JL_HSTRE

Depends on the cache and the seekers. Also helps if the cache is rated accurately. Part of the problem is that after a couple DNFs the willingness of cachers to attempt the cache goes down significantly. After awhile it can sometimes attract Lonely Cache seekers willing to take a long shot. Otherwise it tends to linger in limbo. I know I make frequent use of the default GSAK filter "last 2 logs are DNFs" to exclude caches.

So much this. Applies to regular caches too, with regard to GPS reception.

On my recent vacation I came across an AL whose question involved a sign that had been removed. Rather than edit the question to ask something else or remove it entirely, the CO simply edited the question to read something like "Sign missing. Answer is 123."

"Unfinished" would probably be a better category name than "In Progress." The latter implies I will finish them later. I have 73 completed and 41 "In Progress" but realistically I will probably never complete any of those. I didn't forget them or put them off until later. Mostly, I did a single stage of the Adventure because it was close at hand and the other stages were out of my way so I skipped them. A few times I started the Adventure, but had no interest in finishing.

I like the idea of Earthcaches. The execution is often frustrating or disappointing - the tasks, not the locations. The Guidelines have changed so many times I would guess most active Earthcaches couldn't be published today as they are currently written. I've pretty much given up trying to create any because it's seems very difficult to find something that avoids all the prohibitions while also providing sufficient educational material on the cache page. For awhile photos couldn't be required, but now they can be. I don't understand why photos as proof of visiting the site are allowed, but questions that only serve as proof of visiting the site aren't allowed. As a semi-random sample, I looked at the 24 Earthcaches that I Found on my vacation earlier this month: at least 8 included at least one question that could be answered without visiting the site, usually either by asking for information to be regurgitated from the cache description or asking for the height/width of something that can easily be found online like a waterfall or a river. 7 involved one at least one question that involves regurgitating info from signage. For one, all the questions are from signage, and since some of the signage has been missing for years so answers must be sought for those questions online. For another, all answers are contained in a handout given to all visitors. 6 involved measuring something at the location, such as a boulder. 1 involved online research (there was no way to answer the question at GZ or from the cache page) 1 involved an expectation of prior knowledge in the form of proving a classification chart full of terminology that is not explained on the cache page. The total is greater than 24 because many of the caches contained more than 1 violation. Additionally, I skipped one other Earthcache that asked for several measurements and calculations, without explaining what tools or methods should be used to do so.

Since Earthcaches are virtual (i.e. no physical container) any tools required must be brought by seekers, not provided by the CO. Distance is the most common measurement, of which there are numerous options, including apps or just eyeballing it (I know my foot is close to 1 ft in length). Elevation (no longer allowed) can be measured with certain GPSr, and otherwise estimated from a topo map. I've seen Earthcaches that require measuring water temperature and measuring water pH. I doubt most people travel with a thermometer, or for that matter even have a waterproof thermometer unless they have a fish tank. Unless you have a fish tank or a swimming pool, you probably don't have anything to measure pH either. What other tools are allowed? Anything creative you've seen?

I think chirp apps might be okay to discuss because they are neither a competing GPS game nor are they interacting with the geocaching.com website in a manner other than the API.

I'm surprised elevation would still be allowed considering how difficult it is to determine qualifying caches. Basically impossible without partner software. Also, elevation stats often get wonky if do Mystery caches. Fake coords are sometimes offshore or in a lake or atop an inaccessible mountain.

Agreed. That was not what I meant, but my wording wasn't clear.

I recently found a 2001 ammo can cache with the original container and original logbook.

"Responding" does not mean rushing out to GZ immediately. It means every time a Reviewer Note is posted on your cache you respond with a Note or Owner Maintenance of your own. "I am aware of the issue and will check on it next month" is an acceptable response. In some cases an OM log of "NM logged in error" is a reasonable response.

At some point "climbing requiring hands" was suggested T4. So if ascent and descent reasonably expect being on all fours or otherwise pulling oneself up, I think that's T4. For a steep trail where you really want to have a hiking stick and really don't want to slip, but won't normally need to grab anything to make the climb then T3.5

Or the Reviewer had left a Reviewer Note about an issue which the CO either missed or didn't correctly respond.

There's a non-zero number that fit in certain Micros, yes. Not many though. I can fit a penny in a magkey too, but that doesn't really mean it can reasonably hold swag.

I have no sympathy for them either. They knew what they were doing. I expect at least some were in a cahoots with the CO. So keep hiding behind you 0 Finds sock puppet while the world's smallest violin plays just for you.

I think it's gotten worse over time, but it's been going on for a long time. Petlings and preforms further confused people. But I remember seeing "Small" magkeys and altoid tins a decade ago. Trackables include geocoins, most of which fit in a Small.

All signs point to a series of caches "located" in the countries surrounding Poland with the finals in Poland, intended to get a bunch of high D/T hides in other countries for some kind of stats boost without having to physically leave Poland. Maybe Challenge qualifications? Doesn't really matter. Zero sympathy. The COs other hides should be Unpublished and they should be banned from hiding caches. We haven't had any comments from Groundspeak on the subject.

They're suggestions in the sense that Groundspeak has never tried to enforce accurate sizes. Hence the many Micros listed as Small.

Look at it this way: fitting a TB applies only to those seeking to drop off a TB, which especially nowadays is not many people. Other provides information to all seekers. They know just from the size that the container is something out of the ordinary.

If the interior and exterior are different sizes or the container is a fake object then I believe the cache should always be listed as Other. Any other size is misleading. This is my opinion. The Guidelines have never been strict about sizes; they've always been suggestions.

Sounds like a cache that should have been disabled when then sign was removed and archived when it was clear the sign wouldn't be replaced, or changed to use a different sign.

The two caches in question: https://coord.info/GCABR07 (Romania) https://coord.info/GCA5WGK (Moldova) The first thing that jumps out to me about the Romania cache: why does a cache have description written only in English? It's strange to me for any cache to be placed in any country without having the description in the native language. The Moldova cache at least has the description partly in non-English. The Moldova archive log hints at the reason more than the Romania archive log: "great mistake from my part to publish the 'series' from the first placed. Now corrected" Three other hides by the CO (published by other Reviewers) use the same style and background image as the two archived caches: https://coord.info/GCA5T1J https://coord.info/GCABQZT https://coord.info/GCA5R50 The CO has hides in Finland, Slovenia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Cabo Verde (Cape Verde Islands). Except for the Verde cache published in January, all the other hides are non-Traditionals published during the last 6 six weeks. The CO doesn't have any home location listed on their profile. One fellow in Germany has logged about finding each of the three caches using his "magic carpet" and the loggers of these three caches are all pretty much the same. I wonder where the finals are actually located? All on a power trail in the same country perhaps? This all smells very fishy to me.

Go right ahead. Then I will immediately post it in this thread so that the truth can be revealed. I've been on these forums long enough to know pretty much every time someone posts a "this poor cache has been treated so unfairly" that a Reviewer or Lackey comes by and reveals the rest of the story that the OP didn't know or was deliberately hiding.

Personally, I think all stages of a cache should be in the same country. I'm sure there are creative and thematic reasons supporting a multi-country multi-stage cache. In understand the Guidelines allow it. I just think they cause more trouble than they're worth.

Not providing a GC# = OP doesn't want pesky facts to inferior with their perceived victimization. OP contradicts themselves. "For a while, nothing happens." Then "After two weeks from publishing..." the archiving happens. You think a Multicache going unfound during the first week after publication is "awhile"? OP's story is very fishy because Reviewers don't delete logs, especially not for armchair logging. That's mostly up to the CO. Groundspeak HQ will sometimes delete logs for inappropriate content or because the logging behavior of an account is clearly fraudulent and that entire user account gets nuked. A listing sometimes gets retracted because there was some issue involving accidental publication or some serious but initially overlooked issue that should have prevented publication. However, to my knowledge, only caches without logs get Retracted. If the cache had logs then the listing would normally be Archived and Locked instead. Though I must admit the idea of a "honey pot" cache that is known to be fake and is difficult enough too deter legitimate cachers while enticing enough to attract armchair loggers is an interesting idea for a Groundspeak sting operation.