L0ne.R

On your cache page, ask the next finder to please remove the cache container and also log an NA when they have removed it. You can then archive the cache listing in good conscience.

Then the next visitor threw down a cache. The prolific CO stopped geocaching 2 years ago and didn't retrieve his 300+ caches.

I can imagine the abuse that would occur.

Thanks for helping to confirm that it is in fact the icon that matters. The only thing that differentiates an LBH from the other cache types is the stamp. Traditionally the unique stamp played an important role, matching the theme or locaton. I provide an example and you respond with 'so what, the stamp doesn't matter'. I wouldn't call it 'sour grapes' because that would mean "disparagement of something that has proven unattainable". This low-hanging-fruit style of play is extremely attainable and nothing that I would be proud to do as a CO. Unless you mean that it is unattainable to hope that people who hide this cache type (which is solely about the stamp) would actually put some thought and effort into the stamp. Then yes it seems, for the most part, it my be unattainable to hope for cache owners to play in the traditional spirit and intent of the letterboxing pastime (and geocaching pastime).

Here's a recent Letterbox hybrid I found in a pioneer cemetery. A traditional cache with a commercial kid's police car stamp inside. Police/police-equipment has nothing to do with the cemetery theme of the geocache.

A cache owner is responsible for their cache and listing. That has never changed. A cache doesn’t get archived unless the cache owner is unresponsive. The usually get multiple alerts and warnings, often taking months sometimes years. It it is not the fault of the CHS, but rather the fault of the cache owner.

I'd like to see this for owners. $1 per hide. If you get a PM you get 5 free hides per year, then $1 per hide. A reviewer can't ask you to remove someone's gamepiece. Reviewers don't have that authority and neither does Groundspeak (it's a smart legal move). You however could retrieve the remains for proper disposal. With the usual caveats... it could be a game piece on another site. Post that you removed the container and will hold on to it for a month. That gives the owner enough time to respond. I have never had an owner request their broken moldy container back. But I've only removed containers that have looked similar to these. With owners who never responded to issues that went on for months, often years.

One of the related problems that I see a lot is that COs drop a container and never go back. They don't maintain what they leave. Kudos to the OP for purchasing watertight containers.

To start with improve the submission form. Make the submission process more detailed so there's little room for uncertainty (or deliberately obfuscating the D/T rating and size). D/T ratings currently only link to the "clayjar" ratings. Instead provide a drop menu with good descriptions that are less likely to be deliberately ignored. The link to more information is important but can be ignored. Too many micros are listed as small. Include a drop menu for size, and provide a good description especially for "small" size caches. It should emphasize that small and larger caches are expected to be large enough for trinkets and trackables. (The opening should be wide enough for a large geocoin, the container is expected to protect the contents reasonably well to keep contents dry). Provide the option to upload a photo of the container. If the CO doesn't provide a digital photo they should describe the container. Reviewers should be allowed to change the size to the correct size.

Unfortunately GCHQ has done little to stop it and has instead contributed to the numbers mindset. Which is demonstrated with this latest new step in the race to a numbers-only game.

Here's a screenshot of the awesome Ontario cache's location. This is the stuff GCHQ is promoting. Parking lot nanos.

A T1 cache with this in a recent log posted by the owner: Owner Maintenance 03/24/2020 New container and logbook in place. Be careful people. Shorter people may need a step stool to access the cache.

All is not well. The devolution story continues.

With lots more 'gimmicky "pad the numbers"' caches.

All of this.^ It appears that set-em-and-forget-em behaviour is now overtly sanctioned by GCHQ and reviewers. GCHQ found their own loophole to drive this through. Opening the doors to more and more "Aunt Martha"-maintenance. The maintenance plan is purposely hidden, not transparent.

I've had NMs posted for bees in the stump that my cache was hiding in. I could do something about it. I disabled the cache. Some people are allergic. Then I checked the cache a couple of weeks later for bee activity. None that I could see so I OM/enabled the cache. If the bees were a permanent feature I would have moved the cache to another stump, or archived it. Getting stung is not a good geocaching experience. I recently posted an NM on a cache because a dove was nesting in a small tree that the cache was in. She was so still that I thought she was fake. I reached up to take the fake bird off of the fake nest. It flew up and onto a branch. I took a photo of her and posted it with my NM disable request. Seemed like the kindest thing to do, request that the owner disable until the chicks leave the nest. The owner did just that.

^ This.

In that thread it turns out that many of those COs were not actually maintaining those caches. They had strings of DNFs, NMs, no OMs, reviewer notes and disables. I see that you were rewarded a Virtual. And looking at your stats I'd say well deserved. You have a reasonable amount of hides that you look after without getting a reviewer involved. You even check your caches just to check if they're still in good order. The anti-algorithm talk and 'why don't I get to own a virtual' protests spoke volumes.

Please read exactly: they complained about others getting the rare icon. Exactly. I think frostengel made it quite clear. Before new virtuals were rewarded there were lots of comments about how much people loved virtuals and how much they wanted them back. When GCHQ brought back a limited number by rewarding 4000 of them, the immediate complaint was, 'I didn't get one, it's not fair.' The key issue was ownership. Many were asking for a chance to have a virtual, but they weren't saying 'I have this great spot for a virtual I want to bring people to'. They were upset that they could not be a virtual (icon) owner.

These are challenge caches in my area. They've decreased by about a third since the moratorium. Note the power trails of challenge caches. If they gave challenge caches their own icon, in my area guaranteed this would double, if not quadruple. Many of the people left playing here, are into stats/grid-filling/icon-collecting and providing caches for those numbers collectors.

We are fortunate in Ontario. Caches can be published, so they are also expected to be maintained. Are reviewers in Massachusetts publishing caches? During COVID lockdown when caches were not being published, reviewers were not archiving but still leaving reviewer notes. They were friendly reminders that maintenance does not have to be a physical visit...

They should be a traditional, since they are at the posted coordinates, with a challenge attribute. But that would upset the icon collectors.

Yes. I would prefer to see a ratio rather than total CO FPs. So (if I did the math right): If a cache owner has 26 hides and 272 favorite points we would see a FP ratio of 1 : 10.5 If a cache owner had 1000 hides and 500 FPs, the ratio would be 1: 0.5 But I'm, for the most part, not crazy about GCHQ making it about numbers again by adding the total FPs to a profile. I think they did it to encourage quality but didn't think it out fully. FP numbers don't provide a full picture and can be used to score points, rather than improve quality or help find quality caches.

Mingo has been given protection and a blind eye turned to vandalism (pouring of cement).