team tisri

The base maps are all but useless, they show roughly where major roads go and roughly what the outline of countries look like, and that's about it. If you get the sc model you'll get the useless basemap. If you go for the topo version you'll get a reasonable map. From what I recall you get either a European map or a North America map (depending on where you buy the unit). In the US I believe what you get is the 1:100,000 topo map which works reasonably well but sometimes has a few niggles (like showing roads running about 50 yards from where they actually run). You can get free maps of a lot of areas using either talkytoaster's site or garmin.openstreetmaps.nl and then if you need more detail you can buy paid maps. I've been looking at the 1:24000 topo maps of the US, on the basis they provide a lot more detail than the free maps I'm currently using (specifically contours) and I think I'll get enough value out of them to justify the price tag.

This is the primary thing that's slowly caused me to lose interest in geocaching. I remember when I first started geocaching I'd plan hikes to take in a few caches. Over the course of hiking 8-10 miles I might be able to go past 4 caches, maybe 5 or 6 if they were close together. But each one was placed at a specific point of interest. I remember hunting for one in a patch of woodland for well over an hour before finding it, and had I left without finding it I would have still enjoyed visiting the woodland. Now caches are often placed just because there isn't a cache nearby and for no other reason. A breathtaking vista or unusual area is a reason I might be interested in visiting an area. A random street junction near where your girlfriend once lived isn't, unless there's some other reason I might find it interesting. If a trail leads to a vista then put a cache at the end of it rather than a cache every 528 feet along the entirety of the trail. I think this sums it up really well. Caching took me to all sorts of places I never knew about, some very close to home. Now increasingly they just take me to random posts and signs - there's so much chaff it's almost impossible to filter out the ones I might find interesting. I too found virtuals and locationless interesting. Locationless caches were surprisingly challenging at times, not least because of trying to find an example of the target that hadn't already been logged. I remember being genuinely thrilled to realise that the bridge right outside my office qualified for one of them, and hadn't been logged despite being in one of the busiest cities in the world. In some ways I think the issue is the whole "too much of a good thing" situation. I remember being fascinated by the first micro I ever found. It was a film pot, according to the clue it was "attached to something big and red". Being in central London I expected it to be a telephone box but it turned out to be rather bigger - it was attached to Blackfriars Bridge. Finding something so small was intriguing, the way the owner had attached a magnet to it and put a small piece of pencil in it so I could sign the log. Now where I live it's rare to find anything bigger than a film pot and you have to take your own pencil.

Especially if it also noted how to log an Owner Maintenance log once you have checked on the cache so we can stop seeing those lingering NM attributes after an owner has actually performed maintenance! If there's a list of your caches that need maintenance on your profile there's no reason why each cache shouldn't have a link to write a log when the maintenance has been done, to make sure the log is an Owner Maintenance type rather than a Note type. Maybe it could have three links - one to acknowledge the maintenance issue and indicate when it might be addressed, another to disable the cache if the owner can't get to it for a while, and a third to log Owner Maintenance to show they've dealt with it. Also, takes the onus off of the Reviewers. Many try to help the game by "sweeping" their jurisdiction 1-2 times a year. This way the cache ownership and maintenance responsibility from the guidelines (that pesky box every cache placer checks...) falls back right to the owner where it belongs. I wouldn't mind a nag to get after a NM log. Wouldn't bother me one bit. But, as more and more people cache solely from the Apps, I would hope the website interface finds itself more in line with what you see in the app It would make the reviewer's job somewhat easier in that any cache that had the NM flag for more than some designated period (say six months) could just be archived without having to ask what, if anything, the owner planned to do with the cache. If they haven't seen the reminder for six months they're inactive, end of. There must be some way the site could run a periodic process to find caches disabled for, say, six months or more and produce a report that reviewers could use. It could also find caches with longstanding NM logs that haven't been addressed. Problem with this is that many COs will not use the "Owner Maintenance" log, instead writing a Note or Enabling it after it has been disabled. There are countless active caches out there that have old NM logs still attached to them that the COs never cleared out properly. I suppose if the nag in the OP were implemented, it would also show a link explaining to the CO how to clear out the NM 'red wrench' and get it off the nag screen...but this is all assuming the CO is still active and uses the website and views their profile page. That's a big assumption... If the CO is inactive the cache needs to be archived. If the website and all the various flavours of app have very visible notifications when your owned caches need maintenance then it's perfectly reasonable to archive anything that has had an NM flag on it without a response from the owner in a couple of months. The point is to make it very visible when your caches need maintenance and very clear how to perform and log maintenance to get them off the list. If very visible notifications are implemented and people still fail to maintain their caches, the reviewer can archive them. The larger concern is the cachers who do things like log Owner Maintenance with text that says "Got some more of these on order, will replace it next week".

Of course if you're making them yourself you can also do slightly more devious stuff, like putting a left-hand thread on it or, if you're willing to spend the time, having a succession of containers inside each other. Kind of like a bolt version of Russian dolls. If it's an intermediate stage to a multicache all there needs to be in the middle is a single number. For bonus nastiness points engrave a digit on the end of each piece and make the finder add them up, so if they miss one they get the answer wrong.

I'd be willing to pay more to lose the ads. Why would you pay more when you can get Adblock for FREE and remove all annoying ads on other sites as well as Groundspeak? Of all the things that might be worth paying Groundspeak more for, this is the very last that would be worth extra. B. We aren't supposed to run adblocker on the work computers.... I'm still not sure why not. How do they feel about using work computers to access geocaching.com? If they worried about it they could deny access through the corporate firewall.

Especially if it also noted how to log an Owner Maintenance log once you have checked on the cache so we can stop seeing those lingering NM attributes after an owner has actually performed maintenance! If there's a list of your caches that need maintenance on your profile there's no reason why each cache shouldn't have a link to write a log when the maintenance has been done, to make sure the log is an Owner Maintenance type rather than a Note type. Maybe it could have three links - one to acknowledge the maintenance issue and indicate when it might be addressed, another to disable the cache if the owner can't get to it for a while, and a third to log Owner Maintenance to show they've dealt with it. Also, takes the onus off of the Reviewers. Many try to help the game by "sweeping" their jurisdiction 1-2 times a year. This way the cache ownership and maintenance responsibility from the guidelines (that pesky box every cache placer checks...) falls back right to the owner where it belongs. I wouldn't mind a nag to get after a NM log. Wouldn't bother me one bit. But, as more and more people cache solely from the Apps, I would hope the website interface finds itself more in line with what you see in the app It would make the reviewer's job somewhat easier in that any cache that had the NM flag for more than some designated period (say six months) could just be archived without having to ask what, if anything, the owner planned to do with the cache. If they haven't seen the reminder for six months they're inactive, end of. There must be some way the site could run a periodic process to find caches disabled for, say, six months or more and produce a report that reviewers could use. It could also find caches with longstanding NM logs that haven't been addressed.

Especially if it also noted how to log an Owner Maintenance log once you have checked on the cache so we can stop seeing those lingering NM attributes after an owner has actually performed maintenance! If there's a list of your caches that need maintenance on your profile there's no reason why each cache shouldn't have a link to write a log when the maintenance has been done, to make sure the log is an Owner Maintenance type rather than a Note type. Maybe it could have three links - one to acknowledge the maintenance issue and indicate when it might be addressed, another to disable the cache if the owner can't get to it for a while, and a third to log Owner Maintenance to show they've dealt with it.

Because you can't always run right out and deal with a maintenance issue. Sometimes an NM requires prompt treatment and sometimes it requires something on a "next time you're passing" basis. I've seen NM used to describe everything from "cache destroyed" to "log book will need replacing before long". With the best will in the world it's easy to overlook one email among dozens. I've had a few emails from friends asking if I got their previous email - I did, it just got forgotten because I was too busy to reply right there and then and before long it shunted down my inbox. I must admit most ideas that appear in this forum are flawed in some way but this one really seems to have no downsides at all.

... and if you find film pots you can leave them in the trash bag. Everyone's a winner!

Yep, but if you do ignore the signs and the cache didn't have permission I don't suppose an angry landowner is going to be too interested in hearing your excuse that you're looking for a sandwich box that someone else left and assured you it was OK to go and find.

Absolutely correct. It's really pretty simple... Every cacher who submits a cache checks two boxes...one that reads "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache." Guideline I.2 of the referenced guidelines reads "You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property. By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." As a result, to not have adequate permission and expose cache seekers to having to explain what they are where they are is disingenious at best and flat out dishonest at worst. Bottom line: If a cacher does not know who owns/manages the land s/he wishes to place a cache on, the cacher can't possibly know what denotes "adequate permission" and should not drop a cache there. "Know before you go." ... which is all well and good but the person seeking a cache still needs to use a bit of common sense to determine whether they are satisfied that hunting the cache isn't going to get them mugged/shot/arrested. We can say the person hiding it should have got permission but that's not much of a defence if Bubba is really hacked off that yet another person is rummaging around in his field and decides to start shooting.

Sort of diminishes some of the the elite-ness of being a Premium Member. You obviously didn't figure out what it takes to move from the upper echelon to the top echelon

I did similar things. It's pretty sad when we can get things taken away that people find useful, half-cocked ventures like Wherigo, seemingly endless souvenir gimmicks, but a simple question "show me the caches nearest to me" isn't a nice link on the main screen.

I wouldn't have a problem with logging NM even if only to ask the owner to check on it. If I was thinking of going to look for it, it would be nice to know if it was actually there or not. If the owner was inactive or didn't respond to the NM log for several weeks I'd probably log NA. The reviewer can decide whether it needs to go or not. If the cache is still there but the owner is inactive it might as well get archived before it falls into disrepair. If the owner cared about it they could always adopt it out.

I don't own caches, simply because I never found a location that was sufficiently interesting to want to place one while also being close enough to home to maintain and far enough from other caches to be allowed.

It's more then planting. A seeker who doesn't hesitate attracting attention of the crowd by climbing fences and examining benches while people are sitting on them doesn't risk much. It's the CO who will need to maintain the cache. In other words if I'm a CO and I'm carefully hiding something in front of a CCTV camera I... well, I will most probably avoid this because if even I'm not questioned by the guard my cache could be removed soon and I will have to go and find another place. If I'm a seeker... why not search in front of a CCTV camera? As the cache placer your risk is that your container will be removed and destroyed. Depending on what the container is that may or may not be much of a loss. If it's a decent ammo can freshly stocked with trade items it could be a loss; if it's a film pot with a torn strip of paper in it then your loss is trivial. The seeker potentially also has much to lose, if they "follow the arrow" onto private property and end up faced with an angry (and maybe armed) property owner, maybe have to deal with law enforcement or the bomb squad etc. If you get detained by the police as a suspected terrorist the cash value of a sandwich box is pretty trivial by comparison.

Not really, if the idea is to say "find a waterfall nobody else has logged and post a picture of it", that's a very different proposition from "find a waterfall nobody else has listed, then encourage everybody and their dog to visit it and log it". Which in turn is very different from "list every single branch of McStarCoffeeKing and wonder whether anybody will visit".

One log per location is too restrictive for reasons already detailed above, but I like the idea of putting a time restriction so that once an example is found and logged it can't be used again. If the task is to find a waterfall it's more interesting if people have to find a different waterfall, rather than just having every tourist in Ontario post yet another picture of the Niagara Falls.

"Once a site is logged, it cannot be used again" restrictions were imposed by LC owners if they choose to. Some had it, some didn't. For example, I know you could run out and log as many waterfalls as your heart desired. Kinda cheesy I know, but you could. Should Groundspeak accept the OP's proposal, they'd probably have to rule out any with those restrictions. By the way, the moratorium on new LC's was enacted way back in February, 2003 (before I started even!!) and only 382 had been created. As documented on this bookmark list. Keep in mind though, it was created by an early fan of Waymarking, so it attempts to steer you in that direction. Not unlike some of the old-timers in this thread. Except that MPH is not an old-timer. I'd go for an option whereby once a site was logged it could only be used for a further 48 hours or some such. It would mean that going out with a group didn't result in wondering who got to claim it, and if you were on your way there but someone else got there first it wouldn't be a question of who happened to log it first. I logged a couple of locationless caches in quiet parts of rural PA and found a couple of other sites nobody had used before in central London. If the quest is to "find a waterfall" it's a bit dull if everybody digs out an old holiday snap of the Niagara Falls but interesting to see some of the other waterfalls people use once the obvious ones are taken.

It's an interesting idea, but don't forget Groundspeak's initial example of their challenges was "kiss a frog" so I wouldn't hold out much hope of anything too creative coming from them. Based on what Groundspeak introduced as examples of challenges I rapidly concluded they were a total waste of time. It was only after they had been abandoned that I saw a few people with ideas that were actually quite clever and could have been fun to do.

You *might* be able to find out who's watching your cache simply by posting a Note log an asking. It doesn't guarantee that whoever is watching the cache will respond but you can try. I did that on one of my caches and one person responded that he was watching it because he wasn't a premium member, thus couldn't use bookmarks, and put watches on caches as an alternative to a bookmark list. I doubt that the person watching the cache is doing so in order to steal trackables. It could be just someone that enjoys moving trackables and a cache which actually as *room* for trackable items would be one that someone that enjoys that aspect of the game might want to watch. An old caching buddy of mine used to put any cache he DNF-ed on a watch list, so he could go out and look again if someone else found it.

Agreed! I guess I may be in the minority, but I don't see the advantage of one size over another in the example given. Isn't it all about the journey to the cache? Are you really getting a "better" experience when you find an ammo can tethered to a tree instead of a bison tube tucked into a knothole in the same tree? Is all of one's enjoyment of the hunt wrapped up in the size of the container? In my mind, the greater challenge involved in finding a smaller container can actually add to the experience...and the greater the challenge, the more satisfaction I get from finding it. I really am over the "swag" game. Nine times out of ten the stuff inside is complete junk or at one time might have been decent but after a damp Georgia summer it ends up moldy, smelly and just an obstacle to dig through in order to sign the log. ... which comes back to a cache that's suitable for the conditions, and maintenance that's suitable for the cache and the conditions. If people don't put out weatherproof containers and then don't maintain the caches they have put out there's not much point putting them out at all. The reason I never put any caches out of my own was because I wanted to put something in an interesting area, that was at least Small sized, and was close enough to home that regular maintenance wasn't going to be a big enough hassle I'd stop doing it. Sadly that didn't leave me with anywhere I liked the look of, but I'd still rather not hide a cache than hide something that was going to fall into disrepair.

What's even more fun is when people post a picture from near the final coordinates of a multi or puzzle. Most cellphones these days seem to take geotagged pictures, so all you need to do is feed the picture into one of many online tools to get the coordinates. From there you know the cache won't be far away.

I think the "stealth" attribute is useful when it's used sensibly. If an area is of particular interest it may be that a little discretion goes a long way in preserving the cache, but it does seem some people say "stealth required" when what they should be saying is "this is a stupid cache". I still remember the time I walked through an extensive area of a particular business that was off limits. I'd missed the "staff only" sign as I entered, and walked through unchallenged by anyone. It was only when I realised I'd come out of a door that said "private" on the other side (i.e. I'd just left the private area) that I realised what I'd done. At the time I was in a park, in full business dress, and walking purposefully (given I didn't know I was in a private area) so presumably anyone who saw me figured I was supposed to be there and didn't challenge me.

I would also like to know how you (and some other colleagues who seem to share your approach) distinguish between "ridiculous" and "non-ridiculous" caches? This is important to me. If my cache was muggled not because someone did his best to attract attention of a group of kids playing nearby but because the cache itself was ridiculous I wish I know the criteria. One cache I found that I'd call ridiculous had the "stealth required" attribute set. I'm about 6'4 and I had to reach high over my head to get at the cache. It was behind a sign, on a busy footpath next to a busy main road. Opposite the cache site was a bus stop where a bus stopped every 2-3 minutes, and next to the bus stop was a train station. The location was near a fairly busy junction, so finding a time when nobody was passing by during the day was all but impossible, and it's not an area I'd want to be hanging around in the dark. I'm taller than probably 90% of other people and I struggled to reach it, and struggled even more to put it back. How anyone of average height was supposed to get at this cache remainsa mystery. It didn't last long before it got muggled, which really wasn't surprising.