HEADLANDERS

I too cannot quite see what you want to achieve. Perhaps it is simply a 'multicache' with 'physical' containers at each Stage conbtaining the coordinates for the next. This is certainly allowed. Why not visit a few more multicaches and multistage puzzle caches then you will get an idea what is possible?. It can be useful to check out your idea by emailing your local voluntary Reviewer. In my experience they are happy to offer alternative suggestions if what you propose is not possible.

I have been told by a reviewer that linked caches of this type are no longer permitted. The reason given is that if one cache goes 'down' then the series breaks.

Well, the other items ahead of this issue must be VERY,VERY IMPORTANT if they are taking priority over an issue that is causing so many forum complaints. I'm a paid up member of Geocaching.com. If I had to put up with this type of hassle from my cable TV company, I could look elsewhere for TV service. For Geocaching, we have no serious alternative to consider and that restricts us to squealing and moaning in the forum. I agree with this. It is such a fundamental feature on the map page that I fail to understand why Groundspeak would knowingly want to leave such a bug in place. Very strange.

I am trying to add style to the 'fieldset' code. The information on the cache edit page (under section Valid HTML Tags) says that the attribute 'style' is permitted but I get nothing to work. For example with this simple example code: <fieldset style="background:#f5f5f5;> <legend>Note</legend> <b>Content to test</b> </fieldset> The background remains White. Similarly, if add try to style other features such as 'padding' and 'border color', none of them work. Also it doesn't seem possible to 'style the 'hr', the 'horizontal rule' code. Perhaps there is a more 'Global Bug' here such as: 'Valid HTML Tags section on cache page needs updating' Have I made a mistake or is 'fieldset' (or 'hr' plus others) styling no longer permitted?

Pot, kettle, black... I don't recall giving any opinions or being negative about the comments of others but just asking the questions. Anyway, I can see why am always being advised to stay away from the Forums. Lesson learned. Thanks for your time. I'm out of here now.

I wonder why. Can I assume then when you find a cache you do not log it for a similar reason of not wanting to be tracked?. I can't answer for him, but I'm from the East Coast USA. Once I was surfing the Geocaching.com Google Maps, and clicked on an MOC. At the time, you had no clue if a cache on the maps was MOC or not, I believe that has now changed. Anyways, nosey girl from California sends me an email asking why I looked at her cache page. This of course is after she looks through my finds and hides, and references where I'm from in the email. I did not answer it. I thought it was an invasion of web surfing privacy. My opinion, of course. P.S. There are multiple ways to LOG an MOC without showing up in the audit log. I don't go out of my way to not show up in the audit log. But I'll bet Frinklabs does. I'm missing something as I am not aware of the abbreviation 'MOC'. I've looked up various acronyms but none make sense. I'm genuinely interested in knowing this then maybe I can understand the concern.

I wonder why. Can I assume then when you find a cache you do not log it for a similar reason of not wanting to be tracked?.

I respect your opinion to which you are entitled but your post does not help with the proposal. Au contraire. If there's a flaw in an initial system (audit logs), any idea arguing for an extension of said system needs a discussion of what is wrong with the system in the first place, and how such flaw could affect the outcome of a new idea. Since there already multiple ways one can avoid appearing on an audit log, my belief is that if one were to extend the audit log feature TO ALL caches, more people would probably start looking for ways to avoid the audit log, making such methods more popular, thus making the audit log even more useless than it is now. Implementing such an idea will only make a broken system more brokener (wait, that's not a word is it!). And it's not Groundspeaks' fault either, since they can't possibly detect if a cache is viewed offline. If it came to a vote, I would say 'no', and draft a proposal to go in the opposite direction and abolish the audit log altogether. As I said previously each is entitled to his own opinion but please don't try to change the opinions of others and more importantly assume your view is the correct one.

Caches just stopped appearing on maps for me in the UK.

I respect your opinion to which you are entitled but your post does not help with the proposal.

Allow Premium Members to view the 'Audit Log' on all caches that they own and not only the PMO caches.

All good that the old maps are back but we have lost the distance scale marker again.

Good to see the G-maps back, BUT the 'Distance Marker' is no longer present again.

How can I upload a 'Spoiler picture' to the 'gallery' of the cache before the cache is published?. Is there a way of doing this without creating a log?

The only way to "obtain this user name" would be to successfully contact the user, and convince them to give you their Geocaching.com password. Then you could "become" them. Otherwise, the name is taken. Try some variant on the name. Say you want "Robert" - try Rob3rt, or _Robert, or Robert_ or Robe®t, or Røbert.... A few years back, someone came into these forums, anxious to have a particular username, and quite unhappy with Groundspeak for being unwilling to let him have it. As in your example, the user account was old, and had just a few finds, and then 6 years with no login. That user ended up creating Username_ A few months after his forum post on this, the orignal user, Username, came into the forums, asking some questions about assorted changes in the game since he last logged on, after his 2 tours in Afghanistan. If you can contact the owner of the 'name' and they are no longer interested in geocaching then it should be easy to ask them to log into the geocaching site and change their 'name' to something different. That would release the 'old' name to be used by you.

Yes, this is the point of the rule.

As discussed above a 'disclaimer' in itself can offer no protection against a potential claim if it should it ever go to litigation. However, I personally believe that a short and succinct 'disclaimer' placed at the foot of each cache description by the CO would have it's main value in reminding the cacher to take care and also read any warnings given in the cache page itself about particular hazards in the location. Perhaps it would be good if someone with the necessary knowledge could draft one appropriate for the region in standard form for others to use.

I really can't really see how the situation with geocaching is greatly different from other outdoor adventure activities suck as hill walking and rock climbing. I don't recall hearing about any claims for injury in such activities against the landowners or publishers of climbs. The situation would of course be very different if a cacher placed a cache on private land without the owner's permission which tectonically requires trespassing to reach it.

I've searched the Forums for information on this topic but can't seem to find anything. I'm looking for ideas to make a suitable container to place in a sea cave. It will not be submerged when the cache is visited but sea will cover it during high tides. It needs to be waterproof and needs to be held in place or anchored down. Any ideas or leads?.

The problem with this is when the cache was placed somewhere on land without obtaining the consent of the landowner. In such cases the culprit would probably be successful in escaping conviction by claiming he was removing 'litter/trash'.

I found this a problem also with the GPSMap 62s. I found the most reliable way to deal with leftover data is to remove the SD card, re-boot the device without the card, then re-insert the card with the new GPX. In fact each time I load a new pocket query now I always boot without the SD card before the new PQ. Not had any problems since doing it this way. I copy the GPX to the SD card externally with one of those small adapters you can get. Bill.

Post deleted.

If someone posts a 'find' log without actually visiting the cache, is it worth getting stressed about?. They are only cheating themselves and not harming or inconveniencing anyone else.

Well, it isn't a 'problem' as such that HTML tags don't work in 'comments', it's because the whole idea of comments in any programming code is so that notes can be added which will be entirely ignored by the parsing of the code.

That is correct. Everything you put inside the comment tags will appear in the 'comment' including any code contained therein.