What would you change?

[+Star*Hopper]

AFA the thread, I'm fine with website suggestions too -- it's a part of the game.

 

And for my own, I'd like to see a new size category - NANO: Any container less than, volume-wise, half the size of a 35mm cannister.

 

Adjunctive: Eliminate the 'Unknown' size category. Cache submissions would not be approved (couldn't even be submitted) without a size checkoff block being checked.

 

\ '5' is such a nice, even, round number!

 

~*

Edited November 26, 2008 by Star*Hopper

[+sbell111]

Any cache hidden on commercial property, or on public safety devices (guardrails, green transformers, etc) would require written proof of permission before these caches could be published.

This would just be GC.com enforcing their existing rule. (or cache placers not lie about receiving permission)

I looked through the guidelines, but couldn't find one that required written permission (or even explicit permission). Can you point it out?

Hogwash.

 

There is no way anyone informed about "public safety devices", as the first quote above calls them, would believe that they are allowed at all in the first place. Transformers, public utility poles, and the like, are highly regulated in most areas to the point that hanging a "Lost Puppy" poster on them is actually illegal, the placers of such things can be prosecuted for trespassing.

 

I know it was almost a year ago, but geowizerd did some research for us.

That thread was amusing, but his citations remain off-issue.

[Mr.Yuck]

Any cache hidden on commercial property, or on public safety devices (guardrails, green transformers, etc) would require written proof of permission before these caches could be published.

This would just be GC.com enforcing their existing rule. (or cache placers not lie about receiving permission)

I looked through the guidelines, but couldn't find one that required written permission (or even explicit permission). Can you point it out?

Hogwash.

 

There is no way anyone informed about "public safety devices", as the first quote above calls them, would believe that they are allowed at all in the first place. Transformers, public utility poles, and the like, are highly regulated in most areas to the point that hanging a "Lost Puppy" poster on them is actually illegal, the placers of such things can be prosecuted for trespassing.

 

I know it was almost a year ago, but geowizerd did some research for us.

That thread was amusing, but his citations remain off-issue.

 

Amusing in the sense that there are actually people who poo-poo the dangers, and obvious lack of permissoin for caches on electrical transformers? Then yes, I agree.

[+sbell111]

Any cache hidden on commercial property, or on public safety devices (guardrails, green transformers, etc) would require written proof of permission before these caches could be published.

This would just be GC.com enforcing their existing rule. (or cache placers not lie about receiving permission)

I looked through the guidelines, but couldn't find one that required written permission (or even explicit permission). Can you point it out?

Hogwash.

 

There is no way anyone informed about "public safety devices", as the first quote above calls them, would believe that they are allowed at all in the first place. Transformers, public utility poles, and the like, are highly regulated in most areas to the point that hanging a "Lost Puppy" poster on them is actually illegal, the placers of such things can be prosecuted for trespassing.

 

I know it was almost a year ago, but geowizerd did some research for us.

That thread was amusing, but his citations remain off-issue.

 

Amusing in the sense that there are actually people who poo-poo the dangers, and obvious lack of permissoin for caches on electrical transformers? Then yes, I agree.

No, amusing in the sense that people will doggedly try to force reality to fit their views, rather than to adjust their views to reality.

[Clan Riffster]

1 GC# =

Excellent idea! In my picture perfect dream world, I would not leave this option up to the cache/event owners though.

I would make it Groundspeak policy and be done with it.

(Hey, I can dream, right?)

 

I'd like to see a new size category - NANO

Another plus! With the advent of caches whose volume would be stretched by a single drop of water, the term "Micro" just doesn't fit.

 

Eliminate the 'Unknown' size category.

You, Sir, are my hero! Unknown or Not Chosen are two more things I've removed from my PQs, in an effort to maximize what little time I have to play this game. My search techniques vary depending upon what I'm looking for. The method I employ for hunting a large differs significantly from the method I employ for a nano. By knowing what I'm looking for, I can choose the most efficient method for hunting it.

(Just a personal preference)

 

Since we are all waltzing about in Dreamland, I'd also like to propose some sort of rating system.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

And for my own, I'd like to see a new size category - NANO: Any container less than, volume-wise, half the size of a 35mm cannister.

 

I like this idea.

 

Adjunctive: Eliminate the 'Unknown' size category. Cache submissions would not be approved (couldn't even be submitted) without a size checkoff block being checked.

 

\ '5' is such a nice, even, round number!

 

~*

 

I have the same search issues, too, but some of the best caches I've come across wouldn't have been possible without the unknown size feature. One of my alltime favorite DNF..., DNF..., DNF..., DNF..., DNF..., Found It experiences was an Unknown and a fantastic learning lesson. I've never looked for a cache the same way again. (I also learned to pay more attention to my surroundings and the cache description page!)

[CoyoteRed]

Unknown or Not Chosen are two more things I've removed from my PQs, in an effort to maximize what little time I have to play this game.

Me, too. But I dislike removing the ability to post a complete mystery cache--don't know how many stages, size, etc. A true treasure hunt. I'm all for eliminating "unknown" as a euphemism for "micro," though.

[+wimseyguy]

All complaints must be posted to the appropriate official complaint thread. No starting new threads for the same old complaints.

[+Too Tall John]

I know it was almost a year ago, but geowizerd did some research for us.

That thread was amusing, but his citations remain off-issue.

Amusing in the sense that there are actually people who poo-poo the dangers, and obvious lack of permissoin for caches on electrical transformers? Then yes, I agree.

No, amusing in the sense that people will doggedly try to force reality to fit their views, rather than to adjust their views to reality.

When the issue is if it is allowable to put caches on transformers and utility poles and he sites several policies stating that placing anything on such structures could lead to prosecution? You don't think that speaks to the issue?

 

Amazing!

 

Tell me this: How exactly does a policy that addresses attaching anything to a utility structure not apply to a geocache being attached to the structure?

[+sataraid1]

I would delete this forum.

[+TrailGators]

I would delete this forum.

You can do that now! Go to your bookmarks and find the bookmark for this forum and hit delete.

[+Clarkbowman]

remove the trackables listing on the cache page. make it a true find when you get to the cache site. Keep the thieves from raiding caches for Jeep TB's and cool coins.

 

I like this one.

 

I would change the rule for what is a puzzle/unknown cache and break it into two different cache types - the bogus coordinates mystery/unknown cache type and the "start here" mystery/unknown cache type. The bogus coord type would require you do do some pre-work before even getting the starting coordinates. The "start here" type would have valid starting coordinates, but then you need to solve something with information gathered at the site, do an ALR, an unusual cache container, etc.

 

With two different cache types you can filter better with a PQ, which I would like to be able to do. With the "starts here" type coordinates and the cache page information you can take a shot at finding the cache, which is not true of the bogus coords cache type. The way it is now I exclude a lot of "start here" types because I don't want to load bogus coords into my GPS, and there's no easy way to tell the difference.

 

This would all so be a good idea

[+sbell111]

I know it was almost a year ago, but geowizerd did some research for us.

That thread was amusing, but his citations remain off-issue.

Amusing in the sense that there are actually people who poo-poo the dangers, and obvious lack of permissoin for caches on electrical transformers? Then yes, I agree.

No, amusing in the sense that people will doggedly try to force reality to fit their views, rather than to adjust their views to reality.

When the issue is if it is allowable to put caches on transformers and utility poles and he sites several policies stating that placing anything on such structures could lead to prosecution? You don't think that speaks to the issue?

 

Amazing!

 

Tell me this: How exactly does a policy that addresses attaching anything to a utility structure not apply to a geocache being attached to the structure?

When the items aren't actually attached to the 'structure', the policy related to attachments to the structures does not apply.

[+Star*Hopper]

Star*Hopper @ Nov 26 2008, 06:05 AM)

 

Adjunctive: Eliminate the 'Unknown' size category. Cache submissions would not be approved (couldn't even be submitted) without a size checkoff block being checked.

 

Unknown or Not Chosen are two more things I've removed from my PQs, in an effort to maximize what little time I have to play this game.

Me, too. But I dislike removing the ability to post a complete mystery cache--don't know how many stages, size, etc. A true treasure hunt. I'm all for eliminating "unknown" as a euphemism for "micro," though.

 

That's a good consideration, Coyote - so I'll yield slightly on that one. It wouldn't be hard, however, to make a link-to that would only allow Unknown (Size) when it's classified as a Puzzle/Mystery cache.

 

I'm also an advocate for splitting Puzzle and Mystery types, as well as allowing minor ALR's on Traditionals. I personally think an ALR turning it into a Mystery cache is somewhat ludicrous, & kind've takes away some of the fun that could be had in finding/logging - e.g., an in-cache camera & request doesn't make it a "Mystery" and most certainly not a "Puzzle".

 

~*

[+bobcatw98]

I'd eliminate park and grabs (of which I own a few) they just aren't what geocaching is all about.

[Clan Riffster]

an in-cache camera & request doesn't make it a "Mystery" and most certainly not a "Puzzle".

Yeah, I've never been real keen on the idea that ALRs are now considered puzzles. I know the ideology behind the decision, I just don't happen to agree with it. It almost feels like a knee jerk reaction to folks whining about deleted logs, when they chose to hunt a cache without reading the cache page. But heck, what do I know? I just play here.

 

Incidentally, it's my understanding that a camera with a "request" would not be an ALR. The request would need to be a directive to qualify as an ALR.

[+Star*Hopper]

All complaints must be posted to the appropriate official complaint thread. No starting new threads for the same old complaints.

 

Good idea -- you should take it up with TPTB.

 

It's also forum related - not geocaching 'Rules' or 'Guidelines' related, and as such, off topic. Please restrain yourself.

 

~*

[CoyoteRed]

an in-cache camera & request doesn't make it a "Mystery" and most certainly not a "Puzzle".

Yeah, I've never been real keen on the idea that ALRs are now considered puzzles. I know the ideology behind the decision, I just don't happen to agree with it. It almost feels like a knee jerk reaction to folks whining about deleted logs, when they chose to hunt a cache without reading the cache page. But heck, what do I know? I just play here.

 

Incidentally, it's my understanding that a camera with a "request" would not be an ALR. The request would need to be a directive to qualify as an ALR.

As I see it, if you want someone to do some extra something and you don't want to make it a mystery you can--just don't require that extra something. Many of the extra activities are fun little things. What really irks me is the "control freak" aspect of an ALR "you must do this or I will delete your log!" It's a legitimate find yet the owner holding a smilie over your head unless you do something extra.

 

In this regard, the change I'd make is define the times when an owner can and should delete a log. It boils down to basically not providing proof of a find, a spoiler, and illegal or inappropriate acts, behavior, or language.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Easy question.........allow virtuals in cemeteries.

[+Zop]

As far as the site goes, my primary request would be to improve and expand the options in the PQ generation arena. Increase the PQ to 1000 and add the option to include/exclude caches found by or placed by another user.

 

Now.. for geocahcing as a whole? Lobby the national parks to permit caching in the national parks.

[+Zop]

Easy question.........allow virtuals in cemeteries.

 

I won't get into the virtual debate but.... Why not just place a traditional out side a cemetary and have a virtual stage in the cemetary as part of a multi? This could allow for your desire to show someone something you feel to be educational or interesting yet still meet the guidelines of having a physical object with a log.

[+wimseyguy]

I'd add a new rule that prohibits anyone from telling others how to have fun with a game. There are too many people around here who feel the need to dictate how their caches should be found and logged, and how one should post to their forum thread.

 

Hmm, I suppose that would eliminate the ALR caches, but that wouldn't bother me that much.

Edited November 27, 2008 by wimseyguy

[+nikcap]

Any cache hidden on commercial property, or on public safety devices (guardrails, green transformers, etc) would require written proof of permission before these caches could be published.

This would just be GC.com enforcing their existing rule. (or cache placers not lie about receiving permission)

I looked through the guidelines, but couldn't find one that required written permission (or even explicit permission). Can you point it out?

You are right. There is no mention of written permission, just adequate permission.

 

And yes, I did simply the rules, as I'm still not 100% sure about the difference between rules and guidelines.

I basically pointed out the ones (that in my area) tend to hold up the publishing of cache. YMMV

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I was amazed that nobody had brought up the "Hide My Stats" option yet.

 

But then, there it is!

 

I'd take TAR's suggestion one further: remove find counts from all cache logs. They'd still be available through a user's profile, but having them right there where everyone sees them helps put cache stats in the forefront of everyone's mind.

 

Technically this isn't really a change in the Rules, which is what I believe the OP intended for this thread to be about. But as long as this was mentioned I would prefer to see a "Hide My Stats" option more than just an on/off switch. One of the most underutilized features of the site is that "Friends" feature. A "Hide/Show Stats" switch could be set for everyone/friends/self. I would like to see three Friends feature enhanced such that one could allow anyone on there friends list to see more than just their recently logs. For example, being able to see unfound caches within a friends home location would allow me to suggest getting together to go search a certain area if their unfound list was similar to mine.

[+eigengott]

Change? Make the ClayJar rating system mandatory.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Sorry OP, but changes in the website are just too irresistible to discuss. Just in case someone is listening, I'll add these.

 

X Option to hide stats

 

X Give the option to hide the TB or Collectible on a cache page to the owner of the item

 

X Netflix style cache rating system

 

Seeing as #1 and #3 have been consistently offered as suggestions here, it makes one wonder if anyone is listening. Which brings me to my last suggestion of change:

 

X A regular podcast, blog, or forum post from Jeremy or a spokesperson from Groundspeak that details "what's on Groundspeak's mind" as it relates to the direction of Geocaching and an occasional specific discussion of some of these suggestions that come up again and again in this forum.

 

There's probably some very good reasons that they don't implement these changes but they are invisible to us mortals. The danger to Groundspeak is the perception that they are not listening or do not care if it is not going to increase the profitability of the business.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Team GeoBlast

[+Walts Hunting]

There is really nothing about the website or about the geocaching rules that I would wish to change; it is fine as it is.

 

However, when it comes to the forums, I have a modest proposal:

I wish to propose that a new rule be enacted that in any thread, and on any topic, once I have shared my personal opinion on a matter via a post, no on should ever be allowed to send any kind of post to that thread, or to any thread, that even remotely disagrees with me or with any of my stated positions. This demand is only reasonable, for it is simply a very well known fact (just ask Sioneva or Signal the Frog) that I am extremely suave, debonair and sophisticated, and that I am highly intelligent (after all, my IQ has been measured at over 13) and discerning, and it is also well-known that I have been posting on the Interweb since it was founded in the year 1389, and thus I have more seniority and more wisdom than anyone else on the Interweb. Thus, it only makes sense that my opinion on any matter, in any thread, should be the final word on that matter, and any posts sent subsequent to mine should only be posts which agree with my viewpoints or which not only agree with my viewpoints but which also pay me compliments for suaveness, debonairness, sophistication, intelligence and discernment (oh, and my handsomeness.)

 

In fact, I am so certain that my modest proposal will be enacted into a forum rule by Groundspeak that I can say in advance, with confidence: Thank you all for doing the needful and for following this commonsense rule from this moment onward!

 

I agree. After Vinny and Sue have spoken there is nothing to do but get down on our knees and bow before the all knowing. Although an alien I was recently talking said "Vinny doesn't know about all of us!"

[+TrailGators]

I would split puzzle caches from mystery caches and give them their own category.

[+Star*Hopper]

"A regular podcast, blog, or forum post from Jeremy or a spokesperson from Groundspeak that details "what's on Groundspeak's mind" as it relates to the direction of Geocaching and an occasional specific discussion of some of these suggestions that come up again and again in this forum. "

 

I like that one....A LOT!!

 

If nothing else, it'd provide an opportunity for input that might be helpful (thru concensus) in shaping new 'policy' or direction, with at least an idea of how reactions might run, beforehand. Not every idea is a good one, & 'outside thought' usually makes it easier to impliment effective policy first-time-thru rather than making adjustments (or trying to) for bad decisions, later.

 

Not saying they don't already, but can't help but think it would also foster the concept of TPTB really caring for their membership. 'Advisements from above' would just make it more visible.

 

My 2¢,

~*

[+Team GeoBlast]

"A regular podcast, blog, or forum post from Jeremy or a spokesperson from Groundspeak that details "what's on Groundspeak's mind" as it relates to the direction of Geocaching and an occasional specific discussion of some of these suggestions that come up again and again in this forum. "

 

I like that one....A LOT!!

 

If nothing else, it'd provide an opportunity for input that might be helpful (thru concensus) in shaping new 'policy' or direction, with at least an idea of how reactions might run, beforehand. Not every idea is a good one, & 'outside thought' usually makes it easier to impliment effective policy first-time-thru rather than making adjustments (or trying to) for bad decisions, later.

 

Not saying they don't already, but can't help but think it would also foster the concept of TPTB really caring for their membership. 'Advisements from above' would just make it more visible.

 

My 2¢,

~*

 

Input on policy would be great but I'd actually be content if they just picked a few repeat topics that continually come up in the forums and officially responded to them. It seems like a lot of the topic of conversation here are repeated over and over again because an official position is not known or available.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I'd like to see a new size category - NANO: Any container less than, volume-wise, half the size of a 35mm cannister.

Agreed, almost.

Until they do I propose every one sticks a pencil stub in with the log and list it as a small.

Adjunctive: Eliminate the 'Unknown' size category. Cache submissions would not be approved (couldn't even be submitted) without a size checkoff block being checked.

It wont work, people will just check a false size if they wish to hide the true size. Unless..........

 

~~~~~~~~~

I would like to see a user rerating system for size, difficulty and terrain.

That way, eventually incorrect sizes would be corrected along with over and under estimated D&T.

[+Isonzo Karst]

eliminate the ALR caches

 

now there's an idea.......

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Not saying they don't already, but can't help but think it would also foster the concept of TPTB really caring for their membership. 'Advisements from above' would just make it more visible.

Silence often speaks volumes!

 

Mostly it says, I believe, "They're adults, they'll figure it out, we don't need to babysit the game".

[+Team GeoBlast]

Not saying they don't already, but can't help but think it would also foster the concept of TPTB really caring for their membership. 'Advisements from above' would just make it more visible.

Silence often speaks volumes!

 

Mostly it says, I believe, "They're adults, they'll figure it out, we don't need to babysit the game".

 

Although the above quote was offered up by the OP and not me, I am interested in the line of discussion. I don't think too many people are going to support constant manipulation, or baby sitting, as you describe it. However, people like to feel included and informed in things that they are invested in. Silence to some says; "we really don't care."

 

It seems to me that communication on current issues is harder to come by of late and some forum discussions become circular and full of unsupported conjecture. You used to find a quote here and there from Jeremy in the forum that offered insight into issues like why some features were added and some that seem to be asked for constantly don't make the cut. Not only do I think a regular "town hall type address" would help move the discussion along in the forums and it would promote loyalty to the game.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Team GeoBlast

[Tennessee Bow Hunter]

...The end of the Premium Caches...

I agree with this totally. Geocaching should be free in all aspects. That is the way it started and the way it was intended to be. I hate seeing a cache labeled "for premium members only". What is the purpose?

[+Kit Fox]

...The end of the Premium Caches...

I agree with this totally. Geocaching should be free in all aspects. That is the way it started and the way it was intended to be. I hate seeing a cache labeled "for premium members only". What is the purpose?

 

To help pay the bills at Groundspeak. To pay for bandwith, and to support site upgrades. Somebody has to pay for those geocachers who refuse to pay for their entertainment. Not everyone can be on welfare.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

All I really want for Christmas is an Attribute for BYOP and an Attribute for Tweezers.

Thank you, Santa.

[+wimseyguy]

Why not just carry them all the time? It's not like they add a lot of weight to your pack.

In fact the only truly useful item I have ever traded for from a cache is the tweezers I carry.

Edited November 29, 2008 by wimseyguy

[+Zop]

All I really want for Christmas is an Attribute for BYOP and an Attribute for Tweezers.

Thank you, Santa.

 

I learned long ago to always have a writing implement of some sort and my mini swiss with me while caching.

[+The Find Its]

more bacon.

 

MMMM.... Bacon....

[+TrailGators]

...The end of the Premium Caches...

I agree with this totally. Geocaching should be free in all aspects. That is the way it started and the way it was intended to be. I hate seeing a cache labeled "for premium members only". What is the purpose?

 

To help pay the bills at Groundspeak. To pay for bandwith, and to support site upgrades. Somebody has to pay for those geocachers who refuse to pay for their entertainment. Not everyone can be on welfare.

99% free isn't good enough for some people. A PMO cache is what got me to start paying.

 

Back to the topic: I would give paying members more cool benefits!

Edited November 29, 2008 by TrailGators

[Clan Riffster]

Geocaching should be free in all aspects. I hate seeing a cache labeled "for premium members only". What is the purpose?

I know on those occasions when I label a cache PMO, I do it to agitate the entitlement junkies.

 

I keep waiting to overhear this at an event:

"How DARE they spend millions of dollars creating, developing, upgrading and maintaining thier website, then charge a FEE for premium services!

The NERVE of those guys! Everything should be FREE!!! Talk about corporate greed!! First it's Starbucks, now it's Groundspeak!

What's Washington State coming to, anyway?!"

 

Edit to get back on topic: I'd get Jeremy to scoop up some of that bailout $$$ Congress is slinging around. Give everyone a shiny new Colorado or PN-40.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Clan Riffster

[+Ed & Julie]

I would like to see the .10 mile rule bumped up to .5 miles between caches.

 

This would eliminate the need some cachers have to plant micro power trails involving every road sign and bridge rail in the county, and would cut down on the saturation we are experiencing.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I would like to see the .10 mile rule bumped up to .5 miles between caches.

 

This would eliminate the need some cachers have to plant micro power trails involving every road sign and bridge rail in the county, and would cut down on the saturation we are experiencing.

 

There's a park in my area that's used the .10 to plant regulars throughout a park. There's a couple micros thrown in at the middle point to make you think. It's really a fantastic run. I adopted an older regular cache in this park so it was really nice to see this whole big run encompass this great existing cache and attract people to this wonderful environmental park.

 

But it could've gone the other way. We could've had a micro danging from a tree every .10 mile.

 

So the problem here isn't saturation, it's what's saturating. And we're back to the micro argument. And, yes, I do understand what you're saying and actually agree. I just don't see .10 to .50 being the answer when there are people out there who are doing it right.

[+Too Tall John]

Tell me this: How exactly does a policy that addresses attaching anything to a utility structure not apply to a geocache being attached to the structure?

When the items aren't actually attached to the 'structure', the policy related to attachments to the structures does not apply.

How do you propose hiding a micro on a utility pole? Magnets, velcro, nails are all ways of attaching. Perhaps you want to drill a hole it can set in? Edited November 30, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Tell me this: How exactly does a policy that addresses attaching anything to a utility structure not apply to a geocache being attached to the structure?

When the items aren't actually attached to the 'structure', the policy related to attachments to the structures does not apply.

How do you propose hiding a micro to a utility pole? Magnets, velcro, nails are all ways of attaching. Perhaps you want to drill a hole it can set in?

Lots of ways! The most notable is to drive a pipe into the ground beside the pole. Use orange or blue PVC and it looks like it belongs there. Drop in a cache attached to a fishing bobber, tell cachers to bring water but you don't have to tell them why (to float the cache up to the top). It's 'on the pole' but not attached.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I think Groundspeak should mail you a cookie of your favourite flavour every time you move a TB along.

 

This will encourage people to move TBs instead of sabotaging, stealing, forgetting, or not logging them.

[+TrailGators]

I would like to see the .10 mile rule bumped up to .5 miles between caches.

 

This would eliminate the need some cachers have to plant micro power trails involving every road sign and bridge rail in the county, and would cut down on the saturation we are experiencing.

 

There's a park in my area that's used the .10 to plant regulars throughout a park. There's a couple micros thrown in at the middle point to make you think. It's really a fantastic run. I adopted an older regular cache in this park so it was really nice to see this whole big run encompass this great existing cache and attract people to this wonderful environmental park.

 

But it could've gone the other way. We could've had a micro danging from a tree every .10 mile.

 

So the problem here isn't saturation, it's what's saturating. And we're back to the micro argument. And, yes, I do understand what you're saying and actually agree. I just don't see .10 to .50 being the answer when there are people out there who are doing it right.

There is a practical reason for doing this. It helps to ensure that we don't push things too far with parks. I'm sure we'd all rather have a few good quality caches in a park, then to have caching banned in that park because cachers overdo it someday. The more cache you have the more chance the rangers will notice collateral damage. Parks out here don't like people going off trail. Some people don't read the cache page telling them not to go off trail. Now some parks out here are imposing $300+ fines for getting caught off trail. So I think this is a good idea for some areas.

[puddin' trucker]

Any cache that has not had a find in 1 year should be flagged so a reviewer can check on it. If there are multiple DNF's and the cache owner isn't maintaining it or isn't even actively geocaching anymore, then the reviewer should archive it. If any local cachers don't like this idea, then they should "unofficially" adopt the cache and help maintain it.

[marikun]

Change? Make the ClayJar rating system mandatory.

 

If it replaces the current system, no. Personally I think the ClayJar system is flawed, especially for urban caches and whatnot.