Crow-T-Robot

In the nicest possible way, I disagree. My interpretation of the Official Guidelines says that my job as a CO is to maintain all aspects of my caches. That includes assuring the physical integrity of the container and the hide, cleaning out junk when I visit, making sure the contents are appropriate (I get to decide) and marking Travel Bugs as missing if they're supposed to be there, but aren't. File under "How I play". In the strongest possible way, I disagree. Trackables are not my game, not my responsibility, not my problem. And if Groundspeak ever makes them my responsibility, all my hides will be archived immediately. But, a friendly personal request for assistance (at my convenience) might get a warmer reception. How I Play. I kinda agree with CR. I'm more than happy to mark a trackable missing from one of our remaining caches, when I do maintenance, to be sure it's missing. Quite a few times we've found "missing" trackables at the bottom of ammo cans, mixed with swag, and a number of times (coins mostly), stuck to the sides/top. Quality containers and not visited often, it may be a while... - But requiring that I keep track of anothers side-game would probably get met with a negative response. And that goes thirds for me. I, personally, have no issue with marking trackables missing. I do wish all CO's felt the same way that I do that keeping the trackable inventory correct is part of the CO's responsibility, but many do not and no amount of blustering or stamping my feet will change that, so I just let it be. I used to see a listing that showed a trackable and would get excited as I went looking for it, thinking I would grab the TB/coin and move it on. Now, I know better than to get my hopes up. I used to religiously mention the trackable missing in my find log and logging a note on the trackable page as well. Now, I might mention it if it occurs to me. I've become so used to not finding trackables when they are listed in the cache, that I don't even look to see if there is supposed to be any there beforehand, which leads me to not bothering to mention not seeing them or logging a note on the TB's page. Now I just treat every trackable I find as a happy surprise and am done doing detective work on those not present.

I've released a good number of TB's and coins. They have about a 98% mortality rate. So, your experience with your first TB is pretty much the norm in geocaching today. If I release a new TB now, I do so believing it might survive one or possibly two encounters with geocachers before heading into the great unknown. It's tough to tell someone that has just gotten into the TB side of things to learn to let them go, that you can't control what happens to your bug after it's in the wild, that chances are very likely that it'll go missing sooner rather than later...but, that's the reality. IF you have a bug that travels a lot and gets logged properly, count yourself extremely blessed. I'm like you. I take care to properly log and move trackables timely and there have been a few times that I've retrieved bugs that last showed being logged years ago, many states away. Yet, they were still traveling that whole time, just not being logged. It happens and may be happening to your bug right now. Or maybe it's already gone. Either way, there isn't much you can do about it now except hope it resurfaces. It DOES feel pretty darn good when a bug you thought was long gone returns to action. Even if that return is short-lived and it goes missing again soon after.

If I find a container at GZ, I log a find. It doesn't bother me if it's the original or a throwdown. I can't control if the cache went missing and someone tossed another container down. If it's supposed to be an ammo can and ends up being a film can, I'll mention that in my log and then it's up to the CO to fix, or not. If I find a broken container, I log a NM plus a find. Seems pretty simple.

Ha-ha! The OP will be sorry he posted! Okay, let's try to help. The OP can email the reviewer and suggest that publication times be varied (not all at night). In my area the publication time could be day or night, and so no one person or sleep schedule is favored. That keeps it interesting for everyone. If you live in an area with multiple reviewers, chances are the caches will be published in a staggered pattern naturally. Wisconsin has a few reviewers and I get notifications early in the morning, in the afternoon, in the evening and in the dead of night with no real discernible pattern. If there was only one reviewer, I wouldn't dream of asking him/her to alter the time they normally publish caches. I wouldn't dream of asking even if there were two dozen reviewers. Reviewers volunteer their time and asking them to sacrifice more because of some stupid side game is entitlement at its worst. However, I'm confident that if GS gave them a tool so that they could set the cache to publish at a certain time automatically, they'd be happy to use it. Personally, I don't see too many caches get published that I feel any sort of need to rush out and find. Sometimes (and much more rarely these days) a FTF will fall into my lap but it's been even longer since a cache was published that made me drop everything to go look for it. Getting your first FTF is pretty exciting. Once you have one or a couple and start paying attention to newly published caches, you quickly realize that 95% of new caches are just not worth running after.

And regarding 'full' logsheets. In the context of BAU (business as usual), then the CO should certainly get a replacement log sheet into the cache. But if I'm caching around Seattle in mid-August and come across a full log sheet, then I don't think it's harmful to add a log sheet and then log a Found It + NM - rather than expecting the CO to come by same-day to ensure there's a blank log sheet for the next hundred cachers that have descended on the area. So, another context to consider is the proximity of mega events. A CO should be aware of when a Mega event is occurring and have their caches prepared for the huge influx of cachers, not use it as some excuse for lazy ownership.

Which one of today's versions? The version in the morning that had the store's name in the cache write-up, or the edited version from this afternoon, when the store's name was removed? B. Both? Either? Neither? I have no idea. You should ask the CO that question.

That, right there (whether one likes it or not) Nothing else matters, except an overruling judgment of the next level up. ETA: "They determined it fit the publishing guidelines without violating the 'commercial cache prohibition'." - as PP just mentioned, the active reviewer might have changed since publication, or the CO may have edited the listing since publication. Nonetheless, point #1 still remains: The reviewer's prerogative is the only one that matters. I never anything like "the active reviewer might have changed since publication". What I did say was that "we" have no idea what the original cache submission was presented to the Reviewer. And "we" have no idea just how many times the cache write-up was changed after being published. B. And yet "we" waste no time in grabbing the torches and pitchforks based on nothing more than speculation. For all "we" know, the cache page submitted for review was no different than it is today.

I know what you mean and agree with your point, but I have to admit I've come to expect it, so I don't think I can really call it "odd". I think I'd say, "The sad thing is..." Edited to add: and now, the second page... The odd thing is that this is post #61 and still no word from Groundspeak about it. What's odd is that after all these years, people still think Groundspeak is going to post in the forums explaining their decisions.

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean you should not or cannot question our impact on the environment. Like any other hobby or activity, there are things that we all can do to make geocaching a greener hobby. Simply saying there are hobbies that are worse doesn't magically make geocaching better. For what it's worth, I don't buy into the climate change theories. I think the earth is going to warm or cool as it always has. I like doing green things because they make me feel good, not because I believe they are having any measurable impact on the environment. Of course we can poison the oceans. Of course we can dump so much toxic waste that it renders areas uninhabitable for thousands of years. Of course we can foul the skies with pollution. But, those things will all be fixed over time after humans, as a species, have perished. We are a major threat to humanity but not to the earth. Earth has an almost perfect self-correcting nature. If we were to introduce so much pollution that it could change the course of the atmosphere/environment, Earth would simply eliminate the source: us.

Aaaand, I'm running away as fast as I can...

You should direct your ire at the cache owner, not the reviewer. When it comes to the matter of caches being unsafe, only the cache owner should be archiving it for that reason. Not a reviewer, not a Groundspeak lackey, not even Jeremy himself. In this case, the cache was archived correctly when the owner tried turning it into a virtual. As nasty as asbestos is, Groundspeak is not going to get involved in matters of safety, nor should they. Looking at this as an outsider, things went as they are designed to. A cacher came along that realized the cache was hidden near exposed asbestos, realizes the danger, notifies the CO, the CO does nothing beyond trying to turn the cache into a virtual and once a reviewer saw that, they archived the cache. The only shameful thing is that had the CO not done the "photo only" trick, this cache would still be active. That's not due to any fault of the reviewer, but of the CO.

I think that's kind of a reach. Some people are just whackadoodle and will find something to be paranoid about no matter what you do.

If you find an old post and use it as part of your cache hide: not an issue. If the CO digs the hole and places the post, then it violates the "no digging" guideline.

I have no idea why those buried caches in Belgium are allowed to be published and why the existing ones haven't been archived by HQ yet. It really doesn't make any sense. One of the most fundamental requirements of hiding is that geocaches are never buried. Groundspeak spells that out very clearly in the guidelines. It looks bad when they say "never buried...unless you live in Belgium". I think some guidelines can be given slack in certain situations without harming the game but the never buried rule should NEVER be broken, anywhere. If you think it's ok to bury caches because the landowner doesn't mind, fine, go dig up the countryside, bury your caches and start your own geocaching website to publish them. Why they are published on this site is mystifying.

How? Who is going to monitor the logs? I doubt it would be Groundspeak, as they generally leave the issue of monitoring/deleting armchair logs up to the cache owner. A park representative? I doubt they are going to want that responsibility, either. If this would come to fruition, the park would almost certainly use the partnership with GS as a means to bolster tourism and probably wouldn't give a whiff about people false logging caches.

I have Groundspeaks app and CacheSense installed on my android phone. I prefer to use CacheSense but sometimes it drives me nuts when it takes forever to populate the nearest caches. I don't use the compass feature for either app often but I much prefer the CS compass over Groundspeaks. The one thing the GS app does well, for me, is load up the nearby caches quickly. I just prefer CacheSense's field notes logging, so that's why I use it more.

Well, a well thought out response like that does take four or five years to formulate and get "just right".

I'm with you on this CV. The "power trail" is an epidemic here in Northern Nevada!! Absolute garbage!! Come to southwestern Ontario where we have lots and lots of power trails on roads, and power trails on trails. We have power trails of challenge caches, we have power trails of puzzle caches. We have angry neighbours who get the PT cache near their house archived. We have geo-art (most of which have deteriorated). Almost all our power trails are not maintained, so you can expect a lot of missing caches and containers with black moldy wet full logsheets. Shame on those powertrail finders for not maintaining those caches like the owners requested!

I changed my username from Bassanio to Crow-T-Robot. When I first started going online, I was kind of heavy into Shakespeare, so Bassanio was my username for many sites. But, by the time I got into geocaching, I had pretty much outgrown that phase of my life but I still used that name because it was the name I'd always used. After meeting up with another cacher on the trail and fumbling with telling them my username (Bassanio is kind of an awkward name to pronounce out loud), I decided I needed something new, something more "me" and I've been a MST3K fan far longer than Shakespeare. So, Crow-T-Robot was it. Now, had I known Crow T Robot (no hyphens) was already taken by a reviewer, I would've went with another MST3K nickname. But, I found that out quite a bit after changing my name and for better or worse, this is what I'm sticking with. Unless I ever get the urge to change it again

....So yes, if I was in the hospital battling cancer I would be thinking of other things besides a container and be grateful that someone removed it if it were broken and otherwise turning into something that I did not intend to leave. Same here. I want everyone who visits to have a good caching experience. If my cache becomes geotrash because I was say in a coma in the hospital for 6 months, it would embarrass me that people were finding a broken container with a moldy log. I would want it to be removed. If I ever recover I'll deal with placing new caches when I can get out again. Archived and removed caches is the least of my worries. I don't think I'd fuss over a few lock n lock boxes and birdhouses. I never expect them to last forever anyway. If I was in the hospital or caring for a family member or something for a long time, finally got things together and was able to return to something I love, only to find that someone had badmouthed me to all the other geocachers as "irresponsible," called my geocaches "trash," and stolen them, I'd be pretty unimpressed. On the extremely slim chance that I would dispose of an archived cache that turned out to be the cache of someone gravely ill (or caring for someone gravely ill) and they got better and were upset about someone throwing their cache away, I'd buy them a brand new ammo can, stock it with the best premium swag I could find and scout out a great location local to them so they could hide it if they so wished. I couldn't undo throwing the old cache away but I could (hopefully) make restitution that way. If it's just a cacher who quit the game, left their cache to rot at the location and then returned and was mad because someone had the nerve to pick up the garbage they left behind...well, that I wouldn't care about.

I don't think submitting the solution is required. You have to submit how to solve the puzzle, but you don't have to give the answer to the reviewer. I would assume in most cases, though, that giving the method of solution is basically the same as giving the solution. Once you know how to solve a particular puzzle, solving it become much easier.

... considered geo-trash by you. The container still belongs to the owner. If you're going to take it because you think it's "trash," be prepared to answer to the CO if she/he ever asks about it. If ever asked about it? If they cared a hoot they would have maintained their cache as soon as a NM came through. I agree. There is always a .001%* chance that that particular cache is listed on "some other site" (does any other site still exist?), but the overwhelming majority of the time, if a cache gets archived on geocaching.com by a reviewer when the CO doesn't respond to logs, it's dead in the geocaching world and should be retrieved by someone. That someone should be the CO but we all know they no longer care so someone else going out and cleaning up the junk is a good thing. *-obviously not a real statistic...it may not even be that high of a percentage.

Lazy cache owners prey on this mindset. Why bother with maintenance if someone is going to come along and do it for you eventually "to keep the game going". All you're keeping going is a junk cache that should be archived. If you're willing to spend a few dollars, spend them on creating and maintaining your own cache. Personally, I don't even like the mentality of "if the cache owner gives you permission, go ahead and replace the cache" or replacing a full log or some other minor touch up to the cache. Now, many people would view replacing a cache with permission or replacing a full log as an acceptable means of helping a CO, but I don't. There are almost 3 million caches listed on geocaching.com and a sizable portion of those caches are the "set it and forget it" variety. The number of cache owners who forgo maintenance and depend on the community to baby their cache is on the rise and I'd rather not partake in that culture. Plus, when you become familiar with CO's and their habits, you know that two things are possible: 1-it's an attentive owner who cares about their cache or 2-it's an owner who you know doesn't take care of issues and their caches get routinely archived by reviewers because of non-communication. In the first case, an attentive owner will fix the issue themselves, so I know the problem will get fixed without my help. In the second, anything I do to help is just enabling a lazy/absent owner and the problem will still exist after I do my good deed and keep a junk cache alive longer.

This is why using Field Notes is such a godsend for me. I can mark the cache as found in the field and the Field Notes will keep my finds in the order I found them and when I get home, they're all waiting for me and I can write up a log to my hearts content. But, most people just want to find a cache, mark it as found and move on to the next. Many won't bother with waiting to write a log until they get home.

While we're on the subject of DNF's, it irks me to see caches get disabled by reviewers after a string of DNF's without regard to the cache itself. A 1.5/1.5 cache that has a string of DNF's and a CO that doesn't seem to do anything about it: sure disable it. Chances are that kind of cache is gone, the owner isn't maintaining it and keeping it active just wastes time for those looking for a cache that isn't there. But, a 5/5 cache that I've been working on for the past few years was disabled about a month ago. I must be the only person searching for this cache as I'm the only one posting DNF's on it. The reviewer disabled it because of those DNF's. Unless someone privately emailed the reviewer about an issue I'm not aware of, it certainly looks like my string of DNF's triggered the reviewer disabling the cache. It's supposed to be hard and a true 5* difficulty cache should rack up many DNF's. But, because of the reviewer disabling the cache, from here on out, I will only post notes when I look for the cache/stages and not find them. It's not a huge deal, but it does irk me to not post a "truthful" log.