Consecutive Needs Maintenance finds.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I generally remove any cache with the last two logs DNF from my GPX file. The last logs were five finds and one note. I found the top of a bison tube hanging on a fence. Rechecked the logs. The last five finds were finds on the top of the bison tube. No log to sign. To me that is a DNF. If they'd logged their DNFs, I wouldn't have bothered looking for it! Then I noticed it had two NM logs dating to last October. Now it has three NMs!

 

At which point should a NA be reported rather than an NM? Is this up to the individual cacher? I ask because today I searched for two cache's. I found the first one, signed the log and logged it online. The second was no where to be found. I did not research the online logs prior to trying to find it. There are 7 consecutive DNF's before I posted mine going back to July 2015, mine makes it 8 DNF's. Other cacher's and myself are of the same opinion mother nature displaced/misplaced this cache. The area it is supposed to be is maintained by the city, an entrance to a city park. They have not done much to maintain or repair what needs to be done and as such any cache that was hidden in the structure was likely "washed" away or moved by water or dirt/rocks and mud running through holes and openings in the blocks.

 

I was considering reporting an NM but am now thinking I should report an NA instead. Is this at my discretion as it would be any other geocacher's?

 

That's a much more difficult question. The cache I was looking for had five finds on the top of the cache and two NMs. Now it has three. It is on my watch list. If nothing is done in a month, I will post the NA.

In the same park is an evil nano hidden on a park bench. It has 27 finds and 33 DNFs. The longest streak was four DNFs, including a cache with 18000 finds. Would you put an NA after that streak of four DNFs? Then you would be wrong. You cannot even be sure it needs NM. How recently was the CO on-line? If the CO has been inactive for years, then I might consider sending an e-mail to the reviewer bringing it to his/her attention.

[+noncentric]

I generally remove any cache with the last two logs DNF from my GPX file. The last logs were five finds and one note. I found the top of a bison tube hanging on a fence. Rechecked the logs. The last five finds were finds on the top of the bison tube. No log to sign. To me that is a DNF. If they'd logged their DNFs, I wouldn't have bothered looking for it! Then I noticed it had two NM logs dating to last October. Now it has three NMs!

 

At which point should a NA be reported rather than an NM? Is this up to the individual cacher? I ask because today I searched for two cache's. I found the first one, signed the log and logged it online. The second was no where to be found. I did not research the online logs prior to trying to find it. There are 7 consecutive DNF's before I posted mine going back to July 2015, mine makes it 8 DNF's. Other cacher's and myself are of the same opinion mother nature displaced/misplaced this cache. The area it is supposed to be is maintained by the city, an entrance to a city park. They have not done much to maintain or repair what needs to be done and as such any cache that was hidden in the structure was likely "washed" away or moved by water or dirt/rocks and mud running through holes and openings in the blocks.

 

I was considering reporting an NM but am now thinking I should report an NA instead. Is this at my discretion as it would be any other geocacher's?

Somewhat a judgement call. If the cache owner appears to be active, and by active I mean, has logged in within the last 1-2 months, then I'd go with an NM log. If the cache owner appears to be gone, I'd probably go straight to the NA and get the local Reviewers attention.

I agree that it's a judgment call.

Personally, I would log an NM and then check back in a month. If the CO hadn't responded in that month, then an NA would seem appropriate.

 

For me, a last login date of 1-2 months wouldn't mean much. I've seen cases where the CO has logged geocaches in the past week, even though their profile's "last visit" date is much further out. The date in the profile is the last time they logged into the website and doesn't reflect when they last used the app. I've also seen a couple cases where the CO responded to an NM without having logged into the website, posting a Write Note log saying they'll check on the cache. Presumably, they are still reading the emails on their caches even if they're no longer 'active' cache finders. There was also a case where the CO logged a Temp Disable in June 2015, due to construction that blocked access to GZ, yet their profile showed a "last visit" date of February 2014. That person has logged almost 20 caches this year, while their "last visit" date is still Feb-2014.

[+Team_Vod]

I generally remove any cache with the last two logs DNF from my GPX file. The last logs were five finds and one note. I found the top of a bison tube hanging on a fence. Rechecked the logs. The last five finds were finds on the top of the bison tube. No log to sign. To me that is a DNF. If they'd logged their DNFs, I wouldn't have bothered looking for it! Then I noticed it had two NM logs dating to last October. Now it has three NMs!

 

At which point should a NA be reported rather than an NM? Is this up to the individual cacher? I ask because today I searched for two cache's. I found the first one, signed the log and logged it online. The second was no where to be found. I did not research the online logs prior to trying to find it. There are 7 consecutive DNF's before I posted mine going back to July 2015, mine makes it 8 DNF's. Other cacher's and myself are of the same opinion mother nature displaced/misplaced this cache. The area it is supposed to be is maintained by the city, an entrance to a city park. They have not done much to maintain or repair what needs to be done and as such any cache that was hidden in the structure was likely "washed" away or moved by water or dirt/rocks and mud running through holes and openings in the blocks.

 

I was considering reporting an NM but am now thinking I should report an NA instead. Is this at my discretion as it would be any other geocacher's?

 

That's a much more difficult question. The cache I was looking for had five finds on the top of the cache and two NMs. Now it has three. It is on my watch list. If nothing is done in a month, I will post the NA.

In the same park is an evil nano hidden on a park bench. It has 27 finds and 33 DNFs. The longest streak was four DNFs, including a cache with 18000 finds. Would you put an NA after that streak of four DNFs? Then you would be wrong. You cannot even be sure it needs NM. How recently was the CO on-line? If the CO has been inactive for years, then I might consider sending an e-mail to the reviewer bringing it to his/her attention.

 

Where do I find reviewer information?

[+noncentric]

I generally remove any cache with the last two logs DNF from my GPX file. The last logs were five finds and one note. I found the top of a bison tube hanging on a fence. Rechecked the logs. The last five finds were finds on the top of the bison tube. No log to sign. To me that is a DNF. If they'd logged their DNFs, I wouldn't have bothered looking for it! Then I noticed it had two NM logs dating to last October. Now it has three NMs!

 

At which point should a NA be reported rather than an NM? Is this up to the individual cacher? I ask because today I searched for two cache's. I found the first one, signed the log and logged it online. The second was no where to be found. I did not research the online logs prior to trying to find it. There are 7 consecutive DNF's before I posted mine going back to July 2015, mine makes it 8 DNF's. Other cacher's and myself are of the same opinion mother nature displaced/misplaced this cache. The area it is supposed to be is maintained by the city, an entrance to a city park. They have not done much to maintain or repair what needs to be done and as such any cache that was hidden in the structure was likely "washed" away or moved by water or dirt/rocks and mud running through holes and openings in the blocks.

 

I was considering reporting an NM but am now thinking I should report an NA instead. Is this at my discretion as it would be any other geocacher's?

 

That's a much more difficult question. The cache I was looking for had five finds on the top of the cache and two NMs. Now it has three. It is on my watch list. If nothing is done in a month, I will post the NA.

In the same park is an evil nano hidden on a park bench. It has 27 finds and 33 DNFs. The longest streak was four DNFs, including a cache with 18000 finds. Would you put an NA after that streak of four DNFs? Then you would be wrong. You cannot even be sure it needs NM. How recently was the CO on-line? If the CO has been inactive for years, then I might consider sending an e-mail to the reviewer bringing it to his/her attention.

Great point about difficulty and historical logs Harry Dolphin.

 

For me, I consider the apparent difficulty of the hide in determining whether it's time for an NM or not. I'm assuming the cache SUX... searched for was in the 1-1.5 difficulty range, based on what he's searched for before. If such a cache has 7 DNF's in a row and then I also wasn't able to find it, then I'd consider an NM to be appropriate. If a cache has a history of DNF's interspersed with Finds, then I'd be less inclined to log an NM after my DNF.

 

It also depends on what I see at GZ. If an area shows signs of recent bulldozing or other drastic changes, then that would push me towards NM more than a woodsy area that just seems difficult to search thoroughly.

[+Touchstone]

I generally remove any cache with the last two logs DNF from my GPX file. The last logs were five finds and one note. I found the top of a bison tube hanging on a fence. Rechecked the logs. The last five finds were finds on the top of the bison tube. No log to sign. To me that is a DNF. If they'd logged their DNFs, I wouldn't have bothered looking for it! Then I noticed it had two NM logs dating to last October. Now it has three NMs!

 

At which point should a NA be reported rather than an NM? Is this up to the individual cacher? I ask because today I searched for two cache's. I found the first one, signed the log and logged it online. The second was no where to be found. I did not research the online logs prior to trying to find it. There are 7 consecutive DNF's before I posted mine going back to July 2015, mine makes it 8 DNF's. Other cacher's and myself are of the same opinion mother nature displaced/misplaced this cache. The area it is supposed to be is maintained by the city, an entrance to a city park. They have not done much to maintain or repair what needs to be done and as such any cache that was hidden in the structure was likely "washed" away or moved by water or dirt/rocks and mud running through holes and openings in the blocks.

 

I was considering reporting an NM but am now thinking I should report an NA instead. Is this at my discretion as it would be any other geocacher's?

 

That's a much more difficult question. The cache I was looking for had five finds on the top of the cache and two NMs. Now it has three. It is on my watch list. If nothing is done in a month, I will post the NA.

In the same park is an evil nano hidden on a park bench. It has 27 finds and 33 DNFs. The longest streak was four DNFs, including a cache with 18000 finds. Would you put an NA after that streak of four DNFs? Then you would be wrong. You cannot even be sure it needs NM. How recently was the CO on-line? If the CO has been inactive for years, then I might consider sending an e-mail to the reviewer bringing it to his/her attention.

 

Where do I find reviewer information?

Link for reference:

 

Finding your Local Reviewer

 

The NA log type goes to a Reviewer, so it's not really necessary to contact the Reviewer directly if you intend on posting an NA. Some folks don't like the *drama* of the NA log type, so it depends on how you feel about such things.

[+Team_Vod]

Of the cache in question I tried searching for today I went back in and viewed the photos in the gallery. the cache container is pretty good size despite the description being set as micro, it looks to be the size of a large medicine bottle. So it is something that would be very obvious to spot even if misplaced on the ground. I now wonder if a critter or a muggle ran off with it.

[+Team_Vod]

Here is the link to the cache in question: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HKJA_riverside-sports?guid=070d350e-d247-40d7-a1f4-bd39558a5b83

[+noncentric]

Of the cache in question I tried searching for today I went back in and viewed the photos in the gallery. the cache container is pretty good size despite the description being set as micro, it looks to be the size of a large medicine bottle. So it is something that would be very obvious to spot even if misplaced on the ground. I now wonder if a critter or a muggle ran off with it.

Sometimes the gallery photos can be misleading. For example, the photos that show the container are from 2012. The CO logged an OM log in 2013 saying that they replaced the container. It's possible they replaced the container with the same container as in the 2012 photos, but it's also possible they used a different container that might be smaller/bigger.

 

It's entirely possible a critter could've moved the cache, or even that it fell down a crevice between the blocks and it irretrievable.

 

I also noticed that 4 of the recent DNF's were by the same person on the same day, so those 4 would count as just 1 DNF in my eyes. Still some other DNF's though.

[+Touchstone]

Here is the link to the cache in question: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HKJA_riverside-sports?guid=070d350e-d247-40d7-a1f4-bd39558a5b83

My vote would be a Needs Maintenance request. Aside from the trio of logs from one User (fairly obvious mistake), it seems like someone should have found it in the span of time that the logs cover. Cache Owner logged in February, so they aren't obviously gone. I'd give the benefit of the doubt.

[+dprovan]

OK then this is what I am going to do: This is to mostly help the CO, even if he or she does not care and to help other geocacher's who want to look for the cache where I only found the lid, but this is to also appease the geocache GOD's here on this forum board and because I have been accused of perpetuating a culture of bad geocaching, though I think being accused of that is a bit of a stretch and over the top.

Take the advice or don't take it. I don't care. But don't mistake advice for criticism 'cuz that just gets you bent out of shape for no purpose.

[+Team_Vod]

Of the cache in question I tried searching for today I went back in and viewed the photos in the gallery. the cache container is pretty good size despite the description being set as micro, it looks to be the size of a large medicine bottle. So it is something that would be very obvious to spot even if misplaced on the ground. I now wonder if a critter or a muggle ran off with it.

Sometimes the gallery photos can be misleading. For example, the photos that show the container are from 2012. The CO logged an OM log in 2013 saying that they replaced the container. It's possible they replaced the container with the same container as in the 2012 photos, but it's also possible they used a different container that might be smaller/bigger.

 

It's entirely possible a critter could've moved the cache, or even that it fell down a crevice between the blocks and it irretrievable.

 

I also noticed that 4 of the recent DNF's were by the same person on the same day, so those 4 would count as just 1 DNF in my eyes. Still some other DNF's though.

 

I am not sure if you noticed this but prior to the consecutive DNF's there were two others with two Found It logs in between. I am actually questioning if the logged Found It's are legitimate considering the number of DNF's before and escially after. OMG you guys are rubbing off on me, I am now questioning if others logged finds are legitimate. Thanks for corrupting me guys.

[+Manville Possum]

Here is the link to the cache in question: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HKJA_riverside-sports?guid=070d350e-d247-40d7-a1f4-bd39558a5b83

 

If it were me, I would do my local geocaching community a favor and post a Needs Archived on this cache and let the CO and local reviewer sort it out.

[+Team_Vod]

Here is the link to the cache in question: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HKJA_riverside-sports?guid=070d350e-d247-40d7-a1f4-bd39558a5b83

 

If it were me, I would do my local geocaching community a favor and post a Needs Archived on this cache and let the CO and local reviewer sort it out.

 

Done.

[+Team_Vod]

I generally remove any cache with the last two logs DNF from my GPX file. The last logs were five finds and one note. I found the top of a bison tube hanging on a fence. Rechecked the logs. The last five finds were finds on the top of the bison tube. No log to sign. To me that is a DNF. If they'd logged their DNFs, I wouldn't have bothered looking for it! Then I noticed it had two NM logs dating to last October. Now it has three NMs!

 

At which point should a NA be reported rather than an NM? Is this up to the individual cacher? I ask because today I searched for two cache's. I found the first one, signed the log and logged it online. The second was no where to be found. I did not research the online logs prior to trying to find it. There are 7 consecutive DNF's before I posted mine going back to July 2015, mine makes it 8 DNF's. Other cacher's and myself are of the same opinion mother nature displaced/misplaced this cache. The area it is supposed to be is maintained by the city, an entrance to a city park. They have not done much to maintain or repair what needs to be done and as such any cache that was hidden in the structure was likely "washed" away or moved by water or dirt/rocks and mud running through holes and openings in the blocks.

 

I was considering reporting an NM but am now thinking I should report an NA instead. Is this at my discretion as it would be any other geocacher's?

 

That's a much more difficult question. The cache I was looking for had five finds on the top of the cache and two NMs. Now it has three. It is on my watch list. If nothing is done in a month, I will post the NA.

In the same park is an evil nano hidden on a park bench. It has 27 finds and 33 DNFs. The longest streak was four DNFs, including a cache with 18000 finds. Would you put an NA after that streak of four DNFs? Then you would be wrong. You cannot even be sure it needs NM. How recently was the CO on-line? If the CO has been inactive for years, then I might consider sending an e-mail to the reviewer bringing it to his/her attention.

 

Where do I find reviewer information?

Link for reference:

 

Finding your Local Reviewer

 

The NA log type goes to a Reviewer, so it's not really necessary to contact the Reviewer directly if you intend on posting an NA. Some folks don't like the *drama* of the NA log type, so it depends on how you feel about such things.

 

I found the info for the reviewer on the cache in question, the one I just filed a NA report on. He is a Member only, not a Premium Member, has been a member since 2003, and has only found 16 traditional caches. I know reviewers are volunteers but I would like to think they would need to have more experience at finding cache's and would need to be a paying member to be qualified to be a reviewer.

Edited May 22, 2016 by SUX_VR_40_Rider

[+Manville Possum]

I generally remove any cache with the last two logs DNF from my GPX file. The last logs were five finds and one note. I found the top of a bison tube hanging on a fence. Rechecked the logs. The last five finds were finds on the top of the bison tube. No log to sign. To me that is a DNF. If they'd logged their DNFs, I wouldn't have bothered looking for it! Then I noticed it had two NM logs dating to last October. Now it has three NMs!

 

At which point should a NA be reported rather than an NM? Is this up to the individual cacher? I ask because today I searched for two cache's. I found the first one, signed the log and logged it online. The second was no where to be found. I did not research the online logs prior to trying to find it. There are 7 consecutive DNF's before I posted mine going back to July 2015, mine makes it 8 DNF's. Other cacher's and myself are of the same opinion mother nature displaced/misplaced this cache. The area it is supposed to be is maintained by the city, an entrance to a city park. They have not done much to maintain or repair what needs to be done and as such any cache that was hidden in the structure was likely "washed" away or moved by water or dirt/rocks and mud running through holes and openings in the blocks.

 

I was considering reporting an NM but am now thinking I should report an NA instead. Is this at my discretion as it would be any other geocacher's?

 

That's a much more difficult question. The cache I was looking for had five finds on the top of the cache and two NMs. Now it has three. It is on my watch list. If nothing is done in a month, I will post the NA.

In the same park is an evil nano hidden on a park bench. It has 27 finds and 33 DNFs. The longest streak was four DNFs, including a cache with 18000 finds. Would you put an NA after that streak of four DNFs? Then you would be wrong. You cannot even be sure it needs NM. How recently was the CO on-line? If the CO has been inactive for years, then I might consider sending an e-mail to the reviewer bringing it to his/her attention.

 

Where do I find reviewer information?

Link for reference:

 

Finding your Local Reviewer

 

The NA log type goes to a Reviewer, so it's not really necessary to contact the Reviewer directly if you intend on posting an NA. Some folks don't like the *drama* of the NA log type, so it depends on how you feel about such things.

 

I found the info for the reviewer on the cache in question, the one I just filed a NA report on. He is a Member only, not a Premium Member, has been a member since 2003, and has only found 16 traditional caches. I know reviewers are volunteers but I would like to think they would need to have more experience at finding cache's and would need to be a paying member to be qualified to be a reviewer.

 

That is only their reviewer account, not their player account.

 

After posting here in the forums, you can guess why reviewers wear a mask.

[+Team_Vod]

I generally remove any cache with the last two logs DNF from my GPX file. The last logs were five finds and one note. I found the top of a bison tube hanging on a fence. Rechecked the logs. The last five finds were finds on the top of the bison tube. No log to sign. To me that is a DNF. If they'd logged their DNFs, I wouldn't have bothered looking for it! Then I noticed it had two NM logs dating to last October. Now it has three NMs!

 

At which point should a NA be reported rather than an NM? Is this up to the individual cacher? I ask because today I searched for two cache's. I found the first one, signed the log and logged it online. The second was no where to be found. I did not research the online logs prior to trying to find it. There are 7 consecutive DNF's before I posted mine going back to July 2015, mine makes it 8 DNF's. Other cacher's and myself are of the same opinion mother nature displaced/misplaced this cache. The area it is supposed to be is maintained by the city, an entrance to a city park. They have not done much to maintain or repair what needs to be done and as such any cache that was hidden in the structure was likely "washed" away or moved by water or dirt/rocks and mud running through holes and openings in the blocks.

 

I was considering reporting an NM but am now thinking I should report an NA instead. Is this at my discretion as it would be any other geocacher's?

 

That's a much more difficult question. The cache I was looking for had five finds on the top of the cache and two NMs. Now it has three. It is on my watch list. If nothing is done in a month, I will post the NA.

In the same park is an evil nano hidden on a park bench. It has 27 finds and 33 DNFs. The longest streak was four DNFs, including a cache with 18000 finds. Would you put an NA after that streak of four DNFs? Then you would be wrong. You cannot even be sure it needs NM. How recently was the CO on-line? If the CO has been inactive for years, then I might consider sending an e-mail to the reviewer bringing it to his/her attention.

 

Where do I find reviewer information?

Link for reference:

 

Finding your Local Reviewer

 

The NA log type goes to a Reviewer, so it's not really necessary to contact the Reviewer directly if you intend on posting an NA. Some folks don't like the *drama* of the NA log type, so it depends on how you feel about such things.

 

I found the info for the reviewer on the cache in question, the one I just filed a NA report on. He is a Member only, not a Premium Member, has been a member since 2003, and has only found 16 traditional caches. I know reviewers are volunteers but I would like to think they would need to have more experience at finding cache's and would need to be a paying member to be qualified to be a reviewer.

 

That is only their reviewer account, not their player account.

 

After posting here in the forums, you can guess why reviewers wear a mask.

 

I also found where the reviewer has stepped down as a reviewer in 2013. So now the question remains is who takes care of any NA reports on cache's this reviewer or now former reviewer published? How do I find a list of reviewers for my area?

[+Manville Possum]

I generally remove any cache with the last two logs DNF from my GPX file. The last logs were five finds and one note. I found the top of a bison tube hanging on a fence. Rechecked the logs. The last five finds were finds on the top of the bison tube. No log to sign. To me that is a DNF. If they'd logged their DNFs, I wouldn't have bothered looking for it! Then I noticed it had two NM logs dating to last October. Now it has three NMs!

 

At which point should a NA be reported rather than an NM? Is this up to the individual cacher? I ask because today I searched for two cache's. I found the first one, signed the log and logged it online. The second was no where to be found. I did not research the online logs prior to trying to find it. There are 7 consecutive DNF's before I posted mine going back to July 2015, mine makes it 8 DNF's. Other cacher's and myself are of the same opinion mother nature displaced/misplaced this cache. The area it is supposed to be is maintained by the city, an entrance to a city park. They have not done much to maintain or repair what needs to be done and as such any cache that was hidden in the structure was likely "washed" away or moved by water or dirt/rocks and mud running through holes and openings in the blocks.

 

I was considering reporting an NM but am now thinking I should report an NA instead. Is this at my discretion as it would be any other geocacher's?

 

That's a much more difficult question. The cache I was looking for had five finds on the top of the cache and two NMs. Now it has three. It is on my watch list. If nothing is done in a month, I will post the NA.

In the same park is an evil nano hidden on a park bench. It has 27 finds and 33 DNFs. The longest streak was four DNFs, including a cache with 18000 finds. Would you put an NA after that streak of four DNFs? Then you would be wrong. You cannot even be sure it needs NM. How recently was the CO on-line? If the CO has been inactive for years, then I might consider sending an e-mail to the reviewer bringing it to his/her attention.

 

Where do I find reviewer information?

Link for reference:

 

Finding your Local Reviewer

 

The NA log type goes to a Reviewer, so it's not really necessary to contact the Reviewer directly if you intend on posting an NA. Some folks don't like the *drama* of the NA log type, so it depends on how you feel about such things.

 

I found the info for the reviewer on the cache in question, the one I just filed a NA report on. He is a Member only, not a Premium Member, has been a member since 2003, and has only found 16 traditional caches. I know reviewers are volunteers but I would like to think they would need to have more experience at finding cache's and would need to be a paying member to be qualified to be a reviewer.

 

That is only their reviewer account, not their player account.

 

After posting here in the forums, you can guess why reviewers wear a mask.

 

I also found where the reviewer has stepped down as a reviewer in 2013. So now the question remains is who takes care of any NA reports on cache's this reviewer or now former reviewer published? How do I find a list of reviewers for my area?

Likely there are only two reviewers in your area, but once you posted a need archived your concerns will be addressed on the cache page. It may take a few days but it will be addressed by your local reviewer.

[Keystone]

I also found where the reviewer has stepped down as a reviewer in 2013. So now the question remains is who takes care of any NA reports on cache's this reviewer or now former reviewer published? How do I find a list of reviewers for my area?

Use method #2, which is more current than checking old "published" logs. It would be wise to bookmark the Iowa page, since it also captures land managers' geocaching policies.

[+cerberus1]

I found the info for the reviewer on the cache in question, the one I just filed a NA report on. He is a Member only, not a Premium Member, has been a member since 2003, and has only found 16 traditional caches. I know reviewers are volunteers but I would like to think they would need to have more experience at finding cache's and would need to be a paying member to be qualified to be a reviewer.

So, what are you trying to say?

[+noncentric]

I am not sure if you noticed this but prior to the consecutive DNF's there were two others with two Found It logs in between. I am actually questioning if the logged Found It's are legitimate considering the number of DNF's before and escially after. OMG you guys are rubbing off on me, I am now questioning if others logged finds are legitimate. Thanks for corrupting me guys.

Are you referring to the 2 DNF's in 2015? Yes, I saw those. I wouldn't consider the 6/26/15 and 7/4/15 DNF's as 100% accurate. They were fairly inexperienced cachers (less than 20 and 30 finds at the time of their DNF's), so it's entirely possible they just missed it.

 

I also discounted the 2 DNF's in 2014. Again, new cachers that DNF'd on the same day. It appears that the cache was actually there, as suggested by the approximately 20 finds after their DNF's.

 

I see you went ahead and posted an NA.

[+noncentric]

I also found where the reviewer has stepped down as a reviewer in 2013. So now the question remains is who takes care of any NA reports on cache's this reviewer or now former reviewer published? How do I find a list of reviewers for my area?

Use method #2, which is more current than checking old "published" logs. It would be wise to bookmark the Iowa page, since it also captures land managers' geocaching policies.

Actually, method #1 would work as well. It says to find a recently published cache and find who published it. Such a method would lead to a reviewer that is likely still an active reviewer.

[Keystone]

I also found where the reviewer has stepped down as a reviewer in 2013. So now the question remains is who takes care of any NA reports on cache's this reviewer or now former reviewer published? How do I find a list of reviewers for my area?

Use method #2, which is more current than checking old "published" logs. It would be wise to bookmark the Iowa page, since it also captures land managers' geocaching policies.

Actually, method #1 would work as well. It says to find a recently published cache and find who published it. Such a method would lead to a reviewer that is likely still an active reviewer.

I was trying to steer the OP towards method 2 because method 1 wasn't followed correctly (it was used on the cache in question, which was published by a now-retired reviewer). The Wiki list is kept up-to-date.

[+noncentric]

I also found where the reviewer has stepped down as a reviewer in 2013. So now the question remains is who takes care of any NA reports on cache's this reviewer or now former reviewer published? How do I find a list of reviewers for my area?

Use method #2, which is more current than checking old "published" logs. It would be wise to bookmark the Iowa page, since it also captures land managers' geocaching policies.

Actually, method #1 would work as well. It says to find a recently published cache and find who published it. Such a method would lead to a reviewer that is likely still an active reviewer.

I was trying to steer the OP towards method 2 because method 1 wasn't followed correctly (it was used on the cache in question, which was published by a now-retired reviewer). The Wiki list is kept up-to-date.

Well, yes - reading through the entire page you linked to and following the instructions would've been more fruitful. Actually, just reading the first line of method 1 would've gotten the OP to the goal: "Load a list of local geocaches and look for a recently published geocache."

[+colleda]

Alright, fine! Again you win, geocache GOD's. I will change my freaking log count, you win. Boy talk about feeling brow beaten and beat up. Holy cow, I have never met a group such as this! I am beginning to question whether or not I want to continue geocaching if this is how this hobby is conducted. And I do not buy for one minute this is to help me because I am new. I think some of you just enjoy being over powering and suppressing what someone else is trying to do.

 

What is this a right of passage every new geocacher has to go through to earn their stripes? Is this the hazing part of geocaching the newbies have to experience before being considered cachers?

 

I am a member of the worlds oldest, and largest fraternity and we would never put our new members through anything like this, even if they do make a mistake. We certainly have a lot more tact and respect than people here. If this is the true representation of geocaching I think I am going to give it up entirely. I must say though a lot of you are not doing this hobby any good and a bad example of it with the way you talk to people here.

 

There are no "GODS" here, just experienced geocachers who have seen it all before. Listen and learn from the voices of experience Grasshopper and you will be fully ready to leave this place and go out into the world a wiser geocacher.

 

Many of us have probably done the same when we were noobs and did our little bit to "help" cachers and COs alike only to see our efforts, for the most part unappreciated, revert to their previous unmaintained state.

There's more fun in finding than fixing.

[+L0ne.R]

I generally remove any cache with the last two logs DNF from my GPX file. The last logs were five finds and one note. I found the top of a bison tube hanging on a fence. Rechecked the logs. The last five finds were finds on the top of the bison tube. No log to sign. To me that is a DNF. If they'd logged their DNFs, I wouldn't have bothered looking for it! Then I noticed it had two NM logs dating to last October. Now it has three NMs!

Me, I'd add an NA. I'd note the date of the last log in by the CO, if it looks like the CO is no longer playing. If they are still active I would preface my log with "Needs Attention", because some active owners get riled up when they see Needs Archived. I would detail the issues - the last few finds were on finds on a bison tube lid and the dates of the 2 NMs.

[+AustinMN]

"Possibly misplaced" is a DNF, not a NM.

 

+1.

[+J Grouchy]

Okay, I'm going to disagree a bit with the die-hards and the guideline-quoters.

 

One because it was possibly misplaced,

So you logged a "find" on this? If there was no cache to find, or there was but you did not find it...it's clearly a DNF.

 

one because it needs a new log,

NM is fine, though you could have just mentioned that in the found it log

 

another because it is missing the lid/cap and the log

here's where I differ from others: generally you can tell and a NM log is reasonable and appropriate. If you see a part of a bison tube hanging in a tree, I think you can reasonably say this is part of a cache. Not sure why folks are disputing your find on this one.

 

and another because there is only the cap, no container, log & possible swag.

This is most reasonably a DNF. A NM log may be called for...depends on circumstances. Maybe you found the top of a bison tube or pill bottle with camo tape on it, where it can be reasonably assumed this might be part of a cache. It's a bit of a judgment call.

 

I know folks in here like to get a bit judgmental and many have their own logic for logging certain ways. Certain folks regularly copy/paste from the guidelines. Do what you feel makes the most sense. What I wrote above is what makes most sense to me. Just know that if you come in here and ask the question, you will get some VERY opinionated people telling you that you are wrong, right or somewhere in between...and all at the same time.

[+Team_Vod]

Okay, I'm going to disagree a bit with the die-hards and the guideline-quoters.

 

One because it was possibly misplaced,

So you logged a "find" on this? If there was no cache to find, or there was but you did not find it...it's clearly a DNF.

 

one because it needs a new log,

NM is fine, though you could have just mentioned that in the found it log

 

another because it is missing the lid/cap and the log

here's where I differ from others: generally you can tell and a NM log is reasonable and appropriate. If you see a part of a bison tube hanging in a tree, I think you can reasonably say this is part of a cache. Not sure why folks are disputing your find on this one.

 

and another because there is only the cap, no container, log & possible swag.

This is most reasonably a DNF. A NM log may be called for...depends on circumstances. Maybe you found the top of a bison tube or pill bottle with camo tape on it, where it can be reasonably assumed this might be part of a cache. It's a bit of a judgment call.

 

I know folks in here like to get a bit judgmental and many have their own logic for logging certain ways. Certain folks regularly copy/paste from the guidelines. Do what you feel makes the most sense. What I wrote above is what makes most sense to me. Just know that if you come in here and ask the question, you will get some VERY opinionated people telling you that you are wrong, right or somewhere in between...and all at the same time.

 

You seem to be the most reasonable and logical one here. I did remove the Found It log for the one I found that is just a lid with camo tape and filed an NA report. I did not and will not remove the Find It log for the container that is missing the log and lid but the container is still there and is in the location indicated in the coordinates. I did check to see if other cache containers were present. None found, so I have every reason to believe this is NOT a throw down. But I did file a NM report on it. This one is hanging from a bench, under the frame.

[+Team Microdot]

I did not and will not remove the Find It log for the container that is missing the log and lid but the container is still there and is in the location indicated in the coordinates.

 

Is that the one where some people are finding a lid and some people are finding a container and nobody is finding a logbook or anything else that points to it being a geocache and everyone is logging it as found?

[+noncentric]

You seem to be the most reasonable and logical one here.

Oh, I see how it works. Cachers that agree with you are "reasonable and logical", but cachers that disagree with you are not? If you already 'know' the correct answer, then what's the point of asking questions in the forum?

 

I did not and will not remove the Find It log for the container that is missing the log and lid but the container is still there and is in the location indicated in the coordinates.

You do realize that coordinates are not 'exact', right? "The location indicated in the coordinates" is really an area with a 30 ft radius.

 

I did check to see if other cache containers were present. None found, so I have every reason to believe this is NOT a throw down.

This makes me think you're not quite understanding what a "throwdown" is.

[+Team_Vod]

I did not and will not remove the Find It log for the container that is missing the log and lid but the container is still there and is in the location indicated in the coordinates.

 

Is that the one where some people are finding a lid and some people are finding a container and nobody is finding a logbook or anything else that points to it being a geocache and everyone is logging it as found?

 

Just the one where only the container is found with no lid and no log.

[+Team_Vod]

I did not and will not remove the Find It log for the container that is missing the log and lid but the container is still there and is in the location indicated in the coordinates.

You do realize that coordinates are not 'exact', right? "The location indicated in the coordinates" is really an area with a 30 ft radius.

 

Explain why every cache I have found has been within a radius a lot less than 30 feet from the posted coordinates. Many have been spot on according to what is displayed on the geocache app. On my smartphone it shows my location as a small blue dot with a tiny arrow. It shows the geocache location, after I hit start, as a large green circle with an arrow pointing to the cache location with a smaller white circle in side of it. The blue dot, representing the location of my smartphone and thus me is connected via an orange line to the green circle representing the location of the cache. As I get closer and closer to the cache the distance display shows smaller and the orange line gets shorter and shorter. When the blue dot is over the green/white circle the orange line cannot be seen. Many of my cache finds have been in the exact location shown on the app, not 30 feet away. Granted some of the caches were not at the exact location shown on the app but were a helluva lot closer than 30 feet.

[+larryc43230]

I did not and will not remove the Find It log for the container that is missing the log and lid but the container is still there and is in the location indicated in the coordinates.

You do realize that coordinates are not 'exact', right? "The location indicated in the coordinates" is really an area with a 30 ft radius.

 

Explain why every cache I have found has been within a radius a lot less than 30 feet from the posted coordinates.... Granted some of the caches were not at the exact location shown on the app but were a helluva lot closer than 30 feet.

 

You, my friend, are either extremely lucky or the cache hiders in your area are uncommonly conscientious about posting accurate coordinates. I can pretty much guarantee that once you expand your territory a bit, your experience will be quite different.

 

--Larry

[+noncentric]

I did not and will not remove the Find It log for the container that is missing the log and lid but the container is still there and is in the location indicated in the coordinates.

You do realize that coordinates are not 'exact', right? "The location indicated in the coordinates" is really an area with a 30 ft radius.

Explain why every cache I have found has been within a radius a lot less than 30 feet from the posted coordinates. Many have been spot on according to what is displayed on the geocache app. On my smartphone it shows my location as a small blue dot with a tiny arrow. It shows the geocache location, after I hit start, as a large green circle with an arrow pointing to the cache location with a smaller white circle in side of it. The blue dot, representing the location of my smartphone and thus me is connected via an orange line to the green circle representing the location of the cache. As I get closer and closer to the cache the distance display shows smaller and the orange line gets shorter and shorter. When the blue dot is over the green/white circle the orange line cannot be seen. Many of my cache finds have been in the exact location shown on the app, not 30 feet away. Granted some of the caches were not at the exact location shown on the app but were a helluva lot closer than 30 feet.

Let me rephrase - "The location indicated in the coordinates" is really an area with a radius up to 30 ft.

 

Why 30 feet? Most GPS units, either standalone GPSr's or smartphones with GPS chips, have an accuracy around 10-15 feet. Combining the CO's and the cache finder's potential 'off' amounts means up to 30 ft. For example, the CO's GPS device could be giving coords that are 15 feet east of the actual hiding spot. A cache finder navigates to those coords, but their GPS device is 10 feet off. So then the cache finder ends up 25 feet east of the actual hiding spot, even though their GPS device says they are on top of the coords.

When you're navigating to a cache and have the map screen with the orange line, you can click on the compass in the upper-right corner. That takes you to the compass screen, where you'll see the name of the cache, your distance from the cache, and a +/- distance. That +/- distance shows your GPS's 'accuracy'. The larger this number, the more likely your coords are going to be 'off' from the actual location.

 

Why was every cache you found closer than 30 ft? Probably because most of your finds are in areas with very clear satellite reception, so the 'off' amount is minimal. Also, depending on the zoom level of your app's map, the area of your 'blue dot' can be several feet. What distance from the coords does the app show when you make the finds? 0 ft?

Again, when you gain more experience and geocache in other areas, then you'll likely find things work a bit differently. In such cases, you need to expand your radius to find the actual cache.

 

I mentioned the 30 foot radius to help you out, in case you go geocaching on a MTB/hiking trail or somewhere else that has more tree cover or other impediments to a clear satellite signal. You don't need to be argumentative about everything cachers are saying to you. Maybe try thinking about how the things cachers are telling you might apply when you go beyond your 5-mile radius. Some of the things we're saying might actually be helpful. Geesh!

 

ETA: My comments above are assuming good coordinate readings.

There are certainly cases where a cacher finds a cache much further than 30 ft away. Depending on GPS devices used and weather, cache finders can certainly mention the 'bad coords' in their found logs. CO's should try to improve their coords (Waypoint Averaging) or cache finders can suggest better coords in their online logs. If a CO doesn't change their coords, then a cacher may end up logging an NM.

Edited May 23, 2016 by noncentric

[BlueRajah]

 

Explain why every cache I have found has been within a radius a lot less than 30 feet from the posted coordinates. Many have been spot on according to what is displayed on the geocache app.

........

Many of my cache finds have been in the exact location shown on the app, not 30 feet away. Granted some of the caches were not at the exact location shown on the app but were a helluva lot closer than 30 feet.

 

Ahhh that would be nice. You had placers place caches on nice days, clear skies, good reception, and good equipment, then you followed. I know of caches in the hills, in the trees, where I would be very happy for 50 feet accuracy. I hunted for one, and one moment my gps says dead center, then a few minutes later it showed 300 feet off, I was stopping to eat a sandwich on the steep canyon sides. My phone would not even pick up the satellites in that deep canyon.

 

In other words, accuracy is variable. It happens. There is no guarantee.

[+Team_Vod]

I did not and will not remove the Find It log for the container that is missing the log and lid but the container is still there and is in the location indicated in the coordinates.

You do realize that coordinates are not 'exact', right? "The location indicated in the coordinates" is really an area with a 30 ft radius.

Explain why every cache I have found has been within a radius a lot less than 30 feet from the posted coordinates. Many have been spot on according to what is displayed on the geocache app. On my smartphone it shows my location as a small blue dot with a tiny arrow. It shows the geocache location, after I hit start, as a large green circle with an arrow pointing to the cache location with a smaller white circle in side of it. The blue dot, representing the location of my smartphone and thus me is connected via an orange line to the green circle representing the location of the cache. As I get closer and closer to the cache the distance display shows smaller and the orange line gets shorter and shorter. When the blue dot is over the green/white circle the orange line cannot be seen. Many of my cache finds have been in the exact location shown on the app, not 30 feet away. Granted some of the caches were not at the exact location shown on the app but were a helluva lot closer than 30 feet.

Let me rephrase - "The location indicated in the coordinates" is really an area with a radius up to 30 ft.

 

Why 30 feet? Most GPS units, either standalone GPSr's or smartphones with GPS chips, have an accuracy around 10-15 feet. Combining the CO's and the cache finder's potential 'off' amounts means up to 30 ft. For example, the CO's GPS device could be giving coords that are 15 feet east of the actual hiding spot. A cache finder navigates to those coords, but their GPS device is 10 feet off. So then the cache finder ends up 25 feet east of the actual hiding spot, even though their GPS device says they are on top of the coords.

When you're navigating to a cache and have the map screen with the orange line, you can click on the compass in the upper-right corner. That takes you to the compass screen, where you'll see the name of the cache, your distance from the cache, and a +/- distance. That +/- distance shows your GPS's 'accuracy'. The larger this number, the more likely your coords are going to be 'off' from the actual location.

 

Why was every cache you found closer than 30 ft? Probably because most of your finds are in areas with very clear satellite reception, so the 'off' amount is minimal. Also, depending on the zoom level of your app's map, the area of your 'blue dot' can be several feet. What distance from the coords does the app show when you make the finds? 0 ft?

Again, when you gain more experience and geocache in other areas, then you'll likely find things work a bit differently. In such cases, you need to expand your radius to find the actual cache.

 

I mentioned the 30 foot radius to help you out, in case you go geocaching on a MTB/hiking trail or somewhere else that has more tree cover or other impediments to a clear satellite signal. You don't need to be argumentative about everything cachers are saying to you. Maybe try thinking about how the things cachers are telling you might apply when you go beyond your 5-mile radius. Some of the things we're saying might actually be helpful. Geesh!

 

ETA: My comments above are assuming good coordinate readings.

There are certainly cases where a cacher finds a cache much further than 30 ft away. Depending on GPS devices used and weather, cache finders can certainly mention the 'bad coords' in their found logs. CO's should try to improve their coords (Waypoint Averaging) or cache finders can suggest better coords in their online logs. If a CO doesn't change their coords, then a cacher may end up logging an NM.

 

It is not what is said, it is how it is stated. Even in a forum where things are stated in text form it can still be done with contempt, attitude, condescending tone, etc. and in more than just this discussion. In other discussion forums there is a feature allowing people to block others, kind of like on Facebook. On a certain bicycle forum for example when someone brings up the helmet issue you should see how many people end up blocking others as a result. I have not asked if this forum has such a blocking feature, but I do not think it does.

 

Don't get me wrong I do appreciate the help it is just the way some of it is stated that is NOT appreciated. I do not buy it is how people talk to each other. A lot come across pretty strong, to strong, with contempt and condescending. When they come across like this what they are saying, even when it is helpful, I completely ignore and consider it crap.

 

As I have stated, more than once, I am doing nothing but urban geocaching for now. I do not know if I will expand beyond that or not, that of course will be up to me alone. I also have done a lot of the geocaching via my bicycle and therefore on nice, clear, sunny days. If that has something to do with the accuracy of how the geocache app works, OK. I am sure I will find different if I venture beyond urban caching, from what you describe I will.

 

I have never tried the compass feature. I'll give it a go next time I am out caching.

Edited May 24, 2016 by SUX_VR_40_Rider

[+noncentric]

It is not what is said, it is how it is stated. Even in a forum where things are stated in text form it can still be done with contempt, attitude, condescending tone, etc. and in more than just this discussion. In other discussion forums there is a feature allowing people to block others, kind of like on Facebook. On a certain bicycle forum for example when someone brings up the helmet issue you should see how many people end up blocking others as a result. I have not asked if this forum has such a blocking feature, but I do not think it does.

This forum does have a block feature. I will say, that for myself, there are some people I would like to block in some topics, but in other topics I appreciate what they have to say. Blocking per topic is not available. Personally, I don't block anyone in these forums. I may not agree with what someone says or how they say it, but I'd rather still have visibility to it.

 

Don't get me wrong I do appreciate the help it is just the way some of it is stated that is NOT appreciated. I do not buy it is how people talk to each other. A lot come across pretty strong, to strong, with contempt and condescending. When they come across like this what they are saying, even when it is helpful, I completely ignore and consider it crap.

Understood. I usually re-read what I write before posting, but sometimes click the wrong button. Sometimes it's difficult to tone things down completely when the other side also shows contempt and disregard. I think things went a bit downhill after your 'geocaching GODS' comment, but hopefully we can all move past that.

 

As I have stated, more than once, I am doing nothing but urban geocaching for now.

And that's just fine. I think some of us are trying to point out that if you are focused on only one aspect of geocaching, then maybe proclaiming how the entire hobby should be managed is a bit presumptuous.

[+narcissa]

I did not and will not remove the Find It log for the container that is missing the log and lid but the container is still there and is in the location indicated in the coordinates.

You do realize that coordinates are not 'exact', right? "The location indicated in the coordinates" is really an area with a 30 ft radius.

Explain why every cache I have found has been within a radius a lot less than 30 feet from the posted coordinates. Many have been spot on according to what is displayed on the geocache app. On my smartphone it shows my location as a small blue dot with a tiny arrow. It shows the geocache location, after I hit start, as a large green circle with an arrow pointing to the cache location with a smaller white circle in side of it. The blue dot, representing the location of my smartphone and thus me is connected via an orange line to the green circle representing the location of the cache. As I get closer and closer to the cache the distance display shows smaller and the orange line gets shorter and shorter. When the blue dot is over the green/white circle the orange line cannot be seen. Many of my cache finds have been in the exact location shown on the app, not 30 feet away. Granted some of the caches were not at the exact location shown on the app but were a helluva lot closer than 30 feet.

Let me rephrase - "The location indicated in the coordinates" is really an area with a radius up to 30 ft.

 

Why 30 feet? Most GPS units, either standalone GPSr's or smartphones with GPS chips, have an accuracy around 10-15 feet. Combining the CO's and the cache finder's potential 'off' amounts means up to 30 ft. For example, the CO's GPS device could be giving coords that are 15 feet east of the actual hiding spot. A cache finder navigates to those coords, but their GPS device is 10 feet off. So then the cache finder ends up 25 feet east of the actual hiding spot, even though their GPS device says they are on top of the coords.

When you're navigating to a cache and have the map screen with the orange line, you can click on the compass in the upper-right corner. That takes you to the compass screen, where you'll see the name of the cache, your distance from the cache, and a +/- distance. That +/- distance shows your GPS's 'accuracy'. The larger this number, the more likely your coords are going to be 'off' from the actual location.

 

Why was every cache you found closer than 30 ft? Probably because most of your finds are in areas with very clear satellite reception, so the 'off' amount is minimal. Also, depending on the zoom level of your app's map, the area of your 'blue dot' can be several feet. What distance from the coords does the app show when you make the finds? 0 ft?

Again, when you gain more experience and geocache in other areas, then you'll likely find things work a bit differently. In such cases, you need to expand your radius to find the actual cache.

 

I mentioned the 30 foot radius to help you out, in case you go geocaching on a MTB/hiking trail or somewhere else that has more tree cover or other impediments to a clear satellite signal. You don't need to be argumentative about everything cachers are saying to you. Maybe try thinking about how the things cachers are telling you might apply when you go beyond your 5-mile radius. Some of the things we're saying might actually be helpful. Geesh!

 

ETA: My comments above are assuming good coordinate readings.

There are certainly cases where a cacher finds a cache much further than 30 ft away. Depending on GPS devices used and weather, cache finders can certainly mention the 'bad coords' in their found logs. CO's should try to improve their coords (Waypoint Averaging) or cache finders can suggest better coords in their online logs. If a CO doesn't change their coords, then a cacher may end up logging an NM.

 

It is not what is said, it is how it is stated. Even in a forum where things are stated in text form it can still be done with contempt, attitude, condescending tone, etc. and in more than just this discussion. In other discussion forums there is a feature allowing people to block others, kind of like on Facebook. On a certain bicycle forum for example when someone brings up the helmet issue you should see how many people end up blocking others as a result. I have not asked if this forum has such a blocking feature, but I do not think it does.

 

Don't get me wrong I do appreciate the help it is just the way some of it is stated that is NOT appreciated. I do not buy it is how people talk to each other. A lot come across pretty strong, to strong, with contempt and condescending. When they come across like this what they are saying, even when it is helpful, I completely ignore and consider it crap.

 

As I have stated, more than once, I am doing nothing but urban geocaching for now. I do not know if I will expand beyond that or not, that of course will be up to me alone. I also have done a lot of the geocaching via my bicycle and therefore on nice, clear, sunny days. If that has something to do with the accuracy of how the geocache app works, OK. I am sure I will find different if I venture beyond urban caching, from what you describe I will.

 

I have never tried the compass feature. I'll give it a go next time I am out caching.

 

You can block people but it's kind of convoluted and you can see their comments when they are quoted. I have about 100 people blocked.

 

I know you are very new and you are trying to learn. Sometimes it is frustrating for regulars to see the same old topics recycled by a new person who won't read old threads, so the responses are a bit cranky.

 

It also makes some of us cringe to see hurtful remarks about things like "armchair" reviewers because many of us are friends with reviewers, or are reviewers, and we know how hard they work.

 

When someone with a handful of finds takes over the forum with a dozen posts and some disparaging comments about geocaching and geocachers, it gets people's backs up.

[+Team_Vod]

 

 

Don't get me wrong I do appreciate the help it is just the way some of it is stated that is NOT appreciated. I do not buy it is how people talk to each other. A lot come across pretty strong, to strong, with contempt and condescending. When they come across like this what they are saying, even when it is helpful, I completely ignore and consider it crap.

Understood. I usually re-read what I write before posting, but sometimes click the wrong button. Sometimes it's difficult to tone things down completely when the other side also shows contempt and disregard. I think things went a bit downhill after your 'geocaching GODS' comment, but hopefully we can all move past that.

 

I have moved passed it. But how does one use the block feature, where is it found?

[+noncentric]

But how does one use the block feature, where is it found?

Click on the down arrow up at the top of the forum page, next to your caching name. Select the last option on that drop-down menu, which is "Manage Ignored Users". You can then enter the usernames you want to ignore. As you type the usernames, suggestions will appear below the input box. Click on the name you want to ignore when it appears in the list.

 

PS - If you block me, can you let me know. That way, I won't bother replying to any of your posts.

[+Team Microdot]

I did not and will not remove the Find It log for the container that is missing the log and lid but the container is still there and is in the location indicated in the coordinates.

 

Is that the one where some people are finding a lid and some people are finding a container and nobody is finding a logbook or anything else that points to it being a geocache and everyone is logging it as found?

 

Just the one where only the container is found with no lid and no log.

 

I rest my case.

[+Team Microdot]

Don't get me wrong I do appreciate the help it is just the way some of it is stated that is NOT appreciated. I do not buy it is how people talk to each other. A lot come across pretty strong, to strong, with contempt and condescending. When they come across like this what they are saying, even when it is helpful, I completely ignore and consider it crap.

 

That cuts both ways.

[+dprovan]

Don't get me wrong I do appreciate the help it is just the way some of it is stated that is NOT appreciated. I do not buy it is how people talk to each other. A lot come across pretty strong, to strong, with contempt and condescending. When they come across like this what they are saying, even when it is helpful, I completely ignore and consider it crap.

Don't get me wrong, either, but, so far, whenever you've reacted negatively, I have to go back and reread what you're reacting to in order to try to figure out what upset you. And almost every time, I can't find anything because there's literally nothing offensive there. People respond to you as if you're an adult that will take comments at face value and consider them fairly. You should try it.

 

But, of course, you're going to completely ignore this and call it crap. And then go back to complaining about everyone else's attitudes.

[+lodgebarn]

As I have stated, more than once, I am doing nothing but urban geocaching for now.

And to me you seem to have a big wooden spoon with you. Thank goodness you are not near my part of the world, feel free to block me. By the way I know loads of caches with multiple DNFs tha tare just waiting to be found. The CO is just a bit more cunning than some people seem to realise.

[Keystone]

It's been quite a few posts since we've discussed the prevalence of caches that need maintenance (the original topic of this thread). As discussion has drifted off topic, I'm closing the thread at this time.