Traditional Bill

So earlier this week, I noticed that GC8E37 would be within a 70 mile radius of home. This historical moving cache has a mission to visit every U.S.state. It was camped out near Reading, PA. It has camped in PA four times over it's span, and never once in NJ. So my caching buddy and I took the hour and a half trip, picked up the cache and found a nice spot for it here in NJ. Helping it along on it's mission, right? You would think I did a good thing for the good of the cache. Well, as it would turn out, the cachers in the Reading area are very cross with me. To the point that I've received hateful "message center" messages and emails telling me that I'm selfish, a poor example of a geocacher, and a jerk.....among other things. They are complaining because they posted notes on the cache page earlier in the week that they wanted to find this cache and couldn't until the weekend. So does posting a note on moving cache hold it in place for you? Did I miss something here? LOL. Looks like most of the nasty notes written on the page have been deleted with the exception of one....but I'm curious. What do you guys think? Was I selfish in helping this cache along on it's mission, or did I do the right thing?

I vote for a moratorium on new power trails until Groundspeak comes up with some new guidelines to better suit the power caching community as well as the local residents that it affects.

Believe it or not, I've never found a nano log that was wet, tattered or torn. Full? Yeah, all the time. Never one that needed to be replaced for anything other than being full, though.

I have been away from the forums for a couple of months, and now that I'm back, I'm absolutely delighted to see that the "speaking thread" is alive and well. It's always good to speak.

Why is it ridiculous? It preserve the puzzle part of a puzzle cache. Otherwise I could just look at that map and see where the final locations are without solving the puzzles. It's not like it's open to platinum members (yet) it's equal across the board. Come to think of it, IMO it's ridiculous that you feel so entitled... well it doesn't tell you outright the cache name so you would have to hunt the cache down to learn that and the circle is approximate. Doesn't matter. It's still a way that can be used to brute force puzzle and multi finals and it's unfair to the CO who put their time into hiding that cache. If finals for puzzles and multis are your concern, find the puzzles and multis in your area, save the coordinates and then work around them to place your cache. That's what I've always done.

Almost all of the trackables that I've released in the USA have gone missing.

And here we go again.....

+1!!! That's what I thought the situation was until I tried it out. I thought it just didn't work until I actually entered a location and tried again.

Seems favoritism thrives everywhere in geocaching. Something I could go on for a while about. That's a whole different topic entirely though and not sure it's a can of worms I'd like to open. I have a friend on one of the reviewer's bad sides and he can't even get a "find twenty wherigos" challenge published.

I have a trackable that I only visit to earthcaches. It just doesn't let you log it as dropped, but visits are no problem at all. They account for mileage and everything.

Well, I just noticed there's around 10 or more in NJ with EJMG in the title that Bill missed, and a few that he already found, so maybe it isn't impossible. Here's one http://coord.info/GC2QMMW And another! http://coord.info/GCZZTM Hah! Thanks 4wf, I may be able to qualify after all. LOL

And that is the way it should have been done, and that is not the way it was done elsewhere. But of interest to me is did you have pre policy discussions or were you just told this is it ? We've had a ton of pre policy discussion. We've been discussing this in our forums for well over a year now. Nobody was left in the dark about anything. That's always been how SJG operates.....at least ever since I joined over two and a half years ago.

For the record, SJG (South Jersey geocachers) choose a few individuals within our group to represent our club and meet quite a few times with park personnel from south Jersey region parks to discuss the policy. It wasn't a secret or private meeting. It was openly posted on our forums and the members of our organization were all invited to attend, but we left it up to the few that stepped up to discuss OUR woes with the policy. I didn't attend any of the meetings so I don't know what type of involvement the other two major NJ groups had and can't speak for them, but I know SJG had their say.

Agreed. My main issue here is that the cache is currently active and entirely unattainable because there's only 32 active qualifying caches. Whether he lowers it or not, it should at least be archived because of the simple fact that the challenge cannot be completed by anybody anymore. It might be time to archive the challenge, but that should be entirely up to the cache owner. Is it occupying valuable real estate? Do you feel the need to find every cache within a certain radius of your home? Why don't you simply put it on your ignore list and forget about it? I don't know, no (I don't live in the area, nor to I care to "clear" areas), I'm not upset that I can't qualify, and it's not bothering me to the fact that I feel the need to ignore it. I simply wanted to see how folks feel about a challenge that's active that nobody can feasibly qualify for anymore. It's like having a puzzle cache active that doesn't work anymore, but a couple of people still have the solution and could technically do it, but nobody else could. Maybe it's a local thing. Our reviewer is quick to disable/archive caches that can't be found. Take GC2K4QJ (non pmo) for example. There were three caches needed to find this one. They were archived and the final remained. Just because some others already had the final coordinates, should the final have been left active?

Agreed. My main issue here is that the cache is currently active and entirely unattainable because there's only 32 active qualifying caches. Whether he lowers it or not, it should at least be archived because of the simple fact that the challenge cannot be completed by anybody anymore.

Please don't mistake this as a post to disparage challenge caches. I'm a big supporter of challenge caches and enjoying taking them on full force. I'd like to discuss challenge caches that have existed in the past, that are still active and are no longer attainable. Here's my main gripe - GC1CHTQ (non pmo) I was combing the area for challenges that I may want to work on since I may find myself in this area in the New year. The challenge was published back in 2008 and at one point, required folks to find 48 out of 51 specific caches published by one specific cache owner. To this day, only 32 of those 51 caches are still active. I posted a note to the page informing the CO that the challenge is no longer attainable by those who don't already qualify (for the most part). In response, the CO changed the qualifications to include the specified type of cache by any cache owner. That's all well and good, but after keyword searching the site and project GC, I can still only find 32 caches that fit the qualifications, regardless of the cache owner (seems he owns every one that I could find). The CO mentioned that he may change the qualifications to a lower number of caches required, however, it's still impossible for most cachers to qualify for this unless you've previously found caches that have been archived by the CO. I understand where the CO is coming from. It's a grandfathered challenge. The guidelines would no longer permit this type of challenge....but why keep this challenge active if you can't complete it anymore? It doesn't make any sense to me. So should a challenge like this be put to rest or should it remain active for the few cachers who have found qualifying caches that have been archived?

You effectively changed the Difficulty/Terrain rating of the cache then. If it's http://coord.info/GC3KZVB Ivy Monkey, the cache owner should either go out and replace the cache to its correct location, and secure it in some way that people can't keep moving it around (and so he/she can find it again), or the cache owner should change the D/T rating. Part of the difficulty of finding a cache is to return it to its proper location. Knocking it down is "easy". That was probably not the intention of the cache owner, and is a likely cause as to its history of moving locations. And why the owner had problems finding it in the past. Putting it back where it is supposed to be, and rates the higher D/T rating, is the next step in playing the game so that others have the same experience. Earning that higher D/T rating legitimately is the goal for some folks. B. Lol, this is what I mean by not taking it too seriously! I don't think you can comment on if I've changed the difficulty without seeing it yourself so don't go jumping the gun... it was put back only a bit lower than where it had been. Thanks for your opinion though. My 6 yr old did climb to the top of a high fir tree in a friends garden not long ago, then got scared and took a lot of coaxing to get down again! I wasn't surprised though, we had storm winds at the time - I was amazed (and proud)she got so high in the first place. Hasn't put her completely off it though... You may not take the hobby that seriously, but what about the cache owner of the cache that you found? If you can't replace the cache as you've found it, you shouldn't attempt to retrieve it. It's not very fair to the cache owner, although that cache owner should more securely attach the container so it can't be knocked out of the tree like that. You may not have changed the difficulty of the find, but have certainly changed the terrain rating. I had this problem with a climbing cache I placed earlier in my geocaching life. GC3Q1NT (PMO alert). Newer cachers would get it down and not put it back in the right position regularly. It was increasingly irritating as I take the terrain rating of my caches quite seriously. Anyway, in your situation, if I knew I couldn't climb to where the cache was, I wouldn't attempt it. Please keep the owner in mind when you're finding their caches and replace as found or better. Not worse *edited for typo

A single DNF does not mean it's in terrible condition. Of course not. My comment was in response to the preposterous suggestion that all caches should be left active as long as they are physically out there. The vast majority of geocaches do not have active owners. Historically most people do this part time or drop out. The thread is also not about caches that need maintenance, but ones that only have 1 DNF. Your reply was the only one in that chain of quotes to mention "terrible condition". An inactive owner does not deem it to be in terrible condition. Endangered perhaps, if it eventually needs maintenance, but terrible condition if he doesn't log in? No. Perhaps an update to the guidelines is in order here. If reviewers are to disable caches simply based on DNF logs, maybe there should be a new statement under the "cache maintenance" section stating that if you receive one DNF on your cache, then you must make a visit to check on it. I don't support the idea of that being in the cache maintenance guidelines, but if that's the course of action being taken now, then cachers should be made aware of that before they place a cache. And turned into litter over a DNF? An active, involved owner is the best way to ensure that it will continue living on as a good cache. If litter is your concern, form a cache rescue group for any cache that gets archived by a reviewer. Then someone from the group can go and collect the litter. You can do what this guy did Just the tip of the iceberg (no doubt) for so many irresponsible CO's out there... You could do that, however it depends on how your reviewer feels about it. For example, I found GC1NQKG after it was archived in perfect condition and decided to revive it as opposed to removing it - GC4G9P4. I was told that unless I had the permission from the original owner to use the container that he didn't want or care to maintain, it wouldn't be published. I was lucky enough to be able to track down the original CO and get his blessing but most inactive users are just that. Unreachable and inactive....so there's not always a chance to save those caches and re list them.

Oh I love the speaking thread!

Is that a bad thing? (IMO, no it isn't a bad thing) What do the three caching groups and "self governance" have to do with anything? We have no "formal" group in RI and have no issues with the local DEM. I did not say that a change in proximity was a bad thing. I did not opine one way or the other, I simply said there is likely to be a change resulting in a fewer number of caches. Ramapo State Forest has long been thought to be over saturated by many. But if the burden of permitting is too great, the park superintendent can simply limit the number by application of the State Proximity policy. That will be a major change from that which was previously employed. The three groups failed to address the issues that the parks people were encountering in the form of abandoned un maintained and guideline violation caches. It was free range and there were associated problems. These problems came to the fore when one group attempted to become the arbiter of who could and who could not place caches, forced archival of caches for an event they sponsored and to make way for their own powertrail. The group was not anticipating the reaction and they did not go about it with a bad intent, they are nice people , but they were extremely heavy handed and they refused to discuss the matter with other in the group. They produced a bit of animus in the local community and the parks were drawn into the fray. The parks responded with a policy formation program when none had been necessary before. The animus still exist today, more than a year later. I do not say this is a good or bad thing, it simply is what it is. The formal adoption of a twice annual maintenance visit in the policy will make it difficult for the hider with 200 hides, I can't imagine certifying to 400 maintenance visits per year. That is now a policy requirement. We had enjoyed a relationship of benign neglect from the Parks in NJ, we were under the radar and caused no problems until the interaction and clashes within the community drew the parks into the idea that they now needed to police the activity because no one else was taking the responsibility to clean up geo litter or to maintain neglected and abandoned caches. Our landscape in NJ is dotted with unmaintained caches. I can PQ 5 miles and hit 500 caches with the needs maint attribute, and nearly 50% of them are owned by cachers no longer involved. The relationship that your group in RI has with your local Parks body has no relevancy to that which is occurring in NJ. In NJ there has been a woeful lack of group giveback. Aside from private cacher trail maintenance , there has been but one or two CITO events in the northern third of the state in the last year. There are currently none listed for the entirety of the state. We have one cacher , who was among the most prolific and skilled hiders, who put an extreme amount of effort and creativity into his hides who has abandoned about 100 hides, all of which are now fallen into geolitter status. Yet the local organization remained silent in the face of that. Some of this has produced a negative reaction from local park personnel. I believe that the net effect will be a great reduction in numbers of caches within state controlled lands, which in NJ is almost 1/3 of the land area. But on the positive side, many old caches will be removed and a new generation of caches will be placed. I have always believed that if we are to have a good working relationship with land managers we must show ourselves to be good stewards of the latitude given us. I think in NJ we have come up a little short lately. Many prolific south Jersey geocachers have always been great stewards of our forests and I don't think we've come up short at all. While that statement may be true for north Jersey, it certainly does not apply down here. We've always had a fantastic relationship with our park and forest rangers and if it were up to them, I think this policy would be much different. We've held many CITO events over the years, both published and unpublished and many before my time as a cacher as well. You say that this policy will introduce a new generation of caches, but I tend to disagree. Maybe with a new generation of cachers, this may be true but most of us yearn for the "good ole days" when we had blanket permission from our rangers based on the reputation we've built with them in the past. In any case, the policy is here to stay now regardless of what we do or say and we'll just need to grin and bear it or stay out of the state forests which unfortunately for south Jersey, the pine barrens cover most of our lands.

Personally, I like the system the way it is now. The only change I would make is something that somebody else mentioned where those who don't qualify can't "pre sign" the log. That's my personal opinion though. I'll never agree with the challenge stars idea. I do understand why some like the concept and think it's beneficial to challenge caching, however I don't share these views. As somebody who regularly hides and finds challenge caches, I think that everybody being able to claim a find on a challenge whether they get "completion stars" or not devalues the challenge cache. I theme my challenge caches with my challenge hides and I look at it as a "victory" of sorts at the end of a challenge to go find that cache. For example, I have a large nontraditional finds challenge and the final is....you guessed it....a very large, well stocked and well kept ammo can with a big log book, and big items. I hid that cache specifically for those who went above and beyond (or jumped through hoops, as many here will put it) and completed that challenge. Not so any cacher who wants can come claim a find on it. That's what regular caches are for. Challenges are not that, they're different. They're a long running exception to the rules that I rather like having around. I get that many of you don't share this point of view, but I stand by it.

I'm with Roman for once. Challenges wouldn't be the same for me with challenge stars. I hide challenge caches so that cachers who qualify could complete a challenge, find and log it. Not because I wanted to hide a traditional. Like I've said previously in this thread, if I wanted to hide a traditional cache that everybody could find and log, then I would've done just that. I would also geocide my challenges if this were implemented and the majority of the community would probably be thrilled. Edited for spelling

Not at all, just would not want anyone finding my challenge caches without qualifying but I'm sure all other challenge cache owners would be OK with it, wouldn't they? IMHO, challenge stars would pretty much be the end of challenge caches but thats what the goal is anyways. +1

I don't think it's going to be an issue since must of us are not very motivated to cache on state managed lands anymore. I plan to archive and remove all of my state land caches at their deadline as opposed to pursuing a permit and I'm not the only one who is planning on doing so. Sad situation? Yes. Inevitable? Yes. Anything we can do about it? Nope.

Generally the videos don't name the location, so when you visit an actual cache site, the hide could be anything. But to be safe, don't watch the videos. By the way, i've seen a few of the YouTube videos, and i'm happy to say I have *never* seen anyone post a lamppost cache video! We can all enjoy the "aha moment" early in our caching careers. I guess i've never been lucky enough to stumble upon one of these. What are these "lamppost" caches that you speak of? I want my own "aha moment". Edited to say that i kinda agree with Wozainali. However, i'm not surprised that gc.com posted a video. They've gone above and beyond with the handholding. Not everyone has had the "aha moment." A cacher with under 50 finds went to this cache, saw the hint that said "In the usual place," posted a DNF, and asked in his log, "What's the usual place?" Is that a Sheetz? I love Sheetz. They don't have them where I come from, and their pretty regional, but they are awesome. If there was a cache at one I was at though, I'd probably ignore it, and just do my business. Most definitely a Sheetz, Mr.Yuck. I often find myself heading to SGL territories in PA to find climbing caches since we can't place em at home anymore and always enjoy the trip to these places as they're outside of the traditional "wa" But I digress....I don't believe that the new video/s are an issue as it's the GZ that makes the hide. I don't often pick up a container and say "oh man, if I could only come across a ______ to stick this thing." Most of the time, I'll find a great area first and then decide what is most suited for it. Groundspeak can give away a great hide, but who's to say I'm going to hide that cache just like it's displayed in a video? Everybody does it different, ya know. It's some motivation to get more creative! Of course, while observing the guidelines at the same time.