Mermaid.Man

Yes it's a shame but that kind of a hide is no longer allowed. I remember well one of the caches I found in the early days of my geocaching "career" was similar to what you describe. It was a notice on a local notice board about a lost dog, and the logsheet was the back of the notice. I thought it was terrific, but this was hidden in 2010 when the rules were different. Probably the examples that you give were also published some time ago.

I went through Singapore airport last year. I seem to remember that the virtual at the Rain Vortex was available to all, but the trad in the butterfly house was definitely on the other side of Security and (I guess) you would have to have a boarding pass to get there.

Sorry but the link I quoted wasn't correct. On checking again, and putting your username in, it gave results only showing caches found by us both (in Singapore as it happens). The correct link is accessed from the old dashboard by clicking "geocaches" from the menu, and then "geocaches that you have found" at the top right of the next page.

You could use Obviously, change "yourname" to, well, your name.

It's true though, isn't it? It still is a cache by [you], even though you've transferred ownership of it to someone else. That field is able to be edited by the new owner. For instance when I adopt a cache I change it to "a cache by [them], maintained by [me]". I guess that if it bothers you you could approach the new owner and ask them to edit it.

And if I remember correctly, the topic is about whether it is ever acceptable to log an OAR log when you haven't found the cache. In essence whether you can say "I think that the cache is clearly missing, could the owner please check?". Well it's a subjective question really where we are relying on the player to consider the evidence and make a decision before posting. Personally, I have logged a couple of OAR logs recently where I've not been able to find a low difficulty cache and there have been a number of DNFs by experienced players before mine. In these cases I was pretty confident (95% perhaps) that there was a problem which needed addressing by the owner. I think that this is a pretty reasonable call. Would I have taken the same decision if mine was the first DNF? Certainly not. We've heard a lot about fringe cases where such a decision might lead to an unnecessary archival, which might be a big deal in an area with not many caches. That's an interesting discussion but I don't feel that it changes the basic facts. Most of these comments have been about how wrong it is to post an OAR log for a perfectly good cache (perhaps for a wet logbook or something similar), but this discussion is about whether to ask the CO to check on a cache that seems clearly to be missing, and where there is strong evidence to suggest this. Many of the comments seem to suggest that even posting a DNF log is the wrong thing to do, especially when the owner is inactive. A DNF log is literally saying that you had a look but you didn't find the cache. I agree with the comments which suggest that we should expect each cache to have an owner who monitors the activity on it and responds to any issues. That's just geocaching 101 surely? If the owner moves out of the game without putting their affairs in order then it's reasonable to expect their caches to be removed from the gameboard when they become unviable.

I believe that you will need to ask your reviewer to use his super powers for this.

But really this is a very unsatisfactory and confusing thread. At the start almost everyone was united in the view that folks should be posting OAR and RAR logs as required, whether they had found the geocache or not. But then it morphed in the opposite direction, and the folks who were most strident in the original view were also the most strident in the opposite one. To answer the original post, yes of course we should be reporting problems using the tools available to us. Whether the cache is in a city or in the middle of nowhere makes no difference whatsoever. Unmaintained geocaches have no place in this game and will lead to it's demise.

And that's great. I have done exactly the same myself a number of times. I'm sure you will agree though that if it weren't for the actions of a concerned local like you (or me) then archival would have been the correct course of action. I've even had an occasion where I have been able to track down the long-gone CO and convinced my reviewer to unarchive the cache so that I could adopt it. These guys generally want to keep the game alive as much as we do. They certainly aren't the enemy.

Well perhaps I have missed something but his points have centred around how the CHS system is too blunt an instrument and that remote geocaches run the risk of being archived when there isn't an active CO to confirm that all is well with them when problems are reported. As others have patiently pointed out though, the dreaded CHS system doesn't archive caches. That is the job of your local reviewer who by definition is a keen local geocacher who will carefully review the evidence before taking any action. In my experience they are open to being persuaded by the locals that the situation is in hand, as demonstrated by BFJ's last post. To give some context, I am a player who places caches in remote places. I also adopt significant caches where it is possible, and take other ones under my wing where adoption is not an option.

Ah that's great that the locals have found a way to manage the issue of absent cache owners and unmaintained geocaches. Remind us though, what exactly is it that you have been complaining about for the last four pages of this thread? Because to me it sounds as if the system is working as it should.

You just click the little drop-down arrow where it says 'add filter'.

I believe that earthcaches are not normally available to basic members (on the official app).

Ah well I must apologise for my sweeping statement. What you suggested did not work on an app when I tried it. Now that I am home I have seen that your statement is indeed correct when using the website. That seems like a sensible feature which I wasn't previously aware of. Thanks for sharing.

I'm sorry but this isn't true.

Does Cachly not show a list of caches that you have recently viewed, a "history" button? The app that I use does this (and also begins with C but does tend to get folks here all excited when someone mentions it).

You might have trouble getting this approved by the reviewer. It sounds like a "cache with an agenda" (to me anyway).

Why not just delete the incorrect log?

Well I think that you did the right thing, it's certainly not a D4 puzzle. The only point of the difficulty and terrain ratings is to give accurate information to future visitors to your cache.

Hi there. You might want to try posting on Facebook rather than here. This forum group only gets a couple of posts each year. There is certainly a geocaching New Zealand group, and I'm pretty sure that there is a Bay of Plenty group. Alternatively you could try posting a "write note" log on your cache page seeking someone to adopt your cache. I'm in Welly myself so I can't help you I'm afraid. Or else just archive your cache of course. It's not as if there's a shortage of them.

I also have an extra 10 available FPs. I have never done an adventure lab using this account though, so that's not the reason.

I treat an AL as zero caches, so I use a separate account when I play them. Works for me.

To be fair, Groundspeak have made it very clear that they aren't geocaches. There are two separate games - one called geocaching and one called adventure labs. The only thing that makes no sense is the +5.

As others have mentioned, there is a well established and mostly satisfactory procedure to follow if you come across a cache which you feel requires attention from its owner. There is no need to involve HQ or to come onto the forums with misleading stories. It is a small community up there and I wonder if there is more to this than you are letting on? Also I am astonished that a reviewer in Virginia would post a NA log on a cache on the other side of the world on the say-so of a player with 7 finds to their name. Perhaps now I really have seen it all.

Er no they don't. What they say is "The public are free to walk and bike the forest roads and tracks provided they respect forest operations, restrictions and stay away from active worksites." Which is completely true.