L0ne.R

I don't think you'd have to pay them to do this.

In the guidelines this type of cache is not allowed For all physical caches, there must be a logbook for geocachers to record their visit. The logbook must be Physical Replaceable Easy to sign Enclosed within a container ----------------------------------------------- > It's not a container.

Throw it in the trash.

Is it Overspanning? It has a D2/T4.5 rating. Seems like a difficult cache to find even after putting on hip waders. A D3 or D3.5 might be a better D-rating and will likely decrease the number CHS notices you get. Also, you might get fewer DNFs if you mention in the description that hip waders are needed, so people come prepared. It seems that some come to the site without any idea that hip waders are needed so they log a DNF and have to come back another day.

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1555760218

And Keystone included this in his closing comment: "No "replacement thread" should be started."

Oh how times have changed. There are rewards now The ability to log a find on challenge caches (prize) Souvenirs (digital trophies) A statistics tab and grid to encourage competition with yourself and others (leaderboards) Project-GC to compare your stats to others (leaderboards) Cache types to use for grid-filling and challenge rewards (prize)

Does the Little Free Library have a plaque with a number on it? If so it will likely be on the Little Free Library Map which will give you contact email information for the owner. Most LFLs are on the owner's property (usually on the lawn near the sidewalk) but if it's in a park and doesn't have a plaque, you might try contacting the city.

It's allowed and sanctioned in my area. As a CO I can't ask that everyone who claims a find log my logbook individually, not with a group-of-the-day signature. They can create an account for their group and log finds under that group account. But if they want to claim a find on their individual accounts then don't use the group-of-the-day excuse or the "we are helping the CO by not filling up their logbook" excuse. Especially when the CO provided a big enough logbook for 100s of signatures. I had a group of 50 claim finds when only 3 visited the cache. They needed the non-trad find on New Years Day to claim more coveted 10-10-10 and Jasmer challenge caches.

Around here. based on what I'm seeing, I think the algorithm is 5 consecutive DNFs. And I don't think it includes DNFs on the same day. If a group comes through and logs 5 DNFs that day, I think that may be counted as 1 DNF. Perhaps a reviewer could give us the Health Score rule when it comes to DNFs.

There are 2 options below a log entry that you can choose from: "Great story" and "Helpful".

Examples of rusted tin caches. Cookie tin geocache: Altoid tin caches: Coffee can tin:

In your example I expect that you and all 25 people in the group were at ground zero. You saw the cache and watched as it was signed for the group. In my example 3 people actually saw the cache. 40+ more people logged the find. Regarding the logbook, it was a large logbook that could hold 500 signatures easily. Most geocachers in my area can get 50 signatures on a 1cm by 30cm strip of paper. I think the most pressing reason to use one signature is to speed things up. Standing around the cache as the logbook is being signed is boring and slows the day down. But I think a CO should be able to ask for signatures in the physical cache as would be expected when a lone cacher finds a cache. I realize that cheating could still take place--one person could write everyone's signature in the physical logbook, but I doubt they'll want to sign more than a handful of other names in the logbook.

Unfortunately, at least in my area, when there's one "group" signature in a logbook it is considered a legitimate logging method. Anyone in that group gets to log a find online. I can not request that everyone who logs a find must have their signature in the logbook.

That was something I couldn't muster. I stopped hiding caches because of too much cheating. Especially when a cache I worked really hard on to create a good experience from start to finish, got treated like it didn't matter. Well, except as a stepping stone to qualify for challenge caches. 40+ geocachers logged it as a find but didn't visit the cache or sign the log. I stopped planning geocaching vacations because of all the abandoned junk that was propped up by finders who left more abandoned junk in order to claim their "find". I still like to see what's going on in the forums, the debates continue to be interesting.

I think the question is a broader one about the psychology of cheating. I found this article about cheating in sports interesting and could relate to geocaching. It seems to create a change, the moral high ground has to come from the top (not just lip-service). Here's a clip: Dr Shu says: “People have the ability to rationalise any behaviour post-hoc. They do psychological acrobatics to maintain their beliefs that they’re good people with high moral standards.” So people are well-equipped to rationalise their unethical behaviour after the event. The key is to make sure they don’t cheat in the first place. This is easier said than done, but there are practical steps that organisations can take, such as signing at the top of an honour code, a tax return, or, in this case, a doping drugs form. “Simple reminders such as the signature location on a form can lead people to be more honest. Bringing the signature to the top makes it top-of-mind and more salient.” Timing is important, too. Individuals should be asked to pledge their agreement to the honour code before they have the chance to cheat. “If you give people the opportunity to inflate their performance and then ask them to behave in line with the code of conduct, it’s too late. The morality train has already left the station.” You have to catch them at the right time. -------------------------- I don't think it's enough to tacitly agree to guidelines.

I agree with TRR. I never want my caches adopted out. If I drop dead with no time to retrieve and archive, I'd rather they were archived. It would be nice if someone would then go out and retrieve the cache. Archiving preserves the history of the cache and it's still under my/our account. Call me skeptical but I think it's likely that someone who adopts our caches will do it to get an old GC code (and a bunch of FPs that they didn't earn). The new owner can change the listing completely--remove our trailname, change the hiding spot, change the description, etc. I don't want my seasonally-checked, water-tight, swag-size container to turn into a bison tube that never gets checked.

Yep...

This is what Groundspeak should pay attention too. As a business model, a database that can't be trusted is a poor way to grow and retain members.

PM the reviewer.

GCY4WF "DNF" Taking a quick look at this owner's history it seems his MO is to post: "I know... It's been a while. New and improved coming, I swear." Then he does nothing. He seems to string a cache along for a many months until his caches in need of maintenance end up sometimes archived by him but mostly reviewer archived.

Keystone, I think this is a tongue-in-cheek topic. I get edexter's 'why pretend' point.

I just read this in the forums

Archive it and list a new one. The fav points were for the original unique cache. Keep the history accurate by archiving it and starting fresh with the new different unique container.