ChriBli

As you say, the info was available in the official app and in a browser. The right to opt out ouf sharing data with third-party apps is apparently a legal requirement, not much GS can do about that.

There was never any need for crossing the border and getting arrested or shot, the caches were archived because the CO had changed the country to Russia which was in no way true. I don't know what possessed them to do that, but I see they are both in Poland now which I guess means no one got their Russia badge for logging these caches.

I don't think there will be any changes to the current promotion. I checked the last 20 finds of myself and a few people on my friend list to try to see a pattern, the result was 2, 2, 4, 4 items per 20 finds. From this very unscientific investigation it seems you can rely on getting 2, but 4 is a stretch.

It irks me when people reply to nine year old forum posts! Just kidding, it's fun.

I sometimes use the official app when geocaching, and that goes PING really loudly when I approach GZ. It always startles me and is sure to draw attention if there's people around. I always decide I need to turn that off, but then I never do. When it's raining heavily I want to take out my navigation device as little as possible. Same when it's cold, to preserve battery and avoid freezing my fingers off. Then it would be useful to get audio feedback, but on the other hand I don't want anyone else to hear it or run around with earphones. Maybe the vibration option would be the best for this situation.

19.

This is happening more and more it seems. It happens because it is possible. There is no point usually, just like there is no point in bots writing nonsense in forums or viruses spreading without a payload. Sometimes it is a matter of testing bots intended for some purpose, sometimes the creators just enjoy seeing their bots in action. Forum bots can be used to agitate people, probably very amusing to the bot owner. I sometimes think this happens also in this forum once in a while.

But not from coordinate checkers? I just tried geocheck.org and certitudes.org, both of them produced pop-ups.

14K is around 10%. There are many cachers (at least around here) that are weeks, months, sometimes years behind with their online logging, even if they are not abroad. But even these cachers tend to be quicker to log their FTFs, so I'd imagine they would make sure to log at least one find from this day if they are aware of the record attempt. So I'm afraid the attempt definitely failed. It's was a bold quest to try to break a record from 2013, which I believe was close to some kind of peak of worldwide geocaching activity, and especially from August when the "31 Days of Geocaching" was on. With that in mind, I think we did OK.

I believe the count excludes adventure labs.

Or they start logging only missing caches, where their cheating can not be detected and the CO is not around to do it anyway? Honestly I think most of these players have moved on and would not give a hoot if their logs were deleted, or even notice it. I realize this means that my fear of retaliation is probably unfounded. That gc.com algorithm seems very human in its erratic behavior. Sometimes it pounces almost immediately on a cache just because someone reported a damp log, in other cases it can leave an obviously missing cache alone for years. I logged a DNF on a cache in January 2017, later the same month I edited the log and made it clear I had visited again equipped with spoiler pics. In 2020 I visited again, searching for an extended time of course, and then posted NM. The cache is still active, no one has found it since 2016.

Why is this anyway? Many of the attributes are "negative" to begin with. Aside from certain weird challenges, you are much more likely to search for caches that don't involve poisonous plants, ticks and thorns than the ones that do.

I still fail to see how weeding out online logs that are missing from the logbook can adress the problem with found logs on missing caches. But this got me into looking at the log history of "my" armchair loggers and found that one of them had also logged an obviously missing cache as one of the three logged that day and in total. Below is the last part of that online log list, indicating member status and find count in parenthesis and including translated logs for the ones that claim to have found it. Last on top. DNF (PM, 647) Found it (BM, 3) "My 3:rd! Darn this is fun " DNF (BM, 3) Found it (BM, 1) "Thanks for the cache it was fun to look for" DNF (PM, 5) DNF (BM, 26) DNF (PM, 19172) DNF (PM, 5324) Obviously it would not be possible for the CO to compare this to the cache log since it's gone (like the CO). But would you go looking for this cache? Maybe you would, but not because you actually think those two finds are legit.

If the problem is that people are armchair-logging caches that are missing (and I agree that is a problem, even though this is rather easy to spot when it's a low-count basic member logging with "lol"), then I don't see how your suggestion would help. For there to be a logstrip to compare to the online logs the cache can not be missing. Or do you mean that if you find armchair loggers on one of your caches that is not missing, you would remove those users' online logs from another of your caches that is missing? Wouldn't it be better to replace that cache then? I checked on one of my caches recently. More than half the online logs since last I replaced the logstrip had no matching signature there. Yet I'm reluctant to remove any logs. Some of them were from several users logging at the same date, obviously friends that were actually there on that date even though I can't know if they found the cache. One such group had posted a photo of the logstrip but for unknown reasons not signed it. No pen? And you never know, someone that gets upset by the removal of the log might start removing the cache as revenge. I don't want that.

Hear, hear. The browse map is essential and does not need any changes.

In my experience, spouses (or even families) sharing an account is rather common. Of course some of the caches will be found with not all team members present then, the alternative would be to refrain from caching when you're not together. Then it happens that spouses divorce, families split up or for other reasons the shared account can not be used the way it was before. Sometimes all the finds are then copied into two or more separate accounts, also the ones where not all the members were there. For simplicity I guess, it could be very tedious otherwise if there are many finds. One person signing for more than one account when the others are not present at all should be rather uncommon. As you say, there would be no point. But I personally could not care less if someone did.

I think it was mainly idiotism.

This one is large enough to enter and close the door behind you. Google did drive the pedestrian path right next to it, unfortunately many years before the cache was placed. So the picture is from the other side of a creek using max zoom.

I have found seven caches with the "Wireless beacon" attribute. Three were NFC, two WiFi and two Chirp. Both the Chirp ones were published in 2011 and both had alternative ways to find them, otherwise I would not have been able to. I think Chirp is dead as the dodo by now. Actually, the attribute seems to have been renamed to "Wireless receiver required".

Just go to your dashboard and click on Find Another Player? Assuming you're not using the app, I wouldn't know how to do it there.

I could offer several examples of island caches that are rated lower than T5, all without nearby boat rental and many of them a really tough swim away from shore. So that should not be a problem, but maybe different reviewers have different views on this.

I was actually somewhat disappointed recently when I solved a non-T5 puzzle cache, only to find that GZ was on an island and therefore unaccessible to me. It also didn't have the "boat required" attribute. Although I didn't mind solving it, the reason I did so was that I thought I'd be able to go find it. This is definitely different in other parts of the world. Nothing is stopping you from using common sense also in this situation. If there is a boat rental nearby, then by all means don't rate it T5. Maybe you should read the guidelines and the "boat required" attribute as BYOB - Bring Your Own Boat.

some watercraft moo

In my area (Sweden) island caches are most often T5. Probably precisely because of that wording in the guidelines. This varies a bit with CO of course, and frequently if the body of water is narrow enough to swim, it is set lower. Which is a bit counter-intuitive to me. And at these latitudes, it is often possible to just stroll over the ice in the winter. But if you don't own a boat, and there is none for rent, then it can be difficult to get to GZ. I have a cache that awaited maintenance for a couple of years because I foolishly got rid of my inflatable dinghy and couldn't get a replacement. It was only very recently I managed to get to the island to fix it.

The one does not exclude the other. I find it rewarding to get an FP on one of my caches, and I think the FP system is good and works properly (as opposed to AL ratings, I gather). But I also enjoy getting lengthy/creative online logs. Cache logs (written in the physical log book) could also be nice, but only if the log has ample space for it which is often not the case these days. And sadly, many logbooks are lost to muggling, water or fire before the CO gets to see them, making all those creative logs wasted effort.