Motorcycledude

Not really a bug, but could you pretty please with sugar on top include an option to disable the message center? It is extremely annoying and user unfriendly. I hate it more than DNF:s

Oh the irony! Remember the "take a picture of yourself eating a big mac etc. challenges" anyone? I am happy Groundspeak has a community manager. It's a pity they have totally missed the point with having someone in that position though. But who are we, paying customers, to complain?

So in short, you do not have permission. As for me, in some cases I have permission (it is for instance required by our reviewers in some nature reserves) and in others I don't, but have like you used common sense. The case in Sweden is somewhat special though since we have something called The Law of Common Access, which regulates every person's free access to nature regardless of if it is private property. There are of course restrictions as to what you are allowed to do there (you are not allowed to chop down trees, dump garbage etc.) but in fact just recently the responsible authority stated that they consider geocaching not to be in violation of the rules and that is in fact ok to place a cache, taken that you also take care of it.

I see that you are a cache owner yourself. Whom did you ask for permission before putting them out?

Guess again. The volunteer cache reviewers have been dealing with land manager bans for more than ten years. It works like this: 1. Land manager tells a geocacher or Groundspeak, "absolutely no caches on any of our properties." 2. Volunteer cache reviewer is informed of the land manager's policy. 3. Someone submits a new cache on one of these properties. 4. Reviewer says "sorry, no, this land manager doesn't permit caches." Whether you're in Pennsylvania, Yorkshire or Bremen, that's the way it works. The caches that violate a land manager ban are not published. New bans are added every year, often due to perceived abuses of the natural resources by geocachers. Wasn't that more or less exactly what I wrote? A land manager does not like a cache and reports it and then it will be archived? But they can hardly ban caches throughout Pennsylvania, Yorkshire or Bremen. Furthermore - and actualy it doesn't work the same wherever you are. Over here for instance, yes, a land manager can do that for a national park, a building etc. but not for any random forest as long as the cache is not in the direct vicinity of a home. But this is more or less beside my point. I don't think people should actively try to get "illegal" caches published. I just wish for a bit of common sense if a cacher finds something that is maybe slightly questionable. If it doesn't really do any damage then don't be an *** and report it just because you can or just because you get a kick out of it.

Yeah, you are right. Everything will be a lot better if we instead of spending our time actually geocaching instead spend it looking for every little fault we can in other people's geocaches and then report them. We should especially do so with caches on the other side of the world where we have not even set foot *facepalm*

Wow, big surprised that you are based in the US... First of all, any cache is potentially dangerous. Hence there is even an attribute you can use if you consider it dangerous. Secondly the risk of hurting yourself is considerably bigger in an cache you log by foot rather than one where you are actually tied in with a rope and harness. I have injured myself once in about 7300 caches, whereof 169 were T5. That cache was T1,5... Secondly, I doubt even in the US the authorities COULD enforce a ban against geocaching. Over here they certainly couldn't. If some authority or landowner finds a cache they do not like they will contact Groundspeak and request it removed, that's all. This happens regularly. And again - not the entire world is the US. There are countries where access to nature is a lot more free than in your country. Yet we are all forced to live by guidelines written according to US circumstances. Don't get me wrong - if I find a cache that is an example of seriously poor judgement (let's say it was placed on an active railway bridge) I would act too. But people should ask themselves "Does this cache really impose a problem?" Use some common sense. Don't be so nit-picky. The cache that pointed my interest to this thread did absolutely no harm at all. Yet some guy from the other side of the Atlantic had to stick his nose in it, most likely the kind of person who gets a kick out of reporting people for various issues that are not his business in his local community too. As for logging powertrail caches I don't mind logging now and then (though actually it was fund the first couple of times, I am growing increasingly bored with them the more they get). One of the things I like with geocaching is that you can enjoy it in so many ways. One weekend you go for numbers, the next för one single T5 cache, or you travel to the other side of the world to log one specific really old cache etc. The current trend however is that this will be increasingly difficult since we are moving in a direction with more and more mainstream and more and more restrictions (I could give you a long list of real examples of this stupidity) to creative caches of all kinds. No kind of cache is fun the day all other caches are of the exact same kind.

I still think people should mind their own business. The only time I would report a cache is it was really dangerously placed without it being indicated in the description and/or with attributes (Actually I would probably not even report it in that case. I would probably send a pm to the owner instead). Also, the guidelines are exactly that - guidelines. In some cases they are downright silly, especially since they tend to be written from a US perspective and generally disregard differences in legislation and culture in other countries. Regardless of which however, just as I do not keep running to the police telling them you crossed the street during red or that you drove 10km/h too fast with your car I do not e-mail Groundspeak (or draw attention to it in the forums) as soon as I spot a cache that maybe isn't 100% according to the guidelines. Caching is moving too much in the direction of 1,5/1,5 powertrails only as it is already. Let's not make it even more difficult to create something that is actually fun.

I cannot believe this thread! I actually found it since a cache that was on my to do-list was arcived due to it. Why can't people learn to keep their noses where they belong? What drives people to act as police in matters they have nothing to do with? I even see people whining and reporting stuff that is on the other side of an ocean from them in this thread. Pathetic.

So why did they decide to start allowing powertrails? That is an example of a very good rule that instead was taken away. To get back to the original issue - a rule that prevents me from placing a cache that offers a totally different experience of a location than the already existing cache is a bad rule. Why? Because it deprives geocachers of a good experience for a gain of absolutely nothing.

My problem is a find good spots - and can't use them. And most likely we define "good cache" differently. Though there are caches that are very good just because the place is beautiful or the container is sneaky I usually prefer something a bit more challenging.

Of course not. When they can be confused. Yeah you are right. Otherwise people would start putting 1300 micro traditionals 161 meters apart along a road in, let's say, the middle of the Nevada desert and we wouldn't want to see that happen...

The effect of that is that you can only create challenge caches that involve a very low number of caches. You cannot for instance create one where you have to log 500 caches in a certain region/county/municipality etc. This is hardly a complicated challenge, but one which is now in effect impossible. No, since there are both caches that require a specific software and on the other hand there are also alternatives to GSAK. I myself have a cache with a non-virtual stage about 10 meters from a trad. I have also logged lots of others. And yes, I have listed the waypoint. And yes you are missing the point. The point is not about if or how long that has been a rule. The point is what good does the rule do? Is it improving geocaching or does it stand in the way of good caches? If there is absolutely no risk of mistaking the two and if they offer two distinctively diffefent caching experiences - in what way does the rule improve geocaching?

As for multis - then they did not enforce the rules before. And so what - in what way does geocaching benefit from that rule? When it comes to challenge caches I strongly dosagree with you. And the result can easily be seen here in Sweden now - from quite a lot of challenge cacges being published to hardly any at all.

If feel that new rules and tweaks to already existing rules are making it increasingly difficult to create good caches. There are a number of rules where I feel the rule does not contribute in any way at all, or is contradicted by other rules in similar circumstances. IMHO a rule should be added only when it is really needed for some specific reason. To mention a couple of examples: * It has now become very hard to create good challenge caches since we are no longer allowed to use "proof" that is not built in on geocaching.com. One could argue that for instance demanding that someone is using GSAK and findstatgen limits the possibility to log that specific cache for people who are not. But how is that in any way different from a mystery cache that requires for instance photoshop to be solved? Or a cache that requires climbing gear? Not all caches are for everyone. * Multis. It has previously been possible to put for instance a metal badge with numbers on closer than 161m from an existing cache. Now all of a sudden this can only be done with special permission. In what way does geocaching benefit from that I cannot put a metal badge 20 meters up on a vertical cliff when there is already a traditional below it? There is no risk to confuse the two. The offer two completely different kinds of experiencing the site and the hobby. In denying permission for this geocachers are deprived of one of these and IMHO for the gain of absolutely nothing. I would love to hear Groundspeak's stand on this. Please note that this is not an attack on anybody. I just feel that some rules have not been thought out properly and this could easily be changed. I certainly do not hold this against reviewers. They are only doing as they are instructed to. Both the above are examples of rules where nothing is gained and creativity is restrained.

The same problem already exists as it is today. This means you cannot put a cache outside The Smithsonian, Empire State Building, The Eiffel Tower, The Sydney Opera etc. and write about that in the description. And you already have situations where you have to be subjective. Can I place a cache next to an orchard and name it after a fruit that also happens to be the name of a manufacturer of crappy overpriced cellphones staring with an "i"? Groundspeak should allow reviewers to use common sense. It used to work very well up until they decided this was no longer possible some months ago. And no - it isn't fair when at the same time challenges can be commercial. I cannot call a cache "The Eiffel tower" but I can create a challenge where you take a picture of yourself while ordering a Big Mac Menu.

I am all for ruling out caches with the sole purpose of promoting a commercial business, but things are getting ridiculous now. Some bizarre examples I have gathered lately of caches that have been denied: * A cache outside a non-commercial amateur theatre society, mainly consisting of highschool kids was denied since the name of the theatre was mentioned. Yes, they do charge a nominal ticket price for their performances a few times a year, to cover their costs but come on! These are people doing something with their spare time for fun, much like a geocaching event where you are asked to chip in for the rent of venue. * A cache in a small town where an old man used to run a legendary business repairing cars. He is now 90 years old and retired - plus the place burned to the ground last spring and now consists of a concrete slab and 2 burnt our car wrecks. However in the cache description it was mentioned "Erik started *insert company name* in 1946". Apparently the firm is still registered and that was enough for the description to be denied. * I created an event during a big festival, you were not required to enter the area, but I could not name the festival in the name or the description (as if ppl wouldn't notice that there was a rock festival with 40 thousand visitors next to the event). These are just a few examples. Also, I want to make it clear this is not meant as critisism against the reviewers. They are only doing what they are told to. It is the rules that are silly and anal. At the same time Groundspeak specifically state that the no good challenges can be fully commercial. Double standards anyone?

The best part is that out of all ridiculous challenges ppl have created Groundspeak's own is still one of the worst ones.

Isn't it ironic that photo log requirements on earthcaches were forbidden since it put your personal integrity in danger? I wonder what would make me look more stupid to future emploers etc, a picture of me at the Niagara Falls or me kissing a toy frog?

Unfortunately they seem to do...

Sorry, this is so silly and ridiculous that I can't be constructive. This is a really bad joke.

Wrong thread. This is about Challenge Caches not the new Challenges. My bad. Still valid though, but elsewhere. Thx.

Someone please tell me that this is a joke or that I have misunderstood something... I have years of experience administrating web based games, communities etc. and I really don't want to join the kind of people who go "the is the worst implementation ever" as soon as something in the site they have gotten used to is changed. But this? Uploading a picture of myself kissing a toy frog in my sofa equals finding a cache now? Sorry, but whoever got this idea should be fired.

No, it isn't. It is the final of a mystery so posting the location in the forum would not be such a good idea :-/ For the same reason I think it'd be better if you removed the picture.

That is exactly what puzzles me. How was it ok back then and not now? I never said that I wanted photo logging only. But as one of the requirements it is the only way to really prove you have been there. Any other EC could be logged if someone handed you the answers. Anyway, as for my own contribution I am past caring. I made a final attempt. If something is still not ok so be it. Regardless of which I won't be creating any new ones in the future, good or bad. The rule change killed the value of it in my personal opinion.