The Magna Defender

Everything is fine as it is. Don't fix what isn't broken ?

Some of us didnt get chance to do the old one. ?

Good luck in your appeal. Hope it gets unarchived as I haven't been to it yet and was saving it for a cold winters night.

How does he really know hes FTF though if he didn't unrol the logbook due to not having tweezers. ?

If someone hasnt signed a log on one of my caches, it's down to them to decide to claim the cache or not. If they didn't have a pen whoopee soo I've been there. If they're sat in their armchair, then it's only themselves they are cheating. Though it's very irritating when people clearly log a cache that isn't there, but that's a complete different issue

I have a series of Premium Member Only caches, some of these series are ammo boxes and one hide is a hollowed out stump with a box on the inside of it. Earlier in the year I had one ammo box disappear which I put down to being too open to muggles, I had one problematic hide that seemed to disappear as soon as it was replaced, literally the same day. I moved that particular hide and it has lasted. The series hasn't been done since early June and someone has gone round today and DNFed 5 of the caches. Two being the last remaining ammo box (in a secluded location) and the hollowed out stump. The stump they've removed the box but not the stump. This tells me its Geocachers who are removing these hides. I took a look at the Audit log and one name appeared which has been looking at the series intently for 2 months. This account has been a member for a year, is a premium member however hasn't found or hidden any caches. My question - can HQ trace the IP address of that account ?

Weren't you told by the reviewer to only log a NM or NA when you've actually been to the cache yourself ? You also didn't answer my previous question. How do you know the cache owner hasn't visited GZ in 12 months? Do you have a camera set up at each of his 986 cache hides? If so could I borrow some as someone keeps nicking my caches ?

The logbook was reported as dry in march. Therefore the logbook and the newspaper will have been signable. The thing that seems to offend you most is the fact the CO logged OM without visiting GZ. How do you know he hasn't been to GZ? On the other side of the coin, if you are having an issue with a CO virtually logging an OM, then how is this different from you logging a NM or NA without visiting GZ?

Please refer back to my evidence. Logbook reported as wet. Then logbook reported as dry and signable Then logbook reported as wet. The second comment regarding the logbook being signable nullifies your "no maintenance for a year" comment. You are making this person out to be a poor cache owner. Why should a cache owner rush out due to potentially false information.

Actual evidence: Log reported as wet may 2017 Log reported as signable march 2018 Log reported as wet again June 2018 Today Armchair NM logged by thread poster without visiting GZ and acting on out of date second hand information in an attempt to cause defamation of character to a popular cache owner who sets quality caches and regularly performs maintenance.

The ones I have seen locally to northwest England and Yorkshire are all unnecessarily complicated ones where you either have to drive round numerous stages for miles or walk round posh houses or buildings which are only open during certain hours. Surely the idea of a virtual was to put them at places a container wouldn't last, such as a hard to get to island or a summit where a container isn't possible... But no they'd rather waste their virtual cache on a fancy building where a multi would have been more appropriate.

To that example.... I agree with mr microdot. Most caches by that CO have been archived. Absolutely disgusting. A kick to the teeth of worthy COs.

Yes it takes real effort to just archive a cache as soon it needs maintaining. It's a bit of a kick to the teeth of cache owners who have maintained caches for over ten years. As usual with the virtual it's a poor example again, with it being a multi stage one just to look at a services tower from varying angles. This is Lancashires only new virtual. I'm proud. I don't understand why all the new virtuals seem to be long and complicated with numerous stages. Whatever happened to a single photo virtual ?

Please elaborate

removing the FTF part of the game would sort out a lot of politics between finders and hiders.

itd be good if this project was mentioned on facebook geocaching groups. Many of the people on this forum haven't cached for a long time and are apathetic to the game. IE "in the good old days" way of thinking. These opinions could skew or bias any results of this project and it could be better advertised.

According to my local reviewer, the Dt ratings are nothing to do with reviewers. They have even been used in farcical puzzles listed as T5 but the cache isn't a T5 and the T5 is only relevant to the puzzle somehow.

Yeah they can't be in phone boxes anymore because of NIMBYs and a now ex reviewer concocting a phoney story about a BT maintenance man finding a cache in a phone box and reporting it head office.

Phone boxes were a popular series like that locally, until two locals conspired with a now ex reviewer; a phony story about BT having a problem with phone boxes. The "big box little box" series was quickly destroyed just because of two NIMBY locals who didn't want a phone box series in their local area.

I've tried the ignore function for ages on the forum and want one on the site but get shot down any time I recommend it.

Ftfs are just for those people with too much time on their hands ?

Agreed.

Why not, there are more deserving hiders who have amassed thousands of favorite points over years of hiding and have arranged events in their local community. Just because a hider has many hundreds of hides doesn't mean they are a power trail hider. I have many on hills, ones in tunnels and have hidden ammo boxes at considerable expense. In the eyes of the algorithm I'm a power trail hider apparently not worthy of a virtual.

6 archived already? They were probably part time cachers who had no idea what they were doing as they are no longer participating in the community or the caching. Waste of virtuals when there are worthy people out there who wouldn't squander the opportunity.

I've just done a full run of my caches and got rid of all the TB ghosts. Its the first time I've done it ever, and cleared about 15 TBs out of the system. I agree with keeping the inventory up to date, but I don't agree that CO's should be expected to drop everything to go and check an otherwise fine cache just because some idiot hasn't logged a TB properly. If a log comes through saying there is no TB in the cache, then I will mark it as missing. I wouldn't want to see loads of veteran caches archived just because of TB ghosts caused by one day family app cachers.