HEADLANDERS

Well according to this quotation from the thread about 'RELEASE NOTES' they must be: "The Geocaching team has been working like crazy to roll out updates and enhancements that will make your Geocaching adventures easier, faster and more awesome"

I am having the same result with OS maps, also with Bing map and Bing Aerial View. just a grey back ground and all the caches all the other maps are working the same as usual Same for me on all PCs. There must have been a change to the web site. I guess the script will now need to be changed to accommodate the site change.

In the last few days I have not been receiving ALL email notifications of new caches but just some of them. I have made no change to my 'Notifications' at all recently. I see that other cachers in my area are seeing a similar problem. It maybe more widespread but could easily be unnoticed if only some of the notification emails go missing.

I believe that the 'Cornwall' one has changed after being relocated. It is now GC47Z0J - LQ:Cornwall – C♯

Amazon UK are now showing a shipping date of August 1, 2013.

Now it is happening with me: no icons at all showing on maps. Using Firefox v16. Could Groundspeak please ask the IT experts to get to grip with this problem which has been ongoing for a long, long time?. Thank you in advance.

That approach works for me. It would still be nice though to have the feature on the GC web site.

Is there any way to search by keywords for users' LISTs that they have made publicly available?. For example people may have created a LIST of caches in 'caverns' or on 'mountains' or in particularly 'remote' places.

Also don't forget that the new Etrex range can access the Russian GLONASS satellites in addition to the GPS satellites.

The same thing happened for me the first time today. I just 'checked' a pre-existing Query and also asked to generate 'My Finds' Query. Both generated very quickly but the square for my Query remained checked. This is something new as I have never seen it before. The last time I ran a Query was 29 January and the behaviour was normal then.

I often encountered a problem putting a fresh PQ on the GPSmap62s and I simply overcame it as follows: Out of routine I now take the SD Card out of the Garmin and connect it to a PC directly to add the New PQ and never have any problems. I re-boot the Garmin when the SD card has been removed before putting it back in with the new PQ on it.

Miscommunication. It's not that virtual caches of any type are prohibited. Rather, new Virtual Caches of any type are prohibited. Agreed and I have edited the original post. I think you missed my point. It's not that new virtual caches (i.e., non-physical caches) of any type are prohibited. Rather new Virtual Caches (i.e., that specific cache category) of any type are prohibited. There are lots of non-physical cache types that are still allowed: EarthCaches, events, CITOs, GPS Adventures Exhibits, etc. However, no new Virtual Caches are being published. I have not missed YOUR point it is you that have missed my point. Read my post carefully and you will see the the phrase in question ("virtual cache of any type are not permitted") is in 'quotation marks' which means it is directly and exactly as written by the Reviewer.

Miscommunication. It's not that virtual caches of any type are prohibited. Rather, new Virtual Caches of any type are prohibited. Agreed and I have edited the original post.

I know this has been discussed many times but since the Guidelines have recently been changed it seems appropriate to me to ask why 'Earthcaches' are listed on GC yet reviewers often clearly state that additional new "virtual caches of any type are not permitted". I do not want to start up a debate here asking for reinstatement of 'Virtual' or 'Webcam' caches I would just like to understand this anomaly. Can anyone give a concise explanation?.

But no 'Wherigo' feature. Wherigo has not been maintained, updated or improved in any form by Groundspeak for more than four years now... So, who cares? But they are still accepted and 'Published'. Two in our area this last week.

But no 'Wherigo' feature.

I would like the 'Contours Only' download but the link does not work. Bill.

Only the Landowner's permission is required, not necessarily NE. This has been discussed before here. Thanks for clarifying that for me. So my understanding now is that placing a cache on an 'SSSI' no no different from placing a cache elsewhere i.e. just landowner permission required.

Only the Landowner's permission is required, not necessarily NE. This has been discussed before here. Yes, I have seen the Thread you cited but in my experience in communications with various NE representatives that is NOT always the case and Reviewers should take note of that.

I would just like to add here that the process for getting approval for placing a cache on an 'SSSI' is quite straightforward. It is necessary fist to get permission for placement from the 'landowner'. Next send an email to the local Natural England office enclosing the landowner permission email. Unless there are really special circumstances with regard to the location then NE will respond positively. The NE response will be either that 'you have permission from the landowner therefore specific permission from Natural England is not required for this location' or they will send a formal-looking permission document addressed to the landowner and copied to the cacher. The next step is simply to copy the text of these permissions into a 'Reviewer Note' and submit the cache for review. Sometimes if the emails are lengthy it maybe necessary to split into two or more 'Reviewer Notes' as there is a word limit.

There is a fundamental issue here which is that if one wants to use GC as a site on which to publish caches then one should abide by the rules of the site otherwise use one of the alternatives. I cannot answer the reason for this ruling but I am sure there is one. GC have to do what they deem necessary to protect our environment. As an aside, I have seen several times what damage and disturbance the 'FTF bloodhounds' create during the first few days of a new listing before things settle down to 'normality'. When seeking permission for cache placement I have been asked on more than one occasion on what 'basis' and therefore 'organisational guidelines' the cache will be placed. Such rules are very valuable in this kind of situation.

Yes, let's have this please.

What I do is to create the new cache page and enter the coordinates for the final and any physical intermediate stages if a multi. Then make the title 'PROXIMITY CHECK ONLY and submit it for review and add an appropriate 'Reviewer Note' to repeat the reason for the check. Reviewers in my area prefer this way as it is less work for them than manually checking coordinates given in an email communication. If the check reveals no issues then proceed to develop the cache page further.

I have read through this thread and it still puzzles me as to what the motivation is that drives the people that chase 'FTF's. I hear the reference to 'beating the competition' but surely that really just means the very minority group in an area that pursues that aspect of geocaxching. I often wonder what a psychologist would make of 'FTF' and 'numbers' chasing.

They may be legal if you own the land or the landowner has given specific permission. But otherwise I doubt it very much.