wmpastor

Maybe it's a dyslexic day for me, but I don't see Ranger Fox saying that at all. I always thought we were the community, and "not by the community" says (to me) that it isn't cachers treating other cachers poorly. It could also mean that those who left had problems with the organization, not their fellow players. There have been such stories in the forum from time to time. In some cases these former cachers disagreed with the rules and how they were applied. Those people sometimes come to the forum, disgruntled or even angry, to seek support for there views...and reactions here are not always what they were hoping for. Any game has its rules, personalities and "atmosphere." Often it's not a matter of right and wrong, it's personal preference, and if it's a bad fit, people leave.

Maybe because you're at "point A" today (maybe the family wanted to go to a certain park, for example) and all the caches near there are so-so, but you still felt like caching. Nothing wrong with that - just like every meal can't be a gourmet meal.

If you want to carry these "just in case," they look good. Try to only use them in extreme circumstances. Of course machetes are more extreme, and their use has been discussed for at least 15 years.

Yeah, when I send them my bill for landscaping services! But seriously, isn't this a variation on the nails-in-tree issue, etc.?

Pruning plants near GZ sounds like a slippery slope (best avoided entirely). Otherwise we'll be seeing logs about how the finder "replaced the soggy log and used my weedwhacker to tidy things up." Well-meaning but dangerous-to-the-sport. Irate landowners could cause problems. Avoid 2.5 or higher terrain and thorns will be less of a problem. Or choose protective clothing. In the past there was a discussion about the best machetes to carry on the trail! (More macho than pruning shears, I guess. ) Same issue.

Then we're in complete agreement. There's no obligation to jump through hoops to accommodate the side games of others, but if it's easily-accomplished, it's a nice gesture to a subset of the community.

Yes, but it's possible to (1) not play the side-game, (2) be first to the cache, and (3) purely out of gratuitous courtesy log early, knowing that your prompt log will be appreciated by some who *are* playing the side game.

I'm looking forward to learning about these multiple versions of the FTF game. And I'm hoping to *not* hear that somehow there can be two or more FTFs.

It sounds like from Keystone's answer up above that several years is far beyond the possibility of unarchiving. He gave the example of an upper limit of several *months* in the case of inability to maintain a cache due to a serious medical condition. It sounds like you should create new caches. No need to use the exact same locations or the same name and "2.0."

I don't think you're doing something wrong - the problem seems to be with the person's account. If you can contact the player through the system, email, etc., perhaps they can fix the issue if they're not aware of it. Or perhaps they are no longer involved with the game.

Once you're confident the original won't show up, yes, it's very possible to place the copy in a cache, log it, and watch it go on its journey again.

Sure, you've found 19 and you're getting a good feel for the game. As you search for caches, think about where you might want to hide one and what type of cache you'd like to place. Thinking about what you like to find will probably help show what type to place for others to find, so that people enjoy your hides a lot. Good luck!

Make sure the first few you try have an easy rating. If you keep doing 30 minute searches without finding anything, you'll get bored. And avoid the very small ones at first. The cache listing will tell you (1) the size of the container, (2) the difficulty (how well hidden), & (3) the terrain (anything from flat ground to rugged mountain). Choose accordingly, and good luck.

Agreed, although it is a controversial issue. Many who place gadget caches or homemade caches or expensive or unique containers make them premium, thinking the caches are less likely to be lost or damaged. In my area, premium caches are on average slightly better, although the quality covers the gamut.

I sometimes object when an OP asks a question and a response post answers a question that wasn't asked. And now I'll be guilty of exactly that. If burying 1% is going to be an issue - both at initial approval and later when a "cache cop" raises a question about the cache a year from now - consider an alternative. One technique is to secure an attractive, homemade cache to an immovable object. I've seen caches chained to a large tree, for example. Just brainstorming ideas here to help out. Happy to hear you're making a unique cache.

My Portuguese is weak , and I never heard "cully." One source explains why: "British archaic informal." Well, at least the OP has us thinking....

You can say that lightly because you're not the one who would potentially be sued. Being a spectator to a lawsuit is one thing (perhaps highly entertaining - look at supermarket tabloids), while being a participant is always stressful and time-consuming, usually expensive and occasionally remunerative.

It seems in this case the town official lends further support for the "Frisbee rule," which is that parks are for general public use, and unless the activity is dangerous, illegal, etc., you have implied permission to do it. Some parks will specifically rule out some activities with a sign or posted rules (e.g., no dogs, no skating, no alcohol, etc.). Looks like you're free to place the cache.

Some arbitrary new formatting does bring a learning curve with it each time. And let's not forget the novel and exciting world of traveling caches, which instead of receiving TLC from above received a call from the Grim Reaper.

Good. And to the discussion I'd add this. From the organization's perspective, if the travelers create extra work, I can see how they want to get rid of them. As long as there's candor in the rationale, and no sugar-coating with add-ons about how eliminating the travelers supposedly helps the members' experiences, fine. I'm disappointed and I wish it wasn't happening, but I understand. From the perspective of individual members, though, I have seen absolutely nothing that supports eliminating travelers, and members' arguments that this step will supposedly help the game are completely unpersuasive, in my opinion. If you don't like travelers, ignore them and seek other caches! *Some people enjoy travelers,* so why take away the fun? So what that there's a bit more administrative stuff - we're (sadly, in my opinion) down to a very small number of travelers anyway, so why not accept the remainder?? This was a mistake, pure and simple.

That's a bummer. This is probably the issue where I have the strongest disagreement with management in my several years as a member. I'm glad I had the good fortune to find one...and by the way, I found it in the field (woods, actually), not in a coffee shop!

Successful businesses learn a lot from exit interviews when employees leave, and they do their best to find out why customers leave. The reason could fall into any of three categories: (1) the complaint has no validity and should be ignored; (2) the complaint may be valid, but with our business model we can't​ satisfy this customer; or (3) the complaint is valid, and there is something we can do to prevent losing other customers like this. If the issue is price, it's true, as others have said, that this is a low cost activity compared to many.

Okay, but what changed? The cost has remained the same lately, hasn't it?

So you want an *extremely* exclusive club? Like 99.9% of our members kicked to the curb?? Or was that hyperbole in the heat of the moment?

It's creative thinking. One issue I see is how to set the X/Y formula. Some have thousands of finds but *no* hides. Not "committed" enough?? Also, anyone who wanted to sidestep the restrictions could probably find a way. It's also interesting to see the benefits of paid membership discussed in terms of the power to exclude rather in terms of gaining additional features, etc. Some may call that elitist, but COs who spent five hours building a cache sometimes prefer that careless new players search for the pill bottles first. Let's hope that Godwin's Law doesn't strike what is likely to be a heated discussion.