AustinMN

Furthermore, someone logging "TFTC" is not likely to be interested in earning a reward, anyway. The key here is not to see "TFTC" as a negative. Worst case, it's a zero: just pretend they didn't find your cache at all. Don't let "TFTC" logs reduce the value of all the good logs you get. While I'm not a fan of TFTC, I don't even see it as a zero. They are at least typing the initials, and I do believe they are at least very mildly grateful, or they would not be caching at all.

One more thing that a cache owner is expected to do. Those who want the award, but don't want to bother typing, could just copy & paste from someone else's log from another part of the world. I think this has zero chance of effectively accomplishing what you want. Austin

If that is true, then every PWA (Public Water Access) cache in Minnesota is promoting a religion. That would be about 25% of the best caches. Austin

I have a totally different take on teaching than you. My assesment is that the physics teacher was smarter than any of you, because ghe taught you how to learn. A school student will reach a point where they don't have a teacher any more. If all of the teachers did all the research for them, then they are done learning the day they graduate. That would be tragic. In this case, the reviewer has an expectation to learn, and is following the established process. But if you are going to post things like this, you you really should stop claiming that you never said the reviewer was a bad reviewer. The two claims are not compatible, and everyone else knows it even if you do not. Austin

I really think we need specific examples. Vague references to "easily misunderstood", "difficult to publish", and "large amount of subjectivity" don't really help use see whether any suggested improvement will avoid problems. After all, the answer to "easily misunderstood" is to explain, the answer to "difficult to publish" is to publish, and the answer to "large amount of subjectivity" is to leave the judgement calls up to the COs. If what you are suggesting were even remotely feasible (leave the judgement calls to the CO's), then we would not need reviewers at all. CO's track record on judgement calls is pretty poor (but admittedly better than finders), like the STF I reported because it was on the "No Trespassing" sign post. No, they did not have permission. Austin

With the increasing number of published challenge caches, Keystone has noted that it's difficult to keep track of what types of challenges currently exist within his own review area. And if the submitted challenge is close to a bordering review area, then he must be sure none of the nearby challenges in that area are too similar as well. Also, the subjective nature of this guideline can cause disagreements with potential challenge cache creators. How close is too close? How similar is too similar? I think one way to streamline the challenge cache review/appeals process would be to eliminate this particular guideline. I can easily imagine a power trail of challenge caches where the challenge on each of them is to find 1000 caches with the name of a chapter from any book written by Ernst Kreuder. Qualify for one and you qualify for them all. But when was the last time you (or anyone else in the forum) read a book by Ernst Kreuder? Sure, one could argue that if you are not interested, just skip the cache. But the reviewer can't skip over reviewing the cache. Then he/she ends up having to publish 132 caches that will each be found and logged twice, if ever. What a waste of effort. Austin

I should have added some of my other gear. Lenses, in alphabetical order: Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 Minolta MD 50mm f/1.7 (my fastest lens) Minolta MD 300mm f/4.5 Quantaray 70-210mm f/4-5.6 Rokinon 12mm f2.0 Ultrawide Sony 16-50mm kit lens (worst lens in the bag). Tokina 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 Filters (most of my lenses are adapted to 58mm filter thread): 40.5mm circular polarizer 58mm circular polarizer 58mm 2-stop ND filter 58mm 2-stop graduated ND filter 58mm +1 close-up 58mm +3 close-up 62mm polarizer 72mm polarizer Also: 4 camera batteries 2 USB batteries magnetic compass 18% neutral grey card Minolta SR-Mount to Sony E-mount adapter

I hope I'm not duplicating topics here. But I've seen some caches with the Scenic View attribute almost seems like a lie. An example I can think of was one where the cache was behind a supermarket near the dumpster. The only "scenery" was the loading dock and the retaining wall. I'm looking for caches and photos where the cache has the SV attribute, and your photo(s) prove it. My first example is Barn Bluff Rock outside Red Wing, Minnesota, USA: An earthcahce example would be Lake Mille Lacs near Isle, Minnesota, USA: I'll round it out with a Puzzle Cache called Pork Pond Your turn. Austin

If I find a cache with any amount of standing water, I dump it out, and I try to let the cache drain well. Somehow, I can't imagine cacher after cacher leaving standing water in a cache container, so I find it difficult to believe that much water accumulates a little at a time from cachers opening the container. Austin

Worst case of muggles was an urban cache where a couple men J-walked and came directly up to me. I was expecting the "What are you doing?" when instead they asked if I had found the cache. Another time there were some grade-school children and I thought I was going to have to come back later, when one of them asked "are you looking for the geocache?" Probably 15-20% of the time (way more than I would expect), when I explain I am geocaching they say they tried it at one time. My estimate is 45% of the rest say they've heard of it. I suspect some people answering this question have ego's that can't admit they've never heard of something before, but I'm guessing. I've never had a negative reaction from someone who has never heard of geocaching before. Austin

A good tripod is heavy. A better tripod is heavier. The best tripod is the one you actually use. Austin

Sometimes I bring it all, which is one of the reasons I use a mirrorless (Sony NEX-6). Everything is a little lighter and smaller but still lets me choose lenses. When I say "all" that usually includes a tripod, but if I don't bring the tripod then I've got my monopod. I cache to find places to photograph, not the other way around. Austin

Not much - about 16 miles (about 26 KM).

I made this statement above but additional research has proven it to be incorrect. LAAS (known internationally as GBAS) has been implemented at a handful of airports globally. There are several ground-based systems that have been developed. Austin

Black bear cub at John Sayer's Cache. I shot this from inside the car with the window open part way. It was still a particularly risky photo, because the sow could not be seen, but could easily have been inside the car before we could have reacted.

Never more than a couple miles, round trip.

I tried to think of any other topic where this logic makes sense. I only found one. This is true: "Complaining about complaining is complaining." Otherwise, your statement makes as much sense as: "Complaining about Monday is Monday." Austin If geocaching is a game where it is actually possible to "cheat" (a highly suspect notion in and of itself) then using accusations of "cheating" to modify other people's geocaching behaviour is cheating as much as TCM or sharing puzzle solutions. It's not actually possible to "cheat" in geocaching (except, perhaps, cheating yourself) so complaining about cheating is cheating as much as anything else, because there really is no cheating. I see, so it's OK for me to steal trackables and really creative hides? No, those are examples of the ultimate in cheating, and they really are cheating. I would expect even you to complain about it. Your statement still has no meaning.

My thinking about scavenging FP's on archived caches is mixed. 1) If an archived cache has 25 FP's then nobody anywhere is ever going to miss mine if I remove it. 2) If I was one of only one or two to favorite a cache, I leave it there. I find a grey area in between the 1-2 and the 25, where if it was a really nice cache, I leave it in place. 3) My top ten caches (true favorites instead of a simple top 10%) will always have one of my favorite points. I have a high bar for the caches I find. Unless I'm desparate, I couldn't be bothered with parking lot finds, micros in the woods, or power trails. I bet I hike an average of 20 minutes for each find. The result is I'm typically only finding the best caches to begin with, so even with archive FP recovery I frequently find myself not able to give a favorite to (my opinion here) a truly deserving cache. Sure, I could get more FP's by chasing down stop sign hides, but that's not the reason I go caching. Nobody is going to get worked up if you scavenge FP's. Austin

Every day thousands of aircraft rely on SA being turned off 24/7/365. GPS (even the encoded military channels) have never had centemeter-level accuracy. There are systems that use GPS signals that can get centemeter-level accuracy, but they rely on a locally generated correction signal, and the correction is still only as accurate as the placement of the equipment generating the local correction signal. In the systems I have read about, proximity to the correction device has an impact on accuracy, to the point where a couple of kilometers away (under ideal conditions), the correction is not much better than the uncorrected signal. I believe the FAA has investigated mechanisms that would provide local correction for an entire metro area, but concluded that with SA turned off and the implementation of WAAS it was unnecessary. Every consumer GPS receiver manufactured in about the last 10 years or so is equipped to receive the WAAS signal. If someone is using an older GPS, they could think that Selecive Availability is on because the ionosphere (you know, the ionosphere that the WAAS signal is supposed to correct for) will introduce it's own error. WAAS is only usable in North America, but many other parts of the world have their own correction system. Something that can introduce huge errors (I discovered this by accident) is carrying a cheap digital camera. Until I figured out what was going on, my old GPS would sometimes head out across a lake at 45 MPH, and after being gone for a few minutes, would then come back again from some other direction, generally after I put the camera away. A couple times, the excursion was several miles. This happened with or without WAAS. I'd bet all kinds of other devices (early iPods, old laptops, old or cheap cell phones, cheap calculators, etc.) could do the same if given an opportunity. There are lots of other ways to fool oneself while using a GPS (such as expecting accurate signals while in a skyscraper canyon, or in a jungle during a rainstorm). There are so many of these anomolies that I would bet that anyone claiming SA is active has at least one, and probably several, going on at a time...and also has no idea that they are doing it to themselves. Austin

I tried to think of any other topic where this logic makes sense. I only found one. This is true: "Complaining about complaining is complaining." Otherwise, your statement makes as much sense as: "Complaining about Monday is Monday." Austin

Removed by author.

Sometimes, yes. I have posted "Needs Maintenance" when the cache had poison ivy growing all over it but didn't have the Poison Plant attribute. Austin

As a software developer with over 35 years of experience, I think I understand what is happening here. Developers, especially lead developers, are incapable of imagining that their ideas can be terrible. So when they fall flat, it must be the stupid user's fault, and the stupid user needs to be forced to use my wonderful idea, and if they still don't like it, well, that's too bad, because they are going to have to like it. It's my idea, after all, and so how could it be terrible? I have seen one case where I knew the project was going in that direction, and it nearly brought down the company. A word of warning, however, when you see this happening. If you speak up, you will be blamed for the failure.

Geocaching is a means to a photograph.

Not taking sides on the issue, but the flaw in that logic shows up when you look at any area where we expect people to be an example. The cases we remember are the ones where they were a bad example.