Avernar

Simple solution: Provide a flag for the requesting entity to tell the API to not unzip it. That would put less load on the server and use less bandwidth. Make the my finds PQ only requestable in zipped form.

That reminds me, when's the reunion event?

With that logic isn't finding geocaches just as irrelevant? They'll all be archived sooner or later anyways. There's something more to it than just the find. You have a history of your finds on the site and when a cache gets archived you still get to keep your find along with it's log entry. Unfortunately the site doesn't grab a complete picture of your find. It would be nice if it would record the coordinates, size and D/T ratings of the cache the moment you log it. This would make keeping your own stats more accurate and even let the site generate its stats much quicker and easier. Caching for stats and numbers is a good way to get people out of their comfort zone. We've had numerous adventures all because of stats and numbers. So have a lot of other people.

After our last night caching event here in southern Ontario, nearly every night cacher in the area has a UV light so it's not really special equipment around here anymore.

For multi and mystery caches with corrected coordinates, add the original coordinates as a child waypoint automatically in the GPX (ie reference point with a known two letter prefix). Sometimes the original coordinates are referred to in subsequent stages of the cache. Sometimes they are the parking or trailhead coordinates.

CITOs are rare and they get their own type.

My opinion: Since finding the caches would be optional then the D/T should be the minimum needed for someone just tagging along with the group. For example, a hunt along the Bruce Trail would be based on the the D/T of the trail itself. Any tree or cave or whatever caches can be skipped by those who are not able to do them. Reality: The CO is free to rate the event whatever they want. You can always log the event with a note if you don't want it to mess with your stats.

I'd prefer the new cache type. Too many CO's don't bother with attributes and the reviewers ignore and/or don't enforce them. Someone else mentioned putting keywords in the cache name but I can't filter on that in a PQ.

I'm not talking about linking, just describing the type of food served there. For example "This place specializes in ribs and wings but there are some vegetarian dishes". How detailed can we get before crossing into the commercial content/advertising side of things? I was just wondering if there was going to be some reviewer discretion in this area as well.

That's good to hear. Any talk about event listings? Specifically the mentioning of menu items? Is that still considered commercial content?

Forgive me for being blunt but the original reason for the denial was a maintenance concern and that THE SERIES WAS NOT AGAINST THE GUIDELINES. My apologies for shouting but this little fact seems to have gotten lost. The final ruling was that he should make it a multicache because it fits the definition of a multicache. This goes against all we've been told when picking a type is that if it doesn't fit a certain type, make it the catch all Unknown type. Not once did a reviewer or Groundspeak give a guideline violation as a reason for the denial. And I maintain there is no such guideline. The rule you found was close. But there's several problems with it: 1) The reviewer or Groundspeak never mentioned it. 2) It says "should not" which means that it is still an option. 3) It's in a section that can't be navigated to from the guidelines 4) It's in a section that's missing the "this is an extension of the guidelines" text you said it should have if it were part of the guidelines. So it boils down to a maintenance issue. The CO gave them a maintenance plan and even said he would post the clues on the cache pages if any of the caches would be taken out of action. So is his word not good enough? It's a kick in the groin when someone can tell Groundspeak "I can maintain a 1000 cache power trail" and they belive him but when my friend tells them "I can maintain an 8 cache series" they don't. So please Keystone, tell me that you can defend the above actions by the reviewers and Groundspeak. Nice bit of false logic there. "The reviewer can't be wrong because Groundspeak upheld their decision" That assumes that Groundspeak is always right. But I'm not saying that the reviewer interpreted the guideline wrong, I'm saying that the reviewer failed to provide a guideline violation. And that Groundspeak did the same error on appeal. If they came to my table, didn't pay attention to what I said and then accused me of not listening to them I'd ask them to please leave. I can't do that here. As for the reviewers, I'd be honest with them. If you've followed any of my posts you'd know I'm a big defender of the reviewers. But lately we've had a bunch of new reviewers come aboard and the consistency of the reviewer's rulings has gone considerably down. Talking to other cachers there's a growing resentment towards the reviewers in my area and that's not a good thing.

Good for you. I happy you have an opinion. But don't condemn me for disagreeing with you in my thread. So? Power trails were against the guidelines before but the community changed Groundspeaks mind. I need to read the posts to see that? Excuse me? You need to take your own advice and see the others that think as I do. I'm not the one who pointed out that the section of the knowledge books where this rule is located is not even labeled as and extension of the guidelines like Keystone said it should. I'm not the one who pointed out you can't get from the guidelines page to that section by clicking on the embeded links. Again, thank your for sharing your opinion. I don’t have to. I just have to point to the reviewer’s informed decision. Thought so. So you couldn't find it. And reviewers are far from infallible. They make mistakes. The fact that he got three different reasons for denying the series just shows that the reviewer was far from informed in this case. The reviewer is not the authority here, Groundspeak is. We want to change their mind. It has been done in the past so why are you so insistent we give up and not try? Well we all know how well that worked with virtuals. This ain’t gonna happen. Worked just fine with power trails. Finally something you wrote I agree with!

No need to be rude about it. That's the point. What he did is not out of the ordinary for Ontario. If he was trying something completely unheard of before then running it by the reviewers would be a very good idea.

That I don't understand. With the time and effort that Team Goju put into the series he could have easily created a 1000 cache power trail. That would have given out way more smilies. Then why did they ask him to turn it into a bunch of traditions with a bonus at one point? Same number of smilies. That's a very good point that I didn't think of. The series was designed to get progressively more difficult. If this were turned into a multi it would mean only a few cachers would complete it to the black belt level. A lot of cachers would miss out on completing the easier caches in the series.

No, there's one last thing: vote. I'd really love to see this series published here. But if it comes down to it, I'd rather see the series published elsewhere than have it butchered. For all their claims of "just being a listing service" they seem to do a lot of meddling in the cache concepts themselves.

Then why are you arguing with me about a secondary topic in this thread? So you agree that Groundspeak and the reviewer should enforce guidelines that don't exist? The rest of us don't. Or do you agree that Groundspeak and the reviewers should enforce statements in the knowledge books that suggest you shouldn't do something but don't tell you not to do something? Show me the section of the guidelines where it prohibits this sort of hide then. And I have pointed out to you many times that the logic the reviewer is using is wrong. Just because it fits the definition of a multi doesn't mean it has to be a multi. I even pointed out other cache series (traditionals with a bonus) that fit the definition of a multi which the reviewers published no problem without complaining it should be a multi to disprove the above logic. You on the other had start complaining that "we're not talking about that here". Well, guess what. We are. I have shown that the reviewers used a made up excuse that if it were valid should be enforced consistently. That the reviewers not enforcing the guidelines evenly or using made up guidelines is on topic here, weather you like it or not. Or he can gather support here and have people vote on the feedback item to allow these kinds of hides.

One of the major flaws of a multi. There's no indication to the cachers in the area of a stage that there's a multi they can do.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Even after being shown the relavent section of the knowlege books, the language there says "should not" and not "can't". On top of that, that section doesn't have the text indicating it's part of the guidelines. A supposed guideline that uses the words "shouldn't" in a section not marked as part of the guidelines is not fuzzy to you? Wow. I'm glad you think so because the reviewers and Groundspeak are using the bonus cache rule to deny his "daisy-chain" series. And nothing in the guidelines prohibits listing a multi as a series of unknowns. No it isn't. If you bothered reading his description of the series you'd see it's not just a multi. Each "stage" would be a whole multi on it's own. This series is huge. Just doesn't work that way? Then show me the guideline against it. The "this should be a multi because it looks like a multi" doesn't count as it doesn't exclude listing it as unknowns.

I read it this way: "I should add that the series was not designed to fool a Reviewer into thinking that I have just placed separate caches that look like a multi for the purpose of rewarding the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts." I've sent him an email letting him know of the confusion.

This, the bold part, may be where most responding have the issue. 3 year olds need gold stars smileys. Beyond that, most are concerned with the experience, novelty, creativity, challenge, etc. Read my reply to Mr Yuck. That comma should not be in his sentence. It makes it sound like he was trying to reward people with extra smilies.

Don't know if you remember me, but we hiked a couple miles on the Bruce Trail on one of the group hike events. Either way, wishing to "reward the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts" doesn't usually go over too well around here. Or with the big cheeses at Groundspeak either, apparently. I think you read that sentence wrong because of that errant comma. Giving extra smilies is not his goal.

I feel like such a failure. I'm glad someone worded it better that I could.

No flaming. I just see the same problems as making it a multi: 1) The listing will become too big. While there might not be a limit on the site, GPSr units may have trouble. I wouldn't want to scroll up and down on my GPSr looking for the cache I'm currently working on. 2) Your GPSr and the smartphone apps won't show you an icon for the stage you're close to. You'd be constantly searching for that cache page every time you'd switch away to look at another cache. 3) People living next to another stage might not realize there's a cache near them and start the series. There's a multicache that starts downtown Toronto and ends up in Mississauga. I had no idea it was there for years as I don't frequent downtown TO that often. I only found out about it when I was with the CO and he had to do maintenance on the final.

That's a chicken and egg problem. How is someone supposed to ask for help finding something in the knowledge book if they don't know that they missed something. And your still missing the point. Not all of the knowledge books are the guidelines. This makes it difficult for people to figure out how much they're expected to read and follow. I'm not trying any such think. I'm telling Groundspeak that the guidelines are a mess and if they want people to stop getting tripped up by them they should create one concise document listing all the rules. One link to where it all is so people don't have to hunt and gather all the rules. I getting tired of repeating what I've already wrote because you can't read it properly: 1. Team Goju's series is the 1st cache leads to the 2nd, 2nd leads to the 3rd kind. 2. Others said that matches how a multi is and therefore should be forced to be a multi. 3. To disprove #2 I pointed out that a bunch of traditionals with a bonus also matches how a multi is. 4. If #2 was correct then the bunch of traditionals with a bonus should also be forced to be a multi. 5. Since a bunch of traditionals with a bonus are not being forced to be a multi, #2 is false. You however started arguing that #3 was wrong which I pointed out is not the case with quotes from the guidelines and even an link to a cache. Now you're getting confused and thinking that I'm saying that Team Goju's cache is like a bunch of traditionals with a bonus which I'm clearly not. That's the logic that everyone else (see #2) is using to deny the listing. I'm just using that same logic right back at them.

No. Some of the pages of the guidelines are hosted in the same spot as the knowledge books. This is unfortunate as it's hard to determine where the guidelines end and the knowledge books begin. That's the problem. I couldn't find a direct or sequence of links to get from the guidelines to that section that restricted bonus caches. No I don't. I don't have to do the previous specific caches to get to the final. I can get the coordinates from a friend and start anywhere I want. It's funny that you're accusing me of misreading what others are posting when you are misreading what I'm posting. I never said you didn't have to do the waypoints. Read the following very carefully: You can create a multi where the coordinates to all the stages except the final are not hidden on the cache page. The finder can see all the coordinates as additional waypoints. They can visit the stages in ANY order to collect the clues for the final. The guidelines have this as a possible way to set up a multicache. Since a bunch of traditionals with a bonus matches this layout exactly, by the logic presented by many in here, they should be forced to list those caches as a single multi. No you don't. Here's one where if you make a good guess you can skip some or all the stages: Dex's Get a Clue Cache REVISED Notice that all the stages are visible? Assuming no proximity issues, this one could have been listed as 18 traditionals and 1 unknown bonus. The CO has a choice how he wanted it listed.