Ed_S

You're trying to skew the discussion. From the standpoint of a cacher deciding on which caches he or she wants to hit on a given day, the cheater in question makes no impact. To the cache owner, whose viewpoint you're trying to introduce to this discussion, yes, you might want to remove the cheater's Found Log. But I'll say it again - whether someone cheated logging a cache, whether it's there or not, makes not one iota of difference to anyone else looking for the cache. And you're off on a tangent about those who mark caches that aren't there as found - what about the majority of cheaters, who mark active caches as found, without finding them? The only way to discover their cheating is to compare the cache log against the online log. Stop nit-picking and trying to argue, and go find an ammo can in the woods!

That's my point - you know this cacher, or at least know of her. So you don't take as gospel that anything she marks as found is really there, if there are DNFs all around her "find." She has no credibility in the geocaching community. Her cheating does not impact your caching experience.

You're reading too much into it. I don't condone cheating (I thought I made that clear) but if I'm heading out to find a bunch of caches - no other qualifications, no bunch of DNFs and a cheater marks it found, none of that stuff - then if one of the dozens of "finds" was claimed by someone who didn't actually find it, does that change in any way how I'm going to approach finding the cache?

When I see cachers with several thousand finds claiming DNFs, then one cacher with 25 finds logs a find, but there's no owner's note showing cache maintenance, I don't take that as confirmation that the cache is there. I call that doing due diligence. I agree, people should be honest and shouldn't 'cheat' but if that's how they want to conduct themselves, it's a reflection on them. The locals pretty much know who's legit and who's faking numbers. And who has a bazillion finds, all of them lamp post skirts and guardrails.

Seems to vary, but many of the ones who are still active seem to have started around 2008 - 2013 or thereabouts. That's how I feel - if someone wanted to sit in their living room and mark a hundred caches as "found" in one day, that doesn't impact my enjoyment of caching. I'm not competing with anyone else, other than the competition of finding something someone hid. And 20 years ago, the approvers wouldn't let you put a micro in the woods - they'd ask if there was some reason you weren't putting a larger cache container out there. Anybody can hide a nano so it's almost impossible to find out in the woods. Make me work for an ammo can (remember those?) and you'll earn my respect.

I found my first cache in October of 2001, when a friend came to visit and told me about this new hobby that had started on the West Coast (he's in Oregon). There was a time when I found every cache in a 30 mile radius of my house in the Youngstown OH area. But I began to prefer quality to quantity. And I grew to dislike urban micros, or any micro hidden in a high-muggle area. So I don't look for them. Geo-friends and I would plan a day of caching somewhere and skip over the caches we didn't care for. So, as coachstahly said above, there are plenty of caches out there, but the ones left are the ones I don't care for. I've moved to Amarillo Tx recently, and most of the caches around here are of the urban micro variety. Those can be fun if you're with a group, but I'm disappointed that the geocaching community here seems pretty unfriendly - I've tried to start conversations with one or two local cachers, online, and either had my question answered, then been ignored, or just outright ignored. So I cache alone, and pick and choose caches in parks, cemeteries, and others that sound like the kinds I like to do. I can see the day coming when there won't be any new ones I care to do within reasonable driving distance.

Max and 99, and K13, thank you!

Keystone! How ya been? Long time, no see! And I moved to Amarillo TX, so it might be longer before I see you at an event or something. Anyway, I DNF'ed a cache down here, and, not knowing any better, used the Geocaching mail to send the approver a message saying I believed the cache is MIA. I mentioned it was last found in 2018 and the owner hasn't been active since 2009. Here's the cache: https://coord.info/GC15CG6 What's odd is that I don't see any way for me to report this cache as "needs archived." Is it because I already logged it and didn't mark it at that time? Or am I simply not seeing the link to "needs archived?"

This entire subject can be summarized in one sentence: You cache your way, and I'll cache mine.

The subscription people have been known to "jump the gun" when it comes to renewal dates. Last summer, my wife and I were on vacation IN EUROPE, and I received an email telling me my premium membership was going to end in a couple weeks if I didn't renew. I'd have been home before the actual cutoff date, so I didn't think much about it. The next day, I was going to hit a couple caches, and discovered my premium membership had already been terminated. Emails were exchanged, but I never did get a satisfactory answer as to what happened. "This is how we do it" is apparently their default answer. I had to renew my premium membership right then and there, if I wanted to use the features, even though my cutoff date was still a couple weeks away. And when I did renew, I found I had indeed been terminated - I got a "Welcome to Premium Membership" form letter email. So try again when you're near the end of the reduced price period, and see what happens.

I'm retired now, which is the ultimate job for having time to cache! But before I retired, I was a career firefighter. We work 24 hours on duty followed by 48 hours off. I started caching before everyone had smart phones with apps that let them know the instant a new cache in their area came out - you had to watch the cache maps and pages. I had over 100 FTFs before the modern technology changed that aspect of the game. But firefighting is a great job for caching. I got off duty at 8 am and while the "nine to fivers" were slogging away, I was out finding caches.

I use GSAK (Geocaching Swiss Army Knife) as a place to send PQs. From there, I can send to MapSource, to my nuvi, to my eTrex Venture, and so on.GSAK offers a lot of features. Used to be, you could try it for free, and if you kept using it, after 30 days you'd start to get a nag screen that lasted longer and longer every time you used the program, until you paid for it. I thought that was sensible - you could try it and see if you liked it. I don't know if they still offer that deal or not - if they do, it's worth checking into. Can't you put a name on your PQ when you create it? I do.

Some people leave geocaching. Nothing novel there: people leave hobbies all the time. Some people cite reason X. That's just anecdotal evidence. Most people leave geocaching, just as most people leave other hobbies as well. Indeed, over my time caching I have seen a lot of fanatic cachers come and go. In my experience, with a few notable exceptions (*cough* alamogul *cough*) the most fanatical cachers tend to burn out after about 3-5 years. A more interesting question is whether Groundspeak's apparent focus on generating new cachers rather than retaining existing ones is best for the hobby. In my admittedly narrow view, I think it's not, but I am hardly a disinterested bystander, so I don't take my own opinion very seriously. I'm with ya. In all facets of your statement. I'd like to toss another reason for leaving Geocaching into the mix: Overzealous and/or inconsistent rule enforcement. I've heard both neophyte and veteran cachers make this complaint, and cite this as a reason for their losing interest in Caching. I have to say, among the reasons listed in the OP, I'd never heard anyone complain that there were only a few cachers in their area, and that those cachers were elitist snobs. As someone who has taken a day and gone back over caches I've already found so that I could help new cachers get comfortable with caching, it's incomprehensible to me that someone would be that much of a jerk. When you can help new cachers learn, the new cachers don't make so many of the faux pas that everyone complains about.

In THAT we are in agreement.

Have you tried the local government? Who do THEY think owns it? Who pays taxes (or who has signed the appropriate paperwork)? The Zoning office, if there is one, would be a good place to start. SOMEONE must have a legal claim to the land - otherwise, you could simply claim it for yourself, build yourself a house on it, and so on. I'm not suggesting you do that, but as I say, SOMEONE owns it. Does the college have any paperwork, or can you find any newspaper clips or other records, pertaining to the donation of the land to the state? There must be records somewhere.

Many thanks - will try it!

Here's a question I'm sure has come up in the past, but I can't locate any discussion on it. I was using a nuvi550 to navigate to caches when planning a day caching trip. (I use one of the eTrex handhelds for the actual caching) GSAK info goes to MapSource, I create the route, and send it all directly to the 550. The display on the 550 is starting to fail, so I picked up a new nuvi67LM. I've had to figure out BaseCamp and Express, as MapSource doesn't work with the 67. And GSAK doesn't appear to work with the 67. I could send waypoints directly to the 550 from GSAK. GSAK does not recognize the 67. So, here's what works for me: I do the pocket query and put it in GSAK. I export to MapSource. I can either save the waypoints or use them to create the route in MapSource, as if I were still using the 550. Then I open BaseCamp and import the file I saved from MapSource. If it's the route, the route loads from BaseCamp into the 67. If there are more than 29 waypoints, it automatically splits the route into however many 29-waypoint segments are needed. If I've saved just the waypoints, I can create the route in BaseCamp, and load it into the 67. My question is, isn't there a more streamlined way to load a route into the 67? Or should I be glad I found a way to make it work at all?

I'd include a pic of a strange scene I encountered while caching, but I can't get the pic to upload. I don't see a way to load from My Pictures, although I see two different ways to load one from the internet.

It's true that nobody has died as a result of these unasked-for changes. But every time someone seen as one of the "powers that be" gives a flippant, insulting answer like that, a little piece of our enjoyment of geocaching dies. I could say a lot more, but to what end?

Comment removed - nothing that hasn't already been said. Yay for inspired, clever camo!! Boo to Needles in a Haystack!!

Comment removed - as I read further, I see there's nothing new that my comment would have added.

Why on Earth do so many of you generate a PQ to list caches you've already found? You don't need to generate a PQ to do that.

I've heard of people using notifications as a way to manually filter caches. Essentially, when they see a notification for a cache they might be interested in, they add that listing to a bookmark list. That way, they review each potential cache only once (when they receive the notification), and they don't even need to bother ignoring or filtering caches. If it's on the bookmark list, then they though it was interesting when they first saw it. If not, then they never see the listing again. It isn't the way I play (I've never used notifications), but it is a way that some play. And it has nothing to do with the FTF hunt. Okay. I've never heard of anyone doing it that way, but I'll accept that some people might. But I'd have to observe that if being inundated with a thousand new cache posts is objectionable to those players, perhaps the reasonable solution for everyone is that those individuals who filter at the email level modify their way of doing things, and leave the other 99% alone. I don't think it's any more complicated than the "ugly baby" issue. No one wants to hear that their baby is ugly. And the volunteer reviewers certainly don't want to be in the business of telling people that their babies are ugly. Back when caching was new, and there weren't caches every 528 feet, all across the country, the rules were different than they are today. You used to not be allowed to create a power trail. I know cachers who were denied permission to place caches because the approver was concerned that they were creating a PT. You used to not be allowed to place caches under ANY bridge that had vehicle traffic on it. Approvers back in the day were called Reviewers, and, in the very early days, they actually did review caches they were approving. To be fair, their workload was a lot less than it is today. But if the rules said No Micros In The Woods, and that rule had stayed intact into present times, there'd be a whole lot less complaining about junk caches taking spaces that a better cache could occupy. If the rule that said No Power Trails had stayed intact, there'd be a whole lot less complaining about junk caches clogging notifications, pocket queries, etc. I will say that if telling someone their baby is ugly is part of the job, and someone doesn't want to do that part, or any other part of the job, they shouldn't have taken the job. Approvers have no problem denying permission when someone wants to place a cache too near another cache. Or in any other way that violates the current rules. We have one approver locally to whom physical barriers that make it impossible to go from one cache directly to the next are not a good enough reason to give a 50' variance on the 528' rule for a cache. If the rules still said No Micros In The Woods, they'd be enforced. And to all those who think difficult hides of tiny caches in the woods are somehow clever, I say any moron can hide a nano in the woods that's all but impossible to find. I've found nanos wired to pine tree branches. Want to impress someone? Hide an ammo can they can't find. THAT takes skill and talent. But it also takes effort.

Does this, in any way, affect you and how you geocache? No? Then why do you care? If you're going to ask a question about how someone geocaches, perhaps you might let them answer it themselves. The fact that someone found 521 caches in a day might not directly affect someone else but the fact that a power trail which allows someone to log 521 caches in a day exists can impact other cacher in many ways. Until such time as someone forces me to find and log a power trail, the existence of the power trail does not, in any way, affect me. You even admitted it - it does not directly affect anyone else. The fact that a power trail does or does not exist affects cachers only as much as they allow it to affect them. It the past few years it seems that many (most in some areas) geocachers want to turn every aspect of geocaching into a competition. Despite the fact we are told "you can play the game any way you want", the power caching mentality that is fostered by large power trails like this often leads other power trails and small "cache series". For those that don't want to play the numbers game, even if we don't play that game we get: - hundreds of email notification of new caches we have no intention of finding. I'm not bothered by those. I don't get them. I have over a hundred FTFs, most of them from back before we had all this instant notification. Is there another reason for instant notification of new caches, other than the FTF hunt? I don't see any. Turn it off. You have that situation in any heavily cached area - PT or not. If you don't want too many caches, you can pick and choose them in small pocket queries - there's no need to download 1000 caches when you only intend to find a dozen or two. This works for me. If it doesn't work for you, figure out a way that does. Use filters. I will say I'm with you regarding the clogging of quality locations with zero-quality, zero-thought (insert favorite cusswords) micros in the woods. When I started caching, the approvers would ask you why you were putting a micro in an area where one could hide a larger cache. I have my thoughts as to why that changed, but I won't air them publicly. We're getting off the subject. As we apparently agree, it's possible to have an area congested with lousy caches whether they form a PT or not. If you look at my numbers, versus the years I've been caching, you'll realize I go for quality over quantity. Yes, I go on caching trips with friends, and I do the easy ones they want, too. But that doesn't make me indiscriminate. And I still say, as was my original point, that if you (the Royal "you" - not you personally) decide to cheat and/or pad your numbers, that in no way affects how I geocache. Creating power trails, loading up prime areas with crap caches, and so on, are a tangent to the original comments. But if I still want to be so choosy that I want to find only Regular, Difficulty 3 and Terrain 2.5 caches, I can.

I've been fortunate in that I've never had any of my caches vandalized in this way. I have, however, found caches in that condition. I was glad it was me, and not a family with young children just learning about caching, who found them. If it happens once, chances are pretty good it's the random act of some inbred halfwit moron. If it happens more than once, it's on purpose.