anpefi

That a cache is PMO means that only the premium members can see it listed or seen on the map. There are several ways for a Basic member to be able to view the listing of a PMO cache and fetch it. The simplest is that a Premium member has passed the coordinates (or the GPX), or even that they have gone together but the PM has not logged in yet. Then to log in, you need only the GC code and the logbook URL that comes from that GC. The login of PMO caches is not restricted to premium users. If the Basic user has signed the physical logbook, he has every right to log online.

With the Geocaching.com app there is an easy way to do it. First of all you have to make sure that the PQ has been generated (for example, mark a day for it to be generated) and it is available for download in the corresponding tab. All the PQs available for download on the web appear as lists in the app, and you can save the data offline. Other apps have an option to directly download PQs. Alternatively, you can download the GPX file from the web and upload it to your app/GPSr.

Cuando lo coges lo registras como "Recogido" del cache. Entonces aparecerá en tu inventario (tu lista de rastreables que llevas contigo). A partir de ese momento, cuando loguees otro cache cualquiera, tendrás la oportunidad de decir que quieres hacer con cada uno de los rastreables que hay en tu inventario (por debajo de donde escribes el log tendrás las opciones). Las opciones son No hacer nada (seguirá contigo y no aparecerá el cache en la página del rastreable), Visitar (El rastreable sigue en tus manos, pero ahora aparecerá el cache en la lista de caches visitados por ese rastreable) o Dejar (cuando dejas el rastreable en un cache y así deja de estar en tu inventario y pasa a estar en el del cache). Por lo tanto, si lo dejas en otro cache debes registralo como dejado (como he dicho lo puedes hacer desde el propio log del cache). También es posible que se lo des en mano a otro usuario, el cual deberá de registrarlo como cogido para que figure en su inventario. Espero que esto te aclare tus dudas. Oh, I just realize I'm 4 years later....

From a Bayesian point of view, what I have is a posterior probability obtained from what I observe (I can not find the cache) and my priors (If I am I will find it with a certain probability depending on its difficulty and the way I look). This example of Han Solo and The Empires Strikes Back! illustrates what I say. I may not have evidence, but the predictions I make are pretty accurate, so you don't need always atrong evidences, just a good predicitive model

Experience. I use to DNF some caches (specially from some owners) after 20-30 min search being pretty sure the cache is there. FI logs the day after confirm that. When I finally find it, sometime in my fourth visit to the GZ, I usually get surprised how I couldn't find before. Of course, I am a terrible seeker. But experience gives you that sense of if you are DNF-ing because a cache problem or just having a bad day. From the times I give a DNF explicitly saying that I thought the cache was missing, only once it was a false negative, and that because other geocacher had hide the cache in slightly different location (2m away of the obvious place). Obviously, you cannot be absolutely sure

That is, you, as an interested party, propose that the same people would be rewarded again. I do not say that you do not deserve it, but surely that would give rise to a series of criticisms from the community with a certain reason. On the other hand, would not it be better to add this into the ongoing discussion about speculation of new rewards?

I 100% agree with you. In addition I tend to do not give FP to PMO for the same reason.

1. People I know at an event. 2. People I know when I am in a cache. 3. People I know when they are signing a cache of mine 4. People I already knew and who come to do geocaching with me. 5. People I know about getting in touch with me via the message center or any social media about geocaching.

And force to log a DNF when it is not needed? For example, a couple of weeks before I logged a NM in a Wherigo because in the listing there was a link to the most recent version of the cartridge (a generic multi-Wherigo one) and that version don't work for that Wherigo. In the listing there is not any other indication on how download a previous version (you cannot) or that you can use another different cartridge. The only way to solve the Wherigo is that you contact the owner and he tells u what cardtrige you can use instead of the listed. I log the NM, because the listing has to be cjhanged to allow all the user what they need without contact the owner. Can you tell me that I wrongly logged a NM? Should I log and additional DNF even if I cannot have the final coordinates?

Que majos todos estos nuevos youtubers endiosados! Pues nada, lo dicho, ponlo en conocimiento de Groundspeak ya que es un tema de ellos. Igual puedes ponerte en contacto directamente con tu revisor local que entenderá mejor el problema y que el gestione la comunicación con Groundspeak.

They can not be compared. A Found it log requires that you have physically signed a logbook, which obviously can not be done from your armchair. But a NM / NA is nothing more than the mechanism of letting the owner and/or the reviewers know that there is some kind of problem with the cache, and it does not necessarily have to be with the physical container. I consider it totally legitimate to, in a cache that I have not visited yet, put a NM log if I see that there are many DNFs that indicate that the place is obvious but there is nothing, and the owner did not react. I put a NM for the owner to react. If the owner had already replaced the cache but did not log the OM, then it was still incorrect, and the NM is not left over. If the owner does not respond to the NM in a couple of months, then an NA is put in for the reviewers to find out that I believe there is a problem in maintaining that cache and that they are judging. An NA is not a judgment, judging is handled by the reviewers not by the NA postman.

No, just the opposite, are the caches that can not be found with the help of GPS (if only a starting point) those that must be archived. Again, recall the geocaching definition: "Geocaching is a real-world, outdoor treasure hunting game using GPS-enabled devices. Participants navigate to a specific set of GPS coordinates and then attempt to find the geocache (container) hidden at that location." So, if you can not use a GPS to, at least partially, locate the treasure, then you're not practicing geocaching, it's something else.

Therefore, since GPS usage is prohibited in Cuba, and that Geocaching "is a real-world, outdoor treasure hunting game using GPS-enabled devices", caches in Cuba should not be allowed (and existing ones should be archived) , except those on American bases, where the use GPS devices are not prohibited. It's serious enough for Groundspeak to take matters into his own hands.

Perhaps the best option is that you set a mail filter for subject contains "discovered [TB Name]" in your email service. Given that the email subjects are coherent, it is easy to set several filters to manage the Geocaching mails and just archive or delete those you are not interested.

¿Habéis intentado hablar con él? Se que es poco probable, pero quizá si se le comenta el perjuicio que está causando en el Geocaching podría rectificar de alguna forma. Si eso no funciona, la única opción posible que veo es inundar en los comentarios del vídeo con comentarios sobre que el Geocaching no tiene nada que ver con encontrar teléfonos escondidos. No creo que se pueda hacer más.

No, but I suppose as owners we can have the judgment to determine if the DNFs are due or not to a possible rating problem. If we consider that these 3 DNFs do not justify an increase in difficulty (or give more clues) we can always put an OM with "The cache is in its place and I realize that the difficulty is appropriate, despite the latest DNFs." But at least have a little self-criticism and think, for a second, whether those DNFs indicate something or not. If DNFs continue to arrive then we may have to reconsider it better, perhaps with discussion with a reviewer (human to human interaction)

I think we are missing something in this discussion. DNFs and their impact on CHS and then on the dramatic email, are not just related to the physical integrity of the cache. If I remember well, in the Groundpeak mail it says something about "maybe the D/T should be adjusted". In that way, DNFs are essential to trigger the email. A 1.5/1.5 cache with 2-3 DNFs (even if they are from newbies) is a good candidate to think that maybe the ratio is not "well adjusted". The email is automatic, but we, as owners, are thinking humans. I can own a cache 1.5/1.5 with 3 DNFs that triggered the email, but if there are a couple of founds later I can judge. Is the cache missing? No (if the Found it logs seems legit) Is the D rating too low? If those DNFs are the unique ones, maybe not, if there were older DNFs, then I should reconsider its dificulty. After this judging I can perform maintenance (replacing/fixing the cache if needed, or just changing difficulty or given further hints) logging it as OM. End of the issue. In my area there is an owner that clearly underrated his caches difficulty. He had a couple of them 1.5/1.5 with Found it/DNF ratios: 87/16 75/16 and the caches were never missing. That ratios clearly indicate that caches has D issues (both are nanos very well camouflaged and with 5-10m error. In one of those caches, he should receive the email in the last batch, because he promptly go to check the container (he didn't get that the problem could be the D/T ratio) and log a OM. In the other one, a reviewer deactivate it and give him 4 weeks to solve problems. He didn't solve it because he took it wrongly as a personal attack and didn't understand that the reviewer action was a "semi-automatic" one. So, IMHO, DNFs are quite useful, and the pain they could caused to some owners are so easily solved that I cannot understand, even after all this long thread, why we should demonising them

For me, the best trick to go unnoticed in an urban environment is to go with a small child in his stroller. This way you have an alibi to crouch down or look through bushes in a park. It used to work very well for me for a while, but my child no longer uses a stroller ....

Hola anidonan, creo que es una fabulosa idea aprovechar las posibilidades que tiene el geocaching para desarrollar un proyecto educativo y te animo a ello. Pero también te digo que no tengas prisa, ya que veo que eres realmente reciente en esto (un par de semanas) y aunque se te ve que has empezado con ganas (tienes tres caches escondidos en buenas localizaciones y buenos listings), en esto del geocaching hay ciertas dinámicas propias que sólo se van adquiriendo con algo más de experiencia. No quiero desanimarte, al contrario, pero si quieres trasladar la experiencia del geocaching entre tus chavales y que sea útil tanto para ellos como para la comunidad geocacher hay consideraciones a tener en cuenta que se van adquiriendo con el tiempo y la experiencia. Por eso el mejor consejo que se me ocurre es que te pongas en contacto directo con alguno de los geocachers más veteranos de tu zona y trates de conseguir su implicación en el proyecto. Dicho eso, y tratando de responder ya a tu pregunta, creo que la mejor opción que buscas, en concordancia a lo que dijo Malix007, es un multi-cache. Un multi puede tener varias etapas (físicas y/o virtuales) en las que ir recopilando información que te lleve a obtener las coordenadas finales de un contenedor físico con el logbook. Así que al menos tendrías que mantener un contenedor final, pero las diferentes etapas (marcadas como waypoints dentro del listing del cache) pueden ser virtuales. Esto es ideal para hacer pequeños "tours" por ciudades, que es lo que parece que quieres. De esta forma, tus chicos podrían preparar un pequeño contenido para cada etapa explicando la zona y una vez allí, el geocacher tendría que responder a alguna pregunta para obtener una parte de las coordenadas (por ejemplo, que año figura en la puerta del edificio que según el listing diseñó Fulanito,...). De este modo minimizas el trabajo de mantenimiento, tus chavales se tendrán que currar unas reseñas breves sobre la zona a mostrar y una forma de hacer una pregunta que ayude a obtener una parte de las coordenadas del punto final a poder ser que sólo se pueda resolver desde la zona (ojo, por que muchas veces se puede resolver gracias a fotos o al street view del google maps). Los geocachers que se animen a hacer ese cache ganarán un paseo guiado. Pero cuidado, si pones muchas etapas es probable que tengas muy pocas visitas. Los multis no son muy populares si tienen más de 2-3 etapas y/o implican dar largos paseos. Mi consejo, una vez más, es que busques unos cuantos tu mismo antes de lanzaros a esconder uno. Aquí te dejo algunos ejemplos de multis (algunos cerca tuya) que están diseñados para hacer una visita guiada, de la forma que te expliqué arriba o similar: Parque de María Luisa en Sevilla Este está un poco lejos, pero dado que forma parte de un proyecto educativo quizá te convenga verlo (e incluso contactar con sus owners) ya que creo que es el mejor ejemplo que he encontrado de lo que quieres. Obelisco Millenium (A Coruña) Cristo de la Victoria (Vigo) Geocacheando por Betanzos Redondela Express (Redondela)

That is, you do not want to waste your time in full reading the 404 posts, but the others should invest our time in reading your blog and re-discuss the same thread but in this new one? Why not just add your vision to the ongoing discussion thread, since you know where it is?

I don't think these attributes are really needed/desired These are highly variable. I mean, you can have cell signal for your operator but I can have not for the mine in the same area. Free WiFi can mean several things (some wifi are free upon registration, some are dangerous, they could be availiable for a limited time...) This is covered by the Special Tool Required attributte (and/or Wireless Beacon sometimes) As HHL said, the cache size should be, if adequately used, enough. The big question, how do you define a powertrail? It seems that everyone have its very own opinion and it is hard to standardize. Not sure if we need more attributes. Of course they are useful to filter caches, but they are quite subjective and usually underused that I do not think it is worthy to add complexity to them.

Given a series of caches, how to determine if I consider it a Power Trail? Here is my algorithm (Obviouly, very very subjective and personal). Sum the points given in each step A. Has more than 5 caches? - YES: Points= #caches /Sum of distances between a cache and the following in the series (in Km), round to the closest half point For example: 40 caches for a total of 15 Km: 40/15=2.6666 -> 2.5 pts - NO: It is not a PT, end of algorithm B. Look at 5 randomly chosen caches of the series: - Are the listings almost the same? Yes: +1 point - After some Google Earth research, would you hide an individual cache in that location because of its interest? No: +0.5 points for each cache meeting this condition - Are there any repeated hint in those 5? YES: +0.5 - Are the Difficulty ratings the same in the 5? YES: +1 - Are there several groups of teams signing the same log in all the caches? YES: +0.5 - Are there logs suggesting throwdowns in those caches? YES: +2 C. Is it a series of mysteries/wherigos/letters where you get all the coordinates from just solving one listing? Yes: +3 D. Is there an independent/unrelated cache in the route of the series with lot of generic logs about the series but no about the specific unrelated cache? YES: +2 E. If the series has more than 100 caches and there are teams logging the whole series in the same day +5 If the sum of all the points is above 6, I'm pretty sure that it is a Power Trail and then I'm not interested on it.

Pues enhorabuena y gracias por esa iniciativa de coordinarse! Después de todo lo leído estos días sobre los VR esta es una verdadera bocanada de aire fresco al tema.

Let's see if I understood well (my English skills are not as good as they should be). The main concern here is that DNF logs now have a great impact on the Cache Health Score (CHS) even if the context of the log is clearly not related to the cache health. This could trigger an automated email notice to the CO to take action. In my opinion, this is not a big issue even for the CO. Let's imagine that in one of my caches I receive a couple of DNFs logging "I abort because of muggles" and "It was too cold to search for more than 1 minute". If those DNFs (and lacking of further DNFs of logs related to actual cache problems) trigger the automated email to me, asking me to take action to avoid Archive, I would take action. But this doesn't means that I have to go to a X-hours walk to my cache to check it is in its place (there is not a clue of that). I would log an OM with "Given that the DNFs reported didn't make a complete search I don't think there is any problem with this cache (unless any cacher can say other thing) and I consider it is in good health". That OM log should recover the CHS. If a reviewer check the cache and complains about logging OM without actual visiting the cache at least I can argue now with a human and not an automated system. Not a big issue here. I think DNF logs, if providing some detailed context (not those plain "I didn't find it "), are very useful for everybody (DNF poster, CO, future hunters and past DNF posters) and if they trigger an automated notice to owners is also good as they force CO at least to be responsive.

Sólo añadir otro ejemplo claro de que generalmente es mala idea ir inmediatamente a por este tipo de caches puestos por gente "novata" https://coord.info/GC6M5PD En este caso el cache se publicó una mañana y el owner supuestamente puso el cache en su sitio por la tarde. Digo supuestamente por que nunca apareció. Además tras mi DNF el owner cambió las coordenadas a 150m al interior de una casa. Tuve que avisarle para que las volviera a cambiar. Y aunque nos dió una pista definitiva, ningún geocacher fue capaz de encontrarlo (aunque el owner aseguraba que estaba en su lugar)