Glenn

I don't know if it is an option of this forum software or not but I've used forums that as long there hasn't been a reply under your post the edited notification doesn't show up. That gives those of us who are quick to click on post a chance to make minor corrections. What I'd find more helpful than an edited by line would be a change log.

Don't let what is being discussed here color how you see all other formal geocaching organizations. The members of this particular organization are airing their dirty laundry in a national forum and we are only seeing one side of this disagreement. There is lot of anti-organizational sentiment present without many counterpoints. This thread is less like a discussion and more like a public shaming. I am sure that the people who are publicly shaming their local geocaching organization are grateful that this thread has been brought to national and even international attention. This thread should be in the Mid-Atlantic forum because it is a regional spat and isn't representative of geocaching organizations as a whole. I see little relevance on a national level of the discussion here. There is a group of people running some local geocaching organization that pissed off a bunch of their membership. We get that. How about we stop the NNJC bashing and get back on topic. If you want to bash the NNJC start that thread in the regional forums and have at it.

Yes, the land manager can request previously existing caches to be archived and removed, and Groundspeak must comply. The "final say" part, though, is getting their replacement caches published by Groundspeak. I'm not aware that KVSP, any other park or land management agency, in NJ or anywhere else, has any inalienable right to have their caches published on this website. I really hope GS chooses not to condone these shenanigans, especially if the backroom politics between KVSP and NNJC reported in this thread are accurate. It's doubtful that Groundspeak will do anything now. Groundspeak has always maintained that they are just a listing service. weathernowcast said that he was the one who archived his cache. He may have been coerced but it was his finger on the mouse and not anyone else's when the cache was archived. If he wouldn't have done that and Groundspeak's hand was being forced to archive the cache then we might have seen some involvement from the Groundspeak PR machine.

Or they could not list them at all. There is a park near me that has it's own geocaching program. They hand out a flyer with a list of caches they've hidden in the park. These caches are not listed anywhere else. They could also make a bookmark list of caches and include the caches that are "in their way" on the bookmark list. This way the caches in the series can be owned by more than one person or group. That is, after all, what the bookmark list is there for! I agree that this issue could pop up elsewhere and deserves discussion but discussion stated out with names named and and keeps cycling back around to those specific names. Since no one from NNJC has come here to official represent them and either confirm or rebuke what a current (former?) member of the organization is accusing them of we have only have one side of the story and like all one sided stories it's becoming a basing contest against the party not present. In fact we have already been warned by a moderator.... briansnat, this sounds like the definition of a local issue to me. I'm more than happy to discuss this in a general sense but I won't comment on specific events happening on the other side of the country that have no knowledge of outside of this forum.

Weathernowcast, has anyone hosting the CTTS event thought of contacting Groundspeak to see if you could place Lab Caches for this event? These Lab Caches were very well received at this year's Geocaching Block Party.

I did some digging and this whole thing stinks of dirty laundry. This stuff should be limited to the regional forums, if allow at all. So here's what I found. Weathernowcast is being asked to archive a cache in a park where this going to be an event that he is listed as one of the hosts by a geocaching club that he is apparently a member of. Internal squabbles like these doesn't belong in these forums.

Just adding my 2¢. Fair or unfair it is the land managers call on how the land that they manage is to be used. That being if a land manager ousted my cache in favor of another cache I'd visit it and it better be better than the one that I had placed!

First off, they are guideline not rules. That means that for unusual circumstances the guidelines may not apply. However, I think it is best practice to follow the guidelines whenever possible. Also, somewhere in the guidelines it essentially states that any cache that violates a guideline will not set a precedence for future guideline violations. The cache should be listed as a multi or mystery depending on what is or isn't at the location listed. As long as Groundspeak insists to list this cache as traditional cache I think that they should give OHL Hockey Guy his find back and allow anyone else who goes to the listed coordinates to log it as found. My reviewer would never let me list a cache as a traditional cache if the container isn't at the location I gave... or will they? I've never understood why there isn't a log book. If you can attach a travel bug to the locker then why can't a bison tube with a log sheet in it be placed at the same spot? Make the cache a multi or mystery cache with log sheet in a bison tube on the space station and all the guideline "problems" with the cache will be solved.

Have you thought about using a combination lock box? See this link http://www.masterlock.eu/products/detail/StorageSecurity/KeyLockBox-SelectAccess/ReinforcedSecurity If you use a combination lock on your geocache you will have to have your reviewer change the cache type to mystery/puzzle cache.

Why does Groundspeak give anonymous smart phone users special access? If I try to access the web site without logging in I can see the cache page but not the coordinates of the cache. App users without a valid email address should be treated the same way. Either that or have the app capture their phone number and display that in place of their username until they validate their email address. One of the things that keep me at Geocaching.com when other geocaching sites came along was Groundspeaks apparent belief that it was important for the cache owner to be able to contact those who visit the caches that are listed at geocaching.com. Groundspeak even went an extra step and made audit logs of page viewers available to those who list their caches as PMO. After reading the rash of current threads on this topic I'm begging to think that Groundspeak doesn't think that it is important for cache owners to be able to contact those who log a visit to a cache. I think this is big mistake.

I agree. This is why think that it is important first to limit which caches are available in the intro app and then to label the caches which are available in such a way that those using the website know which caches are available to the intro app. This will allow geocaches to make a more informed decision on which caches they choose to leave travel bugs in and it will allow the cache owner to be prepared for the extra maintenance that comes with having a cache that is available via the intro app. Some way of contacting the intro app user either directly through the intro app or through a valid email address is essential. It will allow experienced geocachers to reach out and mentor those trying out geocaching. For example of an intro app user picks up a travel bug but doesn't know what to do with it, we will have a way of contacting them to help them out.

The military uses the same hardware that is available to everyone commercially. Most upper end commercial models are as durable as a military GPSr and look much nicer. The thing that makes military GPSr more precise is an encrypted signal called the P(Y)-code which is also known as the Precision code. Even if you were to get your hands on a GPSr that was made for the military you'd need to have the current encryption key to benefit from the increased Precision from the P(Y)-code signal.

And because some of these forums go back to IIRC 2001. That's a lot of posts! I imagine it may have something to do with improving the response time of the server. It also helps to keep stale posts from 10+ years ago from resurfacing.

How do you that the cache is no longer there? Just because you can't find it doesn't mean that it isn't there. There have been many times I've logged a DNF and someone else has logged a Found later that day. I'd do the same excerpt I don't limit to only awesome caches. I do it for all caches. I hope you included the fact that you found the cache was 180 feet from were your GPS was telling you the cache should be or made a separate Needs Maintenance log entry. Otherwise you're acting similar to the people who signed the shoe. A DNF lets the CO know that just you at this particular time was unable to find the cache. A thoughtful cacher also writes a description of the reason for the DNF because DNF doesn't just mean one thing. Otherwize there wouldn't been any need for the option to write a description. How do you know when you've found a cache? You've located the container and signed the log. Anything else, by definition, is not finding it. As for having to reach GZ please see my 'bridge is out' example from earlier in this topic. In your example above about finding the caches 180 ft from GZ. You said that you were writing a DNF log entry when you found the cache. Obviously you didn't make it to GZ before logging your DNF. So you, by your rules, you shouldn't have been making that DNF log entry because you weren't actually at GZ. Just sayin'

When did the name change happen? AFAIK, Static has always been the name of Signal's Evil Twin. The name Static fits him in more ways than one. Static is what is heard when a signal is being interfered with or the signal is weak and static also means sedentary which is what an armchair cacher is.

This is the forum for geocaching.com. If you are having problems with go.com you should send you questions to go.com. Their member services contact webpage is https://register.go.com/go/goFAQForm I do have one tip. When you are switching off you iPad make sure you powering it off and not just putting it to sleep. This is a very common mistake. When you properly power it off you'll get a 'Slide to Power Off' slider that you'll need to use to power it down with. It looks like this

I don't particularly care for the idea of segregation. I don't mind placing very strict limits on those who don't provide verifiable contact information but not segregation. Geocaching has developed in to a very social hobby. Thanks to Jeremy and the Groundspeak Lackeys. If this wasn't a social hobby we would have been content to continue posting our hides in the Usenet newsgroups.

I carry many computers with me when I geocache. My GPS is a computer. My watch is a computer. My radio is a computer. My camera is a computer. My phone is a computer. Ohhh, wait you mean a laptop kind of computer. Yeah, me neither. I'd be concerned about viruses. The CO or any finder could maliciously or accidentally infect my computer. I suppose I could use a Live CD or a virtual machine to reduce the chance of infection but I recently read something about a BIOS virus that isn't stopped by Live CDs or virtual machines.

Sorry, I tend to get wordy and my main idea tends to gets lost in the tumult of words. I should try being more succinct but since I am a habitual procrastinator, I'll leave that enterprise for another day. I think that you have a healthy take on this whole thing. What grinds my gears are the people that don't want me to log a DNF unless I know that the cache is missing because they use a program that sorts out caches with multiple DNFs and it causes undesirable results for them. My main comment is that if you are going use a program to sort caches for you then don't complain about the results and defiantly don't expect me to change my well established logging practices to conform to your program.

This is way I am saying that owners of intro caches need to be willing to accept some extra duties. As you describe intro cache will require extra attention. Also, don't forget the issue to Travel Bugs that was brought up. I don't suggesting turning off the option of logging TBs into intro caches because it would cause any TBs placed in an intro to be simple not be logged and that wouldn't be good. However, I'm sure over time intro caches will become known as someplace that you don't want to place TBs. Experienced geocachers will keep TBs out of intro caches and out of the hands of people that may only geocache once or twice and then disappear with the TB. Those who wish to continue geocaching will upgrade from the intro app and find that geocaching offers even more fun things to do. As it stand right now every non-PMO cache is included in the intro app. This is the concern that the OP brought up. Its a good starting point but without allowing the CO to opt out it could force a CO in to a situation like the OP describes. I'm not saying to limit intro caches to anything specific. In fact having some kind of human review process whether it be cache reviewers or a team of geocaching ambassadors, I feel, is very important the process. This will allow all for all kinds of intro caches to be listed. If there is one thing I've learned though geocaching it is that we live on a very diverse planet and what works in one location may not work in another location.

Just throwing this idea out here. What about taking the officer idea from Waymarking and applying it here. Have a group of Geocaching Ambassadors that review geocaches submitted to them for conversion to intro cache.

Without any suggestion to for an alternate mechanism then the discussion is stalled. For this discussion to have value there needs to be some brainstorming of mechanism. For example, I've been following, with interest, the discussion about using favorite points as a mechanism to select intro caches. I'd be interested, and I', sure the other followers of this topic would be too, to hear anyone's ideas on mechanisms for selecting intro caches. The idea might will get criticized but health criticism only makes the idea better or leads us to better ideas. My original idea has been critically reviewed since I posted it and I'm grateful for that and I've matured my opinion and think that we are going to end up with an idea that Groundspeak can use. Then it will just be a matter if they choose to listen to us or not. I also wouldn't wish a intro cache on a cache owner who isn't prepared or simply doesn't want the extra duties that owning one would bring. Any mechanism can not be fully automatic and will need to at the very least have a human sanity check it. That is why I suggest reviewers. They already know the geocachers in their review area and I think can make the decision if they want to invite a geocacher to change his cache to an intro cache. Reviewer being humans can also make a better decision if a cache would lend itself to being an intro cache. Also reviewer are already looking at the caches with a critical eye when they are reviewing them to be published. It would be no different than when a reviewer suggests that a mutilcache he is reviewing be listed as a mystery or vice versa before it is published.

What mechanism would you suggest be used by the community to identify intro caches? I think it is equally important to allow a CO to opt out of having their cache included in the list of intro caches. Like I said before the CO of an intro cache will be an ambassador for geocaching and we need willing ambassadors. Forcing someone who doesn't want to be an ambassador to be an ambassador will be a great disservice to the CO and to those new to geocaching.

Are you using COMCAST? If so they have been having trouble with routing in the west.

I think it is also a laziness thing. People want a computer program to weed out "problem" caches for them. I say that you get what you pay for. If you want a computer program to do the thinking for you then don't complain about the results. If you use the suggestion from the computer program but then invest a little time in investigating (reading the log entries) and thinking for yourself it will pay off.