TahoeJoe

When I think of quality, two things come to mind: (1)The quality of the location (2)The quality of the cache. Number 1 is totally subjective and depends on the ability of the finder. Number 2 (no pun intended) I think is more easily defined. Moldy log books, pill containers, cracked Tupperware containers, rusty Altoids containers and all Power Trail caches come to mind.

Why? If he had, somebody would sure enough link to this one and ask why they didn't do a forum search first. If someone really consuders pointing to a 12 year old dead thread I'd probably said the same. I surely won't go through a lot of old and probably outdated discussions from people I can't reply to anymore just to make sure there isn't an answer hidden in it anywhere or it meanwhile went totally off-topic. Let those very old and already dead threads rest in peace... They may contain valuable information, but obviously the thread resuscitator didn't find it in this here, otherwise he wouldn't have asked. I knew right away it was an old thread when I saw the words "ammo can". A 2015 topic would be "A Pill Box thrown in the bushes that plays music".

+1 While that might seem the case, at least one gets to speak their concerns with other members in the community. In my experience people that speak out intelligently and politely are usually the ones that are heard and taken seriously.

The introduction of smartphones with GPS has really changed the way geocaching was played by opening the floodgates to the masses. Years ago geocaching stopped being a game played mostly by outdoor enthusiasts with a love for exploring and discovering new places. Before smartphones if you wanted to geocache, you had to invest in a relatively expensive GPS device. Power Trails and playing for numbers have led to the decline of quality caches while creating an overabundance of unimaginative micro caches placed solely for bloating find counts. More and more I read about angry landowners with the over saturation of caches. How in the world can a CO maintain hundred (in some cases thousands) of caches? I have a hard enough time with the few I have. I would like to see a limit on how many caches you can place. Once you reach that limit if you want to place a new cache, you would have to retire one of your other ones. With so many members, a limit on cache placement would not hurt anyone and make it more realistic for CO’s to maintain their caches while discouraging the placement of caches strictly for numbers. Let’s support and encourage quality over quantity.

My post was not to start a debate on which human activity causes the most enviromental damage. My response was to educate some of the posters that implied the desert is not fragile.

What those COs envision is the seeker solving the puzzle or meeting the challenge. To them, the container is just a place to put the required log. After all the time and effort in creating a challenging puzzle cache I would also thing you would want a cool finish to the cache. Who likes reading a book that captivated you only to have a bad final chapter.

Wait.. what?? Aren't good for the desert? Did you really just write that? Bwa ha ha ha. ROTFLMAO. Deserts are one of the most fragile ecosystems on earth. Due to limited precipitation, some deserts have remained unchanged for millions of years. Thousands of years from now archeologists are going to speculate why there are piles of rocks spaced 500 feet apart for miles and miles.

I suppose if you don't want to offend anyone, visit the cache anonymously and don't sign the log book physically or online. Tread lightly so no one knows you were there.

Seems strange to me also. While it might look pretty on a map, what you really have is a bunch of pill bottles spread out over 60 square miles while looking over your shoulder for angry ranchers. I find it hard to believe that you would book a vacation for art you can only see on a map when Colorado has much better to offer. I'm sure a lot of work was involved creating the cache but it's part of a larger situation I see evolving in geocaching.

I'll second a dry logbook (large) and add a writing instrument. I'm so old school I refuse to carry a pencil or pen with me.

We have (had?) a cache hidden IN the waiting room of a policestation. It was close to the door and right in view of the security camera. The container was an accesspoint and hard to spot between all the other gizmo's on the wall except there were no wires connected to it. No police in sight when we found it though. When I first started geocaching, I logged a geocache hidden inside a lampost that was missing a electrical plate on the grounds of the Nevada State Capitol. Looking back a magnet cache nestled inside electrical wires and next to the capitol building was probably not a wise location.

I'm surprised a cache is allowed in a police parking lot. I've yet to have any police encounters but l mostly avoid any caches in public places and stick to caching in daylight. Great story though.

As long as I have been geocaching, there have been at least two schools of thought for group geocaching trips. I prefer the huckle buckle beanstalk method, where everyone gets a chance to spot the cache without anyone else in the group spoiling the hide. But others prefer the three musketeers method, where the entire group declares victory as soon as anyone in the group spots the cache. Both methods are fine on group trips. And I'm not going to hold people on a numbers run to a higher standard than people on a normal group geocaching trip. I agree both methods you mentioned are fine because in the end, all members of the group are signing the log. Most geocachers probably play this way when out with others. When groups start using methods like Three Cache Monte, I think that's when others start asking if the guidelines are really being followed. My opinion is that when others start trying to change the guidelines and push back at the ones who follow the guidelines, emotions are going to get strong. In the end it doesn't matter because geocaching is not about competing or numbers, it's about getting out and having fun.

Of course, this has been going on for years without power trails in play. There are many "Team" cachers (husband/wife and/or family) logging caches. Husband on business trip in Italy logging caches on the same day wife and kids are logging caches along a bike path in Arizona....all under one team name. Very true, the days before geocaching became in some minds a competitive sport about numbers. Pretty sad that the geocaching community has become divided so that Wandering Wal feels hostility from other local geocachers. Not a very warm welcome for new members.

Seems to me that the CO art was pretty much away from populated areas. Or were you referring to the vast stretches of BLM land in Nevada and Idaho? I was looking at the satellite image of the cache location and it looks like it's located is in an agriculture area. 160 log visits in a year and a half is quite a few strangers in a community with a population of 3,524. Seems pretty remote but apparently from the logs it's upsetting some locals who don’t care for geocaching. Who knows, maybe someone geocaching did something to upset a local. I think it’s smart decision to archive the cache before someone got hurt.

I don't play for numbers so I can only speak for myself, but in my opinion (and according to the guidelines) you can't claim fame to a geocache unless you find it, sign the logbook and place it back to it's original location. As long as you are following the guidelines, have fun and don't worry what others think.

Ranchers by nature don't like strangers around their property and I don't blame them for being upset with an activity that brings troves of strangers to their livelihood. I'm reading more about this going on in other parts of the country thanks to the saturation of caches through power trails. I see nothing but trouble ahead as more power trails are added in rural areas. I live in a ranching community where a few caches are on the perimeter of ranches and have no plans to dig around the bushes on the other side of a rancher's property (not a good idea). If power trails are going to continue, make sure they are away from populated areas.

Ohhh, I see. So they are designed purely to be really quick and easy to find. So it really is purely for the numbers.Yeah, that kind of trail is purely for the numbers. And FWIW, I call that kind of trail a numbers run trail. I use the term "power trail" to refer to the old-school power trail, which is a hiking trail that is saturated with caches, where the caches are varied and generally owned by multiple owners. There's one around here that the county parks department uses for their intro geocaching classes. Beginners can experience 8-10 varied caches and be back at the parking lot in time for lunch. I'm volunteering to help with one of those classes next month. I far prefer the term "numbers run trail" as well. To me, there is nothing "power" about driving from cache to cache while trying to keep yourself awake. The term "power" should command a bit more respect than that. I agree, let's call it for what it really is.

Apparently it *does* matter to the OP. How you or I feel about it doesn't affect how someone else feels about it. I think it does matter. As a rule of thumb I think larger containers force CO's to think more carefully about where they hide the cache. Tiny plastic tubes with a log the size of half a postage stamp, well you can stick them out anywhere and as they cost virtually nothing you can throw out hundreds of the little beasties in every pointless location you can squeeze one! You kind of just confirmed A & T's point...that container quality, placement and location matter more than the container's size. Honestly, a poorly maintained 'regular' can be worse than any micro...filled with water and moldy junk. Well when you're comparing junk against junk, then a moldy margarine tub is a larger mess compared to a moldy film canister. Neither is good or acceptable. On the flip side of the coin, a well maintained larger cache container is much nicer to find than a well maintained micro.

Yes, you're mistaken. It's actually the job of the reviewer to know the guidelines. The word "rule" implies a black-and-white definition of what is and isn't allowed. The word "guideline" implies a framework that roughly defines what is and isn't allowed, but doesn't use hard-and-fast/black-and-white rules. The guidelines in use on this site are intentionally vague to allow for innovative concepts and regional variations. Due to this, they contain grey areas, so reviewers are constantly making judgment calls regarding whether a cache violates a guideline. In cases where a cache may fall in a grey area that the reviewer is uncomfortable making a judgment on, the responsibility of making the decision is passed to GSHQ (namely, the appeals section) so that an "official" judgment can be made that can also be disseminated to other reviewers. Often appeals will need more information about the situation being reviewed, and much of that information can only come from the cache owner. Getting the cache owner to contact appeals directly cuts out the middle man (ie. the reviewer) so the process can move more efficiently. Once a judgment has been made, both the cache owner and reviewer will know how GSHQ deems that such a situation should be handled. Disclaimer: Having never actually had to take a cache to appeals, I've based the above on information gleaned from the website and these forums. If any of it is off-base, I happily invite a reviewer or Lackey to point out any inaccuracies. Are we geocaching or applying for a house loan?

It sounds to me like it could be a trademark issue and is sounds like the reviewer was honest with you saying he's not sure if it is allowed. Did he offer to check and get back to you? It seems to me he is playing it on the safe side. Just because three other caches made it through means it's right. Let us know what the appeals board says.

As George Carlin said “There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions, and wooooords.”

Has anyone suggested deleting it yet?

I remember those days and still try to find those caches that lead me to new places, but they are getting more difficult to find. I live in a pretty rural area and I imagine it's next to impossible in a urban setting. That's the growing pain of becoming mainstreamed. At some future point in time I see caches like power trails needing to be addressed as fewer locations become available to hide creative caches.

I trade only for personal signature items left by other geocachers, so... All things being equal, I prefer a cache that is large enough to hold personal signature items and similar small trade items. But a lot of micro-size containers (e.g., film canisters) are big enough for that, and small-size containers are plenty big enough. Containers much bigger than a couple quarts/liters just provide more room for typical trade items, making it harder to find the personal signature items that I might be interested in. And the novelty of a large-size container with large-size trade items wears thin when everything inside is damp and mildewed. But all things aren't equal. I enjoy challenging 4-star camouflage caches, and those are generally smaller (micros or nanos). And in urban/suburban locations, the caches that actually survive are generally smaller (micros or nanos), and are often puzzle caches as well (which I also enjoy). One of my Favorites is even a micro, a proverbial film canister in the woods. Yes, it's all about the location. No, a larger container would not work at its location. No, a nearby location that can support a larger container would not be at all the same. My only micro cache (which includes a mini logbook and pencil) is hidden in a location where no other size would work and was hidden before micros became overused and became the norm. There are places where micros are necessary, but it seems most of the time micros are used because they require little thought to throw together and can be hidden easier than a large container.