Jeep_Dog

Uh. Hmmm. Perhaps because you made this all up to have a "robust" discussion in the forums because you are not really a geocacher? There you have it. The "other side" rests his case without firing a single post....

Ah, man, did ya have to bring my personal mail to you into the forums? huh? (oh, nevermind. You said "thousands," not "hundreds." Oops. My bad. move along, nothing to see. Just another "nobody" with about the same count here....)

I'd love to offer an opinion, but I'm far too busy out geocaching and doing other "really important" activities.

I reply to each one. Sometimes it takes a bit of time, but I send a reply. Generally, I close the email (after normally explaining one or two of the "wrong" answers that seem inevitable - perhaps I ask too difficult of questions? ) with something like "Please feel free to log this earthcache, and thank you for visiting!" BTW, after the guidelines change, I published a new cache (and updated two previously published caches) with the following as a "requirement" - Request, but not a requirement (and can be helpful if any answers for above question are incorrect): for additional verification to avoid armchair logs, please include with your online log a photo of your group with GPS at the cache location.

Nah... I think that he was simply pointing out that this was a cacher that should have known better, not just someone new to the game that doesn't realize that not every cache out there is findable by him/her. I think its a valid distinction to make. So, someone who has thousands of finds "knows better?" Heh, my limited experience in geocaching certainly does not lead me to that same conclusion. I've been lead wrong by more cachers with thousands of finds (both in what they say and in their actions in the field) than by new cachers. I'd have to agree with karst on this fact being irrelevant. Back to the OP - you said it yourself in the title. "Hilarious." Probably should leave it as hilarious and a laughing matter and let it go, eh?

It will be interesting to see if your earthcache gets approved with that statement. It would seem a photo of the actual cacher (human face included) is an additional logging requirement. "While photographs may be requested, they do not take the place of other logging requirements. Taking a photograph alone or asking people to do internet research does NOT meet these logging guidelines. Requests for specific content in the photograph (must include the visitor's face, for example) will be considered an additional logging requirement and must be optional. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks." My recently published earthcache, which had no problems with getting published, had the following as the last "requirement": "Request, but not a requirement (and can be helpful if any answers for above question are incorrect): for additional verification to avoid armchair logs, please include with your online log a photo of your group with GPS at the cache location." I try to develop an earthcache where a cacher cannot simply conduct an Internet search and get the answers - the cache requires a correlation of information and observation of physical features. Can cachers "phone a friend" for an answer? Sure, I suppose - but generally I think these are fairly easy to tell in the answers. Often, I know from the "wrong" answers that someone has been to the site. So, a photo simply gives a cacher a chance - an ease their mind about wrong answers - to provide some "other" proof.

News flash - there's folks that boasts they have X number of FINDS that doesn't hold water....

Well, one of the few were just kidding - sort of in the spirit of being scared and human instinctual response. Perhaps more of a cacheslaughter charge as opposed to a murder? However, don't let any of this fact and/or jest get in the way of your fretting....

I find a "booby trap" much more appealing than, say, a "hamster trap." ..... just sayin'. However, unless there's some indicator in the cache description that there's something different about this cache, like starbrand, I'd be amused, but someone in the family may cause irrepairable damage to the ... cough ... "trap." .... just sayin'.

Nice. So, in your eyes, would an observation on a cache such as this one constitute in your esteemed opinion as "sniveling" and or "cache policing?" Or perhaps, merely an honest and open observation?

Ok, I'll throw it out there again - Have a couple of back-up questions in reserve. If you suspect that the "ground zero" qualifier has been compromised by '60s style free-sharing, then switch the "key" question to one of your backups to deter future armchair cachers.

It probably does deserve it's own topic. Like this one entitled "Why are pictures needed?, a gripe found just a wee bit down the page a bit. A hot topic, even.

Yep, here's a quote from the reviewer message: "However I am concerned that your first logging requirement places TOO much emphasis on a photograph. Please make this your final logging task and remove the requirement that one must be sent. It should be optional only." Not a bad thing if you ask me. Oh joy bring on the armchair loggers.... Only if you have requirements that can easily be researched on the Internet. If you visit ground zero, and develop at least one information requirement that can only be obtained on the ground, then you limit this tendency. In fact, have a couple of back-up questions in reserve. I've personally received tidings from Germany with a request for validation of information on virtuals and earthcaches since I had "actually been there." Naturally, I sent a polite refusal to these requests, but know there are cachers out there that would send along the information. If you suspect that the "ground zero" qualifier has been compromised, then switch it out to deter future logchair cachers. It's tough to come up with a unique question about ground zero to avoid armchair logging when the cache has been armchair established. Look, if the earthcache owner hasn't been to ground zero lately, and researches the internet for the "questions" for the requirements, and hence requires a photo for verification, then that same owner shouldn't get angsty about logs of "I was there last year and here's the answer (and/or photo)." Seems to me I've espied some earthcaches where the owner wasn't at the site at the time when the cache was submitted. All this being said, my current two active earthcaches (two additional ones to be established very soon with the submission back up and in working order) have a photo as a final requirement. I think I've asked nicely, and quite honestly do not "require" the photo - I more use it for those that came to false conclusions or given improper answers. They still went through an educational process and learned from the land, but just didn't get the "correct" solution - a photo merely provides further proof they were there and went through the process. I doubt that I'd deny a log find if the cacher demonstrates that they were clearly at the location/cache, but didn't get a photo.

Premium Membership has one-stop shopping. So, I want to create an "unusual" route between two locations, staying off Interstates and exploring along older US routes (oh, and in some - rare- cases, cutting hours off the trip). Use Google Maps that allow editing, but can't save it as a .GPX or send the route to the GPS (can only send destination point). Ugh. Use Google Earth, with export to KML, but can't edit the route (at least not easily), so stuck with a route chosen by Google Earth. Ugh. Oh, wait! Create a route on GS.COM that uses Google Map for editing the route, and with two easy clicks of the mouse, save a GPX (send through visualizer for one easy conversion to GDP into mapsourse) of the route and then a Pocket Query for a GPX of the caches. Take all of the products into mapsourse to select the topo maps for the selected region, and I'm done. Without premium membership, all this would take mutiple addtional steps. So, all of this, and the fact that afore mentioned moderator pictures are a great weight-reduction plan. No, wait - No, I mean that I think it important to support a website that provides listings for one of my favorite pastimes...

Oh, please. That only works until Sylvester McMonkey McBean shows up and sells preemies for three dollars eaches. Then they end up with stars on thars whilst we wonder where went ours. Don't tell me it won't happen. In fact, I've got reason to believe that Blitzen Bitsen is nothing more than a sock puppet for Sylvester McMonkey McBean.... Edit - changed "blitzen" to "bitsen." Now, talk about a Freudian slip....

Temporary hold, as earthcache submissions are being included into the submission form as found on GC.COM; it is due out with the next big release, which is "any day now." For a full discussion, see this discussion: NEW SYSTEM ROLL-OUT DATE

Earthcaches still have ALRs as well. Indeed, most earthcaches are an ALR (compared to traditional caches).

I thought that I had read, when this topic came up a few years ago, that cache reviewers are spawned, not "made," "nominated," or "chosen."

Very interesting observation of the guidelines. Unless, of course, special permission was obtained by the GS mothership. Ah! Something just "struck" me.... I believe a cache on the deluxe pasenger ship located at N 41 43.7833, W 49 56.8167 would skirt both the moving and commercial guidelines, no?

You'll have to wait your turn. I've been around 19 days longer. Meh. So, what you are saying, in addition to that which is listed by Keystone in the pertinent info file, he was gravely mistaken in neglecting to add "and been around longer than the rocks at an Earthcache site" as one of the qualifications? Well, at the very least, you are "working" on that qualification....

We always have.

Such a place would not be "locked," since under the current guidelines someone could place a physical cache in proximity to an earthcache. As an earthcache owner, I would care a less. In fact, I would gladly work with the physical cache owner to obtain appropriate permission and to work on the park-friendly "leave no trace" aspect as it applies to both caches with both the other cache owner and the land manager. I would not attempt to place a physical and earthcache, both owned by me, at the same location since the saturation guideline specifically mentioned avoiding saturation by the same person...

What you are missing is you are applying guidelines which were modified once virtual caches could not be submitted any long except as waypoints in multis etc. When virtual caches could be submitted proximity rules did apply. If I am misisng how we applied old guidelines (and note I've established caches under the original set of guidelines, so I am aware of them and understood them) and subsequently how those old guidelines should be applied over how the current guidelines read.... then I'm glad I'm missing it. Thank you for making it clear that I do not appear to be missing something in the current guidelines; only that I'm idiotic enough to disregard defunct and replaced guidelines...

Your first point demonstrates a lack of understanding of earthcache placement guidelines. I find this irregular, given that you've hidden four of them. The over-use piece is irrelevant, given the placer has abided by the fourth guideline - "EarthCache sites follow the geocaching principles and adhere to the principles of Leave No Trace outdoor ethics. Use waypoints to ensure cachers take appropriate pathways. Use established trails only. Do not create new trails to a site in order to concentrate use impacts. EarthCache sites will highlight the principle of collect photos - not samples. However, if there is no possible damage to a site which is outside of the public land system and approved by the site owner, small samples may be collected as part of the cache experience." Hence, to me, your first point is moot. As for the second point - I can see how there may be some "hurt feelings" or "offense." My experience, however limited, is that neither of the two caches which were placed in a county park in which I placed an earthcache had obtained proper permission from the land owner. This was clear as I obtained permission for this earthcache. The fact that an earthcache requires submission of a land owner/manager information already speaks of a different (in this case a justified higher) standard. In my case, I could care a less about "offense" caused to those other two cache owners. I had to secure permission for their caches, so I'm perhaps the one offended and "adversly affected." In researching three other earthcache sites, I'm coming across the exact same trend - existing caches have not obtained to proper approval. Bah.

Ah, just like the laws of phsyics - try defying gravity and you come to the realization that while not obvious, they are still in place. The laws may be difficult to detect, but they are there and applicable. Try placing your first cache with a theme of dedication to Anarchism. You will quickly discover the "authority."