CoyoteRed

When I come across of a log on one of our caches that clearly indicates the finder broke the law or did some other activity that was inappropriate the log gets deleted--with or without an explanation. We had a cache where the description indicated that cachers were not to go onto the property when the chain was up or at night. Yet, certain cachers would go in anyway and say so in their logs. Those got deleted. It was around this time I was asked to remove the cache. They never said directly it was the actions of the geocachers and I don't think they would have said even if it were due to the nature of what was going on at the time. This was probably around the time that the numbers game really soured my enthusiasm for the "sport" of geocaching. The attitude of getting as many numbers as possible both on the finding and spew of the hiding really took the quality of the hobby in a major downturn. The "I'm here and I'm going to get this find no matter what" attitude is one reason for flagrant abuses as detailed in this thread. The problem with deleting logs after the fact is if the person who gave permission puts the cache on his watch list. Once the log is submitted the damage is done. Now the cache owner has to answer to the property owner or steward as to why fellow hobbyists are acting so irresponsible and why should he continue to allow the cache to exist. On the same note, I patrol an area where there are a few caches with similar restrictions. I don't have the first problem with issuing trespassing citations and sending you on your way. Heck, I might even log the additional "find" as a note on the cache page as a warning to others. (Names redacted, of course.)

Report anyone you suspect is impersonating LEO to the local PD or SO. It's really more they're problem than the agency they're supposed to be representing.

Wow! That's a shame because I've read all sorts of interesting things in the logbooks of our caches. It also seems a bit disrespectful to those who do sign your log. Personally, I'd feel "why bother?" I've kept every logbook in every cache we've placed and was able to retrieve. I've taken great pains to dry out the few that have gotten wet. I would never replace a logbook, only add another one. To me, it's less a courtesy to the cache owner than one to the future finders.

I have mixed feelings about this new feature. The bad: I see the requirement of having to find 10 caches for one vote to be one that is going to cause problems. I don't know how to fix it, but it encourages folks to find any old cache to increment that find count. Heck, I caught myself thinking "I could go back and log all of those traches that I found but didn't log and get more votes." As many know, I don't log caches I feel aren't worthy of wasting anymore time. Now there's incentive to hold my nose and log those caches. Good? Bad? The point is, this feature is introducing a element that will change the dynamic of logging and everything associated with it. Also, as one has already pointed out, the numbers of votes is going to be tied not only to the quality of the cache, but also to the number of folks who visit. This could mean a quality convenient* cache with "run away" with votes as compared to the same cache that is less convenient. I've already spot checked some ranking and this seems to hold true. The number of votes does not equal the percentage of finders who voted it as a favorite. A very inconvenient cache where everyone who finds it--and is eligible to vote--votes it as a favorite would be penalized over a very convenient cache where only 1 in a 50 votes it a favorite. The good: I really like being able to sort the list by number of votes. Setting aside any potential negative unintended consequences, I really like sorting by votes. Hopefully, a near future PQ upgrade with include being able to filter on votes and the number of votes with be included in the GPX file. I really like showing all caches nearest my home coords and sorting by votes. Not only the warm fuzzies of seeing high ranked caches that I agree with, but also seeing some of our own caches included. It's interesting that the top rated caches are virts (not surprising considering the quality of these virts) but also number of puzzles, high difficulty caches, and multis. Very cool and hopefully the trend continues. Kudos to the Groundspeak team for finally coming out with a very useful feature. *Convenient meaning how close to a caching population, difficulty, terrain, special gear, puzzles, seasonal availability, etc. A more convenient cache will get more visitors than the otherwise equal cache that is less convenient to visit.

If this is the case why are some parks allowing caches? It would seem geocaching is, in fact, in line with their mission statement. I believe it's the individual park director who is the one who welcomes or rejects geocaching. Many NPS parks, and most parks in general, have only small percentages of the park that is actually sensitive to visitors. The rest is wide open. Of the parks I've interacted with this has been the case. "Don't place caches here, but the rest of all of this is open. Just let me know where they are." Easy and straight forward. BTW, this thread isn't really about the NPS, but any land where there is an established policy that Groundspeak follows. If Groundspeak is going to have a "review before publish" policy then they are responsible for making sure it's a legal placement as far as they know.

The site is enforcer of various other restrictions as well like proximity or commercial caches. The permission thing is to make it appear geocachers are a responsible group.

Hey, everyone's got an opinion. Hell, I think micros are the scourge of geocaching. I don't own one and I doubt I will unless there is place I have to place a traditional and can't place anything larger. (Which is going to be hard considering we've hidden SAW cans in places 98% of today's geocachers would swear would only support a micro.) IMHO, numbers chases and trache are the biggest scourges to the hobby. I know of folks who have dropped out of geocaching because it became too much work to find suitable entertaining caches to hunt without a lot of work without wading through lists of junk. Geocaching is a game. Folks who like to simply go and have fun have had the hobby ruined by folks who selfishnesses allow them to place trache. Go figure. Again, no there wasn't. Also, the creed is nothing more than the reiteration of common notions at the time. The only thing created was the compact format in which these common notions and ideals of the time were restated. Really, if anyone is against "trade even or trade up" they are against the Golden Rule. If anyone is against the creed, then they are against the ideals and notions that are the basis of geocaching. Now if you want to critic the format go right ahead. Style has no right or wrong, really. Only different levels palatability. ...kind of like trache some are so fond of.

The overall concept is okay, but ill conceived and unnecessary. One should never replace another person's container (cache) unless you know it is missing. You don't know it is missing simply because you couldn't find it. The only thing you've proven when you don't find it is you didn't find it, nothing more. I think replacing a container that is damaged is okay in order to protect the cache contents. Special and custom containers are problematic due to their very nature, but protecting the cache contents until a new proper container is put out is helpful. This might be nothing more than a gallon freezer bag inside to original container. Throwing down a new container because you couldn't find the old one will get you multiple containers. The easier ones will get found and harder ones will not. Essentially you're creating geo-trash. Once the cache is retired who's to know how many bits of trash are you supposed to retrieve? Most folks will add a new logbook, but toss the old one? Never! That is a historical document which is the property of the cacher owner to deal with. Even with his permission through direct communication, I'd decline to throw it away. To make the logbook so disposable begs the question of why was it in there in the first place? So, while the concept of helping your fellow cacher is admirable, this iteration is either not well though out or basic premises of the hobby is missing. Yes, it's highly subjective. No one is asking anyone to have a trade appraised in order to make a trade. The basic premise behind this take on "The Golden Rule" is simply think about the folks who come after you. Check out my signature. The wife put it a little better, if a bit more wordy, IMHO. Yes, all of the creed can be found on geocaching.com, you could not find it all in one place. Guidelines are rules to follow. The creed is a concept. The guidelines, the TOU, are concrete rules in which one can find confusing exceptions or holes that might not answer one's questions. The creed, being a concept, covers just about everything and is fuzzy enough to find answers to questions that don't yet exist. Additionally, if two concepts collide the higher concept takes precedence. (i.e. should you compromise your safety over keeping the integrity of a cache? Hint: obviously your safety comes first.) Now these concepts were found on geocaching.com but they were scattered throughout the guidelines, TOU, the forums, etc. While you could make do without the creed, it take an awful lot of searching and reading--then hopefully you found everything. How many questions on the first page of this forum can be answered simply be reading the creed and letting it guide you?

If I found someone who routinely skips signing in on caches and claimed a find on one of our caches I'd delete the online log. I find it's pretty simply to say I'd do so without exceptions like the log being wet, or full, or too small, etc. etc. We only place decent sized caches in sturdy containers and have pens or pencils in them for folks to use to sign in. Our caches have yet to be so wet as to prevent signing in. Walk-by caching is not how it's done. I could go on and on with reasons why this is the case: decoys, trash, caches from other sites, letterboxes, etc. But the most simple reason is "because that's the way it's done." Meaning because when everyone is on the same page things go smoother. No, being on the same page in no way stifles creativity. (Just to head off a non-starter argument.) Oh, and for the guy who asked whether to sign the logs on lame caches or not. I don't. But I don't bother to log them online either. The ignore list is wonderful. Too bad it's not available to non-paying members--they're forced to either legitimately find and log the trache in order to remove it from their Nearest Cache List.

My story is close enough to the truth to feel like it's not lying: "My friends and I are GPS enthusiasts and one of them hide a small something for the us to find. It's kind of challenge/treasure hunt thing. But, it looks looks like someone else has already found it. Oh, well, maybe the next one." Then I leave. This makes the reason I'm using a GPS plausible, yet puts the idea in their head there is nothing for them to find later. Once I find the cache I move a short distance away in case I get found out in the middle of signing in and trading. I've not compromised the spot and, if I have to, I'll take the cache with me to return in an hour or so. Tethered caches that don't have a way to detach the tether are problematic in this respect. You just have to sign in quickly and move on. Sometimes tethering is more important than moving the cache away from the hiding spot to sign in. (Not to mention some folks simply forget exactly where the cache was hidden in the first place.)

I default to 'avoid muggles' while searching for caches for the simple reason that the caches that I am looking for do not belong to me. If I let a muggle in on the game and I am wrong about his character, then I am responsible for someone else's cache going missing. I'd rather avoid that. Exactly. It's not my cache to compromise.

I, too, have had my experiences with disappearing caches in places where you'd not expect folks to go. It's part of hobby. You learn how you can hide caches and how you can't. I've got caches hidden in a nice small park and have been there for years with no problems. Yet, caches well off the beaten path go missing. Go figure. It's a learning lesson. Not only that (and now to my favorite point on the subject) some caches simply migrate--though most likely not the case in your situation. I've had caches returned to a different spot than the original. We get a DNF. Then we or a previous finder go and check on it. It's not in its original spot so we assume it's gone. I was ready to archive a cache over this when I get another log. Someone found it. I ask where and they describe the location. We go and find it. Not gone after all. Knowing this, I had another cache turn up missing and I looked all over for it. Spend a good while, too. So, I put out a replacement. Then I started getting logs that indicated they were finding the original cache--things like "the cache is no longer tethered," etc. The replacement was tethered with a steel cable and fastened securely, yet no longer? Odd. I email them and they describe where they found the cache. Yep, one of the places I hadn't looked mainly because I thought the cache had been carried away in the flood and not placed there by another cachers. Assumptions! If you can, always tether your cache so it won't float away in a flood. It's happened more than once with mine. Always put a stash note and contact information in it! We had a cache float away once and a year later someone called us saying they found it. How cool was that? Always try to use good sturdy containers. For a regular straight forward cache a sturdy plastic container will do, but I ways prefer some form of ammo can. If it's one like yours, then nothing less than an ammo can is what I would recommend. Yeah, it sucks that you can't leave a custom-made container in the wild, but it's very hard to make one that will stand the abuse of the elements and geocachers handling it. Good luck and don't get discouraged in placing stand out caches. Your community will appreciate it. (Most anyway.)

Yeah, no kidding. One: If virts are brought back to geocaching.com then there will be a backlash. Newer folks have no idea why they went bye-bye, but will soon find out. Two: if another site is created for these new virts will it fair better than any other spinoff from Groundspeak? I mean Waymarking and Wherigo being such a hit and all.

This is an interesting phrase. Are you saying that someone who finds more caches than another person is, in fact, "out caching" the other person? I think this statement goes to the heart of the discussion in that the hobby is moving further towards a social, "I can out do you" sort of thing than a adventure or treasure hunt. Is maximizing the number of signatures in a box over a period of time really what this hobby is about? It very much seems to be turning that way. We're just about to drop completely out of the hobby. As it is, we only use it to find cool places to go. The last caches we found weren't what I'd call an "official" find in that we didn't we touch the box. We saw were it was and simply enjoyed where it took us. No, it was not logged as a find. Why bother? Geocachers, it seems, have become their own worse enemy. Power trails? Really? I might as well count telephone poles on a Sunday drive and log them. Yeah, that's the ticket. Then we'll see out can "out count" the other person.

There's a serious privacy issue if you think it's creepy that folks use a website to monitor your hobby activities and you ever want to go to an event.

Really? I thought the nature of the hobby is to get outside and find a box with your GPS. I guess I've been doing it all wrong all of this time. As for no one ever having a valid reason to hide find counts, I could say there is no valid reason to show find counts. The number of Found logs does not directly correspond to the veracity of any statement made or log entered. I learned this long ago when the at-the-time lead cacher (by find count) logged a find on a cache and the log text text indicated it was missing. "WHAT?!" Claiming a find and didn't find it? The cache is missing? Sissy went out immediately--a 45 minute trip one way--only to discover the cache was actually there. It's wasn't a hard cache either. She simply stopped looking after a short time and claimed the find anyway. I've found this to be indicative to many a high number cacher to a lesser or greater degree. Not saying they all claim a find on a missing cache, but will quit looking quicker than a more casual seeker. So who's the better cacher? The person logs more caches or the one who always takes care of the environment and the cache, gives the hide a good effort before giving up and logging a DNF, who enjoys more quality caches on more regular basis? Unfortunately, many think the high number cachers are the better cacher simply because they find massive numbers of traditional park-n-grabs. So, regardless of whether you're going to play the numbers game, folks will look at your count and judge you. But I suppose not wanting to be judged by my find count versus what I did for the caching community is not a valid reason for wanting to hide my find count. Finders are takers. Hiders are givers. Hiders of quality caches are better givers than those who hide the trache. Too bad the biggest celebrities are also the biggest takers in this hobby.

Not necessarily. We've had a team of cachers fail to find a cache--and insinuate that is was missing--that some noobs find fairly quickly. Sometimes when you're so used to finding easy caches in urban parks something unusual will stump you. While a fresh-faced noob hasn't established a box in which to confine himself. The number of finds isn't nearly as important in judging the veracity of a DNF log as the number of DNF logs that turn out to be valid. Groundspeak implementing a feature that takes you to a list of DNFs by that person so you can check those caches to see if those logs were the result of a missing cache or a cacher giving up too fast would be a much better tool than a find count. There really isn't a valid argument for forcing a find count on someone who doesn't want it. Score aggregation sites allow users to opt out and we've taken advantage of that. Additionally, we've not logged many a cache for various reasons--one of which is simply to hide our true count. It's no one's business other than our own. What this accomplishes though it less feedback to the owner.

Others have mentioned the issue with a large number of easy caches. Some folks get used to being able to up their find counts in pretty good increments every day of caching. Now, you're slowing them down. I've long come to see geocaching as an opportunity for good adventure. There are a lot of creative folks out there and they give us a taste of what a really good cache can be. If one doesn't care about the social aspect or the collection aspect of geocaching, then they're likely to appreciate the adventure geocaching affords. These are the folks I admire and respect. Couldn't care less about someone who finds the double the number of caches in a day than what took us a year to find back when. Been there, done that in respect to simply finding one cache after the next. A major failure is not slowing to smell the roses. It's a shame really. A cache up a tree? Bring it on! Gear required or no, it doesn't matter. A cache on the ground near a climbable tree is an opportunity wasted, IMHO.

You put what ever you want in the log. We generally stamp our signature, write the date, put in what we left and/or took, and thank the owner for the adventure. We'll add a bit about the hunt if the mood strikes us. I've written a few pages on a cache once where I had an almost spiritual experience--being a flat lander in hill of western NC, seeing sun rise as you ride to the parking spot, seeing the "purple mountain majesties," then seeing the curvature of the Earth as you reach the peak. I don't know, maybe I was feeling silly that day. Or maybe the hill folks might have the same sort of feeling if when standing on one of our local beaches stares straight out into the ocean and thinks "Nothing that way but water for several thousands miles until I hit Africa." Quicker? Yes. Too quick? Nope. One could think a massive notebook with nothing but names and dates has fewer memories than one with fewer names but more feedback and adventure. Those sitting at the cache who come after you know nothing about your previous visit other than it was if you put nothing but your name and date.

So, according to you, I'm unable to hide a cache in plain sight? We've had several caches hidden that are seen from a goodly distance. One, which is still active, is simply a camo-painted ammo box that is sitting in the crook of a tree about 50' off the trail--and can be seen from said trail if you know to look. Are you saying you would hide it somewhere else because you don't agree that a cache should be in plain sight? We have another regular in a popular park that is simply at the base of a tree covered in a little bit of debris. Many times when we go past it we don't have to look for it because we can see it is there. You'd move it?

Was that a question? It started out as one and then appears to have turned into a commentary. I'll answer you're question. Almost all of the trinkets placed into a cache, whether a new placement, maintenance of a cache, or trades, are new items. Some are recycled from other caches. Some are useful items we've used in other venues and thought would be a good trinket. We don't clean out our kitchen junk drawer to fill our swag bag, no. All of the ammo cans we use were bought specifically for geocaching. The LnL containers, ditto. Only the large plastic jars are recycled when we see a container that would have normally gone into the recycle bin could be re-purposed for geocaching. I concur with your assessment of you being a troll. I don't consider the caches I place trash. The items are there for others to find and not abandoned or discarded. So, no, it's not trash. Now, I've seen plenty of trache, but that's a whole 'nuther thread.

Preach it, brother! You touched on something that I noticed a while back. Upon doing maintenance on a beginners cache in a nice park it struck me kind of odd that the last few pages were of simply handles and dates--each to one line. We used to bitch about folks taking up a whole page with handle, date, "TFTC" and what they traded--all written real huge. Now, a fat log is nothing but handle and date, one to a line.

Just make sure everyone understands that archived does not automatically abandoned. I'd probably wait for a positive response before picking up other people's property. You never know. I've got some archived caches still in the wild that are 100% viable and waiting for the next visitor. They're just archived here. An excellent idea. Don't worry about whether all of the locals have found them all or not. It always perturbed me a little when someone archived a cache and placed pretty much the identical cache a few feet away. Don't let your actions be determined by someone's desire for yet another smilie.

I don't think I like the idea. Been caching for around 8 years and haven't have the first need to detailing my itinerary to such a fine point. It usually boils down to something roughly equivalent to the terrain rating: a few minutes, an hour, half a day, a whole day, etc. It's more of sliding window of time allotment than an estimated length of time. Also, as has been mentioned: way too many variables.

While we don't routinely reconcile logbooks, we have in the past. Most of what we find are cachers who sign the logbook and never log online. It's rare that I find a discrepancy during a reconciling. I haven't done one in years. However, if we get an odd log we'll check when we can. It's especially troubling when a very experienced cacher routinely will use the "found it" log-type and the text of the log indicated they didn't find the log. When we confirm a bogus log it's deleted. Period. Now, to the heart of you question as I read it: should a reviewer, or any representative of the hobby, not hold firm to the principles of the hobby? Absolutely they should! "Probably not," is not an answer that should have been given. "Yes, they should unless there are extenuating circumstances which you will allow," is the proper answer. How hard would that be? This all falls at Groundspeak's feet. The idea that reviewers and TPTB have better things to do than maintain a quality experience for the hobbyists to which they cater is ludicrous. You've come to these forums and asked a question to which about half of the responses are correct, "No signature, no find except in special situations." How hard is that? Groundspeak has washed their hands of many important aspects of the hobby. Quality. Adventure. The caching experience. ...and, yes, whether a core component of the hobby should be adhered to--the signing of the logs. When the folks who run and administer the hobby fail in their leadership it falls to the masses. But then, who has the authority? Those who seem to not care. As an illustration of my point on quality, what are the percentage of caches placed that would should of enough quality to be in a promotional video about geocaching? Today, the figure is a lot lower than it was a few years ... and falling. Just one case in point. Without getting into implementing any sort of "Wow factor" Groundspeaks could start a campaign, "Make every cache worthy of a video!" Maybe even put Signal in an "Uncle San needs You" style poster. Groundspeak could encourage quality caching without judging it. So, yes, I think you have point in being a little taken aback by that reviewer's response.