Pine and Poplar

The most finds in one day for my wife and I was 105 on Saturday 11/4/2015. This is highly atypical for us as our second highest day was 29 and usually we are below 20 finds in one day. I wouldn't say it was our best day caching, but it was probably pretty close to the top. I judge that based on the fact my wife doesn't usually like finding a lot of caches and she didn't completely hate me afterwards. There is a challenge cache near where I live to find 100 caches in one day and I wanted to find it. There is a South Dakota State Park a couple of hours from where we live with about 75 cache, basically laid out as a hiking power trail. I figured this was our best chance at getting at least close to 100 in one day. The weather forecast for that Saturday was surprisingly nice, considering it was the beginning of November and we live pretty far north. When I asked my wife, she said we could give it a try. I wasn't a premium member at the time, so I hand entered between 120 and 150 caches into my old eTrex Legend. We left our house about 6am, before the sun had risen, and made the drive down, stopping to pick up about 20 caches on the way. We were then able to spend the rest of the day hiking the different loops at the park. We had to stop after about 66 caches, because it got dark. We picked up the rest of the caches we needed on the way back home. If it had been all driving and caching, I don't think either one of us would have really enjoyed it, but the fact that most of the day had been spent hiking made it a lot more memorable and enjoyable. If I remember correctly, I think we ended up hiking at least 12 miles.

I think the boat has long sailed on putting new virtuals in the national parks, even though I also think it would be a good idea. After spending a week last month hiking around many of the Utah national parks, I Would agree there are a lot of places that a physical cache would not be appropriate. Is it possible that we could convince the park staff to allow a bunch of locked ammo cans to be set up near to or inside the visitor center. This would require an exception to the 0.1 mi spacing rule, but if we're discussing allowing virtuals, a spacing exception is probably more realistic. Each ammo can would be clearly labeled as a specific cache, which would involve a hike to some virtual location within the park. At the hike location there would be an existing sign or something else, that would allow the cacher to determine the code for the caches lock. You could also put the ammo can at the trail head, near the parking lot, but that's moving closer to an area where it could be argued that geocachers will cause damage to the area.

I will add my name to the list of people who don't like the changes. It looks nice enough the way it is, but know a lot of functionality is now missing. Please try to get the other missing stuff back into the log page before you make this change permanent. I do have a suggestion for the needs maintenance flag. If someone selects "needs to be archived" or "other" as the reason, instead of posting a canned message that is worthless, the have the page load to another log entry page. "Thank you for notifying us that this cache needs maintenance. Please explain the problem below so the cache owner can fix the problem as quickly as possible." This would streamline the process and would be an easy improvement over the previous process.

We've adopted one cache since we started caching. It was an older cache that we didn't want to see go away and we hadn't previously found it. I don't see any problems with adopting a cache that you haven't previously found. You may not know exactly where it was hidden, but I assume the original owner would give the new owner a spoiler/hint if it was really necessary. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that you will find it, but neither does being the original owner. I have had a few of the caches I've hidden migrate enough to the point where I almost called off the search and replaced them.

Yep, there was a puzzle in my region that relied on an old date placed like that. Don't think it exists any more though, and can't remember which it was. I don't think Groundspeak likes caches listed with placed dates that are obviously false. There was a tribute cache that was published in MN last spring with a placed date in 1980 (or the date was changed to that after publication). After the reviewer was notified, the reviewer changed the hidden date to match the published date. I'm guessing they wouldn't let a cache get through publication with an obviously false placed date, even if they did at point in the past.

I don't have access to GSAK right now to look at my DNF statistics, but I'm guessing it will probably be split about 50/50. I'm also really bad at logging DNFs though too, so that would probably skew the results. Looking at twelve of the caches I own, there are twelve DNFs and none of them were due to a missing container.

I do that with challenge caches that I sign but do not meet the requirements to log a find. I don't want to back date the find to the sign date, because then my numbering and milestones will be off. I usually log the find what ever date I verify that I meet the requirements. I always log EarthCaches, virtual caches, and webcam caches the same date I visited the location. That's mostly for the same reason as well, I don't want my numbering or milestones to be off.

Is the Ohio River Trail Council the land manager for where the caches are hidden or is it someone else? If they are the land manager they should be able to give out information about recreational activities available on the land they manage.

They restrict however the way socializing can take place during the official event. I do not like 30 minutes events and I do not like events taking place in restaurants. Those events are those that are unaffected and remain and are still held. For cachers like me they essentially took away the chance to meet geocachers and socialize at an gc.com event in a manner that I enjoy. It makes no sense for me to attend an event and return home unhappier. I feel more comfortable to talk while moving around and being outdoors and not indoors and I rather combine a physical activity with the event aspect than spending my spare time with sitting around like at work. I'm not expecting a private hide and seek game and I'm not in favour of searching for geocaches during an event. As has been suggested before, just have the event as a break at some point during the physical activity. IF you are doing a day hike, have the official event occur for 30 minutes where ever you plan to take a lunch break and then provide the additional information on how to join a group hiking out to the event. If it's in any sort of remote or difficult accessibility area, chances are most people who attend the event will also be hiking along with you. I should also add that I don't agree with forcing events to only be listed as a difficulty 1. Most events should be listed as difficulty 1, but lumping the fringe cases in with everything else does a disservice to everyone. I've attended a T5,D1 event on an island. Almost anyone could have attended that event as the hosts provided boats and ferried everyone to and from the island. That's a lot easier than a mountain top event which could require a full day hike or more. You should be allowed to include mental and preparation difficulty in with the event difficulty.

I hadn't noticed any nearby notifications missing, but that's probably because there are not very many caches published near where I live. I checked for new caches around where my parents live and I found at least one cache that I know I missed the notification for. I received a notification for GC6QV8X, but I didn't receive a notification for GC6QX1R. Both of them were published on Sunday, probably around the same time.

I received another log notification on a locked virtual (GC3009) from 11/3/2002 about half an hour ago. Apparently this bug is still active in the system.

Based on this post, the 6XX series Oregons never supported Wherigo. I wouldn't use the compatibility with Wherigo as a selling point for any Garmin, as the Garmin player is dead and is no longer being updated. If you are looking for something to play Wherigo cartridges on, I would look at purchasing an older Android smart phone, if you don't already own a smart phone. Just verify it has GPS and the OS version is still compatible with Whereyougo. I bought a Sony Xperia SP for $50 and that's been one of my best purchases, second only to my eTrex GPS.

I received another log notification dated 11/1/2002. This one was on a virtual that is archived but not locked. The log itself appears to have been deleted by the owner, but the owner hasn't logged in since 2005. "Wow - what a view! This was an incredible climb up for us, only to find it locked and no ranger in site. We took a picture of the lock (utbob2 will send) so we hope that counts. Still, a heck of a climb and an incredible view."

There are a lot of challenges that would be appealing to me, but depending on the difficulty or time/expense involved, I wouldn't go to the trouble of trying to prequalify. I don't really feel like going to the trouble if it's possible the challenge will be arbitrarily deemed unpublishable. I'm sure a lot of other people would feel the same way. I think if I ever try to publish any sort of challenge cache, I'm probably just going to go with a traditional cache type unchallenge like what someone said they did during the moratorium. Then I can just ignore most of the restrictive guidelines and people can decide for themselves if the bookkeeping/extra work is worth it. I do like the challenge checker requirement though, since that can be helpful for a lot of people and would probably include that.

I can confirm this is happening as well. I received a notification for this log on a locked virtual cache at 7:53am this morning. Edit: Double checked and I also received a notification for this log as well, on 7/29/16 at 2:14 PM.

I just realized this was a problem now, so I went and checked and sure enough at least one cache slipped through cracks and I was not notified about it being published. I never received a notification for GC6PDVM. I have Tips and Tricks checked, along with all of the other email options. Some notifications are getting through, as I did receive one for GC6PFB1.

I'm pretty sure Groundspeak is happy with the results of the new app. On a recent cache I was viewing, the last 7 or 8 logs were people with less than 25 finds and all of them were premium members. Most (or all) of them upgrading is probably attributable to the app. The in app purchases have become so engrained into people that I'm sure a lot of users don't think twice about clicking the buy button.

I don't really like that idea because there are some abandoned hides that survive for years without problems. I suppose the opposite is also true where 1 year or 2 years is way too long and some caches should be archived long before that. I'd rather have a system for current active hiders where you are limited in what you can do if a reviewer archives any of your caches. If it is too much trouble to open a listing and archive it yourself, you probably have too many active hides or too much other stuff going on and should not be placing new caches.

OK. I read your example as suggesting that quality containers did not imply good maintenance, but I find they correlate pretty well. Would you consider an ammo can a quality container? I have found many of them abandoned and/or empty and a mess. Certainly, I have found many more flimsy/cheap containers in a state of decay. But still truly surprising at the number of good containers (solid, watertight, well hidden) that are in poor shape on the inside. I still think correlation follows the individual CO and/or their willingness to act responsibly, and not whether they paid more for a container. I would agree with that. Most of my hides are cheap (free) peanut butter jars and I have yet to have any trouble with any of them. I just replaced a cache I adopted with a $12 dollar Locknlock container and the second finder said it was full of water and everything was soaked. Cheap containers can work fine, the biggest thing is just taking the time to maintain the cache.

As the guidelines say: "The region in which a cacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person. A cacher who has previously logged caches within a wide range of their home may be considered able to maintain a geocache 200 miles (322 km) away. However, someone whose geocaching activities have primarily been within 25 miles (40 km) of home may not be able to maintain a geocache this far from home. This factor is determined at the discretion of the cache reviewer or Groundspeak." The same goes for the number of geocaches which a cacher is considered able to maintain responsibly. For some, even 1 cache is too many. Others can maintain dozens, or even hundreds, especially if they've figured out how to hide caches in a way that reduces the maintenance demands. And as a practical matter, if there is a hard limit on the number of caches a given account can own, then people will just create more than one account. I don't want to see any cap implemented, as that may prevent someone from hiding a quality cache, if they have already hidden a lot of caches. I'm not a huge fan of the people who "carpet bomb" an area, but if that is what they want to do, I'm not going to stop them. I'd rather see some sort of system where owners who are not maintaining their caches are scrutinized a lot more closely before any new caches are published. If 50% or more of your archived caches were archived by a reviewer, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to publish new caches unless you provide a detailed maintenance plan.

I am having the same problem with Chrome on Windows 7. After pressing the zoom button a few times the maps will freeze and become unresponsive to any further interaction.

It was mentioned on the first page of this topic that URWIGO doesn't support play anywhere cartidges. That was over 6 years ago, but I don't think it has been changed to support them since then.

The slow dropoff was something I also noticed with the number of active caches around the world. Back in 2011, I did a presentation for school and using the numbers from the way back machine, the total number of active geocaches seemed to be following an exponential growth curve. When I rediscovered the spread sheet recently and plugged in a few newer numbers, the growth had slowed down a bit and was definitely not exponential anymore. It may be due to declining interest or it may just be a function of increased cache saturation.

I think I was having the same problem with a cartridge I am working on. Try moving the the two set commands and the function call into the on click part of the message command.

Is there a known incompatibility with the URWIGO emulator and Windows 10? I tried testing a cartridge and it was unable to run the cartridge I am currently building. I ended up testing it on my Windows 7 computer, which ran everything fine.