Legochugglers

A difficulty 3 cache in an overlooked residential neighbourhood. I obviously don't know the area and I am sure it must be a very interesting hide but I will still ask you to explain 'WHY'

The space of FTF championing is more complex than you would think. Note that you implicitly argue above that the FTF game makes boring caches more acceptable. Does that mean that the existence of FTF encourages people to hide boring caches? So are you in favor of it or not? I personally enjoy the FTF game. I play a different variant than most, in that (1) I only go for FTFs that mean something to me (hard puzzle, long-time unfound, etc.) and (2) I eschew bragging about my FTFs. Some people think I am anti-FTF because I deplore the hyper-competitive aspects of the way some people play the FTF game. But I am not. In fact, I recently went to a great deal of trouble to get an FTF that meant something to me. FTFs are semi-endorsed by Groundspeak, but are not an official part of the stats. That's as it should be. Groundspeak should be in the business of encouraging people to come up with interesting ways to make caching more fun. But official endorsement has the effect of distorting that process. Imagine that FTFs were an "official" stat. Several unintended consequences would ensue. First, people would get even more competitive about their FTF numbers, and there would be a great deal more gamesmanship around it than there is now. Are you aware, for example, that some FTF hounds have made sock puppet accounts so that they can place caches and get the FTFs on them? Yes, it's pathetic. I agree. But making the FTF stat official would encourage that kind of behavior. Cyst ubiquitous Second, the angst level around FTFs would skyrocket. There would be endless discussions in the forums about what the "rules" should be and the side game would go from a fun way to make caching more interesting into a constant debate about the rules. Heck, the constant demand for more hiding rules is already ridiculous; it would be even worse for FTFs. Third, Groundspeak would have to come up with a good way to disassociate itself from illegal activities associated with the FTF game. Land managers might very well be concerned that the FTF game would encourage people to enter their land outside of legal hours in pursuit of an FTF. Groundspeak could end up with legal liability. So IMO, Groundspeak has acted wisely in not making FTFs an official stat. Love FTF s, just to make my position clear. I totally agree with your view that the more challenging or pleasant the quality of the find is, then the more rewarding the FTF. I'm not sure it is a case of Groundspeak acting wisely about not making FTF s an official stat but rather the fact that it is an impossibility for them to ever involve themselves in the adjudication of such a stat. In fact they have never really involved themselves directly in deciding if a cache is actually officially found or not let alone assessing the actual order!

I think you're experienced enough to know exactly what it's all about. If not, walk upstairs, look in the mirror, ask yourself is this really what it is all about. If the answer is yes then just load with food and water and get it over with. If I knew all about power trails, why would I need to ask about them? The rest of your response makes no sense. Apologies... after caching for 6 years I assumed you would have a reasonable understanding of what a trail of identical Micros 0.1 mile apart along a roadside would be like. If you want to give it a go (and I may do at some point) then I suggested that you ask yourself if this is what you think geocaching is all about and if the answer is yes, then great, go for it and just make sure you have plenty of food and water and petrol.

It only seems to be the anti FTF brigade that are trumpeting! Quite some noise and well out of tune. Now this was the perfect reply! Where's the "like" button? How about a stat for lamppost hides? They are quite popular also. A unique icon along with the info prominently displayed in your profile? I notice that frequently there are those that scoop up all of the easy FTFs in an area, and they always have a list of them on their profile. These are also the same people who tend to stay away from the difficult ones. For some odd reason, the cachers that end up doing those usually don't make such a big deal out of it. My comment was aimed towards those who come into a thread like this and immediately begin trying to belittle cachers who play the ftf game. Yes, this is a forum where opinions are shared, but this was a thread started to simply ask a question about how to look up ftf stats. It was not started to debate the ftf game. Everyone has a right to their opinions but they should keep them to themselves when they are off topic and not asked for. There would be no drama here at all if the haters kept their biased opinions out of threads like these. The FTF game is a great way to show enthusiasm for new cache hides, and to encourage more. it also is nice running into other cachers doing the same. There were so many cachers at one series I was at, that several considered it an impromptu event. It is also nice to see how the owner intended it originally before a hundred other people visit, and the CO is MIA. Not to mention any FTF prize. However the easy FTFs don't necessarily impress as many people as some cachers would like to imagine. That bubble of perception can break quite easily if you float it too high. It would appear that you are actually championing the FTF cause. You comment that getting the FTF doesn't always impress some people, especially when it is a cache that is just an easy cache and grab. Well just think how unimpressive it may be when there isn't even the FTF hunt to give it a bit of interest!

I think you're experienced enough to know exactly what it's all about. If not, walk upstairs, look in the mirror, ask yourself is this really what it is all about. If the answer is yes then just load with food and water and get it over with.

It only seems to be the anti FTF brigade that are trumpeting! Quite some noise and well out of tune.

Wow...sometimes OPs don't even need to put bait on the hook! I say 'BAN first to finds'... 'BAN them completely, no-one should be allowed to be FTF on any cache ever again'

Treat each cache on its merits. Active CO, generally good at maintenance, I will often try and help out. I carry logs, bags and even some containers all the time. Non-active CO, no maintenance record then NM, wait 21 days then NA if no response. If it's a micro chucked in a hedge with no other redeeming features I will never perform maintenance!

All my FTFs are legitimate. Don't need a code, badge of honour or leader board to enjoy FTF, just a little dance at GZ.

I've just seen that there is a second person with 42 finds altogether, all logged today. It is possible that he could have found them all as there are only a few miles between each set of caches but I am doubtful. People using phones only to log into gc.com certainly cloud the issue and I think there should be a radical reform of the system to ensure they log on at least once and validate their email accounts. I shall be checking those log books asap! Checking the log books is the way forward but I would print off the full list on the cache listing so you can tick off each on-line log to the ones on the paper log. It may be that the cachers found the cache several months ago or they signed as a different name. There may be a completely innocent explanation? The app is total trash. Its so battery hungry you can only manage about 5 caches if you are walking a series or double that if you are cache and dashing before that bettery is dead as a dodo. You could in car charge but it only maintains a level battery, because it is so battery hungry. You can select an area and download all caches in that area. But it will only do 30 in one go. Then you need to select find more caches. The more times you do that the more caches will download. You then have to save them all for offline use and that is the maximum you can get out of your battery. Maximum of say 20 caches. But because the app is slowwwwww to catch up with you (on iphone) you take longer to find them. Most most likely its a sock puppet account. Some sullen cacher who is rubbishing logs. had one here a while ago who was logging caches miles apart in one day with just a "!" symbol. Still some there on the logs. Ask your reviewer to have a look. Doesn't read like a sullen cacher or anyone with any sort of gripe. Logs are polite but very short and generic in their content. Only thing they seem to be achieving, if they are bogus, is a quick burst of pointless smilies.

I have a friend who is a part time cacher. I often get him to 'beta test' my caches not just for coords but for difficulty rating, enjoyment and subjective view of the placement.

I'm surprised that the thread has gone this long without some asking, but have you asked the reviewer? The reviewer was surprised that other published caches had direct links to the podcast's website. She also noted that it's not always easy for reviewers to tell from maps what types of businesses caches are located near. From that, I would tentatively infer that, if reviewers knew a cache was located near a family-unfriendly location, then they wouldn't publish it (and would archive such a cache if it was reported). But I'm not sure about such a conclusion. And she said she doesn't have all the answers and asked me to send my proposed cache to appeals to get their take on it. Groundspeak Appeals said my cache was not family friendly and didn't explain why. I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that Groundspeak generally encourages consistency among its reviewers. Groundspeak appeals did not need to explain why it wasn't family friendly you already know the reason why. I am sure that Groundspeak fully encourages its reviewers to consistently take a subjective view on any caches that may be family unfriendly and most of them will be denied. Some may get through the net for the reasons you have cited but may then be archived when/if someone complains at a later date. I have to ask why you are so determined to pursue the publishing of a cache listing that is clearly family unfriendly. It is clearly not that revolutionary as you, yourself have quoted that 70 other mentions have been listed.

The most 'wrecked' areas I have visited had never had a scout anywhere near them other than my own son who couldn't believe the carnage and change at GZ. The only visitors were experienced geocachers desperate for a smilie. I stick by my original comments. Unfortunately some will disrespect GZ, hopefully most will be as careful as they possibly can.

I've just seen that there is a second person with 42 finds altogether, all logged today. It is possible that he could have found them all as there are only a few miles between each set of caches but I am doubtful. People using phones only to log into gc.com certainly cloud the issue and I think there should be a radical reform of the system to ensure they log on at least once and validate their email accounts. I shall be checking those log books asap! Checking the log books is the way forward but I would print off the full list on the cache listing so you can tick off each on-line log to the ones on the paper log. It may be that the cachers found the cache several months ago or they signed as a different name. There may be a completely innocent explanation?

I was surprised by the decision. Groundspeak has seen fit to publish at least 70 other caches that mention the same podcast that my proposed cache uses in its puzzle. Three different Volunteer Reviewers published those caches. Goundspeak's family friendly policy should be clarified so Volunteer Reviewers can interpret it in a consistent manner. I am unfamiliar with the podcast in question but I assume that a 'mention' is somewhat different to an in depth requirement to study the content to answer specific questions. If I was a CO that felt I needed to consider setting a cache that had any possibility that it could be construed as 'family unfriendly' then I would run it by my reviewer first for their interpretation.

I do not think you are going to get Groundspeak to publish a definitive list of every eventuality that may or not meet their 'family friendly' guidelines and to be honest I wouldn't want then to. The possibilities and different concepts are just too vast to cover. They need to take each scenario and review it on its merits. In your case they don't wish for it to be connected to their listing site so it has been rejected and you then need to move along to the next idea. I feel you knew it was pushing the boundaries at the outset so you can't be that surprised by the decision.

Dichotomy - two opposing situations. In context, geocaching attempts to take you somewhere special (most of the time) but the act of bringing a lot of people there can actually spoil that site/experience. Some individuals or groups will respect the site but unfortunately some will not. I don't think it is fair to blame groups including non-cachers etc.

This will continue to be an ongoing dichotomy with geocaching especially as the pastime grows. We try and bring people to interesting places but the increased traffic will obviously have an effect on the environment. The scenario that you mention combined with more challenging hides furthers the problems. It must be ingrained into every hider/searcher to try and minimise the effect on the environment and take personal responsibility for every cache search that is undertaken.

I don't consider that you are being grumpy. You are simply providing an honest log to inform the CO of the current state of the cache GZ. As long as it is recorded factually and politely then I believe this should be done more often. I guessed, just from the photos, that the cache was in a British A road layby. It is advertised as a TB hotel which is even worse and you did right by removing the travellers. Surely there is a better place for the cache even if drivers have to pull off the A road which they may actually prefer.

A new short series was published near me but I noticed that number 3 was missing. I then realised that the coords probably clashed with the final of a nearby multi. Following my assumption I had a good hunt for the missing cache which of course I would have been ftf before it was published. I really can't see a problem with this. When the cache was subsequently published my theory was spot on but the cache was quite sneakily hidden hence why I didn't stand much chance when I undertook my blind search previously.

Wrong approach. Determine the terrain from the easiest access point, not the one you _want_ cachers to use. We're a contrary lot Yes, I can follow that logic and I was only thinking hypothetically. A CO could however get significant complaints about cachers following their series only to find that they couldn't complete the circuit due to the terrain info misrepresenting what they had to do. I guess a suitably worded and clear explanation would need to be included in the cache listing explaining the different approaches.

Add me to the list of COs who would treat each cache individually as though it was a separate assessment in its own right. However to take the OPs original query a stage further it got me thinking about a possible contradiction. The CO sets up their series and usually suggests that cachers follow the trail in specific order. The path between cache X and cache Y involves a significant assent from a valley floor across some really rugged terrain up to the road that follows the ridge above. Once up to the road the Cache Y is an easy find in the layby by the side of the road. Due to the difficulty of the climb up to the cache the terrain rating is chosen as a T4 but the CO notices that more cachers find the cache as a C&D. Should they change the rating?

You have to be at the phone ready to run at top speed and break every rule in the book to get there to log a first to find You rubbish the talking about speed to read a phone in this rule book where a first to find might need to be available as I'm as ble to why this should blended rules never should be dealt with I would never do that and don't why you want to do this or even write in this way constantly disrespecting any thoughts you on forum do not understand and constantly talk out of turn and moan at grammar got it

I have a cache that's off the beaten path and doesn't get many visits. If there hasn't been any finds after a while, I try and give it a visit and post a note assuring future finders that the cache is still there and in good shape. Speaking of which... It's about time for a visit... I do the same, it's a good practice and it's quite interesting to regularly see a few finds shortly after the note is written. Another reason for promoting a good maintenance regime.

I can only assume that a suggestion has been made that it would be a good idea for a CO to archive a cache and then resubmit it to provoke some increased activity. The motivation for this could be that someone has what they consider to be an interesting hide in a nice location however all the local cachers have already found the cache and if it's a bit off the beaten track any non locals are passing it by considering it too much hassle to go and look for it. The result is that the longer it goes unfound then the less likely cachers are going to go for it just in case it is no longer there. Some COs then may be willing to dispose of the cache history purely to relist the cache to gain some additional activity. I think I agree with the OP that this doesn't feel right.