Cache-Chriss

Hi, das GC-Fieber hat mich leider schon vor einiger Zeit verlassen. Mir fehlt Motivation und Zeit, mich um diese Reihe zu kümmern. Wer aus dem Frankfurter Raum kommt (oder gern und oft reist :D), den lade ich gerne ein diese Caches zu adoptieren: GC4DRC7 GC4DRCB GC4DRCD GC4DRCH GC4DRCJ Es wäre sehr schade, wenn diese Runde verschwinden würde. Gruß Cache-Chriss

That's probably what I need to do.

Well obviously that's one reason but not a strong one to me. It's more like an ethical question really. Regarding regulations: I'm in Germany - home of all rules and regulations.

1) Well, the initial thought for this geocache mainly was "Hey, there are signs next to a trail which basically noone walkd anymore - let's show it to some people". This trail is about 50m next to an asphalted, ~10m cross forest "path". I'm not even the original owner of this cache. 2) I don't think I agree with this. It is obvious from the signs that they are a bit older than this century and honestly I'd leave it to the geocachers to interpret it.

Okay, so this looks very clear, I had the same tendency. Doing a CITO doesn't seem appropriate in this case, I believe. Regarding the waypoints: They do exist and the sign are only 2-3m next to the path If deforestation is happening, it really is nowhere near that area.

Hi, I own a Geocache in a wood which leads you to several signs describing the deforestation. When it was placed 7 years ago the signs were very visible once you found the trail to them. By now, ironically, they have overgrown and some people even go past them without noticing and have to go back (searching the signs wasn't supposed to be a challenge orginially). 1 or 2 years ago I spent quite some time cutting branches so one could see the signs again. I am not sure if I should do this again and would like to collect some thoughts about this of you while intentionally not stating my opinion in detail.

That is correct however that was not what I was implying. You're right in saying not every cache enabled needed maintenance. But would a cache be enabled if it needed maintenance but did not recieve it? I guess that would be the same as creating an empty maintenance log just to get rid of the tag.

Well, that's the obvious way one has to do it. However I just forget it. Disabling and enabling a cache should have the same effects as a maintenance. It's rather annoying to first log "I did this" and then enabling the cache, while one could simply write "I did this" in the enable-log - which I do.

Was specifically looking for this thread. It's the second time now it happened to me: A NM log was created and I'm like: Alright, I'll check this out. So I disabled the listing, replaced what was missing and enabled it again. Now almost 4 weeks later I get an email that a cache in my area got disabled for not clearing the NM-tag. That's where I remembered I should probably check mine too. There needs to be some sort of reminder for this! Possibly one could argue the NM-tag should be removed after the listing got enabled (again).