Search the Community

I can certainly understand the frustration, given what you describe. In cases like you've outlined above, it is sometimes best to talk it over with Groundspeak directly through the Appeals process: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=476 That would at least address your concerns about inconsistency that you appear to be noticing.

You said an absentee owner was a real problem, not a perceived problem. I took that to mean that it was a problem that could validly be addressed through reviewer action. What did you mean? You once again cloud the issue by bring up the case where an NM is posted. The discussion is completely different in that case, so I wish you'd quit trying to talk about it in this context. ............... Let me REquote for you what you appear to have missed from that very comment:

You said an absentee owner was a real problem, not a perceived problem. I took that to mean that it was a problem that could validly be addressed through reviewer action. What did you mean? You once again cloud the issue by bring up the case where an NM is posted. The discussion is completely different in that case, so I wish you'd quit trying to talk about it in this context.

OK, I'm going to give up for now. Maybe I'll read past this first sentence later, but with this start, I no longer think I can understand your position well enough to talk to you. My point is that an absentee owner is not a problem, perceived or otherwise. I thought you were getting all upset about me implying that you want to archive caches for reasons other than their condition, but then you turn around and explicitly say that an absentee owner is a problem that, alone, justifies archiving caches. I object to that position, but I can't really discuss it with you as long as you seem to keep denying it. How do you get me saying that "an absentee owner is a problem that, alone, justifies archiving caches"?! It's a problem cache with an absentee owner. The mind boggles. Perhaps you should read the rest of the comment(s). In the case of a NM being posted incorrectly on a good cache, if the owner is absent and does not address the NM flag (even if the cache does not need maintenance), then they are effectively abandoning their listing - a responsibility requirement agreed to when checking that little ownership box - and therefore the listing now has a "problem" (the flag giving viewers the impression it needs maintenance when it doesn't) which needs to be addressed. I clearly stated that if a reviewer proactively sets a good standing cache into its "due process" (by posting a NM or by disabling) merely because (for no other reason than) they suspect its owner is absent is not being reasonable. But we have seen no example of this happening yet, especially which has been defended by Groundspeak.

I listened to the latest episode of the Inside HQ podcast and in this episode they talk about the new logging for the geocaching.com site. In regards to adding photos to your log entries, it is clearly stated that you can now add PHOTOS, plural, at the same time as you are submitting your log. Is this something that Geocaching HQ intends to allow? Currently you can only attach ONE photo with your log entry and you can't give it a caption.

OK, I'm going to give up for now. Maybe I'll read past this first sentence later, but with this start, I no longer think I can understand your position well enough to talk to you. My point is that an absentee owner is not a problem, perceived or otherwise. I thought you were getting all upset about me implying that you want to archive caches for reasons other than their condition, but then you turn around and explicitly say that an absentee owner is a problem that, alone, justifies archiving caches. I object to that position, but I can't really discuss it with you as long as you seem to keep denying it.

I was asked to participate in a "power trail" over the weekend and actually agreed to do so. My main gripe with an undertaking like this is that I always try to write individual logs that talk about the experience of walking to a cache and searching for it. Since I don't just copy and paste those logs, logging usually takes a fair amount of time if I found more than a few caches a day. I just can't see myself doing this for 50+ caches that were basically almost the same hide with a cache listing that is just a few lines long. I think in this case I would have to opt for a copy and paste log, which I normally don't like, but since the cache owner basically did the same thing by placing "Copy and paste hides" I guess it would be justified.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around it when someone says something like this. It goes without saying that the reviewer is acting with good intentions. I can't even imagine thinking otherwise. The point isn't to lay blame. The point is to ask whether he should be using this technique in the future and, more to the point, whether he should be encouraged to think it's his responsibility to take this kind of action in general. A good cache is gone. I don't care why the CO didn't say anything. I'm not trying to figure out who's at fault. I just trying to avoid losing good caches. No, sorry, that claim is illogical. Until someone discovers that they're trash, they have exactly the same impact on the environment as any other geocache. Furthermore, they continue to have this impact even after the reviewer's magic procedure archives them. In fact, I think the better claim is the reverse: it's more likely that a cache will be left out in the environment decaying if it gets archived through one of these reviewer based actions. The point isn't that the sky is falling. The people gnashing their teeth are the people on the other side insisting that bad caches are ruining the game so GS must eliminate them at any cost. My point is that you have to take into account these good caches that you're archiving when you evaluate the new approaches you're supporting. The claim is that bad caches are bad enough to justify archiving good caches as collateral damage, but I feel the reverse: the bad caches are not a big deal even when you run into them, so killing off good caches just to be sure you get rid of all the bad caches is not warranted. Talk about having a hard time wrapping your head around something. Where to begin? An ownerless cache was archived. Sure it may have been in good shape and may have remained that way for some time but eventually it will develop problems unless the community chooses to prop it up. Who's to say that the reviewer wasn't informed of the passing of the cache owner and decided to be proactive? Why do we even have NM's? Why do we even post them? Is it because we assume that the cache has an owner who will respond to them? What good is the whole logging system if there's no one on the other end to respond? The trash issue is a whole other discussion. This one's a little more tricky. The reason active geocaches are not litter is because of the future promise to remove the cache when archived. One that's abandoned is trash. As far as I'm concerned these caches are personal property and not real property and can/should be claimed if abandoned. You keep talking about good caches being archived as a result of all this. Please, please give me one example of a cache that was archived by Groundspeak which was owned by an active, responsible owner?

Did you talk to the owner? Anyway, obviously it's a puzzle cache, so approach it that way and solve the puzzle, or ignore it if that's what you normally do with puzzle caches. This does sound really strange. Any chance it's an old cache? Puzzle caches were a later addition, and I've run into one or maybe two traditional caches which were really puzzle caches but published before the puzzle cache type was invented. Oh, this is a good point. I was thinking it was a new cache, but it makes more sense if it's old and pre-dates the different cache types.

Did you talk to the owner? Anyway, obviously it's a puzzle cache, so approach it that way and solve the puzzle, or ignore it if that's what you normally do with puzzle caches. This does sound really strange. Any chance it's an old cache? Puzzle caches were a later addition, and I've run into one or maybe two traditional caches which were really puzzle caches but published before the puzzle cache type was invented. Good catch. From the OPs post it was pretty easy to discover which cache it is and it was published in 2002. It's also rated with a 2 for difficulty so the cipher shouldn't be that difficult. In the words that puzzle solvers everywhere dread, perhaps you're overthinking it.

Did you talk to the owner? Anyway, obviously it's a puzzle cache, so approach it that way and solve the puzzle, or ignore it if that's what you normally do with puzzle caches. This does sound really strange. Any chance it's an old cache? Puzzle caches were a later addition, and I've run into one or maybe two traditional caches which were really puzzle caches but published before the puzzle cache type was invented.

Problem is, maintenance issues have been around since the beginning of caching and will continue to be around as long as caching is an activity. I really don't see a need to address an issue that has been around, is around, and will continue to be around but isn't something that really affects the activity that much, except to a minority of cachers. I don't notice an increase in messy caches that really need maintenance vs. what I found when I first started almost 7 years ago. I honestly believe the things we have/had in place (NM/NA) should have been encouraged more to address this issue rather than relying on the listing service and their volunteers to make the calls. Below are some examples I posted about maintenance issues being around from the very start and showing that things haven't really changed that much since geocaching first started. While all of us would prefer that caches we find are in really nice shape, many of us don't feel that the impetus on maintenance is warranted to the extent that some others do. It's always been an issue but not one that causes that many problems. All of these caches were found (so not really pertinent to the exact topic at hand) but the logs don't talk about disappointment with the condition of the cache. They mention it as a statement of fact and not an indictment on the CO's ability, or lack thereof, to maintain a cache. Unless I'm completely off base here, most of the finders of these caches were happy to have the opportunity to find a cache placed by someone else, regardless of the condition they might have found it in. GC1D had some issues in its first year with no note or OM log (was that even an option back then) for some issues with the cache. First note of trouble was a cracked lid on 3/8/01, a full log on 7/14/01, a damp log and wet contents on 7/14/01, musty on 8/11/01, and rough shape, wet inside, lid cracked, might want to replace the container on 8/18/01. 5 months and no check on the cache to fix the issues listed in logs. GC115C - 7/29/01 - contents damp, 10/31/01 - contents in pretty bad shape, 3/4 full of water, 12/25/01 - some swag frozen solid, 1/21/02 - no logbook, 4/1/02 - damp and logbook missing, 4/12/02 - wet inside, 5/25/02 - pretty damp inside. Over 6 months and no maintenance for a cache that obviously needed it. GCFA - 11/22/02 - warped lid and bug "nest" inside, 2/10/03 - lid not sealing and damp inside, 2/22/03 - mildew, 10/26/03 - container is completely out of service and should be replaced soon, 11/2/03 - moldy and bad condition. 1 year and no maintenance since first issue. GC189D - 8/29/01 - log damp, moisture inside, 9/10/01 - everything wet, 9/16/01 - wet inside, 9/23/01 - wet inside, 9/30/01 - damp inside, 10/17/01 - all damp inside, 11/10/01 - damp inside. 3 months and no mention of maintenance on a wet cache. GC5C0 - 3/7/02 - gnaw marks on the lid, 3/9/03 - in plastic bag to keep water out from holes chewed through container, 7/13/03 - damp inside, 11/15/03 - damp inside, 2/21/04 - new container (NOT the CO but with their permission) placed almost a full year since the first issue was mentioned. GCD4D - 6/20/02 - critter chewed a hole, 8/31/02 - hole from critter, 11/20/02 - container needs to be replaced, 1/5/03 - still has a hole, 8/7/03 - container needs some attention. Over a year and no maintenance. GC1F78 - 2/17/02 - lid gone, chewed on and wet, 4/14/02 - chewed on bags and cache, 1/28/03 - maintenance finally done. GC1676 - 11//27/01 - full of water, 12/29/01 - frozen swag, 1/10/02 - water in cache again, 3/23/02 - wet cache, 3/30/02 - damp inside, 6/26/02 - damp inside. 1 1/2 years and no maintenance on cache.

I have a new Garmin GPSMAP 64s that I got in December. I realized that I just don't have time between work and my other hobby's. New they are $249 and the maps I bought at $79. I would love to sell them both for $200. I live in Lansing Michigan. If you are local we can meet. If you are not we will have to talk to figure it out shipping and paying etc. You can email at deearia@att.net

Punishment, stealing, criminals, retribution?? I'm sorry narcissa, but the only person I have ever seen use such terms here, is you. Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing. Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals. The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it. All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

I think first we might want to agree in what way we aren't already handling the majority of caches out there today. The more often we talk about all these proposed solutions, the more convinced I am that the plague of bad caches everyone's so desperate to cure is just a boogeyman people are using to push for a centralized police force. When I imagine a requirement for annual visits applied to the caches I've experienced, I think way more caches I enjoyed would disappear than caches that I wish I'd never looked for. Really? You can't see the correlation between the geocaching app and the general decline in cache condition? I wonder if Groundspeak sees it? If they do it would explain a lot now wouldn't it. I have no idea what the geocaching app has to do with anything anyone's saying.

I think first we might want to agree in what way we aren't already handling the majority of caches out there today. The more often we talk about all these proposed solutions, the more convinced I am that the plague of bad caches everyone's so desperate to cure is just a boogeyman people are using to push for a centralized police force. When I imagine a requirement for annual visits applied to the caches I've experienced, I think way more caches I enjoyed would disappear than caches that I wish I'd never looked for. Really? You can't see the correlation between the geocaching app and the general decline in cache condition? I wonder if Groundspeak sees it? If they do it would explain a lot now wouldn't it.

I think first we might want to agree in what way we aren't already handling the majority of caches out there today. The more often we talk about all these proposed solutions, the more convinced I am that the plague of bad caches everyone's so desperate to cure is just a boogeyman people are using to push for a centralized police force. When I imagine a requirement for annual visits applied to the caches I've experienced, I think way more caches I enjoyed would disappear than caches that I wish I'd never looked for.

It doesn't have to be competitive if you don't want it to be. Some people like to talk about movies before they see them, even if those discussions reveal key plot points. Other people like to view movies without learning key plot points (or even minor plot points) in advance. Not spoiling a movie for someone isn't about any competition. It's about letting them experience the movie the way they want to experience it, and not doing something that's going to screw that up for them. The same goes for not spoiling geocache hides when you're caching with someone who enjoys the experience of spotting the hide. Yeppers!

It doesn't have to be competitive if you don't want it to be. Some people like to talk about movies before they see them, even if those discussions reveal key plot points. Other people like to view movies without learning key plot points (or even minor plot points) in advance. Not spoiling a movie for someone isn't about any competition. It's about letting them experience the movie the way they want to experience it, and not doing something that's going to screw that up for them. The same goes for not spoiling geocache hides when you're caching with someone who enjoys the experience of spotting the hide. It's a valid method, it's just not a method I would personally enjoy and I wouldn't join a group that subscribed to this philosophy. The idea of making someone stand there because they're the last person to spot the cache just doesn't seem like my idea of fun. But if it's fun for the people who choose to do it, great. My main concern is when this method, or any method, is inflicted on others as being "correct" compared to others. There's plenty of room for everyone to adjust these things to their own tastes.

It doesn't have to be competitive if you don't want it to be. Some people like to talk about movies before they see them, even if those discussions reveal key plot points. Other people like to view movies without learning key plot points (or even minor plot points) in advance. Not spoiling a movie for someone isn't about any competition. It's about letting them experience the movie the way they want to experience it, and not doing something that's going to screw that up for them. The same goes for not spoiling geocache hides when you're caching with someone who enjoys the experience of spotting the hide.

It seems highly unlikely that anybody that knows this number can talk about it, but the tech group is certainly not the right place. Moving.

I can remember well the day the word 'Geocaching' first became part of my vocabulary... It was about 14 years ago (That makes me 12 years old at the time), my father and I were out checking out the Hickory Run Boulder Field, when we stumbled across a curious group seemingly wandering the field in search of something with GPS Receivers (what a foreign concept at the time!). I think this may be the cache, but I could be wrong: Lost at Sea?. In any case, they were kind enough to explain the 'game' they were 'playing' and even were kind enough to let us use their GPS, and the information to try to find the cache ourselves![Which we did!] That was it, we were hooked. Over the next several years, we would spend weekends, vacations, etc.. out searching the woods (and occasionally parking lots) for hidden treasure. It even became a bit of a Thanksgiving tradition to go out during the first half of the day and log a few caches until dinner time. I didn't always log the caches I found back then, as I wasn't so h*bent on numbers, and competition, and my dad's logs mentioning me were good enough for me... In time, I outgrew the father-son time that was caching, became a bratty teenager, as many of us do, and Geocaching became something I would talk about, but didn't really do. Until recently, the last cache I logged was in 2006. My father (Programmer64) continued actively caching until 2010, when there were some major life changes going on. He still occasionally caches, but in a much more casual manner. Recently, I moved in with my girlfriend, and in the process, I unearthed the GPS that my dad gave to me the last time he upgraded (A Garmin GPSMap 64cs). I couldn't help but see if it still worked. To my surprise, it did! After some reminiscing, and fooling around, I couldn't seem to get it to acquire satellites, and I thought maybe it was outdated. Oh well, I set it aside, and mostly forgot about it. Two weeks ago, we were out walking the dog on the path at Squire Cheyney Farm Park, and it was like I was reliving a past event. A group of boys, geared up for hiking (one looked to be in his late teens, early twenties, the other two young teens) were seemingly wandering the thicket in the field, (this time with their phones in hand). My girlfriend thought it peculiar, but I laughed and said "I'll bet you I know what they're doing...". I downloaded the Geocaching app, and painstakingly tried to remember my login information (which I did! woot!). I logged in, and searched the area, and sure enough there was a cache, not where the boys were, but close by (2/10 of a mile). As we'd already well since past the location, and were both pretty hot and thirsty, we decided to keep moving, but the idea stuck with me. Last weekend, my (four year old) son was over, the weather was nice, and we'd been itching to go to the park/playground just a quarter mile from the Apartment. I decided to check again to see if there were any caches nearby. Sure enough, there were three! That was it, I loaded a bag up with water, a couple little trinkets, added the coords to the old GPS, and we set off on our journey... We didn't find the one we were looking for, unfortunately, winter had just done a good job at making it exceedingly well hidden. That said, a few days later, the girlfriend and I headed to the park and found all three! And here begins our new journey! We've been looking for a new, healthy, outdoor hobby to share together, and what better option than Geocaching to fill that spot? I look forward to planting a few 'That was ridiculous' caches around the area for fellow cachers, and I'm glad to be back! P.S. My original Username was Gamerboy1991

That's odd, as they should know that Additional Logging Requirements haven't been allowed for some time. I would make sure that they know I would appeal to HQ if my log was deleted because of an ALR. Maybe they don't know and think it's allowed? May have gotten away with this behavior of micro-managing and bullying others for a while ... and it will now become my goal to test him on it. Unlike some, this type of CO drive me to be sure my find stands. We did a couple caches with odd requests, "talk like a pirate" is one, but all were a fun option. I actually had one CO believing I had been arrested while attempting their cache. The last EarthCache that I logged I wore a Pikachu hat in my visit photo. I have logged caches that were nanos tied around feral cat's necks and you had to run them down and catch them in a briar patch in a homeless camp by the river.

That's odd, as they should know that Additional Logging Requirements haven't been allowed for some time. I would make sure that they know I would appeal to HQ if my log was deleted because of an ALR. Maybe they don't know and think it's allowed? May have gotten away with this behavior of micro-managing and bullying others for a while ... and it will now become my goal to test him on it. Unlike some, this type of CO drive me to be sure my find stands. We did a couple caches with odd requests, "talk like a pirate" is one, but all were a fun option.

Good grief! Has anyone ever tested and confirmed that "usability has really been improved"? GC states that usability has been improved in the new log-writing page, but I would expect a proof - or at least a big "WE'RE SORRY!". Like other users state: Can't find formatting codes and instant preview. I add: Can't find how to write hyperlinks. I also add: The new feature is 'very very beautiful s***' (hit). The layout is simple (an almost empty white display with one or two elephant size buttons), and the functionality is gone. I suggest: Take the word "USER" literally, to distinguish from "SOMEONE WHO VISITS A MUSEUM OF ART AND MODERN DESIGN". The former prefers usability even if the layout is dull. The latter prefers to be astonished of an empty space or a dog turd painted purple and dangling in a wire, even if it is useless. I am *using* geocaching.com to support by geocaching hobby. I am NOT *looking at* geocaching.com because it is nice. When working on a computer, it is ridiculous with a big page containing few buttons (that can be hit by an elephant wearing boxing gloves) and practically nothing else. The users *can* read and write. The users are rather intelligent, so don't be afraid of using letters, words and some space to write log texts into. Just to prevent the common answers: "Everyone else transforms their website this way as well." Let them! Don't just follow behind someone else - he might be lost in the woods! "JavaScript is the new wonder-tool (fantastic tools like Angular, Backbone etc...)" If you don't define your own needs, you don't need a new framework! "Mobile First" is the new web-design principle." Admit it, this too often ends up with "mobile only", leaving professional users with computers out in the dark. "Scrum is modern." What happened to quality control and testing? Long talk - short scream: Your new logging "experience" is USELESS. Kind regards anyway.