DanOCan

Commenting here as another user experiencing this problem. I thought it was something i had done to corrupt the geocache_visits.txt file or something. Will follow the topic so I am aware of a resolution when one comes up, although I am worried that after working fine for years that it now has been over a month with no update on this bug.

Completed my first AL yesterday. Thought it was an OK experience but nothing that couldn't have already been accomplished with a Multi. Then discovered I got credit for five Finds for doing nothing more than reading a number on a sign post. I'd be in favor of keeping ALs around if they were like Walmart and didn't impact my caching stats, but this currently implementation makes me think the powers that be didn't learn anything from the days of Virtuals. Essentially free smileys with no proximity rules? Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?

I remember that from my early days. There was a park near me that I was going to place a cache in and someone else put one there and I remember thinking "Well, now I don't need to do it because that park has already been discovered." It was almost rude to place another one there because you were piggybacking off someone else's effort. Then I remember the first time I saw two caches in the same Wal-Mart parking lot and I knew the game had changed, and not for the better.

My final comment: A classless, ill-conceived move by Groundspeak and just another step towards the game being nothing but power trails. If it doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, Groundspeak isn't interested.

I suspect the cache pages are locked precisely so that those of us who are upset cannot add a note. Which completely overlooks the fact that Notes can be used for legitimate purposes. You'll see on GC43F3 that many of us were using Notes to track our Brass Cap finds after the decision about "no multiple logging" came into effect.

No kidding. I can understand that Stash-n-Dash doesn't really work if if can't move, but outforthehunt should have been given the chance to find a final permanent location for Leap Frog and allowed to pick one final location for the Brass Cap Cache where it could have remained. This was a classless move by Groundspeak and a slap in the face to one of the pioneers of caching. Unbelievable.

No kidding! When this first came up with the "no multiple logging" thing, the response I got to my complaint to Groundspeak was an explanation that these were Locationless caches incorrectly marked as Virtuals (as in the case of Brass Cap Cache) or Multis (as in the cases of Leap Frog and Stash-n-Dash) and had been "overlooked" when Locationless caches were archived. I couldn't believe that someone representing Groundspeak didn't even know enough about the history of the game to know that Locationless caches and moving caches were NOT the same thing.

I just checked my stats. 2017 is the first time since 2005 where I am not finding caches at a rate of one per day. 2016 was my lowest find total 2006. I certainly find myself caching less despite (or perhaps because) there are so many more caches to find now. The game has changed. Numbers dominate everything. People no longer seek out interesting locations to hide a cache, they look for a place where they can hide a series of caches. I see caches hidden just off the side of the road at the base of a fencepost listed with a Difficulty of 5, likely to make it easier for local cachers to achieve some bogus statistic for purposes of fulfilling a challenge. While the "numbers game" has always been a bone of contention as long as I can remember, it seems more and more new players come into the game with a mindset of competition -- I need to get higher numbers, I need to obtain every new souvenir that comes out. It is the Pokemon Go attitude of "gotta get 'em all". It's no longer about getting outside and finding new places. I used to plan road trips around caching. Now I find caching is less a planned activity and more of a "Hey, I have a couple of minutes to kill or I need something to do while waiting for my wife so I'll see if there is a cache nearby." Caching is not really an activity unto itself anymore, it's what I do while doing the real activity. The caching community used to be small and tightly knit. You would attend an event and know almost everyone. Now you see so many new people it's impossible to get to know many of them and many will disappear in a matter of months anyway. I'm sure as a company Groundspeak is doing better than ever but for me caching is dying. It's not the hobby I started 13+ years ago, it morphed into something that is getting harder and harder to recognize every day.

I have adopted a number of caches (three or four) that I had not yet found. Wasn't really a big issue as most of them were fairly simple hides and I was more interested in seeing them continue for "historical" purposes. As for your question, I'm sure Groundspeak gave it some thought and then decided to go ahead and do whatever they wanted in the first place.

If they're being routinely archived as you described, I wouldn't bother hunting for them anyway. Visiting boring caches in the same location over and over doesn't sound very appealing.

I'm much more likely to see TFTC logs from five different people. Or the same cut and paste logs that I saw on every other cache in the area.

That #2 rule is part of the problem. Whether GS reads the forums or not, the company routinely chooses to keep quiet and ignore its customers. I would say this is what gets the toxicity going a lot of the time. Yep. Several of us have written to Groundspeak and all we got back were canned responses. Unfortunately, we cannot give an exception for any caches in regards to the new logging rules. As you probably know, it is incorrectly listed as a virtual and is really a locationless cache. If it had been listed correctly, it would have been archived long ago with all of the other locationless caches. It has had a very long life. Fortunately for the fans of the cache, it is not being archived. None of the existing logs will be changed or removed. People who have already logged finds on it can continue to enjoy hunting for it in each new location, but log their visit and tell about their experience with a note instead of a find. Newer geocachers that have not yet attempted it, will be able to log their first find on the listing, and continue to log visits via a note. None of the fun experience needs to change. My response was to first point out that a cache like GC43F3 has never been anything like a Locationless. You can't just go out and find any Brass Cap and call it a Find. And, posting a Find on a Brass Cap doesn't mean it is now ineligible for other cachers to find that same cap. Maybe Groundspeak is so focused on the new user experience that they forget some of us have actually been around long enough to have actually found Locationless caches? I also asked two simple questions: - If logging a Note is just as much fun as logging a Find, why not do away with logs of all types and just have everyone use Notes? - Is this a case of "they can't" make an exception or "they won't" make an exception. Two very different things.

And what happens when someone wants to write a Note about an experience that did not result in a Find? I've had many brass capping adventures that resulted in me being several kms from the cache site.

I couldn't believe when the official response I got from Groundspeak HQ was to "Log a Note". If they think that's the case, then every log type should be removed and replaced with nothing but Notes. Get's rid of the whole multiple finds "problem".

If anyone is interested in just bumping numbers, they can go do a power trail. Heck, they don't even need to do the power trail since no one ever checks the logs on them anyway. Just sit at your desk and log away. Brass Capping has never been about numbers.

If you care about your Find count, you will watch for accidently duplicate logs yourself. If someone else doesn't pay enough attention to their logs to notice their find count is off, it clearly doesn't mean that much to them so why should I care?

Locationless: Find something and then post the coordinates. Brass Cap: Coordinates are posted and then go find it. Not the same thing at all. Logging a cache like GC43F3 is not a simple matter of finding any old survey marker and then logging a find.

Thanks for everything you have done for promoting caching for all these years. With 310 Finds on GC43F3, you know I have enjoyed your efforts! The decision not to allow exceptions for grandfathered moving caches is a very shortsighted one by Groundspeak. The powers that be are certainly more interested in promoting the game to the smartphone/newbie generation of cachers and has no respect for the history of the hobby and the pioneers like yourself that worked to make it grow. I was late to the game and didn't log my first cap until October of 2005, almost two years after I first started caching. Since that time GC43F3 has provided some of the best caching moments I have ever experienced. Many of my most memorable road trips were pure "brass hunts". Caching is losing something very special with this change.

Bingo! It is clear the app users drive the agenda at Groundspeak now. There does not appear to be any other reason for this change, which did not improve functionality in any way, shape, or form. I am sure there are many good backend reasons for unifying the app and web experience. Certainly must be easier to support. I think it's a real shame the way the game is moving though. As the long-time users become less and less of the Geocaching population, the newer players will continue to be the market being appealed to. We know the forums are not a statistically representative sample of cachers. I compare my wife and myself, with me being the long-time hardcore cacher and she being newer and much more casual. I'll only cache with my phone if I don't have my trusty Oregon loaded, she has never owned a dedicated GPSr and relies solely on her iPhone. I'm sure she won't even really notice anything has changed the next time she logs onto the site. She's much more representative of the caching masses than I am. I'm going to miss the old icons.

I cast my vote to keep it at Groundspeak HQ as a relic and to leave it archived. I think it's great that the original container was recovered but I suspect if restored to the original location it will simply be targeted for muggling again and the next time we might not get so lucky as to find it.

After reading the cache page, that sums up my feeling too. Of course, I feel that way about most different/new type caches -- when they're first new and unique they are fun but once everyone gets in on the "me too" bandwagon they get old quickly. I can add challenge caches, geoart, power trails, parking lot micros, etc. to the that list.

That sums it up well for me. Sure, I wouldn't mind seeing the CO disable the cache, but based on this: "The cache is behind the orange stuff but not really near any construction." (As per the CO) And... If I approached ground zero and felt my going for the cache is a "no harm, no foul" situation I would use my judgement and decide whether to find it or not. I don't necessarily need the CO to make the decision for me by disabling the cache. I don't necessarily think anyone did anything wrong in this case, the CO or the OP.

Interesting. I just noticed this today on my profile. I'll chalk it up to my ChromeIPass extension but it's odd that it was never an issue before.

I tend to do these things on my PC and I use Garmin's Basecamp.

My standards are lower than yours. As long as by claiming my find I am not violating the spirit/intent of the cache, I will claim the find even if I did not sign the log. Examples: - Cache is up a tree and I spot the container from the ground but do not climb the tree to reach the container? I'll post a Note. - Ammocan is frozen to the ground and frozen shut? I'll post a Found It.