thebruce0

It looks like you are implying that the reviewers were aware of the violation in those listings and knowingly published the listings. Do you have any evidence to back that up or are you just assuming that must be so? As repeatedly observed, that is just one side of the problem. If the reason for adhering strictly to rules here implies that ALL reviewers are to adhere to them, then every other publish that does not adhere to them, by Groundspeak standards, is an error; if this repeatedly happens, then the reviewers are at fault. If the reason for adhering strictly to rules HERE implies a regional enforcement, then every other publish that does not adhere to them, by Groundspeak standards, is not in error as regional rulings may differ in those areas. In this case, no effort was made to say that simply displaying the word "charity" in a cache listing was ONLY a regional guideline strictly adhered to by reviewers. So yes, it very much does seem that mistakes were made elsewhere on the continent and the world, as the implication is that they are to be reviewing with the same ruleset. Either the rules are regionally enforced, or they are enforced wordwide. If they are universal, then any cache published that breaks a guideline is at the fault of the reviewer. Yes, reviewers can and will make mistakes, but you can bet when mistakes are made repeatedly, then community will raise concerns about either fairness, consistency, or capability of the reviewers in question. That's a logical conclusion based on the system that's in place. There is flexibility. This is good. There are mistakes. That's inevitable. Corrections can be made, and people can move on. But words are important though. If it's a Canadian guideline that "charity" shall not be shown in a cache listing (though after this was resolved the issue has been clarified and rectified) then that's fine - events in other countries may promote charities if their regional guidelines allow it. But if we're told this is a Groundspeak universal guideline, then yes - all reviewers worldwide should do their best to adhere to it in their review process. That is fair.

But again, that's the problem here. Ignoring it won't make it go away. But sometimes reviewers do nothing, so illegal/bad caches may still be active. Ignoring, currently, is the only option - if you read recent history to find out its status. Otherwise, how would one know if it may be illegal or breaking guidelines? *shrug*

I do like the idea of caches somehow having a filterable property for an unhandled infraction of guidelines. NA logs might not get dealt with for some time, or even ignored, even when a cache breaks guidelines. I personally would probably not use it, but for instance right now you have no way apart from checking past logs whether a cache has been flagged NA, possibly for good reason. And as with the examples above, illegal caches that are not archived could do well with this property. But it could also be easily abused were it attributed by the caching community. It could lead to the same drama as a 'Thumbs Down' feature. Geosphere has its own ignore feature that works wonders Aye. This is basically applying a community-rating as a filterable property, like a thumbs-down threshold. A single flag can easily be abused (one person could flag it and it would no longer appear in anyone's PQ who filters them out), so it would be more like the thumbs up/down feature of Challenges... This is getting to be a little too complex, imo

Umm, how do those caches not meet Groundspeak's guidelines? Is there a guideline that says you must obey the CO's wishes? They meet the guidelines of this site so you are already advocating misuse of your attribute. This. There's already a feature that does this: Ignore.

Also note that if you view any cache (from the Target or Search tabs, eg) in the browser ("Show in Browser" button), then if you click the GPX File button just below the listed coordinates on the web page, it will automatically download that cache's GPX file (typically with a few more logs, depending on your GC.com settings, iirc) and update your offline Geosphere waypoint data. Geosphere is still, IMO, the very best geocaching app for iOS.

Right, and as there are no rules, really, where you draw the line is up to you. I don't have a hard and fast rule myself, but if I were ever to 'find' my own cache, whether adopted or not, it wouldn't be a generic cache (though my 'line' would be less stringent if it were adopted vs still owned by me). I haven't yet logged a find on my own cache, so I can't say from personal experience. The closest I've come is my 5/5 puzzle cache. But as half that cache is a puzzle, which I created, I don't think I'll ever consider logging it myself. Were it a 5/5 that was, say, rated entirely for the trek TO gz, I might consider it after some time (but mainly if I were to adopt it out) because in that case, the requirements of the cacher - whether the owner or not - might well be the same, in order lay a hand on the container. That, at least, is the same guideline I'd apply to a challenge cache, or anyone that published a challenge cache. But again, that's just me.

I think perhaps it depends on the hide. If the fun of the cache is the experience to get there, rather than the difficulty in 'finding' it at gz, then one would in essence be doing everything any other cacher does; as per The Blorenges comment above. I don't see a problem with it. Now if it's an LPC or some such, it could be a little more cheesy. Challenge caches are often logged by their owners as well, if the challenge itself is something the CO hasn't yet done, or is just very difficult. Claiming FTF on it though - that's just rude But publishing a challenge, waiting a while, completing the challenge, then logging it - I don't see a problem with that. Being unable to maintain a quality cache, adopting it out to someone, then at some point returning to visit the cache and log it - I don't see a problem with that. And really, what does it matter to anyone anyway? *shrug*

Not in the mood to respond effectively right now, for personal reasons. As for this thread, please don't make things worse by fanning the flame. What's done is done; if it gets undone, it will get undone. Leave it be.

That was one I wish I'd been able to attend. Keep up the good GHMGC work, res!

Indeed. As soon as he shared that, especially on the cache page, a warning flag went up. It was only a matter of time. It's unfortunate this happened while he was away, however. He's not here to verify the cache is still in place. It hasn't been removed by him, so it's simply a lack of certainty that the container is still there. I'm sure if anyone were to go and check on it (3rd party maintenance of a cache is perfectly feasible, especially in temporary exceptions like a CO going on an extended vacation), then I'm sure it can be verified and re-enabled. I do think however that simply disabling it until it's verified would have been the proper route to take, as that's typically what happens when maintenance is concerned; not archival. However, as long as this whole distance drama doesn't spike up again from someone else "placing" a cache nearby, Brad's wording seems to imply that it shouldn't be an issue having it re-unarchived and re-enabled once the cache container is verified.

This thread.

I'm sure if I had a dedicated gps, I'd use it. Why would I not? It's a dedicated GPS Point is, it really is a matter of preference and feasibility for ownership of a device. I don't see a need for me to get a dedicated GPS unit because my 4S is over-abudantly more than needed. I'm quite satisfied. I wouldn't be able to justify the purchase of a GPS device to cache with when I already have the 4S. That's one reason why it's a loaded thread topic One, the labels are vague, and two, of course the best of one is better than the best of the other. Does that mean it's always better to have the one over the other? There are far too many factors involved. In the iPhone 4S's case, it's most definitely sufficient for extreme caching, with the added ability of live lookups and logging, and far more friendly interfaces for GSP use. A high-end dedicated GPS device will always have better GPS capabilities, however. One would be a fool to deny that (and a manufacturer would have a failed product on their hands if a dedicated GPS device performs worse than a smartphone )

Thank you

bah. Just ban all the auto-tweets! That'll help reduce the signal/noise ratio.

Ok, that I like. It's pretty much already a (somewhat) exclusive geocaching term... mysterious enough that those who don't know would quickly find out I vote #tftc hashtag (optionally?) added to auto-tweets =)

Maybe a separate tag specifically for find auto-tweets? It would be a feasible option I suppose, but please don't filter them into the #geocaching hash... Maybe #foundit or #gcfind or something *shrug*

I'll second that...ish. I like seeing the #geocaching hashtag only an opt-in thing where people purposely add the tag to bring attention to an interesting, related tweet/experience. It bugs me when people I follow auto-tweet from any app, really. I tend to find that people who start out auto-tweeting every find (geocaching, or any other site-that-shall-not-be-named) very soon stop the practice, likely due to friends/followers complaining of tweet spam. If you really want to share, do it manually please, it might draw my attention more than cookie-cutter routine auto-mentions. Keep #geocaching open!

Yep, and then the reviewer will probably offer just to unarchive the old one so it can be edited, rather than publish the new one

Just because only a handful of people worldwide might qualify (for arguments sake) shouldn't be a reason not to publish. How many crazy traditional caches out there are only found once or twice a year, or less, due to the work, dedication, or time required to get to it? A Challenge cache, as long as it is attainable, should be allowed. (and polling "would you?" in a forum may produce very, very less than desirable skewed results ) However, perhaps one of the reasons might be that webcams are grandfathered caches, and as such, as they slowly disappear off the map, this challenge may quickly become unattainable? *shrug* Caching in 21 states is most definitely attainable though, just requires a lot of traveling. For caches like that, if I lived nearby, I might find the final and sign the log, but post a note so that once I complete the challenge (in who knows, a year down the road or more?) I can log it found. Or, I might see the challenge across the country, do my best to complete it, then if or when I'm ever in the area, I'd be able to find and log it legitimately. There's no reason, really, that even a casual cacher should have sway in saying that a challenge cache shouldn't be allowed, imo. But as stated a few times in this thread, if the challenge is attainable, that should be sufficient for it to be allowed.

Thank you for the clarity, CD. So, you are saying that gg needs to request, once again, either the unarchival of the original cache, or another publish for a replacement cache, to prompt a reviewer to request the mystery cacher's intentions again? That seems like a very slim technicality. Logical, but almost like intentionally unnecessary legwork for the player. The unarchival request was made. As long as he's under the impression he has to wait, how would he know he has to request again in order for the mystery cacher to be asked again? gg's replacement cache which was passed in favour of unarchival was recently archived itself due to 'lack of timely response'. So, ultimately, is the next official step for gg to once again request unarchival, or complete another replacement cache listing, in order to prompt communication with the mystery cacher? And by extension, this has to happen every time?

I don't think you'd want to argue with a bear as to who gets the FTF...

DISCLAIMER: I am not here to reignite drama. I am posting to find out the current status of this situation as it has been quite some time since the most recent stage of this issue began. Timeline recap: (as per CacheDrone's summary on Nov 7) 08/23/11 - GC280PA archived by gg 09/06/11 - GC33??? created, unpublished by "mc" (mystery cacher) 10/05/11 - GC35D21 created by gg as a replacement, wasn't published as GC33??? had held the spot, and CacheDrone offered to unarchive GC280PA if mc would release the spot. Sometime between 10/05/11 and 11/07/11 - CacheDrone asked and was informed by mc that there is intent to publish in the new location, and thus continues to reserve the spot. Quote, CacheDrone: "They can do so indefinitely as long as they respond to any requests made by any reviewer within a timely fashion. Typically that means within one month, give or take. So it is a month to respond, not to use the place they have reserved. If they don't reply, I archive it." With uncertainty over whether this means mc can hold the post indefinitely as long as a response is given to a reviewer, as it's now been 3 months since mc created the "work in progress" cache, and at least a month since the last (disclaimed) contact with mc, I'd like to know what the next steps are in regards to the new cache and the cache offered and available to be unarchived. Please do not comment if you have no productive input or only wish to share an opinion - this is an honest inquiry for information, not seeking drama.

Good point. If a cache is on watchlist, add notifications for photo uploads. That could result in an exorbitant amount of email notifications though... I still think perhaps a periodic digest of photo upload notifications (on owned or watched caches) would suffice. Instant notification of uploads seems excessive, imo.