AnnaMoritz

Yes there's a big rush for the remaining 2+ weeks. At the moment it looks like 2067 new virtuals are already published, but that can change any minute.

No. After adopting out no trace of the original Owner is left, everything falls to the new owner, good and bad. So if you can't guarantee you are able to do maintenance for a longer time for example because of a serious illness and adopt out your caches, no trace is left. If you collect the boxes while you are still able to do so and archive them, some here want to see you punished for archiving them. I personally am strictly against the idea of forced adoption against the will of the original owner. If a geocache needs to be archived, archive it. The next geocacher can come up with a new geocache. And I don't like the idea to consider all (also archived) geocaches of an owner, also because the first thing clever wannabe-reward-aspirants would do is to adopt out their unloved/low CHS geocaches to stay eligible as quite a few archived their unloved geocaches after learning (too late for this batch of Reward virtuals) that the overall favorite percentage ratio was the key. You should be able (also without being 'punished') to adopt the (not so outstanding or low-CHS) geocaches of a good buddy who asks you to adopt and keep his geocache-babies living because they themselves have serious health problems or other reasons for not being able to care fot the geocaches. Yes, you would have been able to make it with two 'own' geocaches that had low percentage of favorite points and one not long ago high-favorited adopted geocache (even if it was what I consider hostile take-over e.g. threaten the original owner with-not-necessary-at-all-NA and assailing the owner with "adopt it out to me or the cache is going to archive" mails at a moment the original owner wasn't able to look after the cache.

Yes, why not an owner with 'only' a few hides? There was an explanation also here in the forums what the algorithm did to rate "quality over quantity". Three then active geocaches could have had an average favorite point ratio above the threshold for this country. If this account isn't the player account of a volunteer anyway. It seems easier for owners with a small/moderate number of owned active geocaches to get a high average percentage of favorite points. In my country about 50 active geocaches seems to be the most for a Virtual Reward so far, not a few are for owners with 3-5 active geocaches.

existing tools like DNF, NM, NA, by the way ... A cache, disabled by a (now former) reviewer after months of no reaction to DNFs and NM. Months later cachers that use to find #1 to #last of series, also the ones that are not there (commenting: we replaced the ones missing as the owner is no longer active - even for an already archived cache). Then enable by the new reviewer, who disabled other caches of the same no longer active owner the very next day, these caches are now archived, as the owner is no longer active. What to learn from this? It seems not only the numbers crowd can see win-win in "why bother with existing tools like DNF and NM, NA if you can have a find?" If a cache has a number in title it seems OK to place throwdowns if the owner is not active or invites finders to place new containers? These caches are to stay because they can be found and survive also without owner's participation and the annoying DNFs are stopped? Is that what the CHS is for, focusing on owner maintenance? Then please also don't archive other ones that are not part of a trail and that have been maintained by community for a long time or where the owner doesn't respond to inappropriate NA (maybe already deleted because the logger saw the mistake) and the following reviewer note if the cache itself is in perfect condition etc.

According to https://praha.idnes.cz/keskar-mrtvy-muz-vltava-policie-daq-/praha-zpravy.aspx?c=A180615_134953_praha-zpravy_nuc also the missing man is dead and was found in the river on Friday.

I don't know, but I don't think that challenge checkers are served by live-API. Why else would there be a 24-48 hour timespan have to be announced between logging on gc.com and the logs showing up in project-gc if logs (or extraced information like log typ and log date) were retrieved by life-API when you push a challenge checker button?

I used to think that (new) challenges may only be based on logs (more specifically on log type/date) and cache data (country, D, T, cache type, cache size, attributes, hidden date, number or favorite points etc.) and nothing else (with some exceptions - informations that are not included in geocache listings but derived from coordinates in listing like county and elevation). "You can opt out of having your public profile information shared with other users in our API Authorized Developers websites and applications by opting out in the Preferences tab of your Account Settings. Please note that even if you opt-out, your logs (including log photos) for geocaches and trackables will continue to be viewable in the context of the log history for a particular geocache or trackable. If you wish to stop sharing these logs, you must delete them from your account." Doesn't the challenge checker system collect geocache listings - or at least the informations possibly necessary for challenge caches - like country, D, T, cache type, cache size, attributes, hidden date, number or favorite points etc. - and of the logs associated to the listings at least the log type, that is 'found it' or 'attended' and the date for challenge checker purposes into a database? And then is building the find list from that data, without any need for looking at 'pubilc profile information' or elsewhere? If you could opt out of that system too you should also not be allowed to log challenge caches as finds if the owner can't verify easily (or not at all for more complicated tasks) whether you qualify for the challenge. You can't hide everthing and claim whatever you want at the same time. On the other side it might become difficult to prove (if a reviewer asks for it) that the required number of local cachers fulfil the challenge already before publish, if too many opt out of the system. And I agree, without means to verify whether the requirements are met then having challenge caches at all is merely obsolete.

I also ended on a prime number with find count a prime number and both also prime numbers when read from right to left. If you don't find any other reason to stop ... Good luck. After 123 days of Unknowns I had enough (and plenty of solved puzzles left) and continued the streak with Tradi/Multi/Unknown/Wherigo/LBH. Later a Multi streak in between very soon was no fun any more at all during workdays, although I like multi-caches very much, so I did only 31 days and then again Tradi/Multi/Unknown/Wherigo/LBH, whatever came in handy.

If you didn't start with a goal it might be difficult to find an easy end if there are no other reasons to stop like no more caches where you are (going), not being able to get outside on one day etc. Your find rate seems low enough to go on for a long time if nothing unexpected happens. If you don't feel like stopping during your business trip, make extended plans, get up earlier, maybe use public transport or a rental car or bike, hold an event (if you count containerless geocaches for your streak) or hope for new cache submissions and set up notifications for them. If you know someone there or a local group, maybe someone is willing to help a long-time streaker and place one or more caches. And maybe find a reason to stop later, for example at a number of days that has a pattern like 2345, 2468, 2500, is prime, is prime also when read from the other side - or at any number or date that means something to you. You might regret it, so think twice about deliberately ending the streak, it isn't a relief for all people after stopping.

I really can understand all the owners who don't use their Reward Virtual seeing all the ugly allegations and insults. Not every hider has a skin thick enough for this. A pity and lot of wasted opportunites. Just looked for the already archived Reward Virtuals, whether they were 'recklessly' archived Reasons for archiving by owner: 'Geocachers caused troubles' 'Cheaters kill geocaching' archived because geocache was too often logged without bothering to fulfil the requirements 'Second thought about safety' a japanese one without visible explanation Reasons for archiving by reviewer: T5 tree climbing archived after 4 weeks as 'no longer guideline-compliant' by same reviewer who published it.

If the owner(s) aren't volunteers, maybe they simply met the criteria listed in the blog for non-volunteers? "Cache quality means many things to a hider, a finder, and the community. For this promotion, the algorithm included many factors but it heavily favored cache quality over quantity. Among these factors were percentage of Favorite points on active caches (not the total number of Favorite points) and current geocache Health Score." There were many examples for Virtual Reward where the owner had 'only' three active geocaches (of at least a certain age) at the point of time when Virtual Reward candidates were chosen, but with enough percentage of Favorite points for their corresponding country or whatever applied. Whether the owner was finding many caches or hosting/attending events at all or owns a big number of geocaches was no criteria.

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it seems that the CHS algorithm doesn't allow anything else than "performed maintenance" to compensate for DNF. Found it after DNF doesn't seem to count. No "performed maintenance" -> DNFs are accumulating until the threshold (whatever D/T and the other things listed in the explanation might weigh) is reached and an email is sent. So ALWAYS log "performed maintenance" if the cache isn't missing and not needing maintenance or if you bring in a new container for a missing one. Enable isn't enough. Sometimes you see this pattern (I would suspect mainly in Europe): A "Found it" and immediatly afterwards one, two, three or even more DNFs from the same user with the same success message for the same day, for example "Found it easily". I would think that the user isn't aware at all that also the DNFs are sent. There is a certain app (only older version, long corrected in newer versions) that tried to submit a "found it" several times if there was no reception/connection or no feedback. When Groundspeak allowed only one found it, all subsequent tries after a successful submit whithout feedback became "DNF". I wonder whether as owner it helps for your CHS if you immediately delete these and other "false" DNFs after receiving them or not. I personally can't see an outstanding help of the CHS around here for providing better cache experience for caches like (completely randomly chosen from a very long bookmarklist of caches potentially in trouble, not in my direct homezone, so not of my business to post NM there, just as arbitrary examples) https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3V686_drei-bruder-kapelle?guid=11a52bc9-7217-4f7d-bd5a-9b511ffb137a (DNFs for one year, logpermission by owner) https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5AWC4_4-st-andra-rundtour-kreuzungsmarterl?guid=e1619d87-cbf4-4627-8694-b3c6ef4d254a (DNFs, last "finder" found a container without lid and without logbook, put a logstrip into it) or cases that the CHS seeks to identify and that seem to confirm the assumption that after a lot of DNFs subsequent "Found it" are either DNF=found it, throwdown=found it or logpermission=found it https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6CF9V_the-christophorus-stone?guid=1052346e-41c1-4365-99f0-907d1ac29e7a or caches that are disabled because of wet or full logbooks for an extended period of time and have many many finds after disable nevertheless. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5PXJW_12-ranshofner-runde?guid=eb2c7e5a-59b7-4252-944f-1298b2b5b01f Or throwdowns on disabled caches like this one where the owner might have overlooked that action is necessary and someone "spent" a throwdown: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4X119_052-tour-de-mur?guid=8ab51a4b-9c5c-4f84-b7a6-09a4e072eec7 On the other hand there are examples that look the same for an algorithm, but a human reader might tend to think that the original cache likely is still there. I would think the average owner can't see at all that some intervention might be necessary. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5BBVB_arriach-symbol?guid=ad5ace0e-cef8-4176-8825-e8ee1c5ccb8a Around here are more likely to hear anectotal comments about unwanted side-effects of the CHS (or reviewer raids) on caches without DNFs that are long unfound or even without FTF, but not because there is anything wrong with the cache, but simply because no one is trying to get there. Or that there seems no action on caches that have NMs on NAs on it. In alpine areas without many cachers that easily happens also in Cental Europe. Also a one hour drive away fom where many cachers live this happens, if not other caches are there and a longer hike is involved for findling a single cache. Find-rates seem to be at least 5-10 times lower than for similar geocaches of similar D/T in smaller or larger series in a neigboring valley/mountain where 15 caches can be found in the same time. Remote can also be less than 1 mi besides a road on the map, but hours of hiking/climbing, maybe in an area where in some years the weather doesn't allow a visit. Can't delete the pic. Red are the active caches. The areas where people live in Austria are shown in dark green, areas for industry, traffic etc. and arable land in light green. White are forest areas and alpine areas above the tree line. The white areas are very interesting for hiking and geocaching, but almost nobody lives there, no geocache owner can run out and fix any problems within 10 minutes from home. If you require (exaggerated) that all caches have to be within 10 minutes of owners reach a great number of geocaches has to disappear and among them the most scenic ones. If you require quick action for urban geocaches where 5-15 geocachers per day try finding the geocache to me is a completely different thing than requiring the same for geocaches in remote alpine regions with 10 finds in 12 years.

Maybe because some want every cache that isn't maintained by the owner of the cache to be archived. If it was a finder that brought a new logbook/logsheet or replaced a broken container and cleaned up the mess. Here someone brought a poly bag and a paper when the logbook got lost. Next finder said "Bingo, there was the pretty container. It is really ok. No need to deactivate. "

If you don't habe plenty qualifying caches you can easily no longer qualify for certain challenges due to changes after you found a cache D T size cache type (with help of reviewer) coordinates moved (resulting in another degree for 360° challenges, another county/state, different elevation) hidden date country/state (there was a sweep done once for caches with "wrong" states when state field was filled for all caches) counties are merged or divided or with new boundaries cache gets retracted cache names get altered attributes change .. For Jasmer you quickly no longer qualify if you don't have found a cache placed in current month To me "the challenge cache may be logged as found online only after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented" is somewhat vague, in combination with "the owner can confirm the finder's qualification with the checker when the cache is logged as found. No further documentation is required from the finder." to me it suggests the qualification must be met (having signed the logbook) AT the time of logging a find online. Otherwise the challenge owner can't confirm whether the challenge criteria is met. Also if someone logs a find months/years later it is difficult to prove the challenge criteria was met back then, challenge checkers can only show what is now.

There are two places to look: Account Settings - Email Preferences - Message Center https://www.geocaching.com/account/settings/emailpreferences choose "Send me a notification every time I receive a message" In the Message Center you find an icon to the right of "New Message" There you can choose "Forward messages to e-mail" Try which one gives you the wanted outcome.

Why restrict the content of gpx? Basic Members are already treated different by not being able to use the new search in a useful manner, the don't have PQs, don't see listings of PMO geocaches, can't give favorite points, can't use instant notifications, lists and so on. That seems far more than enough difference to me. A gpx that contains all waypoints might seem irrelevant to geocachers in traditional-only areas, but for multi-caches with many waypoints it makes a difference and every geocacher that is interested in multi-caches should be welcomed. But even recommended parking coordinates should be available to all geocachers if only to avoid bad impression or worse. And every geocacher that finds the way to the website should be rewarded. At least here you won't see the really cool/interesting/wow/high-favorited geocaches if you only can see non-PMO 1.5/1.5 traditionals in the official app. In my opinion restricting what is shown to Basic Members in the app to low DT and traditional geocaches didn't improve the overall outcome. Too many leave after one or a few geocaches before seeing what geocaching could also be. The number of new geocachers that stay is going down significantly.

Yes, and in this case the logger of the "deleted" picture gets a mail with a link to the "deleted" picture and can save the picture if necessary.

If the Owner deletes the log, the link to the picture also get's lost, or did I miss something? The picture isn't deleted, but how can you now find the address of the picture that was in the log if you didn't save it before the log got deleted? To me it seems that the owner and the logger of the deleted log now (only) can still read the text of the deleted log. The link to the deleted log is in the email that tells the logger about log deletion.

For wet and messy logs I have pens (a uni ball power tank and a permanent marker) that also write on wet paper, sometimes I press a dry paper on the mess before I write. In difficult cases I build my initials with rows of single points if normal writing would tear the paper. For wet rite in the rain paper a soft, for example 2B pencil works best for me. Never had to use it, but I also have a safety pin to punch my name on the log if nothing else works. I found myself less than 5 times out of over 4000 without a working pen. Then I used green leaves or charcoal from a nearby campfire or a branch or a small brick to write. Never underestimate what others can identify and detect on a picture and can use it for finding the cache or for skipping the riddle or walk. There a many stories about such cases. Nice for you if you manage to find for an unsolvable riddle or skip a 30 mi hike because of a spoiler photo, but not nice for the owner. Now it is possible to send a photo only to the cache owner via message center and askifor log permission if you don't have a pen. There you can send also a photo that includes the spot where you found the cache and no one else sees the spoiler. I would think that for example every full nano log looks the same, also every black nano looks the same, so a photo of them on the cache page might give away a hint for others while not proving it is this very cache.

There was no 2 miles rule in the beginning. There weren't even final waypoints in geocache listings in the beginning, Final waypoints were introduced in 2006. Most? owners then added the waypoints for their existing geocaches. Groundspeak obviously isn't interested any more in what was available/valid before (years ago). Be it greater distance between header of unknowns and finals, moving caches, event series with only listing and multiple logs etc. It doesn't matter what affected hiders/geocachers want or think is reasonable or technically possible. Adapt to the new times or let it go. At least this seems to be the slogan. Whether it will help geocaching as a whole or not.

That doesn't matter whether one was granted an exception or has a cache before the 2 miles rule. One might suspect that streamlining is far more important to Groundspeak than former grandfathered geocaches. Maybe you want to read the now locked thread where Living in Narnia (Geocaching HQ Staff) posted: "The 2 mile rule has been part of our guidelines for some time, and we are enforcing the rule (along with others) as part of the changes to the edit page. ... I would recommend changing your posted coordinates so that your cache aligns with the guidelines for mystery caches outlined here: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=277" Which leads to the guidelines for Mystery Caches: "The posted coordinates of a Mystery Cache may be any one of these: Bogus coordinates Parking or trail head coordinates The first stage The final stage If the posted coordinates are not for the final stage, the final coordinates must be added as an additional waypoint. The final stage cannot be more than 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) from the posted coordinates. This allows the cache to show up in nearby searches."

As you mentioned it is about older caches that can't be edited any more, you not only may need, you will need help of a volunteer reviewer to move the header into the 2 miles radius. Write an email, for example to your local reviewer, include gccode and the new coordinates and ask for a coordinate update. Don't expect exceptions for your cache that is from a time when there was no 2 miles restriction or from a time when a reviewer could allow more than 2 miles if there were reasons - there won't be any. What was allowed before doesn't matter now.

I don't expect to see global stats about archivals, for various reasons. How could we get an idea of hide/archive rates and owner/reviewer archival ratios at least for a well known region/country/state? You might want to identify also (all or at least most of) the already archived geocaches for the given region/country, for example via dedicated bookmark lists. Placed date is given in geocache listings. For most archived geocaches (in Austria >99%) there is an archive log, for the rest only owners/watchers/Groundspeak know who archived them. Knowing the reviewer history of a region that has/had very few reviewers (for Austria erik88l-r for the first years, 2 now active and 2 no longer active reviewers) lets guessing whether a geocache was archived by a (then) reviewer seem reasonably reliable. You would probably miss a few vacation replacement archivals by other reviewers. Reviewers also archive own geocaches, but sometimes after NA. Events are gone anyway after the event date, to me it doesn't seem important who archives them. Hide and archive rates might vary considerably between regions/countries, also the arichval ratio owner/reviewer might vary considerably between regions/countries. Here a short overview for Austria: Until now in each year more geocaches were hidden than archived in Austria, but net growth is getting considerably smaller. 24% of all archivals (non-event geocaches) in Austria 2012-2017 were done by reviewers/HQ. Since January 1, 2017 0.0-6.8% of all geocaches in Austria of any given placement year were archived by owners, 0.0-2.1% by a reviewer. Remaining geocaches from early placement years (2001-2004) in Austria tend to have considerably lower archive rates recently than 1-5 year old geocaches. More than 50% (51.6-58.9%) of geocaches placed in the years 2001 to 2005 in Austria are still active less than 50% (43.9-49.1%) of geocaches placed in the years 2006 to 2011 in Austria are still active Rates go up again for still active geocaches in Austria from 52.2% for geocaches placed in 2012 to 86.8% for geocaches placed 2016 and >96% for geocaches placed 2017.

I noticed that calling it LTF is relative. If 5 other geocachers found the cache on that days after me I don't want to be called LTF. Online logs are not necessarily in the order of actual finds on the day. And there are geocachers that log geocaches they visited days ago with the date they write their logs. Look at attended dates, not too few log events on other days that the actual event date, some do it even on purpose, for challenges Sometimes nothing happens for a year and then two visit a cache on the same day. Neither order of online logs nor order in logbook (people writing their names before the previous entry or randomly on any first possible spot when opening the log) give the 'true' loneliness-breaker in all cases. But this script is a good tool to see whether there are caches that went unfound after your visit. The reasons for for going unfound might vary and hopefully are not connected to your visit there - like a non geocacher watching you and later taking away the geocache.