Chokecherry

yup

This thread has been going on for years not bothering anyone. Why do you people feel the need to drag a thread whic has been just fine into a petty little foot stomping match?

Purposely soft coordinates to make it more "difficult." And cache owners who have multis and puzzles out there that lose a step or the key to the puzzle is destroyed and they refuse to either repair the cache/cache page or disable the cache but will tell people if they are e-mailed that they aren't doing anything about it.

As a finder I hate finding unmaintained caches that are left by people on vacation that end up sitting all a mess until if/when the vacationer comes back. My biggest pet peeve other than that is when people low ball the terrain rating because they got to the cache location on an ATV. I use terrain ratings to find out which caches may be safe for my mobility impaired mother to get to with me and it sucks to show up at the location only to find the hider low balled that rating.

This thread is totally starting to ring of that nasty thread with the little old lady and her garden. The witch hunt against the original poster and the intentions is just sickening to watch. For what it's worth I would not have harassed the man and forced him to like my game. That is his neighborhood where he lives everyday. I would have tossed the cache and logged an na.

I hear ya! 6'1" tall, shaved head, gauged ears, 50+ tattoos and wandering around stealthily peering under benches, around corners, in crevices... I see that you've met Chokecherry, too, huh? I'm pretty sure I was wearing a hoodie I ran into all of you all at that webcam. lol The less I have to explain to anyone questioning what I'm doing is better for me. But again I tend to not enjoy urban caches or the whole "secret, stealthy" craze. I enjoy going places where I can wear a tank top, get dirty and enjoy myself without having to sneak around or wonder who is going to call the police next. And I do share my hobby openly with most everyone. I didn't do this to join a secret club. I do this to see cool places and hopefully meet some cool people.

Feelings about popularity probably depend on what kind of caches one is into. In town caches that people get off being stealthy about are not my thing. Rather be out in the woods where stealth doesn't matter and where people are more likely indifferent to what I'm doing.

I think it may become more public but I think for the most part people just won't care. Everyone at my job knows I do this. 2 of them actually care. My last job none of them cared except the one that I was able to get permission from to hide some caches (yay for small town connections). Being a tattooed person who looks sufficiently suspicious enough just wandering down the street I appreciate when people actually know what I'm doing. I don't do many in town caches though but it's nice to know that I'm not going to sound like a complete lunatic trying to describe what I'm doing.

If it was a new contact lens container I would consider trading for it as I will tend to lose those.

I think it needs it's own thread too. I support changing the name of the Needs Archived log type to one of the other suggestions. I don't support automation.

it is my opinion that the Reviewer is applying their personal bias, calling it policy.But you know what they say about opinions... I think you're ignoring at least two pieces of the guidelines in the name of "history". I would go so far as to say what history in this context. Essentially the ignoring of guidelines is to preserve a cache page. The history is long gone at that site.

I just wish the reviewer would archive it already and be done with it.

I've never had to add a note to add a cache to favorites. On the right side of the cache page in a tan box there's a spot you can just click to add it to your favorites.

That's usually how it goes for me. Sometimes I'll swing it to get a feel of what I'm looking at terrain wise or difficulty wise because it's unclear with the information on the cache page. I may even poke around for a few minutes but then leave to go figure out how I want to attack a cache but I won't log that as a DNF. Typically I'll log my DNF's usually with some degree of detail but if it's just something where I swung in I'm not going to waste my time logging a DNF that is not going to give any good or reliable info to the cache owner or other seekers looking for the cache. Sometimes if I'm on attempt 5 at a cache and just swing in with nothing new to report I won't log a DNF either. Unless something has changed or my searching has some how changed I likely won't log multiple DNF's on a cache either.

I'd possibly be interested in an ancillary cache in Minnesota. I didn't get an e-mail before. So I still can't say for sure if I'd be interested.

Did you pick up the bug? If so you can look through the bugs in your inventory to find it.

Had to have help pulling burrs out of my hair at one point because it looked like your shirt up there.

I'm potentially interested if you haven't filled Minnesota yet.

I typically log them. Sometimes I honestly just don't want to take the time especially if it was a quick stop and not really focused searching.

Somewhere my friend has a picture from where I fell into the swamp last year in an attempt at a night cache in early spring. All it took was one bad step to end up up to my waist in swamp. Continued to hunt for the cache for 3 hours after I fell in.

We planned our event to occur after work and school. I'm willing to bet others did as well.

What is nearly unforgivable is GS's total lack of PR. As users above noted they sprung this huge change on us with out warning and pretended like it was no big deal. Then they ignore the problem and their users instead of (at least pretending they are) caring and communicating with their users. The PR in general is a monumental problem. And I wouldn't limit the communication issues to just after the fact after the problems arise but even before the fact. A lot of this particular round of complaining (just like with challenges) could have been smoothed over if heaven forbid they actually, I don't know, talk about what is actually going on. They are inherently very very bad at communication if not openly antagonistic (it's my play box, deal with it or leave attitude). I get that it comes down to the bottom line and the only thing that actually matters is the almighty dollar. That's fine. I would more much more open to continue spending my almighty dollar here if they actually made some attempts to improve their communication with people about things, better utilize and communicate on their feed back area and just all in all improve on their PR side of things. Take some of that $3million not being spent working on maps and put some money into education on that side of things.

If Google ever starts charging for web searches, I'm in serious trouble! I'm going to go out on a limb here and figure people are complaining to Groundspeak because this is yet another in a very long line of poorly implemented changes. I get that it had to happen but you can't tell me that people noticed on the 14th that oh my goodness we're going to get a bill and blammo we need to change it immediately. I would guess there was more warning there. More warning to the users, as has been stated about a million times with your changes, would have probably cushioned this blow a little bit. It's just the usually ultra bad PR that the company has that has resulted in this usual uprising with a change.

I too will visit both. But I'll probably visit the one with more caches more often. (I don't always clear out a park the first time I visit.) FWIW, increasing the cache density in city parks will increase the geocaching traffic in those parks, which will draw more attention to all the caches in those parks, which will decrease the longevity of all the caches in those parks. Beware of unintended consequences. Frankly, when I've taken kids geocaching, I've made a point of not taking them to the caches in the neighborhood parks. I've made a point of taking them on a hike in one of the area's open spaces. The trip was much more enjoyable for everyone involved, and the neighborhood caches were spared the excess attention that would shorten their lifespans. I think my trip with the kids we only ended up in one parkish area. And it wasn't even a "park" it just happened to be a place that was taken over by some disc golf people. They really enjoyed just seeing these different places and telling their stories about stuff. Didn't matter that we didn't find toys for them to take home or a lot of things in general. They just out and out enjoyed their trip and getting out of the house and wandering around for awhile.

I've brought a pack of young boys geocaching before honestly with the proper supervision and because they were under control I was able to bring them to all my normal cache haunts. That included urban and more wilderness oriented. Didn't have a problem. Saturation guidelines were not an issue. We didn't need 50 caches in an area were 1 did just fine showing us the area. In fact that pack of children would have found that profoundly boring because like adults they were there for the journey part not just find.