niraD

How about signing as "Mrs. TPT"?

That's fine for terrain, but not for difficulty. A cache that is accessible from a wheelchair (1-star terrain) can still be hard to find (much more than 1-star difficulty).

An optional checker (whether opt-in or opt-out) is fine. My objection is only to a mandatory checker. There are ways to narrow down and automate the search. Also, some puzzles don't have an exact solution, and accepting any answers within an appropriate radius makes brute-forcing the solution even easier. As frinklabs suggested, it could be integrated into the rest of the geocaching.com database. It could use the final coordinates already stored in the system. It could be integrated with a new "corrected coordinates" system that some of us would like to have. It could present a standard UI (hopefully one with a single text input field, rather than one with 6 text input fields and 2 select fields). It could be used by cache owners who can't (or who don't want to) use HTML in their cache descriptions.

And if the issue of people brute-forcing puzzle solutions isn't enough reason to oppose mandatory coordinates checkers: I've found puzzle caches where you ended up with multiple sets of coordinates, and part of the puzzle was figuring out which of those coordinates matched the cache's description, attributes, terrain rating, etc. A mandatory coordinates checker would subvert such puzzles.

That's still enough to brute-force puzzles. That's why I suggested starting with an hour delay before a second attempt, and then doubling the delay for each unsuccessful attempt. Of course, any limitation is going to be subverted, depending on how you enforce the limitation. It's easy enough for many people to clear cookies, get new IP addresses, or even create disposable geocaching.com accounts. I've brute-forced coordinates checkers. It isn't that hard. I think an opt-in coordinates checker could be a useful feature, especially if it encouraged GS to support corrected coordinates in PQs. But I think an opt-out coordinates checker (or worse, a mandatory coordinates checker) is a bad idea.

Let me clarify... Would the default for a mystery/puzzle cache be to use the coordinates checker, with cache owners being allowed to opt out? Or would the default for a mystery/puzzle cache be NOT to use the coordinates checker, with cache owners being allowed to opt in?

There are. Or at least, there were. For example, Four Windows was archived a few months ago. I believe others were archived as well. As the archival note for Four Windows said, " At no time did the guidelines allow for virtual caches of this nature."

That's still plenty of attempts to brute-force puzzle solutions. How about waiting an hour before you can make your second attempt, then 2 hours before you can make your next attempt, then 4 hours before you can make your next attempt, then 8 hours before you can make your next attempt, and so on? Do you expect puzzle cache owners to opt in, or to opt out?

Note that since there isn't an official nano-cache size, there is a bit of variation in what the term means. Some use the term to refer only to blinkers (as shown in frinklabs' photo). Others use the term to refer to any cache that is so small that it can contain only a custom fit log sheet. See also http://cacheopedia.com/wiki/Nano_cache

There was an episode of "Bay Area Backroads" about geocaching: http://www.openroad.tv/index.php?categoryi...&p25_id=348

Just remember: Trade up, trade even, or don't trade.

FWIW, I've been happy with GeoBeagle on Android. It can't scrape data from the geocaching.com web site, since that would violate the TOS. But it can link to the search results page at geocaching.com (and other sites) with your location automatically specified. And it can register for Google Maps events, so when you click on the Google Maps link at the bottom of a cache description, the Google Maps event (which includes the cache GCxxxxx number and coordinates) can be passed to GeoBeagle. And of course, it can handle PQ data, which I have emailed to my Gmail account. I download the PQ data to my device using the Android browser.

I found a fairy-themed cache that was hidden near a tree that had been decorated as a miniature fairy house...

Sigh... I suppose that addresses the specific problem (access to the image itself), but it doesn't address the general problem (breaking the standard, and thus familiar, UI elements).

Only the cache owners can say why their caches are PMO, but one possibility is that the area has a cache maggot who steals/vandalizes non-PMO caches. Another possibility is that the COs want to encourage others to support Groundspeak by buying memberships, so they make their caches PMO.

Given the nature of a liar's cache, I would expect the threat to delete non-compliant logs to be part of the fiction, not an actual ALR. But maybe that's just me...

It doesn't? Even ignoring the notes that Super Fly posted after the cache was archived, he could have appealed the archival of the cache. That sounds like an opportunity for rebuttal to me.

I can't speak for the GPS built into the iPhone, but the GPS receiver built into my Android phone is just as accurate as my old handheld units. It doesn't have a high-sensitivity receiver, so it loses signal under heavy tree cover and such, but so do my old handheld units.

There was discussion about the inconsistency when the revised guidelines came out, so you aren't the first person to notice it. Anyway, challenge caches involve "a reasonable geocaching-related qualification", and seem to be an exception to the general policy against ALRs as requirements. (ALRs as optional requests are fine.) So if you want people to complete a task that meets the requirements for a challenge cache, then you can list it as a mystery/puzzle cache and completing the challenge can be mandatory. But if the task doesn't meet the requirements for a challenge cache, then it's considered an ALR, and it must be optional.

A "Needs Archived" log is also for caches that are not in compliance with the guidelines. A "Traditional" cache that is not at the posted coordinates is not in compliance with the guidelines.

Assume Nothing #7: WoW's 45th Birthday Micro-Multi

Technically, according to the guidelines that apply to all physical caches, "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed." But this was a relatively recent change, so perhaps the CO is unaware of it.

My favorite was the one I saved for my 500th find (and my 100th puzzle/mystery find), ANX: The Angle of Eternity. It's part of workerofwood's Assume Nothing series (ANX = Assume Nothing 10), which he describes as "common hides with a twist". ANX is a puzzle multi-cache, and each stage is creative in a different way. It starts in a parking lot (but not with your typical LPC), and ends at a nice wooded spot a few miles away. I found it with two friends, including the person who introduced me to geocaching. It works really well with a small group (say, 3-6 people).

Around here, some parks have geocaching policies that allow caches that meet certain guidelines. Caches that meet those guidelines automatically have permission, and the cache owner doesn't need any additional permission. Other areas have policies that prohibit caches, or that require a separate permit for each cache. Other parks departments don't mind if you hide a cache, but won't take responsibility for anything if park personnel find the cache and throw it out.

Under ideal conditions, consumer GPS receivers are accurate only to about 3m (10ft). This applies both to your GPSr and to the cache owner's GPSr, so being off by 20ft is completely normal even under ideal conditions. In less than ideal conditions, it is normal to be off by more than that. As others have said, once your GPSr says that you're within that range, put it away and use your "geosense" to figure out where the cache might be hidden.