RKip

I find the entire forum system finicky. In this, the "regular" forum I cannot log-in, search, or write a query or reply using my original caching name (BKip). I have had the premium member account since 2003. Every couple of years I write a request for help to the folks at Groundspeak but the best they could come up with was to create a "sock puppet" account (this one, RKip), which works just fine. Oddly enough, I can log-in to the Feedback forum with my original account (and my sock-puppet). With both accounts I can even write a reply (I never tried making a new topic), but I CAN NOT vote, with either account. Odd stuff... mostly I just suck-it-up.

Terrible???? Not even close. I always carry a pocket knife when hiking/caching and I keep a lighter in my day pack (I don't smoke) for emergency use. I'd venture to say that pocket knifes and lighters have probably benefited way more people than they have ever hurt.

I agree that the OP is a bit presumptuous, especially without having the personal experience of "cache maintenance" herself, but there really is a problem out there with caches that should have long ago been archived. Below are just a few examples of cachers (no names) who, for what ever reason, do not want to maintain their caches and yet do not want to archive them either. In all cases the CO acknowledges there is a problem (by log entries) and yet takes no action. Earlier today, I made a "Needs Archived" entry on a cache... 1. The CO's profile indicates he is currently active (and has over 2000 finds) 2. Noted cache last FOUND entry was Feb 2010, followed by... 3. Three DNF's, followed by... 4. March 2010, CO Temporarily Disabled cache (with note saying it will be "... back in business soon enough" 5. Followed by, 4 months later, a log note by another cache who suggest the cache be "killed". 6. The cache remains as "Temporarily Disabled". Last month I made an "Needs Archived" entry on a cache... 1. The CO's profile indicate he is currently active. 2. Noted cache was last FOUND Dec 2009, followed by... 3. Seven DNF's, followed by... 4. January 2010, CO Temporarily Disabled cache (with note saying "I'll replace it ASAP" 5. Followed, 10 months later, my "Needs Archived" entry 6. Followed by the reviewer "Temporarily Disabling" the cache (the status is still the same today) Also, last month, I made 2 "Needs Archived" entries on two caches with the same CO (both caches have similar histories but I only note one below)... 1. The CO's profile indicates he is currently active. 2. Noted cache was last FOUND Sept 2009. 3. A DNF and a note clearly stating there is construction in the area and the cache is gone, followed by... 4. Feb 2010, CO Temporarily Disabled cache (with note saying, "We'll place a new cache in the area", followed by... 5. Apr 2010, me making a "Needs Archived" entry... 6. Followed by NOTHING until... 7. Oct 2010, me making a second "Needs Archived" entry, followed by, finally, the cache being archived.

My "DragonClip" caches A plastic pill bottle with a wood clothespin, along with a bit of paint, camo tape, and goggle eyes (just for the fun of it).

Like many others, I don't rate a cache as evil based simply on how hard it is to find. The basic heavily camouflaged bison hanging in a large bush, with a hint of "bush" is nasty, and I don't really enjoy this type much at all. That said, there are some very well executed caches that may (or may not) include needle-in-a-haystack searches, but because of unique techniques used, they are quality hides well deserving of the title of EVIL and loads of fun to search/find. A "hoard of blinky nanos" probably falls into the nasty category. Then there are the top quality PURE EVIL caches... for example, Halloween: Trick or Treat? (GC16K3A). Actually, the CO of this cache has more than a couple of top quality caches that qualify as EVIL.

Generally I avoid them though I have done two that I recall. One, I knew the CO quite well but still was not comfortable scrounging around his front yard without him around. I would be more likely to attempt a front yard cache if the cache page was detailed enough that I could go directly to the cache without having to "look like a stranger acting oddly".

Because I bookmark my DNF's that I feel I might return to, I became aware of a similar problem, for Traditional caches. In two specific cases, I found very distinctive cache remains. In both cases I felt confident that I did not simply "not find" the cache, but rather found what remained of a destroyed cache (posted photos in both cases). After making a "Need Maintenance" log entry, I looked forward to these caches being replaced and I could return for another search. Some time later, because they were bookmarked, I received alerts that the caches were logged as FOUND. Over time, both these caches have been logged multiple times (as found) and the "finders", in most cases, made note that what they had found was the remains and not an actual cache. So, they did find (as did I) "the cache", or what remained of it, but not as originally placed (and since there was no log... nothing was signed). Are their finds legit? Everyone plays their own game. Along the same lines, I recently had a cacher e-mail me for help on finding one of my caches. Because this cache had a reputation for being quite hard to find, I sent him very detailed help, along with a photo. When he responded after his second visit, he told me the cache was missing. Because I no longer live in the area and couldn't replace it, I had to archive the cache. Being confident he had actually made the visit (twice) I told that cacher he could make a "found" entry. I know I've had the same offer made to me under very similar circumstances, and I believe that I probably took them up on the offer (don't really recall for sure). Looking in the "Golden Book Of Rules to Live & Geocache By", Rule 1254, it clearly states, "... see Rule 14,0003", which states, "see Rule 219", which states... P.S. Both the mentioned caches are still active and neither has had a acknowledgment log entry made by the CO's.

I do believe that the number of trackables listed in caches far exceeds the number of valid travelers for my own circle of search. When I find that a trackable is missing, I always make note in the cache page log entry and then another similar entry for the trackable (you do not need the tracking number to write a note).

Its just a parking lot and you have the option to ignore the cache. Sticking to your high moral grounds is commendable but the air up there is too rarefied for me and I'll go for the "bit tacky" cache (heck, I can wash my hands at the end of the day).

Though I have a number of criteria for "Finding the Caches That I Want to Find"... the most important factor, by far, is a cache I haven't found yet. Everything else is secondary.

I have any number of snake shots but it's hard to sort through them all, but here is a good, but older, one. I have a Google album of "CRITTERS", all photographed while Geocaching, that has about 8 snake shots included.

Wally Wally -- New And Improved, found January 10, 2003.

I need 9 more before I award myself this medal.

Rather than teaching your boys that they deserve a prize simply because they tried, you might want to consider teaching them that you have to work harder than the next person if you want to be a winner. Better yet, teach them about the journey rather than the destination. You didn't mention that the "guy" who beat you out happens to be the (ex)Eagle Scout that completed the "Cache to Eagle" project that the cache is based on. P.S. Your post does not mention the part where he didn't "play fair" or did I miss that?

A looong way from the nearest road, in the middle of a redwood grove, I found a cache that happened to be made from an actual parking meter. That sucker had been hauled by one person the entire way and was HEAVY! The CO was a good friend and thou I was surprised when I found it I wasn't that surprised by who did it.

...but the question remains... how can it be logged as being in two different places?

No, I did not receive an e-mail saying it was dropped. I was reviewing my bugs and noted that it was held by the same person for a long time. I e-mailed him with a query. He is new to caching and isn't sure where he placed it. Since he only had a few caches I went through the pages until I found one where he logged dropping a bug. thomaskeefer response to my query about where my TB is: I think that I already put it in another cache. I am not sure if you have noticed an issue with the tracking in the past but when I recovered it, it was still listed with another person. Then when I tried to log it, there were issues getting it to stick under my profile.

Whats up? Travel bug "BACON FAMILY", IAW travelers page: Recently Spotted: In Mission Center Road #5 - How dry I am Nowhere in the listing of logs is an entry that indicates the traveler has ever been to the listed cache. In fact, it should be listed as in the possession of a cacher as the last person to retrieve it from cache "Harvest History Cache". Going to the cache page, Mission Center Road #5 - How dry I am (GC27QHY), lists this travel bug in it's inventory. Why? For one of my own Geocoins, BKips 10 Years of Geocaching, it lists the GC in the hands of a cacher, who when contacted said he already dropped it off but had problems with GC.com page. On further investigation I found the GC listed in the cache inventory of "The Toybox" (GC20B). How is it that both these trackables are indicating that they are at two places at once? P.S. An additional, more minor programing problem... noted on ALL trackable listings that I've checked. The phrase, "Recently Spotted: In cachename" should be "Recently Spotted in: cachename"

Since the cache page specifically states, "To access the cache you will need to take a screwdriver.", you didn't forfill the intent of the CO. Pilgrims Rest What if the cache was up in a tree where you could see it but you didn't/couldn't climb the tree?

You could simply delete their log (there is no option for a CO to delete someone else photo) or better yet, a polite e-mail explaining (teaching, remember they are newbies) why and asking them to delete the photo. One other option.... leave it. The photo does not show the cache itself and anyone following their GPSr will see the same thing but still have to search.

Even a basic traditional cache of ammo can size can be a challenge to find under some circumstances... me, I always give the BEST coordinates I can come up with (alas, they can sometimes turn out to be pretty far off). Now-a-days, with the "ADD COORDINATES" check box, when I find a cache and it is beyond what my GPSr accuracy error indicates I add the coordinates and usually don't comment on it within the log entry itself. When I lived in the SFBay area, there was a very well known cacher who had a reputation for some of the worst coordinates ever, BUT, he put out some dadgum fine caches, in placement, style, and execution. Great guy, great caches, very sloppy coordinates and I went out of my way to find all his hides. Here in southern California, there is a very well known cacher who has a reputation for some of the worst coordinates ever, AND, his caches seem to be off-the-cuff, throw-always, quantity over quality hides. Again, this is a great guy, but he puts out low quality caches, with very sloppy coordinates and I go out of my way to avoid his hides. A great thing about this sport is that you can choose which (and whose) caches to chase after. So, choose, and have fun.

Hear, hear! And why stop there? ... it seems that the same 2 or 3 people keep getting the highest academic scores in the local high school ... the same local businesses seem to be making most of the money ... the local sports team has the same most valuable players ... the (whatever/whoever your jealous of here) Where is the equality??!!!! Yeah, lets put a stop to folk who work harder, play harder, or simply try harder from getting all the accolades/profits/rewards/results/etc. P.S. In my 3500+ finds I've never logged a "FTF", which is not to say I've never been the first to find and log a cache.

Most will chuckle when they hear, "size doesn't matter". In this case I present that it is true, size DOES NOT matter.

So you are saying that people can "Discover" coins without actually seeing them. I am no reviewer but that just sounds wrong since I assumed that to Discover a coin had to actually see it. The point was/is, not IF you should log the trackable.... each to his own way of playing the game... the point of the post was to clarify GC.com's RULES (which I was unsuccessful at doing). P.S. Some think it WRONG to log a trackable that they did not take/move (i.e. Discover).

So you are saying that people can "Discover" coins without actually seeing them. I am no reviewer but that just sounds wrong since I assumed that to Discover a coin had to actually see it. Kinda like "discovering" a GC without ever taking it or moving it??????? The point was/is, not if you should log the trackable.... each to his own way of playing the game... the point of the post was to clarify a "RULE" that has no printed history.