FireRef

If its far enough to meet the guidelines, Id say go for it. I found 3 caches in a single Wal-Mart Parking lot once - one front left, one front right, and one behind the building. MWGB 2-3 years ago, if I recall correctly lol.

I understand this stuff is bad to some people. However, it seems to me it is like another poison ivy - people who react to it need to stay away, people who don't don't have to worry about it. I seem to be immune to PI because people with me have gotten it and I haven't, multiple times. It also seems confined to specific areas of the country (and the Ontario area of Canada). Can we leave these repeated threads in those "regional" forums? Otherwise, we should probably have a poison ivy, oak, and sumac discussion everytime someone gets a rash too. Just my opinion.

Me too - my logs tell the story of my caches or day or whatever.

Cool! I extract logs from my "My Finds" PQ with GSAK and publish them, one entry per day - but I include all of them - tells the story of the day rather than just putting found logs. Especially if I take someone back to caches I've done, because I post "Notes" for ones Ive already found.

You can look at the find lists of others, who are prolific cachers in the area you're looking in, and see which caches are archived on their lists. You can then view the cache pages of those caches. A little roundabout, but it works. Something in our country (world) needs to seriously change when the threat of lawsuits make decisions for people instead of common sense and courtesy.

I agree - I have been exporting my logs for a while to a blogspot blog. This is so if anyone is actually interested in reading the stories I write (I'm not known for short logs lol), people can follow my adventures easily. There is just no way to do this now with the website. How about it, GC.com? Make a "Show logs by (cacher)" link somewhere where you get a nice little summary, in chronological order (or sortable, newest to oldest or oldest to newest - mine would be best read oldest to newest, but some people don't do them in any kind of order), similar to what you see when you click on the link on your own profile page. It would be a great addition to the site. As it is now, I use GSAK and the My Finds PQ to extract my logs, and then cut and paste them into the blog. If you're interested - http://fireref.blogspot.com Think about it...its a good idea.

Lol we noticed this after 3 of us climbed on the ruins - when we were leaving - wow. Where is this? I can't remember and would like to go back...

It appears to be working again - I'm getting the correct replies, and my friend got the codes he needed to link the accounts, as of about a half hour ago. Thanks to whoever fixed it! (Figures it was on the return trip from a caching run, but lol at least it worked for some of us!)

To answer the original thread question: The point is to have a container with a log in it which can be hidden for people to find using a GPS. If you don't like them, don't hunt them! Don't try to get rid of them for people that like them and have fun finding them!

Or not. The state parks where I live allow traditional caching (within three feet of a designated trail) but restrict some areas to "virtual caching," which they define as including Waymarking. If park managers wants to limit caching, they merely need point to Waymarking, earthcaches, terracaches, navicaches, gowalla points, and the like -- all of which allow you to use your gpsr (or iphone) to go on virtual hunts. Adding new virtuals into the equation may not change things dramatically. It might even open up a door or two. I have talked with NPS officials in my area, and I find it hard to believe that they will permit traditional caching under any circumstances. While one thought that earthcaches were "cool and educational," he also compared traditional caching to litter and commented about how the grandfathered caches (which had long since been removed by park officials) had hurt the environment. If anybody expects to see traditional caches in Yosemite, Zion, Bryce, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, the Olympics, Pt Reyes, Redwood NP, or Death Valley, I would love to know more. But again, designate certain areas for virtuals (national parks, monuments, world heritage sites, etc.), give them a focus to narrow their content, and the" problem" is solved. Honestly, I don't understand how a place can restrict virtual caches or waymarks or any such type item in any way. "You can't list our site on your website, even if you don't put anything there."? That is a little silly. My argument is simple. Yes, this website is a monopoly, and I have certainly done my share of arguing against that (and been punished for doing it overzealously), but it seems pretty simple - if there are as many people as there seem to be pushing for virtual caches to come back, take it into consideration. I doubt many people would leave the site if virtuals don't come back, but there certainly seem to be a number of people who would be more happy if they did. Reviewers complaining that it is too much work/too difficult to sort through all of the virtual listing requests really doesn't hold much water for me. If it falls into these categories, add more reviewers to handle the load. They are volunteer - it doesn't cost the website anything to have more of them. People who complain they are lame have a lot better option to filter them out than people who complain about micros or nanos or such. All you have to do is filter out virtuals if you don't like them. People who don't like the other ones don't have such an easy way to get around caches they don't like. I say, bring 'em back. The arguments seem pretty similar to those for getting rid of micros, except from the other end - one group has something they don't want and wants to get rid of it, the other group doesn't have something it wants, and wants them brought back. People hunt what they want to and ignore what they don't - give everyone the ability to do this, rather than one group not have the ability to hunt them simply because they had problems with it in the past.

Those threads were far more frequent than the monthly Bring Back Virtuals threads. That is because it put the reviewers in the position of being the arbiters of cache quality, which is totally subjective. So we can bring back virtuals with the "wow factor" as was implemented in 2003 and things won't change much if history holds true. Very few virtuals were published after the "wow factor" was introduced and I doubt things would be any different. The only real change will be the return of weekly forum threads with someone whining about his virtual being turned down. Or we can go back to the wild west days of virtuals where nearly anything went. And when the virtuals marking fence posts, flag poles, sewer grates and mail boxes start rolling in, we'll see the return of the lame virtual threads. You think there are a lot of complaints about "lame" micros? Wait until the "lame" virtual comes back. Or simply leave them where they are on Waymarking and let the community judge the worthiness of a category. Someone said that the culture of Waymarking leans toward listing them and that is probably correct..Why is that? Because a lot of people don't look for them. If you want to change the culture, visit them. Some people in my area have been lately and most of my listings are getting finds. Some of my waymarks are found more frequently than some of my geocaches. Fact of the matter is that if you like virtuals for their "educational value" or "coolness" (as most "bring back virters" claim), Waymarking is indeed a substitute. If you are into virts for the quick, easy smiley, Waymarking is not a suitable alternative. If you are into the latter, great, but don't pretend that you want virtuals back for reasons other than the quick smiley. Or we can have a reasonable and rational set of guidelines for the listing of virtual caches just as exists for caches in general. Things do not always have to come down to choices between extremes. Extremes that in all liklihood do not appeal to responsible cachers. People that argue so strongly against virtual that, truth be told are enjoyed by lots and lots of cachers, whether or not they post in these forums are a continuing puzzlement to me. Many of those same people will defend the near runaway proliferation of what I consider to essentially be garbage and embarrassing hides of urban micro/nano caches. It is like there is some personal bias against good virtual caches for reasons that are exceedingly unclear. The approval and ongoing viability of fence post, telephone serial number and gas station bathroom virtuals is simply a cop out without merit. Poor implementation in the past is hardly predictive of the future. Outside of these forums, I have yet to encounter a single geocacher who didn't totally enjoy the virtual cache experience, not one. And this thing about 'The Smiley' as if that were some deadly disease. So what if cache finders like to get 'credit' to their cache find counts? Must not be too bad since we have been getting those lovely 'smileys' since dirt was born. Disallowing virtual cache hides was a mistake when it was done and remains a mistake to this day. This is not new news to anyone. Have mercy that a judgment of the relative 'lameness' be applied to geocaches in general. +1

Sorry to keep bumping this, but I'm looking for some recognition from someone at GC.com, or a moderator that can check into it or something like this. I can't be the only person who uses this. Through 5 minutes ago, it is the same problem with having error messages returned, but it will log the field note. The problem is that if the phone isn't attached to an account, it needs to reply with the message with the 2 pieces of info that you type into the website to attach the two together. Can someone please indicate that they know this is broken and being worked on, etc?

GSAK doesn't delete all the logs that don't appear in a PQ and you wouldn't want it to. As you probably discovered, you just need to delete your erroneous log in the GSAK database. I had that problem as well - took me a while, but I tracked the miscount to a cache which I logged as found, but the owner deleted my log because I logged the wrong cache and he was able to figure out that it wasn't his cache that was logged. It comes up in my finds pocket query every time I get it, and even though I lock it in GSAK, it still changes it to found and messes up my count, and I have to fix it every time I do the my finds PQ.

What I don't understand is why reviewers allow people to do this. I have had "no hint needed" rejected when I went to publish a cache, because you're not supposed to put a non-hint hint in the field. One guy in Ohio has "NO SEARCHING PRIOR TO DAWN OR AFTER DUSK !!!! " as his hint for almost all of his caches. He also has this on the cache page multiple times. I understand the issue, but putting it as the hint also is a waste of space and my time to look at it.

Banned?

Thumbs up for that!

Still not working - can someone from GS check on it please?

Problem is that I'm trying to get a new phone registered and need it to reply with the codes.

It keeps coming back with not able to complete the action. Something wrong with it?

I saw it on CSI back in 2002 - checked a couple out over the next couple of years, but there weren't many around. Then, in 2006, I suddenly had a ton of time on my hands - so I got back into it with a passion, and have stayed involved ever since.

Wow - That brought back some memories lol

QEF - quick easy find - but its more used as a note to myself than a log on a cache page.

Very cool!

I like it - works great on my iphone when using safari.

My opinion exactly - its out there to be found.