Don_J

I probably wouldn't really do that. What I would do is just ignore the rest of that person's caches. And, I never said that I was disappointed to find a nano. Let's be real. After a nano has been found about ten times, the log is a total mess. I have fat clumsy fingers. Playing around with the thing for ten minutes, trying to get a shredded log back into the cap is not my idea of fun. I found the cache, there is nothing special about it like puzzling out a combo lock on an ammo can, so I'm logging it. I posted here about four years ago that I didn't sign nano logs and one of the most respected members of the forum said that I was disgusting. It's good to see that there are others that treat these things the same as I.

Posts like this always remind me of the nano I found at the top of a very long set of steps in the side of a mountain. The hike was up something like 1089 steps and then a mile along the trail at the top. The cache was a nano. I was sorely tempted to unroll the log and write "found at half past three on a lovely sunny September afternoon. The views from the top are amazing. Thanks so much for bringing me to this amazing spot", and then immediately logging NM on the basis the log was full. WOW! We really do share some ideas. Like I said, I don't sign them. I have never had a problem with a cache owner, but I have made it clear that if I did, I would simply go back, sign my name across the entire log and then post a NM because the log was full.

I've found quite a few of them, and have never had much difficulty opening them. But I don't have difficulty getting the logs out of them either, and apparently a lot of geocachers use tools for that too. Opening and getting the logs out is usually the easy part. Rolling the log back up tight enough so that it doesn't tear all to hell...that's the hard part. Some nano's logs are so rough by the time I find them that the last six inches are basically dust, holding on by habit. I don't seem to find alot of nano's (or really small micro's) but when I do, I take pictures and if I'm not FTF, I don't bother with signing the log. Saves space on the log, saves wear and tear and I have proof that I found the cache. I've also never had a CO question the find or delete the log. It's probably been two years since I have found a nano. I don't seek them out, but if I do find one, I simply retrieve it and put it back, then log my find. Tweezers and quill rollers are simply not my idea of caching tools. My most important caching tool is my hiking stick. I do carry a pair of old fashioned pliers, as well as a small roll of 20g baling wire in my backpack, along with a roll of duct tape. It's my understanding that with the three, I can fix anything.

Sorry, can help on that. I was using an old Palm Pilot that did not have online access.

I know that I am a week late on this, but when looking for caches in another area, I have always found it easier to bring up the map on my home coordinates, zoom out, scroll over to the area that I want and then zoom in. I can then pick a cache in the center of that area to bring up a list, or build a Pocket Query. This is especially true as lately, there have been a number of reports that certain post/zip codes and city names can not be found by the sites search engine.

I used Cachemate on my Palm for quite some time to get cache descriptions, etc, in the field, but it's been years since I have last used it, and I'm going to guess that is true for most users. If I remember correctly, you can bring up a cache and then use it to search for nearest caches from it, but I honestly can't remember how, and my Palm is long dead. If all else fails, load a set of caches including the one closest to your home and go from there. You may find your answer on the Smittyware.com site. Check out the FAQ. If I remember correctly, you'll need the math (?) plugin that is available on the site.

Voldik, Use Firefox and install a plugin named Write Area. Once installed, you right click in any textarea, choose the plugin and the CKEditor HTML WYSISYG editor opens.

Yawn... Double yawn. Maybe their 'fancy phones' can pickup more satellites than the 'real gps' used to hide the cache? This is my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 picking up 18 satellites...from inside my house.... It also says that you are going 7 KPH. What's up with that? You may have a lot of satellites, but your phone thinks it's moving when it isn't. This means that the coordinates are changing as you are standing still, enough for your phone to think that you are moving. I would think that this would be problematic when trying to nail down a set of coordinates.

My Nuvi 750 does this with a third party auto adapter. I learned that after it completes going into computer/data mode, unplug the cable and wait until it restarts and displays, "Loading Maps", then plug the cable back in and it will start normally.

Actually, if you paid them today, and they accepted the payment, even though your account doesn't expire until March 2, 2014, your renewal date should change to March 2, 2015. Try logging off and back on and see if your renewal date updates.

Where do you find surface mining, and/or logging in any National Park? I see both activities and more in National Forests,(where geocaching is often allowed) but never in a National Park. Google will show examples of areas that are under consideration. Why don't you just be up front and show where surface mining on National Park land is being permitted?

I think you are confusing the National Park with the National Forests.

Have your executors build you a cairn, a nice pile of rocks. No burying necessary. Yikes!

This is the way that I see it. If your retrieve the cache, sign the log and replace it as you found it, claim the find. If the cache owner gives you grief, move on to the next cache and don't look for any more caches by that cache owner because you are only going run afoul of him at a later time.

Good question! The I <3 Geocaching Lab Caches will expire at midnight (your local time) on February 28th. This means that if you want to participate by creating a Lab Cache for someone to find, they will need to enter the find code in by the end of the month. Have fun! So, if I create one of these February Lab caches for a friend, does it change my hide count?

Exactly-I believe that is what more than one person was trying to say. I know that fits my opinion anyway. I think the only mistake that the OP has made here was not referencing her previous thread. If I remember correctly, she contacted her reviewer privately on more than one occasion, then upon advice from this forum, contacted Groundspeak who told her to again contact the reviewer. She did so again and the reviewer told her to post NA logs. When she did so, the reviewer finally responded, but did so as if these were caches with wet logs or other similar minor problems. I took this new thread as an update on the older thread from last year, not as a boast of her ability to be a cache cop. I admire her tenacity, despite the criticism here and her reviewer's apparent reluctance to archive caches that clearly violate the guidelines.

Guidelines restricting cache placement should have a rationale behind them. However Groundspeak will rarely share the rationale so all we get in speculation in the forum. For years the speculation has been that the no-bury guideline was introduced because a ranger found a buried cache on NPS property and that led to caches being banned in all land administered by the NPS. Now we find out that there was no buried cache. Instead we find a ranger who wanted to get caches banned and he was able to argue to his superior that cache were buried and thus a threat to the parks. So the idea may be that the rationale is that any argument someone can make up about caches warrants a guidelines that says caches can never be hidden that way. However, I would think the proper response would be to dig (pardon the pun) a little deeper and find out just what the real concerns of the park management is. While many land managers worry about buried caches - perhaps due to experience with metal detectors - the fact is that when caches are buried the aren't creating the problems that people searching for artifacts with metal detectors do. Nor will buried cache cause the other problem that land managers have with digging. A guideline that is more specific than "caches are never buried" and had a clearly stated rationale would be easier to enforce, IMO. And, yes, it would give cache hiders more options. But somehow they manage to exist anyhow. That's because caches are clearly buried. They are buried under piles of rocks or under sticks and leaves. The confusion is when they get soil place around or on top of them. Most people know the guideline isn't about burying by about digging. The real concern the land managers have is with digging. But digging is nearly as hared to define as burying. Originally, the guidelines referred to using a shovel, trowel, or other pointy tool. So could you dig with your hands or with a stick? Is removing some rocks to create a space for the cache digging? Is pushing a bison tube into soft soil digging? What has happened is guidelines creep. The "shovel, trowel, pointy tool" stuff has been removed and now we can't make a hole. Eventually we won't be able to cover caches with rocks or leaves. I'm not making a judgment on cache cops or whether one should report guidelines violations. The caches in this thread are clearly against the guidelines, at least the current interpretation, and a cacher who finds one is certainly within their rights to report it to the reviewer without having to worry about getting called names. The "no-bury" guideline exists bases on a perception by Groundspeak that land managers are concerned buried caches can cause problems. Rather than working with land managers to address these concerned and having a limited guideline that addresses specific issues, we have a total ban on making holes in the ground. I keep wanting to post an NA on LordBritish's Necropolis of Britannia Manor III. I haven't been to this cache, but my guess is the Mr. Garriott had to dig holes in his property (possible using heavy equipment) to create this unique cache. I wonder what guidelines he violated? I agree with all of this Toz. I think that the "no pointy objects" was the best version of the guidelines. I have always been under the impression that the biggest concern from land owners is the "treasure hunting" idea of geocaching that has been portrayed in countless news articles over the years. The idea that a if a cache was hidden on my land and hoards of people showed up the next day with pick axes and shovels would be quite unsettling. "It's a Mad, Mad, World". So, we've gone from that to the point where we can't glue a bison tube to a bottle cap and stuff it into soft Earth on the side of the road, not that I ever would. If we ever get to the point that we can't place a cache at ground level and cover it with the surrounding natural material, I guess I'm done as that is 90% of my caches.

Toz I fail to see where you believe land managers have "mis-characterized" our hobby, and the resulting Guidelines are simply a pointless (no pun intended) knee-jerk reaction. As you said... "the Forums are full of threads like this one, which highlights that caches are buried anyhow." That kind of goes to the point. It doesn't matter if it's a "mis-characterized" notion, a "misconception" or whatever label you wish to place on it. The fact is, as long as this Guideline is not STRICTLY enforced, those land managers have every reason to rest in their beliefs about our hobby. And threads like this, with example after example presented, only serve to reinforce their positions. It's not the Guideline itself that has not "done anything to change land managers misconceptions", it is the fact that it is constantly ignored, caches continue to be buried,and those who wish to change that are vilified for their actions in this very Forum. I support the OP in the action she took. I support the OP as well and I agree with her about her reviewer's actions. In this case, the reviewer does represent Groundspeak, and if I were a land manager, I would think a canned response saying, it looks like your cache is "under the weather", go fix it and get back to me, indicated that Groundspeak does not take burying a cache in the ground, (even if the top is exposed), to be a serious matter, especially if I was not versed on the efforts that Groundspeak has made over the years to balance the effect that game can have on the land. When this comes up locally, our reviewer's also have a canned response, but it clearly states to the CO what the problem is, how to correct it, relevant links to the guidelines and contact info for the reviewer. Such a response not only sends a message to any land manager that might be looking in but to all future cache hiders as well. From the long running original thread where the OP asked for the forum's advice, and of course, we only have one side of the story, it sounds like she has been trying for over a year to get her reviewer's attention about a set of specific caches, especially after she noticed that others were copying the hide techniques of those cache and that they clearly violated any interpretation of the guidelines. A picture speaks a thousand words. It's really too bad that both threads have devolved into a discussion of, "what's buried", when it's more than clear the specific caches that she was concerned about, clearly were.

It just so happense I just asked our reviewer about this very thing a couple of days ago. We have a cacher here whose favorite hide style is to attache a vial to something, usually something looking like trash, and jabbing it in the ground. The reviewer told me that this does, in fact, violate the "no digging" guideline. Essentially, if you make any kind of hole in the ground to hide a cache, it is a violation of "no digging". What if I made the hole to keep my hiking stick from falling over, then decided it was good spot to stick my "nano attached to trash cache"? (Not I would ever do such a thing).

Maybe thanking the hider would prompt the user to think "hey, there's a person behind that lock 'n lock container." I just read the description for the Into app ant the Apple store. In my opinion, adding a single sentence to it might be beneficial. Something along the lines of, "Geocaching is an interactive game where players hide caches for other players to find". Currently, I could understand how new app users could get the idea that some faceless corporation is placing the caches with the idea that the new user will hopefully upgrade and pay them money.

I hope not. It goes against everything I have ever believed about geocaching. The idea that I can create a cache that only my friends can find and log is just plain stupid. Heck, I don't even have to actually create the cache. How many will create phantom Lab caches just so their friend, and themselves can stack up numbers? Is this really what geocaching has become. Hardly a number stacking device where a PMO member can create a whopping 1 lab cache. Given folks do 800 to 1000 caches in a day in a power trail, I hardly see one lab cache per PMO as inflating numbers that much compared to everything else out there. I missed the part about one cache, probably because I couldn't make it all the through that Youtube video. I still don't like it. Temporary and private caches on the website just dosen't seem right to me.

Jon, for puzzle and multi caches, that email would reveal info that shouldn't be revealed. So I still say this is a bug. I'm very happy the bigger issue has been fixed, but if this automatic log at the time of publish does contain the final coordinates, then perhaps this needs to be looked into as well.

I hope not. It goes against everything I have ever believed about geocaching. The idea that I can create a cache that only my friends can find and log is just plain stupid. Heck, I don't even have to actually create the cache. How many will create phantom Lab caches just so their friend, and themselves can stack up numbers? Is this really what geocaching has become.

One consideration that I have on this is that I, as well as Dprovan live in a very busy area and we each have three reviewers. If it is an important issue, a NA log goes into the queue where the first of the three will see it and take the appropriate action. There are issues that come up where I would rather not put my name in public, but I don't see why that would be an issue with the situation described in the OP.

Yep, it shouldn't happen. This has been discussed here before. I have eavesdropped on a really nasty one sided exchange between a potential CO and our local reviewer because of this BUG. I have also seen puzzle coordinates relieved. No one should be able to see privileged reviewer notes on an unpublished cache, except the cache owner and the reviewer, yet this bug has persisted for many years.