narcissa

We had a Beta VCR when I was growing up. VHS became the standard because it was the format adopted by the, ahem, "adult entertainment" industry. So I don't think that particular example has much to teach us.

If it involves multiple waypoints, listing as a multi is fine. Mystery is overused. I agree a multi-cache can have field puzzles. With a multi-cache "The coordinates posted at the top of the cache listing are for the first stage of a multi-cache. " With a Mystery, this need not be the case (though it can be). So if you need to solve a puzzle first to get the starting coordinates, it is a Mystery. If the coordinates are for the first stage, and each stage leads to another stage, it can be a Multi, even if there are field puzzles. In general this also CAN be listed as a Mystery, unless your reviewer insists it is a multi. Some people like to use Multi if the stages (including field puzzles) are "easy" and most cachers can be expected to do them. If the field puzzles are complex and may require special knowledge, I've often seen these listed as Mystery. But there is no guideline insisting on this as far as I know. My comment made no reference to the guidelines. My comment made no reference to your comment referencing the guidelines. I was trying to help by elaborating. If it involves multiple waypoints, listing as a multi is fine as long as the first stage is at the posted coordinates. Some multis aren't designed in linear stages. If the work to find the cache is primarily done by in the field and involves multiple locations, I find that multi better describes the type of effort involved. But I live in a place where this cache type seems to be more common, and used more creatively. A lot of cachers can't seem to get past the idea that a multi literally means multiple containers.

The bigger issue is that it will get some moisture damage over time, but the film will probably be okay to be developed. If you can spend a few extra bucks on a waterproof one, it will help.

If it involves multiple waypoints, listing as a multi is fine. Mystery is overused. I agree a multi-cache can have field puzzles. With a multi-cache "The coordinates posted at the top of the cache listing are for the first stage of a multi-cache. " With a Mystery, this need not be the case (though it can be). So if you need to solve a puzzle first to get the starting coordinates, it is a Mystery. If the coordinates are for the first stage, and each stage leads to another stage, it can be a Multi, even if there are field puzzles. In general this also CAN be listed as a Mystery, unless your reviewer insists it is a multi. Some people like to use Multi if the stages (including field puzzles) are "easy" and most cachers can be expected to do them. If the field puzzles are complex and may require special knowledge, I've often seen these listed as Mystery. But there is no guideline insisting on this as far as I know. My comment made no reference to the guidelines.

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.

Who owns the pipe? One of two government departments who will both claim it's the other one's. So not a great plan for a cache, then.

You can put a watch on any cache. No need for an automatic feature.

Who owns the pipe?

My thoughts exactly. It really didn't seem out of place among all the other solutions looking for problems here in the forums. It's a first for me to feel I should apologise for being too subtle ! Anything short of hamsters is too subtle around here. 😂

If it involves multiple waypoints, listing as a multi is fine. Mystery is overused.

You shouldn't, and you don't.

1. If you want to make an actual feature suggestion, this isn't the place to do so. 2. Your suggestion would absolutely help with the scenario you've described, but it's a rare and unimportant issue and therefore the solution is unlikely to garner much enthusiasm from other cachers.

What on earth made you think it was an earnest suggestion ? I mean, rainbows and unicorns ? The Swift reference was entirely intentional. As was the date. In a forum where there are constant threads detailing ever crueller schemes for punishing people who commit minor trangressions in the game, it honestly didn't sound that outlandish! You got me!

It's funny when people reference Jonathan Swift when making an earnest suggestion.

It happens but I wouldn't say it's common. Cache adoption of any sort isn't all that common.

I think this will put a stop to some issues that tend to generate a lot of whining, so that's probably good. Just to be clear, we can log more than one different type of log on a cache, right? So I can't log "Will Attend" twice, but I can log "Will Attend" followed by "Attended" after the event?

This goes back to one of the issues I tend to harp on about, which is that the shift to an app-based game means that new people are not getting any kind of detailed introduction to the game. They don't know anything about cache types, or what different logs mean, and they don't have any knowledge of the general parameters and norms that keep the game from being a total mess. I like that the app makes the game more accessible to people, but I really wish there was more of an effort to "onboard" new cachers regardless of their entry point. The bar is set so low now. Aside from the fact that it's driving older cachers crazy, I don't think new cachers get as much enjoyment out of the game as they could, because they don't understand how it works. With this "Cache Health Score," I can see what they're aiming at, but we really need people to be learning about best practices for cache ownership starting when they join the game, not when the garbage they tossed into a park because they didn't know any better has become a string of DNFs.

You are doing the right thing by trying to get help from adults. While his actions may not amount to much materially, they are malicious and a sign of deeper issues.

Glad there's no damage, but I hope you recover some memories of the paddle. It sounds like it was probably nice!

To the "authorities" geocaches are essentially the same thing as junk since they have no value and to them don't really belong to anyone False. They have owners. Notify affected people in your caching community and identify the thief to them.

+1

Please consider reaching out to some local, established geocachers. Many places have informal groups or clubs. This information will help them protect their caches. There has been at least one instance of someone facing criminal charges over this. Your friend is stealing other people's property.

Lots of us are still using GPS units. You can ask for features you'd like without throwing other people under the bus, thanks.

It's kind of strange to dredge up a post that has been dormant for three years and shout that people are making too much of an issue.

I'm sorry. I thought it was a simple point, but I guess it requires more explanation that I expected. You emphasized that NAs should be fire-and-forget: someone posting an NA explains their thinking, but then it's up to the reviewer to react as they see fit taking all aspects of the situation into account. As I said, an excellent point and a good idea to remind the OP of that. I took hzoi's reaction to be similar, but instead of simply reminding the OP that he's already done his part, hzoi specifically accused the OP of trying to subvert the reviewer's role by discussing his concerns about the reviewer's unexpected reaction in the forums. What you said was friendly advice making it obvious that posting the NA was appropriate. hzoi's response was confrontational and, as we saw, easily misinterpreted as saying one shouldn't post NAs at all. But I saw both reactions as based on the same idea: that the seeker's part in the process is posting the NA after which he should be content to observe what happens. Please do not use my comments as a springboard for attacking other users. My comment had nothing to do with that user.