coachstahly

Instead of writing notes, file a NM log. If nothing gets done by the CO after a designated period of time to allow the CO to post a note or actually fix it, file the NA log. This should be done regardless of how long someone has been caching. It shouldn't matter if they've been caching for 10 years or 10 weeks. If a cache needs maintenance, then a NM log should be filed. Your fellow cachers who are logging these caches are doing a disservice to these caches by NOT filing a NM log. If they had done it, then you could have followed up with a NA log (assuming an appropriate amount of time had passed to allow the CO the opportunity to post a note or perform the needed maintenance) and drawn the reviewer's attention.

I'm hoping this gets rectified in some manner because you get all challenge caches (via the filter) or you get all caches with challenge caches still included. Not sure how this attribute really addresses those that want to avoid challenge caches. It helps a portion of the community (smaller) but still doesn't help another portion of the community (larger).

Part of the hot spring EC lesson is most likely about what makes it a hot spring and how hot that spring might actually get. Seems to me part of the lesson of learning about a hot spring, especially for those who don't have regular access to hot springs.

I heard from a friend who plays ALCs (at a Community Celebration event) that there's already somewhat of a PT of ALCs up in the northern part of my state. I think he said something along the line of 100 stops, which means, as I understand them, 20 ALCs published with 5 stops each. As I haven't downloaded the needed app, I have no idea if what he said is true but I have no reason to doubt him in any way.

This is actually the best suggestion yet, although it need not be your front porch. Somewhere on your property that makes sense. If that's the route you go, make sure to mention it to your neighbors (to explain any unusual traffic) and then make sure to give a detailed description of your property (house, condo, fence, or other easily identified markers) so as to make sure cachers go to the right location. Finally, I would think that you'd want it limited to certain hours (?) so as to not have night cachers on your property. You could make it a multi and have both stages on the property. That way you get to control all the aspects related to this cache.

I don't agree that they need to be stopped but I won't do them at all due to the number of finds you "earn" based on the number of stages/zones/stops each one has. I believe GS believes these to be, eventually, replacements for Wherigos but without the requirement for a physical container at the end, unless a bonus cache is associated with it. I don't find them particularly desirable to do but the same goes for 1.5/1.5 traditional caches. Just because I don't like doing them doesn't mean they should be removed from the site.

My first question is whether or not you're actively looking for these types of puzzles or are planning on caching in an area and looking at puzzles to solve and come across them in this manner. If you're actively seeking out these types of puzzles, then it might appear that you're trying to be the cache police. However, the only way anyone would know is if you filed lots of NM and NA logs regularly. If it's the second option, then I see no issue with you filing NM/NA logs as the puzzles are either unsolvable due to changes within the site or no longer allowed, due to guideline changes. As a CO, I'd have no issues with someone doing that but I do realize that some COs can have a tendency to take things personally and in the wrong way. If you contacted them but didn't hear anything back, I would go with the appropriate NM/NA log as needed.

The more public the location, the more likely it is to get noticed by non-cachers. That could lead to it being muggled or broken by anyone not aware of what they would need to do to open it. The label suggestion is one I'd say should be mandated, not suggested. That will, to some extent, help. Regardless, though, it won't stop someone determined enough to take it or break it. Private property would solve part of that issue but getting permission would be the hurdle to clear. Local/state parks and walking trails would work, making sure you have the appropriate permission forms filled out, if required, and it meets their stated guidelines, if required. Since they're public lands, you'd have to make sure it wasn't in an area with a lot of pedestrian traffic. There's a gadget trail along a state road in Indiana that borders crop fields but they're all owned by family members so permission for those was probably easier than regular private property that wasn't family owned. You'd want something with somewhat accessible parking and somewhat safe walking from parking to GZ. I wouldn't camo it until you know where it's going to go. That way you can customize to the location it's going to be placed. Indoors (public library?) might work as well. A lot of that is going to be predicated on saturation and availability of a location. If you opt for a park or trail, I suggest you place something similar in size in your desired GZ for a period of time to see if it gets taken or disturbed. I also suggest that you take into account seasons because something that's hidden in summer growth can suddenly be quite visible in winter's lack of growth, as well as more accessible.

You (and others) seem to believe that finding X number of caches will help determine who a "good" CO will be, even if it's on a sliding scale based on cache density of an area. Finding "plenty of caches" doesn't mean anything if you find 200 pill bottles, mint tins, film cans and nothing else. It's just a number and one container type/size, which is why the number of finds is so inherently tough to mandate as to whether or not a cacher is ready to become a CO. All it really tells us is that the cacher is able to find X number of caches and tells us nothing about what they're going to be like as a CO. I would think that a variety of D/T rated caches , a variety of sized finds, and a variety of cache types would be a much better indicator for a cacher to determine whether or not they are ready to become a CO. However, even that has its own issues as there's no good indicator as to whether or not a CO will be a good CO. All it means is that they've managed to find lots of different types, sizes, and D/T combinations of hides. What does anything about "number" of finds (regardless of how that is interpreted) indicate about the viability of someone becoming a CO who is willing to maintain their caches in a manner outlined in the guidelines? It's the inherent traits of a cacher to be mindful of maintenance requirements as well as what they think caching should be like for their hides that will determine the viability of a CO who maintains their caches. Someone who is a numbers cacher (meaning they like to find LOTS of caches) will most likely put out caches that are easy park and grabs. Whether or not they will be maintained is irrelevant to the type of hide that is placed but is instead something the CO already has inside of themselves, a sense of responsibility to take care of what they have placed. Finding 100 caches, 10 of each size, 5 of each kind, 20 of the 81 D/T grid, or any other arbitrary number that is put out there tells us absolutely nothing about what they're going to be like as a CO. Sure, it exposes them to 100 caches, 7 different sizes, 9 different cache types, and a variety of D/T combinations, which would hopefully allow them a varied experience that could help determine their likes and dislikes, but it does nothing to provide them with the needed dedication to be the type of CO that takes care of their caches. This is like telling an aspiring musician to watch 50 Broadway shows, go out and listen to 20 different musical styles, and watch 15 other musicians at work before you attempt to become a musician. All of that exposure is probably good for them but it doesn't tell us anything about what type of musician they're actually going to become. The only true way for them (and us) to learn what type of musician they can become is with hands on experience. What level of dedication anyone applies to their craft can't really be determined by those pre-requisites we place in front of them. That's something that's inherent in each and every person. We can improve our craft (whatever that craft might be - lawyer to CO) by watching others and learning from them but the desire to use and implement what we learn and see has to come from within. If I want to be a good musician, then watching what others do and listening to a variety of music won't actually make me become better. Practice of my chosen instrument or practical application within my field of music study is what would make me a good musician and that dedication can only truly come from within. It didn't show that you needed more experience. It showed that you learned you weren't content with placing this type of cache because it ran against some ingrained feeling of dissatisfaction that arose within you. You performed a hands on activity that you thought was going to be satisfactory to your sense of what a good cache might be and then found out that you weren't content with it. Some of that can be contributed to finding a few like that (they're not really that common) but most of it is probably because you felt it wasn't "worthy" of the type of cache you wanted to put out. There are many cachers out there that would enjoy a hide like this, especially if it were regularly maintained (log not full). It's not a "bad" cache, in and of itself. It's just not a cache that you want to be associated with because you believe it to be antithetical to your sense of what types of hides you want to own and maintain. That's most likely due more to internal processes (your belief in what constitutes a "good" cache) than external processes (finding more caches). While my personal preference is to hope that potential COs experience a variety of hides, sizes, types, and D/T combos, I don't believe that those experiences should be mandated. I've found enough poorly maintained caches from COs with lots more finds than I have and I've found enough well-maintained caches from COs with far less finds than I have to realize that the number of finds isn't a good indicator of who will or won't be a good CO when it comes to maintaining their caches. I've found enough poor "quality" caches (per my personal preferences) from COs with lots more finds than I have and I've found enough good "quality" caches from COs with far less finds than I have to realize that the number of finds isn't a good indicator of who will or will not hide "quality" caches that I prefer to find.

I'll remove it if the size of the cache container warrants it (usually micros) and then note I removed it in the log and then also contact the CO to see if they want me to mail it to them, hand it off to them, or take pictures of the log and send it to them. I've only had a couple COs reach out to me, telling me they'd like the log and both were fine with photos. If you really wanted to, you could take photos that show all the signatures on the log and then post them to your log.

While I have an issue with "too much maintenance", there are times when a new cache just isn't feasible for the location it was placed and it should be archived. I don't know if that's really grounds for a temporary ban on new placements. If it's a regular thing, then maybe but even then the best laid plans don't always succeed. I think your second example is one that was most likely out of the CO's hands since it was destroyed repeatedly rather than a maintenance expectation that exceeded their original thought. I would be curious to know if the "not really at posted coordinates" was added after publication, as I expect it probably was.

I understand your reasoning behind pictures but this seems excessive to me, especially since you appear to have a verification question, unrelated to the geological lesson, within the tasks you lay out. It appears to me that you'd be better off asking for some pictures rather than ALL pictures. Let the finders choose a few locations (three?) that they find worth their time to take a photo at. Maybe make one of the stops (the posted coordinates or the two virtual stages) one of the three required and it could be any of the three, with two more needed from the reference points. They still learn the lesson but get to choose the manner in which they post qualifying pictures. You appear to be more concerned about the photographs than you are about the geological lesson you wish to impart. Again, I understand your reasoning (apparently lots of armchair loggers) but the overriding point of the EC should be the lesson about the earth, not mandating 9 photos to prove that they were actually there when less would suffice.

I hid an ammo can just outside the square mile of downtown, on private property (with permission), just off the sidewalk but well protected and camouflaged by juniper bushes, only to have it come up missing in just over 7 months. Good luck to you.

Nope. Those thumb down ratings won't make a CO who doesn't do maintenance do anything different than they already do now, just like a thumb up rating won't encourage COs to work harder to maintain their caches. So a thumb up or a thumb down is more useful than a favorite point? I would think they'd probably be less useful, particularly the thumb down, because there's no context provided unless they add the information (negative or positive) in the log, which is what is already in play with what we've got now. Seems to me this is a solution looking for a problem. I write as bland a log as possible or as descriptive as possible with all the issues I encountered. The logs provide so much more information than a simple thumb up or down, assuming a log is written to share your experience, either positive or negative. If there's something wrong with the cache, then file the NM (or the NA if an unattended NM log has already been filed). Also, what you do you consider substandard? I don't like LPC/GRCs but if they're in good shape, they're not substandard; they're just .....well, there. What type of constructive criticism are you going to provide in your log?

It's already been mentioned but the area has to be far enough off the beaten path to have a chance for the cache to last, unless you don't mind replacing it regularly. I've placed some smalls or regular caches, thinking there's no way a muggle is going to discover this, only to have them taken. Part of the reason there are so many micros is the fact that its cheaper to replace them when they're missing. Another part, already mentioned, is that they're small enough to go undetected, or if detected, not worth taking. I have found that my multis with regular or small containers at the end have a pretty good shelf life because I don't have lots of people regularly looking for the final to draw unwanted attention. That's a surprising by-product of the type of cache that I was unaware of when I hid my first cache (a multi) and it's still in play. It's the micro stages that have occasionally gone MIA but not the final, which is an ammo can.

It's pretty limited only by your creativity with regard to incorporating ideas in order to come up with some sort of variety or unique factor to your multi. One thing I try to do with each multi I have out (when I can) is to come up with one special stage that stands out from the rest, for whatever reason that might be. Sometimes it's the location and sometimes it's the container at the stage. Here in Indiana we don't have a lot of climbing caches due to a lot of the area being farmland so I try to find trees that are somewhat "easy" to climb with lower limbs but ones that can still go up at least 20 feet. I have one that takes you to a tree for each stage and some are climbers while others are at the base. It's usually pretty easy to tell which type of hide it is, but one or two are a bit ambiguous. I have a couple history based multi caches (one for a hospital for the insane and one in my city that takes you to plaques memorializing some historical aspect of the town. I have one in Japanese that starts out in a Japanese garden and ends just a short distance away. I found a set of candlesticks at a Goodwill store and made use of them as the first field puzzle stage in one of my multis. I got permission from a parks department to create a multi that takes you to just about every location in the park with a variety of sizes of containers and a few virtual stages as well. I do have a UV one (per the recent thread). I have a "Choose your own adventure" (mentioned already) that at every stage (36 I think) there are 4 coordinates, each of which has a container with 4 more coordinates (and so on and so forth) but there's only one right path that will get you from the start to the final in 5 stages. Needless to say, that one doesn't get found often. I have one that makes use of dog tags in a variety of ways that aren't typical. A library cache multi with an approved final stage inside that's a book (entered into the catalog by the library as well). I also just have some "simple" multis that have you do the fill in the blank math to get to the final. There are so many things you can do but you have to be certain that it's what you want to create. The biggest issue I have, besides the fact that they don't get found nearly as frequently as traditional caches, is maintenance. For the most part, I've managed to keep things from getting taken. Those stages that might have a tendency to go MIA are usually containers I can easily and cheaply replace (I bought a large order) but even those are hidden in a manner that tends to keep them in place. Those "special" containers/caches for each multi I've created that have them have one extra ready to go. Once that one is gone, I tend to archive the multi (or any cache for that matter) unless it's one that holds some significance to me.

I had forgotten about NeonGeo. I really liked that one as well.

Then don't hide one that wouldn't make you proud. You've always had that option. So has every other cacher who has opted to place a LBH. However, you're taking an option we've always had and asking for it to be a requirement just because you think it's "better".

This. It's not on TPTB to mandate a higher standard. It's their responsibility to provide a baseline for this activity and it's then up to the community to figure out where they want to go with this, be it maintenance or cache creation/ownership. All COs will provide something that falls along a sliding scale from the baseline to over the top. This should apply to cache ownership and cache maintenance. I have certain preferences in my caching but those are personal, subjective likes and dislikes. I don't expect GS to mandate that all caches should meet my preferences because my preferences are personal to me, and me alone. Although my preference (there it is again, a personal affinity) is to find stamps that are related to the theme, in actuality, most of the LBHs I've found don't have stamps related to the theme of the cache. That doesn't mean that I don't like stamps that aren't tied into the theme. It just means that I prefer a themed stamp. I guess a good analogy is that I prefer sugar cream pie over all other types of pies but that doesn't mean that I don't like every other type of pie. I enjoy a good pecan pie and a good pumpkin pie (amongst others) as well. Every LBH that has a stamp in it gets a notation in my LBH notebook I bring with me and allows me to have some memory of my time at that particular cache. Whether or not you like the LBH that the CO has chosen to put out is irrelevant when it comes to the fact that they went out and provided finders with an experience that's just slightly different from the normal traditional cache to provide some sort of variety. Death (or life, depending on how you look at it), in all of its various forms and in all of its various claims on us, from young to old. Nowhere does this prove or disprove it's all about the icon. In fact, this actually weakens your point because the point that was raised was that the letterboxes (NOT the letterbox hybrid on this site) the poster found did NOT contain hand-carved stamps but instead contained commercially produced and bought stamps, just like what we find here. The traditional letterbox style and stamp that you so obviously prefer in a LBH isn't even enforced within the existing letterbox sites. This isn't a letterbox site, it's a geocaching site, which requires that a letterbox hybrid use some of both to create something that's not one or the other but is instead an amalgamation of two distinct types of activities. While it's obvious you prefer an approach that more closely mimics the experience you get with letterboxing, why do you insist on stating that this is how ALL LBH caches should be created? GS created this cache type with the understanding that it would combine both activities into one that uses some of both activities. For the geocache part, some GPS use is required, which may or may not lead you directly to the final. For the letterbox part, a stamp is required but the written directions are optional. The intent wasn't to make the LBH just like a letterbox, with written instructions provided to get you to the final and a hand-carved stamp. It could be done that way but it was never required to be done that way. That was, like always, left up to the CO. As long as it provides a stamp and has some required GPS usage, it meets the definition of a letterbox hybrid and is publishable by GS (assuming everything else also meets the guidelines). You desire that a LBH be as close to a letterbox as possible. If that's the experience you desire, then why don't you go to atlasquest (.com) or letterboxing (.org) and do those letterboxes. That's not the point/purpose of a hybrid, nor should it be. The point is to combine both into something different, with both sides of this represented to whatever extent the CO desires. Your personal preference (or anyone else's for that matter) shouldn't dictate that TPTB cater to our personal likes and dislikes.

It actually IS a more traditional style letterbox though. Bearing and distance (or steps) to get to the final location once you arrive at the posted coordinates. The only thing I guess that's worth pointing out is the stamp that isn't themed to match the cache. However, even that meets the guidelines established by GS.

That option is up to the CO, as is the option for a CO to place a traditional cache with a nice container in a neat location instead of just tossing out a pill bottle in a bush or a film can in a LPC. Why must a LBH meet some "higher standard" but not other types of caches? This seems to me to be selective criticism based on personal, subjective preferences. If that were the case for every cacher and every cache type, then we'd be better off not having any caches at all than all the "higher standard" arguments that would be taking place on this forum. "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." These are the types that I like best as well. I think they're a lot more fun and enjoyable but I'm not going to claim that they should ALL be that way and any others not allowed. I like traditional caches that tend to be different than LPC or GRC caches but I don't ask for those types of caches to be grandfathered and all other traditional caches held to a "higher standard" just because I don't appreciate them that much. If you know you're not going to like the experience the CO provides with a LBH, then pass it up. Go find the LBHs that you know (since it will be in the description) are going to be more enjoyable "...than just another cache on a power trail, that becomes another traditional, as soon as the cheap commercial stamp goes missing."

What's your point, other than you've stated that it's more like a traditional cache since it's at the posted coordinates and it contains a stamp that's not related to the theme of the cache? It appears to be well-maintained and you chose to go find it, knowing in advance that it was at the posted coordinates. You do realize you could have chosen to ignore/not find this LBH because it didn't meet with your expectations of what a LBH should be. However, you DID find it, at the posted coordinates, with a stamp that's not themed to match the cache. Like cerberus, I'm trying to figure out a reason for this post, other than to show us what all of us know, which is that some LBHs are at the posted coordinates and contain stamps that are commercial and unrelated to the theme of the cache. After looking at the cache description, it's NOT a traditional style LBH. Instead, it's a relatively simple one that asks you to take a bearing and head in that direction for a set amount of distance OR take a bearing and take this many steps. This makes the post even a bit more confusing, other than to point out the stamp you found inside the LBH.

Who makes the call regarding the "higher standards" you think are needed and what are those "higher standards"? I'm assuming you mean GS would make the call, which in turn means reviewers. They get to decide if the submitted LBH meets some nebulous higher standard. I'm also assuming that the higher standard you're referring to would be to prevent a LBH from being hidden at the posted coordinates. So a CO who tells a seeker to go to the posted coordinates and take 5 steps to the NE to find the cache is somehow better than the CO who hides it at the posted coordinates? That's what you're going to get - LBHs that barely meet the new "higher standards" that demand some sort of written instructions in order to be able to call it a LBH. Use your GPS to get to the posted coordinates, find a bearing of 45 degrees and walk 5 paces to find the cache. Will you then ask TPTB to create even "higher standards" because these COs, who provided a cache that met the minimum of the new "higher standards", treated it as a joke? When does it end? I MUCH prefer LBHs done in a much more traditional letterbox style. I like the caches that let you use your GPS for a bit and then tell you to put them away and follow some provided instructions. I MUCH prefer stamps (commercial or hand carved) that match the theme of the LBH over stamps that are placed in caches so they can be called LBHs. These are the type of LBH that I choose to hide. However, I'm not in favor of taking away a manner of hiding just because it's not something I think meets some "higher standard" that I prefer. If you're going to go that route, then you need to push for a "higher standard" across ALL caches and not just the LBH. Is a LPC or GRC traditional cache really a good hide? Shouldn't we hold them to some "higher standard"? What about a pill bottle tossed into some bush along a trail? Where is that "higher standard"? What about the multi that makes use of a contact lens case where one side says open first and the "coordinates" for the next stage say one inch to the right (or left)? What about the simple puzzle that has only 2 questions (and 2 sets of coordinates) with one being obviously wrong? What about those "higher standards"? What about the Wherigo that has you walk to one zone before you get the coordinates to the final or is a play anywhere cartridge that's easy to play and solve in order to get the final coordinates? All of these caches are currently allowable and publishable but I'm guessing that they don't adhere to the "higher standards" crowd because they only meet the minimum standards in order to be published. If we're talking "higher standards" then that means that GRC/LPC caches should be grandfathered and not allowed to be published, pill bottles should be grandfathered and not allowed to be used as containers, a multi has to have a certain pre-determined distance between the start and end, and a puzzle can't be a simple either/or puzzle in order to solve for the final coordinates, and Wherigos need to be of a certain length and not play anywhere. That's not going to happen so this suggestion of a "higher standard" for LBHs isn't going to fly either because for this to work, it would need to apply across the board for ALL types of caches, not just this one. One of the really nice things about geocaching is the sheer variety of caches that can be found OR hidden. COs and finders can choose to hide or find caches that meet the basic standards. COs can also create caches that adhere to some personal "higher standard" and finders can find caches that adhere to some personal "higher standard". There are some cachers and COs who get enjoyment out of caches that meet the standards and there are some cachers who get enjoyment out of caches that go above and beyond the standards. There are some cachers who get enjoyment out of both. Why must we attempt to mandate some sort of subjective "higher standard" when a standard already exists that allows for COs to choose to create a cache that meets current standards or go above and beyond them to provide some sort of additional experience? While I much prefer those "higher standard" caches, that doesn't mean that those "lower standard" caches don't have any merit and aren't worth publishing.

I brought this up in a separate thread. If a cache has issues unaddressed by the CO, it's on the finders to file the NA in order to significantly reduce the allotted time from years to a month, especially if there are current outstanding NM logs that haven't been addressed by the CO. The reason a cache can take years to get fixed or archived is that finders aren't doing their part to alert COs and reviewers that their lack of attention to NM logs means a reviewer needs to become involved to rectify the situation. Although it's a generalization and there are exceptions that don't fall into any of these categories (or span two categories), I find that there are 4 types of COs. The first type are the proactive COs who "proactively" note issues mentioned in logs and go out to take care of a developing problem. Occasionally, they may even get a NM log that was filed due to some sudden issue that popped up but they'll go out and take care of it. They rarely, if ever, get NA logs because they don't let it get to that point. The second type are the active reactive COs. These COs usually wait until they get notified, via a NM log but occasionally by a found log that mentions an outstanding issue, that their cache has issues before they head out to fix it. These COs aren't as attentive to potential issues in found logs, instead relying on finders to alert them when their cache is in need of something. They might occasionally get NA logs due to a cache slipping out of their mind but they typically archive it themselves rather than let a reviewer do it. The third type are the passive reactive COs. These COs absolutely wait until they get notified, via a NM log or a NA log, to consider doing anything to fix up their cache. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. They're perfectly fine with a reviewer archiving their cache (but will occasionally do it themselves) because it's become a cache that they don't particularly care about anymore and don't want to put forth the effort to maintain it. They might have a couple caches they will still maintain but they won't do so until such time as the NM or NA log is filed. Many times these COs rely on others maintaining their caches for them. The fourth type are the COs who have abandoned their caches (either through leaving the activity for a variety of reasons or willful negligence/abandonment) and have no interest in taking care of their caches, either because they can't or they won't. The NM logs go unattended, as do the NA logs and the end result is the archival of their caches. This constant attention on COs and their responsibilities only addresses part of the problem you outline here. For the lack of maintenance it is the primary fault of the CO but for a cache to linger for years in some sort of limbo of unmaintained but active status, it is also the fault of finders not logging the necessary NA logs to address unresponsive COs to their filed NM logs (or to caches whose finders should have filed NMs but didn't). Problematic caches shouldn't be sticking around for years if finders filed the requisite NM/NA logs in a timely manner. These "examples" you post of caches taking years to get maintained or get archived wouldn't take years if finders held up their end of the bargain as well and used the tools that we have at our disposal. The 3rd and 4th type of COs are the ones that finders need to stay on top of in order to prevent the cache that supposedly takes years to get maintained or archived. If finders filed the appropriate logs as needed, these caches that take a long time to get settled would disappear much quicker, leaving us in a much better state than we apparently are in now. However, I'm not sure it's as bad as this poster makes it out to be. I'm certain there are caches out there that resemble the caches that are posted. I've know because I've found some like that. At least where I've been fortunate enough to cache, those types of caches are found infrequently by me and are the outliers rather than the norm. Instead I find a few caches with much more minor maintenance issues, some of which can be rectified by myself because the container is still in good shape and I happen to have materials and time to help out. If I can't help out because I don't have the materials or time, then I make note of the issue in my found log. Those that can't be helped at all due to the container get the requisite NM log to alert the CO that this issue needs addressing before it really becomes a problem or the requisite NA log because the previous NM log went unattended. The majority of the caches I find are fine. I went to Michigan two weeks ago and didn't find a single cache in real need of maintenance. I found one partially crushed container but the contents were still dry and in great shape, despite the fact that it had rained quite a bit previous to my find. A few of the caches were in original containers (over 15 years old) with original logs still inside and while the containers weren't in pristine shape, they were still doing the job well enough to keep the contents in good shape.

Charging these "replacement" hiders to have the ability to hide a cache is going to significantly reduce the number of new hiders. Most new cachers I've ever encountered and talked with or exchanged messages with do it because it's free. If they like it enough, they continue, perhaps even to the point of becoming a CO and becoming a premium member and if not, then they end up dropping it. Some that continue with it only continue finding and don't want to hide.Charging a fee to hide a cache will discourage many from placing a hide for others to find. As with any undertaking, there will be some who care, there will be some who are indifferent, and there will be some who don't care. You will lose the last two groups as potential hiders and you will lose some of the first group as well. I'm pretty sure that's not the business model that TPTB want to follow, considering the CO is the lifeblood of the company. Should this actually become a thing, what's to stop the CO who drops down a dollar to hide a cache from tossing out a pill bottle? Why do you assume that now that there's a price associated with placing a cache that the containers are going to get better? What about that gadget cache owner who spent who knows how much (+ 1$) and then has some careless finder come along and break it because they couldn't take their time to do it properly and without frustration? Do you think they'll be willing to put out that type of money again plus one more dollar each time something like this happens? Does that mean that somehow these COs, since they're paying a dollar, will suddenly get their D/T right or their size right after getting them wrong previously? Does this mean that the 1$ suddenly makes them a good CO willing to take care of their cache? Finders, in some cases, are responsible for many of the issues that we, as COs, have to deal with. Lids not put on properly, ammo can shut with something in the seal, decon container not snapped shut on all 4 corners, tubes torqued down so much that they break the o-ring, replaced so it's visible to muggles, etc...I don't see a suggestion to make them pay for the opportunity to find caches as the premium membership is optional, not mandatory, like this suggestion for 1$ a hide. If the prevailing logic is that charging money for the ability to place a hide means better hides (container related apparently), then it follows that charging everyone a fee for the ability to find someone's hide means better finders who know what to do in every situation because now they're paying for the opportunity to find caches. No more broken gadget caches, no lids put on wrong, properly filed NM and NA logs, good logs instead of TFTC, properly logged TBs as well as TBs not taken, caches returned so that they won't get taken by a non-cacher...... This, then, is on the finders as well as the CO. Where is the subsequent NA log that should have addressed issues like the pictures you've provided? Years? Finders are just as much at fault if they allow unmaintained caches with issues to survive for years. Get the reviewer involved once it's apparent the CO has no interest in maintaining their caches. You continually harp on COs being responsible for maintenance and not doing their part but much of that angst can be corrected with finders properly logging the needed NM once an issue has been discovered and then a subsequent finder logging the NA if the CO hasn't taken any steps to fix the issue in an appropriate amount of time. That's the system of checks and balances we have in place for situations like this. If a CO isn't going to do what's needed, then the finders can take the necessary steps to get that cache out of the field. It's not a one-way street. It takes both sides to help keep things moving along. As to the OP, I've found many of these and they have a roughly 50/50 rate of being good cache containers. Some have been full of water while others have been just as good as metal ammo cans. However, metal ammo cans have a much higher rate of being good cache containers. As to your ratio of micros to other sized caches, it appears that this is a normal ratio. Micros, by far, are the most common size of cache. In almost all areas I've cached in, the rate of micros to everything else averages about 60% of the local number of caches. Some areas, like urban/suburban areas where more people live, that rate goes up and some areas, like national forests/state parks, that rate goes down. I have placed ammo cans in urban areas only to find them gone within a few months of placement. I have placed regular sized caches in areas where I thought it unlikely they would disappear, only to have them disappear. My smalls typically do better but even they have a tendency to disappear more frequently than my micros do. While many would prefer hiders to place larger sized caches than micros, in many cases it's an unrealistic expectation, based on where the cache is going to be located. I suggest you place your larger containers (small and up) out for a bit, revisiting the caches with your GPS in a variety of weather situations (to make sure your coordinates are good) and also to verify that the cache can survive where you've placed it without it being accidentally found and/or taken.