B+L

The cache page is essentially a brochure for a shopping mall named Murpark, complete with the Murpark logo, which means it has most, if not all of the characteristics disallowed by the guidelines.

Since those particular logs are written in English, their usage "pigs" is obvious in its intent. Without visiting the cache, I have nothing to say about its location, but I did notice that the description on the cache page seems to be a clear violation of the commercial cache guidelines. Another data point to add to the pile when we are wondering about consistency.

It is unclear if anyone from Groundspeak uses the main forum for anything other than as a source of entertainment. If you really want to help make improvements, consider moving to one of the topics Groundspeak has provided for discussing the site: For general discussions about the website: Community Q&A and Discussions: Geocaching.com Website For website bugs and feature requests: Discussions With Grounspeak: Geocaching.com Website There is a post pinned at the top of each of the above topics explaining their intended use. You also have the option of emailing Groundspeak at contact@geocaching.com. You've touched on several of the most common usability problems, so it would be best not to just dump the whole topic as a single feature request or bug report, but I hope you will consider rerouting your concerns into the channels that Groundspeak has provided. Thanks for posting.

We heard TL was doing an impromptu Snowshow 101 in the Safeway parking lot today. Sounds like there was a big crowd for it, too.

The reviewers, being human, will never be consistent, but I would hope there is a training program to mitigate the inconsistencies as much as possible. Even so, you'll always have complaints about consistency because geocaching attracts a lot of people who have very strong desires to have things a certain way. Their way. They tend to have pretty negative reactions when something happens to upset their expectations. The guidelines, as you know, have some gray areas which can be a problem for some. As this thread illustrates, many people expect the guidelines to be rigidly applied or they get kind of upset. Having said that, I think Groundspeak makes the situation more difficult by including guidelines they you say you can't utilize. I think that is potentially a very unpleasant situation. What is a reasonable person to do? I'm glad you are happy. I have a a lot of admiration for anyone that freely gives their time to help others.

Assuming you are serious in this post, it is an astonishing admission. The supply of volunteers is potentially much larger, so why the artificial scarcity? Why are you put into a position where you do not have time to perform your duties in anything other than a perfunctory fashion? Maybe you have been doing this for too long and you've grown cynical, but from your description, most of the reviewing could be done just as well by a small shell script (I suggest naming it honey_badger.sh).

There's a fine line between commenting in the forums about a real issue with a particular cache and making comments that have more to do with your personal taste about caches. As has been pointed out in this thread, there are a number of cachers who enjoy extreme caches. Generally in the U.S. we see these as adventures in areas where rappelling, rock-climbing, spelunking, scuba diving and other "dangerous" activities are permitted. Some say they are comfortable with these because the dangers are "obvious". In fact the dangers are not always obvious, but there are safety precautions seekers of these caches can take. I would dare say that in Germany, and particularly in the former East Germany, there are structures left from the Soviet era that are abandoned. There is probably a flourishing hobby of exploring these place and perhaps this is even allowed as they were state owned and not private property. It could very well be that not all Lost Places are as illegal as we perceive it in other countries. That said the guidelines already indicate that you should ask permission to place a cache. Groundspeak knows that permission comes in various form. Some land owner require a permit, others have a policy of simply allowing caches. Some land owners prefer not to give permission in writing; some don't want to be bothered at all and so long as the cache is something they don't have to worry about, you can place it, wink, wink. You can't be proactive about permission in general other than to have cache owners check a box saying they have adequate permission. And of course some will lie. In a few rare instance, the reviewers can be aware of a policy in a certain jurisdiction and can ask for more proof (e.g. permit number) before publishing the cache. If you see something specific that gives you doubt about permission, stop searching for that cache and contact the reviewer. You don't need to come on the forums to criticize the cache hider (or the reviewer who published it for that matter). That's all well and good, but it's not what I am referring to. I am talking not about my personal experience, I am talking about what I have observed in these forums over the years. There are plenty of reasons why someone, especially newbies, might want to ask in here about some situation they've come across and they are almost certainly not going to well received. In fact, you yourself have touched upon a common attitude when you suggest that, "You don't need to come on the forums to criticize the cache hider (or the reviewer who published it for that matter)." These are open forums and they should be places where everyone is welcomed to discuss whatever geocaching-related topic they'd like. Instead, they are likely to get a bunch of, "that's not on the schedule until Tuesday", or "IBTL", or "not that again", or "you sound like a cache cop". And that's before the inevitable profile mining begins, along with the accusations about being a sock puppet or having a hidden agenda. For an allegedly family friendly activity, these forums are really not very family friendly. If an 11 year old wanders in here to ask an innocent question, what is the most likely outcome: that they will be welcomed to the forums and treated decently, or that they will have their head chewed off by a bunch of people who are mostly old enough to be the poor kid's grandparents, but who've apparently lost any ability to be polite to strangers? There are multiple topics in these forums, which you are well aware of, that exist solely to make fun of other people behind their backs. It's great for Groundspeak to say the tools are available, but unless they foster an environment where the use of those tools is encouraged and accepted, those tools are less than useless.

Groundspeak could improve this situation by adding a few more volunteer resources to these forums. People that raise questions about potentially inappropriate caches generally get a pretty hostile reception here. Name calling and bullying are unfortunately more the norm than the exception. The message is loud and clear: "cache cops go home".

Good post. To your point about "worthfulness", Hancock sold out the Kapowsin tracts in less than 12 hours. 1200 permits at $350.00 a pop, so obviously some people see plenty of value there. I have no idea if Hancock is actually aware of geocaching, but I kind of suspect that if they were, they'd be charging an additional fee for hiding caches. I asked the question not because I think Hancock has no right to charge for access, but because it is not clear to me how the guidelines are suppose to function here. It's funny that you mention hypocrisy, because geocaching sometimes seems to be more about managing the hypocrisy to keep it at tolerable levels than it does about finding geocaches. The list of caches we ignore is infinitely larger than the list of caches we find, but that's just us. Everyone else is welcome to choose their own list. There are times when it seems the whole thing is a big charade and the guidelines are just pixels arranged into patterns like rorschach blots. Hmm, that might make a good puzzle cache.

I ignored that part about discretion because it is not what I really wanted to discuss, however I'll take a stab at it. I only mentioned a particular cache, because it caused me to wonder about the guideline. My intention was not to criticize the cache owner, but it could easily be perceived that way, especially since it is a common practice in these forums to question someone's motives for asking a question or starting a topic, rather than just addressing the subject matter at hand. My point was neither to start a discussion about one particular cache, nor was it to shine the glare of a spotlight on one particular reviewer, so I left out the all details. The guidelines do say it is possible to get permission for commercial caches, such as your Cougar Mountain Zoo example, so I would assume that was the case there.

Yeah, because it's a big state secret, isn't it? And here I thought I was defending that listing. No, it's not a secret, but surely you can understand why some discretion would be desirable, especially when your specificity adds nothing to your argument. Ok maybe I am having a stupid day, but I don't get it. The answer is no, I don't understand why some discretion is desireable, or why the CO/Reviewer has any reason to feel embarrassed. There is a TC that was crosslisted, maybe this is what you feel they should be embarrassed about? It happens to be in an area where there is an access fee. The land owners are aware of our hobby and know that there are caches on their land. Based on those last two sentences, how is this different then the caches in Rainier or at St Helens, or any other area you pay to access the land? Or if you feel that it is an unfair access issue, how is it much different then when a group of us went out and placed a cache at the end of the Middle Fork two days before they closed the last 8 miles to cars, knowing that the closure was going to happen? I guess I don't get what the big stink is all about. I really don't like the fee, won't pay it, and therefore will stop using their land. As far as I am concerned they are now on my list of bad landowners. How is asking a question a big stink? It is a simple question that I am curious about. I am not trying to make a statement and I was trying to avoid dragging third parties into it. My question was about whether caches on Hancock land are violating the *commercial* guideline. Paying access fees to a government entity is non-commercial, so Discovery Passes, Forest Passes, NP etc, are unrelated to my question. The Middle Fork road was only closed to vehicle traffic and there are no fee demanding trolls under the bridges, so I'm not sure how it would be related.

Yeah, because it's a big state secret, isn't it? And here I thought I was defending that listing. No, it's not a secret, but surely you can understand why some discretion would be desirable, especially when your specificity adds nothing to your argument.

Sort of. In reality that cache was placed a few years ago, it just gained a new listing. I don't see a problem with that, maybe because I also don't really see these as "commercial" caches in the same way I would see a cache in a store as commercial. Reasonable people could disagree, since finding the cache does require the finder to "purchase a product or service," to quote the guidelines. But putting aside the "permission for caches on private property" issue, I think it would be unfortunate to lose caches in this area (and I was bummed to see so many archived). I figure if one doesn't want to buy a permit, they can choose to ignore these caches. Uh, I purposely was vague about the particulars of that cache because I was not trying to embarrass the reviewer. Thank you very little for providing the details. In reality, a lot of those caches were archived because the owners did not want to pay the hefty fee necessary to maintain them, not because they suddenly were potentially violating another guideline. However, choosing to ignore the caches because of the fee is not really relevant to the question. Besides your outing of the cache, I do appreciate the input. it is a vast improvement over the crickets chirping.

Are you sure they don't support it? They don't seem be interested in supporting serial interfaces, even with a Serial to USB converter. The latest version was released just last August. It works fine for me on both Windows and Macs. That is what I was told by Garmin tech support when I called to troubleshoot. Basically, they said it's not working for everyone and if it doesn't, then that's that. Not said in a negative way but stating the facts when we were discussing about it not supported anymore. They were very good about helping troubleshoot to the point of identifying it's the software, rather than say the unit. BTW I'm using USB Interesting. They just won't support it. Best bet then is to delete it, make sure the registry entries are removed and re-install it. Use Revo Uninstaller and it will do the dirty work for you including making a restore point in case something goes wrong (unlikely). I've had Revo (free version) downloaded for a few months but have never used it, glad to have a reason! But I already uninstalled POI via Windows. Do you recommend reinstalling normally then using Revo to uninstall? Or maybe use something like Zsoft Uninstaller to track the install, then uninstall it that way? You could try CCleaner and look for orphaned registry entries from the POI Loader. Otherwise, Revo seems to work fine. If it fails to improve the situation, then you could try tracking the install so you can be certain you have a clean system after an uninstall. It's possible something is messed up that will only get fixed by a system wipe, or by finding a good restore point. Before I'd do that, I'd try to find someone with a working system and do a registry diff of the POI Loader keys. At some point it becomes faster and easier to just wipe the machine and start fresh, but please don't do that if you are not confident in your ability to backup and restore all of your installed software and data.

Are you sure they don't support it? They don't seem be interested in supporting serial interfaces, even with a Serial to USB converter. The latest version was released just last August. It works fine for me on both Windows and Macs. That is what I was told by Garmin tech support when I called to troubleshoot. Basically, they said it's not working for everyone and if it doesn't, then that's that. Not said in a negative way but stating the facts when we were discussing about it not supported anymore. They were very good about helping troubleshoot to the point of identifying it's the software, rather than say the unit. BTW I'm using USB Interesting. They just won't support it. Best bet then is to delete it, make sure the registry entries are removed and re-install it. Use Revo Uninstaller and it will do the dirty work for you including making a restore point in case something goes wrong (unlikely).

Are you sure they don't support it? They don't seem be interested in supporting serial interfaces, even with a Serial to USB converter. The latest version was released just last August. It works fine for me on both Windows and Macs.

If so, surely his mother would tire of driving him to the cache site. Anyway, he'd be easy to track down because his last name is Cliché. It's more likely that someone associated with the construction, like maybe a County employee, has decided that people should take their silly game elsewhere.

Good info, I will look into these apps for my android phone A portable database might be a great option both for then I find myself away from home and unexpectantly have time for caching or just to have when caching; I'd have all the descriptions, past logs etc as well and with the GPSr on the phone it will know exactly where I'm at so I could basically (hopefully) bring up a custom map showing just my want-to-dos rather then a map with all the local caches. GDAK can also store all the images if you have grabbed them in GSAK. Both the official Groundspeak app and c:geo allow you to import GPX files into separate lists and the aforementioned GSAK macro allows you to create a custom NeonGeo db of caches from a GSAK filter. They would all allow you to see just your targeted caches on a map. None of these apps are going to make you want to leave your dedicated GPS at home, but they can be really helpful, especially if you have a fairly new high-end phone. I found them all to be hatefully sluggish on my old phone.

You can also take your GSAK database(s) with you on a smartphone if you use iGeoKnife for iOS, or GDAK for Android. I think the filtering ability is still pretty limited at this stage, but I'm sure that will improve. Along those lines, the various geocaching apps available for smartphones can really ease the process of tracking the caches you want to focus on. There is also a GSAK filter available that will generate a NeonGeo (Android) compatible database. All the tedious futzing with GPX and POI files is going to become an option, rather than a necessity.

I'm just not seeing the "lots of PNW cachers" you are referring to. Maybe not insecurity, but it seems that you are expressing some icon and souvenir envy. I bet you have some great hikes in New York State. I try not to let that bother me when I'm hiking in our neck of the woods. But you know what really bites? I have to spend 1000s of dollars on a trip to Paris if I want to see the Mona Lisa. It's just not fair!

Average political malcontents per acre in the PNW: .005. Average political malcontents per acre on the Eastern Seaboard: 500.

Some roadside in Kansas is not either, but I'm kind surprised someone from New York would have any insecurities about it.

I'm kind of wondering how paying somewhere between $75.00 and $350.00 per person/vehicle, depending on the tract and the type of access, does not fall afoul of the commercial cache guidelines. At least one recently updated cache on Hancock land is owned by a reviewer, so apparently it's OK.

Count your blessings. The container was changed preemptively without first obtaining the owner's consent. The new container replaced the micro that someone, ahem, had already dropped as a possible replacement. There was no uproar, but there was some discussion.

It looks more like bad news for grammar and spelling than for geocaching.