L0ne.R

Saw this in another forum topic: Seems to be the slippery slope created by group caching. Where is the line drawn? Why is one style of group caching allowed and another not? A group logs finds on all caches found by at least one person in the group who signs with the group name, it's legitimate. GCHQ sanctions this. Normally each member doesn't even have to see the cache, as long as someone signs the group-of-the-day name, it's legitimate. Want a T5 tree-climbing cache but you can't climb a tree, no problem. Watch someone else climb the tree and you get to count it as a cache you also climbed the tree to get. Actually you don't even have to watch, just as long as you get included in their group-of-the-day. Either way a bunch of people watched and logged finds for watching someone find a cache. Can someone explain the thinking here? The line-in-the-sand? Shouldn't the person who physically signed the log be the only person who gets to claim a find, the others write a note? No matter where those people are on the planet?

This. It makes for a nicer all-round pastime for a greater number of people--those who are in it for the numbers and don't care about the container or the location, and those who play for a more enjoyable experience--when caches are placed with some thought beyond "because there's an empty space between caches.

I 100% agree. I also 100% agree. These types of hiders can also change the culture of an area, and make it all about numbers. Especially if the "filling the gaps" guy is keen on caching with other cachers, and influencing them.

You might want to look at the State Forest's COVID information page. And the wiki regional page regarding COVID and cache publications. It says the information is accurate as of April 2nd, so you might need to ask a reviewer about new publications.

So true. It covers the early days of geocaching--a sense of investment in the hobby.

There was a comment from one finder about merging back on to the highway: Found: "Parking on the shoulder with one side in the ditch was ok, merging into the traffic was much harder."

GCHQ provides a chart. If everyone used it, ratings would not be particularly subjective. (Yes, I realize some will stubbornly refuse to make things less "subjective". They will nitpick about what "moderate" means or what "easy" means, insisting that an average female/male adult human shouldn't be the litmus test). I'd like to see the definition included in every cache description (not just the rating with no definition). TERRAIN: 2.5 - Terrain may have small elevation changes or moderate overgrowth. DIFFICULTY: 1 - Easy to find or solve within a few minutes. It would mean hiders could not argue that ratings are subjective, and at the descretion of the hider. And it would make the playing-field even for finders, especially those who rely on accurate D/T ratings, no matter what part of the world they are caching in.

Thanks for the code. A bunch of logs describe the cache as broken, wet, frozen (but only one NM in 2014 with no response to the active power trail owner). There were a few that mentioned the parking. Here are some comments: Found: Parking on the shoulder with one side in the ditch was ok, merging into the traffic was much harder. DNF: Several caches of this series have no parking except or on the shoulder of the T.C. Did not attempt. Found: Didn't like stopping on the busy highway, managed to make the find despite of. SL I'm surprised the reviewer allowed caches along a trans-canada highway. I'm pretty sure it's not allowed in Ontario. It doesn't seem to be illegal to walk along a highway in Manitoba, but the government website says this: Most provincial highways operate at posted speeds between approximately 90 and 110 km/h; at these high speeds, cyclists and pedestrians are very vulnerable in the case of a collision. In such cases, reaction times are reduced and collision impacts are very severe. Highways with higher traffic volumes present a greater risk to cyclists and pedestrians than highways with low traffic volumes.

I expect that most put on the 4-way flashers and run over for a quick +1.

Check his gallery. He means a WWII style gas mask.

Thanks for the tip. I think I've got some doggy bags I can use for that.

Sounds like something that would easy enough to set up on your own. Maybe there can be a forum topic for upcoming virtual meetings and what platform they will be on (Facebook messenger, Facetime, Google Hangouts, Zoom, Webex, etc.). No event find points though. You would be meeting up to enjoy a virtual meet-up. It would be interesting to see if people would meet-up online if they don't get to up their event find/attend count.

No publishing in Switzerland. https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/Switzerland The Swiss reviewers have therefore decided to no longer publish new Events and Caches until April 19. In addition, we will archive all events and CITOs taking place between March 16 and April 19.

It's not about servitude, it's about participating in a responsible activity.

Read page 1 of the comments. I seems that if you get a point for bad behaviour a reviewer will let you know. I once got a warning, years ago. The reviewer let me know. He didn't say anything about points. Maybe that's a new thing, to help forum moderators keep track of repetitive bad behaviour.

It might be a good idea for GCHQ to put a COVID-19 alert on the Hide A Cache page. With a link to their regional wiki https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/Home

Looks like it won't be published any time soon. United Kingdom, Regional Policies https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/United+Kingdom Updated 23/3/20 Suspension on Publishing All New Caches (COVID-19) The UK is now in lockdown due to the pandemic. The UK reviewing team has decided to stop publishing all new caches until such time as these restrictions have been lifted. Any caches in the queue during the lockdown will be disabled with a note to resubmit when the situation improves. We will keep a close eye on the situation and post updates here as they occur. Your understanding is greatly appreciated. Many thanks, UK Reviewers

When people social isolate by group caching together. Premium Member 8590 Found it 04/04/2020 We enjoyed your great cache on this wonderful day outside trying to evade COVID19. Signed your log as XXX to save room on your logs. Addendum: Just saw this in the forums:

I'm assuming you are in New York since your recent finds are in that state. Here's the regional wiki announcement: https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/New+York#NewYork-NewYorkPausesforCOVID-19 New York Pauses for COVID-19 This is a very difficult and unsettling time we live in. The uncertainty of COVID-19 is utmost on everyone's mind. To help control the spread of COVID-19 the CDC (Center for Disease Control ) has issued a Domestic Travel Advisory through April 15. To us it may be but to the rest of the world geocaching is not essential travel. The publication of new caches will certainly incite people to make the journey for FTF. This could easily create an unplanned gathering at the cache or trailhead. Based on the CDC Domestic Travel Advisory we can no longer publish geocaches in New York. When the travel advisory is lifted, the New York reviewers will re-evaluate with input from Geocaching HQ and the world wide reviewer community if it is advisable to publish new listings. Your new cache has been reviewed and will be published when we resume publishing. Because your cache will have been reviewed, it will be lock until it may be published. In the event you need to make changes to your unpublished cache page or choose to cancel publication please contact the reviewer via the email link in his profile.

OMG, this is how I've felt about geocaching for years. Especially when discussing things in the forums... Topics like, what defines a "find", what is "cheating", is it OK to log a T5 found if you didn't perform the T5 activity or perhaps not even see the T5 cache (and definitely didn't sign the log yourself). One of my favourite quotes is from knowschad: "Give geocachers an envelope and they will push it."

I remember a time when my reviewer asked that I pick at least 1 attribute when submitting my cache hide. It was easy enough to pick 3 relevant attributes. I just hadn't considered adding attributes at the time. I understood why the reviewer asked, it helps the community filter for caches they want to do.

I use attributes a lot when filtering to find caches that match my style of caching. I tend to use mostly the 'Attributes to Exclude' section. Example: In the winter I'll use the 'Attributes to include' snowflake attribute (but then I have to read the description, hint and a few logs to see if it's actually snow-friendly). So I appreciate when COs use attributes as intended, as a tool for finders to choose cache experiences they would prefer to pursue.

I find challenge caches bothersome for all the poor playing behavior they spawn. As long as challenge caches exist I doubt the practice of adding bogus attributes will stop.

I remember something like that on Second Life. I found a few geocaches there. It was virtually like geocaching, you had to search for the geocache. When found it could be added to an inventory. There's an old youtube video that will give you some idea: www youtube com/watch?v=sGhB1zobnHs

Still no big deal. Even on other sites a cache owner is supposed to monitor and maintain their listing and container. And anyone who hides a container knows there's a (substantial) possibility that a cache will go missing eventually. We as owners either replace the container or we archive the cache. It's part of cache ownership. It's just a container. It can be replaced.