WestSideDaddy

You looked for it, you didn't find it = DNF You looked for it, you found it, something was broken/missing = Needs Maintenance You looked for it and there is a parking lot where there used to be a tree = Needs Archive I have a cache with 2 good beacons, one obvious, one not so obvious. The first on (a tree) is so in your face that people don't look beyond it. When they trimmed the tree, everyone logged that it was missing, needed maintenance, needed archiving because the obvious beacon made them assume it was gone.

Funny, I see three rules, who to believe you or GS? And I guess I have been breaking rule #2 for my whole caching experience... I don't think I have ever written about my experience in the cache logbook. I guess I need to reset my find count to 0.

So I guess then to the OP here is the definitive answer. Don't worry about how other people play the game. You should play the game the way you want to play it. If they want to log it how they logged it don't let that influence you... unless it was the CO logging their own challenge in which case you should really look down on them for not playing the way you think they should play.

As the CO, I can see you proudly proclaiming in the description and/or in a note that you've finally completed your own challenge once you have. I'm always impressed when a CO invents a challenge that really is a challenge to everyone including himself, and then goes to a lot of effort to accomplish it. But it doesn't seem reasonable to me for the CO to claim that as a find, though. Do what you want, of course, but I, for one, would think less of you for logging it. What an odd thing to say. Why should a CO be denied claiming the find if they went to all the work of meeting the challenge? I know it's a sticky nuance of the game, I would't log my own traditional or multi cache because I know where those are. But if the intent of a challenge is to accomplish some feat and not necessarily the find the micro with the log in it, then why not sign and log your own challenge? And to circle back to the general sentiment, why should another cacher care if a CO logs a find of their own cache? Why should a CO logging their own challenge lower another cacher's opinion of them? And why should that CO care what another cacher think about them signing it? It seems to me it's very much like stumbling on, or brute forcing a puzzle or multi final. You didn't get there the way to CO intended, but no one seems to begrudge you logging the find. If a CO creates a tough challenge and meets the challenge, why should they be snubbed for logging their own cache? But to the OP and their comments. I would ask if there is a reason you are troubled by how others have qualified? Do you feel that it minimizes your successful meeting of the challenge? If the CO were to clarify that your placed cached do or don't count would that make a difference? I've seen challenges where they explicitly say you can include your hides in the list of qualifying caches so I don't think it is unusual. Is it just an issue of clarification? Or do you think using your hides makes it easier?

I decided to log one of my challenge caches once I met the criteria. Since the point of (many) challenges isn't finding the cache but meeting the criteria. I had a few people grumble about it but in the end it I put in the effort to meet the challenge and it didn't affect anyone else's ability to complete it.

I don't disagree with you and I know that it is my responsibility, but it just caught me as a surprise. With all the posts on the forums about caches with NA logs that never get archived by absentee cache owners it just surprised me to get a cache disabled from a NM log.

I should add, I am not complaining about it, it just surprised me. I only have 50 caches and I've only been doing it for a couple years, but it was just something I've never seen happen before.

A new one for me. I have a couple of caches that have NM posts on them (they both have a full log sheets) and I haven't had a chance to swing by and replace them (bad on me). But I just got a couple of reviewer's notes and the local reviewer disabled them. I've never seen that sort of thing before.

Fargo, ND a drug center? Now that I have to call BS on. With the number of splinters and Buckthorn thorns I have been poked with, I can imagine a hidden needle just as easily piercing the skin.

Are they really the competition if they are letting you win. In which case you still win.

I can only speak for the puzzles I have created, and for the ones that I have talked with the CO about, but I have never seen a puzzle that was created only to waste someone's time. What would be the point of that. Whether it be a geocahcing puzzle or anything else in life. What benefit would I possible get out of making something to just waste someone else's time. To challenge their thinking processes, expose them to some new idea, expose them to some old idea... yes. But to waste their time, no. As with most dogmatic arguments it appears we have finally devolved into "I love Fords and I hate Chevys" and "I love Chevys and I hate Fords". However, for me, I understand that we can all have different opinions and that my opinion of something shouldn't be used to deprive others of theirs. I am glad that we have diversity. I am glad we have multis (which I don't care for) for the people who like them. Whereido's for the people who like them and puzzles for the people who like them.

My concern is that this is exactly the kind of mentality that lead to the extreme polarization we see nowadays in society. "I don't like X so we should ban X despite the fact the other people do like X". Somewhere along the way compromise and understanding seem to have left the general consciousness and now if you don't like it, it should be banned. Perhaps rather than making the absolutist statement that you don't like puzzles and they should all be archived, you could have asked, given the reasons you don't like them, who do others find them enjoyable. Clearly after all this 'discussion' you goal was not to try to understand other people's opinions but simply to state your and call for it to be enforced (despite how unlikely that is to happen) on everyone else.

While it does lead to the possibility of brute forcing a puzzle solution, there ought to be ways of doing it that would prevent that. Maybe one or two tries per unpublished cache.

I agree, it all depends on the definition of what geocaching is. According to what I understand the OP to be promoting, the only that counts as a geocache is a traditional cache that is not hard to find. Why not hard to find? Because if it is hard to find, that means it is a problem or enigma that tests the ingenuity of the finder. And that is the definition of a puzzle. So, no field puzzles, no chirps, no events, no multis. Nothing but easy to find containers. I think the puzzle aspect of geocaching is inherent to the game. Some geocaches are about getting to a location to find something that is hidden (that's a puzzle) and some are about solving a puzzle to get to the location to find something. Hey that makes puzzle caches twice as cachey as regular one because you get twice the challenge.

Well, I like puzzles. So unless your opinion is more valuable then mine then this isn't a valid reason to ban them. Again, I too have lots of responsibilities at work, and my brain is always on. However, I find working on puzzles stimulating and distracting so I enjoy them. Again, we have an ad personam arguement here, my preference and you preference have the same value so not a justification to get rid of them just because you don't like them. First, your assumption is that the ONLY purpose of geocaching is 'getting outside and discovering new places". If that is the only goal that geocaching is allowed to achieve then perhaps you are right. But if all you wanted was to get outside and discover new places you could do that by visiting the park without geocaching. So there must be some other goal. The joy of the hunt is one of those I would propose. And where does that joy come from but the mental stimulation of searching for something that is hidden. And if that is it, then puzzles are just an extension of that, pushing the challenge and mental stimulation to the beginning of the search instead of the end. Here I do agree with you, somewhat. Though I don't know if angst is the correct word. Frustration yes, inconvenience yes, but angst maybe not. However, and speaking only for my excellent reviewers, there are solutions. You can get a area checked before you commit to a hide. They may not tell you where the puzzle final is but will often tell you that it is there, and sometimes which one it is. Plus as an experienced cacher, when you see a conspicuous void in a cache friendly area you can usually surmise the cause. Still, on this point I do agree somewhat. This point assumes that they "have had their day" which is still not proven. In fact, from the plethora of opinions in the forums, many people do not think virtuals and webcams have had their day. Again, your assumption is that working on puzzles doesn't promote people to get outside. And that working on puzzles while sitting on your butt has no value. There is a lot of research that show that challenging mental activity, including puzzles, can have significant benefits for improving memory, problem solving skills and potentially reducing the risk of dementia and Alzheimer. In my mind, that sounds like a great endorsement for puzzles. And once you have solved the puzzle, what do you do? You go outside. So here, puzzles are doing what you want them to do. Definitely not me

I use this feature all the time, any time I have more than a couple caches to log. Load up the found caches from my GPSr, enter in a base logging message, add additional comments to any that were particularly memorable and then log them in one shot. Faster, easier and my GSAK database is updated with my new finds. I think your assumption that the tool making it easier is responsible for lazy logging. It's just as easy to import your field notes into GC.com and copy and paste 'tftc' into each log message as it is to use gsak. In fact, the overhead of installing and configuring and understanding how to use gsak would probably be more work for those lazy loggers to do.

I think (IMHO) that the rule gets more strictly applied in some cases though. I had a cache rejected because it was less then 150 feet from the tracks, but it was clearly on city owned property, next to a sidewalk/bike trail that followed the tracks but were still less then 150 feet. But then I also have one that is closer to the tracks, also on city property but on the other side of a fence. So basically I don't have a point because I've been on both sides of the issue... so just ignore this. Drat, I really wanted to make a great point about the unfairness of it all.

I'm just curious the chain of event that brought that person to their attention originally? I didn't even think to look at their list of finds, and even when I did I didn't notice they were logging caches all over the world in one day.

There's a word I have never heard before. I thought it was called swag, or more often, junk. Isn't the treasure called a cache?

Well, now that the original CO has archived the cache, you can just create a new cache listing there. You won't be able to log it but now you can own it.

So the primary objection to challenges is that if a cacher managed to brute force the cache or manages to find it and logged it not realizing it was a challenge that their log will be disallowed and they won't get the smiley? Of course one doesn't really need to brute force a challenge cache as, in my experience, most of them are at the posted coordinates. It also seems that it would be pretty difficult to log a challenge cache and not realize it was a challenge. Considering the guidelines require the word "CHALLENGE" in the title plus the big '?' icon on the top of the page, and the challenge rules in the text.

I presume that what the OP was trying to convey is that with the recent change in the challenge "guidelines" that preclude limiting past finds (all finds are mandated to be eligible) at some point, for the vast majority of challenges, by the sheer volume of finds you have, you will automatically qualify for nearly every challenge. I have seen the same phenomenon where in my area with several very clever challenges and the hard-core cachers will log them as fast as any other traditional FTF. I think that they added the prohibition against "previous finds don't count" rules to level out the "fairness" of challenges between newer and experienced cachers, but I think it has swung that pendulum so far to the other side that rather than balancing it out, it has made it significantly unfair to newer cachers. Plus I think less fun for doing challenges. Where is the challenge if you already have met the criteria? At least that's my opinion.

Is it Wednesday already? In some cases it would be nice if there was a reverse-adoption so that an abandoned cache could be adopted without the CO, but the possibilities of abuse are probably pretty high. If you can't adopt, you could always be a foster CO. Put it on your watchlist and voluntarily maintain it. But it is probably better to get it archived. Part of the agreement to hiding a cache is that you will maintain it, if you don't, and aren't responsive then that's the way it goes. If the spot is great, you can always create a new cache listing in the same spot. Call it "Awesome Cache Name 2" or "Awesome Cache Name Reboot". Reference the old one, get a container ready but don't publish it until the first one gets archived.

I can consistently reproduce this issue with the following steps. 1. Start Chrome 2. Using my bookmark, go to http://www.geocaching.com/my (I am logged in fine) 3. Close chrome 4. Start Chrome 5. Using my bookmark, go to http://www.geocaching.com/my (I am logged in fine) 6. Close chrome 7. Start Chrome 8. Using my bookmark, go to http://www.geocaching.com/my (I am logged out) Also at the point on #8 I have been redirected to the following URL https://www.geocaching.com/login/default.aspx?RESETCOMPLETE=Y&redir=http%3a%2f%2fwww.geocaching.com/my/ I have tested it in both Chrome (19.0.1084.52 m), IE (9.0.8112) and FireFox (11) EDIT: Missed the post from the Lakey. Sorry to beat the dead horse

I had one of the basic etrex (no map, basic yellow model) and it only had space for 500 waypoint and only for 6 characters for the names so I think some of the tools (like gsak) auto trim the "GC" off the cache name since they all start GC. If it's a newer etrex that might not be the case.