PhxChem

Unfortunately, there's no provision to move a lame cache for a really creative one (taking your word that this is the case. Everyone thinks their kid is the cutest.). That's why checking the area for caches is #1 on any hider's list.

I'm sure there's a logical explanation......like you know......caching in spirit!!

Nanos, micros, and ammo boxes are ALL REAL geocaches. Is this thread done now?

At the end of the day, I'd probably chose the land manages judgment over a reviewer. Since the OP has worked with the land manager and knows that judgment I'm thinking that's a good thing. But maybe that's just me. The land manager decides if he can hide a box on the land. The reviewer (and Groundspeak) decides if they want to list the cache. The land manager cannot make Groundspeak list the cache..... Any questions?... Sure. Say there are two cachers placing essentially the same cache. One talks to the land owner and one just places the cache. The site rejects the one the landowner knew about and lists the one the landowner didn't. What then? Oh that's right. In your scenario (which is accurate as to who does what) the land owner is screwed. You know, since the owner of the cache is the one responsible for it and not this site I'm still going to go with the landowner. After all at the end of the day it's the cache owner who needs to be in the good graces of landowners regardless if a reviewer on this site or another dictating cache placements via guidelines. Even if the landowner gets "screwed" (whatever that may mean in this situation), it is still up to Groundspeak to allow it to be listed or not. That was my only point. The "owner" has said yes, GP has said no because of a saturation issue (apparently). The landownder in your scenario can contact Groundspeak if the unauthorized cache needs to be delisted. So: If the landowner says no, then Groundspeak should not list it. That seems obvious. What may be less obvious is if the landowner says yes (as in this situation), Groundspeak does not have an obligation to publish it if it breaks other guidelines. The rule about saturation does not lie solely in environmental issues. It seems that Groundspeak is also concerned with having any one member owning too high a percentage of caches in an area. I believe that this is reasonable. Others may disagree.

Is it a requirement that a new thread asking to bring back virtuals be posted every two weeks?

Check to see if you have too many saved PQ's.

D: And don't cut and paste and post it on multiple threads.

At the end of the day, I'd probably chose the land manages judgment over a reviewer. Since the OP has worked with the land manager and knows that judgment I'm thinking that's a good thing. But maybe that's just me. The land manager decides if he can hide a box on the land. The reviewer (and Groundspeak) decides if they want to list the cache. The land manager cannot make Groundspeak list the cache..... Any questions? To the OP: So, are those caches distributed evenly across the 2000+ acres? Or are they actually distributed across a couple hundred acres? If you don't get an answer in this thread, you could always wait a week and start yet another thread.......

Then STOP stalking him!!! But he's a rock GOD, and I think I should keep him in a glass jar in my basement. Like Mr. Belvedere? OK, OP........this thread will only move along if you come back and start talking...er....typing. We can't dialogue with you if you're not around. Unless this was always meant as a hit and run thread......

It's ironic though that folks forget tha we knew how to make maps and mark X on the spot, long before we ever launched a satallite. So who put out all those benchmarks? Someone who was ON THE SPOT....just like the OP should be.

Because a geocache listing site is not the police. Then it's he said, she said. Who does Geocache believe? Maybe they dropped it and forgot to log it....and someone else actually took it. Geocache is a sport that largely depends on people doing the right thing.

Here here on the unit averaging in garbage....sometimes it just happens. Although the only time it has happened was with the automatic averaging function on my "new" GPS. It could be because the "new" mapping GPSr I'm using now (which is actually and older non-H etrex legend, while my "old" no-frills GPS is a newer regular old H-etrex) doesn't do as well near trees...or maybe it's because I've haven't turned WAAS on...or maybe it's just chance. But the one time I used that feature......it was off by more than I'm used to when placing a cache. Always got pretty good coordinates taking three points and manually averaging them with the old one. The automatic averaging...ehhh...not so good. The scientist in me wants to do more testing with both. But I just want to cache.

I hear this so often when this topic comes up and I have to ask one question: "Who cares?" Seriously, as a cache owner, why do I care how someone found my puzzle cache? As long as they had fun finding it does it really matter if they found it "my way"? If someone wants to go through the effort of brute forcing the location of a puzzle cache by typing in a whole series of coordinates, let them have at it. As a cache owner, I do care...why else did I create the puzzle? There, our votes cancel.

I'll keep it simple. No. No one says you have to go "refind" anything....that's your choice if you choose to go back out there. As a cache owner, I would have said the same.

Groundspeak is a listing site. They have no authority to tell people where they can or cannot place little boxes. The DO have the authority to delist any cache that breaks their guidelines. Groundspeak is not the police but they say what goe son thier site. Now, if you find you need to, you can be the cache police if you like. But just remember how other kids felt about the hall monitors. But if it's that important to you......

What can be done about these? Is there someone you can report them to so that they get flagged? Someone's going to become popular soon.....

No, this only appears as a case of a reviewer following the guidelines too strictly. GS maintains that the guidelines are only guidelines, and exceptions can be granted. On the other hand, I prefer having hard and fast rules, which make it a lot easier to figure out what you can and cannot do, rather than flexible rules which are only flexible from GS's interpretation, rather than everyone else who plays the game. Well, if you know that GS is the only one who can flex the guidelines, why not assume that the guidelines are rigid unless told otherwise? That might save you some trouble. Yes, the person who makes the rules can flex them and even change them. And those who must follow the rules, do not. Seems like you understand how it works. It is also the reviewers' prerogative to follow the guidelines "too closely" (whatever that means).

Seems like a VERY GOOD reason to contact the owner.

I noticed that a couple of weeks ago...then I tried to run a regular PQ. It told me what was wrong. It would be helpful for those who have yet run into it if the a message describing that they have too many saved PQ's instead of the generic error.

What fun is this forum if people are just going to get along and try to understand each other? Luckily my kids are less than 2 years old....5 seconds after the cache is found, he has a toy (swag) in his hand........any memory of an actual cache or its location have been erased....

I'm still trying to follow to OP's reasoning as to why he took it. Let's say a new game comes along called Gortblat. While someone is hiding a Gorblat Putamaroow, they happen upon your cache. HHMMM....who would put such a small Putamaroow here? Must be abandoned (I checked the Gortblat website after all), so I'll just take it. It goes back to the golden rule. If you don't mind people muggling your cache since it's abandoned, I guess it was OK that you took it first and then asked questions later. However, if you're not fond of people stealing your abandoned property, why steal others'? Just because it's not on a certain website? Sorry......I'm off to play Gortblat......

You cannot undo a poket query already run (even "mistake" ones). You cannot unring a bell.

I guess he finally decided he couldn't afford to give any more free ammo. Plus, I'm sure the ATF was bound to ask why someone would have such powerful ammunition just laying around. It clearly showed that he was not adverse to doling out unsolicited advice...ON HIS PROFILE no less!! Of course, He seemed quite upset when others around here, by his perception, did the same. Although, I felt all the advice given to him was useful and quite on topic. Whether or not he wants to utilize it....that's up to him and his superiority complex to decide. BTW, as someone with a PhD in the sciences, his "you don't quite understand because I am a man of science" routine did nothing for me.

A better case could be made if someone had an estimate of the percentage unknown caches that are solvable "in the field" or "on site." In my area, we see a lot of code-cracking-type caches where you'd solve it ahead of time (the one unknown cache that I own is this way). But if there were a relatively high percentage of those that don't need "desk time" to figure out, it seems like an obvious improvement since ? is a bit of a cache catch-all........

I'm confused as you didn't explain how to reply to your post......... It took me like 3 whole seconds to figure it out. I'll never reply here again!!