tozainamboku

You never knowingly published a cache on a transmission line ROW. In my OP I said it probably isn't guidelines creep and gave at least 2 guidelines that might apply. I personally don't mind if I find a hide-a-key on the leg of a tower. But I agree that it is unlikely for a utility to give permission to attach something to a tower. It seems many people imaging a power line right-of-way as something akin to the RR right-of-way. My experience is that utility companies have much less control. If there lines cross open space, the trail will go right under the lines and often use the utility company built roads. The trail may go right next to the towers. In many urban areas, the "open space" provided by the transmission line right-of-way has been turned into bike paths and greenbelts. People are encouraged to ride bikes and walk their dogs under the transmission lines. Several cities have created dog parks under power lines, and the dogs don't have to ask permission to mark their territory on the base of the towers. These all seem reasonable places to put caches, and many seem like places where rules for caches in city or state parks apply.

Buwahaha! The spirit of geocaching has spoken.

Be sure to ask this in your permission conversation. One land manager or one utility company may give a different answer than another. It isn't always clear when the reviewers are told to presume someone got permission or are supposed to hold up publication until the cache owner provides proof of permission. In some ways my question is similar to the one that occurs when some places a cache near a school. Reviewers may use their judgement. Sometimes a park next to a school is a reasonable place for a cache. I've never placed a cache on a power line tower (or any closer than a few hundred feet). But I have hidden caches on trails that are "Edison" roads. These trails are in national forests or state open space that have relatively permissive geocaching rules. I don't need explicit permission but I have to follow GC guidelines and a few additional park manager guidelines (such as not off trail, not too close to streams, etc.) So it makes sense to me to ask when putting a cache on on property of the state park or national forest, and the trail passes a transmission tower, how far do I have to be from the tower. Perhaps the reviewers and Groundspeak don't want to answer and I need to ask the park what their policy is when utility lines cross their property?

I'm not sure why this has turned into a discussion of utility companies clear cutting trees around power lines. It supposed to be about Groundspeak reviewers being told to archive caches on or near towers when they find out about them. Clearly utilities have responsibility for safety and operation of transmission lines. Perhaps this extend to removing magnetic hide-a-keys from tower or small tupperware containers under a rock at the base of a tower? Let it be stipulated that utilities companies can do a whole lot of thing in order to ensure the lines are safe and they operate safely and reliably. But, to my knowledge, I've ever heard of a cache on or near a powerline that would cause a safety problem or interfere with operation. The only concern I've ever heard was that a cache or a group of cachers looking for the cache would appear suspicious and at that as part of their responsibility the utility may have to send a crew to investigate or inspect the towers. I do not believe this concern extends to every transmission line. Once again. Urban areas are often crisscrossed by transmission lines and often these line run through parks or the area under the line is turned into greenbelt or a bike path. Caches searching for caches in these area are no more suspicious that another example a few years back of a highway overpass with a park underneath. The reviewer denied this cache, but it was allowed on appeal. In addition, where I live, transmission lines often traverse mountainous terrain. The service roads the utility built for construction and maintenance of the towers are now hiking trails. Despite brush clearance around the base of towers, the areas near the base often are good places to hide caches. Sure you could place a cache further away from the tower, but then I would like to know what near means. If I can't put the cache right up against the foot of the tower, if 5 ft far enought? 10 ft?

Yep. One of the reasons for having moving caches was basically eliminated with the advent of trackables. In fact the first moving cache I ever found was just that. It was listed as a cache and had a log book, but the instructions were to move it from cache to cache. So I found a cache and there was this other cache inside it. Certainly many moving caches could be hidden separately from other caches. This became a problem as the guidelines became more restrictive. Nothing prevents a moving cache from being placed close to an existing cache, or in a location that is otherwise restricted. Often moving caches caused problems for others. Especially since t the coordinates didn't update instantaneously, people ended up looking for a moving cache after it was moved. Many people hated moving caches because there almost always resulted in a DNF. Perhaps now with instant notifications, one can tell when the cache has been moved and when it has been found. If you're just going to take them to events and let everyone log them, then it's not really a moving cache anymore. It is just a travel bug that you log on a cache log page instead of a trackable page.

One can blindly accept that the owner/manager of "major" infrastructure can withold permission, or one can question if that makes sense. One can also question what they are entitled to withold permission from. Groundspeak generally assumes that cache hiders have gotten adequate permission. Reviewers are only asked to make additional checks in a few instances. I can believe that there are some cases where a utility asked for caches to be removed. I find it much harder to believe that every utility has asked that every cache be removed from every power line. I haven't seen an effort to have caches archived for being on local utility poles (even though most utilities have policies against posting anything on these poles). Why have high voltage towers have been singled out?

We're not talking about parks here. We're talking about major infrastructure. It is in no way unreasonable for them to ban geocaching on or close to their towers. No we are talking about parks here. The archived caches were in parks or greenbelts that had power tranmission lines runnning thru them. Even more common are power lines that run through state parks, national forests, and other open lands. The permission argument might be applied to caches placed on towers. The towers themselves are clearly the property of the utility and they can decide that they never give permission to place things on towers. (Though it is hard to imagine that a magnetic micro placed where it can be reached without climbing the tower has any impact on the tower). It is the 'near' towers that is concerning. The utilities seem to have no concern with people walking their dogs, eating a picnic, or playing Frisbee near the tower. What makes a geocache place under some rocks at the base of tower so different from these other activities?

I thought about mentioning the Trail Of Gods PT in my OP. Not all power transmission lines are the same. These caches were place at or near the towers of the major transmission line from Hoover Dam to Southern California. Clearly this line has higher security concerns. A caravan of geocachers stopping at each tower (or leapfroging towere ) might look suspicious to others driving the dirt road or even from people on the highway where the power linese run near the highway. I believe the concern of the utilities was that they would have to send crew out to see what was going on and to inspect the towers after any reports of suspicious activity. I believe most power transmission line would not have this kind of issue. I might understand that reviewer would be hard pressed to know which lines are more critical so they want a blanket ban. But you could argue the same goes for which LPCs are more likely to get a bomb squad call. I read this as "Groundspeak has asked the reviewers to archive them". I'm not questioning that reviewers are following direction they got from Groundspeak (other than usual rant about secret memos ). It could be that Groundspeak's decision was made because of specific requests from utilities. But even then, it would be nice to know if Groundspeak tried to educate the utilities about the nature of geocaching to reach some compromised that allowed for caches to be place near the base of a tower (perhaps just not on the tower).

It may not be exactly guidelines creep, since it is probably covered by a combination of permission and avoiding caches that are in locations that may cause reports of suspicious activity. And I have heard of cases where the caches were place on or directly under towers and the utility asked they be moved. However the following cut and paste has appeared on several cache that the local reviewer has been archiving: What isn't clear to me why caches are archived for being near transmission lines/towers. Has Groundspeak received specific request from utilities to do this? How near is near? Often in urban areas, power line right of way has been turned into public greenspace. Generally the power company has warning signs to keep people off the towers (as well as spikes or other attachments to make it impossible). You can walk under towers and eat your picnic or whatever. While there may be concerns over something attached to a tower, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to ban cache just because they are hidden in a pile of rocks at the base or in the bush a few feet away. In mountainous area, power company roads to maintain towers are often used as hiking trails. Here there would be even less suspicion finding a cache near a transmission line tower. Now, it's possible that utility right of ways are like railroad right of ways. However, once the power line right of way is opened to the public, I've never heard of them prosecuting someone for trespassing just because they came within a few feet of a tower (or even if they stood right under one). They may want to make a claim that any property someone leaves in that area without permission is a problem. But frankly, I've seen all sort of objects left near powerlines. Seems like an overreaction except in a few cases where a major transmission line might be seen as a potential terrorist targe. There are tons of caches, both on urban greenbelts and along "Edison" roads, that are going to be affected by a blanket non-grandfathered ban.

You can have a Wherigo without a cache. It just won't be listed on Geocaching.com as a Wherigo cache. Of course with a listing only on Wherigo.com, it could be that nobody will ever see your Wherigo or play your cartridge. My experience is that making a Wherigo cache doensn't get a whole lot more interest. If there are few Wherigo caches in the area, you might get a few geocachers who will do it in order get an icon or qualify for some challenge cache.

And you get to learn something about ice hockey as well. Speaking of ice hockey, I thought the national costume for Canada in Miss Universe was just awesome. Someone definitely has a sense of humor. Cicadas or Stanley Cup, which is the better hair accessory?

Okay, I have to ask: what's with the sudden use of "Canadian" to describe types of behaviour? Can you explain what you mean by "a Canadian attitude"? In the context of PP's post, it seems to just describe an attitude of responsibility, so I'm not sure why a specific nation is being singled out. Are we the only ones that feel that others should be responsible for their actions? It started a while ago, I forget where/which thread, where people seem to be enjoying slamming narcissa for being Canadian. I forget the whole deal. It's one of those forum things, like the old, tired "platinum member" joke. It's not much help to newbies, either. B. It's fascinating that I am apparently the centre of this "joke" but I didn't even realize that. Awesome. I guess this isn't the getting started forum. OK, then the off-on-a-tangent over whose posts are rude is OK The Canadian thing started where someone called narcissa rude in another thread and I replied that maybe she was just Canadian. I meant it as compliment that Canadians aren't afraid to say what they think (even if not always politically correct). But now it's a joke that Canadians are rude. In any case there's been enough calling people rude in this thread. So I'll be quiet before Keystone sends me to the penalty box. (It makes sense that Canadians would like a sport with a penalty box).

That's a Canadian attitude if I ever heard one. Frankly if people had fun looking for my cache I don't really care it they signed the log. If an online post is misleading, I may delete it, but most likely I would just add a note of my own. Perhaps you had an actual experience with a bogus logger interfering with other people's ability to enjoy your cache. This is a rare occurance, and I think that it is still the case that most cache owners find no need to check logs or to doubt the word of the finder that they found the cache. I wouldn't resort to name calling because they do this. I'm almost considerting reporting this post. I suspect the way this thread is going in the 'Getting Started' section it will be locked soon. I believe the OP got her answer and decided to do what she thinks is right. I try to avoid these discussions in the Getting Started session. As far as a newbie is concerned, just sign the log and don't meke it hard. But the comments that you're cheating if you don't or that you're a lazy cache owner if you don't delete are probably not the best way to introduce someone to this game.

I will agree with SwineFlew that it seems a bit of a controlling personality to worry over someone wanting to log a find when the had (in their view) a reasonable cause for not signing the log. No need to call someone a cheater or liar because they forgot a pen or because they were unable to climb the tree. Nor, as someone who would at least made an effort to sign, would I view it as "unfair" that a cache owner allowed a log to stand. If the cache is in the tree, I imagine the cache owner thinks it would be fun to climb the tree to retrieve the cache. If someone didn't sign, they would have missed out on the full fun of that cache. I don't think that many cache owners are going to say that you've missed out on the fun because you didn't sign the log, but if they clearly intended to have some challenge in doing so, I think that doing that challenge is reward in itself. Unfortunately, for too many people this has turned into the WIGAS points game. Too many cache owners believe that the points are the motivator and without them nobody would climb trees or solve field puzzle to open the cache. The abolishment of additional logging requirements remove a slew of silly rules that people had to "find" their caches. But in resulted in a poorly written guideline meant to give owners some guideance in what online logs they could delete, that only encourages some cache owners to find new ways to be controlling about their hides. If you hide caches that are fun, people will find them. If someone logs a find online without doing the "fun" stuff, they've missed out on the fun. You could post a note indicating that they've missed out, but there is no need to refer to people as cheaters or to worry that allowingl logs is unfair to the people who did do the fun part.

Ok. My turn to jump. Don't know what you mean by "part of the game 'rules'". There is no rule per se that you must sign the log in order to log a find online. There are 'rules' allowing cache owners to delete online found logs that apear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within stated requirements. Groundspeak has made it clear that the physical log in the cache may play a role in deciding if an online log is bogus. When they may a decision to nullify the practice of have additional requirments for posting on online log, they indicated that physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. That simply meant that a cache owner couldn't demand additional requirements beyond signing the log (for example, proof that you climbed the tree). The OP is free to log a find on the cache, but the cache owner is just as free to delete the log. Given the cache description and terrain rating, there is a good chance that the owner would delete the log. I think the OP, like many who ask this question, already knew the answer. Most people will understand that if a cache owner has hidden a cache that involves a physical or mental challenge to sign the log, they probably intend this challenge as part of the cache. The problem is in the nature of the online log. It has become the "goal" in the game. It is not enought anymore to find caches and possible to sign the physical log. Our "reward" is the smiley we get when you log the find online. So we have people looking for some rationale to log "found" online, even whey they know they did complete the cache as a cache owner intended. Cleary if we were to stop treating the online log as the reward, it would make little difference what people logged as found. If someone want to play a game when "found" mean you can see the cache, instead of whether you signed a piece of paper, it would make no difference. Some people would log the cache without climbing the tree while others would climbe trees and only log what they signed. It is only whne the online "found" log becomes the "Woohoo! I got another smiley" (WIGAS) log, that we have controversies and the need to jump on people in the forum.

Is there a term for the white knights who wait around for an opportunity to call people trolls? I suppose the OP opened himself up to the criticism by stating right off that he thought the question might be agaist some rule. I took narcissa's response of "Might be a good idea to check the rules, then." as being due to her being Canadian. Others would have been more gentle in pointing out the TOUs and providing general resources on puzzle solving. Personally, I still find Groundspeak's policy on puzzle spoilers a bit silly. What is really silly is the expectation of puzzle cache owners that people aren't going to ask for help. Even the expectation that they should only ask the cache owner for help is too much, IMO. Sure, one would hope that people aren't simply asking for or posting the solution to a puzzle. I might buy into some rule not to post puzzle answers. But it seems silly to tell people you can't point someone in the right direction or give a hint on how to solve a puzzle. Maybe Groundspeak wants us all to act Canadian.

Soon we'll all have 3D virtual reality googles and 2D map projections will be a thing of the past. Groundspeak will be able to show the trackable map on a spherical globe and the connection from cache to cache will follow the correct shortest route.

So if someone were to post "Groundspeak should provide an option to use QR codes in a cache", would it be promoting a competitor to say "You might like the Munzee game?" It's a bit hard to talk about it without drifting into a gray area. Besides it's more fun to say "The Game Who Must Not Be Named".

You certainly would have the option to ignore a cache if the owner opted out of specifying D/T. In fact I would guess that a significant number of people would do just that. I doubt that leaving off D/T would attract very many cachers who are looking for the "mystery". A high difficulty can indicate that a cache has some surprises along the way. No rating may simply be a way for an owner to get people who routinly ignores 1/1 caches in parking lots to not ignore this cache. If I had cache that was meant to suprise with the unexpected, I'd rate it properly and let people who want suprises know that they're likely to get a surprise.

Per the guidelines the cache owner is responsible for quality control of all posts to the cache listing and should delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate. However, log deletion is a serious matter. While a cache owner may feel that a DNF or needs maintenance log is extraneous and clutters up their cache page, the person writing the log may feel that recording their experience is a valid use of the log. Disputes occur when cache owners delete logs. In some cases Groundspeak may intervene and restore logs. The help center has more infomation here.

People from the forum would be the last place Groundspeak would go to get input. They probably care more about Facebook post or comments on the blog. Or you have to know Jayme. Fortunately I know Jayme, and her husband Ben, from when they lived in the LA area. So I have a way to get my input heard. The rest of you are out of luck.

That's the rub - the online log. I bet there are many people who go out to look for geocaches and when they find one they may even rifle through the container and perhaps even trade. Just hope they don't take any trackables. Because these people are not interested in signing logs or logging online. The last thing in their minds is "Woohoo! I got another smiley". Instead they had fun going out and looking for caches and finding some. To me the problem with the idea that you have to sign the physical log in order to claim a find online is that there is no incentive whatever for these people to go online and report their experience (or log that they took a trackable). You may say they can write a note. But really, what benefit do they get in writing a note. When logging Found online, the site creates a bunch of statistics that even someone with no interest in the WIGAS count might like to know. And it makes it much easier to use the website (or app) to look for caches you haven't already found. I understand that people want a way to determine if an online log is bogus. The way I cache an occasional bogus or erroneous log is unlikely to have a great impact on me. Some people may in fact depend a bit more on when the cache was last logged and whether this last log was a find or a DNF. I personally wouldn't put all the blame on the bogus logs if these people feel they wasted time looking for a cache that was not there, but I would agree they have a reasonable expectation that logs are correct. I believe that if you read the logs, you can generally tell if the log is bogus or not without having to check the physical log. Sure, occasionally you get a find from a tourist from Germany who stopped to find one cache near the airport and logged "Greetings From Germany". Frankly the couch potato logs from Germany were on virtual caches, and "Greetings from Germany" on a physical cache is not a reason to be suspicious.

I ain't going to start any arguments here, especially in the angst-free "getting started" forum, but I'm not so sure about what I've bolded here. We're just talking about GPS receivers here, I don't think there's been any major advancements technologically since 2005. Find it odd that people are so certain there are no improvements in technology that will improve accuracy or performance. In addition to new units being able to use GLONASS, there are numerous other advances, many inherited from from advances made in cellphone technology. Improved antenna design means new units will perform better. Multichannel receivers mean that a lock on the GPS signal can be acquired faster. Faster CPUs will perform the calculations quicker and well an allowing for all kinds of additional features. Overall the chip sets will require less power, allowing for longer battery life. Touch screen interfaces (developed for smartphones) means fewer buttons and other moving parts. I was replying directly to the statement "Any current GPS will have faster satellite acquisition, increased accuracy and better performance in difficult conditions", which was rather generic. I did indeed forget about GLONASS, so thanks for that. So basically I was only talking about "reception". Tell me there's anything out there that's going to beat a GPS60CSX manufactured in 2007. Obviously faster CPU's, more memory etc. has happened. Heck, remember when your GPS could only hold 500 caches, and it wasn't even paperless. You can spend $120 for a Magellan Explorist that holds 10,000. Garmins specs aren't very complete so it's hard to tell exactly what has changed. It appears the helix antenna and high sensitivity receivers were already on some of their high end units, like the GPS60csx, in 2007. I would imagine that these chips and antennas have gone through some design changes since then - mostly to get production costs down, but possibly with some improvements in performance. It's also clear that software has changed - so while the algorithm for computing location is the same, it may run faster (CPU is faster as well) and it may handle conditions when a signal is weak better. There are discussions in other threads as well as here about turning off WAAS if you have trouble getting a fix. Apparently new software has fixed this problem. There are no great technology breakthroughs in the receiver units since 2007. However there are clearly incremental improvements in the hardware and in the software that probably result faster signal acquisition and lock, along with accuracy. Is the difference enough to make a difference to a geocacher? Maybe not. Other improvements including more caches and better maps will make more of difference.

I ain't going to start any arguments here, especially in the angst-free "getting started" forum, but I'm not so sure about what I've bolded here. We're just talking about GPS receivers here, I don't think there's been any major advancements technologically since 2005. Find it odd that people are so certain there are no improvements in technology that will improve accuracy or performance. In addition to new units being able to use GLONASS, there are numerous other advances, many inherited from from advances made in cellphone technology. Improved antenna design means new units will perform better. Multichannel receivers mean that a lock on the GPS signal can be acquired faster. Faster CPUs will perform the calculations quicker and well an allowing for all kinds of additional features. Overall the chip sets will require less power, allowing for longer battery life. Touch screen interfaces (developed for smartphones) means fewer buttons and other moving parts.

I supposed there are occasions when a comment on a cache page appears to belittle the cache owner. Most commonly it's something like "Why would anyone hide a cache here." Often people are providing their opinions of the cache but it comes across as an opinion of the cache owner. I agree that something like "Not my favorite location for a cache" would be better than the statement above. But I'm sure that some cache owner, hoping for a "Thank You", would just as likely be offended by this. While it is understandable that cache owners take pride in the caches they've hidden, I would think that part of being a cache owner would be the ability to take criticism without taking offense. The OP doesn't appear to own any cache or have logged any finds since a few in 2003. It isn't clear what stake he has in log etiquette or why he brings up the topic. If he is refering to comments in the forum, it is often the nature of internet fora to have different views expressed. The Getting Started section is well moderated to keep things on track. Even in the general section is well moderated though a bit more vigorous debate is allowed. All parts of the forum have a 'Report' button for each post, so anyone can let the moderators know when someone is out of line. The Groundspeak Terms Of Use are clear on the matter. Posts that are that are harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, profane, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, harmful to minors, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity are prohibited. They should be reported to Groundspeak who may take action that may include banning the offender from using Groundspeak services. If the post occurs on a cache page, the cache owner may delete it.