endoheretic

Of course there's a difference. 12 friends "meet" in a pub for a natter and a pint...and they don't list it because it's 12 friends meeting for a pint. If you want to open it up for potentially unlimited numbers, you list it as an event regardless of how much planning it involves

The really sad thing is that there's no need for that trade off. If there were only one million live caches around the world but they were all high quality the game would actually be better. It's not like there's a prize for placing or finding the most caches. I never have and never will understand the headlong rush for numbers especially when it comes at an avoidable price.

It's the nature of the hobby, that includes many events, that many people will find a cache potentially on the same day. Whether this is a cacher leading a group of non cachers or 30plus cachers either as a group or as a succession doesn't really matter. Once you've placed it you basically lose the right to be able to dictate who finds it or even goes for a walk anywhere near it. If it's in an environmentally sensitive area with flora that can easily be damaged then I would suggest that you move it slightly, it doesn't matter if the delay between finders is ten seconds or an hour the same level of damage will accrue. Most of the damage that I have observed over the years has been due to either poor co-ordinates, poor clue ( resulting in prolonged searching) or a container that is not suitable for the location ( micro in woodland for instance). Just because someone caches in a different way to the way that you prefer doesn't make them or you right.

Just one point. Consider tree cover during the summer months, if it's in woodland the accuracy for searchers will reduce. Sometimes it's possible to list a separate waypoint clear of the trees with a bearing and distance to the cache: or maybe make sure the clue is good and distinctive.

I do remember that being A reason given for stopping virtuals, if not the whole reason. I guess that's why Waymarking was made separate; now that virtuals have their own separate website, the US National Parks and State Parks authorities can't say "just make your geocaches virtuals". Although US National Parks are the most fantastic and suitable areas for geocaching, I have to say that their decision might have been wise in view of the massive expansion of caching. Nowadays they'd have endless disputes about cache permission, with people arguing constantly that "if X's cache was allowed, how come mine isn't?", and "why can't I place 300 caches along a trail?" and various other problems. And although it's nice to find a cache in beautiful scenery, it's not much better than just admiring the beautiful scenery without the cache. Whereas if you're in some average town it's great if someone placed a cache in a pleasant little corner that few know about. The New Forest has a limited number of caches, showing that it is possible to have caching in areas of outstanding natural beauty without it being swamped. Banning virtuals under the excuse that their existence would make physical caches difficult to obtain permission for is spurious and pointless. Actually having some balls and enforcing the need for permission would've achieved much more, again I'd point to the New Forest all caches placed within a set of rules and with permission...no problems at all. Guess which site is already having problems with 'armchair logging' of codes that are supposed to be tied to the location of the GPS in order to claim the find? The trouble with only quoting small sections of what a person says just allows you to adjust anything to fit your own argument. I had previously pointed out that any system WILL be circumvented by someone. Not doing anything because it will be possible for someone to get round it and armchair cache is just an excuse to do nothing. Certain actions ( like removing the need for a photograph for earth caches ) actually make it easier for armchair logging. But again this is just going round the houses. The thread asked for ideas on how you could deal with caches that had become damp due to the floods and I just added a couple of ideas that might be used....none of which will be taken up regardless of merit because of the large chip on the shoulder of GC.com. Anything used by a competitor is deemed bad and inferior. If only this was a hobby and of no real consequence

Team tisri. Very succinct and spot on. I would also add that I don't recall that being the given reason at the time for the removal of virtuals. Perhaps tptb are now being a bit more open. It all just seems ridiculously political with the two biggest children gathering their minions to call each other names and denounce their way of playing a GAME. At the end of the day it was just an idea of what to do about caches with wet log books. All the potential solutions appear to be banned because of very insubstantial reasons or just because a rival does it that way. Challenges were thought to have been a mistake and were removed. Maybe some thought could be put into virtuals webcams and alternative means of verification. And less thought in oneupmanship of "other ways being a sub game" it's pathetic.

No I used my own brain to think lol I suppose if garmin are now using qr codes etc you may as well forget the idea. The powers that be and their minions have far too large a chip on their shoulders to add any functionality that is used by garmin, regardless of how good an idea it might be. Shame. All ideas should be considered.

Ssh lol Funniest thing is that the boat went off course and onto rocks. Instead of accepting he made a mistake or just accident he's gone off about a mystery canoeist who must have towed it there.

Pharisee... thanks for the input but i wasn't suggesting at any point that a QR code would be the only way to log the cache. I was offering a selection of suggestions that COULD be used to log a cache. The thread was discussing wet log books etc.

I couldn't agree more. The choice of container is paramount. I've lock lock boxes that have been out for years without problems but have seen plenty of inappropriate containers damp after a short time. I only suggested the types of code to keep on topic. Incidentally, wouldn't a QR code used in a similar way to munzees actually reduce fake claims? I might be wrong but don't they only work when scanned in close proximity to the given location?

There are those that would happily swap cache code words/numbers just to increase their numbers... QR codes? Sounds like another game. There are those that will abuse any system you put in place. QR codes are used by someone else!!! God god we can't possibly use them in this hobby as well then. Good job there aren't other hobbies using GPs's to locate stuff otherwise we'd have to stop that as well ... lol

The idea of a code to be able to log the cache regardless of condition of the log book would need to be raised on the suggestions forum. At the moment it is effectively set in stone that there needs to be a log book and that this needs to be signed. I may be mistaken but I would suspect that any cache found to be set up to allow people to just note a number to log it would now be deleted by tptb. It's a shame because it does offer a good solution. I personally don't see why a cache couldn't be set up with a log book, a QR code and a code word/number so that finders could select which option they chose. It would have to get through the voting process and be taken up by Jeremy to be accepted though.

There was a discussion not long ago regarding whether the NA log was appropriate or if it should be amended to NEEDS MAINTENANCE. The problem being that caches often come up with problems that need addressing and need the reviewers to be aware of. The logging system is a blunt tool. The written word can also be a blunt tool when restricted. Surely it's better something is said than leave a problem to fester. If someone is abusive there is plenty of opportunity to report them. Complaining about caches is not being a cache police.

BT only contacted us about caches in their phone boxes. As far as I know, BT have made no other requests about caches placed anywhere else to either us reviewers or to Groundspeak. Chris Graculus Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UK Geocaching Wiki Geocaching.com Help Center UK Geocaching Information & Resources website But having had this raised...do you not think it prudent to actually ask the person who emailed? Yes the specifically mentioned phone boxes or did they say that they had found some caches within phone boxes and would prefer that no caches are placed upon/in their property? Just thinking that it might be better to be proactive and ask instead of sitting quietly saying" they only said phone boxes" until such time that the person at BT find out about any others and get really negative instead of positive but not able to encourage. I doubt that BT would have a different policy for each of their properties.

I'll again mention the fact that it appears bt have banned caching on their property and that this would appear to include all the green junction boxes around the country. I only mention it, not to increase the caches being disabled (though it does) but because bt have given a clear instruction that has only been partially applied .

Thanks...call me a reactionary but I've got good money on that bt means any of their property not just phone boxes. Would it not be prudent to clarify that?

Sorry if I've missed this point but are we just talking about a ban on the actual phone boxes or the green junction boxes aswell? Cheers

That is a solution to the how do I filter question. However, sometimes we should consider imparting our experience to the newer cachers. 35mm pots, grubby damp little unsuitable containers, surrounded by litter dog excrement or urine, in a location that has zero merit getting rarer? You need to travel more...oh but then you filter them so don't really know and have the experience to voice an informed opinion. There is a huge scope for great urban caches taking you to interesting spots in populated areas. Unfortunately they are all too often placed in inappropriate locations either due to lack of experience or the incorrect assumptions that they're helping disabled people be able to find them by having them next to the road...

Paul, people gave money to you and the other organisers of this geolympixs. They entrusted you with fair and honest accounting. For you to do anything other than give all excess funds to charity would involve that trust to be passed on to someone else. Whilst I'm not suggesting there is any wrongdoing or subterfuge, you have to understand that those funds would move out of your control and if anything were to happen people might not be happy.

Wouldn't you achieve more by checking with the person who published it that they're aware and saw the relevant permission . Far more likely to get result than random comment on forum.

Oh sorry you've cured the spam bot, fake account, misdirected, repeat visit issues that you certainly used to have and most internet sites suffer from then lol

I find it most uncouth and the hight of bad manners to hijack someone elses event listing just to promote your own cause, especially when I am not a member of GAGB, nor did I ask to be added to your event listing. Would it have hurt to have asked before hand if you could promote your cause on other people's listings, or even if they wishged to be included on your event calender. Please remove this event from your calender. As requested your event has been removed from the GAGB events calendar. Apologies for upsetting you - most cachers are grateful that their are events are publicised to a wider audience. We will try to remember to exclude any future events of yours from the GAGB calendar - but I can only apolgise in advance if any slip through. Wider audience? lol always good to have another ten people know it's going on...

Can I just ask a question? Why? is the view that much better from your side of the river?

Thanks for the varied opinions. Some predictable some not.

Throwing an idea into the pot to see what people think. Have numbers been to the benefit or detrimental to this hobby? Has the top catcher statistics been the cause of a large amount of angst, bitterness and so on. We're often hearing about people complaining of how groups or individuals log caches to boost their statistics. Did they all go to all caches etc. Has the urgency to find another 1000 been the driving force for the perceived lowering of quality? Responsible for the rise in 35mm film pots every 500ft? Is it true that quality x quantity equals a constant? By the same reasoning. Is it better for events to get bigger and bigger? Does mega status mean better or not? Smaller intimate events where you have time to meet everyone better, worse or just different from one attracting 500plus ? I know nothing I say will change a thing but maybe someone needs to say that not every event needs to aim to attract everyone. Maybe limiting numbers sometimes would be a better way forward. Anyway just my 5p worth. Discuss