paleolith

If you specifically want a reviewer's opinion, then email the reviewer who would review the cache. Post here, and you'll get opinions from all over the peanut gallery. (You're welcome.) Edward

From the guidelines: Edward

A small additional point (if I haven't written enough already): on one of my challenges, I explicitly state that the criterion takes precedence over the bookmark list, and that if the bookmark list isn't kept up to date, the criterion prevails. This challenge also has a grace period -- new caches aren't required until they are three months old -- and the description also states that the grace period runs from the publication date, not from the date the cache is added to the bookmark list. I don't have such a statement on the other, earlier, simpler challenge -- I refined my text for the second one, but did not go back and revise the first -- but the only possible change for the history challenge is archiving, and I could easily enough add that archived caches are exempt even if I haven't gotten around to removing them from the list. Also, for that cache, I said the requirement is "all but two". One cache on the list requires rock climbing skills and would have stopped most contenders from completing the challenge. But instead of exempting that cache specifically, I just said the requirement is "all but two". I had one other in mind in terms of terrain, though in the end it turned out to be less of an issue than I anticipated. Also, one cache was long-term disabled at publication time due to the fire in Griffith Park, and I had in mind that it would not be available for a good while. For the second challenge, Don_J suggested the "disabled for environmental reasons" exemption. I would have incorporated this in the first challenge had I thought of it. This does have an element of CO judgment rather than being a fully independent criterion, but I think it's a strong enough reason to weather that criticism. (We originally applied it to caches in the area closed by the Corral Canyon Fire, and have not needed it since that area was re-opened. But the frequency of wildfires in SoCal means that the situation is likely to arise again.) Isonzo: I just wish I knew whether (or when) KB articles were official GS positions. The home page refers to "informative documentation", which doesn't exactly make it crystal clear. I'm OK with some ambiguity, but I'd rather know when I'm facing ambiguity. I guess I have my limits. On the actual guidelines page, under Mystery, the first paragraph spells out quite clearly what is required in terms of the official coordinates. I don't see why the KB article doesn't just have the same text, or refer back to the guidelines. What's in the guidelines works for me and AFAIK works for everyone who isn't trying to create their own version of reality. The problem is that the KB article tried to restate the criterion that's in the guidelines, and modified it. It's not clear whether the modification was intentional. So I don't agree that the KB wording is "ideal". The guidelines aren't ideal either -- life isn't perfect -- but the wording in the guidelines seems to me to be concise, sufficient, and flexible. addisonbr: thanks for the info about new caches with "challenge" in the name. I'll quit citing that old experience unless I receive information indicating that it's still ... operative ... quite likely it was a transitional thing. Edward (edit: change operational to operative. how soon we forget.)

Well, first, it's hard to tell whether that KB page is intended to be part of the guidelines, since it isn't linked from there. And the statement "The cache's true coordinates must appear on the cache page; the cacher need not email the cache owner for coordinates" seems to imply that the other cases simply were not considered when the page was written. Also, it's not clear whether it's intended to say that the cache's official coordinates must be the true location, or simply that they must appear somewhere on the page, for example in the description or as a waypoint. Overall just a very badly written sentence. I have posted a request on the feedback thingamajiggy to review these points. Had to hold my nose. Geez, I was so happy to move away from 24x80 character-based pinholes twenty years ago, and here's a web forum which crashes me into a 4x40 pinhole. Certainly speaks volumes about how much feedback is truly desired. OK, rant mode off. Much of what I say is based on the experience of publishing those two challenges. It was clear that some things in the review process are not public. For one thing, I was told that GS does not want the word "challenge" in the title except for DeLorme and county challenges, perhaps anything similar, did not get additional clarification. Thus "adventure" in the name of one, which I copied from the San Diego ones. For the second one, I knew about the issue in advance and came up with a better name. The reviewer even pointed me to the San Diego caches (which are linked from my description) as examples. They are even listed as multis. Of course there's the grandfathering issue, and by the current guidelines they would be listed as unknowns. I think the idea with those was to make it a bit clearer that they weren't just caches to go and grab. Mine being somewhat different in nature, I decided I didn't need that. I think that a specific set of caches will probably still be allowed as long as it is based on a reasonable criterion. In the case of my two challenge caches, the bookmark list is simply a convenience. I could have said, in the first case, "find all active caches placed before 5/1/2003 in the Santa Monica Mountains as defined by the polygon described below". And in fact the description does say that. But it gives the bookmark list also. The other could have said "find all active caches within 250' of the Backbone Trail". And those are the caches which the bookmark list includes. But had either list been arbitrary, had it just been my favorite caches, had I excluded some caches for no apparent reason -- that might well have been rejected, even at that time. Of course all the guidelines are applied by reviewers, and it's no secret that reviewer interpretations sometimes vary. So some regional differences would not be surprising. I meant in a practical sense. I did think as I was writing about the possibility of a cache switching DeLorme pages, but that was straying a bit far from the point I was trying to make. Coordinates seldom change enough to matter. Cache types almost never change, since the CO can't do that without reviewer help. But D/T change all the time, and are often inaccurate as well, so things like a fizzy matrix have to decide what to do with such changes. I have found that if I try to pin down every possible situation, I get into reams of legalese, and I probably have too much of it already. I do state "this is for fun and you are on the honor system", period. The unexpected will happen. The Washington state history challenge (which I think was the progenitor of all the history challenges) actually had to deal with a placement date changing -- the details should be in the logs, but basically it was a virtual, the hardest terrain on the list, and the "date placed" differed from the publication date. Reviewer logs for publication are more recent, so determining the true publication date required direct database access. I have a lot to say about the subject ... whether that means I know a lot about it is up for interpretation. You're certainly right about Spinal Tap getting more caches to find. It started at 90 and is up to 165. OTOH, the trail hasn't gotten any longer, and I'm not sure but what the caches placed since publication may pose less difficulty in finding, thus less likelihood of needing to spend a lot of time searching during a long hike, or having to return to rectify a DNF. I'm still divided as to its effect on caches on the BBT. People have certainly been filling the BBT with caches! But are they more numerous, or any better or worse, than they would have been without the challenge? I don't know. The SMM History Adventure has only lost one of its 64 caches in the almost three years since it was published. I think that's pretty impressive, given that all the caches were nearly five years old, minimum, at that time. So it hasn't really gotten any easier. One could argue that it's gotten harder because anywhere you go for a historical cache, where three years ago you had a couple of other caches in the area, now you have a dozen, and of course you may as well find them while you're in the area. Some of the other history challenges have mechanisms to add caches when some are archived, or to say that the challenge cache will be archived when the number of related caches drops below a certain number. I decided not to do that, and I've been happy with that decision. It would have been just more irrelevant legalese. The existence of the BBT challenge has, I think, caused problem caches to be addressed more aggressively. Cachers tend to let problem caches slide, and that's not happening any more on the BBT. One can argue whether this is good or bad, but I do think the challenge has affected such actions. The history challenge has helped some caches to be better cared for, though a lot of the fixes were mine. Two of the caches are in trouble now, but will probably be saved, and I think part of that attention is due to the challenge. Again, you can argue whether it's good or bad to keep those caches, but I think it's good to avoid leaving rotting caches lying out there. But as to toz's point on whether this would affect whether the cache would be published today, I don't know whether there's been any change. As I explained above, the lists are really just convenience lists of caches which meet certain criteria, so I think the "fixed list" objection might not apply. The history challenge, at the rate it's going, will still have nearly 50 caches when I'm 100 years old. Spinal Tap is limited by the trail length and required spacing -- Don_J and I did some calculation before publishing it, I forget the exact numbers, but we figured it could go over 200 caches but not a lot more. The trail is only 70 miles long and won't get any longer, and nearly 25 miles of that are off limits, and switchbacks further limit placements. I guess it all gets back to the usual advice: if you're unsure what will be published, ask the reviewer. Edward

On the contrary, these are all caches with very real geocaching-related requirements to log a find. They are also multis, or other types. A challenge is a combo of sorts, a geocaching prerequisite plus a final cache. Although the final is listed as an unknown, the method of finding it can be the same as any type except a challenge. My point to which you responded was that even challenge caches published today are not required to be at the posted coordinates. You may or may not like it, but that's what I was addressing. Edward

Here it is ... enjoy hecking it out. http://opencaching.com leads me to a page that says "Bald auch unter einem Baumstumpf in deiner Nähe: Kostenlos, offen, in deiner Sprache!", with no links. It is registered to Garmin, through Markmonitor.com, which is in the content protection business. http://opencaching.us is registered to Thomas Winegard of Crestview FL. I find no indication that it is related to Garmin, though I have not searched exhaustively. It currently lists 382 caches with a total of 284 finds. I did not investigate whether caches there are cross-posted. They talk about sharing listings with other opencaching sites, and indeed there are some in other ccTLDs, such as jp, se, uk, and eu. I did not look at the others. Just google "opencaching" if you want to look. Geocaching is a natural monopoly, because few of us are interesting in perusing multiple sites for caches. In fact, I believe this is the main reason that Waymarking is so little used. If it were integrated with gc.com so that I only had to do one search, I'd pay it a lot more attention. This natural monopoly pretty much dooms attempts at alternative sites. Edward

Perhaps this log explains some things. The cachers who have completed the challenges I've published seem to have enjoyed finding the finals. As others have mentioned, the logs are some of the best. Some finders have used the finals as milestones. I think a large part of the reason is that they are intimately connected with the locality, so both the challenge and the final are part of hiking in an area that many enjoy. (Both challenges require a lot of hiking.) I gather that even toz thinks the finals are worthy caches, even if he doesn't care about the challenge part. There are several kinds of challenges: 1) Compilation challenges: find a specific set of caches. This breaks down into at least two subcategories: the list can grow, or it cannot. History challenges are generally of the latter kind. Caches along a specific trail are of the former kind. I have published one of each. 2) Technical, unchangeable: this includes distributed location challenges, for example DeLorme and county challenges. Critically, the relevant caches generally cannot become ineligible after being found -- for example, coordinates cannot change. Cache types cannot change. 3) Technical, changeable: in the sense that these rely on the description, or past logs, or anything else which can change after the find. The popular fizzy matrix is in this category. (If I ever discover that someone is planning to use one of my caches for a fizzy challenge, I will have to warn them that I will not hesitate to change the D/T if changed circumstances demand it.) Challenges based on characteristics of the cache name are also in this category. "Lonely hearts challenges" could be considered either type 2 or type 3. In theory, the time since the previous find could be upset by a late log of a previous find, or a deletion of the previous find, or a date change on the previous find. However, this seems less of a problem than the fizzy matrix changeability. In any case, either could be resolved if the seeker saves a copy of the cache page immediately after logging the find, to satisfy any subsequent ... um, challenge. It appears to me that some people don't like any challenge caches, but that others like one type or another. Perhaps having them clearly identified (at least in the descriptions) would reduce some of the bad tastes. Edward

Technically this is not correct. The rule is that you must be able to locate the final cache from the cache page. The final can be a multi, an offset, a puzzle, a letterbox, etc. One of the challenges I published is an offset (though it's trivial). The San Diego history challenges are multis. It simply must conform to the same requirement as other caches in terms of finding it without needing to contact the CO, engage in a commercial transaction, etc. AFAIK, DeLorme and County challenges are still exempted from this rule, even new ones. Edward

Thirty-some years ago, I worked for the agency in Florida which issues license plates. At the time, "prestige tags" were new -- the ones where you choose your own letters and numbers for your plate, and increase your taxes in the process. An application came in for a plate to read SCREWS. After review, it was approved. After all, it was the guy's last name. (Uncommon according to one reference, #21,900 in the US. Must be a regional thing. I find 17 phone listings under that last name in Tallahassee alone.) Edward

And also to double-check the coordinates when hiding. In fact, PLEASE do this -- before you submit your cache for publication, plot the coordinates on Google Maps (or Google Earth), zooming in as far as possible and making sure that what you see is where you hid it. I've been FTF on two caches when the first find took much longer than it should have because the coords were wrong. Would have been noticed quickly by this kind of check. Edward

I suppose part of why I think flask writes such long logs, even if they don't average as long as I assume, is that they are always so interesting. I agree, I love "suckhole of doom". Possibly I write longer logs on average, but I don't come close to flask's turns of phrase. Edward

Hmm. Well, checking a few, I see it's highly variable. She does post long stories though. Maybe she doesn't like you. But then she's never found one of my caches at all. Edward

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. My terrain average is 2.67. That will eventually drop, since I'm no longer traveling regularly to California, and there are few honest 3+ terrain caches in Florida. I'm #10 on mygeocachingprofile. I can't verify all the ones above me, and some have a lot fewer finds than I do, but at least some hold their positions honestly. Running Potatoe, with an average of 3.12, is obviously working on this stat specifically. My average words per log, 899, puts me at #15. The only run-off-at-the-fingers cacher I know personally, chasomanor, is down at #30. At least some of the higher ones really do write much longer logs on a regular basis. Some of the others I couldn't find their long logs, but that would take quite a while. Some of them have a lot more finds that I do. There might be some long cut-and-paste entries in there, but I did not see any evidence of such games. flask apparently hasn't uploaded. Her words per log would surely be higher than mine. Of course, well under 1% of geocachers have uploaded to that site, though probably a much higher proportion of serious ones have done so. Great Circle Mapper gives you the direction. The shortest route would be almost directly over the North Pole. Depending on the aircraft, current regulations, and current politics, they might shift toward the Pacific Ocean to avoid long times from emergency airports and Russian territory. I don't know the current politics re flying over Russia. I think that the best modern airliners can fly everywhere in the north except a small part of the Arctic Ocean. If you want to be within an hour of a diversion airport, you have to avoid quite a bit more area. See the ETOPS tab and the FAQ on the Great Circle Mapper site. Edward

You can change the size of an existing cache ... it's only the type that you cannot change. Edward

When I hear that someone found my cache, I'm happy. When I get to read an interesting log, I'm happy. Sometimes they happen at the same time. Sometimes not. Edward

Reading logs is often part of finding a cache. More so for those of us who aren't terribly good at just walking up and spotting them. It's no different with puzzle caches. If there's specific info that the CO doesn't want in logs, he/she should make sure it doesn't get in the logs, or at least doesn't stay there. The CO cannot control the order of logging and those logging can't change the order later (in any reasonable way), so the CO should consider this in designing a puzzle where the order and/or dates of logs could provide clues that the CO doesn't want made public. Edward

Using names from the GSAK database, DELETE FROM LOGS WHERE LBY = 'ETLogEater'; (Using names from the GSAK database.) I have 59 minutes and 45 seconds left ... Seriously, what would take a bit of time is to implement a throttling algorithm for new, unpaid users, much like the better email services do to minimize spam and spew from their servers. Edward

No ... the "shine" you see is just the lighting. Read the cache logs and/or google "corral canyon fire" (without quotes). It's a (real) boulder about 3' in diameter that was rolled onto the cache by bulldozers clearing fire line. It's impressive -- even toz's photos don't really do the situation justice. The first finders after the fire (several months later, because the area was closed until the end of fire season) could not open the can. Someone managed to move enough dirt to get it open. It's still not clear whether the can is supporting part of the weight of the boulder or is just trapped by it. The fire was started by several yahoos who decided to build a fire at a popular gathering spot when Santa Ana winds were blowing at 60 mph with RH about 5%. They got caught because they left the receipt for their firewood behind and had been seen by the store's security camera. They were lucky they were only caught by the cops and not by the fire, since there's only one road out, and the fire soon blocked it. The cache nearest their campfire is called Reckless Disregard. Another cache that almost got buried is Cheeseheads on Dirt Mulholland. There's no remaining evidence in that case because it did get dug out and replaced. Edward

If caches under rocks were not allowed, then Southern California would only have half as many caches. (Florida would have about 1% less.) A slightly different example is Mesa-Puerco Cache. Unfortunately it appears that no photos of the cache have been posted, but the descriptions should suffice. Buried or not? You be the judge. Edward

The reviewer is guilty of ascribing motives to the hider. The reviewer should stick to applying the guidelines, which would have made the current situation much clearer. The reviewer should have written something like "if this hide is substantially different from the predecessor, please resubmit and state such in a reviewer log. If this hide is not substantially different, then please either ask me to unarchive the predecessor, or just leave the spot open for someone else to hide a new cache". toz has a good point that the reviewer should not be the judge of whether the replacement is "substantially" different. Luckily in this case this is easily resolved: just ask the hider to stipulate that it is substantially different. Not all hiders will use the same criteria and a few will lie, but that's not a big deal. Hiders can misrepresent hides in many ways, and reviewers are expected to believe hider statements in the absence of obvious reasons to the contrary, and not to act as private investigators. Now for my opinion: if the area needs new caches and some hiders are willing to relinquish spaces to forward that goal, then they should archive the caches and wait a couple of months to see if someone else will hide a new cache. They could even communicate with other cachers that they hope others will do the same and that they will endeavor to hide new caches to replace cachers that others have archived. To me that makes a lot more sense than an archive and immediate replacement by the same hider. It won't work if there are space hogs in the area -- cachers who will usurp any open space and won't relinquish any space -- but it's well worth a try. Calling a troll a troll is trolling, unless you are fishing under the bridge. Edward

OK, I'm reviving a dead thread to add my rant, but better than starting a new thread. NO LIQUIDS! In particular, NO BUBBLES. and NO HAND SANITIZER. You might think that at least hand sanitizer would evaporate. Nope, not if the cache is tight enough to keep water out in Florida. Somebody did it to one of mine. I got the urge to rant because I just read a log where someone did their best to clean out a cache where someone had left bubbles. It's not my cache, but I did replace the container for the owner. And someone once left a bottle of hand sanitizer in one of my caches. I couldn't figure out why the cache was being reported as wet inside until I got there and saw it. Now, bubbles might be OK in a freezer bag. At least a bag is flexible, so you won't get a pressure difference between the inside of the bag and the inside of the cache. But bags get holes, and in any case a bottle of bubbles that's leaked out in a bag is no fun. I can possibly see hand sanitizer in flexible packets. Again, the flexible packet absorbs the pressure difference. And there's not much liquid in a packet.Still, the packet is likely to develop holes being tossed around in the cache. Is it worth it? At least hand sanitizer and insect repellent are two thinks I might actually use from a cache. Did use insect repellent one time. NO BUBBLES! NO SANITIZER! NO LIQUIDS AT ALL! Edward (there's an obvious tag line but this is supposed to be family friendly)

May [sick] I ask a question and have it picked apart? PLEASE? I'm so tired of being ignored. Edward

Thanks for all the answers. (I think.) I'll probably keep on ignoring the short description, unless and until GS comes out with official recommendations on its use. Without guidance, it seems the actual use is so varied that there's not much point. Edward

Does the 'short description' do anything besides appear as the first paragraph of the description? I've read (in the past) everything I can find on gc.com and do not remember anything saying how the short description should be used. In my experience I've never seen it do anything else, so I've taken to leaving it blank on my caches because that makes maintaining the description easier. But today someone mentioned to me that maybe some GPSrs will store the short description but not the long descriptions. Since my Vista HCx only holds 30 characters of description (nearly my only complaint about the unit), and I use all this space for cache name etc, I wouldn't have noticed. Searching the forum yields a couple of comments which seem to support this idea, but just offhand comments, no details. So what does it do? And is there documentation that I missed? I am an RTFM kind of guy. Edward

I left a few ready-caches in a caches I placed last year. My cache has now been waiting almost 17 months for a FTF ... So maybe it wasn't such a good idea. Edward