Keyword: Mold

[+The Jester]

Your right I don't see it. Tell me again how my evil plan would eliminate these caches and what my reasons would be for doing this?

 

...

 

Look, if visiting your cache once a year is too much for you then archive your caches and let someone who is willing to do it use the spot.

Asked and answeed in the same post!

[+niraD]

Asked and answeed in the same post!

"I love it when a plan comes together!"

- John "Hannibal" Smith ("The A-Team")

[+justintim1999]

Your right I don't see it. Tell me again how my evil plan would eliminate these caches and what my reasons would be for doing this?

 

...

 

Look, if visiting your cache once a year is too much for you then archive your caches and let someone who is willing to do it use the spot.

Asked and answeed in the same post!

 

I probably contradicted my self somewhere in there too.

 

A little harsh I know but I'm a little under the weather today and not in the mood for excuses. Tough love baby, tough love.

[+narcissa]

Yeah, local reviewer(s) makes a lot of sense. Go figure.

 

So, your suggestion is that the reviewer should have the discretion to determine how often a cache owner should make maintenance visits?

[+redsox_mark]

 

He just needs to login and leave a note. Just let everyone know that s/he's monitoring the listing and logs.

 

So that's a slightly different proposal.. rather than visit each cache at least once a year a CO needs to leave a note once a year? I don't mind that as much, but still don't think it is necessary.

 

I guess a side benefit would be to discourage power trails, so the CO of a 1000 cache trail doesn't have to post 1000 notes.

[+niraD]

I guess a side benefit would be to discourage power trails, so the CO of a 1000 cache trail doesn't have to post 1000 notes.

I'm sure someone would automate the process, so the owners of such trails would just click a button and come back later when the mandatory Notes had been posted.

[+WearyTraveler]

 

He just needs to login and leave a note. Just let everyone know that s/he's monitoring the listing and logs.

 

So that's a slightly different proposal.. rather than visit each cache at least once a year a CO needs to leave a note once a year? I don't mind that as much, but still don't think it is necessary.

 

I guess a side benefit would be to discourage power trails, so the CO of a 1000 cache trail doesn't have to post 1000 notes.

I would think that rather than 1000 logs they'd leave a note in PT001...

 

But I agree - even if they don't visit - at least leaving a note that says they're monitoring the cache...

[+colleda]

Compulsory yearly cache check is setting up for a couple of million fake OMs.

[+L0ne.R]

Compulsory yearly cache check is setting up for a couple of million fake OMs.

 

What kind of unscrupulous owner would do such a thing? Surely no cache owner with integrity.

 

It will however get rid of 1000s of junk and missing caches of owners who no longer play.

Edited May 2, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+narcissa]

Compulsory yearly cache check is setting up for a couple of million fake OMs.

 

What kind of unscrupulous owner would do such a thing? Surely no cache owner with integrity.

 

It will however get rid of 1000s of junk and missing caches of owners who no longer play.

 

So exactly what criteria are reviewers supposed to use to give exemptions to the yearly check-up? Isn't that something that should be enshrined in your new guideline?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Your right I don't see it. Tell me again how my evil plan would eliminate these caches and what my reasons would be for doing this?

 

...

 

Look, if visiting your cache once a year is too much for you then archive your caches and let someone who is willing to do it use the spot.

Asked and answeed in the same post!

 

I probably contradicted my self somewhere in there too.

 

A little harsh I know but I'm a little under the weather today and not in the mood for excuses. Tough love baby, tough love.

 

I visit my caches for maintenance when there is a problem. I've replaced two bear chew toys in the last year. Some I have not revisited for nine years. There were no problems. Many of my caches would take a large part of a day (at least for me.) These caches do not get visited often. Some have gone three years without a find. These are hiking caches. If I had to visit all of them every year, I'd probably archive most of them. That would take most of my time, and I wouldn't have time to find caches!

Of the fifty or so that I have archived, I think a new cache has been placed near one of them, and that had nothing to do with the great location I used. So, don't tell me it gives new cachers places to hide caches.

[+dprovan]

Your right I don't see it. Tell me again how my evil plan would eliminate these caches and what my reasons would be for doing this?

First, it's not an evil plan, it's a misguided plan. I have no doubt that you're very sincere in believing it's a good idea and think it will work like pruning roses so they can flourish.

 

That's why you completely ignored the specific explanations I gave for reduced caches. The general concept is obvious: you are adding a burden, so some people will decide it's too much of a burden. That effect happens for all COs, not just COs that don't have good caches. In fact, one would expect the COs that take their maintenance responsibilities seriously will consider it a larger burden than the COs you're trying to penalize.

 

Isn't a visit required in the guidelines?

Not that I know of. Where'd you get that?

 

Look, if visiting your cache once a year is too much for you then archive your caches and let someone who is willing to do it use the spot.

This has nothing to do with what I'm willing to do. My point is that the suggestion is ineffective against the problem it's being present to solve, and it's even counterproductive in that it discourages caches in general. If I archived my caches, there's no reason to think any other caches will spring up in their place.

 

Who decides which cache owners have to physically visit or face punishment, and which cache owners just have to write a note?

Me! Me! Pick Me!

 

Just kidding. I'd have to go with your local reviewer.

If you willing to enable your local reviewer to favor some owners, wouldn't it be easier and more to the point to enable the reviewers to disfavor the owners you're complaining about? That makes more sense to me than adding a new guideline, and then fixing the problems you've caused by granting the local reviewer special powers to get around the new problems.

[+dprovan]

I guess a side benefit would be to discourage power trails, so the CO of a 1000 cache trail doesn't have to post 1000 notes.

I'm sure someone would automate the process, so the owners of such trails would just click a button and come back later when the mandatory Notes had been posted.

I agree with you that automation can and will be applied to subvert a new visit requirement, but let's not forget that the COs we're complaining about went to the trouble of visiting GZ to drop the cache and creating a cache page for it in the first place. We don't have to imagine automation: we already know that they're capable of legitimately satisfying any new visit requirement just as well -- and with as little thought and effort -- as they legitimately satisfied the requirements to publish the caches originally.

[+barefootjeff]

A cache with an inactive owner that's in good condition isn't a problem to anyone - people can still enjoy finding it, log their find and get their smiley. If the cache eventually degrades to the point where it doesn't fulfil that purpose, log an NM, wait a month then log an NA. Problem solved.

 

So say again what it is that forcing COs to visit each and every cache they own at least once a year is going to fix, other than to discourage conscientious COs from hiding caches in places that require a lot of effort to visit? If someone has hidden, say, a dozen such caches over the years, that's a lot of strenuous hiking, climbing, paddling or whatever you're forcing them to do for no good reason, even without allowing for the possibility of bad weather hampering such visits.

 

If the problem is with your community not using the NM/NA tools available to it, that's the problem that needs to be fixed.

[+L0ne.R]

1493772401[/url]' post='5651910']

A cache with an inactive owner that's in good condition isn't a problem to anyone - people can still enjoy finding it, log their find and get their smiley. If the cache eventually degrades to the point where it doesn't fulfil that purpose, log an NM, wait a month then log an NA. Problem solved.

 

So say again what it is that forcing COs to visit each and every cache they own at least once a year is going to fix, other than to discourage conscientious COs from hiding caches in places that require a lot of effort to visit? If someone has hidden, say, a dozen such caches over the years, that's a lot of strenuous hiking, climbing, paddling or whatever you're forcing them to do for no good reason, even without allowing for the possibility of bad weather hampering such visits.

 

If the problem is with your community not using the NM/NA tools available to it, that's the problem that needs to be fixed.

 

For me, it's going on geocaching vacations. I don't know the area. I don't know which cachers hide good caches. It's hit and miss. I spend so much wasted time and gas looking for caches that turn out to be abandoned for years, often throwdown, very often in awful shape. Yet nothing gets done because no one will post an NM. someone may have commented on the wet moldy log 10 found logs previous, but the others just post 'We had a great time and found a lot of caches today'. Thank you reviewers for stepping up and doing what finders won't do. You are helping both local cachers and those who spend precious resources to explore new territory.

I like finding caches. I like finding caches in reasonably good shape. I like finding caches a responsible owner created to make a finder's day special--not a throwdown someone littered the area with so they could claim a smiley.

[+Dame Deco]

+1

 

I just don't see archiving caches as a great tragedy--we never get new ones if old ones are never archived.

[+redsox_mark]

To me it depends on what problem we are trying to solve.

 

If the problem is owners who have left the game, then perhaps some yearly "certification". Once a year each owner is requested to certify that they are an active owner and aware of the guidelines.

 

I prefer that to forcing each owner to physically check each cache yearly, for reasons I have already given, but I also summarize here:

1. It discourages placement of caches which are physically hard to get to

2. Bad owners can simply claim a visit which didn't happen.

[+fizzymagic]

I spend so much wasted time and gas looking for caches that turn out to be abandoned for years, often throwdown, very often in awful shape.

 

Being completely serious, and truly trying to help you, I would suggest that geocaching is probably not a good activity for you. You might want to try something else that you will find less frustrating. If you consider the gas and time to get to a sub-optimal cache container "wasted," then I don't think that geocaching will ever be enjoyable for you except under the most restrictive circumstances.

 

Now, in less a spirit of helpfulness: if your aversion to caches that don't meet your standards is so extreme that you spend all your time on the forums trying to figure out ways to punish those who don't maintain their caches to your standards, then I suggest (rather un-gently) that you find something else to do and leave those of us who actually enjoy geocaching alone.

 

Thanks.

[+Furrhan]

To me it depends on what problem we are trying to solve.

 

If the problem is owners who have left the game, then perhaps some yearly "certification". Once a year each owner is requested to certify that they are an active owner and aware of the guidelines.

 

I prefer that to forcing each owner to physically check each cache yearly, for reasons I have already given, but I also summarize here:

1. It discourages placement of caches which are physically hard to get to

2. Bad owners can simply claim a visit which didn't happen.

That seems a decent idea to me. Honestly, I don't see the point of forcing an owner to visit their cache every year if the logs are indicating that the cache is still present where it's meant to be and in great shape. As long as we know the owner is paying attention to the logs and is willing to go out to it if there's a problem then I think that should be enough.

 

That said, owners that refuse to maintain their caches especially when there's a slew of NM logs perhaps do need to be reminded of their responsibilities and if they for some reason aren't able to maintain their cache any longer should be encouraged to either archive it or put it up for adoption. Maybe if they have a history of not maintaining their caches they should be blocked from creating new caches until they show they can up their game with the caches they already own. That's my opinion anyway.

[+redsox_mark]

 

That said, owners that refuse to maintain their caches especially when there's a slew of NM logs perhaps do need to be reminded of their responsibilities and if they for some reason aren't able to maintain their cache any longer should be encouraged to either archive it or put it up for adoption. Maybe if they have a history of not maintaining their caches they should be blocked from creating new caches until they show they can up their game with the caches they already own. That's my opinion anyway.

 

That is already happening. We have the "health score" and automated mails. We have reviewers disabling caches which need maintenance (or in this thread, have logs mentioning the word "mold"). We've seen examples where a cache owner with a history of not maintaining has been blocked from new hides. Though I think these "blocking" cases are rare.

[+Team Microdot]

We've seen examples where a cache owner with a history of not maintaining has been blocked from new hides.

 

Have we? Anything you can share?

[+redsox_mark]

We've seen examples where a cache owner with a history of not maintaining has been blocked from new hides.

 

Have we? Anything you can share?

 

It was this thread which I was referring to.

 

Placement ban due to Divisiveness?

 

Though we don't know the details of the specific case.

 

We had a note from Keystone:

 

I can confirm that Geocaching HQ is focusing on geocache quality and health in 2017. There may be more said about this by HQ in the future. I would not draw too many conclusions from this (hopefully) rare example of private user discipline in the form of a placement ban.

 

So I'm not expecting widespread bans, but there are mechanisms there to implement placement bans.

[+Team Microdot]

We've seen examples where a cache owner with a history of not maintaining has been blocked from new hides.

 

Have we? Anything you can share?

 

It was this thread which I was referring to.

 

Placement ban due to Divisiveness?

 

Though we don't know the details of the specific case.

 

We had a note from Keystone:

 

I can confirm that Geocaching HQ is focusing on geocache quality and health in 2017. There may be more said about this by HQ in the future. I would not draw too many conclusions from this (hopefully) rare example of private user discipline in the form of a placement ban.

 

So I'm not expecting widespread bans, but there are mechanisms there to implement placement bans.

 

Ah yes - thanks for that - I'd forgotten about that one case.

 

When you said examples I thought there must be more.

[+justintim1999]

Compulsory yearly cache check is setting up for a couple of million fake OMs.

 

Possibly, but at least reviewers will know that they're still active. This is all about raising expectations. I'm sure there other ways to do this.

[+justintim1999]

Compulsory yearly cache check is setting up for a couple of million fake OMs.

 

What kind of unscrupulous owner would do such a thing? Surely no cache owner with integrity.

 

It will however get rid of 1000s of junk and missing caches of owners who no longer play.

 

So exactly what criteria are reviewers supposed to use to give exemptions to the yearly check-up? Isn't that something that should be enshrined in your new guideline?

 

Why invoke the guidelines as if they are followed to the letter? As far as criteria I would think a reviewer would look at:

 

The owner's maintenance history

The cache history

Previous logs

Difficulty and Terrain ratings

 

The proposed idea is to verify that cache owners are still active and to raise the bar on cache ownership.

 

Maybe a cache that's a certain distance from a parking area is exempt. It's possible this exemption would encourage more of the hides you favor?

[+justintim1999]

Your right I don't see it. Tell me again how my evil plan would eliminate these caches and what my reasons would be for doing this?

First, it's not an evil plan, it's a misguided plan. I have no doubt that you're very sincere in believing it's a good idea and think it will work like pruning roses so they can flourish.

 

That's why you completely ignored the specific explanations I gave for reduced caches. The general concept is obvious: you are adding a burden, so some people will decide it's too much of a burden. That effect happens for all COs, not just COs that don't have good caches. In fact, one would expect the COs that take their maintenance responsibilities seriously will consider it a larger burden than the COs you're trying to penalize.

 

Isn't a visit required in the guidelines?

Not that I know of. Where'd you get that?

 

Look, if visiting your cache once a year is too much for you then archive your caches and let someone who is willing to do it use the spot.

This has nothing to do with what I'm willing to do. My point is that the suggestion is ineffective against the problem it's being present to solve, and it's even counterproductive in that it discourages caches in general. If I archived my caches, there's no reason to think any other caches will spring up in their place.

 

Who decides which cache owners have to physically visit or face punishment, and which cache owners just have to write a note?

Me! Me! Pick Me!

 

Just kidding. I'd have to go with your local reviewer.

If you willing to enable your local reviewer to favor some owners, wouldn't it be easier and more to the point to enable the reviewers to disfavor the owners you're complaining about? That makes more sense to me than adding a new guideline, and then fixing the problems you've caused by granting the local reviewer special powers to get around the new problems.

 

Maybe owning a cache shouldn't be so easy but I hardly think that a yearly visit is a burden.

 

"You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log."

 

To me this suggests that you occasionally visit your cache regardless of condition but especially when there's an issue.

 

I'm willing to trust my reviewers judgment.

[+Dame Deco]

I spend so much wasted time and gas looking for caches that turn out to be abandoned for years, often throwdown, very often in awful shape.

 

Being completely serious, and truly trying to help you, I would suggest that geocaching is probably not a good activity for you. You might want to try something else that you will find less frustrating. If you consider the gas and time to get to a sub-optimal cache container "wasted," then I don't think that geocaching will ever be enjoyable for you except under the most restrictive circumstances.

 

Now, in less a spirit of helpfulness: if your aversion to caches that don't meet your standards is so extreme that you spend all your time on the forums trying to figure out ways to punish those who don't maintain their caches to your standards, then I suggest (rather un-gently) that you find something else to do and leave those of us who actually enjoy geocaching alone.

 

Thanks.

 

Being completely serious, and truly trying to help you, I would suggest that geocaching is probably not a good activity for you. You might want to try something else that you will find less frustrating. If you consider hobbies that grow and change with the times in unexpected ways, then I don't think that geocaching will ever be enjoyable for you except under the most restrictive circumstances.

 

Now in less a spirit of helpfulness: if your aversion to change is so extreme that you spend all your time on the forums trying to figure out ways to punish those who don't cache the way you do, then I suggest (rather un-gently) that you find something else to do and leave those of us who actually enjoy geocaching alone.

 

Thanks

[+fuzziebear3]

To me, I just don't get bent out of shape about it, mold isn't the worst thing I could find in a cache. If a box has been sitting in the woods for years, it might suffer from some dampness and mold over time. If I find it and can help it out, I can wipe it down a bit, or post an NM on it.

 

I don't see the point of requiring yearly checks on every cache though. If it gets an NM or a log that indicates it needs some help, then you should go out and check it. If it gets unexpected and unexplained DNFs, then it might be missing and might need a check. But lack of activity does not in itself mean that the cache needs checked.

 

As far as 'being an active cache owner', when I pay my premium membership each year, I am effectively indicating that I am still playing the game. So I would exempt all premium members from a yearly check-in.

 

In this story, the reviewer happened to come across a cache that he thought needed to move along in the process, due to a combination of bad conditions (mold), and a probably non-responsive owner. He started the ball with a message to check it or it could be archived. He is just doing his job and being proactive for his community. Kudos to him.

[+The Jester]

For me, it's going on geocaching vacations. I don't know the area. I don't know which cachers hide good caches. It's hit and miss. I spend so much wasted time and gas looking for caches that turn out to be abandoned for years, often throwdown, very often in awful shape. Yet nothing gets done because no one will post an NM. someone may have commented on the wet moldy log 10 found logs previous, but the others just post 'We had a great time and found a lot of caches today'. Thank you reviewers for stepping up and doing what finders won't do. You are helping both local cachers and those who spend precious resources to explore new territory.

I like finding caches. I like finding caches in reasonably good shape. I like finding caches a responsible owner created to make a finder's day special--not a throwdown someone littered the area with so they could claim a smiley.

Over the last two years, since we've retired, I've traveled all over the lower 48 states (US), parts of Canada, and Mexico. We've been on the road for more than 30 weeks total in that time (multiple trips up to 10 weeks at a time). So all that caching is done in areas we "don't know". The percentage of finds that are in 'bad shape' is no higher than when we cache locally at home. I don't know how you select the caches you hunt on vacation, but maybe you should reverse the process and NOT hunt the ones you select by that method, since it produces such a high number of bad caches. I seldom try to find every cache in an area, nor do I cache much in big cities. I generally load only the higher favored caches for a state (depending on the state it can be 10+ to 50+ fav points). Occasionally I've used the tablet & GDAK to see if there are any caches at a stop/rest area. I know from previous threads that you object to most suggestions to filter caches, but it seems you need to do something to enjoy this sport/activity more - or maybe fizzymagic is right, this ins't for you.

[+L0ne.R]

For me, it's going on geocaching vacations. I don't know the area. I don't know which cachers hide good caches. It's hit and miss. I spend so much wasted time and gas looking for caches that turn out to be abandoned for years, often throwdown, very often in awful shape. Yet nothing gets done because no one will post an NM. someone may have commented on the wet moldy log 10 found logs previous, but the others just post 'We had a great time and found a lot of caches today'. Thank you reviewers for stepping up and doing what finders won't do. You are helping both local cachers and those who spend precious resources to explore new territory.

I like finding caches. I like finding caches in reasonably good shape. I like finding caches a responsible owner created to make a finder's day special--not a throwdown someone littered the area with so they could claim a smiley.

Over the last two years, since we've retired, I've traveled all over the lower 48 states (US), parts of Canada, and Mexico. We've been on the road for more than 30 weeks total in that time (multiple trips up to 10 weeks at a time). So all that caching is done in areas we "don't know". The percentage of finds that are in 'bad shape' is no higher than when we cache locally at home. I don't know how you select the caches you hunt on vacation, but maybe you should reverse the process and NOT hunt the ones you select by that method, since it produces such a high number of bad caches. I seldom try to find every cache in an area, nor do I cache much in big cities. I generally load only the higher favored caches for a state (depending on the state it can be 10+ to 50+ fav points). Occasionally I've used the tablet & GDAK to see if there are any caches at a stop/rest area. I know from previous threads that you object to most suggestions to filter caches, but it seems you need to do something to enjoy this sport/activity more - or maybe fizzymagic is right, this ins't for you.

 

Right now, it isn't for me. I haven't cached since November. I tried a few times but the logs just weren't reporting anything worth going for.

Today, I tried. I was in a nearby city, in a nice neighbourhood with a few parks. Decided to open up Cachly to see what was around. The nearest cache was a small size new-ish cache hidden in October. New and swag size, and in a park. Sounded promising. A D/T 1.5/1.5. Good, I'm not into difficult hides. Then I noticed it had about 50% DNFs. So I read the logs. Turns out to be a more difficult find. Most required 2 visits. Logs included these comments: "(Found) felt awkward searching around someone's fence especially with the unhappy dogs barking at me." "(DNF) Walked far to try get this one today only to see it's another property line cache. Hate nosing around like that so on the ignore list she goes." The last log was a Found It log posted by the cache owner who wrote how happy she was to have so many visitors to her cache in this great little neighbourhood park.

I drove on home.

I made different plans for my time off this year in May. I'll spend more vacation time with my siblings, and enjoy some walking, shopping and sight seeing in new towns. I hope to get over the loss of a good pastime and give it up completely (including the forums--but I'm not ready to make Fizzy jump for joy ) I'm not at that stage yet. I still have some hope that Groundspeak may actually try to improve the 'health' of the game. It seems the reviewers are trying their best to clean things up. It won't help the kind of caches as described above but it will at least help decrease the amount of abandoned unmaintained caches in the database. It's a start.

Edited May 4, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+justintim1999]

For me, it's going on geocaching vacations. I don't know the area. I don't know which cachers hide good caches. It's hit and miss. I spend so much wasted time and gas looking for caches that turn out to be abandoned for years, often throwdown, very often in awful shape. Yet nothing gets done because no one will post an NM. someone may have commented on the wet moldy log 10 found logs previous, but the others just post 'We had a great time and found a lot of caches today'. Thank you reviewers for stepping up and doing what finders won't do. You are helping both local cachers and those who spend precious resources to explore new territory.

I like finding caches. I like finding caches in reasonably good shape. I like finding caches a responsible owner created to make a finder's day special--not a throwdown someone littered the area with so they could claim a smiley.

Over the last two years, since we've retired, I've traveled all over the lower 48 states (US), parts of Canada, and Mexico. We've been on the road for more than 30 weeks total in that time (multiple trips up to 10 weeks at a time). So all that caching is done in areas we "don't know". The percentage of finds that are in 'bad shape' is no higher than when we cache locally at home. I don't know how you select the caches you hunt on vacation, but maybe you should reverse the process and NOT hunt the ones you select by that method, since it produces such a high number of bad caches. I seldom try to find every cache in an area, nor do I cache much in big cities. I generally load only the higher favored caches for a state (depending on the state it can be 10+ to 50+ fav points). Occasionally I've used the tablet & GDAK to see if there are any caches at a stop/rest area. I know from previous threads that you object to most suggestions to filter caches, but it seems you need to do something to enjoy this sport/activity more - or maybe fizzymagic is right, this ins't for you.

 

Right now, it isn't for me. I haven't cached since November. I tried a few times but the logs just weren't reporting anything worth going for.

Today, I tried. I was in a nearby city, in a nice neighbourhood with a few parks. Decided to open up Cachly to see what was around. The nearest cache was a small size new-ish cache hidden in October. New and swag size, and in a park. Sounded promising. A D/T 1.5/1.5. Good, I'm not into difficult hides. Then I noticed it had about 50% DNFs. So I read the logs. Turns out to be a more difficult find. Most required 2 visits. Logs included these comments: "(Found) felt awkward searching around someone's fence especially with the unhappy dogs barking at me." "(DNF) Walked far to try get this one today only to see it's another property line cache. Hate nosing around like that so on the ignore list she goes." The last log was a Found It log posted by the cache owner who wrote how happy she was to have so many visitors to her cache in this great little neighbourhood park.

I drove on home.

I made different plans for my time off this year in May. I'll spend more vacation time with my siblings, and enjoy some walking, shopping and sight seeing in new towns. I hope to get over the loss of a good pastime and give it up completely (including the forums--but I'm not ready to make Fizzy jump for joy ) I'm not at that stage yet. I still have some hope that Groundspeak may actually try to improve the 'health' of the game. It seems the reviewers are trying their best to clean things up. It won't help the kind of caches as described above but it will at least help decrease the amount of abandoned unmaintained caches in the database. It's a start.

 

It saddens me to read this because I get a sense that you truly enjoy(ed) the game. The only thing I can say is that things change and I hope you around when it happens.

 

Groundspeak can only do so much. I's really up to us to continue pushing the game in the right direction.

 

Without good cachers and cache owners there's no hope.

[+redsox_mark]

I still have some hope that Groundspeak may actually try to improve the 'health' of the game. It seems the reviewers are trying their best to clean things up. It won't help the kind of caches as described above but it will at least help decrease the amount of abandoned unmaintained caches in the database. It's a start.

 

I don't like caches like the one you described either. I don't like caches which are overlooked by houses, or by the boundary of private property.. etc. But nothing Groundspeak is doing address that. I generally look at the logs before seeking a cache, if I saw logs like that I would ignore it.

 

While on the other hand, if the cache is a nice walk and in a quiet location, I'll enjoy it even if the log is wet and the CO is deceased.

 

I'm not saying I don't prefer dry logs to wet ones, it just isn't that important to me.

[+L0ne.R]

For me, it's going on geocaching vacations. I don't know the area. I don't know which cachers hide good caches. It's hit and miss. I spend so much wasted time and gas looking for caches that turn out to be abandoned for years, often throwdown, very often in awful shape. Yet nothing gets done because no one will post an NM. someone may have commented on the wet moldy log 10 found logs previous, but the others just post 'We had a great time and found a lot of caches today'. Thank you reviewers for stepping up and doing what finders won't do. You are helping both local cachers and those who spend precious resources to explore new territory.

I like finding caches. I like finding caches in reasonably good shape. I like finding caches a responsible owner created to make a finder's day special--not a throwdown someone littered the area with so they could claim a smiley.

Over the last two years, since we've retired, I've traveled all over the lower 48 states (US), parts of Canada, and Mexico. We've been on the road for more than 30 weeks total in that time (multiple trips up to 10 weeks at a time). So all that caching is done in areas we "don't know". The percentage of finds that are in 'bad shape' is no higher than when we cache locally at home. I don't know how you select the caches you hunt on vacation, but maybe you should reverse the process and NOT hunt the ones you select by that method, since it produces such a high number of bad caches. I seldom try to find every cache in an area, nor do I cache much in big cities. I generally load only the higher favored caches for a state (depending on the state it can be 10+ to 50+ fav points). Occasionally I've used the tablet & GDAK to see if there are any caches at a stop/rest area. I know from previous threads that you object to most suggestions to filter caches, but it seems you need to do something to enjoy this sport/activity more - or maybe fizzymagic is right, this ins't for you.

 

Right now, it isn't for me. I haven't cached since November. I tried a few times but the logs just weren't reporting anything worth going for.

Today, I tried. I was in a nearby city, in a nice neighbourhood with a few parks. Decided to open up Cachly to see what was around. The nearest cache was a small size new-ish cache hidden in October. New and swag size, and in a park. Sounded promising. A D/T 1.5/1.5. Good, I'm not into difficult hides. Then I noticed it had about 50% DNFs. So I read the logs. Turns out to be a more difficult find. Most required 2 visits. Logs included these comments: "(Found) felt awkward searching around someone's fence especially with the unhappy dogs barking at me." "(DNF) Walked far to try get this one today only to see it's another property line cache. Hate nosing around like that so on the ignore list she goes." The last log was a Found It log posted by the cache owner who wrote how happy she was to have so many visitors to her cache in this great little neighbourhood park.

I drove on home.

I made different plans for my time off this year in May. I'll spend more vacation time with my siblings, and enjoy some walking, shopping and sight seeing in new towns. I hope to get over the loss of a good pastime and give it up completely (including the forums--but I'm not ready to make Fizzy jump for joy ) I'm not at that stage yet. I still have some hope that Groundspeak may actually try to improve the 'health' of the game. It seems the reviewers are trying their best to clean things up. It won't help the kind of caches as described above but it will at least help decrease the amount of abandoned unmaintained caches in the database. It's a start.

 

It saddens me to read this because I get a sense that you truly enjoy(ed) the game. The only thing I can say is that things change and I hope you around when it happens.

 

Groundspeak can only do so much. I's really up to us to continue pushing the game in the right direction.

 

Without good cachers and cache owners there's no hope.

 

Thank you. And I agree.

[+narcissa]

I still have some hope that Groundspeak may actually try to improve the 'health' of the game. It seems the reviewers are trying their best to clean things up. It won't help the kind of caches as described above but it will at least help decrease the amount of abandoned unmaintained caches in the database. It's a start.

 

I don't like caches like the one you described either. I don't like caches which are overlooked by houses, or by the boundary of private property.. etc. But nothing Groundspeak is doing address that. I generally look at the logs before seeking a cache, if I saw logs like that I would ignore it.

 

While on the other hand, if the cache is a nice walk and in a quiet location, I'll enjoy it even if the log is wet and the CO is deceased.

 

I'm not saying I don't prefer dry logs to wet ones, it just isn't that important to me.

 

This is just it. I know very few geocachers who allow themselves to be so thrown off by a minor cache repair issue. I prefer a dry logbook to write in just as much as anyone else, but I'm not going to leave a cache in tears because it's a bit damp or the pencil was broken. When I think about the best geocaching experiences I have had, I really don't have strong memories of most of the caches themselves because it's the journey and the people I was with that made it fun.

 

Ultimately I think the obsession with container quality and brand new swag is incompatible with an element of the game that I think is far more important, which is cache permanence. It's nice when a cache develops a history. Given the choice between a clean new container in a boring location next to a parking lot, and a 10-year-old cache with a couple of leaks in a really cool spot, I'll take the latter (of course, I have always included pertinent details in my log and written an NM log if needed - information is power! Sadly, the NM feature is now just a flag with no information added.). But there's no room for those caches in this game anymore. They must be removed, and the evil-doers must be punished.

Edited May 4, 2017 by narcissa

[+justintim1999]

I still have some hope that Groundspeak may actually try to improve the 'health' of the game. It seems the reviewers are trying their best to clean things up. It won't help the kind of caches as described above but it will at least help decrease the amount of abandoned unmaintained caches in the database. It's a start.

 

I don't like caches like the one you described either. I don't like caches which are overlooked by houses, or by the boundary of private property.. etc. But nothing Groundspeak is doing address that. I generally look at the logs before seeking a cache, if I saw logs like that I would ignore it.

 

While on the other hand, if the cache is a nice walk and in a quiet location, I'll enjoy it even if the log is wet and the CO is deceased.

 

I'm not saying I don't prefer dry logs to wet ones, it just isn't that important to me.

 

This is just it. I know very few geocachers who allow themselves to be so thrown off by a minor cache repair issue. I prefer a dry logbook to write in just as much as anyone else, but I'm not going to leave a cache in tears because it's a bit damp or the pencil was broken. When I think about the best geocaching experiences I have had, I really don't have strong memories of most of the caches themselves because it's the journey and the people I was with that made it fun.

 

Ultimately I think the obsession with container quality and brand new swag is incompatible with an element of the game that I think is far more important, which is cache permanence. It's nice when a cache develops a history. Given the choice between a clean new container in a boring location next to a parking lot, and a 10-year-old cache with a couple of leaks in a really cool spot, I'll take the latter. But there's no room for those caches in this game anymore. They must be removed, and the evil-doers must be punished.

 

Why do we even have NM's if we're not suppose to use them, even on the nice 10-year old cache with the great view?

 

You might scare some newbies away from issuing a dnf or NM using a sentimental mind game, but not me.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Why do we even have NM's if we're not suppose to use them, even on the nice 10-year old cache with the great view?

 

You might scare some newbies away from issuing a dnf or NM using a sentimental mind game, but not me.

 

I don't see anyone saying not to log NMs if maintenance is needed.

[+justintim1999]

 

Why do we even have NM's if we're not suppose to use them, even on the nice 10-year old cache with the great view?

 

You might scare some newbies away from issuing a dnf or NM using a sentimental mind game, but not me.

 

I don't see anyone saying not to log NMs if maintenance is needed.

 

I see ignore the leaky container because it's a 10 year old cache in a cool location. To me That's one step away from it's a bad thing to log a NM on a cache simply because it's been around a while. All of which I don't agree with.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I see ignore the leaky container because it's a 10 year old cache in a cool location. To me That's one step away from it's a bad thing to log a NM on a cache simply because it's been around a while. All of which I don't agree with.

 

I guess I'm not seeing well, I don't see anyone saying anything like that either.

 

My view - if a cache needs maintenance, a NM log is appropriate. Where we differ perhaps is how quickly such maintenance needs to be done, or even how to handle the case where someone other than the CO fixes the cache, so now it is in good shape but still has the NM flag. I.e. I would be slow to move to archiving of a cache if the CO doesn't act due to minor maintenance issues.

[+SeattleWayne]

It seems that the reviewers have a keyword search that brings up cache logs with words like: moldy.

 

As there's been no response to my earlier note, I am forced to archive this listing.

If you wish to repair/replace the cache sometime in the future, just contact me email, including the GC Code, and assuming it meets the guidelines, we'll be happy to unarchive it.

 

This cache is being disabled because of keyword mold. I read the logs and it appears to be in need of owner intervention. I'm temporarily disabling it, to give the owner an opportunity to check on the cache, and take whatever action is necessary. Please respond to this situation in a timely manner (i.e., within 30 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness.

It is possible I missed that it was fixed; if so, just do an owner maintenance and thank you!

 

Found it 10/17/2016

Needs some TLC getting very moldy inside! Adventure on

 

Only log mentioning 'mold'. From a cacher with four finds.

 

Cache hidden in 2002. A great cache with 283 finds. Yes. The CO passed on several years ago. And is no longer doing maintenance. One mention of 'mold' by a newbie was enough to archive the cache. If it were on my watch list, I would have gone out and scrubbed it.

Very sad to see this cache archived. It was a great old cache.

 

The reviewer also mentioned that if the CO wants to replace/repair that they will unarchive it.

[+narcissa]

My view - if a cache needs maintenance, a NM log is appropriate. Where we differ perhaps is how quickly such maintenance needs to be done, or even how to handle the case where someone other than the CO fixes the cache, so now it is in good shape but still has the NM flag. I.e. I would be slow to move to archiving of a cache if the CO doesn't act due to minor maintenance issues.

 

This is my thinking as well. If the cache is a bit leaky, but it's not catastrophic, I used to log an NM with a very clear description of what's happening, sort of a "Hey bud, next time you come out you should probably bring a new container with you." I trust the cache owner to use that information to make an informed decision about cache maintenance.

 

The new system is so unwieldy and frustrating that I probably won't use NM as much. I'll just log my find and put the details there and hope the cache owner sees them.

 

But the key point I was trying to make, which I fear has been deliberately misinterpreted, is that there's no reason for a geocaching experience to be spoiled because the cache is a bit leaky. It's not the end of the world. I still got out to a cool place with good company and had a great time. It's just really sad that some cachers would find the same cache and choose to be miserable about it. When you leave containers outside in the woods, they're going to fail sometimes. It doesn't mean the cache owner is a bad person who needs to be banned from the game and beaten in the street.

[+justintim1999]

 

I see ignore the leaky container because it's a 10 year old cache in a cool location. To me That's one step away from it's a bad thing to log a NM on a cache simply because it's been around a while. All of which I don't agree with.

 

I guess I'm not seeing well, I don't see anyone saying anything like that either.

 

My view - if a cache needs maintenance, a NM log is appropriate. Where we differ perhaps is how quickly such maintenance needs to be done, or even how to handle the case where someone other than the CO fixes the cache, so now it is in good shape but still has the NM flag. I.e. I would be slow to move to archiving of a cache if the CO doesn't act due to minor maintenance issues.

 

Your point of view as well as narcissi's is expected. If I owned or enjoyed finding a cache which required a significant hike to get to I'd probably feel the same way. I'm sure I'd also develop a certain dislike for any NM that may cause me to loose my cache if not responded to. A couple of dnf would probibbly scare the heck out of me now that the health score has come to light.

 

Caches like these will need to be handled carefully in order to keep them alive.

 

None of this changes a cache owners responsibility.

 

We need to promote the proper use of NM's not frighten people away from using them.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Caches like these will need to be handled carefully in order to keep them alive.

 

None of this changes a cache owners responsibility.

 

We need to promote the proper use of NM's not frighten people away from using them.

 

I agree on all counts.

[+justintim1999]

My view - if a cache needs maintenance, a NM log is appropriate. Where we differ perhaps is how quickly such maintenance needs to be done, or even how to handle the case where someone other than the CO fixes the cache, so now it is in good shape but still has the NM flag. I.e. I would be slow to move to archiving of a cache if the CO doesn't act due to minor maintenance issues.

 

This is my thinking as well. If the cache is a bit leaky, but it's not catastrophic, I used to log an NM with a very clear description of what's happening, sort of a "Hey bud, next time you come out you should probably bring a new container with you." I trust the cache owner to use that information to make an informed decision about cache maintenance.

 

The new system is so unwieldy and frustrating that I probably won't use NM as much. I'll just log my find and put the details there and hope the cache owner sees them.

 

But the key point I was trying to make, which I fear has been deliberately misinterpreted, is that there's no reason for a geocaching experience to be spoiled because the cache is a bit leaky. It's not the end of the world. I still got out to a cool place with good company and had a great time. It's just really sad that some cachers would find the same cache and choose to be miserable about it. When you leave containers outside in the woods, they're going to fail sometimes. It doesn't mean the cache owner is a bad person who needs to be banned from the game and beaten in the street.

 

The key point should be a cache owner should maintain their caches. Why dose this basic tenet of cache ownership seem to be such a foreign idea? So much so that people will go to extreme lengths to fight the very notion?

 

Caches fail all the time. I've got one right now that needs to be replaced. It's how you respond ot it that matters.

 

Sing it with me. "There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy, There's only you and me and we just disagree."

[+redsox_mark]

 

The key point should be a cache owner should maintain their caches. Why dose this basic tenet of cache ownership seem to be such a foreign idea? So much so that people will go to extreme lengths to fight the very notion?

 

Caches fail all the time. I've got one right now that needs to be replaced. It's how you respond ot it that matters.

 

Sing it with me. "There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy, There's only you and me and we just disagree."

 

I don't like that song..

 

I don't have an issue with responsibility and cache ownership. As I said in another thread, I think the debate is about details of how to "enforce" compliance. I prefer less central control, less enforcement, more community responsibility, more flexible timescales for a CO to address their caches.

 

My own caches I generally address issues quickly. None of them require more than an hour or two of a walk. The longest takes 2 hours to check all the stages, but if just one stage has an issue some are close to a parking place.

[+justintim1999]

 

The key point should be a cache owner should maintain their caches. Why dose this basic tenet of cache ownership seem to be such a foreign idea? So much so that people will go to extreme lengths to fight the very notion?

 

Caches fail all the time. I've got one right now that needs to be replaced. It's how you respond ot it that matters.

 

Sing it with me. "There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy, There's only you and me and we just disagree."

 

I don't like that song..

 

I don't have an issue with responsibility and cache ownership. As I said in another thread, I think the debate is about details of how to "enforce" compliance. I prefer less central control, less enforcement, more community responsibility, more flexible timescales for a CO to address their caches.

 

My own caches I generally address issues quickly. None of them require more than an hour or two of a walk. The longest takes 2 hours to check all the stages, but if just one stage has an issue some are close to a parking place.

 

Sounds like my caches are very similar to yours as far as maintenance are concerned.

 

I'd be all in favor of less "central control" if the game hadn't grown as fast as it has. The question now is how do we handle the way things are?

[+dprovan]

Your point of view as well as narcissi's is expected. If I owned or enjoyed finding a cache which required a significant hike to get to I'd probably feel the same way. I'm sure I'd also develop a certain dislike for any NM that may cause me to loose my cache if not responded to. A couple of dnf would probibbly scare the heck out of me now that the health score has come to light.

 

Caches like these will need to be handled carefully in order to keep them alive.

 

None of this changes a cache owners responsibility.

You have your own standard of the owner's responsibility. The people actually looking at the cache log or visiting GZ also have a standard of the owner's responsibility. They have applied their standard by filing whatever logs they thought they should file. You want GS to ignore those people's opinion and apply your standard. We can't really have a rational discussion of this issue until you understand that the standard you think is universal is not.

 

We need to promote the proper use of NM's not frighten people away from using them.

I think you're forgetting what started this thread. The case brought up originally was that a reviewer stepped in without any NM posted, disabled the cache, and later archived it. That eliminates any reason for anyone to file an NM. After this thread was started, of course, logging was changed eliminate the NM, which reinforces the idea that getting rid of problem caches is someone else's responsibility, and all a seeker has to do is trigger the investigation.

[+L0ne.R]

 

I think you're forgetting what started this thread. The case brought up originally was that a reviewer stepped in without any NM posted, disabled the cache, and later archived it.

 

I think Groundspeak realizes that a database full of caches that look like these below, are detrimental to sustaining customers.

 

[+narcissa]

 

I think you're forgetting what started this thread. The case brought up originally was that a reviewer stepped in without any NM posted, disabled the cache, and later archived it.

 

I think Groundspeak realizes that a database full of caches that look like these below, are detrimental to sustaining customers.

 

 

Full?

[+justintim1999]

 

I think you're forgetting what started this thread. The case brought up originally was that a reviewer stepped in without any NM posted, disabled the cache, and later archived it.

 

I think Groundspeak realizes that a database full of caches that look like these below, are detrimental to sustaining customers.

 

 

Full?

 

Is that a urine specimen?

 

I think it's safe to say that this is exactly what we all want to see addressed with whatever method we can all agree on.

[+narcissa]

I must live in an alternate universe. I often cache on back roads in the country, by canoe, and when possible, in more remote areas where one would expect to find caches that are, perhaps, in worse shape than high traffic caches in urban areas, and yet I rarely ever find a cache that looks as bad as those pictures. They happen, but they are rare.

 

And yet here is another cacher who claims to spend an inordinate amount of time painstakingly combing through the database trying to flag caches in perfect condition, with excellent swag, positive logs, etc. and not only claims that the database is "full" of these terrible, disgusting caches, somehow manages to find them at an alarming rate despite taking extreme measures to avoid such caches.

 

Something just isn't adding up here.