redsox_mark

Most common is a short section of rubber hose (installed by the owner) which you step over, it insulates you from any shock. With the ones which are just some stretchy "string" I gently push them down with my walking stick.

It is very common here (UK) for public footpaths to cross fields with livestock. And sometimes electric fences. The more permanent ones will have a way to open and close it, or cross it. The temporary ones don't usually. But if it is a public footpath, it is no issue to cross it.

If I can't get to a cache because of a fence, I clearly wouldn't log a find. I'd log a note or DNF (either works) and maybe flag NM. If I come across one of those types of electric fences, if I go over it or not depends on where it is, and what seems right. I find those fences from time to time crossing public footpaths; in which case I hop over them. In fact that is the only place I've seen them caching, from memory. If the fence seemed to be fencing something private then I'd leave it.

It would be nice to have this issue acknowledged by Groundspeak here, and an update on their plans to fix it. You would think it is in their interest; if people know there is a problem which will be fixed in a few days they may wish to hold off on their activations; which would be better for all than having to contact Groundspeak with a photo of each trackable which failed to provide the points.

I am not a reviewer, but from talking to some I am aware that: 1. There is guidance from Groundspeak given to reviewers, that we non-reviewers do not see. 2. In the UK, the reviewers meet regularly, and sometimes agree specifics of how a guideline will be interpreted in the UK. Some of that they document as a UK specific guideline that we call can see, but not everything they discuss gets documented. For example, we have UK specific event guidelines. https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/Hosting+a+Geocaching+Event+in+the+UK The commercial UK guidelines are general and just refer to the global guidelines. I don't think this is a conspiracy, I think it is to keep things simple and allow flexibility by the reviewers. In the UK the reviewers allow a "nominal" fee. I've not seen a precise definition of "nominal". They also take into account who is charging the fee (e.g. is it a non-profit org). On this and many topics, there is a trade-off between consistency and flexibility. As well as complexity. To really ensure consistency you need to precisely document many details, and keep them updated. (E.g. if you document a limit of $5, you may need to revisit that every few years based on inflation).

I've not seen similar before, but I'm sure it happens. That one is funny and embarrassing for the cacher who logged it. I've only recently become a challenge cache owner (I adopted one). Haven't had any found it logs to check for qualification yet. My cache doesn't have a checker, though I'm trying to get one created.

I own a cache which I placed underpants in. Two pairs of new ones. They are women's, only because they were the cheapest I could find. They are meant to remain in the cache as they are part of the theme (but if someone wants to trade for them, no issue). In fact the cache description mentions "underpants" 10 times.

Looking at where your caches are, the "Geocaching Gloucestershire" group on Facebook would be a good place to go.

Yeah.. I understand it though. They want physically challenging/extreme caches to be part of the game, to appeal to cachers who can do them and want the challenge. They don't want adult themes, or themes which can offend to be part of it. (Not that I think pants should offend).

Whilst I'm not sure it is defined anywhere, I believe "family friendly" is about "adult themes". Aka sex. There are no issues with extreme caches, and they assume cachers will use their judgements about who attempts them. Many children are better at climbing trees than I am. I've seen issue taken with cache names which contain innuendo (though some sneak through). It is a hard one to judge. I know of caches near naturist areas, where you may encounter people without underwear. The naturists will tell you there is nothing sexual about it, they just prefer not to wear clothes. If someone complains, will it get archived? Maybe, depends on the reviewer or lacky. Underwear is one of those grey areas (unless you use bleach).

For solidarity with Team Microdot, I'm off to an event without underwear. Seriously though.. I can understand how it can happen. We don't know exactly what was in the complaint, but if someone described it in colourful language, and said they had to go in the store (which isn't true), Groundspeak (and/or the reviewer) will want to get it resolved quickly. It is easiest for them to accept the complaint rather than spend time understanding in detail and going back to the person who raised the complaint and trying to convince them to drop it.

I would send a message to the reviewer asking if they are happy with the changes.

I agree that is probably the easiest. If you want to try and keep the location you can try asking the reviewer if highlighting that "there is no need to go inside a business or interact with employees or purchase a product or service" is enough. What I think I'd do is suggest both options. Option 1: Changes to the wording to make it even clearer that there is no need to go inside a business etc. Option 2: Remove the stage I would make it clear that I prefer Option 1(because of the special rocks here), but if that is not possible will proceed with option 2.

So appeals concluded that requiring cachers to go near an underwear store is not family friendly. Wow.

I agree quality is not part of the review process. And if a cache is "problematic", it will be dealt with. But I also agree that there may be cases where a reviewer sees a cache which is very broadly compliant with the guidelines, but could be seen as less than 100% compliant in some small way, and they decide to let it be, unless someone raises an issue. I have no proof of this, but what makes me think this is that I've seen caches which are not 100% compliant which have been found by reviewers, and no evidence of any action taken to address the lack of compliance. Or it could be that they felt there was enough flexibility and the guidelines that it was actually Ok. This example non-commercial cache I was mentioning which requires you to go inside and interact with employees; it isn't clear to me if that is a guideline violation or not. The guidelines say Cache pages perceived as commercial will not be published. Commercial content includes any of the following characteristics Overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion Suggests or requires the finder do any of the following Go inside a business Interact with employees Purchase a product or service I think a reviewer could interpret this in multiple ways. They could point at "Interact with employees" and say that isn't allowed. Or, they could say that only applies if the cache is "perceived as commercial"; and since this cache isn't "perceived as commercial" it is OK. Bottom line, I don't think any reviewer will knowingly ignore a clear guideline violation. But there is a lot of grey area, and a reviewer might take many things into account.

While I don't think I have enough data to come to a scientific conclusion, my own observation is that caches which seem to violate the commercial and "contact" guidelines are more common in countries with very few caches, than they are in my home country (UK), or other countries with lots of caches (e.g. USA). Some of those it was clear on the cache page, others the cache pages didn't mention it, but you find out a GZ. This is based on the 30 countries I've cached in, some which had less than 10 caches in the country when I was there. Personally, none of the caches like this I've found have bothered me personally. So I haven't been bothered why they were allowed. As I enjoyed the caches, I was pleased they were there. I can think of one cache I found in the UK which I enjoyed a lot; and probably doesn't meet the "contact" guideline. The location is non-profit (and free entry), so not a commercial issue, but it does require you to "go inside" and to speak to staff. The "speak to staff" requirement is much of what makes it fun, as you need to speak to them in a language which is appropriate to the cache, but many cachers will not know how to speak the language. The face of the staff when I tried to pronounce what I had to say was priceless! For this cache, what you need to do is clear on the cache page. It is not an old cache, it was published after the current guidelines were in place. I believe some local reviewers know about it, and some have found it. If someone raised an issue then the local reviewer would act; but I believe the local reviewer is "turning a blind eye" to an excellent cache which isn't doing any harm; even if one can argue it isn't 100% compliant to the guidelines.

It was done as an "announcement" log by GCHQ on each GIFF event. For the one I went to, the announcement log was on 7 November. It contained the link. As it was an announcement, I received an email as I had done a "will attend" https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=263ab3a6-36df-449f-9d3a-66f46b17cd89 The event I attended was on the 9th. If I hadn't logged my "will attend" prior to the 7th, I would not have received the notification of the announcement log.

+1. If I'm caching with a friend, and a photo is required for a virtual, and we have a photo with both of us meeting the criteria; then one will post it, and the other will refer to the friend's log. I do this without expecting any issue. If the cache page clearly stated each log needs a photo attached, no referring to a photo on another log, I would comply. Or if the CO asked me to do so.

Team Microdot previously clarified: The store has a doorless entrance which must be over twenty feet across. You could turn your head to one side and walk past without stopping and see enough of the rock to answer the one related question. (Back to my own comments) It is a store which sells mainly underwear and nightwear. Also perfume and some other beauty products. Sure, there may be someone who thinks wearing fashionable underwear is offensive. Others may think swimwear is offensive. Still others might think any clothing which isn't black and covers all skin is offensive. I can't see how this store violates any reasonable definition of "family friendly".

The CO could request a checker be developed for SC. As there are checkers for many states it is technically possible. And even though new Delorme challenges aren't allowed, they can add a new checker.

Do you mean to check if you qualify for the challenge cache? There are a number of Delorme checkers defined on project-gc, but I don't see South Carolina. There is North Carolina. https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GCTYE6/20969 You can search on here https://project-gc.com/Tools/Challenges

Of course a NOTE can always be used for anything; you don't need a DNF log at all. If Groundspeak were to define DNF to specifically mean "unsuccessful search at GZ", then I would log a NOTE for my island/bridge example. And add some bold or caps text with a clear WARNING. As things stand, I would log DNF; but have no issue if others logged a NOTE instead. I personally don't want to try to define it - at least not here - as there will just be more pages of debate. If Groundspeak were to refine the definition, I'd be happy with that.

I agree with you; in the ice cream case I see no benefit of a DNF. However, I don't think the answer to this debate is to try and define DNF precisely (e.g. to only apply when you reach GZ and give a good search). Why? Because there are so many factors and different situations. I would rather try and get cachers to at least consider how others interpret a DNF, and then make their own judgements. I hate giving examples, as each example can spawn a debate about that example.. but I'll do it anyway. Here is an example which doesn't meet the "reach GZ and give a good search" criteria, but that I would log a DNF, even considering how it may be interpreted. I'm walking down a footpath to find a cache on a small island. There is a footbridge on the path to give access to the island. I get to the island, and the bridge is closed, with a sign saying it is unsafe and under repair, do not use. I would log a DNF, as there is an issue here that I want others to notice, and the DNF is more likely to be noticed. The CO may want to disable the cache until the bridge is repaired. Other cachers may want to wait until the bridge is repaired. Some may bring a boat, others may ignore the sign and cross anyway. Still, I think DNF is the best log here. So rather than try to define it, my plea to others is to at least consider how DNFs are interpreted.

My point is that, like it or not, my DNFs will, in some cases, be interpreted as a "possible issue with the cache" - whether I like it or not. And it's always been like that. Some cachers will be put off going for a cache where the last log is a DNF. Others will filter ones where the last "n" logs are DNFs. And then there is the CHS tool. I don't particularly like the CHS tool, so I can see the logic in "I'm not even going to consider what that tool might do". But it is not just the tool, it is other cachers who may reach conclusions based on your DNF. If one considers this, and decides DNF is still best, then fine. One could still consider it in the text. I write a long DNF log about my adventure, which ends in my seeing the cache in the tree but it is too difficult for me to reach. Lots will see the DNF but not read my long log. If I'm worried about the CHS, I might consider a note instead. But even I don't consider the CHS and stick with DNF, I might want to write my log to clearly start with "NO ISSUES WITH THE CACHE, I COULD SEE IT". That is still an example of considering the reality about how DNFs may be interpreted.

For the OP, yes you can have too many. There is a cache of mine I walk by almost every day. I take a peek at it as I pass. If I was to log an OM (or even a note) every day, it would clutter the cache page, make it hard for others to see "real" logs, and add no value. But if, as the OP suggested, I was doing a pre-winter check, then an OM log stating this would be useful. As for this long diversion about DNFs.... There have been many debates about when to log a DNF or not, and there is never agreement. These debates happened before the CHS. My view: DNFs often will have impact on others, and be interpreted by cachers (and now, also an input to the CHS). I see no need to try and define when to DNF in a specific way. However, I will continue to consider how DNFs are seen/used when I log. At one end of the DNF debate, there are those who take the approach that once they "start", there can only be 2 results - Found it, or DNF. Let's assume I'm one of them (I'm not). I go out with 4 friends. We park our vehicle, press go/start on our device, and get out of the car to start a 5 mile walk to a cache. But before we get out of the parking lot, it starts to rain. Hard. We decide to abort. We get in the car and go to the pub. We all log a DNF - we started to Geocache, we took a few steps. We didn't find it, so it has to be DNF. Perfectly logical. The cache now has 5 DNFs in a row. Possible impacts of our decision: 1. It may put off some others looking for it. Especially those who filter their caches based on number of DNFs, and don't read the details of the logs. 2. It MAY trigger a CHS email. Knowing this, I think it reasonable to consider these possible impacts, and perhaps log a note (or nothing) instead. Or perhaps, if we insist on a DNF, just one of us logs it. But I understand that some don't agree. Some will feel that 5 DNFs is still the right log, and they aren't going to change their own process because of how others (or a tool) may react. Personally, I consider the impacts; including if new tools like the CHS come along. I wish others would consider the impacts too, but I can't do anything about that. If someone considers the impacts and makes a different decision than I would, that's fine. It is the people who won't even consider any impacts which I find harder to understand, but I accept that they can do as they like.