redsox_mark

I did similar. Also in GSAK, I sorted by the column "DNF date", and compared that date to "Found by me".

I'm not a big risk taker. But I can think of a few cases where I was a bit scared or concerned: 1. Old bridge remains: Out with friends on a trail. Got to this remains of an old railway bridge, with long drop below. Needed to walk on a narrow section and not fall off. And I'm afraid of heights. My friends talked me through it; the alternative was several extra miles of walking. 2. Tree Climb: I generally avoid these, given my age and abilities. But there was one which was a stage of a multi that I really wanted to get. I was alone. I reached the stage (about 50 foot up), but struggled to get down. Eventually did get down in one piece, but ripped my jeans to shreds and got a scare. Ironically, a friend of mine hurt himself quite badly on this same tree (at a different time). 3. Cave/Quarry: I've done several of these now, and always with more experienced people, so not really scary. Though I recall being a bit stuck in a hole on the first one I did and feeling panic.. until one of my friends gave me a good push and I got through. 4. Alone in the desert: Caching alone in the desert in Qatar. Not recommended to do that alone as there are risks (the worst is getting stuck in quicksand like sand). I couldn't find anyone to go with me, so I took some precautions; going in a section where the soft sand wasn't an issue. Biggest risk was vehicle breakdown (I rented a 4 wheel drive), especially punctured tires as rough rocks and completely off road. I took enough water and snacks to survive for several days, and had phone numbers of locals in case I had trouble. I didn't have any trouble, but I was feeling somewhat scared the whole time.

I seem to have found several which were each just over 5 years.

Given that you are free to interpret "specialized equipment" as you see fit, you can rate the D as high as 5 if you want. I would suggest that if you do rate it that way, it would be good to explain that in the cache description. Something like "The D rating reflects the need of a smart phone and app; otherwise the D rating is 1.5" (or whatever). Otherwise: 1. The D rating of 5 might put some cachers off, thinking it is really difficult. They might do it if you explain. 2. Some cachers who like a challenge might seek it out and be disappointed that the only challenge is scanning a QR code. You may get complaints that the D is over-rated.

The short answer is that there are only state/region souvenirs for a few countries. How they choose which countries to award these state/region ones is Groundspeak's call. Obviously the USA and Germany, as 2 examples, have very large number of caches/cachers etc. Ireland it is not so obvious why. Ireland is a special case in other ways. Groundspeak treats the island of Ireland as a whole, caches in Northern Ireland give you the Ireland (and Ulster) souvenirs, not UK. There is a history behind that, decisions made between Groundspeak and the UK and Ireland reviewers many years ago. For the UK, the regions are somewhat arbitrary, Groundspeak defined areas. I.e. the state of Texas or the "state" (Bundesland) of Bavaria in Germany is well defined and known. But what is "Southern England" (compared to South West England, for example) is a geocaching specific thing. There is no regions in the system for England, Scotland, or Wales as such.

Definition of Difficulty 5 is The most extreme mental challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, tools, or significant effort to find, solve, or open. Lots of caches require equipment which not everyone has. Chirp caches, NFC caches, Intercaches, and now AR caches. Some will define "specialist tool" as anything which not everyone has. So you will see some D5s. Around my way, most cachers don't consider a smart phone "specialized equipment". They realise that not everyone will have that equipment, so they use the special tool attribute, and make it clear on the cache page. I've had a smartphone for years. But it doesn't read NFC tags. The NFC caches I've seen aren't D5. (I found them by teaming with a friend who had a NFC capable phone). With a QR, even if it is in the field, it can be done without any phone at all, as NiraD pointed out. Requires an extra trip but can be done. Unless you want to call a camera special equipment, which I don't think makes sense (again as NiraD explained). AR caches require more "specialized equipment" than QR. You need a fairly modern smart phone and a specific app. Of the 265 AR caches worldwide so far, only 2 are Difficulty 5. So clearly most cache owners aren't automatically assigning D=5 to anything requiring a smart phone and app. If the only thing you are doing is reading a QR which gives the coordinates, and otherwise the cache would be D 1.5, I would make it a 2.

From a guidelines/Groundspeak perspective: I think the one found log per GC code rule is reasonable. It keeps things simple. In this case, was it reasonable for the CO to move the cache, rather than archive and submit a new listing? It is the CO's call, I don't have an opinion here. I've found quite a few which were the opposite.. cache was archived and a new replacement submitted, but the physical cache didn't change at all. Not even the log. Usually I realise this in advance. Once I didn't, I saw a new listing and headed out to find it. I knew I had been in the area before, but only realised at GZ that I'd found this exact box before. I found my name on the log from several years before. And signed it again of course.

I can't say I've noticed the effect, but I can see how I might contribute to it. At any point in time, I have a sort of "list" (nothing formal) of caches I'd like to do. I'm not a big FTF person, but if I see an opportunity I might go for it - put it in front of the queue. Once it is found, it is just like every other cache. If it looks really interesting it might still jump my queue; otherwise I'll make a note to find it "sometime", and look for the others I was already planning (on my "list"). The exception is if it is really close to home (within 3 miles say). Those I will look for more quickly (FTF or not), as they are close by and easier for me to get to.

I can understand the frustration. It has happened to me, but not much, as I tend to have found most of the caches nearby areas where I look to place a cache. I would not call use of an automated proximity checker to solve a puzzle "cheating". But I'm not in favor of making it easy to "battleship" to solve the puzzle. I know cachers will use all sorts of ways to get the coordinates, and I can't control that. But don't make it easier to avoid solving the puzzle. If there is a way to improve the current tool without opening it to "battleship" abuse I'm not against it.

Mine. Karma is especially low, as mine don't get found much, and I find quite a few myself. Owned: 62, 8 now archived (12.90%) Total finds of my caches: 2822 finds in 1012 total days, 0.59/day, 4.10/week, 17.75/month Total unique finders of my caches: 827 Events hosted: 5 on 5 unique dates, 47 unique visitors from 4 unique countries Caching karma (#hides/#finds): 0.33 (2822/8680) Caching karma (#FP earned/#finds): 0.04 (313/8680) Day with the most found logs received: 2012-02-19, 48 finds Total favorite points received: 313 (14.3%)

I don't see it as a contradiction. It means I do care about the numbers, to some extent. Yes, all things equal, if I find 10 containers I'd prefer 10 finds. If you think that makes me a numbers hound, fine. But I'd rather do one really good multi which takes me 4 hours, than a series of 20 "ok, but ordinary" caches that takes 4 hours. And in practice, I do both.

4. If I was comparing like with like - a 10 stage multi with 9 film pots with coordinates and a big box at the end with a series of 9 trad (film pots) plus a large bonus at the end.. and the same location.. I would prefer the series. But the memorable multis I've done aren't like that. In this example, I would prefer the series of 9 plus bonus for the following reasons: 1. If become bored with it, I can stop at any time, and still have some finds to record what I did. 2. And yes, I would prefer to have 10 finds rather than one, everything else being equal. Again, this doesn't mean I personally avoid multis (or puzzle caches with multiple field stages). In fact I prefer to do a single good one, which has a story and clever stages which match the story, than an "ordinary" series of trads. But if the multi is just as "ordinary" as the series, I'd rather do the series and find more caches. To overlap with another thread, at the moment because of the Hidden Creatures I am seeking out series of caches, as I'm trying to get the required number. I'm less likely to do a complex multi at the moment.

My thoughts and observations: 1. Most cachers I meet are not "numbers hounds", but they do like to see their numbers go up, and they do like to be "successful" when caching. So a single multi which takes half a day or more (and might end up in a DNF if there is an issue at any stage) will put people off. When recommending a good (but long) multi, I've had several cachers say "why should I spend a day for that one cache when I can do a series of 20?". 2. Some cachers are the opposite, but I find them a minority. I know some cachers who ONLY target difficult, multis or puzzles, and avoid any series on principle. 3. I like all sorts of caches. I'll happily spend a full day on one good cache. But I'm also not opposed to doing a (walking) series of good caches. 4. If I was comparing like with like - a 10 stage multi with 9 film pots with coordinates and a big box at the end with a series of 9 trad (film pots) plus a large bonus at the end.. and the same location.. I would prefer the series. But the memorable multis I've done aren't like that. 5. I have one real data point. I used to own a multi with approx 10 stages (mainly virtual stages). It didn't get many finders. Shortly after I archived it, someone placed a series of 10 Trads there. Each cache in that series gets found approx 10 times as often as my original multi.

I agree. My favourite multis either: 1. Take me to multiple interesting places (history etc); where there may not be options for physical caches at each... or 2. The multi tells a good fictional story. The best of these works in both virtual (existing) objects which fit the story, and hiding new physical stages which are in theme. E.g. one about the story of a missing geocacher, you find his shoe, then his glove.. etc. The fact that the route is not known from the start also adds to the interest for me.

I don't see these options on my iPhone (5s).

Ok thanks. My iPhone is a 5s, so Legacy only. My wife's Android is also an older one (Samsung S5 mini). My friend who had the variable sized character experience has a new device, the app also asked him to download something else (maybe ARKit).

How do you turn "Legacy Rendering" on or off? On my own AR cache, on my iphone, the characters are always the same size. Same on my wife's Android. But on a friend's Android, the characters got larger closer to the waypoint.

Did you get any messages on the screen turn left (or right)? Were you holding the phone upright? I've found with Android, when there is a "character question and answer", it shows the answer options immediately. So it is possible to see the answers, without ever seeing the characters to get the question. Which sounds like your experience. With the iPhone, it doesn't show the answer choices until you turn the phone to see the characters. It's possible it doesn't work at all on your phone. Or, you may just need to get used to how you need to hold the phone and see the questions and characters. Hold the phone upright and move it around in a circle at arms length until you see a character.

I like this AR idea, I've created one and found 5 so far. The ones I found were good - a good story, multiple stages, good locations etc. Using Metaverse. But really, the only thing which is "Unique AR" in any of them is floating characters, and a bit of Google vision to recognise objects. Otherwise, the same could have been done as a Wherigo. It seems a nice toolkit, and an alternative to Wherigo for creating interactive adventures.. but the "AR" aspect itself doesn't seem a big deal to me. I've only looked at Metaverse so far, so maybe some of the other toolkits offer a more unique experience.

My understanding is the OP did that, but it wasn't accepted under the no "Installing files or executing programs" guideline.

I agree. In general events are open to all, and especially a daytime event will have families with children. If there were any restrictions regarding children, I'd expect them to be in the listing. I attend a monthly evening event at a pub, and the pub rules are children are allowed until 9 PM, and that is always listed on the cache page.

I've made all sorts of typo mistakes with corrected coordinates, and I do the same as you now.

In the insight thread I suggested: Maybe consider a further "rating" system? Favourite points are OK, but they only point of the best. It might help if cachers can grade the caches they find some way, so indicate which are good (but not top 10% good to give a FP), and which are below expectations. Though I can see this could possibly cause bad feelings for COs if they get poor reviews. I've thought about it a bit more, and perhaps only make the data visible in increments, e.g. every 5 or 10 logs the ratings get updated. So the CO can't see Cacher X gave them a "thumbs down", but they can see a total. Today I use favourites for the "wow" caches. I seek out quality ones, so I can only use the points for those. There are lots of others which I consider good, which I will say are good in the logs. Then there are the few I think are really poor. This gets tricky, I try to say in my logs what I didn't like without offending. A somewhat anonymous rating system might help too. Again I am in two minds about it, but if there are caches which most cachers think are poor, it would be good to be able to record that for 2 reasons. 1. It might motivate the CO to improve (or remove) it. 2. Easier for other cachers to avoid it, if they wish

A reviewer may be able to shed more light on this. From my understanding: - If it requires one specific software package to be downloaded, it won't be allowed. - If it requires one specific online tool, it won't be allowed. After that I'm unclear. I've seen puzzles which require an advanced audio editor (like Audacity).. but there are alternatives. Though I don't believe there are any online tools which will solve the ones I'm thinking of, it "needs" a download of some kind. I say "needs".. one could, in theory, program your own audio editor with standard tools, though for most this is not practical (and the CO can probably not demonstrate how). Is a puzzle which can be solved by multiple, free software packages (but any of them require an install) allowed? Not sure.

I agree the wording in the Help Center is confusing. I think "Physical effort required to arrive at coordinates AND access the cache" would be better.