knowschad

I can't believe its been three years, either. In fact, I won't believe it. http://coord.info/GLBB3YXM (Check the date)

Really? Well... they didnt find it, but put a throw down. Base on the video and back track log the finder gave us. Opinions are divided on that.

We need a "Must Read Attributes" attribute.

Actually, setting that attribute for stinging nettles as I know them (maybe there are different ones in your area which are dangerous) seems pretty ridiculous to me. Unlike poison ivy I would not even mention stinging nettles in the cache description. They are all around here and everyone knows how they look like. Exactly. A skin irritant, but hardly poisonous. They are actually extremely nutritious when cooked. Maybe we need a wild foods attribute.

But he's talking about walking away from the restaurant. "It's a great hike from the Restaurant de la Pierre du Moëllé"

Have you checked the floor beneath your computer desk? Seriously... how about a screen shot of the map that you're seeing?

In that case, maybe you shouldn't be hiding 27 cache series. Ever think of that? I've got like 4 or 5 boxes of lock and locks. Enough to place all those caches, and replace them. They go on sale every few months, for less yhsn the cost of 2 individual containers. Do I sense a donation offer pending?

But of course, then it would no longer be a moving cache.

In that case, maybe you shouldn't be hiding 27 cache series. Ever think of that?

Wow! I haven't heard that phrase in about 50 years!!

"Now"? Was it announced? "Next to find"? The watchlist or anyone reading the note has to understand this in the first place... It was announced in a previous note, four days prior. "Something new (I think it's new) coming soon to Hobo's Cache." Yeah, its in someone else's cache... so what? It sounds to me as though he was simply trying to add to the fun for somebody. I like this idea a whole lot better than the "FTF prize". As for trading, he said "Remember to trade (don't worry about trading up on this one.)". So, trade something for it, but he doesn't expect you to trade up. I see it as sort of a random act of fun.

And the person who picked it up is already catching a rash of nasty comments, even though they're also knocking out at least one more state for the cache's mission We had a moving cache in my area a number of years ago (Moving123) that garnered all sorts of angst and drama and anger. A lot (most?) of the nasty logs have since been removed, but there were times when cachers almost came to blows over it.

3. The archived cache is abandoned by the cache owner (shame shame!) but a geocacher, for whatever reason, goes out, finds it, and removes the geolitter, a find is perfectly acceptable in my book.

Can anybody else here remember when the point was to find geocaches?

I don't think we should eliminate an interesting artifact of prior geocaching practice because some people act inappropriately. I commend the CO on keeping this going (especially given the historical theme) and I'm glad I had a chance to log it today. I am going to disagree with you here about those grandfathered moving caches. I see them more of a hassle than anything else. When something over work the reviewers or GS, they are known to put the stop to it. Virtual caches are one of the things that reviewers got tired of. I had see one moving cache that got archived because GS got tired of it or something. If you want to keep those moving caches alive, we all need to do our part of keeping that side game as fun and no hassle for GS and the reviewers. Any idea how many moving caches are still in play?

The cache container was hidden completely out of sight. The only way someone could find it was if they were a cacher or if a cacher did not put it carefully back as found (or was watched putting retreiving/returning it. Everybody thinks this about their special snowflake geocaches, but you'd be surprised at what non-cachers stumble upon. Or what squirrels and other critters move into the open. Superfluous "Special snowflake" comment aside, I have to agree with this. I've found very well-hidden caches that had signatures from hikers, mushroom hunters, and deer hunters in the logs. And yes, animals will sometimes push a cache out of a hiding spot as well.

Conversely, I would expect a certain amount of scrutiny if I had previous problems with cache hides. Of course.

Does the term "good caches" include the history of diligent owner maintenance? A lot of people don't know that they should be posting a "needs maintenance" log along with their "found it" log. Mentioning the poor condition of the cache/log/container in their "found it" log should alert the cache owner that something needs fixing. After the maintenance has been performed, the cache owner should post an "owner maintenance" log. The absence of "red wrenches" on a cache page doesn't really tell you anything. You need to read the logs of the finders. Again, here we have (maybe) a situation where the Reviewer knows more than "we" do. It's a bit unrealistic that the Reviewers should be asked to decide whether or not they can "trust" someone. Why should one's "join date" matter to a Reviewer? Or one's cache placing history? Maybe the caches are all garbage because of lack of owner maintenance. One side of the story is what we get here on the forums. Communicating calmly and rationally with the Reviewer is a better option than airing one-sided rants on the forum. B. Check my caches. They are all open to your scrutiny. I was pretty clear, I think, about deserved respect vs. expected respect. You are not going to find a lack of maintenance or any problem with cache placing history. The "Join Date" that you refer to has to do with a relationship that is built over time. I don't know if you were referring to me, or in general, when you mentioned "one-sided rants", but I don't believe that I am ranting in the least, if that is what you are referring to.

I can remember being asked these types of questions back in 2004 or so. This is really nothing new IMO. The only difference (which isn't relevant to the OP's situation per se), is that now Disabled Listings are flagged at the time of a new submission, to bring the issue to the CO's attention. From my perspective, it seems like this new feature has actually made things more consistent, as it doesn't require a Reviewer to go fishing through each CO's Hide list to see if there's any issues that needs to be addressed. I was not referring to the automated "You have disabled caches that need attention" question (or whatever the exact wording is). I was referring to questions about the container, where and how it is hidden, how a puzzle is to be solved, and so-on. Not saying that these don't need to be asked... perhaps they should have been asked 10 years ago. But at least with the reviewers that I had in the early days, they weren't. You were trusted until proven otherwise. I kind of liked that, you know?

I ask EVERY hider, from newbie to veteran, to include basic information in their initial reviewer note: the type of cache container, how/where it is hidden, and compliance with any applicable land manager policies. The vast majority of cache owners receive that note one time, and then start including the information on all their cache submissions after that. They find their caches get published quite quickly after they leave a note saying "clear plastic container with a geocache label, hidden on the ground behind a tree." I started asking those basic questions after growing tired of being surprised by cache placements that violate fundamental listing guidelines. You see enough emails and forum posts saying "why do you publish buried caches?" etc., and you decide to do something. It works! Thanks for the perspective from the reviewer's point of view. From your point of view, I don't blame you one bit. But from my POV and apparently the OP's, we would expect a certain amount of recognition after years of hiding good caches. To be treated as an unknown quantity after having proven ourselves is a bit disconcerting. Yeah, of course I can understand the concept of treating everybody equally, but I can also understand the concept of respecting somebody who has proven that they are worthy of your trust. Tough call, I'm sure. But I think that is where the OP is coming from, and certainly where I am coming from.

I looked at your two most recent submissions, and I don't see the reviewer asking anything out of the ordinary. Your reviewer is asking for some basic information that will allow them to assess the cache properly such as: - property; some areas have limitations imposed by the owners or managers, not by Groundspeak or reviewers - container; some areas dictate the types of containers that can be used - hide style; making sure it's not buried, or bolted into a tree, that sort of thing As your reviewer says, the more information you give the easier and faster the review process will be. Reviewers typically work with hundreds - or more - of cachers each month so they may not always recall all the details about an individual's ability to consistently follow the guidelines. Providing the three bits of information above each time should make your review smooth. It shouldn't add more than a minute or two to the submission process. I don't see anything on your cache page asking if you are going to check on the cache weekly. I do see the reviewer asking if you are able to make occasional (not weekly) visits to the cache for maintenance. This was driven though by a previous cache you had at this location where the cache was archived for non-maintenance issues. Really, those questions never used to be asked. Not unless the reviewer had reason to believe that you had violated some of those conditions in the past. Our innocence was assumed, just as it is with the two checkboxes at the end of the submission form. While I understand, I guess... the need for such questions, they were not asked in the "old days", and I can understand the OP's frustrations, especially if his behavior in the past has been shown to be trustworthy. Unfortunately, (and this is said more to the OP than anything else) we won't be going back to those innocent times. (also to the OP: The railroad rules are based upon trespass laws, not safety.)

I don't think we should eliminate an interesting artifact of prior geocaching practice because some people act inappropriately. I commend the CO on keeping this going (especially given the historical theme) and I'm glad I had a chance to log it today. And to that commendation, I would add several reviewers that have had to deal with things such as being re-hidden in places where geocaching isn't allowed. It must be tough for them to keep an eye on these things as they move around!

You absolutely found the (wrecked) cache. Missing log? Replace the log, sign & you're set. +1....we've done a bunch. +2...same here. +3... actually, most of my finds were like that. j/k, of course

Good grief!! Trying to read the log history on that cache is a nightmare! Kudos to the cache owner for the effort to keep it going. You did right. If they want it back in PA, then can come to NJ and take it. Thanks for helping it along on its goal.