dino-irl

Where in Ireland do you intend to visit? Its not *that* small a country

I've seen this advice before and I've always liked it - place the kind of cache you would like to find Yes a traditional will probably get more visitors but a really well planned multi will get more interesting logs. I like both and have a 13 stage multi that gets loads of visitors and many good comments. PS. the forum conversion d*m --> dadgum is very funny in this post

That sounds to me like rubbing their noses in it and is hardly likely to help resolve that particularly thorny issue

From my discussions last year with the Conservators they are not willing to sign an overarching agreement with the GC community. Indeed, from a response that I have received separately, from another senior GC reviewer, it would now seem that 'blanket agreements' covering the placing of caches in SSSIs/Nature Parks etc are no longer being taken at face value. Quote In on case a cache located in a park under a Blanket Agreement with the local Council, was treated in the same way your caches have been. Due to the Park being designated a SSSI. The cache in question happened to be located up a tree, in which Bats were roosting. As these are a Protected species, disturbing them can result in a fine of up to £20,000. Unquote It would seem that reviewers now want the location/siting of each cache to be approved in advance by the SSSI land manager - even when there is a 'blanket agreement' in place. I have suggested that this revised policy needs to be published so that new cache-owners know what is expected of them before a cache will be listed. Personally, I think this change of policy resulting from the reviewers' access to MAGICmap is a massive over-reaction. In my view, if an individual cacher has met with the land owner, obtained written approval from him to place caches on his land and only inform him of the location of the caches once they have been listed, then all bases are covered as far as GC.Com is concerned? We should not forget in all of this that we are just talking about the siting of a small plastic box in an area of natural environmental cover. I would urge the reviewing community to adopt a sense of reality and proportion. I'm sorry but you appear to contradict yourself a number of times. You consistently refer to having a blanket agreement from the landowner but then say that they don't wish to enter into a blanket agreement? You can't have it both ways. Either the landowner agrees to blanket placement with guidelines that they set and the reviewers enforce or else you will have to provide permission details each time you place a cache in the area. I really don't see what is the big deal about the latter if the landowner is unwilling to do the former? The reason reviewers are so specific about SSSIs is that they carry very vigorous and powerful legal protections. I'm sure nobody wishes to fall foul of those Also you should know that publishing an email you were sent privately is really bad manners. This post makes it twice you've done so now. Finally, for the record I am also a reviewer but not in the UK and this is all my own opinion.

Try this Macro: http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=12382&st=0 I don't use that model but the GSAK Forum is the best place to ask

Knowledge Book article: http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?...page&id=175

Wish I'd said that

Oh....like that one a lot

You could create dummy cache pages with just the coordinates of the hides and any Additional Waypoints for physical stages if necessary. Then activate the cache but place an obvious note on the cache that you just want them checked for proximity and they are not to be published just yet. If you speak nicely to your reviewer they should check them out for you and then disable to give you time to prepare the page properly and site the cache.

I'd ignore it, especially if if they haven't included a return address unless you are feeling particularly helpful

It's impossible to determine the 1 millionth cache and I have a feeling that cache page is written tongue in cheek

Check the thread Bear and Ragged linked too.

Have you received an email from Groundspeak to authorise the account and followed the instructions in it? If you're still having problems then contact GC direct and they will help you out. See this Knowledge Book article for more help: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p....page&id=93

According to the guidelines you are right. But it seems to be possible to list an event as member only. Has to be an error by Groundspeak. Not any more. It was possible at one stage but that bug was fixed some months ago.

This Knowledge Book article explains the reasoning why the search is limited but also gives tips how to use Google instead: http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?....page&id=32

An event can't be PM only. I didn't realise that an EC could be either.

Using FF here and still no problems which version? Probably irrelevant now but v3.6

Using FF here and still no problems

I'm a PM and can see it while logged in. Try clearing your cache and cookies and logging back in again. According to the list at the bottom there are 154 caches on it.

Might be something to do with this thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=243317 Does the PQ say that it ran?

Any chance you have the wrong datum set in your GPS?

How is it unfair or inconsistent? Some caches are for premium members only, some caches are for anybody. Before I first took out a premium membership I never thought I was being somehow cheated out of access to the features restricted to premium members. PMO caches that have always been so are both fair and consistent IMO. The inconsistency arises when a cache changes status from "open" to PMO and the door gets rudely (IMO) slammed in your face. Therein also lies the unfairness. If you found it it's only fair to be able to recall it IMO (but I fully accept YMMV). Instead of complaining have you followed the sound advice given earlier in this thread (I think it was by Deci?) to contact the CO and ask them if you can log the cache. They have the ability to remove the PMO status of the cache to give you time to log it and then change it back.

I bought a Nuvi from Handtec that was a rebox. It came with a 1 year guarantee, same as an original brand new one. It froze up about 2 months later and was replaced within a week by Handtec. I still have it about 3 years later

Steve, Don't think it is working "MY FINDS PQ", have tried most of the day to run without any luck. Perhaps we have to pay for this feature?? Not sure of anything on GC.COM these days!!! Cheers Nick http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4209256 and http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4210899 There may have been a recurrence of the problem yesterday but I just ran one and it came through in less than a minute. I can confirm what Markwell says about the button not greying out until after the PQ has run.

As already stated you can contact your local reviewer. You can also follow the advice in Step 3 of this KB article: http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?...page&id=199