is the basis of my preference for the use of "for" in place of "of" in the original post. For what it's worth, I do make the effort to get my grammar right (although I do have my faults here and there). But I am not even close to being considered a member of the word police, much less a grammar nazi. The everyday use of the language, I think, is at least as important as the structure upon which the language is hung. It is what makes the language so vibrant. In order not to stray too far off topic, I once again place my vote in the "for" category, but will add that I would understand the meaning regardless of which word was used.

I'm not so sure that you should be saying that most Americans are pretty bad at grammar. I'll admit that there probably are a good number that would die if survival hinged upon using grammar good (sorry, I couldn't resist that), but I think the fault is more due to the fact that American English is still a living, breathing language. It's still growing, still changing, driven by daily usage instead of dry rules found in dusty textbooks. Proper, formal English has a more limited usage, for schoolwork, reports, novels, and in the work world. I'm not saying this is a good thing (and for newscasters to be making grammatical errors is inexcusable), but people tend not to be as good at things they do not use often. I know how to play baseball, but I rarely play, so a suggestion that I'm pretty bad at baseball because I can't play at a high level, much less professional, is somewhat inaccurate. But I do sympathize with you. I am no expert at grammar, and yet I often find myself doing the face-palm over grammatical errors I come across. A puzzle based on grammar is perfectly acceptable, but perhaps the difficulty rating should be a little higher. Any arguments from Grammar Grinches over the correctness of any particular issue can be easily resolved by pointing out the proper usage rules in any good grammar text. As for the original question, put me down in the "for" category. Saying "the description of the cache" (to me) means at the next location I should expect to find the cache described (the cache is a thirty caliber ammo can measuring x inches by y inches by z inches, painted pink with purple polka dots).

I can see it now: Sheldon, Leonard, Howard, and Raj are standing around arguing because they can't find the cache. The theories about where and how it could be hidden become ever more complex and extravagant with Sheldon refusing to participate because he is a: outside b: worried about skin cancer and lyme disease and c: doesn't see the point because the cache wasn't an incredibly involved five star puzzle. And then Penny picks up the cache, which had been right in front of them the whole time, and asks what it is. "Oh, that's what we've been looking for? Really?" As for the urban dictionary thing, it looks like something written by a high school or early college cool-kid wannabe of the beer-and-bong tribe. I've yet to meet a true nerd while out caching, and and I think I would actually pay to see the writer of that definition attempt a true 5/5 cache.

The way I see it, the original example of a cache with three locks would be an ALR if the owner specifically stated that in order to log the cache, the locks must be opened only with the provided keys which were hidden elsewhere. In general, my understanding of an ALR is when the cache owner makes a distinction which, if not followed according to his/her wishes, can result in log deletion. So, locking a cache is fine, requiring it to be opened the way you want it to be opened is not. It should be a common-sense understanding that a cache should never be intentionally damaged. I know it's a little to much to hope for, but it should be. (I, however, do not believe that cheating in the process of solving a cache, like sharing solutions or calling for help, damages the cache. It is an unfortunate thing to happen, but it only short-circuits the fun for the cheaters, and in no way affects the cache insofar as future seekers are concerned, unless an intolerant cache owner gets mad and takes his ball and goes home, in which case the issue is more with the owner than the cheaters). Where cheating is concerned, I prefer to do all the work myself, so I don't call for help or rely on others (except when it's a group effort), but beyond that and damaging the cache, anything goes. Whether it is a puzzle, a physical challenge, or a lock, if I find a way to overcome it in a manner unforeseen by the cache owner, it counts. By way of example, I once did a series of caches (now archived) similar to the OP's example, locked cache and hidden key, three caches of beginner, intermediate, and advanced difficulty, where the key was increasingly difficult to find. I found the beginner and intermediate keys easily, but the advanced one turned out to be hidden somewhere on or around the rusting hulk of an old car abandoned out in the forest. After a half hour of fruitless searching, I decided I didn't want to waste time on that any more and resorted to a different tactic -- I had already noted that the locks and keys of the first two caches appeared to be the kind that come in a pack, where the same key opens all locks. So I simply trotted .1 mile back to the intermediate cache, grabbed the key, presto! it worked, and (being a considerate cacher) I replaced the key back where it belonged on my way out. I certainly didn't find the key as intended by the owner, but I did open the lock and sign the log.

Based on what people are saying they find memorable, it would seem that cachers can be divided it at least three groups: Those who enjoy the hike, journey, experience, and location most, and for whom the container and hide (and sometimes even smiley) are of secondary, if not trifling, value Those who cache primarily to cache, for whom the container, hide, storyline, and so on are at least as important as the hike, location, and experience. Those who cache for numbers, for whom the smiley is paramount and a memorable caching experience is a day doing hundreds or thousands of caches. (I'm extrapolating here because, as far as I can recall, nobody has really come out and said this sort of thing in the thread, but I know they exist.) I'm not passing any judgment here; the only thing wrong with being a member of any group (or multiple groups as the case may be) is if you aren't having fun in the process. I still think that what I said in an earlier post, about the amount of effort put into a cache by the person who creates it is one of the most reliable ways to measure the potential of a cache being memorable, is accurate. It is one thing that transcends all groups and all preferences, whether it is effort expended in selecting a beautiful hike to an amazing location, creating an all-around cache experience with custom container and storyline, or laying out a power trail of hundreds of caches, or something else.

That is true. The problem is a drive-by event implies more: "You can stop by and visit. Or not." That is the same slippery slope that resulted in poor logs becoming commonplace. We went from "write about your experience" to "write about your experience, or TFTC" to "Don't write anything if you don't want to." I, at least, would like to see more of an effort to avoid catering to the "do as little as possible" mindset.

No, I do not mind at all. I definitely believe that the personal preferences and expectations do play an enormous role with regard to what someone regards as memorable cache. It would not degrade the experience for me provided I find the container quickly and if the log sheet allows me to log without ending up with extra troubles.I would not recommend such a cache however to anyone else. I'm not making any quality statements. I was just talking about myself.Personally, I could very well do without the physical containers - a platform for hiking routes, but with all the other options of geocaches including a reasonable number of available logs and of users of the platform etc would be perfect for me but does not exist. I did not start geocaching because searching for hidden objects intrigued me and this has never changed.Cezanne That actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clarifying. I originally didn't get into caching for the "trappings" either, mainly just for the hiking. I just found, to my surprise, that I enjoyed other aspects of the game more than I thought I would. That explains a lot, Cezanne. I never understood why you had such strong opinions on some subjects, containers in particular. We will have to agree to disagree as I feel the container is the foundation of Geocaching. I do not quite understand the part of your quote that I made bold. I suspect that you could actually argue geocaching has a few things that could rightly be defined as foundations, among them the container, the log, the hike, and the location, and you would probably find ardent supporters of each viewpoint. I like to think of them all as buttresses which all support the same foundation, where a preference for one doesn't diminish the importance of the others. As for the bolded parts, I read that to mean cezanne wishes there was a website much like geocaching.com, but for hiking only, and in most other aspects the same as the geocaching website, in particular the ability to log your hiking experiences on various trails and share those experiences with a sizable group of like-minded people. Getting back on topic, this has all given me some interesting things to think about later, especially the concept of a cache being memorable while at the same time the container plays an insignificant role. It's an interesting thing to think of, using caching to fulfill a void for which no other suitable platform exists. Although when I think of it, that's actually probably closer to the way geocaching started, as a side game for people who enjoyed hiking and the outdoors, than the game as it exists now.

Other posts in this thread have touched on the subject, but I think these lines do an admirable job of shining a light on just how much a person's personality and preferences (or in my case, idiosyncrasies) play a role in defining whether or not an experience is classified as 'memorable' or not. The particular choices of words here (...do not belong to... ...not worth to be remembered... ...I like to remember... ...nothing more than...) seem to indicate a definite tendency to frame in advance whether or not an experience will qualify as memorable, and is probably something that the majority of people do, whether they're aware of it or not. It's probably likely that, if I went back over my cache history with an attempt to be as objective as possible, I'd find a few caches that were memorable even though I personally didn't and don't classify them as such. I, of course, could be wrong here, as I don't know cezanne at all. I'm just commenting on how those statements make such definite assertions about what is and isn't memorable to this particular person. And, by the way, cezanne, hope you don't mind me using your quote as a guinea pig for some amateur hack psychology. Speaking of which, I think I'll now climb down from yon amateur hack psychology pulpit before someone in the back row starts throwing rotten tomatoes... With the above rubbish out of the way, I would like to point out that, while I agree with cezanne on the idea of the journey, location, and experience being "central tenets of memorability", I disagree on discounting the value of the container and logbook. At the very least, I think even the best hike/location/experience multi would be seriously degraded if the containers and logsheets were merely film cans and torn scraps of paper. At the other end of the spectrum, proper selection and customization of a container and logbook to reflect the intended theme and experience of the overall cache can elevate the merely excellent to the truly sublime.