cx1

Actually the find number, cache of the day number,weather and altitude are all different on each log as well if one wishes to be picky. Individually each log looks pretty good to me (actually they make my logs look pretty lame in comparison). But if one is not gifted with the ability to creatively write a caching story and there was really nothing that set a cache apart from the others that were found that day what is a writer of lame cache logs to do? I freely admit that I write bad logs. I have tried to be better about it. Even so my longest log ever was only 345 words and yeah most of that was ctrl-v with an over-view of a 24 hour endurance cache run the cache was a part of. Maybe it is the cache area I am in and the type of hides we have. But I honestly don't see much to write about. Examples from last trip; Spice jar covered with camo tape and hooked to a tree along a gravel road with no particular view of anything interesting. Nothing funny happened while hunting for it. Nothing bad happened. Saw no special wildlife of note. Found the cache without difficulty. Paintball tube near cemetery. No personal kin in this place. No impressive markers. Some of the names were amusing but would hate to make a note of it and find out it is also the name of the CO. Container was terrible for the location, log was soaked and we added a new one. Now multiply the above examples by 20 and you have my last cache trip. Overall I had a great time but no particular cache was like 'wow' and inspired me to compose a well written log. My fun was in the total cache trip and the good times with friends between the caches and not any one cache (if that makes sense). I am not sure that a 'better' cache would get much of a 'better' log from me either. To the cache owner the site might be wonderful but to me it might be 'meh, its a bunch of trees' so I would I still would not have much to say about it. So what can writers of lame cache logs such as myself do to make you cache hiders happy so you keep hiding caches?

Though just about any PDA might work, I would recommend getting one with wi-fi and bluetooth built in if you find they are at a similar price point to units without. It is nice to have to have options for adding things like a bluetooth gps or other devices. Personal experience with PDA paperless caching; As soon as I bought my 1st PDA (no bluetooth) I found a great deal on a bluetooth GPS. So when I bought my 2nd PDA so I could use the cool bluetooth gps unit I bought the week before I discovered it didn't have wi-fi and was harder to use. So I promptly bought a SDIO bluetooth card so the 1st PDA could work with my bluetooth GPS unit I bought 3 weeks prior. Then after buying the SDIO gps unit (since the SDIO bluetooth card refused to work(don't confuse Palm and PDA when hurriedly bidding on things)) so my 1st PDA would work like my 2nd PDA but 'better'I finally had a paperless system for the two hours the batteries would last. Then of course since it was an old used PDA the whole unit would reset to factory default and I would have to re-install all the gps/geocaching related software when the batteries died. But by golly I had paperless caching on a PDA with navigation in one (well sometimes one but the SDIO gps unit detached quite often thereby becoming two) hand-held unit. Seriously, if you already have the PDA and don't mind needing extra cables and additional units to keep charged etc then PDA paperless caching is an option. However, if you are going to have to purchase 'something' I highly recommend making do with paper and pen until you can afford a gps unit with built-in paperless caching. It is just so much easier. People tried to give me the same warnings I am giving you but I got too focused on trying to do it on the cheap and ended up spending way more then was needed.

Ok, the whole post I found very entertaining and I hope you get to post more often. But the quote above, I am still chuckling

Present tense is probably there so I can understand my post being misunderstood, grammar is not really a strong suit of mine and get me without a spell-checker...ouch

I have used PDA's, smartphones, car gps systems and various hand-held gps units. I still have not found what I would consider the perfect solution. If I could combine the screen, geocaching app and on-demand aerial images of my iphone with the robustness, accuracy, battery life and water resistance of my PN-40 I would be a happy camper. If I could afford it I have ended up suddenly up to my chest in water that I thought was knee deep so I really don't like using the iphone when caching just because it is so fragile and I depend on it for much more then geocaching. But for a quick spur of the moment easy terrain cache hunt the iphone (maybe other smartphones as well) can't be beat(provided I have a data signal on AT&T spotty data network).

There is no such guideline...yet. We are all waiting to see what rules TPTB have come up with for the relaunch of virtuals. I was referring to back when they could be listed, not future listings. But you may very well be correct since I can't find the old listing guidelines. It seems like I've seen it mentioned in older discussions about virtuals but I may be mistaken and cannot find evidence to support this idea. Toz will know, maybe he will add insight.

Seriously? What then are people supposed to write about in a log? If you eliminate information about the weather, why the cacher happened to be there, the condition of the cache, the accuracy of the coords, the quality of the hint and difficulties in making the find what is there really left to log about? Now you are completely entitled to your opinion on this and I am in no way trying to change your opinion. I am just curious as to what information as the cache owner you are wanting in a log. I ask because other then the personal count, exact temperature and altitude the information given in the log seems pretty much like the information I put in my logs. And if I am actually making cache owners more upset then just putting TFTC maybe I should just do TFTC logs and save myself the effort of typing out something unique about each cache.

puppies? puggles? pomegranates?

Isn't there some sort of guideline for a virtual cache that it should only be used for a location that would not support a physical container? I would think that in most cases that would eliminate the lamppost and horse manure being listed as a virtual since a container could be hidden in both. That is if all other listing requirements (such as permission from the land owner for the cache hunter to be there) were met.

What guideline states a CO must delete any logs a reviewer from another area thinks are bogus? Is it not my right as a cache owner to decide what logs I feel might be bogus? If someone logs "Greetings from Sweden. I solved your puzzle so I am claiming a find" as the CO don't I make the determination if I feel the log should stay? If they did not sign the log I have grounds to delete the find, but no guideline requires me to do so because the guideline is based on my determination of what is bogus. Otherwise there would be a clear standard given. It was mentioned that the CO did not respond to e-mails sent from other cachers. The CO is not required to respond to other cachers. People have asked for hints to my cache. Some of those requests I have not responded to. That is not grounds to archive my cache. The only guideline the CO may have violated was not logging on the site. Which is a very vague guideline since it is easily possible to maintain a cache of any type without logging onto the website. I can easily go a check my cache everyday to see if there are problems with it. If I know from physical inspection that my cache is fine, and if I know from e-mail notifications that people are finding and enjoying my cache and I don't feel the logs are bogus why would I need to log onto the page other then to satisfy this vague guideline? And I would hope if a reviewer had an issue with it I would have more then 24 hours to satisfy their concerns.

The guideline cited for reason for archival is valid to all cache types. Traditional cache owners are also required to log into the website and remain 'active'. I am asking that if a reviewer archives a cache (any cache) using the guideline about logging onto the webpage then all of that CO's caches should be archived for that same reason. If you archive a multi because the owner hasn't logged on to geocaching.com in 2 years then you should automatically archive all their other caches for the same reason because that same reason applies. Had the reviewer archived the cache because of a particular issue that was exclusive to only this cache (land owner requested any and all cache related activities cease on this property for example) then only archiving this cache would have been appropriate. However this was not the reason given by the reviewer for the archival. Instead they used a reason that does apply to all the of the caches owned by this same CO. Will I be sad that 13 more virtual caches and however many still active traditional and multi-caches this CO owns may be archived? yes Do I think the only fair and logical way to apply the guideline cited in this case is to apply to all the caches the CO owns? yes

The rational the reviewer used to archive the cache in question (the CO had not been on the website) would be true for all the CO's caches. Yet no action was taken on those other caches. The reviewer knows, by their own posting that the CO has not been on the website. So the reviewer knows that the same problem for this cache which causes it to need archiving also is true for all the CO's caches. The reviewer is well aware yet singles out the virtual cache.

well considering the only N/A log on this cache was by a reviewer....

Because at the time of development they had no idea the activity would grow into what it is today?

But now at least you could claim a 'find' on it even though you are the owner

Then why didn't the reviewer also archive the traditional caches that are also owned by the same CO as the virtual in question? Seem like bias towards a certain cache type to me.

According to the logs it was archived because the cache owner had not been on-line (and there by policing logs) in a long time. The fact that it illegal there to place a physical cache there is the reason it was a virtual. However, just like in my area the reviewer archived the virtual cache but left traditional caches (some even flagged with N/M) active. Sorry but leaving the caches that actually require physical maintenance active but archiving a cache that may or may not need a little log clean-up is terrible. This blatant animosity against virtual caches by some staff is disheartening.

Pocket queries with GSAK. There is even a macro that will only list the caches in your database that help fill a grid.

Actually have done one of a series like that. They were called 'Lazy Person' cache or something like that. And yes I didn't have to leave the geo-cruiser to retrieve the cache.

No, I am one of those people who think it is wrong to ask of other to meet a standard that I don't meet myself. So if I generally don't write essays on caches I would not have the double standard to try to force/guilt/whatever people into writing essays on my own caches. Your request for people to write essays on logs would be much more legitimate to me and add a good deal more weight to your request if the previous logs you wrote were essays. I think that is a very good idea. See, we can agree on something at least.

I completely understand your frustration. I released one in the wild and it promptly went missing for a long time. Now someone seems to be packing from cache to cache but not releasing it like it is now their own personal mileage tracker. It happens. Now I will occasionally do a discovery log on a TB so their owner might get an idea where it is but otherwise I ignore that aspect of the hobby.

This is a broad over-simplification. Many people had/have thoughts on the issue which do not fall in either of the two options you list. BTW have you started 'finding' waymarks yet or are you still just chatting them up? Actually members have had some very good discussions on this very forum on methods to bring back virtual caches in various ways that could eliminate the need for 'wowness'. But as others have said, it is just conjecture at this point on what we will end up with. I am disappointed though that Spring has come and gone and Virtual caches are still in limbo.

Are you suggesting that 'any' maintenance task (new log/baggy, re-attaching a magnet etc) should only be performed by the CO? As to the original topic. I try to fix small things like a new log or dry out a container I find damp etc while out doing normal caching. I make a note of this in my log as well. If it is a problem beyond a simple field repair I will use a N/M log in addition to a note in my found log. I also do not avoid caches just because they have a N/M flag but I don't intentionally seek them out either. I don't think I would volunteer to be on a 'cache maintenance team' but I would not have an issue if such teams were started by Goundspeak (though I doubt this would ever happen).

This sounds a little odd to me. The OP when logging what they list as their "all time favorite cache" used about 80 words. But the OP wants to require others to use 500 words when logging caches the OP owns. Bit of a double standard there I think. Personally I try to write 'something' about a cache other then just TFTC. Sometimes it is not much more then 'Thanks for placing the cache' or 'Thank you for putting this cache out for me to find' but it is more then 4 letters. I think the idea of at a minimum of putting the condition of the cache in the log if I can't think of something more to say is a good idea and I am going to try to incorporate that into my logging in the future. I would think that information would be more useful to the cache owner and future cachers then writing about the weather on the day I found the cache.

Well if you want to use it as a phone or receive data other then via wi-fi then yes you would have the monthly fee of your cell phone bill and data plan. Otherwise it would function basically as an Ipod touch which is the duty my old 2G iphone has been assigned to. I do like the idea of that xgps251. But to me 1/2 the real benefit of the geocaching app is the great maps, which require a data connection I believe. So I am curious how the app will work when you are out of wi-fi range. Or are you tethering the Ipod to another device for data?