cx1

Excellent points. I would also add that since we do not know the particular cache or cemetery it would be difficult to impossible to aide you with fighting with the cache owner. Personally to avoid these types of things I have found it easiest to only go to cemeteries at either their posted hours of operation or if those are not available then between sunrise and sunset. The less then 30 minutes between the beginning dawn and sunrise is not too long to wait. I can empathize if your schedule would not allow you to wait that brief period but I don't think the FTF is worth risking making the cemetery off limits for caching.

My post was wrathful? Disagreeing with an opinion or premise does not necessitate an emotional obligation in one's response. Usually when one truly does not care about something they don't discuss it, join discussions about it or start forum threads about it. Numbers can be important to someone without it being the apex of their geocaching activity or enjoyment. I would contend that very few if any geocachers participate in the activity strictly for amassing a group of numbers.

From the person who told another cacher they were deluding themselves for what they considered a find this thread is somewhat ironic. Seems if you were truly not into numbers then what someone else considers acceptable to make their numbers increase by one would not give you any pause. I have found myself in most of the situations that you have listed. Yet I still acknowledge that on some level that numbers are important to me.

While it has been made rather clear by both Keystone and Sandy (and maybe others) that Groundspeak does not have a policy regarding safety, there is a reviewer overseas who has a recent history of disabling caches for safety concerns. Perhaps you should forward the information about this cache to them.

I like my 'finds' number to be equal to my 'unique caches visited' number. A note would be how I would handle it. But it is really up to you and the CO you attempt to post multiple logs on. Thank you to you and the others who take the extra effort to move bug/coins along their stated journeys.

How is it distracting? Are you under the impression that the general caching community is somehow holding cachers that do high difficulty/terrain caches in a special light of reverence or something? And someone who might shine with an unearned glow from an improperly rated cache might distract from this special light? Should we assign an asterisks to their caching stats to help differentiate them from the 'real' cachers? Or does Clan Riffster have the right idea perhaps?

So have you contacted the property owner of this dangerous cache so they can contact Goundspeak and have the listing removed for lack of proper permission? Have you contacted the local code enforcement agency and pointed out the dangerous situation this cache represents so they can get this hazard isolated from the public? Annoying world-wide assortment forum readers who can do nothing to remedy the situation in your local area seems rather counter-productive.

Nope, I've seen this pretty much all over. Even in SoCal. In Alberta, I've yet to see a tree cache rated as T5. I'm leaning towards a regional thing. I'm going to agree. Unless it was a tree that required climbing gear due to not having low enough branches to reach from the ground to begin the climb I've not see one rated higher then a 4 locally.

Great, now maybe Keystone or another mod can merge them all together into one thread since they are all now about the same issue. Those of us how are quite tired of seeing this information can then start an argument, get the one super-thread locked and not have to worry about this rather childish event of excessive thread bumping ever happening again.

Shall I start a topic to protest about that too? MrsB Yes please, then maybe we can find out the justification for one member taking the time to bump all of them to post basically the same thought in each of them. Borderline spam really.

Unless it was a PMO cache you will not be able to see that information. A similar thread from earlier today.

Thank you for this post. Seriously. I get so tired of the 'can't do X because kids might Y' straw man argument often given as an excuse for banning something. I wish all parents considered themselves as the one responsible to watch over their children.

The video was posted on here somewhere a few days back. Not really super helpful I know, but at least you now know its here somewhere.

First let me just say a big thank you for deciding that while you may be 'informed' enough to check out those catches obviously the rest of us are incapable of also doing the same. Its always nice when the 'better' folks toss us poor misguided folks a helping hand. Second let me apologize for my lack of a basic level of common sense since I didn't immediately fall on my knees and sing your praises for the wonderful mission you are undertaking on my behalf. I guess I'm just to silly to know I didn't have that basic level. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure everyone who also didn't agree with you has surely changed their tune now.

I did, but then I changed my mind.

Well your lack of navigation skills is not an issue with my cache. And I do not mean that as snarky as it may first sound. I have actually been in a situation like you describe. I managed to turn a 1.5 terrain rated cache into about a 4 terrain. There was even some swimming involved near the end. I'm sure many cachers have done similar things. Had I not eventually made it to the given coordinates to be able to actually look for the cache I would not have posted a DNF though. I was not looking for the cache while bushwhacking and swimming. My poor choice of routes really had nothing to do with the cache. The cache was properly rated. I don't consider it properly looking for something if I'm not yet in the area I should be looking.

Many people do not agree with you. I don't think you are going to change my way of thinking on it and I am sure I am not going to change your way on thinking on it. If as a cache owner I received a DNF log on one of my caches because a cache seekers car broke down in route to my cache I believe I would be justified in deleting that log for being off-topic. The seekers car troubles had nothing to do with my cache regardless if they pressed a GO TO button or not. I think Groundspeak would support my position. You probably disagree. So I suppose the next step would be for you to put the gpx file for one of my caches in your gps and hit that GO TO button, log the DNF and we can see what happens.

True, however they stated they read the other threads so they had plenty of previous opinions to read though. This thread really seemed like a failed attempt to rally more people to their (the OP) already formed opinion on the subject. I'm just glad it wasn't in all caps like the last one.

Do you not know what a 'penny jar' is? In case you don't here is an example; I purchase some items at the store. The total comes to $9.97. Since I don't like having a bunch of pennies in my pocket I drop the 3 cents into the penny jar. You are the next person in line. You total is $10.02. You take two of the pennies out of the jar to cover the 2 cents so you don't end up with 98 cents in change. The pennies in the jar do not belong to anyone, they are there for everyone who might need a penny or two to not have to deal with loose change. There is no 'taking something that is not yours' involved. The pennies are there specifically for the next person who might need them to take and use them. But it is considered both 'weird' and 'impolite' to most people to use more then a few cents from the jar at any single transaction. But some people do. Some people will take all the pennies from the jar and put them in their pocket. Some people will count out every coin from the jar and then add their own to make out the difference in cost for what they are trying to buy. But since the pennies are there for people to take and use taking the pennies does not break any laws. I look at a challenge cache as a reward for completing a challenge. If I don't complete the challenge then I have no business seeking or logging the cache. The logbook in the cache should only have the names of those who have completed the challenge, not those who might get around to completing the challenge someday. People can make excuses for why they should go ahead and find the cache and sign the logbook for a challenge cache they did not complete the same way a person can make excuses for why they should go ahead and take pennies from the penny jar when they don't need the pennies.

How on earth do you get that idea from the comment about the penny jar? Personally I think the penny jar example is spot on specifically because the results from either situation does not harm or damage anyone, yet both seem weird to do. And at least for the pennies it is generally considered impolite.

The CO is not requiring that you do anything. You choose to seek this cache, the CO did not require that you seek it. If you choose to want the smiley for this cache then you choose to take the risk of climbing the tree.

I see a note being more helpful to the community in your examples then a DNF log. Many people carefully plan caching trips. This can include filtering out caches that have recent DNF logs. Personally the criteria I use is if two out of the last three logs are DNF logs then the cache probably gets skipped. GSAK will do this without me ever actually seeing the content of the log. This is probably a major reason why my dnf/find ratio is below the usual average. If you had posted a DNF because of muggles and Bob had posted a DNF because it was raining and those were the last two logs, I'm probably skipping that cache and I don't think I'm the only person who does this. I also think that this 'skipping' is what may lead some cache owners to delete DNF logs. So personally I do not want to potentially steer people away from a cache with a DNF log or possibly upset a CO with a DNF log unless I actually searched for the cache. But I have no problem posting a DNF if I did actually search at the proper coordinates and was unable to find the cache.

Those are rather rare occurrences that could easily be handled by the cache owner simply writing to the local reviewer to have that automated clock stopped. Sorry, I did use the incorrect term here. I was actually referring to NM (needs maintenance) for the 2nd half of my previous post and not NA. I was thinking SBA for archived and just typed the wrong abbreviation. So the edit I am about to do to that post should make that clear.

Post August 20,2003 Reply January 22,2012 Does this set the record for oldest thread bump ever?

Well since you asked what I would like to see happen... If a cache is disabled for 91 days it should automatically become archived. No reviewer intervention needed, disabling the cache starts a clock and the server will automatically archive once the 91st day is reached. This would eliminate the need for reviewer sweeps of disabled caches. The local reviewers really do try to keep up with it, but when there are CO's that state they will fix the problems and then don't follow though those disabled caches seem to fall through the cracks and nothing ever happens to them. As an example there is a local cache that has been missing since late 2009. Cache owner has noted they will try to look into it when a reviewer has posted a note about it. Cache is still disabled. This same CO has several caches in similar states but always responds to reviewer notes with their own note but hardly ever any corrective action. I would also like to see an automated system in place for NM logs. Again no reviewer intervention needed, just say 60 days after an uncleared NM log an email is generated with instructions on how to clear the NM flag and an automated link set up that the cache owner needs to reply to. If a reply is not received within 30 days then a flag could be raised so the cache gets a fresh look by a reviewer and/or disabled. Basically to me if a NM is not cleared within 90 days the CO is not fulfilling their duties of cache maintenance. And if a cache is not being maintained it should be disabled/archived/adopted.