Keith Watson

It looks like you are implying that the reviewers were aware of the violation in those listings and knowingly published the listings. Do you have any evidence to back that up or are you just assuming that must be so?

Most likely the same thing happened as with the cache this thread is about. It got approved and then got caught when another one was published and the reviewer noticed it. As speculated in the investigation into the second cache, the reviewer caught it and then looked back at the other one or the owner of the second one pointed out the first one had it. Reviewers are human and can make mistakes. Crying foul doesn't mean or prove anything.

Maybe the cache police in those areas have better things to do than complain.

Visited with the wife an kids. GC23VDH - Beautiful lights

I'm guessing that gg's recent note on the cache page may also have something to do with the decision: I've added the bolded text. I assumed that was the trigger. The note explaining the conditions for enabling I assumed were pretty straight forward. I can only assume that gg ignored the condition, or misunderstood some how.

That was so entertaining. I am not sure what I enjoyed more, finding caches, or watching them. It reminded me so much of the amazement I had when I first started. I would say listing the event on geocaching.com hit the mark for this event by allowing us to cache with them.

That was quick. The instructions seemed pretty clear to me. I am surprised it took this long.

I am not sure I "outed" myself. I was filling in the blacks in case others wanted to know what you were referencing and tying into one of the issues group hunts can face. I am sorry you took it personally as that is not what the forums is about. You are free to put forward any idea or suggestion you want as long as you accept that others may not agree with you. Apparently you choose not to accept that and have taken it as a personal attack of some kind from I can tell from your latest post. I am sorry you chose to take this as some sort of personal thing. Back to the topic at hand. Hopefully the lackeys are taking note of of some of the suggestion and realistic concerns that may arise from officially sanctioned group hunts. The fact is that groups hunts go on all the time with out being listed on geocaching.com. I think the next question is what would the be the result of them being listed on the site going forward. So far they seem to be accepted well. Maybe the next step could be another trial in another area and see how they are accepted there. It is possible a few more trials could expose problems that were not experienced here in Ontario.

I have to say I feel sorry for anyone that would rule out caches based on their type or layout. I find power trails a great way to hang out with others. I hear the ET highway and Route 66 power trails near Vegas are pretty amazing, but if power trails and micro caches are not your thing I guess anyone against those kind of hide would not do them out of principal. As for the average group caching group size, I know the BFL group goes out almost every night with a much smaller group so factoring that in would deffiniately reduce the average number of cachers on group hunts. I would suggest that anyone who has not participated in the more public groups hunts should give it a try and see what it is like. A first hand experience may shed some light on how they operate in stead of only speculating.

Interesting. Do you have stats to backup your numbers? I have been attending group hunts for the past few years and I would put the average at about 30. If you want to know that 200 are bearing down on your cache, then I would hope you reciprocate and extend the courtesy to all the cache owners that own caches near and event you plan on hosting just to make sure there is no problem with spill over from your event.

Again, the same problem with existing events. I don't see any difference.

If a cache is close enough to the event yet not part of the event, I am pretty sure it will get hit just as hard as the caches that are part of the event.

More than that happens right now with events that have been listed on the site. Why should those events be any different and be allowed to promote cachers in the hundreds pound down and area over a group hunt which experience has showed be so far is far less. Well, maybe Organized Group Hunts should get landowner approval first too, in addition to the landowner's permission for the cache placement. What about event spill over? Bring 500 cachers together for and event and you will most likely have spill over from the event onto local caches. Should any event with more than x amount of people require local cache owners to be notified so that they can get additional permission to account for the extra visitors or should event organizers be required to get additional permission from land owners for caches located near a large event? Again, I see currently accepted large events causing more damage than group hunts. I have yet to see an group hunt with 200 to 500 people.

More than that happens right now with events that have been listed on the site. Why should those events be any different and be allowed to promote cachers in the hundreds pound down and area over a group hunt which experience has showed be so far is far less.

You caches should always be in good shape and ready to accept visits. When we group hunt we use a single group name for the group so we don;t fill up the log book and force the owner to go out after our visit and replace the log. That would be an idea to be notified that your cache has been selected for a group hunt. of course that lends to another problem. What if for personal reasons a cache owner doesn't want the group an individual in the group to find their caches? The argument of too may people visiting an area was covered in the power trail discussions and in the end, Groundspeak removed the ban and they are now not only allowed, but visited by many cachers who like power trails. I have been on a few group power trail hikes and they were a great time.

That is interesting. Have you ever heard that happen as a result of a mega event? Yes. I can't quote a specific example right now though. Could just be an urban legend. I do remember an Organized Cache Hunt that was accused of wrecking a cemetery north of the city a few years back. Wrongfully accused according to the organizer and I believe him though. I am not going to name names here to keep the discussion on track I do know that the first 24 geocaching event was accused of trampling a garden at the end to find a cache. I found that very interesting considering I was there and the cache was not in a garden. Subsequent annual events received were marred by other unfounded accusations that were later found to be false by other cachers not involved in the group hunt but did visit the caches after the group. To continue this, I have been involved in groups hunts where others that were invited and or had full knowledge of what was going on claimed to be excluded. Unfortunately there is an ugly side to people and whether groups hunts are listed on geocaching.com or not will not change this. I don't think continually bringing up the ugly side helps unless you are providing a solution to that problem. I do know that some group hunts I have been on required a small controlled group, like trying to get 150 caches in a day. Inviting 30 or more of my closest friends would have prevented that from happening as there would have been to many people to move along effectively. Keeping it down to 16 allowed us to achieve our goal and four of us finished off with 217 find in one day. I do know that there were others that felt excluded from some of the runs I have taken part in. Unfortunately you can't please everyone.

I wouldn't dwell on people that chose to block other people. That happens in many forms including private cliques that share over email. That kind of exclusionary behavior has been going on for a while and will continue to go on whether groups hunts are listed on geocaching.comm or not. That kind of behavior is best left outside geocaching. 1,200 people visiting a cache in on day is already happening with caches close to mega events. As for 1,200 people visiting your cache one morning, the simple answer would be to disable your cache if a group hunt targets your cache. The group hunts I have been on generaly publish a book mark list on the site to let everyone know what is on the list of caches being visited.

That sounds like a good reason to limit caches being placed for events that have over a maximum number of attendees and a real good reason to not allow events for the sole purpose of finding specific caches. if an event was held for say around 200 cachers and the plan is for them to visit 8 or nine caches during the event, I can see that creating a problem with geo-trails being created and possible damaging the surrounding area.

I think res2100 has made a good point. Geocaching.com is a listing service. Organized cache hunts go on being organized on other sites, through email, and by other means. Why should some organized cache hunts that have been listed as events on geocaching.com be allowed when other group hunts that are honest about what they are and choose not to hide behind a few words stating that the caches are optional not be allowed. If the point of geocaching is to find caches, then listing group hunts would encourage others to join in on finding caches that they may not ave thought about seeking.

I agree that a CITO is not the same as an event cache. The purpose is to clean up and give back to the community that allows us to geocache.

After attending some of the test events and hosting one I have a view observations. My understanding is that an event should be a social gathering of cachers. Pub type events serve this perfectly because there is not much else to do except socialize. I find events where caches have been placed for the attenders to find less so. For the most part cachers attending the event will show up and break up into very small groups or even individuals and spend most of the event hunting the caches placed for the event. In some cases, they return briefly for a prize draw and quickly disperse. These types of events to me fall under what an event is not supposed to be. For the most part they are organized cache hunts with the bonus of the extra smiley for showing up on the correct date. I have attended events where the event has been designed to break the attending cachers up resulting in reducing the social aspect of the event. An event such as this is almost an anti-event and the sole purpose seems to be just to have people visit the caches. Again, this I would say is an organized cache hunt and not a social gathering. I hosted one of the test events yesterday and selected a 10km section of trail lined with almost 60 caches. Everyone seemed to have a good time judging by the attended log so far and I thank the cache placers YoungKingKole and JfollowingK for a nice walk with easy to find caches along the way. This kind of setting provided for a lot of socializing along the way. I think for part we broke into two groups and slowly caught up to the other group. Of the two test events I attended one involved around 25km of hiking and the other was mostly driving. Hiking events to me provided a good social experience because cachers are moving around the group and get a chance to participate in the various conversations that are going on and can take part. Events that require a lot of driving tend to break the cachers up into car size groups. This doesn;t lend well to the "group" experience as cachers only interact with other cachers for brief moments and then hop back into the car to drive to the next cache. If this is going to progress to the next step, I would like to see organized cache hunt events be about moving and interacting as a group. Try and take the pub type event and move it outside. Find ways to keep the group together as a whole instead of breaking it up into smaller groups and individuals.

Well that was easy. The question is now who will be next. I am still not in the country so if you plan on visiting you have my permission to bring a replacement container and log in case the original (Mach 2) container is missing. Does this mean you have enabled the cache without verifying the condition of the cache?

It could be for a school project. That has happened before. Or it could be someone who doesn't want to be judged by the caches they place.

I suspect privacy issues limit what reviewers can respond with.

and why must thebruce be the proxy? CD visits the forums quite frequently and can answer directly some of his responses are vague as it is, we don't need someone else to try and understand why he meant and relay it here, only to run the risk of going the "no, that's not what i said" route Exactly. Contact him directly and ask a direct question. You may be surprised and get a direct answer. exactly not what i suggested If you don't the kind of answer you get in the forum, try another approach. Apparently the forum is not working for what you want.