tundra70

This seems to be also true of earthcaches. It's only logging then as 15 points if they have 10+ faves e.g https://coord.info/GC232AA , otherwise it's just scoring them as 5 e.g. https://coord.info/GC7AZMP That does not seem to be in line with the published scoring system.

I'm really resisting the urge to post an eye-rolling gif here... "Hang your head in shame"??? Really? The strongest, most negative responses appear to be coming not from those who welcome the change, but from those who resist it. I think most everything that CAN be said about this HAS been said. Now...who here has actually had their mind changed? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller...? The strongest responses are coming from cachers in the UK who will have the way they have chosen to cache for years, changed. We in the UK found and logged the YOSM within the rules as we found them. What we can't understand is why anyone in, for instance the USA, who was unlikely to have even heard of GC45CC prior to a few days ago, would be anything other than supportive of us being allowed to keep a cache so many of us enjoy. (I use the 'we' somewhat presumptively, I admit).

No... you are taking GS's word out of context to support your argument to save a cache thats against GS's guideline. I am still believe in the one cache = one find. I believe it got alot to do with keeping the database accurate. (from the company point of view) Bad data (multi of same type of logs) isn't good. Junk data always spill out junk stats. <_< You want to keep your stats accurate as much you can. Its for business reason(s)... borrowing money and advertisement and etc. Those are my opinion and I might be wrong but I am trying to think from a business point of view about "bad data" Can anyone here tell me if bad data can over tax the data system? Fair point. A few British cachers with flasks of tea and Eccles Cakes logging different trig pillars (at unique locations!) multiple times would tax the servers at MIT, NOAA and NASA combined, so what chance have Groundspeak?

dprovan's point about GC45CC and its like being collateral damage is quite right. I'm more worried about the phrase in the announcement justifying the change "reduce confusion for our newer community members". Perhaps this means "we've found out that it's just too easy to send a log twice with our new app" (that launch went well...)? If 'reducing confusion' is the latest thing then watch out: All the remaining Virtuals (many much loved) - there's nothing to sign, the info can often be found on the internet, but you are still supposed to visit - how confusing is that? The DT matrix - it uses 0.5s (!) and often the rating is quite hard to justify - far to confusing for the marketing department. Difficult puzzles - opening a cache page to find it's totally blank, or worse in some sort of code? More confusion.... Thin end of a very big wedge.

I can't help wondering why caches in Canada and UK that have been available to log for 15 years and, as OFTH and others have said, have brought huge enjoyment to thousands of cachers need to be changed now. All UK YOSMer's have done is follow the rules as they were set up. Why change that now? It amazes me how bothered cachers in other countries are about it. It's the British and Canadian's (and anyone who visits) that are the bothered ones. What happens in the USA or other countries is their own affair as far as I'm concerned. I've found numerous caches in the USA and other countries I thought would not have been allowed in the UK, but I'm not going on forums moaning about them. GC45CC has be maintained superbly over the last 15 years, and Groundspeak's response is a huge slap in the face for the CO. I might add, this is a CO who is actually interested in the stories we all have about finding a YOSM, reads logs, replies to every email we have ever sent - and not with 'thanks' or 'cheers' but with a bit of banter and good-humour. We've never met OFTH but we count him as a caching friend. Everyone who walks in the countryside knows what a triangulation pillar is. They are part of our history and landscape. They are part of the history of cartography that eventually led to the GPS system we use today. Yes, such a cache would not be allowed to day but it was allowed 15 years ago, so why change it now? Lots of other caches will need to go if today's guidelines are applied uniformly. Lastly, I'm quite happy to say that for us of course it's about +1 and stats (and getting new countries, the DT matrix etc etc) - what on earth is wrong with that, virtually all hobbies are the same! Lots of people are just kidding themselves if they say it isn't.

Well said Outforthehunt. A sad day indeed. Another victory for blandness and uniformity over the ability to accept diversity and variety. Also a pity to see someone who appears to have lost their compass. The irony won't be lost on the numerous UK attendees of the 15th anniversary YOSM events. Cameron & Debbie

In defence of GC45CC it is, in our view, a moving Virtual. Each location is unique, therefore we have no problem logging it multiple times (some cachers clearly do). As Titus pointed out, if we wanted numbers we’d be wise to ignore it. It’s logged in the same way as a Virtual i.e. email the CO with what you found at the location. In the case of a YOSM emailing OFTH your own co-ordinates and a description of the pillar, rivet, bolt or FBM. It suffers from the same problems as many Virtuals: • The info can be found online • A photo would prove you were there (but not when) but these can’t be required. It is very anomalous, there is no about that, because it can be logged based on where it has been as well as where it currently is. As many people have pointed out, there is a YOSM community in the UK, which we would rather not lose. Most of us (but not all) started logging it long after the way the cache worked was set, and we’ve just accepted it. Personally, we’d not like to see it go. We note with interest how pleased some on here seem to be at the thought of it going, despite the fact that it would make some of their fellow cachers unhappy. Some strange and well-liked caches will have to go in the interests of uniformity. Are we sure we’ll all be happier for that? Presumably the Sherlock series in London should be archived, as they are self-described as ‘virtual-multis’ i.e. log the feeders like a virtual (which log as a multi despite there being nothing to sign) and these lead to a multi-final (where there is something to sign). In the interests of uniformity and being family-friendly, you’ll lose the very things which make it interesting. The DT grid will be next. Who likes anything with .5 in it? It’ll be replaced with smilies with increasing grins. The comments on here seem to come down to whether people want all caching to be identical the world over i.e. a level playing field (which in simply not achievable) , or whether some diversity and ‘weirdness’ is allowed. We are in the latter camp. It’s more fun. Cameron & Debbie

Once again, nothing is stopping anyone from continuing to find these things. The only difference is you wouldn't get your +1 anymore. The "special feature" you talk about is the problem. Anyone claiming it would spoil caching not to have it is being a bit disingenuous. Essentially all they are really saying is they are only searching them out for the numbers. I'm sure the numerous posters on here that have visited multiple YOSMs will be amused by the idea that they visited them 'for the numbers', whereas of course logging large numbers of trads, multis and letterboxes was for some higher purpose.

Of course those folks who can use one cache to obtain many smilies would like it...it bumps their numbers. It's an interesting point, although it does seem to misunderstand that it is in (currently) about 725 different locations across England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and other islands around the coast. If we wanted to 'bump up' our numbers we would just do a trail of 100 trads in an afternoon along a nice flat lane or two.

I'd like to add my view to this topic, as we have found GC45CC YOSM many times. Our view is that it's a great idea, and has taken us to numerous places in the UK we would have been unlikely to visit. A cache with 20,000 logs and 600 favourite points seems to suggest it's well liked by the caching community. I know lost of cachers who have only logged it once, because it messes up the stats, which if fine (so do lab caches). Surely one of the strengths of our hobby is the diversity, and the odd anomaly? It would be (and will be) duller if everything is standardised. Most of the anomalies are old ones, that could not be set today. But why remove the few remaining oddities just to standardise everything? The double-logging issue, based on our owned caches, stems from new-ish cachers using their 'phones and pressing the log button twice. It seems to be a sledge-hammer to crack a very small nut to respond to a minor problem by banishing some well-loved caches to the dustbin. Some of the other posts on here seem to get very agitated by minor points about cache adoption and the reasons behind it, among other things. We think we should value a bit of diversity and recognise that people want to pursue the common activity in slightly different ways. Cameron & Debbie (tundra70)