Jump to content


+Charter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gpsfun

  1. I leave my pathtag signature item in caches I find and make a note in the cache page log that it is for the next person who wants to take it. Sometimes the cache owner will make a visit to take it; sometimes one of the next finders will take it and say that they did in their log, and in other cases I hear nothing. Which is just fine with me as I leave them without conditions attached.

  2. Sorry, I don't think I agree at all, if I understand you correctly. Finding a plaque and obtaining numbers to a next stage makes it an offset, a form of a multi, not a puzzle or mystery cache.


    From the Hide/Seek a Cache guidelines page, under the heading Multi-Caches:

    "Offset caches are a variation on multi-caches. They are listed as a multi-cache when selecting a cache type. They are not found by simply going to some coordinates and finding a cache there. With the offset cache the published coordinates could be of an existing historical monument, plaque, or even a benchmark that you would like to have your cache hunter visit. At this spot, the hunter looks for numbers or information already appearing on the marker or on some part of the marker or site (geocachers NEVER deface public or private property). The geocacher is then able to manipulate these numbers or information using instructions posted on the cache page to continue the hunt."


    I would not want this changed to a puzzle/mystery designation because I want people to read the cache page, not just head out after downloading every new cache listing because they want to go paperless. For me, that's part of the caching experience. Of course, I realize others may disagree and respect their opinions as I hope they do mine.

    I was about to post the same paragraph from the guidelines when I saw Teach2Learn's post above. The cache cited as an example (GC11N9K) is a legitimate multistage cache. It could also have been submitted as a mystery/puzzle cache.

  3. I don't see it asked yet, so I will. What about a cache that requires you to send an email to an email address (not through gc.com), perhaps to get an autoreply back?

    I would look at these on a case-by-case basis.


    One of the inherent problems with using e-mail communications between the geocacher and the cache owner as part of finding a cache is the permanence or durability, if you will, of the e-mail address and/or the auto-reply function. Even with good intentions, players sometimes do drop out of the game, get sick, take vacations, lose access to their ISP, have their e-mail accounts disrupted, etc.


    An auto-reply mitigates some of these potential issues, but I would ask the cache owner to help me clearly understand how the ongoing functionality of the auto-responder is being ensured.

  4. Something about not wanting discovery logs? If you don't have a log of where it was found - how do you know what stargates it has been to?

    In an earlier time, the site features were such that a geocacher could "grab" a travel bug from whatever cache it was in and then "drop" it into another cache. During this time, some travel bugs were taken to events, and several attendees might grab and drop the same travel bug. In the process, some persons might grab the travel bug but might not drop it back, leading to some confusion as to where the travel bug might really be.


    And then along came geocoins, which can be grabbed and dropped in the same manner as travel bugs. Since geocoins often have their own unique icon, the practice of grabbing and dropping these items ballooned.


    In an effort to simplify matters, the site created the ability to "discover" a travel bug or geocoin, which added the item to a persons found list without putting it into their inventory. Discovering an item does not cause its location to change.


    The second Im confused by is why don't you want this person to discover your travel bug?


    My assumption is that the owner of the geocoin did not want it taken to events where it might be discovered by multiple persons; instead, the owner wanted it moved from one physical cache to another. My assumption may not be accurate, however.

  5. There is a possibility that the geocacher did not correctly interpret your request that the coin not be taken to events and how multiple "discover" logs might result. I would send the geocacher a polite note clarifying your meaning and that you welcome having the coin found and placed in another physical cache so it can be found again.


    If the geocacher wants to play the game with the coin the way you want it played, such a note may be helpful. If not, then all you are out is the time it took to write the note - and the coin, of course, but it is already at risk.

  6. You got pretty close to a great idea in your 2:16 p.m. post.


    There are a number of highly experienced and well respected geocachers in Rhode Island. Please consider drafting your ideas in a preliminary cache page (not activated) and invite one or more of them to beta test it for you.


    If you don't give them the impression that your mind is already made up, they will most certainly offer you objective and helpful feedback.



    geocaching.com volunteer reviewer

    for RI & other places

  7. An area search will show an icon if a green Jeep is logged into the cache; however, in some areas, Jeeps are being dropped into caches without being logged into them. In these cases, finding a Jeep is an unanticipated surprise that helps get Jeeps into the hands of those who might otherwise not find one.

  8. Posted information relative to Delaware in error, but you will need to check the regulations for Maryland or Virginia depending on the location you have in mind.


    The Delaware regulations require a visit to the crab pot and removal of the crabs at least once per 72 hour period, and I would expect similar provisions in other states. A cache visit every three days is pretty high maintenance...

  9. I have that, appeal has been sent. How far does this chain go and what would be the next step?


    The question from my reviewer IS NOT in the guidelines for hiding a cache!


    Since you have sent your message to the appropriate address, it would be well to await an answer. Please keep in mind that today is a business holiday, and that Groundspeak may triage incoming e-mail messages and respond to them in priority order.


    In the mean time, you may want to consider a continuing dialog with the local reviewer, as you may reach a resolution sooner that way. There is no list of allowed and disallowed questions that a reviewer may ask about a cache page submission, but it is up to the reviewer to determine to their satisfaction that all aspects of the cache are within the boundaries of the guidelines and do not create legal, safety, or other issues.

  10. I decided to have a go at the issue; regrettably, I have encountered the same results that Keystone reported.


    There does seem to be a potential pattern in that queries that will produce a longer list of results (e.g., all of the caches you own) seem to time out more frequently than queries that search for a single cache. It might help Keystone if the OP could include the GC???? waypoint number in this thread, but then again it may not. It is probably worth a try.


    It is always a good idea to include the GC???? in any correspondence with a reviewer. We may like to think that our doctors remember our blood pressure reading from one visit to the next, but it ain't so - they have to look it up. It's the same when we are asked a question about a cache.


    Hope this helps.

  11. Randy,


    I would like to agree with your appeal for more interesting and informative logs than the stream of abbreviations or acronyms you received in your inbox. Interestingly, a similar thread appeared this morning in the South and Southeast forums here. So you are addressing a topic of interest to others as well as yourself.


    That said, I also want to suggest that log writers utilize good judgment in describing their adventures, particularly by refraining from exaggerated writings that could cast the sport or hobby of geocaching in a negative light by those who may desire to do so. There are many public areas that have no formal rules or restrictions on geocaching activity that all of us currently enjoy. However, the stewards of these areas could decide on their own or be asked to regulate geocaching activity. Those who know little of the activity may decide to do their research through reading geocaching logs and fail to recognize the intended humor or exaggeration in some log entries.


    Worse yet are the admissions of guilt, e.g., on a cache page clearly stating that an area is closed from dusk to dawn, a geocacher writes that they went in over the fence and got the first to find prize at 3:30 a.m. Does everyone do that? Of course not, but persons intent on strongly restricting geocaching can and will point to such a log and paint all of us with the same brush.


    Geocaching logs written in jest, with over the top exaggeration, and boasting of real or fictional inappropriate behavior are currently causing significant difficulties for those of us who are working to achieve minimally restrictive geocaching policies with land stewards who are being pressed to "do something" about those maverick geocacher people who are doing "all of that stuff" on public lands.


    In summary, I join with you in encouraging descriptive and well written logs. However, I also encourage log writers to consider if parts of their logs could be perceived negatively by others, and to make suitable edits before clicking the submit button.


    Edit: Fixed the spelling of the words "negative", restrictions" and "stuff".

  • Create New...