Ragnemalm

Have you tried it? I am revisiting on a daily basis, and 9 out of 10 caches feel like a brand new one. It was several years since the previous visit, the place has changed, my memory of how it was hidden has faded. I don't revisit something I logged months ago, but rather something I logged 5 years ago. It is just like when it was new. Some are trivial, they were trivial back then too. I also re-solve mysteries and field puzzles. Several years after, they also feel like new. And that is not because my memory is bad. It is usually considered pretty good. Of course I remember the very special ones, but even they are not exactly the same 5 years later.

True. Sometimes I feel that screwdrivers should be illegal when geocaching. I have had my share of that. One of my cache stages for a mega event was disassembled by someone with a screwdriver, more or less the first visitor! And by doing so, that visitor destroyed parts of the construction. I had to make a temporary reassembly for the rest of the evening with a few hundred more visits. And that is not the only one that has had that kind of treatment. One was clearly cut by violent treatment with pliers. You have to expect everything.

I even had the pen marked clearly with a "do not take" notice, but still was stolen after a while. Not to mention people logging on the paper that says "this not the log, look some more" or placing a fake log together with that notice. You have to expect everything. Gadget caches not reset properly (wiythout noticing CO), people logging online without writing in the logbook, and definitely people trying your cache ignoring all instructions - including an instruction to put pieces back. People are different and they will misunderstand.

There are IMHO only three significantly different mysteries, 4 if I count those that are not allowed any more: 1) A puzzle to solve at home, go oout and find some simple micro to log it. Most time is spent at your desk. 2) Field puzzles. These are sometimes indistinguishable from multis, but generally speaking I would expect a field puzzle with some first stage to find the field puzzle part. 3) Challenges. 4) The now disallowed "go somewhere in this neighborhood and try to find the place that I vaguely hinted about". Disallowed since the GPS usage is vague or even nonexistant. (1) is the most common kind. (2) are rare, most should be mutis and I wish Groundspeak would make that a rule so they don't get lost among all the ordinary mysteries. OTOH, if I will make more mysteries, I will probably make these since ordinary mysteries are so impopular, judging from the FPs. Does it need some kind of "marker" to distinuish them from ordinary mysteries? I wouldn't mind but like I said they are rare. (3) are already pretty easy to spot from their names. (4) are increasingly rare. At least in my area they are so few that they just don't matter. Marking mysteries after what kind of puzzle they are is not reasonable, and I feel that it may serve as an extra hint that the CO might not want.

This is one example of highly beneficial challenges. There are several others. There are minor issues with late logs etc but that is not much of an issue. If your challenge was fulfilled when you log it, OK. You might get some log deleted by a CO since you made some mistake (like logging on a fake logbook put outside a gadget cache or logging a tree climbing cache because you saw it - very common), but who cares? Those problems apply to other challenges as well. While these beneficial challenges are not allowed, there are plenty of harmful ones. Maybe "full calendar of X" are the worst. So you are trying to get a full calendar of mysterys? Now, I am close to a final of a solved mystery. Oh no, today is not an empty "mystery calendar date" so you don't log it. Or you are not sure, can't waste it in case you are wrong. (Wasn't challenges that make you cache less not allowed? But these are!) Not to mention that this is a problem that hangs over you for several years!

I have started re-visiting caches on a regular basis. One per day! I can't do that with finding new ones (little left within biking distance except for impossible mysteries) and I have too many hides myself so I can't make more, but I need a reason for exercise. The result is 100% positive. I have re-solved a mystery. It was just like a new one, possibly a bit harder since things change. I have also found several traditionals. Several of them had changed so much that it totally felt like a new find. The numbers have little to do with this, it helps me to keep caching fun and interesting, it helps me to get out and get some exercise. (Fortunately, we are not "locked in" here, going outdoors are just fine, just keep distance.) It may never become a log type, but I find it totally beneficial and fun for me. It puts new life into the hobby.

This is not a problem. You just go for the next of the dozens of lonely caches. There are plenty of them. You just might to find two more instead of one more. It is an expected possibility. The achievement is to find the lonely cache. The fact that nobody has found it in a long time is a problem in itself and such a challenge helps, a lot. Dependency of others? We are always dependent on others. Caches are replaced badly by others. Caches are dropped and lost by others. Caches are even stolen, mugglers are also others. They are also maintained by others - something that is highly encouraged if someone finds the cache once in a while. When the last three visits to a cache was the CO maintaining it, isn't it obvious that the visits by CO will be farther and farther apart. I insist that lonely days challenges are beneficial for the hobby (unlike many of the allowed challenges).

There is one kind of challenge that I really wish was allowed: The "lonely days" challenges. We took on one of these a few years ago and it was the best challenge we ever fulfilled. The point is to log a certain number of "lonely days" in one week, caches that have not been logged online in a long time. Such a challenge encourages visits to caches that are a bit out of the way, and are rarely visited otherwise. The number should be tuned to fit the activity and cache density in the area. There is a whole lot more to say about challenges, but that is the kind I am missing the most. Groundspeak, maybe a "lonely days" souvenir? Of course, if it only works for a short time, everybody is doing it at once, it will only be one brief spike and then the lonely caches are lonely again, so a challenge is more effective, or a souvenir that lasts for a long time. The lonely caches are often, ironically, the best (often in beautiful out-of-the-way locations) so they really need some help.

We are very much on the same track here. I want FPs, FPs is my measure of an enjoyable cache. However, for our cache to make it to the 10% best, there have to be the 90% below, so I guess some quantity caches are kind of wanted. But what I want for those are simply the less worked caches in nice places, not big areas packed with puzzle mysteries. I want to get out, not sit and work on uninteresting digital jigsaws or cryptos for hours and hours. For higher D, I prefer managable field puzzles. I will keep working on figuring out that "something else". But they are hardest, so I won't fill entire areas with 100-cache-bombs with them. No, one at a time.

I totally agree, but "quick to make and time consuming but easy to solve" are surprisingly popular (although not in FPs). Existing chiphers off a specific web page (impossible without the page, trivial with it but tedious), jigsaw puzzles... you make one in minutes. Thus, there are entirely too many of them. I prefer something more original. I can't make dozens of them, one at a time, but hopefully they are more memorable.

Good. It sounds like my painted PLA cache may work at least some time. However, it is located in a sunny place to it is as challenging it gets for PLA.

We just got started on making 3D printed geocaches, including our own designs. (I have owned an M3D for a long time, but now I have an Ender-3 which is much better and that got me started, finally.) The latest is a Corona virus. Just in time. So far, I have focused on PETG for caches and PLA for other things, but one cache is PLA, painted. Any expericences on how well that would work in the long run?

You are perfectly right! After the latest update, it works again!

There are many answers to your question. Really, anything beyond a plain regular with a standard container in an ordinary location. My most popular caches have various bonus problems to solve, either trad with a trick to find the log book, or a multi with a field puzzle at the start/intermediate stages. My two most popular ones are 4-stage multis with rather easy but often very special field puzzles in each stage, including a stage where you need to use a flashlight to illuminate some sensors. The next after them is a birdhouse with a hidden log book. Then, a Wherigo with hidden locations so you need to search for the zones according to clues, and then a somewhat special final. But my personal favourite is not as often found, it is a rather tricky electronic cache in a tree, so you need to climb up (just a few meters) in order to reach it and then solve it up there. In my search for ways to make fun caches, I have very much turned to multi caches with field puzzles. They are not found as often but they are much more popular than traditionals in terms of of FPs. Of course, you need to figure out different puzzles for each.

Has something changed for the worse? Step 2 does not work, I enter the login/password, but there is no confirmation on it to be correct. (It is correct though.) When I get to #10 and try to install, it signals that it is downloading for a while (Connection.... Logging in... downloading...), and then it reports an error ("Downloading: Error") with no further information. Is this some configuration/compatibility problem of mine or do others have the same problem?

As was noted above, I started a similar thread. I insist that rewarding "re-visits" would be beneficial. My idea was to have a special "re-visit" log type, which must happen at least one year (or maybe even more) after your first visit and only once per cache or once per X years. It is very likely that something has changed during that time which makes the re-visit interesting. Why would this be interesting and a good thing? Caches would get visited more often. When a cache isn't visited in years, the CO loses interest in it and won't check it out any more - nobody seems to care. Re-visiting a good cache is in my experience something nice. I logged it three years ago, let's see if it is still there, and how well I remember it! I am already doing it, logging as "note", but few others do. Cachers have something to do without travelling far. Driving 100km for finding a few petlings because you can't find anything nearby, that is not something I want to do too often. When I have another reason to travel, fine, but burning fuel for a few caches and spending time in a car instead of walking... no, not every day. Not everyone has many unfound nearby. Give me a reason to go out in the forest, that's the important thing. Much of my caching today is about maintaining my own caches. That's also revisiting. Why should a cacher who is not a cache owner not have that reason for exercise? Give them a cache type for that to encourage this beneficial behaviour. As with all geocaching, you could ignore the option if you want to, if it is not relevant for you. But for me it is.

It occurs to me that using a special program on the phone is not legal for virtuals. At least I don't think it is. That is an additional requirement for virtuals that would be against the rules, so a different type, adventure lab or Wherigo, is needed for adding that possibility. Or changing the rules. That sounds like an argument for a different type. But do we need a new type for it? I think it could fit into Wherigo or mystery.

Good point. The bonus becomes the entry point.

Really? AFAIK the reviewers are instructed to only unarchive archived listings for things like accidental archiving (due to hitting the wrong button on the smartphone) or other reasons that are mistakes or misunderstandings, but never for a listing archived because of inactivity from a CO. (This was possible in the past but not any more.) Does that not apply for unpublished caches? I have had a few unpublished listings archived because it took too much time and considered the listing dead. The question of unarchiving published caches is a question in itself but not relevant here. But it has some interest.

I have similar thoughts. I have been offered to make an Adventure Lab, but as far as I can see, it is very similar to a Virtual and/or a Wherigo. And a little bit of Turf. I made a Virtual last year and I didn't do it well. It isn't popular, and I still can't figure out why. Now I don't want to repeat that mistake with an Adventure Lab. What do people like in Adventure Labs? Is it very common, and desirable, to connect the Adventure Lab with a bonus mystery cache? Is it just location, location, location like with Virtuals? Concerning the question of stages above, virtuals, too, can have stages, require multiple locations to be visited, and that seems to be my mistake with my virtual. I tried to make it funny, I should have made it long since people remember the long ones (naturally, with multiple interesting locations). Multis have multiple stages, Wherigos have multiple stages (often painfully many) so of course an Adventure Lab can have multiple stages. But there is one thing I can make with a Wherigo that I don't know if Adventure Labs can do: Customization. You can tweak Wherigos quite a bit. I havn't gotten started with Adventure Labs yet so forgive me for being ignorant, but I hope that Adventure Labs can at least have hidden stages. Right? So, any advice you can give me is welcome. I am trying to come up with a decent idea before the time runs out.

1. I thought we agreed that the thread was about encouragement, not obligation. 2. It is no big effort to me to have a few emergency logs (the far ends of the paper when I cut my logs, they go there instead of trashing them) in my wallet and two or three petling caps in my pocket when going out caching (put aside when I put a PET bottle in the recycling bin). The trick in IMHO to do the small and easy things that helps. Saving these emergency logs is as easy as putting them in the trash. The petling caps almost so. I won't always be able to fix every cache that needs it, but I can handle the easy ones.

I frequently repurpose planned caches. I have a location, and an idea... and then I decide it wasn't good enough, or too much work, or too hard to get to, or I submit and it collides with a mystery. (Happens all the time.) If the idea felt good but has to wait, I print the whole page to a PDF to save the text and details, and then edit the page to what I want to do first. I have got some unfinished caches archived (by HQ, I think) because I was too slow. That hurts, but the problem was that I showed no signs of progress or planning in too long time.

I understand the conflict. I would say that there is a certain difference between expectation and encouragement but it is also easy to confuse them. A related encouragement is that of encouraging cache maintenance. A friend of one made a "cache maintenance stash" with some items useful for maintaining caches (like log books and pencils) - with the undertones that we can help each other with cache maintenance. That is also not allowed according to the rules, but is there any real reason for it?

Nice logs do count in the cache's favor, but they are harder to quantify. It isn't a competition, but the FPs is the only measure I have of whether a cache is enjoyable or not, which is important. Also, as CO I judge some of my caches as good even of the ratings are not so good. But I often question them and try to improve them. Why are they less popular, what can I do about it? And then, of course, there are many inofficial competitions, like FTFs, most founds, challenges etc. But there are so many things you can have as speciality, so we can all make our own niche.

I would call this an error from the reviewer, or an error in the rules. 1) The cache encouraged finders to place their own. Suggested. It did not require it. Not a requirement, not an ALR. 2) How can geocaching be a disallowed agenda for geocaches??? Isn't the "agenda" rule to avoid propaganda for irrelevant activities? Besides, there are thousands of caches with agendas only in my region! Have you ever seen a mystery about a rock band? Of course it wants to promote the band! Or yet another online jigsaw with a photo of a nice tourist location? Agendas, agendas, just as strong as this. This rule needs to be clarified and focused on the actual problem it wants to solve.