J.A.R.S.

Thank you Alfouine. That did it. I was afraid to click "Resign as Leader", not knowing if it was kick me off without further options.

Hmmm. Come to think of it, that happened to me too, years ago. I'm thinking it most likely because I'm not PM anymore. I may need to go ahead and just resign. Maybe it will automatically give the leader role to an officer.

Yes I found that page. I can promote a member to officer status, but not to Leader. I think it might be because I'm no longer PM. I thought about resigning the Leader role, that's an option. But I don't know if that leaves the category without a leader. Can the person who stepped up to be a leader self-promote when the category is leader-less?

How do I transfer my leader role to someone else? I no longer have a premium account and haven't for years. I'm also not geocaching or Waymarking much anymore. I'm leader of a group and have asked a member to take the role but can't see how I can promote him to leader, only to officer.

No complaints since 10/9/2013 when it was replaced by A-JerseyThing, so also not a counter example. Is this what you consider proof of geojunk growing? I was assuming you were complaining because you actually find a lot broken caches in the field. The cache was geojunk, just a baggie with a log. The proper procedure is to archive the ownerless broken cache, not to throw a cache down.

Thanks Ranger Fox. Being a complete newbie at this I didn't realize that my cartridge would be on kit.wherigofoundation.com. When I got home I checked my Firefox history and went back to the page where the cartridge is, alive and well. The images are broken on my page (viewing it on my laptop), but maybe they work via iphone. Yes, you're correct there are 6 zones, I wasn't at home when I wrote my initial post so I just guessed. . Just figured out that "New Zone" can be renamed. Doh. Thanks. I'll keep working on my first Wherigo. I'm liking the kit. A bit of a learning curve but not hard. I like that I can create it at home. Much easier then out in the field. I should hopefully be able to test it in the field tomorrow or Wednesday.

Hi Ranger Fox. I sent you an email via your GC profile, but perhaps I should write here. I have never created a Wherigo before. I'm using the wherigofoundation kit. Yesterday afternoon I collected coordinates for 5 stages which I'm using for my cemetery Wherigo. Spent the evening creating the Wherigo via the website. The name is Farnham Cemetery. Saved as I was creating each stage. Everything looked good (except the images were broken). Today my unpublished cartridge is gone. Is there anyway you can restore the cartridge? Was there something I did to cause my cartridge to disappear?

What irks me? People who think they are entitled to be notified if they are not going to be FTF on a cache. Part of the FTF side game is not knowing if you are first and feeling the rush hit you when you find out you are. I cannot understand how such self-entitlement can motivate a person to think that they must be placated by an immediate FTF log, lest they actually be disappointed if they come in second. So true! I use various listing sites for my caching pleasures. I sign the log of caches I find, but don't make any online entries (just not my thing). I track all my finds and such in GSAK. I don't play the FTF part of the game, but I have found a few that had no other signatures in the log (normally posted on other sites). A few years ago, I found a cache listed on another site which at the time wasn't cross posted on GC.com. About a week later the CO published on this site, probably not more than 2 or 3 hours after it was published I received an email from the next to find upset that I didn't log it online in a timely manner! He said he wouldn't have bothered to run out and look for it if he had known I had already found it! He then proceeded to accused me of cheating (being with the CO when it was placed) as the date on my signature was the week prior! :/ I inadvertently did this on one of my hides. I initially listed my LB box on another site and once the local letterboxers found it I listed it on GC. The first GCer to find it, found a logbook that was about 1/4 full of letterboxers' signatures. I'm not a FTFer but I was sorry to dishearten this GCer. Now, I replace the logbook with a fresh one if I cross-post. I figure it's a fun side-game for some, I don't think it's detrimental to the pastime and it's not a problem for me to put in a new logbook. It would however irk me if someone got upset with me for not posting right away if I inadvertently became a FTFer at a cache. I usually post by the end of the day, when I get back to a computer.

That is not the way I understood it. I believe the OP's assumption was that the area would be allowed "to rest" simply because that cache was gone, assuming that the new cache would be hidden in a significantly different spot (which, in my experience, is not neccessarily the case. Good areas for caches tend to attract cache hides to those areas) That's been my experience. After archiving a 5 year old cache at a local architecturally significant structure in a scenic location, a new cache was posted about a week later. It is a better hide then I had placed and at the opposite side of the structure. I enjoyed the new find. Part of what I like about geocaching it the hide n seek aspect, it's fun, it's not about the numbers for me. Plus it was interesting to see that someone could find another good (actually better) hiding spot. It brought people back for another visit after 5 years - sometimes people need the excuse of a cache to re-visit a spot. And the hide gave them a different perspective of the structure. I'm all for limited cache placements, it doesn't feel fair not to share the fun of hiding with new geocachers. I'm thinking 3-5 years is a good time limit.

I agree with everything Brian said except that line. I believe personal, individual experience is the single greatest teacher any of us can have. I'm not sure that's true. We once had a cache owner that had found 2 very good examples of geocaches (traditional forest hides, regular size good containers) before placing 4 of her own. The containers: one was a candy tin, another an airline zippered pouch, another a dollar store gladware type of container that was crammed into a stump and cracked within a couple of days of planting, the 4th a film canister. Placements were mostly urban. Problems arose immediately and were noted in the logs. The CO posted notes saying she was a busy student and would get to the caches when she wasn't so busy. After a few months with no maintenance visits, she posted that she was leaving the country. She never maintained her caches, never disabled her caches and never archived them. Yet her experience with 2 good cache finds did not reflect in her hides. I was going to check the profile of the CO of the cache noted in the OP's message but since the cache was retracted it no longer exists. It would have been interesting to see what he found and compare them to what he planted. Ook, my mistake. I re-read briansnat's and Cliff's messages. I'm actually agreeing with them - i.e. experience doesn't equal good cache placements. It has more to do with imagination and creativity of the CO.

I agree with everything Brian said except that line. I believe personal, individual experience is the single greatest teacher any of us can have. I'm not sure that's true. We once had a cache owner that had found 2 very good examples of geocaches (traditional forest hides, regular size good containers) before placing 4 of her own. The containers: one was a candy tin, another an airline zippered pouch, another a dollar store gladware type of container that was crammed into a stump and cracked within a couple of days of planting, the 4th a film canister. Placements were mostly urban. Problems arose immediately and were noted in the logs. The CO posted notes saying she was a busy student and would get to the caches when she wasn't so busy. After a few months with no maintenance visits, she posted that she was leaving the country. She never maintained her caches, never disabled her caches and never archived them. Yet her experience with 2 good cache finds did not reflect in her hides. I was going to check the profile of the CO of the cache noted in the OP's message but since the cache was retracted it no longer exists. It would have been interesting to see what he found and compare them to what he planted.

I've been burned by multis both as a finder and a planter. As a planter I've had people find the first stage and log it as a find -- sure I can delete the find but I don't want to play the game that way. As a finder I have been unable to complete many multis - problems with missing stages, head-scratching difficult stages, math equations that simply will not add up for me, washed out coords on slips of wet paper, stages that were so far apart (and no mention of the distances in the clues) that I chucked in the towel. Too many bad experiences have made me leary of multis. But yes, I have had some great multi experiences -- I'm especially fond of multis that have stages that can't disappear and take me to interesting locations. Wish there was a way to separate the chaff from the wheat.

I suspect that if everyone left acronym logs (TNLNSLTFTC), those who spend 10 hours on a cache hide will probably archive their caches and quit planting. What's the point - no one seems to think they have any value except to increase find counts. Maybe it's the finders' way of saying it's a lousy cache. I've read over and over in the forums that TFTC and TNLNSL means the cache is ho-hum, boring, not worth the visit... if you can't say anything good, say TFTC. It's how people suggest you separate the wheat from the chaff, check the logs - if most of them are acronym logs then the cache is not good. Good caches get wordier logs. So TFTC has become a round-a-bout way of saying, "I didn't like your cache". I know I would stop planting if 80% or more of the comments were TFTC - it's a lot of work (checking the cache whenever there's a DNF, checking all caches about once a season) and some financial investment (lock n lock boxes, fresh trinkets at least twice a year, new handmade logbook about once a year). It's those cachers that provide some feedback (good or bad), and those that leave stories of their adventures, that motivate me to hide and maintain caches. I suspect that if acronym logs were the norm, then 1 minute cache hides would also become the norm -- less effort in the logs begets less investment in the hides.

I downloaded it about a couple of weeks ago but had some trouble. I can't remember for certain but I think the problem was with the GC hide and seek function. It wouldn't work for me after I downloaded the ratings software. But otherwise I really like the software. But I had to remove it because it was interfering with my use of the the GC website. Maybe I'll try to download it again and see if I have the same problem. The browser I use is Firefox. Anyone else having any trouble after downloading?

I downloaded it about a couple of weeks ago but had some trouble. I can't remember for certain but I think the problem was with the GC hide and seek function. It wouldn't work for me after I downloaded the ratings software. But otherwise I really like the software. But I had to remove it because it was interfering with my use of the the GC website. Maybe I'll try to download it again and see if I have the same problem. The browser I use is Firefox. Anyone else having any trouble after downloading?

All of my letterbox hybrids are cross-listed, because it opens the letterboxes up to a wider audience. What I do most often is put a link in my Atlas Quest clue page to my GC.com clue page. Here's an example: http://www.atlasquest.com/showinfo.html?gBoxId=639

Yes, 3 times. All of them used the term "geocache" on the container or logbook and all of them were too close to another published cache.

YES! But only if you also have a PC. I do. I'll have to read more about GSAK. Thanks.

Tell me how!!!! That way my friend and I can hit a closer town on a cache run! We have picked a numbers area to stay away from unless we are caching together but we have found most of them now. See the "Group caching" macro here I have a 3 year old HP iPAQ, can I use GSAK?

Why are you reading this thread if it bothers you?

Knock-off/dollar store lock & locks. The tabs break off. Use the real thing, it may cost more but will last years compared to a few months.

If it's optional then you would opt out of having your caches rated. Me, I would definitely use an anonymous "golden frog" type of feature. Are you saying that because you don't want to be rated, no one should have the option?

Bookmarks can't be filtered i.e. you can't use PQs. You can't even search for bookmarks in your area. Very few people use them. I use them, but they never get rated, so I doubt many people care about my bookmark lists. Attributes are OK too but a cache with a scenic attribute doesn't automatically make it a great cache experience. Cache size - a microcache doesn't automatically make it a bad cache experience. I'm sure the GC web gurus can create a rating system that doesn't allow a person to rate a cache unless they visited the cache. For those who don't want their caches rated, I'm sure that ratings could be optional and owners could opt out.

I agree. I'd like the ratings to remain anonymous and only those that get an average of 4/5 or 5/5 get a "golden frog" icon. I think it would encourage better hides and would be useful on trips/vacations when you have limited time and budget, you can filter for golden frogs and then maybe pick up a few others in the vicinity.

Sounds interesting. Have people shot down this idea? I don't see how it would be a bad thing. Maybe it's too complicated for Groundspeak to adopt. I'm in favour of some kind of hidden rating system that will help us sort for caches that most people consider a good cache. Right now I'm resorting to setting my PQs to only traditional, small, regular or large caches. But I'm sure I'm missing out on some good micros/multis/puzzles in interesting locations or maybe cleverly hidden or perhaps with a unique container. It's just so overwhelming to read through all those logs to see which caches are favourably reviewed. This is especially a concern when travelling, even travelling to nearby cities - there are 100s to sort through.