Rye_and_Leigh

I vote to add support for TerraCaching.com gpx files. Thanks and keep up the good work!

Caching article in the newest edition of Big Sky Outdoor News and Adventure: http://www.outdoorsmontana.com/index.php?s..._from=&ucat=12&

Great episode! Thanks!

I'm in agreement with OConnellz on this one. However, before I continue I'd like to acknowledge two approvers that I've worked with who deserve huge kudos. Both mtn-man and Moun10bike have proven again and again to be friendly, intelligent, reasonable and responsive. They are wonderful examples of what an approver *should* be! Thanks to both of them! Sadly, our local Western Montana approver is not like them. He has repeatedly proven himself to be grossly inflexible, unreasonable, abrasive and often behaves in ways that give a huge impression of favoritism and even dishonesty. He is *THE* reason why I stopped placing caches to be listed here.

test2

test

I couldn't agree more!

I use terracaching.com in addition to geocaching.com. At terracaching.com I enjoy the ability to rate caches for quality, search for caches based on quality ratings, participate in the friendly competition of the point system based on relative difficulty and test out cache ideas that wouldn't get approved at geocaching.com. I love the sense of community that exists because of the sponsorship model and the fact that the cache approvers are people who choose to work with you (since they're your sponsors) instead of an arbitrary person assigned to oversee folks like here. I use geocaching.com because there's a lot of caches listed here. In my area, however, that's not a reason to not use terracaching.com, as numbers are rapidly increasing!

Hydee, I don't mean to be a pest about this, but it's been well over a day and I haven't heard anything from anyone on this. I just checked with the banned person and they also haven't heard anything from GC.com. Can you give me some idea when I should expect to see something back from you on this issue? Thanks!

I spoke with the person in question earlier today and he assured me that he'd received no email from gc.com regarding any cache adoptions. This statement includes the one cache that someone else was able to quickly adopt. I have no reason to doubt him. I've never known him to lie. Frankly, neither one of us ever had any idea that he should be receiving any email from gc.com about this. We were just trying to follow the KB article on how to properly adopt, as listed above.

Hydee, Thanks for looking into this. Please let me know if you need the tracking numbers and I'll send them your way. FYI, he has removed some of the caches I asked to adopt, but only because I wasn't getting any response. Those caches have been archived by Moun10bike. I've verified that he hasn't got any of the remaining active caches cross-listed on any other site.

I thought about doing that, but I wanted to follow the information I found in the knowledge base instead. I figured that the method listed there would be the preferred method. It doesn't mention anything about needing an email from the person the caches are being adopted away from. If the process is something other than what's in the knowledge base, perhaps the KB article should be changed to reflect the proper process. The link to the knowledge base article is: http://Groundspeak.trakhelp.com/bin/answer...&topic=0&type=f

Thanks for your quick response, RK! You've brought up a couple of other points that I'm quite concerned about. 1) It seems to me that it's just plain bad business for gc.com to not respond to me in some way in this situation. As it is, three messages to them have gone completely unanswered. They could at least suggest to me that I should go bug the other party involved or that they're waiting on him. 2) I know that another person in the area adopted one of his caches in a very short period of time (1 or 2 days) without any intervention or email from the banned user. Why would one customer get quick service and another get ignored in this situation?

Just over 4 weeks ago I sent an email to contact@geocaching.com asking to adopt some caches owned by a member who's been banned. This is the email address the FAQ listed as the proper one for such an issue. I listed the waypoint IDs and noted that I'd spoken with the banned member regarding my adopting these caches. That was 11/29. I promptly received an email containing a tracking number for this issue and waited for a response. A week later (on 12/6) I sent a follow-up to contact@, as I expected to have heard back by then. Again, I promptly received an email containing a tracking number. Once more, a week went by with no response. On 12/15 I sent a second follow-up email to contact@ and again rapidly received a tracking number email. This time, I waited 2 more weeks, since everyone's busy during the holidays. It is now over 4 weeks since my original email was received by gc.com and yet I've received no response. I don't mean to be pushy about it, but this seems like much more than a reasonable amount of time to wait for one. Can someone please help me resolve my request? Thanks for your time!

luckyangel1998, I've seen things take some time to count in the SGPS for a few reasons. If none of these are the case, skydiver would probably be glad to know of a possible problem. If you tell him of such a potential problem I think he'll look into it for you. High traffic caches don't get caught by the SGPS right away because the GPX files sent out by gc.com only have the 5 most recent logs. If there were more logs than that in a day only 5 wil be caught right away. If you wait a week or more to log your find your find might not make it into the SGPS right away. I've noticed that lately the GPX files aren't consistantly including all new logs. However, I've never seen a find not be included after 24 hours, so it may take an extra day due to this. If you have something else going on, I'd love to hear about it and I'm sure skydiver would, too. It's been my experience that he's always very receptive to looking into reports of possible problems. Oh, and by the way, congratulations on your 6-month silver star! That takes some effort to get. >luckyangel1998 wrote: Not sure if anyone can help us understand this >one--but, here it goes. With this point system we are just wondering >why it takes sooooo long for some of the points to post. We found a >cache on monday the 26th and the cache hasnt posted as of yet and >today is the 30th. Just kind of curious. So any input would be great. >Thanks!!

Do you really think that a list of geocaching usernames titled "cache sluts" that ranks those with the most finds is offensive? Wow. I was under the impression that the context of the word obviously implied that it meant it was a list of those who are promiscuous geocachers, not sexually promiscuous. I guess some people will find offense wherever they want to... I'm a "cache slut" and proud of it! -Rye

While the SGPS isn't perfect, it's as close to it as I've seen anywhere. It's also as close as I've heard anyone suggest. A few of my early-morning thoughts on it: -Over time, caches with few finders rise to become worth more points. Caches with more points become more attractive to those watching the SGPS. Easier caches with high points tend to get pounded with finders and quickly become worth far fewer points. Harder caches with high points tend to get very few finders. In the end, caches that keep high point values tend to be the most difficult (and around here that usually means theyre in the most remote and beatiful areas). -There are quite a number of caches that I probably never would have visited were it not for their high point values in the SGPS. Almost all of these high point caches have been close to the top of my "best caches" list. There's no direct correlation between points and quality of a cache, but there's a strong correlation. -I've spoken with a number of people who've only visited certain caches due to the points they're worth. Others have only been motivated to place a very difficult cache in hopes that it would eventually become worth a lot of points. I fall into both groups and would argue that this external force on the game (the SGPS) has vastly improved the quality and the breadth of difficulty of caches in this area. -I, for one, am quite appreciative that I live in an area that's covered by such a system as the SGPS. It has dramatically increased my involvement in and enjoyment of the sport of geocaching. Thanks to Skydiver for all his efforts in creating and maintaining it! (Did you know that he also sells inexpensive and cool geocaching-related gear at www.skydivergear.com?)

Having created a few puzzle caches of our own, we'd feel a little bit bad if we found that people had been swapping answers/clues/hints regarding our caches. If someone has a question or is completely stuck, it seems that they should ask the cache placer. If a prticular cache is too hard for someone or not to their liking, perhaps they should skip it. Not everyone has the ability or want to make it to difficult 10-mile-hike mountaintop caches; should they be given a free find log just because they don't want to expend the effort? We'd say "no". Isn't this whole issue just a re-wording of the age-old question "I didn't find the cache, but I know I was in the right place, so can I log a find?" Duh.

There's a thread in "NorthWest" that I think warrants a wider audience, as it is a topic that I think has wide interest. It regards giving out clues to puzzle caches without the cache owners permission. Perhaps some of you would like to check it out... Here's the thread.

We have one (new) unfound cache on our first page at a distance of 1.4 miles away. There is one (also new) unfound cache on our second page at 23.2 miles. Our third page has eight unfound cache ranging from 50.3 miles to 78 miles from us. Our fourth and final page has 15 unfound cache on it ranging from 79.8 miles to 98.3 miles away.

Many thanks for the kind words, Marty! It's nice to hear the perspective of a non-local on our local caches. I'm sure that we'll all do our best to keep working on new and interesting caches. Notify us next time you're coming through and we'll whip up an event cache (likely involving beer) in honor of your visit. ;-)

I voted no. I don't care about dynamic counts. They seem silly to me. Truly static counts would be great!

quote:Originally posted by Chief Paulina:I'll be on the fly, so I'd appeciate something not too far off of the road. I'd wager that you haven't been to the spot this one's at: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=36062 You almost certainly haven't been here: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=30915 You've probably been here, but it's a local favorite: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=25992 One of the best local urban caches: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=33583 Good and road-friendly: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=27206 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=27021 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=26293 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=21763

quote:Originally posted by Syn:We are leaving tomorrow morning to go to Butte and then on to spokane...I will try and hunt some in your neck of the woods..or hills I should say but I dont know If I will have time. I hope you have a chance to hunt a couple of our local caches and that you enjoy them! Maybe we'll catch you next time. :-)

I don't think it matters *WHO* will be maintaining a cache you place as long as you have someone who will maintain it before you place it or who you feel certain will adopt it when you ask. I think that if you just drop off a cache far away from home and assume that someone local will take care of it for you or that you can just ignore it, that you are littering. If someone isn't going to maintain it, don't place it.