Moose Mob

I think it's about the intention rather than the specific number of caches. If the intention is to provide a means of racking up a large find count quickly then the likely means of implementation is going to be something like a succession of film pots as close to 528 feet apart as the area permits so they are easy to find, easy to sign, easy to return, and can be dealt with very quickly. It may be thee's a gap in the trail because there just wasn't anywhere to hide a film pot for 1500 feet but the intention is cache density. Something like 14 ammo boxes placed along a 7 mile trail would appear to be more about the walk than the find count. I'd be inclined to leave it up to the owner of the series whether it's a power trail or not. In many ways it's a subjective judgment call, just like the current issue of how difficult climbing has to be to qualify for the "difficult climbing" attribute, or when it becomes sufficiently difficult to qualify for the "climbing equipment" attribute. First, let me say that I agree with what you say. I feel what you said is extremely valid. However I think the main goal that folks want from this attribute is because they want to either 1) remove them from a PQ, or 2) include them in a PQ. If Cacher A says 7 ammo cans on a 10 mile trail is a power trail, and Cacher B feels 7 micro caches in a one mile bike trail is not a power trail, then we are not achieving the expressed goal. If ... over time.. 40 cachers put 200 geocaches on a single stretch of road, is that also the scenario that the OP wants to avoid? Or is it just the concept that they were placed in the same day/weekend? In order to filter out what is undesirable, one must be able to measurably describe and define what it is they don't want. If you tell your gardener 'don't plant ugly flowers', then they will plant what they think is not ugly. The best reason for a GSAK macro (or similar) is that it can be tailored to an individual's specific tastes. Also, I doubt we will get many folks going back to the 1.8 million existing caches and set that attribute accordiangly. Tangent warning: Attributes have the problem of 'lack of definition'. "Water nearby" is unclear... is it 'free drinking water'? Is a convienience store down the street 'nearby'? Maybe they are talking about water fountains in a park? Maybe the tap water sucks and so they don't include it? Without definition, it's usefullness is very limited.

Bring Your Own Pin. This might be OK well away from civilization... but an ammo can would be even better.

(already answered, but I will use different approach to say pretty much trhe same thing) You don't need a GC code while you place the cache. If you plan on putting the GC code on the cache container, there is no need to do that. The anwer to the specific question is "no, you can't do that", because the GC code is assigned during the cache page submission process. *more than you asked for section* Proceed if you want to perform uneccesary effort. If you do need one for some reason, you can submit a 'dummy' page in advance and uncheck the 'cache is in place and ready' option. Submit and you will have a GC code and the cache submission process is on hold. Once you actually place the cache, you need to edit the listing with accurate coordiantes, description, hints, etc. When you check the 'cache is in place and ready' check box and save, the reviewer will now see it and the next phase has begun.

If your GPS has turn by turn, then you are good to go. Just set it as your default method. While caching, I tend to have 'direct route' as my defualt and use the street maps to figure out where to drive/walk.

Folks are having difficulty with coming up with a metric that says "power trail" or "not power trail. If you use critr=ria of cache owner, then you will miss the poweer trails that were created over time. These cache series were placed on roads by many people over time. Fred places 4 caches, Tom adds 3 moire, Sally adds 4, etc, etc. Pretty soon you have a road with a cache every 600 feet. (See Well Road near Jean, NV). I also know of 'power trails' where there are Small and Medium containers sprinkled along every 20-30 caches (or less). What I would look at is 'excess cache density', where a cache's power trail membership is viewed by how many caches are nearby. Since the common theme of 'power trails' are by how many caches are nearby. Here's one for the GSAK gurus... I would suggest using something like "there are at least 15 caches within 1 mile of this cache". That would get the middle of the cache run. The next pass would searh for "at least 3 power trail caches with similar characteristics within 1/2 mile [cache name format/cache owner/placement date]" to get the edges. You may want to run through this a few passes. Using this logic would also get those pesky geo-art power trails from cluttering your GPS and well as "power blobs"

I would prefer the ability to create a shared bookmark list, that a person could populate with the power trail, geotrail, list of mountain peaks, etc. From there, you can ignore everything on the list or run a PQ against the other person's list. When the list changes, so does your PQ content.

What if an existing reviewer were to be residing in the area?

Easy... use Pocket Queries. Walk through. http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?pg=kb.page&id=118 Screencast. http://www.geocaching.com/videos/default.aspx?pq

I think a lot of people are interested in an academic discussion about the demography of geocaching. We're already up to 3 pages of discussion. Yes, some people are just curious. Knowledge is key to understanding. If a person only looks at simple answers then they will have simple minds. One must look deeper in order to understand differences. In Bahrain I have seen signs of one local cacher and several from abroad (a couple US, one Australian, one German). I have only been here a month so I am sure more will come out of the woodwork. In Afghanistan, there were no local cachers. I believe there are very few local cachers in Qatar and Kuwait. Temporarily off-topic: What are you doing over there?!? So curious here as well. Finishing off topic - I work for the government (I'm here to help... really!) Back on topic... I was half expecting folks in this thread to bring up things like Maslow's Triangle and how certain lifestyles cater to Geocaching. Once this is understood, then the view on race becomes more academic.

I think we should start a group. Let me know what I can do.

I think a lot of people are interested in an academic discussion about the demography of geocaching. We're already up to 3 pages of discussion. Yes, some people are just curious. Knowledge is key to understanding. If a person only looks at simple answers then they will have simple minds. One must look deeper in order to understand differences. In Bahrain I have seen signs of one local cacher and several from abroad (a couple US, one Australian, one German). I have only been here a month so I am sure more will come out of the woodwork. In Afghanistan, there were no local cachers. I believe there are very few local cachers in Qatar and Kuwait.

I'm missing something. I just successfully downloaded a 1 day remaining PQ that I downloaded this weekend and new PQ and a 3 day old PQ that I haven't downloaded before. What part was misleading?

That is the best answer.

I think I should get this so I can re-gift it to someone that has insulted you, complained about member-only caches, or otherwise generally feels they do not need a premium membership.

Maybe we should moderate the wise cracks?

This is scheduled to be fixed on Tuesday (tomorrow). More discussion in Bugs. (closing as this is duplicated)

Option 1: wait for the CO (some people need reminded after a few days) Option 2: drop it in a cache near where you saw it *use a note to drop the TB) Option 3: use a note and drop it this cache (linky) (toungue in cheek)

I couldn't find any reference in the logs about it being replaced, so I assume it is the container that went missing. What is the last entry (or two) in the physical log?

Post deleted (with offending SPAMBOT link)

It seems there are lots of solutions coming up. I hope one works for you while waiting for the suggestion to come about. I want to say it is an easy update to the site, but that is up to the folks at Groundspeak.

It would be easier to get the SAR community to switch to Lat/Long than it would to get 5,000,000 geocachers to switch (est) 7,000,000 devices and 1,790,000 geocaches (and who knows how many multi-cache waypoints) to UTM. Not saying it would be right, but it would be easier. In the interim, I suggest you put a suggestion in to have UTM as an input method. Raising a fuss here isn't going to get the job done and only serves to bring others to be as flustered towards you as you are about being inconvenienced.

closing in favor of other thread.

One should expect to find a Traditional cache at the posted coordinates. If not, they need corrected as part of cache maintenance. If unmaintained, post a Needs Archived log and let the reviewer address the issue.

When issues like this arise, the best course of action is to send a note to appeals@geocaching.com. You will find regional differences. The word $hit appears several times in European cache names, but not in the US or other English speaking countries. To us, it is considered vulgar. To others, it is considered OK but just not as nice as other words. Edit to add - I am moving this to the general forums.

This thread has gone too many ways to be retrievable and well outside the scope of this particular forum. If you want to point fingers at each other, please do it elsewhere.