A push towards weeding out old caches?

September 9, 2015

I just read in the release notes about the new automated notifications to be sent regarding caches that may need "attention" (I actually commented there, but decided this was a more appropriate venue).

I much prefer this passive method of notification over the heavy-handed approach taken recently by our local reviewer of simply disabling caches when they reach 3 DNF's, regardless of the D/T rating. It was explained to me that this is the suggested course of action from those in charge. They don't have time to deal with issues as taxing as "Challenge Caches" due to the limited time resources, but they're now expected to serve as cache police in determining which hides require immediate owner attention? I believe there's already mechanisms in place for such a determination... they're referred to as "Needs Maintenance" and "Needs Archived" logs, created by people actually in the vicinity of the caches.

Perhaps the idea is to archive as many old caches as possible to make room for newer hides, as that appears to be the intent. And I'll be happy to oblige if things continue down the current path.

7.5k · September 9, 2015

I don't see it that way. It makes good business sense to have a database full of viable caches with active owners. There's too many abandoned caches in the database. Most of them owned by cachers who have left the game, many owned by active geocachers who find caches weekly/monthly but never intend to re-visit and maintain what they've hidden. Many finders will not post a DNF, most will not post an NM, very few (almost no one) will post an NA (especially on caches owned by active owners). More and more people are propping up abandoned caches. More and more people are throwing down containers. It's getting out of hand in many areas. Many "old" caches are throwdowns.

Edited September 9, 2015 by L0ne.R

September 9, 2015

I just read in the release notes about the new automated notifications to be sent regarding caches that may need "attention" (I actually commented there, but decided this was a more appropriate venue).

I much prefer this passive method of notification over the heavy-handed approach taken recently by our local reviewer of simply disabling caches when they reach 3 DNF's, regardless of the D/T rating. It was explained to me that this is the suggested course of action from those in charge. They don't have time to deal with issues as taxing as "Challenge Caches" due to the limited time resources, but they're now expected to serve as cache police in determining which hides require immediate owner attention? I believe there's already mechanisms in place for such a determination... they're referred to as "Needs Maintenance" and "Needs Archived" logs, created by people actually in the vicinity of the caches.

Perhaps the idea is to archive as many old caches as possible to make room for newer hides, as that appears to be the intent. And I'll be happy to oblige if things continue down the current path.

Not the greatest idea if you ask me, actually its a terrible idea. Some cache owners dont check the cache page every week or may go on vacation... Can you reply to me with the link of the page please?

22k · September 9, 2015

1. There is a general and growing problem with cache maintenance which, depending on the local area, is not being addressed fully by cache owners and their local community.

2. Reviewers are increasingly finding themselves in the position of enforcing the Cache Maintenance guideline in order to bridge that gap.

3. There's nothing specific about "old caches." Any cache with a maintenance problem is a problem. There are many old caches that don't need any maintenance. They have active owners, are hidden in ammo boxes or lock 'n locks, etc. There are many new caches that need maintenance. They have tiny wet log scrolls and the owners don't respond to DNF and NM logs.

4. The new email reminders are a great new addition to help with the focus on quality caches. The emails are in addition to, and not in substitution for, activities by local Community Volunteer Reviewers to ensure a quality geocaching experience in their review territories.

September 9, 2015

1. There is a general and growing problem with cache maintenance which, depending on the local area, is not being addressed fully by cache owners and their local community.

2. Reviewers are increasingly finding themselves in the position of enforcing the Cache Maintenance guideline in order to bridge that gap.

3. There's nothing specific about "old caches." Any cache with a maintenance problem is a problem. There are many old caches that don't need any maintenance. They have active owners, are hidden in ammo boxes or lock 'n locks, etc. There are many new caches that need maintenance. They have tiny wet log scrolls and the owners don't respond to DNF and NM logs.

4. The new email reminders are a great new addition to help with the focus on quality caches. The emails are in addition to, and not in substitution for, activities by local Community Volunteer Reviewers to ensure a quality geocaching experience in their review territories.

+1

Completely agree here. I'm tired of abandoned caches taking up spaces, too. Folks resist change--but a hobby like Geocaching HAS to change over the years. As caches age, as more people join, as the numbers of caches grow, it's completely natural that the number of abandoned and unmaintained caches will grow. Shedding off dead cells is part of growing.

13.8k · September 9, 2015

I don't see it that way. It makes good business sense to have a database full of viable caches with active owners. There's too many abandoned caches in the database. Most of them owned by cachers who have left the game, many owned by active geocachers who find caches weekly/monthly but never intend to re-visit and maintain what they've hidden. Many finders will not post a DNF, most will not post an NM, very few (almost no one) will post an NA (especially on caches owned by active owners). More and more people are propping up abandoned caches. More and more people are throwing down containers. It's getting out of hand in many areas. Many "old" caches are throwdowns.

If the throwdowns (people are still signing something...), and lack of folks placing NA, NM, and DNF we've seen are the same as you describe elsewhere, won't many of those old, or abandoned caches just fly under the weedin' out radar as usual anyway?

September 9, 2015

I see the need for keeping things current, but what it's doing in our area is frustrating cache owners to the point where they are just opting out entirely. You're going to alienate people when you implement a "standardized" approach to something so subjective. Personally, there's only so many times I'm going to check on a 3 difficulty cache just because a handful of cachers with 1 or 2 finds apiece have logged DNF's before I finally decide to pull the plug. That time is quickly approaching.

As an example; I'm a responsible cache owner, a cache has been in place, unmolested, since 2009, and I *DO* check on it as regularly as I feel the need to. I don't always log an owner maintenance. Why, then, should a reviewer (or an automated bot) feel the need to "remind" me that several people have found the cache difficult to find? Or worse yet, disable the cache and prevent ANYONE from finding it until I prove to them (someone, I might add, in a different county with no first-hand knowledge of the cache whatsoever) that yes; the cache is indeed in place and ready to be found?

Yes - I can easily check on the cache and post a follow-up. Or I could easily log a bogus "owner maintenance" and clear the "needs maintenance" attribute (which they've also been nice enough to prevent direct cache owner access to in the list of attributes). Which is easier? And how exactly did this solve the perceived "problem"?

Edited September 9, 2015 by Team Monkeyboy

September 9, 2015

Can you reply to me with the link of the page please?

It's in the latest release notes...

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=334834

but I see you've already found it.

2.4k · September 9, 2015

As an example; I'm a responsible cache owner, a cache has been in place, unmolested, since 2009, and I *DO* check on it as regularly as I feel the need to. I don't always log an owner maintenance. Why, then, should a reviewer (or an automated bot) feel the need to "remind" me that several people have found the cache difficult to find? Or worse yet, disable the cache and prevent ANYONE from finding it until I prove to them (someone, I might add, in a different county with no first-hand knowledge of the cache whatsoever) that yes; the cache is indeed in place and ready to be found?

It sounds like you're complaining more about the normal actions of reviewers rather than the new email reminder. The email doesn't disable the listing.

Why NOT log OM logs every time you visit? The reviewers and other cachers cannot read your mind, and don't know you were just out there last week, unless you do so. :unsure:

6k · September 9, 2015

Or worse yet, disable the cache and prevent ANYONE from finding it until I prove to them (someone, I might add, in a different county with no first-hand knowledge of the cache whatsoever) that yes; the cache is indeed in place and ready to be found?

How a notification email will do such action?...

It is just a personal reminder to the owner.

22k · September 9, 2015

Why NOT log OM logs every time you visit? The reviewers and other cachers cannot read your mind, and don't know you were just out there last week, unless you do so.

True dat. As a reviewer operating in human mode, once I see a recent Owner Maintenance log on a cache that comes up in my filters as potentially problematic, I quickly move on to the next listing.

In addition, there's now a roomful of hamsters spinning their wheels at Geocaching HQ, looking for caches that might trigger one of the new reminder email notifications. The hamsters can easily spot Owner Maintenance logs, whereas they cannot spot manually removed "Needs Maintenance" attributes.

September 9, 2015

It sounds like you're complaining more about the normal actions of reviewers rather than the new email reminder. The email doesn't disable the listing.

I'm complaining about the entire process they're trying to implement of "automating" the policing of caches. That would include this new bot, the mandates from GC to crack down on "problematic" caches, the tools the reviewers use to spot those alleged "problem" caches, ect...

Why NOT log OM logs every time you visit? The reviewers and other cachers cannot read your mind, and don't know you were just out there last week, unless you do so.

I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business, which DOES NOT include harassing CO's simply because cachers can't find their hides (in most cases, hides that were placed with the sole purpose of being difficult to find)

I get that there are irresponsible cache owners that place their caches, only to promptly forget about them and never visit them again. There are cachers that quit the game and leave their old geotrash to clutter the landscape. There are cachers that have placed so many caches and stretched themselves so thin that they couldn't possibly keep up on their cache maintenance even if it were their full-time job. But there are other ways to address those issues - EFFECTIVE WAYS - that don't involve caches or CO's that have no business being involved.

Maybe take the terrain, history, difficulty, previous logs, etc... into consideration as well. Not something that could easily be automated.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Team Monkeyboy

22k · September 9, 2015

Maybe take the terrain, history, difficulty, previous logs, etc... into consideration as well. Not something that could easily be automated.

Or maybe both humans and hamsters are already doing that. Not perfectly, of course, but that is the plan.

15.4k · September 9, 2015

It is just a personal an automated reminder to the owner.

6k · September 9, 2015

It is just a personal an automated reminder to the owner.

Personal in the sense the it is for "owner eyes only", even sent by an app instead of a person.

PS: But please don't quote another person, altering what he wrote.

1.2k · September 9, 2015

I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business

How 'bout a little newsflash: it IS their business.

September 9, 2015

I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business

How 'bout a little newsflash: it IS their business.

+1

September 9, 2015

+2--it is their business.

And I think they are taking cache type and difficulty into account. Do have proof they aren't? Did you get a raft of emails or something?

5.7k · September 9, 2015

I don't see it that way. It makes good business sense to have a database full of viable caches with active owners. There's too many abandoned caches in the database. Most of them owned by cachers who have left the game, many owned by active geocachers who find caches weekly/monthly but never intend to re-visit and maintain what they've hidden. Many finders will not post a DNF, most will not post an NM, very few (almost no one) will post an NA (especially on caches owned by active owners). More and more people are propping up abandoned caches. More and more people are throwing down containers. It's getting out of hand in many areas. Many "old" caches are throwdowns.

I agree that the data base needs purged of those old ownerless community maintained listings to make room for new users and new listings.

From what I am reading in this thread tells me that revisiting our caches and posting Owner Maintaince on our listings will keep the emails away.

3.7k · September 9, 2015

I don't see it that way. It makes good business sense to have a database full of viable caches with active owners. There's too many abandoned caches in the database. Most of them owned by cachers who have left the game, many owned by active geocachers who find caches weekly/monthly but never intend to re-visit and maintain what they've hidden. Many finders will not post a DNF, most will not post an NM, very few (almost no one) will post an NA (especially on caches owned by active owners). More and more people are propping up abandoned caches. More and more people are throwing down containers. It's getting out of hand in many areas. Many "old" caches are throwdowns.

I agree that the data base needs purged of those old ownerless community maintained listings to make room for new users and new listings.

From what I am reading in this thread tells me that revisiting our caches and posting Owner Maintaince on our listings will keep the emails away.

Well...much like folks shy away from posting the "Needs Archived" and "Needs Maintenance" logs, I think most folks think the OM log is for when actual maintenance is necessary. When I visit a cache that has not been found in a long while and there is nothing wrong with it, I'm sometimes hesitant to post a maintenance log since I didn't really have to do anything and saying I performed maintenance is almost like acknowledging there may potentially be problems with it. I generally still do so, stating in the log that no maintenance was necessary but that I came by to check and confirm it's in good shape...

Sometimes I just wish there was a box to check that was an indicator that I checked and verified it's still there instead of having to post a log.

5.7k · September 9, 2015

I don't see it that way. It makes good business sense to have a database full of viable caches with active owners. There's too many abandoned caches in the database. Most of them owned by cachers who have left the game, many owned by active geocachers who find caches weekly/monthly but never intend to re-visit and maintain what they've hidden. Many finders will not post a DNF, most will not post an NM, very few (almost no one) will post an NA (especially on caches owned by active owners). More and more people are propping up abandoned caches. More and more people are throwing down containers. It's getting out of hand in many areas. Many "old" caches are throwdowns.

I have used the OM log sparingly in the past, only after I temp disable listings after a DNF. Some of my 5/5 DT caches get DNF's and they are in place, so maybe one or two times a year I may need to post a OM log. Usually I check my caches in the winter when the snakes and bees are not present. I hope that GS will take that in consideration that many of us geocachers here in the South wait out the PI, snakes, bees, ticks, and chiggers.

From what I am reading in this thread tells me that revisiting our caches and posting Owner Maintaince on our listings will keep the emails away.

Well...much like folks shy away from posting the "Needs Archived" and "Needs Maintenance" logs, I think most folks think the OM log is for when actual maintenance is necessary. When I visit a cache that has not been found in a long while and there is nothing wrong with it, I'm sometimes hesitant to post a maintenance log since I didn't really have to do anything and saying I performed maintenance is almost like acknowledging there may potentially be problems with it. I generally still do so, stating in the log that no maintenance was necessary but that I came by to check and confirm it's in good shape...

Sometimes I just wish there was a box to check that was an indicator that I checked and verified it's still there instead of having to post a log.

I have used the OM log sparingly, usually only after I re-enable a cache after temp disabling it.

Hopefully GS will take in consideration that many of us geocachers here in the South wait out the PI, snakes, bees, ticks, and chiggers. :laughing:

Edited September 9, 2015 by Manville Possum Hunters

1.9k · September 9, 2015

Why NOT log OM logs every time you visit? The reviewers and other cachers cannot read your mind, and don't know you were just out there last week, unless you do so.

I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business, which DOES NOT include harassing CO's simply because cachers can't find their hides (in most cases, hides that were placed with the sole purpose of being difficult to find)

Yep, and those quickly become annoying thorns in my side, and on my personal ignore list. If there have been several DNFs as well as my own, and no word from the CO indicating that it has been checked, I'm not wasting time and gas to go look again until someone finds it or the owner chimes in that it is still there.

Owner maintenance just says, yes, I checked, it is still there, all is well, maybe I wiped it down or added swag, come on out. No shame there, and I know that the owner does care.

22k · September 9, 2015

Why NOT log OM logs every time you visit? The reviewers and other cachers cannot read your mind, and don't know you were just out there last week, unless you do so.

I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business, which DOES NOT include harassing CO's simply because cachers can't find their hides (in most cases, hides that were placed with the sole purpose of being difficult to find)

Yep, and those quickly become annoying thorns in my side, and on my personal ignore list. If there have been several DNFs as well as my own, and no word from the CO indicating that it has been checked, I'm not wasting time and gas to go look again until someone finds it or the owner chimes in that it is still there.

Owner maintenance just says, yes, I checked, it is still there, all is well, maybe I wiped it down or added swag, come on out. No shame there, and I know that the owner does care.

Over the past few years, I've noticed a phenomenon that didn't used to happen: after a few DNF's, people just quit searching for the cache. The DNF's may have been from spring 2014, and then no logs of any kind after that. One explanation is people who filter out caches with recent DNF's in GSAK when planning a cache run or loading waypoints onto their GPS. There are so very many caches to search for -- why not concentrate on the ones where the most recent logs were "found its"?

An Owner Maintenance log can breathe life back into a listing like this. It doesn't need to be one week after the DNF's, but once you notice that nobody's looking for your cache anymore, maybe it's a good idea to check and leave an OM log?

13.8k · September 9, 2015

An Owner Maintenance log can breathe life back into a listing like this. It doesn't need to be one week after the DNF's, but once you notice that nobody's looking for your cache anymore, maybe it's a good idea to check and leave an OM log?

I can kinda understand that, but it seems like more pc, happy-happy, flowers and rainbows hand-holding to me.

We have a cache that wasn't attempted since '11.

Checked it after a fake logger and notes saying a group was heading here (that d/t grid thing...) after an event.

Still as clean and dry as when I placed it. I can spot it from the road, and can tell if its been moved.

Just recently we got a find on that lengthy paddle-to that read, "Had this on the list for along time but didn't go because wasn't sure if it was there . Then after the last group went and confirmed it was there and in good shape it was time to go..."

- This seemed odd to me.

He sure didn't email, or leave a cache page note, curious if it was still there...

Edited September 9, 2015 by cerberus1

5.3k · September 9, 2015

I don't think that this new policy will cause any mass archival of good old caches. I have ones still going for over ten years that I have never had to visit again.

But I do have a concern that it will further incentivize drive-up urban micros. The kind that require almost zero effort to check on. And I think that is a bad thing.

1.1k · September 9, 2015

...

Over the past few years, I've noticed a phenomenon that didn't used to happen: after a few DNF's, people just quit searching for the cache. The DNF's may have been from spring 2014, and then no logs of any kind after that. One explanation is people who filter out caches with recent DNF's in GSAK when planning a cache run or loading waypoints onto their GPS. There are so very many caches to search for -- why not concentrate on the ones where the most recent logs were "found its"?

An Owner Maintenance log can breathe life back into a listing like this. It doesn't need to be one week after the DNF's, but once you notice that nobody's looking for your cache anymore, maybe it's a good idea to check and leave an OM log?

Good point. OMs act like a pH balancer!

I don't use GSAK, but I am a lousy GC searcher -- the kind who first manually visits the GC page of every cache that I'm considering going after. No PQs for me! I only look for low D ratings. I also look at the latest logs. I do take into consideration whether the last 3 DNFs were from newbies. (Something that maybe the bots should do if they aren't?)

But if I see even 2 DNFs from folks with a "significant number" of finds under their belts (subjective, and it depends on how lucky I feel), I'll pass it up. But if I see an OM log, that neutralizes the acidity of the DNFs. I'm liable to give it a try.

Edited September 9, 2015 by MountainWoods

13.8k · September 9, 2015

Sometimes I just wish there was a box to check that was an indicator that I checked and verified it's still there instead of having to post a log.

Yeah, I'm sorta there too.

Most of our lesser hides that had issues with the free muggle app are archived.

Our few remaining are lengthy walk, paddle, or climb.

We do maintenance, and temp disable 'em during the very busy rifle deer season.

Right now, our logs already are around half the total of all others.

Adding OM logs here-and-there (to me) seems like I'm now begging for someone to hit 'em...

"Hello, it's here... Hello...Helllooo ?..." :laughing:

19k · September 10, 2015

I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business

How 'bout a little newsflash: it IS their business.

"We're just a listing service." For ten years we've been told that, and told that maintaining our (*OUR*) caches was our own business.

Now, I have no problem, I guess, with an emailed reminder, assuming that the algorithm is smart enough, but I think what I'm hearing in this thread is that the emailed reminders are just the beginning... the tip of the iceberg, and that eventuallyall caches will be policed by archivebots rather than humans.

19k · September 10, 2015

Why NOT log OM logs every time you visit? The reviewers and other cachers cannot read your mind, and don't know you were just out there last week, unless you do so.

I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business, which DOES NOT include harassing CO's simply because cachers can't find their hides (in most cases, hides that were placed with the sole purpose of being difficult to find)

Yep, and those quickly become annoying thorns in my side, and on my personal ignore list. If there have been several DNFs as well as my own, and no word from the CO indicating that it has been checked, I'm not wasting time and gas to go look again until someone finds it or the owner chimes in that it is still there.

Owner maintenance just says, yes, I checked, it is still there, all is well, maybe I wiped it down or added swag, come on out. No shame there, and I know that the owner does care.

It is entirely your prerogative to ignore any type of cache that doesn't bring you enjoyment and entertainment. That is your business. But some people do like those caches... some people go out of their way for them.

I wonder how many automated email reminders Fuzzy B is going to get on his infamous A Real Challenge (Muther's Challenge) http://coord.info/GC1764C

7.3k · September 10, 2015

Sometimes I just wish there was a box to check that was an indicator that I checked and verified it's still there instead of having to post a log.

Yeah, I'm sorta there too.

Most of our lesser hides that had issues with the free muggle app are archived.

Our few remaining are lengthy walk, paddle, or climb.

We do maintenance, and temp disable 'em during the very busy rifle deer season.

Right now, our logs already are around half the total of all others.

Adding OM logs here-and-there (to me) seems like I'm now begging for someone to hit 'em...

"Hello, it's here... Hello...Helllooo ?..."

I know that feeling.

2 stage multi, along a well-worn trail, close to civilization...and no one will seek it out.

I laughed when I read this "found it" log:

When I read the only 5 logs on my GPSr, 4 of them were maintenance notes from Pup Patrol, so that also prompted me to go for a multi as I knew it would be in good shape.

We constantly check the cache, and post Owner Maintenance logs, although nothing has changed since we first placed it in 2008.

No legitimate logs posted between the dates of these OM logs:

Owner Maintenance 04/26/2013

Owner Maintenance 03/23/2014

B.

22k · September 10, 2015

I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business

How 'bout a little newsflash: it IS their business.

"We're just a listing service." For ten years we've been told that, and told that maintaining our (*OUR*) caches was our own business.

Now, I have no problem, I guess, with an emailed reminder, assuming that the algorithm is smart enough, but I think what I'm hearing in this thread is that the emailed reminders are just the beginning... the tip of the iceberg, and that eventuallyall caches will be policed by archivebots rather than humans.

I wouldn't draw that conclusion from my posts or from other reviewers or lackeys who have commented. It may be that we're not communicating clearly enough.

The Community Volunteer Reviewers were active participants in the discussions leading up to these new emails. First, we've been adamant about retaining the human eye of a reviewer to look at a cache before it's disabled or archived. The fact that a reminder email was sent is an additional data point to evaluate as part of our activities to ensure cache quality.

Second, we haven't heard of any plans to enlarge the iceberg to the point of "policing by archivebots." To the contrary, discussions are focused on improving the methodology used for determining whether and when a reminder email should be sent.

I hope these assurances are helpful to you.

22k · September 10, 2015

I wonder how many automated email reminders Fuzzy B is going to get on his infamous A Real Challenge (Muther's Challenge) http://coord.info/GC1764C

If the answer was "none so far, and none in the forseeable future," would that be evidence that maybe the process for sending the emails is working well? Not perfectly, but well?

A teeny tiny fraction of cache owners have received these emails so far.

7.5k · September 10, 2015

Sometimes I just wish there was a box to check that was an indicator that I checked and verified it's still there instead of having to post a log.

Yeah, I'm sorta there too.

Most of our lesser hides that had issues with the free muggle app are archived.

Our few remaining are lengthy walk, paddle, or climb.

We do maintenance, and temp disable 'em during the very busy rifle deer season.

Right now, our logs already are around half the total of all others.

Adding OM logs here-and-there (to me) seems like I'm now begging for someone to hit 'em...

"Hello, it's here... Hello...Helllooo ?..."

I know that feeling.

2 stage multi, along a well-worn trail, close to civilization...and no one will seek it out.

I laughed when I read this "found it" log:

When I read the only 5 logs on my GPSr, 4 of them were maintenance notes from Pup Patrol, so that also prompted me to go for a multi as I knew it would be in good shape.

We constantly check the cache, and post Owner Maintenance logs, although nothing has changed since we first placed it in 2008.

No legitimate logs posted between the dates of these OM logs:

Owner Maintenance 04/26/2013

Owner Maintenance 03/23/2014

B.

Same here. We have a couple of multis, an older cache, and one that requires a bit of a walk, they don't get found much anymore. I post an OM once or twice a year when I check on them.

My guess is, if cache owners don't like to use the OM because the cache was in good shape, a Note log would suffice.

Edited September 10, 2015 by L0ne.R

September 10, 2015

I wonder how many automated email reminders Fuzzy B is going to get on his infamous A Real Challenge (Muther's Challenge) http://coord.info/GC1764C

If the answer was "none so far, and none in the forseeable future," would that be evidence that maybe the process for sending the emails is working well? Not perfectly, but well?

A teeny tiny fraction of cache owners have received these emails so far.

I received one in July, 4 days after someone logged a NM on one of my caches, due to the log being full.

I didn't mind the reminder, but I was a bit peeved that it was sent after only 4 days.

7.4k · September 10, 2015

These emails only started going out this month, so you could not have received one in July. Are you possibly talking about a log from a reviewer instead?

September 10, 2015

These emails only started going out this month, so you could not have received one in July. Are you possibly talking about a log from a reviewer instead?

Here it is, seems to be an earlier version.

Perhaps it found the keys to the cage and escaped?

BlackRose67, one or more of your geocaches need maintenance

Geocaching <Geocaching@communication.geocaching.com> Unsubscribe

Jul 9

Hello BlackRose67,

One or more of your geocaches have a "Needs Maintenance" log. Geocachers often report this when the logbook is full, the container is damaged or if the contents are damp. Check the log for more details.

When you visit your geocache to do any required maintenance, here are a few reminders:

- Replace the container if the current one is in bad condition

- Make sure that that your container is still watertight

- If any of the contents are wet, dry them off or replace them

- Check that there is enough space left in your logbook

After you visit your geocache and fix any issues, be sure to add an 'Owner Maintenance" log. This gets rid of the 'Needs Maintenance' attribute and informs geocachers that your geocache is good to go. Learn how to do this here.

Thanks and Happy Geocaching,

Geocaching HQ

7.4k · September 10, 2015

Ah, that was a separate email that was sent out to cache owners specifically for caches with the Needs Maintenance attribute turned on.

September 10, 2015

I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business, which DOES NOT include harassing CO's simply because cachers can't find their hides (in most cases, hides that were placed with the sole purpose of being difficult to find)

Why place a cache for the "sole purpose of being difficult to find"?

The goal of the game is to find caches. A hide should only be as difficult as needed to keep the cache from being muggled, and if it is likely to be muggled because it isn't difficult to find, perhaps it shouldn't be there.

14k · September 10, 2015

I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business, which DOES NOT include harassing CO's simply because cachers can't find their hides (in most cases, hides that were placed with the sole purpose of being difficult to find)

Why place a cache for the "sole purpose of being difficult to find"?

The goal of the game is to find caches. A hide should only be as difficult as needed to keep the cache from being muggled, and if it is likely to be muggled because it isn't difficult to find, perhaps it shouldn't be there.

Some people like the challenge of trying to find a cache that is difficult to find. If all caches were only as difficult as needed to keep it from being muggled, those that like difficult hides wouldn't enjoy the game as much. Maybe a lot, if not most geocachers would prefer caches to be as easy as possible, for for some that might become boring very quickly.

2.7k · September 10, 2015

I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business, which DOES NOT include harassing CO's simply because cachers can't find their hides (in most cases, hides that were placed with the sole purpose of being difficult to find)

Why place a cache for the "sole purpose of being difficult to find"?

The goal of the game is to find caches. A hide should only be as difficult as needed to keep the cache from being muggled, and if it is likely to be muggled because it isn't difficult to find, perhaps it shouldn't be there.

Anyone can grab the low-hanging fruit, but the sweetest plums are at the treetop.

The difficulty ratings are there to accommodate different types of finders and hides. I don't smile when I find a cache under a lamppost skirt (D1.5). Finally finding that one that had me searching an area for half an hour or more on several different days gives me a great sense of satisfaction (D3.5 +).

13.8k · September 10, 2015

If a hide should only be as difficult as needed to keep the cache from being muggled, I woulda quit by now.

15.4k · September 10, 2015

I don't smile when I find a cache under a lamppost skirt (D1.5). Finally finding that one that had me searching an area for half an hour or more on several different days gives me a great sense of satisfaction (D3.5 +).

+1

An ammo can at the base of a tree? Meh... Any cache under a UPS? Meh... Any cache hidden in "the obvious spot"? Meh...

But a D4 camouflage cache hidden in plain sight, that I might even touch multiple times before realizing that it is the cache, that I might DNF multiple times before finally finding it? Those deserve Favorite points.

4.6k · September 10, 2015

Why place a cache for the "sole purpose of being difficult to find"?

Why not? :huh:

5.7k · September 10, 2015

Why place a cache for the "sole purpose of being difficult to find"?

The goal of the game is to find caches. A hide should only be as difficult as needed to keep the cache from being muggled, and if it is likely to be muggled because it isn't difficult to find, perhaps it shouldn't be there.

My goal is to hide challenging caches to keep the game interesting, and those are the type caches that keep me interested in playing. It's not about the numbers to all of us.

3.7k · September 11, 2015

I gotta admit, it's awfully disappointing to walk up to GZ and just see an ammo can propped up against the base of a tree or crammed under a bush. Yeah, it's an ammo can...but there was almost zero challenge in locating the cache. At least make me work for it!

:anitongue:

September 11, 2015

I gotta admit, it's awfully disappointing to walk up to GZ and just see an ammo can propped up against the base of a tree or crammed under a bush. Yeah, it's an ammo can...but there was almost zero challenge in locating the cache. At least make me work for it!

Well, except when you've hiked over 10 miles through breathtaking wilderness to get to said ammo can. Then the ammo can under a tree is just right. Would that count as making you work for it?

September 11, 2015

Why place a cache for the "sole purpose of being difficult to find"?

The goal of the game is to find caches. A hide should only be as difficult as needed to keep the cache from being muggled, and if it is likely to be muggled because it isn't difficult to find, perhaps it shouldn't be there.

I can't tell from the context of your message, but I truly hope that was sarcasm. If not, then we're playing two entirely different games.

September 11, 2015

Yeah, and with over 2 million caches world wide, folks can indeed play 2 entirely different games, can't they?

7.5k · September 11, 2015

1441992791[/url]' post='5536727']
1441891740[/url]' post='5536477']
Why place a cache for the "sole purpose of being difficult to find"?

The goal of the game is to find caches. A hide should only be as difficult as needed to keep the cache from being muggled, and if it is likely to be muggled because it isn't difficult to find, perhaps it shouldn't be there.

I can't tell from the context of your message, but I truly hope that was sarcasm. If not, then we're playing two entirely different games.

I wondering if what HH242 is referring to are cache owners who hide caches with the sole purpose of stumping finders. The needle in a haystack type of cache. A tan coloured button nano in sand. A film canister under a field of rocks with the hint, 'under a rock.'

15.4k · September 11, 2015

Yeah, and with over 2 million caches world wide, folks can indeed play 2 entirely different games, can't they?

Only 2 entirely different games?

A push towards weeding out old caches?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment