RufusClupea

I'm glad to see that there are some COs who actually read the logs (without prompting by a NM/NA). Many I've found have strings of several (2-6) Notes describing problems that aren't addressed until someone (yeah, sometimes me--sometimes someone else) actually posts a NM/NA.

No comment about who's in the bi... back seat. Beautiful ride though... looks like it cost more than my car.

Thank you!

I'm sorry, but that seems awfully facile; one could make the same argument for most any situation where the cache is extremely well hidden. And it doesn't answer my question. Facile - ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial. I wasn't aware that an indication on the cache page that a cache is buried constituting a hint as to the nature of the hide was a complex issue. It's the either/or scenario that seems facile. I've already explained why.

The confusion (in my mind) is the term "cache page". I've seen it applied both before and after publication. The rest is in my OP.

You may have another problem with the recent change/clarification of guidelines:

Yes there is. When you start to type in the search window, a drop-down appears that begins with All Content. At the bottom of that list is Advanced Search. On the Content Search tab, the first choice is + Search by Author. Fill in the author, and the rest of the form, and there ya go.

+1 The way I read it, it may go even further (more restrictive) than that.

I'm sorry, but that seems awfully facile; one could make the same argument for most any situation where the cache is extremely well hidden. And it doesn't answer my question.

Careful...

Dunno.

Uh-oh... Just met a GC at an event who's into finding (and signing) years-old archived caches. He's been doing pretty well at it...

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that...(clarity). If I weren't correct about the lack of clarity, they wouldn't have clarified--or (felt they) needed to. I don't see it as trying to "get away" with something (I don't do that); I see it as being creative, and some of the decisions of TPTB as stifling creativity. OTOH, I see the relaxing of the buried cache policy as capitulation moderation (can't find the right word )--allowing some creativity... sort of. It's definitely human nature to seek to exploit in order to improve chances of/for survival and preservation of species.

Yes that would be the only real way to ensure. Although, some might see that as a 'hint' that it could be buried HINT? Looks more like a blatant giveaway, if.... Is this explicit permission on the cache page just for review/approval purposes (only seen/given away to the reviewer), or will it remain as part of the published cache page. If the latter, it does seem like a dead giveaway. ???

Ok, now that there's some explicit clarification by TPTB, I'll retract. Nice to see burying may be an option though.

I think "other type of log for geocachers to record their visit" is open to interpretation. That said, I'd still go with something a bit more... indelible--the concern being the action of the water abrading the signatures off of the "log". YMMV.

Yes, it is. I've been filtering my PQs to only include terrain ratings of 1.5 or less (while I could just as easily do that through my GPSr, it allows me to specify larger radii PQs--hence fewer of them for the same square mileage), yet I would say most of the caches rated 1.5 are actually 3 ("too difficult to ride a bike due to elevation changes or significant overgrowth"). A few years (decades?) ago, it wouldn't have made a difference to me, but with some years (and accompanying infirmities), T=3 is my making/breaking point. Some I can make--others I can't even attempt (and I'm--regrettably --well past my climbing days). Bottom line, Terrain ratings are the best (albeit flawed) way to tell if a particular cache is physically doable or not. Descriptions & logs can help sometimes, but IME are even less reliable than T ratings. As always, YMMV.

I'd like to help, but I haven't been there in... well... decades, and I'm not sure how often anyone actually reads posts on this sub-forum. Goggling salem visitors guide brings up quite a bit that might help.

Considering your location, also keep in mind that liquids of any kind freeze during winter months. This includes things like ink (in pens/markers), some first aid components (cremes, ointments, disinfectants), and others--think it through. Things like candles/crayons can melt during summer months (with the sun beating down on an airtight(?) metal can. We tracked down a few scout-related/themed caches near us too, and they were similar to colleda's mention. They also requested any scouts (or former scouts) include their troop #s in the cache log (in the container). You might peruse existing scout-themed caches (most have "scout" or "troop" in their names) for some other ideas.

First, I went to goggle and searched, "best gps for geocaching" to learn what I could about these things--brands, styles, features, etc. Then I read several other articles comparing/reviewing/rating different models. Then I made up an Excel spreadsheet listing all the models I read about and all the features they had (whether pertaining to geocaching or not), ratings, prices, etc. Then I went to Amazon, and made note of customer ratings there (both good & bad, sometimes numbering in the hundreds to thousands), and plugged them into the spreadsheet. All this easily narrowed my choice to a couple of models. I came back here, read some discussion threads about my final candidates, asked a few specific questions and made my choice--the best choice FOR ME. Lots of work? You bet--it's called homework. Bottom line, instead of relying on the recommendations of a few people who aren't me, I've made my own decisions, am happy with my choice, and sleeping well with it. YMMV.

+1. elmbeard, have you ever been to the rural/semi-rural US (or Canada)--or just to the cities? We're lousy with town centers (and villages). Sure, some are more developed than others, but many are nearly as quaint as they were 100-200 years ago--even some suburbs. Town Centers of America

Likewise, but I'm not usually that lucky. Have no idea why I've not gotten a reaction--especially after taking up geocraching [sic.] OK, we've hit on poison ivy & poison oak; there's one more that I know of with a range similar to that of PI--Poison Sumac, which is/can be more difficult to identify. (YMMV) I just found this site, which has information about all three. The Poison Ivy, Poison Oak, Poison Sumac Site

Well, I don't have any plans to pursue this untamed ornithoid either, but while I doubt it's been muggled, anyone know the chances of it being "polar beared"?

Often, and usually for the exact same reason: misrepresented Terrain ratings. I don't know if it's because people don't read the descriptions at all, just read the first sentence and ignore the rest, or they just don't give a carp. Prolly some combination of all three. I've discussed this with many cachers at recent events, and while they generally agree, most don't care because it isn't an issue for them. One fellow told me that--in his experience--most cachers don't read the descriptions; in their minds, caches are 1.5, 3, and 5 (easy, average, and hard). Maybe so, but to make matters worse, on the occasions I've tried to politely point out to a CO that their terrain rating is incorrect (and why, citing the Help Center descriptions), I've been--without exception--ignored, even when they'll make other changes/corrections to the cache description.

I've been involved with quite a few forums/message boards with this feature, and while I'm not into that particular social media aspect of them, I've noticed that they all seem to use that exact same (accept/reject) terminology. There are several words that they could use other than "reject", which makes me wonder if there isn't more than a little psychology going on. Personally, I've always preferred decline. As always, YMMV.