The Outlaw

I keep a running active GSAK database of all unfound caches within 100 miles of my house. Every Saturday morning, I run 5 pocket queries, 1 difficulty all terrains, 1.5 difficulty all terrains, 2 difficulty all terrains, 2.5 difficulty all terrains, and finally 3 difficulty and higer all terrains. For the moment anyway, this is working for me, but my 1.5 difficulty PQ is always dangerously close to maxxing out at 500. Since 1.5 is the most common hide (at least here anyway) I am constantly fighting to keep it below 500. If the PQ sizes were increased to 1,000, the PQs would all fit comfortably. Hope this makes sense.

Not a particularly helpful solution. I would have to re-log all my finds in a second account. Alternatively, you could just ignore them or set up GSAK to weed them out. Ignore what? My finds? A current pocket query yields 500 and I have some 10,000 finds within 100 miles of my house. A second account is not going to be a solution to this.

Not a particularly helpful solution. I would have to re-log all my finds in a second account.

As the sport (hobby? whatever) has increased in popularity over the years, it has been increasingly difficult to maintain a decent and accurate database of my home area. My suggestion is can you explore the possibility of increasing the pocket query size from 500 to 1,000? I for one would be willing to pay an extra $5 or $10 a year for this. Maybe you can create a second level of premium user for those of us who would like this added feature. 500 was a great number in the beginning, but the proliferation of caches has made it less effective lately, and this is likely to get worse going forward. It's a good problem to have, but it does pose a problem. In any event, hopefully this is something you all will consider in the future. Thanks, Wayne Lind AKA The Outlaw Austin Tx.

You may have missed this post from Hydee a bit earlier on in this thread. Hydee is the Groundspeak employee responsible for the volunteer group. She said that Prime Approver had brought these issues to her attention yesterday... in other words, self-reporting the issue. He knows about it. I try to do the same thing when my actions as a reviewer are called into question. We trust Hydee to examine all sides of the issue fairly, and to back us up when we are right and to let us know when we are wrong. We should let her go through that process for the caches and actions that have been called into question here. I saw Hydee's reply and was grateful she took the time to do so. My concern with this process is that you all work for Hydee, and you all work with each other. It is human nature that when given the option of supporting a coworker or supporting a total stranger, the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the co worker. I support my co workers as I am sure you support yours. While I am willing to give Hydee the chance to see how this escalation process work, I am also very confident I know what the outcome will be. Also, this isn't about my cache, it is about all the caches that have rejected by Prime Approver in the time since 9key left. I have 7 caches ready to put out and one already sitting out, but there is no point to sending in requests for approval. How can we follow the rules, when the rules are undocumented and change on a daily basis? My cache violated none of the documented rules pertaining to placing a cache, but it was rejected. I know of numerous others who have run into the same problem. With Will there was a level of flexibility that simply doesn't exist anymore. As I stated earlier in this thread, I didn't get the answer I wanted, but I got the answer I expected.

My caches that were rejected were 5 miles apart. That doesn't fit my definition of "Closely Clustered". I have to confess, this was not the answer I wanted, but it was the answer I expected. None.

I agree with Waasup completely. While some are talking succession, I think many more of us would simply like to address the issue we have here and now and move on. Thus far, I have not seen anything in this thread that indicates the acknowledgement of a problem. The fact that this thread exists. The fact that there have been 15 post on an archive cache in the last 12 hours should be an indication of a problem. The fact is we have a problem. We are asking for your (Groundspeak) help with this problem. Can you help us? Are you willing to help us?

Hydee, Thank you for your reply. Emailing this site gains us what? What happens? Who reviews these? What percentage of escalations are overturned? I strongly suspect I know the answers to all of these, but I would like to be sure.

While I agree that you shouldn't allow a customer to hire or fire an employee, if the actions of that employee are causing you to lose business, you would be forced to take some kind of action. Is that not a fair statement? If you answer yes, you are in essence letting your customers dictate to you who should be fired. If you answered no, you probably won't be in business long. I have nothing personal against Prime Approver, in fact, I have only met him once briefly and he seemed like a nice person. His actions as an approver are draining the enjoyment out of the game here. As an employee, he is costing this site business. I can say that I disagreed with what Grajek did to his page, but his action was born of the frustration of being stuck in a situation he had no control over. If you look at that page, you will find many others throughout the state are having similar problems. In this case, it's not just us.

While I agree, the cache series may sound a little like a multi cache, it is not the case. JQ1 is already a multi. JQ2 is also a multi and in a totally different park some 5 miles from JQ1. JQ3 is in the same park as JQ 2 and is a puzzle solve, and JQ 4 is just a regular (bonus) type cache. To combine these into a multi would lead to a 23 part multicache with 3 different puzzle combinations to solve. Hope this clerifys this for you, Thanks, Wayne

Hi Jeremy, Thanks for listening. Julie suggested I tell you about the experience I had with trying to get a series of caches approved. To understand this a little better, it may be helpful to look at this cache GCE62A. This cache was the first in a series I was planning to put out. When completed, it was going to be a 4 part progressive cache series where you got the start point for #2 by finding the finish point of #1 and so on until you reached the final container. At each container you would get another part of the story which prepared you for the next cache. The web pages would contain "Teasers" to get you to want to go and do the series. a little piece of the story, but not the level of detail you would get at the cache containers. To make the story work, the final cache (JQ4) would need to be fairly close to the final location of JQ1. Not right on top of it, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 250-300 feet. I know that there is a guideline stating that caches can't be placed within .1 miles of each other, and even though the caches in question were both mine and were close by design, I suspected this would be my sticking point. In advance of placing the remaining cache, I decided to email this information to Prime Approver. I figured if he flat would not allow the proximity, I could move them farther apart. His reply was that he would not approve them anyway because progressive caches are not allowed. I don't recall seeing this in the rules anywhere. It was pretty disappointing to have put this much effort to create a cache that would be fun to do and have it get rejected for a rule that as far as I can tell doesn't exist. My questions to you are, is there such a rule? and if so, is it documented anywhere? Thanks again for your time, Wayne.

I voted to put them in a separate place. My preference would have been not to make the rules more strict, but at least more consistent and less subjective, but that wasn't a choice. As far as Grajek is concerned, after his last post his account was apparently locked out, or at the least he can't seem to log on. Since his post was not vulgar, flaming, or unprofessional, I can only hope he is just having some local issues on his box and not banned from the site for simply stating an opinion. Since the message he is getting is some strange sort of script error and not a specific no user account exists message, I tend to think it is not intentional. Wayne (The Outlaw) Geocacher, Poison Ivy magnet, and Chigger food.

Is it too late to request your idea? I would like to see it as well. Thanks, Wayne (The Outlaw) Geocacher, Poison Ivy magnet, and Chigger food.

When I heard this joke, there were just some minor variations to it. For example, they weren't praying, the 3 geocachers came across a lamp laying on the riverbank. When they rubbed it, a genie appeared and granted them one wish a piece. The first man wished to be transported to the other side of the river. POOF, he magically appeared on the other side. The second guy also wished to be transported to the other side. POOF , he too appears on the other side. When the woman saw the 2 men getting ready to head off for the cache she said, "Man, I sure wish those guys were stuck on this side of the river like me. POOF. Wayne (The Outlaw) Geocacher, Poison Ivy magnet, and Chigger food.

I don't think cachers are cheap. You need to take into account the fact that folks are hiding tupperware containers in the woods. If you are expecting to find the keys to a new car in a cache, you are probably going to be disappointed. 95% of what I leave in a cache came from the cache before it. I very rarely find anything of value save the logbook in a cache. The value I find is the hike to and from the caches. The opportunity to see what beauty nature has placed on my path. Personally, I would rather find a cache stuffed with AOL cds and Mctoys at the base of a waterfall, or the top of a mountain, then a cache stuffed with high priced swag at a dump. I can't even tell you what I took or left at the caches I have on my top 10 list, but I can tell you why they are on that list. Hope this makes some sort of sense, Wayne (The Outlaw) Geocacher, Poison Ivy magnet, and Chigger food.

Having completed the ACS #1 challenge in Austin, I would have to agree with TxHipowr. It has steep terrain (at least steep for central Texas), devious locations and requires a nimble mind. Come to think of it, how in the world did I finish it? Wayne (The Outlaw) Geocacher, Poison Ivy magnet, and Chigger food.

International Product Support (Sustaining) engineer for a computer company. Wayne (The Outlaw) Geocacher, Poison Ivy magnet, and Chigger food.

Just testing. Wayne (The Outlaw) Geocacher, Poison Ivy magnet, and Chigger food.

quote:Originally posted by Dave54:"I suspect that few of the top policy makers in either department have ever heard of geocaching, let alone know what it is all about." Actually, yes they have, and issued policy on the subject. That is very interesting. Is this policy available to read on line? I would also like to find out what they based their policy on. "Both federal agencies allow the clear cutting of forests and strip mining on many of these same lands. " National Park Service does almost no timber harvesting on their lands. The only time it is ever done is where it is necessary to protect or manage the Park resources, and then very rarely. Unless there is some older inholding mining is not allowed in National Parks. This is not the place to discuss silvicultural systems and forest ecology, but clearcutting is appropriate and ecologically preferable in certain situations in certain forest types. I completely agree with you. I do not want to get into a debate about whether these acitivities are good or bad. My point is that geocaching as an activity has far less impact on the environment then clearcutting or stripmining. Mining is allowed and regulated by the 1872 Mining Law, not Forest Service or NPS policy. That law trumps virtually all other environmental laws. The clinton administration declined to attempt reform of the 1872 mining act when the dems controlled Congress. =========================================================== "The time has come" the Walrus said "to speak of many things; of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Kings".

quote:Originally posted by NightThree: quote:100% of every national park in the country is not environmentally sensitive I don't know if I agree with that one. Maybe I should rephrase that a little. Within all the national parks that I am aware of there are camping areas, picnic areas hiking/mountain bike trails etc. All of these activities have an equal or greater negative effect on the surrounding environment as geocaching. Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating dropping a piece of tupperware with a log book into Ol Faithful. But I do believe within every park there exists places where caches can be placed without disturbing the environment more then is already occurring from other activities.

I suspect that this may be a matter of educating the people at the highest level of the departments involved within the government. It isn't George Bush's fault that geocaching isn't allowed in National parks, that policy was in place during the Clinton administration. There are a couple of items to consider with this issue. One is that you are actually dealing with 2 different branches of the federal government. National parks are controlled by the dept of the interior, and national forests are controlled by the dept of agriculture. I suspect that few of the top policy makers in either department have ever heard of geocaching, let alone know what it is all about. As far as environmental and ecological impact of geocaching, I absolutely agree that caches should not be placed in sensitive areas. But 100% of every national park in the country is not environmentally sensitive. Both federal agencies allow the clear cutting of forests and strip mining on many of these same lands. I think it is safe to assume that geocachers probably can't approach that level of environmental damage unless we drive bulldozers to the cache sites. If we continue to work with local, county and state parks departments and build a good relationship with these folks, as geocaching grows and gets more positive publicity, the federal agencies will change their minds. Of course, taking your state senator or representitive on a cache hunt can't hurt either. So, tell me again what a "Markwell" is.

Congrats on reaching 100!! It does get addicting. I can suggest an excellent physical and mental challenge with the one listed below, but I am fairly certain it is outside your 100 mile limitation. Sorry, Wayne http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=70280

With the addition of the filters on the nearest in my cache page, this thing really rocks!! The only other suggestion I would make would be to bring back into the filters the ability to set the radius. When the new page launched at 150 mile radius, it practically doubled the number of caches I had left to find. Thanks for all your efforts on this.

In general I like the new layout and I really like the speed!! As with a lot of folks, I would like to be able to add your list of filters under the "My Cache Page" search for nearest from my house. Maybe the filters can be added as hidden field in our profile page. One other item I would like to see added if possible, (not something caused by your changes) would be the ability of the cache owner to see who has put a cache on their watch list. I am not angry that someone is watching my cache, I am just curious to know who they are. Overall, it is a good change. Thanks, Wayne