redsox_mark

Then there are events like this, which are generally allowed (and I think Groundspeak would encourage). This event had a social aspect, but was mostly about introducing new people to geocaching. Geocaching Fun - Around Longrun

It was thrown into the conversation, but I agree wasn't part of your comment. "The percentage of puzzle caches has increased dramatically with lower average number of founds. What do the statistics for the European countries look like for traditionals only?" It sounds like in Twentse Mug's area, they are seeing a lot of new caches are puzzles, and puzzles get found less. So that could result in less finds overall in the area. Which is an interesting comment. If you have a lot of keen puzzle hiders but not so many keen puzzle finders, that could cause an overall drop in finds. Particularly if over time traditionals get archived and are replaced with puzzles.

Locally, I have often seen geocaches published at the same time and in the area of an event, and this mentioned on the cache page. The way I look at these (and I think our reviewers too) is that the event isn't created to find these caches, but the caches are hidden as a "bonus", and as a sort of extra incentive to encourage cachers to attend. Obviously, most people attending the event will also find the new caches. I have also seen events which were linked to some planned caching afterwards, and the cache page mentions it. Interestingly, this recent one https://coord.info/GC7NVT5 says "Some will be doing a further trip to Melksham by water", without mentioning that there are 9 geocaches along that stretch of river, and that is the reason for the trip. Perhaps the owner was advised not to mention geocaching. So maybe you can say "after the event some of us are planning a walk along the blah blah trail"...... and not mention there are caches there.

Agree.. and even year to date has some lag. I.e. most everyone is caught up with their 2017 logging. So Jan 1 to date (for any date) for 2017 is a pretty stable number. But for 2018, Jan 1 to date will be missing some logs from people who haven't logged them yet. So a small drop like the -4% for caches found in the UK could be largely from outstanding logs.

My question to the OP is why does it bother you? There have been many threads before about different preferences for logging a DNF, a note, or even nothing. Lots of different preferences and opinions, including when does the search start etc. I've posted on this subject many times before and don't want to repeat the detail, but in short I'll log either a note or a DNF depending on a number of factors. An example where I'd log a note (or possibly nothing) is where I didn't even reach GZ, and the reason for that is non-geocaching related.

Whilst it isn't generally a major topic, I've seen 4 types of discussion which come up every so often: (Names are fictitious): 1. "Specific cache X seems abandoned by the CO, it's a mess or missing". In this case everyone encourages them to log a NM and or NA. 2. "Bob never maintains his caches. I just found another of his which is in bad shape". In this case there might be some grumbling about Bob.. as well as suggestions to NM or NA the specific caches. 3. "Stan is a great CO. When any hint of an issue is reported, he is out there quickly". In this case, everyone agrees that Stan is great. 4. "Fred is a helpful cacher. He always carries spare logs, and he's helped me maintain some of my caches". In this case there is agreement on how helpful Fred is. Generally nobody says "Fred shouldn't do that, you as the CO should maintain them yourself". Very occasionally this happens: 5. "Did you see that Carl logged a whole bunch of NAs on caches he didn't even visit"? In this case, most don't approve of Carl's actions. Unless maybe it was on Bob's caches, and someone says "well, Bob's never going to maintain them so just as well to get rid of them". I would summarize the mood locally as: A. Cachers think maintenance is important, and value COs who do it. B. They also value when other than the CO helps out. C. No issues with cachers raising NM or NAs, but a cacher who seems to try and clear them up by armchair logging NM or NA isn't well thought of.

https://coord.info/GCGY2Z is now archived and locked.

Either caches are in better shape where I am than where you are, or I'm better at filtering. I would say at least 80% of the caches I find meet those criteria. Well, with the exception of accurate size.... I find inaccurate sizes a lot. But that is only a minor annoyance for me. Of the other 20%... half of those I should have been able to predict, but I went looking for it anyway. The other half was either a good location with a non-maintained mess of a cache, or a hide location I didn't like (and could not tell this from the map).

I agree with some of this. For sure there are "gems" which I've found, and those are special. I also try to focus my caching on caches I'm likely to enjoy. But I also cache for the majority of caches which I find, which may not be "gems", but that I still enjoyed. I'm one of those who was a hiker first, then found caching. When caching close to home, I choose mainly based on location. If I enjoy the walk, I'll enjoy the cache even if the container is ordinary, or has a wet log. If the location is even better than I expected and the container/hide is unique/clever, then it is a gem for me. There are some COs who I know all their caches are gems, these are to be treasured. When I'm travelling it's a bit different; I still like the walk but I'm driven more by locations I'd like to visit or look interesting. Occasionally I go looking for a cache, which I believe in advance, most likely, I won't enjoy very much (solely based on the location). Though sometimes there is an unexpected "gem" here; such an elegant or clever hide that the location (unless really horrible) doesn't really matter. Most of time though the experience as I suspected, and I ask myself "why am I doing this". I try to limit looking for caches like this. One type of cache which torments me a bit are puzzle caches. I like solving puzzles. I don't like looking for caches in parking lots. What do I do when I've solved (and enjoyed solving) a puzzle, and now see the location is in a parking lot? I generally look for it, as I want to complete the process on that puzzle. And I remind myself that's why I'm doing it. I don't enjoy the actual search, but I enjoy being able to mark that puzzle cache as found. Anyway, I think we are all agreed, try and focus on what you like, and you''ll be a happier geocacher. Spend too much time finding caches you don't like there is danger you get burned out on caching.

I don't try to promote the game or encourage others to play, but I do tell them about it and that I enjoy it. Three main ways this happens: 1. Family or Good friends of mine soon learn about it, as it comes up when we discuss what we do for fun. 2. Some work colleagues I tell about it so they understand why on the way back from lunch I need to take a specific route and "look for something". 3. Friendly muggles I meet in the field who ask what I'm doing, I will tell them. I can think of three geocachers who learned about it from me, all are very active. One is a close relative, the other two work colleagues. Several others were interested enough to try it, but didn't become regular cachers. A couple of others are happy to join me on the occasional cache walk, but never go on their own nor did they ever open a geocaching.com account.

Correct, there is no "report" button. As CO, you can delete a log. If you see an account who appears to be doing widespread "bogus" logging you can contact Groundspeak. Write to Geocaching.com's Community Relations staff by sending an email to contact@Groundspeak.com with full details of what you've observed.

Groundspeak does take action when an account is reported who is doing "serial bogus logging". E.g disabling the account and mass deleting logs.

I understand the sentiment here, but I still see a fundamental difference. I'm nearly 60 and don't climb very well, so call me Fred. If I'm out on my own and there is a cache I can't get to, of course I don't log it as found. If I've made arrangements to be part of a team, or to use some equipment that the CO didn't foresee, or whatever, to get my name on the log, that is different. I see it as different not only in the letter of the rules (I've signed the log), but also in spirit. I have, one way or another, found a way to get the cache. I see the argument that if I didn't contribute at all, then I don't "deserve it". But generally I will contribute, and where do you draw the line? Most simple case is I am with a friend who did the climb, but I gave him a boost up and directed him from below. That made it easier for my friend, and also make him feel more safe than if he did it alone. Is that enough to be in the spirit? I might think yes, the CO might think no. Now for me personally, if I really did nothing to help - let's say I just happened to turn up as another group was signing the log of a tree climb cache, and they offer me to sign the log.. I wouldn't do it. But exactly where one draws the line is a personal choice. I have some friends who want to find a SCUBA cache but they don't SCUBA. They are building a underwater "rover" which they will drive to the cache by remote control and sign the log. I think it would be much easier for them to take SCUBA lessons, and if they succeed, they will not be doing as the CO intended. But they will deserve that find if they succeed. To me, the only sensible approach is for finders to log as they feel is right in spirit of the game. And COs to accept their decisions. I don't see it productive for a CO to get upset or offended if someone found it differently than they intended - whatever the type of cache.

As a CO, I don't own any high terrain/tree climbing caches. As a finder, I am happy to log a find with a clear conscious if I feel I contributed. For example, a multi stage cache which had several stages needing different physicality. I did one stage which involved squeezing into a cave. My friend did another which involved climbing a tree. I didn't feel each of us needed to do everything. Another example was a cave cache which involved difficult climbing with ropes. I was invited by friends, at first I declined as I felt the physical task was beyond me. My friend encouraged me to come along as they needed someone to help above ground with the ropes. I agreed, and I logged the find (they sent the cache up to me on a rope to sign). Here I did feel slightly guilty, but I was part of the team and they needed my contribution.

Personally - I prefer it when there is a checker on a puzzle cache. - All of my puzzles (I believe!) have them. But I can't see them becoming mandatory. As has been said there are some types where it doesn't make sense, though I suppose tools could handle some of these. E.g. if the final coordinates are same as the posted coordinates, don't require a checker, otherwise do. Still, this would force providing a checker for types like a Night Cache; which while it isn't at the posted coordinates, the task isn't to obtain the final coordinates, but to navigate there via a trail, etc. I've had several caches spoilt on internet sites. I found that if I didn't include a checker, they seemed less likely to be spoilt. This created a dilemma for me.. I didn't want them spoiled, but I also want to provide a checker for "honest" solvers. Lately I've been adding the checker a bit later; hoping this might help. As a finder, I've had several cases where I thought I had solved a puzzle, but had not, and looked in the wrong place. On one cache, I looked in 3 wrong places, before coming up with 4th solution which was correct. Whilst there is some fun in that, I generally prefer to be able to check.

Well put. But, back to the OP, having a cache which is only solved once a year or so isn't necessarily an issue. All of my puzzles are solvable, and in fact all were solved within a few days of being published. And I believe they are all logical. But yet I have 2 of them which haven't been found for a year. Tom Brady, he's not Shady is very straightforward, I point to what formula to use. There is some math and physics there that probably put some finders off, but no guesswork needed. The other one Dept of U.S. Law requires some thinking about how to solve it. but it is not a "what am I thinking" puzzle". This one I think it is the length of the cache page which puts cachers off; it is much easier to solve than it may initially look. I'd like my puzzles to get more finds. I know there are some "impossible" "guess what is in my pocket" puzzles out there, though I don't think many. Of course, as I haven't solved them, I can't know if they are "impossible" or not.

I agree.

My approach is the same as yours. This is a topic which there is never agreement on. The way I look at it, one either has an "algorithm" they follow without exception (the I pressed "go" to start so I must either find or DNF is one such algorithm), or one makes a judgement of what log type is best for a specific case. There are multiple "algorithms" people can use. And if making a judgement case by case, many factors which can determine the decision. If a newbie asks me for advice, I won't tell them what they should do, but I will tell them what I do. I firstly tell them not to be afraid of logging a DNF, as I find they generally tend to be hesitant about logging them as they aren't confident of their caching ability. But I'll also tell them I like to use my judgement, and to think about how others will see my logs and use them.

Thanks, you are right, there are lots of things which can change. Though most of those things don't change very much. With this specific Lonely Cache challenge, it can change just by cachers finding some of the caches on my list. It just struck me as unusual in that regard.

That one is interesting, as you could qualify at some point, then later no longer qualify if some of the caches get more finds close together, dropping their average. I can't think of many challenges like that, where the actions of others can remove your qualification once you have already obtained it.. but I'm sure there are others. It's one where you might want to write note showing your qualification if you can't attempt to find the cache right away. I've got over 50 so I am probably safe.

So... for the cache owner. They should not knowingly leave the container there; they should collect it. Fine. Some will, some won't. If they don't collect it, they haven't done what the guidelines say. If the cache is archived because the CO believes it is missing (e.g. they check and can't find it), but someone finds it months/years later.. I can't see how the CO is in violation of anything. As a finder - if I find an archived cache, I have no idea generally if the CO tried to retrieve it but could not find it, or purposely left it. Most likely I wasn't looking for it, I happened to find it when looking for something else. But if I think - "That archived cache; I wonder if it is still there? I'll take a look", I don't think that makes me "implicit in the violation of the guidelines". In fact, I might be helping out by finding it and letting the CO know it is still there, and offering to collect it for them.

Many (I would say most) caches don't have parking coordinates or other waypoints. For the first 2 examples I gave, I guess having "partially scrambled" coordinates within 100 metres of the real coordinates would be OK, though doesn't seem worth the effort to create. For the 3rd case (I've accidently found a cache, is it this one?), actual coordinates are needed.

Archived caches are there for history, and the coordinates are part of that history. There are a number of reasons why I may look at an archived cache; and in most cases the coordinates are important to me. 1. I sometimes like to look at my past finds, just to reminisce. Which includes being able to see where they were. Just knowing that the cache was in Texas (for example) but no indication where in Texas would not be as useful. 2. I have looked at my archived finds locally, looking for places to hide a new cache. It might not be in the exact same place, but if I see Cache X was archived, and I remember enjoying that location, I may want to set a cache there. Again, coordinates are useful so I can see where the location is. (Of course I will also look to see why Cache X was archived to see if there is an issue with the location). 3. I've found a cache accidently which doesn't seem to be listed. This is harder, I may look at the finds of others who found other caches nearby to try and find out if it is an archived cache. Coordinates let me confirm if I have discovered the cache page or not.

The 3 closest to me: - One is a 5/5 and the terrain I believe beyond by abilities - One is 5/4; doesn't appear to be difficult. It is underground, I'll do it someday with a group. - One is 4/2; I'd do it if I could solve the puzzle, but so far have been unable. Only one find since it was published in August.

Of course you don't need to use the "might be missing" flag in that case. I have very little hubris, especially when it comes to geocaching. 95% or more of my DNFs I think the cache is likely there. But there are cases where I think it is highly likely to be missing, and I think this use of the "flag" (which generates NM) is valid, and why I assume Groundspeak added it. Cache in a stump example if only one stump within 100 metres is one, if the cache is large enough. E.g I can be pretty sure to search a single stump for an Ammo can. If it is a nano in a stump I'd log a DNF, and forget about it. Other examples; hint is "sign, velcro". Only one sign in sight, with velcro attached, but no cache. Etc. The very few times I've used it I will explain why, e.g. I found the sign and velcro. Now the CO might come back and say "Oh, it's not there anymore, I moved it and didn't update the hint".. in which case the NM flag is still valid. If, somehow, there was another piece of velcro on that sign and I didn't find that, and the cache was there.. then.. well,.. I only said it MIGHT be missing. "Might be missing" is kind of poor wording.. every DNF might be missing. I think what it means is I have good reason to believe it is likely to be missing. Personally I think the "might be missing" flag is useful, to distinguish those few times where I have reasons to believe the cache is likely missing vs. the 95% (or more like 99%) where I have no idea; only that I couldn't find it.