Geocaching is Dead

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would imagine that, regardless of legality, putting a cache in or on a mailbox that could be mistaken for a real, active mailbox is a bomb squad call waiting to happen. 

[Keystone]

5 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I would imagine that, regardless of legality, putting a cache in or on a mailbox that could be mistaken for a real, active mailbox is a bomb squad call waiting to happen. 

 

Correct.  This hiding guideline regarding mailboxes has been around for many years, since back when the Unabomber and the anthrax letters were top of mind.  It wasn't made up to kill geocaching or to be tyrannical to the OP.

[+MartyBartfast]

This graph from Project-GC of logs per day on caches in the USA  is probably the most representative of the health of the game, it clearly shows that the hey-day was ~2010-2016 and that since then it's been fairly stable, and Geocaching is certainly not dead. Graphs for other countries show a similar profile. This doesn't  count Lab Cache finds, so I suspect adding them into the mix would heavily increase the numbers for recent years, but then many people don't consider Labs as real caching anyway.

 

 

[+MartyBartfast]

7 hours ago, Keystone said:

It wasn't made up to kill geocaching or to be tyrannical to the OP.

We have similar restrictions in the UK where caches aren't allowed on Post Boxes or Telephone Boxes at the insistance of the authorities who own them.

[+thebruce0]

20 hours ago, Keystone said:

If you re-read my post, I said "mail receptacle," not "metal receptacle."  It is a defined term in the USPS rules and includes not only the "blue boxes" where mail can be deposited, but also the individual boxes at one's home or place of business.  It expressly does not include a slot in a door.  

 

Oh maybe I'm misinterpreting the "ownership of the receptacle is irrelevant" point (mail or metal isn't really important to the point). I was reading the comment as applying USPS rules for use of their (owned) receptacles also for use of the (unowned) receptacles - when maybe you were meaning ownership applied as individuals or homes or neighbourhoods rather than whether USPS themselves owned the receptacle. An abandoned mail receptacle that USPS is no longer claiming (per the OP) is entirely unowned, so I wasn't sure how their ownership rules would apply to that any more, being an abandoned, unowned, unclaimed 'thing' with something magnetic on it. *shrug*

 

  

16 hours ago, Keystone said:

This hiding guideline regarding mailboxes has been around for many years, since back when the Unabomber and the anthrax letters were top of mind.  It wasn't made up to kill geocaching or to be tyrannical to the OP.

 

So if it's about the receptacle nature, whether owned or not, then it's not so much USPS rules about use of their owned mailboxes as it is Geocaching HQ's rules about use of anything that that can be mistaken as something such as an active mailbox. Even if it's abandoned, unowned, publicly accessible. That's why I did make the point in the prior post about whether it also had things like logos or graphics still on it.  I mean, if it's stripped and abandoned and would appear like a big metal abandoned container of some kind, is that still off limits?

 

Really I'm only on this because there seems to be a disconnect on this point made by the op:
"These abandoned metal structures sit on the public easement and are NOT are not the property of, nor are they under the domain or control of the US Postal Service.  They are NOT used for mail services and never have been.  And that is straight from the mouth of the local Postmaster AND the Special Agent In Charge of the local branch of the US Postal Inspection Service."

That seems inconsistent with the guideline applied here. Unless the OP is not correct/lying about this particular issue.

Edited June 18, 2024 by thebruce0

[+Team Canary]

On 6/18/2024 at 10:43 AM, Keystone said:

 

This hiding guideline regarding mailboxes has been around for many years, since back when the Unabomber and the anthrax letters were top of mind. 

 

I have found many Letterbox Hybrid caches that were actual letterboxes. (None that were also active as traditional letterboxes.)

[+JL_HSTRE]

9 hours ago, Team Canary said:

 

I have found many Letterbox Hybrid caches that were actual letterboxes. (None that were also active as traditional letterboxes.)

 

Where they on a roadside where they could be mistaken for a real mailbox? Or in the woods or otherwise concealed somewhere, obviously not serving as a real mailbox?

 

If they could be mistaken for a real mailbox was the nature of the container / host apparent from the listing?

 

The last mailbox cache I recall encountering was up a tree in a natural area. Obviously fake. Unfortunately, it also wasn't perfectly sealed so bees decided it was a great place to make their home.

[+DaddyKool]

 

16 hours ago, Team Canary said:

 

I have found many Letterbox Hybrid caches that were actual letterboxes. (None that were also active as traditional letterboxes.)

Yes, but all your finds are in Australia. US Postal Service policy is only affecting geocaches in the US.

[Keystone]

On 6/18/2024 at 1:05 PM, thebruce0 said:

Really I'm only on this because there seems to be a disconnect on this point made by the op:
"These abandoned metal structures sit on the public easement and are NOT are not the property of, nor are they under the domain or control of the US Postal Service.  They are NOT used for mail services and never have been.  And that is straight from the mouth of the local Postmaster AND the Special Agent In Charge of the local branch of the US Postal Inspection Service."

That seems inconsistent with the guideline applied here. Unless the OP is not correct/lying about this particular issue.

 

You're assuming that all information provided by the OP in this forum thread was also stated on the cache page during the review process.  That's a reasonable assumption, but it's not correct in this case.  There are additional details about the mailbox issue that were addressed during the review process, but which are not relevant to discussing whether or not geocaching is dead.

 

EDITED after the thread was locked to add:

The following text provided in this forum thread was NOT included in the cache description or in any Reviewer Notes on the now-locked cache page: "They are NOT used for mail services and never have been.  And that is straight from the mouth of the local Postmaster AND the Special Agent In Charge of the local branch of the US Postal Inspection Service."

 

No lies detected. 

Edited June 26, 2024 by Keystone
Setting the record straight.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

You're assuming that all information provided by the OP in this forum thread was also stated on the cache page during the review process.  That's a reasonable assumption, but it's not correct in this case.  There are additional details about the mailbox issue that were addressed during the review process, but which are not relevant to discussing whether or not geocaching is dead.

 

Thank you, that answers the question as one of the expected reasons ("the OP is not correct/lying about this particular issue") for the sentiment in the OP   Though it really only addresses whether the OP thinks that geocaching is dead.

The evidence also presented in this thread truly seems to indicate otherwise, however. 

[+JL_HSTRE]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

 

You're assuming that all information provided by the OP in this forum thread was also stated on the cache page during the review process.  That's a reasonable assumption

 

Only a reasonable assumption for those new to the forums.

 

Experience here shows the universal constant: any cacher who goes on the forums to complain about how their Reviewer and Groundspeak have committed a great miscarriage of justice against their geocache is a lying sack.

 

[+Team Canary]

13 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Where they on a roadside where they could be mistaken for a real mailbox? Or in the woods or otherwise concealed somewhere, obviously not serving as a real mailbox?

 

If they could be mistaken for a real mailbox was the nature of the container / host apparent from the listing?

 

The last mailbox cache I recall encountering was up a tree in a natural area. Obviously fake. Unfortunately, it also wasn't perfectly sealed so bees decided it was a great place to make their home.

 

The quote I used was about mailboxes in general being excluded, not mailboxes on the street.

 

I was saying that I had found mailboxes and therefore that can't be true. Yes, they were not roadside.

 

A point you seem to agree with.

[+Team Canary]

6 hours ago, DaddyKool said:

 

Yes, but all your finds are in Australia. US Postal Service policy is only affecting geocaches in the US.

 

The quote I used was about mailboxes in general being excluded, not mailboxes in the US

 

I was saying that I had found mailboxes and therefore that can't be true. Yes, they were not in the US.

 

A point you seem to agree with.

[+terratin]

But is geocaching dead now or not? I want to go to a mega event this coming weekend and don't want to drive out there for nothing.

[+baer2006]

9 minutes ago, terratin said:

But is geocaching dead now or not? I want to go to a mega event this coming weekend and don't want to drive out there for nothing.

Geocaching dead or alive? Maybe it's undead, and you're going to meet 500+ zombies ...

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, terratin said:

But is geocaching dead now or not?

Yes. And here's the proof:

• Schrödinger’s Cache
• Schrödinger's Cache
• Schrödinger’s Cache (BOP)
• Schrodinger's Box
• Schrodinger's Cat
• Schrödinger's Elephant
• Schrödinger's 1st Challenge
• Schrödinger's 2nd Challenge
• Schrödinger's 3rd Challenge
• Schrödinger's 4th Challenge
• Schrödinger's 5th Challenge
• ...

[+cerberus1]

On 6/18/2024 at 10:07 PM, Team Canary said:

I have found many Letterbox Hybrid caches that were actual letterboxes. (None that were also active as traditional letterboxes.)

 

Don't know why that never occurred to me.     We have a huge one 30' up a tree for rope tree climbers, but a slightly smaller one still sits home.

Hmmm...

[+Cheminer Will]

I have definitely noticed a drop off in finds on caches out in the woods, on hiking trails, etc.  Many of my hides are these types and they get very little activity these days.  I hid an easy one about a month ago that has yet to be found even though the trail it is on has had lots of hikers.  The weekend after the hide supposedly saw dozens of hikers using the new trail.  But I guess none of them were geocachers.  I can't opine on the game overall, but in our area, non-urban caches are definitely few and far between these days.  And I hardly ever see emails anymore for new hides within a couple miles of home.   I don't usually look for the intown hides around home anyway, only when visiting new places.  So maybe those are stable in this area but it sure seems quiet.

 

Add:  This thread got me thinking about my hides and why there are so few logs even on very popular hiking trails.  I am thinking that maybe it is because I have in the past had a habit of making some hides premium member only, (to reduce muggles).  I just edited all those to open for all users.  We will see if that helps.

Edited June 21, 2024 by Cheminer Will

[+cerberus1]

9 hours ago, Cheminer Will said:

Add:  This thread got me thinking about my hides and why there are so few logs even on very popular hiking trails.  I am thinking that maybe in is because I have in the past had a habit of making some hides premium member only, (to reduce muggles).  I just edited all those to open for all users.  We will see if that helps.

Thanks for that.    Shame too far away.    But "Muggles" (non cachers) don't read cache pages. 

The higher-than-2 D/T keeps basic app kids away.   I start my searches at 2...

I search caches individually, and if another happens to be in the area that's similar, I 'll head out. Sometimes I'll look a few times.

During the "audit" function and PMOs, had a hassle with a PMO CO asking, "why are you always looking at my caches?".

I explained the distance and it'd need one more to be worth the trip. 

Well, sure enough, either I was "set up" (he'd mention me at events...) or just bad luck, but the cache was "stolen"...

I went through Hades for quite a while, the other 2/3rds not too thrilled either. I didn't help, talking about anal-retentive busybodies too.  

This was the second time we had hassles over something that had nothing to do with us.

After they realized a newb getting a temp-PM "re-hid" it, no apologies or nada.  I vowed I'd never do another PMO cache again...

There's a lot of caches with high terrain ratings that don't get visited often and are PMO.  No more audit but I still skip by them.

 

[+terratin]

Over 1000 attended logs on a small Mega without any special programme. I'd say geocaching is not dead in Germany.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCACN96

[Bluehook]

On 6/19/2024 at 4:32 PM, Keystone said:

 

You're assuming that all information provided by the OP in this forum thread was also stated on the cache page during the review process.  That's a reasonable assumption, but it's not correct in this case.  There are additional details about the mailbox issue that were addressed during the review process, but which are not relevant to discussing whether or not geocaching is dead.

That's a flat-out LIE.  As a matter-of-FACT, the text I posted here concerning the metal structure in question, was a cut-and-past directly from my correspondence with the reviewer.

 

 

On 6/17/2024 at 8:36 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

I would imagine that, regardless of legality, putting a cache in or on a mailbox that could be mistaken for a real, active mailbox is a bomb squad call waiting to happen. 

 By that logic, what geocache container ISN"T? 

This is pure comedy and shows the desperate lengths some bootlickers will go to try to justify this ridiculously over-zealous decision.

[+Smitherington]

Nice looking geocache container. It would probably earn an FP.

[Keystone]

3 hours ago, Bluehook said:

That's a flat-out LIE. 

 

And, we're done here.  Closing thread.  @Bluehook is cautioned not to start a new thread on this subject or the cache placement that prompted it.