abanazar

Once or twice I've left sealed envelopes for cachers I've known are planning to visit my caches, so as a CO I'd certainly participate in this sort of thing if asked. You'd probably not want to choose a high-traffic cache and/or leave too long a gap between deposit and collection.

A trackable description does behave differently to a cache page description. Normally I use Firefox's Write Area plugin on a cache page (and occasionally tweak the raw html afterwards if need be); but that doesn't seem available to me on a trackable's description, so I just use the editing options provided. However, there's a Source button on those editing options which does present html that can be edited, so I guess it does work.

Only the Landowner's permission is required, not necessarily NE. This has been discussed before here.

I haven't checked, but suspect the restriction would apply to "physical stages placed by the CO" rather than "containers" - that's the usual criteria. So if you're thinking of a card, disc or any other object with UV paint/ink writing on it, that would count as a physical stage that you'd placed. If you're instead thinking of writing in UV paint/ink directly on existing phonebox infrastructure, claiming it then to be a virtual stage, I'd suspect that is not acceptable for other reasons (vandalism is usually cited).

I don't like to rely on stickoflage when hiding for this very reason. Some finders don't put enough on to cover the container; others attempt to mask each and every tiny gap until it resembles a beaver's dam. On one find I dismantled a dam that we could see from 50ft away even without a GPSr, and replaced it with a much sparser covering. Since the cache box had been darkly coloured, it didn't stand out at all - what little could be seen just looked like natural shadows. Unless a hint says "Look for the massive teepee of sticks I constructed", I will exercise judgement and re-hide how I imagine the CO intended, but this will obviously be coloured by my own views. Only two or three of my own 50-odd physical stages use stickoflage to any extent; if possible, I prefer to find a self-concealing option to reduce the unknown factor of minimalist vs beaver finders.

You won't get any puzzle-solving hints publicly on the forum, as that's not allowed. It's not too difficult a puzzle though; you just have to work with what you're given.

The guidelines say: 7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart A physical stage is defined as any waypoint that contains a physical element placed by the cache owner, such as a container or a tag with the next set of coordinates. Non-physical caches or stages, including reference points, trail-head/parking coordinates and/or a question to answer waypoints, are exempt from this guideline. This card is a physical element placed by the CO of the final, just like a tag on a tree. The TB method is a different mechanism that is not subject to proximity.

You'd probably want to run these parasitic stages past a Reviewer too before going too far. (Hmmm, parasitic puzzle type - it has a nice ring to it!) I think the officially correct waypoint type for your feeder sites would be "Stages of a Multicache (visible to you and reviewer)" (it's not a virtual Question to Answer stage as you are physically placing information there). I can then imagine the Reviewer tools' "proximity to other caches" alarms going off. Silly in this context, but I can imagine it happening and it would be better to anticipate it before doing too much planning. On the other hand, the same restriction doesn't appear to apply to a CO's own trail + bonus series, where the puzzle/unknown bonus should strictly have "Stages of a Multicache" waypoints on the feeder caches - it is physical information that has been placed by the CO of the bonus, after all. Perhaps all such bonus caches contravene the guidelines? I'd be interested in an explanation there (either where my reasoning has gone wrong, or which sub-paragraph of the guidelines allows it). If it's OK to place physical clues without declaring them as Stages of a Multicache, I'd also like to know that.

It sounds an unpleasant experience that I wouldn't wish on anyone; but from the tone of your log I imagine that you gave as good as you got from the "lunatic Mrs Loony", even if she started it. In terms of expectations when playing this game, I choose to leave some of my possessions in the wild. I find a listing site that will publish the coordinates of my possessions, subject to some basic conditions. In addition to the basic conditions, I will do my best to make the experience enjoyable for anyone who chooses to seek my possessions. However, my possessions are left in the real world, and seekers may encounter humans, animals, and environmental conditions over which I have no control, just as in the rest of life. If a seeker reported an experience like yours to me though, as an owner I would move my possessions, both to improve the experience for future seekers, plus to safeguard my possessions, in case the "lunatic" worked out the most effective way to remove the perceived disruption to their life. There are too many "neighbours from hell" instances where parties stick rigidly to their "rights". I play games for enjoyment, not to test the limits of my entitlement. geocaching.com is just a listing site and it won't challenge external factors.

Maybe it is a learning experience, but it's an unnecessary one that could easily be improved. Instead of telling you a Note (Type: Reviewer) will not show, it would be most useful for it to tell you that a Note (Type: Normal) will show. I am the other cacher to whom the OP refers, who saw their note and who has also had the same experience on one of my own caches - I wasn't a rookie hider at the time either. Whilst some cachers would enjoy seeing a secret spoiler, I would actually have preferred not to see the OP's note in this case. To be honest, I'd expect the Reviewer's Publishing Toolkit (however it works) to give them a warning of logs that would remain visible before making it go live, and perhaps give the CO the option of tidying them up if the logs were other than simple TB drops. To drop a TB, I expect you could log a Note then delete it; I don't see why it would need to be a Found It. But if I want to drop a TB, I hold off logging a note until just after it goes live - I prefer it showing above the publication note

Instand e-mails to notify you of new topics, why have to visit the forum to see what's new. Automatically following a thread if you comment in it. Watch Topic button on the top of any given thread enables emails (I have used this occasionally and it works) Watch Forum button on the top of the main UK forum page (I imagine this works in a similar way for new topics, but I haven't ever used it) For (1) you still have to click the link in the email, which takes you to the new item in the thread, rather than seeing the new comment in the email, but it works OK.

Even better, I have a gold ammo can somewhere out in the wild; I don't think many posties would visit it though.

My first reaction to this suggestion was "not another nationwide cache series". However, the gold post boxes are noteworthy, limited in number, and not necessarily straightforward to find (unlike some other features I mention below, which are clearly marked on an OS map). I'd much rather be guided by a cache to a special gold post box than, for example, a host of mundane railway stations, phone boxes (RIP!), supermarket car-parks, and motorway service stations. (I don't dare mention micros at many common-or-garden churches in my list, as I fear I will alienate too many folk!) So yes, as a visitor to an area, I would like to be led to a gold post box (just as long as we don't get as many gold medals as China ).

Just being pedantic....Groundspeak are a listing site.They have every right and power to disable/delist a cache's online details for whatever reason - but no power or right to ask for the physical cache to be removed. That remains the property of the cache owner. Surely asking for it to be removed is outside GS's remit? If ACPO insisted on them being removed, shouldn't they have contacted the cache owners directly?? Good point. I recklessly choose to hide some of my possessions for a period of days, months, years 'in the wild' and I make the location of my possessions available to others, via listing sites. If the listing sites start paying me (rather than the other way round in some cases) then perhaps we can talk further (I don't have any Olympic caches before anyone gets too excited.)

Monkey Island was our "Cache of the holiday" back in Easter (the photos don't have to be taken in July this time, right?), currently on 19 favourites.

I think it's inevitable that restrictions like this will happen when geocaching comes to the notice of organisations. However "harmless" one may argue an activity to be, when it is unlikely to be of any benefit to the owning organisation, or related to their equipment's intended use, it is unsurprising that it's easier for them to get the practice stopped than accommodate any mild misuse. Unfortunately, the slightly obsessive nature inherent in geocaching that places caches extensively in certain locations (phone boxes, signs, street furniture, next to every railway station, next to every church etc) probably increases the likelihood of their coming to a particular organisation's attention if they happen to own a great many examples of a particular type of equipment/structure (as is the case with BT and phone boxes). Rather than "bingeing then banning", as a community I wish we could try to get better at regulating our behaviour to reduce the risk of bans. This behaviour includes Hiders (we don't have to populate every example of XXX with a cache) and Finders (we don't have to seek every cache just because it's there). There are comments (first- and second-hand) throughout this thread that read like people have been finding phone box caches almost against their will. We shouldn't need a ban to reduce this behaviour; just ignore these types of hides and thereby reduce the demand for them (and hopefully then the supply would reduce). I know I'm being somewhat naive, but I hate to see comments almost supporting yet another ban/restriction when some modified behaviour might have prolonged a type of hide that isn't always unpleasant or simply placed for the sake of it.

1. If they are issued at a rate of 10%, I expect to allocate them at a rate of 10%. 2. They are no use to anyone sitting in my account unused (it's not like they are a cash surplus!). 3. I'm pretty selective about choosing caches to find, and don't find too many, so I typically have a surplus of 0 or 1 point at any time. 4. If I started building up a surplus, it would be a sign to re-think my caching habits as to why I'm bothering to find so many bland caches. I don't cache for the sake of it. My free time is valuable, and I want every cache to be excellent. 5. Since I rarely have a surplus, a new favourite can oust one of my current 10% (so I don't say "have a favourite point" in my log, because it might get taken away when a better one comes along later!).

The solution must come from Groundspeak. I believe they must take the rating decisions away from the cache owner and change the "hiding a cache online form" so that it generates the ratings automatically. I think the clayjar system works if applied correctly. If you think a cache is not rated correctly you can say so in your log or write privately to the owner but this can cause friction between cachers and there are already a lot of causes of friction. You can look to other geocaching sites like Opencaching but they are all really copies of the Groundspeak formula but because they are not so big and are not commercial enterprises they might be more amenable to change. No, let's please not take even more decisions away from the cache owner. The CO is the owner of the cache. Groundspeak is a listing service, albeit with a great many rules and regulations. A cache is not defined by its D/T rating alone, let alone a narrow band at one extreme: there is the description, the type of cache (stages, puzzles), the attributes, the nature of the area given by the general location (e.g. the Highlands, city centre etc.), the D/T rating, experiences logged by previous finders, and so on. D/T is just one aspect; let's not get too hung up about it**. Forget about ticking boxes and obsessing over stats. I have found "5/5" caches that are probably not 5/5. Were they still great fun? Yes. (**Although it does make for a more interesting forum topic than usual, so let's still get a bit hung up about it )

Now just asking you. Would you say a series of caches you have to find to log so you're able to get a final is much different then finding a Challenge cache final, and either having found or finding caches to qualify? Yes I do find that different. The series of caches is set by the same CO (or in agreement with others) and the feeder/final caches form a coherent set (often akin to a multi with physical stages). Most Challenge Caches that I've come across feel more parasitic, feeding off semi-random caches that have little or no relationship to the Challenge CO. Just to qualify some of that: Parasitic has more negative connotations than I intend to convey, but it more accurately describes the relationship as I see it! D/T-type challenges are very nearly random (no two people (on a forum ) tend to agree on the subjective ratings!). More objective Challenges are less random of course, but still rarely have the coherent caching relationship that means that one should depend on the other IMO. Let each cache stand on its own merits.

Challenge caches are part of a box-ticking meta-game that doesn't greatly interest me. I expect a cache to stand on its own merits and relate strongly to its CO, not feed off a semi-random collection of other COs' caches. If the challenge cache's final was greater than the sum of its parts (or for example was just 'better' in some way than any of the feeder caches) that might tempt me, but in the few challenge caches I've looked at, that hasn't appeared to be the case (I may be wrong of course in some cases). Instead, challenge caches seem primarily to be a slightly contrived way to record some geocaching statistic or other, by recording another find. I'm not criticising those who like challenge caches; I'm just explaining why the ones I've seen don't appeal to me.

a. They are the "top" 10% of my finds, with "top" being based on very subjective criteria, but broadly your #1-3 plus great location. b. They apply to me and/or my family's experience in finding the cache. c. They need not apply to any other past/future Finders. d. My surplus is nearly always zero; see (a), as there always exists a top 10% for me. e. As new caches are added to my list, other caches may drop off; see (a), and since I'm selective about caches I search, there is sometimes some competition within my list. f. Archived caches can and do appear on my list; see (a).

The final cache itself doesn't have to be "100% GPS coordinates." There are plenty of caches (e.g. underground, or in buildings) which effectively say "Go to these coordinates (GPS-related), then do XYZ (not GPS-related) to find the cache." Of course, if it's clear from the cache page that the cache is in the town library, a reviewer may deem the library's GPS coordinates alone to have little or not enough significance (compared to just following the town signs to the library!). So that's when, for a multi-stage cache, you might have one or more GPS stages to find first (e.g. which give you more essential library hunting information). These stages could be virtual (e.g. spotting digits/characters that are assembled into the Dewey code, explained on the cache page) or physical (e.g. the cache page could be more mysterious, with the physical clue providing your library-based instructions as more of a surprise to Finders). I like these sort of caches, so persevere and good luck.

1. Whether one is looking forward to the Olympics or not, during such a high-security and sustained event, it would seem common sense for me to reduce or even temporarily stop geocaching in sensitive areas. Even if few observers appear to be around at GZ, I strongly suspect that CCTV surveillance is heightened. Regardless of my personal rights to do XYZ, from a pragmatic perspective I would probably think twice. 2. That would apply to any caching activity. But now add to the mix Groundspeak's corporate image, and the ever increasing exposure of that brand's game into more mainstream areas, along with more rules and disclaimers, and it isn't at all surprising that corporate edicts will emerge around a sensitive event such as the Olympics. I don't think you can have it both ways. As a pastime becomes less "subversive" and more "mainstream", it will have more mainstream consequences applied to it; a corporate sponsor such as Groundspeak will understandably wish to protect their image.

I DNF-ed a cache some time back, emailed the owner to see if I was doing something stupid and described where I'd looked. He said the cache was supposed to be where I had looked so invited me to log it as found, and he'd go and replace it. I was happy to log it as a find simply because it was going to be a while before I was in that area again. When I was on holiday in North Carolina I visited a place that was well outside my pocket query range, figured it would probably have an earthcache there so took a picture of my GPS at the location. I subsequently found there was an earthcache, emailed the owner asking permission to log based on my photo even though I couldn't answer the questions (having not had internet access on the move I couldn't check to see if there was a cache nearby) and they were happy with that. I always think that the point of geocaching is to get out and about. If someone goes to the location of the cache, enjoys the location, doesn't find the cache but logs it as Found anyway, does it really matter? I'd suspect for most caches the answer is no. For more extreme caches I can see the owner wanting to be a little more particular that you have to actually get to the cache and prove you found it (ideally by signing the log), but for the average 1.5/1.5 rated cache is it really such a big deal? I mostly agree with your logic, but ultimately take the opposite view! A while back we looked for a cache that had recently been replaced by the CO. We found exactly where it should be, but it wasn't there and so logged a descriptive DNF after a very thorough search. The CO contacted us, apologising that they had replaced it in the wrong place (strange, but true, as there were two similar wooded paths in close proximity, and a less familiar member of the CO family had made the replacement without a GPSr!). The CO moved the cache to the right spot (the one we had searched) and generously offered that we should log the find, as we clearly would have found it (it was a non-cunning Regular) and weren't locals. I applied almost the same logic as you, except the Log as Found bit. We didn't find the cache, sign, or trade, so we didn't log a Find. It didn't really matter We may return one day, or we may not.

G. Your premise is flawed: <insert logical reasoning here> <People don't rant/moan on the forum instead of caching; they do it to extend their caching-related activities when unable to be out caching, solving puzzles, etc. Don't take the caching-related pleasure of ranting/moaning away from them. Sometimes it's actually more interesting than caching along a trail of bland micros.> Notice how I segued towards a bit of A and possibly C at the end there