MKFmly

I use EasyGPS to load caches on my Vista HCX. It doesn't support Linux natively but you may be able to get it to work running under a Windows virtual machine.

It's also interesting (from the alternate perspective) that it would be nice if more caches "inspired" more than a "TFTC" log. I enjoy well written logs as well as most cache owners, but if those type of logs don't come it's not necessarily the fault of the finder (Which is often the assumption in the forums). Just saying... As a cache owner I don't find "Wow what a beautiful location! Thank you so much for bringing me to such a serene part of Arkansas!" or "Easy find thank you for adding to my adventure today! This also closes another county in Arkansas for me" much improved over TFTC... (that's not to suggest say they don't write other better logs)

Unfortunately, there are many among us that need one rule for all cases, exceptions are anathema. You just have to be able to look at it from the other direction and appreciate certain caches may not have "additional requirements". In my world the online "found it" log would align with B] which works for all cases.

Pup, I think you misinterpreted my post, as it most definitely was not in support of [redacted]. (Almost ironically illustrating my true point...)

Just did it, UniQP's instructions worked fine.

If you scan these forums, an outsider would think that all cachers are liars, cheaters, thieves, power trail addicts, all about numbers, throwdowners, and all around "poor citizens". That couldn't be further from the truth. We often discuss the 0.01% of the caches/cachers/owners as if it's the norm. Give people some credit and cut them some slack.

What an odd thing to highlight...

Again, regardless of whether you believe the check up to be reasonable, ascribe benevolent motivations to reviewers (and often the opposite to cache owners), there is no documented reason for any reviewer to impose that maintenance visit in this instance. Frankly, there are only one or two posters who are ascribing motivations and assuming negative attitudes toward reviewers (frankly on the pro visit side), while the rest of us discuss a fine technical issue.

Please cite anything that supports your assertions. Strongly disagree, but that's for another thread.

The key misunderstanding is again, regardless of whether you believe the check up to be reasonable under the given circumstances and timelines, this was an arbitrary disabling of a cache with an imposed "maintenance" visit. I am fairly certain that we all recognise and appreciate the thankless hours our volunteer reviewers put in doing a great job, however to assume they are perfect is a little optimistic and to characterise respectful discussion questioning one action with a potential wide ranging precedent as "kind of appalling" is ridiculous.

There are some subtleties to your question. Firstly, in our area daylight is limited in the winter so even though you may not call it "night", caching after supper is indeed done in the dark often requiring assistance from portable light products. It comes with its own problems as terrain issues easily observed during the day cause problems or short off the trail bushwhacks can be difficult just searching for traditional caches. Secondly, as mentioned there are caches specifically designed to be done in the dark, traditionally night caching uses reflective trail markers to lead you to a cache. From the start point, you scan the area to find the next tack/symbol then from there you scan again for the next stage, rinse and repeat until you reach the final. Ultraviolet markers and lasers have also been used. If your observant enough they can be done in daylight but they lose a lot of the "fun" factor. Often (but not exclusively) the "night cache", "flashlight required" and "UV Light Required" attributes are set therefore you can filter for them. As for issues with authorities/others no, wildlife yes (being stalked by a pack of coyotes can be unnerving). A couple of references http://www.cacheatnight.com/geocaching/ http://debaere.blogspot.ca/2013/12/night-caching-in-san-jose.html We had a hoot doing this night cache quite awhile ago https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3J1G4_the-goblins-hoard

Regardless of whether you believe the check up to be reasonable under the given circumstances, this was an arbitrary disabling of a cache with an imposed "maintenance" visit. To this point there has been no general or specific rule or guideline cited that imposes that requirement on any cache owner nor that devolves that responsibility to a reviewer. Certainly, reviewers have an obligation to act on documented cache maintenance issues (NMs, NAs, and long streaks of DNFs) but "disabling" on a hunch just doesn't seem right...

Oh the irony...

In practical terms set a waypoint at each stage (or nearby cache) and then search for it, as you move away you will know how far away it is...

Scraped from site,

lel, The disabling of an rarely visited viable cache (with no demonstrable problems) counts as cleaning up the database... If database cleanup is truly a goal there are certainly more effective and widespread targets (more bang for the buck)... that may actually make a difference to the casual cacher.

It depends on your goal as a cache owner: If your goal is to bring people somewhere new/cool/interesting, have an adventure, and write about it online, then the mission was accomplished by those that signed the throwdown in good faith and logged online. If the container was integral to that adventure then I see some justification. As a cache owner that's pretty much what you hope for and why DNF logs can be just as good as found it's. But why retroactively punish the (good faith) throwdown finders for the acts of the throwdowner? If your goal as a cache owner is to have a pristine log book and online record then that was met to...I guess. From a personal perspective, given this situation I would have preferred the opportunity (and likely pro-actively) to change my "found it" to a DNF or a note... If my log was deleted I likely would not relog out of respect as the CO seems interested in log integrity over cache adventures. YMMV Discussions of this type often make me consider not logging online at all, but writing a short story can be fun and 90% of cache owners appreciate them.

Slightly off topic, but an attempt to clarify Reasonable cacher safety is an important consideration: People undertake geocaching at their own risk, cache owners are not held morally or legally responsible for "said pedestrians" retrieving their caches, otherwise there would not be geocaching or any caches... Said pedestrian could easily be injured, whether there was a crosswalk or not, a cache or not, or they are going to the store rather than a cache ... In this case it seems reasonable to restrict caches to roundabouts with pedestrian access.

Well perhaps: the visited caches were not suitable for drop off, the TBs were left at home, the TBs have a mission that the holder plans to help with in the future, some TB owners like mileage, and etc.

We get it, your a good conscientious cache owner, but your approach to adopting a cache is not at issue. At issue is the arbitrary disabling of a cache...

So the forced maintenance visit criteria are documented somewhere?

Sort of, but only do to your hardline "once a year regardless" perspective. They don't disagree with maintenance or the sentiment, they disagree with the schedule. The inherent purpose of a "needs maintenance" log is well, to say the cache needs maintenance. Yes, it is a reactive system but that is what Groundspeak created because anything else would not work. Emphasis Mine. Occasional in many definitions means "occurring, appearing, or done infrequently and irregularly" and that's what many here advocate for...like when there is a potential problem identified through a found it, a DNF, or NM log... as you say "the need arises". So back to the OP, Again if there are no issues reported on the cache page what are the immediate maintenance requirements? Why is the reviewer arbitrarily imposing a maintenance visit?

The point here is What does "maintain it properly and timely" mean? There are some obvious personal opinions illustrated here and some room for discussion, however it is intuitively obvious that maintenance requirements differ between caches, cache containers, cache locations, number of visits, local environments, time of year... Edit So getting back to the OP, if there are no issues reported on the cache page what are the immediate maintenance requirements? Is not the purpose of a "needs maintenance log" to alert the owner that there may be an issue? Wherein the absence of which we can nominally assume everything is ok?

Don't get too worried, there is no hacking or algorithm. It is likely a just a brute force script (or bot) that will try all possible combinations and "log" those that come up true. Someone can probably do it in GSAK in a matter of moments... Report the user directly to GS...

Isn't the app crippled because of "listening" to the "forum feedback"? It been long established in these forums that unvalidated new casual cachers destroy/remove caches, steal trackables, and leave lame logs ... That what I thought, but if none of the third-party apps are too, what's the point? For the record (before this goes any further) and just to clarify I was being a little sarcastic. I don't believe or support that "statement"... Agreed, with the debatable "wisdom" of crippling your own app while others work unhindered...