Korichnovui

Thank you so much for your input and food for thought in this matter. I am digesting it all! So I sent polite inquiries. One of the people eventually got back to me and expressed surprise that I was being a diligent CO. He said the hike had been spontaneous and neither he or his friends had brought a pen. The other cacher has not gotten back to me. He appears to be very "green".

Yes, I'm not the biggest fan of the nano containers but it really was the best option I could think of for this particular location. It's at the top of a significant hike up a hill. No other geocaches are on the hill because there are strict rules about staying on the path and not messing up the area. I had to get special permission to put this on a park bench at the top of the hill. I was going to use a larger magnetic container but I discovered that it was just too big to be nicely compatible with the structure of the bench. I didn't want to do a "rock pile" or something nearby. It's a newer cache at the end of an uphill hike, so not too many people have gotten it yet, so it was 100% clear on the log who has signed, and who has not. The D/T is rated at 1.5/3. I could see being more stringent about deleting logs on higher difficulty caches, that makes sense to me. This one isn't meant to be real tough, just meant to be a little reward or extra incentive for hiking the hill in the first place. And with that said, I feel reasonably sure that both of the loggers in question did actually do the hike.

Hey everyone, Relatively new cacher here. I've done a fair amount of finding, at this point, but some CO experiences are still rather new to me. Today I checked on one of my caches that had a DNF. It was still present and accounted for, but I noticed that 2 of the "found it" logs online did not have corresponding signatures on the log. Now, I know that it would be within my rights to delete those 'found it' logs but it's not something I've done before, and I wanted to get some insight and advice from you all. To be honest, I'm a little torn on how to proceed. I appreciate following the rules for the sake of the integrity of the game/hobby/whatever, but I'm also concerned about being off-putting. Some more details about the incident: *The cache is a magnetic nano, the ones with the reeeeally annoying tiny rolled up log that takes forever to roll back up. *One of the finders in question is a new cacher with < 100 finds total. *I don't know either cacher at all. PROS Maintains the integrity of the game, sets a standard, it's just the rules CONS Possibly develop a negative reputation, possibly offend someone out of the hobby, possibly make an enemy?? After thinking about this on my own for a bit, I'm inclined to reach out to the 2 finders via message in a friendly manner to ask why they didn't sign the log. This will have the added effect of creating a record (in my message center) of what happened with these finders, so that if it happens again I can see that they are repeat offenders, which may change my views on how to proceed. What do you think? Also, what good or bad consequences have ensued from you deleting 'found it' logs?

For me it's always been "about the size of an apple" or alternatively "can fit some swag and trackables" like it says on the Geocaching.com website. This container can. I'll keep the designation as "small". Anyway, I think the point has been made. Some folks are bringing up the issue of "size creep" or whatever it is which really belongs in another thread - I think I remember seeing one somewhere in the general forum before? This container seems to be functional, and I really appreciate the advice I received in considering how to make it so. I'm personally not going to discuss the size any more in this thread.

I didn’t read that description on the website. I simply had the container in my hands. I think if you held one you would reasonably be able to call it a small.

I put a trackable in it when I hid it, so I should say so. Check out TB8JBMY to see a few pics and get a sense of the size. Sorry for formatting, on my phone and copy/paste made it weird.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the tracking of FTF by project-gc.com If you put [FTF] or {FTF} in your log, then project-gc.com can keep track of that and generate actual FTF statistics. That's it. I could be the 300th finder, put the {FTF} in my log, and it would count on project-gc.com So in that sense, FTF's are only what you say they are. I like what Keystone said, "First to sign the clean logsheet." I like to try to get FTF's. If someone logged an FTF online before me, I would be annoyed. But if I was the first to sign an empty log sheet, I would have that satisfaction inside that I was the true FTF. And that's good enough for me. CO's could delete the fraudulent claims after checking with the log. That person could also easily be ousted as they've apparently made a habit of it. Final thought - is there a possibility that this geocacher doesn't quite understand the game? Maybe they don't realize they have to physically visit the cache? Maybe they think that if they're putting the first "found it" log on the Internet, that is the First to Find? In other words, the geocaching only exists on the Internet for them? A strange misunderstanding, to be sure, but perhaps possible?

Small.

The magnet works ... weakly. I think you're right about the gaskets. We will have to monitor. I have spares. To solve my problem, I shaved off a 45 degree angle of wood all around the mouth of the hole. If the canister gets stuck in the wood again, at least this time the cap will be unimpeded and can be screwed off.

I would actually love to hear more about the pirates. I was going to add that there may be some edge cases where you'd want to use the audit feature. For myself, I made a letterbox cache and put a lot of effort into it with a custom stamp, etc, and decided to make it PMO because I was worried that new cachers might not understand and take the stamp. I can't really tell you if my fear was well-founded, but that was the thinking at the time.

As do I. But I also think, "Wouldn't it be nice to know that permission was granted simply by virtue of the fact that a cache was placed here at all?"

Actually for that specific cache I didn’t. Maybe it’s a pride thing? But I did add the language in some subsequent caches that were in a similar environment / same ownership situation. I don’t really like having to do so as I consider it to be just one of the things a CO should do and I would hope it would be presumed behind the scenes. Having to explicitly state it on the page acknowledges that there is a problem with getting permission sometimes. I suppose it brings the issue into the light to make more people aware of that issue. It would just be nice if acquired permission were so common and matter-of-course that we wouldn’t have to state so on our cache pages — it would be safely presumed.

To be clear, I’m not bashing the reviewer, that person has helped me a lot really. It was just a stressful situation really and if I wanted to ascribe blame it would be towards the “do-gooder”.

I despise those!! But I will admit, sometimes it's tough coming up with good logs on all the caches we find. I will sometimes cache with 1, 2, or even 3 of my kids, all of whom have their own accounts.... Sometimes I encourage the kids to write their own logs, but other times it's just not a reality. Or so I've told myself. Perhaps I'll rededicate to having the kids write better logs themselves. Thank you for this list.

The new profile with shared access is a convenient idea. You don't have to publish the cache under that account, either. When it's all ready, simply copy all the HTML stuff onto your own profile's cache page. This does, though, "use up" a GC code (wasted on the shared account which now won't publish that cache) and honestly I'm not sure how people feel about that. Does it matter?

Could be my mistake, but the tone and impression I got at the time was malignant, not "Oh gosh I'm just doing my duty making sure everything here is A-OK". The reviewer showed me the email he received and it wasn't nice. The reviewer also had their own strong wording along the lines of "you better not have lied to me." It definitely made me feel bad. Not the sort of interactions and feelings you're going for in an uplifting hobby such as this. I wish now that I had kept the emails but apparently I've been "trashing" emails on that account, not archiving. Oh well, probably for the best. My point is that this is a social hobby, of sorts, and we should try to be mindful of others' feelings. There are "good" and "better" ways (as well as "bad" and "worse") to approach an issue. Fortunately I was resilient enough to shrug this off and try to see it as maybe just the innocuous way you say in your post (though in my heart I know that's definitely not how it was meant, I read the email) but maybe someone else would be pushed away from the hobby. Are our actions and interactions going to strengthen the player base and the hobby itself, or damage it?

I want to chime in because someone did this to me, once. One of my caches published and then a do-gooder very quickly messaged the reviewer (not me, ever) that permission for that location was IMPOSSIBLE. The reviewer contacted me to make double-sure I had gotten the permission. I felt sad and worried that someone out there was doing that sort of thing, and not even trying to contact me, made me feel real small, but thank goodness, of course I had gotten permission. It wasn't impossible at all. I'm glad no one posted a nasty-gram on the cache, as is seen in this case (I've had that, too). The 2nd DNF on the Ender island is a better example of how to respond, more tactful and educational.

It's a good question. I could see how someone might want to "armchair" log a DNF by simply looking at a location and thinking "ugh I don't want to go there, that's the bad part of town, or that's a known homeless person hangout" or whatever reason. But you actually went there and even started looking for the cache. Deserves a DNF and, as was mentioned previously, some sort of public log giving other people a "heads up" as to what's going on there.

Hello, I have a nifty cache setup that I inherited, which is a metal canister off the geocaching shop (specifically this one) which is then placed into a log. The log has an appropriate-sized cylindrical hole drilled into it and a magnetic circular plate at the bottom to help hold the canister in place. The log can then be placed "in nature". I had this for one of my hides and then discovered that when the log gets wet, the wood swells and hold the canister so tightly that you can't get it out and can't unscrew the top. I took it home and left it in my garage for a couple months and now the wood is relaxed and the canister easily goes in/out. Are there any ideas on how to deal with this and salvage the cache setup idea of hiding the canister in the log?

I'll throw in my vote. This quote is clutch, for me, in understanding the situation. I had a similar thought process reflected in this thread when the promotion first came out. First I thought, "Ugh, not only do I have to go out of my way to get caches, but I have to get specific ones at specific times!" My first inclination about the promotion was that it was lousy. But after a few minutes I realized that actually this is what a promotion should do - get me off my butt to go get some caches I might otherwise have little desire to seek out. Now I've been to several areas that I wouldn't normally seek out, because of the promotion. I mean, sure, I may have eventually gone to the areas "because I'm bored" and wanted to do geocaching, like that could have eventually happened, but this promotion spurred me to do it sooner. I'll also point out that a lot of my family members, who are really new geocachers, love this sort of thing and this has really gotten them to get out and go go go for more caches. It's definitely cementing the hobby for them, if you know what I mean. Do I think the promotion "penalizes" me because I have to go out of my way to get more caches? Not in the slightest. You know, Jesus taught about this concept with the parable of the laborers in the vineyard in Matthew 20:1-15 . Long story short, we are not diminished when someone else is added upon. It's an optimistic and others-focused way of seeing things.

There's a bit of a painted rock scene in my neck of the woods. Once in awhile I'll approach a geozone and notice a painted rock. It's a sign to me that I'm looking in the right spot.

Different people will go for it for different reasons, that's why I try not to judge someone else who wants to do power trails, I won't presume to understand (let alone pass judgment!) on their motives/enjoyment of the activity.

Sometimes with geocaching you do need to be patient. You might not be able to go geocaching on any one particular day, once you hit a certain point where most/all caches around you have been found. At that point, you need to plan trips for geocaching, or plan to geocache on trips. You can also put a lot of time into planning your own hide(s), and then maintaining them. Be the change you want to see.

GC1ZFZM This one is remarkable in the sheer volume of visits it gets, and smileys that it continues to get without anyone signing a log. You can really get a sense of what % of cachers log the smiley vs a frowny or NM.

Remember that reviewers are very experienced geocachers. They know what they are talking about! Pay close attention to what they write to you. It is you that needs to elevate your understanding of the situation, not them. I have been in the same boat in the past. When I was newer, I tried to hide some caches that weren't really up to snuff. The reviewers rejected me. It would have been easy to get miffed and offended, but instead I humbled myself and took to heart what they had to say. I recently spent over a month trying to get permission to hide a cache on top of a hill on a hiking trail. There were some twists and turns along the way but I finally tracked down the correct person to give the permission, and got the permission! Now I literally can't get to the spot because of too much snow! I'm waiting patiently....