Sol seaker

IMHO you are throwing around very relative and subjective terms...I have been using portable GPS units since 1997, long before I started geocaching in 2001...I might consider you a "newbie"... Who is "us" as you say? Anyone who considers themselves an old timer counts. That can be someone with 1000 cache finds or 40,000 cache finds. It may be ten years they've been in the game, or two years.

So some friends and I were discussing the value of long-time geocachers to the game. As I see it, they spread the word about geocaching better than anyone or anything. They help new cachers get into the game and teach them about the game. I know for myself, if I cache with newbies I always encourage them to sign up to get a paid membership to geocaching.com, which is a benefit to geocaching.com as a business, but it also helps newcomers with pocket queries, notifications and other benefits of a paid membership. Old timers put on events (most of the events around here are put on by old timers). At events, excitement and interest in geocaching spreads. I spent time with a newbie at a recent event. It was fun to share the joy of caching. The event was chock full of mainly old timers, but there were newbies there checking out the game. I could go on with this list, and I'll add some more later, but I want to give others a chance to answer this question. Of course newbies are very important to this game, we all know that, and you can start that thread. But this one is just about those of us who have been around a while.

It is important to serve the long-time members as well as the newbies. It is important for long-time members to know the unspoken rules that could get them banned. Everyone I know wants to play by the rules here. The old timers are as important as the newbies, if not more so. They are the ones who are the strong forum legs. They are here to teach, and yes welcome the newbies. Please don't kick the old timers under the bus. They are important for the forums and indeed for the geocaching.com business. It's the long time geocachers who are the best promoters of geocaching as a game. It is important not to kick them under the bus. Happy old timers are the best promoters of geocaching and of the paid memberships that keep Groundspeak afloat. Disgruntled old timers have been known to do things like constantly steal caches (a real problem here in WA)or leave quite unpleasant things in caches that make newbies not want to cache anymore (a problem that many have seen). Happy old times spread the joy. Everyone I meet, I tell them to get a geocaching.com paid membership if they cache. How could you be without one and cache? I tell them. Old timers are out there right now, all over, taking new cachers by the hand and helping them learn this game. It is much easier to learn with an old timer than by oneself. Old timers are the best promotion tool Groundspeak has. They should be treated with respect in mind of this situation. Old timers are good for Groundspeak. This is really important. This is not to be forgotten.

I blam the this childishness on the fact there are way too many challange caches out there now. This Mr.Yuck situation has me feeling disillusioned. So much so, I am taking a break from these forums for a while. I encourage anyone else feeling disillusioned to also take a break. Some argue that there are too many caches of all types. But while it may affect how some choose to play, one should not let it affect how you enjoy the game. If it stops being fun, I'll stop playing. I don't want others to affect my enjoyment so I ignore them as much as possible. I heard that a couple of other forum regulars were also given the permanent boot in the forums here. If such actions is meant to be a deterrent, they should be made known to those who participate in the forums. Some of us are confused why certain people are banned while others are not. Color me disillusioned as well, but I neither encourage nor discourage anyone from participating in the forums here. As I had said before, I learned a lot here, and in my own small way I hope I had helped a few people with technical issues. I had taken a voluntary break in the past, and I think I will take one again. The fate of Mr.Yuck, Tozainamboku and 4wheelinfool has me really bothered too. This will be my last post for a while. +1 It has me worried that my days may be numbered too. I'm an oldie, frequent contributor, and speak out a lot mostly against the numbers aspect of the game (quality over quantity). Was that the problem? Too much criticism? Maybe there's a plan afoot to wind down the forums altogether, in favour of twitface and the like? Removing members with the highest post count might help that process along. Is it streaking? I guess it's a streak of banning forum regulars. I think it's important for the rest of us to know why and that it's happening so we know the finer rules in here that are unspoken but will still get you banned. But I guess we should break that into another thread. As far as streaking involving signing caching on a day you didn't find the cache, no that's not streaking. That's ... I have no idea what that is. Just finding caches I guess. And something that could turn problematic for players trying to find caches after you if the caches come up missing.

I think it's a good thing we are moving forward here with new search engines. I've always wanted to sort caches by name and place, for instance, caches that begin with "welcome to" in the state of Washington. Before I had to sort through the entire planet to find the WA State ones. I haven't used the new search engine much yet, but I'm really glad to see Groundspeak moving forward making the attempts to make a better search experience. I would suggest anyone having input, put it in positive, constructive manner, and this new design can surely be improved. I'm really glad to see the search engine being worked on. I'm sure soon it will be in great shape to suit more peoples needs. This is a good step forward in creating a new one.

I went to a pi event at a pizza restaurant. It was a lot of fun. We mobbed the back of the restaurant. One of the women at the counter got really excited when she heard what we were up to. I told her to come out and sign the log book. Someone published a new puzzle cache for the event, and handed it out at the event. Most of us could not make heads or tails of it, but the solution was soon being passed around too, for us puzzle impaired. As people trickled out they headed for the puzzle cache. There was a huge list of names on the new log when I got there. The people kept coming up as I was leaving too. That was fun. I then went out and grabbed a few more caches to make it a six icon day. I didn't have time to hunt down any more for more icons. To get more than that would have meant a lot of travel I didn't have time for. It was a great event and a lot of fun. And now I've got 40 souvenirs.

Yes it would be good to get some function like that on the cachers map. I'd love to be able to mark caches I want to find, like there's a challenge nearby I keep forgetting to find that I've qualified for, for a few years. Also I could mark puzzle caches that I've solved, so when I look at the map I can just go get them. I keep finding puzzles I've solved but haven't found (I put my solutions in the "notes" box). If I could mark all these I could keep up on the puzzles that I solve. I know a woman who has a file drawer filled with the puzzles she's solved. It would be really nice for her to just look at the map to know which sheets to pull out of her files. Also, I could mark events I plan on going to, multi's that look really interesting, traditionals with high favorite points, etc.

The thing I don't get, is how do people enjoy cache goals when they know they really didn't meet them? I've considered logging a cache a day ahead in order to fill in my cache-a-day calendar, but realized that would ruin the entire thing for me. Why not just fill it all in? It would make it worthless. Yes when we fill in the wrong day to get something (like a streak) then we are cheating ourselves (in addition to others, as Knowschad and BC have mentioned). So do these people cheat themselves all the time already and so one more doesn't make a difference? I just don't get it. It would make the stats worthless to myself, which is who matters the most. Where is the integrity to ones self? I will miss Mr. Yuck too. He had some clear-headed opinions around here and had some great information to share. I wonder if there is some actual guideline to give people a permanent ban. There are people on this forum who are regularly disruptive and they seem to not get one. I don't understand that either. Is integrity dead in these United States? Does no one have a conscience anymore?

I would really love to see a new map option added, that is to be able to mark caches on the map. The idea would be to click on the cache icon, perhaps right-click, and then mark that cache in red (or something). This way I could take a look at the map of my area and see all the caches that I would like to do next. Perhaps the ability to mark them in two colors would allow me to mark, say in blue, caches that I've DNF'ed. I could open up my geocaching map and be able to see at a glance, the caches I'd like to do next and the ones I've DNF'ed. That would be incredibly awesome. Thank you for considering this idea.

I'll stop geocaching when other things in my life become more important. I'm finding that happening more and more, and I think it's probably a good thing. I certainly can't imagine quitting due to physical problems. I've injured my back a few times pretty badly, once I couldn't walk over 20 feet. I just learned to appreciate drive-up caches. I had complained about LPC's before that. I got the chance to clear quite a few off of my map. I can't imagine ever totally quitting. The amazing adventures I've had because of geocaching would not have otherwise happened. I've explored many islands among other things, that just wouldn't have happened. I've got my eye on a remote island up in the mountains that you've got to hike a boat a few mile up to (lake is too big and cold to swim) and inflate it and paddle out to the geocache on the island. What other reason would there be to do that? Quit no. Cut down, maybe.

I'm really happy you guys are putting some thought into this. This is something we've really needed. I appreciate it!! We've really been needing a search engine where we can do a search on something within our areas, like "Tubular" within Seattle. I also think it's a great idea to check with a few people and get feedback. Now all that being said, I can't get it to work at all. I tried caches within the state of Washington with the name "tubular" in the title. It said, "DNF". So I tried all caches anywhere with "tubular" in the title. "DNF" So then I tried clearing all filters and tried just "Dayspring". "DNF" Maybe it's down today. I went back to the old search engine and tried "tubular" and got a whole lot of caches, but not Daysprings caches. I freaked out and went to the map to find if they were all archived, but easily found the ones I've found. I'd love to find all of his caches that I haven't found already. I can use the old search for now, but it was a good test of the new one.

It says right on top that opendns thinks the site is bad, not taco bell. You have non-standard dns settings on your device. The next to last line of the message says that TB blocked the site. OpenDNS allows account holders to configure the DNS to suit their needs, which is what TB has done. A few people have made the assumption that someone at TB is managing the blacklist or accessing OpenDNS. For a company as large as Taco Bell I find it more likely that TB contracted with some internet service provider to make "free wifi" available for their locations, and it's the ISP that is managing the OpenDNS configuration as part of the service they're providing to TB. Someone at TB may have stipulated that they want to restrict access such that patrons can't view porn or play online games, and the ISP is just using a solution (OpenDNS) which allows them to do that. I fully agree. By saying TB blocked the the site, I meant their IT dept (internal or contracted) and that it wasn't initiated by OpenDNS, as was suggested in, "opendns thinks the site is bad." Okay, I just submitted a comment saying that I want geocaching.com on wifi at all taco bell stores. Don't say I never did nothin' for ya.

I think someone should email taco bell headquarters and give them a link to these forums and this thread. I'm sure they have no idea what sites they've blocked, and that they're upsetting a group from a family-friendly game. I don't eat Taco Bell anyway, so I guess I don't care so much. http://www.tacobell.com/feedback You would get more results letting them know how you feel than us. But it's good to let us know so everyone can email them. Best results that way.

teaching the dogs to do that is the trick.

But it's not like finds are used as some kind of score or anything. Good one. I also like what Jeremy said once on the forums: "Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find." -Jeremy When I was pretty new to caching and had no idea of any rules or guidelines, or anything but finding little boxes with GPS's, I went to an event. It had some temporary caches (I had no idea these weren't the norm) and I logged about 3 of them I think. They had some really fun night caches at that event that really made the event a whole lot more fun. I found some of the caches with strangers and we had a chance to chat. It was an important part of the event for me. I had no idea of any controversy behind it. I was told to log multiple times for the temporary caches I found. I had no idea it would cause such a ruckus on the forums if anyone realized I did that. Since I found out, I thought about deleting those three finds. I thought about it some more and I have no idea why I would do that. Because I was caving in to someone elses definition of a find? Because I was trying not to upset anyone else? Because I was trying to make everyone in the world happy? Because what someone else wanted me to do with my game was more important? I had a great time finding those night caches that day. I log my finds partially for all the good memories. I chose not to delete those memories and I don't care what anyone else thinks of that. I don't care if others have logging practices that I might consider strange either. This is a game. Do what's fun as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Ah, my mistake. I thought that would be okay here, since you brought up the topic. BTW, just what topic did you bring up? You kind of dropped a bomb here about someone dying and then left us all to wonder who, since many of us know many reviewers. Kind of like telling someone that someone at their job or school just died and then refusing to tell them who. Kinda strange. With that kind of an entry it is not surprising that the topic stayed at what you changed it to. I think we need a little leeway here, along with a little more information.

Thank you for posting that. Now we can properly grieve and commemorate someone who gave to his community. Thank you for all you did Ernie Borrow. I am sorry for the family's loss, and the loss of the many people whose lives have been touched by Ernie.

Perhaps you can start a new thread (or I suppose this one has been converted anyway) and give us a bit more information here. We would like to all share in a proper memorial for this person but it's hard to when we have no idea what you're talking about. We have many among us who undoubtably know this person and many may have cared about him. Why the secrecy? What was the purpose of that post? If your post was to share grieving, then let others share the grieving.

All religious discussion aside (which, by the way, do not belong in this thread, check the title) The main problem I see is the copy-cat thing where someone else thinks it's a great idea and bores a huge hole into a 100 year old tree as someone mentioned actually happened earlier in this thread. I like caching in public parks. I hate city caches, so I need all the park caches I can get, including in state parks or open space preserves. The only way we're going to be able to keep those places open to caching is if the guidelines that have been established are adhered to. That's why they were created. Someone didn't sit down and say, "gee I think we should not bury caches" it's that it happened and it had bad consequences so the guidelines were created to preserve the game. There are a lot of places that don't allow caches because some of the earlier practices of geocaching. I think the guidelines are there for a reason. I do not agree with selective enforcement of the guidelines, permission or no permission. That's just my take on it.

Everyone has been writing some great stuff here. I'm seeing that probably the most important thing is the fact that people will copy one bad cache. There are many parks and places that caching is no longer allowed because of one bad cache. There's a big park in Seattle that took years of CITO and working with land managers there to finally have them let caches return to the park. It's on a trial basis last I heard. I don't know how that's going. I think when exceptions are made, and I don't think they should be made, but if they are, then it needs to be clearly printed on the cache page so there's less chance of it being copied. A lot of people never read the cache page, so I think it's a bad idea to make exceptions, permission or no permission. Why do we have the guidelines? What's the purpose? Then why are we letting caches go through that break them? Permission or no permission, if there are rules they need to be adhered to.

Your summary contains a false statement (I never said "it was okay to do it") so your question is flawed. Therefore, I won't participate in your "discussion" Instead of simply explaining the circumstances, everyone is left to their imagination, and we are to guess the scenario. So far we have that the cache has explicit permission, so it won't be archived, but the reviewer seemed surprised and it's not "okay", with a legalistic, courtroom like final reply. Didn't know there was a trial going on here, just some unanswered questions. How about it has 12 favorite points but I'm not giving it it's 13th because it's a guideline violation? That'll show 'em. Even though I published it myself. Is that legalistic enough for you? BTW, the whole screwing things into live trees thing is totally overblown. But rules are rules. Or as they like to say around here in legalistic terms, guidelines are guidelines. I actually don't care much about the situation, but just wanted to clarify exactly what was happening. When someone becomes less than forthcoming about details it gives the impression that something is being hidden. I don't like playing guessing games, or using a NA log to get info. Many years ago I used small nails to hide a cache. I first tried small tacks, but they would not cooperate. It was a puzzle cache in which someone had to go to a specific location and find clues to go a certain distance and make the find. I placed several tree faces and used the eyes to indicate the direction, as well as the final location. I really didn't think the small nails would cause any issue as long as they were not removed, plus they were 10 feet up common scrawny pine trees. One cacher thought it was great! Then a week later he bored a large hole in an oak tree which was over 100 years old to hide a film can behind a tree face. It was one of the largest trees in that forest. When I told him I didn't think it was a good idea, he got a bit indignant and said it was "only a tree", and he owned a few hundred acres around here, so he didn't care what the township thought. I then thought my hide was a really bad idea, so eventually I archived it. Today there is a cacher nearby who apparently watches YouTube videos and has copied nearly every defacement cache idea out there. Now if the reviewer finds them and they stay active, how many more do you think will sprout? People are followers, and the favorite points only encourages it. Reviewer apathy goes a long way. +1 Thanks for writing this. I know this type of thing must happen a lot.

That bit of wisdom should go in the guidelines to reviewers. Absolutes are hard to come by in this life and I don't expect them in a game. But the application of the appropriate disclaimer, when necessary, might lower the angst level around here! Well said Michael! Yes, we need clarity where there are exceptions. It would help a whole lot to have that written on the cache page. that will help newcomers who don't know about any guidelines that might indicate it is not okay, but also it would help those who have caches denied because of the same issues. If that cache was deemed okay, how come other caches have not? That would clear that up.

Another cacher, just told me that damage isn't done to trees with screws. They said that maple trees are tapped for syrup every year. Interesting. Actually I've seen a lot of old signs put up on trees by the forest service, many years ago, before they quit doing that. Those trees are fine, but are just "eating" the signs. I'm sure no damage is done to wooden posts. I still wouldn't do it to a tree, just in case, but it certainly wouldn't do any damage to a post. what about a public wooden post that has no land manager to ask?

Your summary contains a false statement (I never said "it was okay to do it") so your question is flawed. Therefore, I won't participate in your "discussion" Um... you just did. I appreciate you checking in on this. I seem to have an incorrect assumption in my original post. So then did the land manager really approve of a screw being put into a tree? And if so, then why was it still allowed, because we all know that others would then think that it's okay to do it when they see one example of it? But this is more than a discussion of just that one incident. Some people are bringing up some excellent points here, including the fire tact angle, which I hadn't thought of, and other incidents where inconsistency seems to be the norm. So perhaps I am mistaken by thinking that there should be a consistent norm. Perhaps I am being too much of a "cache nazi" for thinking there should be one norm. When one submits a cache for review that is turned down for a guideline violation it makes it seem like there is just one norm, but in fact, it doesn't appear that there really is.

Two good points. Thank you Bill. I forgot about the defacing idea because I'm so protective of trees. I'm still not sure about the tree damage part. I've seen trees grow around bicycles and other things and they seem just fine. But maybe that's different because it doesn't break their "skin", I don't know.