Sapience Trek

Referring to somebody as a Nazi will not bode well for you.

Sounds like this would likely violate the commercial guideline. I've done caches that are on rock walls in the outdoors where you need climbing equipment, but it's not at a business so you're on your own to coordinate with somebody that has the property equipment. Generally caches are not published indoors as they likely wouldn't have adequate GPS use, and in this case would likely require paying money to use the gym. Even if the gym owner allowed people to climb free to find the cache, being at a business would almost surely prevent it from being published.

Try logging out and back in again. However your profile indicates you are a basic member, it doesn't appear that you are premium.

Some sites block anonymizing proxies. I don't know if HQ does or not. But since it's been a while and others are not having these long standing issues, it seems like it's something on the client side. But could be anything of course.

Are you using any sort of proxy server or VPN? Does this happen if you try the same thing on your cell phone not using wifi?

Fortunately there is a process to report caches that need maintenance and archival. By the way, I have a mint tin that's been hidden for almost 17 years now with no maintenance issues.

When maintenance plans fail, then future cache placements will become more difficult.

..... As previously explained multiple times in this thread, if you have a documented local maintainer your cache will likely get published. The maintainer doesn't have to be public on the cache page. You are making comparisons with the sagebrush account which are invalid. Stop beating that dead horse. If you want to get caches published in other countries, then work with a known local cacher and the local reviewer on a proper maintenance plan.

Why should they have the logo? The container might be too small, too camouflaged, might be part of another location game or letterbox, etc ...

I'm closing this topic because of the snarky replies of the OP. If they wish to engage in a meaningful dialog please feel free to do so in one of the existing threads.

Unless the content of the emails has changed significantly from the last one I saw shared here, they are anything but "gentle." The implied requirement for action is no way resembles a "reminder." The last one I got was to my dog's account below. It looks pretty gentle to me, and I'm pretty sure Barkley didn't feel hurt by this reminder:

I understand your issue, but that doesn't change things. The best way to call attention to problems is to report them via a NA. You can always tell your reviewer directly if you have issues with the cache owners if you want to remain anonymous. Short of reports, everything else is relying on the reviewer to make assumptions based on patterns of DNFs. I would hesitate as a reviewer to disable a cache simply because it had a string of DNFs. I have to look at patterns of finds and DNFs to assume that it might possibly be missing perhaps, maybe. Somebody that was there, and saw cache remains or saw a probable hiding spot based on clues but no cache, is in a much better position than me sitting at my desk at home analyzing logs. That said, the health score is another tool in our chest to make these desk chair analysis better, but not perfect. FYI - reviewer status doesn't matter much here. As a player, I report NA when appropriate and most didn't know until recently I was a reviewer. If there are a few jerks that give you grief, then ignore them or report anonymously.

I believe our caching community could do better by reporting such problems as needs archived. If you don't want to do your part, you have no right to complain. When I as a player come across a cache with a wet log that has obviously been ignored by it's owner, it will get a needs archived. If you don't want to do that, that's fine. But don't complain.

As a reviewer, yes. It's a tool to help identify caches that have been neglected and not reported. No action is automatically taken on the cache as a result of the health score. It's just one factor of many taken into consideration when caches are disabled or archived.

You don't have any caches active for review. After you create/edit your cache, if you open the cache page click on the big green "Submit for review" at the top of the page. You currently have 5 cache pages at the same location. Two named "camera" and three named "old trail cam". All of them are disabled so your reviewer won't know to look for one to review until you click the "Submit for review" on one of them.

Go here and set up notifications for each cache type you are interested in: http://geocaching.com/notify

Please stay on topic. I have removed posts dealing with other websites. If you wish to discuss their maintenance plans, please do so there.

Your notifications are not based on your home coordinates, but by coordinates you had entered in at one time here: https://geocaching.com/notify If you go there, you can edit your notification settings to center at the coords of your kitchen.

As an aside: I have heard these examples brought up over the last ten years I've been caching, every time the possibility of resurrecting virtual caches is broached. But I've yet to see any examples of caches where this happened. Were all of these killed off at the review stage, prior to publication? Or does anyone actually have an example of a roadkill or lost shoe virtual that was published? My understanding is these got caught in the review stage. That was before I was reviewing so I never shared in the joy.

Your Changes cache looks ready to review. You should be fine.

Dude, try living in Rochester. We are a heck of a lot less touristy than Pittsburgh. In fact, I'm traveling to Pittsburgh tomorrow. Exactly. Even if under the bridge, the land and bridge is almost surely owned by the RR company, and they haven't been keen on caches that close to active lines in the past.

A word of advice ... you might explain in a reviewer note why your new cache is just a foot or so away from what appears to be active RR tracks. Otherwise you'll go through all this effort to explain why this cache isn't a maintenance problem for you, only to have it denied because of RR track proximity. Perhaps the tracks are no longer in place, I'm going by satellite photos.

All caches should have a maintenance plan. Your reviewer doesn't know your visitation plans, so the more details you can leave about who will be maintaining the cache while you are gone the better. Also - it appears your cache is just a few feet from the RR track. That in itself might be a bigger problem.

There isn't a way to merge profiles, but I would just relog them with your new account, making sure to post something like "Originally logged as {oldname} but have a new profile now" or something like that so that the cache owner knows in case they verify the physical logbook. Since you only have 12 finds under the old account, that should be pretty easy to do.

They can't view the web page, but they can log a find with help from a premium member.