Pond Bird

Sounds like a great post for this thread. This one's just for the logs, not for debate. Nope. I read through some of that stuff. I could get into a lot of trouble over there. I found a cache and logged a find and a needs maintenance because the city of Rochester put in a fence to fill in the inner loop. I should probably go back and sign the logbook now since I think the inner loop construction is complete and cache has been repaired.

Looks like a newbie who thinks they know but actually don't know where the cache is. Did the CO check on the cache and let them know it wasn't there or is it still there and it wasn't in the spot they would've put it if they hid the cache?

That's pretty obvious, isn't it..... Yes the "Gave up because of muggles" is more of a did not look or too hard to find and has nothing to do with the CO being present or absent. I don't believe anybody thinks otherwise but I could be wrong. So why do you keep asserting that cache owners should treat all DNFs as problems with the cache? First of all I'm not "asserting" anything. IF a cache is receiving DNFs that usually has people finding it then the CO should check on it to see if its still there. IF there are DNFs that are not legitamite searches then thats one thing but the content of the DNF logs should be looked at to see: 1. Did the person search? IF no, cache could still be in play. If Yes, see question 2 2. Did the person search for a reasonable amount of time? If NO, cache could be hard to find and still be in play. If YES, cache could have a rating that is lower than what it should be AND/OR cache could be missing. If both questions are answered YES for multiple DNFs its definately time for the cache to be checked on to confirm it is or isn't still findable.

That's pretty obvious, isn't it..... Yes the "Gave up because of muggles" is more of a did not look or too hard to find and has nothing to do with the CO being present or absent. I don't believe anybody thinks otherwise but I could be wrong.

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived? Reviewer reviews it. Obviously nothing to see here. Move along..... No harm done. No cachers were injured in the sending of this email..... Reviewers get notified about single DNFs now? Since when? I'm really not ringing that bell, ever. Sheesh. The reviewer wouldn't review it until it was being considered for archiving. Thank you for saying that! I agree, if a cache is receiving DNF logs because it is missing and the CO is gone than the reviewer would review it because of an NA!

Yup. Anybody could just put a logbook in those bottles and save themselves at least 2 minutes per cache site. If a cache really is MIA and people want to replace the cache to save the CO time thats one thing, but if they are just using the container as a throwdown to save themselves time finding the caches already there then thats another story.

Yup. If somebody offers to replace the cache for somebody and/or if an active CO is OKAY with people replacing any of their caches that is OK aka "totally cool." However, if it comes to the point where the caching community is given the maintenance responsibility and the CO is MIA then a Needs Archived should be posted in MOST cases. There are SOME circumstances where the CO is deceased and the community has "adopted" the cache in order for others to experience the fun of finding these caches that are still allowed to be at their respective locations.

I am working on my bookmark lists and noticed the site is very slow. I went to refresh the page and it says its unresponsive. But minutes later its fine. Its been doing this all day.

Many of my DNFs in the past have been aborted attempts or situations where my experience may have been useful for others to know about, but do not warrant the assimption that the cache needs to be checked. For a long time I have made a habit out of specifically avoiding any suggestion that the cache is gone when I DNF. I have been wrong too many times! But now it doesn't matter what the circumstances are. DNF = check on your cache. It is no different than a NM. If I don't think the cache needs to be checked, I am not going to log a DNF. If I do think the cache needs to be checked, I will use NM. So that eliminates any need for DNF. If the system is going to decide for me what my logs mean now, I need to be careful about how I use them. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next year or two as we all get used to the logging page changes and different tactics and work-arounds emerge. It is still important to me to track my DNFs and re-attempt them when possible, but I can't, in good faith, keep logging the way I did before. I am just so disappointed in these changes. Over the past three years much of our caching has been by canoe, so old DNF logs can be very valuable when we're planning a trip. Usually, on caches like that, a DNF is due to seasonal conditions or other obstacles that have nothing to do with the "health" of the cache. It's just so frustrating that a DNF log, meant to be helpful and informative, now becomes a black mark against the cache owner. And these cache owners are often casual, so they don't necessarily know that they can safely ignore the automated nastygrams. 1 dnf means check on your cache? A dnf is somehow a reflection on the cache owner? Nope, sorry but that's not what it meant 10 years ago and that's not what it means today. I don't think two dnfs on any particular cache would trigger anything. Three in a row might but if that were the case I wouldn't need a reviewer to "ask" me to please check up on it. If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.

That and if the list has caches all in the same area you could use filters since you are a premium member as was mentioned in the first response to your post. See what hzoi said for an alternative.

You could post a Found it log and click that the cache Needs Archived, saying that you found the cache but the CO doesn't have permission from you to have the cache on your property. Was wondering why you said "post a Found it log" first. Went and tried it and sure enough, we now have to click on "log a new visit". I thought i had read something about this in another thread but i didn't believe it. Just shaking my head here.. To ragman76, since you have signed up, you can go to the cache page, click "log a new visit", then click "report a problem", and finally, "cache needs to be archived". Give the reason and then click "post". Sorry tto hear that permission wasn't asked for from you. That's one of the main things all of us geocache owners are supposed to do. Unfortunately, many never think about doing it. Ragman76, Mudfrog is right that is exactly what I meant to say. Still you FOUND the cache so you still log it as "Found" good luck, glad to see you are getting help with the issue!

If you're checking on the cache and replacing logbook, drying it out, etc. Then thats owner maintenance and you can post an OM log to show that you visited the cache and confirm it is findable. If you just did a walk by on the trail, or dropped off a travelbug and there was isn't a red wrench shown for your cache listing, a note would be fine.

If somebody found the cache as part of the group they should mention that in their log. If they didn't sign the log and didn't find the cache then the CO should delete the log. Sometimes a group of a few people cache on a powertrail and sign logbooks with a teamname and save time and then put in their log who they found it with and what the team name was for that day for the group of caches they found each found.

You could post a Found it log and click that the cache Needs Archived, saying that you found the cache but the CO doesn't have permission from you to have the cache on your property.

On a power trail the driver of the car (unless it's a non-geocacher) will log a find on every cache found by "the team" even if they never get out of the car. For non-PT caches, when one or more geocachers are out together I think it's pretty much expected that everyone will at least participate in the actual search for each cache. To me, someone that is just driving the car, but never actively searches for a cache isn't geocaching, they're driving. But consider reality, as described in the quoted part about LPC/GRC. On a typical driving power trail, the caches will be easy. Someone in the team will be able to jump out faster than the driver, so the driver would never get to find it. It seems a bit silly to me to say the driver needs to unbuckle their belt and start to get out each time (until his team member shouts they found it). I guess they could say "I'm going to get out of the car now" 1000 times, but stop as by the time they get to the end of the sentence the cache would be found. I've done a 100+ cache driving power trail with a friend. With these, the caches were not all the same, and also were generally some ways away from the road. So it made sense for us both to get out and look. But 1000 or more in the desert, it's different. The 100+ cache driving power trails can get a little boring after awhile, but I haven't trail any of those so I don't know for sure. I tried a driving power trail of 9 caches and only found 4 of them but 2 of them were right near each other so I parked between to two places. I love the idea of Power Trails, but think there should be some sort of overall theme and a limit on how many caches for each one.

I think thats one reason why Wherigo caches were invented. Although there aren't a lot of Wherigo caches around.

If you have looked for a cache three or four times and get no response from the CO you could log a Needs Maintenance on the cache. What Irks me now is people aren't loggin needs maintenance on caches because of the new system and getting confused by it but there are a few caches that need the NM wrench (its helpful to filter out caches with the NM attribute people are less likely to look for them, which irks me a lot people refusing to look for caches even if the NM is just do to a "full log" but thats another story!) While it's not the purpose of your comment, I used to filter caches based on NM attribute also. However, you'd be missing some caches that are in good condition (the pedants will hopefully notice I didn't call them "good" caches!). For issues like full or damp / wet logs, leaky baggies, etc... I've corrected those type issues but not being a cache owner I can't reset the NM flag. However, I make a log entry that I did finder maintenance. However, I do read NMd caches' logs more carefully to determine whether to search... You're right its important to read the NM logs to see what the issue is. I was trying to get there but that part was that "another story" I implied at the end so thank you for that clarification.

If you have looked for a cache three or four times and get no response from the CO you could log a Needs Maintenance on the cache. What Irks me now is people aren't loggin needs maintenance on caches because of the new system and getting confused by it but there are a few caches that need the NM wrench (its helpful to filter out caches with the NM attribute people are less likely to look for them, which irks me a lot people refusing to look for caches even if the NM is just do to a "full log" but thats another story!)

I went to a CITO once and many people showed up over an hour late and didn't pick up much trash (if any) and left early just to get the souvenir. I'm not saying its right or wrong. When I was in Arizona I went to an event but left after 20 minutes or so I guess it depends on how motivated people are to stay, (although there wasn't a souvenir when I was in Arizona). some people may have other plans the day of the event and they could come in see what's going on and then leave (they have work, family to take care of, etc.) Since this upcoming souvenir pertains to a weekend with a Canada theme. I would like to attend an event in Ontario for the souvenir and give myself plenty of time to ask questions about caching in Ontario.

It think they meant to say you can earn it on either day. is stead off having to attend events BOTH days.

Sometimes people take a while to log TBs they've found or they don't "discover" them. I'm sure you'll get an email sometime!

Thats an excellent idea! I always wanted to hide a virtual geocache!

That would be a great idea to find a cache in Canada on a certain day. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen but I do think there is some sort of souvenir planned involving Canada. Maybe August 21st.

I've never used cachly, but the new geocaching app is free and has the messaging center available. Why not use both?

Something tells me that's where in the world Signal is going next. (That something was this week's email newsletter, which dropped some pretty obvious hints like "longest coastline.") I think you're onto something there! Perhaps there IS a souvenir planned for August 21st already.