niraD

When I log really old field notes drafts, I include a comment that I'm catching up posting logs for old finds, as well as using the date of the actual find for the log (which is easy with field notes drafts).

That reminds me... I've still got a bunch of old field notes drafts that I need to log.

Except that Puerto Rico is much closer to the US mainland. Maybe Guam would be a better example?

You are absolutely correct. The item the TB tag is attached to is part of the trackable. If the whole trackable didn't fit in the cache, then it shouldn't have been left there. Taking the trackable apart is unacceptable.

Has the volunteer reviewer posted a reviewer note to your cache page? Normally, you would receive an email notification about reviewer notes, but maybe the email isn't going through. It is also possible that there are issues with the listing you submitted. Volunteer reviewers often publish the trouble-free listings quickly, and wait until they have more time to respond to the listings that have issues, that will be more difficult to respond to.

Maybe it's another issue with the site not working unless all cookies are allowed.

I used to work in an office near a golf course. One of my coworkers would turn found golf balls into juggling balls by tying a monkey's fist knot around them. They were really easy to juggle too: the rope he used was soft and made them easy to grab, and the golf ball inside gave them a good heft. I've turned golf balls into a ladder golf set before, when I had access to a drill press. I suppose a monkey's fist knot could be used to secure the balls to the ends of the rope, but I've never seen ladder golf sets made that way before.

Please read the Help Center article Archive or unarchive a geocache, especially the "Unarchive a geocache" section. In particular, note where it says, "Archiving a geocache is meant to be a permanent action," and "If a cache is archived by a reviewer or staff for lack of maintenance, it will not be unarchived."

I hadn't heard that advice in terms of avoiding bushwhacking, but I had heard it in terms of figuring out where a cache is hidden. Actually, it was described as the "phone a friend" rule. Specifically, imagine you're the cache owner, and a geocaching friend calls and asks where the cache is hidden (or is supposed to be hidden, if the friend found it lying on the ground in the open). The CO is going to need to describe the location over the phone. So as a seeker, focus on locations that would be easy for the CO to describe over the phone.

I once found a cache that was an easy walk (maybe 2-3 dozen feet) off the trail. When I logged my find, I noticed logs that described bushwhacking for a quarter mile or more. Apparently, these people decided to follow the arrow, rather than following the trail which snaked around, following the contour lines (as trails often do). There were a couple points where the trail doubled back, heading more than 90° away from the arrow pointing at the cache. But eventually, it crossed a little stream and headed back towards the cache. If you left the trail at one of those points, you'd be bushwhacking up and down hills and through dense vegetation, and it was all so needless.

This is a good starting point, but the nature of what seekers need to do along the way to the final should also be part of the equation. If it's just basic arithmetic, counting things, copying information, etc., then lean towards Multi-Cache. If it involves advanced math, manipulating a physical puzzle, logical deduction, or other types of puzzle-solving, then lean towards Mystery/Puzzle Cache. There are regional variations though. I've geocached in areas where basic offset caches (copy digits from existing signs/monuments) were consistently listed as mystery/puzzle caches rather than as multi-caches. And I've seen caches listed as multi-caches that were (to me) obviously puzzle caches.

I've found a number of multi-stage puzzle caches. They've been listed as mystery/puzzle caches. Multi-caches have multiple stages as their defining characteristic, but other cache types can have multiple stages too.

I prefer to find a TB with some sort of goal beyond merely traveling, and I prefer for the TB to have a tag explaining the goal attached to it. Honestly, I have no idea. No. No. Kidnapped, no. Held longer than I intended, yes. I picked up a trackable that wanted to visit playgrounds. I was working on a streak at the time, so I was finding a cache every day. I never did find a cache big enough to hold the TB, and eventually passed it on to someone else at an event. But I did find a number of caches near playgrounds, and dutifully posted photos of the trackable with the playgrounds in the background, and uploaded them to the Visited log that I posted for the trackable.

That will never happen. The geocaching.com site is just a listing service. Groundspeak likes it that way. Groundspeak's lawyers like it that way. Groundspeak does not own the caches, and will not do anything that implies that they own the caches, or have any authority to transfer ownership of the caches. There are caches that are not found every 2 years. Should they be archived automatically if the owner doesn't visit them every 2 years? One of my geocaching friends was STF (Second To Find) on a cache that hadn't been found in more than a decade. She chose that cache as a major milestone find, and had an epic adventure finding it. Should a cache like that have been automatically archived just because the owner didn't visit it every 2 years for a decade, waiting for the STF? For that matter, I think the FTF of the cache took more than a year after it was published. Assuming that FTF took more than 2 years, should it have been automatically archived before anyone found it, just because the owner didn't visit it after 2 years?

For the record, most of us cannot see your unpublished caches. That includes ones that have been archived. Perhaps a volunteer reviewer (who can see your unpublished caches) will chime in with an explanation though. Be careful relying on existing caches. The guidelines specifically say: "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." So it is possible that the guidelines (or the current interpretation of the guidelines) may have changed, and it is also possible that the other cache owner did not disclose information that would have allowed the volunteer reviewers to know that it violated the guidelines.

That sounds like a dormmate I had in college. He was a paraplegic who used a manual wheelchair, but if a location wasn't wheelchair accessible, then he'd park the wheelchair and use forearm crutches instead. He had crazy upper body strength, even reaching the finals of an intramural armwrestling competition one year. Another dormmate was a quadriplegic who used an electric wheelchair and couldn't move himself into or out of that wheelchair without assistance. Yes, they both used wheelchairs, but their capabilities were vastly different. And FWIW, I would expect that most wheelchair users who actually take up geocaching (or any other outdoor activity) are probably closer to the former than to the latter.

In urban/suburban parks, maybe. I used to live the San Francisco Bay Area. The urban/suburban parks around my home saw a lot of churn, as one cache after another would be muggled and archived, and then someone else would hide another in the same park. Lather, rinse, repeat. But even in the county parks and open spaces a short drive (or bike ride) from suburban neighborhoods, there was plenty of space for new caches, and archived caches weren't replaced by new caches placed within 528ft/161m of the archived cache. You can't treat all of geocaching like urban/suburban parks.

In many areas, that is a BIG assumption. There are lots of areas where no one is going to hide a new cache to replace an archived one.

As geoawareUSA9 already mentioned, according to the geocaching.com terms of use, "You agree not to: [...] 2.4.15 Publish on our websites the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the geocache owner." However, here are some general puzzle tips (based in part on a puzzle-solving class event presented by The Rat a while ago): 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)

Yeah, I was quoting the geocaching.com web site too. But the inconsistent description of size ratings has been sowing confusion for quite a while.

Apparently, the inconsistent descriptions used for various cache sizes are still sowing confusion. Here's another example:

The only sandwich I think would fit in a magnetic keyholder would be a tiny tea sandwich, which is basically an appetizer eaten in one or two bites. Somehow, I don't think that was the intent of the "Just big enough to fit a sandwich" language...

Yeah, until you find a film canister (the canonical micro-size container) with a pencil nub. Throw in a stack of micro geocoins, and a film canister could even be considered a regular-size container.