AustinMN

In the cases I'm thinking of, the key clue was very few finds, and most of the logs had comments like "Had to get a hint from the CO," often with "CO" being replaced by a name indicating they were friends with the CO. It was many, many puzzle caches, and all the finds seemed to be the same limited set of people, so I got the distinct impression the main way to solve the puzzle was to be in the clique. I don't mind when that happens once in a while, but this seemed to be pervasive. Yes, I would consider that unsolvable, but the cases I was thinking about wasn't disconnected logic but rather moon logic. Instead of the logic never working, the logic does work, but only if someone tells you which irrational leap to take to solve it. I don't do puzzle caches, but if I did, the kind of thing I would do would be to create a long and tortured puzzle that required lots of esoteric knowledge and...all of it would be irrelevant. Unsolvable? Yep, just like the "apples to miles." Because the solution is really simple. Select the text of the puzzle, and there, under the fake puzzle, the final coordinates would appear, originally in white text on a white background. Would you need a hint? Maybe. Then again, maybe your browser would interpret the HTML different and so the coords are already visible. You think you need to go from X to Y to Z to solve it when you really need to go fishing. BTW, the name the cachers keep mentioning in their logs may not be the CO, they may not even be a person at all. Meanwhile, the whole point of the puzzle may be to get you to ask for a hint. But you have come to your conclusions...

How would you know a puzzle was not solvable? Would you consider this unsolvable: If Joe has two apples and Fred has three apples, how far is it to London?

Category VI - I seek an outdoor experience in someplace interesting or scenic. Since caching originally had this in mind, you use it by seeking out caches that are older, have the scenic view attribute, and/or have been logged with photos of interesting scenery. Sometimes, I don't even look for or log the cache.

You could try using Google Image Search to approximate the recent gallery. URL: images.google.com Search term (no spaces, no quotes): site:www.geocaching.com Search tools allow you to limit to the last 24 hours, the last week, or a specific date range. The results are not complete, because I don't believe Google searches under a login ID, and I don't see a way to trace back to the specific cache or the specific finder.

Far more important than the camera is the skill of the person using it. An excellent photographer will get better photos from an iPhone than a typical snapshot shooter would get from a $45,000 Hasselblad.

Or it just looks like trash. Not that any poorly maintained absentee-CO caches ever get to be like trash, mind you. That never happens.

This seems like it best answers the OP's question - why would a cacher do this? Because it's rated a D1.5!

I do not think so as volunteers cannot make Google maps better This may be true in your country, but in the USA, there is almost nothing left on Google Maps that was not either put there or refined by a volunteer. Having made hundreds of edits myself, I know how this works. I attended the Google Geo Users Summit meeting in Mountain View, California 2011. About half of the attendees were there for sessions about mapping trails. Not only were the attendees volunteers, but such dedicated volunteers that most of them paid their own way to be there. There were more than 200 in attendance. I would bet that less than 1 in 100 volunteer map makers would come up with the money to fly across a continent to meet with their peers. One of the sessions I attended was about using GPS track logs to map roads and trails (and the pitfalls of doing so).

I see it exactly the opposite. Google Maps is better than all other maps combined. It all depends on what type of caching you do. If you're primarily caching in populated areas and near roads, then Google Maps can be fine. However, Google Maps is utterly useless as soon as you leave roads. The OpenStreetMap database is filled with trails and roads that you can't see on Google Maps, and evolving more every second. For example, look at this comparison between Google Maps and the standard rendering of OpenStreetMap in an area near me. Just a bit of a difference, no? If you zoom out a bit, you'll see the trails in those hills are extensively-mapped in OSM, but are completely non-existent in Google Maps. Looking at the current mini-map for a cache in that area is useless because it gives no reference points unless you zoom way out, which takes time and is less user friendly. Granted, not all areas are as well-mapped in OSM, in which case it can be just as bad as Google Maps. There are a lot of people constantly improving OSM, though, so in many areas it's already far superior and poorly-mapped areas may soon be much better. I pretty much only cache in rural areas, off-road, now days. What you see depends on the local map makers. If they are in the Google camp, then Google Maps is going to be better. If they are in the OSM camp, then OSM will be better. Because someone finds an example where one is better does not mean that is the norm.

Have a look at this cache description https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6MT3V_holleri-hollero-hollereidullioh?guid=48d63889-3d0e-4e41-a2c9-bc55a006562c (a typical case of what I encounter in my area). The map on the cache page is the only one which shows the waypoints (of which there can be many - I have caches with >30). On google maps most waypoints are in the nowhere. The quality of OSM maps (but also of some other maps) is considerably better when it comes to anything except very urban caching, and there are areas where OSM based maps meanwhile are really great (and better than anything I know, including maps which are quite expensive). Interesting. When I switched my view to OSM, the waypoints don't show at all.

No, since the new maps on the cache pages are based on Google maps which are extremely bad for the type of geocaching I'm interested into and the map type cannot be changed. Almost any other type of map is better than Google maps. I see it exactly the opposite. Google Maps is better than all other maps combined. Which does not mean GM is great; it just stinks less than the rest.

I can think of one solid technical reason they would remove a map from the cache page. All map sites have a number of views par day where a company has to start paying for map views. This is the reason that Google Maps became a Premium-only feature a number of years ago -- GS was not willing to pay for map views for users who were not paying. Having two maps means two views. Having one map means having one map view.

You are not the first. You will not be the last. Unfortunately, some humans do not rise to the same level of dignity of animals, never mind other humans. I suspect being young, male, and possibly having access to alcohol can also be contributing factors.

Nice try. I still have no comment.

You and others have said this before but I still am curious how this has been an actual problem for you (and anyone else) much less it being the "biggest" quality issue of the game currently. I have found as many as three containers for a single cache, and I'm only in the hundreds of finds That's not a problem? I'm not sure just how multipule containers at one site are a problem for finders. This leaves me so baffled I'm not sure how to reply. Multiple containers at a single location are, in an of themselves, a problem.

If someone has ignored the NMs and the DNFs in their inbox and their caches are still unmaintained, what makes you think they're going to pay any attention to an automated spam email? It's not about those people so much as about the game and cache ownership as a whole. A reminder to those who haven't abandoned the cache, the listing or the game that there is a certain level of responsibility expected from the hiders to keep the database clean and the game fun for all. I agree. If your a responsible cache owner this shouldn't bother you at all. I disagree. I am a responsible cache owner and it does bother me because its telling me that I am not a responsible cache owner. Note my entry on 4/22/16. If responsible cache ownership is not recognized by GS then why bother? I would think that they assume responsible cache ownership is reflected in OM logs, not Note logs. For all they know, your note may say something like "It appears the cache is missing. Can someone leave a new container the next time they are out there?" Such things have been done before.

You and others have said this before but I still am curious how this has been an actual problem for you (and anyone else) much less it being the "biggest" quality issue of the game currently. I have found as many as three containers for a single cache, and I'm only in the hundreds of finds That's not a problem?

Dear Wife? Or Divorced Wife or D$%& Wife depending on the circumstances.

Seriously, how many of us Google "Geocaching"? What it shows is the number of people interested in joining the game. It doesn't reflect the people who have been doing it for years. There might be a slowdown in the rate of growth, but in the absence of retention/attrition data, the only conclusion one can come to from the overall trend is that there may be a decrease in the rate of growth.

I have not heard of a case where a cache was archived because the size or D/T ratings were not accurate but know of a specific example of one in which the CO did not use the proper procedure for updating the coordinates after the container was moved 100' or so. Caches *will* be archived if the coordinates are not accurate. There is always an exception. Always. If you are going to pick on exceptions, then you should have included the exception to your exception, puzzle caches, where the listed coordinates are not expected to be accurate. It's this kind of nonsense that usually keeps me away from this forum.

Although I agree that in this case, this cache has become a piece of junk that needs to be archived, I know of no requirement that a cache listing be accurate.

If someone finds or sees something suspicious, it should be reported and responded to accordingly. Depending on which action you think is the overreaction, I may disagree with you: I don't see a problem with how authorities reacted to this, but I do see a problem with how OP reacted to this. I agree that the OP overreacted to it. But think about it, just about EVERY cache can be considered suspicious. Should law enforcement act like this every time someone encounters a cache and doesn't know what it is? Yes they should react exactly like this. What they did was secure the area and investigate it, then found out it was not dangerous. Overreaction would be not taking the time to investigate or anything, and just blowing it up. How would the police (or even us for that matter) know that it's a geocache without opening it? Are you serious? And why not? Whiles it's highly unlikely, it's still possible. They get a call about a "bomb" and look at geocaching.com to see there's a geocache there. So they leave it. Turns out there really was a bomb (the cache is in a rosebush 3 feet away), it blows up, people blame the police. What do you, in your infinite wisdom, suggest they do? By your logic, the police should assume that every illegally parked car is a car bomb. How absurd. So if you are able to know such thing as whether or not I'm a police officer, without ever meeting me, why can't you know whether or not the device is a cache or a bomb? More absurdity. So don't hide them.

If someone finds or sees something suspicious, it should be reported and responded to accordingly. Depending on which action you think is the overreaction, I may disagree with you: I don't see a problem with how authorities reacted to this, but I do see a problem with how OP reacted to this. I agree that the OP overreacted to it. But think about it, just about EVERY cache can be considered suspicious. Should law enforcement act like this every time someone encounters a cache and doesn't know what it is? Yes they should react exactly like this. What they did was secure the area and investigate it, then found out it was not dangerous. Overreaction would be not taking the time to investigate or anything, and just blowing it up. How would the police (or even us for that matter) know that it's a geocache without opening it? Are you serious?

Hmmm...519 attended, and only one complaint about lunch. Maybe you made some kind of mistake somewhere?

That's interesting. Do most people do it that way? I have two urban hides, both based on historical events. So if someone doesn't read the description the caches would have no significance other than being simple park & grabs. Simple Park & Grabs are all some people are interested in.