drewmm

Why is there even a background check to begin with, if you're allowed to be in the area? It's not like ex-cons are banned from public places...

Of course, people who advocate leave no trace also need to recognize that there is a distinction between changing an ecosystem and damaging it. Just because something looks different after cachers come through doesn't necessarily mean it's been "damaged." Just changed.

Exactly (↑) what I spoke about in my previous post. Do you think that the OP is still waiting for the answer? As to the other thread, I believe the all-seeing-eye-mutt (that's where the link steered me) was tossing up a tongue-in-cheek reference suggesting that a mod close the thread -- but it really doesn't matter because it was in Off Topic (and he knew that because it was an Off Topic thread). I found a small chuckle in it. Is just how I see the differences. I didn't interpret the first thread as attempting to answer the OP specifically, but to discuss a topic generally so the information was out there.

What do people have against bumping old threads, though? EDIT: And, for that matter, what do they have against replicating threads? There's no rule that you have to read every thread that shows up in the forums...

Not necessarily questions, but topics of discussion. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4358927 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4348561 Other examples, I'm sure. Perhaps not yelling (what does that really mean on the internet anyways?) but certainly being chided by more experienced posters.

Can Blackberrys access WiFi? I suspect that most people who do PQ's on their iPhones will download them over WiFi from now on. Turn by turn you might need to drop, but I guess it depends on what applications you use for it. On my iPhone I generally just pull up a map and navigate by that, I don't have it give me turn-by-turn. Or if do turn-by-turn, I just use the Google Maps list of turns capability.

I've seen people yelled at both for bumping an old thread to discuss a topic, and bringing up a topic in a new thread which has been discussed already in older threads. So what should newbies do? Start a new one, or bump the old one? Or, once something has been talked about once, is it now taboo?

I'm also pretty sure that those who already have unlimited will have the option to stick with unlimited. Grandfathered in, if you will.

Especially if you use the save maps option, this shouldn't affect anyone. I can't imagine a geocacher going over 2 GB of data, unless they do a lot of other data-intensive stuff on their phones, like streaming videos.

I wouldn't nominate my own logs. I write them as a way of saying thank you to the cache owner. Sometimes I'm feeling uninspired so I don't write much, but I at least try to say something about the experience of finding it. Sometimes I'll tell longer stories, and a few times I've even gotten emails from COs thanking me for my logs. I don't know if any of them have been nominated, but the gratitude of a CO for a well-written log is more important, I think.

I live in a town with a significant number of parks and nature areas, so we have a lot of caches in the city (and not just micros). I haven't been steadily pushing outwards, so I have a good number from neighboring towns as well as a lot from within my town. The closest one to me is a micro 0.5 miles away that I've already taken about three cracks at, then a regular sized cache 0.7 miles away that I haven't looked for yet. I've got a lot to get done this summer before I move to Illinois.

Without knowing what your reviewer actually said, it's impossible for us to know his attitude. Of course, us knowing his attitude is pretty much irrelevant. Reviewers, like all people, come in all types. If you think a reviewer is actually doing something wrong, you can go to Groundspeak (I believe?). But if you're just not the greatest of friends with them...deal with it.

Yep, because if there's one thing Disney World needs, it's some publicity to get some extra visitors. Touché.

Interesting. I would have guessed that Disney would like caches on their property, as it attracts more people to the park. But yeah, any cache inside would be considered an advertisement for Disney, and so it would be treated as a commercial cache and disallowed by guidelines.

Don't give away too much in the photos, but hunters who look at the photos before they go looking for the cache do so with the understanding that they may see some spoilers. At that point, it's really up to the person who's trying to find it next whether or not they want to get a spoiler. So...don't worry about it too much. If a CO thinks you've give away too much with a photo, they (should) send you a polite email asking you to take it off. Otherwise, just take the photos and leave it up to the future hunters to decide whether or not they want to look at them.

I don't know whether that was created by hand or with a computer. I'm tempted to say with a computer, but I have no idea what software was used. You could email the CO of the original cache to ask. As for uploading the image, this thread has two good methods: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=155695

When I tried to go to GC161DG I got this error: "Sorry, you cannot view this cache listing until it has been published." There's an "Albert's Puzzle" which is GC161DC, I assume that's the one you were talking about? Is there anything special about that picture? Or is it just an inserted picture?

I feel this strong urge to actually appreciate something created by Microsoft. Must resist...must resist...

I doubt there will ever be people who turn their noses up at that. And if there are such people, screw 'em.

Please disregard.

Please disregard.

Because they think you might have been stealthy? If there are sensitive areas right by GZ that you want cachers to specifically avoid, you should really mention that in the description of the cache.

Getting all the icons is a personal challenge people set for themselves, I assume. So if they don't think that the location-specific icon is fair, they should feel free to exclude it from their personal goal. It's no harm to anyone, really.

<snip> I don't see anything wrong with this specific log. They talked about their experience and were warning others about it. They didn't say that it should be archived because you might get "wet feet, mud, and scraped up on branches and other plants." And they didn't say that it should be archived because it's unsafe for children. They just said that kids might not enjoy it, and that cachers should be prepared for certain challenges on the trail.

It's Not About The Numbers is down. Is that a usual thing, or just a freak occurrence?