AustinMN

You can create a pocket queries where these attributes are required: Boat; Scuba Gear (if that is an option in your case); May Require Wading; May Require Swimming. I believe you have to create a separate pocket query for each attribute, or you will only get caches that have them all.

I may not log a DNF if I don't think I gave the cache the level of search it may have warranted. But once the DNF is in place, I leave it there. In my early days of caching, I deleted the DNF after a find, but now I don't care. But I don't think it matters to anyone but you if you delete the DNF after logging a subsequent find.

+1.

My understanding of human nature would lead me to believe "snow and ice friendly" would have it's own set of weird interpretations, such as "the container is resistant to damage by snow and ice", "it's safe to walk here when there is snow and ice on the ground", "this cache may be easier to find in the winter" etc.

I can't imagine why anyone woulod assume the area was not open year round unless stated otherwise. Even here in Minnesota where lots of things close for the winter, that is the assumption - it is open unless stated otherwise. Why someone would need to be told that is beyond me. The lack of a "sasonal access" attribute automatically says "open in winter...and spring, and summer, and hunting season." Using seasonal access to indicate hunting season also does not make a lot of sense in light of the fact that there is a "hunting allowed" attribute. Suggesting that an area is closed due to hunting would almost completely shut off caching for the entire hunting season in some places. That is a decision that should be made by the individual(s) seeking the cache.

Has anybody noticed that there is a different icon for seasonal access? That is what should be used when a park is closed in winter. Hello? Anybody home?

My opinion is that if you have any doubt about what "Available in Winter" means, you don't really have winter.

I'm using Chrome, and the GC number is nearly twice the size of the cache title (Much like what Viajero Perdido posted). The only text larger is THE "GEOCACHING.COM" in the upper left corner. Others report the same in IE. I'd almost bet you are doing something wrong. But except in unusual circumstances, I don't print anything any more. It's all recycled electrons for me.

Pretty much. If new cache owners fail the test, then they can just retake it until they pass it. I wouldn't expect anyone to need more than a few attempts to get 10 of 10 answers correct. In the meantime, they've been introduced to a number of basic concepts that are important to cache ownership. So, let's run with this. A newbie places a cache out there and creates the listing for it ... but somewhere along the way, being a newbie, they encounter the quiz that's supposed to either educate them about cache placement or confirm that they've already been educated about cache placement. Suppose that during that process, they learn that their cache placement is already invalid, because of something they just learned. Which seems more likely: the newbie stops the cache listing process and goes back out to the cache site to "fix" the problem (whatever it was), or the newbie just clicks "OK" and lists the bad cache anyways? I honestly don't know which result would be more likely. The bolded part may not happen with the quiz, but it cannot happen without it.

While this may be generally true, there are situations where the two are clearly out of sync, even at the same zoom level. My experience suggests that GM is usually updated before GE, and GM may contain seasonal updates not conducted on GE. For example, in areas where there are many high resolution layers available, Maps may use a winter view in winter, a spring view in spring and summer, and a fall view in autumn. I have not seen that behavior with Google Earth.

Probably best to wait until he actually gets convicted, though. Vultures circling image comes to mind. That is my attitude totally, and I agree. I would never presume to jump the gun. I just have a nasty feeling that, knowing what has been reported on the news, conviction is likely. I have never read a news story in which I knew the facts where the news story did not conain at least one factual error. I once read a full page article in the New York Times about an employer of mine. Every paragraph had at least one factual error, and some paragraphs contained total fabrications. This was in the prestigious New York Times! Don't believe everything in the news, especially when all of the information comes from one source, such as the police spokesman. A good defence lawyer will not typically blab the defendant's side of the story all over the media, and until someone looks at the evidence from a different point of view, the truth can be obscured. I don't know who said it, but it is still true: "Don't believe anything you read, and only half of what you see." Austin

I would generally favour GPS over cell triangulation data also - with one major exception. In my experience, in a city environment with narrowly spaced high-rise buildings, cell triangulation wins. +1 I work in an urban area with lots of skyscrapers. I've found both my mobile phone and Google Earth to be more accurate than my GPSr, and sometimes by hundereds of feet! Back on topic, I don't see any harm in giving more scrutiny to cachers with fewer finds, but I also suspect that many reviewers already do exactly that, and I suspect many reviewers also give more scrutiny to cachers with fewer hides. Austin

Sounds to me like they just got tired of Angry Birds and went looking for a new game app to play. They found one called "Geocaching". Cool thing is, it didn't even require an email verification to play! Don't worry... tomorrow it will be some other game. Some of them had GPS units. That leads me to believe they were not all what you describe.

Geocaching is not unsafe in and of itself. Any risks would not be different than going somewhere for some other reason. For example, would your finacee be as concerned if you were going to the same graveyard to spend time visiting the grave of <insert deceased loved one here>? The risks of each are the same. It is rare for caches to be found even once a day, so someone posting a cache and waiting for someone to show up would be an excercise in extreme patience. Most bad people don't have that kind of patience. Invite him to come with you; it may be about his need to protect you (all guys have this need even if they won't admit to it).

I'm sorry...but that comment is too ridiculous to even justify a response. Since you're not willing to discuss your position, I have no choice but to guess, but I gather you don't think the people revere Mingo for the same reasons people revere artifacts in a museum? It strikes me as exactly the same thing. As you might say, "only because it's old." You "gather" correctly. People don't "revere" Mingo...they want that little square on their grid filled...and the +1 on their find count. It has zero to do with the cache itself. Making the comparison to historically significant artifacts and the museums they are housed in is ludicrous. Nope, not ludicrous. People who are deeply into *any* interest or activity are often attracted to the old, historical artifacts. There are old, broken clay bowls in some archeological museums. Instrinsically, *as bowls,* they are worthless junk. However, as artifacts of an old civilization, they are priceless. Mingo might not score high in favorite points *purely as a cache.* People drive hundreds of miles to see it (they've posted in the forums) because of its historic significance. So yes, some people *do* revere Mingo. No. They revere what it can give them. Don't mistake selfishness for reverence. If the cache was archived, there would be no plaque installed in its honor. There would be pilgrimages made to this holiest of sites. Nope...folks would just move on to the next oldest cache. It amazes me that you can perfectly describe reverence and then claim that it is not reverence.

As someone who gets his drinking water out of a well on my property: 1) Opening a well is a high-stakes move. Wells are supposed to be sanitized after opening (any well, not just drinking water wells) which requires chemicals, special processing, and handling. The fact that it's not a drinking water well does not change the fact that stuff going into a well has the potential to enter the aquifer and contaminate people's water supply. 2) Risking dropping something in a well is even worse. Not only could it contaminate the water, but it could damage a pump. I had my pump and drop pipe replaced a couple years ago. The pump was $750 and the labor was $1500. This is way beyond screwing a hole in the cover.

I'm a man, so the risks are different, but I would have offered to call 911 for him. I know that some are going to be take this the wrong way by some, but I was taught as a small child not to pick on girls. Does that not get taught any more?

I don't know about that. I can tell you the coolest two victuals I have found (GCK12J and GCKGHV) have been archived whereas the lamest ones are still thriving. I think it is all about the cool ghost icon. I sometimes wonder if Earthcaches had cooler icons if they would be more popular. It appears that GCK12J was archived in June of this year, not as a result of the ban on new caches (there are dozens of logs a month up to June 22, 2015, then they end abruptly). GCKGHV was archived by the CO, not as a result of the ban on new caches.

I use a number of bookmark lists for my own use (private). For example, I have a BML called "Weekend Plans" where I bookmark caches I plan on seeking this weekend. Turn the list into a PQ, and I can dump it directly to my GPS. I had a preiod of time where I was seeking very lonely caches - caches that had not been visited in over a year. I put a notification on that list so I could remove a cache if it got found. I'm not a fan of challenge caches so I only have a couple BML's for challenge caches.

Unfortunately, this would still be a fail. It takes seconds to use Google's Image Search to find the copy that has the exif still intact. []

One of Groundspeak's Cache of the week (Cache of the month?) entries several years ago was buried.

The "no nails/screws" in trees guideline has nothing to do with damage to trees. That's my undwerstanding as well. I believe it was to support good relations with park managers who might blow a gasket on seeing something nailed to a tree. We have a multi cache in a Minnesota state park right now where one of the stages is chained to a tree using a 3/8" lag screw. It was put there by a park ranger and approved by a reviewer. Damage to the tree? I don't think that's the real issue.

This is absolute nonsense. I know from detailed experience in 5 states (admittedly not including TN) that 85-95% of cemeteries in the eastern US are not on any map outside of the deed registry - not even on GIS. Where I am now in the midwest, it's closer to 45%, so most cemeteries are on maps, but there are still lots and lots of them not on any map or in any database. That's why I said it had to be magic. I already knew that data was not available to anyone, anywhere, at any price.

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing. Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context. Let's keep it in context and assume you are speaking only to archival of caches. Ground$peak has archived geocaches before when state law changed and it was brought to their attention. So yes, state laws do mean something. Do you really think they have some magic method for knowing the boundaries of every cemetery in Tennessee? When brough to their attention, they get archived.

Just try to get a cache approved in a Minnesota WMA. You will find out if state laws mean nothing. Let's use the whole quote of "But unless it's against Groundspeak's guideline it will not be archived. State Laws mean nothing, and that just ain't right." and not just part of it to make it appear out of context. The meaning changes not one wit.