Team Canary

Clearly this question is someone trolling.

Me too!!!

The Sydney GeoQuest Event set for 26th January, 2025 has now been published. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCACHF8 Both the Oz Mega Committee and Geocaching NSW Committee welcomes one and all to this iconic location within the precinct of Sydney Olympic Park. We invite you to place your Will Attends logs if you plan on joining us at this event. Many updates will follow in the weeks and months ahead of activities and other events based around the Sydney GeoQuest. Updates will be published on the Geocaching NSW facebook page and the Geocaching NSW website www.geocachingasn.asn.au so make sure you check in frequently to get the lastest info.

Location. Accessing. Container. The best Geocaches have all three a great location, a fun journey to get there and a good size container, with a decent logbook. ALs do not meet these criteria often. But like a Virtual can be in fabulous locations to make up for it. Take me somewhere, show me something used to be our view of Geocaching. Sadly today its all about numbers. Too much rubbish placed and found just for another number, or square on D/T grid.

They really are not a suitable container. Buy something better than using leftover rubbish. A key holder, film canister, a decent size container, etc. Anything but a mint tin!!!

Yep, me too. They are the opposite of caching to me and simply an app based game.

You're right, it is only the finder's responsibility is to sign the log. Is a stamp signing?

Assuming the one at West Gosford, I tried many apps on my iPhone with no luck.

We have two, I know of, published recently that you have to email an automatic reply email address to get information, I thought that was banned too.

The last four Found It logs indicate a problem. All could and should have done Owner Attention Requested.

Enough to keep them in good order. Monitoring the logs, particularly DNFs. Going on site to check if required. 100%. Maintain your caches is all that's required, or if you can't, tell the Reviewer and the community that you care and you will soon.

Is this getting fixed?

Central Coast and Illawarra are similar in that respect and there are no new cachers to make new caches. What the existing community can do to fix that is another discussion we should have.

2, 3 and 5. 6 is okay for an old, interesting, historic and remote cache only.

There’s another group. Those that believe caches should be maintained and in good condition. I’m part of the adoption of many old caches, both formally and informally, that will now survive. I’m not in favour of inactive owners on caches with issues being kept alive for no good reason except it’s another cache to find.

They had current DNFs. They had NM logs, although very old. This cache has neither. I see no evidence to back up your argument that ANY cache with no reported problems has been archived. Can you provide any? I see way more evidence of caches gone missing that take forever to get Archived. Like this one with multiple DNFs, NM log, NA log and nothing. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2WNW9_crossroads-cemetery

This cache you keep talking about is in good condition, no NM, no Reviewer Notes about archiving, no NA. Just an inactive owner. What does this have to do with cache with identified problems and inactive owners? It is both parts that create a reason to archive it. Not one or the other.

100% a DNF, the condition of the cache stopped you. Amazingly, I was contemplating that one in two days time. Hmmm! Thanks for the information.

You were talking about DNFs that were not a failure to find. But for other reasons. D3.5 should have a lot of DNFs.(I was lucky enough to find it on a Geocaching NSW walk in the hands of others.) Your one is probably a little harder than D2 in my experience and based on those DNFs. Both have active owners.

And if it gets four of those in a row? Then a NM? I need to check it after multiple DNFs.

I reckon that would be less than 5% of DNFs. Four in a row of failure to get to GZ then would be well less than 1%. This is so rare I have no idea why you're so concerned. How many are you seeing? I see inactive owners and caches that are missing, so much more then DNFs used inappropriately.

Nope. We agree. Caches with reported problems and non-responsive owners should be archived. Caches with no issues should be left alone. As I said earlier, long may the good caches live. We’re only talking caches with reported problems, DNFs, NM and NA logs.

So, you expect the volunteer reviewers to go through every cache with a fine tooth comb before they Archive the caches with non-responsive owners. And will not get DNFs, or Owner Attention Required logs, or Reviewer Attention required logs or have a ow Cache Health Score. Long may good caches live.

But you're blaming Groundspeak or the NM or the CHS. How do you expect the reviewers to work out if the cache is in good condition and not get it Archived? That's the owners job!

Nope. It was Archived because the owner didn't respond. Unfortunately the community or Groundspeak don't own the cache. It is the owner's property and they failed to follow the rules on the Listing site manged by Groundspeak. They are the only one to blame. Someone can now go and place a new cache there.