Ragnemalm

I think gadget caches would be the perfect exception from that statement. It is much more relevant for cache bombs, filling an entire area with petlings.

Opt-in feels fair, but it would need to be opt-in, because a CO making a CO will make as little settings as possible, while a CO building a gadget cache has spent more time and can take the extra time to uncheck a checkbox. But let us consider when this is at all relevant. Most caches are archived when not maintained, and the CO all to seldom takes care of the remains. It stays in the forest as litter. So it is mainly things like 2001-2002 caches that we want to adopt, and they are not under any new adoption rules. So would an "set up for adoption as needed" option actually solve anything? So maybe we should stop trying to solve the wrong problem. Now, how about the cache bombs? Is there any reasonable way to avoid to have COs with a thousand petlings filling every possible space? Or is it desirable to have as many (simple) caches as possible around? Is that what the hobby is about?

I think this is a good idea, especially if COs can opt-out. The example of having an expensive gadget cache force-gifted away is valid, but it is a wider problem than that. Having a simple space-filler petling archived by a reviewer or force-adopted is nothing, little is lost so that could happen quickly. Caches with much work put into them should deserve a little more slack. The actual value is higher. They should not be archived as easily and quickly. However, it is hard for reviewers to know whether that is the case. They have D/T, attributes, description and the FP rating, but all of these can be high for other reasons than a hard-work, valuable construction. So how can we tell reviewers that a cache is a gadget cache?

Since I like tree climbing caches, this suits me just fine, especially when I am placing a cache.. higher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qETFkVmXvs

On a 2009 cache, yes. On a 2002 cache, no, then we may helping the CO, who may not be active, to maintain it. We don't have to but since old caches is a thing in the hobby, they have a special value.

As far as I can see, the only way to reduce "cache bombs", filling up the entire neighborhood with park-and-grabs, would be to limit the number of caches one CO can have. Even then, some COs would just register several accounts to get around the problem, but I guess most COs would take the hint and not take every free position available. We all know the citation "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." But few care about that.

AFAIK HQ can do nothing, or little. They are responsible for what goes online, but the caches are our responsibility. We have had some cases of cache sabouteurs. One was in my home area, a kid who started stealing all caches (at least the asy ones). The solution was to make all caches premium and then the problem disappeared. Another case was a TB hotel, which was repeatedly sabotaged and quite a few TBs were lost. (My guess is that they are in the nearby bushes somewhere.) The solution was to move it and make it a bit harder to spot. A third case was a unique cache I made, and put in what I thought was a discrete place where nobody goes. First version, rather primitive, might look like trash. Muggled. OK, so I made a new, in a neat hand-made box. Content gone, box found smashed. Hopeless case, archived and made a new one in a tougher place, but not as unique any more. Felt so-so, but at least the saboteur didn't find anything more to destroy. Generally, the trick is to give the sabouteur nothing to sabotage for some time. Deactivate all caches and take them in. Here is one case where HQ could possibly help: To allow these caches to be inactive for extensive time, preferrably several months, so you don't have to archive and re-submit every single cache. Can HQ accept that?

15', that's feet, right? 4.5 meters. That's nothing! Or at least not much. To me, high caches are not "grr" but "wow!" (if they are not too hard). My latest cache is 10 meters up in a tree, and you can not use a pole, you must climb it. But you are not expected to use a ladder, no, it is ment for free climbing (I am not talking about T5's). Wonderful tree. I like free climbing caches a lot, with no need for ladders and rods. I am no great climber and not young, so I can't climb anything, but like those medium tough climbs. I see many advantages: I find tree climbing to be fun and challenging. It is a good exercise. Otherwise, the hobby will only train my legs. The risk for muggling goes down a lot! (Tends to happen only if the tree gets cut down, unless it is popular with children of course.) Tree climbing and mounting climbing caches are the ones that my children enjoy. But I strongly believe that they should only be logged by people who enjoy climbing. Those caches are a very small minority of caches so they should not pose a problem, they don't fill large areas. Most caches in my area are 1.5/1.5 or similar, simple caches at face height. It does happen that a CO has a strong tendency for a cache type that you don't like, be it hard mysteries, long Wherigo's, tree climbing, pole fishing... Then you just make some yourself of the kind you like and contribute to the variety. Sorry if I said this before but I felt it is relevant for the thread.

Only one year. The kinds that bother me are things like "full calendar" challenges and similar, not least with not so common types like multis. They take forever to fulfill and feel more like show-offs from the most experienced cachers than "challenges". Anyway, that was not what the thread was about, just a reason why I have trouble logging many new caches.

The problem you are describing is one of the reasons that I suggest that revisiting caches should be a thing. In my area, most caches that I havn't logged are either trivial and uninteresting (1.5/1.5 petling behind a sign), challenges that would take 2-3 years or more to complete (why are these even allowed?) or impossible mysteries. So in order to keep the hobby alive (especially now when we can't travel) I have been revisiting, with my own rules for what counts. And all caches either feel like new or are so good that they are worth revisiting anyway. Not to mention that good locations are always worth it. So yes, I have found myself in your position and found a way to deal with it. But it is not an official thing.

I had the same thing recenly from a beginner who thought finding the start of two of my multis would count. I politely wrote back and explained the rules. No reply. Deleted. The same beginner has two suspicious finds on two T5s that are likely to be gone. Anyone TFTC log on a T4+ or D4+ is suspicious, and even more so after those two proven fakes.

These "lonely days" challenges are absolutely great and should be allowed! But it would help them if COs checke on suspicous fakes.

Fake logs keep broken caches alive, not least caches that are lost and/or unmaintained, where the faker can log safely. Fake logs routinely downvote great caches, both in FPs and in words. They increase the ratio of unappreciative logs, which makes it less encouraging to build advanced custom caches. Yes, you always get a number of TFTCs, but fakers make it worse. Fake logs create extra work for the CO to check, double-check that there is no log, contacting the cheater to as politely removethe log, and then monitor the result until it feels right to remove it. Some would remove immediately, of course, but doing that too quickly can cause conflicts. Fake logs take up space in the history and the COs mailbox. Therefore, yes I do care about them. They do hurt the hobby.

Just scanning a QR code to get coordinates is simple and fairly common. We have a whole series of QR caches here, with various twists, with things like recoded images that you have to process in some way to make is valid to scan. There are many variations of the concept once you leave the simple "scan QR to get final". At least that is what it looks like here. QR codes are fairly common.

Definitely. "DNF cheating" is the worst kind, they indicate that the cache is still there, that everything is fine. A non-caring CO is causing this, but is not helped by ordinary-looking logs. Another kind is the kind who see a desperate need for maintenance and ignore it. We once found a T5 on the ground. Recent finders logged TFTC. Yes, we alerted the CO.

That comment brings us back to what I said. You mean ALC's, right? There certainly is room for confusion.

Separated by miles? They are everywhere! The closest ones here have starts 200 meters apart, and these two are 300-400 meters from the planned Mega! BTW, "separated by miles" doesn't sound very far apart. Add a bunch of stages to that.

About five years, and five visits. A very hard multi (D4T5) with multiple stages with one that was particularly hard. But there are several mysteries that I have visited from time to time and never solved. Say, 8-9 years since first try. But they are not finished yet and probably never will be.

Actually, the case when touching the cache has a point is for high T, like swimming, boating, climbing etc. Unless we need to keep the time short, we insist on touching the cache even if the log is already signed. No "logging from ground/shore" if I can avoid it. Groups that don't do this are easily spotted. At most one log actually notes the design of the cache. The others log "one of the ones we logged today", clearly not knowing or caring about the point of the cache. But at least they didn't damage it.

Reviewers sure deserve our gratitude! They do a terrific job! In our area, Toa Norik is known as the super efficient reviewer that often review a cache within minutes! (No, not always and we do ni no way expect it, we know it is a bonus.) But when do we see the "thank a CO" day?

This is called a mystery/unknown. Most non-field mysteries would qualify. Like all these "easy" mysteries at D2 or even lower that are easy when you know what the CO was thinking and otherwise impossible. We have plenty of these.

Can't see finds? Sure you can. Where do you mean? But the search options as well as map options are limited, no "havn't found". That's not nice.

Ask for permission, and get it, including instructions on what kind of cache is welcome. In the ideal case, the cache should be a welcome addition in some way. Make it clear in the description that you have permission, and maybe even state a contact person (or where to ask) if anyone want to be sure. They cachers will count as guests. No permission, then no cache.

FYI, these are two nice LAB caches, fun physical temporary caches. Or rather, IMHO, from now on "event activities". (From FAD 2019 in Sundsvall, Sweden.) Not very similar to ALC, right? So I think they will need to be renamed from now on.

ALC = permanent, virtual, usually very easy. Go to somewhere and count windows. (Yes it can be something more interesting but it was already there, like other virtuals.) Lab cache = physical, temporary, usually pretty hard. Can it get more confusing? My best bet is to replace lab caches with "event activities" and log them with a TB. I just have to get some TB codes.