Search the Community

There has been talk of a system that would fulfill this requirement.

Since you're asking me, I'm going to say, no, you shouldn't log it because you didn't in any sense find it. You just happen to know the answer. Having said that, I would not care if you logged it, and, in fact, I'll freely admit that if it were me, I might very well talk myself into logging it, too. Who said I was asking you in particular? I was asking the forum. You can certainly answer, but don't pretend to be special. As for your answer, I would argue I DID in fact find it. If I happened across a container that ended up being a geocache...happened across it completely by accident, would you not argue it was reasonable to log a find? What if I was walking down the street and noticed a friend standing in the street and stopped to talk to him. Later at home I realized he'd been standing there getting his picture taken by a webcam and, by chance, I happened to be in the picture. Couldn't I also log that find on the webcam cache? What if I was out at a restaurant and spotted a friend and sat with him for a while talking...then found out it was an event. Would it not be reasonable to claim attendance at the event? I was at the location, saw the object mentioned in the cache page and only later realized it was a virtual cache. I'm not really trying to "talk myself into logging it". In fact, I have not yet. I've actually emailed the CO to present this, asking if he was okay with it. If not, I won't. It's not a big deal...but I honestly feel it's perfectly reasonable to claim a find.

Some odd reason, once in a while I forget that I went into the woods with a hiking stick. I always have a hiking stick. We don't usually buy cheap, so then I have to lug my can wherever I left it last. Talk about a spoiler ! "Yoo-hoo ! The cache is right here...!" The last time was only eight miles, but it was almost dark. I was second-to-find, so left a note if someone would grab it for me. - And they did. But I never forget a writing instrument.

Here's an unpopular point of view. "One and Done", "Weekend Cachers"; whatever you call them. People who download the app and go out without knowing or caring what they're doing. We talk about them here in the fora all the time. This doesn't make them necessarily bad, just uninformed or uncaring. People tend to see what's in front of them as "it". The App can say "Go to the Website" on every screen, but the average person;e tendency is to say "Well, I'm here in the app, playing the game," so they won't. ---------- If you have to balance the 'business needs' of GS as a money-making entity against our needs of protecting the hobby against people on a joy ride through random things to do, I'll pick protectionism every time. This ISN'T Angry Birds or Candy Crush as someone alluded to above. At it's core this is a manually constructed, human effort hobby that exists in the physical world. It doesn't matter how many people have access to the top level of Angry Birds (if there is such a thing) because NOTHING is at stake except profit from app-sales. In Geocaching, what's at stake is the physical effort, time, expense and materiel that goes into the creation and maintenance of the playing pieces in the REAL WORLD, otherwise known as geocaches. Yes, you can play for free forever. You can even HIDE caches for free! That's a wonderful, respectable operating foundation of the company. But, it's SOOOOOO easy to ruin a geocache, even if you have no malice. Even if you have respect. Take stuff home, leave it exposed, log spoilers, relocate to make it easier, throwdowns.... We get all that from PAYING players who presumably should have a higher chance of knowing better! To allow access to all but the most elementary game pieces for players with NO skin in the game is irresponsible and abusive to cache owners. I WISH there was a way to give cachers more perspective and education. I WISH human nature didn't tend toward ONLY self-fulfillment. I WISH that there was a way to immediately get across the concept that the COMPANY didn't hide this stuff; your fellow PLAYERS did, and maybe people wouldn't treat caches like they do public facilities. So, no, the unlockable features of the app should be a reward for actually joining; investing in the hobby. Basic membering which involves using the website may not be the most efficient way to play, but think of it as a toll road. You can take the smaller roads for free, or you can 'join' and get a smoother, faster ride. With reststops and bathrooms. But, it's said, how can people really tell if they want to join unless they can play? Well, I think caching is something that will grab you if you're the right type. Want to try 'higher' stuff? Get yourself a one-month inexpensive membership (or whatever it is). Put SOMETHING personal into the game to be granted access to the shared property of cache owners. Otherwise, there are LOTS of "Angry Birds" games to play. The unpopular part of this? I suppose I'm all for a 'smaller', well-played game. "After all, Bill," my Dad would say. "If everybody does it, then EVERYBODY would do it."

Perhaps I've in the minority but I often talk about the cache, especially when I find a clean, dry container with lots of room in the log sheet. I may simply mention that the cache in good shape because that provides a real time notification to the owner of the state of the cache. I would also talk about the cache if it's in poor shape and mention a very wet log or broken container as that is also useful information for a cache owner, more so than writing that it was 72 degrees, with clear skies and a light wind. Unless the weather was significantly bad or an exceptionally warm day in winter, I can't see the CO or other log readers caring about the weather when I found the cache.

Re: cerberus1 wrote: "You're saying the Geocaching Regional Policies Wiki isn't good enough ?" Yes. I am saying that. The Wiki is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far nor cover a very large percentage of current cache placements. Let me define the issue as narrowly as possible. The goal is to have good caches placed in interesting area with the permission of the landowner. The guidelines require that anyone placing a geocache get landowner permission. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is actually a requirement that The Reviewer follows. Let's say I want to place a geocache where one has never been before. I need to get permission. It's up to me. I accept that. I figure out who to call, get permission, place the cache. No problem. It's something I've done many times in several different states. In my expirience permission, is either flatly denied without explanation, or granted after some process is followed. Now lets say I want to place a cache where one or more caches have previously been placed. Supposedly whoever placed thse caches, got permission, and passed that information on to the Reviewer. It's a very simple matter for The Reviewer to look up that information and supply it upon request. In the discussion above it was stated that if a landowner objected The Reviewer would relay the information to the landowner about who gave permission, so why not relay the same information upon request to a cacher who requests it? It is still up to the cacher to make the call, get permission, or if the "things have changed" figure out who to contact. Not a big deal to supply some possibly helpful information upon request, is it? For caches placed "where caches have been before" there are really only two reasons for The Reviewer not to answer "Who have other people contacted to get permission?": 1, The Reviewer has the information but chooses not to share it. 2, The Reviewer does not have the information because it was not previously provided. This is an instance where the person enforcing the Rules could be helpful to the person attempting to follow the rules. Why not be helpful? If someone asked me "who did you talk to toget permission" I would be happy to pass it on. Why aren't Reviewers willing to do so upon request?

That's fair enough, but some people talk as though it's the only way, and the website is redundant. Personally when I started geocaching, I found my first 180 caches without a GPS or a phone, and I could only see some caches, and had no idea other caches even existed. I LOVED that, as when I finally became a member all these other caches appeared near where I lived. Rather than get upset I couldn't see them, I was thrilled I hadn't been able to see them, as now I had a whole lot more local caches to find. It was like a birthday present for me. Also, not having a GPS or phone for my first 180 caches, taught me to look for other clues when searching, such as moved pebbles, broken twigs and bent grass.

I don't necessarily talk about the cache, but I might talk about my day or the way to the cache or something I found interesting about the area (especially if it involves social housing in any way...). But I never cut and paste and I'm not padding my logs deliberately. The same here. On the more memorable caches, the ones where my logs run close to or over the length limit, it's mostly the story of my adventure on the way to GZ and back, with the cache itself barely rating a mention if it's just a standard box, and if it's something special that's meant as a surprise for the finder, I won't say anything at all about it that might spoil the surprise. My logs do relate specifically to my journey to that cache, and if several caches were found on the trip, I'll split the narrative between caches rather than just repeat everything. The only time I've done any cutting and pasting was for a series of geoart caches associated with the recent mega here, and even then I tried to add a sentence or two specific to each cache if I could.

I don't necessarily talk about the cache, but I might talk about my day or the way to the cache or something I found interesting about the area (especially if it involves social housing in any way...). But I never cut and paste and I'm not padding my logs deliberately.

Speaking of cynical... No, I'm saying these are people that are always arguing over various ways to improve the game, so they're open to all manner of changes. If they object as a group to any given suggestion, it's because something like it has already been considered at length -- or tried -- so the downside is well understood and you should listen to what it is. Taking off means having a community. I think you're mistaking my use of the word "community" for something specific, like events. Every place is different. Every community develops in its own way. That's why a central solution isn't likely to work for your area, and why the community can only grow from people in the community. Unfortunately, I'm not sure every area can develop a healthy community, but I do think that the only way you can have a healthy community is by first recognizing the it is a community and not mistake it for nothing more than a tiny, indistinguishable part of "geocaching". I'm not sure if anything more could be done to make life more rewarding for cache owners, but I've observed two things. First, cache owners need to be motivated by their caches first, and I've found they usually are. If they aren't, the best any rewards GS hands out will produce is more low quality caches. Second, the more GS produces artificial rewards for ownership, the more minimized the owners that don't need artificial rewards feel. If makes them feel like large quantities of inferior caches are considered more important than the heartfelt caches self-motivated COs put out. Wait. "Inspire"? Yes, that's a great idea. Work to inspire cache owners, not to reward them. GS tries to do a lot of that, and god bless them for it. But it won't help if there aren't any COs in your area to inspire. People regularly talk about this in the forums. I don't read much of what GS puts out, but I seem to recall blogs about the joys of good logs. As you observe, upvoting is already being studied. I don't think it will help, but I'm not opposed to it. The reason I don't think it will help is much the same as why I don't think CO rewards work: while imagining you're rewarding logs of the type you describe, in the end you only reward logs that win the reward, and that often is something quite different. You call it manipulation, but if they do something other than what you wanted them to do, blame the reward. Anyway, I think upvoting will be harmless, so I'll be all for it if only because it will make you happy, so don't accuse me of being negative or obstructive. But I predict it will be soon forgotten and ignored. I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing here. You talk about aiming higher, but I don't understand how a owner-only souvenir would do that. But, no matter, I'm all for it, too. In this case, I suspect that it will just be completely ignored. I doubt many people give any serious thought to next year's rewards. So at the same time I doubt it will do much for your cause of more or improved ownership, I also don't think it will significantly increase the number of bad caches that should never have been placed. So, sure, give it a try. I would have no problem with this if GS wanted to give it a try, but I think they try very hard to make the challenges simple so that anyone can understand it without much thought, so I doubt they use it. But to give it your best shot, maybe start a new thread on this specific idea and start bouncing ideas around about exactly how to structure the points and explain it to everyone. As you seem to understand, the devil's in the details, but I don't see any evil at the end of the road if the details can actually be worked out, so have at it!

If you're looking at just putting a bit of metal with the code, or the code and a small amount of text such as the TB name then you could look into letter stamps for metal which come in a variety of sizes and styles. Many hardware stores carry the heavy duty ones that will work on steel, some craft stores carry light duty (read: cheaper) ones that will work on aluminium or thin stainless steel. If you get friendly with some local engineering or engraving place, you might be able to talk them into laser engraving some metal tags for you on some scrap metal for only a few dollars. I haven't had any TB's go missing (yet), not sure how much a difference it makes that I've only sent out proxies. But I've only sent out a few and none have been out long.

Hi all, today I had a rather frustrating experience with Adventure Labs. After more or less ignoring the cache-type completely, I tried one next to my homezone called Rothsee. Went to the first station, entered the answer... wrong. Again... wrong. Verified the correctness with some friends who already did it. Right answer, no typos... wrong. Thing is, while we in fact are in Germany, my iPhone runs English. So we pulled my wife's iPhone (running German), installed the app, logged in, provided the exact same answer... correct. So while we were able to complete the cache, I still wonder if there is a problem with the internationalization of either that particular lab or the app itself. Answers should the unique b/c e.g. the solution on a plate is always the same word (in this case the name of the manufacturer), no matter the nationality of the player, or clearly state "provide the translated version of the word." What should not happen is that the app fails with particular language settings. What does a tourist do, if he can't easily switch his entire phone to German? If there are any developers of that app listening in here... we need to talk. #Carsti

Thanks! I finally found it. The blog entry was posted way back in November and isn't in any of the categorized lists, so it took me a while to track it down. No reason for you to apologize, but you might want to see about the souvenir description giving some slight hint about what the souvenir is actually granted for. With every other similar souvenir I looked at, the description always ends with "You earned this souvenir by...". It's as if Last 2020 was done by "the new guy" who didn't realize there was a defined formula they were supposed to follow. (I'm not complaining, mind you, I just think it's funny, especially because thread came up at just the right time for me to even look at the souvenir.) I did find the newer 2020 Geocaching HQ souvenir moments blog entry which doesn't mention Last 2020 but does talk about the traditional 12/31 and 1/1 souvenirs. I assume the person writing that newer article hadn't heard that the one day souvenirs have been replaced by these week long versions this year.

First, I agree with RuideAlmeida: if you want to be strict, that's fine, but in order to reject the find, you really need to know for sure whether they signed the log, so physically check it. If you want to let it slide, that's OK, too. To avoid the problem cerberus1 mentions, when you check the physical log, that counts as owner maintenance, so post an OM and mention the missing signature and admit you've giving this one person some slack, but no one else should expect any. (It doesn't matter whether that's true or not. ) In my opinion, what you do or don't do about it as a CO are somewhat secondary to the question of how to teach the seeker about multicaches in case they really don't know about them. Whatever you do with their log, they'll likely never notice or won't understand. To help them learn, don't worry about being a CO: you're just another friendly cacher. I agree the message center is probably out, but they'll notice an email if their address is set right. (If it isn't, then there's nothing you can do unless you meet them in person sometime.) So I tend to send email with enough information to make them realize how multis work if they don't know without flat out accusing of them of not knowing what a multi is in case they do. The most important thing is to think of it more like you're explaining what a double IPA is to your drinking buddy and forget anything about the original owner/seeker, somewhat antagonistic dynamic in which they technically did something wrong that you have to prevent or correct. Imagine you noticed this in a log for someone else's cache so when you're dealing with the newbie, there's no need to talk about whether you'll reject his find.

When we talk about ugly babies, I'm thinking of logs that talk about what a stupid place this is for a cache or imply that the CO is incompetent in some way. So "the container leaks and the log was a mess" is fine, but "only an idiot would use a container like this" is more of an ugly baby comment. I think a lot of people don't recognize the difference. If you do, then you can carry on without worrying about me. The point is that there are many factors a finder might not understand, so suggestions should be neutral and explanatory, not dictating and self righteous. Local standards are just a good example of one such unknown standard, but a particularly good one because people that believe they know the one true standard are often snotty about telling other people what to do. I admit, I don't really have any idea which is true, but my impression from posts in the forum is that more often than not, the person complaining wrote a log that wouldn't be easy to view as helpful. I'm glad you presented this hypothetical example because it allows me to ask you what I've said to make you think I'd object to this log. It looks perfectly good to me. Sounds like a lot of logs I've written, actually. The ugly baby version would be, "Hike was too long. Nothing interesting in this area. Terrible trail, and it's outrageous that I had to cross a creek on a fallen tree. Obviously should have been rated T4. The CO tried to kill me by planting thorns around the cache. Stinky container, obviously being ignored." My suspicion is that some people will actually write something more like this, yet believe their log is as polite as your is. And then come here and saying that COs shouldn't out caches (babies) if they can't take feedback ("your baby is ugly").

Here in Australia we also have events for the following: May 4th - Star Wars Day September 19th - International Talk Like a Pirate Day November 14th March 14th - PI Day June - World Wide Flash Mob December 23rd - Festivus

Well caveat: this is going to become a long post again, but as you somehow asked again. On the one hand, at least I understood a number of statements in this thread in the way that some cachers here think that socializing and hiking do not go well together or go less well together than for example eating and socializing. On the other hand, if hiking and socializing are a good combination for the target group and if indeed the worry that some cachers might use hiking events for caches is causing the ban of real hiking events, then that's a real shame that once again those who are sincere and follow the spirit get punished (and yes, I feel that way regardless of the existence of workarounds). A event that announces a picnic at the meeting point which lasts for 4 hours is a pure picnic event in my eyes. Even when a meeting point and time at a potential trailhead were given and most of the attendants were hiking to the picnic together (not the case in the example), I would classify this event as a hiking event as the distance to the event location does not seem to be that large (roughly one mile as I understood it - so one need 15 minutes to the cache location one way - hardly a hike in my opinion and not in relation to the 4 hours picnic). That is not relevant for my classification. If I drive to a ice skating pond where an event takes place by car it is still an ice skating event and not a car driving event. The organized option for socializing takes place during the picnic at the example event. If I wanted to have some socializing also during the hike I would have to contact some cachers by myself, apart from the fact that the walk is short. For me it's neither about smilies, nor about going for a hike alone or with some people I need to organize. A hiking event offers the same option for socializing than a meet and greet at a restaurant with the sole difference that the side activity is hiking and not eating. The example event not even suggests a route or a parking lot - so in this respect every normal hiking multi cache is to be preferred from my point of view. There I at least do not need to do the planning myself and if I want to organize someone who joins me, I can do that there too. A real hiking event is different in the sense that I do not need do all this planning and I do not need to try to convince others to join me. If I hike in to a picnic event that takes place for 4 hours, I would feel extremely ashamed to leave after a few minutes and would not have ended up with lots of possibilities for socializing. Those who prefer socializing while hiking to socializing while sitting or standing are not well served by the example event. There are certainly people who are good at socializing and do not need special requirements - they can even socialize nicely if they do not feel well in a setting. I can't. The example event would typically work out for me as follows: I walk alone to the picnic area or accompanied by a friend who might have talked me into attending the even and then would spend some time at the picnic without ending up with that much socializing. A picnic event that takes place for 4 hours and is reachable by a short walk (so not at least 1 hour one way) attracts a completely different audience than a real hiking event. In my area such an event have at least four times as many participants as a hiking event and it would already be hard for me to find and identify those at the event I'd like to talk to because there is something that connects me to them. In a smaller group I can talk longer with a person which fits my personality and communication style much better. At events with 100 or more participants I feel terribly lost. Somehow the typical expected behaviour is to spend some minutes to talk to A, then talk to B etc and never get end up with a consider as an interesting communication. It's mainly smalltalk.

Now that you've had the DriveAssist 51 for awhile, what do you think? I just dropped by DriveAssist 50 (which we loved) and totalled it. I tried to order another, and they sent me the 51. I'm not really sure what the difference is. I've heard talk about having to use a smartphone app while driving, which I'd rather not do. I used to upload caching routes from GSAK or Cachetur thru TripPlanner.

No, I believe I am reading exactly what they wrote in the blog post - you're inferring something more positive from it. And that's fine... Seems you selectively disincluded the following point I made: And there has been plenty of talk about 'mundane', 'run of the mill' geocaches proliferating in various places of the community, so they're not pulling this 'archive' idea out of thin air. I'd wager this advice is based on general community feedback. Some people are labeling this advice to consider archival a negative thing. Clearly that opinion is contested. I'm not inferring something positive, I'm saying there's no need to infer something negative. It is what it is. And since clearly the rest of the intent is to encourage more positive geocache hides, why would one infer that considering archival of a cache the cache owner feels is worth archiving, a bad thing? Unless you consider merely asking a cache owner to consider archival for any reason (let along reasons generally to be considered good things) a bad thing? How am I dismissing opinions? You're entitled to them. We all are. But yes, let's start going meta in this disagreement and try to discredit the other person's position by saying they're discrediting yours. Disagreeing is not dismissing. Probably because of a lot of community discussion and complaints and feedback about the proliferation of mundane geocaches, powertrails, lack of maintenance, lack of creativity, etc etc... Again, it's nice seeing your stats. But it doesn't apply everywhere. And not everyone likes the same cache styles or hides. So, if I enjoy mundane caches, does that mean they should be protected against archival because they "can" be enjoyed? The intent to encourage cache owners to consider things that indicate a geocache may be more widely providing a positive experience. If a good cache gets archived because the cache owner decides it's time, sure, if I found it before I might sad because I may know some other people who'd enjoy it like I did. But it's that's CO's choice, their decision. I can only hope that perhaps they're thinking of another good idea for a cache. HQ wants to encourage that. Let them. They're not telling people to archive caches. They're implying, rightly I would say, that favourite points and regular (which is a relative term) finding of a cache is a good sign it's a positive experience. I would not expect a 3 day wilderness camping excursion cache to expect 15 finds a day to be 'regular'. Likewise, I wouldn't simply look at FPs to determine quality, but the tone of the logs that are posted. So if I were the cache owner I wouldn't archive that 3 day camping trip cache solely because it's found twice a year and has 2 FPs out of 15 finds, especially if all the logs are praising the experience. There, I've now considered the suggested indicators of a good cache and chosen not to archive. That's all it takes.

This has come up before. Encouraging a positive isn't discouraging everything else. You have to infer that everything else is a negative. They are encouraging people to create quality geocache listings. And there has been plenty of talk about 'mundane', 'run of the mill' geocaches proliferating in various places of the community, so they're not pulling this 'archive' idea out of thin air. I'd wager this advice is based on general community feedback. They didn't say no one like mundane caches. They simply asked cache owners to consider their geocache hides more carefully and aim towards quality hides. Again, I never said the wording was the best, but I never got from them that people should archive all their caches that don't get FPs or are found rarely. Seems like the people who are inferring that are more likely the ones who are or have been critical of HQ's leanings for a while - ie, have a bias already. If someone wants to hide geocaches, and they infer that they should archive their FP-less, lonely geocaches regardless of any other factors, most likely they will hide new ones, and having already 'heeded' the advice, they'll probably aim better with that mentality in mind. Or, they may keep those old hides without archiving them and just start placing more towards that mentality. Who knows how people will interpret the advice. But the fact is, the advice is entirely towards geocaches that are attempts at being more "FP worthy" (generally excellent advice) and more likely to be attractive to more geocachers to find (also generally excellent advice). And all of those concepts may be regionally interpreted; there are no objective standards or thresholds or universal definitions provided, which means one must interpret it for one's area, and consider providing geocaches that people will enjoy - whatever that may mean.

If you want to tell someone you liked their log, email works... We do that all the time. +1 - if your intent is for the CO to show appreciation to the writer of a log, a message or email will do that. It's happened to me (CO messages me with thanks for a helpful log or glad that I enjoyed their cache, etc.) and I, as a CO, have also contacted finders when I liked their write up. It's a bonus when you meet each other at an event, and can talk about each others' caches in person (which hasn't happened in a loooooong time, and I miss the interaction). Back on topic - a personal note is more direct if you want to show appreciation to the finder who wrote the log. Unless I go back to visit a previous find and read other logs, I'd have no way of knowing if the CO marked my log for "appreciation".

We kinda understand except for this jumping through hoops thing... We never knew of a "wiki" until entering the forums. Never called or emailed anyone, instead heading personally to township buildings, county offices, and the like to find out who to talk to. - One cache had the other 2/3rds attend months of township meetings before they could "fit her in" to discuss it (no parks director). We found that a plus with standing in front of a parks director is it keeps the "paper shuffling/passing the buck" at bay too. The "wiki" is only reference. It says on their page "This site may not be a complete or accurate list of land policies.", and, "if no policies for the area you’re looking for are listed, that doesn't mean no policies exist. You must still obtain permission to place your geocache from the landowner or land manager..." - We've asked for permission since starting, and never considered it "jumping through hoops", but respect to the landowner. On the page (to the right) it does say, "If you have an update, email the community reviewer(s) listed." Why not be proactive and offer known areas to your Reviewers to get things rolling?

With all of the talk about the crappy, unmaintained, or boring caches and how to get rid of or discourage them, I thought I'd start a topic about what makes a cache good. Now this is highly subjective, so there's no wrong answers. I'm looking for two things mainly. 1. What is considered necessary to make a quality cache (i.e. containers, contents, any other specifics about the quality) 2. What makes a cache "good" or rewarding. I expect to get a wide range of answers here but things to consider (location, difficulty, cleverness, etc). I think I get just as much if not more enjoyment placing caches as I do looking for them. I enjoy a wide variety of caches, everything from PNG's to bushwacking into the woods. I have kids that tag along so I look for shorter hikes generally speaking. In any case, Let's talk about the positive aspects of caches. I'm looking forward to the answers as I work towards placing my first small series of caches with a bonus puzzle cache. I want to keep them all in my town but want all 6 of them to be different but of good quality. Fire away! And keep the cache bashing out of the discussion, we've all heard about throw downs, power trails, missing CO's, etc etc. I want to talk about the good stuff.

I'm not sure in which category I should put this in. There is a Jewish cemetery in my neighbourhood. It was used from 1904 to 1941. There are no funerals here since ca. 1945. It is not abandoned, because there is a person taking care of the whole old complex. So it's not fitting in "abandoned cemeteries" You can see some part of the cemetery, because of the low situated wall. But it's also not open to public. You can't enter there just like that, you would have to talk to the keeper. So i don't really think it fits into "cemeteries worldwide". There are some graves with no names, but many of them are visible, so it's not exactly "graves of the unknown". I can't fit it in any category so it would meet the standards of it, but this is an important place on the map of my small city. What do you think?

I have read (much of) the above and cannot help thinking about a sport you do not talk about here: strolling. Not a sport, you say? Indeed it has no element of competition, you do not get any points added to whatever, heck you don't even have the effort that is associated with trekking/hiking. You only walk to a place, maybe to another place, then in the end you return. That's it. Lots of people do it, only: they are not geocachers. The latter kind of animal seems to be motivated by a treat, a reward at the end of the effort. I don't know how many geocachers are aware of Groundspeak's proprietary version of strolling, but there can't be many, as GS decided to leave out of the new dashboard the link that has been present in the old one for as long as I can remember. My guess is that hardly anybody clicked it to go visit the Waymarking.com website in the last so many years. Like AL, Waymarking has a separate website and isn't really connected to geocaching. And of course the animals don't get a treat to lure them there. As I see it, AL is the new flavour of strolling and this time, GS decided to include the reward. That's how I interpret the fact that you can increase your counter really fast with it. For the record: I don't particularly like AL, but I don't fulminate against it, I just choose to ignore it. Those who like AL should go strolling. Live and let live.