Sagefox

My bold - sounds like a convenient way to absolve oneself of any and all responsibility for one's actions By some folks measure it may sound that way. I think there is more to it than that. Let's set aside the "throwdown" concept for the moment because I don't advocate cache replacement as a method of gaining a find and I said that in my post. Container replacement is also done for the benefit of others. Finders get a maintained cache for a while. What does it actually matter that the problem is put off for a month, or a year, maybe longer? If there is a viable cache in place shouldn't that meet the goal of the game? In the case of the absentee owner, when people are no longer willing to help out, NM and NA logs will be eventually be posted. (Which is how the future takes care of itself.) It also benefits the CO. It buys them some time before making a maintenance trip. If they don't like that someone tried to help them or don't like the container type they can simply disable the cache until they can get out there - the point being that they need to get out there regardless of the action intended to help them. No extra effort is required of the cache owner whether the container was replaced or not. I have never had a CO complain about my many actions over many years to clean up or replace a container. Sometimes people new to the game, wanting to help when they find a cache in bad condition, come here for advice and they, hopefully, will get to read different perspectives. Some here want to discourage any action or discourage container replacement. I say that there are times when helping out benefits the game. As I opened with in my post above, the key is in reading the situation at the actual cache site. One rule doesn't fit all.

And some believe they are helping future finders. The key to replacing a container is to correctly read the situation. It isn't all that hard to do. There are many conditions where container replacement works out o.k. and in my experience there were few cases, if any, where it was wrong for me to do so. I don't claim finds for caches I replace. I also have posted a fair amount of Needs Archived logs where I felt it was appropriate and all but a couple of them got archived because the CO was inactive or just didn't care. I have replaced a lot of containers over the years and never had a CO complain. People often say that replacing or revitalizing a non-maintained cache just puts forward the inevitable need for archiving. I don't see how that is a problem because the future will take care of itself: If folks want it kept alive then they will do something and if they don't then the cache will get archived but in the mean time searchers will have something to find. There are many caches that the community has kept alive long after the CO left the game. Edit: grammar.

Not to diminish your tribute to Iron Chef I just want to say that JASW caches were very important to us back in 2002, 3 an 4 when there were not so many caches around. We travel the I-5 corridor and roam around the Mojave desert a lot and you always gave us something to look forward to. We never met you but you were a regular feature for us during those first years. For your "I-Hate I-5" caches where you wanted one coin in the container and people always left them stuffed so full you could hardly close them I would clean them out and leave one new quarter (as well as replacing logs and drying out the tins). I would then give all the proceeds to the Washington State Geocachers Association in addition to my annual dues. It amounted to about $10 per year supplemented from coins from a few other caches. I should also say that I LOVE I-5 from Olympia to LA and never get tired of driving it (the rural sections) especially the Central Valley and the high passes on each end. Oregon is fun too. Saying I Hate I-5 back then always meant something good. Thanks for your early work supplying caches and fun for this game. Ed Team Sagefox

I just came across this photo from the 2004 Portland Cache Machine. This is the equipment Wienerdog and Team Sagefox used for that two-day CM.

Thanks for your reply. I am always testing my spout-offs against the real-world of geocaching. My travel bugs have a request that they be visited to only a few caches per handler. Your method fits right in with my request. No one has ever done that for me but maybe it will catch on - I think it is a good idea. I didn't know that so thanks for that tip. It will make it much easier at home... not so much out in the field with a phone which is where I would really like to know before making a grab. But back in the hotel room or campground after the grab this will help. Now I might move more trackables - I've choked it down quite a bit because of the excessive visits.

Not knowing what the recent logs have been saying, maybe locals or visitors have been tidying up as time goes along.

What would be the purpose??? Trackables disappear. It is "virtually" guaranteed that most of them will disappear somewhere, sometime. Why is there a need for eternal life for a simple little object? Virtual logs won't be real - the trackable won't exist. I can't figure out why anyone would even want fake logs for a trackable that hasn't been found. When they disappear we can release the Copy Tag or a proxy. These are REAL things that REAL people can FIND and log. If they are gone we can mark them as missing. We can just buy another tag. They are not that expensive.

Yes. And perhaps a bulk-delete feature where we could get rid of all the Visit logs in one move. (I'm dreaming, of course, but as Debbie Harry said, "Dreamin' is free".) Actually, I don't really mind deleting them one at a time until the infestation is completely cleared off the pages.

Yes but the point is for it to be dropped off in a reasonable amount of time so someone else can move it. To see the chain of human interaction involved in the moving, what different people will do with it and what they will write about it. My trackable goals never included seeing someone else's overly detailed caching route. I guess that is true especially when standing in the 97 degree heat in the Mojave desert deciding whether to grab a bug to help its goal or take it somewhere it hasn't been (real visit: left in a cache) and then having to page through 50 to several hundred visit logs. Or standing anywhere at any temperature... anytime. Mojave heat or comfort of the home computer, 80 pages of "took it to"s is never my idea of fun.

The reliable workhorse Garmin Map6(x) series. The Map60 is way out of date now and doesn't load the cache web pages. The Map62 is still available some places. Loads cache web pages so you don't need a second device to read the cache page info. (Phone coverage is not always available.) The Map64 is the newest in the series and in addition to web page downloading it also receives Russian satellites for added accuracy. I've used the first two models starting in 2004 and will be getting a Map64s by year's end. Each model number has different versions depending on what features you might want to add. If you go to the Garmin website you can click on different models and choose "compare" to see side-by-side spec sheets. Edit: These units need a Garmin map program purchased separately in order to see local roads. With those maps the gps will "auto-route" you to caches or other locations. The maps also have a HUGE database of businesses like restaurants, motels, parks and much more.

It has been hit and miss for me the since last evening. When the site dumps me I can't get back in at the login screen. When I hit "login" it just returns a blank login form. Same happens using the phone to log into the site. The phone ap is working for me. Edit: Olympia, Washington.

I disagree. I like the old grandfathers and still search them out because they are collector's items now but the essence of "grandfathering" is that they will be phased out when they become needy. The idea is that they will eventually be gone unless continually maintained. Once the original benchmark was removed during demolition this virtual crossed that line. We have to let it go peacefully to virtual cache heaven.

Thanks for taking action on this one. You've helped a young person in the right direction.

Maybe they blocked you? Sounds like you are harassing them to me. How is sending one message harassing? If you just took it on your own to take action with this person that has logged 100 finds today from Ohio to California, then that would seem to me like harassment. This part sounds more like peer pressure to me. Someone logging obvioulsy bogus finds is clearly outside the norm for this game. Log a lot of them and you can earn yourself a banner headline in the forums. There could be many reasons that people do this and this one seems quite naive as noted above but scanning many of their find logs and seeing nothing but short gibberish entries leads me to believe that some sort of peer pressure was due. I think people should be questioned about this and reported if they continue. Yes, I didn't care too much for that either because they were young people. They did, though, leave themselves open when it went beyond a handful of local caches.

It's o.k. Geocachers find AMPLE evidence that both halves of the population do their business behind trees and bushes. I've never smelled animal urine in the wild but walking down an innercity alley tells you what concentrated human peeing smells like.

Pruning some low branches and shrubs in a dense, fast growing forest to access some information signs is hardly a statement on deforestation. The intent of the forest managers was to provide that information to the people walking the trails. Changing the multi to a traditional cache seems to defeat the purpose of getting people to each sign. Each situation needs to be assessed independently. There is no need here for us to tell someone they should not do this kind of trail maintenance. I would have no hesitation to do this work if my on-site assessment led me to believe it was appropriate. In Northern California there is a virtual cache that had a requirement that finders do some trail pruning to get to it. (This ALR is no longer enforceable and the cache owner never hassled anyone who did not do maintenance.) The idea was that the property managers did not have funds to maintain all their trails so we geocachers would help out. It was a fun project. For this cache I would consider contacting the property managers and volunteer to prune brush between the trail and the signs.

It's been archived for about 22 months so I wouldn't be too worried about removing it. All their caches are archived and they have not been active for quite a while. You can go get it now or the next time you are close by. Send them another note saying you have it if you think that is necessary. If they simply forgot about it and want the container back you can arrange that with them later.

...this was pretty lame and mean spirited. ...but for me this crosses the line into "it's just a darn game". Mean spirited it is not. Odd, awkward, probably unnecessary, annoying to some, misunderstood by several... yes to all. But no harm has been done, anyone can relog the find. She is just trying to get the word out that there was a throwdown and some people were finding and signing it. This might actually be interesting to some locals and returning visitors. I would go back again if I could because it adds a bit of adventure and another chance to post an interesting log. If I could not get back I would just relog the find. If I was the throwdowner I would not have logged a find in the first place.

I agree with the gc.com suggestions that the subsequent finders of the throwdown should not have their Find Its deleted. The cache owner does have to "smell the rat" and go to the site to confirm and fix the situation if necessary when they thing something is amiss. I am not a rabid disapprover of replacement caches but I can't bring myself to log one as found if I do the replacing. It doesn't seem right. Cache finds are not awards you get for good intentions or actions.

Oh no! So many of us rely on your wonderful bookmark lists (and GSAK macro) for the cache machines. I was just looking for it to start planning, and discovered your note. You will be sorely missed and I hope someone takes up the mantle. Yes, indeed! The bookmark and macro were very much appreciated. We know it is a lot of work to do what you and Travis do each quarter year. And for your part we thank you many times over. Thanks Jim!

You have some interesting suggestions in the remainder of that paragraph, but... ...trying to figure out if a TB has accomplished its goal has gotten very difficult because of scads of "visit" logs that people are doing. Wading through tens of pages just to see where a TB was actually dropped off is no fun. I just deleted 21 pages of "visit" logs on one of our active TBs. When I get through with that TB the only logs will be actual handling, drops, grabs, discovers and if a cacher wants to visit it to just a few caches then that will be o.k. I am no fan of multiple visits.

Yep for us too! The Ice Age Floods Institute's annual field trip is that weekend in Missoula and we can't miss that. EDIT: See you all in Tacoma on January 7th.

Thanks, again, for your input. Publishing geoaware has retired from reviewing ECs. Letters to geoawareHQ sent this evening.

O.K. EC a: Description says EC subject "Columns" are made up of basalt rock overlaying a layer of sandstone. False. Site inspection and the CO's source documents say they are completely rhyolite ash. There is no sandstone in this area and the CO has mistaken a 1/8 inch layer of dark growth for a basalt layer. Basalt cannot weather to such a thin layer. Former inland sea has worn away the basalt and sandstone leaving pillars. False. The former inland sea was gone at least 35 million years prior to the formation of the entire region and the rock is rhyolite. [subject volcanic activities] are caused by either meteor or "LARGE" flood. False. The meteor theory was presented in the source document but it never gained traction through peer review. Two other potential causes that are always part of the discussion as a source of these [volcanic activities] were omitted. A simple google search would have discovered these. There is no evidence of a "LARGE" flood in this region and the EC page offers no explanation but does cite a source from a Creationist document. Sedimentary rocks formed at the earth's surface. False. Sedimentation happens at the surface but lithification to sandstone happens at great depths. Proof of visit/lessons questions cannot be answered correctly using the EC description. EC b: The area of the EC subject region is described as being ten times larger than it actually is (by adding nearly 50,000 square miles and over 500 miles distance) because the CO misinterpreted a map in the source document. Given that the area is well known by its name it should not be artificially expanded thereby confusing travelers. EC says the region had an ocean shoreline during formation of current features. As above, the former ocean was gone millions of years before the formation of anything visible today in the region. A large flooding event simultaneous with volcanic explosions is presented as a potential cause of the local geology. As above, there is no evidence of a large flood and the EC description offers no explanation or source references. Mainstream geologists do not describe flooding as a possible cause. I assume the Creationist reference in EC a is the source for this comment. I call this a "hint and run" comment and it should not be in an earthcache without further discussion and references. Two widely accepted and more logical alternative models of the cause of the local geology were not included due to lack of research. These two are always included when geologist discuss the possibilities. A main feature of this EC is a three-period development timeline of the region but does not clearly distinguish them in the text and later expects an answer regarding which period something happens. One lesson question expects a specific answer from the EC text but the source document gives a different reason. One lesson question cannot be answered with any certainty because ash layers were deposited in two of the three time periods. The EC text assumes white flakes found in local basalt are rhyolite ash that fell into the molten basalt (during the non-existent flood/volcanic activity) but the source document clearly says they are aluminum mineral concentrations contained within the original basalt eruption.

I don't want to make this about the specific caches, just the process and I certainly don't want to have people be concerned about their own ECs. From reading your posts for quite a while I would expect no problems with your ECs. You care about your EC accuracy and the key words here are that you research your subjects. I have not seen many problems with ECs where I know something about the area or the processes. They almost always seem appropriate and bring up interesting points and typically don't have gross inaccuracies. The EC pages in question here made incorrect assumptions from limited research and the owner doesn't appear to care whether they are accurate or not. I've been through this with them on some of their other ECs.