Looks like caches abandoned by their CO and unfound in 5 years are being slowly archived unless maintained

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, kunarion said:

I've found a lot of lonely caches, but not that one in particular.  Maybe it's in perfect shape, but can't we agree that's unusual?  Nobody has seen it lately, lots of stuff can change in 5 years.  The old and lonely ones I found are by definition the few that didn't become unfindable.  Those are rare caches indeed.

 

From my experience, the very remote older caches, which are often ammo cans or something equally rugged, are by and large still in good condition. Often they're placed in rocky outcrops where they're protected from the elements too, and even the plastic Sistema containers last quite well if kept out of the sun. This is one I placed just over ten years ago and is still the original container with its original logbook.

 

 

It's quite close to home and I enjoy the walk up Blackwall Mountain so I look in on it fairly often, but it's never needed any maintenance. It doesn't get many finds now, just three last year and one this year, but if I archived it it's unlikely anyone else would place a cache near there and it'd be just one less for new players and visitors to find.

 

My challenge cache on Scopas Peak is a stainless steel cookpot tucked inside a cave. It's close to a popular hiking trail (the Great North Walk) so muggling is always a possibility, but barring that, the cache itself isn't going to deteriorate of its own accord and its thick logbook has ample room for decades of finds (probably more since it's only had two finds in the last four years).

 

 

I just don't understand why there's so much concern about a remote wilderness ammo can going missing if it hasn't been found for more than five years. A smiley is never a guaranteed outcome and most of my DNFs on caches that have gone missing since the last finder are on urban hides, not remote ones. I for one don't need the owner to have recently checked on the cache before I'll spend a day or even two going after a remote hide. I accept the risk that it could end in a DNF, but even if it does it'll still be an epic DNF that I'll fondly remember for years to come. Until there's actually a reported problem (and not just a DNF since they are often due to adverse weather or searcher shortcomings on remote caches), the CO should be free to decide when and how often they visit their caches.

[+Harry Dolphin]

46 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I just don't understand why there's so much concern about a remote wilderness ammo can going missing if it hasn't been found for more than five years. A smiley is never a guaranteed outcome and most of my DNFs on caches that have gone missing since the last finder are on urban hides, not remote ones. I for one don't need the owner to have recently checked on the cache before I'll spend a day or even two going after a remote hide. I accept the risk that it could end in a DNF, but even if it does it'll still be an epic DNF that I'll fondly remember for years to come. Until there's actually a reported problem (and not just a DNF since they are often due to adverse weather or searcher shortcomings on remote caches), the CO should be free to decide when and how often they visit their caches.

 

One of my brothers died four yeears ago.  His caches were mountain climbing caches.  T4.  One of them has not been found in twelve years.  Doesn't mean it isn't still there.  Go scramble up the mountain and find it!

[+CCFsmile]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I just don't understand why there's so much concern about a remote wilderness ammo can going missing if it hasn't been found for more than five years. A smiley is never a guaranteed outcome and most of my DNFs on caches that have gone missing since the last finder are on urban hides, not remote ones. I for one don't need the owner to have recently checked on the cache before I'll spend a day or even two going after a remote hide. I accept the risk that it could end in a DNF, but even if it does it'll still be an epic DNF that I'll fondly remember for years to come. Until there's actually a reported problem (and not just a DNF since they are often due to adverse weather or searcher shortcomings on remote caches), the CO should be free to decide when and how often they visit their caches.

Avoiding quoting loads of these posts. I'm with Barefoot Jeff and others. A cache can go unfound and be fine, for a very long time. The game wasn't invented around GR caches, it was ammo cans in the woods (generally speaking). I love finding something not found for years, and I find the need for a CO to visit a remote cache a bit much. I guess that's personal. 

I also found it odd that an earthcache I submitted and logged recently was archived the other day. Not because of any issue with the cache etc., but apparently because the reviewer put a note on the page, which was not answered, then they disabled and then archived. (At least they disabled and gave time first?!?!?!) But I do find it odd that this happens. I get why but still.

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

Is there any real difference between a cache with no interest, and no cache?  At some point, it's just “litter in the woods”, cache page or not.  OK, sure... we're assured that the litter is in good condition. 

 

But the OP's cache isn't being deactivated.  It's got a notice that it's time to go check on it.

 

 

The difference is that, archive it and it's still there, as out sight and out of mind doesn't get rid of it. Don't archive it, eventually (yes, likely this will happen) someone will visit. Likely do repairs if necessary, or possibly remove it if it's a crumbling mess (I have done this). Then that removes the litter. (Although on other pages here, some have called this stealing 🙄, being told the crumbling mess is private property and you can't remove it. (Tell than to people who pick up litter on clean up days.))

What is this silly, illogical vendetta against caches rarely visited from some people? It comes over as some sort of strange fixation! It's not hurting anyone, leave it alone. Remote, lonely caches are not blocking another cache, as there's lots of room for another, but likely there won't be another. And it is remote caches (unless an impossible to solve puzzle cache), that don't get visited for five years.  To the people who want this 'abomination' gone, deep breath, go sit down and have a nice cup of coffee. Different people like different things. Some people like to seek out caches not found for years. Leave them to their fun.

Edited July 11, 2024 by Goldenwattle

[+kunarion]

30 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

The difference is that, archive it and it's still there, as out sight and out of mind doesn't get rid of it. Don't archive it, eventually (yes, likely this will happen) someone will visit. Likely do repairs if necessary, or possibly remove it if it's a crumbling mess (I have done this). Then that removes the litter. (Although on other pages here, some have called this stealing 🙄, being told the crumbling mess is private property and you can't remove it. (Tell than to people who pick up litter on clean up days.))

What is this silly, illogical vendetta against caches rarely visited from some people? It comes over as some sort of strange fixation! It's not hurting anyone, leave it alone. Remote, lonely caches are not blocking another cache, as there's lots of room for another, but likely there won't be another. And it is remote caches (unless an impossible to solve puzzle cache), that don't get visited for five years.  To the people who want this 'abomination' gone, deep breath, go sit down and have a nice cup of coffee. Different people like different things. Some people like to seek out caches not found for years. Leave them to their fun.

 

I meant the cache in this Topic, the one not visited.  The one just like an archived cache, out of sight, out of mind.  If it's got finders and/or a CO checking on it "eventually", that's the opposite of the OP cache.  That doesn't mean I won't have fun trying to find it.

[+thebruce0]

I think it's clear that while this is an interesting discussion, it was prompted by a very localized action, likely with other reasons unspoken, and now cleared up.  The alarm need not sound.  But hopefully if someone higher up was considering the potential for this kind of universal action, many of the comments here will shed some light on why it's not a good idea. 

[+MNTA]

Going to have to disagree with you @thebruce0 and a few folks agree with you and a few folks agree that it is a good idea and probably a lot of silent folks out there. As for a blanket policy probably not a good idea and as @Keystone pointed out there a methodology at play. I would say the policy is controversial.  However, the part that caches need to be maintained and visited is what I feel is in desperate need. I know there is a belief that caches can be designed to live forever. My experience is both urban and remote caches need maintenance and without visiting you can not see if things are fine or not. Hopefully they are. I do enjoy occasionally finding lonely caches my record is 8.5 years and yes it was pristine and is now 2 years without a find, but I am pickey with the lonely caches I go for and do my research.

 

Examples:

1) Wildlife yes this picture is plastic and an argument can be made that the container choice was poor. But ammo can are not universally used for remote areas like this cache below they can be a bit spendy I know I own one. The CO in this case a year of complaints in logs and two NM/OAR logs and no help from reviewers which I think should get involved but that is a separate controversial discussion. It was archived a month after I posted the picture.  I've also seen caches which were completely destroyed by wildlife and smashed to pieces, my guess a bear and then rodents took all the paper leaving shards of plastic bits.

 

 

2) Plastic baggies/O-ring seals. Unfortunately it does rain a lot on the west coast of the US including in CA the picture above. They are both needed to help thwart the moisture but they always eventually fail. Either by failure to seal properly, or by accidental tearing, or by sun drying out till they are brittle and crack. If you do not visit to check how do you know this is not the case? My ammo can I left 2 spare zip-lock baggies. Mushy smelly logs are never enjoyable.

 

3) Ammo cans can and do rust solid or semi-solid. I've seen this a couple of times. Most of the time a big rock can help but not always. Newer ammo cans are plastic and eventually the plastic can fail due to the elements. Also once they start rusting resealling can and does happen which inexperienced cachers can close improperly.

 

4) Urban mystery caches . A former prolific hider had a lot of caches in the area not sure what the max count was but the stats show 1650 with 909 unknown. Many of the older ones have no checkers. Several still unfound with no hints and no responses to begging for help as they are no longer active. Do you think this is helpful to the game? Besides his policy was to not give hints till it was solved once, but in general if there is no help from the CO which is the advised policy to use, and no checker the only choice is to ask for help from previous finders if they exist and if they remember. The other thing I believe here is that most of these difficult puzzles have a small field of finders and once they have all solved them the cache find counts tend to go down to a find every year or so by someone from outside the area. 

 

So my belief is that per the hiding rules, maintenance does need to be done even for the most well designed caches. Maintenance feedback can be in the form of logs of finders but COs need to take responsibility and be held to a higher standard then relying on throwdowns and community maintenance which GS seems to frown upon. I did do a check on one of my urban caches tonight (2 spots left on the log), and I own one cache that I have not checked on since a couple months after it was hidden 3 years ago the last log was a dnf by an inexperienced cacher a year ago I'll probably venture out sometime this summer unless I get a find on it as it will take me a couple of hours to get to it and I moved 15 miles further away.

 

The benefit of this is in line with GS desires to improve the caching experience for both experienced but most importantly new cachers. Imagine if a slimy mess was you first and last cache find. The older the cache the higher probability of potential problems.

[+Goldenwattle]

8 hours ago, MNTA said:

The benefit of this is in line with GS desires to improve the caching experience for both experienced but most importantly new cachers. Imagine if a slimy mess was you first and last cache find. The older the cache the higher probability of potential problems.

This WILL make the experience worse for geocachers, removing remote caches, and leaving NO caches (emptying an area of caches), with very little chance another cache will ever replace it. Beginners are very unlikely to be looking for remote caches, unless with an experienced cacher, so that's a strawman argument. Beginners almost always start with urban caches, whether that's a city or small town, as most people live in urban areas. (90% in Australia.) That % gets higher, when those who live close to an urban area are included.

 

8 hours ago, MNTA said:

Ammo cans can and do rust solid or semi-solid.

They can, but it will take a long time in dry desert areas, and at least here in Australia, most remote areas are dry. And even longer when in a dry spot under a large boulder or in a dry cave.

 

8 hours ago, MNTA said:

Urban mystery caches

I mentioned them as an exception. They are urban and should be treated like other urban caches, with consideration for the difficulty rating. Not listed with remote caches.

 

Just stop this vendetta and ignore the remote caches. They aren't harming you.

Edited July 11, 2024 by Goldenwattle

[+MNTA]

32 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Just stop this vendetta and ignore the remote caches. They aren't harming you.

 

I gave zero input or encouragement to the reviewer so how is this a vendetta? If you don't like my opinion, then that is your opinion. You are not alone in that nor am I alone in my opinion. This is a discussion forum.

 

This does seem to be a local issue with a local solution. We all know that Australia's a unique situation and policies here don't apply there. I do feel that the underlying problem exists at least in the three countries and 35 regions I've cached in there is a lot of junk and problems, this solution might help. There are definitely consequences maybe there are solutions to those but if we do not discuss them we will never know. Shutting down ideas just keeps the status quo and I believe GS is slowly working to improve the game despite complaints here on each and every change that is made good or bad. Like it or not the game will look differently in the future, change is happening.

Edited July 11, 2024 by MNTA

[+Goldenwattle]

40 minutes ago, MNTA said:

I gave zero input or encouragement to the reviewer so how is this a vendetta?

Continuously suggesting remote caches should be archived, that have not been found for some years does appear a sustained attack on them. These sorts of caches would exist in other countries besides only Australia.

I do think that uncared for caches in areas with lots of other caches should be considered for archival, because there are plenty of alternative caches to find, and the area won’t be left empty. More remote caches, in my experience, are more likely to be maintained by finders, when someone eventually finds them, because they are recognised as rare and special.

In my view, more important things to look at than how long since a cache has been found in remote areas. Rules for remote caches should not be the same as urban caches.

[+JL_HSTRE]

21 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

When I started this hobby the guideline was worded slightly different way as currently.

 

Cache Permanence

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

 

 

Do you think that something in this old guideline version is outdated? (There was no word about findrate)

 

 

I don't understand your question. You ask if this old Guideline is outdated, while also noting the wording has changed. So Groundspeak certainly thinks it was outdated, otherwise they wouldn't have changed it.

 

Permanent isn't forever; it simply means without a specified end date.

 

I think that if someone were to somehow know it would take five years before someone found their cache then they should have never placed it at all. 

 

20 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

The point is that it doesn't hurt to keep them active. If they are archived the cache is not going to go away. The container and log will still be out there, and likely in good condition, so completely pointless to archive them. They are in places hard to get to, so very unlikely the place is crowded with caches. They aren't blocking a new cache. Getting rid of them, just because they haven't been found for five years, is petty mindless and pointless.

 

This is an unresolved problem with all archivals.

 

And the entire issue is moot if the CO simply checks on the cache. Doesn't have to be next week. A simple response to the Reviewer that you'll make plans to visit and check on it, but not immediately due to the remoteness (and season, if applicable).

 

A cache placement too remote to check is basically a vacation cache without a maintenance plan.

 

While a carefully concealed ammo can in a remote wilderness location is durable, there are all sorts of potential natural threats (floods, fires, fallen trees, landslides) plus hunters and occasionally wild animals. 

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, MNTA said:

So my belief is that per the hiding rules, maintenance does need to be done even for the most well designed caches.

 

I must be doing something wrong, then, because of the 48 active physical caches I've placed (not counting the three I adopted), which are fairly evenly spread over the last decade, only about a dozen have ever needed maintenance. The rest are still the original container with its original logbook and are doing just fine. Where there has been a maintenance issue, usually early in the cache's life when something unexpected has happened, I haven't just replaced like with like, I've changed to a container better suited to the location and its environment.

 

I've already posted photos of my Sistema on Blackwall Mountain (placed in 2014), my stainless steel cookpot on Scopas Peak (placed in 2017), and my locomotive cache on the cliff above Wondabyne (placed in 2016), but here's a few of my other older caches that are still in pristine condition:

 

 

Those are all recent photos taken in the last year and all are the original container and logbook. None look like they need maintenance.

 

5 hours ago, MNTA said:

3) Ammo cans can and do rust solid or semi-solid. I've seen this a couple of times. Most of the time a big rock can help but not always.

 

The only time I can recall finding rusty ammo cans is when they were placed close to salt water. The remote mountain-top ones are usually many tens or even hundreds of kilometres from the sea and don't have any problems. Our caching group recently went out to do a 2001 cache in Howes Valley, about 80km inland from Newcastle (unfortunately I wasn't able to join them). The original cache was plastic but the CO replaced it with an ammo can in 2010 which is still in mint condition 14 years later:

 

 

It's much the same with an ammo can cache placed in 2006 that I adopted in 2018. It's only about 50 metres from a salt water estuary so it has a little surface rust now but it's still structurally sound. Both the ammo can and logbook are original:

 

 

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

Newer ammo cans are plastic and eventually the plastic can fail due to the elements.

 

My only plastic ammo can is placed deep inside a dry sandstone cave just below the top of a peak where it's fully protected from the elements. This was placed in 2022 so time will tell, I guess, but I don't expect to have to replace it in my remaining years.

 

 

With a suitable choice of container and hiding place, it's really not that hard to make a cache that will last at least a decade and probably quite a few more. Muggling is a different matter which no amount of CO visits will prevent. The only way to have a high chance of discovering a muggled cache before someone logs a DNF is if you visit it far more often than the searchers, and that's not really practical unless you are always going past it on your day-to-day travels.

[+kunarion]

7 hours ago, MNTA said:

My experience is both urban and remote caches need maintenance and without visiting you can not see if things are fine or not.

 

+1

I have an ammo box that has been hit by a tornado.  Twice.  It's still fine, it's laid flat.  But the camo cover was 200 feet away once.  Surrounding bushes were flattened.  And I've seen several ammo boxes opened by strong animals.

 

Some of my hiding spots completely changed over years, where they became super compromised.  Others are today so well-hidden by the landscape, I have trouble finding them.  I must look to find out.

 

Since there are guidelines preventing vacation caches without a plan, they apply to wilderness caches.  Check on it.  Don't cause new Notices (or at least contact the Reviewer and discuss it).  Otherwise, one's cache that "never needs maintenance" may be swept up with thousands that do.

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

49 minutes ago, kunarion said:

Otherwise, one's cache that "never needs maintenance" may be swept up with thousands that do.

Are there really that many caches that need maintenance in remote, hard to get to places where few caches are placed? In urban areas and nearby country areas maybe, but they are not likely to go five years without a find. The ones that are most likely to go five years without a find, are remote, lonely caches, maybe the only cache in the area. Especially for the older ones, they are likely to have a better standard of cache than most urban ones.

[+MNTA]

8 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Are there really that many caches that need maintenance in remote, hard to get to places where few caches are placed?

 

The answer is yes!

 

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

And the entire issue is moot if the CO simply checks on the cache. Doesn't have to be next week. A simple response to the Reviewer that you'll make plans to visit and check on it, but not immediately due to the remoteness (and season, if applicable).

 

A cache placement too remote to check is basically a vacation cache without a maintenance plan.

 

While a carefully concealed ammo can in a remote wilderness location is durable, there are all sorts of potential natural threats (floods, fires, fallen trees, landslides) plus hunters and occasionally wild animals. 

 

Thank you for clearly and precisely articulating the issues .

 

Yes the requirements have changed. Vacation caches are not allowed because there are problems with them. There are solutions to these problems but folks focus on their archival and lack of placement without a maintenance plan.  

 

@barefootjeff your construction is top notch and I thank you. All it would take is one piece of candy placed in it for a 400 pound bear to sniff it out and destroy the cache. Here is a news report of an incident last month. https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/us/video/bear-destroy(s-inside-of-car-bass-lake-california-affil-pkg-digvid I pull out candy from caches all the time hate it when the ants find it first though. No parent is going to let their kid eat anything from a cache. NEVER!

 

 

 

[+MNTA]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Are there really that many caches that need maintenance in remote, hard to get to places where few caches are placed? 

This issue is not just a single cache out in the wilderness.

 

Our wilderness is an active and popular recreation area with cities and towns close by. Columbia gear is a local staple and I love it when I get passes to the employee store.

 

There are responsible CO and there are COs that rely solely on community maintenance. Fortunately many of these remote areas have large cities nearby with active responsible COs in them that continue to hide and maintain their caches. There also are COs that hid a prolific number of hides all throughout the popular vacation areas and never planned to perform maintenance. I think the numbers involved would no longer be allowed by the reviewers, so cleanup is needed.

 

This area is a beautiful area with volcanic formations, glacial lakes, resovoirs, waterfalls, mountains and to the east a beautiful high desert with badlands.  

 

Here is a picture of one such CO his profile shows 1982 hides with 680 still active. The CO has not logged on in 4 years. 

 

How it hurts me you ask. Zooming in to one of my favorite camping spots:

There used to be dozens more. Several were archived as a result of me they are always crap and frankly I've stopped going out of my way to find them. I know that the CO never maintained and it is a waste of my time, if I happen to be at a GZ I'll search but not long. New cachers do not know this. Oh and BTW there is one ore two active COs in the town an hour or two away that have placed excellent caches in this area and maintain their caches.

 

This is just one prolific CO there are many more. Some still active and still don't maintain others have gone away. 

 

I have visited amazing places because caches were placed there and otherwise would never have stopped. That is what I love about this game.  I definitely don't think I have a vendetta but maybe an agenda to try and improve the game for not only myself but others as well. Maybe you are correct and it is just semantics.

 

I think this weekend I'll make the trek out to two of my remote wilderness caches for a checkup and fun. Going to be 100 degrees again so perfect for a road trip with AC. Spent last holiday weekend camping near my other virtual wilderness cache SE of the two lakes in the lower right hand corner in the first picture.  Maybe I should log a maintenance on that one, yes the playa is still there.  

 

Edited July 11, 2024 by MNTA

[+Goldenwattle]

24 minutes ago, MNTA said:

This issue is not just a single cache out in the wilderness.

And how many have not been found in five years? That's what we are discussing. If that's an active wilderness area most of those caches should be visited more than that. If they are found wanting the finder needs to put a NM on them. The question is, if they need maintenance why are people  not putting a NM on them. It is also the case these are not lonely caches. That's a lot of caches there; plus if there are caches by other people there, there are more than shown in those images. Half of them could be archived and there would still be lots of caches. You didn't include a scale to show how big the area is.

 

Hardly compares to this. I included a scale.

 

The cache on the left GCA92JY, has yet to have a FTF. It's a large metal box apparently, so sounds robust.

 

There are 205 caches in Australia that have not been found in five years.

Edited July 11, 2024 by Goldenwattle

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I think that if someone were to somehow know it would take five years before someone found their cache then they should have never placed it at all. 

 

You have a strong opinion about something that doesn't even concern you.  My objection to this matter could be that if your intention is to make a cache that is not long-lasting, then you could leave it completely unmade.

[+MNTA]

13 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

And how many have not been found in five years? That's what we are discussing. If that's an active wilderness area most of those caches should be visited more than that. If they are found wanting the finder needs to put a NM on them. The question is, if they need maintenance why are people  not putting a NM on them. It is also the case these are not lonely cac hes. That's a lot of caches there; plus if there are caches by other people there, there are more than show in those images.

Hardly compares to this:

For the CO I highlight with 680 current active caches:

 

2 unfound 2015 & 2016

3 unfound since 2011

160 unfound since 2019

 

Region as a whole:

24,333 active caches

~850 not found and probably not maintained since 2009 to 2016 the search function cuts off at 1000

[+Goldenwattle]

3 minutes ago, MNTA said:

For the CO I highlight with 680 current active caches:

Then some could be archived without emptying the area.

[+MNTA]

19 minutes ago, arisoft said:

My objection to this matter could be that if your intention is to make a cache that is not long-lasting, then you could leave it completely unmade.

 

So do reviewers need to get pictures of all the caches and hides prior to publishing? Most new folks don't understand this or get it. 

 

Long lasting still should not mean no maintenance.

[+MNTA]

11 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Then some could be archived without emptying the area.

Some isolated areas would be emptied but others not. Some of these caches are a 30 minute drive down primitive forest roads between each hide. Others may be a couple mile hike to the next one. Some may be fairly close to others.

 

When exceptions are made that's when problems occur. Have a plan. If you want your cache to live forever have a plan to support through your local community. Instead of you traveling a thousand miles every few years, maybe one person in the group does it for the whole community. Have a plan when you pass away to adopt out the cache to the community.  Have a plan to adopt out or archive your caches if you get fed up with the game and decide to leave. Don't leave them abandoned and littering the environment.

 

Is this too much to ask for? Have a plan and follow it.

Edited July 11, 2024 by MNTA

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

Long lasting still should not mean no maintenance.

 

This is absolutely right. I am against caches that are planned to be archived instead of maintained.

[+JL_HSTRE]

7 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

You have a strong opinion about something that doesn't even concern you.  My objection to this matter could be that if your intention is to make a cache that is not long-lasting, then you could leave it completely unmade.

 

I'm a geocacher therefore pretty much everything about geocaching concerns me.

 

Just because you design a cache to be long-lasting doesn't mean it actually will be long-lasting. You're playing the odds with a lot of factors beyond your control. 

[+barefootjeff]

10 hours ago, MNTA said:

All it would take is one piece of candy placed in it for a 400 pound bear to sniff it out and destroy the cache.

 

Um, we don't have 400 pound bears in this part of the world, or any wildlife that big. There are plenty of snakes, goannas, possums, wallabies, etc. but none are big enough to damage an ammo can. In any case, someone who's gone to all the effort of climbing a remote wilderness mountain to get to that cache that hasn't been found in over five years is unlikely to leave food in it.

 

8 hours ago, MNTA said:

Some of these caches are a 30 minute drive down primitive forest roads between each hide. Others may be a couple mile hike to the next one. Some may be fairly close to others.

 

We seem to be on very different pages here. The sort of wilderness caches I'm talking about are ones where there are no roads or trails and the only way to the cache is a full-day or multi-day hike through rugged terrain. A cache that's a 30 minute drive down a primitive forest road I'd almost consider urban.

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, MNTA said:

Some of these caches are a 30 minute drive down primitive forest roads between each hide.

Some of those I showed could be hours between them, because of the rough country. It's 172kms by road, and I likely use 'road' very loosely, to the next cache, and 155 kms to the next cache after that. Three caches in 24,424 sq kms. Remove those three and no caches in that area. Remove three caches in the map you showed and still LOTS of caches.

The area you showed has lots of caches compared to what I an showing. Using the cache I mentioned (that has yet to have a FTF) as an example, here is what the CP wrote.

 

"This is a remote area cache. On our trip we passed 7 late models cars destroyed by spinifex fires. When it was thick (not so much on the Anne Beadell Hwy) we stopped every hour to clear it from under our cars. Apparently the 7 car owners did not clear the spinifex build up under their cars frequently enough and the cars were completely destroyed. Be very careful. 

The Anne Beadell Hoghway is only suitable for high-clearance four-wheel drive vehicles and experienced drivers. It is preferable to go with at least one other vehicle and carry a UHF radio plus a satellite phone or high-frequency (HF) radio and an Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon / Personal Locator Beacon (EPIRB / PLB) in case of emergency. Please stay safe. "

 

(I am unlikely to ever be able to find this cache. But some people will eventually have fun doing so, and it would be sad to deprive them of that.)

 

Spinifex is a long, very spiny sharp grass. I wore gaiters when I was travelling where there was spinifex and I was walking through it to get to caches, and still that grass was stabbing me in the thighs.

Edited July 12, 2024 by Goldenwattle

[Keystone]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Um, we don't have 400 pound bears in this part of the world, or any wildlife that big.

 

* 400 pound Drop Bear has entered the chat *

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

* 400 pound Drop Bear has entered the chat *

 

Yeah, I forgot about those, but they only go after tourists and generally leave caches alone.

[+JL_HSTRE]

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

We seem to be on very different pages here. The sort of wilderness caches I'm talking about are ones where there are no roads or trails and the only way to the cache is a full-day or multi-day hike through rugged terrain.

 

If there are no trails should geocachers really be going there at all?

 

At that point you're probably limiting the number of seekers more than a D5 complicated puzzle. And solving the puzzle doesn't run the risk of putting yourself in an emergency situation in literally trackless wilderness.

 

There's definitely still people interested in long hikes to geocaches, even daylong roundtrips, especially for milestones. But once overnight backpacking becomes necessary? The geocacher pool in most areas shrinks away to nothing.

 

Something I've noticed in over a decade of caching is the really dedicated outdoor enthusiasts usually end up quitting geocaching. They don't spend any less time in the outdoors after they quit; they simply stop spending any of that time looking for geocaches. Geocaching isn't taking them places they wouldn't already go.

 

I don't think they're allowed anymore, but if you were to place a geocache on a stretch of the Appalachian Trail that could only be reached with an overnight backpacking trip, I feel confident that 100% of people who find that geocache were going to hike that section of the AT whether there were any geocaches there or not. 

[+barefootjeff]

7 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If there are no trails should geocachers really be going there at all?

 

Apart from national parks, there's no problem going off-trail on public recreation land here such as local government bushland reserves and state forests, although the latter can get closed on occasions when logging operations are taking place. Even in the national park here, I obtained permission for a cache where the last 150 metres or so is off-trail (the rest is along a neglected fire trail), but it's through open forest and across rock shelves with no nearby cliffs so the ranger was happy to put it through as soon as I submitted it.

 

There's a relatively small but enthusiastic bunch of cachers here who love challenging high-terrain caches, including our reviewer. Sure, those caches don't get found very often but it's the experiences, not the numbers, that count.

[+Goldenwattle]

28 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If there are no trails should geocachers really be going there at all?

Of course we should and do. Some bush walking has no tracks. As long as it's public land, such as a nature park. Local geocachers do bushwalk. Three of us walked from the valley up to the view of the third image. No track. They are not considered 5T. The last image, the two caches up that hill are rated 3T and 3.5T. These are half day walks. No mobile reception. I have no wish to carry camping gear and camp over night. Even I managed that walk and I am not that fit, or young.

    

 

28 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

At that point you're probably limiting the number of seekers more than a D5 complicated puzzle.

Absolutely not. Far easier than an ('unsolvable') 5T puzzle😁.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2024 by Goldenwattle

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If there are no trails should geocachers really be going there at all?

 

I have put some geocaches on an island. I can guarantee that no trail goes to the cache.

 

There is a new virtual cache on an island https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCAJHCW_market-lighthouse-virtual-reward-4-0

No one has visited it about 6 months. Actually, the last "visitor" was the one who "hide" the cache

 

I am curious to see what arguments you may find against this kind of caches?

Edited July 12, 2024 by arisoft

[+JL_HSTRE]

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

I have put some geocaches on an island. I can guarantee that no trail goes to the cache.

 

Sure there is: the body of water the island is on is a defacto trail.

 

I responded to a post referring to "no roads or trails and the only way to the cache is a full-day or multi-day hike through rugged terrain." That describes a lot more than a few hundred feet off a lightly used trail or an island on a river.

 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I responded to a post referring to "no roads or trails and the only way to the cache is a full-day or multi-day hike through rugged terrain." That describes a lot more than a few hundred feet off a lightly used trail or an island on a river.

 

The terrain 4.5 cache I did for my 1000 finds milestone is probably the longest off-trail hike to a cache I've done. After passing under a motorway bridge, it was then some 3km of off-trail hiking, heading north-west to descend some 50 metres into a narrow gully, cross the stream and then negotiate the lines of cliffs on the other side to get back to the top of the ridge. From there it was south to the clifftop cache overlooking the Hawkesbury River. We started at about 9am and returned to the cars just on sunset a bit after 6pm.

 

 

That cache was published a decade ago and in that time has had 14 finds, the most recent just over 3 years ago. At the time we did it, it had been about 2 years since the previous find but we didn't insist the CO make sure it was still there before setting off. There was always the possibility it could have ended in the DNF but it still would have been a great day out and an epic DNF to write up.

 

There are other much more grueling off-trail hiking caches here, particularly in the Blue Mountains and along the Great Dividing Range, but most would be beyond my abilities now.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The terrain 4.5 cache I did for my 1000 finds milestone is probably the longest off-trail hike to a cache I've done. After passing under a motorway bridge, it was then some 3km of off-trail hiking, heading north-west to descend some 50 metres into a narrow gully, cross the stream and then negotiate the lines of cliffs on the other side to get back to the top of the ridge. From there it was south to the clifftop cache overlooking the Hawkesbury River. We started at about 9am and returned to the cars just on sunset a bit after 6pm.

 

 

That cache was published a decade ago and in that time has had 14 finds, the most recent just over 3 years ago. At the time we did it, it had been about 2 years since the previous find but we didn't insist the CO make sure it was still there before setting off. There was always the possibility it could have ended in the DNF but it still would have been a great day out and an epic DNF to write up.

 

There are other much more grueling off-trail hiking caches here, particularly in the Blue Mountains and along the Great Dividing Range, but most would be beyond my abilities now.

 

A lot of caches south of Canberra here in 'wild' country. Some are on a trail and some not. Many beyond me now too, but they give enjoyment to others. Not lonely caches though, as there are other caches, so if a few were archived, it doesn't leave the area denuded. This is maybe 16 sq. kms.

 

[+Viajero Perdido]

Bloody hell.  I think it's about time I chose Australia for my semi-annual adventure trip!    Never been, oh yeah, it's far, very very far...

 

(Yes, I buy plane tickets based on caches of the type we're discussing here.  And no, I don't buy tickets for sponsored events, geo-tours, intangible things, or urban cache density in general.)

 

Edited July 13, 2024 by Viajero Perdido

[+colleda]

On 7/13/2024 at 12:08 PM, Goldenwattle said:

A lot of caches south of Canberra here in 'wild' country. Some are on a trail and some not. Many beyond me now too, but they give enjoyment to others. Not lonely caches though, as there are other caches, so if a few were archived, it doesn't leave the area denuded. This is maybe 16 sq. kms.

 

And under snow ATM hmm?

[+colleda]

On 7/13/2024 at 12:29 PM, Viajero Perdido said:

Bloody hell.  I think it's about time I chose Australia for my semi-annual adventure trip!    Never been, oh yeah, it's far, very very far...

 

(Yes, I buy plane tickets based on caches of the type we're discussing here.  And no, I don't buy tickets for sponsored events, geo-tours, intangible things, or urban cache density in general.)

 

It's only 15hrs Vancouver to Sydney by Qantas Dreamliner. A very comfortable flight I did June last year.

[+threenow24]

On 7/10/2024 at 8:12 PM, Goldenwattle said:

What is this silly, illogical vendetta against caches rarely visited from some people? It comes over as some sort of strange fixation!

I would venture a guess that while they can't/won't/don't want to make the effort to find them, they still want their map to show all smiley faces. Stats, streaks, maps - people will do what I'd consider strange or unethical actions to attain/maintain whatever appearance it is they want to present to others. Or to themselves.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

I got this message on my cache at Warner Ridge Lookout. I drove 73 miles from home and walked up 0.3 miles from the locked gate. I was right where I left it 9 years ago (clean and dry).  It did have a log or two that were not logged online.  GreenwoodTurner came up and logged it 10 days after I replaced the old cache with a plastic ammocan. He posted a picture of the new logsheet with his fresh signature.   I have taken pictures of log sheets where my log is the first one in over 7 years.

[+cerberus1]

On 7/11/2024 at 10:42 AM, Goldenwattle said:

Are there really that many caches that need maintenance in remote, hard to get to places where few caches are placed?

In urban areas and nearby country areas maybe, but they are not likely to go five years without a find. The ones that are most likely to go five years without a find, are remote, lonely caches, maybe the only cache in the area.

Especially for the older ones, they are likely to have a better standard of cache than most urban ones.

 

I have one I can see with a 200' walk.  A 5T huge rural mailbox in a tree 30' up. There's sorta recent "finds", but I believe they're fakes. 

Last actual find was in 2021.  I'm still having weekly chemo fun, so rope climbing is still out for a while. 

Trying to find someone with a tall-enough ladder and I'll climb that.  A lot of people wanted to adopt it, but can't get one to help kinda thing...

Another, a one-mile paddle-to multi was just found last month, it was last found in 2020...

 - Both have easy to get to car access to start, and the area is heavily visited as a tourist spot in Summer.  Not "remote at all.  Weird, huh?

[+GrateBear]

This might be a good thing.  There's a cache about 40 miles away from me, placed 8 years ago.  No finds, no DNFs and the CO hasn't been active for 4 years.  Plus, it's on an island in a river.  Can't see trying for it without knowing if it's still there.  

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, GrateBear said:

This might be a good thing.  There's a cache about 40 miles away from me, placed 8 years ago.  No finds, no DNFs and the CO hasn't been active for 4 years.  Plus, it's on an island in a river.  Can't see trying for it without knowing if it's still there.  

I have swum to three caches. Once I was unprepared, walked up and down the river bank, going will I, or will I not. Oh what the heck! Stripped and swam. I was very worried about the blackberries I could see ahead of me, but fortunately I found I could avoid those. Another I had trouble with the current (Cache on a post in a lake.) and dropped the bison. Difficult to sign treading water, while the current is taking you away. Fortunately I didn't drop the log. I returned with a friend in a boat and replaced the cache. The third one was a walk in the park, almost literally. I set out walking out into the lake, walking, walking, expecting by then to be swimming. I didn't know how shallow that lake was, as I was able to walk a lot of the way and the actually swim was short. There was another I waded through water and weed up to my chest, only to find it was missing. Chalked it up to the adventure.

Go on an adventure; find out if it's there.

[+JL_HSTRE]

9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have swum to three caches. Once I was unprepared, walked up and down the river bank, going will I, or will I not. Oh what the heck! Stripped and swam. I was very worried about the blackberries I could see ahead of me, but fortunately I found I could avoid those. Another I had trouble with the current (Cache on a post in a lake.) and dropped the bison. Difficult to sign treading water, while the current is taking you away. Fortunately I didn't drop the log. I returned with a friend in a boat and replaced the cache. The third one was a walk in the park, almost literally. I set out walking out into the lake, walking, walking, expecting by then to be swimming. I didn't know how shallow that lake was, as I was able to walk a lot of the way and the actually swim was short. There was another I waded through water and weed up to my chest, only to find it was missing. Chalked it up to the adventure.

Go on an adventure; find out if it's there.

 

I hope you live in a part of Australia without 15-ft man-eating crocodiles.

[+niraD]

42 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I hope you live in a part of Australia without 15-ft man-eating crocodiles.

Does Australia have anything similar to South America's piranha? How true is it that all the wildlife in Australia is trying to kill you?

[+Goldenwattle]

12 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I hope you live in a part of Australia without 15-ft man-eating crocodiles.

😂 I do. Too chilly for crocs where I live, and uphill and inland. 4C outside at present.

 

12 hours ago, niraD said:

Does Australia have anything similar to South America's piranha? How true is it that all the wildlife in Australia is trying to kill you?

No piranhas or similar here. I did once jokingly exclaim, 'Piranha', when I felt tiny fish nibbling at my legs. I think they were pulling at leg hairs. No more than a tickle, and no blood drawn.

 

The US wildlife is much more dangerous. We don't have bears, big cats and wolves. Though like anywhere, large animals can be dangerous. I steer clear of wild water buffalo, camels, cattle etc. But they are up north (with the crocodiles), not where I live. Down south here the most dangerous animals I'm guessing would be wild pigs, so I make a wide detour, but none have ever attacked me. I don't go near big male kangaroos, but the females are usually fine.  Don't bother them, they usually don't bother you. We have snakes and spiders, but many other countries do too. Some of our snakes are way up near the top on poison though.

Oh, I almost forgot bullrouts, a poisonous fresh water stone fish. But again , not where I live, but up north. Further south though than the other creatures I mentioned, down into northern NSW. As a primary school aged child I lived for awhile where there were bullrouts. I never saw them, but being told they are a stone fish I imagined them lying on the creek bottom, so I learnt to float and tread water very well, and never put my feet down, except when carefully getting out of the local creek where we swam. I have since seen a picture of them, and they look a normal fish shape, not a rock, but learning to tread water and float well was a useful skill.

 

Edited July 17, 2024 by Goldenwattle

[+MNTA]

My scariest animal encounters was walking through a pasture with my friends husky in a county park south of San Jose CA. Came around bend and 10 cows were squared up ready to protect a new born calf.  Making all kinds of noises and aggressive gestures.Needless to say I got out of there quickly.Even the dog was knew this was not good.

 

[+Cheminer Will]

19 hours ago, GrateBear said:

This might be a good thing.  There's a cache about 40 miles away from me, placed 8 years ago.  No finds, no DNFs 

 

Could be one of mine!   I am a hiker and pretty much geocache out in the wild.  Years ago I did not have this issue as it seemed that more people were eager to make the adventure happen for a cache.  But some of mine are now years without a find.  Generally when I have checked all is good, just no geocachers to ground zero although often there are many others non-cachers that hike right by without knowing.  Occasionally I will get a notice that someone feels there is an issue with a cache because of the long time since a find.  Generally all is fine as I try to choose a safe hiding spot and use bullet proof containers.  I did recently archive one of mine like this though.  It was not because there was anything wrong with it though.  I got a log that someone thought there must be an issue because it had been a long time since a log and also a few DNFs.  (it was way out in the woods and rated a 4/4).  When I finally did check on it, I could not remember exactly where I had hidden it 17 years ago and could not locate it myself!.  Even though I felt it was probably OK, I archived it anyway to avoid the issue described in the OP.  Because of how I geocache mainly away from civilization, I have not hidden many caches in recent years.  Just not enough people out caching in the areas I like to go.

Edited July 16, 2024 by Cheminer Will

[+Goldenwattle]

7 hours ago, Cheminer Will said:

I am a hiker and pretty much geocache out in the wild.  Years ago I did not have this issue as it seemed that more people were eager to make the adventure happen for a cache.  But some of mine are now years without a find. 

Maybe that's because towns, and road guards weren't packed with caches then, and people had to make an effort to find caches. Just guessing. Nothing wrong with towns packed with caches though. I do most of my geocaching now when travelling, and especially in other countries I like to find towns packed with them, as I can spend the day walking and find lots of caches. I walk many kms. Unless there's public transport to there, I have no way to get to wilderness areas when overseas.

[+colleda]

On 7/16/2024 at 11:41 AM, Goldenwattle said:

I have swum to three caches. Once I was unprepared, walked up and down the river bank, going will I, or will I not. Oh what the heck! Stripped and swam. I was very worried about the blackberries I could see ahead of me, but fortunately I found I could avoid those. Another I had trouble with the current (Cache on a post in a lake.) and dropped the bison. Difficult to sign treading water, while the current is taking you away. Fortunately I didn't drop the log. I returned with a friend in a boat and replaced the cache. The third one was a walk in the park, almost literally. I set out walking out into the lake, walking, walking, expecting by then to be swimming. I didn't know how shallow that lake was, as I was able to walk a lot of the way and the actually swim was short. There was another I waded through water and weed up to my chest, only to find it was missing. Chalked it up to the adventure.

Go on an adventure; find out if it's there.

Was it Lake George?