niraD

I was about to post that myself. 6859 + 200 lab caches (which won't show up in the My Finds PQ) = 7059

Before we moved, I had a fruit-picking tool on an extension pole that worked great for elevated caches that were intended to be retrieved with a tool.

Memorized? Some of us record the tracking codes of trackables we encounter in a personal log or journal of some sort. And yes, recreating retrieved logs can be tedious: log a grab, log a drop to put trackable in cache you retrieved it from, delete both logs, log retrieve, log drop. After someone's done it a couple times, I'm sure optimizations would be developed.

Just because Groundspeak refuses to reinstate any deleted trackable logs doesn't mean that it's a good idea for the owner of a trackable to glibly piss off fellow geocachers by deleting their logs for said trackable. I can see such deletions turning into a battle of patience, as the trackable owner deletes the logs, the person who retrieved and dropped the trackable recreates the logs, the trackable owner deletes the logs, the person who retrieved and dropped the trackable recreates the logs, and the cycle continues until... one of them commits geocide? I have no idea what the end game would be for the trackable owner who is trying to erase everyone's history with the trackable.

Here are some general puzzle tips (based in part on a puzzle-solving class event presented by The Rat a while ago) that I've posted before: Identify the theme. Check the cache title, the hint, the HTML source, the graphics (including names/URLs), any links (including URLs), whatever is at the posted coordinates, etc. If you can figure out the theme, then you should look for numbering systems that are associated with that theme (zip codes, athletes’ jersey numbers, episode numbers, product codes, etc.). Around here, coordinates will have 15 digits, and will look like "N 35° xx.xxx W 084° xx.xxx". So when I'm solving a nearby puzzle, I look for a group of 15 things, and then I look for ways to get the digits 35xxxxx084xxxxx from them. In general, I look for ways to get the number 35 (or the digits 3 and 5) from something near the beginning of the puzzle, and the number 084 (or the digits 0, 8, and 4) from something near the middle of the puzzle. (Of course, you'll need to adjust this for the coordinates near you.) If you ask the cache owner for a hint, then be sure to mention the approaches you have tried so far, and the results those approaches have yielded. It can also be helpful to work together with others who are trying to solve the same puzzle. Geocaching events are a good place to meet other geocachers; ask around to see if anyone else is trying to solve the same puzzle(s) as you. Other useful resources include: How to solve Mystery Caches (also known as Puzzle Caches) (blog post) Puzzle Solving 101 Series (bookmark list) Calgary Puzzle Solving 101 (bookmark list) Puzzle Shortcuts Series (bookmark list) Solving Puzzle Caches (online article) How Do I Solve All These &#$@! Puzzle Caches? (tutorial-style puzzle cache) Geocaching Toolbox ("All geocaching tools a geocacher needs in one box.") Puzzle FUNdamentals (archived event cache) and the Puzzle FUNdamentals resources on the GeocacheAlaska! education page The GBA's Puzzle Cache FAQ (for puzzle designers, but useful for understanding how puzzle caches work) LANAKI's Classical Cryptography Course How to Puzzle Cache (book)

Another is to stop hiding caches specifically for events, which IMHO is more in keeping with the event guidelines that an event is "a gathering of geocachers, focusing on the social aspect of geocaching" and not for finding geocaches. I find that it pretty much defeats the supposed purpose of an event when a bunch of "attendees" run off to find the geocaches hidden for that event.

The way to do that with a geocache is to archive the listing and then create a new listing with a new GC code. The way to do that with a trackable is to mark the trackable missing and then register a new trackable with a new tracking code.

Meh... There are plenty of puzzle types that can't be solved while viewing the listing on anything but web browser. That's never been a reason (or even an excuse) for banning those types of puzzles.

You might be seeing the effects of this change from a few weeks ago:

I didn't get that impression at all. From reading the comments, it seems to me that your idea of automatically archiving unpopular caches is the not very highly ranked among cachers. As others have pointed out multiple times, there is already a process in place for caches that are not being maintained properly.

I thought the current guideline was that you could sign anytime, and that you could log once you qualified. If you log all at once (e.g., via an API-partner app), or if you log on the same day (which looks the same to everyone viewing your logs), then I don't see how that violates the letter or the spirit of the current guideline. I don't play that way (I don't sign until I qualify), but that's a different question.

Since we're playing this silly thought experiment... And maybe not even that. If you find several relatively easy challenge caches on the same day, then there is no way to tell in what order you found each one. You could use various combinations of those caches to qualify for other caches you found on the same day. On the second day, you could find several more challenge caches, qualifying for them based on the caches from the first day and the caches from the second day. And so on.

The people I've known with disabilities have been as varied as the able-bodied people I've known. So I would expect the interests of geocachers with disabilities to be just as varied as those of able-bodied geocachers. Some will enjoy historic locations; others, scenic views; others, clever camouflage; others, public art; others, challenging puzzles; and so on.

FWIW, I've seen other multi-stage caches continue on without a missing stage when the CO simply provided the information in the description, eliminating the need to visit the now-missing stage. So there are other solutions besides archiving such caches.

I went the other direction with my first cache. It was very well camouflaged, but since I knew where and how I'd hidden it, it was obvious to me. Early finders suggested increasing the difficulty rating, so I did (twice).

In the Help Center article Edit a cache page after publication, I don't see any references to "after a certain amount of time" or anything like that. The only distinction seems to be between "small edits that will improve the experience" and edits that will "change the experience of your geocache fundamentally". And that is very subjective, and depends entirely on what the CO thinks the experience of the geocache should be. If the point of the geocache is the clever container, then replacing the container is a fundamental change, but the new trailhead that turns a 2-hour hike into a 10-minute stroll is not. If the point of the geocache is the 2-hour hike, then the new trailhead that turns that hike into a 10-minute stroll is a fundamental change, but replacing the container is not. If the point of the geocache is the historic location, or solving the puzzle, or the scenic view, then neither replacing the container nor the new trailhead is a fundamental change. And that decision is up to the CO, not up to the statistics hounds.

If something about the cache changes, then I would update the listing to keep it accurate. If I decide that my initial ratings were inaccurate, then I would update the listing to make it accurate. That includes the size, difficulty, and terrain rating. The primary purpose of these ratings is to communicate the general nature of the geocache experience to potential seekers. Everything else (including whatever side games you play with your statistics) is purely secondary.

Yeah, I think the key difference between Waymarking and Benchmarking is that Waymarking is on its own site, independent of the geocaching.com site, where Benchmarking is on the geocaching.com site. Thus, Waymarking doesn't get in the way of updates to the geocaching.com site, whereas Benchmarking shares the infrastructure used by other parts of the geocaching.com site, and gets in the way of updates to that shared infrastructure.

Oh, and welcome to Tennessee! (from another ex-Californian)

What do you mean? Swapped it with another cache? Sounds like the three cache monte hack used on numbers trails, except spilling over to real caches.

Yep. Check your local rules. In California, where I used to live, I even found one cemetery cache that was placed in an active cemetery, on the grave marker, as one of the memorial items the family was allowed to leave at the grave according to cemetery policy. In Tennessee, where I live now, physical caches or stages are prohibited in or around any cemetery. Your local rules are probably somewhere in between these extremes.

Sounds like one of the wheelchair users I knew in college. He was a paraplegic, but his upper body strength was amazing, and he competed in wheelchair sports. In an intramural arm-wrestling competition (against able-bodied opponents), he reached the finals, but was eliminated when his inability to use his legs to brace his lower body became an issue. He used a manual wheelchair, and if necessary, he could use arm crutches and rigid leg braces to get places that were not wheelchair accessible. On the other hand, another wheelchair user I knew in college was a quadriplegic, who needed an assistant to get him into (and out of) his electric wheelchair. He was pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum from the other guy...

My favorite question was, "If you could choose any source of transportation to geocache, which would you choose?" Because the answers provided (Helicopter, Roller blades, Horse, Sailboat, and Party bus) are just so random.

Well, sure, I wouldn't expect a cache on a numbers trail to have anything interesting at any of its stages. The whole point is numbers and speed. Interesting stages get in the way of numbers and speed.