justintim1999

No matter how you look at it it's 10%. I don't know when you started but 10% of 100,000 caches is a far cry from 10% of 6 million.

the only other thing I can think of is durability. I'd rather drop my $200.00 gps in the stream than my smart phone.

Adding to this I've been in a position of being all out of favorite points so I'll let the cache owner know I intend on awarding a favorite point as soon as ones available.

Good point. I did exactly this when I hid my first cache and realized that my Garmin Nuvi wasn't quite accurate enough. After using it to hid that cache I fell in love with it and had to get one. I'm sure the accuracy of smart phones have come a long way but I'm not convinced that they are better than a stand alone.

I'd guess false positive? Let's scrap the whole project. Are you still having this same problem?

Because multiple DNF can indicate that a cache is missing! I'm not even sure DNF's have a major impact on the CHS. They are taken into consideration and I believe they should be. I don't either but not everyone is as attune to our caches as we may be and that's what this is all about. We being experienced cache owners should be able to see past a few false positives to the real reason why a system like this is beneficial. And since you started the number of caches out in the world has increased what? 1000 fold. Your 1 in 10 is now 100 out of 1000.

I've always Geocached with a stand alone unit. To be honest I don't even own a smart phone (yes I'm that guy) so I couldn't compare caching between the two. I own a Garmin Oregon 450 which I paid $200.00 for years ago. I can tell you that it's rolled down a few hills and been dropped many times. It's still as reliable as the day I purchased it.

Only if the CO believes there is an issue. That's it. Just take a look and decide if action should be taken. If that was the case the e-mail wouldn't exist. The CHS would be disabling caches as it sees fit which we all know it can't do. That's why the e-mail exists because the cache owner knows the various aspects of the cache better than anyone and can determine if those DNF's really mean anything. The e-mail is just asking you to take a look. I don't think so. I think the system is pushing better cache maintenance. No one can guarantee a find but we can increase the probability that if a cache is found it's in reasonable shape.

Because multiple ones can indicate a problem. I agree that DNF's are in a grey area. They could mean absolutely nothing or they could mean that the cache is missing. What's clear is that multiple DNF's should be prompting the cache owner to take a look and take appropriate action. Multiple DNF's have always indicated a possible problem. This is nothing new. All the e-mail is asking is you take a look at it.

And rightfully so. If we define a DNF as reaching GZ and searching than three or four of these could mean the cache is indeed missing. I think receiving the e-mail in this situation says "There could be something wrong here. What do you think?" The e-mail is designed to elicit a response. Something that indicates your still active.

Then how can the CHS interpret a DNF from a cacher who never even reached GZ? I think the CHS takes that DNF at face value and assumes (rightfully so) that a search was preformed without finding the cache. Because of this DNF the cache has a lower health score than it should have which in turn makes it more vulnerable to be flagged. Same can be said for someone posting a found log and indicating in the log that the cache has an issue. Because a Needs Maintenance log should have been posted this cache has a higher health score than it probably should. In turn it will take longer for this cache to be flagged when there's evidence that it needs owner attention now. If there's no consistency in posting logs than it's garbage in garbage out.

I think the CHS was designed to work with how logs were intended to be used not how people have come to use them.

I would think most owners wouldn't post an OML every day or every week and I wouldn't encourage that. After looking at the OP's caches I noticed that they have one that's almost a year old without a single one. To be honest that cache has nothing but finds on it so there's really no need to post one other than fulfilling the guideline to "visit your cache occasionally" which isn't a bad thing to do either. In fact one of their caches received one dnf and they ran right out there to check up on it and post a note that all was well. Do I think that running out to check on a cache after every dnf is a bad thing? If they're willing and able to do it I think it's great. Do I expect them to. No, but I wouldn't tell them not to. IMO discouraging the use of OM:'s in any way is counter productive to what's trying to be accomplished here. If someone is predisposed to post one every day there's nothing you or I or anyone can say that will stop them from doing it. As usual something like that is extremely rare but it could happen so we better point out that negative in that right?

I'm having a problem with a bison tube. I have three other similar tubes out and for some reason this one seems to fail much more often than the others. I must have replaced the o-ring at least three times this year and it doesn't help. Problem is the container has to be a bison tube to work with the hide. A match stick container with a tube inside it would work well but I think the match stick container would be too big. Any ideas?

Isn't this intimating that you shouldn't post too many OML's even if you say it's ok later in the sentence? I don't understand why anyone would even hint that there's any reason why an owner shouldn't post an OML any time they want to as long as they've actually checked up on the cache. I agree there's many reasons why you don't have to but no reason why an owner shouldn't, except a bunch of OML's on the cache page which seems to upset some people and again I don't understand why. You can ignore me again if you like. I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm here to provide a different prospective on things and let others decide what makes sense to them.

No but wouldn't that be nice?

Why would you discourage anyone from posting as many OML's as they'd like to? If they enjoy the area and are into wanting to make sure their cache is always in good shape, why not let them? We're not talking about armchair OML's here. This cacher, after checking out a few of their hides, looks to be a good, conscientious owner. I say check up on your cache as much as you'd like to and post an OML every time you do If you want. It's not going to hurt anything and sets a good example. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say. "You know, this cache is too well maintained."

I'm a big fan of a container within a container (especially when I have to change out wet logs every other month) . What could I put inside a bison tube that would both fit the container and fit a log? Maybe a smaller bison tube?

Could you send me a few or tell me where I can get them. I've got a cache (bison tube) that's always having a water issue. If I could fit this inside a bison tube I think it would solve my problem.

Nice work. Now go get that permission and get that cache out.

Tension pins work well too. I've taken a dowel a size that fits into the cap. Cut it flush and glue it in. Drill a small hole in the dowel big enough to fit the tension pin. Glue it in and your good to go. You can find the dowels and tension pins at most big box stores.

These work great.

I'm going to pull on the tooth a littler harder now. I know your a responsible cache owner but why do you hide caches if you think the majority of finders out there are deadbeats? You don't need to answer that because even if you won't say it I know what the real answer is. How do I know? Because it's the same reason I do it. It's the same reason I think offering cache owners some sort of incentive to be good owners and put out fun caches is worth the risk of being somehow manipulated.

One last question. This one is easy. If you think that the majority of people out there are somehow cheating, why do you hide caches and, from what I can see, take care of them meticulously? Why go through all that work just so the majority of cachers can pad their stats?

It becomes necessary when one can't get a simple question answered. I guess the evasive nature of your responses is answer enough for me.