Uncle Alaska

I believe there was a cache of the month, featured on the gc blog, that was a sign "attached to a post in the ground" with the cache attached behind it. The post seemed to be new, i.e. not an old empty post that was found in place and then used by the CO. I thought immediately that it violated the no "digging/buried" rule. Edit to add: the current geocache of the week has a concrete footing that undoubtedly required quite a bit of digging...

Which is exactly why I wrote nobody's forcing them to read any logs... - which you then quoted. You do not seem to understand the problem. My GPS has limited memory available for cache listings and logs. Long cut and paste logs eat up that space and often useful logs are cut off by the useless ones. As would long non-cut and paste logs? Just because a log is long and NOT cut and paste, does not make it useful. By all means, everybody who adds a log, they should make its length appropriate for every type of GPS device so that it is not too long, but also not TFTC. Anybody have an exact length everyone should write?

That, and that they were snowballing at a rate to outpace actual physical cache placement/submission.

For the record, even before smartphones, it wasn't necessary to work with someone else to capture the webcam image. Of the 3 webcam caches that I've logged, I did 2 of them without a smartphone and without assistance from anyone else. Also, there are many webcams that are not doable by smartphone. Some operate with software languages that don't work on ios devices (for example). I also have run into webcams that are outside cellular range

Where is the proof that the forum is running rampant with sock puppet accounts?

I think the Kindle Fire HD 8.9 with 4G has a working GPS. Not sure if there is a Wherigo app that will work on it though.

In case you want to see more answers to your question: A recent identical thread (that also has a link to an older thread)

Have Fun Guy....But Be Careful !!

Looks like a Laetiporus shelf or bracket fungus. Though if it is near the root of the tree it might be the fungal portion of a root disease as well.

Hmmm..I seem to recall a gravel pullout along a lonely stretch of county maintained road near Estecada, Oregon sorrounded by non native Himalayan blackberries. "Understory" makes it sound so romantic. There is that (when you think of only the plaque), but then there is the walk over to the ammo can chained to the alder, through the sword fern and other ground species...and it is a worn down mud path when wet...(I guess when you are a forester and botanist, you seem to notice the species and their condition with a bit more of a microscope )

Something similar for GC12 and several of the older caches in Oregon and other states that I have visited. These "Jasmer" caches are not part of a power trail, but get very heavy traffic from cachers all over the world. Some have CO's that have not logged into the site for years...yet the cache gets maintained. These old caches have "freeway" trails carved into the undergrowth in sometimes a spider web effect as each visitor seems to make their own way in. The impact to the understory vegetation around the original plaque was also pretty damaged when I visited it this last winter. Especially a 4-6 foot wide mud path going up to a nearby old cache placed near the plaque. This "damage" you speak of does not only exist for power trails. And the maintenance on some of these older caches have been carried out by the finders for years...don't see anybody on this forum complaining about these caches though, only the power trails.

I know of one cache where the FTF prize was a thousand dollars. It had a specific timeframe to claim the money (don't think that would fly now-a-days). Someone found it, then showed a picture of their "prize" later. It involved backpacking deep into the Inyo mtns and taking photos of a ghost town.

As do: T5 caches and D5 puzzles, and D5/T5 caches, and many cheat on webcam caches, they also try to cheat the Brazil Ape cache....come to think of it, I have seen nearly every type of cache cheated. I wonder if it is the people that are the variable in cheating? Rather than the type of cache? Some play with honor, others don't...welcome to humanity.

Probably too far away from me to make the find ...looks pretty cool

As often as possible...things that sometime make it difficult: people signing a different name on physical log than online, poor penmanship, and signed the physical log and not posted online (makes reconciling difficult sometimes).

Does it have a rubber seal? Maybe you can check one out at a home depot? See if the seal is replaceable, something that can be replaced over time?

Will it be exposed to direct sunlight? Undergo extreme temperatures (cold or heat)? Those are the obvious things breaking down plastics. A good couple coatings of paint can help with the sunlight (refreshing the paint annually). I have seen one cache that is simillar to a rubbermaid type chest, it was under the eaves and covered in someones backyard (with a combo lock gate built into the fence). It seemed to be fine, though it had a lot of protection.

OR, we could have the CO write the logs for the finder...

Why should total numbers matter? Cheating is cheating, right? If ALL members of said "team" are not present to find and log the cache, then its not geocaching...right? But if a two-person team is together while looking for a cache, then that would be "cheating" as well, since there's an extra pair of eyeballs helping with the search. If geocaching was a competitive sport, then it would make sense to allow only one person per account, since that would make it easier (but still hopeless) to fairly compare numbers across different accounts. But I think geocaching still is more of a fun, family activity rather than a serious, competitive sport. You wouldn't know it if you spent much time in these forums...

So what changes to the guidelines would eliminate them, without causing the volunteer reviewers undue headaches? 1) You MUST maintain your own caches. Stating or implying on the cache page that others may assist you in that will not be tolerated. 2) Stating on your cache page that Three Cache Monte is acceptable will not be tolerated. 3) Throwdowns are not allowed, even if the cache page says they are. Your log can be deleted for that. 4) Reinstate the wording "Just because you can hide a cache every 528 feet does not mean that you should." That would be a good start, at least. I used the word "reinstate" only on #4, but really, it could be used just as well on the first three, too. Those things never used to be considered acceptable, but permissiveness prevailed, and we are now seeing the results. I see #1 and #3 violated in a non geo art /power trail situation all the time. If you can't police it in a normal situation, how can you enforce it in power trail situations? Number one, in particular is massively violated around my area...can't blame that on power trails.

Of course, this has been going on for years without power trails in play. There are many "Team" cachers (husband/wife and/or family) logging caches. Husband on business trip in Italy logging caches on the same day wife and kids are logging caches along a bike path in Arizona....all under one team name. Perhaps, but a family could be geocaching for 10 years with one of them taking an occasional business trip while the other finds a few caches at home and it wouldn't add up to the number of caches one could "find" by driving a vehicle along the ET highway in a single day. Why should total numbers matter? Cheating is cheating, right? If ALL members of said "team" are not present to find and log the cache, then its not geocaching...right?

Yeah, but I think there's a difference between teams like this (where two or more people (usually related to each other) share an account) and the leapfrogging and other divide-and-conquer techniques that are sometimes used on number run trails. I've been on group geocaching trips where we signed an informal team name instead of having everyone sign their own names on every log. But everyone on our informal team was actually there at every cache. I completely understand the difference between the two situations...I am pointing out the tired argument "you have to hold the cache and sign the log with your own hands for it to be legitimate" WHEN family "teams " have been doing this forever and seem to get a "free pass" from the community (with wife caching in France while husband caches in Argentina and kid caches at home in California all on the same day) I don't agree with team split up caching, but why only people doing power trails should get persecuted for it is beyond me.

Of course, this has been going on for years without power trails in play. There are many "Team" cachers (husband/wife and/or family) logging caches. Husband on business trip in Italy logging caches on the same day wife and kids are logging caches along a bike path in Arizona....all under one team name.

One evening I drove to a cache area and parked in a nearby parking lot. There were no signs out warning of private property or no tresspassing, but the lot was on a "campus" (private commmercial school). The cache was located along a nearby right of way and not on the private land. As I was signing the log a security guard (armed, which is rare around these parts, usually they are like mall cops with a radio and maybe some pepper spray) arrived and told me I had to leave. He didn't notice the container in the grass. Rather than replce the cache while he watched me, I left in my car. Half hour later I parked in another spot and walked along the ROW and replaced the cache in the dark. While urban caching I often pull out a bag (I keep them in my pack) and start picking up trash...this always works.