Dame Deco

I can think of few clearer examples of people taking this hobby way too seriously than thinking that the reviewers are out to cheat with answers to puzzle caches. I just make puzzles for fun, and I have not a single solitary qualm about telling my reviewer how to arrive at the answer.

1. I trust reviewers not to abuse their position. 2. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a reviewer to want to know exactly how to solve it so that they know it CAN be solved. That's it, it's as simple as that.

I truly meant the teensy bit--it doesn't keep me awake at night or anything.

It always bugs me a teensy little bit when families, or even couples, with one account complete calendar year or streak challenges, or get credit for visiting this many states or that many countries, when they get to share the work. I have to make every one of those finds myself. I like to see people who cache have their own account. Team names are fine for actually signing logs, saves paper--but for online logging. I like to see everyone just log their own.

They should be treated the same. Even if hidden in 2000, if a cache has been abandoned by its owner, it should be archived.

I always just give them the whole solution right up front, how to solve, the answer etc. As Keystone says--they can be the one who doublechecks it for you!

Not needed--just avoid caches in parking lots, search for ones you will like with pocket queries, and do more ECs, virtuals, multis, and puzzles. Concentrate on the good stuff, concentrate on what you like, and ignore the rest.

Well, actually I pretty much just accept things as they are. I'm happy enough. Sure I wish old ones were archived more often, but it's not really a big deal. So, yeah...I accept it. I never suggested archiving a cache in fine shape, just caches that aren't in fine shape. And there are plenty out there. But it's not a big deal to me--sure I wish there were new ones closer, but there aren't--that's life.

I didn't mean to imply that all old caches should be archived. I simply meant that old caches that belong to cache owners that don't maintain them or are no longer active should be archived rather than adopted unless the cache owner initiates it--i.e., the current system. I don't think we need to go beyond what we have now in terms of having caches adopted.

Quoting your permanence link: Geocaches are placed for the long term. Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (traveling caches), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for one-time events) will not be published. "long term" is not defined. To me, long term would be 1-5 years. The guidelines say nothing about "permanence." You can't be "a little permanent"--you are, or you aren't.

Ah--I didn't see your tribute! For my money, it's better to do what you did, place a new tribute cache. That makes it a good thing the old one got archived, now those who found it before can come back. Good job!

I agree in a lot of ways--but very much on a cache by cache basis. That means that the idea of a list of adoptable caches--just based on dnfs, etc., doesn't strike me as a good idea. And even if there was a way to say, "only the truly historic ones," you have caches like Mingo that are nothing like the original even though they live on.

The original was Lost at Pine Point (GCV5XW). The tribute cache is Sightseeing at Pine Point (GC4JHQX) That does look like a good one, I can see why you'd hate to lose it. Have you thought about putting one out yourself there? To get more people to actually visit, you might put out 4 traditionals at key spots, each with part of the coordinates to a puzzle finale. Folks do tend to skip the multi caches--and not only because of numbers, but because you can spend an hour on a multi only to find one of the stages gone.. But putting out some traditionals to make up a real tour with a puzzle at the end can be a good way to go.

Spoken like a true numbers grinder Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook. I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely. Hah hah! Your response makes me laugh! I'm not a numbers grinder, I'm a lover of multi caches, and there aren't enough multi caches around. And I'm not talking about archiving caches with history like The Spot in New York, I'm talking about archiving good caches that have lived long enough. Everyone in the area has found them, only newbies and visitors can find them, and they don't get found often. Archive them and put out a new amazing multi cache. I'd like to cache more within 10 miles of my home with my dog on average days with time for a walk--but there's nothing new that close to me. Just so you know, I've found lots of historic caches with the old logs--Arikaree and Yellow River Stash, both of which have the logs stolen since I found them. But I was thrilled to find the original logs in a lot of 2000-2001 caches (The Spot and others), and I was thrilled every time. Check out my log for this cache, I'm near the top--- http://coord.info/GCGJYE I saved the old log in that one, and was glad to. Why not look at my profile and my cache statistics before automatically labeling me as someone you disapprove of just because I have an opinion different than yours. That said--Mingo was much less than a thrill about a month ago. It's been stolen a bunch of times, nothing original was left, and frankly it was just another cache along the route because of that. Let old, abandoned, unmaintained caches be archived, they've had their day in the sun, time for some new caches. Mingo has in effect been adopted by the caching community--the owner does nothing--but because of that, it's really nothing special. It might as well be a new cache--and really, that's what it is. Oh absolutely not a "numbers grinder". And this statement does not seem selfish at all. Never mind that I have not found them, you have, so they can be archived now. Nec/Neph: Not everyone can find every cache. I've missed out on a lot that have been archived before I could find them, but I just shrug--that's life. Are you saying that every cache must remain active until you find it? I'd recommend something be archived if it was abandoned even if I wanted it and hadn't found it. Caches aren't meant to be permanent--long term, a few years, sure. But permanent--no. I'm probably a numbers grinder to some, but not to others--I suppose my average is somewhere in the middle. When I travel across the country in my car, I stop for all the EarthCaches, multi caches, puzzles, virtuals, and Letterboxes that I can. I like a ton of variety, I love all kinds of caches, not just the traditional caches. As for the charge of being selfish--I've put out some really good caches and 10 EarthCaches. I participate by putting them out as well as finding them. All your hides might be by sock puppet accounts, I suppose.

Justin--OP, the reply by me you quoted was in answer to something NJSquirrel said. It was not directed at you at all, so please don't think that. What's this old multi that you loved--what's the GC, I'd like to take a look at it--

Spoken like a true numbers grinder Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook. I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely. NJSquirrel: Hah hah! Your response makes me laugh! I'm not a numbers grinder, I'm a lover of multi caches, and there aren't enough multi caches around. And I'm not talking about archiving caches with history like The Spot in New York, I'm talking about archiving good caches that have lived long enough. Everyone in the area has found them, only newbies and visitors can find them, and they don't get found often. Archive them and put out a new amazing multi cache. I'd like to cache more within 10 miles of my home with my dog on average days with time for a walk--but there's nothing new that close to me. Just so you know, I've found lots of historic caches with the old logs--Arikaree and Yellow River Stash, both of which have the logs stolen since I found them. But I was thrilled to find the original logs in a lot of 2000-2001 caches (The Spot and others), and I was thrilled every time. Check out my log for this cache, I'm near the top--- http://coord.info/GCGJYE I saved the old log in that one, and was glad to. Why not look at my profile and my cache statistics before automatically labeling me as someone you disapprove of just because I have an opinion different than yours. That said--Mingo was much less than a thrill about a month ago. It's been stolen a bunch of times, nothing original was left, and frankly it was just another cache along the route because of that. Let old, abandoned, unmaintained caches be archived, they've had their day in the sun, time for some new caches. Mingo has in effect been adopted by the caching community--the owner does nothing--but because of that, it's really nothing special. It might as well be a new cache--and really, that's what it is.

My only point was don't ask for help until you've really tried your hardest to solve it.

Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.

Once you've worked on the puzzle, don't be afraid to contact the cache owner for help. If you can list all the things you've tried to show you've made a real effort, the CO will be more likely to give you help.

It really depends on the rule of the particular power trail. On the ET Trail, we swapped the containers, always moving the last one down the road to the next cache, and we use a stamp. Take a look at the cache pages of the power trail you're going to do, and go by the way folks do that one. I always date my logs, so I bought a stamp with a date on it even it that meant I could only use it one day without crossing things out! But you could just get a stamp with your name and your sisters and date them with a pen or pencil as you go. People do use labels, but we used a stamp.

I always said I wouldn't do a power trail, but when I found that we were so close to the ET Trail in Vegas last September, I decided to give it a try. It was fun, exciting to grab a few hundred in one morning, seeing how fast we could go. I don't want to do it again, but I'm glad I did it the one time. I like to experience every part of something like geocaching so that I know what people are talking about when it comes up in conversation. I have good caching buddies who do a ton of power trails, and now I know more about what they're talking about. That can only be a good thing!

whoops, people said all that, sorry! Ignore my post--

I'm guessing for under 18, they'd need parental permission. I did the survey!

Here's a link to the page for the ET Power Trail. I bought a stamp from one of their links, and since I only intended to do a power trail one time on one day, I went ahead and had the date added to it. It cost nearly 20 bucks, but was a nice memento afterwards. I always think a properly signed log has a date, but lots of the signatures I saw on the ET Power Trail were stamps and stickers for teams with no dates on them. http://www.etgeocaching.com/index.html

I've done them in under a half hour when they're within a mile or two of my house. 18 minutes might be my quickest--not sure.