ccx

Well, I for myself keep trying. In the very beginning of the thread I was mentioned that I also delete logs occasionally. But, I communicated before in every single case and quite a just few made a mistake because they found a final that coincided with my my mystery coordinates - took me a while to find out. In other cases a typo in the cache code led someone to my hiking multi instead of the hiking multi he really did, which was apparent from the log. Communication solved all cases. In a way I can imagine that reviewers also face confrontative cases, but I sincerely hope that the community scores better that 9 out of 10. The "No, sorry, we've considered the special circumstances carefully, and we're still not going to let you do that." is the kind of reply I eventually got 3 days later. And this was very appropriate. I actually consider the reviewer teams as strict, but also very constructive in their communications. The hiking caches I own have finals in a national park, so it is tough to find good hides, which also comply with the associated rules. The reviewers have been very picky, but also very supportive when communicating with the authorities on that. Also very appropriate. The case leading to this thread was actually the first time when I experienced a different, non-communicative style, through an anonymous action. There was not even a reviewer commenting on it, so I had no point of communication to resolve. As much as I try to interact respectfully with people - when I feel treated with disrespect, I tend to react in a similar way. It is a weak point for sure. Regrettably, this is a prejudice you have and it adds to the one which a few here carry along: "You have disrespected the 'be in the book' rule. The one and only reasonable reason for that must be your urge to cheat, no matter what you say." I explained myself a lot here. Apparently this does not count much, so I do not see much motivation to continue on that. Just to stress it again - after resolving the matter with GS, I have no no couch logs and all my caches are couch log free (and this does concern not just the one log that has been questioned, but their whole log history). Fun fact on the whole story: It is apparently possible and seemingly acceptable by GS, to log a traditional for being on site and WITHOUT signing a book. I know a case where it is a Corona action of an owner, who decided that the potential of spreading the virus though people touching his container and logbook is not acceptable to him. So he now requests people to photograph a sticker at the location with some indication of their own presence on site - similar procedure like for a virtual. No book to sign, although it is a traditional cache and GS rules say "... at minimum, all of these geocaches will have a logbook". This seems to have happened in agreement with reviewer, as cache coordinates have been changed for that too. I think it is a creative idea, but for the more fundamentalist people here it would just be against the rules and to be condemned according to the earlier replies in this thread. Yes, I also do not believe statistics for the well known reasons. But for ME it is showing respect to the owners that I solve their caches in the way they intend it to be. And therefore I EARN these ratings for MY personal records. Geocaching for me is not check-marking, but facing those D / T challenges and enjoying the game in itself. This surely created some of my underestimation of the importance of the check marks apparently. As written above, I have understood that and there is no need to get back to this specific point more.

I was trying to make a point throughout all my communications here that being reasonable and interacting with each other is a key point. What is acceptable for an owner would be generally acceptable for the game. That is my point of view. And, it should be dependent on the circumstances. You have a set of very good reasons! I have no issues with that. But I have also been attacked quite a bit here for what I was thought is a good reason to not be rock-hard on the "be in the book". And someone who goes as far to say, that I do not deserve to be part of the game for this, should play all rules with the same strictness and not just the ones which fit his own style of playing the game. This is what I tried to express and of course a simplified and exaggerated statement has its weak points too. I for myself take the D* / T* thing quite serious for myself. When I am not fit for the cache, I do not go for it - in D as well as in T. Others are more relaxed on that. But, if an owner is ok with it for whatever good reasons, it is fine and his decision. Just to explain a bit more why I stressed this: My first own cache was a D4 mystery. The final coordinates leaked due to the geochecker being hacked - luckily I had shifted the location a bit just before. After some years of trouble-free existence, suddenly the geochecker started to report exactly the same coordinates in the vast majority of the checks (for a coordinate projection over a few kilometers!). As the cache did not get found very often, it was not too difficult to trace back to some people in the community. And - surprise surprise - They were quite strict about being in the book and have achieved their T5s personally. But at the same time logging mysteries from swapped coordinates was perfectly ok for them. I felt cheated, apparently, and because it was a mass-phenomenon, I archived the cache. Finding mysteries is about solving the riddle. This is what I meant by playing against each other. I am quite relaxed as long as there is consensus among the participants of a particular case (and for the initial story here there was no consensus from the GS side, so I accept that too) - it is a game we play together and not a competition. But I am also sensible when someone takes and projects to others with rigor the part of the rules that match his own playing style and stretches the others. If being strict, it should be being strict on everything. Btw, I did not accuse anyone of the critics of not doing so, I just did express this expectation.

Hi everyone, some update on the matter. After the initial harsh reaction, which I still consider as too much for the case and which did provoke me to the also overly harsh reaction to put the initial post: HQ eventually approached me and the others in the way, that I would have expected from the very beginning and that would have cleared the case quickly without any lock-up actions. It was good to see, that - beyond proposals to just expel me from the hobby for my opinions - quite a few people engaged in a constructive discussion, namely frostengel here in the thread and G.O. Cash behind the scenes. Thanks for that! And, I am quite happy to see that people actually keep caring about the honest approach to caching, beyond the comparatively easily observable and sactionable logs that are not physically present in the book. When someone just did hold the rope on a climbing T5 or did log a D5 mystery with swapped coordinates or because someone else in the caching party did do all the work solving the puzzle, they cheat not only their own statistics, but in particular the owners of the respective caches. This is playing the game against the owners , who are the foundation of the game. Of course it is harder to prove, and the "being in the book" moreover will override it anyway. This aspect of it for me personally continues to weight heavier than the physical log itself. And in a way it also led to my misconception, that the book rule might be by-passable in a special circumstance and in consent with the respective cache owners. I have learned that it is not and accept that. I hope and trust that those, who have been very insisting on the physical log as the core of all rules, treat the other kind of cheats with the same amount of fundamental strictness. Stay healthy everyone! Andreas

No, this is a misunderstanding here. As seen from the discussion above I offered to some people to log the cache today. I have no control over locking or unlocking of course. This is on GS side.

This would remain to be verified. And of course I do not know. And he was the only one, because HQ was aware and has been watching the cache. I would assume that there was one or two more attempts. This is something you would have to ask Hoppedei himself. I am not really fine with people pushing heir statistics and also on this cache you would find some series logs of type "we have been to the area and collected some caches". Do I like it? No, but also here the rule says that the on-site log proves the visit. Of course - as G.O. Cash found out, I verify the log books of my caches from time to time. But I also apply "Augenmaß". So I communicate with everyone I delete (and the majority did it by accident) and I also have allowed a few people to log my Malerweg caches without a physical log. Sometimes a cache gets muggled and on other occasions people just do not find it for whatever reason. After walking between 25 and 35 km for it, they either never come there again, because they move on on their long distance walk, or they would have to travel significant distances to return to the final again. Putting a physical log as the top rule in such conditions becomes inappropriate. I am ok with a proof that they have done the tour (which is usually the information on the intermediate stages and calculated final coordinates). And I think, that is the main point: The logs of those people are ok for ME as the owner of the cache. Whoever logs from the couch or with swapped coordinates of course cheats his own statistics (and there is more than enough of that happening every day beyond the very specific case discussed here), but he does not even cheat GS in any way. Best regards Andreas

Hi Jochen (and all), in my opinion it is a nice sign which fits the current situation and it originates from cache owners in the local area, not any couch cachers. And anyone who has logged the affected caches has extensive caching records and really does not need the finds for anything. It is simply an action to support a message. Right now there are enough indications that some cachers attempt to overstretch the current legal rules just for the hobby.A bit more stay@home would be appropriate for some. What was initiated here was a very area- and time-limited story, concerning 3 caches and a handful logs. I have opened one of my caches for one day too (Malerweg I), because I support the message (not of couch logging, but of keeping our outdoor activities at a reasonable scale). This cache is out of reach due the current legal restrictions for most of those who know about the proposal (which was only posted to a local group). And, all of those know that they miss something if they log from the couch, so there is enough motivation to do the caches later on despite a couch log. This is btw also true for the two couch logs I have done, these are sufficiently interesting to be also visited in real. The response from the HQ side was harsh and different to the common practice - the caches just got locked anonymously. No note from a reviewer, no attempt of contact to resolve the matter. Instead, they fired the second-biggest weapon they have without notice and further explanation. As said before, I believe this could have been addressed in a different way. For touchstone's proposal to resolve this locally: Of course there are different opinions on that - some pro, some con, and they are discussed. And of course some local folks have triggered the process with HQ. But these do not leave their hides, apparently. Anyway, I do not want to take this any further from here. Anyone with a deeper interest on how the story evolves will find the respective caches easily through my profile and yesterday's found logs. Best wishes!

Thanks for explaining me the rules... Me being upset about not being able to log these caches is your own interpretation. I am certainly not and I still go out in the field, also right now. The promille difference in my own statistics is really irrelevant and I don't gain anything from that. But I disagree about the scale of reaction. There are thousands of +1 gained through "team logs", coordinate swapping, etc and nobody really cares. If GS wants to play strict, they could have removed the logs or asked the cache owners to do so. Anyway, it's my opinion and you have yours. Declaring me as confused is somewhat arrogant, btw.

A little story from my neighborhood, which is currently under lock-down: A few cachers came up with the idea to allow a handful of caches for online only logging without a physical log proof to support the stay at home policies. The GS response was immediate - these caches were locked. Wrong message at the wrong time guys!

Hi everyone, I have been using the app now and then and enjosed to see how features and stability improved. One thing which drove me crazy was the unability to sync to OneDrive. None of the suggestions so far helped (uninstall/reinstall). Today I think I found the solution to the problem and would like to share the info: When browsing through the logs obtained on unsuccessful download attempts I noticed, that Geowigo actually was able to connect and also found other folders in my OneDrive, just not the /Geowigo one. Then I looked for specifics of the Geowigo folder and noticed, that OneDrive knows 2 types of folders: Pictures and Documents. Mine was set to Pictures (don't know how, I think I created the folder on the local PC copy of the OneDrive). After changing to Documents (only possible on the web interface) Geowigo now happily synchronizes Lumia 820