The Royles

me too.i suggest a lot more do it.see how they like that.hit them were it hurts,we can still continue without there service or lack of it as mentioned above Not taking "sides" here, but the flaw in your logic is that if GC folded due to lack of funds, how would you get your cache details, and where would you log them ?

Are the twigs and mud so that you can hide it from muggles

Thats really good, except for advocating Nanocaches in a rural environment

And you may lose your wellies

So, we can see that Lacto is on the case, so I suggest we let him get on with it. Why not take the thread off topic and post our support for the UK/Ireland reviewers and mods. I am sure we would all like to say that you are all (puts on high heels and big hair) Simply the best Better than all the rest

Both. What was done: threads closed which breach GS rules - fine. How it was done: a non-UK person did it - fine, they work for/represent GS and have the necessary permissions to do that. It MAY be that our mods feel their toes were stepped on, but they can deal with that without us going off half-cocked.

Cheers HH, back on topic (if people want to).

Am I the only one who agrees with Groundspeak ? (should I run for cover now)

Thats cool - well done Brentorboxer (one of my categories). How did you find out that it was the 100,000th ?

If there is anyone else interested in time travel, meet me back here last Tuesday.

Put it in a sling

I agree that most reviewer archived caches are abandoned, and are not listed elsewhere. We should have a system that when a cache is archived, the reviewers get in touch with the owner and find out what has happened with the box. If they do not get an adequate reply, then they could ask via the forums if someone would be good enough to remove the box. This gives people a chance to say if it is listed somewhere else, or has been removed. I would be happy to help clean up in this way, and I am sure most people feel the same. So, to go completely off topic, let us start a campain to clean up after ourselves - if we dont it is our hobby that suffers. Do our reviewers (or Groundspeak themselves) have an opinion on this ?

You should not remove anyones cache without their permission, even if it has been archived. It is possible that the cache is actively listed on another caching site.

Maybe they were there, but the camo was a better quality

I think that it is more likely that the "numbers" aspect is leading to the proliferation of so called "bad" caches. Every find on a cache is a vote for the cache, as the finder has decided that the cache is worth doing. If people were more selective in the caches they hunted, and not so worried about the numbers they find, some caches would have very few visitors and perhaps the hider would be more likely to do something about it. Another problem is it always feels wrong to run down a cache in a "found" log, so cache hiders do not get honest feedback, so how are they to know that some/most people see their hide as "lame".

Well done you 3. Hope we meet up at an event soon!

I set a cache where the coords are found by solving a puzzle, the parts of which are in 3 other caches (none of which are mine). I just mailed the cache owners and asked could I put a laminated card in their cache with the clue on.

Yes, the double question mark did the job.

No, this was a test ......................... You failed

That is a fixed statement which anyone submitting a Traditional cache must follow, and Reviewers must apply. To me personally that is a Rule. I'd be interested in the opinion of anyone who can show me any flexibility in that statement and as such my statement I found a Trad Cache a while back where the co-ords were (to quote the cache page) So the rule may not be as inflexible as you seem to think. This is quoted for info only, as I personally think that some of the guidelines should be taken as rules.l

I would much rather discuss the rights and wrongs of trolling and of sock puppets, care to comment c657ljr ?

I bought 16k ram pack for the ZX81 for £30 !

That would not affect the numbers counted for a mega-event, as the requirement is for 500 PEOPLE to attend, not caching teams. That is why it is important to state how many people will be in your group when logging a "will attend". edit to add, can't comment about the teddies and the dog though

I think you will find that Groundspeak will not want to get involved in what constitutes adequate permission, as they are ONLY a listing service for the caches, they would not want to assume any responsibility for the caches placed. The only times they insist on you fulfilling permission requirements are where there could be big repercussions if permission is not obtained (it would only take a few rogue ones on FC land to convince them that we are not responsible people). In the UK, all land is owned by someone, so technically you need to have permission off the landowner, and to quote Groundspeaks guidelines It is up to the hider to satisfy themselves that they have ADEQUATE permission and in some cases the hider decides that they already have that without asking.

Hope we were in quick enough.