Team Hugs

Of course, not everyone remembers to check the attributes. I'll confess, I came to a multi-cache and got stumped, only to go home and log my DNF and notice the attribute later.

As others have mentioned, there are guidelines that prohibit cache listings from being used for commercial endorsements. This gets a little tricky when events are held at commercial establishments. Some reviewers are stricter than others when it comes to interpreting that guideline when it comes to naming the event locale. On the other hand, some event organizers push the limit in the other direction and then overcompensate when they're shut down by a reviewer. I could see, for example, an event organizer submitting a description like "Event will be hosted at Joe's BBQ --- you have to try the brisket, it's fabulous", and having a reviewer complain about commercial endorsements, leading to the organizer overreacting and writing "Event will be hosted at posted coordinates". Locally, our reviewers allow event listings to name commercial establishments and give their address (which, of course, coincides with the posted coordinates), as long as there's no suggestion that a commercial transaction is required at that site. ("Event will be hosted at Joe's BBQ, at 142 Mason Street.")

Because maybe finding the caches are the excuse to get out and enjoy the walk along the trail.

And how are you supposed to know that there's "nothing special" about them unless you go out and find them? There's no "rule" that says the cache description has to be amazingly informative or compelling. Some of my favorite cache finds have come when I arrived at the cache and found a delightful surprise.

Because people play the game the way they want to play it. Maybe they've already found most of the caches in the area, so there's nothing else for them to find. Maybe they've only allocated so much time for their caching activity for the day, and the race for the FTF took up that time. Maybe they're saving other unfound caches in the area for other purposes (e.g. cache-a-day streaks, filling their days-found calendar). Maybe they're only interested in certain types of caches (e.g low-difficulty, low-terrain) if they're available for FTFs. Maybe they have to get home before dawn breaks because they'll turn to stone. Everyone has a different strategy for playing the game. Your strategy is different --- neither better nor worse, just different.

As long as we're making wild wishes about what we'd like to see ... I remember visiting my daughter's fourth-grade classroom one morning, just before we were leaving to chaperone a field trip. There seemed to be a fair amount of chaos in the room that morning to this unskilled observer ... but even I could tell that the teacher was struggling a bit with a high spirited room. Then the teacher turned to the class and said "Joyce and David, please come forward and take 5 Bonus Bucks from the prize box." See, Joyce & David were at their desks doing what they were supposed to be doing. The teacher had set up a system of rewards for students Doing The Right Thing, paying good students off randomly with Bonus Bucks that could be used periodically to buy (donated) prizes from the prize box. Not surprisingly, the class settled down quite quickly after that reward, seeing good behavior being rewarded. (Okay, I was a little proud that Joyce was my daughter. ) It looks like Groundspeak is doing things like this, in the same unannounced manner: Be a valued volunteer or have a really high CHS? Get a Virtual (Cache) Reward. Own a cache that contributed to 3M active caches? Get a unique souvenir. So ... let's "reward" people that do things that improve the health of the sport. (I think "reward" == "souvenir", but other definitions are possible.) Give out a "reward" to cache owners who regularly post Owner Maintenance (and/or Notes) to their own caches to show that issues are being addressed. Give out a "reward" to cachers who regularly post Needs Maintenance or DNF logs that let cache owners know of potential issues with their caches. Give out a "reward" to cachers who regularly create ordinary events that draw in people in their communities. (I'm not just talking about the Giga or Mega events; I'm talking about the simple events that bring together a dozen people in a coffee shop.) Now, for any of those things to work, the Frog can't announce ahead of time that it's doing those things. Hint that one of these specific behaviors will be rewarded and you'll see a flurry of spurious OM, NM, and DNF logs. The value of this suggestion only is realized if nobody knows the reward is coming. So, that's what I'd do. [P.S. Oh, and I'd also give a Virtual Reward to forum participants who suggest new plans for rewarding cachers. Had to be said. ]

Sigh. There are exactly three rules to geocaching (and even these rules have exceptions): Sign the log. Trade even or better. Log your find online. There are no official rules about what "log your find online" means. Which is good, because I'm sick of the list of unwritten "rules" I've been given over the years. Don't make your logs too long, because nobody wants to read them. Be kind to people in the field reading through your logs trying to find spoilers. Don't make your logs too short, because a short log is insulting to the CO. If that means you're standing out in the rain trying to type on your cellphone, tough. Make all of your logs unique and interesting. If the cache is Yet Another Skirt Lifter, too bad; get those creative writing juices going. If your walk in the woods took you to a dozen caches that day, then you'd better be taking detailed notes of each find. The CO deserves better. Oh, but don't be too creative in your logs, because nobody wants to read "mindless junk". And that's not even getting into the "rules" about logging FTFs. There was a time around these forums where there was exactly one unwritten rule that was prominently promoted: Play the game the way you want. Maybe we should go back to that simple philosophy. (dismounting soapbox)

My apologies for mis-remembering you and your fine state. (And I do mean that. I married a woman from western PA.)

Exceptions to rules can be granted. Without knowing the specifics of this situation, I doubt we'll ever know why this particular cache received an exception (other than the obvious possibility of a reviewer oversight). To the original question: what reasons might there be for granting exceptions to the proximity rule? I know of a couple of examples that have been discussed in the forums over the years. Keep in mind that the spirit of the rule is to prevent "bad caches" being placed by folks who are just looking to place caches every couple of meters simply because they can. 1) Obvious physical barriers. The example I recall was caches placed on opposite sides of an impassably-deep river valley. The straight-line distance was clearly less than 161m, but proceeding directly from one cache to the other would've been impossible without cliff-scaling equipment. For two caches with 1.5 terrain ratings along the paths of the two parks, there was clearly no harm in allowing both caches within such physical proximity to each other. 2) Attempts to solve puzzles cache via "Battleship"-style cache placements. There was a notoriously difficult puzzle cache (in Florida? Again, I don't recall the cache) that was frustrating all the local folks in their attempts to solve the puzzle and find the cache location. One person decided to start placing a bunch of power-trail-esque caches in the area, in a grid-like pattern, with each cache exactly 161m meters from the next cache. Since reviewers normally won't allow a cache to be placed within 161m of a puzzle cache, the grid-filler figured that the caches closest to the puzzle cache final would be rejected, and that would allow folks locally to execute a brute-force search of a small area to make the final find. The local reviewer figured out what was going on and went ahead and approved all the caches, including the ones within 161m of the puzzle final, in order not to reveal the puzzle cache location.

I guess, like many things, much depends upon your location and your local community. I was at an event last month at which one of the locals (who I'd just met recently in person) revealed that he'd been selected for a Virtual Reward. The reaction of the gathered crowd was warm and welcoming. No second guessing the choice, or trying to back-figure the criteria that selected him, or expressions of jealousy, or anything else negative. He asked for suggestions on where to place his virtual cache, and many were offered. He ultimately chose to place it in a newly-opened national cemetery in the area, as a tribute to his past service in the military. I haven't logged the cache yet, but I expect it will be a fine example of what a virtual cache should be. But I'll be the first to admit that our community of cachers may not be representative of other communities. We've been spared much of the conflict that seems to plague other communities.

While as a CO, I'm sympathetic to this opinion ... as a finder, I'm less sympathetic. Wait, let me explain. On those occasions where I plan out a "big day" of caching in a new area, I load up my handheld GPSr with my latest pocket query, head out, enjoy my day making 15-20 finds, come home, download my finds from my GPSr to log my finds ... and then have problems making up wonderfully unique things to say about "Rails To Trails #43" that are different from what I logged at "Rails To Trails #42". My GPSr doesn't make it convenient to record detailed notes on the find, and my memory isn't that outstanding, so ... a copy-and-paste log is about all I can manage at that point. Maybe the name of the cache or the description or the hint will trigger a specific memory that I can add, but ... for a lot of those finds, I've got a lot of nothing. Other than taking along a log book and composing an essay on the spot which I'll have to type in later, I'm not sure what else I should be doing.

I suspect (but have no evidence, as I wasn't caching then) that the decline in virtual cache placement might simply have been a natural result of saturation. I would expect that the obvious "wow" locations would eventually start to all be claimed by some virtual cache owner or another, leading to fewer of them being created over time.

Thank you for checking, and thank y'all for forgiving my idiocy ...

Okay ... got all four Mary Hyde souvenirs and the meta-souvenir ... misunderstood the puzzle and submitted my guess ... figured out my error and found the right answer ... and now I can't submit the right answer because the system says "only one submission per registered user". So, am I out of luck?

The problem with this suggestion (made many times over the years) is that it inevitably encourages folks to place bad caches: caches that wouldn't exist except for the need to earn some transient achievement. Reference the many discussions over "junk caches", "vacation caches", "power trails", and so on. The Mary Hyde contest does give recognition for hiding caches, albeit indirectly. Finds on caches with at least 10 favorite points --- awarded to existing caches judged as "good" by the community --- earn more points than finds on "ordinary" caches.

Well ... I was asking because I found the cited Help Center guidance ambiguous, and I'm all too aware of the (non-)role of precedent in cache approval. I don't have an idea for a new challenge cache, so contacting my friendly local reviewer (and, yes, he is friendly) isn't really appropriate. I'll just have to live in the ambiguity for now.

May I ask a clarifying question about this? As I read the current Guidelines, I read this particular guideline as a prohibition on a challenge cache depending on finding a specified list of caches belonging to one cache owner. I was unclear regarding whether other types of lists of caches might be eligible for a challenge. So, let me illustrate by a couple examples. 1. Here in Michigan, there are a number of pre-moratorium challenge caches: the "Historic Caches of [Name] County" series. For each of them, one qualifies for the challenge by finding five of the seven oldest active caches in the county, which are conveniently listed for reference on the page itself. (Cachers demonstrate their qualifications by posting the dates of the eligible finds.) If one of the named old caches is archived, the list of oldest active caches is updated appropriately with the next oldest active cache. Each cache is owned and maintained by a different local cacher. Understanding that past approval of any particular cache implies nothing about future approval of similar caches ... in your judgment as a current reviewer, would such a challenge cache be approved today? Why or why not? 2. In the same vein ... there are thirty of these challenge caches in Michigan. So, of course, someone established (pre-moratorium) the meta-challenge cache. One qualifies by logging finds on ten of those challenge caches (which, of course, means meeting the individual qualifications for all of those). Would such a meta-challenge cache be approved today? Why or why not?

Not in email, no, but ... in March, I travelled to Seattle (yes, I visited HQ ) and did some caching in the area. I posted a NM log on a cache with a full log and the CO posted a rather ... um ... "hostile" note in response about my use of NM for that purpose. (Of course, full logs are an explicit reason noted by the Frog in the new logging interface for NM logs.

So, my question about Week 2 is this: ... um, what's the point in having activities that are worth 7 points, if the goal is to earn 10 points? If a player does something to earn 7 points, they still have to complete a second activity to pass the 10 point threshold. Those 7 point activities could just as easily be 5 point activities with zero effect on the game.

I suspect that's true. But since Groundspeak hasn't told us how scoring works in weeks 2-4, there's no way to know for sure. So, yeah, I'm one of those guys adding dozens of friends right now that I'll probably just end up deleting a month from now, after I've gotten the souvenirs. It's silly, sure. (On the other hand, I've got a daily streak approaching 5.5 years right now, so "silly" is a pretty mild word for the way I approach this game ...)

So, when I log into geocaching.com, I see this icon in the upper-right corner of my browser: Usually, the little yellow circle means that I have either unread messages or unprocessed drafts. But, as far as I can tell, I have neither of those at the moment. Any idea why I'm seeing this?

That could apply to any log of any type, of course ... which doesn't help matters.

Add to this as well ... time to search at GZ is greatly dependent on the nature of a hide For a LPC in the middle of a parking lot, 5 minutes may be more than adequate for a full search. For a micro in a snow-covered pine tree in the middle of a dense grove, one might need an hour for a full search. So, no, we're not going to come up with simple objective standards for when to log a DNF.

The site does, in fact, allow you to change the log type on a previous log ... which is what I do. I'm part of the minority that does exactly as the OP suggests; I change my previous DNFs to notes when I eventually find the cache later. I've read the arguments on both sides, and I respect them both. For me, I'd rather have the DNF list automatically generated by the site be caches that I haven't found. But that's just me; others choose differently, and that's fine with me. (Not that anyone needs my approval about how they log ...)

There is a formal appeals process. Use that. Complaining in this forum won't accomplish anything.