JPreto

None of this would be necessary if everyone was being transparent and on the level. I have to agree with this statement... Sometimes reviewers disable caches that may not comply with the guidelines and just say: "An email was sent to the onwer explaining the reason why this cache was disabled". Why can´t it be public, the reason why the cache was disable? Maybe others can see the reason and learn with it... and the communication could be reviewer-community and not reviewer-Owner-community... We all know that COs won´t always tell the story has it was and most of the times put some dots in the story. Another issue is GS guidelines leaving space for reviewer critics... This is actually something that if the guidelines would be clearer less options would be given to reviewers and they would be more of a "compliance" reviewer and less of a "opinion" reviewer. So, if you want to stop the critics on reviewers, in my opinion, just put clearer guidelines not open to interpretation...

Can I quote this line... Woods existed way before human kind!!!! And we are destroying most of them, like we are in almost everything that surrounds us. Maybe some ecological notions wouldn´t be bad...

Spray paint doesn't hurt a tree at all, yet it is not allowed for some odd reason either. This topic is about nails and screws... let´s not put the paint on it too...

Here are 2 examples of caches that I found here in Brazil and warned the reviewers, that promptly disable the caches. Do you like to see things like this? I really don´t... so I am against anything that would encourage people to do things like this to the trees...

I got your point, I think I did. The fact that Humans sometimes use trees as forms of food or materials gathering is clear that doesn´t kill the trees. You can fix a swing on a tree with some crews and some braces and it will not kill the tree in most cases. The thing is we are talking about a game, a hobbie that doesn´t need to put nails or screws in the trees to be played. We want to leave no trace other than footprints and preferably to leave it cleaner that it was originally, right? Bears, woodpeckers and other animals do it for some reason: Bears to clean and sharp the claws and Woodpeckers to build their home... Do we NEED to put nails and screws on a tree to geocache? Do we NEED to harm another form of life to play our game?

So, now we are comparing what Humans do for food, with what Humans do as a hobbie?!?!?!? There are many more examples on what Humans extract from trees or damage trees to take benefit. For you to do geocaching HAVE TO put a nail or a screw in a tree for your cache to be "perfect"... I think not! There are so many creative ways to put a cache, why harm a tree with the soul propose of putting up a geocache?

Here in Brazil I´ve found caches that the CO put screws and nails on the trees and others that CO crafted a G symbol on the tree with a knife. In both cases I always say that on my log and alert the reviewers about this. Those caches were all archived or modified so no tree would be hurt. Putting a nail or a screw on a tree can expose the tree to virus or other organisms and create an infection that can kill the tree in the long run, my opinion is that no living being should be harmed in the propose of geocaching!

No... not really! Are you a fan? You always seem to FIND and LOG the topics I post on... The word "FIND" means in the English dictionary "to discover"... Can you discover something you hide? Can you discover an event you booked? So, as I put it before... Do whatever feels right to you!

Maybe you should see the guidelines... Cache types! Ohh yes, Event Caches ARE caches!

You can log your own caches but you shouldn´t... not ethical. But many people log their own events, which is exactly the same for me, so... do whatever you feel is right to you!

Funny, I can´t edit the fisrt post to remove http://coord.info/GC89FF 20-07-2002 Puppet Theatre stash on the Mont Blanc which was really found! Congrats!!!!

Thanks for the words... And believe me, not a armchair geocacher!!!! Here in Brazil (Country Stats), where I currently live, there are nowadays 1919 active caches and 73 disabled, so almost 2000 caches in a 8,515,767 km2 (3,287,597 sq mi) it´s the 5th biggest country in the world. In São Paulo, the state I´m in, there are a bit over 1000 caches and I have found almost 700 of them in less than 12 months... I´ve also been to all the states that surround my state. So really, not the armchair kind... more the motorbike, 700km ride per day, to find caches and travel around the country!!!! I have had big issues with cases like this one, here in Brazil, and complained to reviewers and complained to GS, what I got... many caches archived (100-150 caches, in Brazilian numbers around 5-10% of all existing caches at the time) because COs wouldn´t do maintenance because of far away from home placements or caches abandoned by COs that were no longer active. At some point my found stats were 1 DNF in every 3 caches because caches were missing and people here don´t like to DNF and almost never post a NM because "there are so few caches, it´s better to keep them listed even if they aren´t there". I tried to change things around, almost all geocachers criticize me, including the Brazilian Geocaching.com Forum moderator... But I am still here and still trying to make my point, that is... geocaching is fun and even better if the listings are accurate and the caches are maintained. If we all did the effort of trying to do this there weren´t so many problems, I think. Some people like it one way, others like it other way, the fact is... THERE ARE GUIDELINES and if people don´t agree with them it´s their problem, I try to respect the game guidelines because I feel that they were made to protect the game and the players. Even if sometimes I may not agree with them I don´t try and break them or do workarounds...

No, most people don't like that either, however you are the only one obsessed over it. I don't know what the motivation is to open a sock account and log a fake FTF on a geocache that has been published for over 10 years, but I suppose the person may have the same motivation that you do - to get it archived. How about waiting for a few DNFs to pile up first? Actually I would be pleased if the FOUND IT log would be removed (if in fact the person didn´t find it), that would be enough. I would really like that the GS listing service would be that, a listing service, with the caches on it be available to be found. If the cache is not there, and the CO knows about it or doesn´t care about it, is the same as having the phone of a dead person listed in the Yellow Pages... what is the use of that?!?!?!? So, if we all help removing bad logs or inform GS about caches that are no longer there, the listing will be more accurate and we can all do what we like, go and find caches, visiting new places and having new experiences!!!

Thanks, this is an answer!!!! So it really doesn´t matter if the CO is absent or no... only when "many" people abuse a single cache is a problem, when "some" people abuse "some" caches is OK! Just to make it clear, this is actually my interpretation of the guidelines, a flowchart to explain... If I use it? No! It´s just my interpretation...

I wasn´t going to answer but I thought this might be actually important: 1) So you find (physically) an archived cache by chance or just because you like to search for archived caches. 2) Since you can´t adopt because the CO is absent you create a new GC. 3) You say the hidden date is the date the original CO first placed it. If you can´t see a problem in this I can: a ) The cache is not your property, it is the COs or their inheritances. b ) You actually hide (the new/old cache) in some specific date, that for me is the new hiding date since you are now claiming to be the new owner, even without the old owner permit. Soon enough, if cases like these go public, we will start to see many old caches reborn like phoenix, from the aches, just go to the original place of the cache and say: "I found the old cache, it was so damaged that I replaced with a new one but since the cache is archived a created a new GC code with the old date"... GAME ON!!! Lots of old caches can be just reborn with new GC codes but maintaining the dates... Can´t you see a problem in this... well I can!

According to the guidelines is the CO but if the CO is absent from the game? Everybody gives opinions about my actions or my opinions but I put up a fairly simple question... And up until now got no answer. No one knows? So, if GS is a listing service and the cache (property of the CO) is not being maintained by the CO (and please, let´s not debate what is considered maintenance because guidelines are very clear on this subject) shouldn´t it be removed from the listing service or, at least, controlled by GS or the local reviewers by removing bogus logs from the listing service? This is my question.

A - So if the owner was active and I could adopt the cache, I could keep the original 2003 hide date. B - Since the owner is not available, if the cache gets archived for being a rusty bucket with no active CO to maintain it - if I then put a new ammo can in the exact location ....new date? C - Weirder twist. What if the original owners return to the game. New can, same location, same owner. New date? If B and C are correct (which I'm inclined to believe they are) then why is A correct? Why do we even have adopting of caches, for any reason other than to "keep this great old cache going" emphasis on the age. The adopted owner can place a great, identical "new" cache. I'm not against adopted caches. I'm a fan of "old" ones. But these things do seem contradictory to me. I think the answer is actually very simple: "PROPERTY RIGHTS". CASE B - If you "accidentally find a cache" that is archived then the cache isn´t yours. You should actually post a note in the original cache page and wait for someone to complain the cache ownership. It´s like finding a car in the street with the keys on, is the car yours, even if it´s there for 10 years... So, if you place a new cache, because by the LAW you can´t place that cache (even if the person is dead, imagine, the cache belongs to their inheritors). Maybe there is a law that after some years (probably varies on countries) you can claim it yours... CASE C - If the CO (the one that placed the original cache) comes back to the game there are 2 possibilities: 1) Cache is archived. In this case it´s up to GS to allow a unarchive of the cache, so the date should be kept. 2) Cache is active. Just a regular maintenance substitution of a cache, the date should be kept. CASE A - Simple adoption case if the cache is active (you don´t even need GS aproval, there is a automatic way to do it), same GC and same date... If the cache is archived is again up to GS to decide, but in the guidelines they are specific saying that a "cache shouldn´t be unarchived for the purpose of adoption". So, these are my opinions based on the rules of the game... any other/different opinions?

No need for that kind of detail, but I feel that some guidelines could be more explicit and not leave to reviewers the power to determine what cache should or shouldn´t be archived, just to put an example... You can read more about this HERE!

No, you're not alone. But, most people have the sense to not get so worked up over something so trivial. If more took a stand about things like this maybe, just maybe, the game could be better... and my better means more players being honest and don´t lying about founds or placing Throwdowns just to have another found. DNFs are there, so people can use them... no shame about that!!!

If you think like this, great you are free to whatever you want... Don´t respect the GS guidelines and be happy about it. I prefer to play by the game rules!!!!

That is a THROWDOWN!!!! You should really read the GUIDELINES and learn how to play the game!!!! I don´t know what is worse, logging fake FOUND IT or placing a THROWDOWN...

From 2003 the CO is using a smartphone, he never found a single cache and placed 5 caches between Jan 2002 and May 2003... I´m sure he is a avid geocacher and if you really look at his geocaching profile you can see that another of his caches http://coord.info/GCG2ZQ has a bigger problem, NA from 2010 and the FOUND is not a found by the Geocaching guidelines!!!! I´m not talking about archiving caches, I´m talking about DELETING BOGUS FOUND LOGS!!!! But if the case the caches could also be archived if it is demonstrated they are not there and the CO is absent! Gezzz... Am I the only one that doesn´t like when people lie about logging a FOUND IT in a cache the CO is absent? So, back to my first question: "Who is the responsibility of taking care of caches that the CO abandoned? GS, reviewers, the community? And how should this process be done when bogus FOUND IT logs are registered in abandoned caches?"

Funny enough, the TD and FOUND IT log was posted today, the same day this list was created... Let´s see if it holds out and the CO doesn´t delete the log... Anyway the list on the first post will be updated regularly!

Thanks, this is exactly my point...

No drama here... just doing a community job, i think! Or maybe not...