J the Goat

Right over there... Nope. A bit further to the right... Yup! Right there! How low? What about them? It's the same problem. Is there some point I'm missing? Back on topic, please. (Remember, this is all about ME!) Well if it's all about you, then I'll be clear. You are taking this way out of context. You seem to have an over inflated sense of self importance by thinking that because you've hidden X number of caches then you should be exempt from the reviewer trying to make things run smoothly. Take a look at it from their end. How many hiders are in their area with more than X number of hides? You want them to take more time out of their days as volunteers to make exceptions for you and everyone else who fits the bill? That's selfish. Very selfish. The questions aren't difficult. There's no reason to whine about it unless you're overly sensitive or have reason to not answer the questions. Either way, it's a case of the reviewer in question trying to make sure the game is played within the confines of the rules and your just being difficult. Stop it. Edit for punk2ashun

What about this idea: the requesting of contact information is for when somebody in the future calls into question the permission? Example: Knowschad places a cache in the flower bed in front of his favorite pretty dress store. I go find the cache, and in my grumpy state I post an NA log for the cache being on private property. Reviewer X calls said number, talks to contact person, finds out that KC had permission from Pretty Dress Shop owner to hide said cache in the flower bed. Issue solved. This is just speculation on my part. It makes sense to me. Disclaimer: I have no knowledge about Knowschad's dress preference, flower preference, or permission obtaining preference. I just read one of his posts and figured he wouldn't mind being used as an example of a "flowerbed at at pretty dress shop" cache hider.

This is another idea. A few kinks that didn't get worked out, but they probably could be....

Yeah, because now that one can be air lifted in and out of the cache, the darn ratings will have to be changed. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: I don't know that in the instance that access to the cache is not not allowed that anyone would legitmately try to argue that it should stay alive because of it's age.

Us too. There's also a dog park and an archery range. A non-secret archery range

This is completely unnecessary. This post was well worded, very clearly asking for general help with puzzles as a whole. I'm not a puzzler. The few that I've solved have been a combination of all of the above mentioned methods, none of which was more successful for me than any of the others. Hopefully you'll get some helpful answers, unlike mine and the post above mine

I think they should be favored because the purpose of a T/D rating is to serve the seekers of a cache. It is meant to assist geocachers in determining what caches they want to search for and give them an idea what is in store for them. I see no need to cater to a segment of cachers who chose to use the rating for other than its intended purpose. But Groundspeak chose to add the D/T grid to it's assortment of stats so completing it is part of the game, unlike the FTF side game which is not tracked by GS. I am one of many people that chose to try and complete the grid and there are a few caches I went out of my way to find due to the D/T combo. I invested my time and money specifically to find that cache for that rating and for the CO to take that away from me by changing the rating would upset me as I'm sure would upset many others. Bottom line, chances are you will upset someone, question is: do you want to? What about the Jasmer challenges? Why archive an old cache in favor of one challenge over another?

I can understand your frustration with the reviewer, but why would you punish fellow cachers by leaving their tb's unaccounted for? B. I didn't think it would be so hard to get a cache approved. I wasn't planning on hiking the 3+ miles to the final again the next day. Going out there for cache maintenance is once thing, and not expected for a few months at least, but I'm not going to hurry out there just so some silly tag can keep moving. I find the whole thing a bit offensive. I clicked that I had read the guidelines and adhered to them. I've "Proven" myself 200 times, I answered the normal questions before they were asked. Yet I still get treated as if I can't read and have no idea what I'm doing. I agree this list of questions would be helpful for a first time cache owner, or if the cache looks to be in a very urban area. I'm against anything that is a brainless "must do this, just because" and "zero tolerance" Why do these three questions require you to hike back out to the cache? Maybe the cache doesn't meet a guideline regarding one of the questions asked so it can't be listed? Yes, it's another hoop to jump through. None of these things are new. Don't take it personally and either answer the questions, talk with the reviewer, or go pick up your garbage and put the TB's in another cache for people to actually move along.

Ya, you're asking for the entire spectrum of caches between nice locations, nice caches, and power trails. You could go anywhere in the country and find something that fits into this list. A more narrow list of locations or cache experiences would garner more accurate and helpful answers

But what is the "product" we are providing? I thought it was the fun and excitement of a nice walk in the woods and the finding of the cache. Exactly this. My finders are not my customers. I don't really care if I place a cache that never gets found if we're going to look at it that way. I place caches to take people to neat locations. The opportunity is there for you, use it or don't. My goal is to give you an accurate idea of what your trip may be like, hence accurate ratings. No, I'm not concerned if my making a cache page more accurate changes your stats. Not my concern in the least. As long as my listing is accurate, I'm happy and so are those who cache the way I do. I'm not trying to make anyone angry or sad or whatever emotion you feel when I change my stars. I'll happily email the owner of a challenge to tell them that I changed a rating and when. I'll do my best to not leave bad information on my cache pages first though, as I think that's what's important. Blah blah blah, me me me and I don't care about anyone else. Nice attitude, hope it gets you far in life. Blah blah blah, my stats are more important that everyone elses experiences. Good luck with your disregard for honesty

But what is the "product" we are providing? I thought it was the fun and excitement of a nice walk in the woods and the finding of the cache. Exactly this. My finders are not my customers. I don't really care if I place a cache that never gets found if we're going to look at it that way. I place caches to take people to neat locations. The opportunity is there for you, use it or don't. My goal is to give you an accurate idea of what your trip may be like, hence accurate ratings. No, I'm not concerned if my making a cache page more accurate changes your stats. Not my concern in the least. As long as my listing is accurate, I'm happy and so are those who cache the way I do. I'm not trying to make anyone angry or sad or whatever emotion you feel when I change my stars. I'll happily email the owner of a challenge to tell them that I changed a rating and when. I'll do my best to not leave bad information on my cache pages first though, as I think that's what's important.

Sometimes you have to be that way in these forums. If not people try to nitpick the smallest things or end up running the topic off course. I've been guilty of being not specific enough and unintentionally running a topic off course. Back on topic. I mean who really cares about a .5 or 1 star change in terrain? Maybe those trying to complete a fizzy square challenge but that is all. Who really cares about a large change in the terrain rating of a new cache? The CO changed their mind about the ratting and is now correct it. Good for them (and us)! But once a cache has been established (has had more than just a few visitors) if anything that happens that would justify a major and permanent change in the rating then the CO should be also consider archiving and relisting the cache. Something that major of a change I would also image would justify a change in the cache description of the cache and possibly the hint too. I completely agree with this statement. Most likely, I'd post new listings for the above mentioned circumstances. Maybe I'd find a nearby tree and change the coords. I might suggest in the description taking the original path instead of the new logging road, or I'd archive the caches. My point wasn't that no caches should die, my point was just that caches should be accurately rated. If I hide an ammo can at the end of a trail down a creek bed by waterfalls and old growth oak groves, maybe the cache's purpose is the journey to get there. If the difficulty of GZ gets more extreme due to a mudslide or the river washes out and makes it harder to get to, the purpose of the cache being placed is still the same. There's no good reason to re-list the cache, I can just change the difficulty or terrain accordingly and everything is as it should be. I've only changed my ratings early on in my caches lifespans, and will most likely continue to do so. I just don't like people trying to dictate to me how I should be playing my game based on the way they play theirs. That's a problem I see with numbers/stats cachers. Many of them aren't concerned at all with anything but their numbers, and it's having an affect on my game. So of course everything is circumstantial, however I maintain that above all else, caches need to be accurately listed. That means coordinates, permission, and T/D ratings. I can't see a valid argument against any of those things.

Chalk me up to the accurate ratings crowd. Cache listings have to be accurate, otherwise you're lying to your "customers". I certainly don't care about your fizzy grid, nor do I really care about mine. I'm bringing you to a location for the location, not to fill a square. If you want to use my cache to fill a square, that's completely on you. My goal is to represent my caches in an accurate manner. And I take issue with whoever said that people wouldn't go look for difficult/rare combos without the presence of the fizzy challenges. I do. Those are the caches that I enjoy the most. There's no reason to archive a cache if Mother Nature decides to throw a curveball at the approach and make it more or less difficult. I say deal with it.

One must remember that many security guards are frustrated "want to bes" and get off on harassing people. Not true, and a gross over generalization. I have two different acquaintences who were "real" police officers who were injured and unable to continue their duties, and several who retired from "real" police work but didn't want to sit on a couch all day. The fact of the matter is that they're doing their jobs, wanna be's or not. If security doesn't want the cache there, it shouldn't be there. It's a pretty simple concept.

Not really a getting started issue, but that is odd. Maybe the listing was retracted for some reason, it's a pretty old cache judging by the GC#. I'd be interesed to see what a reviewer has to say on the subject.

If the cache definitely violates the guidelines, but a reviewer doesn't take action? Take it to the next link up the chain: appeals@geocaching.com. Honestly though, if they don't take action, it's probably because you haven't demonstrated well enough to them that there's a problem. Send them photos of the signs and describe or show where they're located. Show the cache location on town GIS maps showing it is located on private property. Make an ironclad case that shows exactly how the cache violates the guidelines. Yes. If my concern were the guidelines and the reviewer looked into it and was satisfied, I also have no problems putting caches on my ignore list. My point is though, that to ignore them first because you don't want to deal with it is just part of the problem. You're supporting caches placed without permission by not reporting that there are caches without permission, and this very frequently leads to conflict between cachers and business/land owners. If the NA log and your local stigma is what you're worried about, an email to the local reviewer will keep everything off the cache page and you don't have to worry about those pesky newbies and their badgering

You might embed most any small object in acrylic resin, even a photo or printout. Or place it in a sealed, weighted preform or other transparent container. Then you don't need metal items nor engraving. You guys have given me some ideas to think about here. I've got a few things sunk out in my pool now for testing. I was going to try to get away with just putting a bunch of rocks in the ammo can, but I guess the rocks I have around here aren't dense/heavy enough, because it still floated when it was nearly full of rocks. If I'm going to use it I will probably have to pour it full of concrete or anchor it with a cinder block on the bottom, which will make for a very heavy cache to retrieve by a rope from the end of a pier. I'm thinking your idea of something smaller to submerge is a better idea, though I was really hoping I could get the ammo can to work. I've submerged an ammo can before. Sort of. It was difficult and ultimately didn't last, although our method was crude at best. We put a rock on it I like the idea of a submerged stage in a multi. Make the rest of it quality too and you'll get some stellar logs.

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience. I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem. But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria." So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle. Hassle? Really? It's an option on a pull down menu. Add in a line or two of text, and it's done. That's not hassle. Hassle is being questioned by property owners because somebody was too lazy/complacent to log an NA log on a cache that needs an NA log

That doesn't sound like a firm answer to me.In the context of the rest of the article, it sounded pretty definitive to me. Reading the first paragraph, which is where I learned in grade school to put the main idea of my essay, one finds: I'd bet on this piece of legal advice looooong before I'd take sides with Snoogans and the Goat on their cockamamie scheme. Drat! Foiled again I was just airing my skepticism of the link to one of the oodles and oodles of random "legal expert" sites. It actually makes sense what the article is saying.

I think this is a mistake. Not only is this attitude promoting caches without permission, but leaving the cache unchecked leaves the possibility that other cachers will have run ins with security on their search. Next time, it may be the real cops when security calls them about repeated trespassing. An NA log doesn't mean that the cache will be archived, it just brings to the reviewers attention that there are issues with the cache that need to be addressed. If all's well, no action taken, no harm no foul.

Your "lawyer" told you wrong information: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2864/does-it-matter-if-you-sign-a-contract-with-a-name-thats-not-your-own That doesn't sound like a firm answer to me.

This seems to be a clear case of the cache not being wanted, regardless of any permissions or property rights. The cache owner should archive it or get it straightened out with the landowner. It would seem to me that either an NA log or an email to the reviewer would be in order in this situation. I loved the part about the guard sending the list of geocacher's names to the police, though. Even if the log is readable (and often they aren't) all they're going to get is caching names, and even if the police somehow had the inclination to look them up on geocaching.com, there still isn't anything they could do about it. Maybe it's just me, but visiting a cache that's near a shop at night does seem suspicious and I wouldn't hold it against a security guard. I think visiting the place during day is a much better idea. You'd draw a lot less attention. Still doesn't have adaquate permission unless he can show different. When security asks you to leave, the cache now becomes not allowed until proven otherwise. Just my pair of pennies, I think we all know what kind of authority I have around here I'd still put the NA log and let the reviewers figure it out. They're the ones who will make the decision anyway.

OCD much? Or just need attention? I'm going with this one based on some previous posts

In my eyes, unless the CO can provide the information regarding who he/she received permission from, this cache needs to be archived. It's not welcome by security, which means they haven't been told it's allowed. I know some of you will take the opposite standpoint, but I think this is a clear case of a lack of adaquate permission. Put an NA log on it and let the reviewer sort it out with the CO.

If the plan is to make all these single stages of a single cache, I'd suggest a series of caches instead. Easier to maintain that way. Also, please please please, for #5, please please please don't intentionally put out soft coords. Even if it's part of a lesson, it's a bad idea. Otherwise, I think it's great