Beach_hut

You may find you'd get a lot of notifications when the cache owner makes minor changes to content, spelling etc. Perhaps as the cache owner, if you updated your cache significantly, there would be a box you could tick as you updated the cache, so that a significant change is pushed out to anyone who'd opted for the appropriate notification. As the cache owner updating your cache, you could choose whether the update was significant or not.

That's not the idea... LOL

Hi, I've seen a lot of threads asking for a map of caches with a 0.1 mile radius drawn around them so that hiders can see where they hide new caches, and I totally agree with the retort to such threads, which is that it would need to include multi/puzzle final cache locations and would thus give them away to anyone who hadn't solved the puzzle/multi, which speaking as a puzzle cache setter I would not appreciate. I think I've thought of a way round it: when the hider fills out the cache submission wizard, at the point they enter the co-ords, there is a button they can click which will do an automated check to see if those co-ords are within 0.1 miles of an existing cache/multi stage etc. It would literally say Yes or No, not how far and which cache etc. To prevent abuse, and the function being used as a brute force geocheck substitute, you could put a limit on it which would cap the number of times you could click the button, say 3 times in a 24 hour period. I would propose this as optional, so that if you were writing out a bunch of cache listings, you wouldn't be obliged to check the proximity on each one (plus sometimes you might know darn well there isn't a cache nearby, and again you wouldn't be obliged to click a button to prove it) When it gets to the reviewer, they would naturally still need to check the location itself is suitable/legal etc, and the cache meets all the guidelines, but if the hider had clicked the button and got a green light on the proximity checker, a marker would show up for the benefit of the reviewer telling them the proximity had been checked, and they wouldn't need to do so, saving the reviewer time. Perhaps as a safeguard to reduce errors, if you were a hider and the proximity checker said no, and you couldn't see why, there would be a button next to where it said no, allowing you to push these co-ords to a reviewer and then they could scrutinize and make sure the system wasn't throwing false positives. I dare say there are holes in my plan, but what do you think?

I would disagree also, and agree with Isonzo Karst's points. To cite an example, a friend of ours, poshrule is #28 on that list with 936 hides, I didn't count exactly how many of them are active but estimate approx 900 of them. I've just looked through, and there is one needs maintenance log in all of those caches, and that was from today. (and reading the log, it's not really maintenance as such, a cacher found the cache in what they think is the wrong place) he puts us to shame , and we have less then 10% of the caches out that he does. The most poorly maintained caches we tend to find are from caches whose finds are in the single figures. I won't name names but off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen examples.

Would love to see a mega in the South East/East Anglia/East Midlands/London area. Maybe 2015... lol

Even though the term "challenge cache" predates "geocaching challenges", I think it would be confusing to have the two similar names.

Geez I found a slow worm at one of our caches, that was bad enough!

Does your school/college/university have specific other schools it partners with abroad? If so you could perhaps do a mystery cache where you need to obtain information about the partner school (the sort held publicly online), or perhaps a multi where the clues are actually physically at the other school but the final cache is at yours, and a second cache is the other way around. Cachers in either place would need to collaborate with the other to find the clues. I'm not 100% sure that's within the guidelines but I'm sure I've seen similar before.

There's a link somewhere with all of the the current list, I can't find it? I gather it's on Deci's blog? I think DalesmanX is the reviewer for that patch?

Yes, you will do. I've got mine already. If you've not got yours, email GS and send them the GC code of a cache you found, and they can manually add one for you. They were very helpful when I had a similar issue.

Don't forget that the blue ? Icon also covers bonus caches for trails, night caches, chirp caches, field puzzles and an awful lot more besides. Where do you draw the line? I get round it using GSAK by having a custom text field in my database called MysteryCacheType, with a one word answer as to what sort of cache it is. Not the most elegant solution but it suits me. Also, what would you call it, now we have Geocaching Challenges?

Where's the respect for the cache owner? I happen to find both the forum etiquette and the rule (in the terms of use) against providing hints without the owner's permission on Groundspeak's websites a bit draconian. There are probably many people like the OP who are stuck on a puzzle and looking for help and all we can tell them is go someplace else. Not only that but if someone were to post a link to a site where you could discuss puzzles, I'm sure you'd have a lot of people here screaming that Groundspeak should close it down or ban the persons using it if their Geocaching accounts are known. Sure there may be some people who just want the coordinates so they can log the cache and clear another unknown cache from their map. Perhaps they just want the coordinates so they know where they can hide a cache so it won't violate the saturation guidelines. And I'm not sure if I would give out that information without the owner's approval. But when someone wants a gentle hint as to what direction to take, I find the "rules" here a bit harsh. I see it from a couple of different perspectives. When creating a new puzzle cache, how the puzzle is constructed is typically determined by how difficult the CO wants to make it and hopefully tries to give an accurate difficulty rating. The CO may or may not decide to include an encrypted hint depending on how hard they want their puzzle to be. If a CO places a puzzle cache and give it a 2 star difficult rating, that would lead me to believe that it's intended not to be very difficult, and a CO probably isn't going to mind if someone else provides a gentle nudge. However, if the CO has rated it 4 stars, I'd assume that they *expect* that it's going to be difficult to solve, and I *would* consider it disrespectful to the CO if someone was providing hints that effectively made it as difficult as a 2 star puzzle. I've seen some puzzles where the CO indicated that it took months and even one that took over a year to create. If I spent that much time creating a puzzle for a cache and someone that solved it took upon themselves to give hints to anyone that asked, I'd be pretty peeved. That said, in this case someone just said they'd take a look at the puzzle, given the GC code (personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with posting the GC code in the forums). Presumably, that would mean that the person taking a look at the puzzle has not already solved it and might collaborate with the OP to come up with a solution. From reading cache found it logs, for my own and other cache listings, it looks like a fairly high percentage of them are from cachers that found it while caching as a team or with one or more other geocachers that went out for the day. If it's acceptable to have more than one pair of eyes searching for a well hidden cache, it would be unreasonable to expect that 2 or more cachers might get together to have more than one pair of eyes looking at a difficult puzzle. I agree. I should have stated in my first comment that what you set out in the last paragraph is basically what I had in mind. Although the OP is from the UK like me, in all likelihood I have never seen the puzzle much less solved it, and in the event that I had (or could solve it on sight), I wouldn't have given away the answer, maybe a nudge, but no more. I like looking at puzzle caches, so I was posting with a view to enlightening myself as much as the OP. That said, I don't think it's right to have the discussion and the specific cache concerned public where anyone might chance upon it, that's for me where the line is in terms of respecting the cache owner. Hence my original post when I proposed to "take the discussion offline", to borrow an office buzzword. Anyway, I see the OP has solved the puzzle, and it looks like a cipher, so I would have been no help anyway! ;-)

You could PM me the GC code and I'll have a look?

Thanks all. I've worked out we do qualify without needing to look at Holkham Haul, so if moun10bike reviewed that one that would be 11. There are probably many more, (in fact I know there's at least one more), but I was going through the laborious process of picking caches at random and scrolling all the way to the bottom of the page to look for the published log. Didn't find it on some of the older caches which is probably explained by the replies. The challenge in question, if anyone's interested, is GC3KY8E. Edit: our qualifying 10 didn't include any from overseas (not cached outside mainland UK yet), but does include caches we've found from England, Scotland and Wales.

See title... :unsure: The reason I ask is that we've been looking at a challenge cache that requires you to have found caches by 10 different reviewers, which has sent us on a hunt through our old cache finds. I notice our oldest one of all, Holkham Haul GC1984, placed 24th Aug 2001, doesn't appear to show a published log? Now it most probably is our browser being awkward, and not scrolling down far enough, but it scrolled down as far as a log from 9th Sept 2001. It got me wondering though, before GC.com/Groundspeak got established as it is today, when geocaching was a very new thing, did caches always require a review, or was there a time when people put forward caches without a reviewer looking at them, hence there being no publish log as we know it today (?) Who doesn't mind admitting they've been around long enough to remember?

Sorted - many thanks to Sara at GS :-)

I've tried logging a ticket with GS. Will see if they can help.

Thanks Misfit-77! I followed the instructions, and I got a note stating that coin manufacturer requests coins to be activated through their own website, with a link, which directed me to oakcoins! Tried the code and, as you might expect, not in their database. I'm afraid I'm no further on. EDIT: Is there any kind of support I can contact, say at GS?

Hi all, I recently purchased a GC on ebay and when it arrived I found, as expected, details of where to activate it, in this case a Hogwild coin, a manufacturer I'd not come across before. The hogcodes.com site had a PHP/SQL problem of some kind preventing me from activating it, I emailed the owner, and didn't receive a response. Now I check back a couple of weeks later, both that site and the main site appear to be down. (domain expired) Is Hogwilds no more as a coin manufacturer? I take it I have no route to activate the coin any more?

I've noticed emails not coming in for a variety of scenarios today: http://coord.info/GC3QZNN a cache I own, FTFed and logged approx 5 hours ago, I've not seen the owner email yet. http://coord.info/GC3R98H http://coord.info/GC3R9RN http://coord.info/GC2XHM7 All published at some stage today and I've not seen the notification yet. And lastly, I submitted a cache this morning (I will naturally withhold the GC code on the forum as it's pending review!), and the emails notifying that I posted reviewer notes and that I submitted a cache never arrived, and that was at least 12 hours ago now.