Search the Community

It would be difficult to climb a tree using top rope (as the name implies, you are secured to a rope from above and belayed by another person or device), so of the two lead climbing (the first person up a route) would probably be better.... I would however, just talk to a climbing club local to you and get some experience climbing walls etc.... there really is no sport applicable strictly to tree climbing except for perhaps lumberjack. DD

It's not just the souvenir, but also challenge caches that ask for "find x different cache types in x different countries" that have lead to these events. In some countries/areas there are only tradionals, mysteries and multi's, so an event is an easy find for an extra type of geocache... I never go to events that are clearly organized just to get that souvenir/challenge etc. and I think that is the only thing you can do to discourage these type of events. Adding extra guidelines/rules etc. would not make it any better, since cachers always find solutions to get what they want eventually. By reading the event page it now is at least clear if an event is interesting for me or not, if cachers would lie on the cache event page just to get it published, that might change. I've been to events abroad and also co-hosted (just a few) events, always working together with a local cacher to make sure the event would be at a suitable location and time. And of course with a local involved you are already sure not to be alone, since I agree the social part is what it is all about. For those who want to this as well and are wondering how: just look at recent events in the area where you are going and contact the event organizers for information/help. Someone mentioned they don't like events in a pub, they rather go outdoors to a park. I've seen events that got cancelled on the day itself because of rain, so I prefer indoor events and a pub is often a nice informal location where people don't mind if you walk in with your muddy geocaching shoes. Being able to sit down makes it easier as well to chat, and a toilet nearby makes sure you don't have to leave the event earlier than you or someone in your cache team/family might want to. The amount of people attending is unimportant to me. In my experience the smaller events are a lot better that the larger events since a small group makes it easier to really talk to each other, instead of trying to mingle with geocachers who already often arrive in groups of friends and seem to have no interest in really meeting other people. And of course when an event organizer really wishes to meet other people, you can always decide to cancel the event 2 days before the actual date if there are no "will attend"-logs. Seems to me a lot better than just going ahead, waiting for half an hour for someone to show up while you could have used that time to go geocaching or sightseeing and then claiming your smiley just for the wait. Maybe the website could automatically suggest cancelling the event when there are no will attend-logs 2 days for the event, of course it will be up to the CO to follow this suggestion or not.

I don't believe I said anything of the sort, although you are coming off a bit condescending in saying that. I'm not sure what to tell you. I quoted you saying that people are "hyperventilating" and that they should get over "the bad man saying mean things" This is both condescending and pretending that the people you are addressing are more upset than they seem to be. Unless you talk to other grown, reasonable adults with language typically reserved for children (bad man said a mean thing) I think my interpretation is fair. How is it condescending to read and interpret words the way they read on the page? I wouldn't tell anyone who I had an ounce of respect, "So what the bad man said something mean?" I'd never talk to my dad that way. Not my boss. Not a police officer. Not a co-worker. Not a bagger at a grocery store. Its loaded language, typically reserved for spoiled children. Especially if they don't give any evidence of being terribly upset. As opposed to what? The other 5 or 6 gripes this forum sees once a week? I'm not sure why you think a certain threshold of offense must have been reached for the OP to make a thread. It taks vey little effort. I suspect its just another excuse to talk about geocaching. I'm not sure I'd call the OP strange for asking a question with such varied and nuanced responses... Again, I feel like people are overstating how upset any of us are who dislike the practice, and THAT IS a little upsetting I'm in the same boat. I get a little confused when people get frustrated by micro caches and caches with bad swag, but I suppose some people cache with children... I never take anything. I do always leave a little kaleidoscope though. For me it's maybe 95% about locations. We agree on something!

This could be very difficult to automate. I am regularly asked by Responsible Cache Owners to archive their old listing when I publish their new listing nearby, so they would be excluded unfairly if the algorithm searched for all archived caches where the archive log came from a reviewer. Conversely, an archive log from a retired reviewer or lackey would not show up in the results if the algorithm searched for archive logs from the reviewer or lackey account types. "Well then, just search for the word 'maintenance' in the archive log." That won't work, either. You would need to search in every language used by a reviewer worldwide. Not all reviewers use the same template. For example, I talk about the maintenance issue in my temp disable log or my reviewer note log. The archive log is very short and sweet: "As there's been no response to my prior note, I am archiving this cache page."

Please take in account the following: 1. A box, left at or near the place of an existing cache, can have at least following meanings: •• intended replacement of the cache (the real "Throwdown"), that's what we talk about here! •• a thing the assumed thrower-down doesn't want to belong to anyone else, this could be a new geocache maybe for another listing service. That qualifies not for "Throwdown" and that's NOT what we talk about here. Please don't mix that. The difference can be hard to tell and may require further investigation (a hint would be to ask the land-owner about additional permissions given). Bad if the new box is in close proximity to an existing cache (we have that in my near homezone: two small L'n'L boxes, just meters away, listed on different platforms - that constant misleads cachers, you can tell by the logs). 2. The question in the topic was about law (ownership), to find a legal reason to hold the thrower-down responsible, if I understood correctly. So the discussion doesn't cover other aspects much (and - technically - shouldn't to stay on-topic). But: There may be (or are) other regulations and contracts between the listing platform and the original cache owner or between him and the land owner. Plus there sure are such things as moral obligations or simple curtesy. And common sense. Such things exist... somewhere... I think... I hope... Please dont mix law and moral obligation/curtesy up, either. Friendliness is optional in law. 3. Other laws may exist for special cases, that could be: dangerous goods, weapons, drugs, animals etc. Please don't make the matter more complicated by comparing a simple film canister throw-down with a bag of kittens left at your front porch. Thank you very much! BTW: Don't do throwdowns.

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift). And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site. You ungrateful bastard! If your grandma sends you a sweater you didn't want do you simply ignore it? Maybe you re-gift it. Maybe you put in the donation box. Maybe you even throw it away. But you don't say "Grandma, I don't want this sweater, take it back". ... You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it. If anyone has any unwanted kittens or puppies, then feel free to leave them on Toz's front porch. Fact 1: Any "gift" belongs to the person who is giving the "gift" until acceptance of the gift by a second person. Fact 2: The acceptance of the "gift" must be declared in any way. Like saying "thank you" or any other form. Fact 3: If you refuse the "gift" the person who tried to give you the "gift" is fully responsible for it. No need to talk about cats and dogs, talk about garbage... Garbage belongs to the owner until it is placed in the garbage can outside your home/property (street, curb,...). From that moment on, the garbage belongs to either the municipality or the company that manages garbage because you are saying: "I don´t want this anymore" and the answer is automatic: "Ok, we want it and will take care of it". The company can forbid and sue a person from picking garbage from their garbage can. If you look closely almost all garbage cans say: "Property of...." there is a reason for that! So, if I place my garbage in your house is it yours immediately? Or you have to accept it? Good analogy. A homeowner is responsible for the removal of garbage from his property regardless of how it arrived. Similarly, a cache owner is responsible for any and all garbage that his cache attracted. Wrong!!!! If someone else places the garbage there it is not your responsibility... Imagine that you have cameras recording that clearly show that person throwing the garbage you can sue that person! Let´s install webcams in all the caches!!!!

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift). And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site. You ungrateful bastard! If your grandma sends you a sweater you didn't want do you simply ignore it? Maybe you re-gift it. Maybe you put in the donation box. Maybe you even throw it away. But you don't say "Grandma, I don't want this sweater, take it back". ... You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it. If anyone has any unwanted kittens or puppies, then feel free to leave them on Toz's front porch. Fact 1: Any "gift" belongs to the person who is giving the "gift" until acceptance of the gift by a second person. Fact 2: The acceptance of the "gift" must be declared in any way. Like saying "thank you" or any other form. Fact 3: If you refuse the "gift" the person who tried to give you the "gift" is fully responsible for it. No need to talk about cats and dogs, talk about garbage... Garbage belongs to the owner until it is placed in the garbage can outside your home/property (street, curb,...). From that moment on, the garbage belongs to either the municipality or the company that manages garbage because you are saying: "I don´t want this anymore" and the answer is automatic: "Ok, we want it and will take care of it". The company can forbid and sue a person from picking garbage from their garbage can. If you look closely almost all garbage cans say: "Property of...." there is a reason for that! So, if I place my garbage in your house is it yours immediately? Or you have to accept it? Good analogy. A homeowner is responsible for the removal of garbage from his property regardless of how it arrived. Similarly, a cache owner is responsible for any and all garbage that his cache attracted.

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift). And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site. You ungrateful bastard! If your grandma sends you a sweater you didn't want do you simply ignore it? Maybe you re-gift it. Maybe you put in the donation box. Maybe you even throw it away. But you don't say "Grandma, I don't want this sweater, take it back". ... You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it. If anyone has any unwanted kittens or puppies, then feel free to leave them on Toz's front porch. Fact 1: Any "gift" belongs to the person who is giving the "gift" until acceptance of the gift by a second person. Fact 2: The acceptance of the "gift" must be declared in any way. Like saying "thank you" or any other form. Fact 3: If you refuse the "gift" the person who tried to give you the "gift" is fully responsible for it. No need to talk about cats and dogs, talk about garbage... Garbage belongs to the owner until it is placed in the garbage can outside your home/property (street, curb,...). From that moment on, the garbage belongs to either the municipality or the company that manages garbage because you are saying: "I don´t want this anymore" and the answer is automatic: "Ok, we want it and will take care of it". The company can forbid and sue a person from picking garbage from their garbage can. If you look closely almost all garbage cans say: "Property of...." there is a reason for that! So, if I place my garbage in your house is it yours immediately? Or you have to accept it?

Throwing out some quick thoughts/calculations: It looks like they gave you decimal degree coordinates, and they are not very precise. The distance between 49.75, 6.67 and 49.76, 6.68 is 0.82 miles - so realistically, if they rounded correctly, this cache can be anywhere within a radius of 0.41 miles (a 0.52-square-mile area). So widen your search. She gave you no other information? Approximate size of the cache? What day did she drop it? EDIT to add: Assuming it's a traditional cache, your best bets are these: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4TB11_im-wilden-talchen https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4BKDB_in-den-wandelgarten https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC63B0F_lies-lieber-mal-n-gutes-buch https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6P5CD_zu-ehren-meines-papas Here's the search I used: https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?t=m&lat_ns=1&lat_h=49&lat_mmss=45.000&long_ew=1&long_h=6&long_mmss=40.2&dist=1&submit8=Search Use Google Translate to check the most recent logs. They may talk about your TB. And finally, Germans seem to be on the ball with trackables, so worst case scenario, they'll find it and correct its logs.

Agreed! Change your citizenship and take it up with your elected representative. Hmmm maybe we should start a thread on gun rights and regulations. Talk about a can of worms.... Same results BTW.

I will talk with Groundspeak on Monday.

While it is true that "protocols are handled by software", there is often a base layer that is embedded in the hardware and cannot be modified. For example, there are distinctly different bit timing schemes used for IrDA, HPSIR and ASKIR, and processors that integrate one or more of those functions, and standalone IR chips will control that timing directly. Only if you started from scratch with your own IrDA diode assembly and wrote the whole modulation thing from scratch would you be able to talk to one of these devices without having another of its kind to use. A different example would be Bluetooth. The basic frequency hopping scheme (and a host of other stuff) isn't typically determined by external firmware. These sorts of functions are determined by the chip/module. Sometimes, that function can be halted or forced to one setting by an external signal for RF testing, but the frequency hopping algorithm, for an example, is not controlled by external firmware. You buy the BT chip, and you get that RF functionality. Only rarely are such sorts of chips capable of having their base functionality reflashed in the field. In the case of Bluetooth chips, it's to keep everyone honest when it comes to the FCC and EC rules for these parts. Often, the BT chips will even contain one or more of the Bluetooth profiles (what they use to refer to various higher level 'stacks'), and you may send commands to choose from one or another, but you do not get access to the raw un-decoded signal to create your own low level profile. Sometimes, the profiles are external, and you could write your own profile or emulate others for which standards already exist (for example, one of the several audio profiles or the Bluetooth Printer Profile) -- but you don't get to mess with the baseband operation (except perhaps for power) or the basic underlying Bluetooth protocol stack. The idea is that these chips come with the lowest level stacks already in place, and if they're not compatible between devices, they're not going to talk nice to each other. Just because a device might have an onboard transceiver that operates at the same frequency as some other device doesn't mean that it is possible to write firmware for either device that would allow them to talk to one another. As for Garmin upgrading SiRF chipsets - do you mean, as an example, between SiRF and Mediatek? They're not drop in replacements for one another. The Garmin side firmware must change. Or do you mean the fact that sometimes a Garmin release will include new firmware for the GPS chip in addition to the firmware for the Garmin product itself?

I am going to dismiss what you've said about "being yelled at". ( I didn't want to disappoint L0ne.R...) Those are both perfectly reasonable points of view that, at least as you've presented them here, don't sound at all like yelling and should give you no reason to stop posting future NMs, even for those COs. Neither rejects NMs in general, they just explain why your NM isn't going to be acted on. That's such an important point about NMs and NAs: they are input, not demands, so you should expect a CO to sometimes read the input and then reject it. As we've already discussed, the first example I think many, if not most, people agree with: full logs are worthy of mentioning in a found log, but they aren't maintenance issues. After all, nothing stops anyone from finding the cache and signing the log, they just have to, worst case, obliterate a previous finder's signature. I know GS keeps acting like full logs are a maintenance issue, but it really doesn't make much sense to me, so I don't know why they're holding on to that notion. My guess is that it's just become such a standard example of a something that a cache needs that it's hard to keep from using it as an example of when a Needs Maintenance could be posted. It makes sense if you're coming up with a list of things that could be wrong with a cache for a dropdown box, but it makes no sense if you look at it as things that seekers should feel justified in demanding be fixed. For me, the deciding factor is that an unmet NM should lead eventually to archival, but do I really want a perfectly fine cache to disappear because the log's full? I'd say not. In fact, I'd say the fact that the log is full is testament to the value of that cache to the community. The other one's a little muddier, but, still, the CO just didn't see the problem you described. Why does that make you think you shouldn't have described it to him in the first place? Is he right? Is it not as big a deal as you thought? Or is he wrong? If you think he's wrong, carry on the conversation privately to make sure he understands what you were saying. And, while you're at it, think about why your original log wasn't enough for him to see it to begin with. Or do you just disagree about the definition of "broken"? If so, is the CO's definition so wrong you can't accept it? So I think these reactions fail miserably as examples of why NMs shouldn't be posted. In my experience, these are both great examples of the worst reaction you might get from an NM, and in both cases it's a ho-hum situation. Indeed, in both cases you have a chance to establish a relation with the CO and discuss the standards in your community. Perhaps you could convince the first CO that full logs should be NMed and dealt with if it means that much to you. Or he might help you see why it's not a big deal and why he offered to supply the logs for you, since you're going to be visiting more caches in the series. We talk about not maintaining other people's caches, but those objections tend to evaporate when you're helping a friend maintain his caches by replacing full logs with new logs he's supplied you with. You seem to be enjoying this series, so it makes sense for you to help keep it up for the next person to enjoy, too. Oh, and one more thing, to address L0ne.R's point: Even if you've left out some exclamation marks and curse words that are what made you describe these reactions as yelling, that's all the more reason to see it as a reason to engage the CO with a conversation about standards of discourse and the value of NMs and NAs to the game. To me, the worse reaction possible is to accept the yelling as normal and adjust your behavior to try to avoid it in the future. Rude people need to be confronted, not left to act as shining examples of the community's standards.

That's for the like 100 accounts I have seen over the years with Pirate based usernames, who talk like a Pirate in their cache logs. So apparently in a future release, the app will convert your log to Pirate talk. Which of course is useless, because no one has ever posted a log longer than 3 words via the intro app. What are you talking about? "That's one more find for me! Thanks so much for hiding this geocache." is 13 words! 14 if you expand the contraction! Heck, even "I found this geocache using the Geocaching Intro App. TFTC!" is 9 and an acronym! Apparently, the "that's one more find for me" text is long gone, although they've never announced it publicly. Oh Snap! That's gone?? Now no one will understand my signature! Is there still a cut-and-paste log for the intro app? Someone in a thread in Geocaching topics discovered it a couple weeks ago. I don't feel like looking (but maybe I'll post again in a few days), but the last offending "that's one more find for me" log I can remember seeing was around late June.

That's for the like 100 accounts I have seen over the years with Pirate based usernames, who talk like a Pirate in their cache logs. So apparently in a future release, the app will convert your log to Pirate talk. Which of course is useless, because no one has ever posted a log longer than 3 words via the intro app. What are you talking about? "That's one more find for me! Thanks so much for hiding this geocache." is 13 words! 14 if you expand the contraction! Heck, even "I found this geocache using the Geocaching Intro App. TFTC!" is 9 and an acronym! Apparently, the "that's one more find for me" text is long gone, although they've never announced it publicly. Oh Snap! That's gone?? Now no one will understand my signature! Is there still a cut-and-paste log for the intro app?

That's for the like 100 accounts I have seen over the years with Pirate based usernames, who talk like a Pirate in their cache logs. So apparently in a future release, the app will convert your log to Pirate talk. Which of course is useless, because no one has ever posted a log longer than 3 words via the intro app. What are you talking about? "That's one more find for me! Thanks so much for hiding this geocache." is 13 words! 14 if you expand the contraction! Heck, even "I found this geocache using the Geocaching Intro App. TFTC!" is 9 and an acronym! Apparently, the "that's one more find for me" text is long gone, although they've never announced it publicly.

That's for the like 100 accounts I have seen over the years with Pirate based usernames, who talk like a Pirate in their cache logs. So apparently in a future release, the app will convert your log to Pirate talk. Which of course is useless, because no one has ever posted a log longer than 3 words via the intro app. What are you talking about? "That's one more find for me! Thanks so much for hiding this geocache." is 13 words! 14 if you expand the contraction! Heck, even "I found this geocache using the Geocaching Intro App. TFTC!" is 9 and an acronym!

That's for the like 100 accounts I have seen over the years with Pirate based usernames, who talk like a Pirate in their cache logs. So apparently in a future release, the app will convert your log to Pirate talk. Which of course is useless, because no one has ever posted a log longer than 3 words via the intro app.

Lets talk geocaching in Michigan. Stuff you think is cool . Something that happened to you while geocaching ... If your new say hi and we all will try to get to know you. So here we go let's talk Michigan Geocaching.

Sigh... Earthcaches have no physical logbook or cache container. Apple. "Challenge caches" have a physical logbook and container. Automatic transmission. Traditional, Multi-, Letterbox Hybrid, Mystery/Unknown*, Wherigo caches have a physical logbook and container. Manual transmissions (some 3-on-the-tree, some 4spd overdrive, others 6-speed sequential) *"Challenge caches" are currently held under the Mystery/Unknown subset of physical geocache types. Because of the unique nature of the Groundspeak endorsed and condoned ALR of a "challenge cache", they are more easily categorized as outside of the other physical cache types--which only are guided in logging a "Found it" without deletion by having found the container, and having signed the logbook. You see, why confuse things with the ALR found within the other, more straightforward physical geocache types, when "geocache" types such as Earthcaches with "ALRs" are their own type as well? You're stating a personal preference, outside of the guidelines of the game. You're welcome to do as you say, and not log unless you've solved the puzzle of a puzzle-style Mystery/Unknown, or found every stage of a Multi-cache. But the guidelines and common practice of Groundspeak and Volunteer Reviewers is to allow a "brute force" or "accidental" find of a final for a Multi-cache or puzzle-style Mystery/Unknown to be logged as "Found" if the container was found, and the logbook signed. This is supported by many, many appeals, discussions, and overt guidelines. No matter what you say, it isn't apples to apples. Earthcaches are non-physical geocaches with alternate logging requirements (ALRs). Traditional, Multi, Mystery/Unknown, Wherigo, and Letterbox Hybrids are all physical geocaches--listed (shown) or unlisted (hidden) coordinates with a container and logbook, where one can log a find once the container is found and logbook is signed. "Challenge caches" are an exception to the ALR-ban that happened before you started geocaching. ALRs used to be on all sorts of caches, and they were disallowed from future publication, and existing caches archived by Volunteer Reviewers unless the listing was edited to remove all ALR references. The only surviving version of the ALR was a "challenge" cache, wherein a user was to undertake a specific, positive, location-based, geocaching-related task to receive permission to log the cache online. Also, "Challenges" were created...and failed. They had the fatal flaw of no Review, non-specific (and oftentimes unappreciated) tasks to log them online. They did, at first, count toward your online "Found it" total. Then they were set apart from that geocache find total. Then they were unceremoniously removed from all memory on the website and all player accounts. (I feel like "The Giver" right now...) So, you see, where Groundspeak made a mistake "yesterday", they can make their "better mistake" today by swinging "challenge caches" into Challenge Caches, and removing the qualifying language from the Mystery/Unknown geocache type description and guidelines. Not unlike how Earthcaches are run under their own type because of their geology-specific themes, third-party development and regulation, and ALR online logging processes, "challenge caches" could (and IMO should) be put into a category unto themselves. You see, it all comes back to online logs and the common thread of this "game" we play. If you find a physical container and logbook, and sign that logbook, you should be able to log that cache online. Those cache types where that much isn't common (apples to transmissions), the cache type is apart from the others in icon, description, and guidelines. So now I'll bring it back to this statement. Yes, in the way you describe it, they are apart only in the finite genetics of the apple. Color, aroma, firmness, growth rate, season of flowering, etc all might be different, but at least you know its an apple when you bite into it. But then you must admit that these 2 apples are thereby like comparing apples to the orange that is physical geocaching: Traditional, Multi, Wherigo, Letterbox Hybrid, and even the Mystery/Unknown. All fruits, sure, but the idea that you can log a physical cache you have found and signed the logbook of is where we have a departure from the Mystery/Unknown cache type. But let's revisit this tidbit: Aha. Yes. I'll give you this. (I know you likely meant it as "challenge cache", but you've illustrated my points beautifully. Thank you.) You may not have completed the listed challenge set out in that physical geocache's description, but you can find and log the physical cache and log. This is where an idea of having "challenges" come back as a "virtual" type of cache would work. Not unlike the mistake that was "Challenges", and not unlike the Virtual caches of yore, the new type of "geocaching challenge" would capture your completion of any geocacher-designed geocaching-related challenge (Fizzy challenge, e.g.), and not muddle the water with it being a physical geocache that you're not allowed to "find". Imagine a separate cache type where there is no cache, but there is a challenge to complete. Or imagine a new cache type where there is a physical cache, but you may log that find when you find the container, yet you can also check a box that you have completed the challenge--and that completion is added to your "finds" total, and recorded in stats as a separate type of "find". That first sentence says it all. If the CO wanted people to claim a find just by finding the container he would have made the cache a traditional. Sure, as it stands now, why not say that. But the thing is, regardless of what "the CO wanted", there is a physical geocache that can be found...but not without the owner's permission. Then you add in the inconsistent nature of humanity, where a CO may not actually check the requirements on their challenge cache, but another owner is quite studious. And then you can have instances where the owner doesn't get to checking the completion for days, weeks, or months. As a finder, this creates much consternation in a game that should otherwise be as straight forward as Groundspeak has claimed it to be: Find it, sign it, log it online. That is geocaching at its core. So the "problem" is that these challenges should be apart from Mystery/Unknown caches. Period. Why not? There is no reason why this couldn't be done in a heartbeat with a little lead time to make a new icon and add the code for an additional cache type in the submission forms. (add another blank for the new icon and type selection, and that's about it. The guidelines already exist, and the code can be mirrored from other caches for how it collates in stats and such.) The additional argument that I make (and as much that sets us apart in our opinions) is that challenges should be apart from physical geocaching altogether. So long as there is a physical container and log, it should be loggable regardless of the owner's desire to have a geocache-related challenge of an ALR. If an owner wants to set up a challenge that is based on a positive geocaching accomplishment or difficult set of circumstances, so be it. But if there is a container and a log, it should be loggable online when the logbook is signed. This is fundamental to the game, and the only common core with all physical caches since this game was "invented" by his holiness Dave Ulmer, and adopted by the programming gurus and visionaries at what we now call Groundspeak. Lastly, what you're failing to see in the foundation of my opinion is here: No. They can place a Mystery/Unknown as they did. But the guidelines shouldn't have an asterisk for the Mystery/Unknown type. This is where confusion for newbies comes in; this is where confusion over the foundational principles of the game get muddled; this is where the game should be more clear. Physical geocaches were "invented" for Groundspeak on the basis of the "find it, sign it, log it" mantra. That much should remain true, especially as it was a primary point Groundspeak made when doing away with ALRs. That aspect of the game should be more consistently held by Groundspeak. Otherwise, we're just witnessing their apathy about how they present themselves to members. There would be a whole lot less consternation about Groundspeak, "challenge caches", and other changes made (seemingly willy-nilly) without consistency. If ALRs were done away with because of (among other things) the fact that physical caches should not have restrictions on logging them online once they are found (Premium Member Only caches still loggable by non-members "loophole", e.g.), Groundspeak should remain consistent and remove ALRs altogether from the physical geocache realm. We can still have challenge geocaches, but they shouldn't be lumped in with the other physical geocaches--which Groundspeak once said should be loggable online by all who find the container and sign the log when they did away with ALRs and maintained their opinion about the loophole for non-PMs to log PMO caches, and when they talk about how they developed the Intro App to allow people to access cache listings for free...on and on. You see, they argue for their actions about all physical caches being open to be logged by all when they find it and sign the logbook...except when they talk about this much-loved aspect of the game called "challenge geocaches". You see, I'm all for keeping challenge caches around. I'm just not in the camp that thinks inconsistency is acceptable. I think Groundspeak can easily address this fact, and make all camps happy. I think challenge caches are what that much-maligned mistake "Challenges" should have been all along. I also think that my favorite ALR caches I did back in the day were the ones that are more in line with the current "challenge caches" we have now. (Log only after you've found 100 Mystery/Unknown caches by CharlieWhiskey, e.g.) I think it is time for Groundspeak to acknowledge how the game can be organized as physical geocaches and non-physical geocaches. So long as Earthcaches are around, and the remaining Virtuals are able to stay unarchived, they have an opportunity to grow the game in a direction that makes sense, demonstrates consistency in their decisions and reasons provided for some historic decisions, and only provides more clarity to an already cumbersome game for newbies to get their head around.

Nonsense to you, not at all to me. I've had at least one negative personal experience with armchair NA logging. The logs that came in on one of my caches, DNFs mostly, made it sound like the cache may have been missing. To alleviate that goofy NA, I had to schedule a maintenance run, break out the kayak, and spend half a day on the water,. All this to find that the cache was right where it was supposed to be. Feel free to talk to me at an event, email me, message me, or even call if you have my number, to discuss negative sounding logs on one of my caches. But don't throw out a NM or NA from the comfort of your living room until after you've actually tried finding it.

Ever noticed that GS collects VAT (although they don't disclose their VAT registration number ) on PM's of EU citizens? Same difference. As said before, it's because of the likes of FB that this law was made. Even people without accounts had their data collected without their knowledge, talk about scary. At least now rhere's a tool to fight this. Rest assured, one of the the first to experience GDPR will be "one of the big ones" (FB, Google,MS, Apple...)

Glad you found your way here. Let's talk some Geocaching.

I'm not religious about it, but generally if I'm really revisiting a cache (as opposed to just checking to see if it's still in place), I'll open it and sign the log again, yes. It doesn't take much to talk me out of it, though, like if it's hard to retrieve or has some delicate camo that I don't want to disturb.

this one we don't know yet. Think it through - cause you gotta walk the talk and talk the walk!