4wheelin_fool

If the area is open to the public and does not have a geocache policy, then permission is considered adequate. However it sounds like the levee patrol may not want the cache there, indicating a geocache policy, so your instincts may be correct.

What about a micro with a full log? If you can't cram any paper in there, why not replace the log and then mail the old log to the CO if he/she wants it? Worst case scenario, I am out 49 cents. Replacing a log is fine if the old one is wet or falling apart. I don't think not many would want it mailed to them, but uploading a picture would work, or letting it dry out for 15 minutes. Leaving a wet log in a container and adding a new one is asinine, as the new one will get wet also. Some people find caches in the rain which causes that. However if it's a container failure, then a new log won't last either. Not my problem. That's the CO's problem...as has been stated by just about everyone else in this thread. Putting in a scrap of paper or additional log is a stop-gap to give others a chance to sign before the owner can do his or her maintenance. It doesn't remove the log - the property of the CO. It's more than is required, but less objectionable than physically removing the log that may have been there for years. It honestly doesn't matter whether the CO cares to have the log or not, it's not my place to take that decision away from them. If the container is too small for adding in additional paper, I either do my best to sign the wet or full log...or take a photo. I'm not enough of a purist to call it a DNF if there's no possible way to get my signature into the cache. It may be the responsibility of the CO, but a problem for just about everyone who finds it. A photo uploaded of the existing logs is preserving the only value that is there and the sensible thing to do. I understand there are those that get annoyed when they find a wet log, and want the CO to feel their pain, but that's not helping the next person who finds it. If it's a defective container then I won't bother.

What about a micro with a full log? If you can't cram any paper in there, why not replace the log and then mail the old log to the CO if he/she wants it? Worst case scenario, I am out 49 cents. Replacing a log is fine if the old one is wet or falling apart. I don't think not many would want it mailed to them, but uploading a picture would work, or letting it dry out for 15 minutes. Leaving a wet log in a container and adding a new one is asinine, as the new one will get wet also. Some people find caches in the rain which causes that. However if it's a container failure, then a new log won't last either.

They must be old, as newer NM notes appear to trigger archival. Doing this with a simple note could be considered a form of passive aggressive bullying. Someone sees that and they may likely be discouraged from posting NM, or even a DNF. It's rather odd that he does more maintenance on other caches than his own.

Maybe. But IMHO the OP invited some grief by asking only those who agreed with his position to contribute to the thread. I carry spare logs printed on weatherproof paper, and I've left them in caches that have had full or unsignable logs. I also carry duct tape and spare O-rings and other repair supplies. But I consider field repairs a favor to the cache owner, not a mission, and not an obligation for finders, or part of a "replace logs club". And I try to avoid prolonging the life of abandoned caches that really should be archived. Ultimately, It Is the Responsibility of Cache Owners To Maintain Their Caches™. And I don't consider NM logs "clutter". And I don't remove the existing log when I add one of mine to the cache. And I've come to the conclusion that putting the log in a plastic bag doesn't really help keep it dry in the long term (although it can make it easier to find the log amongst a pile of trade items in a larger well-stocked cache). But then again, the OP wanted only positive friendly answers agreeing with his position. Well, I thought the OP was reasonable and that replacing logs when possible is a good thing. I do it. Until I noticed that he archives caches if they get a Needs Maintenance request. Others are abandoned for the reviewer to deal with. Community maintenance is a great thing and encourages responsibility among finders, up until it's expected. Once the community starts expecting that their hides should be maintained by others, then there are problems. This attitude leads to people not posting Needs Maintenance notes, but not doing any maintenance either because the area becomes a large inventory of geocaches in lousy condition due to lousy containers. Every finder is then tasked to do maintenance, or to carry scraps of paper to scratch their name onto. Soon after the game turns into people making treks to piles of garbage and logging finds based on the confirmation that it used to be a geocache. Logs will indicate piles of wet pulp for several years, but any NM and NA loggers will be scorned at for being cache cops. It doesn't sound like too much fun to me.

I think you all are being a bit rough on the OP. Replacing wet logs is a good thing if you can photograph the old log. Often the log is wet from geocachers finding it in the rain, not from a container failure, as wet logs don't dry out in a sealed container.

Of course its entirely possible that they deleted the log even before you started this thread.

Took me a bit to get what you were talking about. I believe the discussion here has to do with cache sizes, not fruit. What about the odd nut? The related thread is here. Although I must warn about eating more than one nano at a time, as they can find themselves in different parts of the intestine and be magnetically attracted to each other, causing them to get stuck, which can be fatal. http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20041026/swallowed-magnets-are-dangerous

It was actually after the death of Dipsy the Teletubby during the 3rd degree initiation ceremony of the Illuminati, that he awoke 3 days later in the sarcophagus of the great pyramid and arose as Signal the frog, according to the aluminum hat society.

I have a series of 25 paddle tos which started receiving finds last January. The finder walked on ice and even managed to fall in the freezing water. It's entirely possible that yours might be accessible without a boat, or they logged the wrong one of course.

But that was my point- they did indeed get extra help from the CO. They had the coords wrong (just as I had) but asked the CO if they were right, and got additional info on it (which coord was wrong and that they were off by one digit.) Thank you all for the input. I will personally play the way that I think is "right" (advice that I've read on a lot of the other threads) and be aware that others think the "right" way is different from mine. And wmpastor and 4wheelin_fool, thanks for the encouragement! I wasn't trying to be rude and was worrying they had interpreted it that way. Better luck next time, I guess! You were so close but blew it! It's funny, but remember you never can know if you are FTF until you look at the log.

Calling the CO to confirm coords certainly isn't cheating, and joking around like you did isn't taunting either, so I wouldn't worry about it.

I think that the result will be that most will end up listing micros as small, and eventually ammo cans will be large, and from what I've seen this already appears to be the trend. I don't really think a new size is necessary but just those who want the search to be easier knowing that it's magnetic.

There's plenty of D/T flaws and abuse as it is, without some imaginary difficulty for events. Paddling a kayak 50 feet to an island is a terrain of 5, but rappelling 50 feet off a cliff is a 5 also. Neither are equal, but they both have the 5 rating. Same as if you had to free climb up a rock face 500 feet after paddling 10 miles and hiking a few more. Yep, that's a 5 also. Usually the difficulty gets bumped in these cases, but only to compensate for the lack of adequate ratings. Then there are the power trails of challenges which are only 1/1.5s, but listed as 4/4s and so on. It's just a convenient way to pad stats for appearing to do something that you didn't. Now with varying difficulty ratings for events, I don't know how anyone can take the D/T ratings seriously. it's not fantasyland, but just an outdoor activity.

I'd go a step further. I'd stop including attended logs in ones find count. Then maybe events could go back to an opportunity to socialize with other geocachers rather than excuse to pad ones numbers with temporary caches, create unique D/T combinations for challenge, or result in pages of forum discussions about how to rate an event. Completely agree.

I do not fully agree, but in any case that still leaves the question how to choose the T-rating and you will note that I posed my question carefully to ask about both ratings. So would you base the terrain rating on the ice skating or on reaching the skating area? The terrain should reflect the difficulty of attending the event, so reaching the skating rink should be a 1 if there is a ramp for wheelchairs. However you do have a point if there is a key activity present, so it would be nice to have 2 terrain ratings, and completely eliminate the difficulty. There is no need to perpetually pigeonhole events as geocaches.

It's completely whimsical to have difficulty ratings for events. If the key activity is ice skating, that's a terrain issue, not a difficulty one. I'd prefer if difficulty ratings be completely removed, as this conversation only illustrates how many D/T ratings are fantastically imaginative. At one time events had 'found' logs rather than 'attended', and they should have removed the difficulty rating as well.

The best way is to go by the satellite picture of the location, as the phone GPS may be off. Wander within 30 feet and that should do it.

You are correct and understanding it correctly. It is the preferred way of inviting someone to a spot with a proximity conflict.

The hamsters need to be whipped into submission until they can perform that useful task.

Has there been a website that tries to add value to geocaching.com instead of competing with it? These threads lamenting the lose of the old ways always seem to lead to an admission that good caches are still possible, many exist, and many more would exist, except that no one can find them among all the power trails and LPCs and other micros. Creating a competing site wouldn't work, but could a cooperating site fill in the missing pieces? Waymarking stats should have been included on the GC profile long ago, and it seems odd that they never did it. That would have boosted its popularity tremendously. A cooperating site would work well. A site simply listing a profile of stats from all of the sites would be popular.

I'm not sure how that would have benefitted geocaching. Unless you actually just mean Groundspeak. Actually, good that you raised that game... yeah I was part of the initial crowd when it was 'spinning off' as it were from geocaching, and we were bringing in what was learned from geocaching to apply to this game which was much more mobile and instant than signing logbooks (even using cache containers to house qr codes, before lamination and treelitter was the norm). Since that point though, it's definitely become something 'new' to the 'old' as what have now in geocaching. Instead of complaining, I just lost interest and stopped playing that game long ago in favour of gc. I actually think gc may have been worse off if it had adopted that qr mentality. That game was born because of the different style of play and new technology that made it possible. Allowing it to be a different game I think saved geocaching (ymmv, obviously) as the hobby that it is. Otherwise it would have invited the very mentality that many dislike in this game. That game could have been better, but they focused on competition and points. And try as many do to imply that geocaching is now about that - really, no, it's not. Statistics are just statistics. There is no promotion of or emphasis on competition that isn't made by individuals and the community itself. In that game, competition is encouraged. Leave that to their game. And let geocaching be what it is - searching out hidden containers in the outdoors with gps (website logging isn't even a necessity). It's a game which is also different in ways than when it began. But it could have been something completely different than what it is, had they fully adopted and promoted the 'new' mentality. That mentality is occurring here anyhow. It's rampant without any encouraging. Perhaps we could curse it everytime it happens, or accept it. If Groundspeak listed QR codes on powertrails instead of micros, then the two states could exist in harmony. Geocaching is billed as a high tech treasure hunt, and it was when I started in 2001. Today, it's not really as high tech as it was. The QR codes are a step ahead, and with location verification, there can not be any leapfrogging or "cheating". The other caches would be recognized as different, and treated different.

There are quite a few other competing geocaching sites which have popped up since this one began, but none have been popular to any extent. The only activity which seems to have siphoned off users is the scanning of QR codes, especially since there are at least two threads lamenting the drop in new hides. Perhaps many people play both games, but since a certain of amount of their time is now split, the resulting drop is noticeable. What does this have to do with this topic of old vs new? Well, over time the direction of the game went from finding hidden containers in the woods with objects in them, as well as logbooks, to logging micros in parking lots for points. The activity of scanning QR codes now more closely resembles the morphed new version of geocaching than the original one and the evolution of the game has reached a point that something completely different has taken away a large chunk of its user's time. I recently noticed the parking lot of a nearby mega event had been packed with QR codes, seemingly in anticipation for the geocaching crowd. Signing a logsheet and writing TFTC online is comparatively like a dinosaur version of the other game. I can't help but wonder if Groundspeak would have benefitted by offering the other game alongside of this one, and substituting the QR codes for LPCs somehow.

Not too certain how much the reviewers are actually reviewing event D/T. Checking a few locally, here is a mega event listed at 1.5/1.5 http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC56TP7_metrogathering I'm pretty certain that people in wheelchairs were able to attend, but don't have any idea why the listing would exclude them. I'm sure that it wasn't intentional, but someone with limited mobility might believe it. It's one thing to stand out in a crowd by being in a chair, but to have the D/T exclude them for no apparent reason might annoy someone. It was in a grassy field near parking. I recall a gully, but there was a bridge or another way around. Don't understand the difficulty of 1.5 either. It seems to be a case of doing something just because. Or perhaps someone wants to keep their stats up. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5G24G_styling-beer A 2/2 at a sports bar. Don't see any ramp entrance, but a wheelchair might make it over the one step, and Im sure someone would help them in. Even so it should be a 1/1.5 at the most. In fact there are quite a few listed in other states as 1.5/1.5 that are wheelchair accessible with handicap parking. I don't have any idea what the 1.5 difficulty is all about either. Perhaps some have an obsessive compulsive desire to have matching numbers? But why seemingly exclude those in a wheelchair?

I live in NJ and had one just published at noon on a Friday. The FTF was visiting from Michigan and found it the next day. The key is to not care if you are first, but to just enjoy the hunt when it's fresh. At that point FTF will come eventually and just be a bonus.