AustinMN

This is completely wrong. Caching should be what each player makes it. There are those who like very difficult puzzles and they should be allowed to have them. There are those who like extreme challenges, and they should be allowed to have them. There are those who like lots of easy caches, and they should be allowed to have them. I like caches with a scenic view. Does that mean caches without a scenic view should not be hidden? Does it mean caches without a scenic view are worth less than those with a scenic view? Perhaps to me, yes, but to someone else, they are not interested in the hike sometimes needed for a scenic view. Just because a cache is not my style does not make it wrong.

Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't there also been times when a reviewer may jump in to help in an area where there is a temporary shortage of reviewers? If a reviewer in an area with only one or two reviewers is dealing with a long-term situation (family illness, extended travel, jail time, etc.), then a reviewer will fill in for some of the load. Austin

I'm guessing that it stems from either, insecurity or the misguided belief that they are entitled to find every cache with ease. I suspect we wouldn't be having this conversation if there was at least one Find on a couple of those Listings. You may suspect that, but I can assure you it isn't the case. So you can read the OP's mind?

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2MKD0_satisfaction It took me just a matter of a minute or two to figure out how to solve this one, and I am not a puzzle solver. But without some kind of solution checker, I'm not going to go after the cache.

+1

... considered geo-trash by you. The container still belongs to the owner. If you're going to take it because you think it's "trash," be prepared to answer to the CO if she/he ever asks about it. Abandoned property is still abandoned property. Where I'm from, damaged, abandoned property is trash.

I am usually caching with PJayCee. She has much more ledgible handwriting than I do, and she dates the log. But when I cache alone, I generally date the log, because I simply ignore most of the worst caches.

Yes, they stopped offering caches on their own site. You might try the .us site though. opencaching.com was the Garmin geocaching site. Sites which are under a different domain have nothing to do with the Garmin site. The title of the thread is "opencaching website gone?" without specifying the Garmin implementation.

Most didn't notice it was there in the first place. I learned about it when I got my Garmin, but decided it was silly to split my attention between two sites. I was already established here. The few posts I read about it led me to believe I made the right choice.

There used to be a slang term "loopy," referring to a mostly harmless form of insanity. Maybe that's what looping is. I have no great interest in filling my D/T or my 366, so the concept of looping seems loopy to me.

Judging by the nano logs I've found, it never occured to anyone else in my area either. I tend to ignore nanos, but when I do find them, I date the log.

What model garmin? What web browser?

I think that's a bit harsh. To me, a DNF is simply "I came, I looked, I did not find." That's it. I have been baffled by a couple CO's who have deleted my DNFs. What??? Do they think I didn't go there and look? Six DNF's on a 1/1 might add up to something else.

How long did you wait between DNF, NM, and NA? A few days? A few weeks? And what was the difficulty rating of the cache?

I guess I'd start questioning my abilities as a cache hider if they were that easy to find. Caches get muggled all the time.

Also consider the possibility that the paper log and the on-line log may have considerably different dates. Some cachers store up finds, then log them on-line all at once, sometimes without knowing or without setting the correct find date. One traditional cache that I was watching, a finder logged several months after I did, but I remembered seeing their name on the paper log. I went and checked my photo of the log, and they had sighed the paper six months before they logged on-line.

I think the best thing for you (since you don't really appreciate how the FTF was played out in this case) is to just say nothing about it at all. BTW, many parks in my area have a sunrise-to-sunset restriction. In those cases, I always say so in my (admittedly very few) cache descriptions. That would have me tempted to delete logs that admitted to finding at night.

Nothing. - The "FTF crew" is already willing to go out at night... The FTF side-game doesn't have rules. Anyone else wants to go for a FTF, they'll just have to figure some way to beat 'em. Please explain how someone going for a FTF "spoils the trail". Would someone taking their time and simply happen to get there first "spoil" it too? I guess I just do not understand the mentality of being the FTF when the trail is designed around features to be seen by day. To see what I have seen in the design of the trail by day and then want to share it with others by saying things in the description that you are walking on a specific type of geological era or that you should watch out for a specific animal, or that the gully you are looking at is named after a well known local family and then have someone just go in after dark just to get the FTF is pointless. Why did I bother to lay out the cache trail? As far as spoiling the trail, it spoiled it for me. I spent a lot of time researching the trail and laying it, there is no way it could have been appreciated at night. It is like a self licking ice cream, how in the hell can you appreciate it? To draw on your ice cream analogy, it's more like you sell someone an ice cream cone, and they throw it in the trash. Yes, you made it to be appreciated. But there's nothing you can do about it. Getting hung up about it has no value to anyone. These cachers didn't break any Groundspeak rules. They played their own game. They really only shortchanged themselves. Open up your expectations. Not everyone caches for the same reason, and those who cache for reasons that are different from your own are not doing it wrong.

FTF doesn't mean much to me (see my post above). But it appears to me from your post that the only thing spoiled is your attitude about this group.

I cache with a camera. In fact, I cache for the camera. That means it starts with the "Scenic View" attribute, and gets planned from there. Austin

Eh. Either the numbers don't mean anything to you, in which case you won't worry about someone else having more than you by caching for numbers, or numbers do mean something to you, so you can't really fault someone for racking them up. Numbers don't mean anything to me, but I've thought about doing a power trail, so apparently there's some other purpose to them that you're not recognizing. You mean like being able to say "I did a PT," or maybe "Just once, I'd like to log 350 caches in one day, just to see if I can?" BTW, neither of those are on my list.

I only have one solo FTF. They are not a big deal to me, and not worth disrupting my routine. Having said that, there have been 3-4 times when I've been present for the FTF, but not the actual finder. In those cases, I've logged "co-FTF with [the finder's name]." I think the "co-FTF" says I was there for FTF, but the other cacher made the find. But as someone else said, FTF is a side game with no defined rules. If someone ever got upset over me logging "co-FTF," I'd just change my log and be done with it. I cache for fun, so it's not worth getting me or anyone else upset about it.

Then we disagree. When I hide a cache, I do not agree to take on the responsibility for other people's property that they choose to have put into it. The TB owner is the owner of the TB and has the responsibility for it. If they can't manage it, then they should give it to someone who can. It is not my problem, as CO, to be the nanny for their property. In English, "Ask" does not mean the same as "Expect," but you seem to want to make them to. It is more than reasonable to ask a CO to mark trackabkles as missing. It is not reasonable to expect all CO's to always do so when asked, but then justintim1999 never said that.

Why don't you send notes the the TB owners, since it is actually their job? If I got a note like that from you, I would ignore it. Restored and bolded the part you removed.

CO's have the ability to mark TBs missing. Therefore, they DO have something to do with the maintenance of the list. That said - yeah, what everyone else said. I always thought I was doing other cachers a favor by mentioning that the TB isn't there. It used to be that people would go after a cache because it had a trackable in it (though in the past few years, that seems to have mostly ended). Telling them in the log that there isn't one saves them a little disappointment. Whether the cache owner marked it missing is up to them.