cx1

Going back to the original topic, the guidelines I would propose would be simple. Each premium account gets to list one virtual cache per year of continual premium membership. The logging of these caches would be open to all members. If you have been paying for premium membership for 3 years you can list a total of 3 virtual caches as an example. Currently owned and active virtual caches would not count against this maximum owned total. They would remain grandfathered. However if a grandfathered cache were archived it would not add an additional opening to an individual's maximum amount. If your premium membership expires and no one is willing to adopt your virtual caches then the caches will be archived after 90 days. All rules that apply to traditional caches regarding trespassing and other illegal activity will also be enforced for virtual caches. This would be a simple way to eliminate the potential of virtual power trails. It would also help ensure that the few virtual caches a person lists are of a high quality since the number of them they can post would be small and most members would not want to 'waste' them. It also adds value to premium membership. Anything that entices more paying members is good for the bottom line. It also entices current members to not let their membership expire so they don't loose their virtual caches. Each virtual cache placed must be within a 50 mile radius of the listing cacher's home coordinates. Logging requirements: I purpose what I would call a personal avatar token (PAT) as one possible form of verification. A PAT can be the member themselves, their GPS unit or an item they use to represent themselves like a small stuffed toy, a business card or favorite trinket. Each member will have this PAT on their profile page for easy reference by a cache owner doing log verification. A virtual cache can include a PAT staging location or PSL. This is a specific spot for use of a PAT for use in logging. A PSL would require the cache hunter would need to be at the posted location in order to place and photograph their PAT. It would be something such as a specific bench or unique item to the spot to photograph with a PAT for verification. It would not need to be the focus of the virtual cache if the cache is designed to be a surprise. The photo would not have be a spoiler for the location. The PSL must be within a 20 foot radius of the posted location, be the same terrain rating or lower of the cache and require no additional equipment or skill to get to then what was used to get to the cache. For example if climbing was not required to get to the cache location then climbing cannot be required to get to the PSL. Another possible verification for those against the use of a PAT would be what I would call a simple heading verification or SHV. A SHV is simply e-mailing the cache owner a description of what is visible at a given heading while at the posted coordinates. The cache hunter stands at the posted coordinates turns to the heading given on the cache page and emails the cache owner what they see for verification. A photo could be used instead of a written description but could not be required by the cache owner. For example, the cache hunter gets to the location, turns to a heading 270 degrees and emails the cache owner "I see a flagpole with a small bush next to it." Simple and easy verification. There are no perfect systems for stopping all arm-chair logging. I would be willing to bet, based on the condition of traditional cache logs I have found that many of the caches I have found I could have logged on-line without being near the cache.

Well maybe my calling it an ALR is a stretch, but it clearly seems against the rules in spirit to me. Had I been going along with my friend for this cache I would be watching him the entire time while he was in the tree for safety reasons. I would probably be holding a safety rope as he climbed. If he then signs his name and mine while he is up in the tree I don't see how the CO could legitimately delete my log. I was there (just in this example argument, neither of us have actually been to the cache yet), I helped in cache retrieval and my name is on the log. It seems well within the guidelines for me to log it on-line as a find.

A friend of mine was planning a trip to King's Island in Ohio and was planning to grab some caches along the way. A particular cache came up in his search and he brought it to my attention. This cache. He asked me how the owner can delete logs if a person's name is in the physical log. To me this didn't seem allowed but being unsure I thought I would ask here. He seemed particularly concerned about the owners maintenance log,

Wouldn't a specific note be more proactive then a generic one?

Thank you for your list. You posted while I was on my previous reply. However it is very hard to tell of the Reviewer's custom note in my example was in fact custom (just saying) Often it seems #3 is not followed by all the Reviewers equally. Maybe a specific GS form response might remedy this. As for #4 it would be also possible for the Reviewer to wait 24 hours until their frustration could be held in check. I realize that yes Reviewers are people too (except of course the canine varieties) and as it has been shown here on the forum even some Reviewers are not as well versed in all the minutia of every guideline to the degree that some forum regulars are. So mistakes and misunderstandings are bound to happen. However, I still wonder if a more personal response opposed to a form response would make dealing with these misunderstandings a little easier on everyone.

Just to be clear, this is not about the example I gave specifically but rather the use of 'canned' Reviewer notes in general. I could have just of easily used the recent blow-up over the cache in Illinois for my example or some other caches where misunderstanding of the 'canned' note caused problems. This really has nothing to do with a particular cacher or Reviewer. It has nothing to do with how well a cacher understands all of the various guidelines. It has everything to do with how the Reviewer responds to issues as they develop. Yes I know GS does not give out a specific list of form responses. But are Reviewers encouraged to make use of copy and paste notes that the Reviewers develop? Would it not be better for a custom response to specific issues from a Reviewer rather then a somewhat confusing form note?

From recent topics it seems a big point of concern arises from the use of pre-written or 'canned' reviewer notes. I honestly don't see why these are commonly used because they seem to lead to a good bit of misunderstanding. Take the most recent thread as an example. A new cacher believes they have complied with what the reviewer wanted when their recent cache was disabled so the cacher re-enabled it. The reviewer then re-disables the cache with a 'canned' note about cache proximity guidelines and states a re-submission will result in archival. This confuses and upsets the new cacher. But honestly from looking at the log exchange it is obvious that the reviewer knew the proximity issue was with the cacher's other cache. The reviewer also knew the cacher had disabled the 1st cache after the 2nd reviewer note. So really how hard would have it been for the reviewer to simply write a new unique note specific to the issue that was at hand. Something along the lines of... That would have taken all of maybe 30 extra seconds to send opposed to the time it took for the 'canned' response and would have made a world of difference. So are reviewers encouraged to use 'canned' responses? Are the 'canned' responses due to an over-whelming work load on the Reviewers? Could it be argued that a more cache specific response from a Reviewer might lead to fewer problems down the road?

I must live in an exceptional geocaching area because all the Challenge caches I have seen have been actual challenges. For example find 25 benchmarks or visit each of the remaining virtual caches in the state or find caches in 3 states or other things along those lines. Could someone post some example listings of these supposed challenges that are actually thinly disguised ALRs? I am curious to see what what the fuss is about. To the OP. If it is simple and I notice it I would probably play along with the additional logging request.

Thank you very much for fixing my issue with the ignore field notes with a date way in the future. Any idea how that got messed up or how I could correct it if it happens again? I now notice that I have a great number of field notes that are not mine on caches I have never visited. Was this some residue of the 'fixing' procedure or has somehow my field notes been mixed up with another person's?

I still get which still makes that feature useless until I fix my time travel machine. latest Firefox uploading from PN-40 or Endura Out&Back Cx1 - Can you give us some more steps to reproduce this. Like what cache were you posting the field note and were you doing this from Iphone? And it said ignore logs before 11/14/2013?? Trying to upload any field notes from the two devices I listed. This has been an issue I have posted about before and was not caused by this update. The date is there before I even browse to any field notes to upload. If the field notes being squared away was just about iphone I apologize but it seemed to be a general field note statement and not iphone specific when I read it. And yes the 2013 date is correct, though it goes up one day each time I submit field notes so next time after a successful upload it will say 11/15/2013 then 11/16/2013 etc.

meh, I'm not so sure...google said I asked about his dog?

awww come on.....some of us barely have a grasp of English and you two are posting in French?

While I understand your frustration with the situation I think you are taking the wrong path to satisfaction. I for one would respect the position that you will not contribute money to Groundspeak until they develop an app for Droid similar to the iphone app. Personally I would consider switching to a Droid if an official app like the iphone app was available. I cannot support the position though of withholding monetary support for a company that blocked an illegal and unsupported app. You knew going in that the 'Forbidden' droid app was forbidden for a reason right and would probably end up being blocked

I still get which still makes that feature useless until I fix my time travel machine. latest Firefox uploading from PN-40 or Endura Out&Back

Without the owner's consent sadly it cannot be adopted.

Better disable GC28NFF til you can check it too. Lots of helpful folks in your area. Maybe a cow got the other one too?

umm did you read post #2? I've read every post. However, I don't agree with #2s logic. That's why when I receive a NM log, I physically check on the cache to make sure it is in good condition or not missing. Fortuantely, I had to make a trip past the cache in question the same day I received the NM log. Normally, I wouldn't dive past it once in two months, which would have made it necessary to make an unnecessary trip. oh, so because you don't agree with the 'logic' of the post then the post does not count as one questioning the "validity of logging a NM when a log is actually full" even though that's exactly what the post was doing.

umm did you read post #2?

You do know it is possible to connect a much better gps receiver to an iphone via bluetooth right? Then you can use the Groundspeak app with a very accurate gps. Droid doesn't do that

Seems very clear to me. An object slightly larger then a 35mm film canister cannot by the guidelines be listed as a micro. The guideline clearly states 'or smaller'. A standard Altoids tin is much larger then a 35mm film can. Most prescription bottles or spice containers are also larger then a 35mm film can. By the guidelines they are not micros. Match containers are larger then a 35mm film can. Some magnetic key holders are larger then a 35mm film can. They are not micros. The problem is the above listed items also have difficulty meeting the requirements for a small. The above items are clearly less then 1 quart. So it come down to holding trade items and a logbook. Now the guideline does not state the container has to hold all types trade items or even multiple trade items. People who trade small coins or other small items would have no trouble putting that size of trade item in any of the containers I listed above. So they would qualify as a small by that criteria. So what are the standard dimensions for a logbook? Is there an official Groundspeak standard? I'm quite sure someone could come up with a logbook about the size of a postage stamp or even smaller. I've seen some logbooks about that size in caches already. So if there is no size guideline for logbooks or a clear definition of a logbook vs a log scroll or even just a log-sheet then all of the non-micros I listed previously would have to be classified as a small to be within the guidelines.

I find it very difficult to remember GC numbers. Sometimes due to long periods between placement of a part of a series the GC numbers for the various parts of a series will have very different GC numbers. What the OP is asking for people to consider when naming their caches is something I had not considered before, but I do see the issues they are talking about. I will try and consider their request when naming future caches.

Dude, I'm not really sure what your issue is with this. The officer went way way beyond what most cachers would hope for if a cache is found by anyone outside of geocaching. Instead of simply thanking that man for his time and trouble you insist on making some point based on his use of a single word; "aggravation" So are you trying to say that it is fine if geocaches cause aggravation for other people including law enforcement? Is this the attitude Groundspeak is trying to foster in the non-geocaching community?

That is a violation of the guidelines. All information to find the cache must be on the cache page. Ditto. You have to post the required info on the cache page unless it's a puzzle cache. umm, it says its a puzzle in the 1st quote. I believe the OP is refering to a key that would be emailed to help solve the puzzle, not the coordinates to the puzzle cache. Look it more along the lines if you complete the challenge cache you will receive a really good hint to solve the final mystery cache. People would still be able to attempt the puzzle without the hint and log the puzzle without the hint, if they managed to find the actual cache and sign the physical log. So it is not an ALR.

I'm not seeing the problem.... Stage 1, player finds a specific traditional cache and logs it. This establishes the starting date for Stage 2 challenge. I don't think logging a find is an ALR. Those that don't log on-line could still try and find the next stages. Stage 2, player completes the challenge of 100 D/T points, either 50 1D/1T caches, 10 5D/5T or some combination in between to arrive at 100 points and logs the caches and provides proof to CO that challenge was met (a list of caches they found after Stage 1 that add up to 100 D/T points) This proof is not an ALR, you could log the challenge once you find the cache, you just would not get the key-hint for stage 3. Stage 3, the mystery puzzle. A puzzle 'almost' impossible to solve without receiving the key-hint for completing the challenge stage. This is the 'good' cache with all the nifty swag. Sounds fun to me.

This is a concept I want to put in my cart. How do you force a cartridge restart? I assume save & exit would not work since the cart would then be saved at the point where it would restart and cause an endless loop.