MeerRescue

... I knew I'd seen this somewhere recently - Groundspeak Weekly Update/Newsletter dated 5th Feb 2013 (again, my bold) This Week... Become a Geocaching Star in 5 Steps The basics of geocaching are inspiring in their simplicity. A geocacher hides a geocache and challenges others to find it. That's it. And it's easy to unlock the joy of geocaching when you discover clever hides and share the adventure with good friends. Becoming a great geocacher is all about remembering the little things. If you follow these five quick steps every time you geocache, you'll be ready for geocaching stardom. 1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook. Always pack a pen to make sure you're ready to sign your Geocaching username, the date, and leave a note.

...guess I interpreted it thus (my bold)Marty III. LOGGING Guidelines: Logging Guidelines cover the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find.

....seems to me that GS say it IS a requirement that log books are signed III. LOGGING Guidelines: Logging Guidelines cover the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find. Logging of All Physical Geocaches Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone. For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish such tasks. This is a guideline change that applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

sorry if this is a tad off topic ...but last time I checked, it was still a requirement to date a cache logbook, as well as your profile I.D., before you could claim a find online. I have noticed an increase in undated cache log's on many of my geocaches.....far from me to suggest it may have something to do with the various grid/day/month challenges out there

Seems like Professional Sports Venues is on a go slow too?. Submission made 15th May 2012. No response from pm's to 'General Manager', who last logged in on 4th June 2012, or one of the 'Head Coaches'. Of the 3 'Head Coaches' one not logged in since 28th March, one 13th Feb and one Nov 2011 MeerRescue

Link here? Well Grundspeak is the site! Maybe they thought the caches wouldn't be approved here, ie Considered Commercial, to have an Agenda, or even placed too close, to get approved... Or they just didn't want the rest of us going after them! ...not quite. Fowlmead Park, like others now runs a geocaching activity, amongst other activities, to school parties - team building etc etc(not individuals) as part of their business. Those that are placed out for such activities are temporary only - My own FOWLMEAD series as published by Groundspeak was targeted to such an extent that it had to be archived. A new series is almost ready for publication. Hope that clarifies the position.

Many thanks...I have pm'd Cobweb 1979 re Fowlmead Country Park. MeerRescue

....way to go Groundspeak, nice to see your spending our membership money wisely

....seems in this instance the number of 'votes' on the feedback has actually made Gs sit up and take note....seems they've agreed to reverse the update ...

...are GS actually listening to 'adverse' comments at present then Many thanks for the links.

I can't be the only CO finding the 'missing' dates on the cache page logs mildly irritating MeerRescue

Ha Ha Ha - Good one! So I suppose, without opening a can of worms with discussion about guidelines, I would say define the following.... Quality Appearance of Bogus Counterfeit Off-Topic Inappropriate My guess is that on at least one or more of those subjective points we will have a difference of opinion. Also of note, Groundspeak have not deemed in necessary to issue a guideline on the frequency of cache maintenance (i.e. to go and check online logs against the logbook). Presumably, being a conscientious CO you visit every 109 of your geocaches every time someone logs a find, to verify that it was not bogus? As long as nothing offensive is logged on the cache page, for me, that will do. I notice an increase of blank logs just lately - I have no idea on how to judge these but Groundspeak sees fit to allow them - perhaps their standards of quality are much, much lower than anyones here. Of course I am unaware if the GAGB have any further guidelines when it comes to maintaining cache logs... Lets clarify my original sentence shall we? It's my right to sit on each cache page repeatedly pressing F5 until someone logs a find, then immediately go out and visit my cache to check that it's valid, but I'm waiving that right since I really want to have fun with the game and not get bogged down trying to enforce rules and police other cachers. I really don't even know why I'm responding to this topic, wasting time on the forums when I really should be watching my cache page doing something more fun and interesting. "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men." ...matey, I wasn't questioning your 'right' to roll out the "play the game" how you wish , and your correct, I do not visit my 109 caches after each online log , but I do check the physical log against online logs when I replace them...my choice ...perhaps it is because I get many genuine foreign cachers visit and log my caches, but a surprising number of our European 'friends' appear to log my caches whilst on "a day trip" without signing it, or making a smudge, or offer a photo in lieu of a writing implement I happen to hold the view that CHEATS shouldn't prosper in any game, but that's my "right", but feel free to take it up with my parents, that's how they raised me

So I don't mind if people log my caches and haven't signed the log book, it's my right to check the logs and delete, but I'm waiving that right since I really want to have fun with the game and not get bogged down trying to enforce rules and police other cachers. If that's how others like to spend their free time then, whatever floats your boat, but I wouldn't expect to gain as many friends through it. ....but then as a cache owner are you/we not under an obligation to monitor our cache logs, online and physical? 2.1. Listing Guidelines that Apply to All Geocaches Geocache Maintenance Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. As the owner of your geocache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate. I appreciate you have chosen to waiver this guideline, but you/we did 'accept' this responsibility when you/we submitted your/our cache(s)for publication did we not

...each to their own I suppose and presumably if Groundspeak has a problem with caches being hidden when the requirement for "stealth needed" is given then they will remove their attribute for just that kind of warning

Here here

Having read the opening post from the GAGB Committee I was pleased to see that they appear to have recognised that perhaps their initial approach to this debate was flawed, albeit well intended. What Alan White said in his original post was very well put. However as he points out, if a decision has already been made,and is being implemented, what point is their on any consultation, by GAGB or anyone else? So, could someone please make it clear to the rest of us mere Groundspeak paying customers WHO is making the rules! If the UK's senior (volunteer) reviewer, Deceangi, is already "applying" a new 'guideline' requiring the (amended) wording (and therefore the container requirements)then presumably this is Groundspeak's official position on the matter and, as far as Groundspeak is concerned, NO further discussion is required if you wish to have geocaches published by Groundspeak's UK (volunteer)Reviewers? Simples!

MeerRescue, you were quoted, as it applies generally, not to have a go at you... There are local Guidelines, eg No caches in Dry Stone Walls applies in the UK, it's not a Groundspeak guideline, and US cachers can put caches in Dry Stone Walls to their hearts content. IF Groundspeak say "Local laws apply..." and "Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region..." then they should be EASILY available. ...yep, got you that time

When a cache is submitted, the placer ticks a box to say they have read the Guidelines. Which include: When I submit a new cache for publication, how long will it take to be listed? Each cache that is submitted to Geocaching.com is reviewed by a volunteer to ensure that the cache meets the Geocaching Listing Guidelines. Fundamental Placement Guidelines 1. All local laws apply. (1. All local laws apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" or similar signs.) Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements 3. Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict geocache placement. Groundspeak should really have a page of links to the relevant sites where the local laws and requirements are listed... Or a link to the local reviewers... I have noticed that a lot of the US reviewers have a list of requirements -Do's and Don'ts- for the National Parks in their review areas listed in their profiles. Sorry, B&R, I did point out that this is not intended as a dig at GAGB or reviewers and I don't think I questioned Groundspeak guidelines? As a cacher with a fair number of published geocaches I am fully aware of point #3 in your post. My query was a genuine one as to the status of GAGB being the body to make guidelines as to cache publication in the UK, which I thought was relevant as now we seem to be required to add the wording as per GAGB guidelines.I was just asking for clarification not an argument matey.

Many thanks for the reply Dave

As you can see I do not post to the forum that often This incident was always going to have far reaching implications on our game, and undoubtedly through this forum many will express their own points of view....albeit I suspect that we forum visitors are still a minority of geocacher's who play the game. This is in no way a dig at GAGB or any Reviewer, but I am slightly confused as to the following: The new GAGB requirement for an urban cache container and additional wording. At at present I pay a subscription to Groundspeak and therefore abide to the best of my ability to their guidelines. I am NOT a member of GAGB and therefore slightly confused as to why I must now conform to a ruling of this association, one that many cacher's outside this forum have ever heard of, to get a cache published? Are GAGB the rule (guideline) makers for or on behalf of Groundspeak here in the UK?..or is it that the reviewing team are?..or is it that the reviewers, on behalf of Groundspeak make these rule (guideline) changes and use GAGB to publicise them?

There was no consultation from the GAGB because the majority of the GAGB knew nothing about it. I believe what Dave (Deceangi) actually means in his post is consultation between The Reviewers and the GAGB Committee - not the GAGB itself. Which in the event would be all that was needed, as the committee have the mandate of those cachers who are members. They don't have that mandate from the cachers in general.

We 'played the game', collected a full set and, as was the idea, set them forth. No wonder they slowly disappeared one by one

So LMN, my 12 puzzle caches, 7 multi caches and 3 traditional caches published since your #3 event last September, all available from the past venue for your Camping Weekend weren't enough to keep it here.... :P MeerRescue

Congrats to you both , have a great day. MeerRescue

I never met 'Henry' either, but thanks to the link to his blog, I sat and read the whole lot this morning, not that I had meant to, rather than doing the jobs I was supposed to have done. So, here's a swig to you David, RIP. MeerRescue