Bon Echo

This is news to me. By this definition, probably >50% of all "micro" caches that I've found have been "nano" - for sure all bison tubes since they have a volume around 2ml. Funny, when I think of micro I first think of bison tubes (they're pretty common in my area, moreso that film canisters and that's a good thing if you ask me). To me a nano is exactly what GS sells as a nano (as already pointed out). Of those "nanos", that I've found, most were listed as micro but not infrequently also as "other" or "not chosen". which is like those earthcaches listed as "large" (of which I've found at least one). Anyway, I would like to see a nano size added.

You could also just go ahead and place a cache on your property and submit for review. If it gets published, then all is well and proximity is not a problem (maybe your solve for the puzzle is incorrect). Or, since the CO has not replied, try contacting a previous finder to confirm the location.

If there is a threshold for disabling the cache after X DNF's in my area, it must be very high. This cache has 216 consecutive DNF's over 2 years. FTF is still up for grabs BTW http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4MZ8P_do-you-like-gardening Why no reviewer intervention? Because there's nothing to suggest the cache is not there (in fact, the CO has checked and confirmed at least once or twice that the cache is in fact still in place, coordinates are good, etc). There has been a lot of talk about this lately, but personally I don't see the big deal. Even if the cache gets disabled, the CO simply needs to post a note, post an Owner Maintenance log, basically show they are still involved. I've never seen a cache get disabled and then archived for any reason other than CO abandonment (sometimes even with the CO still active in finding and placing caches) - of course not including issues related to placement restrictions etc. Even if the cache does get archived, it can always be unarchived assuming no new cache is published in the area. Thank-you volunteer reviewers for helping to keep the maps clear of missing and abandoned caches. I know I greatly dislike (most of the time) going somewhere to find a cache only to discover it is missing and abandoned.

Just did the same thing for all of Canada; PQ returned three active and enabled caches based on having the Partnership cache attribute. All three are located in BC and are owned by Parks Canada. Two were published in 2012 and do not show the Partnership cache attribute on the listing page http://coord.info/GC32CA3 http://coord.info/GC32CAG, but the third cache (published in 2011) does show the attribute: http://coord.info/GC32CCT

The following comments are somewhat off-topic, but I've wondered about this. What is the utility in making a PQ available for one week after it has been run. I know I would surely be willing to see this timeframe reduced, if the freed-up resources could be shifted to allow for larger PQ sizes. In my case, I run a PQ when I want to replace the outdated files on my GPSr (anywhere from weekly to monthly, depending on time of year, number of recently published caches in my area, etc). I almost always download the files within a day of running the query. I could care less if it (the zipped PQ file) sits there on the GS servers for the next 6 days. That is my experience, I'd be interested to hear what others think. BTW I am not suggesting the timeframe be reduced to 1 day. I'm only stating my opinion that 1 week may be longer that required for other (most?) users.

How about something in-between? Maybe not a 10,000 single PQ, but instead maybe 2500? I cache with an older Garmin GPS receiver (Colorado 400) which is limited to 2000 caches (which for most of my time is completely fine for me; that covers about a 30km radius from home - but is more problematic when traveling for reasons already stated in this thread). Anyway, with a 2500 cache limit (per PQ) those of us with older Garmin's (which I suspect is a fair number of GPSr-carrying geocachers) can set a single PQ with a 2000-cache limit, and others (for example those with newer Garmin's, or Magellan's, or maybe some app users who use GPX files, admittedly I know little about that) would only have to run 4 PQs instead of 10. Maximum number of caches per 24 hour period is not changed (still 10,0000). the only change is increased convenience (as for network loads, here again I have no knowledge or comment). No, it is not that big of a deal to set up two PQ's vs one. Or even 10 for that matter (BTW, it would take 47 1000-cache PQs to capture all 45k active geocaches in Ontario). But if it could be 1 (or 4), well that is even more convenient. I think that is the point of the OP (well, besides the request for 100,000 caches). Statement suggesting the use of a cell phone or a secondary program are okay as a work-around, but don't serve as an reason why small changes which may serve to increase "customer convenience and satisfaction" should be ignored.

I see this issue still persists, eight months on. I just created a route, then created a PQ. And then I noticed a mistake in my route. Now I need to start all over again since I can't just make a small adjustment to the route.

Is this the correct place to make comments about the proposed category description? (I hope it is) First off, can I say “way to go” to Rake In The Cache for persevering with this category and getting to this stage. This one seemed (to me anyway) to generate a lot of views and replies. I also want to add (as has already been expressed) how well this category captures so many different "denominations" within the protestant church family. Well done. I had a look at the description that has been prepared and here are my comments, for what it's worth The statement "...the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg proved extremely significant in that it provided the means for the rapid dissemination of new ideas." (in my opinion) does not add anything to the category description and could be removed to help keep the description as belief as possible while still adequately stating what the category is about. I think the same could also be said for the following paragraph as well: "It may be that the reason there are so many protestant denominations today, is that the reformation encouraged free thinking and an individual relationship with a monotheistic God and in so doing encouraged diverse interpretations, each with a distinct tradition and history while at the same time sharing some fundamental beliefs." Regarding the discussion surrounding "site" in the title...and maybe I missed this in the discussion, but to me that implies that a building is not required. But this is in the Buildings main category, so will that be a problem. I know I have visited locations which had historical plaques relating to important church history, such as the location of the first church meeting in Canada of such and such a denomination, but I think they met in tents and therefore there was no building. or maybe I’ve just completely made all that up in my head? Anyway, would such a "site" be admissible to this category? Finally, as far as photos are concerned, I believe that a photo of the church sign should be a requirements unless the building is no longer used as a meeting place for a "reform" church (such as in the case where a building which once was used for a reform church is now used for a Baptist church, or a daycare, or a pub, yes I've seen it all) in which case the current sign would be irrelevant. or where the church building no longer exists. Hopefully this all adds to the discussion, to me it feels like a bunch of lunch-hour rambling.

This past weekend we were fortunate to be present when two hot-air balloons were set up and launched from within Letchworth State Park in New York State. The launch occurred in the center of grassy lawn / picnic area in a very-popular part of the park, with many onlookers present. Kids (and adults) were able to stand beside the balloons while they were being set up. It was very cool. I took a lot of photos and assumed there would be a Waymarking category for hot-air balloon launch sites, but now I see the only category is for hot-air balloon festivals. It seems to me like this would be a worthwhile category. I can’t say for sure if it duplicates any other category, but I do know that it’s not easy to find launch site information online. This is where local knowledge and/or experience of visitors can be used to create a permanent and accessible record. And to me this is the value of Waymarking. We were told by a local to be at that spot by 5pm to see the balloons, so at least in this case the launch was pretty predictable. We lucked out to hear about the balloon launch, otherwise we could have easily missed it. Had it been listed on Waymarking, I would have known when and where since I usually check over the waymarks in a park before I go. What do you think? I know there are hot-air balloon ride companies in many places, but do they tend to launch from a few accessible locations? The company that launched the balloons in Letchworth SP apparently only launches there, but I wonder how many other companies launch from multiple sites (although each site can be waymarked, as long as they are used on a somewhat regular basis and not just one-time). A bigger issue in my mind is launching from private sites. Yes they could be waymarked, but what’s the point? Looking forward to hearing from others. Thanks.

Hi, I see this proposed category is in peer review and I am so happy to see this category created as I think it is one deserving of it's own category. The fact that splash pads / spray pads are allowed under some other categories is on my mind too bad, they really don't fit there. A splash pad and a playground are two very different things; and a fountain and a spray pad again are so very different. Here in Ontario spray pads are common, and easily out-number fountains. I'd guess that there is roughly one spray pad per 10,000 residents in most communities. And they are not always associated with public playgrounds although commonly they are found in municipal parks which also typically have play structures as well. They are also becoming common at "paid admission" locations, for example there is one at the Toronto Zoo and one at the African Lion safari. Personally I think those should also be allowed into the category and use a variable for paid or free admission. Finally, I would like to say something about a common concern being raised in the peer review - that is, about suitability for taking photographs. Besides that fact that the same concern might be raised for many other waymarks where children might be present (amusement parks, McDonalds, etc), the most comparable category would be the Public Playgrounds category and there are over 3000 waymarks in that category. My experience is that it many times of the year these locations (especially true for spray pads) see very little use. So while there will be times when it might be inappropriate to take photos, there will likely be even more time when it is not an issue. My opinion is that this is not sufficient grounds to deny a category. Here are a few images to further demonstrate how variable these spray pads might appear:

Hi there, thanks for the comments. Exactly, which is why that item would NOT be included Funny, I sort of thought it was not a great move to write that line but I was just being honest. I do suspect that there are some through the US, but probably fewer than in some of the European or Commonwealth countries. Anyway, I'm confident that waymarks could be added to this category from many countries around the world, and hope it will be supported by Waymarkers in the US even though they might find few in their own countries. They can always travel north or south of the border and snag some on friendly neighboring soil. I know I enjoy findign "US-specific" categories while on our many trips into the US. Actually, I had problems searching for Monarch Commemorations in the US because of the use of terms such as Royals and King only returned results for the Kansas City Royals or for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, respectively. Using keyword like King, Prince, Duke, Queen, Royals in conjunction with "United States"...well, you get a lot of hits but nothing about what you are looking for I have since discovered at least one Monarch Commemoration in the United States: the current King of Thailand was born in the US, and there is a commemorative plaque and display at the Cambridge MA hospital where he was born You can read the plaque at 0:56 in this video: See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2013/10/213757.htm

It would cost less than $10 extra to ship to Canada (maybe a bit more with some recent rate changes at Canada Post), and with payment through PayPal it would be virtually hassle free. I'm speaking from experience here, my current unit was purchased through this forum and shipped from Flordia to Canada without issue and for only about $7 extra in shipping (using USPS lowest rate method). Just saying. Canadians get real tired of being snubbed by American sellers for no good reason. On another note, this is a decent unit that I recommend, I used a 310 until I accidentally smashed the screen. I do like my Garmin that I replaced the Magellan with, but miss the ability to load 10,000 caches vs 2000 on the Garmin.

Hi Benchmark Blasterz, thanks for your feedback. As far as the Community Commemorations category goes, these items will not qualify: " This is for Communities, States, Nations, etc. If you are Waymarking any type of organization, company or person, please use the Commercial Commemorations category." That lead me to look at the Commercial Commemorations category and to my surprise I found listed there exactly some of the items I have suggested. From the category description for Commercial Commemorations: "** Update - September 15, 2011 ** In response to the recently denied waymarks celebrating a King's anniversary of his reign, this category will accept all anniversary markers and monuments that are not about a country, city, state, or other place. Also accepted are centennial or bicentennial commemorations of an individual's birth." That's really too bad (in my opinion) since it seems to make that category too broad. Also, there are very few of these sort of items found in that category - in scanning the 403 waymarks in that category I found about 10 or 11 that were related to the commemoration of a royal. I'd take a guess that many (most?) waymarkers don't even know that such items would be accepted in that category. So it is now established that the examples I have shown above should all be acceptable in the Commercial Commemorations. My argument is that Monarchs are distinct enough and commemoration to Monarchs are numerous enough to justify their own category, and that they should be listed there instead of being "accommodated" in the Commercial Commemorations category. I really value the feedback of the community here. Thank-you BruceS and Benchmark Blasterz for your comments and please reply again with your thoughts, and hopefully we will hear from others as well. I would especially love to hear from officers of the Commercial Commemorations category. Thanks

Here are a few more examples of suitable items and one which is not suitable: Bermuda: The Victoria Park Bandstand: Victoria Park, Hamilton. This site was chosen for its installation after the bandstand had been purchased by the City of Hamilton, to commemorate the Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria in 1887. Austria. Plaque commemorating the visit of Edward VII to Ischl and the Diamond Jubilee of Emperor Franz Joseph. (Assuming the item is publicly accessible) http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/444362/austria-plaque-commemorating-the-visit-of-edward-vii-to-ischl-and-the-diamond Italy: Plaque Commemorating Holy Roman emperor Charles V (1500 – 1558), who visited Cagliari in 1535. http://www.cagliariturismo.it/en/places/places-of-memories-315/pantheon-258/charles-v-commemorative-plaque-368 Here’s an example of some that would NOT be accepted: http://www.popehat.com/2009/10/08/only-in-san-francisco-32942/ A plaque to Norton I,first Emperor of America, which reads: "Pause traveler and be grateful to Norton I. Emperor of the United States, Protector of Mexico, 1859-1880. Whose prophetic wisdom conceived and decreed the bridging of San Francisco Bay." Reason: Joshua Abraham Norton (c. 1819[2] – January 8, 1880), the self-proclaimed Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco, California, who in 1859 proclaimed himself "Emperor of these United States" and subsequently "Protector of Mexico". (from Wikipedia).

Okay, I see. Seems to be a chicken-and-egg situation, where these items can be included in the Citizen Memorial unless this category could be approved, after which the items would no longer be accepted into the Citizen Memorial category

Hi Bruce, thanks for the quick reply. My response would be that yes, these could be included in the Citizen Memorials but so would most memorials to: Abraham Lincoln Benjamin Franklin Carl Linnaeus and His Apostles Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. George Washington John F. Kennedy La Famille Bonaparte Ponce de León Vasco da Gama William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody William Shakespeare Elvis The Beatles Jimmy Buffett All these people have their own category, and for good reason: they are noteworthy above and beyond the average citizen. I feel that royals should also have their own category in the same way. Also not all items used in my example could be included in the Citizen Memorial Category: Not allowed waymarks Please do not submit any of the following that would fall into other existing categories. These include but not limited to: •Military personnel who died in action. •Police officers who died in the line of duty. •Dedicated benches. •Firefighter memorials. •Occupational memorials. •Disaster memorials. •Dedicated trees. •Buildings or bridges named after people. •Towns or cities named after people. •Sculptures or busts of the person(s). These can fit under Statues of Historic Figures. •Also monuments and memorials to people listed at this link, People (History). •Roadside memorials to traffic accident victims are not be included here. •Any type of headstone, however a general memorial to people in a cemetery is acceptable as long as it is clearly not a headstone nor one of the non allowed categories above.

Hi there: I’m currently writing up a category which will waymark items that serve to commemorate kings / queens / emperors / princes / princess / etc. The items must be permanent, publicly accessible, and they must clearly identify who it is that is being commemorated and what their royal title was at that time. I believe it is global – the items could be found in any country, not just countries which have kings and queens etc. Many European and probably Asian countries will have items on display which commemorate royals, I know here in Canada there are many such items and I expect the same in other commonwealth countries. I don’t know about the USA though. “As of July 2013, there are 26 active sovereign monarchies in the world – kings, queens, sultans, emperors, emirs and others – who rule or reign over 43 countries in all.” (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_family). I also believe it is not redundant – there is the Monarchs of the World category http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=6af7a805-601d-4415-82e1-140db09d70a1 but it only accepts statues and the category that I am proposing will accept any item (but will decline statues of monarchs since they fit perfectly in that category). Here is a bit of what I have so far, please don’t worry too much about the specifics at this point (but it will be appreciated soon enough), all I’d like to know for now is whether there is any support for this category. This category accepts all publicly-accessible items which are set up in recognition of royals. The item must be accessible and must clearly state (usually be means of an inscription, plaque, etc.) the name and official title (at the time the item was placed) of the person being recognized. To be considered for this category, the person named on the inscription/plaque/etc. must be a member of a royal family, meaning that they will have an official title earned through birth or marriage. “Royals by election” will also be accepted to this category only if they serve in that role until death or until abdication. Constitutional monarchs will NOT be accepted since they (typically) serve a pre-defined (and comparably short) tenure. Dictators and the like will also generally be declined unless there are sufficient grounds to consider the person to be a royal, based on the history of the location they rule over. The decision to accept or reject a waymark based on the monarch/ruler in question lies with the category managers. Feel free to contact the category managers ahead of any submission to confirm whether or not your waymark will fit the category. Some common titles which are typically reserved for monarchs: King /Queen / Tsar / Tsaritsa / Emperor / Empress / Prince / Princess / Duke / Duchess / Marquess / Marchioness / Earl or Count / Countess / Viscount/ Viscountess / Baron / Baroness or Baronet / Baronetess or Knight. This list is by no means complete and admittedly fails to capture most forms of royals outside those of the British monarchies. Note that some titles may be used in contexts not fitting for this category, and use of the above titles does not automatically qualify the item for inclusion in the category. Additionally, even if a thing/place has “Queen such-and-such” or “King So-and-so” in the name does not mean that it will qualify for this category, there must be a plaque or inscription linking the name of the place/thing with the person. Here are a few examples of items which would fit this category (all from exisiting waymarks in other categories); please keep in mind that it is not about the plaque but the item - I am only showing the plaque or incription as it convenys the point for this discussion. all submission will require at least two photos - one of the item (default image) and one of the inscription or plaque. South Brent Jubilee Sundial http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM2981_South_Brent_Jubilee_Sundial - Sundials The inscriptions of the sundial podium commemorate the Diamond jubilee of Queen Victoria and the Silver and Golden Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. Oak Tree at Maheno. New Zealand - Dedicated Trees http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7PNG_King_George_VI_and_Queen_Elizabeth_Oak_Tree_at_Maheno_New_Zealand A tree planted to commemorate the Coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. Court Pergola - A Gift to the German Emperor - Relocated Structures http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM2KVP_Court_Pergola_A_Gift_to_the_German_Emperor An old building which was mover, rebuilt, and presented as a gift to William I, Emperor of Germany Bell Tower - Filgrave, Buckinghamshire, UK - Bell Towers http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6XJV_Bell_Tower_Filgrave_Buckinghamshire_UK A bell tower which was built to commemorate the Coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth.

I've thought some more about this category and decided to not pursue it any further. My reason for this is: I'm not really interested in creating another Waymark category for which they may possibly be less than a few dozen or maybe at best a few hundred suitable locations to waymark worldwide. In my opinion we already have too many categories as it is. Of course anyone else is welcome to pursue it if they wish. Thank-you.

Can this conversation please be moved into the Recruiting and Category Proposals forum, or should I just start a new thread there? I'd like to keep what has already been posted here. Thanks.

Maybe there should be a category for floating structures (not just bridges) - I suspect that floating bridges would be a bit too narrow of a category (and besides do we really need another category dedicated to bridges). Could include any floating bridges, floating buildings, any floating structure but with a reasonable lower threshold (such that every small floating dock would not be accepted). Same for single family residences and other small floating structures There are a few very large floating bridges in Washington State that I first came across on Wikipedia but as best as I can tell they are not listed on Waymarking: Maybe there should be a category for floating structures (not just bridges). Can include any floating bridges, floating buildings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_V._Murrow_Memorial_Bridge The Lacey V. Murrow Memorial Bridge is a floating bridge that carries the eastbound lanes of Interstate 90 across Lake Washington from Seattle to Mercer Island, Washington. Westbound traffic is carried by the Homer M. Hadley Memorial Bridge running parallel to it. The Lacey V. Murrow Memorial Bridge is the second longest floating bridge on Earth at 6,620 ft (2,020 m) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_Albert_D._Rosellini_Bridge%E2%80%94Evergreen_Point The Governor Albert D. Rosellini Bridge—Evergreen Point (formerly the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, and commonly called the SR 520 Bridge or 520 Bridge) is the longest floating bridge on Earth at 2,310 meters (7,580 ft) Some of these floating bridges have sections which open up for boat traffic and might qualify under the Moving Bridges category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hood_Canal_Bridge Another noteworthy floating structure: Floating Dragon: China’s first floating, low carbon, eco-friendly healthy living center http://www.waterstudio.nl/projects/119# I also came across many floating structures in the design stage, but few that have actually been built. Lots of talk that these will become more common in the near future. Here in Hamilton Ontario we have a floating walkway that connects two sections of a walking trail: The 3.4 kilometre long multi-use trail makes its way along the shore from Bayfront Park to Princess Point, and through the Desjardins Canal with a floating walkway paralleling the boat channel. The walkway is could be considered to be a floating bridge and is about 200 meters long http://www.ontariotrails.on.ca/trails-a-z/waterfront-trail---hamilton-harbour Could this be a viable category? Anyone want to form a group an pursue this idea?

Sorry, but I guess my Waymarking resolution for 2014 is to submit less waymarks . It's just that I spent far too much time last year Waymarking "unique and interesting places" that no one else seems to care about. I posted about 90 waymarks last year and only 6 have been visited. And none of my "prized waymarks" (those at the most unique and most interesting of unique and interesting locations, the ones in which is spent the most time in preparing) have even been visited. It's like painting great portraits and hanging them in the cellar. Would anyone continue to hide geocaches if only ~5% are found? The sad part is that many of these waymarks are located so close to active geocaches, and are so visible, so unique, but they just get passed by. So I'll stick to visiting and only posting the odd waymark which is just too unique to pass up.

Just a few thoughts based on my own (limited) experience: I'm an officer in only one group, it's fairly new and all 4 officers are equally active. We often use the group vote to help decided on borderline cases. The member who calls the vote will typically state why they concerned with the submission (something like "does this fit the category" or "is there enough information about [whatever]"). Although I could see how this would be a problem with groups where only one or two officers are active in reviewing submissions In those cases could you not be justified in using the Reevaluate Waymark option?

I have a geocache challenge where the geocacher has to find "lonely waymarks" = waymarks which have not been visited in more than 1 year (and we all know there are many many lonely waymarks out there). The longer it's been since a waymark has been visited, the more "points" their visit is worth, and double points if the waymark has never been visited. Oh, and each qualifying visit must be a different category. http://coord.info/GC49FA0 I had hoped this would encourage even a few non-Waymarking geocachers to check out geocaching. I even placed it close to a major highway (easier for those travelling through the area to pick up along the way), and I also waymarked the object to which the cache was attached. http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMGTN8_Payphone_near_Burlington_Lift_Bridge Most of the cachers who have completed the challenge are "veteran" waymarkers, but a few others went Waymarking only in order to meet this challenge. Here's some of the comments from some of the logs: - did our first waymarks together to qualify for the cache.Enjoyed visiting those spots - i have never found a Waymark before so this cache opened a whole new area of caching for me - I've only done a few waymarks. I like waymarks but it's more satisfying to see your stats! - When this was published, I chose to ignore it. I've had my mind made up about waymarks being lame, but this morning, I looked at it again. As a geocache owner, it's always satisfying to read logs posted to your cache pages indicating that they were enjoyed. But it's even more gratifying when you get comments such as the ones above. BTW the challenge cache is very popular in my area, there are I think over 100 within a short drive. Some are quite easy to qualify for, others I think only serve to congratulate those who have been caching for a decade (for example, there is a challenge to find 8000 geocaches! - good luck with that, unless of course you already have found several thousand - I will need at least 10 years of caching until I qualify). My opinion is that a challenge cache should ideally be attainable by all, with a reasonable amount of effort. Not so easy that most cachers already qualify (where's the "challenge" in that?), not so hard that only the "elite" cachers qualify. But of course there are different challenge levels to appeal to various segments of this sport/hobby. My only advice is, if you are going to make a challenge which involves finding waymarks, and want it to be found / completed by more than just a few cachers, make it obtainable within a reasonable amount of effort. Most local cachers have elected to ignore my challenge, to them it's just not worth the effort. If it was instead to find any 10 waymarks, maybe they would be more interested (although oddly enough they might drive many hundreds of kms to find a few particular cache to meet some other challenge requirements, and in the end they still get the same single smiley in return )

Thank-you for the reply, that helps me understand quite a bit.

What happened to this category? Did it not pass the peer review? How is it that only one member bothered to comment on this post yet more than a few commented in the peer review about the lack of discussion in the forums. Seems to me that the opportunity was there and no one took it.