cx1

Depends on which of me you ask Actually was thinking more along the lines of a second account where all it does is list mystery caches. If I don't post under that account I would not be allowed to discuss those caches even though they would be 'mine'.

Yes it is very different, because it is 'fair' to all who would wish to find the solution, not just those in the right 'clique'. People who want to avoid any 'help' could easily avoid the thread where it is discussed and people wanting/needing help would have a place to go with a wealth of information outside their 'circle'. As long as it doesn't degenerate to postings of the solution is XX XX.XXX XXX XX.XXX and focus on explaining techniques, explaining 'why' a particular technique might be suitable to a particular puzzle etc then I honestly do not see the harm. It would provide a way for newer puzzle solvers to learn and get better at solving them and might lead them to putting out 'good' puzzles of their own. Getting to see a specific puzzle posted in California that used a technique I had not seen before might help me here in Indiana expand my puzzle output. The way I am seeing the TOU is that even as the cache owner I can not have a discussion specifically about my own puzzle. I can't discuss specifically why people are not picking up on the subtle hints, why this red herring was effective and that one wasn't, if this solution technique is too obscure etc etc. I would be 'spoiling' my own puzzle. Basically all caches I put out are puzzles. I know that one at least one of them that no one was able to completely solve it on their own(though I still don't understand why). I also know that several of the people who found it never had a clue on what the puzzle was even about. But I put the caches out to be found and however they did it they were able to sign the log. Having a discussion of my specific puzzle on the internet is not going to change the fact that some people may solve the puzzle and some people may just tag along and sign the log. But if discussing here it might help people get that 'ah-ha' moment of getting a solution that you know even without a checker that it just has to be the right one, well then I am all for it. To me that 'ah-ha' moment is one of the best feelings you can legally have. So if deconstructing my puzzles on the internet helps others be able to get that same feeling then I am all for it.

Firefox 9.0.1 The cache clear got it to work. Will this be necessary each time I want to run a search?

When preforming an advanced search.. Select unknown cache type Search by postal code Search results indicate there are two pages of results for my zip code. All the listings on the first page are the correct unknown cache type. However pressing the link for page two, or by pressing the link for 'next' eliminates the unknown cache type filter and page two will display all cache types. And instead of just two pages I am now presented with 10+

I think I am understanding your concept. Personally I think the terrain rating for a cache should be for that cache only and not just 'sharing' the difficulty from a different cache even if that other cache is needed to be able to find the cache in question. Say I have four caches with clues to a final mystery cache. Cache A is a 1.5.1.5 Cache B is a 3/1.5 Cache C is a 2/4 Cache D is a 3/5 If the terrain for that final mystery cache and just considering that cache on its own merits would only rate a 3 it should be listed as a 3. Yes I had to traverse a level 5 terrain getting cache D, but I have already 'claimed' 'gotten credit' or how ever you would like to say it for the level 5 terrain when I logged cache D. If the terrain from where I park my car to where the mystery cache is located is not level 5 terrain then it should not be listed as such. Or I guess to say another way, if I were looking for a cache to fill my D/T grid and I needed a 5/5 I personally would not choose the mystery to fill that grid spot. If someone else chooses to I would think nothing of it though.

No, but I am not limiting the system to only caches on the high end of the difficulty scale. I actually think it would be more beneficial for caches on the low end of the scale (where I normally cache). Having a way for the safety information to pop out on the 'easy' caches where most people won't sift through every log. Thinking you are heading to an easy 1.5/1.5 Glance at the top of the log listing Notice three logs out of the 84 have a 'safety attention' flag Click the little icon and see what concerned those 3 folks when those logs float to the top of the list from their previous spot in chronological order. Might be something trivial like a warning of thorns. Might be something important like if you approach the cache from the east (say you were getting another cache in the area first) instead of from the south where the parking coordinates put you there is an uncovered well you need to avoid that would be directly in your path. This might be something the CO knew nothing about. Might be something most previous finders were not aware of because they only went from the parking lot to the cache. But that one cacher a year ago had the same idea you had to get that other cache first and was kind enough to post a warning about it. That might just save your life. I'm just not seeing how that is bad or worthless to implement, sorry.

Well maybe it is just a inability on a personal level, but I can not retain information I feel is important when it is lumped in with a ton of data I feel is unimportant. So perhaps I am being selfish in asking that this information to be made available in a form that I can understand and more importantly retain. It is not an issue of personal responsibility (I want to cache safely) but knowing my personal limitations (I can't remember everything). If I only went to a cache or two a day it wold probably not be an issue. But for example my caching of two days ago we had made plans for 48 caches. After reading through every log by the time I got to about the 20th cache I had so much information all jumbled together it was not possible for me to accurately recall what information went with each cache. But if there was a way (perhaps via a method of flagging logs with an attribute type system or having a new log type) where I could review information submitted by previous finders I felt was important(like things that may harm me) it would be a boon to my retention because the amount of data I would need to process would be much lower. Now knowing that the 14th finder of cache X ate lunch at Red Lobster prior to finding it is not 'useful' or 'helpful' to me and it is a hindrance when it causes me to forget that the planks on the east side of the bridge at cache Y are to be avoided by people on the heavy side even though they appear to be in the same condition as the planks on the west.

The D/T ratings are not specifically for safety but they are supposed to be a tool for finders to have an idea of what to expect. A warning log would be no different. A tool a finder could use to try and get a better idea of what to expect. Neither are fool-proof or perfect all-inclusive systems. Reading all the logs may give a false sense of security and they may not give the complete picture of the caching area. So then those would be as equally worthless as logs flagged to address dangers. I guess I don't understand, you say reading all the logs for information is 'doing my homework' yet when I ask for that information to be in a form that is more efficient to use you then claim the information is worthless. It is the same information.

So then the guidelines are worthless to quote anywhere on this site since the local reviewer can have 'digressing' rules then. The answer to all guideline questions should be ask your local reviewer since each locality may have a reviewer that has differing personal preferences. And then I suppose if you are in an area where you might have one of three reviewers pluck your cache submission out of the queue your cache may or may not be published based on luck of the draw even though you are in compliance with the officially published listing guidelines. Seems a bad way to go about it to me.

The same can be said for attributes already in place and difficulty and terrain ratings. They do not mean the cache is safe either. So would you say they are also worthless information since there is no guarantee they are accurate or all inclusive? Are they already promoting a false sense of security?

You do realize that you state there is no organizing authority and then follow it by quoting the guidelines from the organizing authority right? Groundspeak is the organizing authority for listing caches on their site. This topic is about a reviewer circumventing that authority and establishing their own 'rules' for what is required before a cache is listed. If a reviewer can just make up their own guidelines then the guidelines listed on the site are worthless. Having an appeal process is not a solution but a band-aid. A solution would be to prevent it from happening, not 'fixing' it each time after the fact. If a reviewer refuses to follow the guidelines as set forth by Groundspeak then that reviewer should be either re-trained or replaced. Reviewers have a difficult and often thankless job, but that does not put them beyond reproach. And reviewers that start making up rules as they go along just makes the job that much more difficult for the reviewers that do their job properly.

Once the police and bomb squad are on the scene is a sticker or stencil on the suspicious container really going to matter? If it says 'dangerous' they are probably still going to blow it up. If it says 'box full of kittens' they are still probably going to blow it up. They are not going to add personal risk to themselves (and I don't blame them a bit) based on the writing on the suspicious package. They are going to treat it as a threat until it is not capable of being a threat.

What gives him the right to do that? He is using a personal bias to require express permission when that is not required under the listing guidelines. So if I hang a bison tube in a tree that is fine with him without express permission, but if I hang an outlet box with a light switch in a tree I need express permission from the owner of the tree. It is not his job to just make up rules like that. If the cache meets all of the Groundspeak listing guidelines it should be published. It should not matter if the reviewer thinks a specific container is a good idea. Imagine the uproar if the reviewer required express permission for all ammo can hides but willingly publishes all nano containers with implied permission. Just because they don't like ammo cans.

Well I would proceed as usual with a normal sense of alertness. I would not think 'oh this cache is completely safe let me put this blindfold on and head to the GZ because nothing can hurt me' which is what you seem to be implying will happen. Currently if a cache does not have a poison ivy attribute checked I do not assume that there is no possible way I may encounter poison ivy, I still will look for it. Maybe it wasn't there when the cache was put out, maybe the previous finders didn't notice it maybe all sorts of things could have happened but I do not take an attribute as a guaranteed occurrence of something or the lack of the attribute as a guarantee that the occurrence will not happen. But if say one of the previous finders happened to notice that the 6th or 7th step on a very steep climb seems very wobbly when a person heavier then 125lbs steps on it and they note it in their log. I am going to be extra alert on those steps, but I am not going to assume that the other steps have not developed the same problem. Adding a way to quickly and easily get to the information already in the logs does not change what information is available. It also does not guarantee that information is the only thing you need to be aware of. Everyone still needs to watch out for dangers when geocaching whether those dangers are listed or not. All I'm asking for, and I think some others are asking for is a way to get to the safety information without having to wade through the trivia.

I think those four types of cachers likely do exist, but I also think there are others who are conscientious but fallable, or for whom reading many hours' worth of logs in some cases may be impractical.* I'm well-intentioned and I care about safety. I certainly feel responsible for my own, and for that of my kids. But sometimes I could use some help. Highlighting important information that might otherwise be lost amid hundreds of logs could be helpful. Not for all cachers - the particularly uncareful will continue to ignore, and the particularly fastidious will read every log with great comprehension without trouble. But I'm neither; I care, and I worry about missing stuff. I'm not convinced that there aren't better ways to highlight important information, or that doing so successfully would be worthless to all cachers. * The average adult reads at 250 words per minute with 70% comprehension - for the first cache we ever placed, it would take more than 9 hours to read all of the logs Excellent post!!

So then you admit that it does not really pertain to geocaching at all.

All of what you are saying is true. But, what is so 'wrong' of wanting all that information to be 'easier' for people to get to? I don't see how having a way to quickly and easily get safety or warning information from previous finders to be a bad thing. As the system is now a finder is able to give a written warning for others in their 'found it' log. I do not deny that. But look at this event. Only about 6% of the available logs contained warnings. Why not have a system where a future cache seeker can with a simple mouse click have those warnings all listed together without needing to read through that other 94% of the logs?

Hey thanks for the information. I don't often venture into that section of the forum and I was unaware that the warning-log was under discussion there. To save others searching for the thread, it can be found HERE.

I would like to express my support for a warning-type log. It can sometimes be difficult to glean useful information out of "found it" logs. Also needing to read though all of the 'found it' logs can lead to spoilers which detract from the caching experience for many people. I currently put warning type information in my 'found it' logs if I feel that special care or attention might help the next seeker. But I also know that personally I do not regularly read cache logs until I have already run into an issue of some sort. But if there was a way for a previous cache finder to highlight potential danger I might be getting into without me having to read about what they had for lunch, how the weather was that day, who they were with etc etc (basically all the polite chit-chat of typical 'found it' logs) then I would take advantage of having that warning information and read it.

I agree, and I do not think it seems like a general geocaching topic.

Ok, this will most likely sound silly, but it is 3am and I am in a silly question kinda mood Anyway... Would gluing something to the bark of a tree be harmful to the tree? The bark is going to fall off eventually anyway right? I'm thinking a nickle sized washer or similar so a magnet could be used to attach the cache container. This came to mind when I was picking up shed pieces of bark off the ground for a future hide today. Seems better then zip-ties since it would not inhibit the trees growth. I suppose it would still be considered defacing, though fire-tacks are not considered defacing. If one could demonstrate that the glued washer could be removed it doesn't seem that much different.

Well at least I tried to help the OP. I did offer advice how to roughly accomplish what he was wanting. Where was your help to the OP? Oh wait, why be helpful when you can be 'snippy'.

And you thought this was problem with the projection algorithms and not your method? Good thing you didn't do the puzzle. The problem here is that you rounded intermediate results, not anything wrong with the projections. Rounding to a 5-foot precision 9 times will give an expected error of about 15 feet. If I were you, I would refrain from giving other people advice about projections and what is and is not a good puzzle for the time being. Snobby, but accurate perhaps. I guess you missed the laughing smiley in my first post. One might take it that I was joking about the cache owner and relating an humorous but frustrating experience I personally have had with using projection techniques. Clearly you did not. I believe I also mentioned possible issues with rounding, but hey thanks for pointing that back out to me. I also explained how because I knew how other people would try and attempt to solve my puzzle which involves an app that only goes to D M.M in precision and comparing the results from that to an interface that allows D.DDDDDDDDDD I was getting varying results. They were both 'correct' in that they were 'close enough' for a geocache. If I were you, I would refrain from.....nah I'm not going to be snooty like that

Well it is true that 20 feet isn't much... But even though I am very careful determining my coordinates for my puzzles by using 2 or 3 gps units and taking several readings from each and calculating a best average out the data I feel I still need to allow for my coordinates to be off by 15 feet. And considering typical finders GPS units may also be off by 15 feet or more when they arrive at a GZ that gives the potential now with the incorrect data from the puzzle solution of where they think they are to where I think they should be at over 50 feet apart. After solving one of my puzzles that much variance would be mean to do.

So, apparently TPTB don't think you will ever need (or want) to download a saved .gpx file (to your iPhone). I'm not certain that the 'corrected co-ordinates' feature is necessarily the solution to the same need (even if it was essentially developed for that reason), but there you go. The Frog giveth, and the Frog taketh away. I suppose you could create a web server on your computer to download from, but that is a bit more complicated than most folks would want to tackle. Bummer. I can see some uses for this feature that has nothing to do with corrected coordinates. Thanks for the information though. I believe it will be easier for me to just have the netbook in the geo-cruiser as opposed to creating a web server