CanadianRockies

Even your A case isn't especially literal, since there are many caches that don't have a physical log sheet that must be found and signed: EarthCaches, Virtuals, Webcams, various events/parties/celebrations, Lab caches, and Locationless caches. Groundspeak's definition of a "find" doesn't match a dictionary's definition very well. Not sure what you mean by the bolded.

Even your A case isn't especially literal, since there are many caches that don't have a physical log sheet that must be found and signed: EarthCaches, Virtuals, Webcams, various events/parties/celebrations, Lab caches, and Locationless caches. Groundspeak's definition of a "find" doesn't match a dictionary's definition very well.

I've got a bookmarks list with 42 challenge caches that I have pre-signed but haven't yet qualified for. Most of them are interesting challenges that I encountered while traveling to locations where I'm unlikely to return anytime soon. Many of them are challenges that probably will take me years to complete and might be archived by the time I finally qualify for them. When I pre-sign these challenge caches, I log a "Write Note" online to indicate the date that I found the physical cache. When I complete these pre-signed challenges, I log an online "Found it" for that date (and mention in that log the date when I pre-signed the physical log). This messes up my cumulative cache-to-cache distance statistic, but I don't care about the accuracy of that measurement.

However, as several of us have noted, the guidelines (III.2.1.) do include this: Since you cannot log an online "Found It" until you comply with all the EarthCache's instructions, it seems reasonably acceptable to date your EarthCache "Found It" log as the day you finish complying with all the instructions. I think it's also reasonably acceptable to date your EarthCache "Found It" log as the day you visited the site. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to date your "Found It" as the day you finish gathering the information (if that day differs from the day of your visit or the day you send the information to the cache owner), but I also find that day somewhat reasonably acceptable.

Why would you view that as an acceptable option for EarthCaches and Challenge caches but not for a virtual cache that requires answers to be sent to the CO or a photograph to be uploaded? And what about a Webcam cache that requires a webcam photo to be uploaded? If I visit the webcam site on Monday and don't bother uploading the photo until Friday, then doesn't the same principle apply? I haven't completed the "Found It" requirements until Friday.

It doesn't make sense to you to log them out of order. If you care about the accuracy of your cache-to-cache distance statistic, then it becomes very important that you keep your cache finds in order. To others, it makes more sense to log caches on the day you "find" them according to Groundspeak's "find" requirements. According to Groundspeak, you haven't "found" an EarthCache until you both visit the site AND answer the questions to the cache owner's satisfaction. To these people, it makes more sense to date their online "Found It" logs on the day they complete Groundspeak's "Found It" requirements. That day usually is the day they send their EarthCache answers to the cache owner, which often is the same day they visit the site but could be days, weeks, months, or years later.

It isn't up to the CO to determine the acceptability. Groundspeak has made it clear that it's perfectly acceptable to date a challenge cache's online "Found It" log as either the date one signed the physical log or the date one completed the challenge's requirements (assuming that date comes after they signed the physical log). Where have they said this? It was a comment made on one of this forum's challenge cache threads, sometime during the past year. I'm 90 percent certain it was a lackey who commented, but it might have been a reviewer.

It isn't up to the CO to determine the acceptability. Groundspeak has made it clear that it's perfectly acceptable to date a challenge cache's online "Found It" log as either the date one signed the physical log or the date one completed the challenge's requirements (assuming that date comes after they signed the physical log). I assume Groundspeak has a similar attitude towards dating online "Found It" logs for EarthCaches, Virtuals, and Webcam caches, but I don't remember them ever stating this. As a challenge cache owner, I personally prefer it when geocachers do not change their "Write Note" logs to "Found It" logs upon completing the challenge requirements, because I don't receive an email notification when this happens. That makes it more problematic to verify successful completions. Even so, I don't express my preference on the cache page, and I certainly wouldn't deem it to be "unacceptable" when geocachers do convert "Write Note" logs to be "Found It" logs.

If you forgot a pen, many cache owners will allow you to send them a picture of the log sheet instead, however, they are not required to be this accommodating. If you don't sign the log sheet, the owner is permitted to delete your online "Found It" log. If I can't open a bison tube because it is too high, then I, personally, would write a "Note" log instead of a "Found It" log. Some owners would allow you to take a picture of the unopened bison tube and claim a find, while other owners would not even require a photo but simply accept your word that you spotted the bison tube. Most owners probably don't audit their physical logs, so you could claim a find even if you never spotted the bison tube (or never even got within 100 miles of the bison tube). Eventually, most geocachers set their own standards for what they consider to be a legitimate find and what extenuating circumstances still allow for a legitimate find (e.g., forgotten pen but photo taken, container frozen in ice). Some geocachers don't set their own standards but simply consider their finds legitimate if the cache owners don't delete them, but that attitude always has seemed silly to me.

The point of the souvenir is to go out and find an Earthcache on that day. What is the value of the souvenir if you lied to get it? More importantly, why would you lie to other people? Falsifying the date of your visit can affect other cachers as well as the cache owner because it results in false information on the cache page. And if the cache owner notices what you did, it puts him/her in the awkward position of possibly deleting the log or asking you to correct it. Why would a good geocacher knowingly do something so hurtful to others? I wouldn't consider it lying or falsifying if you date your EarthCaches on the day you sent the answers to the CO (if that day is after the day you were at the EarthCache site). In order to log an EarthCache as "found," Groundspeak requires that you visit the site AND that you answer the questions. Until you answer the questions, you haven't "found" the EarthCache, so I understand the logic behind dating the "Found It" log as the day you "found" the EarthCache (i.e., on the day you send in the answers, if that's a later date). I also understand why other people (who might be concerned about the accuracy of their cumulative cache-to-cache distance statistics) will always date their EarthCache "Found It" logs on the date they visit the EarthCache site. But I roll my eyes when geocachers selectively date certain EarthCache (or Virtual, Webcam, or Challenge cache) finds to get a souvenir or to help complete a Challenge cache. If they do this, however, then I don't believe Groundspeak would back up cache owners who deleted these "false" logs.

There won't be enough time for people to organise an event between getting the notification and the souvenir date, and relying on there just happening to be enough events already organised isn't going to work. There's also a CITO souvenir coming next month, so it would seem somewhat redundant. Especially if there's a possible "bonus" souvenir for attending an event on Saturday.

If the signal bounces randomly enough around the true GZ, then eventually it should land you pretty close to the cache.

That would be news to my high school and university math teachers who sometimes put bonus points on their tests.

I'm not sure if it's a system thing, but most reviewers indeed will take exception to a 1/1-rated cache that isn't wheelchair accessible. And a 5/1-rated cache as well.

Unless, of course, it's a challenge cache.

Do you think that, perhaps, it may be a little extreme to compare an iffy geocache log to theft? I don't think TheAuthorityFigures were comparing the consequences of iffy geocache logs to the consequences of theft. I think they were comparing your attitude of blaming the cache owner instead of the logger to those who blame the victims of crime instead of the criminals. It's called an analogy. Some factors are comparable, but not all. "Found it" seems like a fairly intuitive concept that shouldn't be difficult for newbies to grasp. I actually believe most people who log false "Found its" do so after interacting with other geocachers who have adopted this attitude. If you're inclined to take this kind of short cut and see others doing it, then that enables you to do so as well. Yes, it would be good if more people deleted improper cache logs, just as it would be good if more victims of sexual assaults reported those crimes to police. But I understand why some people are reluctant to take these helpful actions, and I certainly don't blame them for what happened.

While there certainly is value in having owners delete bogus logs, the fault clearly rests in the people who claim false finds. Just as the victims of crimes aren't to blame for the commission of those crimes.

While existing virtuals are grandfathered from automatic archival, they are not grandfathered from maintenance guidelines and potential archival:

Most Volunteer Reviewers have plenty of other work on their plates and probably don't have the spare time and/or interest to do log maintenance of abandoned virtuals in their areas. That appears to the the case here as well. According to the reviewer's Temporary Disable log:

Well, what we're actually seeing in practice is that trying to draw a line to exclude all the nearly impossible caches also excludes caches that aren't difficult at all. And sometimes the guidelines appear to exclude easier caches while allowing harder ones. The 81-day Fizzy "streak" challenge that I'm pondering appears to be permitted by the current guidelines, even though it would be a difficult challenge in my locality. But the guidelines' prohibition of time-limited challenges would prevent me from creating an easier challenge that requires people to fill a complete Fizzy grid over a one year period. Certain people dislike having to find 100 caches in a single day, so Groundspeak prohibits all time-limited challenges...even those that require finding 10 caches over the course of an entire year. Go figure.

Maybe things are different in New York, but in areas where I've geocached I haven't seen many nearly impossible challenge caches. The problem with trying to draw a line to exclude all the nearly impossible caches is that the line is also likely to include some extremely difficult caches that truly inspire geocachers. For me, having a few nearly impossible caches that might never be found is a small price to pay for also preserving extremely inspirational caches that might bring joy to people. I can always add the nearly impossible caches to my "Ignore List." I'd like to be able to add the extremely inspirational caches to my "Bucket List." ETA: I did a quick check. There are 166 Unknown-type caches in New York State that have the word "challenge" in their titles. All 166 of these have been found at least once. I agree that you can't create a guideline that excludes extremely difficult "show off" caches while preserving extremely difficult inspirational caches. Unlike you, I'd prefer a guideline that didn't exclude either rather than one that excludes both. I didn't miss your point; I skipped it because I didn't think you were serious. Yes, if there was only a single 1,000-day streak cache in the world, then it would be extremely-extremely difficult to complete that challenge and sign that log. But in addition to extremely-extremely difficult challenge caches, I'm also in favor of challenge caches that are merely extremely difficult, such as a 1,000-day streak cache located only 1,500 miles away. I'm in favor of challenge caches that span a wide range of difficulties. Different strokes for different folks.

Nope. Groundspeak doesn't allow the adoption of grandfathered caches (like virtual caches). From the Help Center:

Actually, all caches, including virtual caches, require maintenance. From the Groundspeak guidelines:

I'd be far more concerned about forum spoilers if Groundspeak seemed to be at all concerned with their blog comment spoilers.