J Grouchy

"Tragic"? Really? I think you're in the wrong game/pastime if you consider this a tragic event.

Well...folks rarely read the cache pages anyway, so maybe it makes more sense to leave a note in the cache itself. Besides, once the cache is found, the note on the cache page isn't really necessary anymore anyway.

Yeah...as with any activity that brings strangers together: never assume that just because you have something in common means the other individual is safe and/or trustworthy. As for the second part, I imagine it's about many CITOs being in areas that may be hazardous due to dumping or terrain that is iffy. Lots of times creeks and dense woodlands become tire or mattress dumping grounds BECAUSE they are not frequently visited.

I've never seen or heard the phrase "hanky panky" used in this sort of context. Normally it refers to things of a more private nature...

Beware the Kragle!!!

Account has been locked and all his caches archived.

That argument makes no sense.

Sorry. "Historic" or not, if the person who created it is unwilling to maintain it, it should be archived. I don't think there should be any exceptions. People claim such an attitude ruins the spirit of the game...but I feel the opposite. I feel that propping up dead caches ruins the spirit of the game. You want a cache in a certain place, put one there and get it published. You just want that particular listing because it fills a box on some grid. That is the only justification.

Honestly, a full logbook doesn't really cross the "needs maintenance" threshold for me. I may be more willing than most people to post a Needs Maintenance log, but I don't know if I ever have because the log sheet was full.

See...you're much more lax about it than you need to be. I would have deleted it immediately.

Nonsense. There's one near me that is even named after the danger (there are signs posted in the area warning of rattlesnakes).

I've gotten more results from posting NM logs than from mentioning problems in a 'found it' log. I don't worry one bit whether it upsets the CO and have never gotten more than a snarky reply for my efforts. For example, I recently posted NM logs on three different caches: Cache 1: a cache that was about 70 or 80 feet from the posted coordinates. This was mentioned numerous times, but the CO never did anything about it. My NM log prompted the reviewer to disable it and the CO quickly updated the coordinates the VERY NEXT DAY. I say "you're welcome" to all the future cachers looking for it. Cache 2: a cache container that was missing a lid. Again, this was mentioned in numerous logs...but mine was the first NM log. It was disabled by the reviewer and the CO fixed it the VERY NEXT DAY. I say "you're welcome" to all the future cachers looking for it. Cache 3: a cache that is missing. I confirmed the hiding spot with the CO even. Missing. Still didn't do maintenance on it. I posted a NM log. It's been disabled and the CO still has not done anything. I expect it will be archived and will no longer be wasting anyone's time since it's not there and the CO can't be bothered to do anything about it. I suggest you don't worry about offending lazy COs...perhaps they should be worrying more about wasting the time of cachers looking for well-maintained caches?

I'm one away from the Phoenix. I'm thinking that's as far as I'll be able to get. ~shrug~

It's there...but it's not a logging option. You have to scroll down to the bottom of the main cache 'page' in the app. Honestly, the Geocaching app is and always has been inferior. I know they're trying, but they just can't seem to get it right.

That's precisely what stuff like this is for: But yeah...not on you unless you have a trained attack snake.

Someone want to tell me what "GDPR" is?

I agree, which makes false find claims even more perplexing. If we're talking 1/2%...or even 2% being throwdowns or false find logs...that means they still have 150,000 valid finds. Why would you need to fake 1000? Faking any at that point just makes no real sense.

If there weren't already a cache listed there, I'd totally hide one there. That's exactly the sort of landmark worth bringing folks to.

I never bother reading a trackable's goal before I grab it. Sometimes I do and sometimes I do not further it on its goal...but I do, however, ALWAYS move it to another cache eventually. Sometimes on the same day, sometimes days, weeks or even months later. I never keep one for myself.

Well, I've personally witnessed mondou2 logging a find on a throwdown he left on a cache near me when he claimed he couldn't find it. When I went to see, the original was still right where I found it and still what I would consider a D1.5 hide. So yeah...you can say what you want about him, but I've seen how he works and have to agree with A-Team on this one. If he logs a find on a cache of mine, I would likely confirm and definitely wouldn't hesitate to delete a log for a throwdown.

Some of my scariest moments only ended up being scary when I thought about them later. Almost all of them involve being in situations that could have ended with me being trapped, injured or dead with nobody knowing my whereabouts. Examples: 1. a storm sewer that involved climbing down an old ladder and on the way up I almost lost my grip and slammed my head against the wall about 6 to 8 feet from the bottom. 2. a stumble while walking down a steep hillside in a forest...and the realization that if I hadn't corrected my footing, I would have impaled myself on a small broken tree trunk that had splintered into a long, two-foot spike. I ended up breaking it down flat with a few hard kicks. 3. reaching for a nano on a sign post the instant a huge truck swerved in my direction to avoid another car turning left...passing about two feet from my face. Item 1 above is the primary reason I will never ever do another storm sewer/culvert cache. Not only are they generally bad caches, they have the potential for being incredibly dangerous. Item 2 above is always in my mind now when I'm wandering in the woods, trail or no trail.

Dear god...some people have to argue every little thing. The simple fact is that QR codes are common. They are used in marketing, on packaging, social apps and countless websites. Smartphones are common. When at least a quarter of a population owns and regularly uses a smartphone, it ceases to be a "special tool". Even if one doesn't geocache with a smartphone, those folks more than likely have a device ON THEM that can scan the code. But I'm sure you will continue to debate the point because it's second nature to do so.

I'd guess that nobody has done the first survey and the second one never will be done.

95% of Americans own a mobile phone. 77% of Americans own a smartphone. It is not a "special tool" and I would argue that is has not been a "special tool" since it broke the 35% threshold back in 2011. http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/