Find Now, Log Later?

No, I think it is often used as a euphemism for "wheelchair accessible." The relevant part of the Merriam-Webster definition of handicap is much less exclusive: 2 a : a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult b sometimes offensive : a physical disability

Right, but on-the-other-other-hand, you may now have enticed a geocaching family into the area with the easier cache, and the "most obsessed" geocacher in the family (every family has one) might persuade family members to seek the harder cache that they might not all be capable of doing (or enjoying.)

Since BrianSnat spoke up strongly, I'll use one of his virtual caches as an example. In the days before it was required to supply the approvers with the coordinates for the intermediate stages of multicaches (and also in the days when microcaches were both a rarity and an oddity), BrianSnat placed a virtual cache smack in the middle of a "virtual-multicache" tour of mine. No big deal; I archived my multicache because it hadn't been that successful and Brian's new virtual brought people directly to the highlight of the tour. Skip ahead a couple of years, and microcaches are "all the rage." There are literally thousands of safe potential hiding places within .1 mile of Brian's virtual cache that could be utilized to create a well-conceived "microcache-multicache." Further explorations of the area have also revealed quite a few areas where full-sized "traditional" caches could be safely hidden.

It's amusing that you discuss "what would happen" (people would, invariably, toss film canister micros at the sites of existing virtual caches) and then elaborate on "what it would cause to happen." (The archived virtual cache would not be reinstated because it would not be in accordance with current guidelines.) The scenario, as presented, is truly absurd. I support the concept of virtual caches, but agree that the establishment of a virtual cache should be reserved for areas where it is not possible, or is prohibited, to hide a physical cache. In this thread and the other, it is being presumed that people would hide only micro caches at virtual sites ... and low-quality micro caches, at that. There is no basis for that presumption. There is also neither (at least, as of this date) restriction nor prohibition against the hiding of micro caches, lame or otherwise.

You will notice that the following words appear in the original post of this thread prior to the issue of "bad ratings": The discussion of cache quality was introduced by the initiator of the thread. Further discussion of that issue therefore qualifies as "thread development." Also note that an approver developed that leg of the conversation further by commenting: It was quickly established that "bad cache ratings" are not "counter to the guidelines." Further, the topic of what constitutes a one-terrain-star cache has been, in my opinion, well-covered. BrianSnat posted the cache ratings, which incidentally, make neither guarantee nor even direct mention of "wheelchair accessibility." To review, the one-terrain-star definition reads: Actually, of the cache series cited in the original post, the one or two examples I have seen appear to fit the one-terrain-star rating fairly well. But if you like, we can return to that conversation and discuss what we, as a geocaching community, should be doing for handicapped, non-wheelchair-bound geocachers (for example, people with severe emphysema) that would find even a flat, 1/2 mile hike far too difficult. But I am uncertain as to whether any of the caches in the series mentioned in the opening post of this thread fit that description, so such a discussion might prove to be off topic. And that might peeve the moderators.

First time I ever saw his name, I wondered where Yachit, NY was.

Because you already have a "good" cache nearby, I would say it's time to archive the earlier cache and place your new kid-friendly cache elsewhere.

I disagree with the quoted statement. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to find a substantiating link before heading out the door this morning, but I clearly recall we were told by TPTB that the placement (and approval) of a physical cache would take precedence over a virtual cache and would cause the virtual cache to be archived. The reasoning was, it had been decided that virtual caches were to be approved only in areas where it was not possible to hide a physical cache or in areas where physical caches were prohibited.

One thing I have observed regularly is that experienced hikers/outdoorspeople have a tendency to underestimate the terrain ratings on their caches, while people less experienced with "being outdoors" tend to overestimate their terrain ratings. And people seem to universally overestimate the difficulty rating ... it is very rare indeed to find a cache that deserves even 3 difficulty stars. Of my approximately 1300 finds, I would say there have been fewer than a half dozen that warranted 3 (or more) difficulty stars.

Perhaps the guidelines should be edited to read "Lame physical caches may not be approved," since at least one of the approvers has stated that he interprets the words "may not be approved" to be synonymous with "are prohibited." That should provide the approvers the "out" they need.

Are you suggesting that "the revolution has begun?"

Never been called for jury duty, have you?

Unfortunately, geocaching does seem to have turned into a game where, in many areas, the "smileys" are the only element of the cache experience that "makes people happy."

Never mind --- I saw your post before you edited the finger-slip, and was going to ask how you decided which ones to log twice.

This log summed it up: "This had to be the easiest one yet as it was laying out in the open with no cammo or anything. Just laying on the grass." I think it is sad that people intentionally rate their caches incorrectly. It is even sadder that caches like those, in those numbers, were approved. BrianSnat is right ... a certain element will find these caches appealing ... why, it wouldn't surprise me if someone even created an "Event Cache" and got a group together to find all 35 ... make that 36.

I agree with Jamie's post. If, as the cache owner, you feel the cache is no longer worthwhile, then the best solution might be to archive the cache and create a new one elsewhere.

Rather than expounding upon their cache experience in detail, the increased choice of graphics would more likely cause even more people to post logs of the "Found it - TNLNSL - thanks" variety with their choice of pretty graphic.

Of the first 10 caches I found, dating back to August of 2001, 5 remain active, including my first find. Unfortunately, only 4 of those cache owners remain active, and the maintenance of their caches has fallen into the "public domain." I don't feel too good about that. But it did cause me to check through a good number of my old finds, and it was pretty depressing discovering how many people placed a cache or two and after a few days, weeks, or months never logged into the site again.

I think if one person could find the cache with the original coordinates, then they are good enough for everyone else. Not all "corrected" coordinates offered (posted) by finders prove to be more accurate than the original coordinates on the page.

Welcome to the "post-literate age," where everything has to be summed up by a graphic. I don't think we need this; the degree of enjoyment people received from a cache can usually be discerned by reading the log. Perhaps those who post only vanilla "PC" logs should simply write logs that more honestly describe their experience.

I agree; "350 ft isn't too bad" if the locations are separated by a river or cliff, etc. with no "easy access" between the two.

Statement withdrawn with apologies, then. My gps must have indicated incorrectly.

"Ward's Island Park" and "Hellgate." (Separated by approximately 460 ft.) "Hellgate had been operational for over two years when "Ward's Island Park" appeared. There are too many (intermediate or final) stages of multicaches within .1 of other existing caches to list. (The edit removes information that may have been incorrect.)

So the page is truly a "work in progress." 20 minutes ago, the "History Page" listed only the last 100 caches.