Don_J

Same problem here and everywhere ;-) The reason is - in my opinion - that lab caches DO count for the counter but DO NOT count for the statistics... (not sure if it's a bug or a feature... perhaps it's just not implemented yet) n8vision's solution is just one of two - lab caches shouldn't encrease the counter OR should be mentioned in the statistics, otherwise it'll be like Sodom & Gomorrha ;-) According to the reason why lab caches were implemented I think it should count for statistics, too (except the test labs, because there was no real cache or task like for example a earth cache or something). Best regards A I like my solution. Simply don't waste the time looking for them.

I haven't seen actual competition between teams of cachers. What I have seen is groups of cachers that will saturate a trail with caches for the simple reason that they will never have to hike the trail again to get new caches. I decided to respond to this particular post because of the part that I underlined in the quote.

It sounds like your past cache was really cool. It also seems that that you are a bright guy with enough mechanical know how where you could devise a cache that is not really a practical joke. You need to keep in mind that a practical joke is seldom funny to the one that the joke was played on. Think seriously, would it be funny if your cache squirted someone's iPhone and destroyed it?

I think this covers just about the entire issue. To augment, if a land manager thinks that we will be digging holes in the land that that thay manage, they will ban the our activity outright.

I get the impression that you are using your own water. If it's cold, why would I want to get wet? If it's hot, why would I want to use up my precious water? 102F in my area today.

It'd also be nice if it were free or part of the premium membership fee. It would be nice if gasoline was free as well.

Since the thread was bumped, I don't think that anyone has said that it is a bad idea. In fact, it's a great idea, and it should have been implemented years ago. The fact that it hasn't been leads most of us to believe that it will never be implemented, therefore, I'll use what you call a flawed alternative to do exactly what I need to do. The only problem I see with this suggestion is what is the definition of power trail? I sure briansnat would consider any two caches within half a mile of each other along a bike trail by the same CO to be a power trail. And there is a good point. Over time along bike trails a nice collection of caches can evolve that one could consider to be a power trail. Except they are hidden by 20 different CO's. Others would not want to consider anything less than Route 66 a power trail. I've never seen anyone give a really good definition of a power trail. Until such a definition can be given some CO's won't use the attribute because what they have is not a power trail while others will argue the 5 or 8 caches do comprise a power trail and should be so labeled. Most people that place power trails, know that they are placing power trails and are proud of it. I'm sure that you would be proud to add the attribute as well.

Plus, you've received credit for doing a 2/3.5, which was actually a 1/1.5. Personally, I think the D/T on challenges should reflect the hide, not an accumulation of all of the qualifying caches. If that was a 11 stage multi in several states, the D/T would be higher than 2/3.5 anyhow. I do agree that the difficulty and terrain rating should reflect the actual difficulty and terrain rating of the cache, although I do believe the difficulty rating should at least reflect some aspect of how difficult the challenge is. That's my opinion though. I do feel cheated on that letterbox challenge. What's even worse is the same CO has a "test of terrain and difficulty" challenge where you need to find a 1/1,1.5/1.5,2/2.....etc.... All the way through 5/5 in one day. Imagine how cheated I felt when I found the film canister with the wet log at the base of a stop sign. Time to learn how to use the Ignore list.

I put this into Google Translate, but it can't figure out what language it is.

Yeah, and related to this are the caches that include a "You're looking for a [whatever]" in the cache description, but the container has been replaced by something completely different, and the description hasn't been updated to reflect the new container. I think that most people don't know that they can edit their caches description, size, or even the coordinates. Most simply put this information in a note log, which quickly scrolls off the page. Stuff like this should be in the Weekly newsletter. Jayme?

Since the thread was bumped, I don't think that anyone has said that it is a bad idea. In fact, it's a great idea, and it should have been implemented years ago. The fact that it hasn't been leads most of us to believe that it will never be implemented, therefore, I'll use what you call a flawed alternative to do exactly what I need to do.

And again, the ability to put a set of caches on a Bookmark list and then toggle on or off that list as an, "Ignore list", would give us the ultimate ability to decide what shows up in our pocket queries.

+1,000,000

I'm glad that you bumped this. My priorities have definitely changed as I have basically lost almost all interest in urban caching. I keep an eye on things and if a new urban cache is getting good logs, I'll go for it, but otherwise it is not a priority at all. My average terrain for my first year, 2005, was 2.01. The next two years were 1.99 and 1.98. 2011, which is when I became obsessed with building my find count, it dropped to 1.67 for the year. Last year it was 2.02, and so far this year, 2.23. I'm finding that I'm more interested in getting my boots in the dirt and looking for trail side caches than I am driving around to parking lots.

Your reviewer may never approve of your cache, even if s/he hits the publish button. Meaning, be prepared to pull a cache placed before submission to publish if the cache doesn't pass muster and is not published. Just say "no" to geotrash. I don't think that this is what GeoBain meant at all.

You couldn't tell by looking at it, that it was a Large container?

Thanks Moun10Bike and PHOOEY! I loved making routes along back roads. Now it appears I have to do it one teeny segment at a time. I just checked and it looks like only the routes that were created before the Google api update are broken. I just created a new route and was able move the Start/End points as well as drag the route around on the map.

Please understand, this is exactly what they did by banning ALR caches except for Challenge caches that met a specific set of guidelines. The point is not having our volunteer reviewers tasked with deciding what is a worthy non geocaching related ALR and what isn't. They went down this road when Virtuals got out of hand.

You place the cache before you submit it. Always. If you wait until the reviewer approves it, you're putting yourself into an FTF race to get there to place the cache before someone else gets there to look for it. In my area, you'd almost certainly lose, and that would make someone very angry. Just to be clear, you can run through an idea with your reviewer and get approval before placing it, but the cache should be in place and ready to go before you submit it for publication.

This. This is the whole reason the concept of challenge caches seems absurd to me. The logic that was used in banning ALRs were: "Some people abused ALRs, so we have to ban them all." So some good ALRs got thrown out (as in a baby with the bathwater). ..but then, okay well not all ALRs are banned, since challenge caches are okay. That's my only objection. These ALRs have to go bye-bye -- because of some bad ALRs, we therefore had to get rid of all ALRs. But then challenge ALRs are okay, so obviously not all ALRs had to be removed. How can you say "these ALRs" have to die because all ALRs had to die, and then turn around and allow a certain subset of ALRs? It's like someone who loves cauliflower, and when some green beans poisoned people and they decide they have to ban all vegetables, so the person who loves cauliflower understands why they had to ban all vegetables. But then they turn around and let carrots have an exemption. That would not make sense to the person who loves cauliflower who was told they had to ban it simply because they were banning all vegetables. And some people don't consider that an illogical double-standard? I don't totally hate the idea of challenge caches, but I feel that in an environment where we were told that all ALRs (even good ones, because of abuse and possible abuse) have no place in the game, that logically they shouldn't be permitted. It's a double-edged sword. If you want to give some CO the power to say who can and can't log their cache, I think to be fair that should be extended to all CO, or none. If a CO can't disallow someone who didn't complete their puzzle fairly to log their cache, I don't think it is fair to tell someone else that they can't log a cache that they have signed the log for because they didn't jump through some other hoop. Offer those hoop jumpers a "challenge completed" or an "achievement badge" or give it it's own icon, fine..whatever. But don't change the basic definition of what a find is for some circumstances and not for others. I think that you missed the point that most of the Additional Logging Requirements of the ALR caches had nothing to do with Geocaching. Take a picture of you standing on your head, or doing a yoga pose, or wearing a dress that is in the cache, or with the Groucho Marx glasses, etc. Groundspeak got rid of that and created a situation where the only ALR allowed is to make you complete a Geocaching based challenge. I kind of understand the entitlement issue as I had no desire to have to put on a Donald Duck hat and take a picture of myself just to get log a cache online, but I handled it by simply skipping that particular cache and going on to the next one. I do the same thing with a challenge cache where I have no hope of completing the challenge. Once I learned that I didn't have to find every cache, the entire game changed for me.

Not me. I just keep reading this thread completely astonished by the stupidity exhibited. Thank God! I thought I was all alone here. And we wonder why Groundspeak probably ignore most threads in this forum...

With all of the mixed up quoting in this thread, I'm amazed that I was able to yank this one out, but I think that it describes exactly how I feel about this whole issue. The only "problem" that I see are people that feel that they are entitled to log a cache that they don't really deserve to log. It's really quite simple. A particular cache is based on completing a specific Geocaching related task. Until you do so, you are not entitled to log it as found online. Some people see this as a problem. It's not! It's the way that the particular cache is defined in the guidelines. The only problem that I see goes to the OP's point. A Challenge cache stands alone from any other cache and it deserves to have it's own type and icon.

Yes, I've been noticing that too. People who are more social and attend events a lot tend to get more FP points. Addendum: not that their caches don't deserve FPs, but they tend to get more than the average. Fortunately, this just doesn't seem to happen around here.

I never did understand the hoarding Favorites thing. I give out my Favorites liberally since I get them so easily. The idea behind Favorites is that everyone's top 20% will expose those exceptional caches by a lot of people giving them Favorites. But why hoard them? No will know where the good caches are. I'm not hoarding a bit. I love giving favorites out on good caches but that's where the problem comes in. Most caches i come across these days are the same ole same ole with not much to differentiate them from any other cache. We have come across many, imo, exceptional caches in the past. I would definitely go back and replace my favorite point with a gold star if that was available. I do like this idea! I don't understand this hording thing. When the system was put in place, I suddenly had over 400 points in the bank. I went back through my finds and awarded about 150. I did it again and awarded another 25. Out of all of those, there were 20 or so that really stood out and would have got the Gold Star if that was part of the plan. I do think that changing things up at this point is kind of like locking the barn door after all of the horses have escaped, but it is still an interesting idea.

I would like to see it displayed as: Cache A: 10 favorite points. Cache B: 1 favorite point. Cache C: 1 Gold Star. Cache D: 10 Gold Stars. Cache E: 15 Favorites, 3 Gold Stars. - This would tell me 15 thought that it is above average and 3 thought it was way above average.