GeoBain

What I'm hearing is that you want other FTF hunters to adhere to your particular set of FTF rules, which is precisely why Groundspeak is all but silent on the subject. FTF is not official and they leave it up ti the participants to play it however they see fit.

Only if you care what they think. And if you care what they think, it is probably best to attend an event so you can discuss this with them personally. I can't speak for all geocaching communities, but around here we listen to each other.

If that is what you seek, then you should email them directly. You are unlikely to get a response from them on this subject in the forums. The answer is no, it is not against the guidelines to post a note in place of a find log. Some people post only notes. Some people don't log their finds at all. Your best bet is to talk to your local cachers about how they play the FTF side game. The forums are not really going to be of much help in this regard.

I don't recall ever talking politics at local events. But I know in the forums we seem to run the gamut from one extreme to the other with a big ball of us somewhere centrally located.

I'm not sure what your intention is with that "Note:", so I will just exit this discussion before any other misunderstandings occur on my part. I'll just quote Hanlon's Razor: "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."

Did you say that on purpose? Now the thread will tangent to slandering those that have physical disabilities Oh boy, here it comes! I'm a cripple and I take offense to that! /sarcasm I prefer gimpy. I am calling BS on this. I have been disabled all my life. For the last 10 years or so, I have been in a wheelchair. You cannot get much more lame than me. And I realize that lame in the context of a cache is not the same as degrading me or any other disabled person. Unless you are disabled yourself, leave the being offended about being called lame to those of us actually affected by it. You'll probably find us to be a bit less offended than you think. That pretty much sums up political correctness for me.

Helpful example of how it can be difficult for someone to appreciate the issue when he/she isn't directly affected by it. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but equating a poor geocaching experience with gay people is totally needless. As I've said, my concern is that it's something careless that contributes to an unwelcoming environment in the game. It's very easy to fix. And I agree with Dprovan, that since it could be interpreted by some in the manner as you and some others have, that it is probably not a bad idea to delete the log. However, the fact that it CAN be interpreted that way does not it was MEANT that way. And it also doesn't mean that those who point this fact out are homophobes. It just means that some of us realize the word can mean different things in different contexts. In the context of a geocache, it was probably mean as lame. But you'd have to ask the guy who wrote it if you want to be sure.

Some of us just happen to know that kids use the term to mean lame, with no added hidden meaning of a sexual nature. Kids have been doing that with language for many years. What is really disgusting is that someone would make generalized assumptions about an entire forum while at the same time she is seemingly denouncing the generalizing of people based on their sexual preferences. This seems a little hypocritical.

We are all adults who know darn well that this term, used this way, is an inexcusable slur against a specific group of people. It has no place in this game, and it is appalling to see the forum trying to defend this. You could not be more wrong. You may automatically assume it to be an inexcusable slur against homosexuals. When I read the OP, my first thought was "what is the big deal? The guy thiught his cache was lame. Why let it bother you so much?"

Vandalism?

I wouldn't have had a second thought about it, so I agree it's not a serious problem, but now that it's been brought up, it seems kinda lazy to refer to gc.com in an official communication such as a cache rejection. In this case, the message appears to have been hand written, so I can see not being too strict, but I hope reviewers don't typically use "GC.com" in their boilerplate messages. Keep in mind that even though these are official communications, reviewers are regular geocachers who happen to also review caches. They are not paid professionals who are trained to adhere to a specific format when communicating with the public. They are likely to use the same lingo as you and me.

* I apologize. I think I prefer to just lurk this topic out. (comment removed by me)

I don't know if I'd go that far. Perhaps the majority just isn't motivated to complain loudly about it. That doesn't mean they take no issue with it. But I do agree that it is a frivolous expenditure and one can choose to either play for free, pay to play, or just find something else to occupy their time with.

If you discovered the location, others will too. The same thing that caught your attention will catch the attention of someone else.

The black pipe in the ground is going to be a problem. But the faucet cache is doable if you zip tie it to one of the fence posts in such a way that it looks like it is a real pipe coming out of the ground but supported by the post. But if anyone bothered to check, they could confirm you have not driven the pipe into the ground.

Getting accounts suspended for T$C violation is definitely one way to go. It will help level the playing field for the FTF game. But it will probably result in less premium memberships, not more.

I that true? I know non PM members can log finds on PM only caches, but I didn't think it was possible for them to see the actual cache details (unless a PM shows them), or have I missed something? Nope, missed nothing. What is happening is a specific Member (not PM) is asking PM's for details on Prem caches. No problem if it is an occasional one off, however this local Member is constantly asking PM for access to Prem services, for free. A number of local CO's are placing controls in place to enable other cachers the opportunity to get the odd {FTF}, however the non paying member (not working due to wealth and more than able to front up the $30) seeks {FTF} while everybody else is at work - most local {FTF} are in this boat. If the Member paid for Prem Services rather than asking for the info free from less fortunate yet paid up PM, then there would be no grizzle. The original listing (removed due to the overly sensitive first post on this blog causing Reviewer interaction) was simply to congratulate all PM for making that choice, and ask them to NOT pass Prem details to the non paying member who wants Prem services for free. Not sure why the forum was created, where a simple message to me could have answered the question, outright. That is all 😀 Give me the guy's name in a private message. I'll gift him a premium membership. However, I think what's really bothering you is that he has more time on his hands and is able to scoop the FTFs since you have to work for a living. Purchasing a premium membership won't fix that. You are probably upset that making your caches PMO didn't slow him down. It may be to to retire so you can pursue the FTF game.

Because the guy who had the strongest drive and determination and vision decided to make a living from his talents. Like it or not, anybody could have organized this this and many have tried. But Jeremy saw the potential for profit from the outset. You may or may not like where he has taken geocaching. But he put in the hours. He put in the time. He put in the investment. He deserves to reap the benefits of his labor.

Flash forward two years .... "The automated algorithm that sends out maintenance reminders is too complicated for anyone to understand. Why can't we just rely on the judgment of human volunteers to look at cache listings and decide if intervention is needed?' Flash forward two more years ... "Human reviewers are too inconsistent in how they choose caches that need intervention. Why can't we have automated algorithms that make that decision more consistently?" Flash forward still two more years ... "The automated algorithm that sends out maintenance reminders is too complicated for anyone to understand. Why can't we just rely on the judgment of human volunteers to look at cache listings and decide if intervention is needed?' This is about the sum of it. The forum robots want everything to be a predictable algorithm until the algorithm does something they don't like. Then they want human judgment to supercede until the humans do something they don't like. Then they complain that they want to see the precise rules that led to a subjective decision. And heaven forbid someone agree with a subjective decision that the forum robots don't like. Your points are as valid as anybody else's and didn't need to use inflammatory phrasing ("Forum robots" - really?).

I don't have a lot of data to draw from, but here's my closest guess as to how the algorithm is coded: If last log = DNF OR if last log = Needs Maintenance; And if last found > 2 years (maybe less); And if no recent user maintenance; Then flag for maintenance. It does not seem that there is any weight given to the experience of the DNFer, the contents of the DNF log, or the potential difficulty or local conditions during the DNF. Of course, this would be much too difficult to program, and that's where the reviewer steps in. It seems that the reviewer is automatically alerted when the note is sent. Unfortunately the reviewer also did not seem to consider the inexperience of the DNFers in my case - it only mattered that there were DNFs. It turns out that the inexperience of the DNFers meant they were not able to find caches that I (relatively speaking, a much more experienced cacher), found with ease. However, as seen with a cache like GC2XY1B, even a single DNF from a very experienced cacher does not necessarily mean there is cause for concern. Especially when one of those DNFs made it clear that the finder was getting a lot of gps drift and it appeared they were more concerned with getting to the summit than wasting time looking for the cache.

I was wondering the same thing. But Roman! lives in Canada and Gerald Roman claims to be from Florida.

This just further reinforces the concerns voiced in the thread linked to by redsox.

Of course we all know that the visit doesn't need to happen within the 30 days. You've decided that we all believe this to be true while only one person actually stated that it was on the road to archival. I don't know why you keep bringing this up because it does not address the issue raised in the OP, which is why a cache is disabled due to a single DNF from a new cacher and a long time between finds. The CO sent a note off to the reviewer but apparently that wasn't enough to get things enabled, for whatever reason (which we do not know). The listed reasons provided are that it hasn't been found in a long time and has a DNF. I can think of quite a few caches that meet this criteria but they're not disabled. These have NEVER been found but have at least one DNF. https://coord.info/GC19Q3B https://coord.info/GC1GRY9 https://coord.info/GC2RE45 https://coord.info/GC3MJM7 https://coord.info/GC2GMJ4 https://coord.info/GC18N0Z These haven't been found in over 5 years and have been found previously but with a DNF as well. https://coord.info/GC13GW3 https://coord.info/GC52DB https://coord.info/GC27E93 https://coord.info/GC1VWZF https://coord.info/GC2GHDG https://coord.info/GC2ZFPN GC52DB has a note after the DNF showing that the cache is fine. Not the same situation as the OP. GC3MJM7 is a relatively low difficulty/low terrain cache which was DNF'd even with help from the CO. The CO should check on that one.

The issue raised by the OP is whether or not the cache should have been disabled. You've made it abundantly clear, without actually rebutting the opposing side's points of emphasis, that the reviewer is infallible in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, and made the correct choice. Many of us disagree and find that the reviewer could/should have opted for a different approach. There was a better way, in the case of this particular cache, to get the COs attention to at least ask for a maintenance plan, rather than the disabling of a cache without any obvious issues. I agree that something probably needed to be done, but you believe the disabling was fine while I and others feel something else might have been more appropriate and just as effective. I don't find that the reviewer is "infallible." I find that, to the extent that this situation can be compared with others, the reviewer's actions are well in line with what I am used to seeing. If the cache owner felt that the cache was disabled in error, the correct action would be to discuss it with the reviewer. While I don't believe the reviewer was out of line in disabling the cache based on the information at hand, I am also not convinced that the reviewer is an impenetrable force that can't be reasoned with. Which is why I bolded my actual statement that applies to this situation only. No one is infallible. In this situation, you believe the reviewer did the right thing and haven't wavered from that point. Hence, in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, infallible. I'm sure the OP has been busy and would be interested to see where this has headed, but perhaps he did contact the reviewer. In fact, he did, right here. I'm sure it wasn't fully fleshed out but it still didn't get the situation resolved until he visited the cache. I just don't think the reviewer is some sort of monolith that won't listen to reason. I don't think it's horrendously wrong that the reviewer disabled the cache under the circumstances, but if the cache owner had engaged in a reasonable discussion, made plans for maintenance, and had the cache reenabled in the meantime, I wouldn't think that was wrong either. The excessive emotional response to a cache being disabled continues to baffle me, but that's true of a lot that goes on here. I think in the case of at least one of the caches the reviewer was pretty clear that the cache must be visited before it would be allowed to be reenabled. The OP has just posted maintenance logs after visiting several of the caches. I found it interesting that the original owner apparently thought yearly visits were in order since he wrote this maintenance log in one of the log books about a year after publication.

That's the loggers' fault, not the fault of the CO. Without negative feedback (via logs or emails or messages), I assume that my cache is just fine and isn't in need of a visit from me. I schedule my own maintenance runs and do them perhaps once a year but if no one has any complaints, there's no reason for me to put my eyes on my cache just because. Why do you schedule these yearly maintenance runs?