erik88l-r

This may or may not be the answer you seek: If you have received a message sent via the utility for emailing a user, please document the issue in an email to contact@geocaching.com and include a copy of the message received - including the headers showing that it was sent through the geocaching.com site. I'm afraid contact@geocaching.com will have to look into your complaint, as it is beyond the scope of what can be solved in this forum discussion unless others have received the same spam and would like to chime in with additional information. ~erik~

If any user went to your profile page and sent you an e-mail, wouldn't it go to that address? I suppose people can spam you from there, but they get a warning If you find you've been spammed in that manner you can complain. Perhaps someone can find the link for me. ~erik~

As the geocaching.com volunteer reviewer who's probably published most of the caches hidden on base in Iraq and Afghanistan I'm happy to do it. We have had a couple of issues crop up that have resulted in some special steps to the review process, though. First, I've had a civilian geocacher from Jordan e-mail me to say that he was nearly killed trying to hunt a cache on base, so I've asked that every cache page for such a cache on a base in the middle east clearly state that it is on a military base and that proper credentials are needed to access it. Secondly, we've had someone in the military contact geocaching.com and express concerns that GPS coordinates can somehow be used for targeting by the bad guys, who also have internet access. For that reason we ask that all cache hiders there confirm that they have permission from their CO or other base authority. The situation in some countries is a bit different though. On Okinawa and Guam, for example, there are lots of civilian geocachers, and it's not fair to them to have cache on a base that they can't access. So none are knowingly published on base there. Guantanamo is part of Cuba, but the only civilian geocachers there are tourists visiting from abroad. There I ask that the cache page state that the cache is on base so those folks don't waste their time driving around to the Gitmo side of the island. I would think that caches on US bases that have areas open to civilian recreation would be published without any problems assuming that the CO has obtained permission. We can't assume permission for geocaching on base just because hiking or fishing is permitted. ~erik~

I second that. Post a "Needs Maintenance" or "Needs Archived" log, please. (I'd rather see a "Needs Archived" log than an e-mail about a cache, as the log alerts the cache owner as well as the reviewer.) Another situation I am seeing in vacation destinations like your area are vacationers who bring replacement caches to hide where people have reported a string of "no finds", and the original cache owner is absent. They also somehow log a find for the cache they hid, which seems odd, but that isn't really a concern of mine. What concerns me is that they perpetuate the non-maintained cache, rather than letting it just die a natural death so someone who can maintain a cache can place one in the area. I have mixed feelings about the situation: on one hand it's nice that the community can maintain a cache and keep it going, but not so nice that it's replaced, not maintained, and won't be maintained going forward. Posting a "Needs Archive" log nips that problem in the bud. If the cache and cache owner are gone the cache should be archived. ~erik~

Suwanee, Georgia

Reviewers are just regular guys and gals who volunteer some of their time to handle the necessary administrative side of helping ensure caches are listed ASAP, but within the guidelines. Those guidelines have evolved over time to address the different situations and problems that have cropped up. I started reviewing caches before we had the guidelines we have now (back when cars had wooden wheels and mail delivery was twice daily) Jeremy gave me three or four common sense things to check for, and most of them still apply. As I recall, they were: Don't publish a cache in a National Park. Be sure the coords make sense - don't publish a cache listed as being in Washington if the coords put it in Germany, or in the ocean. Don't publish a virtual cache unless there is some way to verify the find. Don't get burned out. Our sport has certainly evolved a lot since then. ~erik~

The only reason more time was initially needed was because we were unaware of the change for a few days. Japanese and ROK caches used to be listed among those from other countries that did not have provinces separated out. When we saw no Japanese or Korean caches we assumed none had been submitted. We did not know they were now listed with the countries that had provinces/states/prefectures. So it was a surprise to see several days worth all at once. Things should now be back to normal, although the volume of Japanese caches has gone up a lot. So that will cause some delay. You guys really don't need to have competition to see which prefecture has the most caches. Enjoy! ~erik~

I second what my learned colleague wrote. Do remember that it's a Saturday morning though, and reviewers are out geocaching, and Groundspeak lackeys have the day off. Please be patient and not pile on here. Go out and find a cache. Wish I could. ~erik~ -

Please note that geocaching.com has now added a dropdown under "country" to add provinces and prefectures for new caches submitted in Japan and ROK. This is of course a forced choice for new submissions, as has been the case for the US states and provinces in many other countries. It is also suggested that cache owners go back to their earlier cache pages and add them. That will allow geocachers to filter by province when they search for caches. The benefits will be most apparent when all caches have that information added. This changeover resulted in a delay of a few days in publishing new caches for ROK and Japan. For that I apologize. erik - geocaching.com volunteer cache reviewer for Asia

See the FAQ topic here. Hope that helps. ~erik~

I've advised the cache owner that his 1901 date is causing angst. However, the cache is disabled so should not show up on a PQ if you check the box to only show active caches. The cache owner is an old fart like me and I believe wants the cache page to reflect his birthday. (I wouldn't say that if he wasn't a friend) ~erik~

GEO936 wrote: Definitely. I spent two weeks in SA last year and in those short two weeks the places Fish Eagle took me were very much dictated by where the geocaches (and geocachers) were. For example, we went to Swaziland largely so I could add "Swaziland" to the short list of different countries I've found caches in. Ditto for the places I visited with Global Rat and Tricky Vicky & Mickey. I'm sure a lot of the visitors for the 2010 soccer competition will also bring along their GPS receivers and want to find as many caches as they can. I'm sure most will be like me and not have heard of the Clara Anna Fontein preserve, but would love to follow our GPS needle to it's entrance, and perhaps beyond. ~erik~

That is malicious. It has nothing to do with geocaching, but did stop me from being able to review and publish more caches before having to go to work this morning as I had to close down that PC and switch to another one. Please remove that BS. It's not funny. ~erik~

I was struck by this factor, No offense intended, but if the area isn't surrounded by other caches why place these two so close together? Why not spread them out, as per the intent of the cache saturation guideline? ~erik~

To reiterate what gpsfun suggested two days ago, it is suggested that you check your home coordinates at this site. I am not the Texas reviewer, but if I were I would not publish a cache that appears to be over 5000 miles from your home. I suspect that the coords you entered have a typo, so please double check them and correct them if appropriate. If your home coords are correct a "note to reviewer" explaining how the cache will be maintained would expedite the review process. Please also keep in mind that the cache reviewers have lives too, and likely have a backlog of caches to review following the weekend. Please be patient, though it's understandable to be excited about your first cache hide. Thanks for your understanding, erik - geocaching.com volunteer cache reviewer

Cache was reviewed yesterday. As it was a cache placed far from home am awaiting a bit more reassurance of maintenance before publishing it. Hopefully cache owner will reply soon. Shalom, erik - geocaching.com volunteer reviewer for Israel, and some other countries that don't have a dedicated local reviewer. Edited to add that the cache in question is not a traditional cache, and the geocoin is not at the posted coords, so don't start your trip to Israel quite yet.

Answer to Question 1: it's all in the training Answer to Question 2: the day has 24 hours, that leaves at least 1 for geocaching Answer to Question 3: he has to, or his pay is docked Answer to Question 4: not allowed - he's enslaved for life. ~erik~

If there is a cache on a tomb, as opposed to just in a public cemetery, please post a "should be archived" log to that cache page. That alerts both the cache owner and the cache reviewer to the sensitivity of the location. It gives the cache owner an opportunity to respond if, for example he has permission to place it there, or to move it before any problems occur. Thanks for your concern. erik - volunteer cache reviewer

I had this problem earlier today too: all caches clustered around the large city at the start of my route, none elsewhere along the route. Reran the query starting at the small city at the end of the route, and decreasing the search radius from 4 to .5 miles. Worked fine that time. ~erik~

Yeah, but I just couldn't seem to delete all the files associated with Cachemate. The first step of segregating the datafiles did no good. I even took the step of blowing everything out of the Palm, then loading the Palm program and Cachemate onto another PC and syncing with it. I'd copied the Cachemate files to the other PC using a USB drive, but as long as I used the same username to do the sync the Palm locked up on me as soon as I pushed the sync button. ~erik~

Jim wrote: Yes, and I have. However it's for the username the original purchase is under. Since I had to change the Palm's username I could not apply that code to another copy. I tried. ~erik~

That may be true, but the registration code is tied to the username on your Palm. If you change username as I did the old registration code won't activate the CacheMate program. You can load CacheMate to your Palm for free, as I did, but the trial version will only allow you to upload ten caches. I did that first and found that my Palm stopped crashing, so didn't mind shelling out the $10 to register it. The alternative would have been to buy a database cleaning program designed to fix Palm software issues. It was $12 or $13, with no guarantee it would resolve my issue. ~erik~

After lots of experimentation, including loading the Palm software onto another PC and creating a new Palm username, I've sorted the problem out. It seems the CacheMate program had somehow gotten corrupted. The unit would work fine until CacheMate was loaded, and loading only parts of the program would not work. Loading a new version of CacheMate, and registering it to a new username got me going again. As the original CacheMate was over five years old I didn't mind paying $10 for a new copy. It was a cheap fix in comparison to the hours spent in trial and error frustration. ~erik~

I can't speak for service in Canada, but my US experience has been above and beyond my expectations. I used a Garmin GPS Map some years ago with an aftermarket "Mighty Mouse" external antenna plugged into the back. I fell while hiking to a cache and the unit hit the ground at the plug, damaging that part of the GPS unit. It was a couple of months out of it's one year warranty and damaged by a non-Garmin product. Also the damage was not a defect in materials or workmanship, but due to a fall. Despite truthfully explaining the circumstances and being prepared to pay for repairs I was sent a refurbished unit with all my old waypoints loaded into it, all for free. ~erik~

Not really. Back to my speed limit analogy..... The perimeter highway around Atlanta has a speed limit of 55 miles per hour. The prevailing speed is actually between 65 and 75 miles per hour, with many people driving much faster. Sixty five or seventy has probably become the defacto speed limit even when police officers are driving in the flow of traffic. However try to tell all that to a judge if you are awarded a speeding ticket. Ditto with the proximity guideline. If reviewers started routinely publishing caches under the .1 mile guideline then that would become an expectation, and people would cite other caches as the reason theirs should also be published. However the guidelines warn, as the judge does, that just because other have gotten away with it that doesn't mean you can. I've been reviewing caches for 7+ years, and don't think I've ever published one 342 feet from another. If I have it was long enough ago that I've forgotten. Seriously, that is a very large variance from the guideline. ~erik~