thebruce0

Personally, I do two things. 1. Add them to a "Found but not qualified" bookmark list. I check back on these occasionally to see if I've yet qualified (if I haven't added the challenge to my active goals) 2. Edit the personal corrected coordinates for the listing to the same posted coordinates. It will show on the map as a corrected pin, distinguished from any other untouched Mystery cache. This has the benefit of making them similar to solved puzzles (as in, "there is a geocache at these corrected coordinates that you can now find and sign!"), but doesn't work as well if the challenge container/final location is "not as posted" and behind a puzzle task not yet solved... That's rare though. I can't remember if it's allowed, but I know of a few challenges I couldn't correct to a known final location once I signed in, so I had to highlight it separately within Cachly to remind me that it's found and signed, but the final location isn't determined. In any case, this strategy is a very nice visual indicator of "findable" mystery caches (whether puzzles or challenges).

Good points. To this one, NM logs could always be deleted; just remember that when you post a NM, it enables the "Needs Maintenance" attribute on the listing. If the NM log is deleted, the attribute is not deleted. So the CO may be able to 'clean up' the log history, but the fact that the listing Needs Maintenance remains until the owner performs an Owner Maintenance. Nonetheless, your other points I think are good.

Who on earth said no one liked such caches? Especially the sort you're always using in anecdotes in your area? Far from it. And you say "archiving them unnecessarily" -- who's doing that? As repeated over and over again, a reviewer has judged that a cache with a raised concern that is owned by someone blatantly unresponsive and has received no explanation or defense as to why the listing should receive leniency, should be archived after a reasonable window of opportunity to reverse the decision. That is 100% reasonable and rational for a website that aims to list active geocaches, and not abadoned trash. It's such a simple concept. And all that happens is a digital listing of an object placed in nature is no longer listed as an active geocache on geocaching.com. That's it. EVERYTHING else about the intended initial experience is still there for anyone to have, in theory. But the owner decided to abandon what they agree to maintain in order to have the privilege of listing it on this website. If you want your geocache to remain active, be active and responsive. If you want someone else's abandoned trash to remain active, convince the reviewer or HQ that it should.

That is one heck of a sweeping statement with no basis in facts, just biased perception. "Puzzles" is way too broad a label, and you're making the enormously successful business of puzzles books, for example, to effectively be a sham. Puzzles aren't for everyone, of course. But guaranteed, people who like "puzzles" like some form of puzzles, and I'd wager that most people like "puzzles" in some manner or another. The problem in geocaching is that people want the find in many cases more than the work needed to attain that smiley. That's an entirely different type of concern.

Who's to say the geocache is not abandoned trash, except for an active, responsive owner. Again, there's no getting around this. Active and responsive is the requirement to have an owned geocache container listed on geocaching.com. The website isn't here to give us stats. It's here to provide a place for owner to opt in to list their geocache. Once again, as unfortunate as it is if a cache is archived because a CO is non-responsive, reviewers have no obligation to let a listing stay active - making every assumption that the cache is okay - given they have no contact with its owner. There are far too many questions and unknows that GCHQ doesn't want to adopt in this process. BE RESPONSIVE. Convince the reviewer or HQ that the cache should not be archived.

I took that as a list. * Reported problems * DNFs * NM * NA Each of those only needing to be dealt with if a reviewer decides it needs to be dealt with. Typically requiring at the very least a response from the owner.

That's not the point. The point is the owner should be able to respond to possible reports of problems, or if a reviewer or hq requires you to respond. THAT is the point.

First, as we know, and have seen demonstrated, the reviewer looks over DNFs and makes a decision. If you think a reviewer is archiving a cache that shouldn't be archived merely because of 2 DNFs that are clearly not relevant to the cache state but the owner is not active, then YOU (royal) are the only one that can attempt to convince the reviewer that the cache should not be archived. Because all it would otherwise take is one freakin' communication from the CO to effectively have the best chance at stopping the archival. Just be responsive! I have no sympathy for a CO who makes no effort to respond within 1-3 months to a request from a reviewer to tend to the listing. No sympathy. Who is to say that all my caches, or yours are still okay? For mine I am, because I'm active and can look at them and/or respond to the claim that they may need maintenance, within a reasonable time, so that they don't get archived. No so with an ex-owner who has created trash in nature because they are no longer laying claim to their maintenance (container and/or listing) responsibilities. The rest of your comment about my desire to 'empty areas of caches' is completely irrelevant and flatly incorrect and once again ad hominem and not worth responding to. And the point being made repeatedly is that DNFs are not necessarily "reported problems", despite the CHS (and volunteer reviewers, when nagged by the CHS) treating them as such. Right. And as unfortunate as it is for statistics (because again assuming it's a "good" cache the container is still findable, it's just no longer searchable in the active geocache database), if the listing's owner has zero desire to respond even to a reviewer request, who has judged by their human nature, then the reviewer is under no obligation to be lenient and let the listing remain active. The "problem", which has come to light due to DNFs that have prompted the reviewer to request a response, is the ex-owner who has effectively left trash listed as an active geocache. That's what's getting archived.

If you're an active owner, pay attention to reports. Since you posted an OM log, you're active at least as of that date. So the argument you are making about yourself is not relevant to cache listings that have been abandoned by their owner having given no response to a report. Who cares? It's not a geocache. If it's archived, and it's not retrieved, and its owner is no longer active, it's abandoned trash. If you want to find abandoned trash, start or find a website where people list them. That's not geocaching.com People are creative and intelligent enough to find archived cache listings if they really want to. I have found archived caches. But that's beyond what geocaching.com is around to list and provide for an active community. More relevant in the past, but an archived listing doesn't mean the container is removed or abandoned or not even an active game piece on another website. That's another reason this is just a listing service for active geocaches which align with the TOU and responsibilities of the listing owner. Anecdotes can't apply worldwide. We know well that you live in a relative 'sucky' region. It's unfortunate. Really. But once again, there is simply no reasonable excuse for an active owner to NOT respond in any way to a request by a reviewer or HQ to tend to their listing, or a community that can convince them the listing is worth leaving alone. If they don't, the result is an archived listing because the physical item left in nature can only be assumed to now be abandoned trash and no longer a geocache as required to be listed on geocaching.com - having a responsive owner. There is no way around this. So then don't report them. And cross your fingers there's no issue with them and that no one else decides to report them. Otherwise the caches will eventually be known to be abandoned trash because of the now ex-owner who is not responding.

Who is to say if the cache since the last 'good' find is still good? There is NO ONE who is checking on it, NO ONE who is verifying it. It would remain in that "trash" limbo state until another report from a non-owner. No, all anyone can ever know is that the now-abandoned-trash was apparently reportedly in a findable state according to the last assumedly accurate find log. WAY too many assumptions for Geocaching.com, the geocache listing service, to make about a piece of abandoned trash that is now being listed on their website. As repeated ad nauseum - archiving the listing does nothing to whatever may (or may not) still be at the listing's coordinates. For all intents and purposes, it is still findable. It is still loggable, for as long as the listing is not locked. Why is there such a push to keep abandoned trash listed actively as if it were a geocache on geocaching.com? Have the listing archived and publish a real geocache at the same location if it's worth keeping attractive as an active geocache (meaning it's owned and maintained by someone, as a geocache is defined by geocaching.com). Otherwise it is simply a remnant of what was a geocache yet is still a potentially amazing experience or location to visit, which people can still do -- Just without logging a geocache Find online.

Already asked and answered.

OMG, what's that?!? - someone really made the most out of their "Virtual Award" ! But the solution is trivial: Add 20 photos to your find log, and post two notes for the remaining photos. Seems that many finders of the cache have already done this anyway. There's one in Washington (iirc) that's sort of the flip of that - a photo scavenger hunt (challenge cache), and you need to post one single note with every photo qualification, and once you've done all of them you can log it as found. Scrolling through the log history for relevant geocache notes is insane.

Take that up with HQ. It's been answered yearly in this forum. Please refrain from irrelevant ad hominem.

This falls under "and the reviewer/hq can be convinced to leave it active". That has happened, it can happen. But if they can't be convinced, they are under zero obligation to feel bad about it. Even though it might be a reluctant archival as a geocacher, it's perfectly justified as a reviewer or hq lackey. However this moves over into the topic of proxy-maintenance and why that can never be a condoned activity or solution. It can be fine, but it can also open the door for wandering. If the owner never double checks on a proxy-maintained cache, then years later it may not be anything like the owner placed or intended. Once again, the owner must be actively involved in maintaining their cache (or at least verifying it), whether or not there's been proxy-maint. On the topic: NM/OAR should never be withheld just because one thinks the owner is AWOL. Post it. Help the geocache to BE what the owner intended it to be, for as long as the owner continues to intend it to BE a geocache, and not abandoned trash.

They still can, even if they're archived. They're still there. No one seems to own it. GC is under no obligation to keep abandoned trash listed as a geocache. There's really no defens to be pulled out to defend that ethic. The owner has 1, 2, or 3 possibly more months to respond. That's all that's needed for a judgment to be made. No response, the item(s) left in nature are no longer an "official" geocache, and the website does not list people's abandoned trash. Regardless of the ex-geocache's current quality or experience surrounding it. Maybe someone should make another website that "re-lists" archived and abandoned, but still-good geocaches. There may be a demographic for that. But HQ has decided that is not what geocaching.com lists. No, blame the owner for the fact that they have abandoned their property to become trash in nature, meaning its inevitable archival - regardless of quality - is "hurting the community". Or at least hurting those who only want to find active geocache listings for the numbers. Because if nothing change with the physical cache and container, then it's still findable and signable. Possibly even loggable unless/until the listing is locked. The only one to blame for an archived "good" cache is the ex-owner.

To own a kayak is available to all. To paddle a kayak, likewise. But there are regulations as to what is required in your boat. Many ignore that if they feel they're advanced enough. But if there's a problem or you're caught then there can be hefty fines. In most cases in Ontario at least 98% of paddle caches are on rivers and ponds and small lakes where kayaks and canoes are more than welcome. Many prolific cachers have their own personal paddle boats. There are some on the great lakes where people often commission a motor boat from a nearby owner; and they often are aware of geocachers because of word of mouth It can become a little side hustle for friendly boat owners along the shorelines... geocachers will pay for a nice boat ride out to a remote cache on the rough lake. Fun experience!

That's quite often the case here. If a CO here wants it to be a pole cache, it's either away from any forest or trees where one could find a 'natural tool', it's it's so ridiculously high that a long branch wouldn't be feasible and only a special extended pole would work. But most prolific cachers around here have access to some sort of massive pole just in case... heck there have been groups who have strung multiple extension poles together, used more for extra support, and ladders in combination for even more height, for a the very few and rare top-of-lamp-post-style caches. Those are generally pretty risky (muggles, parking lot enforcement, etc) and either don't typically last too long or are only found once in a blue moon by large groups But they definitely test people's resourcefulness..es...

Well, I mean, you could just post another log, and upload another 20 images.

That rarely happens for non-urban caches, most of the time they just become more empty space on the map. I've archived 18 caches of my own over the past decade, but no-one else has ever come along and put a new cache there. If someone goes to find it, then it's not a dead zone. If they don't wish to place one, then it's still abandoned trash. They're just signing abandoned trash. HQ doesn't want to list abandoned trash. So the owner is to blame for its archival. Even though it's still there for people to find - because it's abandoned trash. But who wants to find abandoned trash? If it's not for the numbers, then it's the abandoned trash that's still there for anyone to sign if they value the hike and experience, even though it's no longer actively listed on the website. As abandoned trash. Blame the owner.

Challenge: Traditional finds below sea level, eg. A challenge that doesn't include posted coordinates that aren't for physical cache types.

Then yeah, it's got to be their sanitizing algorithm that doesn't 'like' bracket characters outside html syntax.

I would suggest also change the single quotes to double quotes. Some browsers may be forgiving of the single quote, but likely HQ's sanitization process is treating the syntax much stricter. If it doesn't like the ' as the quoted value then it almost certainly won't be friendly to the bracket within. And it's just generally safer to escape the reserved characters like html brackets, as tungstene suggested to try.

It's pretty typical of puzzle design in general as well. As the creator, you make it and intend to provide fun. Many people will follow that nudge and work at it. But there will be some who simply couldn't care and just want to get to the solution. A good puzzle will make it more enticing to do the puzzle properly, outweighing the temptation to cut corners and just get to the end. As a puzzle creator, there value bias in completing the puzzle as intended. For a fresh brain, that value needs to be inferred throughout the experience so there's no one point where their own temptation to give up outweighs their inferred value. Around here, the desire to work, almost at all, for a smiley is practically nil, so owners have all but given up creating gadget caches or multiple stage multis or puzzles, because people just pass on coordinates, damage containers, or skip steps that aren't needed even if they add to experience. We have so many unmaintained mundane trads, and roadsides, and powertrails, because it's seen just not worth the effort to create more value-added experiences if people don't want them. I feel like a 'tree fishing' cache would be fresh enough for people to try [here], but we have many with tools that accomplish the task of making task-based geocaches easier to do; like having an extension pole or ladder to avoid a tree climb -- which is perfect to skip the challenge of tree fishing with a magnet... So yeah, got to keep human nature in mind, but part of that is understanding your local community too.

Absolutely. It's the ideal. Not a guarantee. You're projecting what you believe to be the standard. And you're effectively limiting 'all relevant knowledge' purely to the existence of 2 dnfs. I've shown why that's far too limited for what reviewers have access to and all that can influence decision-making. You and I do not have access to reviewer insight. A decision they make on a cache with 2 dnfs could be based on anywhere from solely as you say, to a whole lot of private communications with multiple people over years about whoever's involved. If you were a reviewer, you would know. But neither of us are, so you can't say that a decision to archive a cache is based solely on 2 DNFs, unless the reviewer has told you so. I don't want to get into that email wording again because it was well fleshed out in prior threads, including the fact that the written words are not clear that a talking with a reviewer is an option, so that it is not disabled and/or archived. Provide a reasonable maintenance plan. That is all that's needed, as many reviewers have repeatedly mentioned. Again, that's not the "goal" of the CHS. That result only happens if reviewers take action, by choice, on the flagged caches. The CHS is a tool the reviewers can use to carry out their duties more easily, and if they're told that their current job is to move towards refreshing the gameboard, then they will apply their actions more strictly as the CHS open the door for them.

I don't know if you realize what you're saying. Reviewers absolutely have access to information we don't, historic activity we don't, opinions we may not share, and more. Anything from past interactions with geocachers and owners that will influence their judgment on matters with them - yes, it happens, and it has been admitted - we all know you don't get on a reviewer's naughty list. Lenience is subjective. What we're not "privy to" could be anything from a word in passing in person that clarifies an issue, to notes that have been taken about prior incidents and interactions, to private communications, to simply a matter of their personal opinion. And every call is a judgment call. "No precedent" is there for a reason - one reviewer judgment may differ from another, for whatever reason, and that clause allows them to carry out their given authority without constant bickering and tattle tailing, unless a strict guideline has been broken. One can hope. But if the rule is you must be a responsive cache owner, then they are under no obligation to any geocacher to allow a listing to remain active if the owner is non-responsive. If they do, they're being lenient if they aren't convinced there's good reason to let it remain active. The objective standard is based on the reports fed to the reviewer and the agreed-upon owner responsibilities - non-responsive owner means potential archival after the typical period of ensuring the CO can respond or check on the listing, regardless of the what anyone might say about the cache itself. That's the baseline. Everything else is subjective. Exceptions. Leniency. Human judgment. Or, potentially stricter still if there are further mitigating circumstances that the public may or may not know about (and which reviewers are under no obligation to make known) that could warrant more immediate action. In any case, now we're arguing over reviewer methodology, rather than the CHS. If the CHS were to flag every cache with one DNF for reviewer attention, we could make an argument that the CHS is too strict; but I would be shocked if reviewers then disabled all those caches merely because the CHS flagged them. Which is another great example as to why the CHS does nothing actively. It's all reviewer judgment. The thread could be more accurately titled "Reviewers are too strict taking action on CHS flags needlessly"