Search the Community

[Oh, hi! Until I looked at your profile, I didn't recognize you as "the new guy" planting caches just north of me in the San Ramon Valley.] To be honest, 2 months isn't that log for TBs. I mean, I agree TBs should be moved more promptly, but it's not uncommon for someone to take that long yet still move it along eventually. But, unlike NanCycle (although that advise is also good, by the way!), I'm not going to suggest that you just move on and forget about it. Go ahead and talk to the person holding your TB. Maybe they think 2 months is too long, too, and they're already feeling guilty about it. Maybe they think 2 months is normal and will be interested to hear your opinions about that. Listen to what they have to say and find out. You don't need to pay attention to the time factor, just talk to them about your TB. But don't accuse them of abusing it. Too often people approach other geocachers as adversaries instead of as the cohorts we all are. It will be fun to make friends and exchange ideas. Never let geocaching.com or these forums get in the way of getting to know people through personal interaction.

I found out about this because you popped in on Geocache Talk one night and talked about it. I have a feeling that led to an increase of participants this year.

We've been talking about L5 here in the forum for a while, and are looking forward to GPSIII satellites in the future as well. L5 should help to resolve some of the issues that degrade positioning performance. GPSIII will mean that we no longer need to depend upon ground based references like WAAS and EGNOS, which will be nice as well. And more birds in the sky has already improved ephemeris issues and the occasional lousy HDOP that we used to encounter for a couple of hours on particular days when the constellation was a bit whacked relative to our ground position. But there will still be challenges to getting the level of precision described in that talk in anything but ideal conditions. Multipath issues, which I think will likely be improved by L5, will always remain a bugaboo that has to be dealt with in software to some lesser or greater benefit. Quickly sorting whether a signal is direct or reflected is certainly something that continues to perplex some GPSr manufacturers now. S/N ratios will remain an ongoing technical challenge as well. Again, not an issue under ideal open sky conditions, but we don't always cache in an ideal environment. Heck, I don't even know if Garmin's clocks (or any others in consumer goods) are tight enough to resolve the levels that this guy is talking about (0.63m?) Would be interesting to know whether the GPSr chip manufacturers are going to have to improve their own specs to take advantage of this, and how difficult or costly it might be. They may be there now, or it could pose a hurdle. No way to know from where most of us sit. As an aside: Good on them for finally preparing to dump NAD83 in favor of a more realistic model. Long overdue.

I will be on Geocache talk podcast show #222 discussing creating Adventure Labs that go beyond the "magical history tour" model that is so common. You don't have to have anything interesting to make an AL that can amuse. I just published one that tells a story but uses nothing from the environment. It could be transplanted to Iowa and play the same. It uses simple puzzles and riddles for the player to solve in the field. A very simple way to do something in an area with nothing of interest, is an I Spy game - particularly good for kids. Listen in Live or watch it later. November 1, 6 pm Pacific.

That seems like the best answer to me. GerandKat's rules of thumb only talk about the specific physical location. I find that often the least significant part of a cache.

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

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."

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.

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.

"What is the difference in their experiences?" Are you kidding? What's the similarity? It's like two different games. With traditionals, all you do is find the cache and sign the log. With a multi, you have to read the coordinates of the next stage, copy them into your GPSr, and then you have to figure out where the next stage is and how to get there. You don't know where you're going when you start, so you can't plan your route and you won't know where you're going to end up. The only similarity is that there's a container at each specific location. (We'll ignore the fact that multi stages don't have to be anything like cache containers.) I don't doubt there are a lot of people that skip multis because the same number of traditions will give them a higher count, but I think far more people skip multis because they think they're too much work and are unpredictable. And that's just 2 stage multis. Talk about a multi that takes a day, and only a very special group of people will do it. You can't tell me that the other 95% of cachers are all numbers hounds. It's just obviously not true. There's no doubt people often do the power trails because they think the stats are important, but I think that argument evaporates when you talk about about a day's worth of typical caches. 20, 30, even 100 finds doesn't make much of a difference in statistics considering what's impressive by today's standards. If someone picks 10 traditionals over a 10 stage multi, it's hard for me to imagine they're doing it for the stats. There have to be other reasons...and I think I've explained what they are. (For the record: I love multis and do any I run into. On the other hand, I've never done a power trail.)

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.

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

Talk it over with the cache's owner. He might not be aware of the restriction -- perhaps because he's oblivious -- so he'll understand his error if you talk to him about it. Or he might be fully aware of the restriction and convince you his cache isn't a problem. This might include him thinking that there's a logical non-intrusive way to get to GZ, in which case you can help him see why that logical approach wasn't apparent to you. Or you might find out the CO's just a jerk, in which case you can think about whether to alert to trail maintainers or Groundspeak, or just want to keep it to yourself.

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".

It’s not that I am walking up to strangers and blurting out “do you want to become a Geocacher”. It’s that I do open myself up to conversation wherever I am. Most people in large city’s don’t understand this, but I’m from a small town, so striking up a conversation with a stranger, while waiting for something for instance, is normal, in fact almost expected. So as small talk goes what do you talk about… that’s right, things you like, like Geocaching. First and foremost, you wouldn’t have anything to find if it weren’t for word of mouth. This means the only reason for this sports growth, is because of people out there like me are finding new recruits. You stated “let it grow on it’s own”, well this is how it’s done. "finding" new members suggests you are seeking them out. Engaging in small talk is good and if you are having your small talk and talk about geocaching and then that person based on that small talk decides to grab or buy a gps and go caching and then decide to place a cache, then great. I'm down with that. Typically though, I doubt the people you have small talk with ever consider the hobby. If they do then I'd bet they go find 3 lamp post hides and then decide to place their own lamp post hide. Then two years later when they don't care anymore. Finally their lamp post cache disappears and then it still takes another 6 months before it is finally archived. The point being that the chance that your small talk leads to someone going out and placing some great hides and maintaining them is slim to none. At this point, I have plenty of caches to find wether there are new cachers or not, but I get your point. No I don't agree. The definition that I see of recruit is "to attempt to enroll or enlist". You use the word "recruit" while I would use the word "familiarize". I will give you an example. I have a coworker I get along with well and I have told her about my hobby and have showed her one of my caches and how to retrieve it. I have "familiarized" her to the hobby. If I were "recruiting" her, I would be trying to convince her to take up the hobby and encouraging her to go find caches and place caches. I think familiarizing people with the hobby is a "useful skill in growth of this great sport". Especially since it leaves the familiarized person final say in deciding if the hobby is right for them. I think recruiting people to take part in the sport is a destructive act that will lead to ignored caches and many Johnny-come-latelys that will do no good for the sport as a whole. You post a thread to thousands of geocachers. Of course you should expect to have a variety of different opinions from a variety of different cachers. To you, my question has a very clear and obvious answer, but thats the great thing about open discussion; expanding peoples thoughts, ideas, etc., etc. Discussing many differences of opinions and such. It's highly unfortunate that you would call another geocachers opinion cynical just because you don't agree....or at least, because have a warped idea of the definition of the word "recruit".

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?

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?

Man... tell people "this is how you should do it" = baaaad. Tell people "this is how I do it, other people do it differently, do it how it works for you" also = baaaad... There's just no win. Why discuss anything I guess then? As soon as you explain your experience and personal choice you're just "trying to talk people into following your example" and that's just baaaaaaad. No, sir. If I explain how "I" do something, it's not to tell people how "they" should do it. It's to provide an example of an option that from one person's perspective works, especially if it's not attached with "this is the best way" or "do it this way". So yeah I'll continue explaining how I do things if I think it's a solution to a present problem or concern. Likewise, I'll change how I do things if I think someone else's experience or recommendation is worthwhile to adopt, which incidentally is exactly the purpose of explaining how I do things. We learn from each other. I'm not shutting anyone down, as I explicitly stated above. "Sure. Of course. So go ahead. You have my blessing." Which was not sarcasm. Secondly, I wasn't arguing against your opinion, or your choice, but you are explicitly doing so against mine. You are telling me that I'm doing a bad thing for choosing not posting a NM from the couch without having visited a cache location (that is "arguing against my presented opinion") - when what I actually said was that no one who has not visited a cache location any any obligation to post any log remotely. Tell me how that statement is wrong? If you agree, then I'm not making the wrong choice for deciding not to post a NM from the couch because "I" don't believe I'm confident in posting it accurately. Maybe I should just tell you when I choose not to post a remote NM, and you can judge the situation yourself. It wouldn't bother me at all if I see a NM the next day; whether or not it's found to be accurate. Where circumstances make it reasonable and appropriate, for example, where the CO is known to have left the game months or even years earlier and a body of evidence which clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that the CO has consistently failed to maintain other of their caches which have fallen in to disrepair. If the CO has also previously failed to respond to reviewer calls for maintenance that adds further weight to the argument for posting NM/NA on caches which warrant it without needing to go all the way out to GZ. Okay. I don't disagree. Seems you missed the point of my comment to dprovan. I said: "So, I generally won't post a NM unless I have visited and verified that to my satisfaction, the cache does need maintenance." dprovan replied: "But visiting GZ doesn't really change anything. You could go to GZ, get whatever satisfaction you need to make yourself feel comfortable, go home and the CO could still go to the cache and fix the problem between the time you visited the cache and the time he saw your NM log." That's when I said: "Why post any NM/NA at all unless you do it from GZ?" First, I said "generally"... (I rarely deal with absolutes) Second, I took dprovan's rebut to the extreme for illustration. I was not saying you should never post a NM or NA unless you're at GZ. His response claimed that with any log something could change between the visit and log (true), thus essentially any log could be inaccurate, which means ultimately he's making the argument that posting a NM or NA is meaningless unless done from GZ immediately. Which of course we all agree is ridiculous. And most definitely not what I said. And I also made a clear distinction about how differently I treat the posting of NM and NA logs. In the example you cite above, some might choose to remote-log a NM on a cache with a string of DNFs which clearly indicate the cache is in disrepair, and the CO is known to have left the game. Okay... I have no problem with that. But I'd say there's also a problem with the local community: Why did none of those DNFers post a NM if it's clear from their logs that there's a problem? Rather, I could be led instead to contacting one of them, and in an effort to help improve the community ethic regarding NM logs, recommend that they consider posting a NM log - since that is what it's for. After a time if they don't do it then I might post the NM if I haven't already. Basically, if it's "clear" that a cache needs maintenance, why must I be the one to post a remote NM without verifying that it does? I have chosen to generally not make that assumption. I haven't done that whole contact-a-past-DNFer thing yet, but I think that's a reasonable course of action if the goal is to help improve the state of geocaching against "dying" if this is one of the proposed reasons people think that "geocaching is dead" (ie, sub-par cache quality not being reported). So hey, it's a learning point! If you search, don't just log a DNF if you visited the site and it's clear the cache needs maintenance, log a NM too! Just like Harry Dolphin explained he did above. Then none of us would even be faced with the decision of whether or not to post a couch-NM, because there'd never be a cache with a string of DNFs "clearly indicating" the cache needs maintenance with being accompanied by a NM log! Win all around! It's a problem for me because you don't file the NM when it's needed because you've managed to talk yourself into an unlikely scenario where it won't be needed. You not posting the NM isn't a problem in itself. That's certainly up to you. But you coming here to the forums and making it sound like not posting the NM is the most reasonable choice is what concerns me. Did I say it was the "most reasonable choice"? Certainly not! Nor did I say or imply it was wrong to ever post a NM without having visited GZ. I said it's the way I choose to post logs. You do something different, and that's just fine with me. I said that multiple times. I was countering your claim that it's somehow bad to choose not to post a NM since not having visited GZ. You were arguing against that choice, which is ultimately making the argument that we have an obligation to post a NM if we merely believe (even if found to be correct) there is a problem with a cache even though it hasn't been verified first-hand. Man, if that were true it would be better for people not to have even looked at a listing that potentially needs maintenance at all! Ignorance is bliss! Otherwise the cacher-cops will be out telling people who've simply been exposed to a potential problem but didn't immediately log a NM from their couch that they're doing something baaaad. I'll say it again: Anyone who has not verified a cache's current state is under no obligation to post a relevant log from their couch. If they choose to because they feel it's justified, that's fine, it can be dealt with easily and swiftly by the CO, whether it's accurate or not. But they are not doing something bad by not posting it. In no way is that telling you what to do. It's framework in which both of our choices are valid, reasonable choices. I'm only replying because I feel my comments have been misrepresented. But to bring it back to the topic, if there is a factor towards the "death of geocaching", it may not be just "cache cops", but "cacher cops" as well. (and no, I don't think geocaching is dead, not in the slightest) I completely agree with this.