Dame Deco

Quite true, I suppose--I guess I was thinking of the U.S.

You can publish an earthcache without a landowner's permission if it is in a public place such as a roadside turnoff or an educational sign at a rest stop, etc. For any kind of official park, etc., you would indeed need permission. But anything you can do by a roadside, an overlook off a highway, etc., does not require a landowner's permission.

Archive them, time for some new caches.

I wish all webcam owners would delete selfie logs--it's my pet peeve. I recently saw a selfie log on a webcam by a Charter Member, no less--felt vaguely disappointed by that…

Ah--that makes total sense about ownership. I'm planning a trip to Colorado, and I was going through some of the old caches looking for charter members, then looked at ALL their caches that would be nearby. One who placed caches in 2002 was still placing them in 2013 and 2014, and another still had old, active caches. Any Annie! cache would count--that makes total sense, it is the logical way to make it all work. The GSAK info is also helpful, thanks! This is a very, very cool idea for a challenge! I'm at 53, but I'm going to for more!

Two questions: First--this doesn't show up using the macro (I have 92 caches/51 different members), but it is owned by a Charter Member: GC4005 Anyone else have an example like that? Second--the adoption bit is confusing me. GC1D This cache seems to show up tons of lists, the owner is Annie!, but that Charter Member isn't the hider. She adopted it. So ownership is all that matters? This cache does come up in the micro list under Annie!, but in my actual GSAK tab for the 92 caches that qualified, it came up as Jim Gooch. Actually--there were 2 or three that came up that way. GizmoGuy from NW Ohio showed up in the list of owners generated by the macro, but is not listed as an owner of the cache in my actual GSAK tab. ETA: Perhaps the tab in GSAK is for who placed it-- Thanks for any info you can give--

Yep, if folks get part of the answer/s wrong, but visited and made an effort, I just email Thanks for visiting, here's the correct info, you earned your smiley. I only delete a log if they don't send an email and don't respond to emails sent 5 days after, plus a follow-up. I'd give FTF to the one person who had all the questions correct.

I recently did a webcam cache in Virginia. Folks logging them with selfies is a pet peeve of mine, and I was curious as to when the first person did it--it was 2004! So even 10 years ago, there were "anything for a smiley" cachers. So perhaps the old days means pre-2004? I suppose the old days could mean--a cache is only a cache if it includes a log.

That's exactly the same as today-it takes time and planning to find the good ones, and when you find one, you feel like you accomplished something.

Nah--I didn't think you were rude, I was honestly agreeing with you!

You are absolutely right, of course! Leaving you to your fun!

If a guardrail cache blocks a cache in a park, that's a darn small park...

And yet the numbers are the same in many ways! There are some damned creative and wonderful hides out there! They might be few and far between but they are there--just like in the old days when there were hardly any caches at all. And with so few caches and so few cachers--the hides weren't found often, just like a special one might not get found much today. The numbers cachers haven't really ruined anything--they take up the readily accessible places where the old-timers might not even want to put a cache leaving the 10-mile hikes as open as they ever were. Modern caching is great--there's creative stuff, and there are LPCs for when I need a quick break on a long trip, or when I want to cache at 6 am when I'm in a strange city and nothing is open yet. We have so much more variety now, that seems like a good thing. Plenty of changes are for the better--more people can play however they want, and those of us who like different kinds of caches at different times can always find what we want.

Somebody posted something a year or two ago that I loved--wish I could give proper credit: When geocaching started, caches were few and far between--you had to do some research, you had to seek them out, you had to drive aways to find them. Now the best caches are few and far between--you have to do some research, you have to seek them out, you have to drive aways to find them. Sounds like not much has changed! Micros and power trails and the like are so, so, so easy to just totally ignore. Search by cache size, use favorite points, find a favorite CO--then go find the kind of caches you like, just like in the old days.

I try to respond to every single email on my ECs, but I know that a few have slipped through the cracks. Hardly any EC owners email me back when I log their caches. Now a few specifically write that they will only respond if the info is incorrect--but still, I hardly ever get an email in response.

People who log non-working webcam caches with selfies and the COs who let them.

Bingo! You've stumbled on something important… But at the same time, there are legitimate concerns being raised that GS never addresses--

I want a warning on the cache page--don't surprise me with a drive. I'm perfectly willing to do it, but want to plan on it if I'm in from out of town.

When I saw this, I laughed!!! It's nice, I like it--but that whale and those palm trees? When we're made to delete anything from a cache page that isn't about Earth Science? That's a laugh!

Ah, thanks for that clarification--just checked, and all three of my MultiVirts were published in 2002! Good to know!

I hadn't been made aware of it, either. I made the finds in good faith, and so I won't go back and delete them.

I earned the smileys--I read the cache pages before I went, I knew what the COs required, I fulfilled those requirements, so yeah, I logged them as finds. I doesn't matter what the CO wants, to log a find on a multi on this website you are required to sign the log. You did not meet those requirements. I just assume that if a cache has been that way for years and is still listed on the site, the Powers That Be consider it a legal cache.

I earned the smileys--I read the cache pages before I went, I knew what the COs required, I fulfilled those requirements, so yeah, I logged them as finds.

You'd be right. But if I'm making a special trip just to find a particular cache, I am going to be reading the listing and logs and probably checking Google maps before leaving the house. But, if I am just looking for another cache while out looking for other caches in the area, I'm probably not going to read the cache page. That is unless I'm 20 or 30 minutes into the search. Then I'm pulling the listing up on my phone to see if I missed something. Either way, if I'm searching for another cache while out looking for other caches, I've not really wasted that much gas on 1 improperly labeled cache, am I? You were just ticked because you couldn't find the cache. That is a respectable reason all on its own to be upset. But the gas and time argument are more on you than anyone else. +1, and I see that indeed he was in the area for other reasons and grabbing other caches, so I really don't understand all the outrage over lost gas.

If someone reported it earlier I wouldn't have wasted my time and gas searching for it, maybe it'll save someone else's time and gas. I wish someone had reported it years ago, maybe there would have been a real cache for me to find. Around here if a cache is missing and not replaced within a few months people start posting notes, NMs and NAs but this time they took the COs offered smiley instead of doing what they would have done had not the CO made the offer. So let me get this straight--you drove miles and miles and miles and there were absolutely no other caches in the area, so it was all for naught? I'm thinking it wasn't the only cache you went for that day--but I could be wrong, maybe it was for a streak or something. I don't think I've found a traditional like this, but I've found a few multis that were really virtuals--but since I did all the steps and collected all the information and sent that information to the cache owners, I counted them as finds. I just thought of them as mis-labeled virtuals rather than illegal multi caches, I guess. All the COs were active, so the emails were going to real people who were checking the info. It seems like a harmless sort of problem.