narcissa

I disagree. The combination of T>1 and wheelchair attribute is helpful to folk who want to get to GZ, but not necessarily find the cache themselves. One of my caches is close to a great lookout and council have spent time and money to provide a fully accessible path to the lookout. T1.5 and wheelchair attribute sums up the situation perfectly. Geocaching.com is for geocache listings. It's not intended to indicate the general difficulty of getting to a location. It's intended to convey what is involved in reaching and retrieving the cache. Additionally, it's just rude to stick the wheelchair attribute on a cache if it can't actually be done by someone in a wheelchair.

T1 and the wheelchair attribute should only be used if a solo geocacher in a wheelchair can easily reach and retrieve the cache. There are just some things you can't account for in the terrain rating or with attributes. Furthermore, using the wheelchair attribute to denote that "a wheelchair can easily get close to this cache but you'll need a second person to actually retrieve it" is really not helpful and will lead to frustration.

No offence to MysteryGuy1, as what I'm saying is a generalisation, but the mindset that DNFs should only be logged if there's strong evidence the cache is missing leads to the implication that any DNF log, or a handful of them, must mean the cache is missing and therefore the CO must do something or face the consequences. To my mind, this demonization of the DNF is causing a lot of hurt to the game, to the point where I'm now reluctant to log too-many-muggles/see-it-but-couldn't-reach-it/beaten-by-the-camo type DNFs for fear it might be the tipping point that sets off unwanted and unwarranted consequences. We already have the Cache Health Score with its focus on DNFs, reports of some reviewers archiving caches after three DNFs, the Help Centre page encouraging cachers to report caches with an "unusual" number of DNFs to a reviewer or HQ, and soon the demise of the stand-alone NM log which is what should be used when there's strong evidence a cache is missing. I think we should all strive to use DNF more, with clear, descriptive logs to illustrate how absurd it is to assume that DNF = missing.

Even if your DNFs are there, isn't it helpful to know so you can try again later? I often look back at my DNF logs to see if they turned out to be missing, or if I just didn't find it. I've done that for as long as I've been geocaching, and it's how I become better at finding the tricky ones. The DNF is for you as much as it's for anybody else.

Yeah, sure, that makes sense, but I wonder if you ever consider whether there's no good reason to post a found log. To my way of thinking -- not that I necessarily recommend my way of thinking -- DNF and Found are just two sides of the same coin, so I always log what happened without stopping to consider whether it will someday be useful to me or to others. Normally I only give the decision any serious thought in cases like what redsox_mark brought up where there's the question of whether I actually looked for it at all, and then one factor I'll consider is whether what happened would be useful to anyone else even if it isn't clear that it amounted to a search. Again, not that I don't sometimes decide a real search with a real DNF is, nevertheless, not worth mentioning, but there are usually other factors in addition to the fact that no one will find it useful. Well, a found log means I found the cache. A DNF log means I made an attempt to find the cache and did not. My threshold for "attempt" is pretty low, so the veiled shaming about not logging DNFs should probably be pointed in someone else's direction.

Anyway, the material point isn't the usefulness of field notes, it's that I can't write proper logs now that NM and NA have been removed and replaced with this "cache may be missing" nonsense.

I don't even write notes in the GPS, I just mark caches as found, or DNF, and then the field notes feature lets me log them in order without ever missing one. In the past, when I used a notebook to keep track, I would sometimes forget the notebook and write finds down somewhere else and they would get misplaced, or sometimes I would just skip one from my notebook. When I started using field notes to log, I had been marking caches as "found" in my GPS for a long time already. The first time I uploaded them I reconciled my finds with my field notes and discovered several caches I hadn't logged for one reason or another. Now, the only time I miss logging a cache, it's because it's a one-off I spontaneously decided to find with my phone. Two out of three times, I utterly fail at finding a cache with my phone because I can't figure out how to get it to point to the cache and I give up, so really it's only once or twice a year that this comes up and I'm usually fairly reliable at remembering to log those, eventually. But probably not always.

I agree with the first sentence, but not the specific example. For example, I press "go" on the GPS start to walk to a cache. Then something unrelated to the cache causes me to abort. Maybe a call from home saying I need to come home immediately. As I never actually got to look for the cache, and the reason was personal, I would not log a DNF. However if the reason I could not reach GZ was the trail was closed, I would log a DNF. If I reach GZ and look, I always log a DNF. It's one thing to take into account whether your DNF will help someone when you're deciding whether it really should be called a search at all. But I read MysteryGuy1 as saying that after he does what everyone would consider a legitimate search, he then considers whether posting a DNF will help others. I'm saying the DNF, in itself, helps others, and I'm guessing you reject the example because you agree with that. Mind you, I'm OK if someone decides not to file DNFs just as I'm OK if someone decides not to file Find logs. I'm just pointing out that knowing someone searched and didn't find it is inherently helpful. There's no rule saying you always have to file all logs that would be helpful. I consider two factors - whether or not the DNF is useful to others, and whether or not it's useful to me. DNF is a record of my own geocaching activity. I write clear logs that state the reason for the DNF so there is no good reason why my DNF should ever be misinterpreted by a real person.

I don't make field notes, but I do use the gsak 'publish logs' facility with my garmin's cache visits file which records pushes of the found it/didn't find it button with date/time info . I make my notes verbally into an MP3 recorder so have not tried, but I think it is possible to transfer garmin field notes to gsak and include them in logs at the computer keyboard too, this may be helpful. I love GSAK, it efficiently does everything I want, all I use GS for is the acquisition of PQs. I'm not interested in using third-party websites or software for basic funtionality.

I haven't seen it, but the blog explains a lot: it sounds like they're literally getting rid of NM logs. Could you provide a link to this blog article? I've gone to a new cache page, clicked on "log geocache" and still had the same options in the dropdown menu: found it, didn't find it, write note, needs archived, needs maintenance I didn't notice any difference to the cache page. Are we talking about logging on the app? B. The blog can be found when you click 'community' and get the drop down menu, it's the item below 'discussion forums'. This new exciting development* appears to be concerned with smartphone users juggling field notes to the website, so of little interest to GPS using dinosaurs like me, except as it will impact logs I get on my owned caches. There is a link in the blog to a thread here * I was being sarcastic, just in case any literal minded argument seekers didn't notice. Again. I'm a GPS dinosaur and my field notes come from my Garmin Oregon. This has been a reliable way for me to log without missing any caches for several years. I'll have to go back to using a notebook or something now.

I haven't seen it, but the blog explains a lot: it sounds like they're literally getting rid of NM logs. Could you provide a link to this blog article? I've gone to a new cache page, clicked on "log geocache" and still had the same options in the dropdown menu: found it, didn't find it, write note, needs archived, needs maintenance I didn't notice any difference to the cache page. Are we talking about logging on the app? B. No, I don't use the app. I log from field notes. I guess I can't do that anymore.

I haven't seen it, but the blog explains a lot: it sounds like they're literally getting rid of NM logs. Yeah, NM is a flag that you add to a log now. There's "Cache may be missing," "Cache should be archived," and "Other." So it's not even really obvious to an inexperienced cacher that reporting damage or adverse conditions is an option or a good practice. And it's totally absurd to put "Cache may be missing" right there as an option. I don't understand why they would do something like that.

Has anyone else been subjected to the new and "improved" cache log page? Not terribly impressed with all the changes that are happening right now.

Around here's it seems to be pronounced "SEE TOE" but I have heard other variations.

Unless it went missing since the last find. Whenever a cache goes missing, someone has to be the first DNF. Seriously. Write the DNF and indicate the extent of the search. I don't know if there's a problem or not - I only know that I didn't find the cache.

Why didn't you just archive them after you removed the containers? Why leave the listings active if you wanted them to be archived?

Cache owners are not allowed to delete valid logs from any cacher. If you signed the logbook, you can log it online. With cache owners like this, the best course of action is to go straight to Groundspeak to get the log restored. If you do choose to engage with the cache owner, keep all communication to official channels, i.e. through the email system or the message centre. The curse of having been here for more than a decade, is we remember a lot of "stuff". Where is the discussion where Groundspeak allowed log deletions under EXACTLY these circumstances to stand unchallenged, because the cache owner questioned the exact wording Groundspeak used to describe Premium Caches. Are you saying they now have an official policy that addresses that old issue? Or are you pretending it never happened? The official policy has been, for a long time, that any cache can be logged as found once the logbook has been signed. I see nothing in that wormhole of old threads to suggest there was a change, and the backdoor to log PMO caches is apparently still active. Joined: 04-May 05

The benefits of PMO are minimal and geared toward the cache owner. The listings aren't shown to non-PMs, so that probably helps to detere some of the riff-raff, especially in urban areas. When a non-PM finds the cache, it's probably with a PM. It's fairly common for members of a household to have separate accounts, but only one account with PM. And caching friends go together and a PM may share coordinates for a PMO cache with someone. Listing a cache as PMO gives you an "audit log" feature that some people really enjoy. I have never noticed a marked difference between PMO and non-PMO caches in terms of quality. Most of the PMO caches in my area are roadside caches with low D/T ratings, so the owners make them PMO to protect them from non-PM app users.

Don't think it's their cache, their TB visited someone else's TB hotel twice..... Okay, that seems to make more sense. No mention from me of logging their own cache, but in this post you were somehow missed . Seriously though, does it make sense to log another Found IT on the same cache, when simply accessing trackables? Further, I get it if repeated Found It logs were on a "moving cache" type, but guess I don't get (following guidelines...) logging a second time just because a cache (with the same GC#...) was moved. Okay, now I am confused. If we're talking about multiple found logs on the same cache, that does still strike me as an odd, yet harmless thing to do. It's especially odd given other elements of this person's personal caching ethic, but people arrive at these things from different directions. Not sure if the comment was directed at me. And not sure of the ethics meaning. However, I don't log finds for my caches. Other than "attended" once at my own events. I do advocate logging a second found when the cache is moved to another location - while it was in the same park, it was still far enough away to require a search, so it was actually found twice. I by no means advocate multiple found logs for the same cache in the same cords. I've never seen a "moving cache" so I've no opinion on logging those once or multiple times. Yeah, the second point is fairly unconventional, though harmless (and soon to be impossible with the imminent changes). Just strikes me as a funny quirk because this user account posted something similarly unconventional elsewhere. Please elaborate.. I don't really know what there is to elaborate on. Most experienced cachers wouldn't log a second find in that circumstance, so that makes it a bit unconventional as a personal caching rule or ethic. I don't personally have a problem with it, or with any of the instances of double-logging that are going to be eliminated by the changes. It's just interesting to see variations in people's thinking, that's all. Also interesting because I'm sure someone will be along shortly to shout about how very deeply wrong it is to log it a second time, even though it doesn't actually matter.

Don't think it's their cache, their TB visited someone else's TB hotel twice..... Okay, that seems to make more sense. No mention from me of logging their own cache, but in this post you were somehow missed . Seriously though, does it make sense to log another Found IT on the same cache, when simply accessing trackables? Further, I get it if repeated Found It logs were on a "moving cache" type, but guess I don't get (following guidelines...) logging a second time just because a cache (with the same GC#...) was moved. Okay, now I am confused. If we're talking about multiple found logs on the same cache, that does still strike me as an odd, yet harmless thing to do. It's especially odd given other elements of this person's personal caching ethic, but people arrive at these things from different directions. Not sure if the comment was directed at me. And not sure of the ethics meaning. However, I don't log finds for my caches. Other than "attended" once at my own events. I do advocate logging a second found when the cache is moved to another location - while it was in the same park, it was still far enough away to require a search, so it was actually found twice. I by no means advocate multiple found logs for the same cache in the same cords. I've never seen a "moving cache" so I've no opinion on logging those once or multiple times. Yeah, the second point is fairly unconventional, though harmless (and soon to be impossible with the imminent changes). Just strikes me as a funny quirk because this user account posted something similarly unconventional elsewhere.

Cache owners are not allowed to delete valid logs from any cacher. If you signed the logbook, you can log it online. With cache owners like this, the best course of action is to go straight to Groundspeak to get the log restored. If you do choose to engage with the cache owner, keep all communication to official channels, i.e. through the email system or the message centre.

Don't think it's their cache, their TB visited someone else's TB hotel twice..... Okay, that seems to make more sense. No mention from me of logging their own cache, but in this post you were somehow missed . Seriously though, does it make sense to log another Found IT on the same cache, when simply accessing trackables? Further, I get it if repeated Found It logs were on a "moving cache" type, but guess I don't get (following guidelines...) logging a second time just because a cache (with the same GC#...) was moved. Okay, now I am confused. If we're talking about multiple found logs on the same cache, that does still strike me as an odd, yet harmless thing to do. It's especially odd given other elements of this person's personal caching ethic, but people arrive at these things from different directions.

Don't think it's their cache, their TB visited someone else's TB hotel twice..... Okay, that seems to make more sense.

Curious, what point? If a cache had the same GC number, it's the same cache. Why not a Write Note if grabbing/dropping/swapping trackables like the Guidelines suggest? This isn't something new... Just noticed that this user thinks logging two separate logs on his own cache is okay but other people finding a cache as a group is bad. Always kind of neat to see how different groups of cachers develop totally unique sets of rules and ethics. But yeah, seems like most experienced cachers would use a note in this scenario. I don't see that it really matters, but it is a bit odd.

I'm still using my Oregon 450, but the on/off button has worn out so it isn't waterproof anymore. I've tried the old app and the new app and an outlaw app on a few phones (Galaxy S3, S6, and an iPhone 5s) and I just hate them. Geocaching drains the battery so quickly, and the phone feels so delicate when I'm trying to scramble over rocks or stuff like that. Also, the on-screen navigation is so weird and frustrating that when I try to use it for a spontaneous urban cache, I often just give up. Just doesn't work for me. All of the doo-dads and add-ons I would need to use to increase battery life and prevent the phone from being damaged would make the phone so unwieldy and ridiculous for everyday use that I would need a second phone dedicated to geocaching in order to make it work. I can't be out in polite society with a smartphone that looks like a tank, and I don't want to carry that in my purse either - I chose a phone that is sleek for a reason. A second phone for geocaching would exceed or equal the cost of a nice new GPS anyway. I don't think I'll ever be a phone cacher - it's just not my jam. But everyone is different, and the right GPS is the one that works for you.