narcissa

What? Letterbox hybrid geocaches always required a GPS. True letterboxing is a different game and you can still play it if you want.

I tend to nope out on yard caches, unless they're a really obvious structure, or can be accessed from the sidewalk or something. That being said, of the yard caches I have found, some of them are quite memorable. It's easier to maintain a unique cache container when it's right outside your door.

Funny how that works: people that want to ask about the missing FP say, "Is it really that big of a deal to even ask?" People that think it would be FP grubbing to ask say, "Is it really that big of a deal that it's even worth asking?" To me, it boils down to whether you consider the poster to be a friend. If your aim is to coax some stranger into giving you the FP, then don't ask. If you're curious why your friend said he was going to do something then didn't, feel free to ask. I was leaning more towards "why would you even ask over something so trivial" since I can't see a single FP being that big of a deal. It's like asking for a thank you note. Sure, it would have been nice if they remembered to do it, but asking for it is the far greater sin. I disagree with the analogy. A better analogy would be if someone said they were going to give you an award that would earn you prestige and then forgot or changed their mind. Asking for the award is pretty rude, just like asking someone to give you a favorite point is a bit annoying (I also hate it when people beg for FPs - "Don't forget to give this a favorite point if you liked it!") But if someone TELLS YOU they are giving you one and then don't, I think the problem is with the one who said it in the first place. Not that they are MEAN or BAD, just forgetful or wishy-washy. Sure, as I said, getting the point would have been nice, but nagging someone about it is worse than forgetting. I just don't get why someone would audit these in the first place. If someone says in their log that they mean to give a favourite point, the sentiment is what matters, not the actual point. Isn't it nice to have someone say, in words, how much they liked the cache? Following up to nag just seems so needless after that.

Funny how that works: people that want to ask about the missing FP say, "Is it really that big of a deal to even ask?" People that think it would be FP grubbing to ask say, "Is it really that big of a deal that it's even worth asking?" To me, it boils down to whether you consider the poster to be a friend. If your aim is to coax some stranger into giving you the FP, then don't ask. If you're curious why your friend said he was going to do something then didn't, feel free to ask. I was leaning more towards "why would you even ask over something so trivial" since I can't see a single FP being that big of a deal. It's like asking for a thank you note. Sure, it would have been nice if they remembered to do it, but asking for it is the far greater sin.

And also the take it down, pass it around logs. Nothing you can do about those!

Typically, tree climbs around here are 4-ish.

There are two ways this would go with me: 1. The message would be sent through the MC and I would never see it. 2. The message would be sent through the email system, and I would be so annoyed by the request that it would nullify any intention to assign an FP.

You know, this entire debate could have been avoided if the reviewer note was more vague.

DNFs are an interesting part of a cache's history and my own caching history so I wouldn't want to delete those. I like to look back at them from time to time and chuckle at some of the crazier mishaps. But it's entirely up to you. I am not sure if the site would let you change the log type to a note instead of a DNF - if it does, that is an alternative way you could handle it.

Then stop auditing your points and don't bug people for points.

I don't know about newer models but when I used an eXplorist I would open the PQ in GSAK to create a file that worked with my device.

+1 I'd like to see an icon or some indication of which MC messages were accessed by the recipient, so I know which were "read" (well, at least "clicked on"). And I'd like a way to filter and organize messages. Folders and stuff, like I can do in email. And I'd like to be able to block this functionality because it isn't anyone else's business if I looked at their message or not.

I would say no. I have a checker on all my puzzles but many COs purposely do not want them. Some of the reasons are: 1. There are sites which spoil puzzles. These sites will advertise that the answer is "geochecker confirmed". And it seems that a cache is more likely to be spoilt in this way if a checker is used. 2. A checker can be used to brute force an answer, if the solver has partially solved it. E.g I've solved all but one digit. I can use a checker 10 times to solve the last one. 3. Some are concerned about the security of the data, could it be hacked. 4. Some cache owners just don't want to add a third-party link to their cache page and don't feel it's necessary to hold everyone's hand through a puzzle.

Earthcache owners are required to accept responses sent through the message centre. This is the only reason I look at it at all.

Spoiling other people's puzzles is a pretty big no-no. Not talking about spoiling anything... While I've never placed a puzzle and used a puzzle checker to provide cachers with a place to check, my suggestion was the if the CO hasn't provided a puzzle checker option, that a finder, who's determined the correct cords, went to the puzzle checking site and created an entry (or whatever they're called) where future finders can input the cords and get a yea or nay. I'm not suggesting that anyone publish the cords. I'm asking if someone other than the CO can create the coord checker. It should be up to the cache owner to use or not use one of these third-party checking sites. If the cache owner has opted not to, respect his/her choice. Come on... not respecting the COs wishes? He didn't have _that_ choice when he planted it and from the thread I took it that the CO isn't active... It was merely a suggestion in response to other cachers talking about determining the cords and the cache being placed before the checkers were around. Spoiling someone else's puzzle like that is pretty disrespectful. These third-party checking sites have been around for years now, and if the cache owner wanted to use one, he/she can update the page at any time. Don't mess with other people's cache set-ups.

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!) A cache owner is not obligated to provide hints. Thank you for the clarification! Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like it was a different user suggesting using NM when a cache owner doesn't respond to hints.

I have deliberately blocked that message centre thing from forwarding anything to me because the only messages I was getting from it were very low quality. I look at it once a month or something to check Earthcache answers and ignore all other correspondence sent that way. Relying on the email system was my way of ensuring that I would only receive legitimate, important correspondence from fellow geocachers.

The community has tacitly decided that they find NM/NA distasteful and won't use it. If the cache owner won't read and respond to the information in the Found log, then the reviewer should do something. Very often someone comes in to the forums complaining that a cache is in bad shape and reviewers won't do anything, or that they should be allowed to adopt it. When the NM/NA procedure is pointed out, they won't use it and instead complain that a reviewer should do something. The community is largely unaware of these options. When we make them aware, they don't like the option. Some people do, some people do not. Many do not have these options readily available to them in the platform they use to log caches.

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!) A cache owner is not obligated to provide hints.

Keep in mind that event activities are completely optional. If people attending the event just want to show up, socialize, and leave, then that's okay. Signing the event log isn't even required. And if people want to use the information from this meeting go and set up placeholder cache listings in all the spots that are about to open up when all these NAs get filed, there's nothing to stop them from doing that against the decisions of the people who attend this event. Honestly though, I can't see this passing muster as an event with a reviewer unless the listing was really vague and/or dishonest. If something like this happened in the geocaching community where I live, it would almost certainly be outed to a reviewer before it got off the ground.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, your idea runs afoul of the guidelines AND the terms of use of the site. It also ignores more than 15 years of geocaching history and discussion, much of which is literally at your fingertips. This makes it unworkable, unless you intend to engage in these activities outside of official parameters. If you don't mean to engage in vigilantism, you really should spend some time educating yourself about the way the game operates and the past history of these issues so you can formulate a more workable plan. While I was away from Geocaching as a whole for several years, I came into it while I, myself, and the game were both still pretty young, and have a pretty strong understanding of how 'the game operates'. Am I going to read through (maybe) dozens or more forum discussions about the topic from years ago, before opening a new dialog about it? No, I'm not. If the discussions are in the past, and the issue in question is still an issue, then, for all intents and purposes, those discussions stand to present nothing more than banter. Times change, people change, rules change.. That is life. Narcissa's post a couple up from yours answers your question nicely: http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5654074 But - isn't that "the textbook definition of stealing?" (I actually plan to do that, but I figured I'd get this thread a little riled up... ) You definitely run a risk, however small, of really ticking off a cache owner if you steal their caches. So it's up to you to weigh the risk and the potential consequences of this unsanctioned vigilante cache clean-up. I've been around the geocaching scene in my community long enough to know there are some seemingly quiet cache owners who don't participate much anymore, but who would react very strongly to another cacher removing their cache without permission. And it ain't pretty when that happens. I don't think there is anything wrong with being 'less than active', or even inactive. I just believe that if you're choosing to step away from it, the responsible thing to do, is to arrange for your caches to be maintained by someone else. Since Geocaching allows for adoption, etc... I don't see that as really asking too much. That's grand, but I personally wouldn't be terribly keen on being on the receiving end of a complaint against my user account because I decided to march around taking over, or removing, other people's caches without their consent. YMMV. Geocaching.com allows for cache adoption, but doesn't require it, and certainly doesn't inflict it on anyone without their express permission. Again, never said that I would do that, nor did I suggest that anyone else did. You seem to have in your mind that I am suggesting such things, and continue to perpetuate the idea that I am, despite being directly corrected on multiple occasions. I'd suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Forum Guidelines: At this point, I don't feel any of your responses are constructive, and find that, nearly all of them in response to this topic have been inflammatory, in that they seem to have no purpose other than to arouse hostility or anger. It could be argued that a post written to dredge up an issue with a history of extensive, heated debate in the forum may be intended to arouse hostility and anger, but my assumption, since I am unfamiliar with the user account that posted this, is that the post was written honestly without prior knowledge of the history. Several people, including a reviewer, have explained why the original proposal isn't really workable within the scope of the game as it is operated on this particular listing site. Since this abandoned cache issue seems to be of great concern to some cachers, I don't see what is hostile about suggesting that a more detailed understanding of the issue might lead to some better ideas on how to handle it. I think all good cachers recognize that abandoned caches are a bit of a black eye for the game, especially the cachers who are actually on the front lines when it comes to land managers.

Narcissa's post a couple up from yours answers your question nicely: http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5654074 But - isn't that "the textbook definition of stealing?" (I actually plan to do that, but I figured I'd get this thread a little riled up... ) You definitely run a risk, however small, of really ticking off a cache owner if you steal their caches. So it's up to you to weigh the risk and the potential consequences of this unsanctioned vigilante cache clean-up. I've been around the geocaching scene in my community long enough to know there are some seemingly quiet cache owners who don't participate much anymore, but who would react very strongly to another cacher removing their cache without permission. And it ain't pretty when that happens. I don't think there is anything wrong with being 'less than active', or even inactive. I just believe that if you're choosing to step away from it, the responsible thing to do, is to arrange for your caches to be maintained by someone else. Since Geocaching allows for adoption, etc... I don't see that as really asking too much. That's grand, but I personally wouldn't be terribly keen on being on the receiving end of a complaint against my user account because I decided to march around taking over, or removing, other people's caches without their consent. YMMV. Geocaching.com allows for cache adoption, but doesn't require it, and certainly doesn't inflict it on anyone without their express permission.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, your idea runs afoul of the guidelines AND the terms of use of the site. It also ignores more than 15 years of geocaching history and discussion, much of which is literally at your fingertips. This makes it unworkable, unless you intend to engage in these activities outside of official parameters. If you don't mean to engage in vigilantism, you really should spend some time educating yourself about the way the game operates and the past history of these issues so you can formulate a more workable plan.

Narcissa's post a couple up from yours answers your question nicely: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=344300&view=findpost&p=5654074 But - isn't that "the textbook definition of stealing?" (I actually plan to do that, but I figured I'd get this thread a little riled up... ) You definitely run a risk, however small, of really ticking off a cache owner if you steal their caches. So it's up to you to weigh the risk and the potential consequences of this unsanctioned vigilante cache clean-up. I've been around the geocaching scene in my community long enough to know there are some seemingly quiet cache owners who don't participate much anymore, but who would react very strongly to another cacher removing their cache without permission. And it ain't pretty when that happens.

The community has tacitly decided that they find NM/NA distasteful and won't use it. If the cache owner won't read and respond to the information in the Found log, then the reviewer should do something. Very often someone comes in to the forums complaining that a cache is in bad shape and reviewers won't do anything, or that they should be allowed to adopt it. When the NM/NA procedure is pointed out, they won't use it and instead complain that a reviewer should do something. The community is largely unaware of these options.