Bunya

I agree. I would read this guideline as one container. (a=one) OK, but what about the "at least" in there? Someone could interpret that to allow more than one container!

A question for the rule/guideline experts – or just for general discussion. I know of caches where there are several “dummy” containers, but only one with a log sheet – I’m not concerned with that sort of hide. Preamble: a geocacher recently had trouble finding one of my caches which was a bison tube hung 1.7m up in a tree and supposed to be an easy find. He eventually found it on the ground and said that he replaced it in the tree. When I went to check, I couldn’t find it, so put a new bison tube in the same spot I hid the original one. I’ve no idea how it ended up on the ground, as when I placed it the ring on the bison tube was put over a long upwards pointing twig. Cache creep perhaps? So there are now (I assume) two containers at/near GZ. This got me wondering. Is there anything in the rules/guidelines which rules out doing this deliberately? That is, can you hide a cache which consists of more than one container, each containing a log sheet, where the finder can just sign the first one they find? If it is OK, has it been done and what is thought of the idea?

Google the following: "ad blocker [insert your browser name here]" Like Pup Patrol, I haven't seen an ad on this website for years, at least on my home computers. I only see them in my browser at work where I can't install an ad blocker. Thanks. I'll try that.

What I want to know is how to get rid of it! I find having ads flickering at the edge of my vision infuriating and distracting. I think being PM should entitle us to be free of this.

Those of us who live most of our day in the USA's "tomorrow" have been asking for this for years in many ways and places. I'm not holding my breath expecting anything to be done about it soon . . . or ever. There have been some minor improvements, most notably the partial recognition that the rest of the world doesn't use the mm/dd/yyyy date format. I say partial, because as far as I know, I can't stop my notification emails arriving with the confusing US date format as the log date! But at least I can get a proper date format on my cache pages.

This isn't quite what the OP was complaining about, but I can't resist putting in my 2 cents worth for those of us in time zones well ahead of the US. As I live in Australia, I'm all too familiar with how to change the date on logs, as for most of the day the automatic date comes up as my yesterday! With the increasing use of smartphone apps for geocaching, it has also become very common for local cachers to log finds "on the go" which have the previous day's date on them here. I think a lot of them don't know (or don't care) that the dates are one day behind the date they actually found the cache.

Probably not related, but I was puzzled by the use of "HU" in logs until I found out it meant "hint used".

Fire?

This may just be paraphrasing points made above, but in terms of Groundspeak’s guidelines I think reviewers are entitled (even required?) to ask for puzzle cache solutions if they are not sure that the following two conditions are satisfied: 1. The puzzle must be able to be solved using information on the cache page. 2. The solution must give a set of coords and so require use of a GPSr (that is, not just be a set of letterboxing-style clues).

The title of this thread is funny for two quite OT reasons for me. 1. A common (alternative) definition for “streak” used here in Oz is “to run in a public place minus one’s clothes” (perhaps alluded to in post #2?) 2. The temperature here at the moment (4pm Friday in South Oz) is 45.5C (about 114F in your measure). Added in edit: I see the OP is in Canada, so perhaps I didn't need to do the temperature conversion?

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. I'm a man. How was that? If you meant the first sentence to be the common pangram, it is “jumps”, not “jumped”. Of course you did show you could find the “s” by typing “was”!

I, and a number of other local cachers, only started using PMO because we had considerable trouble recently with cache vandals. We hoped making all our caches PMO might help stop this. Really, the audit log is really a joke. Its like wings on a bird that cant fly. It hold no proof if that person was messing with your caches. Don't assume anything of what you see on the audit logs. Its really worthless because people can still see your cache pages via API. I find some PMO caches disappear faster than caches that arent PMO. Its all about where the cache is located. Where did they say that they made their caches PMO because of the audit log? I took it to mean that they did it to keep basic members, or people that aren't members at all from seeing where their caches are located. That is the only reason that I make my caches PMO. You really need to get past this idea that everyone that makes a cache PMO does it because they want to spy on people. I don't even remember that I have an audit log until someone brings it up in the forum. It is that unimportant to me. I'm sure that once most people get over the novelty of it, they pretty much forget about it. It was neat the first time I looked at one. Kind of boring the next. You're right Don_J - we hoped our caches would be less "visible" if PMO. I only made my OP about the audit log because I was puzzled about what it showed.

I, and a number of other local cachers, only started using PMO because we had considerable trouble recently with cache vandals. We hoped making all our caches PMO might help stop this.

I see - thanks for that info. I had assumed a visit to the log page would also add to the audit log.

I have a question which may have been answered before, but I’m new to having PMO caches. What I’ve noticed is that sometimes a PM finder will place a “found” log on a cache and their caching name does not show up on the audit list. How can this happen?

Ignoring the inherent silliness of anything numerological, if you’re looking for a “significant” date/time, why not have the components in increasing order of specificity? Hence the form has to be YYMMDDHHMMSS. So (choose your own apocalypse) on 12/11/10 at 09:08:07.060504030201 or at 8 minutes and 7.060504030201 seconds past 9am on the 10th of November this year. To get back to the real world, the problem with this prediction then comes down to the question of “in which time zone?” It’s funny how all “end of the world” or similar predictions always assume that the time zone of the person making the prediction is the only one that matters. But then, what’s the point of trying to make sense of nonsense? I’m posting this at about 1pm on Friday 12th October 2012 where I live. How’s your date/time?

Interesting typo, I think . . . .

Same problem here in Oz. It's a real pain in the ...

I just had PQ number 6666752. So I assume PQ number 6666666 was created today. Perhaps that negated the Rapture . . .

I recently referred in a log to a cache as being PMO (Premium Member Only) and a geocacher emailed me saying that his daughter had read this and wanted to know what is was about the cache that P**sed Me Off!

Same here. You can toggle between Yes and No once you've added an attribute, but you can't change it back to N/R. Are they working on it?

I suspect the intended meaning of NVM was "never mind" or "nevermind", depending on how old you are.

Based on what has happened to me, I think the answer is "No". I am now getting logs for watched caches. However I know of a few logs on watched caches that I missed and haven't got emails for, but I'm left wondering about what I don't know about . . .

One of several variations is

As you say they are "unactivated", I assume they are trackable. (Thinks to self - I'm sure there is something called "activated charcoal" . . . ) Icon? Cost to ship overseas? As you've asked for comments through your profile, I've sent this comment that way too.