Traditional Bill

I believe that everyone's geocaching play list will be quite different given the diversity of cachers. I myself would load my geocaching play list with bands like Streetlight Manifesto, The Bouncing Souls, Danzig and a whole score of other bands most people care not to listen to, LOL.

I believe it's deliberate. If you read the topic with the update details, it states that stats now update automatically. Not sure how quickly they update, but it's most certainly automatic and we have no control over it anymore.

This should explain it a bit more clearly for you - Lab Caches

You should probably follow the advice of others and read the cache placement guidelines twelve or thirteen times. No.... really.... Read those guidelines. A LOT

Check it again tomorrow. Lab caches are slated to start counting towards all of your stats starting June 3rd 2014.

Please do not make your comments directly to the State. Contact the people who are negotiating with the State. You can visit SJGeocaching.org, and make suggestions in the forums. Not sure what Central Jersey has going on as far as suggestions. (I had a witty and snide comment about the dubious value of making suggestions via another NJ caching club's site, but I think I'll just leave it up to the readers' imagination.) I don't see anything going on in the forums there regarding this. Brian,the thread is in the "NJ caching partnership" forum. If you're a full member you can browse that forum. I'll email you a link to the thread and a link to account validation if you're not already a full member so you can view and comment accordingly.

There he goes again trying to re invent the wheel. :D:D If you don't like multis, filter them out of your searches. It's as simple as that. You don't need multiple smileys for one multi, that just doesn't make sense to me.

Almost reminds me of the "1 terrain" cache I found in the middle of the Wharton state forest (part of the NJ Pine Barrens) that was a 15 foot tree climb.

I routinely remove junk that you described from caches. I'd likely remove spent brass as well. Not that I'm "offended" by it. Trust me, I'm quite difficult to offend. It's just that garbage does not belong in a cache. If you find things like that (garbage, trash, etc), you're free to remove and dispose of them without trading for them.

Yeah, I'm with Moose on this one. That doesn't sound like something I'd like to see as swag in a cache. Congratulations on your first five finds though and welcome to the game. Please read the geocaching guidelines 8 or 9 times when you get a chance. :-D

I agree on Groundspeak making it easy on people... really do. The problem is that people abuse that generosity and start on paths that were not supposed to be made. Then again, all evolution comes from crossing unbeaten paths so... the ones I criticize are the ones that make the game evolve. Sure, I agree that there can be some abuse. But it's so minor in the grand scheme of things. And there's a process in place - if it becomes a problem with a particular cache, the cache owner/Groundspeak/reviewer can take care of logs or lock the listing. I don't think regular "physical" caches should be locked out after archival. There are those who seek out archived caches simply to clean up "geo litter". If they want to claim a smiley in the process, who cares? They found the cache after all. The folks who clean up the litter of the irresponsible owners who don't remove their archived caches are doing a service to the game board. Caches like that should remain unlocked unless there's an issue. It's the archived virtuals that I believe are the most subject to abuse, although I can see where Ambrosia is coming from. The "archived logger" in the OP is a local in my area and as I said before, he has a habit of cleaning up and claiming finds on archived caches. I think it's lame that he logs archived virtuals in which the object of intention is gone, but that's his prerogative. I'm not opposed to locking archived virtuals after a period of time, but is it absolutely necessary? Look at the example in the OP. It took 10 years for the archived virtual to suffer "log abuse" After it was archived. And it's only one log. I hardly think that's a problem that warrants locking the cache, although I do believe it could set bad examples for cachers that are "only in it for the smilies". I'd be lying if I said fake logging didn't annoy me. I'd also be lying if I said I haven't spoken my piece about it a few times. At the end of the day though, the important thing is that nobody is logging any of my archived caches and I'm not logging anything that I haven't legitimately found and that's really all that matters.

I've been months behind in my logging before. And I know people who have been years behind. But in addition to people who get behind in their logging, there are also people who log old finds on new accounts because they're dividing a team account into multiple individual accounts. ^^This. If people get more than a couple of months behind on their logging, too bad if a cache got archived in the meantime. If people want to split one account into two accounts it would make more sense to have a function to do that and copy all the logs rather than having to go through each one manually. It's hard to see it being required very often so it could even be a controlled thing where I'd need to make a formal request to split "team tisri" into "tisri 1" and "tisri 2". ^^This^^

There are many cachers on both sides of question of logging caches that no longer exist? If that is so, this game no longer resembles the one I signed up for. Geocaching has changed so much since I first signed up for it, albeit in other ways. The obvious question is why the site allows caches that have been archived for so long to be logged at all. Because people get behind in their logging of finds. In the OP's example..... The Cacher would've been behind ten years in their logs. :-D That's a good question though..... is anyone ever more than a year behind in their logs, if that? Maybe a conversation for a new thread.

I like your attitude of trying to restore a relic or a good cache but wouldn´t it be better to just "adopt" the cache? As you say in the new cache description: Then wouldn´t it be better to just adopt it instead of creating a new listing? Just a thought... Anyway, liked your attitude but still don´t agree in logging a cache that is archived. I gather the listing was archived already and "unarchiving" a cache requires reviewer action. As far as I know, you can't adopt an archived cache. The CO does not cache anymore and had no interest in going through the "unarchival" process in order to transfer the cache to me. Therefore, it was just easier for me to create an entire new listing.

Why? This does not seem to make sense and is confusing. Why should mystery caches be treated differently than multi caches with respect to the final? Moreover, I wonder whether it could happen that in this manner someone not authorized could get to see my mystery coordinates within the time period I need to add a further point and to change the visibility type. This change also increases the danger that cache owners will forget to change the visibility type of the final coordinates for mystery finals. If I'm not mistaken, most recently I've been told that for both mystery and Multi caches, you need to now list the "posted" coordinates as a reference waypoint as well. If that's true, than it would make sense that the first waypoint be set to visible by default so that the (unnecessary) reference waypoint for the posted coordinates can be seen. I haven't tinkered with the new submission process yet, but I can imagine after getting over that initial hurdle, all of the following waypoints are likely hidden by default.

I agree with you there. You shouldn't be able to "retroactively" log an earthcache just because you've been there before. There was actually a thread about this posted in the earthcache forum last year. If you were the 5 years ago before the earthcache was published, and can remember every little detail to the point where you can provide the logging requirement from memory, then who am I to argue? I wouldn't rightfully be able to delete that log if they have given adequate answers, whether I agree or not. I firmly believe that after archival, Virtuals and earthcaches should be locked. Sometimes, a virtual is archived by the CO for the pure fact that they do not want to/cannot maintain the logs anymore (i.e. - making sure cachers provided the right answers, making sure everyone that has logged provided the answers). This leaves those archived listings open to what I like to call "+1 abuse", especially if the CO is no longer active. My opinion on finding physical caches that have been archived, however, is significantly different. If you go in search of an archived container and find it, there's no reason why you should not log that as found. For example, I had GC1NQKG stored in my GPS before it was archived and didn't realize it was even archived until I started looking for it on the map. I suppose the CO misinterpreted a prior log and thought the cache was removed when it was actually in pristine condition. Instead of removing the cache, I ended up relisting The container (with the owner's permission) as my own - GC4G9P4 So there's at least one "logging an archived cache story" that turned out with a happy ending.

He is local to my area. It's not uncommon to see him log archived caches. In fact, he makes it a point to spend days hunting archived caches. I've never seen him log an archived cache where the container wasn't there. I have seen logs though where he has found an archived cache, logged it as such and removed the container there after. Also..... The Virtual thing. He likes logging archived Virtuals for some reason. To each their own, I suppose. I'm more or less in agreement with briansnat on the issue though.

And that kind of attitude reminds me of why I don't often post or lurk here. Thanks. I posted an example of an app where it fails. Clearly GSAK handles things differently (but, I note, still not completely cleanly.) I noticed c:geo is broken since the update. That app hijacks the data from gc.com though, from what I'm told. So I'm sure Groundspeak isn't losing too much sleep over it.

That cache is the worst.

Came across this bookmark list and thought it was pretty interesting.

Just curious..... How have challenge caches fforced you to the sidelines? Are you unable to go out and find and log Traditional caches just like you used to? Challenge caches are traditional caches. I can't add them to my list of finds and use the geocaching tools as they were meant to be used. Challenge caches are listed as mystery caches. Not Traditional caches. Yes, in most cases they are at the posted coordinates, but not always. Trust me, I know. I own 12 challenge caches that aren't placed at the posted coordinates specifically so cachers don't have to lament over walking past them. I did not realize that. I haven't seen a non-traditional style challenge cache. The CCs that I've looked at are all located at the posted coordinates and I had assumed that was a requirement for challenge caches, despite being in the Mystery/Puzzle/Unknown category. I didn't rrealize it at first either. There's something about placing a mystery cache at the posted coordinates (personal thing for me) that doesn't sit right with me. So I asked my reviewer if a simple puzzle could be added to a challenge so it doesn't have to be placed at the posted coordinates. I was surprised when he responded with something to the effect of "Well, I don't see why that wouldn't be allowed."

Just curious..... How have challenge caches fforced you to the sidelines? Are you unable to go out and find and log Traditional caches just like you used to? Challenge caches are traditional caches. I can't add them to my list of finds and use the geocaching tools as they were meant to be used. Challenge caches are listed as mystery caches. Not Traditional caches. Yes, in most cases they are at the posted coordinates, but not always. Trust me, I know. I own 12 challenge caches that aren't placed at the posted coordinates specifically so cachers don't have to lament over walking past them.

Those high D/T caches can be logged. Your friend solves a puzzle, then takes you over to the island on his boat and climbs the tree while you wait below for him to throw you the cache, you both get to log a find. But if it's a challenge cache and your friend doesn't qualify and you do, only you get to log it even though your friend did all the work. It seems rather taunting to tell someone that they can find it but not add it to their find list, and forever have it on the map as a cache they haven't found when they have found it. Maybe we should ask Groundspeak to implement "half smileys" :D On the other hand, if I'm in an area with my friend that I regularly cache with and there's a nearby challenge that only one of us qualifies for, it doesn't bother either of us one bit to pass on a smiley. We just save it for another time when we both qualify. It's just another smiley, after all. I get your point though, for some cachers (not necessarily you) that's really tough to do. Some folks just need to find and log every cache they walk past.

TopShelfRob, if you can easily bypass an equipment only, puzzle or multi cache, is it not just as easy to bypass a challenge? Most challenges have the word "challenge" right in the title. Just like you're not going to bother going to GZ for that scuba cache, why would you bother going to GZ for a challenge cache? If you're not qualified, it's just as "out of reach" in my opinion. On the other hand, why not look for a challenge in your area that isn't too difficult to qualify for, go out and fulfill the requirements and then find the cache? How do you know that you wouldn't enjoy it if you haven't tried it? Perhaps there's even challenges out there that you already qualify for. I've seen plenty of easier challenges that also appeal to cachers with less finds.

I thought about that before I posted, but still..... Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. Although you're right, valid point. I can remember one situation where I removed the final of one of my 10 stage multis before an organized group outing. They were with a local Cacher who had previously completed the multi and he brought them all to GZ. Funny thing is that I still got found logs on that cache that day. Deleted every one of them.