twigg2324

The whole *permission* thing is a bit of a non-issue. By any account, vast numbers of caches are hidden in places where there is clearly no specific permission either sought or granted. Geocaching is a perfectly respectable normal use of public facilities, and should be treated as such. The only time permission is really required is when caches are placed in any area that the public generally doesn't have access to, or areas where the activity is expressley forbidden. Reviewers, bless 'em all, appear to use the permission clause to deny a cache they are unhappy with, but can't quite justify not publishing. The DOT was mentioned in my case (now published, btw). If that were a real issue, then most Oklahoma caches would have to be archived. This would be ridiculous, by any measure. Don't get me wrong. I do see the need for responsible placement, but it has to be consistent, and we have to know the rules .... all of the rules. So how about de-mystifying the process and sharing the Reviewer's Guidlines. It can only help.

I think that most reviewers and mods have had this very thing done. Their judgment has been exorcised from them so that they will act like the robots that Groundspeak wants them to be. You got the snark, huh?

Oh, no! I can't put a micro under a bridge! Armaggedeon! Let's try to keep a sense of perspective? Hey .... I felt that snip

There is way too much paranoia in these here parts about bridges. No one is idiot enough to place a cache under the Golden Gate, and if they did they would be refused a listing and probably arrested. MOST bridges are not remotely terrorist targets, not. even. remotely. At what point do we sacrifice our freedoms and just tell the terrorists that they won? Refusing a listing for the sole reason that a cache is under a bridge is completely contrary to the FAQ, and without adhering to the FAQ how the hell do any of us know where we can place a cache. I had a reviewer use the *terrorist* clause in the FAQ to try to refuse a listing. He then went on to mention that I might need DOT permission to place a cache near a highway. I was on the point of submitting about 50 000 caches to him for archiving. If the DOT don't want you to walk alongside a roadway, then the least they could do is put up a sign asking you not to. They don't. The reality is that on most smaller rivers and creeks, the only access to the bank is alongside a bridge. Parking is usually close by and most creeks and rivers flow extensively through private land. Therefore any members of the public wanting to fish or picnic will be very close to bridges. Bridges, and their immediate surroundings often make for very peaceful and secluded spots perfect for hiding a cache. To suggest that they shouldn't be used because some crazy trucker might get his panties in a wad is nonsense. Clearly there has to be judgement excorcised. Major highway bridges are probably a bad idea, for a number of reasons. But most bridges are fair game, and nothing in the FAQ suggests otherwise. Gut feeling or no. just sayin'

I am using BeeLineGPS on a Pocket PC. That should work. It costs $30

Anything with the SirfStarIII chipset can have the Static Navigation turned off. The MTK doesn't use SN. The chipset is controlled by the firmware, which is problematic on some units wrt sub 4mph movement. Later firmwares, I understand, do not suffer this issue, so be careful what you buy.

Both of those have a chipset that needs you to be moving at more than 4mph. This is NOT Static Navigation, and cannot be turned off. It is a feature that may have been addressed with later firmwares, but on th BT-Q818 I had, it was difficult to use at walking speeds. Other than that, it was wonderful. I sold it and bought a GlobalSat BT-359 ... perfect

Still struggling with this one

I use EasyGPS to load the caches into my Streetpilot 2720. This is great for routing to a cache. Then the handheld takes over and the job's done The problem I am having is that sometimes the caches show in the POI list with the cache name (preferred), but often they show with the cache number. This is inconsistent, and way less useful. Anyone know how to make sure that they always display the cache name? Thanks

I absolutely compare them since they were built by the same stock of people, for the same reasons and many are still in use here in the U.S. today serving those purposes, but that is beside the point. The OP clearly states "I think there should be a recognised 'never put a geocache IN Dry Stone Walls' rule so that people will at least know not to go scrabbling about in them looking for geocaches." Low and behold that guideline already exists for their area, but the OP is asking for a blanket ruling for ALL dry stone walls. I disagree. I think asking everyone, everywhere to boycott caches in dry-stone walls is overkill. Actually, the entire tone of your first comment on this subject simply suggested that you do not understand the significance of drystone walls in the UK. That's ok, you aren't expected to. The OP expressed a deeply felt concern for these structures, arguably it might have been put better, but it IS a real concern. Small pieces of bark, btw, will heal, although that is not an excuse for damaging trees. I never saw a wall that could do that.

While I understand the reasons, does their use to PLACE the cache still hold if the land owner has expressly given permission to make a hole to sink the cache into? Or what if the landowner themselves actually makes the hole for the purpose of placing the cache? I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I'm currently in the planning stages of a multi where the land manager has approached me (rather than the other way round) with a view to placing a cache to help educate visiting cachers about the site itself. We haven't decided on the final cache location yet, but one option was going to be a sunken cache with a camouflaged top. No digging required to remove it, but it would keep the visible surface area reasonably low and (hopefully) reduce the chances of being discovered by muggles. Digging holes, even with permission strays into an area that is more clearly understood if there is NO DIGGING OF HOLES. Be more creative. Holes can be dug for many purposes ... their ultimate use is a matter for you and the Landowner. I would not try to list a cache that had involved digging a hole simply because it blurs a booundary that can only lead to trouble.

Use the appeals process. Sure reviewers are allowed a life of their own. On the other hand, Groundspeak has a service level to offer members. Three weeks is too long. Period. We are expected to comply with the guidlines on cache placement ... the listing website can also comply with it's own 72hr guidline. just sayin'

The FAQ bans the use of shovels, spades and pointy objects as a requirement to unearth a cache. If these are not needed, then you should be fine.

You are right ..... There is NOTHING about a geocache that remotely can be described as abandoned ..... they made this up. They *law* they are quoting is false, it doesn't exist in relation to geocaches. It is simply a device they are using to ban a practise they disapprove of. Groundspeak has no business colluding with this interpretation, especially when it is made clear that no attempt will be made to develop relationships with groups they apparently disapprove of.

We do just this with: Pocket Queries are loaded into EasyGPS, then sent both to the car nav and the Garmin handheld. The .gpx file sent by Pocket Queries is dumped straight into My Docs on the Pocket PC, and you are good to go. We use Beeline GPS on the Pocket PC .... it's close to perfect.

You only need to make sure that people can get the lid off when they find it. Maybe a note in the cache description would help. By the way .... Ammo boxes are cheap.