Mind Socket

That's a shame. "Placing a one time only cache, where the first finder takes it and moves it elsewhere" doesn't have to be an issue. Is there any evidence that badly placed, yet approved, regular caches are less prevalent than well placed moveables that have since been banned? There have been no problems in NSW, Australia, where at least 6 moveables have been providing something different for a while. It takes a certain type of person to be irresponsible, not a certain type of cache. Ok, ok, I'll shut up. I know it's your site and your rules, I just hope it's well understood how this attitude looks to some people. I'll take this as a final, not-so-subtle hint that I need to call what I do something other than geocaching, as the name doesn't mean what it used to, to me. I know the old argument, gc != gc.com, but you can't separate the two anymore, and gc.com has implicitly assumed a responsibility. Yours in looking forward, Roger / Mind Socket

> Anyone for a new acronym? "SUC - Shut up & cache" Sounds good, but the guidelines don't allow me to do that in the manner that I want. I'm not going to get over it, because I'm not convinced that there is one good reason to ban moveables. We aren't children, and can make decisions and take responsibility for ourselves. I don't fear the end of world, I fear for the future of innovation in geocaching. - Rog / Mind Socket

I'd say Draegon did Raises the point that this is still an unresolved problem for people... hmmm? - Mind Socket

This is rediculous. It's an event. There will be cachers there. There is a log book. Cachers will attend based on the information on an event cache page. The cachers there will talk about geocaching. Conclusion... It's a geocaching event!!! When in doubt, approve. Otherwise people will never make mistakes to learn from.

Umm, how does the fact that it was found in the last 7 days change people's interpretation of the search results? I can't see it as being a regularly needed bit of information. Those that want it can do the maths. Remember: KiSS

A near major highway attribute sounds good (the whole idea of cache metadata has been one at the back of my mind for ages), but please, let's not get carried away with "distance from corridor"!?!? Let's keep some air of challenge and mystery to the whole thing. It's not just about finding it, it's getting there too.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Any cacher worth their salt can read ROT-13 as if it were their native language. But seriously, one hint I recall was on my 2nd ever cache find. After decoding several lines of useful information in the blistering heat, it ended with: "Remember to wave to your fellow cachers if you see them!"

This topic seems to have faded into the background somewhat, but it is still very much an issue. I have grave concerns for the future of this game, where gc.com, which is seen as a pivotal point, sees fit to impose rules. I accept that some baseline approval may be in order, but all responsibility for a cache should be assigned to its owner. This IS a problem, and it needs to be addressed NOW. I'm sure this topic has been noticed by the powers that be, yet it has fallen on deaf ears. If the site's responsibility ends at being a listing service and it's disclaimers are correctly worded, then where a cache is or may be placed is of little concern to the system admins. And that's what gc.com is, a system. Cover your bums from the outset with a good disclaimer, and the content of pages provided by users is not an issue. Besides, I'm sure there are loads of caches approved that go against these "guidelines". Those that really are a problem are rectified by community feedback. I hope the admins review this, or at least respond as a matter of urgency. Yours in looking forward, Rog / Mind Socket

Hi Geopiggies et al, I'm surprised at having created such a stir, and I apologise profusely if I've caused offense. As Leek said, my gripe is a minor one with the "mechanics" of having 2 caches on my nearest unfound list (in addition to one other that I helped place and can't log, but that can't be helped on gc.com). I am not at all fussed about my find count (except as a rough indication of how far I've come) or competing in that regard (which is purely up to the individual). I admit my first log on Splendour was a little reactionary and I was nervous about how it would be received. There have been quite a few discussions about the setting of rules and guidelines lately, and it seems there will always be some contention. I really really really really hope that this has not soured your return to geocaching (clearly it has somewhat, and again I apologise), and I intend to annotate (not edit) my notes on your caches. If you feel compelled to delete them or would like them sanitised, I will understand completely. I did indirectly introduce 2 newbies to the game in the process, so some of your grand plan has rubbed off on me. I understand your intentions, and it's unfortunate that the gc.com system doesn't have a facility for flagging caches to not appear on nearest lists. Anyhoo, welcome back to the game, I'm sorry for making it a less than memorable occasion, and hope to meet you sometime and see more of your caches (I really enjoyed the location for King of the World despite the cache having disappeared). I'll shut up now, like I probably should have in the first place. Humbly yours, - Roger / Mind Socket

As an owner of a moveable that would not work as a travel bug, here's my 2c ... There are several moveable caches in my area, and to my knowledge there have been no logistical issues caused by the fact that a cache is moveable. I seriously hope that Jeremy's post can be taken as read that it is only a _guideline_ and not that moveables are banned outright. If there are logistical problems with a moveable, then the cache owner should be responsible for resolving it. I'd like to think that gc.com can be more trusting of it's users and be accomodating of the unique caching flavours that are found in different clusters of cachers. Otherwise, we'll all eventually end up looking for plastic boxes shoved in tree trunks because that's all that is allowed. The nature of geocaching is such that there is an onus on both cache owner and finder to act responsibly. I respect that there is some need for moderation and approval to keep things in check, but to suggest rules in place of respected guidelines pushes the limits of what people want to do effectively, at the expense of denying others what might be a great experience. If a cache is specifically stated as a moveable, what's the problem? If people have some dire issue with something different that someone else might beat them to, they don't have to go after it. Perhaps this is a gap in the system that needs to be addressed so that people don't get confused (although if anyone reads the cache page, I don't see how). In my area, cachers who don't like moveables don't do them, simple. For the time being, unless an attempt is made to actually stifle the flexible spirit of geocaching, it's business as usual for me. Cheers, - Mind Socket Geocaching