RenMin

An annual event held on a local river was kicked back by our reviewer today for the following reason: "A recent change in floating events is they must be attached to something immovable like a dock or island to keep them on coordinates. This is to ensure the event stays on coordinate for the entire period of the event. Tying off to a navigation buoy is not allowed as it is against the law to tie off to or attach anything to one." I had not heard of this change and was not able to locate this exact wording on geocaching.com. Am I missing something? The event is in it's seventh year and is held on the Hudson River. The event coordinates are where we meet and during the event, and as we float, we must readjust with our GPS units back to event GZ. I have never had this event kicked back with this reason and can understand if the guidelines have been updated, but I can't seem to see where event CO's were given this information on the website. A penny for your thoughts..

Looks like problem solved. Went back in and increased zone from 8 to 15 meters. From there it seemed to work and each zone created opened up once questions from the previous were answered.

Greetings. Giving the "lights out" cartridge format a try. A built, so far, three groups with one zone in each. In each zone I have added multiple questions. When I test in emulator the first group/ zone works perfect but once complete the next group doesn't appear. Did I miss a step? Thanks in advance for any help. Greg (RenMin)

(emphasis mine) Could it be the actual container location or the way it was hidden was the issue? I thought of that. Part two was a micro hidden up in a tree. You needed to lower some fishing line to get Once you open the matchstick the container empty. A bolt used for a weight for this hide, if unscrewed held the coords to the next stage. The rest of the stages were difficult hides in local preserves. They seemed like standard geocaching hides that just required some thinking, sweat, and tears.

Yes, that seems to be the question. The answer would be no. I was able to submit picture on a web page that had the decrypt tool. Nothing installed, nothing downloaded. This makes the archiving of this cache very curious and confusing.

Ok, in this case it was a specific software but I did not have to install it and it was free. Is this then OK?

Recently a cache in the upstate NY area was archived. I say this cause nobody (it seems) expected it and it is one of the toughest and most brilliant in our area. After several years of musings (yes, I said several years), I was able to crack the first part which involved steganograpy. When asked why he archived the cache, the CO said, it no longer met guidelines and had to archive it. Since the only questionable part would be the coords imbedded in a picture I am assuming that was the problem with the cache. However, I know that cachers around the globe use this method to develop puzzles. Is this method of hiding information against geocaching guidelines? The tool used to crack this picture is free on the web. I can see a problem if you had to pay for the program. Any thoughts? What am I missing?

Recently placed an order for a geocoin at www.worldcaching.com. My experience here has led me to this question: Who do people go to for quality geocoins and good service? It would seem not all the retailers connected to GC.com are cut from the same cloth. Looking for some good recommendations. Thanks

Thinking about an underwater cache. A container that would sit on a sunken island in a lake. Maybe four feet deep. An idea I saw involves concrete in a container with a smaller one wedged in. My question is, what have people seen or made that works well underwater?

Appreciate the pics. Thanks for the help. I saw most of the link you referenced on Youtube. A bit difficult to hear but he does do a good job walking you through the features. He focused more on a storylne Wherigo with items to pick up, etc. If more of these type videos are on the way, they will help more people develop Wherigos.

Greetings. I am just starting to learn Urwigo and figure I should start simple. I have designed a basic tour of four spots in the city I live. So far I have created the four zones with brief descriptions. I kept the first zone active and the rest are inactive. I will assume that the cartridge will move to the next stage after moving through the first. I wanted to add a question at each zone for the player to answer. Once answered correct it would unlock the next zone. I have set up a question as an "input" but can't seem to attach it to the zone. I click on zone and look down to "on enter" which I click the "unhandled" part and a box pulls up which states, "on enter" "drag here." When I go to drag the input question it doesnt accept in that box. As a beginner what steps should I take to learn the program. I figure trial and error but I hit a wall an can't design even basic concepts.

How bout Dominican Republic? Probably the only country outside the U.S. I will be able to get. That's my only vote.

Our area seems to have periods where caches, usually ammo cans, go missing. One cacher, it seemed, for a time was being targeted as a lot of his hides were coming up missing. We could speculate it was some random mugglers but the frequency and volume of caches affected, to me, suggested the work of a fellow cacher. Do I have proof? No, just conspiracy theory stuff. The reality is when we put out a hide it is vulnerable to anything by anybody. Cache theifs keep creativity down and add to the proliferation of micros. I have four ammo cans I am reluctant to place cause I know they will be lost. Why build a creative hide if it just gonna go missing? It's a bad trend.

A rash of (suspected) cache vandalism hardly justifies that observation. Yes, it is frustrating. Yes, it happens. It might be someone with a grudge against some geocachers (or geocaching in general), or it could just be street light interference phenomenon (which has nothing to do with lamp post hides).

This discussion is proving to be rich. I think if I funnel what we discussed here into a local event to honor the "placers," I think this thread will have done it's work. If these kinds of things are elevated to a national level by HQ, they will get more subjective and less objective.

When I think of the capital region in NY, the first name that comes to mind is Rusty'O Junk. Now there's a guy with some excellent Wherigo skills and creative caches! I like the idea of recognizing cachers for their creativity and quality caches, however to benchmark that a cacher have a certain amount of hides (over 100) would be a bit off putting to me. By the way, aren't creative hiders already showcased via geocacher of the month? Maybe a good bode of motivation would be to offer a souvenir to a cacher that places a cache that has earned an allotted amount of favorite points. Yes he is another cacher that is a great example. The idea rests on two things: prolific cache placement combined with high quality hides. A rare combination I know but they do exist. Longevity in the hobby with a consistency in quality product is notable.

Yes, in my haste I typed HG instead of HQ. Which was my attempt to abbreviate Groundspeak headquarters. If you read this could you send me a link to the event you mention? I am curious to see how they put it together and may attempt a similar one in my area.

Wisely, Groundspeak never rewards volume, only quality. Your proposal rewards volume. Whining is not likely to result in a positive response. First, if you had even read the idea outlined here you would not claim, "your proposal rewards volume." Although one parameter is total number of hides >200, other parameters could be established First, Fizzy is not alone in his summation. Your opening salvo dealt with volume. Even after you added in the favorite points angle, you still exclude the vast majority of those folks who create stellar hides, by picking a high volume number as your starting point. Second, as Josh pointed out many posts ago, quantity and quality seldom go well together. Those who spew out the kind of volume you set as your starting point seldom create caches which get a high percentage of favorite points. Third, don't get upset because the forums didn't fawn all over your idea. Adapt, improvise & overcome. Take the critique to heart, and adjust accordingly. Agreed that some good points were raised and that the forum kicked against idea. I disagree that the suggestion focused solely on volume. Original post mentions other parameters to reward quality with high volume. Although rare these qualities can and do go together. The question is if we add more "rewards" where does it end? I can see how that could be problematic.

Wisely, Groundspeak never rewards volume, only quality. Your proposal rewards volume. Whining is not likely to result in a positive response. First, if you had even read the idea outlined here you would not claim, "your proposal rewards volume." Although one parameter is total number of hides >200, other parameters could be established that bring quality into the picture. Most here seem not to trust favorite points as being a judge of quality, but I would suggest that as a parameter. Additional parameters could be included that are used to judge, cache of the week and cacher of the month, and focus on quality. So the "proposal" rewards volume balanced with high quality. There is an element of this hobby that is reward based and GS HQ plays into that. If it encourages movement in this hobby in a positive way, they will explore it. Secondly, the last statement never really addresses the questions I posed, but assumes a negative action on my part. Is this an open forum to discuss ideas or isn't it? The not-so-silent minority has spoken on this topic and I hereby consider it closed.

I doubt Groundspeak would get involved with such a reward system, but if you would like to implement such a arbitrary system, have at it! There's a multitude of choices on the GS Store: Geocoins Awards and Milestones Or better yet, you could design your own! Once again, I think this would best be implemented at the local level. If you were to fork out the money for the coins, or whatever reward system you see fit, you could implement any criteria you like. Who knows, it might catch on in other areas. If it resulted in a better cache experience, everyone wins. Good luck, First, Groundspeak is already involved in similar reward systems ( geocache of the week, cacher of the month) and each come with a "prize." They do this cause they know without such contributions the hobby wouldn't thrive. This is another idea they could consider. As for cachers designing and paying for a special coin I only ask don't cachers pay already? We buy supplies, tools, containers, log books, swag, etc.. Not cause we are forced but because we want to. We enjoy getting involved and we willingly pay these costs. The idea simply asks HQ to consider investing in a way to highlight COs who have beyond the norm to create and publish caches in their community.

Many COs would not ask for this cause, yes, they enjoy hiding for their community. I just thought it could be another way for HQ to expresses their appreciation for those who give more than they take.

I agree. An incentive based solely on numbers would result in a glut of caches. The idea would be an incentive for quantity and quality. Criteria could include total hides (minimum of 200 ) with a certain % of those hides having 5 or more fav points. Additional factors could be included to measure quality. Those that place quality caches often and meet a numerical hide level that far exceeds the average for that area should be considered for a milestone geocoin by HQ ( not HG). Just a thought.

We all know the COs in our areas who excell in pumping out quality hides for us to find. In the upstate (Albany) area we have several with over 100 hides And counting. The idea of an incentive to COs to put out caches may result in the overproduction of low quality hides. However, HG does highlight caches of the month which seems to reflect the importance of rewarding cachers who go above and beyond. The idea here is to reward volume by honoring COs with ( let's say) 200 or more published caches with a special geocoin. To tighten the parameters and to qualify for the coin favorite points (% of total) could be considered too. I know COs place for the love of the game but what if HG could find a way to honor this type of CO? A penny for your thoughts.. ( here are two examples in our area: Timpat and CDParker1, and I could name more)

Sadly, I took part in that kind of thing till I learned my lesson on one particular cache. Why did I feel the need to police things? Don't know. The cache I refer to is on a power trail and my daughter and I spent a good amount of time searching. When I went to log I found a string of DNF's, and not Knowing much about cache got furious and logged my DNF along with a "needs archived." Of course, afterwords I decide to scroll the logs and find it is devious hide that is prone to DNFs. To boot the CO was very good at checking after a string of DNFs only to report, "cache in great shape." In the end, and after cache was disabled by reviewer, I apologized to CO for the premature and unnecessary action on his cache. He appreciated My apology. Lesson learned.

Wondering when u would publish again. My understanding is that when u generate a GC code for a cache page it holds That spot. Even though unpublished or not enabled for review, any cache submissions afterwords are temporarily blocked. Reviewer Will contact you to see where you're at and may give you time to enable. That being said your spot is secure and nobody can Take it without you being notified. I have started generating listings to secure location and then I work on cache at my leisure. Less pressure and you are assured the spot is tagged and held. I did have one of my caches blocked by another unpublished listing. The reviewer let me know about it and they would contact CO to see if they wanted to proceed with their cache. They were given two weeks or so before the spot was eventually Given to me. That, to me, was very fair, but may vary from reviewer to reviewer. Six months seems way too long.