Dr. House

I think you could do this provided the Marker was available as a listing on Waymarking.com, or co-ords were provided to that Marker in the listing. A potential finder or CO could then use the "find geocaches by co-ords" function to output a list of caches within whatever distance you'd specify. What I don't think would be published is a hypothetical challenge requiring that you find 1 Canada Geodetic Survey Marker in 10 separate counties/regions. There's just nothing on geocaching.com that provides that information consistently to verify. This question does seem to be gaining some traction, so it would be interesting to have a Lackey's guidance on this point.

Agreed. Lately, very few things irk me more than being berated with the notion that one's own preferential caching habits are the proper way to cache. Seems to me that there's room for all cachers in this game, not just those who perceive themselves as somehow "better" than others due to their style of caching.

If the challenge cache itself specifies the boundaries of the various regions (USGS map quadrangles, DeLorme map pages, whatever), then to verify the requirements, you'd need only the coordinates of each cache. That is provided by the geocaching.com site. Does anything change if the challenge cache specifies some other source (not software, but a reference source) to define the boundaries of the various regions? As I read it, yes, since nowhere on this website, given the static posted co-ords, tells that Challenge cache finder or owner which page, county, component of that Challenge cache is satisfied.

Well, you could simply ask cachers to: - List the qualifying caches in their log - Create a bookmark list - Send you a list of caches in email The new guidelines prohibit none of that. And you could then either take their word for it, check them by hand, or if you are really concerned that someone is pulling a fast one on you, you could always use GSAK on your own dime to verify. The point is you can no longer require the *cacher* to use third-party software. But if you don't trust them and you want to plug the waypoints into GSAK yourself, of course there's nothing that prohibits you as a CO exhibiting that level of fastidiousness. But it's flat-out false to suggest that the new guideline prohibits DeLorme challenges. For now, I think I'm going to have to politely disagree until some clarification is handed down. Yes, a finder of any Challenge cache has all of the same means to provide some sort of list to the CO of that cache. We agree on this, since clearly this behaviour will need to continue for existing Challenge caches. The point where I don't believe that a new DeLorme/County challenge can pass the reviewer queue is this one, in the new guideline verbiage: This leads me to believe that the notion that it would be OK to simply take a cacher at their word that they've met your requirements will not be sufficient to get your new DeLorme (or similar) published since there's nothing currently available on the geocaching website to definitively verify how you will measure that claim. In my interpretation, a new challenge cache based on finding a cache in all US states is publishable (we can obtain a list of caches from the finder and verify that they do, in fact, have them all) whereas a new Challenge cache that requires a cacher to find a cache in every page of New York DeLorme would not fly because there isn't anything currently available on the Geocaching.com website that defines these boundaries. Since it isn't available on the website currently, you would be relying solely on third-party software (maps, GSAK, etc.) for verification purposes, which seems to be addressed as a no-no by the second sentence. Don't get me wrong, I think they're fascinating challenge caches and I'd love to hear from Sandy or another Lackey that I'm off-base on this one, but as I read it, they're grandfathered also.

Sure they could. The CO simply can't *require* that third-party software be used to verify the completion. In other words, you can't list a DeLorme cache and require GSAK output to prove completion. What you can do is list a DeLorme cache and allow cachers to list the completed caches in their log, to create an annotated bookmark list with completed caches, etc. You just can't require GSAK or other third party software to be the only route to completion. I have to agree with SLT's interpretation of this section of the guidelines. Since there is currently nothing on Geocaching.com to verify that the qualifications have been completed (ie. "A cache in Niagara County, New York" or "this cache shows up on page 34 of NY Delorme") I can't see how a CO could accurately verify that this could be completed now without the use of a program or document from a source other than this website.

I'm likely in the minority, but my preference would be to do away with Challenge caches altogether. With all due respect to some of the fine ones out there that I've enjoyed or worked on, I, personally, wouldn't miss any of them at all, and would enjoy being able to log a cache as found once I've actually found it and signed myself in. I think they would probably work better as part of Challenges, where other cachers lay down goals for the community at large and cachers interested in persuing one of those goals receives some sort of badge or whatever for that accomplished goal. There'd be no physical cache for the qualifying cacher to claim afterward, just the recognition of the badge (perhaps a unique badge for each one?). I use personal goals just like many others, but I just don't see a need to be able to claim a smiley for having accomplished them. Don't get me wrong, as a guy who enjoys all facets of caching, including finding as many as I can, the idea of getting an easy smiley is totally fine by me, but really isn't necessary in my opinion.

Well I see they were in a hurry to hear what you have to say on our behalf . I'm curious though: What makes you feel as though you are qualified to be speaking to the OPP on behalf of the geocaching community at large? More specifically, I wonder how some random Joe such as yourself thinks it might be a smart idea to wander into the police station to talk shop when we have an overseeing administrative group in Ontario (OGA) chock full of far more experienced cachers than yourself who'll respond to these incidents? You are neither the cache owner nor a representative of a caching association so I can't fathom why you think this is something you need to be involved with to the level of a personal meeting on your own with the OPP. Speaking personally, based on some of the things I've read from you in these forums, I wouldn't want you representing me for squat, and I imagine that I'm not alone. Let the proper people take the lead on this endeavour and just be patient on the sidelines while you learn a thing or two.

Always enjoy looking at your pictures, Keith. These look like the kind of spots I'd want to visit if this were my road trip.

I wonder how useful this really is? It is the right thing for GS to do and all, but in many areas, the cache saturation is pretty high, so if you ask "is there a geocache nearby", the answer is liable to be "yes." And even if the item really is a geocache, how do they know someone didn't put a bomb in a known geocache? Sure, it's improbable, but they don't really know. If they blow it up then there is no question that they have dealt with the situation, whatever it is - problem (or non-problem as the case may be) solved. I would imagine that it is generally understood in law enforcement that if you want people to call in suspicious things they see that there will be some false alarms... I have no doubt that this would be immensely helpful, if utilized. I also have no doubt that, as many other folks in here have said, some caches will suffer this fate no matter the tools provided. I can imagine that in the role of the bomb squad folks, they simply can't take chances once deployed.

Groundspeak provides the ability for local Land Managers and Law Enforcement agencies to obtain a premium membership free of charge to assist in situations such as these.

Is there a target number of caches you are looking to have on this power trail?

For a guy who's not all that tech savvy with these sorts of things, can someone shed a light on exactly what an "in-house tile server" entails and how it will improve the maps? It seems logical to me that whatever in-house option Groundspeak comes up with will not include a viable aerial option for Canada (and elsewhere that seems to lack this ability now) while looking at beta maps and PQs, but perhaps I'm wrong on this?

I'm pretty certain that this answer is no. Wherigo was a bit of a collaboration between Groundspeak and Garmin as I understand it, thus Magellan would be left off the compatibility list. Try looking for a Garmin Oregon or Colorado for a handheld GPS solution. If you have an iPhone, I think there is an app called PiGo that will allow you to run the cartridge on your phone.

Wait. You get greenery when you select aerial view? Here in Canada, all I see on the aerial map appears to be snow, even in the areas that aren't covered by the polar ice cap. This allows all cache types (save for virtuals) to stand out beautifully. It also furthers the myth for those folks who've never been here that we all live in igloos and drive dog-sleds, but that's not Groundspeak's fault. I'd love to have a viable aerial view when looking at the beta maps, even if it did load worse than Google.

Esquesing me, placed by Melandrew. Tyendinaga Trail Run, placed by Staygold678.

I was also going to suggest this trail but Res beat me to it. Neat location that I had no idea was accessible to pedestrians.

Agreed. I still wonder if this sort of structure was (or perhaps, is currently being) discussed as an option. To me, the move to OSM seems to be a band-aid solution to avoid an increase in cost to the existing Premium Member. This "tiered" membership structure I suggested a while back allows for the flexibility of all interested parties to select that which works best for their perceived caching needs at a price that works for their budgets while also addressing the Google surcharge.

OK, I can understand the concern. Given that Groundspeak has made this switch as a result of excessive costs that would be incurred by them to continue to use the Google Maps with the existing $30 annual membership fee, what would you consider to be a reasonable cost option for your family? I like your idea of a family plan. How would you structure it and what would you price it at?

I posted this idea on the GC.com Update thread, but perhaps it would have been better suggested here... I think the new maps will likely be OK for the majority of users once the server load issues are worked out, but so far they are still painfully slow to work with. If I may ask, are VR's now reviewing caches with these new maps or do their accounts still provide access to Google maps? I can't imagine their accounts would generate enough hits to push into the .35% and I would think these new maps aren't nearly as helpful and complete as the Google provided ones. If they are also using OSM, I suppose it makes Reviewer Notes on cache submissions that much more important as it pertains to land manager issues (ie. Railroad tracks or park boundaries that may not show up on these OSM tiles correctly). I'm wondering also if a 3 tiered membership structure might work or was considered for the use of Google maps? There doesn't seem to be much question that their service is quite good (superior, perhaps?) to the rest of the mapping options available to the public, so perhaps leave it to the caching community to determine what level of service they'd be happy with and willing to pay for: Tier 1 - Premium Membership - Google map access, perhaps a few more PQ's run in one day and some extra value add options at GSP discretion: $50 Tier 2 - Regular Membership - Access to PQ's x5 per day, OSM map tiling: $30 Tier 3 - Basic Membership - No PQ's, OSM map tiling. This is your entry level free membership. As others have mentioned, I'd also be willing to pay a premium to maintain the quality of maps that Google provides. I'm sorta surprised that some comminication to this effect wasn't asked of the general geocaching population to see if it would even be something that they might be interested in. While I don't understand fully the ramifications of Google's pricing structure with respect to how Groundspeak runs their accounting books, at face value, what I propose seems to be a sensible, viable option does it not?

I think the new maps will likely be OK for the majority of users once the server load issues are worked out, but so far they are still painfully slow to work with. If I may ask, are VR's now reviewing caches with these new maps or do their accounts still provide access to Google maps? I can't imagine their accounts would generate enough hits to push into the .35% and I would think these new maps aren't nearly as helpful and complete as the Google provided ones. If they are also using OSM, I suppose it makes Reviewer Notes on cache submissions that much more important as it pertains to land manager issues (ie. Railroad tracks or park boundaries that may not show up on these OSM tiles correctly). I'm wondering also if a 3 tiered membership structure might work or was considered for the use of Google maps? There doesn't seem to be much question that their service is quite good (superior, perhaps?) to the rest of the mapping options available to the public, so perhaps leave it to the caching community to determine what level of service they'd be happy with and willing to pay for: Tier 1 - Premium Membership - Google map access, perhaps a few more PQ's run in one day and some extra value add options at GSP discretion: $50 Tier 2 - Regular Membership - Access to PQ's x5 per day, OSM map tiling: $30 Tier 3 - Basic Membership - No PQ's, OSM map tiling. This is your entry level free membership. As others have mentioned, I'd also be willing to pay a premium to maintain the quality of maps that Google provides. I'm sorta surprised that some comminication to this effect wasn't asked of the general geocaching population to see if it would even be something that they might be interested in. While I don't understand fully the ramifications of Google's pricing structure with respect to how Groundspeak runs their accounting books, at face value, what I propose seems to be a sensible, viable option does it not?

There are many caches out there that many folks do not like for many different reasons. Most cachers will eventually choose to filter those caches out and instead choose something that fits their caching dogma. There are very few caches out there that very few cachers complain about and yet still go visit expecting a different result. That seems sorta silly to me. It is duly noted that you do not seem to enjoy this series. I'd suggest choosing something else to save yourself the aggravation and also to ensure you have a reasonably fun time while enjoying this game.

Geo Art, courtesy of NOG.

Team Goju's Kata Series power trail near Nottawasaga Bluffs CA.

Elgin Trail, just west of St. Thomas.