coachstahly

Turns out I got my PQ but I never was notified that it had run and was ready for download. That's the first time that's ever happened.

I tried to run a My Finds PQ yesterday morning and still haven't received anything. Usually I get those within 5-10 minutes.

If the container is letting water in, then the issue is the container, not the log. That's a CO issue to fix, not a finder's issue to fix, which is why it would be time to file the NM log along with your found it log. While what you're offering to do is great, it doesn't address the underlying issue that's causing the problem. It's only temporarily addressing the effect, not the cause. However, if the container appears to have no issues and it was due to a faulty closing of the container, then there really isn't much of a problem. There isn't really a problem doing what you're doing but it's just wasted effort on your part as the cache will revert to what it was like when you found it. As to replacing, unlike others on here, I will replace and take the old log when the old log takes up so much space that a new log (or a temporary filler log) wouldn't fit. That's also assuming that the container is still a viable one that will keep out moisture. If not, then I won't replace it at all. Should I replace the log, I will make mention of it in my log and then contact the CO to let them know I'll be happy to get the log to them, be it in person, via a photograph of the log, or even snail mail. I've only ever had one (that I remember) CO reach out to me with a request for photos of the log. If you're really concerned about the old log for the CO, then you can choose to post a photo of the log along with your found it log. Those COs who are adamantly opposed to finders doing something like that typically have language within the description that states finders shouldn't replace logs.

Like Jeff, I disagree with the implication that it's missing due to a single (or even a few in a row) DNFs. I've DNFed my fair share of D1 and D1.5 caches which were subsequently found by the next seeker to know that I can have a bad day or my phone or GPS can be really wonky and that can be the problem. The odds will show that it's more likely that it is missing than not missing but to assume it is based on someone else's DNF means you're taking their DNF as some kind of "proof" that you believe it's missing, despite the fact that they may not have gotten to GZ to search, may be brand new cachers who have no idea what they're doing yet, or simply overlooked it. By the guidelines, a special tool that's required is a 5D, but if you're going to walk them through it and tell them what they need, I'm not sure I'd rate it a 5D. I'm not sure it's a "mental challenge" to read on the cache page that you need to bring "this" tool with you to access the log. That's just about the same as telling someone how to open a gadget cache in the description. "Pull this lever, remove this piece of wood that's loose now, use the magnet you find inside to pull out the screw and then the bottom will open so you can sign the log." If you had provided this type of instruction in the description of a gadget cache, then how could you rate it higher than a 1D? There's nothing that the cacher has to do, other than to follow instructions. The same goes for whatever special tool it is that you specifically tell them to bring. A big part of the difficulty is figuring out which tool you'll need but you've already provided that part so I'm not sure that a 5D would be warranted. The most extreme mental challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, tools, or significant effort to find, solve, or open.

Hide a cache with a good container so you don't need to check on it often. It might cost you a little bit more (not always) but you won't have to do maintenance nearly as much as you would with a container that leaks or isn't watertight. I hope those are your caches you're replacing and not someone else's caches. Replacing a container without permission is the same as someone putting out a container because they think it's missing when it's not. Both are throwdowns and are against the guidelines. 7.11. Respond to "throwdowns" Throwdowns are strongly discouraged A “throwdown” is a container placed by a geocacher who cannot find the original cache. Some geocachers place throwdowns so that they can log a find on a cache that they suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the cache owner. This can lead to multiple containers, geocacher confusion, and disputes about whether someone is entitled to log a find or not. How to handle throwdowns Cache owners are responsible for maintenance. When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache. Consider disabling the cache until you can remove the throwdown or replace the original cache. If you do not disable the cache, you may want to honor Found It logs for the throwdown. However, the geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the cache as found.

A DNF can mean there's a possible problem but it can also mean that there's not a possible problem. The CHS automatically scores the corresponding DNF log as the negative aspect, thereby conflating a DNF with a cache that might be missing and scoring it negatively in response. I fully get that a reviewer will still need to get involved and am grateful for that. But that is exactly what the CHS does, counting a DNF as a "strike" against the overall health score of the cache because it determines (in the negative) that it might be missing, despite the fact that it might be just fine. I get that it has to count as a negative. Otherwise the CHS would rely solely on NM logs, which would somewhat defeat the purpose of a proactive program and revert it more to a reactive program.

They said it was there, not gone. I guess they assumed that a DNF meant it was missing. I didn't hear back from the other DNF deletion. I do remember that one specifically though because I was going for the FTF (it had been published) and couldn't find it and logged my DNF. Turns out they hadn't placed the cache before publication. They deleted my log, placed the cache, and it was found shortly after. It was archived maybe 6 months later by a reviewer as it wasn't a particularly good location for cache permanence.

No. Never did say that. But to me, it's not a reason for possible archival of a cache. Neither am I. I've DNFed enough easy D/T caches to know that I can miss them just as easily as everyone else and I've found enough that have been DNFed multiple times in a row that sometimes it's the seekers missing the cache instead of it being gone. There are more times I've gone looking for a low D/T cache with a string of DNFs where it ends up being gone (based on subsequent logs from the CO) than when I've gone looking for a low D/T cache with a string of DNFs where I actually found it. You seem to believe the second scenario is extremely unlikely while I believe the second situation occurs, just not regularly. It's not a 50/50 split that I'm talking about. It's more like a 1/5 chance that the cache is still there - 80% missing, 20% in place. Subtleties in written form don't come across nearly as well as they do in person. You can't convey sarcasm nearly as well when you can't hear tone of voice. You certainly can't convey it subtly across a keyboard. What about this one?

I don't know if that would be grounds for a NA log and I'm not sure what the reviewer could do. I guess they could re-instate the log but I don't think it's worth potentially getting a cache archived over. And my experience shows that it's not always the case. I don't think of it as a hard and fast "truth" but I do agree that it is missing more times than it's been moved, covered up by debris, or just missed multiple times by seekers. I can miss finding easy caches just as easily as the next cacher so I never assume that it's missing unless there's something that tells me otherwise, both in previous logs as well as the condition of the area at GZ. I log my DNFs. Did you assume I didn't just because I don't agree with your take on those who don't? I'm not sure how I got them out of context, as they're all words you used to describe what you think about those that don't log their DNFs and why you think they don't. Of course they should log their DNFs. I honestly can't think of a really good reason not to but for some reason or another, they choose not to. However, I'm not the one casting aspersions toward cachers who choose not to log their DNFs. You appear to think it's some great insult against geocaching when it's only someone not opting to log a DNF. Although it's certainly not an optimal choice, I don't think it's worthy of the condemnation you ascribe to it. Do you have the same dislike for someone who chooses not to log their finds? How about those who choose to toss out throwdowns in order to claim a find instead of filing a DNF and perhaps a NM log? What about those cachers who log a DNF but never make it to GZ to search for the cache because in their minds, once they hit "go" on their phone or GPS, the search has begun? What about @Harry Dolphin, who chooses only to log one DNF because multiple DNFs adversely affect the CHS (I've done this a few times as well but usually only for mid-level D caches)? You've lumped them all into a singular category, despite the fact that you don't even know what they're like as individuals.

It's my guess that they wouldn't announce this at all as there would then be some COs who would begin to take their maintenance more seriously than they currently are, all in the hopes to be awarded the opportunity to place a virtual reward. By not announcing it, there's a better chance that they'll be able to filter out those COs who haven't shown any interest in maintaining their caches, at least in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if there's another round but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't another round as well.

I'll only avoid them when I'm traveling with the family and have limited time to cache. Otherwise, I'll give them a try. Also, what number do you consider a "string"? I usually start at 5. A string, however long anyone considers it to be, doesn't always mean the cache is missing. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I can point to both types of examples from my experiences and I'm guessing many others can as well. I have twice and also had two DNF logs deleted. A small drop in the bucket when compared to all my DNFs though. I've found more than a few with long strings of DNFs where the cache had been moved about 10-20 feet from where it was probably originally placed. I can think of one immediately that had close to 15 DNFs in a row over a year in a cemetery and was buried under fallen leaves about 15-20 feet away from the corner of the fence where it was originally placed (matchstick container wrapped in camo tape). However, I can be determined when I search, as evidenced by some finds that have been a few hundred feet off from the posted coordinates as well as two that were almost .25 miles from the posted coordinates (FTF on those two). I've also DNFed a fair share of low D/T caches only to find that the next finder, who had far less finds and experience than me, said it was an easy find. To be fair, I've also DNFed many of those caches and they've been missing. I do find missing caches to be more likely than the "it's there but everyone up until me didn't find it" scenario, but not to the point that it's "almost certainly missing". Do you really think so little of your fellow geocachers who choose not to log their DNFs? They're not cheating, armchair logging everything, or smashing or stealing other people's caches. They're just not logging a DNF.

As I've already mentioned, for the most part, it comes down to the cost to keep it active and findable. I have an entire series that would fall within the D/T rating for free app users and since they're regular sized caches, they'd also be high on the list for new cachers (non-PMO) to visit as well. It cost me about 60$ between the bingo balls, cards, domino set, Scrabble tiles, 5 pound bag of dice and a bonus cache (NOT within the D/T range for the free app) that cost me close to 20$ to make it how I wanted to make it. Include small/regular containers to hold the game pieces plus a larger outer container and I'm close to 100$ for the series, 5 of 6 which would be accessible to new cachers using the free app. Although new premium members have managed to take a few dominoes (which caused this part of the game to have to be replaced) as well as all the dice (luckily got those back) and the cards going MIA (cheaper but still money to replace them), I can't imagine the issues I would have if it were available to everyone, although I have had at least one non-PMO log it. I couldn't keep this series alive if I continually had to replace pieces, which would inevitably happen. It does if it allows it to stay in play longer than it would if it weren't. Not true, unless you're caching by yourself. If you're with a premium member and can find the cache, you can log it without having to pay. That's been an option for quite some time. Nope. Again, it all comes down to cost for me.

If you're on FB, I suggest posting there as well. I know there are lots of Illinois cachers that would be interested.

By default, once you hide a cache that gets published, you've blocked that particular area from anyone else placing a cache nearby. You've just chosen a particular location that tends to be more difficult for caches to have an extended listing life. While that certainly works, it's also certainly not something that many potential COs understand or want to attempt to deal with, as it pertains to the amount of maintenance it probably requires as well as finding out the potential type of container that would allow it to survive for a longer period of time. The OP has stated that they like to hide caches that provide a 15-30 minute stress free caching experience for finders. At least to me, I don't know if the hide you describe would be a "stress free" experience. I hear "stress free" and I think of a quick-ish, easier D/T combination with a more "traditional" style hide and container, which certainly doesn't mesh with what you've described.

It's up to the caching community to make sure that any cache, regardless of it's status as PMO or non-PMO, gets the appropriate log submitted when it's needed. If you (or anyone else) believe that those premium caches aren't there and have enough information from other previous logs that indicate some potential issue (they're not there because they were probably destroyed by the fire), then the NM log should have been filed, either by you or someone else. 30 days later, file that NA log if it's not been attended to by the CO. I don't know the caches in question but were they ever disabled by the COs once the fires were put out and the area was deemed safe to return to? If not, then that would be reason enough for a NM log from the first DNF log. I would suggest the exact same thing for a non-PMO cache in the same area. Whether or not a cache is PMO doesn't absolve the CO from maintenance expectations. It also doesn't matter as to seekers filing the appropriate logs to alert the COs to potential issues their caches may be having. Maintenance isn't just a one way street, whereby the CO has to figure out whether or not their cache might be missing, might be broken, or might need some attention. It's part of the responsibility of the seekers to help out the CO and file the appropriate logs that help determine whether or not a cache might be missing (NM), might be broken (NM), or might need some attention (NM, WN, Found It). Any inaction on the part of the CO to address those concerns posted by the seekers, after a reasonable amount of time, and it's time to get a reviewer involved (NA). I'm certain all of us can single out unmaintained caches and wonder why they're still in play. The single biggest issue, IMO, is that seekers aren't willing to log the appropriate logs to expedite either maintenance on the CO's part or archival, once a reviewer is involved. We're waiting for a CO to take care of it, despite the fact that they haven't done so previously. We're waiting for the CHS to ping it, despite that it takes a long time for a cache to fall below a threshold to get it noticed (and that finds, even if fake, bump the score back up). We're "afraid" of upsetting the CO, despite the fact that it's not personal and only a notification regarding what we think the status of the cache is (missing, in bad shape). If seekers took the time to help hold COs more accountable, then it could result in more archivals (due to lack of CO action) and/or better maintained caches. If we just leave it to COs who have expressed very little interest in maintaining their caches, then we'll continue to get unmaintained caches that remain in play long after they should have been removed from the database (or at least until the CHS or a reviewer sweep manages to single them out).

It's not actually preventing you from participating in the activity of hiding a cache. It's just preventing you from hiding in an area that's already saturated. Your only recourse is to wait/hope for the archival of a cache and then make sure to pounce on the spot in order to "hold" that location for your new cache. I have a friend who has notifications set for any cache within a 25 mile radius of his home coordinates so that he can be aware of any new/old spots as they open up. I have previously kept watch on a couple caches that occupied spots I thought would be good locations for a potential cache. So that other hiders can then saturate that area, which in turn causes other cachers wishing to hide a cache in that area to have the same issues? Puzzles can be within 2 miles of the posted coordinates, not .4 miles, which would render this suggestion as somewhat pointless unless you expanded the circle to the full 2 mile diameter, which would render things pretty much useless. What about multis that have 3 or more stages outside of the two initial circles? A random bearing and distance would only be viable if the distance and bearing were both within the confines of what was chosen. In your second image, what if the actual hidden/final location was on a bearing of 315 and .25 from point C? It would be outside the purple circle but you still couldn't hide a cache there because of the location of the hidden/final coordinates. The bolded sentence is what we already have in place, just on a smaller measurement scale than you outline. It's not going to provide them anything different than what is already in place and will still have the same main complaint that currently exists - you aren't told you're within the limit of an existing hidden stage/final until you hit submit (or ask and wait for a reviewer to get back to you) and the reviewer tells you you can't place it there. What it appears they're asking for is some kind of automated coordinate check against hidden stages either in the field, when creating a cache page, or once they submit a cache for publication that immediately lets them know they can't place a cache there because of saturation issues.

That's great for you but as many have noted on here, there are various reasons for making a cache PMO. For me, it boils down to cost of the cache. The more expensive it costs me to place and maintain a cache, the more likely it is to be PMO. I have a small series of caches that have bingo balls, scrabble tiles, dominoes, cards, and a 5 pound bag of dice, all of which lead to a final cache, should cachers wish to play the game I set out for each of the playing pieces. All of them would be available to the public (lower D/T ratings that fall within what the free app would make visible), which means that the possibility that I'd have to continually replace the pieces would be high. I've had to replace the pieces (or email the finders) once or twice times due to new premium members who didn't know any better so I can only guess as to the impact that this might have with everyone being able to access them. I don't find them to be "better" caches, on average, than non-PMO caches, nor do I find them to be better maintained caches, again, on average, than non-PMO caches. I don't even know what my ratio of PMO to non-PMO found caches is but I'd be surprised if it's more than 20%.

The only "new" Garmin unit that can play a Wherigo is the Monterra, but you'd have to download the Whereyougo app onto the unit to play it as Garmin no longer manufactures units with built in Wherigo players. The Monterra has an Android OS and also allows you to connect to WiFi. However, I believe it's now a discontinued model.

Nope. It's not taking anything away from the cache by not giving it a FP. It's not a negative endorsement (DON'T find this cache because it's not good) nor is it a slight to the CO for not giving a FP on a cache with many FPs. You do realize that this logic of yours works in an unintended manner as well, right? For example, let's say a new cache is published and quickly gets two finds, both of which attach a FP to the cache. By your logic, the next person that comes along "downvotes" this cache because they don't give it a favorite point because it's a simple LPC and yet the two finders gave it a FP because they were FTF, they were a friend of the CO, it was a tribute cache to one of them, it was a milestone find, they found 20$, they connected with a friend they haven't seen for years at the cache, etc.... I can still have an enjoyable experience at a cache with FPs but not award a FP. How is that a "downvote" or a negative endorsement of the cache? No, YOU give FPs to help others. I give FPs to caches that I enjoyed, for whatever reason I may have enjoyed them. My awarding of a FP is based on my enjoyment, not based on what I think anyone else may think about a cache, based on my FP. What I like doesn't necessarily translate to what someone else may like. I continue to use this example because it applies and helps explain the difference. During GWSX in southern Indiana, there were two very similar caches, both with a good number of FPs. The first one was located in a mall parking lot and was a fake bass (fish) with a bison tube inside, hanging from a tree by fishing line and called Bad Cast (or something very similar). It was cute but I didn't find it worth a FP mostly because of the location. The other cache was a few miles away and involved a short walk along the Ohio River and took you to an old brick bridge support and flood abatement wall that looked like the walls of a castle that you were able to explore a bit (can't now as it's fenced off). It too, was hanging from a fishing line that dangled into a hole that looked like an old room that used to be part of some larger structure and was themed around something similar to Indiana Jones. It was a nice walk and a a neat old structure that when combined, were worth the FPs that were attached to it. Both were the same style hide (bison tube hanging from fishing line) but one I really liked and the other was just, well, plain to me, but cute. However, cute isn't worth a FP, at least to me. I'm sure it is to others, which is why I find FPs only somewhat helpful. There's certainly a higher chance that a cache with more FPs will be "better" than one with less or one that I'll enjoy more than one with less, but there's no guarantee because there are so many reasons cachers award a FP. Here's another example I've used. I was caching in a country cemetery just outside town limits when a local came into the cemetery and asked what I was doing. After explaining it to him, he then told me his family's story. Turns out that his ancestors settled this land, owned all the land in this area, including the church and cemetery which his family donated, and still own large tracts that surrounded this little cemetery. He pointed out his family members interred here and then told me to go look at the other cemetery that's more of a family plot, just about 3/4 of a mile away. I had to walk between a narrow fence strip of land, between quite a few cows to get to it and had already visited it first, as there was a cache in there as well. I gave this cache a FP, not because the cache stood out in any way, but because I got to hear a firsthand account of what his family did to allow this location to come to pass and learned some local history as well. The only way anyone else will have an experience like that is if he happens to do the same thing he did with me, the odds of which are very small. How is that helpful to others? Again, nope. Giving them only tells the community that I enjoyed my experience enough to award a FP. It doesn't guarantee that anyone else will have an enjoyable experience. You seem to think that a lot of FPs is an infallible means of determining whether or not a cache is good, without realizing that not everyone uses them in the same manner as you appear to use them. If everyone did use them like you do, then it would work in the manner you claim it does. The problem is that not everyone does it the way you do it and that makes your information somewhat faulty because there's not one single standard being applied to the use of a FP. You only need read this thread (among the countless others) to see that the awarding of a FP is an extremely subjective thing, rather than the objective thing you suppose it to be. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." As many others have mentioned, a cache with more FPs has a better chance of being a "better" cache experience but it in no way guarantees that. I like gadget caches but I'm not going to award a FP to a gadget cache that I've found when I've already found 4 that were done just like it. I remember thinking how cool my first LPC was and here I am, over 10 years later, thinking how uncool they are to me now. I let the CO know that I enjoyed my experience finding their cache by awarding a FP, not that the cache is a "good" one. I'll use my cemetery cache as an example again. The cache was a medical tube hidden along a fence line. There was NOTHING "good" about it. What made it worth my FP was the experience I had with the man, not the actual experience of finding this cache. I wouldn't recommend this cache to anyone, unless they were cemetery seekers, because there's nothing that makes it stand out, beyond my singular experience. Others should use it at their own "risk" because it's extremely unlikely that anyone else will have the same experience I had. Some people enjoy "cute" caches. Some people enjoy a demanding effort to get to the cache. Some people enjoy a leisurely walk on a paved trail to get to the cache. Some people enjoy LPCs. Some people enjoy really tricky and difficult hides. Some people enjoy small or larger caches. Some people enjoy micros in the woods if the location is worth a visit. Some people enjoy challenges. Some people enjoy multis. Some people enjoy gadget caches. Some people enjoy ECs. Do you notice anything that's missing from each of these short sentences about what some people like? It's the word "all". Everyone doesn't cache the same way, enjoy the same things, or award FPs the same way. FPs are just as individualistic as cachers are and to rely on them as a determination of whether or not a cache is "good" is a stretch.

I've done it twice, both times by myself. The first time I did it was in 2011, when I had been caching for just over a year. I had 3 bike trails (1 already mostly done) and all the 1/1s and 1.5/1.5s loaded up on the way there and back to the first trail. I left home at 5 in the morning, found mostly P&Gs (1/1, 1.5/1.5) in parking lots on the way down to the first two trails, which intersected each other. Rode my bike from cache to cache along the two trails, returned to the car and attempted the P&Gs on the other side of the road on the way back up. I got back in my primary home area around 3 and headed to the other bike trail that I had already mostly completed and found what I could. Once it got dark I ended with more P&Gs. I wrapped up around 10 PM. I had some DNFs that certainly delayed my getting to 100, but not so many that it caused me serious issues. The second time was in 2016 and it was primarily two separate geo-arts with some challenges I had to hike to near to where the second geo-art wrapped up. Almost all of the locations were along country roads, while a few were inside town limits. This time actually went much faster as I was driving from cache to cache just about the entire time. The second geo-art had lots of LEOs driving past and waving, as they knew what I was doing, having seen so many do it previously. This one, other than the actual drive to start (about an hour and 15 minutes), drive to the second geo-art (1 hour) and head back home (about 2 1/2 hours), took me about 8 hours of actual caching time, so it went much faster and smoother than the first time I did it. While I have no plans to do anything like this again, I'm not going to say I never will do anything like this again. It was tedious, although the first time I did it at least I was on a nice bike trail and getting some great exercise. It wasn't really "fun" but the sense of accomplishment of doing over a hundred in a day by myself was probably the best feeling after completing both days. It's really not as hard as some people think. You just have to be willing to see it through from start to finish. I was ready for both days to be done, the later in the day it got.

This is the one I was talking about. They've got some Indiana cachers with ALC credits and have also begun to recruit Ohio cachers interested in extending it.

Follow up. Apparently it's an ALC trail (power trail?) that follows the Abraham Lincoln Highway that extends across Illinois into Indiana. Someone just posted that they have some cachers lined up to continue the Ohio portion but wanted some Indiana cachers with ALCs to fill in the stretch across Indiana.

Again, just because it works that way in your neck of the woods does NOT mean that it works that way everywhere. Just as terrain ratings differ based on the general topographical features one area has that others do not, there are various ways that FTFs are determined. You believe it's a black and white, clearcut determination, whereby only one person is entitled to the FTF. There are many of us here who have pointed out that while this is certainly a possibility (and one that is valid), it's not the ONLY way to determine who may or may not lay claim to the FTF and that a group of cachers, regardless of whether or not they know each other, can discuss it and come to some arrangement that each cacher can abide by. Sometimes that may mean a singular FTF and other times it may mean a shared FTF. We're not asking you to change your determination of who may claim a FTF. We're only pointing out that cachers in other areas have come up with some other solution that appears to work and co-exist within each others' manner of playing. If it happens not to work, then it reverts to the manner in which you play, which is perfectly fine as well. The fact that it didn't even come up seems a bit odd to me as, at least in my area, cachers tend to be talkative when running into other cachers, even if we don't know each other, be it at events or at a cache. We realize we're part of a community and socialize as such, which typically means that a P&G can turn into a 5-10 minute meet and greet. It doesn't always happen that way but more often than not, it does. Having managed quite a few FTFs, I can only think of one time when another cacher (or group of cachers) didn't talk about the FTF. There used to be 4 of us that were serious FTF seekers during my first couple of years of caching and we'd continuously run into each other at newly published caches or just miss out running into each other. Each time we did actually meet up at a newly published cache, we discussed who was going to claim the FTF if it was found with more than one of us at GZ. The longer this went on, the more it changed to a shared FTF style of play, except when the other cacher requested they be the one to claim the FTF (for whatever reason). I (and hopefully the others who feel as I do) am NOT telling you that you need to change your style of play. What we hope you realize is that your way isn't the only way and that both styles can co-exist. Logically, it may not make any sense to you but for those of us who choose to play this way, we're fine with this determination of whether or not we are willing to share a FTF. Beats? Are you trying to win something here? We're discussing various methods of determining how cachers rectify FTFs and throwing out, in essence, two different variations of how cachers determine who gets to claim the FTF. Your way is certainly a valid way. No one here is really disputing that (at least I don't think so). Since it's not a recognized thing by GS and there are no guidelines that specify exactly how a FTF is awarded (first to put hands on it, first to find it [someone else may have unknowingly touched it without realizing it was the cache], first to sign the log), we are left to our own devices and those of us who feel like a shared FTF is a valid decision are comfortable with that decision, assuming everyone else at the cache is fine with it as well. If not everyone agrees, then we arrive at some consensus that allows a singular FTF and that's usually the one who pulls it from the hiding spot, although I can think of one instance when it was the first person that actually saw it but was unable to retrieve it due to physical limitations.

So the screenshot shows caches placed along country roads. Each of the sections (upper and lower) contain multiple series of caches, meaning they're not all titled the same way. They also appear to have the same CO (in most cases) and the same D/T rating (in most cases). If linear is one of the pre-defined expectations, then this doesn't quite meet those expectations as it's much more of a grid but these, should they have been laid out in a straight line, would qualify immediately. The only difference here is that they're laid out in grids. To me, this is a good "I know it when I see it" test that applies to PT caches and they should probably get the PT attribute.

Only if the two of you talked about it and agreed to it. Despite your attempt to make this an either/or proposition, in many places cachers are willing to share the FTF. It just depends upon the situation of those involved and whether or not they are amenable to sharing or want to claim it for themselves. I've been on both ends - mutually agreed upon shared FTF and someone unwilling to share the FTF. I'm perfectly fine sharing a FTF within a group, even if I'm the one to find it and I'm also perfectly fine if someone within the group wants sole proprietorship of the FTF since they were the ones to find it.