dino-irl

Charging to cover costs is allowed but it's hard to tell with that event as I only read/speak English

Is it a new piece or a recycled one? I was under the impression that CT was repeats of older pieces done for Countryfile and similar programmes?

I really don't understand the mentality of this. If the cache is worth doing then what difference does the date make?

I don't use them myself but can't PMs also set up instant notifications for all log types, not just published ones?

Cache owner shouldn't find their own cache surely... too easy??? Part b is about who gets the notification email.

Then you should bring it up on the main forum where the discussion is more likely to get an audience and get noticed by GSP

If the location is so good why not just list a new cache at that location and give everyone a new smiley? It's also the responsibility of the cache "owner" to maintain their own cache. Looking at the original CO's profile they haven't been caching since 2005

Minor disagreement with what I think you mean by that. For me: Difficulty is how hard it is to locate, assuming you don't know where it is. Terrain is how hard it is to get to and retrieve, even if you already know where it is. Rgds, Andy It depends how you interpret the ratings system: I think you can argue that a cache that is easy to get to and find but difficult to retrieve can be classed with a higher Difficulty or Terrain rating.

I've put both posts in one reply as you are basically saying the same thing and I have the same reply for both of you. How do you know the reviewer didn't bounce it back to the owner? If they did and the owner didn't want to add anything then the cache should be published. There is nothing anywhere that says you must write a description of the cache site.

Why? Caches are reviewed according to compliance with the guidelines so I'd be interested to see how it violates any of them in a way which is obvious at the review stage. Because the cache type is wrong - seems more like a puzzle to me. We have yet to see a link to the cache but if the cache is at the posted coordinates (or supposed to be there) then it's a traditional, not a puzzle.

Why? Caches are reviewed according to compliance with the guidelines so I'd be interested to see how it violates any of them in a way which is obvious at the review stage.

I have a pair of Columbia trail shoes with a Goretex liner and find them great. They're light, deal well even with very wet conditions and aren't too hot in the summer. Grip isn't 100% but I also have a pair of Salomon shoes that cost more, don't have Goretex and aren't any better grip wise. Not sure if you can get them local but Columbia seems to be a popular brand as it's middle of the road for price.

Terrain is about getting to the cache, difficulty is about finding (and I suppose retrieving) the cache: According to that the cache is probably rated correctly for terrain but it's a very subjective system as I said in a post above.

What was the "difficulty" rating? It sounds like the terrain rating was fine and from your OP it was indeed a pleasant walk around but the difficulty rating may suggest different when it comes to finding/retrieving the cache? It was D2/T1.5 D2 is probably correct as this is from the Clayjar rating system: I guess it's also very subjective too though One thing is you'll never get a consensus on this so go with what makes you feel best. If you want to log the find the owner has given you that option but if you want the satisfaction of beating the cache placement go back better prepared, retrieve the cache and sign the log. At the end of the day there are no cast iron rules in this game, you're not in competition with anyone and you have the right to play how you wish.

What was the "difficulty" rating? It sounds like the terrain rating was fine and from your OP it was indeed a pleasant walk around but the difficulty rating may suggest different when it comes to finding/retrieving the cache?

I don't think I would have logged a find either but I'm so stubborn I would have gone back with something to allow me to get the cache out....chainsaw anyone?

Interesting. That price gets you 1500sqkm of mapping free by download with the software but the box below shows the whole of NI for £100. Pricey enough for a one off trip but probably a good long-term investment. Would be good to see a screenshot of one of the maps.

First I've been aware of it! Do you have a link? I have a feeling it won't run on MM OS though and that you will need MM Navigator commonly known as MM Europe as it is OSNI and OSI over here not OSGB.

Have you tried Cacheberry?

This Knowledge Book article gives more detail too: http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?....page&id=98

No, it's one I've never tried. What GPSr chips do they use, and is there a MemoryMap/CacheMate equivalent? Rgds, Andy I've no idea what chip is in use but I find it very accurate, even for placing caches. I run a program called Cacheberry which is excellent and improving all the time. It operates very similar to Cachemate. There is a mapping program out there called TrekBuddy which I've used but isn't just great but the developer of CB is planning to add support for OSM shortly. It does work with Google Maps though if you have a signal.

Ever tried a Blackberry. I use the Storm and find it great for all 3

But what about the sense of satisfaction when you do complete all parts? To me one good multi can be more memorable than a host of cache n dashes. Saying that I like trads too