Ve8

Two points. Read the OP Why is my link to emCache relevant? I've not mentioned it.

A very fair point which is why I was careful to state this was just one of the reasons why his account was locked. I have a few pictures that could described as spoilers which I have put aside for a new blog and I am finding myself wondering if I could be risking the wrath of a big frog. Clearly we are not aware of exact correspondence been sent between Sven and Groundspeak but I think we need clarification on what Groundspeak see as acceptable when it comes to posting content on external sites. With over 377,000 views I'm thinking in Sven's case maybe he is getting too popular?

I have not seen the full reasons behind this and there could be more to this but I thought it was worth bringing this to the attention of the wider community for two reasons. Firstly to get an open response from Groundspeak (you never know ) and secondly to make others aware so they don't make a simular mistake. Very recently Sven. had his Geocaching.com account locked, he has publicly posted that one of the reasons behind this action relate to his YouTube channel which features imaginative hides, this channel has also inspired others to place more creative caches. I have previously appealed on Svens behalf to Groundspeak stated that guidelines on videos on images only apply to geocaching.com and forums.Groundspeak.com. In their response to my appeal they said that as Sven's online activities could not be controlled outside of Groundspeak's sites the only option open to them would be to restrict his access to gc.com. Imagine if a family decided to go out for a sunny afternoons caching and decided to video their experience then innocently place it on YouTube to share with friends - Would they be breach of the rules? Would they be at risk of getting their GC account locked? I know it would be common courtesy to ask a CO permission to film their cache but regardless of opinion the copyrights of the media remain with the author allowing them to use it as they wish... do ammo cans now require a model release

Back tracking a little, I'm guessing you are just starting out in web development and I would like to give a little feedback about your site. I fully understand the reasoning for keeping your home address secret and I've noted you have chosen to deploy privacy on your domain but as a UK business (especially one registered with companies house) you are required by law to list a "geographic address" on your website (that means no PO boxes). See: http://www.out-law.com/page-431 Moving on to the design the majority of your homepage seems to be created from images, someone with a sight problem could have problems reading the small text with the varying coloured backgrounds and furthermore software known as "screen readers" which aids those with sight problems to use the web cannot read images (a way round this would be to make better use of the ALT tags). Add the above to your non-validating HTML and you have ran into another legal breach relating to the Disability Discrimination Act. See: http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-website-legal-requirements.shtml Overall, I like your idea and if done correctly could turn out be successful. IMO you need to dot many i's and cross even more t's. The following however worries me: WOW! From a fee which equated 2% of the minimum win to 20% is one hell of a jump [Source]

When his account was supposedly hacked did anyone question how he managed login a post a forum thread? how would he know what his username and passsword was if someone had supposedly changed it? Moving on, myself and others were disgusted and sickened by the following: http://jacaru.blogspot.com/2010/11/lucky.html After it caused the intended effect the above post was heavily edited but I think there are still a few keywords that should give people the idea behind it. The original blog post was not only intended as an attack against me it also mentioned my children and their disabilities. I've exercised great control to stop myself from knocking on his door and settling this 'man to man' but to be frank I believe Jacaru needs to seek professional help (that's not an attack, just my honest opinion).

[snipped] Thought better of adding extra food.

You missed a few important bits (see my bold): Basically it only applies to content posted on GC.com or in the GC forums. Ownership of the media is the authors and it's up-to them what they do with it. That said, even if the rule applied universally no "solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates" were not in the clip anyway.

If the issue is relevant enough to be addressed with Groundspeak then I think someone needs to speak up, I entered those forums last night after a small break and could not get over the mess caused by the recent Welsh Mega. With an accusation of theft and involvement of a reviewer this needs to be transparent, if only to make some attempt to gain cachers confidence for future "Official UK Mega's". Although to be honest, I suspect the golden ammo tin might be fast approaching its sell-by date.

I appreciate action was needed but as always there has been a lack of consultation from the GAGB (and gc.com for that matter) ...and it seems that all new urban caches will now require a plug for the GAGB A very weak token gesture IMHO.

kingqueen, thanks for your note With the risk of criminal charges is it really worth hunting for a physical hide in a urban location? Not so long back a few caches were published near me at a local airport, despite the caches having permission I ended up bumping into armed police who had been tracking my movements around the series. It doesn't matter how well you sell caching, in this day and age security will always take priority no matter how petty the reasoning may seem.

Very sad to hear, more info: http://post.carnero.cc/cgeo

The official iPhone and Android apps are entirely different, I've tried both and although I'm not an apple fan I have to admit that the iPhone app is very good.

c:geo scrapes the site and breaches the terms and coditions of use If I understand it correctly although the official app uses the API it still puts a noticeable load on the server which serves up the gc.com webpages. Although it has improved in very recent versions the official app is notorious for being buggy and unstable. Apart from being much more stable and updated more more frequently c:geo also has more features such as the ability to drop off trackables. Using the official app it's possible to find a cache without logging in, c:geo on the other hand will not let you navigate to a cache unless you have given your login info. As previously posted c:geo operates against the T&Cs but due to its popularity I think its unlikely that GS will take any major action against it, here's some interesting stats from the Android Market (as of posting time): Geocaching (official app from Groundspeak) Ratings: 2,096 Installs: 10,000 - 50,000 Source c:geo (unofficial app) Ratings: 19,694 Installs: 500,000 - 1,000,000 Source

I'd be surprised if Garmin requested exclusivity but on reading the following link I think they are certainly down as first preference: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-countryside_environment/w-activities/w-activities-geocaching.htm

Pick a cache and select "Navigate to Geocache" Select "Comapss" or " Map" Press the Menu button (which is normally below the screen) Now select "Add Waypoint"

For those that don't know a few local cachers have got together and organised an event as a tribute to somloci: The Swan In The Rushes 21 The Rushes Loughborough LE11 5BE Saturday, 7th May starting at 7.30pm http://coord.info/GC2T3YF

To answer your question the other day I noticed a free app called GPS Averaging in the market place ($1.50 without ads). I've not tried it myself but in theory it should give an accurate result if you have not got access to a dedicated GPSr.

Sometimes a spoiler can help GZ avoid damage from overenthusiastic hunters. Personally I don't normally check the gallery before hunting unless I'm taking the kids - my point being... I have a choice over how much or how little I wish to know about a cache.

Caches being published in non profit locations are not the issue, its when the landowners place them to self promote. Straying a little OT - Permission or no permission the landowner has a right to request the cache removal. But in this case the offending cache was archived first and then the CO was informed they could relocate in the same area with permission. IIRC the cache was archived, the CO was sent a note then the new NT cache was published all in the matter of a few mins. Its the way it was handled I take issue with, surely the CO could have been given a chance to relocate or at least respond.

I'll take that as a no then. On your advice I will put my concerns to Groundspeak.

So this excludes them entirely? Not much of a balance when others would be shot down for mentioning a pub or restaurant, let alone the fact they serve food. Surely these rules are in place to stop organisations who may have "realised the benefits of Geocaching"? Any other UK charity that tried this would not stand a chance on starting a project such as this. Is this Groundspeaks official stance?

After the recent fun and games on emCache I suspect this section was pre-prepared. Related link: http://www.emcache.com/index.php/topic,896.0.html The NT are clearly looking to self promote through Geocaching and have even placed a commercial incentive for those that complete their Longshaw Trail (see: http://peakdistrict.nationaltrust.org.uk/geocaching). I personally feel that the reviewers are turning a blind eye to the rules on solicitation in fear of damaging the current landowner agreement.

Very sad news. He was well known in the East Midlands and frequently attended local events.