rjb43nh

The difference is that a reviewer is asking the cache owner to go to the cache and verify that there is no problem. If you are paranoid that a blank log might be bogus, do the same, go to the cache and verify.

Wrong. A blank log appears to be blank. There is nothing (literally) to indicate that it is bogus.

The guidelines state: "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements". The guidelines do not state you can delete logs because the finder didn't write what you think they should write or write enough to satisfy your ego. You're not really deleting the logs because you think they might be bogus but to be vindictive. Unless you actually check your caches and do not find the names there, drop it and move on.

We're getting off on a tangent here but we all try to do our part. I did something similar way back in 2007, not a big deal. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry2884574

Doesn't sound like you gave it much of a try, might be attention deficit disor....Oh look, is that a butterfly? I can't imagine that some other people don't have something more important to do with their time than post on line about something they consider a waste of time. I hiked over 2100 miles from GA to ME not once, but twice, which I consider a long distance hiking achievement, but like Serious Tool I can still applaud Marcipanek caching achievement. For them to try to belittle the achievement says more about JesandTodd than it does about Marcipanek who actually put in the effort and did this. Way to go, Marcipanek!!

I've had the same problem. When it happens look in the upper right area of your map screen on the gray line where it says: "You are logged in as xxxxxx. Log out". Click on "Log out" and you should see the log in screen appear. Log in and your smilies will return. I don't have any idea why this is happening but apparently you are randomly being logged out so the smilies revert to regular cache symbols despite the gray header line still saying you are logged in when you're not. Once you log back in the smilies will return. Call this an undocumented feature.

The last time I did Mt. Whitney the hike was about 220 mile starting at Yosemite Valley.

My Owl's Head cache, GCJVEZ, which was about 18 miles round trip in the NH White Mountain National Forest, was archived in 2005 when the USFS changed the rules regarding Federally Designated Wilderness. After the USFS removed it, I picked up the container at the ranger station and had a long pleasant talk with the Wilderness Supervisor who was very helpful in getting future caches in the WMNF approved. There were good reasons to remove the cache but I, and many others, do miss it. Cachers wanted to have bragging rights saying they had done this cache so there were groups that would hike in and leave some very interesting detailed logs of their adventures. This wasn't just a cache for the young cachers; my brother and I placed the cache and we were both over 60 at the time. Unlike some of the difficult and remote caches, the trailhead for this cache was within a day's drive of millions of people in New England. Here is part of the cache description.

In the attack this morning in NH that wasn't the case. I know Groundspeak was notified by our reviewer before 6:20AM eastern when there were about 1800 bogus logs but the account wasn't disabled until about 4 hours later when there were 3500+ bogus logs. Apparently Groundspeak is on pacific time and understandably no one was there to get the message when it was sent. From what I could gauge the BOT was logging in the vicinity of 500 logs per hour so the logging isn’t instantaneous. It took about 7 hours to log all the caches it did in NH this morning. If this had happened mid-day when everyone was awake I believe it would have been stopped much sooner. Because some of the cache owners affected are no longer active, some of these bogus logs may just stay there. The bogus log is an active link that could be used to infect your computer so don't click on it.

My opinion is if there are ten new caches in one park and I go to find them, adhering to all the Geocaching guidelines, I'm not being the least bit "inconsiderate" if I happen to be FTF on all of them. To expect me to make several trips to one park because others don't see it to be important to get out and actually try to get an FTF is actually a little beyond inconsiderate.

I've found that it is harder for me to see the hidden image in a small stereogram. If you can enlarge the stereogram to fill the screen it should be much easier.

That's why they invented WiFi.

As a point of interest, while some were sitting at their keyboards, whining about not being able to get FTFs, I just went out and got 2 this morning, one was a simple puzzle cache. That's the way you do it.

I don’t have any notification but still have a few hundred FTFs. I also generally leave the FTF prize for others because that isn’t why I go out (I did take a DunkinDonuts gift card recently). What is disturbing are those inconsiderate cachers who have found more caches than I have. They didn't wait but joined and started caching years before I did, claiming they do this for ‘enjoyment’. Why couldn’t they have consideration for the kids, some not born when they started caching, who will never be able to catch up with their number of finds and now can only find wet logbooks and used McDonald toys in the caches they have plundered. Although 'these people' that started years earlier and pile up the big numbers don't bother me, they leave no enjoyment for these disappointed caching families.

One big exception to these statements about National Forest land are those areas within the NF that are Federally Designated Wilderness Areas that do not allow any caches.

As a premium member (if you're signed in) you can click on "Your Profile" on the left hand side of the page then on the right hand side under "Search Options" you can select "filter out finds" under "Search for nearest geocaches from your home coordinates". This will at least let you see unfound caches close to you, close being 50 miles.

Send your questions to: NH.Zamboni.Reviewer@gmail.com

So you want the geocaching community to give an opinion on a cache apparently (or not) denied by an experienced reviewer you admit to having issues with and you're unwilling to give any more "facts" or innuendoes. What I think is: if it walks like a troll and smells like a troll........

The first problem I see is proving to the reviewer that you have explicit, not just implicit, permission to place a cache there. I doubt that a reviewer would approve it. Email your reviewer before you place it and see what the response is.

Besides requiring the challenge to be geocaching related, the guidelines require another important part: I have a challenge cache "17", GC1NBVB, that requires cachers to have found at least 17 puzzle caches and their number of puzzle cache finds must equal or exceed 17% of their total finds (no rounding). This does favor cachers with few finds but quite a few cachers with higher numbers also try to qualify and log it. Although I have almost 5400 finds, I also qualify for this challenge so it isn't "over the top".

This is an exception to the ALR cache rule. Challenge caches that require you to meet certain reasonable requirements like finding a certain number of puzzle caches are quite common and are covered in the guidelines. If you do a check you will find caches that require you to find caches begining with each letter of the alphabet, 100 caches in a day, 6 or more different kinds of caches in a day, etc..

I've found over 900 puzzles, I'll take a look at what you have. Contact me through my profile.

Even though Pipestem is about 700 air miles from my home in NH I have done 6 of their caches. I probably don't still have the sheet I got listing the actual coordinates of the caches, but because of limited time there were some I just couldn't do. The one in question here was one of them so I never would have noticed that it wasn't listed on this site.

Trying to use it for your own caches will clearly make it questionable and it's unlikely that any of your caches using this "checker" will be approved. Re-read this guideline and explain how having a cacher contact you to get the final coordinates for a cache doesn't violate this: Email your local reviewer and see what they say.

akk32, if you can't even explain why your site would be useful here I doubt you'll get any interest. It sounds like, for what little you've said, that a cacher lists a cache on Groundspeak as usual with some coordinates that will take cachers to a 'waypoint' where they will find a coded number. They then have to go to your site and enter that number to get the coordinates of the final. If this is the case I believe it violates the guidelines which state: While you aren't the cache owner, you would be their proxy and be the only person with this unique information. Sounds iffy.