shunra

HC, I think you're taking this too far. There is a big difference between caches like W7WT's, that are supposed to be visited and of which logging a Find without visiting is indeed cheating on the one hand, and couch potato caches, which were never MEANT to be visited, but to be logged the way you did. IMO, you really don't have to delete those finds of yours. Nobody visits those locations, and you're not diminishing anyone's experience. I would agree that such caches should not be approved, but I think that of some other grandfathered-in caches as well. Now that they're there, there's nothing wrong about logging them. Again, pretending to have visited a real virtual without actually having done it is a different thing, but I think nobody disagrees about that.

Land masses drift and change shape too. I was thinking the end of the axis of rotation, where the pole sticks out. That's the reason I use for not finding caches - they've drifted too far from the original co-ords. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Yep, continental drift, that's it!

19 days after my request for a refund for the double charge, I finally got a response from Groundspeak, and then things went quickly: the refund has just come in. Thanks, Eric, for bypassing those unnecessary paypal "dispute" procedures, and for making the refund directly. I have declared the "dispute" "resolved", and closed the complaint.

Like any company president Jeremy is not always aware of the little details in all his departments.It is why he has employees. From his level he gave you the right answer. It just so happens that I helped someone else solve this and knew a more detailed answer. No, more likely, jeremy knows that a paypal 'dispute' will put a black mark on his company with paypal. Enough of these, and their paypal access can be shut down. However, a refund through Groundspeak directly won't do that. Exactly. I'd never have done that if CO Admin hadn't instructed me to do so. I'd be the last to want to cause problems between Groundspeak and Paypal :-( In the meantime, no response from Groundspeak, no refund of the double charge, no extension of membership...

Like any company president Jeremy is not always aware of the little details in all his departments.It is why he has employees. From his level he gave you the right answer. It just so happens that I helped someone else solve this and knew a more detailed answer. I appreciate it, CO Admin! I just wonder why nobody from Groundspeak responds when I followed Jeremy's instructions, and why your instructions are contradictory to his, and why I need to tell Paypal that there is a a "dispute" and "conflict" in need of being "resolved", whereas in reality this is a small technicality that can be solved on your end in no time. I explicitly wasn't asking for money back, originally, just for an extension of my subscription. Since you've done this before, can you tell me what is going to happen next, when Paypal contacts Groundspeak in order to "resolve" the "dispute"? This is so unnecessarily complicated...

I think you meant to say contact@geocaching.com That's the ticket. Paypal allows refunds within 30 days (or more, I forget). Reference the transaction in the contact email for a quicker refund. Thanks, Jeremy! Will write to contact@Groundspeak.com with the reference numbers right away! Daniel Jeremy, I sent the detailed message below to contact@geocaching.com and to contact@Groundspeak.com immediately after you confirmed that that was what I should do, 5 days ago. I got no response, no refund, and no membership extension. Is there anything else I should do? Thanks! Contact Paypal and request a refund on the second charge. That will work. It is also what contact@ is going to tell you to do. Why didn't Jeremy say so right away, instead of referring me to contact@g, earlier in this thread?) That seems to be a rather complicated way to go about it, and since I still have no formal response from Groundspeak, I have followed your instruction. The result is that this is now classified as a 'dispute case' - and Paypal will now be going back to Groundspeak to try to "resolve" this "conflict". I sent the reference numbers to Jeremy and then to Groundspeak almost two weeks ago, before opening this thread. A simple refund would have been so much easier :-(

I think you meant to say contact@geocaching.com That's the ticket. Paypal allows refunds within 30 days (or more, I forget). Reference the transaction in the contact email for a quicker refund. Thanks, Jeremy! Will write to contact@Groundspeak.com with the reference numbers right away! Daniel Jeremy, I sent the detailed message below to contact@geocaching.com and to contact@Groundspeak.com immediately after you confirmed that that was what I should do, 5 days ago. I got no response, no refund, and no membership extension. Is there anything else I should do? Thanks!

Hey, what a nice surprise! I look forward to seeing you all!

I think you meant to say contact@geocaching.com That's the ticket. Paypal allows refunds within 30 days (or more, I forget). Reference the transaction in the contact email for a quicker refund. Thanks, Jeremy! Will write to contact@Groundspeak.com with the reference numbers right away! Daniel

Thanks for the info, Stunod! I just cancelled my subcription to avoid further automatic deductions. I still need someone to talk to, either to get my money back or to confirm that I'm paid up until December '08... If it isn't Jeremy, who in Groundspeak deals with this?

Didn't know that was the case. But if so, why was I getting payment reminders towards the end of my subscription? At least THOSE reminders should have told me that it would renew automatically. Anyway - who do I talk to? I don't mind not getting the money back, as long as the automatic thing gets cancelled, and I am registeres as having paid up to the end of 2008

I paid on December 26th, and was charged again on January 1st. I assume there must have been an automatic payment thing in place, although I don't remember opting in for automatic renewal. Who do I talk to about this? A PM to Jeremy got me no response... Thanks!

Those look good but they still rest against your back while you wear them, way too hot for me. If it's important (to you or the OP) not to hike with a sweaty back, look into the packs that don't do that. That's EXACTLY my concern about these: too hot and sweaty on my back. The Approach seems ideal in all other respects. I asked a similar question a few days ago. The best things I have seen are the Gregory Z55 and the Osprey Atmos 50. They have backs like the one you describe, and especially the Z55 is extremely comfortable - but like yours, they are all top-loaders. I don't mind them being on the large side. So, I'm looking for something as comfortable as the Z55, and as functional as the Approach 3.0. The Osprey Atmos 50 is kinda in the middle, but not optimal in either respect. Common wisdom used to be that a load should be as close as possible to your back for reasons of stability, and this new concept is a relatively new development. I think I'll just have to wait a bit until a front panel loader hits the market.

Thanks, Brian. Indeed, the top loading part is what I dislike about the two that I have found most comfortable so far. I'll take a look at the Mountainsmith onesm and at Lowe alpine. Thanks for your input! Daniel

The Lookout is too small, and it doesn't have that mesh panel back, at some distance from the compartment, that both the Z55 and the Atmos 50 have. I really liked those in both, and haven't seen those in anyt other pack. Pictures of the Approach 3.0 only show me the front panel, not the the back. What on earth is a molded backpanel? Its organization sure looks convenient. Thanks all for the tip!

I am in need of a new daypack. I'm looking at the the large end of daypacks, because I tend to lug along bulky camera gear. In particular, I am looking at the Gregory Z55 and the Osprey Atmos 50, and I'd like to have some input about your experience with these two. I need something that is big and comfortable enough to lug along heavier-than-average items on long hikes, but also easy to enough to quickly open and access. So far, all I have an in-store comparison, loaded with 25 pounds. I find the Z55 extremely comfortable, but a little bulky and awkward in terms of organization, for lack of convenient outside pockets. I find the Atmos 50 OK in terms of comfort, but not quite as sturdy. On the other hand, the organizational design is excellent. TIA for your input!

Very interesting. Several of the SBAs that I have posted (in case of delapidated containers and obviously absentee owners) have been followed up by reviewer requests that the following finder remove the litter. As soon as that was done, the cache was archived. This is a perfect course of action: If the owner should suddenly wake up (as in the present case), he need only say so, and the reviewer could remove their note, and the cache remain active. If he remained absent, the litter would have been removed, as it has been in so many cases. I don't understand why those reasonable ordinary Groundspeak procedure could not have followed this time.

TM, there is no dispute about the fact that the owner was not responding, but is that a reason for archival if the container is in place and in fine shape? And even if it is - if the owner had not woken up for a few minutes and said he had wanted to keep the cache, we'd be stuck with geolitter now. * The owner, out of state and having lost interest, would obviously not have cleared it up. * The approver would not have come all the way to do it himself * There would be no listing left to ask a next finder to remove the containers and waypoints. * No local cacher was asked to volunteer and remove the cache. The bottom line is that an approver wilfully chose to archive a cache in such a way that would turn it into forgotten geolitter in a state park. This is particularly egregious in this case, since cache placements in Fort Worden State Park are closely monitored by rangers hostile to GC.com.

The cache was obviously abandoned by the owner, and will probably be abandoned again, since he lives far away. After notification of the owner and not getting a response, approvers have the following options: (1) Just archive the listing, and walk away from half a dozen WP containers-turned-geolitter. (2) Leave the abandoned cache in place, who cares. (3) Ask that someone (the next finder, for instance) remove the containers, and THEN archive the listing. I believe the third option is the only responsible one. PNWAdmin chose for option (1). My problem is specifically not with the archival itself, which was fully justified, but with the way it was done, the geolitter it was about to cause in the park, to the relationship between the State Parks and GC.com in general, and to the trust between the park rangers and the caching community on location.

Like everyone else, I think it's great to see the librarian's enthusiasm. Just as an aside: there are several caches in libraries in Kitsap county, and at least in one case, a librarian liked it so much that she joined our community and became a geocacher herself.

It would make more sense to me to have it adopted. It would, and I would have asked to adopt it if it hadn't been in a state park. (The cache we're talking about is GCMYAC) But PNWAdmin has reactivated the cache. Glad to have it back. Thanks!

PNWAdmin just archived a cache in Fort Worden State Park, because the owner is apparently awol. The cache itself, however, is in fine shape. If anyone has a problem with this cache, it would make more sense to reactivate it and ask the next finder to remove the containers and waypoints. Archiving a cache without removing the container creates geolitter. It is irresponsible, and confirms all the bad prejudices that the Fort Worden State Park people have about GC.com anyway. It also destroys the goodwill that out local caching community is trying to create with the State Park staff.

The last ones I can see are for my finds of October 15th, which is six weeks ago. Could the maps be updated again? Thanks!

Sure you can go paperless! Groundspeak accepts plastic.

I took a look at some of this grnpcacher's logs. They're not even spin-off logs from another user - there is no other account with logs for that day. I wouldn't hold my breath about getting a satisfactory explanation from them. On the other hand, if you delete the log or just shrug it off makes no difference. BTW, Haiku Duck cache was found by bona fide people twice after you archived it... might it still be there?