Sagefox

We've replaced lots of logs over the years and often remove the old ones. The key is in reading the situation correctly. CO Complaints: Never. It is only in this forum that I ever hear that it is a problem. I have not yet read anything here that makes me think I need to change my ways. Old Log: Replaced if they are mush or will be unreadable after they dry out. If there is reasonable room in the container I ziploc it and leave it. If not (or circumstances tell me the log need not remain in the cache) I add to my log that I will hold it for a while to see if the CO wants it. Old Log Returned: I've never had a CO ask me for the old log. NM: If a problem can't be fixed on the spot only then is an NM posted. Cache Enabler? I am not worried about the psychological damage I might be causing to the soul of a CO that hasn't been, can't get to or doesn't care about that cache. I do it for the subsequent finders.

Their system totally sucks. It is very nice, though, to see you as an example of someone who has a very high find count and acomplished it without shenanigans. Thanks for that.

Yes. There are not many bison tubes hanging by monofilament in signposts that are not geocaches.

Nope. There are many non-web site logging geocachers. Especially during the early years there were many who did not log online. Unless you can find that the one signing the log was a beta tester then it would not be a ftf for you.

I'm not sure it's all that obvious. It could be the remains of a decoy. It could be the remains of an archived cache, or the remains of a stage of an archived multi-cache. Sure, it could be one of these things but that is not likely the case. And if it was one of these or any of the other of the not likely situations mentioned here it would be simple enough to change your log once one of these situations is confirmed.

You found a substantial part of the cache - the lid hanging by a line in it's presumably intended location and it is a standard type of hide type and container. Nothing special. I would log it as found. I usually have small ziplocs with me which could be zipped tight around the lid with a temporary log inside. That would be a nice touch but, in this case, not necessary for the Found It. Your posted log will tell the CO what you found and they can then fix the situation. People often get carried away with this must sign the log business. The cache IS the cache. The log is merely a proof that you found the cache. Your description of what you found should be proof enough. Some situations are different. I found a cache once with only the posted coordinates and no page information. It was locked and the combo was on the cache page. I didn't log that as found because it was a clearly intended that we needed to get the combo from the page. On the other hand, I once found a pvc pipe cache that the lid was screwed on too tight, as can easily happen with pvc. I signed the pipe and logged it as found because it was not intended that special tools were needed to get the container open.

Not quite that far: Back into the ocean. Sea level then was between 400 and 450 lower than today.

I did read this far into your post and it is a good point. I agree. What I miss from the "old days" is that for non-obvious cache hides I often could get a couched clue from one of the prior five finds that came with the download. It made it more fun to have those additional hints - the ones that didn't totally give away the hide. Phones help... now I can go back, sometimes 30 to 40 logs to finally get something helpful. I think group caching and GSAK do contribute to this less desirable aspect of the game. I find that writing individual logs for high-find-count days (for all cache days) makes the game more fun. It is an additional social element and the topping on the cake after a cache run.

You must have your caches listed under a different account. What does pseudo-armchair mean to you? Armchair caching referrs to logging caches from home without visiting cache sites. How do you fake a fake cache visit?

Quite likely it was not an error. The discoveries by Thorning and Wall--E on my travelbug led me to check out their trackable logging and I saw immediately that they were bogus logging many TBs. If you look into the Swedish cacher's trackable logs you might see an immediate pattern.

Thorning and Wall--E are on a bogus logging spree. I checked several TB's logged by these guys and it is clear they have a list or are logging sequential numbers. Here is one example And this one is getting hit by several others too. Poor epw. They must be getting tons of bogus discover logs and since they have not been active since 2003 they might be a bit confused by all this. I don't recall now from past topics... does Groundspeak want to be notified about gross bogus logging or is it just too out of hand for them to handle?

Yep. Just yesterday Thorning, presumably in Denmark, logged one of our travelbugs which appears to be on the US west coast. Could be that the two just happen to be in the same place but I'm guessing Thorning is on a roll with bogus logging. 8700 trackable logs doesn't exactly ease my suspicions. I am going to delete the log. If they can show me that I am wrong I will allow them to relog and I will report my error back here.

I assume this is in response to the topic question, "Has groupd caching gone too far?" Still not a very realistic concern. I'm looking for comments about what really happens with groups "going too far" in numbers great enough to have any kind of negative impact. I know there are dumb things happing in this game with some groups but just how often that happens in a given area is not clear at all. Maybe people could bring examples here of what happens in their immediate cache areas that they have reliable knowlege of.

I have always thought of geocaches in terms of those French trappers working for the Hudson Bay Company or these Mt. Rainier hikers and what a cache means to them. You can be sure that all of the party takes part in the stored food, shot and powder and it doesn't matter who finds it. The cache is for all of them.

We have always welcomed geocachers that we run into out in the field. Usually there are some short, nice conversations and a group hunt. It doesn't happen all that often and it has never been an imposition to us. I don't see why it would ruin your son's first find. He would simply have seen a demonstration of how the game was played and possibly even made the find himself. It sounds like his first would have happened later that day in any event. I've taken our three young grandkids caching and have been with many other kids at cache sites. Kids love the thrill of the find each time and I suspect his first would be memorable no matter when or where it happened.

I agree with you here. Bringing a log to an event is NOT true geocaching. I think that might qualify as a traveling cache or a pocket cache both of which are no longer allowed.

I like your style of caching. By far, most of our geocaching is me by myself and often with my wife but I also really enjoy group caching when we do that. To post here, publically, that caching with a group is not true geocaching sounds a bit too elitist for me. It says that, in your eyes, most people playing this game are not real geocachers. I don't know if you meant it that way but by adding that last sentence you are essentially saying that. You are writing off people who don't feel comfortable alone on trails or in parks or bad parts of town, families, friends who mainly want to cache together and perhaps even people who don't feel much - or any - personal achievement wandering around alone signing scraps of paper. I am certain that the people who thought up this game and spent years developing it never considered that "true geocaching" would be a person caching alone.

I'm sorry you found it difficult. I don't really know what to say about that. I have not heard about proposed logging changes. I suspect many new geocachers are not invested in the game enough to figure out what to do. Maybe they don't notice the www.geocaching.com on the trackable, maybe they do but don't put forth the effort to look into it, or maybe they just don't care but they like the shiny object and decide to keep it. I'm not sure that a revised logging process will motivate anyone who is not curious enough to find out what a trackable is all about.

A highly unusual travel bug page. I am trying to figure out what the real goal is here. Usually this is done by putting the tag into a cache and logging it online to the cache page. The cache page has the posted coordinates that other geocachers need in order to find it. Another way is to bring it to a cache gathering of some sort and show it around. How will people be able to find you "where you are"? The tag does not send out an electronic signal. Geocachers are a pretty good bunch of folks but it might not be a good idea to invite people that you do not know into your home. And, as above, no one will be able to find your home unless you place a geocache in your front yard or post the address on the travel bug page - NOT RECOMMENDED! If the main goal is to meet people then attending local cache events is a good way to get to know your local area geocachers.

Trackables go missing because people take them and don't put them back in caches. Sometimes it is accidental when people lose them, often it is intentional be it by muggles or geocachers wanting to keep the hitchhiker. Some newer cachers aren't very committed to the game and they simply take trackables for themselves. Advice I would offer would be not to attach something really cool to the travel tag. Really cool items tend to disappear sooner. I suppose revising the logging process might somehow encourage people be more prompt in their logging but that won't fix the true problem of people taking trackables and not returning them.

Probably best to wait until he actually gets convicted, though. Vultures circling image comes to mind.

The sad thing about this is that I think you might actually believe it. No wait, I take that back. While it might have happened once somewhere no one would believe this a common practice for any but an insignificant number of geocachers.

Wow, are things really that bad where you are? Out of hundreds of cachers in my area, I think I could count the number that regularly do power trails on one hand, maybe two. And some of them hide the highest caliber caches, so it's hard to argue they're strictly quantity over quality. 10 caches on a hike? Is that more or less than you would have found before quantity dominated the sport? In my area, there are about twice as many caches out on the hiking trails as there were when I started 5 years ago. No one could claim here that either the quality or quantity of caches on hiking trails has gone down. I'm not sure "I'm so sorry" is the right response, since it's not as if that was inflicted on them, but certainly you could have said, "That sounds boring." If no one teaches them better, how do you expect them to learn? You could also say, "11,000 is a lot. Did you find cache X that's 5 miles back in park P? That's one of my favorites." Although if you did that to one of the high volume cachers in my area, the response would probably be that they did really like X, as well as Y and Z that are even further back. In fact, they liked the area so much, they hid three of their own cache even further out. Their voracious appetite for caches isn't limited to easy park&grabs. I'm sure there are some cachers than only do power trails, but I haven't run into one yet, so it's hard for me to see that the sport is falling apart because of them. The high volume cachers in my area are a very positive influence. Thanks for this post. It seems to need to be said constantly around here that the sky is actually NOT falling. The good old days were certainly fun and now it feels like we were pioneers back then but I have no trouble having fun with geocaching today. Never have had trouble. Our caching rate has been steady at 500 to 800 finds per year and I don't recall every having bad days. Some caches are great, some medium, some mediocre and some totally suck... just like back in the good old days.

Using circumstantial increases the likelihood that we might be wrong in our conclusion. We need something more substantial before we can convict.

100 is a great one. Nice going.