wmpastor

Could be legitimate. Of course a CO who wants to rigorously audit the logs might need to look up the earlier log, etc. But if the CO knows these local cachers, then it may be clear to all that this is valid.

The odd/odd situation here is that cachers without a pen continue to be perplexed about their "inability" to sign logs. This is due either to lack of imagination or to an overly-restrictive view of what constitutes "signing," or both. A physical mark intended as a signature *is* a signature. Use of a pen is not necessary. In past threads I've included photos of a couple of my signatures where I used a blade of grass and a key. Other inventive ideas have also been suggested before. Of course, an unusual technique like these may be overlooked or disrgarded. The wise thing to do is to attach a photo of your improvised signature to the online log, or if that isn't possible, then at least mention in the online log what you did in the physical log.

That occurred to all of us, but that wasn't the OP's question. Could be a non-caching issue entirely...maybe an interpersonal issue. Or perceived unresponsiveness. Best scenario is probably for a moderator to contact her offline...even though forum participants crave the details.

The application says that it is reviewed by the facility manager. So yes, contact the state park directly.

I mentioned the PA arboretum because i'm familiar with it, and both the location and the cache were in the top 5%, IMO. A cacher is lucky to get *one* of those two things in the top 5%, but this had both. Rare! In any event, at least the arboretum is still there to visit!

That's all...we're not asking much. And any guidance from this thread is inconsistent. Is an entrance fee a deal-killer or not? Yes, no or sometimes? We hear of every cache being different, and we hear of rules being consistently applied. And to help the discussion along, I cite - matter of factly and without argumentativeness and with a genuine willingness to learn - an actual example that I found confusing and unfortunate, because of the quality of the cache, its non-profit and governmental ties and the beautiful location. What follows? One reply dripping with sarcasm, and one crisp rejoinder that didn't explain anything. Disappointing.

Thanks for your sincere sentiments! My point was that this archiving falls outside the usual standards expressed in this thread...I think that's undisputable. For it to happen to a truly good cache is doubly unfortunate.

Here is the information for all to evaluate. First, while run as a non-profit by a non-profit university, it is also the "official arboretum" of the state of Pennsylvania, so there is a direct municipal connection that the reviewer seems to have overlooked. It is exceptionally well maintained. At first glance it seems that the admission is $19.00. That's just the "rack rate" - there are many exceptions, including one that virually anyone can use...the walk-in or bike-in admission is $10.00. I have driven past often and know you can park nearby and walk in. Archiving this cache was a loss to the community.

I see repeated comments that caches inside non-profit premises with an entrance fee are okay (while the same is not true for businesses). And yet a quality, popular cache in a university-affiliated arboretum near me (that charges an entrance fee) was archived a couple of years ago because of the entrance fee (the archive note specifically says that).

Is Geocaching dead? No, Pokemon Go is dead!

The broader question is cache placement in general. The finder takes risks that the CO is not responsible for, because walking in the city or the forest has risks. Put the snake warning in the cache listing, now that the risk is known. The greatest risk of liability would be if a CO intentionally created a hidden risk, almost a booby-trap. That's an extreme and bizarre scenario, likely to be disallowed or archived immediately. The CO can rest easy here because the risk of snake bite is out of the CO's control, and is a normal risk of being outdoors in that area.

An underground wine cellar in or near Vienna, Austria. The coords take you to the hidden key to the door. 721 favorites on 1200+ finds. https://coord.info/GC35Q1C

Yes, but if we agree that people are not uniformly careful, safe and smart 100% of the time - and I think we can agree on that - then aren't there some utility boxes out there that are "openable" either because a worker forget to lock them or because the lock is starting to fail?! The problem with this cache is that it helps promote an attitude of nonchalance and carelessness about utility boxes.

Yep, looks great. But it ain't great! As someone else said succinctly, "ZAP!" Which is what would happen to a kid poking around in a real utility box. An adult can make a mature decision about placing and seeking caches with an aspect of physical danger. This cache appeals to kids and sets a bad example. There are kids and teenagers involved in the game, and this cache scenario is off track... especially when highlighted and given extra publicity and accolades.

Maybe, but specific cases are there for discussion and learning of the correct procedures by the rest of the worldwide community!

Simple. You take your pen and stick the point into the tiny tube, marking a dot on the edge of the tight roll of paper. Then you log online saying "signed with dot in blue ink on end of rolled log." If your online log is first you can be pretty sure you're the FTF, but wait a while, and if no one else claims FTF that day, you can amend your online log to note your FTF achievement. After my first few FTFs, I have photographed my signed entry on every one of my more recent FTFs, and I post the photo in the online log entry. Never had an issue. Now i see other locals following that practice also. So yes it is possible to legitimately claim FTF without seeing the (entire) log sheet. And make it a point to have a Swiss Army knife with tweezers!

Do we need to start a separate thread for this issue?

Could be a typo. May mean "not PBC." Meaning "not pill bottle container." Plausible since it may have originally been a PBC, and is no longer.

Caches being stolen is not exactly a new phenomenon. Some precautions include choosing location carefully and not making the container interesting to thieves. If it's a good container, engrave a name on it or attach it to something immovable.

That's a fun game, and a "Where's George?" bill is better swag than a regular bill. Seeing the travel history online is like looking up a TB journey. That said, I can count on one hand the number of those bills I've ever gotten. Perhaps you can send some into play - check the website. My only other comment about swag is that if there's too much money in caches, word gets around to muggles...and muggles don't swap up!

To satisfy the purists, I *always* sign...somehow! Most often with a pen. Once with a blade of grass and a key. And if it is a life or death situation - such as a FTF - I have the signature in the log *and* a photo of the log!

As usual, conflicting advice. • Call prior finder. • Don't call prior finder. They'll probably give the answer, and that's cheating. • Call CO. • Don't call CO - they're overburdened. So only elite puzzle pros solve the puzzles...and some puzzle caches are not found for two years. Others read up on puzzle techniques and after long study solve puzzles. And others never look at puzzles again.

Heheh. I asked a CO for a nudge on a puzzle because I wanted a nudge and no more than a nudge. He gave me exactly that, a nudge. Being a puzzle novice, I did not have the knowledge he assumed I had, so I emailed back for a second nudge. I needed a third nudge, and I sensed the CO was getting tired of nudging. Fortunately he did *not* give the answer, so I had the satisfaction of solving the puzzle. A year or so later I noticed the cache was archived. Nudging and re-nudging is a lot of work, I'm sure!

Cut and paste to Google translate will do it. Perhaps someone else can suggest an in-app option, but I'm not familiar with one.

Tell us a bit more so we can make the best suggestions. I assume you are walking it? Are you staying on an established path? Given the short distance, is it necessary to map a route, or can you rely on the visual, combined with the compass pointing feature of GPS units?