egami

2 Months, 5 Days....purely coincidence.

And Al Gore for inventing the Internet.

I guess my point on this aspect remains that I'd be curious of the details as to how the system programmatically determines when that is. I could actually go with this if the current infrastructure remained in place as far as cachers being allowed to cache maintenance logs and needs archiving logs. I think it's fair to argue that part of a cache owners' maintenance could be retaining active status on GC.com, so long as it's not cumbersome and there is some leeway....maybe before the cache location becomes active it has to be done by the approver in the area just so there is a human element of a check and balance.

I am not suggesting it is not perfect. I guess I am curious as to what your proposal. It's one thing for you, the OP, or anyone to shoot from the hip and say we need this, but I think what you'll find is that when you try to write the rules for an automated system you'll introduce all kinds of new problems for caches in areas where this isn't a problem. I can understand that. But is it fair to those that do maintenance theirs to have to auto-archive them or be belabored with republishing them after theirs expire in this proposed system? I am simply saying that this proposal isn't without flaws itself. I am not one for simply trading one set of issue with another.

Batteries, so far.

Exactly, this is the point I was hitting on earlier about even making a rule to do this...it'd be a nightmare due to all these type of exceptions that are valid, legitimate, maintained exceptions. Also, I don't think the main point of mandatory archiving really even addresses the issue of saturation, per se. All it does is create turnover similar to what someone mentioned above regarding "Churning". Creating a situation that speeds up this process, to me, doesn't seem to do anything inherently for saturated areas. It seems the OP's suggestion really creates more "Find" opportunities versus alleviating saturation, but maybe I am not seeing the point correctly.

There are links off the main GC.com site...here is one: http://www.geocaching.com/about/history.aspx

No apology needs, I was just looking to clarify that. Your reply has me a bit confused...on one hand you say: I think OP is saying they should be archived regardless of if they are being maintained or not. I don't think you are in this category, but that one comment has me unsure. Yet you also say: I agree with this, but I think the current process manages this effectively assuming cachers log correctly. Is there any way to magically have caches archived that are abandoned unknowlingly though? I don't see a process like has been suggested solving that issue...I think if anything it emphasizes what is so good about the current method. Also, I had an interesting issue recently... I went to find a cache. Cache had 2 Maintenance logs in July, then two Finds between then and now. So, I go to check and the cache is indeed gone except some remnants that have been attached to the tree at the hide. The cache owner doesn't even cache and they only host this one cache. So, I go ahead and e-mail them and get a response and they have since disabled it for maintenance. So, we have a 4 month span where they get conflicting log entries and no one contacted them (apparently) and they are going by logs that recently show finds versus maintenance requests...is that the owner's fault? Imo, somewhat, but also somewhat the fault of misleading Find logs.

How are you determining that? Based on their forum appearances or based on their GC.com activity? I am just mentioning this because I know a number of cachers that have never posted on the forum, but are active cachers and can be found logging finds, etc,. on GC.com. User profiles have a "Last Visited" entry that tells that last time the person logged on to the site. Yeah, I know...I was just asking which method they were using. I guess my point is there is a difference being active on GC.com versus Groundspeak Forums. Or are you saying they are linked? I don't know if they are or not...I would assume not.

How are you determining that? Based on their forum appearances or based on their GC.com activity? I am just mentioning this because I know a number of cachers that have never posted on the forum, but are active cachers and can be found logging finds, etc,. on GC.com.

It's interesting to me how anti-DNF some people are...I've noticed some people will log notes instead of a DNF. To each their own, but I log any and all DNF's if I get to get to ground zero on a coordinate and can't find it I log it and look again later. I am not sure if people think its failure to log one or what...to me the failure is in not finding it, so for me logging it accurately is just a matter of honesty.

If you are a Premium Member there is...and some custom routes are pre-hosted for you, but building one is easy.

Iowa-style is under a bunch of corn...

Not mine, but one of my all-time favorite geocaching youtube videos: http://youtube.com/watch?v=gt8x6UUcdeU If you watch closely you can see the strategic cache location.

To me, this is the key element. I don't see a simple rule being enacted that would adequately suffice all, or even the vast majority, of situation. It's such a case by case thing that if you ever tried to take an honest stab at building rules around an automated system it's be rather complex and even then....highly subjective. Besides, what would keep the owners from just re-publishing the location immediately after it expired? Then you create a new GC.com buzzword: FTH And I agree with the sentiment he posted as well...the current system works great, really.

Personally I think this is just fine. I realize some cachers like checkers, but if a cache owner decides this is their style and enjoys the interaction aspect then I think you have to extend respect to someone who takes this approach and is responsible in their follow up and interaction. It's nice to see people that enjoy social interaction in geocaching.

Ok, gotcha, you're right...techically the mailbox is owned by whomever, but they must abide by statutory and regulary restrictions of the USPS. Which means technically there should not be geocaches on them similarly to the wording quoted in this thread if in the mail system regardless of owner permission.

Here we go: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/gg97085.pdf I actually called the USIG office as well regarding the matter and confirmed this...mainly out of pure curiosity as to their level of concern. They later sent me a document regarding it as well, but I've since deleted the e-mail. Again, I am not a "mailbox nazi"....at the end of the day it's an extremely low risk situation and likely isn't ever going get anyone thrown in jail, but it's probably best to represent it correctly just so people understand it could potentially be an issue. I wouldn't avoid mailbox caches, but probably wouldn't place one just because "technically" it's governed, but who knows...maybe someday I would too.

That's why I said I wish I could find the original link because the original link I posted nearly a year ago, or whenever, was directly from the USIG site. And, yes, if there is no delivery or it's a mailbox not on a postal route then obviously those rules do not apply.

I am trying to find the link I posted here way back because it was extremely detailed and the actual controlling entity isn't the USPS, but the US Inspector General, however they are disassociated...I think of them one in the same, but if you inquire USPS they'll direct you to the USIG. At any rate, I agree...similarly, why do I have to maintain the sidewalk if I technically don't own it and furthermore why can I be held legally liable for someone tripping on it or slipping on it. That is the mystery of government...solve that and you'll have unlocked one of the great mysteries of the universe.

What about this log of mine where I arrived and 4 or 5 sprinklers in a row were destroyed...... Oh, well..... It's not uncommon for those particular sprinkler units to fail over time on their own (especially if the installer doesn't have the lines right for the amount of pressure which is common with cheaper installers). I wouldn't be surprised if that had nothing to do with cachers destroying them and it amazes me how many places I go by that don't take care of their sprinklers because they extremely economical to replace and extremely east to replace. That being said...if you're going to do a sprinkler cache this is a good method: Inserting a hollow PVC pipe into the ground then placing a shelled out sprinkler head will make it easy to remove and replace and if you make the PVC pipe about an inch or so deeper that the sprinkler unit it'll help it not "float" with a heavy rain. They make great caches though because they are waterproof if done correctly.

Yes, that was the main point of the response, and not wrong, but not specific enough to the question. Simply asking about taking a GPS to Mexico. Ok, I guess I interpreted the OP's question the same way SW did being that he asked about customs and declaring items...anyway, it's all been answered it seems. Enjoy! And, GO JR!

Duece, just my interpretation, but I think SW's main point was in regards to the duty, taxation and customs part of the question? At any rate...do I dare ask about Cuba? Not that I'd ever waste time going there...

Not to detract from you post because it's certainly probable that someone will read this and have it resonate with them...however, have you considered just kind of blowing those off? I mean, geocaching is for enjoyment, and for some people difficulty of puzzles may be what drives them and if all the puzzle caches were....watered down...then they'd be on the opposite end of this stick. Again, I don't want to come across as trying to invalidate your point because it's your opinion and I think it's worth consideration even if some people disagree...just throwing out there as food for thought.

So what.....it's ok for him to say something negative towards us, but not for me to disagree with him? I'm getting tired of your posts. Wow, no need to attack me...