cx1

I'm not Sven but I would like to jump in here. I don't believe the so called 'majority' would consider these videos as 'cheating' Say the first time you find a cache it is an ammo box under a pile of sticks. Would it then be 'cheating' if on the second cache you went to if you had the idea based on previous experience to look under pile of sticks at this new location? Has the first cache 'spoiled' the second because they are similar hides? Does finding one clever method of hiding a cache ruin all future hides done in a similar style? From the videos I watched you would have to be an expert on the location to even begin to guess what cache was in the video. I've found the videos to be an excellent source, not for finding caches but rather for getting ideas for ways I could make my future hides more enjoyable for others. I hope to incorporate many of the things I have seen in the videos locally because I know we have nothing like them around here.

My avatar comes from another hobby I sometimes enjoy. Mine is a '71 w/car 2wd.

Well the writer can't spell (geocash?) so it all works out.

You do know you don't have to read threads you don't like the content of don't you? Or should we ask Groundspeak to add a anti-safety forum forum so we won't have to see you repeat the same thing over and over? Seems a pot vs kettle thing going on here. We can do nothing to change past events, but we can examine ways that might prevent similar things from happening in the future. Having clearer warnings and the community becoming more active in reporting improper caches might not save Bill and Tom and Sally but it might save George. Isn't it worth it to at least try?

That design on the back of a yellow safety vest would be sweet.

Not sure on this, here in Indiana there was a very large series of cemetery caches put out by a group of several people. One of the items on the listings was a yellow ribbon with 'I support our troops'. There was also wording at the end of some of the listings They had to either remove the ribbon and wording or the cache was archived. These caches had been out for four or five years too. The reviewers get some very strict agenda policies from Groundspeak. Their personal opinion may have little to do with it.

Again as long as it is not required but rather much easier then making several trips back home or the public library to use a PC then suggesting an app to take with them should not be forbidden. As far as being concerned that it might upset a radius junky....there is always the ignore cache option. I don't consider whether or not every single cacher within x miles of any cache I place will be able to get it. In fact I assume most cachers will not be able to get them. Otherwise all caches would need to be 1/1 D/T rated. It is the radius junky's issue, not the cache hiders. And I readily admit I have placed a very difficult puzzle intentionally to upset a radius junky. He is my caching buddy though.

Groundspeak allows the wiggle room to get around this. Otherwise why would they not simply omit the work 'likely' from the guideline? Some people do not feel secure in downloading an app. However an app might make this puzzle much easier to solve. So why not have the option for folks who are willing to take the app route? As long as it is not 'impossible' to solve the puzzle without a specific app or even specific piece of PC software then it is within the guideline you cite and should be allowed.

It was just to beat the 'they are better then a LPC' retort that I figured would be along shortly

If it still had a log inside you signed then I would call it a 'find'. If you just found the container and left no signature then I would ask the CO how they would call it or just call it a DNF.

I really like tanks, and I really like caches that bring me to visit tanks. However I am horrible at finding caches(esp nanos) on tanks. So my feelings on tank caches are mixed. Its kinda a love/hate vibe I have with them. They beat hiking a mile to find an ammo can under a pile a sticks though

Actually I would have to disagree with that. Apps from an official source such as the ITunes app store go through a process of scanning for malware prior to being posted for download. I would assume the official android marketplace is similar. Wherigo cartridges are user created and do not go through any scanning or testing for malware prior to open publication. The LUA programming involved does allow for reading and writing to a local disk (or other storage medium) so the potential for malware is there. But given the small audience for Wherigo cartridges the rewards for bothering to program a malware type cartridge would probably not be worth the trouble.

You seem to be missing my point. Unless you know for certain how a particular DNR property manager wants to handle geocaches it is not good advice to tell people in other areas to place their cache first and then seek the permit. It clearly states in the IB-46 to get the permit prior to placing a cache. Nothing in section 5 states to place the container before getting the permit. Subsection 4 relates to how a photograph may be required. It will again depend on the property manager. It also states photographs of the cache and photographs of the location, but it does not state photographs of the cache at the location. But your first given advice to people in this thread was: If a person places a cache without going through the permit process and then runs into a property manager who is against geocaching then section 6-2 can come into play and if the land manager wants to push the issue then the cache placer may face some financial penalties. So it may not simply be a matter of walking back out and picking up your container if your permit is denied. The property manager may decide that you have damaged the area and you would now be responsible for the costs they determine for the repairs.

Meh, its not a nano and the log is dry. I'm thinking there is a guideline issue with caches that look like explosives though. I could be mistaken however. If I found a cache like that I would sign the log and keep on trucking.

Ok, then your naturalist is not following the correct procedure. Directly from the IB-46: I am glad that the property manager is willing to work with you and other cachers for getting caches on their property. Locally the situation is quite different. Had I approached the local property manager after placing a cache on the property I am quite certain they would have demanded I remove it. With IDNR having contacted Groundspeak the rules for the local reviewers have been modified to require a copy of the permit prior to publication. So more people are going to run into this issue. So I think it is best to suggest that people follow the procedure as outlined in IB-46 which is to get a permit before placing the cache. At least until you know exactly how the property manager you need to deal with wants to handle the situation.

Actually that is incorrect. You are supposed to have the permit before placing the cache. Then take the photograph of the cache in position and have the image added to the permit kept on file with the property manager if the property manager wants a photograph. Via a receptionist/secretary I was informed that the property manager would not allow a cache placement on the 2100+ acre DNR property near by. The property manager would allow me to place a virtual cache though. No reasons were given for the denial other then they didn't think it would be a good idea. So before speaking with the property manager directly I am now gathering information for what is needed for the informal review process of the denial by the area director as noted in IB46-3-c. It may not be a 'big deal' to do in some areas, but locally they are making it a huge process. No one in the office answering phones knew of geocaching, what the IB-46 was, or where to get or send the official permit form. There have been caches in the area in question since at least 2003 and since they seem to have no idea what geocaches are it would seem logical to conclude that geocaches have not been causing problems.

Using the space bar key on the iphone app will allow a basically blank log submission. I only have used this method while racing for a FTF (and only once, now I post the time) so the FTF hounds will know the FTF is gone. It bothers me when I see no found it logs on-line yet when I get to a cache it had been found several hours before. Of course I always edit and add information when I return home and have access to a 'real' keyboard.

I don't think this would help. Anyone foolish enough to drive into a plowed field will probably also be too foolish to heed cache attributes.

For the record, since I was mentioned specifically I do not think Challenges are lame. I do think there are lame Challenges though. Same way I don't think traditional caches are lame, but I have logged some pretty lame traditionals. Why I have so few is the support by the website for them IMHO is very lame. No PQ support No gpx/loc files (even waymarks get those) They don't show on the maps with caches so I have no idea if there are nearby Challenges unless I search specifically from each cache. Tedious at best. Also GSAK does not support them as a separate category like it does benchmarks and waymarks so trying to include them in my statistics throws milestones and other stats off. So overall the lack of support by Groundspeak for Challenges compared to the tools they make available for virtual caches is why I don't do many Challenges.

Ok, this is just silly. the best rule about this I found so far... So if you can't put a cache near a tree or a road or a stream there really are not any places left in the local DNR area. Now it is perfectly alright for leaves around a tree (it has its own section in the rules) but a plastic container near a tree and the tree is now somehow 'dangerous'?

Hmm, need 30 before you are going to take action on our behalf eh? 1. Bring back virtual caches. 2. Shelve the 'beta' maps. 3. Set a two nested quote maximum on the forums. 4. Provide a 'power trail' attribute. 5. Since they are probably not going to do #1 then at least give challenges .gpx/.loc files and add them as an option for PQs. 6. Provide a searchable index of the guidelines. There, 20% of the needed 30 ideas.

Once in close to 900 caches did the container type bother me. Coordinates took you to a huge fallen tree that was big enough for even a 'large' cacher such as myself to crawl inside and be hidden completely. The perfect spot for a large cache. Cache ended up being a nano hidden up under an old covered bridge next to the fallen tree. The cache owner wanted to put out a nano, so they did. In retrospect I am at least thankful they did not put the nano inside the tree As far as a small container 'blocking' your multi...they had the idea for a cache there first. Tough luck old chap.

Or a waymark. At least those flavor of plout have .loc and .gpx(lite) type of files the user can download. And a smidgen of owner control. Maybe list them in the 'Best kept Secrets' category. As another stated, you need National Science type group to supervise to even have a slim chance to get this to go anywhere. Sad I know.

Meh, two were on dying technology so really a stretch to call them critical. 5-10 years from now kids will say 'telephones had wires?' Did you contact the utility company to let them know that there might be a problem with their hydro pole? "vibrating with voltage" is probably something they might like to be aware of.

Isn't that what the small hole is for that is mentioned above the first picture?