Resusitator cache

[+cerberus1]

20 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I've got an ammo can cache I placed (in the Northeast) over 9 years ago.   I've only re-visted the cache a few times and have never had to do any maintenance on it.  It's only got 51 finds on it and the last log (a couple of months ago) indicated that it was in good shape.  It's also hidden off the ground so it doesn't spend much time covered in snow or frozen to the ground.  The combination of a good container, how it's hidden, and few finder visits is what make a difference in how ofter a cache will need maintenance.  

I agree.  We noticed though quality may depend on where that container originally came from.

We have an ammo can outdoors on the property since '02, well before we started this hobby, and it's still in fine shape.

A friend who bought a "new" ammo can from a vendor that sells tractor equipment had theirs only last a couple  years before parts started failing.

[+barefootjeff]

On 12/12/2017 at 0:06 AM, justintim1999 said:

It's been my experience that over time caches simply degrade so I'm not quite convinced that it's rare for a cache that's not been found in a year to be in need of maintenance.

It's not hard to make a cache that'll last many years or decades without having to be "maintained". Take this one for example: it's stainless steel so it's not going to rust, the hiding place is well inside a wind-eroded cave so it's not going to get wet or be exposed to the sun and it's in an area where the chance of a muggle stumbling across it is negligible. Being a long T3.5 hike, It probably won't get many visitors either - it had two vying for FTF on the first day, a third the day after and just one since then.

Many of the bushland caches around here use a similar approach - a sturdy container in a hiding place protected from the weather - and don't degrade even after many years of service.

[+CAVinoGal]

On 12/11/2017 at 5:06 AM, justintim1999 said:

...   I also wonder how many finders would look at the time in-between finds and decide to give a cache like this a pass.   I tend to think that if it was recently found more cachers may give it a shot.  

...  I would think that going after caches like these would be challenging and the person who decided to do so would have to be persistent and not overly concerned with the numbers game.  

I look at caches with a long time between finds, or not having been found in over a year, but with no apparent maintenance issues (no DNF's, or an OM posted) as a personal challenge of sorts - I CAN FIND THIS!!  It's gratifying to make a find on a lonely cache!

[+hal-an-tow]

On 12/12/2017 at 8:30 PM, CAVinoGal said:

I look at caches with a long time between finds, or not having been found in over a year, but with no apparent maintenance issues (no DNF's, or an OM posted) as a personal challenge of sorts - I CAN FIND THIS!!  It's gratifying to make a find on a lonely cache!

Yes it is, I've very much enjoyed the 15 puzzles, 4 trads and one multi I've managed to find after they have lain dormant for a year or more. Excellent puzzles, long walks or a lot of waypoints to walk between appeared to be the reason those caches had been lonely , and I don't think any of them was abandoned by the C.O.

Strange, isn't it that complex questions about the feasibility or otherwise of project GC lonely cache challenge checkers could be simply side stepped by allowing a challenge to be validated by looking at the actual cache page to establish the date of the previous logged visit !

 

[+hal-an-tow]

Just had a coffee break accompaniedby a little idle look around project GC, and noticed there is a lonely cache option in the statistcs tab . It says "The loneliness is calculated by dividing the age of the geocaches (in days) by the number of finds. "

Could that analysis be harnessed to build a checker and allow a challenge I wonder ?

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, hal-an-tow said:

Just had a coffee break accompaniedby a little idle look around project GC, and noticed there is a lonely cache option in the statistcs tab . It says "The loneliness is calculated by dividing the age of the geocaches (in days) by the number of finds. "

Could that analysis be harnessed to build a checker and allow a challenge I wonder ?

If other geocachers posting logs to your qualifying cache can turn it into a disqualified cache, then there is an aspect of "Competition rather than achievement" that will not be allowed in a challenge.

[+arisoft]

10 minutes ago, niraD said:

If other geocachers posting logs to your qualifying cache can turn it into a disqualified cache, then there is an aspect of "Competition rather than achievement" that will not be allowed in a challenge.

For me, logging a lonely cache is not a competition, it is an achievement and not the easiest one. It can be done, if you really want to, but it does not happen without any effort. Effort is not same as competition. But there is a problem. Situation may change before the cache owner check results and then you claim may be cancelled.

[+noncentric]

On 12/4/2017 at 0:16 PM, Gill & Tony said:

The problem with making a checker comes when there is more than one found log on the day of your find.  Nobody finds the cache for a year then 2 (or more) logs appear for the same date.  Are these a group finding it together or was one earlier than the other?  The checker can't tell.

On 12/4/2017 at 1:29 PM, Mausebiber said:

Yes, but if the challenge says "you have to find a cache not found for 1 year", then the second and third finder on this day haven't found a cache "not found for a year", they have found a cache which was found a couple of hrs ago.

Most of the lonely/resusitator challenges I've looked at do not consider finds on the same date as yours. So, if three cachers log Found It on 1/1/2018 and the last date with a find was 1/1/2016, then all 3 of those cachers could claim it as a lonely/resustator cache.

 

On 12/4/2017 at 2:49 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

I qualify!  I've found 67 caches that have not been found in a year!  Two of them had not been found in four years!  I enjoy hunting lonely caches.  The caches that require a hike are not found very often anymore.  Most of them have not been found since.  Though I did get a laugh at the ones where someone found them a-year-and-a-half later, and called them lonely caches.

I've found 24 caches that hadn't been found in 12+ months. The loneliest one I've found was 45 months since the previous find. It had a couple finders after me, but is now 1.5 years lonely again. It's a 2 mile hike along an old logging road, which is probably why it doesn't get many visitors. It did have more visitors earlier in its life, when the road was open to 4x4 vehicles and people could drive up to within a few hundred feet of it. The cache was an ammo box, in excellent shape, completely dry inside, and contained swag items. And the views from GZ were a bonus.

There was also a set of logging roads, previously open to vehicles but now only open to non-motorized bikers/hikers, where I found 9 caches that hadn't been found in 2 years. One of those caches was soaked, which I reported, but the others were in good shape.

 

On 12/16/2017 at 6:27 AM, hal-an-tow said:

Just had a coffee break accompaniedby a little idle look around project GC, and noticed there is a lonely cache option in the statistcs tab . It says "The loneliness is calculated by dividing the age of the geocaches (in days) by the number of finds. "

Could that analysis be harnessed to build a checker and allow a challenge I wonder ?

That measure of loneliness is very different from the definition of 'lonely'/'resusitator' mentioned in this thread. It's just averaging and can, and does, categorize some caches as 'lonelier' than others, even though those caches have been found more recently than the others.

It also seems difficult to use as a challenge qualifier because the status of the cache changes with each find, so it would have to look only at logs previous to yours in order to determine how 'lonely' the cache was when you found it. For example, if you find a cache that was placed 600 days ago and you are the 10th finder, then the cache was 60 days lonely (600/10, based on that PGC option) when you found it. If a group of 3 goes out a month later and they all find the cache, then the cache would then be 48 days lonely (630/13). Let's say there is a challenge that requires 50 days of PGC loneliness. If you were to run the checker after those 3 logs are on the cache, then you wouldn't qualify even though you would've qualified if you ran the checker before their logs.

[+noncentric]

On 12/11/2017 at 5:06 AM, justintim1999 said:

I put myself in the cache owners shoes.  If I had a cache that had not been visited in over a year I know I'd be bummed.  I try to check up on my caches twice a year regardless of activity so it would feel like I'm doing this extra maintenance work for nothing.   I'm wondering how many cache owners would feel discouraged and just walk away?

That's very much your own perception. It's your choice to check on your caches twice a year, and that's fine if that is your definition of visiting "periodically", but as has been hashed out in numerous threads - not everyone has the same definition of what timeframe is "periodic". If your caches are placed with the expectation that they be found more often and they are not, then it's fine for you to be bummed about it, but that doesn't mean that other CO's would feel the same. I have caches that I don't expect to be found more than a few times a year, based on their out-of-the-way location, so I'm not disappointed at their infrequent find rate.

It's really all about expectations. If CO's set their expectations too high and walk away because of that, then there isn't much that can be done. They should look at other caches in the area around their hides. If those other caches average 1-2 finds per year, then they shouldn't expect that theirs will get 10 finds per year. If they want to get a lot of finds, then they should re-evaluate the locations that they're using. They should place caches where there are more visitors and/or create caches with lower D/T ratings, if they want to attract more finders.

 

On 12/11/2017 at 5:06 AM, justintim1999 said:

I also wonder how many finders would look at the time in-between finds and decide to give a cache like this a pass.   I tend to think that if it was recently found more cachers may give it a shot. 

It really depends on the cacher. There are plenty of cachers that don't read the cache description at all, much less look at the dates/types of previous logs. Cachers that do pay attention to those things might think the cache is gone, even though there aren't any DNF's or other 'negative' logs since the last find. In that case, oh well. It's not the cache for them, similar to cachers that see a multi-cache is a projection and skip it or cachers that see mystery caches and skip them. That doesn't mean there is any problem with the cache itself.

On the other hand, there are cachers that will look at the time since the last find and have no problem at all with searching for it. Some may even seek them out. In many cases, these lonely caches are lonely only because they're a bit out-of-the-way and there aren't a lot of cachers that are willing to invest an entire day into just 1 cache, when they can go somewhere else and find dozens in the same amount of time.

 

On 12/11/2017 at 5:06 AM, justintim1999 said:

It's been my experience that over time caches simply degrade so I'm not quite convinced that it's rare for a cache that's not been found in a year to be in need of maintenance. 

You may not be convinced that a 1-year lonely cache doesn't need maintenance, and that's fine, but there are plenty of cachers that aren't convinced that a cache needs maintenance simply because it hasn't been found in a year. There are so many variables besides simply 'date since last find' to consider, location, container, weather, etc.

 

On 12/11/2017 at 8:30 AM, justintim1999 said:

If only all cache hides were amo boxes or something equally as good.   We both know that's not the case.  In fact I guess most are of the variety I indicated above.

I think a high percentage of lonely caches are high-quality containers. As mentioned earlier, many caches are lonely just because they're remote. CO's that place remote caches then to use containers better than just a pill bottle. One of the reasons that CO's don't use ammo cans, or other high-quality containers, is because of muggling. Such containers are not cheap and so CO's don't want to use them if they are just going to get stolen. Caches places in remote areas are less prone to theft, so CO's may be more willing to use a pricier container for those remote hides.

 

[+noncentric]

There was discussion in the PGC forums about gaining the ability to get the data that would be needed to create lonely/resuscitator checkers, but the expected timeline has passed and I haven't seen anything else about it, so maybe that fizzled away. Unless they meant June 2018.

 

A pinned post in the PGC forums, from March 2017, stated the following:

Quote

The checkers does not have access to logs from others on the geocaches logged. Therefore a challenge to log a geocaches that hasn't been logged for one year isn't possible. We are however looking into solving this in the near future (June is expected). Details are yet to be determined.

 

[+arisoft]

I tried to publish a challenge which is based on caches not found recently. The challenge checker is here https://project-gc.com/Challenges//30693

The challenge was quicky rejected by referring to some subjective opinions not very tightly relating to guidelines. The main problem seems to be that the qualification is not quaranteed to stay forever and this may be too challenging.

[+niraD]

15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I tried to publish a challenge which is based on caches not found recently. The challenge checker is here https://project-gc.com/Challenges//30693

The challenge was quicky rejected by referring to some subjective opinions not very tightly relating to guidelines. The main problem seems to be that the qualification is not quaranteed to stay forever and this may be too challenging.

The guideline specifically lists FTF challenges as an example of a prohibited "competition" challenge.

Lonely cache challenges are essentially the same thing, except that the opportunity to qualify by finding a specific cache (before everyone else) resets after the cache has been unfound for a specified length of time. I am not at all surprised that a lonely cache challenge was rejected.

Edited January 24, 2018 by niraD
clarity

[+arisoft]

14 minutes ago, niraD said:

The guideline specifically lists FTF challenges as an example of a prohibited "competition" challenge.

Yes, you found one subjective interpretation which was actually used. I really can not follow the reasoning behind this, because FTF is not the same at all. Everyone can claim LTF. It is not a competition like FTF. It is a status (which can change).

[+niraD]

28 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I really can not follow the reasoning behind this, because FTF is not the same at all.

Sure it is.

FTF: cache is published, race begins, someone finds the cache, no one else can get FTF.

Lonely Cache: cache is unfound for [threshold], race begins, someone finds the cache, no one else can get the Lonely Cache
until cache is unfound for [threshold], race begins, lather rinse repeat

Edited January 25, 2018 by niraD

[+arisoft]

17 minutes ago, niraD said:

no one else can get the Lonely Cache

Not true. You can get the Lonely cache. Everyone can easily get  it. The "threshold" was something extra you added to this.

One may rightly ask where is this competition organized? Can you say where you can participate to a LTF competition? I know where I can participate to a FTF competition but never heard about LTF one.

Anyway, if two geocachers waits until the threshold, both of them can claim LTF because there is no way to say (from log entries) which was the first or last at the same day. So - everyone can claim LTF also in this case. Competition? Really?

 

[+niraD]

21 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Anyway, if two geocachers waits until the threshold, both of them can claim LTF because there is no way to say (from log entries) which was the first or last at the same day. So - everyone can claim LTF also in this case. Competition? Really?

And if I post a log dated the day before their logs, then my lonely cache claim is valid and their lonely cache claims are no longer valid. I win. They lose.

Competition. Really.

If I can post a log that invalidates your claim to qualify for the challenge, then the challenge involves some form of competition.

Edited January 25, 2018 by niraD

[+arisoft]

13 minutes ago, niraD said:

And if I post a log dated the day before their logs, then my lonely cache claim is valid and their lonely cache claims are no longer valid. I win. They lose.

Competition. Really.

If I can post a log that invalidates your claim to qualify for the challenge, then the challenge involves some form of competition.

No you do not win because the threshold you added to the equation.

Your new faked achievement of one day old LTF is worthless in any way - not a win.

Let me ask you. Do you think that if anyone wants to earn a LTF, it would be impossible?

[+noncentric]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

I tried to publish a challenge which is based on caches not found recently. The challenge checker is here https://project-gc.com/Challenges//30693

The challenge was quicky rejected by referring to some subjective opinions not very tightly relating to guidelines. The main problem seems to be that the qualification is not quaranteed to stay forever and this may be too challenging.

The guideline specifically lists FTF challenges as an example of a prohibited "competition" challenge.

Lonely cache challenges are essentially the same thing, except that the opportunity to qualify by finding a specific cache (before everyone else) resets after the cache has been unfound for a specified length of time. I am not at all surprised that a lonely cache challenge was rejected.

The challenge that arisoft created a checker for is not a "lonely cache" challenge. arisoft's checker checks for caches where you are last-to-find. An interesting checker. I ran it and got 103. Yikes!  Some of them seemed to have gone missing after my find, but several of them are also infrequently found, so I'm not surprised that they haven't been found since.  Anyway, the type of "LTF" challenge that arisoft attempted to create is certainly problematic. As soon as someone else finds the cache after me, then that cache will no longer be one of my qualifiers.

Lonely/Resuscitator Cache challenges are different. If a cache is found 1/1/2017 and then I find it on 1/2/2018, then it counts as a 1-year qualifier for me. No matter how many cachers find the cache after 1/2/2018, my qualification doesn't change.

[+Harry Dolphin]

18 minutes ago, noncentric said:

The challenge that arisoft created a checker for is not a "lonely cache" challenge. arisoft's checker checks for caches where you are last-to-find. An interesting checker. I ran it and got 103. Yikes!  Some of them seemed to have gone missing after my find, but several of them are also infrequently found, so I'm not surprised that they haven't been found since.  Anyway, the type of "LTF" challenge that arisoft attempted to create is certainly problematic. As soon as someone else finds the cache after me, then that cache will no longer be one of my qualifiers.

Lonely/Resuscitator Cache challenges are different. If a cache is found 1/1/2017 and then I find it on 1/2/2018, then it counts as a 1-year qualifier for me. No matter how many cachers find the cache after 1/2/2018, my qualification doesn't change.

I've got 173!  Only 11 archived.  But I fo hunt lonely caches.

[+noncentric]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

I tried to publish a challenge which is based on caches not found recently. The challenge checker is here https://project-gc.com/Challenges//30693

Any chance you could increase the "limit" on that checker to...maybe 200?  

 

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

Let me ask you. Do you think that if anyone wants to earn a LTF, it would be impossible?

I guess that if someone had already found the cache, then they would have to re-find it to be LTF.  But since a 2nd find is not allowed, then they'd have to delete their first find date and claim the new find date?  Of course, many challenge cache requirements can be faked by cachers that are determined enough.

[+CAVinoGal]

Interesting that this discussion would be revived today; I (we, actually, hubby and I) found one of my son's puzzle caches that had last been found in December of 2016, so over a year ago.  It was a fun puzzle involving math, projectiles, geometry (or is it trigonometry?) - whatever - he'd sovled it awhile ago, I finally dug in to do the math and solve it this morning.  We set off to get it after Homer did his Hooray dance for us ... that's when we saw that the last find was 12/13/2016.

Once we found the cache, I was amazed at the condition - it was a Mighty Mega container (first one I've encountered) and the inside was pristine - in like new condition.  The logsheet was in a baggie and looked like it had been placed yesterday - it was in better condition than most logs Ive seen!  All the more surprising because the cache was literally submerged, underwater when we found it, but the inside of the container was totally dry and clean.  The container was amazing.

6 hours ago, noncentric said:

On the other hand, there are cachers that will look at the time since the last find and have no problem at all with searching for it.

You may not be convinced that a 1-year lonely cache doesn't need maintenance, and that's fine, but there are plenty of cachers that aren't convinced that a cache needs maintenance simply because it hasn't been found in a year. There are so many variables besides simply 'date since last find' to consider, location, container, weather, etc.

I think a high percentage of lonely caches are high-quality containers. As mentioned earlier, many caches are lonely just because they're remote. CO's that place remote caches then to use containers better than just a pill bottle. One of the reasons that CO's don't use ammo cans, or other high-quality containers, is because of muggling. Such containers are not cheap and so CO's don't want to use them if they are just going to get stolen. Caches places in remote areas are less prone to theft, so CO's may be more willing to use a pricier container for those remote hides.

The container, the actual hide itself (very clever), and the fact that it is the final for a puzzle, and that it's over 4 years old, are all resaons why it isn't being found often anymore and why it isn't being muggled, and long periods of no finds don't affect the quality of the find when it IS made.  We mainly wanted to find it and report to our son on the condition, since he's no longer in the area and we are kind of the watchdogs over his local caches.  I was very surprised and pleased at the wonderful condition of this one lonely cache!!

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, noncentric said:

On 12/12/2017 at 0:06 AM, justintim1999 said:

I put myself in the cache owners shoes.  If I had a cache that had not been visited in over a year I know I'd be bummed.  I try to check up on my caches twice a year regardless of activity so it would feel like I'm doing this extra maintenance work for nothing.   I'm wondering how many cache owners would feel discouraged and just walk away?

That's very much your own perception. It's your choice to check on your caches twice a year, and that's fine if that is your definition of visiting "periodically", but as has been hashed out in numerous threads - not everyone has the same definition of what timeframe is "periodic". If your caches are placed with the expectation that they be found more often and they are not, then it's fine for you to be bummed about it, but that doesn't mean that other CO's would feel the same. I have caches that I don't expect to be found more than a few times a year, based on their out-of-the-way location, so I'm not disappointed at their infrequent find rate.

It's really all about expectations. If CO's set their expectations too high and walk away because of that, then there isn't much that can be done. They should look at other caches in the area around their hides. If those other caches average 1-2 finds per year, then they shouldn't expect that theirs will get 10 finds per year. If they want to get a lot of finds, then they should re-evaluate the locations that they're using. They should place caches where there are more visitors and/or create caches with lower D/T ratings, if they want to attract more finders.

Two of my hides have now passed a year since the last find and another four have passed six months. Am I discouraged by this? No, the two with more than 12 months are T3.5 multis so are unlikely to get many (or any) more finds once the locals who like such things have done them. Of the other four, one is a T2.5 so it doesn't quite have the same excuse, but with few people now moving on from the muggle-with-app P&G stage it's not surprising.

And as I said before, good quality containers hidden in dry locations remote from muggles don't degrade by themselves unless it's something catastrophic like a rock fall, so I don't see any need to go out checking on them every few months - just whenever I happen to be in the area and the weather's cool enough for the hike should suffice.

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, noncentric said:

The challenge that arisoft created a checker for is not a "lonely cache" challenge. arisoft's checker checks for caches where you are last-to-find.

Ah, thanks. I missed that.

But really, the same issue applies. If I post my log that is dated after your LTF log, then that disqualifies your LTF log from the challenge.

If I can post a log that invalidates your claim to qualify for the challenge, then the challenge involves some form of competition. Your challenge qualification shouldn't depend on logs posted (or not posted) by anyone else.

[+arisoft]

5 hours ago, niraD said:

But really, the same issue applies. If I post my log that is dated after your LTF log, then that disqualifies your LTF log from the challenge.

Yes, this makes it challenging. You have to find caches which are not likely to be found by others before you qualify to the challenge.

 

5 hours ago, niraD said:

Your challenge qualification shouldn't depend on logs posted (or not posted) by anyone else.

The favorite challenges should also be rejected. There is no such guideline.

Edited January 25, 2018 by arisoft

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, noncentric said:

Any chance you could increase the "limit" on that checker to...maybe 200?

This version shows all LTF caches.

https://project-gc.com/Challenges//31689

[+AnnaMoritz]

Counting logs per time for determining whether a a cache is lonely maybe works in an ideal world, not everywhere.

There are geocaches that have 24 finds in 12 years, then the final coordinates end on a list and all of a sudden groups start to log the cache, so another 24 finds within 3 weeks. Maybe they were there, maybe one of them was there.

So this cache is only half as lonely as before. The lonely-factor no more tells the history of the geocache.

The same is true also for D and T, Logs don't tell the truth about D and T any more as soon as hordes start logging caches where everything from riddle to hike was skipped and only finals are visited, sometimes by only one of them.

I found a cache where the last entry in logbook was like 450 days before. Someone logged online 84 days ago without evidence in logbook. Does that make him qualifying for a 365 days span between finds? 

Sometimes people tear pages out of logbooks, sometimes people log online whenever they want, even before they put their signature on the paper or even without visitng the geocache.

For a challenge there would be geocachers that make sure no one else can find the cache for the necessary timespan or after them.

FTF is a sidegame that from time to time shows the less favorable traits of some of the involved geocachers, no need to widen their sphere of action to other fields.

I think challenges should not further encourage all sorts of competitive and unfavorable behaviour.

Geocachers that like to find geocaches that weren't found for long time do it also without challenges. And without forcing the owner to have a look at their remote cache when it goes unfund for longer before they attempt to find the cache. And without posting NA if the owner doesn't jump immediately.

[+AnnaMoritz]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

This version shows all LTF caches.

https://project-gc.com/Challenges//31689

I noticed that calling it LTF is relative.

If 5 other geocachers found the cache on that days after me I don't want to be called LTF. Online logs are not necessarily in the order of actual finds on the day.

And there are geocachers that log geocaches they visited days ago with the date they write their logs. Look at attended dates, not too few log events on other days that the actual event date, some do it even on purpose, for challenges  

Sometimes nothing happens for a year and then two visit a cache on the same day. Neither order of online logs nor order in logbook (people writing their names before the previous entry or randomly on any first possible spot when opening the log) give the 'true' loneliness-breaker in all cases.

But this script is a good tool to see whether there are caches that went unfound after your visit.

The reasons for for going unfound might vary and hopefully are not connected to your visit there - like a non geocacher watching you and later taking away the geocache.

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by AnnaMoritz

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, AnnaMoritz said:

If 5 other geocachers found the cache on that days after me I don't want to be called LTF. Online logs are not necessarily in the order of actual finds on the day.

This may be one reason why some people impetuously call this a competition without making reality checks first. There is no database which can say the order of finds per date. Newertheless, in the most cases there is just a single geocacher or group. The idea behind this kind of challenge is to find caches which are the most propable not to be found by others very soon. The exact order is actually not very important factor.

[+Michaelcycle]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

This may be one reason why some people impetuously call this a competition without making reality checks first. There is no database which can say the order of finds per date. Newertheless, in the most cases there is just a single geocacher or group. The idea behind this kind of challenge is to find caches which are the most propable not to be found by others very soon. The exact order is actually not very important factor.

If that was intentional...it's quite clever.

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

11 hours ago, niraD said:

But really, the same issue applies. If I post my log that is dated after your LTF log, then that disqualifies your LTF log from the challenge.

Yes, this makes it challenging. You have to find caches which are not likely to be found by others before you qualify to the challenge.

I'm siding with niraD on this one. As soon as you say "You have to...", you've crossed this strange line that GS seems to have drawn between a fun challenge and a challenge that forces people to do something.

Don't get me wrong: I think your challenge idea is fine and I wish they'd publish it. I just also think it's a perfect example of an interesting challenge idea that's no longer allowed because of this bizarre attitude GS has that it must protect poor innocent geocachers from arbitrarily defined classes of challenges.

[+justintim1999]

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 4:34 PM, noncentric said:

That's very much your own perception. It's your choice to check on your caches twice a year, and that's fine if that is your definition of visiting "periodically", but as has been hashed out in numerous threads - not everyone has the same definition of what timeframe is "periodic". If your caches are placed with the expectation that they be found more often and they are not, then it's fine for you to be bummed about it, but that doesn't mean that other CO's would feel the same. I have caches that I don't expect to be found more than a few times a year, based on their out-of-the-way location, so I'm not disappointed at their infrequent find rate.

It's really all about expectations. If CO's set their expectations too high and walk away because of that, then there isn't much that can be done. They should look at other caches in the area around their hides. If those other caches average 1-2 finds per year, then they shouldn't expect that theirs will get 10 finds per year. If they want to get a lot of finds, then they should re-evaluate the locations that they're using. They should place caches where there are more visitors and/or create caches with lower D/T ratings, if they want to attract more finders.

 

It really depends on the cacher. There are plenty of cachers that don't read the cache description at all, much less look at the dates/types of previous logs. Cachers that do pay attention to those things might think the cache is gone, even though there aren't any DNF's or other 'negative' logs since the last find. In that case, oh well. It's not the cache for them, similar to cachers that see a multi-cache is a projection and skip it or cachers that see mystery caches and skip them. That doesn't mean there is any problem with the cache itself.

On the other hand, there are cachers that will look at the time since the last find and have no problem at all with searching for it. Some may even seek them out. In many cases, these lonely caches are lonely only because they're a bit out-of-the-way and there aren't a lot of cachers that are willing to invest an entire day into just 1 cache, when they can go somewhere else and find dozens in the same amount of time.

 

You may not be convinced that a 1-year lonely cache doesn't need maintenance, and that's fine, but there are plenty of cachers that aren't convinced that a cache needs maintenance simply because it hasn't been found in a year. There are so many variables besides simply 'date since last find' to consider, location, container, weather, etc.

 

I think a high percentage of lonely caches are high-quality containers. As mentioned earlier, many caches are lonely just because they're remote. CO's that place remote caches then to use containers better than just a pill bottle. One of the reasons that CO's don't use ammo cans, or other high-quality containers, is because of muggling. Such containers are not cheap and so CO's don't want to use them if they are just going to get stolen. Caches places in remote areas are less prone to theft, so CO's may be more willing to use a pricier container for those remote hides.

 

It seems like every discussion here that's based on a topic that could increase the need for cache maintenance is soundly beat down by a select group of people who are only interested in their own particular situation regardless of whether or not it's good for the game as a whole. 

The cache score,  multiple dnf's, occasional visits are all examples of things that may require a cache owner to make more frequent visits to a cache.  Interestingly enough they are the very same topics that are hotly debated in these forums and for the very same reasons.

It's not difficult to see where the opposition is coming from and why.    The guidelines are written in a way that allows for a wide variety of interpretation,  and that's a good thing.   At what point dose stretching those interpretations become self serving and not in the best interest of the game itself?  

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

It seems like every discussion here that's based on a topic that could increase the need for cache maintenance is soundly beat down by a select group of people who are only interested in their own particular situation regardless of whether or not it's good for the game as a whole. 

What's good for the game as a whole shouldn't come at the expense of remote caches, or at the expense of other aspects of the game that various select groups of people find worthwhile.

I've found more 1.5/1.5 caches than any other D/T combination, but that doesn't mean I want official policies that work great for 1.5/1.5 caches, and effectively discourage anything that isn't a 1.5/1.5 cache.

[+justintim1999]

14 minutes ago, niraD said:

What's good for the game as a whole shouldn't come at the expense of remote caches, or at the expense of other aspects of the game that various select groups of people find worthwhile.

I've found more 1.5/1.5 caches than any other D/T combination, but that doesn't mean I want official policies that work great for 1.5/1.5 caches, and effectively discourage anything that isn't a 1.5/1.5 cache.

Eventually something's got to give.   We can either cater to the remote cache owners at the expense of all the rest or implement changes that will benefit the majority while working to ensure that remote cache owners are treated fairly.    Any change is going to effect someone to some degree.  

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

It seems like every discussion here that's based on a topic that could increase the need for cache maintenance is soundly beat down by a select group of people who are only interested in their own particular situation regardless of whether or not it's good for the game as a whole. 

I find it fascinating that you see it like that since it seems exactly the reverse to me: a rabid set of people keep insisting on -- and getting -- every possible effort by GS to try to insure the impossible end result of no one ever encountering an imperfect cache. Most of the time I feel like a lone voice of declension having no effect, not a select group soundly beating down the idea.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Eventually something's got to give.   We can either cater to the remote cache owners at the expense of all the rest or implement changes that will benefit the majority while working to ensure that remote cache owners are treated fairly.    Any change is going to effect someone to some degree.  

Well, no: no change doesn't affect anyone to any degree. You're presuming that Something Must Be Done, and that's exactly the premise I disagree with.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Well, no: no change doesn't affect anyone to any degree. You're presuming that Something Must Be Done, and that's exactly the premise I disagree with.

Presuming?   As tough as it may be for some old timers to come to grips with, yes change is inevitable.  If you've been cashing for a while or have spent any length of time on this forum it's painfully obvious that there are issues.   Not end of the world stuff but problems just the same.  

I care enough about the game to continue trying to find ways to make it better.   You may disagree with some of my views and that's fine.  What matters is we continue the dialogue in an attempt to improve an already great game.

              

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Presuming?   As tough as it may be for some old timers to come to grips with, yes change is inevitable.  If you've been cashing for a while or have spent any length of time on this forum it's painfully obvious that there are issues.   Not end of the world stuff but problems just the same.  

I care enough about the game to continue trying to find ways to make it better.   You may disagree with some of my views and that's fine.  What matters is we continue the dialogue in an attempt to improve an already great game.

              

Whatever these issues are that you're complaining about, they're not painfully obvious here. It's uncommon for me to come across a cache in a dilapidated state of repair, and the existing NM/NA mechanism generally works well in dealing with those that are. If your problems are local ones, they're best solved locally, not globally where your solutions are likely to do a lot more harm than good. Make sure you're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The biggest issue we have here is a lack of new cachers progressing beyond the "muggle with app" stage. I don't see how any of your proposed solutions that kill off the more interesting/challenging caches are going to solve that.

[+dprovan]

5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Presuming?   As tough as it may be for some old timers to come to grips with, yes change is inevitable.  If you've been cashing for a while or have spent any length of time on this forum it's painfully obvious that there are issues.   Not end of the world stuff but problems just the same.  

I care enough about the game to continue trying to find ways to make it better.   You may disagree with some of my views and that's fine.  What matters is we continue the dialogue in an attempt to improve an already great game.

Nope, sorry. I see lots of people complaining, but that's all I see. Whenever they try to prove there's a problem, what they point to an example of the terrible conditions always looks to me like its well within the range that's reasonable to expect in any practical world where geocaching's still a game being played among friends instead of a commodity being provided by GS.

It is a great game, but it's getting less great and less of a game as GS tries to minimize the chances of anyone ever being disappointed by looking for a missing cache or finding a broken cache.

Although thanks for calling me an old timer. I still think of myself as a newbie since plenty of people have been geocachers twice as long as I have. But, seriously, I love change, I just hate mindless change.

[+justintim1999]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 7:11 PM, dprovan said:

Nope, sorry. I see lots of people complaining, but that's all I see. Whenever they try to prove there's a problem, what they point to an example of the terrible conditions always looks to me like its well within the range that's reasonable to expect in any practical world where geocaching's still a game being played among friends instead of a commodity being provided by GS.

It is a great game, but it's getting less great and less of a game as GS tries to minimize the chances of anyone ever being disappointed by looking for a missing cache or finding a broken cache.

Although thanks for calling me an old timer. I still think of myself as a newbie since plenty of people have been geocachers twice as long as I have. But, seriously, I love change, I just hate mindless change.

Thanks for calling me mindless although it hurts a little.

If you can't see the contradiction between requiring a cache to be retrieved after it's been archived and allowing finds on ones that are not,  than there's not much else we can discuss on the topic. 

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If you can't see the contradiction between requiring a cache to be retrieved after it's been archived and allowing finds on ones that are not,  than there's not much else we can discuss on the topic. 

Automobiles are required to have turn signals and brake lights. Drivers are required to know hand signals. There is a similar "contradiction" here. Why allow hand signals if vehicles are required to have turn signals and brake lights?

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Thanks for calling me mindless although it hurts a little.

I called the proposed change mindless, not you.

7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If you can't see the contradiction between requiring a cache to be retrieved after it's been archived and allowing finds on ones that are not,  than there's not much else we can discuss on the topic.

I agree. If you can't see how utterly unrelated those two things are, I think we're done here.

[+justintim1999]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

Automobiles are required to have turn signals and brake lights. Drivers are required to know hand signals. There is a similar "contradiction" here. Why allow hand signals if vehicles are required to have turn signals and brake lights?

Not all vehicles on the road are equipped with break lights and turn signals.  Bikers, for example,  have to use hand signals to communicate.  For safety reasons, automobile drivers are required to know what those hand signals mean.   

[+justintim1999]

16 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I called the proposed change mindless, not you.

I agree. If you can't see how utterly unrelated those two things are, I think we're done here.

My bad.   I thought your were insinuating that the originator of that mindless proposal was also mindless.   Sorry I must have read it wrong.   

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If you can't see the contradiction between requiring a cache to be retrieved after it's been archived and allowing finds on ones that are not,  than there's not much else we can discuss on the topic.

To reiterate some of the reasons why logging archived caches isn't inconsistent with the guideline about COs retrieving caches:

• Someone behind in their logging, perhaps travelling, finds a cache before it was archived but doesn't log it until afterwards. This could be many months for someone, say, doing a grey nomad drive around the country or extensive overseas travel.
• A cache that was archived because it was believed to be missing but is later found.A CO archiving a missing cache can't be expected to retrieve it. Perhaps the muggle who took it later realised what it was and put it back, or it had moved from its original location.
• A CO who is suddenly incapacitated or dies and can't retrieve their caches.
• An incentive for people to clean up archived caches from COs who've long since left the game.

[+niraD]

40 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Not all vehicles on the road are equipped with break lights and turn signals.  Bikers, for example,  have to use hand signals to communicate.  For safety reasons, automobile drivers are required to know what those hand signals mean.   

Can you also look beyond the "contradiction" of allowing geocachers to log Finds on archived caches, even though cache owners are supposed to retrieve caches after they archive them?

[+Viajero Perdido]

10 minutes ago, niraD said:

Can you also look beyond the "contradiction" of allowing geocachers to log Finds on archived caches, even though cache owners are supposed to retrieve caches after they archive them?

What contradiction?  Two words: back dating

Some of us are slow in logging.  A couple of my friends have been over a year behind, but are valiantly catching up.

</aside>

[+niraD]

13 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Some of us are slow in logging.  A couple of my friends have been over a year behind, but are valiantly catching up.

Yep. I'm hoping to catch up on my backlogged field notes drafts myself. And that's one of the situations mentioned in barefootjeff's post above mine.

[+justintim1999]

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

To reiterate some of the reasons why logging archived caches isn't inconsistent with the guideline about COs retrieving caches:

• Someone behind in their logging, perhaps travelling, finds a cache before it was archived but doesn't log it until afterwards. This could be many months for someone, say, doing a grey nomad drive around the country or extensive overseas travel.
• A cache that was archived because it was believed to be missing but is later found.A CO archiving a missing cache can't be expected to retrieve it. Perhaps the muggle who took it later realised what it was and put it back, or it had moved from its original location.
• A CO who is suddenly incapacitated or dies and can't retrieve their caches.
• An incentive for people to clean up archived caches from COs who've long since left the game.

* GS allows 60 days to retrieve the cache.  That should be plenty of time for someone behind on their logging to log it

* If the cache was archived and indeed not missing than the owner should move to re-instate it.  Once it's active again it can be logged as a find.

* I sympathize with this scenario.  Thankfully it's not a common occurrence.

* It's a nice gesture and sadly something that contentious cachers feel they should be doing.   I'd like to see the focus for doing this put back on the cache owner where it belongs.    

[+justintim1999]

17 hours ago, niraD said:

Can you also look beyond the "contradiction" of allowing geocachers to log Finds on archived caches, even though cache owners are supposed to retrieve caches after they archive them?

Why would I do that when I don't believe in the practice?   I understand why people do it but in my opinion those reasons are purely selfish.

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I understand why people do it but in my opinion those reasons are purely selfish.

Yeah, posting Found It logs on caches that you've found is purely selfish.