niraD

You apparently don't mind churning cache listings every time anything trivial changes with a more recent cache, but you seem to be fine editing listings for "super rare [...] early 2000's hides." But maybe I misinterpreted your comment.

On the other hand, I consider churning hides like this to be wrong. If the CO hasn't changed anything significant about the actual hide, then archiving the listing and creating a new listing is wrong. The original listing should have been kept, and any minor details like titles, D/T ratings, sizes, or dates should have been updated. So it's fine to screw with stats you don't care about, as long as no one screws with stats you do care about. Got it... If you want to play a side game with your stats, then keep track of them yourself. Don't expect cache listings to be frozen in time for the convenience of your side game.

The advice I heard early in my geocaching career was to attach the tag to something that is interesting enough that finders might be interested in taking and uploading photos of the item's travels, but not SO interesting (or valuable) that finders (or their children) might want to keep it. So something worthless, but something others might want to take and upload a photo of. Yeah, it's a fine balancing act.

Issues with difficult footing sounds like terrain to me, not like difficulty. Just saying..

Mine appear at the bottom of my profile page:

I don't think it goes any deeper than the quotes you included from barefootjeff. LBH is a type, so LBH caches are by definition not mystery/puzzle caches. Bonus caches and challenge caches are by definition mystery/puzzle caches. Therefore, bonus caches and challenge caches cannot be the LBH type, even if they have a stamp in the container.

If we're talking what SHOULD happen, then I would argue that the LBH type should be migrated to a LB Stamp attribute. But I'm sure the idea of removing a cache type triggers all the usual tech-related issues that the idea of new cache types triggers, plus a bunch of angst from stats hounds who would be losing a cache type for Busy Day challenges and the like.

Sometimes you find yourself in a situation where presigning is there to be done because you may never get back to that location Maybe you have found yourself in such a situation. I have never found myself in such a situation because I don't search for challenge caches that I don't already qualify for.

I never "pre-sign" challenge caches, so I never find myself in this situation. The only caches I search for are the ones I can log a Find for.

I don't know about arisoft's location, but the LBH caches I've found have used accurate GPS coordinates to identify the starting location (not a generic starting location like a parking lot or a trailhead). The letterbox-style clues make sense only if you start at the correct location, so accurate GPS coordinates are needed to even start the letterbox-style clues.

Exactly. At the time LBH caches were introduced, attributes did not exist, so they were introduced as a new type. If they were introduced today, then they would be introduced as an attribute, not as a type.

Sounds to me like you need to rework the cache so that it has a container. From the guidelines (which you acknowledge): "The container must hold the logbook." "The logbook must be [...] Enclosed within a container" And to reiterate what Max and 99 wrote: "There are no precedents for placing geocaches. Past publication of a similar geocache is not justification for publication of a new geocache. If a geocache was published that you feel violated the guidelines, you may report it. However, the existing geocache may have been placed prior to a guideline change, and may be a legacy cache type."

Be careful what you wish for... Owner attention requested The log sheet is completely full. Knowing the owner's habit of deleting the logs of everyone who uses team names, we didn't use our team name to save space. Instead, all 18 of us signed and dated the log sheet using our full geocaching names. CUTWTA actually wrote out "Caching Up The Wrong Tree Again" (something I've never seen him do, even with a full-size log book). And GeoMamaX4 had all four of her kids sign the log too, since they may want to create their own accounts someday. It took a while for everyone to sign, especially when some started including comments about our geocaching day. Anyway, the person who retrieved the cache (maybe EagleEyeSprinter, but I'm not sure) was long gone by the time I signed it. Since I was the last to sign the log, I replaced it where I thought it should be hidden.

I've used "unregistered" team names on group geocaching trips, mainly to save space so the logs of micro-caches don't fill up faster when everyone signs individually. I know people who use stamps as their legal signatures, which is accepted by banks, government agencies, etc. I know many geocachers who use stamps to sign logs. What is it that you object to? The use of "unregistered" team names? The use of stamps? The use of both together? The use of either separately?

My current plan includes 10GB/month which is much more than I ever use. But when I was on a much more limited plan, I made a point of downloading geocaching data in advance, usually by downloading a Pocket Query or two (Pocket Queries are a premium feature). Sometimes I would have my geocaching app (a third-party API partner app that is no longer supported) download map data as well. Now, I usually download data via the API, rather than downloading PQ data as a GPX file. But it's still possible to do that via a WiFi connection, before setting out on a geocaching trip. To me, one of the main features of a premium membership is full API access. All API-based apps (Groundspeak's official app and third-party API partner apps) are pretty limited for basic members.

According to the latest stats I saw, most geocachers have fewer than 100 finds. (Maybe it was fewer than 50 finds, but I know it was fewer than 100 finds.) Anyway, the point is that most geocachers are NOT the high find count types who discuss stats and challenges at events. Anyone discussing such things at an event is almost certainly a few standard deviations away from the average geocacher. When I've introduced newbies to geocaching, I tell them that terrain tells them how hard it is to get to the cache location, difficulty is how hard it is to find and retrieve the container once they're at the cache location, and size is a rough description of how big the container is. Period. These ratings are a basic part of a geocache description, and they need to be accurate. Don't break them for the sake of a side game.

For the record, this was discussed here almost 4 years ago...

Yeah, I kept my "Milestones" bookmark list because I don't like the automatically generated ones.

See also the Help Center article Cache review process.

I've used extension poles sold for paint rollers, for fruit pickers, and for tree pruners. Paint stores, garden stores, and home stores will probably have extension poles in various lengths. They can also be found online. The longest ones I've used have been in the 15-16 foot range, which could reach 20-22 feet high when I held them overhead, and higher if I held them overhead while standing on a stepladder.

To be honest, I would expect an elevated cache to be archived when replaced by a ground-level cache. If it's in a tree (whether the CO intends seekers to climb the tree or to retrieve the cache with a tool), then it seems the point of the cache is that it's in a tree. If the point were something else (the location, the hike, the history, whatever), then the cache wouldn't be in the tree in the first place. But ultimately, it's up to the CO what the point of the cache is, and what changes affect "an elementary part of the cache".

See the Help Center article When a cache needs maintenance. For a newer system, see the Help Center article Geocache Health Score. But that depends on cache seekers posting logs too.

The difficulty, terrain, and size ratings of a cache are not points to be scored by finders, or prizes to be won by finders. They are tools for the CO to communicate the general nature of the geocache experience with potential seekers. So, what is an "elementary part of a cache"? If the point of my cache is the view, then changing the size of the container is not changing an elementary part of the cache. If the point of my cache is the historic location, then changing the difficulty rating is not changing an elementary part of the cache. If the point of my cache is the public sculpture, then changing the terrain rating is not changing an elementary part of the cache. IMHO, it's up to the CO to decide when a change affects an elementary part of the cache. If finders want to play a side game based on difficulty, terrain, or size ratings (or anything else), then that is on them. The CO shouldn't be prevented from maintaining the cache, which includes updating the cache page if conditions or coordinates change.

Searching the signatures on the log has always worked for me...