TyroneShoelaces

Any reference at all to the Lions organization makes it an "agenda cache" and will keep it from being published.

Thank you for the well thought out and helpful reply, Scroogiell. Although I don't see how adding the visit date to the visit note actually fixes the problem at hand, which should be an easy fix if anybody at The Top cared enough about Waymarking to fix it.

Our premium membership dues hard at work.

If I bump this to the top is there ANY chance this might get fixed? I'm logging waymarks from my trip last weekend, and have to log each of them and then edit them, to get the date to stay as 12/10/22. PLEASE FIX THIS!!

Certainly, and I do create waymarks. It's not the most user-friendly experience, and take some time and effort to make each one. Replicating all of the benchmarks as waymarks would be a lot of time and effort for something that already exists here, if HQ would just leave them be.

Only if somebody created a waymark listing for the mark. I doubt every benchmark available to view on this site was replicated by somebody on the Waymarking site.

Don't be so quick to judge a benchmarking challenge cache as lame if you've never actually encountered one yourself. The challenge cache that got me interested in benchmark was quite interesting, as it required finding 15 different TYPES of benchmarks. At the time, I didn't realize benchmarks were anything else than the bronze disk you come across from time to time. Turns out benchmarks can be signal lights along waterways, marks chiseled into stone, embedded metal rods, church spires, water towers, just to name a few. It was fun finding these, especially when I had cleared out my area of geocaches.

Nicely done! My best is 7 years, 2 months lonely, GCPZ66. I was surprised it went so long between finds. Nothing really hard about it, but it is in a remote part of PA, and there was a creek crossing to do. We lucked out and the water was low when we were there.

Two things: First, this unfortunate scenario would happen to you regardless if someone armchair logged an old virtual or a new traditional. Doesn't pertain to only these old Virtuals. Second, if the CO for the old virtual is no longer in the game, they don't care about their own project-gc stats.

Eh...maybe. But when I go somewhere I've never been, how can I tell which one of these Lab Adventures includes that old virtual that got needlessly archived? Before its death, I could have been made aware of it through a combination of hidden date and favorite points.

My opinion...it's still better to allow the enjoyment for others despite the few who are cheating themselves.

That may be ALL caches around Sydney with NM logs, but that's getting away from the topic of this thread, which is specifically old Virtuals. If those are physical caches, and they need maintenance, by all means, post that NM. I'm not discouraging that at all, because left unchecked, those caches will likely become geolitter. And perhaps the reviewer standards are different where you are, I take back my blanket statement. Let me be more specific. AROUND MY AREA, NM and NA logs without a response from an active CO are a death sentence. After some length of time a reviewer will post a log, something to the effect of, "hey, I noticed your cache has had a NM for a while. You have 30 days to reply back or fix the issue. If I don't hear back, your cache will be archived." I have even seen perfectly good caches get archived just because the log got full or it was wet, and somebody posted a NM about it. No response from the CO and it got archived, even with current finds logged. For physical caches that actually need attention, I wholeheartedly agree with the process. But back to the subject at hand. For an old virtual, where the only issue is that there isn't a CO receiving or responding to a message, but the cache location itself is just fine, why log the NM?

I don't recall the health cycle of a cache being discussed in this particular thread. But I am interested regarding that point... Let's say there's an old virtual and the CO is no longer active. The item at GZ is still there as it was when the cache listing was created. Finder #1 visits the spot, sees cool item, sends answers and logs a find. "Finder" #2 logs a find from their computer chair thousands of miles away. Is the health "score" of the cache affected differently between log #1 and log #2? And was the fun for either of the loggers #1 or #2 increased or decreased by the log of the other? What was pointed out on that FB post was the process that follows after a Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log are posted. The OP defended himself numerous times, claiming that "he" wasn't the one who got the caches archived, because all he did was post the log. The way he understood it, was that after such log is posted, it was up to the discretion of the reviewer to decide whether or not to take action. This is simply not true, and I'm still not sure if the OP understands that. Regardless if it's a NM or NA posted, if the CO is no longer active, either of those logs is a death sentence. One just takes longer than the other to get there. So like you said, if the cache functions, it functions. Why not let it be?

Most of the posters on that FB thread kept it a civil discussion, but there was mudslinging by some as well...

I wish I could copy/paste my point from the FB thread, but it appears to have been deleted. So, I will try to recreate my take on the issue here: Yes, calling out these abandoned Virtuals is technically the right thing to do because they are not being maintained. Of course that has nothing to do with the actual location, maintenance in this case is just a non-response to an email or message. But since they are a rare, grandfathered cache type, why? Why does it matter if somebody in Germany wants to armchair log every unwatched Virtual in the world? Does their find count have any bearing on your enjoyment of the game? Why let the actions of a few cheaters create a situation where an old virtual is removed from the gameboard? Old virtuals have brought me, and many others, to some of the coolest places, often places where a physical container could not be practically hidden and maintained. Especially when I'm on a road trip in an unfamiliar area, Virtuals point me to some of those must stops. Policing them like this only serves to remove them from the map, so others in the future will miss that opportunity. Sure, I'll give you that these spots could still be identified if someone wanted to recreate it using an Adventure Lab for example. But it loses that luster of an oldie, which come with the added bonus of helping to fill Jasmer grids and qualifying for other challenge caches. I could see if it was keeping somebody from placing a better cache there, but unlike physical container caches, Virtuals aren't limited by the proximity rules. Now, if there is something wrong with the actual location, ie the item doesn't exist anymore, or there is a threat of danger or private property concerns, archive away. I wish there was a way to adopt abandoned Virtuals, but without the CO present to initiate the adoption, it's not possible. And it has been made clear by HQ that this will not change. As others have pointed out, they are a listing service, the caches (even Virtuals) aren't their property to give away.

Still no fix to this? I'm logging a bunch from this past weekend and have to edit the date each time. Ugh...

I found this interesting one on my way home from New England a couple weeks ago: GC3B72

In 6 years I've been questioned by police at least 5 times, 1 security guard, and 1 irate business owner. The best was the security guard. He blocked in my car and I had to stand there while we waited for the police that he called. A few minutes later the police arrived, and the first words out of his mouth were... "did you find it?" I can remember the look on the security guard's face went from smug to shocked. Instant vindication.

I was headed back home from a week of caching in New England, so I stopped at the Eternal Flame Falls for mine. :-) It was nice to do one out of my home state since I don't have many ECs left near home.

I've actively searched for and removed over 40 archived caches, always with pictures to prove I found it and I'm not just padding my numbers. And like others have said, I also justify doing it to remove the abandoned container. I can't justify a virtual or Earthcache for the same reason, so I won't do them.

I activated 2 trackables, got 0 points.

I don't remember the voting link in prior years, and since this was done so late in the game this year, it feels like the voting was an afterthought.

There should be a toggle switch on the map to display found puzzles at either the posted or solved coords.

You don't have to wait for them to be dropped in the cache. From the home page, click on "Play", then "Trackables". Enter the code from the trackable to access its page and log it. There are instances when you might want to wait for a trackable to be dropped into a cache, like it if was just done earlier in the same day. That gives the person who dropped it time to log it. But the situation you described does not sound like that's the case. You may also want to edit your found log which contains the trackable codes, as you could have inadvertently opened those TBs up to virtual logs.

Just last weekend I cleared off a 4-yr old DNF. It's over 200 miles from home but I was on a road trip that would get me close again. I drove a little out of the way for the chance, and of course I found it right away this time.