Sioneva

You all...sorry, forgot we were talking about texas...Y'all might want to go to the feedback link. There is more to this that one of the reviewers posted. I didn't know... I still think it's a good idea overall, but I sure didn't mean to malign the reviewer!

It's very simple for me. I see a good place to hide a cache, I'll hide a cache. I'm not big on hiding micros, so it doesn't happen very often, but I do a lot of off-path meandering spying out possible areas. Doesn't bother me if it's in the same area I already hid a cache, and I've never heard any complaints.

In order of usage frequency: Off Topic (seasonally) Geocaching maps Pocket Queries Caches Along a Route Favorites Bookmarks Barely ever used/noticed: PMO Caches Statistics Friends Ignore List Notifications As the weather changes and the caches become accessible again, I suspect my use of OT will go down considerably, but there's a good group there that I'd hate to lose touch with.

That is an excellent idea. I could see that being very useful and make things easier on the reviewers as well! I am duly humbled to have been lauded by the Blue Bow. I'M NOT WORHTY!!!! Is this something that would be good to put on the feedback site? You should!

That is an excellent idea. I could see that being very useful and make things easier on the reviewers as well!

And I haven't seen anyone use the Sioneva attribute, but I'm still hopeful.

Cool! Looking forward to it.

As long as this site allowes us CO's to cross list our hides to other listing sites I will still support this site by being a PM. I enjoy trackables that this site supports, but they all have "trackable at geocaching.com" written on them. I just can't reason any confusion if one were found in a OC cache where they are not supported. Maybe the OC user would create an account on this site to log the trackable and GC would gain another user? Also most of us on OC are veteran cachers and not noobs, we know what trackables are and how to log them properly. I believe you asked this exact same question in post #930, and Ecylram answered it in posts #936 and #940.

My theory is that Garmin will pull the plug when Groundspeak provides GPX format to everyone with no charge. That seems to be the main reason for the site, so that people who buy Garmin (and other manufacturer) GPS units that import geocache information using GPX will be able to the this information without being forced to pay for it. So your theory is that Garmin is trying to blackmail Groundspeak into giving everyone premium membership for free?

Ammo cans WILL support a lot of weight when you stand on them. I know this from personal experience.

Evidently not, since it was answered in post #3. Or is this another rhetorical question?

Can we vote more than once?

Well, prom my poush. Yikes! Now I feel like Steve Martin's character in "The Jerk" upon seeing his name in a phone book: "I'm somebody now!" Actually, to be fair to those keeping track, my rating is at that level because I cross listed all my active GC hides to test drive their system. I wanted to see how well it worked, and what kind of data was included. I also wanted to test their guidelines, and their review process, as most of these hides are in places that require explicit permission, and a few are in places that specifically prohibit caches listed at sites other than GC. All 64 got published without so much as twitching an eyebrow. Personally, I see my 64 hides as ample proof that the OC peer review system is a failure. No fear, I didn't read too much into it. One of my caches is listed over there too- but not by me. That's all the proof I need that it's a total fail. You have hit on the only reason I would even think about cross-listing - so that someone doesn't steal my user name/work/cache locations. But I'm not too worried, opencaching hasn't exactly caught on in Nebraska. Though it has been brought up, over on OC, about deliberately placing OC caches closed to GC ones, to confuse people into signing the wrong logbook, and camping out at GC events to try to coerce people to join OC. I'd be thrilled to have any and all geocachers at my events, but don't come so you can push your private agendas. Please. Again, though, not too worried about this happening.

We don't know what is going on behind the scenes. It might be Groundspeak will be able to convince Garmin to pull the plug once they realize it's flatlining. Since it pretty much only exists now because of all the cross-listed caches. Somehow, it doesn't seem like taking a chunk of work from another site is a good way of starting out as an independent site... but that's just my opinion. I have no "we" to speak for.

The coffee was my idea! After all, what good is a donut without a cup of coffee? Ahem... The coffee is secondary to sheer donutness. Oh. Right. on topic... I did my civic duty and voted! Vote early, vote often!

Rhetorical questions, of course!

Sure, blue isn't your color anyhow. Blue is everyone's color!

Very curious, however belatedly. Can you PM me the story, with details? I swear I'm not a Geopirate!

Malcontents on both sides have been joining in, admittedly. It's like watching a trainwreck. I admit I've been tempted to join in myself, but I don't. If I'm not going to use the site, I don't feel I have the right to post in their forums... but yeah, can't help but read it. Like I said... trainwreck.

Ask Mtn_Man. Ask Briansnat. Both have done long distance reviewing for Minnesota. They know our regulations. I wouldn't be surprised if Groundspeak keeps a database of regulations. In fact, I'd be very surprised if they didn't!

Then again it could be a good idea to blow this one up. Nothing but frog haters and .com haters here any way. The best/worst/funny/stupid thread on .com is the banned by Groundspeak one. insert Signal bashing the .com frog clone with a baseball bat Emoticon here Hate's a really strong word, and used way too easily. I don't hate OC.com. Sometimes it amuses me, sometimes it worries me, 50% of the time I'm just "meh". I'm way too meh too often to hate it.

This is what is called distraction. Or missing the forest for the trees, debating this single cache endlessly, until the mods shut the thread down for pointlessness. Don't let that happen here.

Good find. However, I would say that points to a flaw in Geocaching.com's review process and not proof that peer review works. I would say that it probably should not be published on either site. Au contraire. It shows that the Groundpeak reviewer system is no better than the peer review system. At least in the peer review system one reviewer did see the track and noted it in their review. Had the cache not been already published on Geocaching.com, there may have been others that would have given negative votes after seeing this and the cache would not have been published. No system is perfect and we all know that bad caches get published. The key is now to post an NA on Geocaching.com and report the cache on opencaching.com and see where it gets archived first

Even without paying, my time and the use of the car are valuable to me as well. OC has some significant issues. If they had a thriving geocaching community, those issues could cause real problems for all cachers (as Knowshad & others have pointed out repeatedly). It's become apparent that cachers are not going to use the OC site until those issues get fixed. They're staying away in droves as things stand now. As I pointed out before, only 50 OC caches were logged within 700 miles of my house in the entire month of January and some of those are bogus logs from people testing the system. At least you and others keep checking their site which is great, you keep coming back. You watch them and keep checking for the updates and for it to move forward. Actually, I just keep checking the Banned by Groundspeak thread over there. It's amusing. Haven't bothered to set up an account, never will. No point.