narcissa

I completely agree. The last 2 logs just before the reviewer disable: "Very very wet!" "Definitely soggy" The log just after the OM, about 20 days after the OM in February: "Looks like the cache has left it's quarters...new cache is needed" The next and most current log in April: "Found nothing but an old log book in a ziplock (see pic) under a log. It had many signatures in it so it is not from the new replacement. It was too soggy to even sign. Cannot find any sign of the new cache in the area. Checked all of the obvious places in the area and some not so obvious. Replaced the logbook back under the log." I'm floored that anyone is arguing that this cache should not have been disabled, just because the word mold referred to a tree log and not the wet unsignable logsheet. And it looks like the owner didn't actually replace their cache. If they did, where did they hide it? Why didn't they remove the old log in a baggie? Why would a seasoned cacher not find the D1.5 new cache but found a log in a baggie at ground zero? And why hasn't the owner responded to the last 2 logs after the OM. Some have no problem with the lack of maintenance, but are all up in arms because I reviewer discovered and disabled this cache. Wow. Would you be okay with this if it was Keyword: Unicorns? As long as a cache somewhere gets archived, all is right with the world?

Yes, it looks like that's what happened on a cache I found last weekend. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2RJHH_micro-sur-la-300?guid=b30ecff1-8b00-471e-8065-5aa620a7a5cf I logged it the following day, so my find log has the correct date of the find, and the NM log has a different date.

Yes, that's understood from the original post. Do you have the logbook? Other than what you've already stated, what are your reasons for casting suspicion on a fellow geocacher? Is it possible that this person did find the cache later and chose to change the old log without editing the text? Can you tell if the log date changed?

Do you have the logbook? Is it possible that this person did return and find it after-the-fact, and this was just a ham-fisted way of logging the find? Do you have any other reasons to be suspicious of this cacher?

I've done it a couple times, when GZ was clearly well inside a construction zone. Either the cache needed to be temporarily disabled until the construction was completed, or the coordinates were really off. Either way, maintenance from the CO was needed. Yeah, I rarely NM a cache if I haven't been to GZ and if there isn't some physical evidence that the cache has a problem. I generally don't conduct a thorough forensic accounting of logs and profiles that would lead me to NM a cache without a field visit. If I DNF, I often follow the cache for a while to see what happens (because I do like to resolve DNFs eventually) and I might log an NM if I see DNFs piling up or other reasons for concern.

But there wasn't any mold. Given that a large number of caches get wet at some point, searching for any keyword (eg. "dry") may find caches which need attention. That isn't the point. How do you know there wasn't mold? Given that the cache was frequently wet for years, there's an excellent chance that there was mold. We don't know if there was or was not. The mold reference was not about the cache.

This is all fine and dandy, but you didn't provide any maintenance plan at all, and instead scolded the reviewer for asking. When you asked for the cache to be published, you ticked a box that says your cache is being placed in accordance with the guidelines.

To the best of my knowledge, the guidelines against solicitation don't extend to items that other people place in the cache. Otherwise, cache owners would be on the hook any time someone left a branded keychain or a religious tract in their cache, and that's not really reasonable. The guidelines don't work very well as a tool for enforcing rules / etiquette that applies to finders.

Do you read them before interpreting them that way?

I think it is on topic. A valid question is: Should bad swag be an issue or not, and does it affect the overall experience? "Bad swag" is a moving target and nobody writes detailed logs about swag anymore, so it's pretty hard to pinpoint who the culprits are, or what their intentions might be. Okay, so a candy bar wrapper is garbage. Was it placed there by a cacher, or just a muggle? Was it meant to be swag or did it fall into the cache by accident? Who knows? Why be angry about it? Business card. Is this swag? Maybe it's meant to be a replacement for signing the log. Maybe someone's just kind of a knob and thinks this is a good way to advertise. Sure, maybe it's kind of annoying if there are damp business cards in a cache, and they fall out when you open it or something, but its impact on the overall experience is a matter of attitude on the part of the finder. The bigger issue is that even when people try to discuss "good" swag, there is nothing but relentless criticism and complaining, not to mention irreconcilable personal preferences that people want to turn into steadfast rules. Don't put toys in caches, but make sure caches have toys so people's kids have something to enjoy. Swag should be brand new cool stuff still in the package, but consider finding things at garage sales to put in caches. Everyone appreciates unique homemade items in caches, but nobody wants your falling apart crafts in caches. Swag used to be fun and quirky, and most of us would just kind of roll our eyes at people who didn't get it. An adult doesn't need to let a dirty golf ball ruin the day. But now it's become a focal point for so much negativity and viciousness toward fellow geocachers. I just don't get it. I decided some time ago that I would no longer participate in swag. My caches, regardless of size, are swag free and my maintenance includes removing any swag that has been left in them. Since nothing is ever good enough, nothing it is.

... in accordance with the cache placement guidelines, which clearly stipulate the need for a maintenance plan in situations where a cache is placed during travel away from home. If you feel that the guidelines could use an update in this regard, a better post would describe the issue you have with the guideline itself and how it could be improved. There's never going to be a whole lot of sympathy for a post complaining that a reviewer wouldn't publish a cache because you didn't adhere to the guidelines.

I have to respectfully disagree with that. Rocks, candy wrappers, and business cards in a cache are all worse than complaints about them. I have to respectfully disagree with that. Rocks, candy wrappers, and business cards can be tossed out and forgotten (unlike complaints about swag, which are perennial as evidenced by this needless reply to a comment that is more than two years old). So you're saying that comments can't be forgotten as well if chosen to be? Why not? And seriously, you're calling another person's comment "needless"? Pot, kettle. I've never had a damp business card crawl home after two years and a candy bar wrapper has never shouted at me.

I have to respectfully disagree with that. Rocks, candy wrappers, and business cards in a cache are all worse than complaints about them. I have to respectfully disagree with that. Rocks, candy wrappers, and business cards can be tossed out and forgotten (unlike complaints about swag, which are perennial as evidenced by this needless reply to a comment that is more than two years old).

I would hope that by "well prepared" cache, you mean that the cache owner has read and understood the guidelines, which clearly articulate the need for a maintenance plan.

I don't even understand which you think should be considered wheelchair accessible. In either case, you'd have to leave the wheelchair. On the other hand, surely if the cache requires a 2 mile ride along a wheelchair accessible path, then it makes sense to rate it T2 and also assign the wheelchair attribute. I don't think either cache should be considered wheelchair accessible, that's why they are rated T3. However, I think that in the second case a wheelchair accessible attribute would indicate that someone in a wheelchair could reach GZ even though (given T3) they will not be able to retrieve the cache. I'm trying to consider the following type of scenario: A family member is wheelchair bound. They may or may not be a cacher, but another family member who is a cacher wants to take them out for the day and do some caching at the same time. If we divorce the Wheelchair attribute from the "able to retrieve the cache" aspect of T1 then a search for caches with wheelchair attribute will produce a list of suitable caches of varying terrain ratings. Otherwise a search for wheelchair accessible is functionally equivalent to a search for T1 caches. I've just run 4 PQ's searching for caches with the wheelchair attribute and various T ratings. In NSW there are 256 caches rated T1.5 or higher and 1 cache rated T3 or higher. In Washington State there are 422 T1.5 or higher and 2 T3 or higher. One is T4 and the other is an event in a coffee shop rated T5 (which seems ludicrous to me, but a reviewer obviously approved it so what do I know?). So, either they were published before a change which prohibits this or they were published after a change which allows this or there never really was a restriction or they have been changed after approval. All I am trying to get is an official response saying "Yea" or "Nay". There are a lot of opinions in this thread, none of which is a definitive answer. If the cache can't be retrieved by the person in the wheelchair, it isn't wheelchair accessible. The terrain rating is for the cache. Your cache page is not a listing for a trail, it's a listing for a cache. Why would you want to mislead someone in a wheelchair into thinking the cache is accessible to them? This is clearly not a wise thing to do. You may want to note, or perhaps not, that referring to people as "wheelchair bound" is generally considered rude / insensitive. First, if I have been rude or insensitive, I apologise. That was not my intention. Second, I fully agree that the terrain rating is for the cache. T1 means, and should always mean that the cache can be reached by someone in a wheelchair. I am at a loss to understand how adding a wheelchair attribute to a T3 cache would mislead someone into thinking that the cache is retrievable from a wheelchair when T3 says clearly that it isn't. The cache page should describe the cache. If you want to convey that the path is easily navigable, use the stroller attribute. Nobody's toddler is going to be disappointed, frustrated, and insulted that the stroller attribute is used to convey the message "You can push someone in a stroller really close to this cache but it can't actually be reached from the stroller."

I don't even understand which you think should be considered wheelchair accessible. In either case, you'd have to leave the wheelchair. On the other hand, surely if the cache requires a 2 mile ride along a wheelchair accessible path, then it makes sense to rate it T2 and also assign the wheelchair attribute. I don't think either cache should be considered wheelchair accessible, that's why they are rated T3. However, I think that in the second case a wheelchair accessible attribute would indicate that someone in a wheelchair could reach GZ even though (given T3) they will not be able to retrieve the cache. I'm trying to consider the following type of scenario: A family member is wheelchair bound. They may or may not be a cacher, but another family member who is a cacher wants to take them out for the day and do some caching at the same time. If we divorce the Wheelchair attribute from the "able to retrieve the cache" aspect of T1 then a search for caches with wheelchair attribute will produce a list of suitable caches of varying terrain ratings. Otherwise a search for wheelchair accessible is functionally equivalent to a search for T1 caches. I've just run 4 PQ's searching for caches with the wheelchair attribute and various T ratings. In NSW there are 256 caches rated T1.5 or higher and 1 cache rated T3 or higher. In Washington State there are 422 T1.5 or higher and 2 T3 or higher. One is T4 and the other is an event in a coffee shop rated T5 (which seems ludicrous to me, but a reviewer obviously approved it so what do I know?). So, either they were published before a change which prohibits this or they were published after a change which allows this or there never really was a restriction or they have been changed after approval. All I am trying to get is an official response saying "Yea" or "Nay". There are a lot of opinions in this thread, none of which is a definitive answer. If the cache can't be retrieved by the person in the wheelchair, it isn't wheelchair accessible. The terrain rating is for the cache. Your cache page is not a listing for a trail, it's a listing for a cache. Why would you want to mislead someone in a wheelchair into thinking the cache is accessible to them? This is clearly not a wise thing to do. You may want to note, or perhaps not, that referring to people as "wheelchair bound" is generally considered rude / insensitive.

As far as I know, the requirement that a T1 cache must be wheelchair available, and have the wheelchair attribute goes back about five years. I ran into problems with this in 2013. My T1 did not have the attribute, and would not be published without it. So I hid another that was wheelchair findable. (I'd always wanted a 5/1 cache.) To the rest: This is Groundspeak's definition. GS makes the rules. Deal with it. T1 must fit the definition, and have the attribute. The many without the attribute probably date back more than five years. I'm not disputing that T1 must have the attribute. I agree completely. My question is whether the attribute can be used with other terrain values. T3 for example may mean "Walk down steps to the beach, walk along the beach, scramble over some rocks and then start searching". It may also mean "Make your way along the accessible path to the base of a tree, then climb the tree to retrieve the cache". Without using the attribute there is no way to distinguish between the two. I simply don't understand the assertion that putting a wheelchair attribute on a higher terrain cache is rude. Higher terrain says that the cache is not accessible from a wheelchair. The presence or absence of the attribute does not change that. Adding the attribute simply adds the information that the location is accessible. It has been interesting to hear other folk's thoughts on the subject. What would be really nice now would be for a reviewer or lackey to reply to give a definitive answer. Is it permitted to use the wheelchair attribute with terrain greater than 1? Edit for spelling The terrain rating is for the cache, not the general location. If the cache can't be reached by wheelchair, it isn't wheelchair accessible.

As far as I know, the requirement that a T1 cache must be wheelchair available, and have the wheelchair attribute goes back about five years. I ran into problems with this in 2013. My T1 did not have the attribute, and would not be published without it. So I hid another that was wheelchair findable. (I'd always wanted a 5/1 cache.) To the rest: This is Groundspeak's definition. GS makes the rules. Deal with it. T1 must fit the definition, and have the attribute. The many without the attribute probably date back more than five years. I think it's been around longer than that, but enforcement is stricter than it used to be. I remember finding a cache on top of a rock cut 7 or 8 years ago that was listed a terrain 1. We made fun of it in our logs with ridiculous stories about how we got a wheelchair up the 30 foot rock cut to the cache. It probably should have been a terrain 3. And around 10 years ago I would rely on terrain 1 and/or the wheelchair attribute to find caches that I knew I could definitely reach with a stroller, if they weren't marked stroller friendly.

So... your point is that you don't have a maintenance plan?

What about a cache that is ground based, right next to a level, paved trail? It's terrain 1, but unreachable from a wheelchair. Does that really change the terrain? I was at the N. Wales Mega last summer and there were many caches that were at the edge of the trail (there was a board along the edge of the pavement, and fake stakes were a common hide) - how does that really affect the terrain? If it can't be accessed from the wheelchair then it shouldn't be terrain 1. As far as I am aware, terrain 1 has always been attached to the caveat that it must be accessible from the wheelchair. Any sort of barrier that prevents a person in a wheelchair from reasonably reaching it should change it to a terrain 1.5. This is just a convention that was created, at some point, to make it easier for people in wheelchairs to determine if a cache is truly accessible to them. Why nitpick that? It's like the convention to make island caches terrain 5. Sure, it might be easy once you get to the island with a boat. Sure, you might be able to walk to the cache across ice in the winter. But it's convention that when a typical cacher will require special equipment to reach the cache, you make it a terrain 5.

Agreed. I believe some forget what issues were around a few years ago. Here, of our earlier finds... Many very-long hike caches when we started were cookie/candy tins, metal coffee cans, or wooden containers (a lotta jewelry boxes), some with a plastic bag wrapped (always black for some odd reason..."camo" maybe) around 'em, most without even that. The few no-seal water jugs were an improvement... The huge wide-neck glass pickle, as well as glass peanut butter jars were interesting. The couple placing china candy dishes was cute. Besides things growing, these created a real problem. "Quality" plastics were true Tupperware. Our first caches were Tupperware. The joke of big bucks satellites finding Tupperware was true. No real seal for outdoor use, most seemed to be perfect for labs studying bacteria/mold, with every one of ours having to be replaced within a year. - Yet the poor-quality plastics seem to be still used today... It wasn't until '06 or so that we noticed folks start using decent containers (by today's standards), and for us ammo cans were the norm. The only thing I truly miss of this hobby is, at the time, much of it was the "language of location", and today we consider the location the goal, with that container secondary. I remember finding caches that were meant to be experiments with different types of containers, because people were still figuring out what worked. A lot of containers around here were homemade tubes made with plumbing components. We know now that those are terrible in this climate. I have found old caches in cookie tins, 5 gallon buckets, and all manner of other containers that generally don't fly now because we know they don't work. Overall, I find that the general condition of caches is better, either because they don't last as long so there's more turnover, or because people are more conscientious since they get dog-piled by the first dozen finders if they have the audacity to put out a poor container. I want cache owners to maintain their caches within reason, and I'd certainly rather find a logbook I can sign than a logbook I can't. I just don't think it destroys a day of caching if I find a cache that's a bit slimy because it's been outside since 2002. I still got outside for a walk and/or some time with my family, and that's what it's about. If I wanted a hobby that consisted of opening clean, dry Lock n' Locks to marvel at how clean and dry they are, my hobby would be visiting the housewares sections at Walmart and Canadian Tire.

Good example of the importance of context. It's a difficulty 4.5 so DNFs should be expected. It's simply foolhardy to look at the blue frown alone and assume the cache is gone. No harm can possibly come from writing more descriptive logs to add better context to DNFs.

One should also take into consideration the content of the DNF logs, because there are innumerable reasons why someone may log a DNF and many of these reasons have nothing to do with the cache being missing or damaged.

If a cache is up a tree, the terrain rating accounts for climbing the tree, even if the tree is next to a sidewalk. The terrain rating must account for the actual retrieval of the cache. If someone in a wheelchair can't reasonably reach the cache on their own without leaving the wheelchair, it shouldn't be terrain 1 and it shouldn't have the attribute. As soon as you start adding conditions, e.g. it's wheelchair accessible if you bring a friend, or it's wheelchair accessible if you are able to stand and reach for limited amounts of time, it's not really fair to use the attribute. If you want people to know that the cache is on a nice trail, and the trail is wheelchair accessible, indicate that in the description. The terrain rating and attributes are for rating the cache, not advertising the trail.

Yes.