DanOCan

I have rated a list when I found it to be useful, for no other reason than "Because I can."

Agreed, Waymarking is a very different beast. I make use of Waymarking when I travel and I want to find interesting places. On one trip to PA, I planned an entire day's road trip around covered bridges using Waymarks, something which would have been difficult to do on Geocaching. The key to Waymarking is the categories and ignoring the categories which you have no interest in. I wish the user interface would make this easier. I will log my Waymark visits if I use the site to find the location of interest, but I almost never go there after the fact to see if the place I was at happens to be listed as a Waymark. I think Waymarking is a success, it's just that the success criteria are very different from Geocaching.

This is a good question. There are some parallels between CB radio in the 1970s and Geocaching. CB: Started as a small niche market (truckers) which then exploded into widespread mass usage which eventually peaked and then went back into the hands of the few people who actually need it. Geocaching: Started as a small niche market (outdoor enthusiasts) which then exploded into widespread mass usage (power trails, etc.). Are we seeing the peak of its mass popularity and will it eventually decline and go back into the hands of those original outdoor enthusiasts? I think there are a couple of factors working against the current mass popularity of Geocaching. Externally, I think the political climate of fear which has taught everyday ordinary citizens to be suspicious of any activity or object that is deemed out of the ordinary. This hobby is based on hiding and finding containers hidden in public places and, by its very nature, raises suspicion. Not so much an issue when the hobby was played out in the woods, but as it became (and continues to become) more urban and more visible, it will only get worse. Internally, I think we will see a major fatigue factor grow in the hobby as the outdoor enthusiasts are turned off by having to wade through the ever increasing number of "just for another smiley" hides and the "numbers crowd" will grow bored when they realize there really is no reward for sitting atop some leaderboard in terms of caches found. Also, the numbers crowd can be better served by scanning barcodes and not having to bother with that whole annoying container. (The fact that the barcode scanning game doesn't need containers hidden also gives it a leg-up in the external climate I mentioned above.) I love Geocaching as a hobby and I think Groundspeak is a really great success story so I hope they are able to stick around without having to alter the game to fit into a new world order. If it goes back to being a niche player, I'd certainly continue to enjoy the opportunities it provides.

Yep, if you see DAN0CAN driving around Alberta, that's me!

Dipping isn't always about increasing numbers, but can often more accurately reflect the true travel of a bug. When I drove to GeoWoodstock one year, I dipped the TBs in the caches I did along the route to show how they got to Tennessee, rather than just one big hop. If I am going on a trip to New York but I have a couple days in Dallas first, why not dip the bug when I find a cache in Texas before leaving it in NY?

When I write my logs, I try and keep in mind three audiences: - The cache owner - Future seekers - My future self The other thing I keep in mind is how many different COs have been involved with my day of caching? If I do ten caches that were all owned by the same person, I may write a more detailed log for the first one and the other nine may not say much more than what time I was there. Or, I may use all ten logs to tell a longer narrative where one log leads to the next one. I figure the CO doesn't need to read ten logs all saying the exact same thing. If those ten caches are owned by ten different people, my ten logs may contain a lot of repeat information: what brought me to the area, who I was with, etc., along with cache-specific information. So, it all depends?

Me too. It's funny, when Souveniers were released there seemed to be a whole "Meh" reaction associated with them but now we see people engaging in all sorts of odd behavior to try and earn them. Intentionally logging on incorrect dates, rating Events with a Difficulty of 5, etc. I wonder if it is tied to the increased appeal of the hobby to the smartphone/app sect which seems to be more motivated by badges and achievements. While I have certainly attended a number of business meetings remotely, I can't fathom taking credit for attending a Geocaching event in the same manner, given that Groundspeak is supposed to be the "language of location". I wouldn't want my maps to reflect that I cached in a state I have never set foot in just because I joined in on a Skype call.

Yep, and if someone goes to look for it and reports an issue I will rectify the situation as needed. Until such time, a special return visit is not needed. There are a number of factors. Using my remote cache as an example: If someone were to report an issue with it, it could be several months before conditions allow me to access the area. The hike involves fording a river so if the water is running high I might wait until things are safer. If the expectation is that someone can run out at the drop of a hat and check on their caches, then all we'll have is caches in parking lots before long. Of course, this is a bit off from the main topic. Again using my remote cache as an example, if someone reports an issue and I disable the cache until I can get out there, I don't think this automatic email system will automatically result in my cache being archived at some arbitrary date in the future. I expect I will have lots of opportunities to interact with my reviewer and explain the situation.

I guess the boundary is whether or not the brute force method damages the cache or not. Sure, the continual removal and replacement of the screws will eventually damage the cache, but that's more the effect of wear and tear versus intentional "get in at all costs" damage. Not too long ago I found a field puzzle that was supposed to involve decyphering some missing musical notes using a xylophone and then using the numbers to open the lock. Well, with me being tone deaf, I just picked the combination lock instead. I didn't really considering it cheating as much as simply one of those "more than one way to skin a cat" situations. Since the lock and cache was in no way damaged, I don't think I did anything wrong. Now, if I had hacksawed the lock? There's where I crossed that boundary.

I'm with you on this one. I found one of my few Webcam caches back in 2008 and the other day I was looking back at it and I see we were one of the last groups to actually "find" the cache in the intended manner. Shortly after us the camera was disabled and for the next several years the logs are all from people taking selfies with their phones or pictures of the camera itself. I guess that's the Webcam equivalent of a throwdown to avoid a DNF. To the OP: Webcams were much more interesting in the days before smartphones and data plans, when you had to actually work with someone else to capture the webcam image. Given how technology has advanced, Webcams are really just another cheap smiley now. No need to bring them back, they're perfectly fine over on Waymarking. As for challenge caches being their own type? I'm firmly in the crowd that says "Sign the log, claim the Find" so I'd be fine if they never came back, despite the fact I have enjoyed completing a number of them over the years.

It's certainly not the way I want to play the game. What possible satisfaction could I achieve from logging a Find on a cache if I was off in a car somewhere else at the time some other part of the team made the grab? It doesn't bother me too much if others do it though. It's at least a little better than an actual armchair log since [you would hope] someone actually found the cache so they're not creating a false impression that a missing cache is really there. The copy and paste log thing is really driving me nuts. I miss the days when you could browse through the past logs and gather some hints when you can't find a cache. Now, more than ever, all the logs for a cache look the exact same as the logs for every other cache in the area because no one wants to bother writing an individual log that describes their experience looking for a specific cache.

I really don't want the hassle of carrying around extra cache containers and logs nor do I care to spend the time and money to create them just so the next cacher will have something nice to find. I make an effort to maintain the caches I hide and I expect others to do the same. I have a hard enough time remembering to bring a pen with me caching, never mind carrying complete caches in case I happen to stumble across one that appears to be missing. If the CO has left the game, who am I doing a favor for by placing a throwdown? Sort term a few people might get to collect a smiley they would have otherwise missed, but long term ownerless caches do a lot of harm to the game. Land managers and land owners really need to be able to reach the cache owner if something is wrong and having caches out there with owners who are gone or not engaged enough to respond really don't help us as a whole. If you don't find the cache, log a DNF. <-- My purist view

I don't know, disposable cameras used to be quite common in caches with the owners returning occasionally to develop the film and post the pictures to the cache page. I think if it's properly marked it has a good chance to surviving. As for the topic? Hmm, not sure. I might participate in some of the activities if they didn't involve a lot of effort.

One fellow who found one of my remote ammo can hides made this comment to me: "Given the sturdiness of an ammocan, the size of the logbook, and the remote location, I expect your cache might not need maintenance for the next hundred years or so." I think I'll check on it in 25 or so, just to be safe if no one logs it. People who hunt lonely caches understand the gamble they are taking and they accept they may be disappointed to find the cache they seek is no longer in place. I don't think the owner has any obligation to make the trek just to check on a cache because it hasn't been logged recently. I believe "I will check it only after a DNF" is the correct answer.

I see as of today, the numbers break down as follows: Fun With Favorites: 461,156 Put on Your Thinking Cap: 109,687 Let's Get Extreme: 91,064 High-Five for the Earth: 87,993 Meet Your Road Trip Crew: 79,669 Road Trip Hero: 51,421 I know for me, the D5/T5 could have been hard to obtain if not for the proliferation of challenge caches. I "earned" that souvenier by finding a simple micro cache just steps off a sidewalk -- a cache that would have been a 1.5/1.5 at most, except for the challenge requirement. Thinking Cap was also pretty easy for someone around here to get, thanks to the abundance of geoart. There really isn't much thinking required for those. I never did find an Earthcache -- I find most Earthcaches to either be incredibly difficult or incredibly boring so I don't do them very often. The only ones around home that I hadn't found would have been a 20-30km drive to a part of the city I don't normally have reason to visit. I decided that getting a couple of souvenirs on my profile simply wasn't worth it in that case.

If someone places a cache on top of a mountain and I climb the mountain, my accomplishment is not diminished just because someone else might rent a helicopter to deposit them on the summit or because someone eventually builds a ski lift to the top. When I find a cache, the accomplishment is mine to enjoy, regardless of what the future holds. The only people hurt by your actions are the future seekers who no longer have a unique and interesting Webcam cache to bring them to this spot. Sometimes (most times, I dare say) when Groundspeak changes a guideline they grandfather the existing caches. The fact that your cache was allowed to continue after GS stopped allowing Webcams to be published is evidence of this. The removal of ALRs was one of the rare changes that was not grandfathered and existing caches were to be brought into compliance. Frankly, it's surprising it took this many years before someone finally called you out on this. One minor edit to the cache page and the cache could have been around for another 11 years but instead you choose to pick up your ball and go home. From my perspective, someone was wrong in this case but it wasn't Groundspeak. Of course, you were perfectly within your rights as a cache owner to archive your cache so I guess who was right or who was wrong is a bit of a moot point.

I don't think it really counts as a Letterbox. "Letterboxing is another form of treasure hunting that uses clues instead of coordinates. In some cases, the letterbox owner has made their container both a letterbox and a geocache and posted its coordinates on Geocaching.com. These types of geocaches will contain a stamp that is meant to remain in the box and is used by letterboxers to record their visit." In the old days, I used to see a lot of Letterbox caches published as the "Start here, follow up the clues" but it seems to me they are mostly now actually at the posted coordinates and contain a letterbox stamp and may or may not be cross-listed on a letterboxing site. A true letterbox-style cache can be difficult to list on gc.com because of the GPS use requirement. While I can post coordinates for a parking area or trailhead and then give instructions, most times that location can be found without any GPS use at all. I think the Knowledge Books (or is it the Help Center?) which was quoted above makes the most sense -- usually a Mystery, sometimes a Multi. Around here I have seen them listed both ways. I don't really have a preference.

Brilliant! I'm going to steal that idea.

For me it is a combination of laziness and not feeling it is important. Other factors may also play into it, however. For example, in a high-visibility location I'm often trying to retrieve and sign as fast as possible and adding the date will take additional time. If it's a cache in a nice spot with a decent size logbook? I'll be sure to look up the proper date and even write a few words rather than just rushing off to the next one.

First, it depends. If I am going somewhere and I hope to do some caching while there, I'll often run a PQ centered over the area and do some sorting/filtering in GSAK. Look for Favorites, ignore things with lots of DNFs, etc. If I know I have limited time, I'll filter out anything with high Difficulty and/or Terrain. I'll take whatever survives all that filtering and export it to Basecamp to view it on a map to see what looks interesting. If I'm around my local area? I'll mostly browse the map on the Geocaching site and see if there are any interesting patterns that show up...strings of caches, an unfound cache in the middle of a pile of smileys, what's closest to home that I haven't picked off yet, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case already. After all, if you're just going to swap containers or drop your own anyway, why not? In our general area, I have seen Found It logs on power trails that stated "Container appeared to be missing but I want to claim the find anyway since we saw the spot it was hidden." Sure, there have been false finds on containers as long as there have been caches, but when it comes to PTs this stuff is becoming more and more mainstream.

Welcome to the game! The actual search will depend a lot on the style of hide and the location. I've driven/walked past locations without ever stopping to hunt versus spending a couple of hours looking for a really difficult cache. The best advice -- as already offered a couple of times -- search until the fun goes out of it. After the find? Many things come into play for me. - If it's the only cache I am planning on doing that day, I am more likely to spend more time at the spot versus rushing off to the next cache. - If the cache is in an interesting/nice location, such as a park or historic site, I'm much more likely to take time to enjoy the area than if it's hidden in a guardrail or a parking lot. - If the cache is older, I'm more likely to spend time to browse the logbook to see which oldtimers have found it. - If the cache is larger, I'm more like to read the logbook to see what people have written besides the date and their name. - If I don't have anywhere else to be that day, I'll spend more time versus if I found the cache while on the way to do something else. - If the cache has special meaning to me (hidden by a caching legend, really old cache, or required solving a difficult puzzle) I'll stop and savour the experience more. I recently did a hike and picked up 15 caches along the way. I lingered at two of those caches more than the others. Reasons? - They happened to be at a point where I was ready to take a bit of a break and doff my backpack and give the dog some water. - One was in a beautiful meadow with great views versus just being stuck in the trees. - One happened to have a really comfortable log to sit on located nearby. - At one the sun came out and it just felt good to sit back and feel it on my face and I wanted to enjoy the moment.

First, the "thousands of miles from home" part is irrelevant to me. My personal caching ethics do not change based on the cache's proximity to home. In this case, I would keep the Find. I was there and I made a legitimate attempt to answer the questions. I had a situation recently with a Virtual cache at a museum where one of the qualifications was to answer questions and one of the questions required seeing something inside one of the buildings. On the day we visited, that specific building was closed for maintenance so we couldn't get inside to get that answer. Despite answering the other two questions (and trying to talk a museum worker to let us into the building for two minutes to get the answer), I didn't feel comfortable claiming the Find in that case. One could argue the two cases are similar yet in one I take the smiley and in the other I don't. I guess I see a difference between gathering information and getting the answer wrong versus not getting the information at all.

Pretty much what I would do too. If the cache has a new GC number then it's fair game to be found again, even if the container hasn't changed. I'd pick off one or two when in the area but I certainly wouldn't make a special effort to go out and find them all again right away. Heck, that's how I deal with power trails anyway. Never ceases to amaze me what people will do to inflate numbers.

There may be nothing in the guidelines, but it is certainly enforced on a reviewer by reviewer basis. I hid a cache in November and it ended up being too close to a stage of a Multi so it couldn't get published. Four months later I went out and moved it so it didn't have proximity issues and submitted it again, still with the original November hide date and the reviewer told me I needed to change the date on it before it could be published. That's off topic though. As to this topic? I don't see any issue here. Someone replaced a cache with the owner's permission. Happens all the time. The fact that the cache was adopted, was unfound, was old, was high Terrain...all strike me as irrelevant. Heck, it's not even like Derek logged a Find on it. Seems we should be saving our precious forum outrage for a situation where someone brings a throwdown for an old unfound cache and then claims the Find. That would be a different situation.