Goldenwattle

Thank you, but I play it to a high standard. My caches are looked after, unlike most people I actually CHECK the logs and take appropriate action, I take it seriously to look after TBs and place them in good caches (don't always get that right, but I try to), I supply the TB owners regular photographs of where their TBs have visited; I don't just log them in and out of caches with nothing more, like most people; I even try to take the TB (if possible) to the TB's owners desired destination, and have managed this on a number of occasions. I attend events. Personally I think the 'forced' checking of caches once a year is a silly idea. That's what Needs Maintenance' is for. It's a good idea if people want geocaching to be less popular and to have less caches. I do, by the way, check most of my caches at least once a year.

Someone can claim they visited their cache. Who is to know otherwise, especially if the cache is a remote one, one of those with a good container, in a good shelter, that will last decades. You just wrote it's "just book-keeping".

We have a different opinion on this. I logged a DNF, after the owner said I could log. I found the exact place where a cache should have been; it wasn't that I couldn't have found the cache if it had been there. I wasn't sitting at home in an armchair logging caches I have never been to. After solving the puzzle I went to GZ. Major difference! I could have left a throw down (as many do) and gone on my way and no-one would have known the difference, but I logged a DNF to let the CO know it was missing. Then after the CO asked for a description of GZ I logged this with their permission. I have also given permission in similar situations to others to log my caches, and no-one has had a problem with this, until here. (The difference is though, is that I went out and replaced my missing cache.) Similarly, I have also on occasions sent an email to give an extra hint to someone who is struggling to find my cache, especially if they have logged more than one DNF. (Reward for logging all DNFs ) Is that unfair too, as that is giving more information than is on the log page? I consider that as being friendly. After all it's a game. The others who logged this cache I was talking about were also told to log it by the CO; as far as I know it wasn't that they "don't understand the meaning of "found it" vs. "DNF"". They were told to log. Basically the CO had turned the cache into a virtual when they shouldn't have and this is why the cache was archived. If what I did is not right, than so is people logging puzzles they didn't solve, when say in the company of someone who did solve it, or if they are given the solution (Happy Birthday, dear, here's your present, I solved you a puzzle ), or logging a puzzle or multicache they stumble upon because they didn't solve that one. I have accidentally found several caches (okay, I might have been hunting for one or two, knowing they were there somewhere, but others I have found accidentally. Best example, I reached into a hole and said, "This would make a great hide"...and pulled out the cache for a puzzle..."Just like his one!" (20 or more people have now signed that log without solving the puzzle. Don't blame me for that; it turns out I am not the only person who stumbled upon it.) Or logged an archived cache, etc. It's a game.

I have just returned from a road trip of just under 7,000 kms, which took me into the centre of Australia. There was often no phone signal. On some stretches, mostly not. (No radio stations either.) Besides, when there was a phone signal, mostly it wasn't my phone company, which tends to be more urban based. I was carrying an emergency mobile phone for the phone company most likely to be found in remote places (Telstra), but that was a basic phone only for phone calls and texting. My normal phone was useless. My Garmin etrex 30 however worked fine, and anyway, I find this easier to use.

Because I had gone to the effort to solve the puzzle, walked up the hill in freezing, windy weather (it wasn't summer in Iceland) and because I noticed the CO was letting others log it, so I thought if they are logging it, so will I. Plus I was not able to return, and Iceland doesn't have many geocaches. I have told finders of my caches, who have logged DNFs and who I believe looked for it, and then after I have checked the cache is truly missing (and then replaced), that they are free to log. It wasn't their fault they found it missing, and they were considerate enough to log a DNF, when many don't. Those who don't log DNFs don't get this consideration, even if I find out later they tried to find it, but it was missing.

Maybe a D2, as it might be tricky to see the number. I solved a puzzle cache in Iceland, but when I got to GZ the cache was missing. The CO, rather than replace the cache, started allowing finders to describe what they found and log the cache. I was allowed to log. The cache no longer exists, as a reviewer spotted this not long after I logged it and archived the cache.

Red spanner = Needs Maintenance Spanner and wrench is basically the same by my understanding. The word wrench is used in the US, while spanner is used in most if not all the other English speaking countries. I think sometimes both words are used to give a more specific meaning to a tool in different parts of the world, but not necessarily the same word meaning.

I don't understand this. What is a 'red wrench'? Never heard that term before. Added: I just realised you mean spanner. I actually thought you were referring to a bird, so that's why I was confused. Language differences, that's all

Graffiti makes a good excuse if any is nearby (hope it's some decent examples). I was caught scrambling out from under a bridge in a storm-water channel by an elderly man walking his dog. He pointed at the camera around my neck and said, "I saw someone look strangely at you, but I knew what you were doing. You were photographing the graffiti." "Yes I was," I replied. And we went on to discus the various graffiti artworks there, and fortunately they were good examples. It turned out the gentleman liked the graffiti. Another occasion, I got caught out by a graffiti artist is an alleyway. Perhaps he thought I was going to damage his artwork, as he seemed concerned and wanted to know what I was doing there. "Admiring the graffiti," I replied. Then he relaxed and we discussed graffiti. A camera around the neck is a fall-back too. Er..."Taking photographs...of grungy places."

I knew some to dress in bright yellow tops while setting up a cache. No-one asked any questions; they were workers doing their job. Even the police waved as they drove by.

There are abandoned structures that can be found in waterways. They might have had a use once; but not for the last 50 years or so, and many people would have no idea what the use was. Use one of those; not a structure with a use or privately owned. Yes, local rules need be followed, but where I live a post out in the water used to have a bison tube attached. Not a problem; it was just local government abandoned infrastructure; used for...who knows. Basically it was in a public area, used by the public. Most people took a boat out to it, but I swam. Caches in the water can be dropped in the water, as I discovered while attempting to tread water, sign the log and not drop the parts, while the undercurrent pulled at me. I dropped the bison tube; never to be seen again. Fortunately I still held the log. I had to return with a new bison tube to replace it. A friend took me back there in his boat this time.

Because of that, I have seen a tree climb listed as 1.5 stars. Admittedly a very small tree climb; there was only the need to pull yourself up to the first tree fork and then reach high to get the cache (if you are tall enough). I made a comment the cache was underrated, because the feet don't stay on the ground. The CO replied the rating was correct, because the walk there was flat and easy to reach GZ. The climb didn't count to the CO, because of that quote above.

I haven't read through all the logs here, so this could have been mentioned. I wish all COs would attempt to rate their caches' difficulty/terrain correctly. It's not so bad if they overrate a cache, but underrating a cache is bad, and here I am mostly thinking of terrain. For people with disabilities it's downright thoughtless. I have seen a one star terrain that involved walking over sand, climbing over rocks and up a small cliff. Somehow I think a wheelchair user would be bogged at the sand; let alone the rest, and even a person not in a wheelchair might have other physical difficulties. It was also a long drive to this cache. How sad that would be for someone to make the effort and then find the CO had lied about the terrain. I have found many examples of this. Some COs should have more empathy for other's disabilities. I even saw one cache with one star terrain and the wheelchair attribute checked, because it was on a trail designed for wheelchairs. However the cache could not be found by someone in a wheelchair; it was off the path and out of reach.

That's normal here in Australia. I often supply photographs too of where the TB is visiting. Lots of thanks for doing this, while no-one has complained about me logging the TB's visit to every cache I find. That way they can follow the journey across the country, around the world. Just remembered, I did have one complaint about logging the TB into multiple caches...in this case I think it was after maybe the first whole massive 3 or so caches I had logged. (one against all the thanks for photographing the TB's journey.) They were very demanding I don't do this. I didn't like their attitude. I told them I normally took lots of photographs of where the TB visits and they were keen on this then, but I dumped the TB in the very next cache. I take great care of TBs, carefully consider a cache for suitability before dropping it off, etc. I feel responsibly for it.

Yes, this can vary from area to area and possibly country to country. From memory I think parts of NZ had a low rate of logging DNFs. It was there I found a cache that hadn't been logged for 6 months and I logged a DNF. The CO checked and the cache was missing. They thanked me for logging the DNF and wished more people would. I worked out from the previous logging pattern, that maybe 20 people in that 6 months had not logged a DNF. I had one relatively new cacher (about 300 finds only) log a DNF just yesterday because they couldn't find it. I checked and the cache was still there, but I was pleased I checked, as the log was damp and something needed to be done about this.

I have never had to grill them. If a cacher has honestly found the cache I find they reply, usually quickly. I too have been asked about a cache and I took no offence and replied to clear up the matter. The CO was doing their job and I appreciated this. However if the cacher doesn't reply (I usually give them several weeks, so I don't hurry this) it indicates they didn't find it and I delete the log. Funnily enough, none in this situation have ever contacted me to ask why I deleted their log, which is more evidence they didn't find it. Sometimes it can be annoying that COs don't delete obviously false logs. An example; I wanted to use one cache for a challenge cache, but because this false log for a multicache (the logger wrote something like, "I found the first WP", an admittance that's as far as they got; and to back that up, they didn't sign the log,) I couldn't use it. Frustrating!

Wow, your states are so small now :0.

If a cacher listed a find on one of my hides, after a string of DNFs, and then I check and find the cache missing, I would send them a message and ask them to please describe the cache (give them a chance). If there is no satisfactory reply, I would delete their find. Some cachers (usually new caches) make a genuine mistake and log a find, but then not knowing how to delete it (although that's not exactly tricky) then log a DNF, but leaving their find log. I delete the find. Also any listed as a find, but stating they didn't find it. I have seen several of those.

Then I misunderstood and apologise. I thought that was your attitude. I was wrong.

I answered " Because there's no benefit to them in doing so - so why waste the time?" What did you actually write?

I find many people don't want to be the first to log a DNF, but when finally someone logs a DNF, after a gap with no finds, suddenly there is an 'avalanche' of logs following.

There is a benefit. It means the CO might get to know if the cache is missing, etc. So you've moved on and can't give a hoot, but what about the next cache you visit thinking it was there, but other people with your same attitude have been there before you and they couldn't give a hoot either and thought it a waste of time to log a DNF too, because...gees, it takes... like forever...to write DNF! I gave the example of a cache where probably about 20 people couldn't be bothered to log DNFs, and only when I logged a DNF after the cache was likely missing for 6 months was the CO notified to check, and then found it missing. Don't depend on others to log the DNF; they might be just like you.

DNFs are necessary for the CO, not only to know that perhaps the cache is missing, but also so that the CO can get an idea of how difficult the cache is and adjust its rating to match. However, many people don't log them. I have seen logs people have written with something like, "Eighth visit and finally found this" (I checked, not one DNF!) Or I have been geocaching with a group and I am the ONLY one who logs a DNF. I now name all those who I was searching with. I came to a cache that had had no logs for six months. I logged a DNF, and received a thank you from the CO, because when they checked it was indeed missing. As an exercise I checked that cache's logging history going back pre the six months without a log and I worked out based on that that about 20 people failed to log DNFs. Why don't people log DNFs? I speculate embarrassment coming from lack of self confidence. They worry people will think them stupid or something. No we won't (or I won't). I will think better of you for logging DNFs, showing you are 'big girls and boys' :); able to own up to failures, and assist the CO if the cache is missing. I regularly log DNFs; in fact recently I logged my third DNF for a cache that others have found easy. If people think me stupid that I can't find it, so be it.

I am one who suggested 500. (I know personally that I did not feel I had found enough caches to have the necessary experience to place one until I had found more than 600 caches.) But I also suggested there should be exceptions allowed for this in areas with no or few caches, or no new caches might be placed.. Most people though who cache, I would speculate, would live in cities with many caches to find and learn from before the need to place their own cache. What is the need to rush to place a cache where there are already many? I know some people's first cache after only finding a few caches can be very good; in fact better than the average cache, but those examples are rare and from my experience people who place caches after only a few finds are likely to have coordinates that are not accurate, place mintie tins (and then call them 'smalls'), or other substandard caches.