Don_J

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO? She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache. ??? Need to get that smiley!! I thought "find" meant "find". She found the cache, yes, and discovered that it is a possible trespass issue. Still a find, and then a NM/NA and email to owner and Reviewer. I agree. She found the cache and can confirm where it was located. She didn't armchair the NM log. So, if my GPSr is pointing fifty feet beyond a no trespassing sign, I should walk another fifty feet to confirm that the cache really is beyond the sign, then post a find and then a Needs Archived? It's the idea of looking at a situation which you have reservations over, or simply know that it's wrong, but going on and looking for the cache anyway, then making a fuss over it afterwards that bothers me.

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO? She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache. ??? Need to get that smiley!! I thought "find" meant "find". She found the cache, yes, and discovered that it is a possible tresspass issue. Still a find, and then a NM/NA and email to owner and Reviewer. If I am as concerned as she seems to be, I ask this question before going onto the property and looking for the cache.

How do you do this? The, "Last 2 DNF", filter is a default filter that is part of the installation. Simply select it from the "Select a Saved Filter" dropdown control. If you want to delete then, press delete and then choose "all in filter. If you don't want to delete them but don't want them sent to your GPSr, select the filter, then click Search/Filter and on the top right, check the reverse filter box.

Cool!

This bothered you so much that, you contacted two Reviewers and the CO? She contacted two reviewers, posted a NM on the cache and started a forum thread. Despite all that concern, she still trespassed, found and the logged cache. ???

I'm sure that the cache in question is on the property without permission. I think the cache owner simply thought that since there are caches already on the property it was ok to place another. I hate to be the curmudgeon here but like I noted in a previous post I've been working on two more caches for some time now and would hate to have to scrap some of that work. I also don't want to have the other cache removed. The cacher's first find was one of the caches I placed here. The funny thing is that after I place my last two caches there would not be enough room to place another within the conservation land boundaries. Will have to think about what to do next. I have always thought that it should be a basic guideline that if someone places a cache that requires explicate permission, permits, etc, that fact should be required to be in the cache description. When I started caching in 2005, if a cache was placed on an otherwise cache-less trail, the finders would place more caches along the trail with the idea that it must be okay. You should perhaps detail the process that you had to go thorough to place your caches in this area in you cache descriptions to let others know that while you have opened the door, they still need to get permission before placing new caches. Also, as far as "working on a cache", if you have the coordinates nailed down for that cache, create a "disabled, not ready for review" cache page with those coordinates. If you nail those coordinates down and someone places a cache within that proximity, the reviewer will typically contact you about your plans for that particular spot on the Earth. Personally, since this cacher was FTF on your cache and placed another with the idea that it was okay to do so, I'd give up the spot, contact him, explain what was going on and offer to help him get permission for HIS cache. This is how Geocaching communities start. In other words, instead of taking an adversarial, (I was here first), role, take a cooperative and helpful role.

This has obviously turned into a cache on an electrical box debate, but you will obviously have to go back and get better coords. I agree with what some others have said "If the only reason people would want to go there is for the cache then it's not a good location", but this is the forums, and in reality you'll have hundreds of happy finders. Most of them might drop Tftc or Found it logs on you, but they'll be happy. Why would he need new coordinates? How many discussions have we had over the inconsistencies of Google Maps and that they are not reliable enough to get coordinates to place a cache. There is even a guideline saying that you must use a GPS device. I've see plenty of caches where Street View puts the pin right in the middle of the street, while the cache is safely attached to the pad mounted transformer box, set back from the sidewalk.

Yes, please! And include the GC #. Why? Are you going to post NA logs on them?

This must be a new rule or new tool for the reviewers since I have found many, many caches attached to electrical boxes. Probably a good change though. This is the third response that mentions the existence of currently published caches as a justification for the publishing of the one in the photo. Although there isn't a guideline about placing a cache within 50 feet of a power pole, there *is* a "no precedent" guideline that many seem to forget whenever a "why wasn't my cache published" thread is started. I don't think that anyone has forgotten the "no cache sets a precedence for another". I think that most of us are wondering, "why now", and the 50' thing. I'd like to know where that number came from.

briansnat can well believe there needs to be something other than a cache to find, and TPTB can quote him on the website. But nobody is going to get the reviewers to enforces such a arbitrary and subjective guideline. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of cachers just want a cache. A location that has something else is a bonus but not a requirement. Brian's quote might make the OP consider why they want to take some one to a busy street corner with transformers and utility poles. All of which has nothing to do with the topic.

It is not strange in the least. If you look as the picture that Keystone posted, you can see that it looks like the cache is either placed on utility equipment or very near to it. I would guess that most reviewers would assume that you do not have permission to place a cache in such an area even if that specific utility company has not expressed that they do not give permission. It is also a danger issue. If a cache is place at to the top of a mountain you can decided if it is too dangerous to search for, however you do not have the luxury of making that same decision when it comes to high voltage. Here is a great video showing just how far away you can be from electrical equipment and it still be DEADLY Too funny. In another thread, I reported that there were over 2000 caches within 10 miles of my home coordinates. I'm guessing that at least 200, (low estimate), are hidden on this type of equipment. Throw in LPCs and locked electrical boxes on the sides/backs of commercial buildings and I bet we go way past 500.

That's just a matter of how they display things. If you zoom out to the entire world, you are not going to see all 2 million icons layered on top of each other. The PMO caches disappearing at certain zoom level is a known and acknowledged issue,(bug), that will hopefully be fixed in a future site update.

Where is the logic in rewriting history? The fact that you didn't find a cache on a certain date does not change because you found it on a later date.

+1 - This really is one of the deadly sins to me. I recently ran across a P&G where a cacher posted a NM for a full wet log. Next day the CO posts a maintenance log saying "You really don't expect me to replace the log, do you?". Seriously? Might as well just through his cache in the nearest waste bin, in my opinion. I'd post a NA to that cache, right from the comfort of my armchair, much to the 'Riftster's dismay. Just like the one not to far away from me that had five NM logs saying that there was no lid on the container and that someone had pee'd in it. Of course, I wouldn't post a NA from my armchair because a cache has DNFs, without looking for it it myself and posting my own DNF log first, but a cache that is in place that has obvious maintenance issues reported, and is abandoned or being ignored by the CO, or in this case a flat out declaration that the CO will not do the required maintenance, I'm notifying the reviewer through a NA log. Sure would be nice if we had a "Needs Reviewer's Attention log".

I suppose that if we aren't going to be given tools to help correct this behavior we should at least be able to track it in an attempt to prevent it. The intro app should automatically make two kinds of log entries that can not be edited or deleted by the intro app user. The first is a note log whenever an app user is in the vivacity of a cache. This will allow us know when an intro app user has visited a cache and will hopefully reduce the "witch-hunts" when someone does something inappropriate at a cache location. I suppose after a predetermined time or after a predetermined distance the log could be automatically changed to a DNF log if a Found It log isn't made. There are some caches that are just not appropriate for beginners. If we aren't going to be able to opt-out of having our listing viable in the intro app then there needs be an audit log similar to the audit log for PMO caches. This way a CO can gauge how much interest his cache is getting from the intro app community. This will allow the CO to maintain or alter the cache and cache area appropriately or choose to archive the cache before any serious issues arise. There is a way to opt out. Make your cache PMO. As far as the scorched Earth story that bumped this topic, a fake rock in a rock field should be probably be rated a D2-2.5, which would exclude it from the list of available caches for the Intro cache.

We like to offer to help out on caches we've already found so we send a message to the CO and they write back: "No, don't worry, we'll be down there next weekend, thanks anyway!" then it sits for another six months. Pah. In the meantime, the same CO puts out another half dozen caches... For all the discussions about the question "should there be a minimum find count before you can hide a cache" I'd really like to see a discussion regarding how many caches a single user can have archived by the reviewer for non-maintenance before they are prohibited from placing any more. As you say it's annoying when they keep placing new caches when they have demonstrated they can't maintain the ones they already have. The reason I haven't been out placing caches (despite many ideas) is simply because I'm not in a place to commit to maintaining them at a level I'd consider acceptable. I have noted a certain CO obviously drive past his cache that has five DNFs in a row and a NM, and hide an identical cache .1mi up the road. That cache gets published, and the reviewer archives the other one a few months later after the eventual NA.

I don't think it is nonsense at all, especially when people set priorities that turn the game into work. I couldn't believe how many in my local group prioritized the 31 days of August to the point that they were complaining towards the end that they had to do it. My priority has always been to have fun. My objective towards obtaining that has evolved over time, from long hikes with few caches, to trying to rack up as many urbans as quickly as possible. Now, long hikes in my area will also get you a good number of finds, so I have really lost interest in the urban caches, unless I just happen to be driving by. Two weeks ago, I could have hiked a new trail and found about 25 caches in five miles, or hike with a bunch of friends and watch them find 30 or so caches that I found two months ago. Of course, I took the latter.

Forget the idea that your cache is a TB hotel? Is that supposed to be good advice? That's so wrong and a very typical/common answer/advice to issues such as this....stealing TB's, pilfering caches, vandalizing caches, stealing caches etc... In simpler words...we're supposed to turn the other cheek...take the high road....change your cache to something other than what you originally wanted it to be or hoped it to be because there are those in the game who are simply out to ruin it for others or have it in for you or better yet, hide your TB hotel under a different user name so maybe the person(s) who's stealing the TBs from your TB hotel won't know that you own it. That's the advice we received in reference to our stolen caches. Those of us in the game who don't steal and/or pilfer or vandalize, are somehow responsible for those bad apples who do. It's up to us to conform to THEM? I don't think so. Don't ever allow yourself to be bullied. That's because in your case, you are the target. In the case of someone raiding a TB hotel, the bugs are the target. Your situation has nothing to do with this. If I knew that a cache was getting raided, hotel or not, I wouldn't put a bug in it, and if I owned a TB Hotel and was certain that it was being raided, the simplest solution would be to change it and not have people put other people's property in it.

Reading further into this thread, it's on commercial property in a busy area. I wondering about permission, and if the landscapers that will eventually show up know not to take the cache and throw it in the trash? Good question. And actually, that's been a problem for me once before with a different cache. I did get permission for the cache, but that wasn't relayed to landscapers who did find and dispose of the cache. This cache is the same basic idea. I have permission, but I have no way to make sure that gets relayed to landscapers. I have that problem with one of my caches. I was actually asked to place the cache from one of the overseers of the property where the cache is at. I've told the most important people involved with the property that it's there, yet every year it disappears to the landscapers. They employ teenagers and others who have no clue about the cache and must be tossing it (it always disappears during plant trimmings). Drives me batty, and I'd be tempted to archive it if it wasn't a requested cache, and hadn't been published in a regional historical booklet that utilizes caches. Would it be possible to get the yearly trimming schedule and just remove and disable the cache until it is finished?

Right up my alley. Perhaps you can share a GC# on us?

Unfortunately that is not a PT feature Rather it is a known bug with Premium Member Only caches. One of many issues that GS doesn't seem to want to fix. "doesn't seem to want to fix"? I would think that they would "want" to have the perfect geocaching web site. I've always looked at these things, and I was criticized for posting a long list a year ago or so, that they just cant seem to get around to fixing. I've never had the attitude that they simply didn't "want" to fix a known bug.

Reading further into this thread, it's on commercial property in a busy area. I wondering about permission, and if the landscapers that will eventually show up know not to take the cache and throw it in the trash?

I'm exactly the same way, unfortunately. I try not to take trackables, because I know this, but I keep caving. Each time I think, "maybe this time I'll be better!". I, on the other hand, have received an owner email a time or two. Although they've always been polite. BTW - I got the trackables from the truck that I hadn't logged yet, and finally went online and retrieved them from the cache. Almost two weeks late. I think that's the longest I've waited to log trackables. I found them on the 16th, didn't have internet until we came home on the 18th, and then left them in the truck. So this thread was good for something. Yes, good for something. A few years ago, I found a TB, logged it into my inventory, then had no idea where it was. Three months later, I found it behind my sofa during spring cleaning. My guess is that my cat picked it up off of the coffee table, jumped on the sofa and then dropped it into in unknown cache behind my sofa. Three months, it was back there. I felt bad and got it into a cache quickly. Never heard a word from the owner. I'm curious why Fizzy attracts these whiny TB emails?

Worse, an undeclared TB Hotel. One of my TBs was making a decent run when it happened to land in the oldest cache in a certain Southern State. Because it's the oldest active cache, everyone thinks that they just have to leave a TB. This cache that has a long list of TBs and coins in it and every other log saying that they dropping TBs. The cache gets at least five or more finds a week and after a month someone finally said that there were no TBs in the cache. I waited another two weeks and then logged my TB as missing. I personally can't stand TB Hotels, and I think that I was probably the forum member that was critical of WarNinjas's Hotel after the cache disappeared right after my coin was dropped into it. I am very happy to see that the new location has been very successful.

IMHO, there are very few things in geocaching that need to be logged online "right away". An angry land owner who wants the geocache and the geocachers gone? Sure, I'll log the NA right away. Serious problems with the cache (e.g., it broke and I took the pieces home with me)? Sure, I'll log the NM right away. But Finds, DNFs, FTFs, TB movement, Notes, etc.? No, I log them when convenient.Just to clarify, when I said 'right away', I mean 'same day'. Not sure what your definition, but if you wait longer than that, be aware that someone might go looking for it and be disappointed.As I said, I log routine stuff (including Finds, which includes FTFs and retrieving/dropping TBs) when convenient. Sometimes that's the same day. Usually, it's the same week. Sometimes, it's longer than a week. When I go on a week-long camping trip, it usually takes me at least a few days to settle in once I get home. The logs for any geocaching I did at the beginning of the trip can wait. My field notes and photos will be there when I finally get a chance to log everything online. I feel the same way. I'm "unconnected" when on a week long camping trip, but when I get home and settled, I'll make a point to log the bugs because I know I'm several days behind and it does effect other cachers, especially if I picked up a bug and dropped further along my travels. I guess what I'm saying is that while you see two levels of priority for logging, I see a third with the TBs being in the middle.