Search the Community

Sadly, many are. Micros and nanos are small, and can easily be overlooked, espcecially if the camo is well done. Assuming it's missing because you couldn't find it seems a bit, well, arrogant may be too strong a word but that's what it amounts to, IMO. A string of DNF's may make it more likely it's missing, but I don't think I would ever presume to replace a container for another CO unless (in the case of a few of our son's hides) we have him on the phone and we are both convinced it's missing and he gives permission. Finding more than one container at GZ seems to be becoming a common occurrence for us - one an original, one an obvious replacement, either with or without permission. By reading previous logs, you can infer a throwdown - a few DNF's, then a few finds (with no owner maintenance or any hint of a replacement container), and a logsheet with the newest loggers' names on it, then another nearby container with an original log in it ... In other cases there is talk in the logs of a replacment with CO permission, or the CO himself comes out and replaces - and we find both the old and the new container, or sometimes just the original! With larger caches it's easy to tell if it's missing in most cases. nano's and micros are more elusive!

Here's one of the artcles: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html Please, with all policy on the side. We are only going to talk about it from the geocaching point of view. From the geocaching point of view only, How many of you geocachers feel about this? I am sure many of you are working on the 50+1 state challenge(or even finished it) and this might cause a few setback(s). It will set me back as well if California become a three states. I never geocache in one of the "future" planned section. I do wonder how much headache this was cause for Groundspeak. I am not saying I am against it or for it. Its just a setback or more on my challenge goals. Anyone else?

It is a promotion designed to get people out finding geocaches, not a Geocaching event where people gather to talk about Geocaching. I've stopped most of my geocaching for the current time, waiting for the summer temps to go below 90F. Maybe September in my area.

The first rule of Platinum Membership is that you don't talk about Platinum Membership.

I have been out of the scene for a few years, ever since my son got old enough that it wasn't 'cool' to cache with dad anymore. :/ anyway, I have recently gotten back into it when my brothers have developed interest. I have the Garmin 60csx, and it wouldn't work with anything I did on my windows 10 machine. None of the browsers or add ons or anything would work. So, I drug back out my old desktop, opened up Firefox (which is version 19.0) and did a search for the garmin plug in. found the signed version, got it running, and it worked. I was able to send the cache to my GPS once it finally detected it. Now, since it's an older browser, the front page of Geocaching.com didn't load right. I couldn't click anything but the video, so I just adjusted the address bar and added /login at the end of the address. took me to the log in page, worked, opened the map, and yeehaw! I do have a problem with the diffrences between the phone app and the computer site. the phone app won't let me see anything above a 1.5 unless i'm a premium, and I can see ALL basic hides on the computer. I only have one account. I think it's bull to make you pay to use your phone. It takes all the fun out of a spur of the moment cache search. I saw a newer cache in a town that I was going to and wanted to grab if I had time. I logged into my phone, and it was listed as premium and I couldn't open it up!!! even when it wasn't on my computer. Talk about salty!!! anyway, the whole point was to say, the older firefox browser (and make sure you make it so it won't update) running on win 7 for me, will install the old plug in that will let you use your 60csx units!

My recommendation would be to do nothing at this point. You don't want to poke the bear and make the situation even worse. If it gets up to more than a week or two with no sign of activity or communication, I'd send a very contrite and apologetic follow-up message. Take this as a lesson learned: the reviewers have ears everywhere, so don't talk about them behind their back. Even if you think you're saying something about them on a seemingly-private platform, they may have friends that will forward your comments to them.

IMO, the best thing you could do is talk to whoever is in charge of the preserve and let them know that they can get a free Premium membership in geocaching. That way, they can keep track of whatever geocaches are on their property and deal with them as they see fit. If they then decide they want any of the caches gone, they should just remove it and ask to have it archived. In my experience, when such a property manager asks for an archive, it is done immediately.

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.

Interesting stories y’all. :-) I had had been out of town and was just getting back. I needed to call a friend about dinner plans and since I don’t talk on the phone or text while driving, I pulled into a parking lot to make my call. Made my call and then thought “Well, let me just check and see if there are any nearby caches.” The closest one came up... about 6 feet away! It was an LPC and turns out of allllll the empty parking spaces in the lot, I’d parked right in front of a cache. All I had to do was step out of my car. From reading the listing to find was about 1 min. I have another one buuuut.....it’s kind of embarrassing. I’ll have to think on whether to tell that one or not....

Ha! I honestly didn’t notice it was so old. They have not. I honestly don’t know who to talk to about that or if it’s even possible for that it to happen at all in the first place.

I've held events to go after a series of caches (like this one). We all had to meet up a a central location to head out, so might as well make it a meet-up where we can eat. That way, we all get at the right spot at the right time, and even the locals that won't or can't make the cache trip has an excuse to stop by and talk for awhile. As a personal guideline, I've never logged "attended" on events that I host, so it's never a "numbers" benefit to me.

To answer the Original Poster, Geocaching is not dead, it is just ever evolving. Urban caching requires nano's and micro's or the homeless, children and other's will muggle it in no time. I have hidden everything from the black nano's to five gallon buckets. Sometimes, my hide is about the LOCATION and not the cache itself. Other times, it is about the fancy cache container. While power trails are about the numbers, while power trail caching, I have seen herds of wild horses, herds of wild antelope, snakes, scorpions, spiders, old buildings, old rail road tracks, thunder storms, dust storms, and so much more. Things you won't see under a lamp shade post across the street from Disneyland. But if you are visiting Disneyland, it's nice to grab a quick one nearby. I have done power trails solo, with 2 of us, 3 of us and with 4 of us. The best time is with 4 as the social aspect is really active. We bring folding chairs and a picnic basket for lunch. We trade stories. We trade ideas. We even talk investing. I guess I really enjoy the many friends I have made geocaching and I have cached with over 150 different people!

You are mistaken. Garmins can handle multiple gpx files. In fact, when you use the 'Send to GPS' feature, it just creates a single gpx file for each cache that gets sent, so you can rack up hundreds or even thousands of gpx files quickly if you don't delete them. All of the communicator plugins - whether Garmin, Magellan, DeLorme, etc. were built on the NPAPI platform. It's NPAPI that is the problem, and any plugins and add-ons built on that platform are rendered obsolete as browsers disable support for the platform. Thus the Send to GPS function is affecting every GPS brand. While Garmin may have taken down any support or forums from DeLorme's old website, they can't control 3rd party forums where people go to talk about and get help with their GPS. For example, Garmin can't take down any posts on these geocaching forums related to DeLorme units. For such a common problem, I would have expected some mention of it somewhere on the internet, but it seems to be difficult to track down. It sounds like DeLorme may have had their own format for distinguishing geocaches, and the 'send to gps' feature may have converted the single gpx files to the proper format to be used with DeLorme. Meanwhile, loading a pocket query manually might have loaded the geocaches as waypoints instead? I don't know. Your best bet for full DeLorme support with geocaching will be to use GSAK to grab your pocket queries and single caches (via API search; all of this can be done within GSAK) to curate a library of geocaches in your area. GSAK can then export the geocaches to your DeLorme in bulk, even filtering out your finds, etc. using the proper file formats. It can even take care of those pesky special characters that are causing you problems. Your other option is to switch to a Garmin device.

Compared to the tens of thousands of logs that are submitted each day, the number of anecdotal reports of false positives in the forums is vanishingly-negligible. The sample size is far too low to make any meaningful conclusions. About all you can conclude is that - judging by the small number of people who have reported false positives - the system is working extremely well and is triggering very few false positives. Only a miniscule fraction of cachers participate on the forums, so for every false positive reported here there must be many more we don't hear about, indeed there must be enough for the reviewer at the recent mega to specifically talk about what to do when you get a CHS email but you know the cache is fine.

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.

Cachers have a variety of justifications for using Note or DNF, some in no way consistent, and some just plain bizarre. Some start a stopwatch and if they only searched X minutes instead of X+1 minutes, “it's not a DNF”. If the entire area washed away in a flood, “it's not a DNF because I couldn't search because the whole side of the hill is gone”. I would never try to talk someone out of at least a Note log, because even a Note provides information. But I would like to smack some sense into them discuss ways someone might understand and communicate that they “Did Not Find” a cache, which is what the acronym “DNF” is.

No! You said - "A can not visit the coordinates" - end of story, in my opinion and as I choose to play. There's a difference between using a 'team' name so you didn't fill up a small logstrip with the names of everyone who was physically there, and using a 'team' name to get around the unfortunate sticking point that a name must be in the logbook. If Nick A was in California while Nick B was standing at the cache in Sweden, then Nick A has no business claiming the find. Period. I can't think of a single exception. How far would I take that? If I was standing at the base of a tree climb that I wasn't going to attempt, and my buddy was up there with the cache in hand, I would NOT have him sign my name. I DID NOT DO WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO TO CLAIM THE FIND. On the other hand, if I was standing with a group and there was nothing stopping me from putting my hand on the hide in situ, then I have no problem with claiming a group find, although I don't like to cache that way. I'm not so compulsive that I have to "clear my map" as others talk about.

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. You understand exactly! So stop telling people to worry about it. There are a zillion possible reasons an NM or NA might be wrong. If you start worrying about those possibilities, you'll never post any NMs. (Well, I suppose my tense is wrong: everyone's already given up posting NMs and NAs, so the reviewers have taken over that job.) Well, of course. People who have visited GZ have absolutely zero obligation to post any log on a listing whatsoever. When you come here to the forums and explain why you didn't post an NM for no reason other than you haven't been to GZ, I take it as trying to talk people into following your example, so I argue against your publicly presented opinion. It doesn't matter to me what you actually do or why you do it.

Events always seem very, highly social. Newcomers are more often quieter and less interactive, but everyone's very friendly. Sure, there could be some divisions and cliques, but rarely do I see any visible negativity or antagonism. If anything, it happens quietly or behind people's backs There's not a lot of talk about the rights ways to do things, because it doesn't seem like there's a problem with people doing things the wrong way... occasionally there's some discussion about new features and the way people like to do things themselves, but I rarely ever get the sense that there's some widespread disagreement. In the greater area I know there are a couple of people who have struck smoe bad chords with the community, but that's general geocacher etiquette, not related to questionable GS features/practices... I don't get the sense anyone feels like there's a "cache cop" in my area either. Keep in mind, this is of course all my own observations. Things could be going on in smaller groups that I'm not privy to. Heck maybe I'm heckled by everyone and I don't know it =P But this is what I see in my general local community. Lots of general camaraderie, especially by those who don't bind themselves to any major group, but some distinct groups of friends and common cachers, though no prominent/public in-fighting or hobby-detracting all-out wars. Quite nNewbie frendly, in short. It's much the same where I am and the events I have attended. Very social, a few known groups that cache together a lot, but they seem open to having others join in too. Most of the discussion revolves around the caches in the area that have been memorable and recently visited, or puzzles that are vexing. Help with the app, questions about stuff in general are welcomed. Discussions about upcoming events and mega events, plans to cache together int he future ... not a lot of maintenance discussions or whether to post NM or NA. It happens if it's needed non discussion necessary. I've posted a few NM's with no negative feedback - the cache was either fixed promptly or archived by the CO or reviewer.

In my area, no one needs to discuss maintenance or NMs and NAs because it all just happens. I don't know how my culture got the way it is, so for all I know it's because there was lots of talk at events about these issues before I came on the scene. COs that hide a lot but don't seem to maintain them don't come up very often, but the cases I can think of, what people think about those COs was "they didn't last very long" because all those caches are gone now and the COs have disappeared. I've never heard anyone complain about NMs and NAs, if that's what you mean. I haven't heard anyone use the term "cache cop" around here (except maybe in jest), but if they did, I'd assume they were talking about someone that regularly posted NMs and NAs that were rude, unhelpful, or just wrong.

Events always seem very, highly social. Newcomers are more often quieter and less interactive, but everyone's very friendly. Sure, there could be some divisions and cliques, but rarely do I see any visible negativity or antagonism. If anything, it happens quietly or behind people's backs There's not a lot of talk about the rights ways to do things, because it doesn't seem like there's a problem with people doing things the wrong way... occasionally there's some discussion about new features and the way people like to do things themselves, but I rarely ever get the sense that there's some widespread disagreement. In the greater area I know there are a couple of people who have struck smoe bad chords with the community, but that's general geocacher etiquette, not related to questionable GS features/practices... I don't get the sense anyone feels like there's a "cache cop" in my area either. Keep in mind, this is of course all my own observations. Things could be going on in smaller groups that I'm not privy to. Heck maybe I'm heckled by everyone and I don't know it =P But this is what I see in my general local community. Lots of general camaraderie, especially by those who don't bind themselves to any major group, but some distinct groups of friends and common cachers, though no prominent/public in-fighting or hobby-detracting all-out wars. Quite nNewbie frendly, in short.

In your area, what's it like at events? Do people talk about the importance of maintenance? Do they encourage each other to log NMs and follow-up NAs? What do they think of people who hide for numbers and never maintain but are avid hiders? Or is there a negative vibe about "cache cop" types?

It's not a hobby that appeals to everyone - a lot of people just don't "get it"! And that's OK. Friends and family know we go geocaching. Sometime they've tagged along with us, and it was fun for that day or two, but on their own, they don't pursue it. If you don't enjoy the puzzles, the hunt, that "AHA - GOTCHA!" feeling when you find it, then it's not a hobby for you. It gives us just a little something extra to do when we hike, or walk, or want to explore a new town. We love it, we realize not everyone else does, and we are more than willing to talk about it with those who are interested in learning more.

That's happened to me a few times. It turns out they really just wanted someone to talk to while out for a walk. Some swear they loved the activity but wouldn't go caching unless I went. And wouldn't download the app (or get a gps) or create an account. I question whether they really like geocaching. One latched on and tried to be a BFF. Can you tell I'm introverted?

as close to a stalking target as I have been was a few years back. someone who I had never communicated with previously saw that I was going to attend an event. I got to the event and these two guys were sitting there that no one recognized so they were introducing themselves and asked "which one of you is bulldogblitz, we came just to talk to you" heh...it was a question about a cache in another part of the country and they were visiting my home area (not that they drove 700 miles to meet me... but it was convenient). they happened to be from the town where I grew up so we had much more to talk about than a single cache 100 miles from them and 600 miles from me.