Deepdiggingmole

I too have noted many micros being listed as small - however I would suggest this is a more recent thing - where new cachers are finding more and more nanos and these are classed as micro (a pity GC hasn't considered a new size 'nano' ) so when they put out their own caches - filmpots and petlings etc they compare these to the nano and consider they must be small - but not looking at the guidelines to clarify.

The guidelines have for a long time given the capacity as the guide, and they haven't changed - and I do think these are used to distinguish between the various items that are put out there but also to enable the finder to know what they can expect to place in there if they have swapables ot trackables Using them just as 'a suggestion' would indicate that a cacher could choose to opt for 'large' when they only have a small cliplock because they fancy putting out a cache with the size large - then you have an example that is misleading

Can I leave a TB ? - One of the main reasons for the OP - making sure the size given does reflect whether a finder can expect to leave a TB or not - I did a series not that long ago which suggested all the containers were small but mainly reg or large - the majority were micro due to being similar to the examples in the OP As for the 'if additional camo is involved' - for a lot of the handcrafted caches the surprise is in the finding - so giving away what to find reduces that surprise ;-)

Which is what I suggested however - if you want to leave TBs 'Other' doesn't help - if the inner container is big enough to hold TBs then calling it by the size of that inner container tells the finder that a TB can be left or not - though other is a good alternative as said

Thank you for vote of confidence Though I agree with the issue around 'other' - I was only suggesting when the 'outer' container has been handcrafted by the owner and not just using any old stump or rock - but I would like to think (hope) most COs when using items already in situ like logs or rocks dont consider them in the sizing anyway

I have read a few threads regarding cache sizes and what would this be, what would that be etc This post is about caches that have the additional exteriors that have been crafted to hide the plastic (or similar) containers I have always used the capacity guidelines for determining the size of any cache I hide - however with the various hides I have, not all that you find, I would consider part of the 'container' for the purpose of grading the size Examples :- 1) I have a solid log which is 50cm long and 20cm diameter (15,000 cubic cm - if it were a cylindrical container - 15L) however I have cut part of that away and hinged the smaller part back on then inside dug out an area to fit a small 950 ml clip lock which contains a small lgbook and enough room for a few TBs - I call this a small because the capacity (the space where I can store the logbook and anything else) falls within the small sized cache as per the guidelines. 2) I have a wooden post 120cm long 10cm diameter (if a cylinder 9.4L) - sawn two thirds of the way up with fixings so that the top can sit on the lower part to make to look like a complete post - drilled inside the bottom half a hole big enough to take a small petling style tube. I call this one micro 3) A large stump about 50cm diameter (and wider at the bottom) and about 40cm high (as before approx 80L) a hole cut out underneath big enough to hide a 1.5 ltr clip lock - I would class this as a regular though the low end of regular - some would still call this small but the guidelines say otherwise In all cases I have seen other COs call these large (especially the last example) or regular - because, they say, the whole thing is what dictates the size as then that is what cachers will look for I would argue that what has the space to hold the logbook/sheet and other items is what determines the size - taking the second example - you could only fit in a logsheet in that petling so how can that be a large (or regular) since you can not add anything else - the wooden post is just the 'camoflage' as it were - whether you crafted that yourself or happened to find a post with a hole - the petling is the container Unfortunately the guidelines though specific with the capacity and it is that which I have always followed - it does not make it clear when you have these outer camoflage items thoughts

Your cache - your choice I do look at my stats and I do work towards completing the next grid etc and so the DT of a cache is important - however if it changes I accept that that is a decision that the CO has made based on review and feedback Project GC have a tool that gives a list of caches (that you have found) where the DT has changed and though this list is limited (as the tool was installed 7 years ago it can only search a limited period) it did show me that of the 28K finds that I have (probably less than that due to the limitatins) 1080 of these have had their DT changed - that would mean my DT grid has gone up and down and sideways during that period - but I suspect that it has all balanced out in the end so I have never worries about it. As a CO I too take feedback on board and have altered the DT on a couple of my caches accordingly The COs who I do find a little frustrating are those that change the DT with the seasons - I can understand their reason behind it - and though some might think they get one DT when its the winter and others have another DT when its summer - do they not realise it changes for everyone and when they archived that cache or when they do archive that cache whatever DT it ends up with EVERY finder ends up with that DT irrespective of when they found it !!!!

Sorry - I thought ALs were all part of that thing called Geocaching - I am sure all the ones I have done have been added to my find count ?

That is happening more and more nowadays - COs never used to put that as it was a known rule and rarely an issue - however more and more with COs having to deal with people not signing they are adding that to their cache description - if a cacher finds their log deleted and they look at the cache page they can see that they can't argue the matter

Yea - sorry that is what happens sometimes when you highlight some text - it doesn't always attribute to the correct author

Well, well - it seems sometimes these things are picked up and I understand that there is a now a new feature on the app headed 'play nearby locations' and once turned on you can interact with all locations from nearby adventures on the map See attached - now I can see the locations of the AL I am in (in red) but other locations from other ALs are shown in blue - if you click on a blue one as you pass a pop up asks if you want to go to that AL Exactly what I was requesting in the OP where you get a saturation of ALs like this Thank you

Yea, maybe - but I don't think it should be dismissed as an idea - if the rest of us decide that it isn't worth bothering about as an issue then it will esculate and not signing will become a much bigger issue and will create much more of a headache for COs who do make something of it. I had one cacher who wrote in his log that he didn't sign - when I queried it with him his response was very negative and basically said 'why am I making an issue out of it, don't I want anyone to find my caches' - he didn't want to acknowledge that he had gone against that rule and so his log got deleted - He has since come back to other trails I have and signed them all !!

Not disagreeing with the comment - however it is 'optional' - there is no requirement to log your find online as there is to physically sign the logsheet I am aware of several people who have found many caches (hundreds and some thousands) but have not logged a single find online - they have kept their own record - they may have even amended the icon online to identify the ones they have found (can be done) but no smilies or even DNFs However yes, for the majority of cachers logging the finds is important - for those that do challenge caches, imperative - For COs also useful for keeping up to date with activity I have heard from many newcomers that they thought logging online was an alternative to physically signing !!!! However as has already been stated the OP was about the importance of getting the 'sign the logsheet' message across.

I recently came across an old cache that I used to own but adopted out when I moved away - I noted that it had been archived - due to the cache appeared to have gone missing and the current CO didn't get out to maintain it, however several months later a new cache was put in the location (not the same place but close) - My interest was piqued when I read some logs saying that the logsheet on this newish cache was full of signatures I took a trip out and found the cache and it turned out to be the container and logsheet from the one that got archived I suspect that what has occurred here is - find the cache, take it away and use it to create new cache with new cache page etc. I tried to find out if that is what has occurred but I suspect my enquiries has caused a lot of thinking and the container was replaced and all knowledge denied However I suspect that this type of thing has happened a lot all over - some getting relocated but several caches disappearing but interest lost and a new cache never created

Difficult to answer as there has only been the one app with this game that since its existence appears to have created more of this not signing phenonemon - the fact that they haven't introduced any means of ensuring that signing is required means surely it has got to be given a try. My intitial thought behind the idea was that it would make them think more that that is what is required and isn't an optional part of the game - I hear the argument that barefootjeff has put forward that it wont work so maybe instead of a 'reminder' it could be a tickbox - 'did you sign the logsheet yes/no' If they tick 'no' then the app would not allow the logging process to continue - and yes I hear the cries of 'oh, they'll just tick the yes box whatever as they know they can't log otherwise' but a little extra comment - 'The CO can delete your log if you haven't signed' may help

Can this be acknowledged by anyone at HQ and consideration for this sort of addition to the APP be taken ?

That maybe the case - but if a pop up message appeared to remind them about signing this may make them think about the log type at that point too If they didn't find it and can't be bothered to change it then the CO deleting their log isnt an issue

Yes, I have seen that too - it says a lot about the lack of background reading into what this is all about

Good to hear - I too message all cachers who obviously haven't signed logs - mainly because if i don't or anyone else for that matter they wont know any different. All those COs who ignore the 'I forgot my pen' or 'didn't sign' aren't helping new cachers by pointing out their error

So you haven't signed the log - so if the CO went and checked that log and saw that you hadn't signed what proof have you got of finding that cache ? Do you also add a NM if the log is full to alert the CO that it needs replacing as am guessing you dont replace the full log yourself, else you would sign the new blank replacement. I have on occasion when the log is sodden or too full to find space - made a signature on something (usually my finger) and taken a photo of that along with the logsheet as it is and log the find (along with an accompanying NM log) - however I am mindful that the CO may choose to delete my log - most don't in those sorts of circumstances as I wouldn't - but the difference is that an attempt is made to leave a signature and proof is provided of this The thrust of my OP is that so many newcomers to this game are under the impression that signing is not required amd there is no proof that they have found the cache The latest one I had where I have not found anything written on the logsheet was simply a 'thumbs up' emoji on the online log !!!

Beat me to it :-)

I have two trails of hand made and quirky / sneaky caches as well as a webcam cache - between them they have got me 1400 pts on the latest wheel of challenge - happy with that :-)

As a CO I have noticed a marked increase in new cachers not signing logsheets / logbooks because they are not aware that it is a requirement. I have noted two main reasons for this 1) New cachers just using the app are not aware as they haven't gone onto the website and gone through the various help pages - yes, there are mentions on the app but not enough The APP needs to have a pop up window for the first few logs for a new cacher saying something along the lines of 'Did you remember to sign the logsheet' and also 'You can not log this online cache if you haven't signed the logsheet' 2) Many COs are not bothered and don't check and so when new cachers don't sign but log online and nothing happens (i.e log not deleted, or at least the cacher is sent a message to query it) then the finder thinks this is how it is done and continue in that vein I am often able to determine when a cacher has or hasn't signed when i receive found logs and usually my instinct about those that haven't is right - so as a CO when I do question it (I always message the cacher first) I am often bomarded with "you dont need to", "there wasn't a pen/pencil in the cache so I didn't", "why are you querying this, its all about having fun" and as a CO I am being made to feel I am in the wrong and being lambasted by cachers for spoiling their game. I should not be made to feel that way. Sorry - but I am not in the wrong - I am doing what is required of a CO - it isn't a case of everyone plays their own way either (I hear that so often) - you dont see soccer players picking up the ball and running with it because they 'are playing their own game' soccer has rules - as does geocaching and really the one fundamental rule since it all started - sign the logsheet before you log the find online I cant see a way round ensuring all COs make sure their caches are being signed - I have a message to that effect on all my cache pages so maybe that is something that is auto-added to all new cache pages prior to publication (except those exempt of course - virtuals etc) There has been a lot of 'press' in blogs and the like about hiding caches, favourite points and encouraging hiding caches but I do not feel that COs are being backed up by HQ when it comes to this issue of ensuring logs are being signed If the APP made more of ensuring that caches are being signed before cachers logged the finds online then it would become more the norm for new cachers I appreciate I am probably in the minority that feels this way - but if more was made of this so that signing no longers becomes a problem (as it used to be 10 years ago) then for the majority who dont care it still wont make any difference to them Please can HQ consider getting this built within the app

Note to self : - dont read anything on the FAQs as promises

Yup - it is there (the discrepancy that is) and still there 15 hours later - though I guess I should really wait the full 24 hours :-) My main thought was that this discrepancy could be a factor in the issue around caches not being picked up on the first day of a new souvenir challenge - in this instance linked to favourite points (though I am aware we are a few days in so my example would not have featured at that early stage) However I have noted that the fav point given for this cache has been picked up in the challenge wheel list and so the figures given in the Stat Bar section are not linked to challenges stats