southdeltan

I'll think you'll find that there are many reasons that people purchase premium memberships, not just because of the one reason you cite I could care less how, or if, people trade in my caches. I hope they'll be honest, but I also know that "one man's trash is another's treasure". I became a PM to get access to pqs and to support the site. I know many that don't use any features and just want to support the site. I know people that joined to get access to the OT forum. I know people that joined to get pqs. I know people that joined to get the zoomable maps I'm sure there are people joining now to get the ignore list and bookmarks. I KNOW there are people who joined after finding a few caches because they think it is: a) a value, the right thing to do, or c) they think everybody is a pm. I'm sure there are many other reasons as well. I don't think making a cache MO makes the people who find your cache any more likely to "trade evenly". Having 3 bucks a month to spend on a premium membership doesn't mean that the person has higher moral standards or a better understanding of the value of items being traded - or even cares. southdeltan

They've already made exceptions. The womens only event got Jeremy's stamp of approval, so maybe a members only event would too. This is true. Some guidelines are treated as guidelines. Some are treated as rules. I wish I could figure out which was which. southdeltan

Oh? Are you sure about that? Here's a post by Jeremy Irish stating that they're not to entice people to become Premium members. Here's another post by Jeremy mentioning that the reason was, in fact, related to cache theft. I'm sure there are more quotes on this - some probably a bit more concise. MO caches aren't meant as a benifit in the sense that you can hunt for them, but a benifit in the sense that they will make your caches less likely to be stolen. If there isn't a cache thief in your area - there's probably no reason to use these. southdeltan

I'd think that would violate the new guidelines on hiding an event cache. Here's the first line: The purpose of MO caches are to help lower the theft rate of caches. How can an event cache be stolen? Incidentally, it's been done. You can search the forums for the thread(s) concerning the MO event. It was met with mixed reactions. southdeltan

I feel your pain. There is a really nice privately owned park not to far from my home. The park has several signs indicating that it is privately owned, but it's not clear if public access is allowed or not so I was seeking permission to place a cache there. There are dozens of areas to place a full sized cache. A new cacher tossed a cache out before I could get permission (you can decide if the size matters or not, that wasnt' the biggest issue here, but it certainly was an issue). When I saw it posted, I emailed and asked (politely) where I should have asked for permission. I recieved no response. A few days later I got the chance to look for it and I hinted to that in my log, and still no answer. It's a great spot, and could hold a full sized cache - but I didn't want to place it there without permission. I'm still not sure if the person has permission, but the lack of a response has me concerned. In response to the statement "you didn't find the micro, but you blast it" - that's what happens with the vast majority of micros people find are poorly hidden in bland areas - they start to associate ALL micros with crap hides. It's not fair, but it happens. sd

I found the cache today after the Land manager found the cache. My wife and I passed 2 workers near the trail head with an atv (I forget the model, it's one that looks like a souped up golfcart - maybe a mule or something). They told us where the trail branched off. The log written in the logbook was glowing. They definetly approved. The half dozen CITO canisters and large decal in the lid with CITO info couldn't have hurt, that's for sure. The area is regularly flooded by the MS river so they have to work hard to keep it clean. I wouldn't be worried (not that I think you are). I am impressed that they created an account and logged online. I had spoken to you in the past about hiding a cache in this new park - and based on what you said I figured you had permission - so I thought they were checking it out. They drove the ATV very near the cache - on the way out I noticed the tracks. If you're ever in NW MS and want to find a high quality cache - this one rocks. I strongly recommend it. Great park (glad to see that Tunica county has found yet another way to spend all of the excess casino tax money they have) right on THE river. I hope the meeting goes well. I suspect it will. southdeltan

This is pretty much what I was thinking about when I suggested that you search for mentors by location. If you want to be a mentor - volunteer. IF you want to look for one, then you put in a location and search. The profiles for the nearest mentors show up in list form, with a distance from your location. Then, you send them an email via their profile. sd

Right. If it doesn't make any difference, removing it from the cache listing to reduce confusion on the numbers would make it the better choice. But wouldn't that increase server load (as well as waste our time) if we have to go to each cachers profile if we want to see how many finds they have, when looking at the logs on a cache? Please just leave it as it is currently. I know gc.com preaches "it's not about the numbers" but for some people, frankly it is. We constantly here "play the game the way you want to" UNLESS you want to play "for the numbers". Then you're the evil 'numbers cacher'........ Hey, that's my line! I agree 100%. Don't change anything. sd

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I could cite specific references where new caches find a few caches, then go hide as many as they found one day - but I can't see anything positive in picking on specific cachers. Bad containers, bad locations, and they don't maintain them. They, in some cases continue to add more and more caches like that. Efforts to constructively offer advice are ignored. After finding some of these caches and talking with people have found others - I strongly DOUBT any planning was placed into these caches. "Hey, I lets throw out 20 hastily thrown out caches because there's no rule against it". In some areas this may not happen, but it has happened in parts of our state. New geocacher - few finds - lots of hides. Many people won't offer suggestions because they're afraid their logs will get deleted and/or they don't know a nice way to offer advice so they keep their mouth shut. I think approvers can make some judgement about what's going on, and I have talked to some (including this particular case) where the approver acknowledged these were probably poorly planned caches but there was nothing that could be done about it. I agree there is probably little that can be done about it. I am aware dates are sometimes changed in that situation. I was referring to cachers listing them all at once, but not all of them get approved on the same day so it makes it appear that they were listed on seperate days. I'm not a fan of unnecessary rules - but it appears that the guidelines are being enforced as a rule for "power trails" (and I agree whole heartedly). While bombing a larger area with poorly planned caches isn't exactly the same - it can have the same effect. The caches might not all be within .25 or .5 or 1 mile of each other - they may be spread out over a county - but when most of the counties in our state have less than 50 caches - adding 20 or more poorly planned caches can have a MAJOR effect on the cache quality. It seems that some sort of guidelines for the number of caches that can be placed at a time would be helpful. There could be exceptions for series of caches or related caches that need prior planning to get listed. The goal would be to limit the number of thoughtlessly placed caches. I'm not really sure the best way to do this - but it is a problem that should be examined. (I know many people say there shouldn't be a rule for newbies and placing caches - such as a minimum find count or length of membership - but perhaps they should be required to only place a few caches at first. I'm seeing more and more that go out and hide one for every 2 or 3 they find). It seems that a large number of these caches are poorly thought about. Of course, if a cache hider wants to place 20 caches on a 4 mile trail - that WAS up to the hider in the past. IF (and maybe it is a big IF, but it certainly seems to be occuring in this area) the cache bombing continues to happen, perhaps this will become an issue worthy of a guidelines change. [/off-topic rant] sd

While it's not an official Groundspeak Policy, http://www.geocachingpolicy.info/ already exists. You might want to check that out. southdeltan

Would you also be against people hiding and listing MANY caches in a short span of time (I'd guess it's actually one day but the approvers can't always approve 10, 15, 20, or more caches at a time). sd

I thought Where's George.com frowned on WG$ going through geocaches. I read somewhere Geo-WG$ got banned from their system or something like that. I personally think logging requirements are a bad idea. If I found the cache, I found it. You can't take that away from me by preventing me from using the GC.com system to log the cache. I would probably log the cache and continue to log it if it was deleted. Of course, it's also a very high possibility for many that it'd go on the ignore list. That's a shame. sd

While I was tongue in cheek when I suggested that you remove this feature, I don't necessarily mind if you plan to replace this feature with something else, and wait until that is ready to make the change. If I recall, someone suggested that the number people ignoring a cache be shown to the owner - and that was shot down. (I still think it should be shown. Everybody I've spoken to in my area has only 1 set of caches on their ignore list, and I think the few people that hid those should know, but that's another story). I personally don't see how it's a matter of privacy. Clear all watchlists - and tell people that if they watch a cache the owner will know. How is that any different from an audit log? Why should an owner see who's looking at cache pages? (A cache thief can get a premium membership for 3 bucks then run a PQ of MO caches). Anyways - back to my reason for posting: If you ARE going to remove the watchlist - you should replace it with something. One possibility would be the total number of cachers to bookmark a listing (not the total number of bookmarks, one cacher could have a cache on several bookmark lists). I personally don't see how that would solve the "problem" of people asking - but it's an option. Another option would be the "Top 5%" (or was it 10%) indicator that Markwell suggests. Everytime a person adds a cache to that list - it goes up on the page. I would actually like to see this whether or not you remove the watchlist count. Another option would be to put a link on the number that explains why the people watching are not shown to the owner (this could be a link that only the owner sees). southdeltan

I would think it would be of use to MANY geocachers. I don't think that the fact that it would not be useful to ALL geocachers is a reason to dismiss it. In many areas in the US, there are thousands of geocaches within a 100 mile (161 km) radius. There are also many different ways that people use PQs. People always mention new things I've never heard of. I would love to see more options. I think filtering by direction would be great. Incidentally, I am not the biggest fan of GSAK. It's not always the answer. Many people like to use the GC.com website - and you can preview PQ's online so you don't even need 3rd party software. southdeltan

If I'm not mistaken, Jeremy recently mentioned that a solution for virtuals and locationless caches was in the works. I took that to mean that it's actually being worked on and will be ready sooner rather than later. Recently, if he's mentioned something, he puts it on the website within a reasonable amount of time. (I know many will say a solution for locationless has been on the way for a long time - it seems it's actually being programmed). Here's a link to a post I made in a now locked thread. In that thread (and you can look through it and find these posts), Jeremy states: and I think the debate is pretty pointless when this information is considered. A little patience is all that is required. Incidentally - I think the SUBJECTIVE rules in place are terrible. I look forward to a new way of doing things. southdeltan

I agree. I don't particularly like to trade - but I'd much rather find a cache with good items that is clean and not full of trash. sd

You must have missed this part of my post: National Forests as a WHOLE don't have rules. Some individual Forests MAY have rules. southdeltan

I found these at Acadamy Sports Ok, I think there may be one of those in Jackson, MS. I'll look next time I'm over there. ---- I'm sure this has been mentioned several times in other threads, but another good source for inexpensive yet quality items is Oriental Trading Company. You can request a free catalog that's full of all sorts of neat items that most kids would enjoy. They will also customise many of the items. southdeltan

Where do you buy those? Sounds like a nice trade item. I personally tend to head to Walmart and the Dollar Tree. I put in half inexpensive outdoors items and half toys. I put in the odd "neat" item too. I've recently decided to go to the Book Warehouse and pick up some inexpensive books from there. I tend to spend 5 to 15 dollars on a cache. That's not counting the container (of course, I got a nice stack of ammo cans from a good friend who used to get them for free - but I'll run out of those shortly). southdeltan

Really, if you think about it, that ought to answer and finsh off this thread - "a lot of people just like these effortless finds", or they wouldn't exist. Again - effortless finds don't have to be in terrible locations. I like an easy find as much as the next person. I just don't like easy finds in poor (and a location can be poor for a variety of reasons, they've been mentioned before but people seem to zoom in on the word micro and ignore everything else) areas. I don't think I'm alone in noticing that the increase in poorly thought out caches (yes, they are mainly micros, but people don't dislike them BECAUSE they are micros) came after the guidelines for virtuals were made more strict. Now, instead of somebody making a virtual of the illegal dump site - they put a film can by it. (And no, the pages don't mention CITO - which wouldn't be a bad thing). sd

I totally agree here - illegal, dangerous, trashy or otherwise unsafe or unwise cache LOCATIONS are and should be discouraged. I entered this discussion to defend cachers right to hide the type of CONTAINER they like to find, assuming the location to be acceptable. The hider has total liability and responsibility for location. Oh but I definately do have an opinion. I also have a responsibility to the game and to other cachers, and I have a huge investment in this game. Unlike some, however, I don't promote my preferences and opinions as THE way to play, nor opine that if folks don't see / do things my way the game will die. My opinion is, assuming location is OK, hide and hunt what you like to find. The cache page will almost always tell you what you are hunting. Ed Then you have entirely missed my point, Drat19's point and I assume CR's point. (Those aren't the only people who have been involved in similar discussions lately either. Mopar and BrianSnat come to mind). It's not about micros or any other container. It's about LOCATION. Just because you CAN place a cache somewhere doesn't mean you should. I mean, if people are placing ammo boxes that say "Grenades" in the bushes between the monkey bars and the swings - that's about the container. This is about the location. Micros come up in this because, quite simply, they are easy to hide due to their size. Micros just happen to be easy to hide and inexpensive. That makes them a favorite container of lazy people. But it's not about the container - it's about putting it in a bad location just because you CAN. I don't think anybody is trying to dictate that caches must be high quality any more than people are trying to dictate that anything goes. People have a right to voice their opinion. I feel that people suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the cache but instead something wrong with my attitude is offensive, to be honest. I also feel that people telling me to cache the way they do because they enjoy it is dictating to me how I should cache. (IE, "You shouldn't tell people there are bad caches, because if you would go look for them like *I* look for them you would have a good time") It seems to me that there are more people speaking up on the forums about bad locations. I've seen at least 2 or 3 newbies mention that they are not impressed (that is a discouraging sign) with most of the caches they've found (and they mention poorly hidden caches in innapropriate areas), I can only imagine how many didn't bother to create an account or come back to find more than 4 or 5 caches after seeing the poorly placed ones that are making up an ever increasing percentage of caches. I also know many people that do not post that have the same opinions that CR, myself, and others have. They avoid the forums for fear of being shouted down with "If you don't like em, don't look for them" and "It's not the cache that's got a problem, it's you" and "Who are you to care where a cache is placed?". I totally disagree that cache pages will always tell you what you're hunting for. I can dress up a cache page and make it look like it's the best cache you'll ever find and it could be a bad cache in the median of the I-20 stack. Then again, I've seen awesome caches with nothing in the description. This is not a subject one can toss a blanket statement over. I have never intended to present my opinion as one that is totally black and white. It honestly seems to me that many of the people that are arguing that there isn't such a thing as a "lame cache" are arguing a different subject than those of us that see a problem. It's not about containers. It's not about cache types. It's not about personal preferences. It's about people being lazy. It's about people not doing a bit of research OR fixing their problem once it's pointed out to them. It's about people hiding 20 caches exactly the same in a 2 day period - that are all in unsafe, unwise, and/or uninteresting locations (I suppose somebody will argue that the back of abandoned buildings in an illegal dump site is interesting to some - but I doubt it). It may not be an issue in some areas yet, but you can ask CR if he ever thought it would be an issue in his area. Nobody is saying all caches have to be difficult. Nobody is saying all caches have to be regulars. Nobody is saying all caches have to be spectacular areas. We're just saying that the majority shouldn't be in TERRIBLE areas. The percentage is getting higher and higher daily. sd

There are many high difficulty caches that I wouldn't even attempt. They don't interest me. However, I don't believe I have the right to complain about them just because I wouldn't enjoy doing them. I realize that there are many people who love these types of caches. Nobody is complaining because the caches are easy. I think it's also been said that nobody is complaining because there are micros. I think this is something many won't understand until it hits their area. Easy caches (1/1 to 2/2) should not indicate that the cache is a bad cache. Neither should the micro size. There is no way to filter out poor caches. And you certainly can't ignore a cache because it's poor if you haven't found it to determine if it's poor. I look at the ignore feature as a tool for caches you know you can't find - such as high difficulty. Or cache types you don' t like. Or caches by poor hiders. Or. Or. Or - but not as a way to get rid of caches you don't like. You won't know you like it until you've looked for it. I absolutely LOVE people saying "If you don't like it, keep driving". I may just do that - but you can bet I'm gonna be pissed after driving 80 + miles one way to look for a cache. I suppose some people do like finding a leaky film can with a torn shred of paper in a pile of garbage behind some abandoned buildings. I'm not one of them. sd

I've tried this. It's very easy for the cache owner to restore a deleted worthless hint after their cache has been listed. Others take offense at my deleting their hint and flame me for tampering with their cache page. It says: on the "Report a Cache" page. I think cache owners should be held to this statement. If they don't like it, tough. My nearest unfound cache is about 60 cromes. It's almost 90 driving miles. I typically plan to hunt for at least 10 caches to make it worth my money to drive this far to hunt. It is infuriating to get out there, THINK you have a clue, need the clue - and find out that it's either useless or blatantly mocking me. I've seen this same topic come up on 3 state organization forums in the last month. Everybody was of the same opinion - that if there isnt' a useful hint, there should be no hint. If there's no hint - you can prepare accordingly. southdeltan

Of course it's compilicated. I think many people are blowing off people that would like to see higher cache quality as throwing a blanket "lame" out there. It's not simple. There are many factors - but there are some things that are always lame. I'd rather not get into that - and I'm definetly not going to cite specific examples - but people know what they are when they find them. I don't mean the "I don't like puzzle caches" or "I can't do a long hike" - I mean the "why in the heck did the person put a cache here?" caches. I'm a bit lost - are you saying that you're ignoring all caches by the hider? If that's the case - I say good for you. Unfortunately, this hider may influence others and you'll ignore more and more caches. sd

National Forests are administered by the US Forest Service (USFS) - a branch of the USDA (Department of Agriculture). They are almost always open to caching. Some National Forests have individual rules but the majority are not. They are usually very receptive to geocaching. National Parks are administered by the National Park Service (NPS) - a branch of the Dept of the Interior. They have a blanket ban. I have heard of some caches having special exceptions but that is rare. National Wildlife Refuges are adminstered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - a branch of the Dept of the Interior. They now have a "ban" on Geocaching as well. I am not sure where the BLM falls. There is no BLM land in my state, and as far as I know very little if any in surrounding states. (I'm east of the MS). It's amazing how many people get the National Parks, Forests, and Wildlife Refuges mixed up. Throw in BLM, and state lands - such as State Parks and State Wildlife Management Areas - and it can get confusing I suppose. southdeltan