nfa

Did you notice the checkboxes at the left of the page and the check all button at the bottom? It's about 10x faster that way. whoops...sorry

secret sauce...

add the ability to download a loc file of all waymarks in a given category with a search area...rather than 1 at a time jamie - nfa

We need to work within the guidelines to create the category so that it will pass peer review... Jamie - NFA

I log a DNF when I have looked for, and failed to find, a geocache. I don't log a DNF if I turn back before reaching ground-zero, or if I call off the hunt within 10 seconds of reaching GZ...that's how I play.

I'm interested... Jamie - NFA

I think of them as small, but on the small side of small...maybe a large micro...my confusion is likely why I have never hidden one... Jamie - NFA

Wait...toothpaste expires... J

My personal geocoin is both a geocoin and actual currency. The Northern Forest Archipelago (NFA) is a micronation within the Northeastern US, as featured in Lonely Planet's new travel guide {{{yes, really}}} The picture on the front is of myself and my son Ben, King and Crown Prince of the NFA. The back of the coin has typical scene as background for a great Ed Abbey Quote, 3 major components of the NFA, and coordinates for a private geocache located in the NFA's Capital City, Backwoods... Jamie - NFA

I've found that you seem to get upset when others suggest leaving things the way that they are, but I don't find it ironic... I was ceded the responsibility and the right to delete a find that seems bogus and/or doesn't meet the stated requirements of my cache by gc.com (...as per the guidelines of the site, and as approved by the reviewers {with full disclosure about the ALR in the cache listing BTW}...my cache is even named, "Stupid Rule Cache"...this isn't about fooling people...it's about having fun with a cache). It's clear that we disagree aboout ALRs and about the reasoning/guidelines/motivation/fun behind them...I feel unlikely to convince you, and am similarly certain that you cannot convince me to switch viewpoints...I can agree to disagree, and go on my way...can you? Jamie - NFA

But we keep seeing the posts from people who insist it is more fun just to load the coordinates into their GPS and go caching blind - without the description on the cache page. So to these people gc.com is just a list of coordinates leading to boxes in the woods (or 35 mm film cans in lampposts). These are the same people who will log a find on an ALR cache and be upset when their log is deleted. That's a choice on their part that will inevitably lead to some DNF logs, and in the case of ALR caches, some deleted logs...but it is their choice to go into their cacing adventures with incomplete information... Jamie - NFA

I have been looking all over for Crown Royal Special Reserve. I haven't been able to find it since I left OK, every time I ask anyone in the MA liquor stores if they have it they look at me like they've never heard of it. Internet Wine and Liquor Link to CRSR

Puzzles are part of a cache yet if they are somehow able to sign the logbook while skipping a step then they've not completed the cache as designed. Do you delete their logs? Your logic would mean that everyone would have to complete every cache as designed and if they skipped a step then the find is not valid. They'd have to go back and do that step in order to log it. What about those who have not solved a puzzle yet accompany someone who does? Would they then not be completing the cache as designed? Do you delete their logs? My logic would only mean that if my other cache listings said that you had to do solve the puzzle in order to log the cache or risk of having your log deleted...only my stupid rule cache has an ALR...c'mon CR, you can do better than that... Jamie - NFA

This is my point. An ALR is made up of two parts; the challenge and the threat of log deletion. Remove the threat of log deletion then it not an ALR, it's just a challenge, suggestion, or whatever you want to call it, just not a requirement. I apologize for being clear that I meant only removing the threat and not removing the challenge. ...and I agree with you whole heartedly. Not deleting a log changes nothing of the cacher's experience. if the threat of log deletion is taken away, the cache has clearly been changed, as some people (like you I assume) will not complete the cache as designed by the cache-owner...the ALR is a part of the cache...people are always free to skip caches that have parts that they don't think will be fun for them, I do it all the time... here are some portions of my earlier message that you skipped right over... please convince me that my approved cache is against the rules because you don't like ALRs... please convince me that you know what TPTB be meant when they wrote the guidelines for listing and maintaining caches, and that my interpretation is wrong...because you interpret them differently... please convince me that geocaching needs more rules to protect it from my stupid rule cache...that you speak for the masses...and that geocachers, are leaning out of their windows all over the world and yelling, "I'm Mad as Hell about ALR caches, and I'm Not Going to Take it Anymore!"... my stupid rule cache has been visited dozens of times, and I've never had to delete a log, and all the logs indicate that everyone has had a fun time doing it...it's possible that some people didn't want to follow the stupid rule...they must have skipped the cache and found one of my other ones...is this really as big a problem as you are making it out to be? Jamie - NFA

As I stated in my earlier response, yes. Changing the cache would...change the cache... it is my opinion that the container and the listing make up the cache, so changing the listing would change the cache... if this were not so, if the listing were not an integral and important part of the cache, gc.com could be a list of coordinates leading to boxes in the woods... the variety of cache listings I have seen, and enjoyed, as a part of my caching experiences make me glad that this is not the case... Jamie - NFA

So, you are saying the cache I presented above is in fact two caches? Is that what you are saying? The "what-if" you presented has essentially nothing to do with this discussion (except that you mention the term ALR), while my answer to you did...why do you insist on clouding the discussion with tangents? {{{I have some thoughts on that...}}} Read my answer and respond to it, not to your own OT meanderings...or don't...I don't really expect you to... Jamie - NFA

I've signed cache logs with mud and blood before, but prefer to use a pen that I generally remember to bring along...I stock my caches with tiny pencils that have 15 "points" built into them that can be pushed to the next sharp point when the one in use is dull...I like pencils because winters in my area can get down to 30 degrees below zero, and most pens don't work at that temp... Jamie - NFA Edit to add...I usually bring fresh log materials along with me, in case the current log is full or soaked...

The cache listing is, of course, a part of the cache...as is the cache container... Without the listing, my brilliant and tortuous puzzle caches are merely ammo-cans in the woods that nobody would ever find...without the cache containers, my listings are just an assemblage of words that don't lead to anything {{{something like this thread, some would say}}}... I'm in the pool for 15 pages, so keep going guys... convince me that my approved cache is against the rules because you don't like ALRs... convince me that you know what TPTB be meant when they wrote the guidelines for listing and maintaining caches, and that my interpretation is wrong...because you interpret them differently... convince me that geocaching needs more rules to protect it from my stupid rule cache...that you speak for the masses...and that geocachers, are leaning out of their windows all over the world and yelling, "I'm Mad as Hell, and I'm Not Going to Take it Anymore!"... my stupid rule cache has been visited dozens of times, and I've never had to delete a log, and everyone has had a fun time doing it...it's possible that some people didn't want to follow the stupid rule...they must have skipped the cache and found one of my other ones...is this really as big a problem as you are making it out to be? Jamie - NFA {{{remember...15 pages, and I'm on easy street }}}

I not trying to get ALR cache owners to change their caches, only remove the threat and follow through of log deletion for non-compliance of an additional requirement beyond signing the log. Suggestions are fine. Challenges are fine. Deleting logs where the finder signed the logbook because of something silly is wrong. so...fluff and obfuscation aside...you're trying to get cache owners to changes their caches... Jamie - NFA

I think that this could also work for other non-participatory cache-issues like those people who solve my puzzles, but can't be bothered to make the drive up to northern NY...it could facilitate warm and fuzzy feelings for legions of found-it-didn't-find-it cachers... this could also be the answer for people who log finds based on owner permission after they search unsuccessfully for awhile... {{{gently sarcastic smiley}}} Jamie - NFA

A half smiley, philosophically, must ipso-facto half not be. My point!

I think that's a great idea...people who follow the rules and fulfill the ALR can log the cache as found, and people who don't can log it as a special kind of note designed specifically for people who didn't follow the stated ALR...a "diet find" log...it could be a thin, half-smiling smiley... J

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that made me think of this thread, and CR in particular...it said: "Eschew Obfuscation!" I too am entirely happy with our agreeing to disagree on the topic of ALR caches... Jamie - NFA

GPS live trade items (crickets, mice, orphans) spare tutu pitchfork 6-foot sub curling irons garbage bag full of dryer lint

I think the slippery slope can also lead to a 3rd option...where I choose not to leave my house, but thought about the cache for awhile, so I can choose to get a couch-potato-smiley-icon... Seriously though, my cache is within the gc.com guidelines, as is my right/responsibility to delete the log of somebody who does not meet the requirements...the cache was reviewed and approved by a gc.com volunteer...why are we entertaining a discussion about graduated cache completion levels? If TPTB or the community decides that the ALR means that my cache should be listed as a puzzle/mystery cache instead (or should carry an attribute warning off those who don't like ALR caches), I'll go along with that...but I will still reserve the right to delete logs that do not meet the plainly stated requirements... Jamie - NFA