StaticTank

I would appreciate if this information was remove immediately. I put hours and weeks of work into creating my puzzles and I am disappointed that the answers just appear online. I am more than willing to respond directly to any questions. Unfortunately there are those out there that would use this information because they don't care about hard work or even appreciate all the time needed to solve a cache like this. Please do not share this information online. StaticTank

A couple of local cachers are doing just that. Literally Writing Geocaching on the map! Crazy Days of Geocaching - GC3149P When: Saturday 27th August, 11:30am - 1:00pm Where: Lennox Pizza Ranch, 112 E. 1st St. Lennox, SD The trail contains 184 caches and is approximately 30 miles long x 4 miles high. The shortest possible distance to drive the entire trail is 170 miles. The GC Trail is made up of a variety of caches such as Traditional, Multi, Puzzle, Wherigo, Letterbox and an EarthCache. The GC Trail is not a power trail. It may take a while to find all of the caches. There are many family friendly caches, rare difficulty/terrain combinations, and the odd bizarre cache along the trail. On the event day there is the possibility of getting 6 to 8 icons or up to 10 if you want to drive a bit further. Check it out! StaticTank

A couple of local cachers are doing just that. Literally Writing Geocaching on the map! Crazy Days of Geocaching - GC3149P When: Saturday 27th August, 11:30am - 1:00pm Where: Lennox Pizza Ranch, 112 E. 1st St. Lennox, SD The trail contains 184 caches and is approximately 30 miles long x 4 miles high. The shortest possible distance to drive the entire trail is 170 miles. The GC Trail is made up of a variety of caches such as Traditional, Multi, Puzzle, Wherigo, Letterbox and an EarthCache. The GC Trail is not a power trail. It may take a while to find all of the caches. There are many family friendly caches, rare difficulty/terrain combinations, and the odd bizarre cache along the trail. On the event day there is the possibility of getting 6 to 8 icons or up to 10 if you want to drive a bit further. Check it out! StaticTank

This is exactly how I feel. I see so many people stating things like play how you want. If you don't like LPCs don't look for them. If someone wants to make a team a split up to boost numbers found in a day go ahead. If someone wants to reuse locations (it is done often here) why not let them do it. There isn't anything in the guildlines that says there can't be a new cache in the same spot. Caches around here tend to go unfound for long periods of time after they have been around for two years. I don't often go around trying to boost my numbers. I would rather spend one day looking for a really awesome cache than getting 200. But I see the merit of replacing caches with new ones. StaticTank

There are several things here. First of all THERE IS NO MORE TO THIS. I want an honest opinion...I have given everything I have. The only thing you don't have is the name of the cache or the cache owner. This information would not give you anything new. This cache is obviously in Iowa, near the South Dakota border. Most of the people who would find it, have found it. It sits not being found. The owner merely wanted to place a new cache so others have a new cache to find if they wish. If you don't want to go back to a place you have already visited then don't go. I for one would go back. The area is a nice place. It is near the Sioux River and his quite a nice hike. I have corresponded with Groundspeak on the subject and they are helping me. This kind of stuff makes me appreciate my reviewer who would have published this cache without even thinking about it. StaticTank

The caches in question were years old and had gone missing. The owner put a brand new container there and they were very likely a completely different cache. This cacher could care less about number hunts, he was not doing it to boost someone's numbers. I enjoy traveling to new areas more than anything but with the economy and having a child that just isn't an option like it used to be. I appreciate new caches in old places. Especially if I haven't visited them for more than two years. My problem with the situation is that the reviewer is even mentioning FTF, they aren't real. There is no email to the cache owner the note was it. There is no guildline problem. Why not publish the new cache? The reason that my friend wasn't on here is because like 75 to 80% of the caching community he doesn't visit the forums. By the way I have met StarBrand, 7 hours from my home and probably twice that or more for him. He is a nice guy. StaticTank

Interesting. In your opening post, you stated the redux version was not allowed, yet the language I'm seeing here looks more like a suggestion. I may be reading too much into semantics, but there is a difference between "You Should" and "You Must". If the Reviewer is making a suggestion regarding what they think should be done in this type of situation, I agree with them. The same container, at the same coords really doesn't warrant a new GC number, does it? Unless there is something really remarkable about the location, why would your friend want to bring folks back there? Just another smiley for their collection? On the other hand, if the Reviewer has made this a directive, refusing to publish the cache based solely on that reason, and your friend really wants the caches to have new GC numbers, he should take it up the chain of command, sending a polite e-mail, including both the old and new GC numbers to Groundspeak. Well since the reviewer wouldn't publish the new cache it really wasn't a suggestion. I don't believe that Groundspeak wants reviewers to be FTF police. If a cache owner wants to replace a new cache at the same location I don't believe there is a good reason to not do it. I have done it many, many times. Hiding a different cache at the same coordinates. What is the problem with recycling an area. I found a cache today that was in the same coordinates as a recently archived cache and the rating was 3.5 stars different... After having found all of the caches in my area, I really appreciate when caches recycle an area. I hate spending money and my time every weekend driving across country to find new caches. I am thankful that my reviewer has no problem with this. I plan on doing it with four of my caches next week. StaticTank

The responses to my discussion here will give me pause to ever bring up another topic in the future...I am really disappointed in all of you.

Here is the quote from the reviewer note on the cache: IowaAdmin: "Since this is a the same location as your previous cache, you should request that the previous cache be reactivated, since there is no reason to start a new cache here other than to whip up a first-to-find frenzy" and the other cache: IowaAdmin: "Same story as your other cache -- no reason for this to be a new cache because it's not a new location." I really don't care if any of you believe that there is more to this. That is it. My friend is not hiding anything. There is no more to it. I know the location, I know the hider he is a very close friend and I telling you there is no more to this...this is the only message that has been exchanged between the reviewer and the cacher. @knowschad, this is not one of the people you are probably thinking of. StaticTank

Um, because it makes no sense? Exactly. You opted not to tell us who the cache owner was, what the GC number of the archived cache is or who the reviewer in question is. By definition, those details could provide "the rest of the story". Since you are giving the account in the third person, your version of the "facts" would seem to be dependent upon what the mystery cache owner told you, as opposed to what really happened. Assuming that there is any accuracy to your claims, I would guess that the reviewer provided several reasons for the denial, and the "FTF" silliness was just one concern, and likely the most minor concern given. That information is irrelevant. No other reasons were given, the cache was two years old and the reviewer told him he shouldn't have made it a new cache should have just reactivated the old one. I see no reason after two years why one can't put a new cache in place of an old one. Both the cacher and reviewer have plenty of experience and are very capable in their abilities. If I get permission from the cache owner I will post his name and the actual conversation between him and the reviewer. I apologize there were only two caches involved not three. StaticTank

Um, because it makes no sense? It sounds like you're getting this story from someone else. To quote Dr. Gregory House, "People lie". While I think you're telling us all you were told, I don't think you were told the whole story. The story does come from someone else, but I saw the emails. I am not lying. If I wanted to tell you a story and make you believe me and take my side I could exaggerate the story and say anything. When asking someones opinion about something I find it useless to lie because they would then not be giving me the opinion on the truth.

I already did, I said that earlier. I will let you know what they say. I just like to post it here to see what the general caching population thinks. StaticTank

I will say it again, there is not more to the story. I don't want to give away who the reviewer or the cache owner is so I can't give you the GC numbers. There are three caches involved. Two are fairly close together, separated by a half mile or more. The other is miles away. StaticTank

Must be a newbie reviewer. Please direct them to the E.T. Trail and such like. I'd like to be there to watch them cry. He is not a newbie he has been around for a long time. He has some stubborn policies that don't seem to align with what other reviewers do. StaticTank

I want to hear the rest of the story. I don't believe that story for a moment. Why does there have to be more to the story? That is it. If I am going to bother to ask what others think of a situation, I am going to give all of the details. That is it...if I have more to give I will give it when I have it. The situation has been appealed and I will let you know the answer, when I get it. If you have questions about the story please feel free to ask. I will give you the answer. StaticTank

That is really all there is to the story. The owner went to replace his caches that had gone missing. He wanted them to be in the same spot but something a little different. He named them similar and it was denied because "it would cause a FTF frenzy". Nothing more to the story. StaticTank

There is a certain reviewer who is claiming that some new hides will cause a FTF frenzy. The situation is as follows. A cache was placed many months or even years ago and has since gone missing. The owner has gone back and replaced the cache with a new cache and archived the old one. He gives the new one a name that is similar to the old one but has "Redo", Do Over", or "Remix" in the title. This reviewer then claims that they cache placement is not allowed because it will cause a FTF frenzy. I have always been under the impression that Groundspeak does not recognize what a FTF is. They are not defined or mentioned anywhere in the guidelines. As an extension of Groundspeak I would think that to the reviewers, a FTF is irrelevant. What do you think? StaticTank

Have you ever purchased a house? StaticTank

They last logged on Saturday, January 09, 2010. I saw them at an even in Early 2009. They don't seem to be around much any more, but they do log caches from time to time. StaticTank

They are working on one! I can't wait. For now I use GeoBeagle but I am looking forward to Groundspeak's App!

Was it necessary to use the data package from your cell provider to use the phone for geochaching? Glad to hear that the Droid worked so well for finding caches. ~Hans57 It is necessary to get a data package to even get this phone...it is that way with all smart phones! It is worth it! Logging caches on the phone using the website is very easy. Chuck

I am a cacher from the Sioux Falls area and I have over 2000 finds I am really curious on how you think people are ruining the game for you. I know all of the people in his area that have over 2000 finds and all of them are nice people. I don't know why we would be ruining it for anyone. Sioux Falls is known for having some extra difficult caches. I hope that you don't think I am one of those people. I try and have a wide range of caches from easy to difficult. I would be interested in hearing more. StaticTank KD0IIV

I want to be able to see these on my GPS!!

No! Not at all. I got the pocket query last week. Now today it ran again and I got it again. The box is not checked to run and wasn't on Thursday when I ran some other queries. I don't know why it would have run. StaticTank

OK, last night I was at my dad's house and he got a pocket query for Rochester, MN. That is cool, however he was there last weekend... He didn't have it checked to run and it wasn't set to run every week. We chalked it up to maybe having bumped it. So today I am checking my email and I get a pocket query of Sioux Falls, SD. I had set this to run last Friday and it did just fine. However like my dad it wasn't set to rerun or to run every Friday. Now I have one of my pocket queries for the day chewed up. It also happened to be one that I was planning to run later tonight. I am 100% sure this one was not checked to run yet. Something going on? StaticTank Oh yes, and I spelled "their" wrong in the title...