narcissa

You got that right....PQ's are why I have Premium. PQs aren't exclusively meant for Garmin devices, so I don't see why this is an imminent threat.

Haven't tried it yet, but happy to see that with all the app focus lately, they haven't totally forgotten about users like me.

When finding a cache using a bicycle, please remember it is ultimately your responsibility to check (1) if the trail is open/legal for bicycles, and (2) too steep for your fitness level and riding skill.

Please consider visitors to your great and wonderful land - they may come with a greater familiarity to Imperial or Metric and have a preference for operating in non-local units. I don't know what this comment means. I don't think visitors would be inclined to change their device settings while travelling, and I am in favour of allowing people to select the measurement they prefer regardless of where they live or happen to be.

What a strange thing to omit. In Canada, we're officially metric now but many people prefer imperial. This would make the app essentially unusable for my husband, who is already pretty resistant to it in the first place.

I didn't edit anything out, it's your COMPLETE post. I just didn't re-quote what you already quoted. Also : "suspiciously/maliciously removed"? You might try a thin hat "They" are not after you. The amount of finders wasn't even raised, so back to the actual context: There's no reason not to place themed caches, work with the reviewer. The cache I mentioned could only be logged a certain time of the year, no container/log or even some WP info at other times. Context is often very important for the understanding of a point : for instance, given the context I can guess that your "thin hat" was supposed to be "tin hat" , which means a soldiers protective hedgear, but that you most likely meant "tinfoil hat", which is a way of denigrating someones point of view by implying mental instability whilst pretending lightheartedness. Context, without which your suggestion is perhaps fashion advice? Context is particularly important when the user writing the reply deliberately misinterprets the point for no apparent reason.

Since when is having "very few finders" a problem? Since when did my comment indicate that it's a problem? And what is the purpose of selectively editing out the context of my comment? Going back to the actual context, which has been suspiciously/maliciously removed for reasons I can't possibly fathom, if the OP is interested in stats and FPs, number of finders is a consideration. It's not a problem.

So leave the old caches, and place new ones in new hiding places the following year. There's no need to remove the old ones just because they're Christmas themed. I agree. As the OP seems to be thinking of stats now as well, which cache type (longevity or temp) do they believe will accumulate the most FPs? Around here, a cache that was only active from December through February would have very few finders, even with an event or whatever attached.

It's unwise to visit any Earthcache - particularly one in the back-country - without thoroughly reviewing the listing in advance. Earthcaches often involve data collection and observation that may require special equipment, or may need to be done over a period of time. If someone is reading an Earthcache listing on the top of a mountain for the first time, that's just poor planning. Earthcaching isn't for everyone. Unfortunately, many geocachers jump into it thinking it's an easy way to pump out a no-maintenance cache in a spot they'll never visit again, but that's not the case. Kudos to the geoaware team for maintaining quality Earthcache listings over all these years.

So leave the old caches, and place new ones in new hiding places the following year. There's no need to remove the old ones just because they're Christmas themed.

There is a long tradition here of hiding Christmas-themed caches, but they stay in place, often for years.

Even experienced cachers click the wrong thing once in a while.

But the inference does NOT come through on a forum like this. At times, it's important to make sure that at least once, when expressing an opinion, a poster provide a caveat that this is my opinion and not a blanket statement to apply to all caches in a given situation (or whatever is being discussed). I don't know you personally and have no idea what type of person you are and I dislike making inferences on points raised when no implication by a poster is even suggested on a topic. That's exactly what leads to confusion, such as this thread. Nowhere did you say this was your opinion. Instead it came out as you being holier than thou and that's what ends up derailing threads. It's almost like a statement of fact for you rather than an opinion because you never tell us its your opinion. Now that I know that about you and your posts, it makes more sense but it still can throw new forum users off their stride. You'll have to forgive me, I'm still having trouble connecting the dots here. How does this relate to multi-cache design issues?

Must be nice to be right all the time and speak for all geocachers and geocaches. Who made you the arbiter of virtual waypoints being superior to physical waypoints? Your opinions on this matter are just that, opinions, but you're making it sound like you're the authority on the types of stages of a multi cache and that your method is the better method, without providing any justification for your blanket statements. Hands down the best multi I've ever done and not a virtual stage anywhere to be found. The second best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages. The third best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages. That does NOT mean that I haven't enjoyed multis with virtual stages. I have, but I think it's rather presumptuous to conclude that the best multis use the superior choice of virtual stages over physical stages. For example, this one, this one, and this one are all examples of great multis that use virtual stages, the one in NYC being all virtual with the exception of the final. Again, I don't make the rules nor do I claim to speak for anyone other than myself. It should go without saying that all forum users speak for themselves, except for those instances when reviewers or lackeys make official statements. I don't really see the relevance of your post. We're all sharing opinions. Why does that need to be stated? Not that I really want to be in the middle of this one, but you seem to always say "This is the best" instead of even implying that "For me, this is the best" and that's what people twist their knickers over, but I suspect you already get that. The "For me" is implied because I'm a private individual commenting on my own behalf. I still fail to see why any of these personal interpretations are at all relevant to the post, which was looking for advice on multi-caches. The alternative opinions provided are perfectly valid and didn't need to contain these personal irrelevancies.

Must be nice to be right all the time and speak for all geocachers and geocaches. Who made you the arbiter of virtual waypoints being superior to physical waypoints? Your opinions on this matter are just that, opinions, but you're making it sound like you're the authority on the types of stages of a multi cache and that your method is the better method, without providing any justification for your blanket statements. Hands down the best multi I've ever done and not a virtual stage anywhere to be found. The second best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages. The third best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages. That does NOT mean that I haven't enjoyed multis with virtual stages. I have, but I think it's rather presumptuous to conclude that the best multis use the superior choice of virtual stages over physical stages. For example, this one, this one, and this one are all examples of great multis that use virtual stages, the one in NYC being all virtual with the exception of the final. Again, I don't make the rules nor do I claim to speak for anyone other than myself. It should go without saying that all forum users speak for themselves, except for those instances when reviewers or lackeys make official statements. I don't really see the relevance of your post. We're all sharing opinions. Why does that need to be stated?

So it sounds more like a cache owner problem, rather than a cache format problem. The original intent of a multi-cache was to find a container or a tag at one location that had coordinates for the next. Really, it's the ultimate orienteering course. The original intent of geocaching was to find a buried container with a can of beans in it. There was room for improvement.

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches. Thanks for the idea! The best multis use pre-existing, i.e. "virtual," features that are exempt from proximity issues. "Best" is perhaps a bit strong. Most of my multis use virtual waypoints but one that I'm particularly fond of has themed objects at each location, each telling a bit more of the story while providing the coordinates and extra hint for the next stage. It's a bit more maintenance-intensive, particularly at this location where it's had yobbo muggle campers who made off with one of the objects, floods that washed another away (that one's now much heavier and placed under a large rock) and even wood rot, but everyone's enjoyed the concept and it currently stands at 48% favourite points. From start to finish it spans a bit over a hundred metres and is in a fairly remote spot so proximities aren't an issue. I have found many multis with physical waypoints that were fun and some even deserved an FP. Generally speaking, however, it's not the ideal format and virtual waypoints are best. Why? If the area can sustain multiple physical stages, why would it matter if they're physical vs. virtual? Best/ideal for you, perhaps, but not best or ideal for all situations nor for all cachers. In my multi linked above, there's nothing in the area I could use for a virtual waypoint as the two buildings are faded and decrepit and there's nothing else in the small patch of woods but trees and an old house foundation. Maintenance is a bigger concern than proximity, in some instances. I've been shafted by too many broken or missing physical multi elements to consider that to be best practice. It's fine and can be fun if the owner is dedicated to maintenance, but it's not optimal cache design in general. No need for tears, I just said virtual is best, I didn't say physical is garbage. No you didn't say that they were garbage but your post basically said that virtual waypoints are a better method than physical ones in general. I disagree. Perhaps you meant easier on the CO rather than better as a generality? You're free to your opinions but to state something as a general rule for ALL multi caches is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Maintenance is part and parcel of owning a cache so I don't see how it's not "optimal" to have physical stages at each location. It means more work to keep it running smoothly. If you think optimal means easier to maintain, I'm all in agreement but if you think they're better, I'll disagree. For the record, I have multis that use both virtual and physical and I don't find one type better than the other. I even have one that uses only virtual stages until the final stage. They're just different methods of providing a stage to move onto the next one. I have also had virtual stages get moved or go MIA so it applies to both types. I don't make the rules, just so we're clear. Both are acceptable formats with valid uses but all things being equal, virtual waypoints are the superior choice.

So, is the problem with HQ, or with the community? In general I think it's good that the game is shifting away from the swag obsession. Swag is one of those cache elements that causes no end of drama, and there's just no pleasing people no matter how hard you try.

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches. Thanks for the idea! The best multis use pre-existing, i.e. "virtual," features that are exempt from proximity issues. "Best" is perhaps a bit strong. Most of my multis use virtual waypoints but one that I'm particularly fond of has themed objects at each location, each telling a bit more of the story while providing the coordinates and extra hint for the next stage. It's a bit more maintenance-intensive, particularly at this location where it's had yobbo muggle campers who made off with one of the objects, floods that washed another away (that one's now much heavier and placed under a large rock) and even wood rot, but everyone's enjoyed the concept and it currently stands at 48% favourite points. From start to finish it spans a bit over a hundred metres and is in a fairly remote spot so proximities aren't an issue. I have found many multis with physical waypoints that were fun and some even deserved an FP. Generally speaking, however, it's not the ideal format and virtual waypoints are best. Why? If the area can sustain multiple physical stages, why would it matter if they're physical vs. virtual? Best/ideal for you, perhaps, but not best or ideal for all situations nor for all cachers. In my multi linked above, there's nothing in the area I could use for a virtual waypoint as the two buildings are faded and decrepit and there's nothing else in the small patch of woods but trees and an old house foundation. Maintenance is a bigger concern than proximity, in some instances. I've been shafted by too many broken or missing physical multi elements to consider that to be best practice. It's fine and can be fun if the owner is dedicated to maintenance, but it's not optimal cache design in general. No need for tears, I just said virtual is best, I didn't say physical is garbage.

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches. Thanks for the idea! The best multis use pre-existing, i.e. "virtual," features that are exempt from proximity issues. "Best" is perhaps a bit strong. Most of my multis use virtual waypoints but one that I'm particularly fond of has themed objects at each location, each telling a bit more of the story while providing the coordinates and extra hint for the next stage. It's a bit more maintenance-intensive, particularly at this location where it's had yobbo muggle campers who made off with one of the objects, floods that washed another away (that one's now much heavier and placed under a large rock) and even wood rot, but everyone's enjoyed the concept and it currently stands at 48% favourite points. From start to finish it spans a bit over a hundred metres and is in a fairly remote spot so proximities aren't an issue. I have found many multis with physical waypoints that were fun and some even deserved an FP. Generally speaking, however, it's not the ideal format and virtual waypoints are best.

That's not a clique. That's just people talking to each other. Yes, social events can be a challenge for shy or introverted people, but that doesn't mean that friends talking to each other are cliques.

I have never had anyone at an event ask about premium membership or otherwise differentiate people based on premium membership. It's simply a set of useful features that some people choose to pay for. Generally speaking, when I have encountered geocachers who complain about "clique" behaviour at events, it's mostly imaginary and has more to do with poor social skills.

Viciously auditing someone's profile and caching history does not help to support an argument.

Love these satirical posts. Posting to show how uninterested you are in posting. It's perfect!

Yes, my reaction to a container like that is usually bemusement because it's only going to be a matter of weeks, if not days, before the poor kid who placed it is going to be inundated with really scathing logs about the condition of the container. It might affect my opinion of the person who placed it but it certainly doesn't affect my opinion of the game. My husband and I reminisce with fond amusement about the handful of truly bad containers we've found. A cardboard box in a tree. An LCBO bag, in the crotch of a tree, at eye level, next to the sidewalk. A styrofoam takeout container. A Powerade bottle with a receipt in it as the logbook - this was the original hide. This game is supposed to be fun, and sometimes you just have to laugh at human folly. I know this stuff drives some people crazy, but I just can't see it being a driving force. We all think our personal pet peeve is the ONE TRUE THING THAT IS KILLING THE GAME. It's just how it goes.