Hoppingcrow

In a minute, I'm going to YELL. THE POINT IS: In this one area, Groundspeak's provision is not consistent with their stated privacy policy! That is what I am trying to address.

Repeating myself here to get this back on topic.

I had to look several times to even figure out where that is! I think it's in beautiful downtown Morton. That's a CITY! Yuck! No, your guess isn't close. You'll have to drive up a few log roads, cross a couple of rivers and streams, and travel fifteen or twenty miles as the Hoppingcrow flies. By the way, and just for the record...my concern is not so much for my own privacy as just wanting a bit of consistency in Groundspeak's privacy provisions. In most areas, they go above and beyond the call of duty to be certain that users' privacy is foremost, but in this one area...the automatic sending of a user's email address...they would seem to have slipped up.

Little red flags, fluorescent pink tape or any such marker in my area is likely to indicate the boundaries of a proposed timber sale or of a wildlife study/census area. Consider how your local area is used. What would someone be marking?

This post says it better than I did. Thanks, mini cacher. Also, Groundspeak has made it clear that they are concerned about privacy issues, so it simply struck me as odd that in this one area, the default seemed to exactly the reverse of what policy seemed to dictate. I like the idea of giving us an option to check in our profile settings to specify whether we want the default to be "send" or "don't send." That would handle the issue quite nicely for both the paranoid and the naïve among us.

The way this is set up presently seems to invite disaster. When I want to contact another user, the default is that my email address is sent unless I UNcheck the appropriate box. Shouldn't it be the other way around? That I CHECK the box if I want my address sent? I'd rather have a hasty "send" be something that didn't compromise my privacy.

I just thought I'd poke a little fun in here. Don't anybody take me seriously, please! I see all the proposals coming up, see people getting angsty (self included in that assessment) and it was just time to throw a chuckle in the Waypot (as you put it, cache_test).

...the whole idea of Yellow Pages waymarks. Okay, okay...I'm just having a little sport here and letting my perverse sense of humour loose. No need to break out the flamethrowers.

I'd be willing to sacrifice the 11 locationlesses/virtuals I have in my total count (12 if you include an Earthcache). Sure, they were fun to do, but were they "geocaches" in the sense that I mean when I say "geocache?" Nope. In fact, I was surprised when the one benchmark I've found DIDN'T count, because to be consistent with the trend of counting locationlesses and virtuals, it seemed like it should. If they ever do decide to lower our totals by the number of non-container caches we've logged, I won't cry (at least not inconsolably, or for very long).

LOL, WayMacs! Yep, that one's good with me. Sums it up quite nicely as far as I'm concerned.

Moving center point farther south is a wonderful idea, Stunod. Thanks! Making a smaller circle won't work because it would eliminate a lot of the sparsely populated areas I like best.

Thank you, Jeremy. Those were the words I wanted to hear. However, if (big if) I pursue Waymarking, it would be nice to have my waymark total shown in my profile just like benchmarks are shown.

Gack! In order to receive notification of caches in the "uncivilized" places I like to hunt, I'm being buried in new Seattle hides! Is there any way to fix it so you'll be notified of new caches in certain directions (e.g. S, E and W of me) but eliminate another direction? I ain't goin' cachin' in Seattle, no way! I'm powerful skeered of freeways.

PM-ed you the details. I don't know why, but several of the emoticons don't show up in "Show all" when I click it.

Thanks, Ibycus, and although your Markwell doesn't clearly state yea or nay on the subject, it looks rather like waymarks and benchmarks will be treated pretty much the same. Can't say I'm real enthusiastic about this Waymarking thing, but then my hackle raises any time I hear McDonald's mentioned. (Or is that my gorge that rises? Or both?)

Sorry if this has been addressed somewhere already, but I was unable to find the answer. Will a Waymark find add to your cache count? Personally, I hope not. I was never in favor of locationless or virtuals counting in your cache total, despite the fact that I've "found" a few. To me, finds should be based on the number of physical logs a person signs, in logbooks extracted from a cache container. The thought of being allowed/encouraged to pad your total with what one person referred to as "Yellow Pages" caches repels me. Like benchmarks, I feel that Waymarks should be a separate area. What's the official position on this?

I could really clean up on this one. There are more llamas between my house and the grocery store than there are dogs! Washington is a very llama-y place.

Two examples from personal experience: 1) When searching for a micro, I found a shattered pill bottle and vestiges of a log on the ground beneath what I was certain was the cache placement. There was a cavity in which such a container could have been hidden, and when I read the hint, it certainly applied. I filed a "found it," and contacted the owner separately to let them know the circumstances, saying that I would delete my "found it" if I was wrong in my evaluation. However, I was not wrong. The owner replaced the container, and I subsequently made another trip to the area to sign the log. 2) I attempted to find a certain micro while bicycling, only to discover that it was in a neighborhood where I did not feel safe leaving my bike. I knew exactly where the cache was, but as soon as I walked away from my bike, one of the locals headed toward it with what seemed to be bad intentions. THREE TIMES, I tried to walk away from my bike, only to have someone approach it. Did I log a find? Not hardly!!! I had never laid my hands on the cache container, even though I knew where it was. It still boils down to who is really being cheated by false logs, though. I know I'd have trouble with my conscience if I hadn't actually held the container in my hands. As for going into a spidery cave? Thanks, I'll put that one on the same list as scuba caches: Things I Do Not Aspire To. I may be called a chicken, but I won't have told a lie.

Number of caches and cache maintenance go hand-in-hand. That's a no-brainer. Hide as many as you like, but take care of them. There is a hider in my general area who has been planting three to ten caches per WEEK for some time now. Generally, by the time two weeks have elapsed following the plant date, at least half of her new ones will have been reported as having issues, such as being placed on private property, or at the Post Office ("potential terrorist target," and therefore not allowed), or the cache will have gone missing because it was placed in a high muggle area. Nevertheless, every week sees two or three more caches placed by this same person. In this particular instance, I think this cacher's hides should come under closer scrutiny. I'm sorry, but the situation calls for it. She is on the verge of becoming a "proprietary" hider, and to what avail? Her hides are certainly not benefiting the geocaching community. Quite the contrary! Nevertheless, I don't think we need a new "rule" here...just maybe a bit of serious watchdogging.

A quote from "Galaxy Quest" sums it up for me: "Never give up! Never surrender!"

- Oh boy! More excitement!

I happen to love puzzle caches, but only ones that make me use my head for something other than a hat rack. I don't like those that require esoteric knowledge, like "Who played Mr. Bugglesworth in 'Cat Dance Fancy?'" I have placed three puzzle caches, and none of them requires any internet footwork. Two are based on linguistics, the third is rooted in logic (not math, mind you). The people who have done them enjoyed them immensely. I can live with this; I feel I'm playing to a different audience. Some folks like to think. Some folks like to bungee-jump. Puzzle caches are aimed at a specific group of people, just like scuba caches. Only those qualified need to apply.

I had mixed feelings about the "published" log when it was added to my newest cache. My first reaction was "Why me?", but then I realized it was probably a new feature. Okay, I accepted that. Then I began weighing pros and cons. (dons flameproof suit) I have been known to report a cache that was placed outside the guidelines (specifically, one that was placed in a spot specifically designated as a "potential terrorist target"). I had to go through several steps to find out who the approver had been in order to have the cache archived. If some of you were previously able to see who had approved a certain cache in the text at the lower left bottom of the screen, I was not. The only approver listings visible to me were those on my own hides. In this, I considered the new "green dot" to be beneficial. On the other side of the coin (if you're still reading, and not composing a scathing retort), I can see a lot more work being generated for the approvers who will now be receiving many more thought-of-the-moment complaints from newbies and others about coords not being accurate and other common whines. The Powers That Be may be re-thinking this move after it's had a trial run of a couple of weeks. In any event, it's new, and new things always generate a certain amount of rebellion among the masses. If you'd just placed your first hide today, you wouldn't know the difference. We old folks tend to get a bit set in our ways, and when something new comes along, we're inclined to reject it without giving it a fair run. Let's don't be hasty to condemn something before we've seen how well it works.

This will undoubtedly be moved to the Northwest forum shortly, but as long as you're here, I'd recommend "Dead Doll Ditch." I haven't done it myself (a bit far from home), but several friends have and are encouraging me to make a trip all the way to Seattle. It's supposed to be *that* good.

Pork King, I think you need to clear your browser cache more often!