Dr. Who and K-9

I have said for years there should be a minimum number of finds before a cacher can hide one. I stand by that. Would it be a perfect rule? No but it would help tremendously. Yeah people with 10 finds can hide a great cache after a day in the game but I think the good would out-weigh the bad. That's my opinion anyway.

I only use the old search. Really hate the new one as it takes much longer to use the search the way I use it. It may be better for some but not me. I also saw I could no longer hit the old search link so have bookmarked the old search.

JHolly number of finds should have nothing to do with someone taking care of their own caches as they see fit. I know people with a LOT of finds that do not follow the guidelines. such as signing the outside of a container rather than open the log and sign. That is not signing the log. They just have to hurry so they can get the numbers. This whole original post could have valid reasons for not finding names on a log but telling them to shut their mouth sounds like you may have a guilty conscience to me. Some of the cachers in the forums always say "play the game the way you want to". Well that should apply to cache owners as well. Maybe being strict and polcing their logs IS the way they want to play and that should be fine as well.

I find this highly offensive. I think folks with only 200 finds should keep their mouths shut and learn a bit more about the game before they start in on the senseless attacks.

I always date the log unless its a nano and I try to conserve space on the log. I don't get the fact that people date the log for a streak purpose. One can write any date they want so that doesn't prove a thing.

I got 9 of 10. I too mis-read the TB question until I realized they were not asking how long to keep the TB but how long before logging that you grabbed it from the cache. It was worded poorly. The one I missed was the air freshner one. I do not think batteries should be put in caches because of leakage or heat can do damage to batteries. Do not agree that air freshners will attract animals. I believe that would depend on the scent. I truly believe that answer and options can be debated. Like someone said in a previous post, one can tell this quiz was made by someone not experienced in caching.

Not sure how deleting a log is a failure by a cache owner. It's the opposite in my opinion. It means the CO is maintaining the cache by checking on it and by following Groundspeak guidelines which state to log a find the log must be signed. I would delete the logs as it does not follow the guidelines.

Hey no offense taken at all. I was just regarding each comment you made in order. I'm glad you are replying and stating opinions. All I am trying to do is following their suggestions on how to proceed. If it is Groundspeaks idea of giving me the brush-off, then I am out little except the time to create the thread. All I can do is make an attempt and go from there.

A. That is good to know. B. Not sure why it would "need" to have to have a sponsorship forman Historical entity as long as there is a dedicated set of reviewers to insure the validity of a locale and placement. C. Maybe Groundspeak saw some different ideas in my idea that was not necessarily covered in some previous suggestions. I admit I don't have the time to cover every topic and thread ever written in the forums so this may be old news to alot of you but many just occasionally get on the forums and find this as new.

I just read the replies and the thread already on this subject. I admit I do not get on the Forums alot so did not know this had been approached already. That said, I think my thread may have some points not brought up before, such as dedicated reviewers of this cache type only and "historical" geo-tours without containers to maintain. For those of you on the Forums constantly, I apologise for the repetitiveness of the thread. That still doesn't count out the value of the thread.

I have been thinking about this for a while and finally wrote Grounspeak about it. They replied politely that it was a viable idea and will pass it on to the powers-that-be and suggested I create a thread in the Forums and see what the reaction is. I suggested having an "Historical" cache type with no container hidden in the vein of Earthcaches. The location should be of historical significance and the "finders" should answer some pre-set questions by the CO also in the vein of Earthcaches. Perhaps the Historical caches could have their own set of voluteer reviewers similar to, once again, earthcaches. I feel that this could help satisfy the thirst of cachers wishing for the return of Virtuals but keep the locations from being "lame" as most blame for the loss of Virtuals. The spots would be educational and have some meaning. I know some will just point to Waymarking saying the locations can be visited via Waymarking as well already. While this is true, many cachers (me included), feel this could be a good compromise for those that also wish to be rewarded with a "find" on their caching stats for visiting a spot while not having to play two different games. I also believe this could be attractive to cities, parks, and historical societies by setting up geo-tours but without the need of placing containers and maintaining those containers. What does everyone think of this idea. I realize certain details and logistics would have to go into implementing a cache type such as this but I feel it is realistic and educational option for a new cache type.

Maybe I'm a little dense but what does TTT mean for this thread?

I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone. As you say the masses are calling to bring them back but I think it only appears that way because those of us who are glad they are gone already know that this horse was buried a long time ago. The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them, and have been since about 2004, when they were still technically accepted, but under the "Wow factor" provision. The response was Waymarking. Then when they kept screaming for them, their response 6 years to the month later, was Geocaching Challenges. I'm of the opinion the third time will be the charm for the screaming masses. Which I am not necessarily a member of, by the way. It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching. If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too. I’ve heard the excuses, no pocket queries, they don’t want to go to another website, etc. but I’ve always maintained that the biggest issue was no easy smileys. I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges. I disageree with you. Waymarks are in "some" intersting places but not the majority. (I mean really...watertowers and Subway restaurants?) I have been around since 2003 in caching and I really want the return of Virtuals. You talk about the lameness that infected the virtuals? There is nothing more lame as far as geocaches go than the current power trails!!! I mean seriously? Hundreds and hundreds of little containers on guardrails or at signs?? Virtuals then were no more lame than current power trail caches are now. I am not "clamoring" for the demise of power trails but I am "clamoring" for the return of virtuals. Don't get me started on the ridiculous new Challenges. they are not virtuals either in any sense. For those that are saying in this thread they are virtuals are mistaken in my opinion.

I agree with the remaining Virtuals being mostly nice spots but STRONGLY disagree with your comment about trying Waymarking or Challenges. More power to the people that love these but they are NOT a replacement for virtuals no matter how you spin it. Waymarking was created as a replacement for Locationless caches and the new Challenges are really a joke to me. Some like them, and that is fine, but don't pass them off as a replacement to virtuals. They are nothing alike.

After reading the post and looking at the guy's profile something jumped out at me. He also logged 4 Virtuals. I have always been a big advocate of virtuals coming back. (I know they aren't going to after the whole "New Challenges" fiasco) But this sort of thing is what prompts some grandfathered Virtuals to get archived. People armchair logging them and the owners not deleting those logs thus, GC.com can say they aren't "maintained". So for you folks that say SO WHAT, my reply is that does matter in the respect of these virtuals. I don't care about this person's counts but I DO care if he can be the cause of some old virtuals possibly being archived.

Also I was wondering if a periodic list to the thread telling what counties have been committed to will help future volunteers know what counties still need help without scrolling through all the posts.

Sounds like a great idea. We can do Spencer county for sure. We can also do Perry county as there are no regular active cachers in that county that we are aware of. Many cachers do not read the forums often. Do you want the word spread for this endeavor? We could put the word out on a couple Indiana geocaching groups we belong to on Facebook if that will help. Just a link to this forum post so people know of it. Just let us know.

Great idea to bring them back as it opens up areas for caching that is not allowed for physical caches. I don't agree with the assesment that a virtual is placed by someone too lazy to maintain a cache. As far as how to bring them back, I am for the idea that makes them more of historical in nature and have guidelines like earthcaches are to geology. I have NEVER liked Waymarking so that is out for me. As far as the suggestion not to add them to the geocaching finds counts, why not? If you visit it, it should be put in with the finds. Not counting them serves no purpose. I have always thought that certain guidelines should be in place to prevent armchair logging of virtuals. I personally have written obvious armchair virtual loggers and some have deleted their finds but most don't bother to answer.

There is also Southern Indiana Geocachers group on facebook with a great administrator. It has members from those states as well.

We like this time of year to cache in better although we find less than we do in the summer. That is because of the type of caches we go after. In cooler weather, we do a little more hiking than P&Gs.

I disagree totally with that. Armchair loggers should be banned from geocaching for a year minimum.

A minuscule percentage, at best. The way I see it; 1 ) BillyBob creates a virtual cache way back when. 2 ) BillyBob drops out of the game, ignoring his maintenance responsibilities. 3 ) Bubba & friends log bogus finds. 4 ) Groundspeak takes umbrage at BillyBob for not maintaining their cache, and Bubba for the bogus log. 5 ) Groundspeak archives the listing. I'll not take up arms against Bubba because Groundspeak likes killing flies with sledgehammers. The most Bubba will get from me is the ole eyeroll, and maybe some snickering behind my hand. Bubba should be banned from geocaching for a year.

I would vote for not too harsh. That is if you're going to haul off and scold a teen cache placer via email. And believe me, I've seen many over the years that needed to be scolded. I have seen some pretty brutally horrible "teen hides" over the years, and maintenance is almost always lacking. I'm sure some will tell you that you stepped over the line by even emailing them, but I can definitely understand the frustration that led you to do it. Definitely not too harsh> I also don't know anyone who thinks cachers should not email each other to resolve problems before getting reviewers involved. I love this game/sport and hate when people get involved and don't want to do it the right way so others can enjoy it. I am one who thinks cachers should not hide a cache until they have achieved a certain number of finds so they can see how others do it. We have many in our area that hide caches after finding 5 or 6 caches and often their caches are not waterproof and poor quality. They also do not get maintained.

I would email them and ask about the log not being signed. If they have a good response I would let it slide. If they got mad or smart about it, then I would delete the log. I would not be mad at all if I forgot to sign a log and got an email about it. I would apologize and give the reason why, even if it was just being an oversight. I usually find when someone gets mad about being questioned, they usually guilty about something. Geocaching rules state that to log a find, one must sign the physical logbook.

I would ask at the state park office. They would lead you in the right direction.