Crow-T-Robot

Groundspeak doesn't take safety into consideration when dealing with publishing caches or resolving disputes. They have a disclaimer that spells out in no uncertain terms that when you go geocaching, you accept the risks associated with caching and that GS is not liable for anything that happens to you in the pursuit of a cache. When you go out caching, it is up to you to decide whether a cache is too dangerous to attempt to find. If you have a child along, then the child's safety is the parents responsibility. Not Groundspeaks and not the cache owners.

I think this thread is a great example of why you simply can't judge something without the facts. It's human nature for someone to paint what they say/write in a flattering light while leaving out the parts that might not make them look so rosy. And, of course, to make the other guy look like the biggest jerk in the world at the same time. In this case, I'd side with GS. They are the ones that see the truth happening behind the scenes and have had to moderate tons of disputes between CO's and finders. If they deem a find log worthy of being deleted and archived, something tells me that find log contained more nastiness than "this place isn't fit for kids. What a dump". I also share the opinion that if you are approaching GZ and you find manure, glass, woodchips, rank water, rubbish, etc. and you don't care to visit a place with those things present...then just leave. Saying you hate that kind of place and find it disgusting doesn't hold much weight if you power through and get the smiley. If your goal is to get the smiley, then who cares what kind of dumping ground the cache is hidden at? If your goal is beautiful locations, then you can always turn around and find someplace more appealing. I understand wanting to write a log to express your thoughts and perhaps let others know what they might be in for, but that needs to be done with civility. Most disagreements can be settled at DEFCON 5 but way too many people go immediately to DEFCON 1 and start launching nukes.

If that is your attitude towards permission, I would hope that you haven't hidden any geocaches yourself.

From your account page, look on the right hand side for a link to "Search for geocaches: near your home location". It also has a link to filter out finds right below it. Click on the "near your home location" link and then sort by the Last Found column. The first sort will bring up the caches found most recently. If you click it to re-sort it. That will display caches not found on top and then caches with the longest time since the last find in descending order.

I've learned to treat trackables like a happy accident. If they are in a cache when I visit, I get a pleasant surprise. Expecting a TB to be in a cache because the inventory says there is (was) lead to disappointment way more often than not, so I just don't bother. Like I said, if there is one there when I visit, it comes as a complete and pleasant surprise. The TB/coin owners are the ones who should be marking trackables missing if they are not in the caches they show in. A cache owner has this ability if the trackable shows in their cache, but they are not obligated to keep the cache inventory correct. Some CO's will mark trackables missing, many will not. It's a courtesy gesture from a CO when they mark trackables missing. A cache owner should never be put in the position that cachers think the CO's are responsible because their cache inventory is incorrect. Nor should cachers log something against the cache (such as a NM or NA) because the trackable inventory is off. Cache owners do not have to babysit someone else's trackable, even if it resides in their cache (or the system says it does, anyway). I know there are those that believe that anything on the cache page falls under the umbrella of a cache owners responsibility but CO's have no say in whether that inventory box belongs on the page. It's there automatically and there are many cache owners who would love the option to remove it entirely. There is a long thread that detailed creating an automated system that could be used by any cacher to mark trackables missing, but Groundspeak hasn't chosen to implement it. I doubt they ever will or provide a better tool than the one we have now. The system, as it stands, SHOULD work but it clearly doesn't. I doubt we'll see trackables rise back to the level of popularity they once were, so the incentive to put time and effort into a better tool just isn't there for a dying side-game.

If you do log out, any list you've downloaded for offline use also vanishes. So, once you log back in, you'll have to download them again.

If you hope to get the best results, you should really be posting a note on the trackable page as well about it's status of being missing. Just logging on the cache page about a trackable not being in the cache does not notify the trackable owner in any way. The trackable owner should be the one taking ownership of THEIR trackable. A cache owner or reviewer marking it missing is the route to go after it becomes apparent that the TB owner isn't responding/has disappeared.

I have a childhood friend who moved to Phoenix and his job is to catch snakes. Judging by his Facebook posts, Arizona is FULL of snakes . It's either snakes or haboobs with that guy.

I think trackables are a waste of money NOW. Geocoins and travel bugs were a tremendously successful side-game but once the mode of geocaching became mostly app based, the wave of new cachers that poured in just didn't seem to grasp the concept of trackables. I can't say it's their fault as by that time, GS had done little to cross-promote trackables to the app users. I could be wrong but I believe the first few versions of the geocaching app didn't handle trackables all that well (in terms of using the app, I'm a late bloomer) and I'm not sure how well the current version handles them as I almost never use the app to log trackables. But, I can understand the difficulty of a geocacher who only uses the app to cache in getting a feel of what a TB or geocoin is, especially if they would have had to use the website to log it. It really is two different mind-sets and if the app doesn't make trackables an intuitive part of geocaching, most new cachers probably won't realize that it's a side game. By no means does that mean that the sad state of affairs for trackables can be blamed solely on app users. Trackables have been disappearing since they were invented. This didn't just start happening. But, even though trackables were being plundered right from the start, the frequency and speed that they go missing now has increased ten-fold. It used to be worth buying a handful and hoping that one or two would keep traveling. Now, not so much. I pretty much gave up on the game after the last half-dozen TB's I put out vanished within a month's time...some of them not making it out of the cache I dropped it into. That was enough for me. I still love the concept of trackables but the current state of affairs just isn't any fun as a TB owner.

Have you considered whether more people visit your ammo can because they stop for your friends micro? Yes, it's true, many geocachers today see geocaches as something you drive to find, not a walking activity like you and I do. But I can't count the number of times I've chosen to take a nice walk to an off-road cache because there was a micro flagging the parking lot to help me figure out where to leave my car. It's fine to like ammo cans and hikes better, it's fine to encourage people to find them, and it's fine to want your cache to be appreciated more. But micros aren't stealing cachers away from your cache. Those easy roadside caches have brought many more people into the hobby. You don't like to find them yourself, and that's cool, but they're why geocaching is so popular today. My advice would be to work with your friend to create interesting situations that integrate the two kinds of geocaching in order to help people that like one kind appreciate the other. This is very true. Locally, geocaching activity has taken a noticeable downturn in the last five years or so. Far from dead but this area used to be a real hotbed of caching. I started in 2008, which was pretty much right at the peak of caching in my local area, so it was bound to drop off at some point. That didn't surprise or disappoint me. What did surprise and disappoint was the game that was left behind seemed to forsake creativity and rewarded banality. And if something isn't a few steps from the car, many people just won't bother. I have no issue at all with hiking a trail and finding 20-25 caches, even if they are all just those "boring micros" seemingly chucked at the base of a tree every 528'. But, when I find a trail where every 528' there is a good mix of creative, fun, inventive caches to go with the "boring micros", it feels like paradise. I also have no issue of seeking out caching destinations and visiting them. I'll chase creative caches to the ends of the Earth if it comes to that. As a CO, I create caches that I'd want to find but I know that when I create them, I'm almost condemning them to a lonely life. I don't put out many caches but I use what little skill I have to come up with something creative and fun. They get found but entire seasons can pass between those finds. Do I wish they would get found more often than that stopsign micro? Of course! They're my caches and I want more people to enjoy them. But, I know that creating multicaches and mysteries pretty much eliminates about 90% of the caching traffic around here. I can't say I'm OK with it, but I've come to accept it. I just remind myself that as much as I want my caches to be found, so does that CO that puts out micro after micro after micro. I may put out caches that I want to find but they put out caches that others want to find, so when you boil away the fat, they are serving geocaching better than I am. Maybe I don't particularly enjoy that reality but I accept it. I accept that geocaching would not continue to thrive without powertrails and geoart, where cachers can chase numbers if they so desire (and based on the results, do they ever desire it). Personally, I'll just keep putting out caches that I enjoy and keep hoping that others find and enjoy them.

The problem, especially with webcam caches, is that when an owner is "not petty" and is a kind-hearted soul, it doesn't take long for that to go from a good faith gesture to the caching community to outright abuse by the caching community. And that usually happens organically, not because caches want to just to abuse a cache/CO and get away with as much as they can and still get the find. One person does something a little outside the description and the owner lets it slide because they are nice and why make waves? Another cacher sees this and thinks that "it's ok, the owner let that one slide, he'll let this one slide too." If it's a popular webcam cache, this can quickly spiral beyond the owners control and soon they might be looking at dozens of logs that bend the rules "just a little" and more that are outright abuse (selfies taken when the webcam is down, no photo at all, etc). At what point does the cache owner just start deleting logs or just roll over and go with the good guy mentality? Cache owners are given quite a bit of leeway to police their listings as they see fit but a webcam cache is a different animal. I think "kindness" shouldn't apply to a webcam cache. Either you took a webcam photo as directed in the description or you don't log a find. It's not petty for a cache owner to delete logs that don't conform to the ALR because allowing people to log the webcam cache without adhering to the ALR can get the cache archived because the owner wasn't maintaining the listing. But, that should be done timely. Waiting years to delete logs is pretty silly.

Assuming the cache shouldn't be a difficult find, I would encourage them to log it as found. I would feel reasonably sure they would have found the cache and the only thing that stopped that fact was that the cache wasn't there. Even though it happens, I would consider that my failure as a CO, not a failure of the finder to locate the cache. If it's a tough find, then I'd give them some hints on where or how to look the next time they go out.

My policy as a finder is that if I don't have a pen (which happens from time to time), I take a picture of the cache. When I log the find, I mention that I didn't have a pen and have a picture of the cache in hand as proof. If the CO wants it, I'll send it to them. I also don't bother even opening nano caches. I just take a picture and replace the cache. To date, out of roughly 50 or so finds that this has happened on, I've not had one instance of a CO asking for that picture. My guess is that a CO that would ask me for the picture is probably the one that would delete my find because I didn't sign the log. I'm just not that concerned with losing a find. There is no cache in the world that I consider so sacred that having my find deleted would make me upset. I only log caches I have found and whether geocaching.com reflects that find or not doesn't negate me the memory of finding it. If having my name on a piece of paper in your geocache is the only thing you'll accept as proof of my visit, then delete away. My policy as a CO is: have fun! When you log your find, I trust that you've found the cache and (hopefully) enjoyed it. If the log seems suspicious, I'm not going to go tearing out to the cache and verify that you signed the log. Again, I'll just trust you're being honest. If you get a fake find over on me, well...good for you! Glad you enjoyed sitting at home in your underwear logging caches you didn't find. If I ever start to think that geocaching is so important in my life that I have to get involved in that sort of drama, I just practice this simple exercise: I just ask myself if this is REALLY that important? If I answer yes, I add another REALLY to the question. For every yes, another REALLY. Eventually, you get to the point that no, nothing is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY that important. I tend to find that the original question "Is this REALLY that important?" gives me my answer about 99% of the time.

I think I found the reason... Personally, I don't check. I don't put out difficult caches (to solve, to find or to get to-at least in my opinion). I aim for fun. If I put out a puzzle, I try to make it an interactive puzzle that has some humor sprinkled in here and there but the hides tend to be pretty straightforward. If I put out a traditional/multi, I try to incorporate something fun in the hide itself. If someone wants to just claim a find without finding the container and inflate a meaningless find count, they are welcome to play that game all they want but I can't imagine how uninteresting the game must be to them. There is a whole world of fun and creative caches out there (plenty of ho-hum as well). Finding either kind is worthwhile of my time. I'd have given up long ago if my find count was the driving factor to being a "geocacher".

Adopting out a neglected cache in order to prop it up just for the sake of a challenge cache (or potential challenge cache) is just about as far down the list of reasons to keep a cache alive as you can get. If "X" cache is the only cache in the entire world that fulfills a challenge cache requirement...then that challenge cache will no longer be loggable if the cache should be archived. If you create challenge caches or seek them out, that is the kind of risk you take, that any cache at any time could be archived and turn all of your work into digital dust. As for adopting out caches which have absentee owners, I don't think that is a good idea. I know cachers love finding caches from the earliest days of geocaching but all caches have a lifespan. A cache living on without an owner just feels wrong to me. Yes, I know that community maintenance can prop up a cache forever (see power trails), but how many replacement handles and heads are needed before Ol' Grand-dads axe is no longer Ol' Grand-dads axe?

I usually stop in at Goodwill to pick up swag. You can make a pretty good haul for $10-15.

A work-around to that is to create a list and whenever you solve a puzzle, add it to your list. Then you can run a PQ of that list, so only puzzles that you have solved will be included.

Isn't this exactly what you're trying to do yourself? Jump and grab that spot before someone else gets it? This is just the reality of hiding caches in popular areas. You have to be first or you're out of luck. I'm sure this is a beautiful location but if you're down to adjusting your coordinates a few feet this way or a few feet that way just to squeeze another cache in...then that area is already well served with caches. I know I've found plenty of caches that made me think "I could've done so much more with this location than just some micro" but then the reality hits that the cache did exactly what a good cache should do: brought me to an interesting, memorable location. The hide doesn't have to knock my socks off as long as the location does. Don't get hung up on the size of the cache or the lack of creativity. While creative caches are always welcome and admired, sometimes the location is the thing and a nano hidden on a light pole will accomplish the same thing as a handcrafted container. The latter might be more fun to find in terms of caching but both succeeded in bringing you to a wonderful location.

While it's possible, I doubt this ends up flopping. I have no idea how, but I ended up being awarded the opportunity to place one of these new virtual caches. After the initial "holy smokes, is this really real and if it is, why me?" phase, the reality of the situation hit me. While I'm over the moon to be one of the lucky ones, I recognized that it's also a responsibility. These are the first new virtuals GS has allowed in well over a decade and I feel the pressure to make sure mine is worth the wait. Fair or not, these new virtuals will be coming under plenty of scrutiny and anytime a "lame" one is published, it will be held up as an example of why this isn't going to work. I don't know what algorithm Groundspeak used to determine who should be awarded this opportunity, but my guess is that pride in cache ownership and creativity both weigh heavily in that decision. It would really go against their character for one of these new virtual owners to put out a stinker just to, you know, put one out as if it were just another cache. The forums have long bemoaned the direction that geocaching has taken the past few years, where quantity ruled over quality. I think this is a good first step by Groundspeak to right that ship a little bit. If these new virtuals turn into something special, maybe that opens the door to discussions to bringing back other dormant cache types. While that just might be a pie in the sky thought from me, I do like the trust and confidence that Groundspeak is giving over to these new virtual owners. They're essentially saying "Go make us proud". I hope I can do that.

I used to try to do some sleuthing when I found a trackable in a cache but it was logged as being elsewhere. I've done enough investigating to realize that while that can be a fun little side adventure, in the end, in almost 100% of the cases, I just ended up grabbing the TB and logging it into the cache I found it in and then retrieving it back out anyway. So, now I just grab it from wherever it shows and log the visit from the cache I took it from. Personally, I've never heard from anyone after I've done this but I imagine a day will come when I'll run into a cacher that gets upset because of it. I'm not going to worry about it. If you participate in moving trackables, you have the obligation to log the visit in a timely manner. If you don't/can't log the trackable before it gets grabbed from you, perhaps you need to reevaluate your methods or just learn to let it go and move on.

I like to cache alone. It's my "me" time. There has been a time or two that someone has shown up at GZ and we looked for the cache together and while I'm not the most social of creatures, it was enjoyable enough. But, if I were the one pulling up to GZ and saw someone else there, I'd just leave. If someone drops in on me, I have no issues with it but I'd rather not interrupt anyone else and preserve my me time as well. But, that's me. Events are very popular because most cachers are pretty sociable people. If you're a sociable person, go ahead and introduce yourself. There's a pretty good chance the other person will be glad for the company.

On my Nuvi, my home location has the address for the cities police station. Maybe they'll have a change of heart and turn themselves in

I was wondering why all these caches at the start of the thread were archived...until I read the date the thread was started. I've searched for Bates Motel once and there really isn't much at GZ to check. I have no idea (nor does anyone else, it seems) where, or what, the cache could possibly be. One cache I've had on my radar for the past few years is The Beast of Big Island My brother-in-law has a cabin nearby and I go up once a year for a weekend in the summer...but, just haven't been able to find the free time to even start on the cache.

If you want to use IE with Windows 10, you'll have to do a search for it. They buried it without giving you a shortcut link to it. I assume so that you'd use Edge rather than IE. It's there...just hidden.

I sort by favorites and add the ones that look interesting to a list/bookmark. I used to just run PQ's and add it all but once I was in the city/area I was visiting, finding the ones I REALLY wanted to look for became impossible. There were just too many caches to scroll through. Just having the ones from my list loaded means those are the only ones that will come up on my GPS. For any caching on the fly, I can use my phone.