budd-rdc

Too bad the owner misinterpreted your intentions (coordinates off) as hostile. You said you used to be friends with him, so we can rule out "coordinates deliberately off" as the reason, right? I've seen some "." logs between disputed parties before. They weren't deleted. Maybe the owner in question could use some thicker skin.

No, it isn't rocket science, but I needed a teacher to learn how to communicate. Can't take those things for granted.

Too bad the person decided to editorialize instead of trying to make constructive comments. A person who's an acknowledged "leader" should know better. Having said that, Geocaching isn't a "fundamental right" like eating, and does require some level of skill, so any discussions about equal rights is a bit silly. The newbie should consider taking advice from more experienced cachers with an open mind, even rants. The "ranter" should also consider the consequences of his actions and realize that he's in a position of being a mentor. A bit of responsibility on all sides can avoid misunderstandings as mentioned here.

Government or not, the concept of free speech is meaningless to the intolerant. You can always log more normally, "No problem finding the cache" without the TFTC if you feel the owner doesn't deserve thanks. If he deletes THAT, then you can rally for support since the owner might really have issues.

I'll have to disagree on how useful caches placed in front of businesses are. I wouldn't prejudge them as lame, but I prefer Geocaches be placed more for recreational purposes, instead of a crutch for doing daily chores. Modern GPSr's like the Garmin 60 series already have POIs loaded for those things. I personally don't have such a unit, but I prefer stumbling into shopping centers and grocery stores on my way to a non-parking lot cache, even when I'm out of town.

In case I wasn't clear, the title will not display correctly, even with the correct language and font support. Something somewhere is preventing the browser from rendering HTML Unicode entities (& #xxxxx;) correctly. In contrast, the same technique works just fine with cache descriptions and logs. My follow up question to the OP is what is GC.com doing differently in the title field?

Hmm.. don't know about that. I had a bunch of DNFs in Nebraska, but I didn't consider the experience lame at all. Some of the difficult to find caches, if done well, is quite satisfying and very unlame at the end. Logic and argumentative technicalities just can't explain people who know how to hide caches very well.

Have you tried the setup yourself? Since these links were already mentioned in another thread, I think people are looking for a firsthand account.

For future reference, what did you find out? From talking to a cacher in Japan, and looking at one of the listings, the site will store HTML Unicode entities in the title, the same way it stores them in the cache descriptions and the logs. Whether the title will be displayed correctly is another matter. When looking at the listing itself, HTML Unicode entity in its raw form (& #12345; without the space) shows up. When looking at it from a list of caches (for example, show nearest caches), same thing happens. I recall seeing the title displayed correctly before, but can't reproduce it now. Log and descriptions are displayed correctly, provided the browser has proper language and font support. FYI: if I instead use 16 bit characters for the title, description, or log, they simply show up as ???...

It's too bad we can't do much about the owners who delete logs when the alternate coordinates are posted, except community pressure.... but that probably won't work since those type of people are probably bit on the anti-social side. If I were to keep account of my deleted finds (which I don't do now), I'd also mention the waypoint in the logs as a matter of record, since they are viewable by the public. This way, not only do the logs look more legitimate, the curious will check out the waypoint and see what's REALLY going on. Back on topic. I visited a cache and after I signed the log and logged my find, another person claimed to have visited the day before, although the last entry was more than 2 weeks ago. Let's hope it's an accounting error because I didn't see his signature in the log book.

I think the key to pushing an agenda is to be subtle and not forceful. People get fussy and combative when ideas get shoved down their throat. That's why TV commercials rarely tell you directly, "buy this now, or else." How about leaving Travel Bugs inside the cache to bring awareness to the issue at hand? You can drop one off on each of your maintenance visits. It's a bit more costly than posting a log or note on bringing awareness to this issue, but the TBs will travel around and spread the word to the people who are unable to visit the location.

That's a good question. Unlike the Jeep TBs, there's no special selection for entering a contest when I try to select "Type of log:" The goal for the upcoming Quarter is "Fun" which should give prospective contestants time to come up with a theme to fit.

I had problems accessing GC.com about the same time Nazgul and nooks had problems. I can get in now, and without doing anything on my behalf - didn't even need to log out then log back in, or remove cookies either. I wouldn't place the blame on the users. There may be more serious problems involved, like network and routing problems.

I noticed that acronym when I drove through your area few months ago. "NRV" sounds deceptively cool. My feeling for a "lame cache" isn't the same from day to day, but it's the wrong combination of the following: - location near a business, like Wal-Mart, restaurant... - ho-hum hide technique, like film can in the lamp post skirt, magnetic <whatever> under the bench, guardrail, etc. - repulsive location, near homeless encampments, garbage dumps... - needle-in-a-haystack, like ivy, rock piles... - misleading hints due to paranoia (trying to prevent cheating? ) I could go on, but these sum it for me. If it's just one of the above, I see hope and don't consider it lame.

Boy that was CLEVER. Took you that long to think that one up? BRILLIANT Cheerios contain 22g of carbohydrates per 1 cup serving, in case you are wondering. (Whole grain cereals I usually consume contain 25g per entire box) I ran into "Server Unavailable" problems this morning, probably about the same time you did. I sympathize with you that it IS frustrating, but I've yet to see the lackeys slack off in trying to fix the problem as soon as possible.

I would be really interested in hearing stories from others who have had those "second thoughts." Thanks! I have second thoughts all the time. However, I rarely hide a container on my first trip to the location, so I avoid having to go back to retrieve it if I have second thoughts. If I feel the hide is lame on my second, third, or whatever visit there, then I don't publish the listing. If I do publish it, then I'm more confident that the coordinates aren't whacked, another source of lameness. I walked by an urban hide-a-key micro on my way to an old cache while rail/bus caching recently. Didn't realize "my mistake" until I was about 0.5 mile away.... SHUCKS! I could have visited it on my return trip, but I had to catch a bus, so I happily ignored it.

That used to be true, when people could look up the coordinates of the cache page without signing in. Audit logs are more useful for seeing who's showing interest, instead of preventing cache vandalism. Otherwise, Premium Member Only caches are for restricting access, at least that's how I see it and use it.

I'm always impressed by the intelligent use of terrain by the local deers and cows. I sometimes follow their paths when there are no established human trails available. I wouldn't underestimate the brain capacities of "other creatures." I agree that we (as humans) don't really have good reasons to go off trail, because we tend to get lost... so much for OUR brain capacities.

I've had fun with their TBs, moving them to interesting locations and taking photos for them. I've even visited some of their caches between Barstow and Las Vegas. I wish them well on whatever endeavor they will be involved in next. They're always welcome to drop in for a visit.

I will say yes, because it is fun to hunt for old caches. I will say YES also. Those just interested in my position can move on to the next. I enjoy visiting old caches, as I appreciate longetivity, Geocaching or not. It's a joy to read a log book that's more than 4-5 years old with comments from people who pioneered the game. Of course, that's an "each to his own" part of my game and I don't expect others to appreciate that. Whether due to luck or design, these oldies are still there, and maybe we can learn from that. Many of the old caches I've visited are in out-of-way locations that are hard to spot by muggles. The pattern I've noticed for these is that the specific location may not be scenic or extraordinary (middle of a desert, middle of dense forest, middle of grassy hillside) but it is in a general vicinity of a nice area. There aren't too many clever ways to hide a 5 gallon bucket, or a large rubbermaid container. Interesting that many of the real old caches are NOT ammo boxes. As for people who archive caches then hide a "new" one at the same location, I won't do that. I think the motive for the example mentioned is not to help people increase the find count, but that the hider is addicted to reading the logs, so he's forcing new hides to feed his addiction. Not malicious, but a bit selfish. There are other ways to induce acitivity in a cache, like Jeep TBs and Geocoins, a ploy I've used to good success. I've adopted caches from people who can no longer maintain them, and kept the waypoint even if I had to change the hide a little (it's called maintenance). Newbies still enjoy them.

I talked to an outdoor enthusiast in Japan who envy how the National Parks in the U.S. lack the urban conveniences in comparison, allowing the visitor to "become one with nature." Without any quoted publications or web sites to substantiate the rumor, I'll just pretend this never happened. No need to waste my brain cells on mindless reactionary rants of extremists, regardless of which side they are on.

If you want to force cachers to visit the second location, then you should take the time to change the listing so it becomes the first stage of a Multi or a Puzzle/Mystery cache. It shouldn't be difficult to convert the codeword into some kind of a number (A=1, B=2, C=3, etc... use your imagination). If you insist on listing it as a Traditional, just mention the other location in the description, and make the visit voluntary. Not everyone will comply, but you'll be surprised... and everyone will be happy since you aren't forcing anyone to visit there.

They don't 'keep tabs' on caches that solicit for charity or promote an agenda - they forbid them outright. Then why do they promote these travel bugs - which explicitly endorse this agenda? That is making a decision that this constitutes a 'good' cause (charity). Thats a leap of logic that I fail to follow - because CITO is an event that provides tangible support to the community where it takes place, and shows Geocachers as enviromentally active and responsible individuals (in contrast to the stereotype). These travel bug tags accomplish niether. I did not say they implied - I said that this bug is inconsistent with the philosophy expounded by Groundspeak to date. Commercial and "agenda" caches are not forbidden outright - the hider has to contact Groundspeak first for permission. In a way, this is fair, since Geocaching is not a free advertising medium. Call me a cynic, but I doubt majority of people will voluntarily revenue share if they can exploit Geocaching to solicit for their own financial gain. The sponsor for the United for Diabetes Campaign is footing the bill. At the minimum, someone has to pay for the manufacturing, labor, and mailing costs for distributing these TBs. Don't forget that the lackeys need to make changes to the site, too, and thankfully, volunteer reviewers do not need to do anything extra. Your taxes won't increase as a result, since Merck is footing the bill (not the United Nations)... but if you are a Pfizer shareholder and think they are getting unfair publicity, feel free to ask for a competitive bid (and more money for Geocaching).

On my Garmin eTrex anyhow, the last character gets dropped, so GC12345 will show up as GC1234. As mentioned elsewhere, you can remove the "GC" in the waypoint before transferring it to your GPSr by GSAK, GPX Spinner, text editor, etc. so it'll show as 12345. Waymarking just hit 6 character waypoint WMxxxx, so it'll be a while before you'll have to be really creative in not confusing the two on the same GPSr.