Teach2Learn

And this is exactly why I like them, both as a cache owner and as a geocacher. They attract high calibre geocachers and deter riff-raff. Well, my friends aren't riff-raff. They've been caching a few years using real gpsrs. I do agree with you that multis (mystery caches too) tend to attract more dedicated and higher caliber cachers overall. I dont't think color would make a big difference, but pink might be more attention getting. To many, probably most, it's more about the numbers and the adventure is nice but secondary. I'm in the minority and that's fine. Consider me old school if you like. I agree that multis of more than two stages often attract more dedicated cachers, not those trying to pad smileys quickly. Though the majority of my finds are traditionals, multis and hiking series caches comprise many of my best adventures, challenges, and memories of the past 11 years. As a result, about half of my hides are multis, and they receive a higher percentage of favorite points than my traditonal hides, even though most of the multis were placed before the favorite system was implemented. It's always nice when cachers with 20K, 30K, 40K, and even 50K mark them as favorites. Yes, they do tend to require more work than traditionals to place and maintain, just as they tend to require more effort on the cacher's part...and that's okay with me. Edit to add: I always try to include time and distance estimates In the description and the final is either an ammo box or decent-sized Lock-n-Lock container, not a bison tube. Creativity is key, from theme to design.

Sigh...I read it and added a second reply (before your response) to clarify, specify and encourage the evolution of challenges to meet your offset ideas, thus I said, "Perhaps your offset ideas..." If you just want to laugh at people and continue to say they didn't read your posts, then I think you're missing the larger point and being detrimental to your own discussion. I did respond to your ideas and try to encourage discussion. I like the historical caches/historicache idea and it has been raised before. However, I'm not sure the reviewer process would be easily organized into anything grouplike due to their volunteer nature and time constraints. They "discuss" as necessary when questions arise, not for each cache, and I think the quality issue might come up for such a cache type unless objective factors were already in place. Personally, I think anything to do with a ghost or related to the idea of a virtual in any way isn't worth it. As for the evolution of challenges, a year or two doesn't seem that long to me if it reduces potential problems, but we each have our own timeframe. For some, it seemed to take "forever" to get Groundspeak approved geocaching apps for phones. Hehehe again I have to laugh, not to be arrogant and condescneding, but this right here. I never said I did not care for it. I encourage it. You are merely taking talking points to fit your own view of this, like most others. It was meant to be a discussion, to bring up ideas on how this can happen. As far as challenges go, yes I get it. They are evolving. My issue isnt with figuring out how to make challenges better in that evolution - its more with the pace of the evolution itself. I think this life on earth has evolved at a faster pace than challenges have - I simply do not see much movement on this "evolution" I keep seeing people mention. The idea that challenges were a replacement for virtuals? WHere as one of the biggest arguments against virtuals were the "quality" factor - I am sorry but I do not see how "taking a pciture of pulling the finger of lenins statue" is considered "quality" And again, lets not get into semantics - what ever you wish to call it, a committee, a review forum, a bunch of gals and guys sitting around a table at a bar drinking beers and eating wings - call it whatever you like - I simply said, if this type of format works well enough for earth caches to be considereed "geocaches" I continue to challenge why this cannot be a format for virtuals or if you want to call them history caches, or science caches - again, lets put aside our little 120+ IQ's and ditch the semantics and grammar and focus on context. My challenge to TPTB still stands - why is the format good enough for earthcaches and not for a "history cache"? And AGAIN, the whole idea here is to find a way to bring the thing that most people liked about virtuals - some significant place it took you to while incorporating it into the actual game (not some side venture). But having a way to ditinguish it - as I said, offsetting can work in many cases. But having maybe a ghost holding a container. Again these are just ideas, anything toi stimulate a discussion rather than stoke an old debate or envoke "my way or go away" That was never my intention.

I do think you may be encourged by the possiblity of challenges continuing to develop in ways that may be related to your original post. Cathy did mention they were far from finished. Perhaps your offset ideas or even another icon would be considered, so proposing them is worthwhile. However, stating your case by mentioning the word "virtual" will probably raise red flags...too much baggage.

I read your original post and responded directly to your idea of a committee. As briansnat and others have noted, virtuals in the past were a nightmare for reviewers due to subjectivity. The things he listed were ideas people submitted for virtuals and were angry when not published. This would be true even with a committee. Reviewers discussed virtuals among themselves (see Keystone and others) and yet the forum debates over virtual approvals and appeals seemed endless during that "wow factor" time period. If you read others' responses, you would notice that earthcachers are not reviewed by a committee. This was explained at GW. Earthcache reviewers may discuss with one another just like other reviewers, but it is not a committee. Disagreement and bringing up the same old arguments is not flaming you. It's part of the debate--of course, you're allowed to disagree with that . If we feel the arguments are valid, we're entitled to that and believe past problems and the current Groundspeak position support the current stance on virtuals. You may not care for the workarounds with offsets, challenges, and waymarks, but I hope you can accept the reality that some of us are fine with them. I can accept that you're not.

Eiksveien, I finally got mine to work. I tried to carefully follow the step-by-step instructions in sequence as provided by Cacheoholic, Red90, and Lil Devil multiple times, but still had the "no geocaches" message in spite of re-setting to factory defaults and no memory of any geocaches, waypoints, or tracks listed on the GPS when turning it on and off. However, when I went into my GPX folder with my GPS connected to my computer, I noticed that three sub-folders appeared as normal. I'd checked the GPX folder contents and the sub-folders titled "Current" and "Nav" and all were empty. However, I was surprised to find the GPX sub-folder titled "Archived" still had some .gpx files in it, ones I hadn't seen previously. After deleting those, I went through the whole process one more time, including creating a a new pocket query to download and unzip/extract to my GPS. This time it worked. I'm not sure if this will help you or not, but I thought it couldn't hurt.

I'm experiencing the same problem . Deleted previous pocket query files on GPS and SD card. Downloaded pocket query in zipped format, unzipped/extracted files, and copied them to GPS but the caches don't show on GPS. Tried copying them to SD card (inserted in GPS) with same result, no caches. The .gpx files show on the SD card and on the drive for the GPS, but not the 62s itself. Same message: no caches found, download from Garmin. This has not been an issue on previous pocket queries on my 62s following the same process. Either I'm overlooking something or something else has changed. This is a nearest cache query, including unfound caches within a mile of my home. I have also tried restarting and reconnecting the GPS a number of times without success, taking out the batteries and SD card, reinserting, etc. The only workaround is uploading individual .gpx files with the "Send to my GPS" function. If it matters, my City Navigator maps still display (saved on my SD card).

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers. +2 I couldn't have said it better myself. +3 or more... As others have chimed in, I'm a member of the geocaching "community" since 2003 and I don't want virtuals back. I was sitting on the left-side corner of the stage throughout the reviewer forum at GW, including when you raised the issue. I disagreed with your position at the time and still do. To base my perspective on anecdotal evidence of those around me, they also disagreed with you, but I don't think just chatting at that time/place provides a true indicator of the community. Though the pro-virtual argument is frequently raised, so is the "no virtuals" view. I should add that unlike briansnat I enjoy caches related to memorials or historic signs, but there are lots of those to choose from with offsets, multis, etc. I think you are misinterpreting my post. Geocaching from its very beginning was about finding a container. Those containers have brought me to some incredible places over the years. Some of those places involved memorials, historic markers, oddities, the kinds of places that I enjoy visiting. Yet I can't think of a single virtual that I've found where a real cache could not be worked into the process somehow. I've seen some sentiment here saying forget about the "wow factor" and allow lame virtuals the same way we allow lame LPCs. I suspect that after visiting a few dozen manhole covers, fence posts and random piles of litter many of the most ardent virtual fans will grow tired of them. At least with the lamest geocache there is still a container to find and a log to sign. Do we really want to be able to list or log a beer can in the corner of a parking lot? OK, I know the numbers hounds among us would log a pile of horse dung as long as it gave them a +1, but we aren't all numbers hounds. Most of the virtual fans gush over the cool places that the virtuals bring them. Yet the overwhelming majority of the time a physical could be hidden there. At GWX I logged my first virtual in a few years. Cool spot. I loved it, but there is no reason a real cache could not have been worked into it somehow, either with a micro at the site or using an offset. I would have experienced the cool site and still had a cache to hunt. The original point of virtuals was to allow "caches" in places where you couldn't hide a physical cache. This was before anybody thought of micros (nanos weren't a gleam in geocachers eyes back then). With the advent of micros and nanos, there is no good reason for virtuals. Want to list them in parks where geocaches aren't allowed period? Some park managers have banned all "GPS games" including virtuals and Waymarking. In the end if you were to examine all of the remaining virtuals there is no reason a physical cache can't be hidden at probably 90 percent of those locations now that we have micros and nanos. So what is the real point outside encouraging additional laziness among hiders? Based on his explanation with the offset and nano options, I am now in complete agreement with briansnat once again. I had the opportunity to meet and shake his hand at GW and compliment him on his cachers' greeeting from years ago. Regretfully, there was no need to act it out since it was already a cache event.

No, I do not think that I misunderstood you. I just replied in a wider context and used religious places only because they are among the examples of container placements which I feel uncomfortable with and also because the only two existing virtual caches in Austria (one is my own) do have some religious context (not exclusively in my case). Back then one of the requirements for getting through a virtual was that no container could be placed at the location and at that time for example a nano fixed to a cross or a container hidden directly behind a statue of a saint would not have accepted by the community. Nowadays such placements have become common in my region. There are hardly any places left where not someone feels that a container can be placed. I am of course familiar with the concept of offsets, but there are two drawbacks. The first one is that in urban settings in cache dense areas there is often not much space available and second often there is no suitable nice location nearby even if saturation does not pose an issue. For example, my last hidden cache was on my to do list for more than six years and I very much would have wanted to implement it as virtual. I hate the hideout and it is the only part of the cache that I really do not like at all. I searched for a hideout I would like better for many years and the one I ended up with is the best I could find, but I still hate it. I think the main issue is that I do enjoy virtual caching in urban settings if the cache is done appropriately, but neither like to search nor to hide containers in urban settings. The next green spot is, however, often several kilometers away and modern geocachers are not willing any longer to cover such distances. Back in 2003 I could hide urban caches in such a way with a distance of 3km and more between a stage and the final. Nowadays every other log at least would contain a complaint. As explained above, unfortunately this is however not the way it works out in the modern world of geocaching, at least not in my area. I cannot speak for the OP, I can only explain why I would like to have some virtual alternative whatever it is called. Challenges and waymarks are not what I'm looking for. Cezanne Sigh...now I'm sure you misunderstood me or simply wanted it to fit your context, but it's not worth the explanation. I tried. The one thing I would state is that in my "modern world of geocaching" the offsets work fine. Because offsets use existing markers instead of containers, those stages are not bound by the saturation guidelines, only the container stage(s). Thus, the cache density regardless of area would be similar if there's only one stage other than the marker. For many, I think they just don't want to spend the time (as noted by the OP) and in many cases simply want to add to their numbers more quickly. That's fine, but that's why we have all types...with no need for virtuals IMO , though I realize some disagree and are entitled to do so. Sorry you don't care for offsets/challenges/waymarks as alternatives. I don't see virtuals returning and don't want them for reasons I already explained. Perhaps as Cathy explained, challenges will continue to evolve into something you will enjoy.

I think the percentage of enjoyable older (grandfathered) virtuals is high because their value is more apparent to the individual, especially since he/she selected them. Unfortunately, I don't think that would be likely in today's caching world with subjective "wow" factors for virtuals, creating unnecessary cacher vs. reviewer issues, even if a virtual review committee existed. Recalling those days, it's not worth it IMO, and would exacerbate more problems than it would solve: more complicated reviews, more fake logs, more caches with no maintenance. Yes, these issues may already exist, but why make things worse when there are other solutions already in place? Of course, I like offsets and numbers aren't a big deal to me.

Yes, there are caches at such locations, but more than once I do feel uncomfortable to search at such places (e.g. at location with a religious relevance) and I even less would want to hide a container there while I enjoy if a well done and educative virtual activity (whatever name you might want to associate to it) leads me there. At most Earthcache locations I am familiar with one could place a container. This neither means that it is a good idea to search at such places for a container nor does it mean that the search for a container offers the same chance to educate people than Earthcaches do. Regardless of one's stance on virtuals and whether virtuals are geocaching or not, it seems evident to me that cache containers are not an ideal solution for all sorts of situations. Cezanne I wasn't trying to include religious places and think you may have misunderstood in part. I wanted to emphasize the idea of offsets so that no searching for a container at a memorial/historic site would be necessary. Any search for information should be similar and limited to what visitors are expected to do (e.g. read markers). I don't want containers hidden at such places, nor do I desire the return of virtuals. For offsets, the container should be hiddenn off such property, perhaps just a short distance, but sometimes miles away. I read the OP's thoughts on but don't feel it's a sustainable argument for the issues he listed, but IMO didn't successfully resolve, especially if claiming to speak for the community.

Fun to attend and watch the wedding, though I'm thinking Signal and the minister must have been roasting in those outfits. I noticed Snoogans changed his shirt for the occasion. I saw the bride before the ceremony signing a lot of those Bingo sheets for having a TB tattoo and getting pictures taken.

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers. +2 I couldn't have said it better myself. +3 or more... As others have chimed in, I'm a member of the geocaching "community" since 2003 and I don't want virtuals back. I was sitting on the left-side corner of the stage throughout the reviewer forum at GW, including when you raised the issue. I disagreed with your position at the time and still do. To base my perspective on anecdotal evidence of those around me, they also disagreed with you, but I don't think just chatting at that time/place provides a true indicator of the community. Though the pro-virtual argument is frequently raised, so is the "no virtuals" view. I should add that unlike briansnat I enjoy caches related to memorials or historic signs, but there are lots of those to choose from with offsets, multis, etc.

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers. +2 I couldn't have said it better myself. +3 or more... As others have chimed in, I'm a member of the geocaching "community" since 2003 and I don't want virtuals back. I was sitting on the left-side corner of the stage throughout the reviewer forum at GW, including when you raised the issue. I disagreed with your position at the time and still do. To base my perspective on anecdotal evidence of those around me, they also disagreed with you, but I don't think just chatting at that time/place provides a true indicator of the community. Though the pro-virtual argument is frequently raised, so is the "no virtuals" view.

The scrambling has happened to me frequently in recent weeks/months, runnning IE9 and Windows Vista, seeing my avatar on others' forum posts and cache pages. Unless I was browsing the forums, I wouldn't have thought to post about the problem, but feel this issue is more widespread than GS realizes. And yes, I've repeatedly cleared my browser cache/cookies.

Well! I give in, seems most like the favorites the way they are! However! someone here gave me an idea how I can use my points for my own benifit... No one likes the idea of FTF stats, so I will assign 1 point to each of my FTF's this way I can more easily keep up with my FTF's and keep track of them for my stats! I know! Some (alot) of you will dog me for this, but hey, I don't like the way the points are used, so I will just use mine in a way they will help me! Thanks for your imput on this subject! Just make a bookmark list. Then they won't be mixed with anything else, and won't confuse anybody. +1...Please do what Ambrosia suggests to allow the "favorites" to fulfill their primary purpose instead of as your FTF record. A separate bookmark list of your own would be much easier for you to maintain and many "FTF hounds" already do this.

I think work/family obligations, health issues, and the redundancy (especially for the numbers-only micro cachers) add to the attrition rate. As a teacher, I tend to slow down during certain periods of the school year. I also hardly cached at all in 2009 having been diagnosed with Lyme Disease as it left me so drained much of the time. With rounds of antibiotics, the symptoms lessened and I've been caching frequently this summer.

Like Motorcyle Mama said, parental permission is the way to go at 14 and it's great that you also have older brothers willing to be there for you. I e-mailed links of geocaching organizations to your username that you might be able to contact for events or assistance.

It would probably be better to post (or have moderator move) this question as a UK forum thread. However, one cache I'd like to check out if I can get back to the area is Jonah's Journey. It does appear challenging, but it also has bookmarks listing it as a favorite cache and you're pretty close to the area.

Looks like a great cache and a good case for "grandfathering" the virtuals instead of eliminating them. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. However, I do not wish to see virtuals return with their inherent issues, including the vagueness of the "wow" factor. If not a waymark (hated by some, loved by some), then offset/multi caches can still be created to include virtual aspects such as landmarks and must-see sites.

No fun...been there, done that with a previous 60csx that I had to replace, though mine was lost while caching and never turned up. Now I try to use a mental check system just before leaving every cache and parking lot: GPS, backpack, phone, keys, etc. If there's a silver lining, at least you have the option to go paperless with a new Oregon or 62s as a replacement if you can afford it.

To offset FTF hounds, some cache owners mark items for STF (second to find) and TTF (third to find). Of course, this may cost a bit more and is on the honor system, though I have seen it honored multiple times. Yes, I enjoy making the FTF prizes relate to the cache hide. FTF items in my cache hides: --Laminated FTF certificate personalized for each cache --Authentic Greek/Roman coins from late BC/early AD centuries (for my Olympian cache series) --Gift card to seafood restaurant for my "I Wonder...Do Fish Sleep?" cache --TV series DVD for my "TV Tales-n-Trivia: Mr. Ed" cache, also small stuffed animal horses for kids Of course, these are easier to include when hiding ammo boxes and non-micro containers. As others have noted, do it for the enjoyment of others. As a finder, just being the FTF is prize enough.

Yes, the nearest caches will show up that way as long as you change your preference back to "Find Nearest" from alphabetical "Find by Name." That's what I did when I was last in LA and cached on Catalina Island a few months ago as well as on many other trips. If you look for other waypoints while there (landmarks, restaurants, etc.), remember to use the cursor on the map to locate them or you'll be limited to the nearby radius. Glad it worked and that we could help no matter whether it was a 60csx or an Oregon.

Good, at least you know the caches are in your GPSr. The display will work itself out once you're in the area as those will be the nearest caches. In the meantime, you can always select the out-of-range caches by changing your preference: --"Find" geocache>>List of caches>>Hit "menu button>>Select "Find by Name" There could be a way to change the radius of which I'm not aware and somebody might chime in with the answer.

After you download them, can you see the GPX files in your Garmin/GPX folder? Are you downloading them individually or in PQ files? I download then individually. Then i press find in geocaches and its there. But not now. It works if caches are within 30 miles but doesn't work on longer distances. doesn't make any sense. I'm going to calif tommorw and caches won't load on GPS. I'm confused. I don't know what you mean about Garmin/GPX folder. where is that? Your California caches are probably there...you just need to display them. I know if it's a 60csx (and possibly on other Garmin GPS receivers) you need to change the preference to alphabetical for displaying geocaches or waypoints or it will simply search for nearest within a defined radius like the 30 miles you mentioned and display only those. Press the "Find" geocaches button/icon and when the list comes up, hit "Menu" and then change your preference to "Find by Name" for alphabetical listing and you should be able to scroll to any cache you sent to your GPSr. On the map screen, you can also move your cursor to the area of the cache and it should show up, then hover over it for a few seconds and hit "enter" when the GC cache ID appears. Edit: changed to "Menu" button and screen terms

According to a helpful Chrysalides in a related thread: When you connect the GPSr to your computer, the manual appears as an external drive as a PDF manual. If not, you can get it from the FCC site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/bl...tive_or_pdf=pdf