Xaa

I think it would leave too much room for abuse, so it would seriously 'damage' the premium membership

You might also see it differently. Fixing the cache like that might just temporarily extend the "life" of a cache that is not maintained and will be in the same state a few months later. As you already mentioned: there are way too many hardly maintained caches. If they are archived, there will be way too many new ones to replace them, so just place a needs maintenance or needs archiving note and let the normal circle of life do its work.

I think it is too easy to just put the responsibility on cache owners. Cachers should read descriptions, cachers should behave responsible when caching. I'd say a good solution would be to make far more multi's, even if they are just of the "find point A, walk 50 meter, find the cache" type, so people would be forced to read (and hopefully honor!) descriptions. (hey, I just found myself a good argument for those 50 meter multi's that I dislike because they seem like "tradi in disguise"). If we just can't rely on cachers being nice environment-loving hobbyists, then 'we' (there is no "we", I know) might consider to force them to be.

Zeker weten dat het niet een travel bug was, ipv een cache?

As a side remark... this is just something that might happen, it's the defining difference between a mystery and a traditional. You can make your own estimate on the reliability of your answer, you can decide to combine them with other caches to spread the risk, or you can decide that failing to find a cache is too big a risk and just ignore them. I don't think making a coordinate check obligatory is a good move.

If you preview your PQ results first, without sending them, you will not lose the PQ just because it wasn't what you wanted it to be

You forget one detail... These caches will not stay in caches, but will end up in someone's collection who will use them to draw attention on events etc by having such a hitchhiker in his inventory. It happens to most of the Hitchhikers in my country

Easy... "my 400th LPC. Oh my... what have I been doing?! I now solemnly swear that this was the last LPC I will ever find. Thanks for the eye opener"

Yup, so a nice friendly outing with the kids is now turned into a PIA situation. Real friendly game you want to play. Oh well, there are a lot more "nice" people out there then there are a**es. There are all kinds of different caches, to keep it nice and fun and interesting for everyone involved. I'd say it's a little bit weird to see "I don't bother to read descriptions, I don't like difficult things, and you are idiots for not all sticking to my point of view". There are more than enough caches that don't involve any complexity. So just accept the fact that there are caches that are more complex for those who like a real challenge. And "arbitrary rules" like "finding a caches=signing the logbook" only serve to define geocaching into what it is. Just like e.g. kicking a ball between a few poles in soccer is such an arbitrary rule which forms the essence of soccer.

Not that I know of. But since MM SS is just a representation just like MM.MMM (a minute is 60 seconds, so e.g. 18 secondes is 0.300 minutes), I don't see your point when you say it's more accurate. It's exactly the same thing, just a different representation. You could say "yeah, but I can use SS.SS and be very very precise", but the same goes for MM.MMMMMMMM. As accurate as you like it to be. That said: a thousandst part of a minute is already beyond the accuracy of your GPS, so why bother?

Hmm.. I tried not to react, but I will anyway. It's actually illegal. There is an official statement to not enforce the law in certain situations (e.g. carrying small amounts of it for private use)

If I were in your area I'd probably send you daily emails asking why you hadn't looked at my cache page yet. Just kidding, of course. Seems to me you are making some baseless assumptions. In the many threads on this topic, almost everyone who uses the audit logs just finds it another interesting aspect of the game. I remember exactly ONE instance of someone receiving unwelcome emails. For the record, all of my hides from here on will be PMO's because: I like looking at the audit logs. I like to encourage people to support the website. I don't care if people who are not PM's find and log the cache. I don't care if you find a way to look at the listing without having your visit added to the audit log. It's a game! I've had at least a hand full of those emails, from the time when I used to just check the last 200 logs page for looking at random caches. Just to see what's out there in the world etc. I'm sorry if I implied that everyone is sending those emails, just enough people for me to stop looking at caches that way, and making sure I read them via PQ. If you want to make them PMO for reasons of supporting the site, that's your choice. I'd say "let people make that choice without forcing them, however gently", but that's just a different point of view and I wouldn't offer you a beer less for it :-)

I wonder why everyone thinks those audit logs are such a great idea. Perhaps they feel good about it from the all-controlling point of view or something, but it is quite irritating to see people sending mail just because they want to know why you were looking at their cache description. "Because I want to read it you (*Y(*^)(^)"! Anyway... I'm probably not the only one who switched to only reading subscriber only caches via pocket queries, so well... so far for the audit logs

Anyone knows a place that sells naked virgins?

Some educated guessing would tell me that if you look at the sizes for the founds, you'd approximately come up with: micro's 41.5% small 28.1% regular 22.6% large 0.8% virtual 1.2% the rest 5.9% I guess micro's are by far the most popular :-( . So it sounds like tough luck

I'd say that cachers that risk their own health by not reading warnings only have themselves to blame. Cachers that don't read the information, well, actually, if the cache description says "the cache is not here but there", it shouldn't be a traditional, so they might have a valid point there . I'd only care about cachers who obviously can't be bothered to adhere to any restrictions, and those people won't be reached anyway, since they obviously don't care about the problems that might cause for the cache, the owner or geocaching at large.

It might be interesting to see if there was any reason why there was a waymark and not a cache. A possible reason might be that permission for putting a cachecontainer there was not possible. Or the person might find the area too muggle-dangerous. But if you have permission from the land owner, it shouldn't be a problem to put a cache there.

Well, if you are not listing it here, then I wonder why you would ask if your maze would be ruined by cachers :-) But anyway... I guess the visitors coming there who'd like the extra challenge will be nice visitors. If it were a geocache, I guess a very big percentage of geocaching people would be very nice visitors. But there might be a few who'd do anything to get that point added to their total with as little fuzz as possible. Take away the point (by not listing it) and you'll make sure the cache hooligans stay away from your maze :-)

Wauw! That was a fast response! From suggestion to implementation in 10 minutes!

Don't be so quick to pass judgment. I know a guy that hasn't logged in here in a couple of years since becoming mainly a Terracacher. He still actively maintains his GC caches. That's why I said "if that doesn't get responded in 2 weeks" :-)

Wouldn't these kind of 'seed caches' lead to 'just throwing micros out in the wild'? I mean: people who have plans for caches will do them anyway. The people who take a micro and "must" have it published somewhere, in my opinion, would be more of the group "hmm, don't know a place, never thought about a cache, let's drop it here and call it a cache"? Wouldn't it have quite a risk of "quantity over quality"?

Given that the owner obviously stopped geocaching, I'd say the cache is good for archival. So post a "Needs Maintenance" log, and if that doesn't get responded to in 2 weeks, followed by a "Should be Archived" log. Now is a good opportunity, since the possible litter (the cache) has already been cleaned :-)

It's not only iPhone related. I've seen it with caches close to the meridian as well: go to "Nearest caches", and the cache itself will not be on the list itself. Sounds like some strange kind of distance calculation that goes wrong near that line. Haven't checked it near the equator, but you might expect the same behaviour.

Face it... your enemies won :-) Many countries are in a continued state of fear for what might happen. People will accept everything given the argument "can we afford to be wrong?". I'd say many people find it perfectly acceptable in various fields to not take any risk. Just detonate, it's safer than being right 99.9% of the time.

As far as I see the arguments so far, the cache solvers want to verify their results before going away to find the cache. Why is that necessary? Finding a cache shouldn't be a guarantee, that would be boring. Not finding a cache every now and then makes you cherish the ones you find even more. I'd say it's up to the owner to decide if he/she wants to help you this way, but making it a requirement would be a silly thing to do. If you don't like the 'risks' involved in having the wrong solution, skip the cache.