Geoextreme87

That may be true but of what I read of the post it seems there is alot of complaining about scout caches due to the lack of responsibility on maintenance. I guess what I was trying to get across is this is a game and should be FUN. In a world approaching 1,000,000 caches we are going to find caches that we dislike or get dissappointed about. Do caches that make you happy and just ignore the others, it really is that simple. There is really no need bash on the scouts for their shorter lived caches, I'm just glad to see youth out there trying new things in the outdoors. You know maybe a few of them "irresponsible scouts" will like the game and look into it further. Responsibility is a learned trait. Learning is a progressive deal that takes time; I'm sure all of us can relate to that.

My apologies then for misunderstanding the banning idea. As for the GPS skill I was correlating to the idea of the entire geocaching process and learning how to mark a waypoint (which would be needed in order to publish a cache). As for the maintenance deal you are right it is annoying but I find it a good thing that troops are at least giving geocaching a try. Let them have their fun and don't get so out of bent when the cache goes missing. Treat it like any other cache in that situation send a Needs Archived note and move on.

To ban these groups from publishing a cache does NOT seem to be the most sensible idea. Now I do agree that the majority of caches done by scouts groups (and other youth groups) do tend to fall out in generally a short period of time. But we should consider the positive effects these caches have. This is a great way to introduce people to our sport and the skill of using a GPS. Caching is suppose to be FUN and when you start excluding groups you are denying them that right as well as risk bringing negative feelings around this game. The one Troop cache that I did down in Virgina lasted only 11 months but the coordinates were acceptable and it was a neat locality. 32 cachers logged their find online and all had nothing but positive things to say about this cache. Further more 3 different troops found this cache which brings a sense of scout spirit around this game as well. Certainly we would like to see scout caches survive much longer and be readily maintained but in all fairness there are lots of individual cachers out there who have done equally poor maintenance and have placed caches in far more inappropriate localities. We as cachers should look at an alternative way to approach this problem. For instance local caching organizations could have scouts create a few caches but then allow them to be maintained by the caching organization. This way us cachers can have a well thought out maintained cache while bringing a positive outdoor experience to our youth.

Exactly there are other cache sites including navicache, LbNA, Atlas Quest, Terracaching, and other smaller sites that all offer caching opportunities and sometimes cachers post there first. Plus friends sometimes do get the benefit of the find first. I also had my sister and a group of her friends accidentally run into a new cache before it got officially posted.

You are looking at this from a cachers point of view. There are people out there who don't know about geocaches. Painting the microwave to blend in with the surroundings would actually make it more suspicious would it not (certainly does suggest not being a dump)? Or is it just my end of the woods that doesn't have microwaves hidden in tree stumps painted with camo. Now knowschad I agree the reality is, that based off the locality of the cache being in a secluded area that it does suggest NOT being a bomb. But I would be horrified by a bomb squad that did not take action after being called in. Again as said before BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY! I would also like to make clear I'm not trying to attack the CO for I think it was a clever cache, was responsibly placed, and this is a highly unusual and unfortunate circumstance.

Excellent point no pointy object also instead of digging you could be scarping a depression. I think your fine assuming you have permission by the owner/land manager to actually "scrape a depression with a non-pointy item". With a third above ground it allows cachers easy access to the log and doesn't require any more excessive searching to the area than an ammo can. Besdies how is this really different than covering a cache with rocks in a talus pile?

Besides, come to think of it... a MICROWAVE IN THE WOODS, PLUGGED INTO A TREE?!? Yeah... I am going to take this particular "bomb scare thing" very lightly. To paraphrase what we often hear here... this is the sort of thing that gives bomb squads a black-eye. I think you are being a little hard on the bomb squad. They were called out and lets admit a microwave in a woods is just a little bit suspicious. Now true the likely hood of it actually being a bomb is microscopic but BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY!

Some more info on the trail system your doing this on would give more insight. For instance what kind of trail use does this get (foot travel, equestrian, bike) and how much usage. Where is this trail located and what kind of habitat/terrain is this in. How many trail heads are there? Finally what is your intention for this long cache series. For example Is it to get more people to realize the recreational value of this trail, A caching challenge, experience the natural wonders on this trail, just think its a cool idea, and etc. I do agree with the others that significant localities in general would be better than mileage markers. However I've seen some mileage marker caches before that weren't to bad at all. However if it was me, I would place them at least every 5 miles apart not 1 mile or less. 100+ caches is a lot of maintenance. Also add some diversity in the cache types if you decide to go with a large number of caches multis, letterboxes, and puzzle caches can be just as if not more fun than traditionals. A thumbs up on not making these caches micros, Small caches in the woods aren't my favorite (unless they are stages to a multi) but I do understand the financial reasons behind it. Just my 2 cents and suggestions?

I agree with Konnarock. The reviewers are being ridiculously nit picky in this situation and this isn't a real ALR its a joke. Of course I'm one of those in the minority that has the opinion that ALRs should be allowed and those you who don't like the COs requirements should just not go find the cache. But sadly the rules currently set have limited the creativity and fun one may have in this game. Thats life I suppose...

Yeah the FTF area is a funny thing and yes people go out at the strangest hours to find a 35mm canister velcroed to a tree or a magnetic key holder in a guard rail. I've nabbed a few FTFs before and being a basic member I don't have the advantage of the text notification. But then again if you look at some of my FTFs these are usually caches that require long distances or special equipment to get them. If you ever go out to the Rockies and are willing to go into the vast forest lands for a day of long hiking keep a lookout for unfound caches. I have seen caches that have not been found in months before someone claims an FTF. And Locally, if you check your computer once or twice a day your bound to hit a nearby newly published cache. It is all about the timing and luck.

I agree, especially if you explain what happened along your trip. I would personally do a note but a DNF works too. If the CO erases the note well then the CO is being a little over controlling in my opinion but I wouldn't get upset about it and just move on.

Oh man and I thought it was awkward when I got approached by the land owner and asked me and my friend if we "had found what we were looking for." I responded with a "yes" and then quickly discovered they had no clue what geocaching was and never gave any permission to have a cache placed on their land. Oops...

When I first started the game I did but now a days its not a big deal for me. In all honesty with time you will get one. I've pulled two FTF due to the difficulty or isolation of the cache in which it was weeks before anyone even attmpted the caches. One being out in Delaware where I had to Kayak to a lighthouse. Another in the middle of BLM land in Wyoming and I so just happen to be a mile away at a Geology Field Camp, It was an easy hike out it was just the fact that the area was very desolate and you have to be willing to put in the legwork. If you really want a FTF just check up on your cache search in your area once or twice a day and you'll eventually hit one. Good Luck!

How do you know based off the information given that the cacher at the meeting didn't explain this to the best of their ability. Of what I read I think the explanation was satisfactory. The township felt that placing caches on cemetery land may not be appropriate based on religious and ethical concerns. Cemeteries have always been a gray line for caching. In this case the township said no. We as cachers should respect that move on.

I would say the best cure for this is a deep breath and clear your mind. As for the people who stated that "this is just a game" they are right it is a game. But there is a right way and a wrong way to play the game. Cachers sometimes get caught up in the moment about themselves (stats, FTF, or "get as many caches in such a short period of time as possible") and don't take the moment to remember that these caches are created for everyone to enjoy and that the CO took some time and effort to place this. Lets not even get into the respect the land and property surrounding the cache. So anyhow indeed these cachers you describe appear to be inconsiderate but it is no reason to get all flustered and a headache over. Try to solve the problem as best as you can (which appears to be exactly what you are doing) and let it go. Cache On!

I find it a little insensitive but certainly not the problem. I'm a little shocked at the amount of cachers who actually posted the face as a second find rather than a log. I find that much more unethical than the political face itself. But to go as far as notify Groundspeak I would say leave it be, to each is thier own (Don't like, Don't do it).

It is unfortunate that this scenario played out the way it is but perhaps it is for the best. By asking permission this cacher has prevented the possibilty of giving geocaching a bad name. This is indicated by the township recognizing that geocaching as an "admirable" recreation. This should allow good relationships between cachers and the local government in future events (ie. placing caches and events in town squares and community parks for example). So overall I congratulate the cacher who asked permission first before publishing and say we were just unlucky this time around.

I realize alot of this has likely been repeated many times within this forum but here is my 2 cents. 1. If you were within a SAFE ZONE, the hunter was in violation of PGC Laws. Tell the State Park manager about this incident. 2. This hunter was indeed showing poor sportsmanship and should have handled this situation better 3. Even if he is in violation of laws never argue with someone with a loaded firearm! 4. If you are in DCNR land you do have equal right in recreation but you should consider that hunting certain species can only occur during certain seasons, times, and days. Try at all time to avoid these hunting season so that you and the hunters can both enjoy their sports. (Sundays are a good day to go caching in the woods) 5. Always wear blaze orange when on or near lands that are open to hunting (In PA if its not a residential area its very possible that someone may be hunting that land) 6. In general, hunters give each other space when pursuing game and cachers should respect that same guideline. Exception to the rule is if you are on a MARKED trail or road open to the public, in that case you do have the right to travel on it. 7. Finally consider that some people are just as passionate about hunting, just as we are as cachers. They may have done a lot of work to prepare for this hunting trip and are just frustrated when a scenario like the one you explain occurs. IF they engage you in conversation be apologetic explain that you are geocaching and had no intention of interrupting their trip. At this point if you two can engage in a more civilized discussion try to work things out. IF conversation continues to heat up apologize again and leave immediately (come back when hunting season is not in aka Sunday).

Baby steps... 1)Find cache. 2)Sign log. 3)Get smiley. I could explain it to a two year old with those words. It wouldn't matter if I was walking through the forest, completly oblivious to the hobby of caching, tripped and my face fell on a cache. If I sign the log, I can collect the smiley. It's just about how I got my first one. If it was a final of a multi, the find would still count. Those are the steps to a traditional cache not a multicache! The first step should actually be find 1st stage then continue to coordiantes after till you find "final" cache. Then its sign log and get smiley. As for the forest accident to each CO is thier own decision. Also finding a cache by accident is different from delibertly skipping stages cause you can. Some CO may find those acceptable others like myself may not.

As too post 76, I realize this is a reviewer who is blogging. This is why I posted such a defense to show that within the geocaching guidelines I have not violated any rules! Its unethical but it is not rule breaking. There is a difference between ethics and rules. To Keystone I respect your opinion but these people posted right on their "Found" logs that they SKIPPED all intial stages except the last. By defintion a multicache has at least two stages. They found only one stage therefore they did not stand within the requirements of a multicache and I have the right if I so choose to delete their post to maintain quality of my cache. Now I realize some people don't mind if people shortcut on their multicaches and that is completely fine (that is your cache its your choice) but with this one that I created, I felt that they didn't complete what by defintion is a multicache. It should also be noted for those of you who are big on the "Smiley" I made a traditional cache in this park to meet exactly the expectaions that you wanted (Find container, signed log, claim a smiley). I was hoping that would fill the caching fix. Obviously it didn't and was partially the reason why I archived this cache and replaced it with an Earthcache whichhas solved this problem. Again I placed this topic to determine ethics solely. Keystone I ask you respectfully, please let my decisions in the past remain the way they are. Multicaches that I will create in the future will not have this problem as I will leave them hintless and will respect what cachers in this blog have strongly consider ethical. this should prevent both seeker and CO's little toes from being stepped on.

Where on earth does anything you quoted justify deleting a legitimate log? As to the ALR, it becomes one when after they properly sign the log, then you decide that there will be penalties for outsmarting you. Not sure if you have been following the thread, but back in post #76 geocaching.com stated that the finds were legitimate and if requested by the finders, they would be promptly reinstated. What more clarification is needed? You made a mistake. No problem, everyone does. You posted, or so it appears, to find out if it was justified or not. It has been pointed out several times in several ways why deleting the logs was improper. No one is even asking you to correct your mistake just learn from it going forward. I don't know how to make it any more clear. So I'll go in baby steps. Step 1: This is a multicache which means there is a least two satges that you need to go to. Step 2: 2 cachers decided they would skip all intermediate stage and go straight to the final cache. This is not a traditional cache this is a multicache they need to hit the intermediate stages. Step 3: Some who posted in this long series of blogs state if that I require a cacher to go to an intermediate stage in a multicache that I've just created an ALR. I was merely explaining based off the info from the geocaching website I can not see how I violated any rule. (see upper two links in previous post) Conclusion My intention of this blog was to see if what I did was considered ethical. I've found that too most shortcutting to a cache is ethical and therefore logging a find is acceptable. I respect that as their opinion and will consider that factor when making another multicache (so that I avoid this problem in the future). I decided then to post what happen to this cache and I have cachers stating now what I did was consider "illegal" to the caching guidelines. I merely just pulled the info from those same guidelines justifying why what I did was "legal" (No matter how unethical). So what happens in the past remains in the past UNCHANGED! However I will consider these mainstream ethics to multicaches in the future. Does this clarify everything?

Allrighty well so much for me not adding another reply. It seems I have to justify my rational for basing that I do have the right to delete the "Found it" logs that stated that they delibertly shortcutted and did not do any of the other stages except for the final stage. (PLEASE NOTE just because something is unethical does not mean I violated any of Groundspeak guidelines which is further explained below.) 1. Heres the link on the www.geocaching.coms site that states I can delete logs. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#maint "Cache Maintenance The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." 2. Here is why going to the intermediate caches on a multicache are NOT an ALR and is a requirement. http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx "Multi-Cache (Offset Cache) A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. " By only doing the final they have not met the requirements of a multicache! Do not treat this as a traditional cause it isn't one! At the time when these cachers tried to make their claim, I had no ALRs in place! All they had to do was go to ALL the stages and sign the log (the minimum requirement of a multicache). But I guess my expectations on people were too high.

The Rule is to avoid spoiling food (A health concern) in the cache and to deter animals from beating up and carrying the caches away. I'd say if the owner is watching the cache to see the look on the FTF's face I'd say no harm in this case. But Harry Dolphin is right its against the rules, personally though I think its a great prank and this should be videotaped.

CONCLUSION All right everyone I want to first thank you all for keeping this pretty civil and explaining your reasons and opinions on such. Now based on the info that I have read both on the geocaching site and on this blog, plus the fact that none of the cachers that I deleted ever got their finds back I would have to conclude to the best of my knowledge that I did not actually break any rules (Though several of you disagree, which you made obvious in your post, please read the next paragraph). HOWEVER, I find that I (and the few brave to agree with me ) am severely in the minority on the topic of whether it was ETHICAL or NOT. So I have concluded ETHICALLY speaking I WAS IN THE WRONG. I have also concluded from this blog that most cachers (both as seekers and COs) would consider short cutting an acceptable act. This is good info to consider if I were to decide to ever make another multicache so that I set it up that its 99% short cutting proof. That way no cache seekers step on my toes and I don't vice versa and hence and overall enjoyable cache for all. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Now to throw you guys some unknown (or perhaps known if you did some profile checking on me, lol) background info about this multicache scenario. The geology multicache was archived for the facts of people short cutting (which could be proven by the fact that they stated such in their "Found It" logs) and despite my best efforts, severe muggling due to the geologic areas being in high foot traffic areas. An Earthcache (published 1/21/2008) solved the problem as requirements were needed for each stage and order of stages didn't matter and seeing how a 10 year old did this cache with no problem I would say the requirements are not unreasonable. This also filled the intentions of why this cache was made, as people who were interested in the Park's Geology did this cache and those who were not did not. It should also be noted that I built two other caches in this park to meet the needs of "cachers who liked to find the treasure" and those "who liked the adventure to the cache". I made a simple C&D Traditional along one of the trails (that was also less than 300' from the road) and a another Multicache (5 stages), though could be from a 5 stage to a 2 stage, has not been by any of the cachers to the best of my known ability. I will note if a cacher would happen to beat the system I would send them a "I'm very disappointed in your decision e-mail" but based off the ethics observed here in the blogs I would not delete his/her's find. I will however not give back any of the finds for the old geology multicache. As I did take this very personally as being disrespectful to me for the time and effort I put into the making and maintaining of this cache. (You may express your disagreement if so wish but it will not change my decision) At this point I see no need to further continue this forum and will not respond any further. Again I want to thank you all for your opinions and your polite manners to me and the other cachers on this topic. Cache On!

Yep - the reason for one of mine was that it was more GEOGRAPHY orientated rather than GEOLOGY orientated. Does this mean a shift in the criteria? I thought Earth Science in the broader sense included Physical Geogrpahy - landforms, fluvial systems, erosion, depostion etc.? Everything that you have listed are geology topics and perhaps the problem deals more about lack of the geology info for that actual site itself (ie. rock formations of that area and how they correlate to landforms seen)? Without seeing your write up I would not really know. As for the physical geography request at first I would say they are different as geography is putting a relationship with the human interaction with the natural processes. However after more thought there is a broad area that they both cover and there are ECs out there (Not to mention fully published geologic papers) that successfully hit this criteria (ie. Iron Age Forts, Dams, etc). So I guess try to see if more of an emphasis can be lead on the physical properties of the local rocks themselves. Hope that is of some help