erik88l-r

I second (or triple) that emotion. ~erik~

There is some info here. If your number of hides and finds is fairly low I'd recommend just relogging your earlier finds and adopting your hides to the new account name. ~erik~

With regard to the second part of the OP's question, if a cache owner has gone but other geocachers are maintaining it then no action is needed. If it does deteriorate to the point of becoming trash, and people log a "should be archived" note, we'd disable it and ask the cache owner to get it back up to snuff. If no action is forthcoming and the cache owner hasn't logged onto the site in ages archiving would have to be done, but we'd ask someone to trash out the cache remnants first. It's a touchy subject, as the cache does not belong to Groundspeak, so the cache reviewer really can't take it upon himself to remove it, but if it's trash and the community does then we'd archive the listing. ~erik~

Are there maps for a GPS besides what are sold by Garmin and other manufacturers? ~erik~

I'm ashamed to admit that I'll only log one DNF on a cache, not wanting to embarrass myself with a string of half a dozen on the same cache. When I do eventually find it I will admit in my find it log that it was found on the seventh try, though. ~erik~

This event cache page might help. Note, you have to be logged in to view archived caches. I'll be doing a version of this in two weeks with my Land-Rover club, so it'll be interesting to see how it goes over with non-geocachers driving from cache site to cache site along off-roading trails. ~erik~

You could ask your local reviewer to edit the cache page. I've done that, when requested, if a geocacher is obviously inactive. Examples include caches placed on vacation with maintenance agreed to by a local resident. Cache owner drops out and local "cache guardian" wants to have a note added to the cache page about a change to the cache, or to have the coords updated after the cache is moved slightly. I don't mind doing it for caches in my review territory as long as I can maintain a record of the requests and actions. I treat it a bit like a "should be archived" request - acting as requested only if there is no alternative. It's not my cache, so I have to be judicious. ~erik~

If you promise to behave perhaps we won't need one. ~erik~

The hamster had jumped off its treadmill for a minute. ~erik~

I'm probably not the only one who found a cache using only my GPS, only to discover later that I couldn't log it 'cause I didn't meet the ALR. <rant> A particularly painful one for me was a cache in downtown LA that I walked from my hotel to hunt, then found I was supposed to leave a foreign coin in the sucker to log a find. How many businessmen traveling in their own country carry foreign coins in their pocket? </rant> Anyway, maybe "puzzle/mystery" isn't the best category to use, as "virtual" wasn't the best category to use for "locationless caches" when they first came out, but until they took off there was no need for a separate category. Maybe that was a bad analogy, as the example took off to the point of moving to it's own Waymarking website, but the point is that listing it as a mystery makes people take another look at the text on the page. Perhaps in the future, if Additional Logging Requirements catches on, we can have an additional category just for them. In the meantime, as a cache hider you can avoid that by having an Additional Logging Suggestion", or "Additional Logging Request" that makes taking that photo (or whatever) optional instead of mandatory. ~erik~

TAR wrote: I would But I wouldn't have a problem with publishing a cache for a location like that. I found a cache under a foot bridge this morning. Hardly a terrorist target. That reminds me, I need to go log that find..... Caches on bridges that cars or trains go over are another matter though. Even a micro can be a problem if people looking for the micro results in someone calling the police to report suspicious, and possibly terrorist, activity. I believe it was the Illinois State Police that asked geocaching.com not to publish any hide-a-key micros on bridges in that state for that very reason. The police have more important things to do than follow-up on reports of suspicious activity. ~erik~

My drivers license says "organ donor" on it. Perhaps I should put something similar on my GPS or geocaching PDA authorizing transfer of my caches after my death. Oh wait, I have a wife. She makes all my decisions for me, dead or alive. Seriously, I guess one's profile page would be the place to post wishes of that sort, but I think I'll pass. Perhaps if I had an incurable disease I'd feel differently. ~erik~

The other thing to keep in mind for those tempted to change cache types is that it retroactively changes the "find type" of all those who've already found the cache. So if ten people got credit for solving your mystery or multistage cache they would have their "find" change to that of a traditional if you change the cache type to traditional instead of replacing that missing first stage or correcting other problems. Most wouldn't notice or care, but some would. Particularly those who found the cache as part of the requirements for a "challenge cache". They'd be mighty unhappy if their 5/5 multi suddenly became a 1/2 traditional because the cache owner didn't want to replace that tough but muggled stage.... ~erik~

My condolences. We had an area geocacher pass away earlier this year too, and the question of adopting his caches also came up. We put those discussions on hold to allow a respectful period of time to pass, and in the meantime Groundspeak has modified the adoption procedures to formally acknowledge the fact that as a listing service Groundspeak can't give away something that doesn't belong to them. In the case of a death, the next of kin would have to give permission, as with any other property. However, keep in mind that the deceased geocacher left a legacy of hidden caches on his or her profile page . If they were adopted out to someone else that history would disappear, and it would appear that he or she left no caches for us to enjoy. It might be better for fellow geocachers to informally "adopt" a cache by continuing to maintain it on behalf of the deceased friend, rather than formally adopting it. ~erik~ edited to fix typer

Quite a scary story, Tricky Vicky & Mickey. The lucky thing is that there was no source for ignition, or you would have had a mini Molotov cocktail go off in your car. ~erik~

I missed it! A belated Happy Birthday. It's not every day you turn 70. and Andy's happy that this wasn't the one. ~erik~

I second that emotion. ~erik~

Thanks for the heads-up. I published that cache based on the CO's promise that he visited several times a year and had friends who lived nearby who would also help. I e-mailed him this morning asking him to follow through on his promise, but as he has not logged onto the site in over a year, nor responded to requests for maintenance going back at least two years, I don't hold out much hope. Perhaps a future visitor will take the initiative to trash out what has obviously become trash and post a "should be archived" note to open up a great area to local cache placement. As a cache reviewer I can't ask that be done, as the cache is still considered to be the property of the cache placer. Old timers may remember that many geocaches placed by visitors on the south shore of Maui were archived at the request of someone in local government many years ago for this same reason - lack of maintenance. At the time that included virtual caches leading people down closed roads on NPS administered land. Hopefully we can police our sport so it won't be done for us. ~erik~

That was fun to watch - especially seeing everyone slide down on their butts. I noticed that the kids went up to slide down a second time. Wish I could have joined you. All the best, ~erik~

Let me add my welcome too. The icon (probably the Lux flag) will be added as soon as possible. ~erik~

I ran a pocket query yesterday and it worked fine, though I've never run one with quite all the boxes checked that you have. For instance, I have never checked "caches I've found" along with "caches I haven't found", and have never entered both country and coordinates. I'd try a simpler one with just caches you haven't found, and only some coordinates. Or pick a cache and enter it's GC???? number as a cache somewhat central to your search area rather than the coords. Also, do you see a list of caches when you preview them? If so, but you don't get e-mails, perhaps it's an e-mail problem. If you return to your list of pocket queries is there a date and time when the PQ was run? If so then that may also suggest that it's an e-mail issue rather than one of the PQ not being produced. ~eriK~

I'm heartbroken that "my" cache was muggled. I was FTF, afterall. Hopefully Fish Eagle will be able to replace it. Best regards, ~erik~

Probably just one too many beers one too many times..... ~erik~

Sorry mtn-man, just had to get in one last word. I'm the reviewer who's published most of the caches on bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also a few on coalition bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. All cache pages state that they are on a military base and that proper credentials are required to access the cache. That is for the protection of the few civilian geocachers in the area. We don't want them trying to go where they shouldn't. Each and every cache owner is also asked to confirm that he's had permission from his commanding officer or base security before the cache is published. We don't want the coords or cache page info used for targeting purposes by the bad guys. We do want our soldiers to be able to enjoy geocaching in a safe environment on their base. Caches are not knowingly published on US bases in areas that have a large civilian geocaching population, such as Guam or Okinawa. For security reasons they are not published on military bases in the US, as that is what the geocaching guideline prohibiting caches on military bases is aimed at. I cannot speak for bases in some places like Germany, as the German reviewers cover that area, but I would suspect they would also not be published there. Hope that explanation helps. As I stated earlier, we want our soldiers in the middle east to be able to enjoy geocaching, not be shut down by guidelines aimed at bases on US soil. ~erik~

Thanks for the kind words. I'm sure I'll screw up every now and then and publish a cache in a theme park or somewhere equally inappropriate, but I'll try to help Dave out by publishing the caches that obviously meet the geocaching guidelines. So as not to offend anyone who's caches are still awaiting review I won't elaborate on that. Cheers, ~erik~