dprovan

I admit, I think like you do, so I don't care for the practice much, either. I always drop a bug pretty much as soon as I can, but sometimes I can't find a large enough cache or want to drop it in a different direction than I'm going that day, so once in a while I'll log a visit in order to show that the TB really was in an interestingly different location even if I didn't leave it there. Other people think lots of visits are the cat's pajamas, but try to put up with it. Make it very clear in your TB's page that you'd rather not have visits and stress that your priority is more people seeing the TB rather than the TB seeing more caches. Some people might notice, but live with the fact that many won't.

There's no general reason to be concerned about a personal note being posted on the TB page. You can speak to the owner privately if you want, of course, and others have describe how, but don't avoid using the log just because you think it's inappropriate for a personal remark. And before you delete your unintentional log, consider whether it is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable addition to the TB's history.

It might be different in the UK, but in other parts of the world, people don't annoy other people just because they have the freedom to. Well, the OP describes what sounds like a lengthy search -- long enough the the lady's complaints to become a serious issue -- so I guess it didn't work in this case. And, of course, it can't possibly work if the cache goes missing. I don't know whether or not she's being unreasonable with the evidence we have so far, we only understand that the OP didn't know her side of it while giving her more reason to be combative with strangers. Whether the cachers were "wronged" is not quite in evidence yet. All we know is that lady was rude, and it sounds like the cachers were rude right back. Anyway, I fully admit I have no idea whether this lady is being unreasonable, either specifically against geocachers who keep loitering near her property or generally against anyone that walks past her house. As you mention, that sounds like something for the police to decide. What I do see is a problem as impersonal as a cache planted in a patch of poison ivy. Some people don't mind searching in poison ivy, and most people hate it, but neither side blames the poison ivy for being where the cache is. Frankly, it's starting to sound like this cache is being kept in place (if not originally placed) to get back at this lady, and at that point the target's position becomes entirely secondary to the goal of geocaching having a positive relation with the community.

As I see it, there are two possibilities. One possibility is that you're overreacting. The other possibility is that you have a much bigger problem than the geocaching issue. Since this appears to have once been your friend and cohort, have you considered, oh, I don't know, talking to them about it? Like others, I often look at logs, and I take particular interest in the logs of people I've cached with, sometimes going through their logs to follow their latest adventure. So I think we're all missing the "...and then he does this" that makes the situation worthy of concern. Without it, it sounds like you just have an admirer.

An additional warning that is rarely valid is exactly why so many people don't read warnings.

I'm sorry, but I'm more inclined to sympathize with her than with your deep seated desire to exercise your God Given Right to invade that neighborhood and do whatever you want no matter how much it upsets the neighbors. I know nothing about what set her off, of course, except that it sounds like you told her to stuff it, which I'm sure didn't make her feel much better about geocaching. My log entry might have been more like, "Neighbors are angry about this cache. Should be archived." To me, it really doesn't matter a bit why they're angry or whether they have a "right" to be angry.

"Thank you for the note explaining what happened. I was really wondering! I bet the owner was wondering, too, so be sure to log a note on the coin's page explaining where it's been for 5 months." I had something similar happen to me: I found a coin in Hawaii, and the last time it had been seen was several months earlier in the midwest, so I just grabbed it right away in order to let the owner would know it was finally in play. Sure enough, it had just been dropped, and the dropper hadn't been able to log it yet. But I think he knew he was the problem, 'cuz he just explained in a log entry why it hadn't been logged when I grabbed it.

Give him hints or nudges just as you would for anyone else asking for help with a puzzle. If he's on the up-and-up, he'll enjoy solving it a second time. If he's looking for easy ways to get answers for some scheme, he'll move on.

That's great, of course, but I often don't realize there was supposed to be a traveler in a cache until I'm at home logging it. In cases where I don't think it was there but I could have missed it, I'm just careful -- as always -- to log what I actually know, which is that I didn't see it rather than that it's definitely not there.

Everyone is making good suggestions, but just for the record I'll add that there's a cache series like this in my neighborhood that just has laminated cards in the caches, and it seemed to work fine with no problem except that the caches themselves keep getting muggled. I think it's down from 3 to 1 preliminary cache, with the CO providing the two missing pieces if you send him the third.

At least you do see the value of a note about a TB drop being in the log rather than deleting it. But inaccurately setting the date of the drop doesn't seem reasonable, particularly since you're going to be aiming for dropping the TB in the window between the publication and the first find. Personally, I see no advantage to having the drop note be chronologically after the publication note to begin with, but it just seems like a poor choice when you consider the problems it creates versus a note that correctly dates the drop.

I'm sorry this happened to you, and I won't be at all surprised if it happens to me some day, but, nevertheless, it seems unreasonable to brand the action of posting a note to an unpublished cache as a mistake, even if you don't personally see any reason to use that feature. On the other hand, I hope your note has raised the awareness of this pitfall so both COs and reviewers are more likely to consider whether a simple note contains secrets.

OK, I'll bite: what is the origin of the term "muggle" if not the immensely popular book series that predates geocaching and uses the term in the magical world exactly the same way you've just explained that it's used in the geocaching world?

Yes, cachers are magical and specially skilled. And they pass among muggles generally undetected, although they sometimes are seen doing odd things that are difficult to explain.

No, sorry, my mistake. I specifically did not mean to imply that your attitude was "bad". I just meant my statement wasn't commenting on your opinion, which is yours to have, merely pointing out that it was, in fact, taking your ball and going home. The whole point of my adding that prefix is that I have no objection to you doing that, I just want to make sure you recognize it for what it is. So why do you place a challenging cache? I assume it's for the pleasure of people meeting the challenge and your pleasure at reading about their experience. In my eyes, withdrawing the cache in reaction to someone else doing something else does nothing particularly interesting other than make absolutely certain that none of those people you were hoping would enjoy your cache by meeting your challenge will ever have that chance. That's perfectly reasonable. I thought you didn't want to have a cache that a cheat site or another person gave out coordinates to, and that's something else entirely. No, I don't like it when people simply give out answers to my puzzle caches, but it would never occur to me to react by archiving the cache. That just makes no sense at all to me. Why should I punish the people I designed the cache for because someone I didn't design the cache for found a way to get around fully enjoying it?

You have no business telling anyone that moving my bug is being greedy. Anyone can pick up my bug anywhere, anytime, for whatever reason. You don't get to decide what's 'fair' when it comes to my bug. Release your own bug and tell people not to move it, stay away from mine. Huh? I'm not telling anyone anything of the kind. I've said nothing at all against picking up any bug anywhere. What I've pointed out is that if you regularly sweep all the bugs out of all of the caches in your area, that's pretty selfish unless you also do the reverse: drop bugs back into caches in the local area. As I already carefully explained, this is a recommendation to move a bug rather than hold on to it, so I don't see why a TO would object. At any rate, I was never speaking in tit-for-tat terms, but merely pointing out to the OP that while it's fine to revisit a cache to pick up a TB, it's just as fine to revisit a cache to drop off a TB.

Whenever I see a 20% off coupon, I read it as, "I set my prices 25% more than I need to so I can give everyone 20% off coupons and make them think they're getting a deal." I wouldn't object, but nor would I find it of any value. Just like people that leave their business cards. I'm not sure if there's anything you could do to make this the entirely altruistic act you want it to be. I think knowschad has a good point, and no matter how you spin it, it's still going to smell of your work, not the act of geocaching charity you intent. And I have to admit, I normally treat such coupons as a CITO opportunity. Oh, by the way: if you do something like this, try to avoid leaving it in a cache that might sometimes get water in it. Otherwise, it will just become more mush clogging up the cache.

I just saw this as a hint in a cache in southern California, and I mentioned in my Found It log that I had no idea what it meant. The CO sent me a note to explain that it's one of those big green electrical boxes that are often found along the side of roads and in parking lots. I agree with Gitchee-Gummee: I hope it's a term that stays exclusive to southern California.

I don't see it as that at all. Placing a cache that i have put some work into and then finding that too many people are just skipping the challenging part and going straight to the final because someone else gives them the coordinates would frustrate me as well. I don't mind people coming up with other methods of figuring out our caches and it's fine if someone finds the cache by accident. But i do mind if too many log the find only because someone gives them the coordinates. People doing this a few times is one thing but i would take the cache out if i found that most of the found it logs were from people who never even figured out the puzzle or did the legs on the multi. To be honest, i would think some of the "legitimate" finders might feel they were "robbed" when they found out that i kept allowing people to log it who didn't do it as intended. Without commenting on your attitude, I just wanted to point out that this is a quintessential example of taking your ball and going home: people aren't playing by the rules you want them to play with, so you are going to end the game by withdrawing your cache so no one will be able to play with it under any rules. As I said to cezanne, it's really too bad that someone not doing it the way you want would frustrate you to the point of not letting anyone approach it in any way. The odd thing is that I typically abide by the CO's desires, so I don't really understand people that just ask friends for final coordinates. But I don't find those people diminish my sense of accomplishment. Perhaps that's because there are only a handful of cachers that regularly skip the work around here.

I would have pretended to grab the TB and place it in the cache where I know it is. As others have noted, that's only after giving a little time for a slow log, although discovering that the TB holder logged a visit to the cache 2 weeks earlier would convince me that he just forgot to log the drop, so I'd better take care of it.

I wasn't recommending trading. I was pointing out that if he runs out to a cache multiple times to pick up bugs he sees there, it's only reasonable that from time to time he similarly considers placing TBs in his local, previously visited caches, too. It seems greedy to me to always do it the way that makes it convenient for him and inconvenient for anyone else in the area. Among other things, locally dropping a bug he found away from home gets it moving more quickly because he won't be holding it until his next caching adventure away from home.

Then I'm sorry it would frustrate you to the point of withdrawing your cache.

I'm sorry you feel that would be necessary, but I do agree that that's a perfectly acceptable solution to your problem.

I think what you're describing is a perfect reason to release them as a pair. Try it: prehaps you'll also find it fun to follow them as a pair. Around here, it's quite common for some COs to release hides one at a time specifically to avoid one person sweeping through and picking up all the FTFs in a single pass. People act annoyed -- and the COs act like they're trying to be annoying -- but everyone understands it's just a game. If I pick up a new cache only to have another one published nearby, as long as I enjoyed getting the first one, I celebrate having another reason to hike in for the second.

In fact, if you find it convenient for picking up a TB to take elsewhere, you should also find it a convenient cache for dropping a TB you brought from elsewhere. Try to be balanced.