Deepdiggingmole

Hi - I have noticed recently that when you attach a photo / image in the message facility, you end up with a very small image which can not be opened when you click on it - it doesnt enlarge once uploaded and it doesn't revert to full size when you save it. Is there a reason for this or is this a glitch thanks# Tim

This is just a notification that the above named cachers have been logging many, many caches in the UK during the middle of October - a webcam cache of mine was claimed as found and it is without doubt a spurious find and has been deleted see attached - the log image is on the left - the giveaway is that the building behind is no longer there and hasnt been since May, as can be seen with the image on the right (which is a genuine log), note the dates. We also found an image with the two people used as well as the one they used to add the two people to some research has also shown that many virtual caches that they claim to have found during this period have also been logged with photoshopped images - all of these images are from earlier logs with a couple of added items like a rucksack, a GPS or even themselves. I know this is not a new thing and cachers who cheat like this get found out - however thought it would be worth notifying others - in particular those who own trads or other physical caches to see if indeed they logged ALL of these UK cache claims from their armchairs Tim

Using this website as a guide will probably answer your question - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_sign

I recently submitted an issue for review by the GC team - this was done via the 'contact us' / 'help centre' links at the bottom of the GC page. Once submitted I got a 'your access key' message - I save the details of the access key - but can not find a link in which to put this key, in order to see the progress of the enquiry - it said for quick access to updates, book mark this page - I omitted to do that bit , but cant find a link anywhere to get to that page anyway. please help Tim

Again, if you feel a rating is inaccurate, mention it in your log for the benefit of others. The cache owner may or may not agree, but at least the information is out there to help fellow geocachers. Exactly. I agree with you, Deepdiggingmole: the rating absolutely should be challenged. But it's your job to challenge it since you've been there and know how hard the cache is. The reviewer doesn't have that information and, even if he did, I wouldn't want him to waste his authority on such minor issues. Actually, I havent been there - just the same as the reviewer - I have just read the cache page and gleaned everything from that. I checked out the page to see if I qualify and was intrigued by the DT rating only to spot the obvious - I have challenged the CO who has ignored me and when I do finally qualify and sign the log I will certainly be making mention of this.

At the top of the Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain (D/T) page, it says "This rating system is subjective." Yes - but in the new challenge guidelines it says (as above)......... my point being that the recommendation is a waste of time if it isnt challenged / checked out

I agree with ALL caches and the questioning of the DT rating would create a nightmare and as mentioned above it states 'The Rating system is subjective' - however my point is specifically with challenge caches under the new guidelines - as part of the guidelines GC did give a recommendation as outlined above - and with the few challenge caches that are coming out post moratorium I would have not thought it hard to have a quick look at the DT rating and other information on the cache page and establish whether the two are at odds. If there isnt enough to go on so be it - however a tree climb is usually shown with an attribute and a comment to say 'taken at your own risk, use equipment etc' - a hint saying back of road sign is also an indication as to where it is. But if the tree climb has a T rating of 1.5 or the back of the roadsign has one of 4.5 surely the recommendation can be pointed out and the T rating questioned (and all done without having to visit the site

I might get slated for this - but it has always been a bug-bear of mine and I noted that GC took note of this in their new challenge cache guidelines T rating of a challenge cache should reflect the actual location of the cache not what is required of the challenge. The new guidelines state "We recommend that the difficulty rating be based on the challenge, the terrain rating on the challenge cache location" So, if a cache container is placed on a sign at the road side for a new challenge then surely the T rating should only be between 1 and 2 I am aware the reviewer does not have any say in what the T rating is set at, but I ask why not ? I acknowledge and accept that the statement says 'recommend' - but surely common sense has to prevail - if the cache was given a 4.5 for T rating in the scenario given above shouldnt this be challenged ? I am aware that many challenge cache COs consider how far you travelled to completed their challenge (particularly challenges involving finding caches abroad) however that is reflected in the difficulty of the cache - how hard is it to find a 1*/1* in France, and Germany and Italy other than catching a plane to get there - but that doesnt mean the T rating should be higher simply because you have to go abroad. Another example (though might not be accepted under new challenge guidelines) climb 10 trees - challenge cache location at base of tree. Now, here each of the 10 caches found would probably have high T ratings due to the location of the cache - but no need to have a high T rating for the challenge cache, just because you had to climb 10 trees to qualify - you have got your DT for each of those caches - the challenge cache would have high D rating for the effort and difficulty in getting to that point, but the cache in on the ground so not a 4.5 or 5 T rating for that one. It is evident that challenge cache owners will still inflate their DT rating, because they can as it is not challenged - but if this issue is not challenged then it would seem that it was a pointless exercise by GC putting in the recomendation as above

We spotted this yesterday - still an issue today and just as described by Calypso62

Ah OK - read that - seems only something done in the US too

Hi - I recently heard this - "Groundspeak give a free premium membership to police officers who will create an institutional cache and keep a watchful eye over caches in their area." Is this true ? what is an institutional cache ? thanks

The description was changed after publication and so the reviewer was unaware that this was not placed at the time of publication - in fact it was apparently changed a few times post publication. Minimum no. of finds before being allowed to place a cache - this one strengthens that argument - though I did wonder whether this was a sock puppet account, initially. My views may have changed since. Also, suggestions that it was only hidden for a day - I dont think that was the intention but after the furore of it not being in place at the mentioned time and then not being there again the CO (!!) archived it - it was never there let alone for one day ;-) Tim

Church Micro series - an example of a new one added recently http://coord.info/GC50DAR

Does the Church Micro series in the UK with numbers over #5000 now constitute as the largest ?

Same here - any update on this ?

I was being vague for a reason - however to explain - 4 TBs went missing around the South East a few months ago none connected to each other - all 4 appeared in my A21 TB hotel cache within the last 2 weeks - discovered on 20/11/11 - the few TBs that were in that cache have been removed - none of this activity has been logged - now the whole cache has disappeared (which may or may not be linked) These cachers signed the log book (I got lucky in getting this information) so I am obviously keen to find out who they are as they have failed to log the movements of at least 9 TBs but appear to be the ones who have placed the missing TBs in the cache and now removed those that were in there Tim

Anybody ???

Hi I am trying to track down what has happened to a TB hotel cache container and its contents I am trying to identify people calling themselves 'The Zulus' with names Max and Tom Does this ring any bells with anyone - does anyone know these two and where they are from or if they have another GC ID Many thanks Tim - ddm

I agree with what you have said HH - but my point was - where it was obvious that the cache location would be unsuitable (and I dont think there will be many out there who would accept the poobin as suitable) then could the reviewer point this out to the cache owner prior to publication and if a more suitable hide is found then it could be published - surely a reviewer can have judgement enough to deal with this

Many questions now answered - thank you You mention a hustle in Kent - but this does not come up on the site do you have an idea when the Kent hustle is planned for

It was said with tongue in cheek also sadly I am well aware that crime report numbers are issued prior to the facts being established (in Kent they do) and only after an initial investigation are they then 'no-crimed' if it shown to be the case - but I am also aware that different police forces have different policies on how reports are classified from the word go.

Very recently (within the last week) two caches have been published near us and both have been placed either on or very near dog poo bins - both caches make mention of this in the description or hint with very little else and certainly with no other feature in the area (no I am corrected as I type this - one is one of the church micro series) When a cache is reviewed - apart from checking to see if the location is permissible do the reviewers check the content of the description and decide whether in fact the placement is suitable for caching purposes I would suggest placing a cache (magnetic) on to a dog poo bin is neither suitable or of any interest - it used to be that in placing caches the owner sent people to locations that had some interest factor or took them on some sort of trail that as a whole was satisfying - I, and I am sure many others would not want to go hunting around dog poo bins and certainly not if as a family hunt. I am aware that many caches are hidden in unsuitable places (wasteland with much rubbish around for example) where this is not mentioned in the description or hint and so reviewers would not be aware - but the logs make mention of the fact so my query is how much of the location is taken into account particularly if it is obvious from the description

I read this and was surprised by the fact that the ammo box wasn't blown up - they did it at Wetherby where by all accounts it was made known what the container was and what it contained before they blew it up and they continued to do so - it would seem that the Surrey police have found the container and instead of calling out the MOD, they picked it up and took it to the station - what if it had been a real explosive !!!!!! Does it suggest that the container was 'appropriately' marked and they just decided it was harmless and chose to remove it for the heck of it Oh and there wont be a crime report number - there is no crime, it would be an incident number - though if it is a crime report I would want to know what this is classified as. It would put every cache in Surrey in jeopardy of being considered an offence - If no one has challenged the local police on this (though this would ideally be the cache owner) I would suggest this needs to be done to claim the property back and advise that if it isnt appropriately marked, it would be as per GAGB guidelines following Wetherby - they can not stop the item being placed if done so with the appropriate permissions as all caches are my rant over

it does sound like it says - a hustle I would be interested to know if anyone on the forum knows who has set this up - we are being very sceptical about this at the moment - though as soon as the first 'hustle day' has been done it would become known very quickly if this was a con. How would we know that the FTF'er isnt part of the 'hustle' team It does sound an interesting twist on caching - but I would hate for people to be conned through it

Tim, that's exactly what I've asked ACPO for. We hope that we can work with a SPOC in each police Force to help them respond to questions about caching within their Force and provide them with support whenever necessary. Can I add then that GAGB put out a request to all cachers who are police officers to put themselves forward to act as SPOCs - this will mean that hopefully the designated SPOCs will at least have good knowledge of the subject matter and will not be someone who has been volunteered to do something he/she knows nothing about []