barefootjeff

Yes, the word "near" had me puzzled too, particularly in reference to railway stations which are singled out in the guidelines as one of the things an event can't be "near". I queried this in the local reviewers' FB group when it came up for discussion and their interpretation was that anywhere outside the ticketed area of the station would be fine. The example that came to mind where "near" could be problematic is Sydney's Circular Quay, which has an elevated railway station above it, a major ferry terminal and alongside that an international cruise ship terminal. Soon it will also have a light rail interchange to add to its mix of transport hubs. Yet the Quay's grassed areas and eateries make it a popular place for events, particularly those hosted by visiting cachers, and being near the transport hub makes it easy for the locals to attend as parking in central Sydney is an expensive nightmare.

There are seven reviewers in Australia, nominally one for each state/territory although a couple of the smaller ones are grouped together, but most of those state reviewers only do new cache publication. A couple of the smaller states' reviewers also do country-wide maintenance enforcement, handling caches disabled for too long, caches with NAs logged, and now it seems caches pinged by the CHS. So the reviewer who TDd that cache (which is about 30km from my home) wasn't local to the area, since his coverage area for that role is the whole country. What's lost I suppose is the sense that the community was in control. Before, the only time a reviewer would step in was after an NA was logged or if a cache had been left disabled for too long, the former being initiated by the community while the latter is solely in the hands of the CO. Now, with the CHS being enforced (which only seems to have started in the last few months), that sense has diminished and there's a feeling of having to be a bit more circumspect in logging DNFs and NMs as these can now have unintended consequences beyond just being a statement of the seeker's inability to find the cache and a heads-up to the CO respectively. There's also a sense that the system is now geared against caches that are challenging to find.

I guess I'm in category 1, and the same is probably true of most of the cachers in my local area. It's a regional district with an ocean frontage to the east and an ancient eroded sandstone hinterland that provides great opportunities for cache placement. Forty percent of caches within 16km of my home are T3 or higher, with smalls outnumbering micros by a considerable margin. We're also small in number so caches get few finds which quickly dwindles off to almost nothing once all the locals have found them. The more established cachers (those that have been in the game for a year or more) pretty much all know each other and often problems are sorted out through messaging (GC and FB) rather than formal NM/OM logs. DNFs generally just mean it was a tough hide or the weather turned bad or the mozzies were biting. When caches do go missing or become unservicable and the CO is no longer playing, it's been readily handled through the traditional NM followed by NA route - it might take three to six months for it to be archived but no-one's in a rush here. Even FTF races happen over days or weeks, not minutes! And in our humid subtropical climate it's probably a bit much to send COs off to check on T4+ caches until the cooler months. That's why it came as a bit of a rude shock to see a cache get a TD from a reviewer just a few weeks after an NM (not an NA) and a bunch of DNFs from inexperienced searchers on a D3 hide, when the CO had already responded with a note saying he was pretty sure the cache was fine but would check soon. Thoughts of there but for the grace of God go I and such, wondering how I'd respond if that happened on one of my T4 hides right now in the middle of summer (and what is the hottest summer on record). Not pleasant thoughts. In this new age of proactive CHS/reviewer-driven cache monitoring, I fear the community has lost something, something valuable and important but not easily explained.

I guess the picture I'm trying to paint here is that for caches like this that require a lot of CO effort for little return, it doesn't take much to make one decide enough is enough and hit the archive button. For me on this cache, an NM or a CHS ping would do that, especially if there was nothing wrong with it. I've just spent half the day doing a routine check on another cache, one which I adopted from a mate when he was thinking that archival was easier than upkeep for the small number of finds it got. Yet these are the sort of caches I thrive on and would much prefer to do one like that than a hundred P&Gs, so I'll keep them going if I can do so at my own pace in my own time. Its last find was in 2017 and it had none in 2016, so rushing out to attend to imagined issues so the hordes of potential finders won't risk disappointment doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If it got pinged tomorrow and I decided to archive it, I'd go out and collect the lower waypoints straight away, either leaving the final for another couple of months until I'm okay with the climb or coercing a mate into doing it. But until that happens I'm content to leave it there and keep a regular watch on those lower waypoints, in the hope that perhaps sometime in the future someone else might attempt it. Looking at the summary on the cache page (7 OMs, 4 disables and 4 enables for only 13 finds) it's got to be my most troublesome cache by far so if it wasn't a key chapter in my Bushranger series I'd have probably axed it already.

I believe there was already controversy about the "periodic maintenance" requirement of COs where after some period of time unfound - even if the last log was found - a CO may be asked or required to check on the cache. Drama! What if it's in the wilderness and days' travel to get there only to find it's in good condition? Bad bad bad bad! (even though a reasonable reviewer likely would not require a CO to check such a cache within an unreasonable timeframe) I visited the lower waypoints of that cache a couple of months ago, but until my knee fully heals I'm not going to risk the T3.5 climb to the final as it's a steep slope with a loose crumbly surface designed for injuring knees. While the cache itself is in a hiding place that's well protected from muggles and the elements, the same isn't true of the lower waypoints and it's been a relatively high maintenance cache over the years, so if it did get pinged I'd probably just archive it rather than put up much of a defence even if there wasn't anything wrong with it. The thing is, it's a fairly challenging cache, compounded by very poor GPS reception up in the gully and no mobile data coverage, so getting some DNFs and going for two or more years without a find shouldn't paint it as a bad cache per se, at least for those increasingly rare old school cachers who like a challenging hide.

The reviewer's TD was logged 3 weeks after the NM and 2 weeks after the CO's WN saying he was pretty sure the cache wasn't missing and would check on it soon when next in the area. That TD itself gave the CO 4 weeks to respond or it would be archived without further notice. I'd class those timeframes as several weeks, not several months. I know from personal experience that the CHS email goes out just a couple of days after the DNF that lowered the cache's score below the threshold was logged, and earlier in this thread it was said that reviewers give the CO a week to respond to that before they'll step in with a TD. So here you're looking at potentially a week and a half's notice before action is taken. I'm not arguing that decrepit or missing caches shouldn't be removed from the database, but just counting DNFs and the time since the last find doesn't always tell the whole story. The cache I mentioned above had 6 DNFs in a row and an NM but wasn't missing. Then consider GC664DZ, last found in December 2016 followed by a DNF in May 2017. I suppose that one's just clogging up the database too as it's not generating smileys for anyone, but I'm pretty sure it's still there - the trouble is all the locals have found it and visitors aren't interested in doing multis. I don't know, perhaps there's an argument to be made that caches like this that have outlived their usefulness should also be pruned.

In the one I quoted earlier in this thread, the last find was on the 27th of November, the first DNF was three days later, the NM was logged on the 8th of January, the CO responded with his WN on the 13th of January and the reviewer TDd it on the 27th of January, starting the 28-day countdown to archival. We're talking weeks now, not months or years, and this on a D3 cache that wasn't actually missing.

But how do you know at the time someone submits their first hide whether they're going to stick with it or lose interest in a couple of months or years? Everyone must stop playing eventually - there's a good chance that sometime in the next twenty years they'll cart me off to the boneyard, and unless you can log an OM via a ouija board, that'll be that.

If you did that in my area there wouldn't be many caches at all. A good proportion of what we have now were placed by people who are no longer playing, but as long as those caches are in good condition and no issues arise that require a CO's attention, I don't see it as a problem. When those caches eventually deteriorate or go missing, sure they can be archived then. The concern I have is I don't think the CHS is always a good judge of when "then" is. I doubt many people placing their first caches even think about what will happen when they quit the game. Everything's rosy, there are heaps of caches on their doorstep waiting to be found, so they hide a few of their own, but then after a year, two, five or maybe ten, they've cleared their local area, their family and work commitments dominate and they lose interest. In an ideal world you'd hope at that point they'd archive or adopt out their caches, but the loss of interest is usually a gradual thing and there's no moment in time when they suddenly think I'm not caching anymore; it's more likely they just stop thinking about caching altogether. I suspect it's always been that way and, short of archiving every cache who's owner doesn't jump the moment someone shouts Boo!, I don't think there's much that can be done to make the problem go away. There will always be COs who lose interest (or die for that matter) and leave abandoned caches in their wake.

I seem to be blessed with so many great caches around here it's hard to pick a favourite of favourites amongst them, but for pure scenic beauty I can't go past The Goat House on Lord Howe Island (GC5KCMB). Located 450 metres up Mount Lidgbird, it's a tough T4 climb but so worth it for the amazing views of the island. Also on Lord Howe is GC5KKQ8, a multi providing a comprehensive tour of the island's scenic and cultural landmarks before ending in a challenging climb to the cache. Valley of the Falls (GC72T55) in the Blue Mountains is another memorable multi. Meeting up first thing in the morning, three of us followed the waypoints down amazing waterfalls and along the valley past more falls and back up alongside another waterfall to an amazing vista, where we stopped for a very late lunch before finally reaching GZ right on sunset. Sadly this cache came to a tragic end, for in November 2017 a rock fall at the first waterfall killed a worker and seriously injured two others, resulting in closure of the track. The CO disabled the cache but didn't provide frequent enough updates and the reviewer archived it. The track still remains closed pending further rock stabilisation works, with no forecast date for it to reopen. A puzzle that took me three trips spread over several months to complete was Gentleman's Geometry (GC6T5PZ). This involved a bit of everything - trigonometry, kayaking, hiking, some rugged T4 climbs, amazing views down over the Hawkesbury River and a final location that challenged my fear of heights (but in a nice way). Perhaps the most endearing cache I've done was The Bushranger (GC5WHEM), with what looked to be an easy puzzle set in 1840s colonial Australia until I got to the first waypoint and discovered there was a lot more to it than I'd expected. In my FTF log I adopted the persona of Constable Plodfoot who'd been sent by the sheriff to apprehend the bushranger, and later created a series of Plodfoot vs The Bushranger caches of my own. When one of its waypoints went missing, the CO was going to archive it but I couldn't let that happen so I adopted it, creating a replica waypoint from the photos I'd taken during my original hunt and keeping it alive, although its only had four finders since then, the most recent in November 2017.

What I'm saying is that the CO has far more intimate knowledge of the nature of the cache, its location and the manner of its hiding than the reviewer does, so if the CO says the cache is most likely okay but just tricky to find, and they'll check on it soon to be sure, I find it unsettling that the reviewer would then override that judgement and disable the cache. If I was the owner of that cache, I'd be pretty peeved at the whole process, particularly as it turned out the cache wasn't missing after all, and would probably think twice about hiding any more like it. Since getting my own CHS false positive on a T5 water access cache a couple of years back, I've limited my newer hides to T3.5 or less with no tricky camo and tried to make the description and hint as much of a giveaway as I can. I'm not getting any younger and can't go check on a T4 or T5 at the drop of a hat, especially during summer. Which brings me to my other concern, the haste with which everything is expected to happen now. The CHS will send out its email almost as soon as the DNF that dropped the score below the threshold is logged, and now we're told the reviewer can step in a week after the email is sent if the CO hasn't acted by then. That doesn't give much time for the person who logged the DNF (or anyone else for that matter) to try again and find it, nor does it give the CO much time if they have other commitments and the weekend weather is unfavourable for a cache visit. If HQ wants just mediocre caches that anyone with a phone can go find without putting in any time or effort, this seems a good way to go about getting it.

The first example I posted, the D3 traditional with a few DNFs and an NM by an inexperienced cacher which the CO responded to yet was still TDd by the reviewer was just such a case (and it turned out the CO was right in his assessment and the cache wasn't missing so the whole thing was a false alarm). But how do you ensure a cache isn't missing? I could go and check on a hide, but a muggle might see me doing it and nab it five minutes later. One of my now-archived caches was fine when I did a routine check on it but a couple of weeks later a part of the roof of the sea cave it was in collapsed and buried it. There's always a chance a cache could be missing even if the CO goes and checks on it every day. It seems to me there's too much emphasis now on preventing any possible cacher disappointment. I'm watching with interest to see what happens to that new D2/T3 multi here that's so far had 3 DNFs and no finds. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the reviewer TD it in the next few weeks, but what's the CO supposed to do to fix it? None of the DNFs imply it's missing - one got the field puzzle wrong and was looking in the wrong place, another wasn't up to the challenge of the terrain at GZ, and the third was bamboozled by the number of potential hiding places that fitted the description and hint and in all likelihood was looking straight at it at some point but didn't see it for what it was. And it's in an area where only a handful of people are ever likely to attempt it. Yet three DNFs and no finds isn't a good look in this day and age. As a CO, I have to make a judgment call whenever anyone logs a DNF (or NM) on my caches: Does the DNF content even suggest the cache might be missing? If it describes a search aborted because of mosquitoes, failing light, an approaching storm or terrain that proved too tough for them, I won't do anything. If it's vague (which most of them are) I might go and do a quick check if it's close to home, or I might wait and see how the next searcher fares, particularly if the DNFer was inexperienced. Often I'll message the searcher just to see if they were looking in the right place and ask if they'd like another hint, but the reviewer or the CHS won't be aware of that - they'll just see an unresponsive CO. If I do decide to pay the cache a visit, how urgent is it? Some of my hides I can check in under an hour, others take the best part of a day and some I can't check unless the weather and/or tides are favourable. In the middle of summer with extreme heat and frequent thunderstorms, it could be many weeks before an opportunity arises. Most COs have full-time jobs and families too, so they'll have limited windows of opportunity to go out and do a check. Urgency also depends on the cache location - an urban one that gets multiple attempts per day is a different kettle of fish to a remote hide that might only get one or two attempts a year. If there's going to be a delay before I can check on it, do I disable it? The CHS clearly wants me too - the options it presents are fix it now and log an OM, disable it until you can, or archive it. But if the DNFs (or NM) aren't compelling enough to convince me the cache can't be found, I'd rather leave it active. Sometimes the DNFers have said they want to go back and have another crack at it, particularly if their first search was cut short or they've been given an extra hint by me or a previous finder, and in that situation disabling it would be counter-productive. And there might be others wanting to have a crack at the tricky hide but would be put off by disablement. If I visit the cache after a DNF and everything's fine, do I need to log an OM? To me, an OM means I've performed maintenance, i.e. fixed something that was broken or not as it should be. The Help Centre only speaks of OMs in the context of clearing NMs and is silent on the question of OMing a DNF. One of my hides I visit after every find, because people rarely put it back the way it's meant to go, but I'm not going to OM those visits. If there were multiple DNFs which someone reading might think implied the cache was likely to be missing, I'd probably log an OM as reassurance, otherwise it's just clutter on the log page and in log-limited PQs. The reviewer and CHS also have to make judgement calls when they see DNFs or NMs have been logged, but they don't have the depth of knowledge about the cache and its environment that the CO has. A reviewer can read the description and logs, depending on how much time he or she (or Fido) has to decide before moving onto the next problem cache, but the CHS can't even do that; all it can do is count logs, look at the D/T rating and presumably see how it stacks up against what an average cache of that rating ought to get. But averages are pretty meaningless, particularly when you get into the higher D/T ratings where the number of logs is unlikely to be statistically significant. If I toss a coin five times and it comes down heads each time, is it more likely to be a faulty coin or just chance? But even that's not a good analogy, for while all coins are the same, most caches aren't. They'll each have their own distinct hiding place, degree of camouflage, difficulty of access (which will be seeker-dependent), frequency of muggles, experience levels of seekers, etc. Even for a given D/T rating, one size in no way fits all. The CHS might work well on LPCs but is probably less useful with bushland hides where there are so many more variables and ways for seekers to not find the cache. Taking the decision-making away from the CO and putting it in the hands of a reviewer, who's probably being guided at least to some degree by a statistically-based algorithm, must surely result in poorer decisions. Sure, if the CO's long gone and there's compelling evidence the cache is missing or unservicable (evidence at least as compelling as an NA log from someone at GZ would be), go ahead and start the archival process, but at least give the CO a reasonable time to respond first and, when they do, give their response the weight it deserves.

If it's moved less than 161 metres (528 feet), there's no need to involve a reviewer, just change the coordinates and re-enable the cache. If it's moved further than that, you'll need to email the reviewer who published your cache (use email, not the Message Centre, as the reviewers don't seem to like that) and explain why you need to move it that far. See this Help Centre page for more info.

To date I've archived four of my hides: The first, called One Windy Night, was in a reserve that was severely hit a few years earlier by strong winds that felled many trees in the area, with some of the logs from those trees still at GZ. Eighteen months later, in another storm, another tree fell right on top of its hiding place. The second was a fake rock hidden in plain sight amongst other rocks in a crevice on a headland at the end of the beach, but was washed away along with the real rocks in huge seas whipped up by another severe storm. The third was in a sea cave but a year after I'd hidden it, part of the roof collapsed, burying the cache under several tonnes of rock. The fourth was in a local park but suffered repeated muggling, usually during the school holidays. I archived it but created a new one with a similar theme in a more isolated location about a kilometre away. So I don't know, would someone else want to hide caches in those locations? There'd be no reason for a reviewer to stop them, but given their history it mightn't be a such a good idea either.

Gosh, if Cache Maintenance Enforcement is being run by the Mob, the Triads or Outlawed Motorcycle Gangs (Inc.), I'd better be careful what I say or I might wake up one morning with a frog's head on my pillow.

I'm not arguing anything other than providing counter-examples to your assertion that a reviewer would be unlikely to disable a cache that just had a string of DNFs and no NMs. That's all. I now wish I never mentioned them at all.

Thanks for the update, Brendon, but I see the Description and Hint panel still doesn't include the cache's Short Description field, so I must once again ask the question: Is this is by design or something that's going to be fixed? I have thirty-something pre-2018 caches in which the Short Description field is an integral (and in some cases critical) part of the description, so if this is by design I'll have to go through the task of editing them all to move the Short Description content to the Long Description field, but I don't want to have to go to all that trouble if this is something that's about to be fixed.

What is preferred, that the missing cache remain active and the listing linger on? It was a magnetic key holder, listed improperly as a small, a D1.5 cache that had finds until November where it had 6 consecutive DNFs (plus 4 NMs earlier for full logs -- if he's going to hide an MKH it's going to need more maintenance not less--no response from the owner). An excellent indication that the cache is gone. And given the CO's track record, an excellent indication that the CO is not going to fix nor archive his own cache and listing. The CO seems to expect that archival is the job of the reviewer. Many COs seem to feel that way. What is the great value in the GC61K94 cache? Did you actually read the context of those two example caches I quoted? When thebruce0 said that he'd be surprised if a reviewer would ever TD a cache based just on a string of DNFs with no NM amongst them, I gave those two as counter-examples. That's all. Nowhere did I say they were great caches, nor did I say they didn't deserve the TD, I only gave them as examples of caches that the reviewer had disabled that had just a string of DNFs. That's all. I really don't know how I can make this any clearer.

So what are you complaining about? The reviewers made judgment calls in each of those cases. You don't think he made a wrong call in the former, and in the latter we agree he could/should have made a different call, but that situation has been completely resolved Sheeze, I wasn't complaining - you made an assertion that a reviewer wouldn't disable a cache that had just a string of DNFs with no NM amongst them, and I gave you a couple of recent counter-examples that showed this very thing happening. How can I make that any clearer? A DNF now means more than just a statement that I couldn't find a cache. I've just shown two examples where half a dozen DNFs have led to caches being disabled by a reviewer, and that TD included the wording "Please respond to this situation in a timely manner (i.e., within 28 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness." If that isn't a threat to archive the cache if the owner doesn't respond within 28 days, then I don't know what is. This didn't used to happen in these parts. A cache could get as many DNFs as it liked and nothing would happen until someone logged an NM and that was then followed a month or more later with an NA. Sure, it took a little longer to weed out caches that really were missing, but it also allowed for caches that were hard to reach or hard to find, and it allowed for people who logged DNFs because they were defeated by the terrain on the way to GZ or because of muggles interrupting their search or bad weather, failing light, swarms of mosquitoes, etc., and for Blind Freddies like me who couldn't find a cache in a warehouse of caches. Okay, perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps in some places a DNF has always meant this cache needs attention. But I can only go on my own experience of how the system worked here, and that wasn't the case and still isn't in the eyes of many cachers around here. Just two days ago a very experienced cacher logged a DNF saying, "I was very uncomfortable searching in that area, and was not agile enough to search properly. After a good long look in the places I could reach I headed home and left it for others." In no way does that DNF infer anything at all about the health of the cache, nor does my DNF on the same day that said I'd messed up the calculation on one of the waypoints and ended up searching in the wrong place. Trying to infer anything about the health of that cache, or whether or not it's missing, or requiring the CO to do something to make it right and prevent further such DNFs, is wrong and is simply pandering to the belief that every search should end in a smiley and any DNF is a bad outcome that needs to be prevented.

I was replying to your assertion that it would be extremely rare for the reviewer to disable a cache with a string of DNFs if there wasn't also an NM amongst that string, and I gave you two very recent examples of where that wasn't the case. Nowhere did I say the reviewer made a wrong call on those two caches, though I do think he made a wrong call on the earlier one that had the NM which the owner had responded to with a WN. But it's not my perogative to appeal that as it wasn't my cache. It has also changed the meaning of NM and DNF logs. Prior to the CHS, an NM was just a heads-up to the CO and, at least here, the reviewers didn't become involved unless there was a subsequent NA. That's now changed. Likewise with DNFs, they used to be just an informational log that a searcher couldn't find the cache, now they carry all manner of extra weight with CHS emails and reviewers then disabling and threatening to archive caches that get a few of them. The result of all that is that people will become reluctant to log NMs for anything that doesn't warrant archival of the cache (say for broken camo or a cache that might have drifted from its proper hiding place) and become reluctant to log DNFs unless they're really sure beyond reasonable doubt that a cache is missing, and conversely I see more COs getting annoyed with well-intentioned people who log NMs for minor issues and DNFs when the cache clearly isn't missing.

And after nearly four years of CHS operation, there are still threads about people complaining about bad caches and experiences, and social media posts of photos and videos of bad condition caches. Whether that problem was perceived or real, it hasn't fixed it, or, it seems, even made any significant dent in it.

How does a reviewer "NA" (verb) a cache? Your reviewer is posting a NA on the cache? Because a TD can, and has always come, after a NM, NA, or really any reason whatsoever if a reviewer feels it's warranted. The effect of a NA has always been only a higher priority visibility to a reviewer (ie, the 'needs reviewer attention' argument). The intended use of a NA is to highlight a very essential and more immediate concern that could warrant an immediate archival by a reviewer, but I think more often than not it's an overrated concern that the reviewer clears up with the CO without an archival. If a cache gets disabled by a reviewer that not a step only reserved for the "NA" process. I said "effectively NAing", which means doing the same thing that an NA would have done. What you describe might be how it works in your area, but it's not universal. As I said before, prior to just a few months back I'd never seen a reviewer TD a cache here unless someone had logged an NA on it. The reviewers didn't act on NMs - NMs were just a heads-up to the CO. If you wanted the reviewer to become involved you had to log an NA. And conversely, the reviewer wouldn't accept an NA for a missing/decrepit cache unless there was already an NM that the CO hadn't responded to after at least a month had passed. The sequence was always NM logged - a month or more with no owner response - NA logged - Reviewer TD - another month with no owner response - Reviewer Archive. Those two examples I quoted (GC61K94 with 6 DNFs since the last find in Nov 18, and GC5CXWJ with 6 DNFs since the last find in July 18) were disabled by the reviewer from just a string of DNFs, and those two were just from the batch of twelve TDs the reviewer posted on the 24th of January. So it's not just a possibility, it happened twice in the one batch of TDs. And I suspect it's likely to happen with that new multi that currently has 3 DNFs and no finds.

Yes, and this is being reinforced by cases like the one I presented earlier where it seems NMs that aren't immediately acted upon (with either an OM or a TD by the owner) are now being treated as if they were NAs. Having seen that happen in my own backyard now makes me reluctant to log an NM unless it's for something I'd follow up with an NA if it's not resolved. An NM for a full log, a bit of water ingress during a flood, broken camo or a possibly missing cache based on a few DNFs really doesn't require archival even if the CO doesn't fly into action right away. Things have certainly changed here. It used to be our reviewer wouldn't accept an NA unless there'd been an NM logged at least a month earlier with no response from the CO, yet now he's stepping in and effectively NAing them after less than three weeks even when the owner has responded. Perhaps I need to rethink my use of DNF logs too. On Tuesday I attempted a new D2/T3 multi near here, but messed up a waypoint calculation, ended up searching in the wrong location and logged a DNF. A second searcher got the waypoints right but found the terrain at GZ a bit too much for him so also logged a DNF. After a bit of collaboration with the CO and that second searcher, I solved my waypoint error and went back for another look on Wednesday, but either missed something obvious (quite likely for this Blind Freddy) or it was too much of a needle in a haystack for me and I ended up logging another DNF. So with three DNFs in a row and no finds yet, I suppose the CHS will soon be raising its eyebrows if it hasn't already done so, yet I doubt there's anything wrong with the cache apart from being a bit hard to find for us old guys. The trouble is us old guys are about the only active cachers left in this area.

It depends on what part of the world you're in. Google's satellite images here used to be quite sharp and detailed but they've recently become quite blurred (presumably intentionally) so that you can't really discern anything smaller than about ten metres. I used to be able to clearly see the power pole next to the big rock over the cave where this cache of mine is hidden, but now all that's really visible is the access road off to the left and the fuzzy tops of trees.