J.A.R.S.

Nice one. I might just use it on a plant or 2.

I normally use Mobipocket but the site has been down for a couple of days and I want to download my pocket query prc file to my HP iPAQ, today. Can I use GSAK and Cachemate? Is their another software product I need to download to my iPAQ?

A friend of mine tried to get a cache listed that used the same setup (coordinates to a starting point and clues from there), but it got turned down because it was deemed to not be a geocache because the finder didn't need a GPSr to find the container. I wonder if he'd included coordinates to the cache container AND the clues if it would have been accepted because a finder could either use the coordinates to the container OR use the clues. Is this the crux of the issue with letterbox-hybrids? One way to get around this, is to put the starting coords for the Hybrid 1.5 miles into the woods, and start the Letterbox clues from there... Actually the starting coordinates were to a spot out in the woods, not to the parking lot. My question is: How are letterbox hybrid cache listings supposed to be constructed to that they are acceptable for listing on the geocaching.com site? Am I correct that they have to be able to be found BOTH via clues AND coordinates to the container? In terms of guidelines, a Letterbox hybrid should be no different from a Mystery box. Here's what the guidelines say for Mystery boxes: Why would a reviewer place more restrictions on a letterbox hybrid then they would on a mystery box? (I am so grateful for my local reviewer who does not treat hybrids differently from mystery caches.)

Hello Admins, Would you please have a look at this discussion regarding adding a link to Atlas Quest in the letterbox hybrid box (there is currently a link to the LBNA database). I have been encouraged to post the topic here to get the attention of Groundspeak admins. Thanks for your consideration. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...163855&st=0 R of J.A.R.S.

Thanks Lightning Jeff. You are correct, that is what I'm trying to say. AtlasQuest is more useful to geocachers because it is similar to gc.com - more web technology, more finder-centric e.g.: hiders can't disable the find/attempt features on AQ (they can on LBNA) AQ has "tag" and "watch" and "ignore" features (LBNA does not) AQ has advanced search features. Besides a city search you can search by type of letterbox, you can search by tagged boxes, you can ignore boxes, you can find nearby letterboxes, by box status. AQ has a "box status" feature, a hider can mark a box as active, unavailable, retired, or unknown. LBNA does not have this feature. a trip planner boxes are put up for adoption if the owner does not log into the database on a yearly basis, which will hopefully decrease the number of abandoned boxes and encourage letterbox maintenance AQ has a "maintenance by planter" feature that shows up in the "Show All Finds" section AQ uses online mapping services (mapquest, google, yahoo) AQ is statistics oriented. My profile section keeps an ongoing tally of my recorded hides and finds and attempts. AQ has a geocaching board where letterboxers talk about geocaching and letterbox hybrids. It's just seems so much more in-line with the gc.com features. I have noticed that geocachers have cross-posted to LBNA only and I wonder if that's because they see only the reference to LBNA in the letterbox description blurb. I'm not asking you to remove the LBNA link but please add the AQ link to make geocachers aware of a letterboxing website that is more in-tune with gc.com.

I think one of the reasons might be that it requires more work. If the clues need updating it would have to be updated on more than one site, although I've solved this problem for some of my hybrids by just posting a link to the gc.com clue from Atlas Quest (and LBNA). For those hybrid hiders that don't use directions, (just lat/long coords) they may not want to create directions to the box - writing up the detailed directions to the box (from the dead cedar tree take 14 paces southwest (left) along the riverbank then ....) takes me at least 3 times longer than posting the coords (but I like the process so I do both).

If it has been decided to continue to promote LBNA could we also include a link to Atlas Quest in the information box? It's been another 16 days since my last enquiry and there's been no reply as to why LBNA continues to be promoted in the letterboxing hybrid description despite the land manager policies differing from those of gc.com. If it has been decided that geocaching.com will continue to promote LBNA can we have an explanation as to why Atlas Quest is not included in the letterboxing hybrid description? If the policy is that geocaching.com will not refer geocachers to sites that do not conform to the same land manager policies, I am in favor of removing any reference to either letterboxing website. But I'm perplexed about the continued support of one letterboxing database over another. Should this message be posted on the "Geocaching.com Web Site" forum rather than here in "General Geocaching Discussions" in order to get the attention of the admins?

True that. At least one newer site has made inroads just by doing a better job than the others. Atlas Quest. It's come a long way since 2004. Lots of web features. Easy to use.

No. But she's great at leading me to dead things. So far a deer, squirrels and a coyote. Fingers-crossed it doesn't get any worse than that.

Thanks for the question RK. For me the hybrid by it's simplest definition...a box with a stamp in it (and a logbook)...is a nice change from trinkets. Instead of trading trinkets, stamp images are traded. For me, the stamp images are collectables. And it's even more collectable when it's someone's own personal piece of art, a hand-carved stamp image. I also find that I enjoy my letterbox logbook even more with the addition of stamped signature images, drawings, stickers and the dog paw prints - they personalize the logbook and add a little more fun to an already enjoyable past-time. Regarding methods of finding a letterbox - I like the traditional method of finding a letterbox and try to adhere to it, i.e. take the finder to a starting point (like a trailhead) and give them directions from there. Recently I started adding an additional waypoint that marks the location of the box, so those who prefer to hunt them the gps way can - but I wouldn't like to see it made a mandatory requirement. I find that most finders are reporting that they chose to find my letterboxes the traditional LB way with directions. If we had to pick one method over the other I'd choose the traditional letterbox method with the gps used to get to the start of the hunt but I hope we don't have to choose and can continue to enjoy the variety of letterbox hunting methods we currently have on the site.

I'm grateful that geocaching.com includes letterboxes and allows a diversity of forms (mystery, puzzle, offset, traditional, coords that take you to the box, coords that take you to parking or a trailhead with instructions from there, coords that take you somewhere along the trail, etc). It would disappoint me to see restrictions on what we currently enjoy.

Atlas Quest is a database where letterboxes are posted, same as LBNA - they both store letterbox clues. When you find a letterbox it could be posted on letterboxing.org and/or atlasquest.com and/or geocaching.com (most of my letterboxes are posted on the 2 letterbox databases and gc.com for maximum exposure). When you find a letterbox that is listed on AQ it is still called a letterbox not a AtlasQuest box. Same kind of box, 2 different online databases (3 if you count gc.com but the box is referred to as a letterbox hybrid here). Letterboxing. org (LBNA) has been around since about 1997. Atlasquest.com since 2004. The LBNA site is a bare bones depository with minimal web features, the AQ site continues to add web features - logging finds/attempts, watching, tagging, trip planner, boards, wiki-style help pages, online maps (google, mapquest), supports many forms of letterboxes (mystery, virtuals, hitchhikers, postals, events, etc.) I think that AQ is more in keeping with the gc.com site and should also be listed along with LBNA but given that neither site conforms to the land manager policies that gc.com follows, perhaps neither site should be promoted here.

It's been over a week since the topic first started but I don't think a conclusion was reached. I garnered from the discussion that gc.com will not promote a letterboxing site that doesn't play by the same land manager rules that geocaches are subject to. But I see that the LBNA site is still being promoted in the information box that appears on each cache page: If it has been decided to continue to promote LBNA could we also include a link to Atlas Quest in the information box?

That's the tone that I was getting from the more vocal folks at LBNA. After trying for a few months to persuade LBNA to consider online logs, and getting royally roasted and toasted, I came to terms with LBNA wanting to be a no-bells-and-whistles, finder-centric database. I'm not happy that the database is full of abandoned boxes, hiders that would rather see their box abandoned and become litter rather than adopted out, hiders who prevent finders from logging finds/attempts, webmasters that let a box remain in the database even though there was a report that the box was buried and embedded with shards of glass causing serious injury. But that is how the database is run, I can like it or lump it. But my problem is that geocaching.com promotes it. I think Atlas Quest is more in keeping with the geocaching site - hiders can not suppress the finds/attempts feature, there is a community feel on the AQ boards - very little flaming, more finder-centric as opposed to hider-centric (less of a this-is-my-box-and-nobody-better-mess-with-it feeling), more web features, a tireless and patient webmaster that considers all suggestions and never berates someone for their suggestion. But given geocaching's land manager policies it would probably be best not to sanction either site for neither have reviewers. Hiders can post unauthorized boxes because there are no checks and balances before a box can be published. I do not know what the procedure is when a land manager contacts the LBNA site or the AQ site and there is nothing on either site (that I could find) that discusses the procedure.

duplicate - deleted

I think the reverse is the truth. The actions of 30% keep J.A.R.S. placing letterboxes so that the 70% can slide. J.A.R.S. would like it if the 70% followed the lead of the 30%. Thank you Renegade. You are correct. Plus isn't it just common courtesy to at least acknowledge someone's gift? Is it so wrong to wish for a tip of the hat, some feedback and to be inspired by a finder's acknowledgement?

My experience is that about 70% of the letterboxers that have found my letterboxes do not email me or log the find. Of those 70% about 90% do not leave a note in the logbook - just their stamp and trailname. I try not to take it personally and assume that they're lack of correspondence means they didn't like the box, since fortunately those that did contact me told me how much they enjoyed the find and the stamp. That's why I now prefer to post my letterboxes on gc.com, I need the feedback.

You have always had that option. You simply set up your own page. There are plenty of blogging sites out there that will allow you to do just as you ask without forcing the LbNA.org site to do it for you. But why make it harder for hiders and finders to communicate? Why make them leave the site? Blogs and guestbooks have their problems. Some blogs require that you set up an account in order to respond. Some guestbooks have no spam filters, the guestbook owner needs to regularly clear out spam messages (I think this is also true for some blog sites). Most guestbook sites don't notify the owner when someone leaves a message, where gc.com does and aq.com does (for mail that is since they don't have an online log feature).

~ I about spewed my coffee all over my monitor! ~ Try telling some letterboxers that. ...and they have a point. It has to do with information beyond what they put out. They want to control spoilers. On caches listed here, the longer a cache has been out and logged the more hints you can glean. Some boxers don't want that. It's their right. It's not wrong, just different. Not every site has to be just like GC.com. I can see the spoiler thing, but when I found a letterbox that looked like they had thrown the cache into the weeds off to the side there was no way to find the letterbox owner and email them about the problem of the cache and letterbox co-existing in the same place. The written instructions in the letterbox were really snobby, unrealistic, and wholy ignored by cachers who found the box and not the cache. The lack of accountability, contact information, or anything that can be used to work with letterboxes is a major problem. It's more than the lack of an online log. They are not under the radar anymore. Last year I suggested, on the LBNA yahoo group, an *optional* online log capability for those of us who hide letterboxes and want finders to leave public messages - those hiders that don't want them could opt out. But that suggestion was met with animosity, especially by the old-timers. They don't want them and they don't want anyone to have them either, in fact they invited me to leave and not let the door hit my backside on the way out. I remember both Jeremy (gc.com) and Ryan (AQ.com) stepping into the fracas at one point. I feel that online logs have far more advantages than disadvantages. Online logs can do a hider a service. Good comments could drum up more visits. It makes my day to read kudos in an online log and good comments inspire me to continue hiding caches. Not so great comments are good too because they help me tweak the instructions to make the experience a more pleasant one for the finder. Online logs help finders help other finders, which is especially important when the box has been abandoned. Online logs warn other finders of problems with the box (full logbook, cracked water-logged box) the location (poison ivy, druggie hangout), mis-leading or dead-end clues (turn left at the maple tree when you really need to turn right and the maple tree has been chopped down). There was a message posted on the LBNA yahoo group back in November 2006 -- the letterboxer went out to a letterbox that instructed the finder to "dig deep" to get the box that was hidden under a rock. He started to remove the dirt under the rock with his hands. Buried in the dirt were shards of glass. He ended up in the emergency ward to stitch up his fingers. He didn't give out the name of the box but did give the out the name of the city, state and that what the directions said. I just did a search for the box and it's still on the LBNA site (placed in 2004) and clearly states to "dig deep".

Just found this help page on Atlas Quest regarding land manager policies: http://www.atlasquest.com/aboutlb/wiki/browse.html?gCatId=31 It covers different policies in different parks in the USA, and includes links to policies and permits.

LBNA terms of use: http://www.letterboxing.org/lbna/tou.html Regarding AQ they do say this on the site: http://www.atlasquest.com/aboutlb/rules/respect.html Both sites do not have reviewers. You'd have to ask the webmasters about what steps they take when a land manager contacts them. If gc.com promotes one over the other, I vote for AQ because of web features and the promotion of box maintenance. The AQ webmaster does a sweep of emails each year. Owners who have not logged into AQ for a year will have their boxes put up for adoption. The AQ policy was created to discourage abandonment. LBNA does not have a similar policy and many of the boxes on the site are no longer maintained or are missing but that information is not updated. But based on land manager guidelines, perhaps removing the reference to LBNA and not promoting either site would be the answer since neither quite conforms to the same land manager guidelines as laid out by geocaching.com. But to be sure about their policies and procedures, you'd have to communicate with the webmasters.

Ah, that explains it. Atlas Quest began in 2004 and continues to grow and develop into quite a nice site. (Just wish the site would offer online logs, but currently there's too much opposition to them in the letterboxing community).

I checked on one of my letterbox pages and noticed that the site has included definitions of the box type. A nice educational feature. For letterbox pages, at the top of the clue page, it says: Too bad it doesn't point people to Atlas Quest - I think it would be a better choice. People who use the gc site are used to web features (logging finds, pocket pc, attributes, profiles, watch listings, maps, trip planners, advanced search features, boards/forums). To me it makes more sense to point geocachers to AQ - it being a more bells & whistles site with many similar features. LBNA prides itself in being a depository site with (deliberate) limited web functions. In terms of information pages, you'll find that AQ offers a interactive and extensive section of help pages including photo tutorials and wiki help pages.

This discussion is an example of more-to-the-story.... http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2369503 Would the box mentioned in the Auntie Weasel post be the letterbox in question? J.A.R.S.

TBpirate has recently placed a bunch of them in Shady Bench. There are now 9 TBs in the cache.