L0ne.R

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.

Did your father want a chronological list of where those people were for the past 5 years before they bumped into each other? And did he feel it was his right to anonymously access that list? Perhaps available at city hall for those who are curious, and without notifying those people (after all the person looking has a right to some privacy ).

Oh definitely. Seems people love smilies. Power trails proved it, so I'm not surprised with the AL development. Groundspeak found a market in smilies.

They made the choice to talk about their lunch on Facebook. Maybe even limited that online discussion to "friends" (not public). The AGF list is not a choice.

I think the AGF list should generate a list like the old Premium membership feature where if you looked at their PM cache your name appeared on a list. I recall a lot of people feeling very uncomfortable about the PMO list. Some used workarounds so they didn't appear on them. Or didn't search for PMO caches so they wouldn't show up on the list. Not because they had nefarious intentions, but because of their own sense of privacy. The PMO list affected how they played the game. The AGF lists affects how some can enjoy and participate in the game and affects how some COs get feedback.

Yes and COs I'm sure would be happy for it. Personally, I'd rather they left a note. Especially if they will write a 'shared experience' log and add the community feel of geocaching that so many of us thrive on. I don't need to know that they were caching in Thailand in 2008, or even that they visited the nearby cache before they visited mine.

Some reasons why someone might want their chronological list to be their right to disclose. They cache with a group of people and one of those people regularly checks the "All Geocache Finds" list to see what the group members have been up to and sometimes comments via social media/text message/meetup about where you've been. Sometimes asking why they didn't call her/him. Their manager/colleague geocaches too and sometimes checks the "All Geocache Finds" list. They occassionally comment at the water cooler or meeting 'Hey Fred, what was Rochester like this weekend?'. Sometimes they'd rather choose what to share with their colleagues about where they've been. A family member checks their "All Geocache Finds" list to see where they've been and asks why they were in the area and didn't get in touch. Their angry ex is actually stalking them. A person at a geocaching event, that they briefly met a couple of times, has taken an uncomfortable interest in their life and mentions how they noticed that they've been travelling out of state frequently. They don't want anyone to know that they travelled overseas last year for 3 days of geocaching adventure during a pandemic. They just want a modicum of privacy on the web where it can be had, especially when the feature involved is "oversharing". Is the "All Geocache Finds" feature necessary for others to find geocaches efficiently? We are not entitled to know where another geocacher has been. Regarding the "All Geocache Hides" feature. Is the AGH list necessary for others to geocache efficiently? I think a case can be made that "All Geocache Hides" feature is necessary for others to geocache efficiently. The AGH list is necessary to for efficiently getting a list of geocaches that a finder might find enjoyable. Where a person has been isn't an efficient tool for finding good caches. Many of the caches I've found were caches in rough shape or in unattractive locations. You are better off looking at my Favourites list (that list is meant for sharing to help others find good caches).

I agree that total anonymity would make the game lose more of the important 'shared experience' side. These days I'm noticing, while out in the field and using an app, that some logs are hidden. It does give me a moment of pause. I do hope more people don't hide their comments in individual caches, but I see it as their perogative. I think the OP is asking for the stalking list on the profile page to be hidden if a member decides they would like it hidden. The game has lost a lot of it's 'shared experience' in the last decade. When I started it was normal to have a logbook in the cache. When microcaches showed up micrologs became the norm even in small or larger caches and owners asked people to not fill out the logsheets quickly, 'please write only your signature or initials'. Then everyone started treating all paper logs, even book size paper logs as if they were micro logs leaving only a signature. Then many of the online logs became TFTC only logs or meaningless cut n paste style logs--'I found a lot of caches today with some great caching pals. Thank you cache owners for placing your caches.'. It's the few who do post meaningful logs and share experiences that keep the community side of the game going and make it appealing to more players. I believe we need to encourage more 'shared experience' style logs on the individual cache pages. I don't see the chronological "All Geocache Finds" list having much to do with the shared experience.

For the most part this is what I do, log notes instead of finds. Doesn't it seem creepy that we can get a handy list? For example, taking Max and 99's account, back in January they cached in neighboring state Kansas. And in January 2020 they had some geocaching fun in Arizona and California. Is it our right to have an easy-access chronological list of where and when someone has been caching? The OPs request/suggestion has been discussed on the forums for years. Link Link Link Link It's unlikely Groundspeak will do anything. Perhaps if privacy laws mandate it. The downside to logging notes instead of finds is we can't use the map tools to remove "found" caches. The only way I can think to do that is to add the found caches to my ignore list. A problem arises for those who like to hide caches. They won't know if an ignored cache is nearby.

Generally I see this when the original cache was listed as small, and it was actually a small container but ends up replaced by the owner with a nano size container. Examples of replacements that I've encountered: dog tag capsules (these are half the size of a bison tube) and button nanos. The owner doesn't change the size from small to micro. The other frustrating part is, when I leave a note saying the cache is now a micro/nano the owner does nothing about it.

When nanos are listed as size 'small'.

From my experience I think there's a good chance the feature won't be used. I know I never remember to use the sort feature while I'm in the field. I only use it occassionally at the computer if I stumble upon a good log entry, or someone leaves a good log entry on one of my caches. If they don't turn this into another stat, I think it will be a tool that a few use, but generally it will be ignored.

I agree. I've used it but I don't find it that useful. I don't recall anyone who has the feature say they thought it added function to the website and was a good tool for finders. But shrug, whatever. Except that I have the same misgivings as baer2006: "If I can ask for one thing: Please do not make this a public stat (like saying somewhere on your profile "Your logs got x "Great Story" and y "Helpful" votes). This would be an instant kill of the feature. And neither make it available via API, otherwise project-gc would exploit it."

I looked at the OP's cache hides and don't see any unwarranted NMs. I'm with TriciaG, as an owner (and as a finder) I'd rather a newbie NM mistake than no NM/NA logging when a cache does need it. It's already difficult enough to figure out how to post an NM using the app. And it's not that easy on the website either. You have to know to "opt out", or notice the "Report a Problem" on the lower right of the comment box. Few people log NMs and NAs as it is.

I understand you want to shake off criticism, but sending us to a 2012 forum topic is not the best way to do it. The point for some of us is to express to the people who hide geoart and PTs, the downside of promoting geocache-placement records. Now that Guiness World Records recognizes mass placements of geocaches, we are sure to see your placement globally challenged shortly. This will negatively impact many communities (except by those who value numbers). I expect that we may even have teams contact cachers asking them to archive caches so that a Guiness World Record can take place in their community. Whole towns could end up filled with only one team's 1000s of world breaking placements. It's almost guaranteed that those caches will not be maintained. (If there's an example of maintained 500+ PT/Geoart trail that is regularly maintained I'd like to know about it. I have never found one. I'd like to know about all the PT/GeoArt trails that don't have multiple comments about maintenance needs, and comments indicating that the finders left throwdowns, and multiple NMs, and an NA or more.)

I found these helpful bits of instructions about how to search for archived caches using project-gc. You could check the write-ups and logs to see if the cache appears to have been abandoned by the CO (no response from the CO, reviewer archived, no indication from the CO that they removed the cache or have it listed on another site): and

Can't say I've found anything charming enough to take in the last couple of years. But I have found some fun things in the past. Here are a few: I too mostly leave swag. My associated irk (since this is an irk topic) is not enough actual small or larger containers that are in good shape not wet, dirty/moldy, so I feel comfortable leaving stuff.

I guessed there were lots of 'Found It Didn't Find It' in Iceland. This was my first hit and it fits the bill: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC7AEJZ The CO said it was gone in April 2019 and disabled it. Followed by some DNFs. Followed by a NA in November 2019. Followed by 4 days later a throwdown "found it" by someone who was visiting from Belgium. He wrote "As a searched for a while I left a piece a paper a the feet of the tree (closest to the coord) under few stones." Followed by a reviewer note a few days later in December. Then nothing until a different reviewer posted another reviewer note 8 months later. Still not archived, and doesn't have a red wrench.

You've been geocaching for 2 months. With 12 finds I would suggest that you wait at least 2 more months before you buy your containers. Wait until the honeymoon phase of being a new cacher passes. Most people get keen in the first few months then drop out. If a 2-more-month wait is too long to wait to hide caches, you may not be committed to ownership yet. When you hide a cache, hide just one. Learn from the experience. I recommend that you hide only one cache at first. Wait a month to see if you enjoy the experience and are still committed to monitoring and maintaining more caches.

Sounds like they didn't tell the reviewer that they were going to do this. A note to the reviewer might be necessary.

Ammo cans with moldy contents, and owners who think because they've used an ammo can it never needs to be checked and maintained. I found this moldy example last week. First thing that hit me when I opened it was the smell.

Thanks. That makes sense, and looking into it I see that the OP has a series of caches along a trail. Those tend to be popular and generate a lot of logs.

Is the OP talking about only AL logs?

This ^ It was 4 years ago, when the CHS score was a new thing. You haven't had a CHS email since. Most COs who have come to the forums to complain about CHS have had legitimate pings--like the example in this discussion where it turned out the cache that had been missing for 4 years.