OReviewer

Cache has been published, with my apologies. It was pointed out that the multi had a virtual start so the proximity issue was moot. Not ticked at all. You've given me timely respectful responses; that's all I can ask for on my side. I would rather publish than say no but I have to follow the guidelines. Well, since it was the posted coordinates I gave her the name of the cache, the GCcode as well as the distance to the coordinates. Even when it is a hidden waypoint, I give the GCcode and name. This allows the cacher to know which is the problem and do the cache. Anything more would give them an unfair advantage; maybe allowing them to ignore the puzzle/earlier stages.

Make your route using the normal routing function. Trace the route using the track tool. Delete the route (not the tracks), save as gpx. That works for me.

Apologies for the delay; I updated that page last week. I was hoping to get more detailed information from the State before I added it but I haven't had responses to my inquiries.

Bury the outlaws; they won't do it again.

After your reviewer reviews your cache and finds it to meet the guidelines, they will publish your listing. This will automatically generate an e-mail to the e-mail you signed up with. FWIW, you have two proximity issues with your newest listing so it can' not be published in its current location.

Thanx! There is definitely flexibility in my mind on it, but it would have to really show that there is some intent that they aren't just for another smile. (Generic) You do a breakfast event right before a cito and they both reference each other, it isn't going to fly. (If you don't reference them, it probably won't fly either) If you're, (again, generic), running a breakfast in one area; and it doesn't appear to be placed for the CITO; there is a chance. It really is one of those "you know it when you see it" guidelines. The issues is the more you put into writing on distances and times requirements, the more people will try to make events fill those rules. By not having them, there is some flexibility based on the scenario. My template for this has some other good information (and much of the wording stolen from others):

If it were in one of the regions I review, it sounds like 4 events; 1 per day.

Wait, your reviewer doesn't get paid?!?

Compilation cache; a challenge cache is something totally different.

The closest cache, is about 0.2 miles away on a different trail and none were put on the trail or in the area. I think that archival might have been legit, at least by the e-mail from the park.

Actually, the multi set up this way is actually the most optimal for those numbers hunters as they aren't going out of their way (or not very much) since the starting location is a place they are already going for the traditional cache. FWIW and IMHO, a good informational training geotrail should have a combination of many cache types; but that's just me. Also, I agree with what many said earlier, I got to events for the people, not the caches placed. For the last 10 years, we've held a pot-luck, family type event at the same park. We've run between 50-100+ attended logs on each one of them with the average attended log being about 3 people. The hosts have never put out a cache for this and we still have consistently good attendance for this. There is always some turn over in the park (or very close by). No one in the area feels a need to carpet bomb the area with caches every year or churn the ones that are there. In 10 years of holding it, I've never heard a single complaint about cache numbers. That said, as a reviewer, I've seen many comments about "putting out these 6 parking lot caches or someone won't come to my McEvent".

I'm not sure it has made it to us. I didn't see it but it is possible Cotton grabbed them already.

Make it a multi...Unfortunately, we all know this is about numbers. Making it a multi or part of a mystery would not bring in the numbers like a stand alone traditional would.I believe the point O was making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is a creative and collaborative way to making these proximity issues work for all affected. That is correct; making it a virtual stage of a multi allows you to take someone to a location that already has a cache at it, show them when you want, explain what you want and does not disrupt the current cache.

Make it a multi...

As one of the reviewers of this area, I was waiting for more information before I acted on the Needs Archive log. I see the cache owner archived the listings already, making the situation on my a little bit easier. From my standpoint: Land managers request trumps all. I would have archived the listings but would have required a direct e-mail with a parks/municipality return email address. Anyone can create a caching account and name it whatever, say they work for whomever. I would make this general suggestion to Ranger Lynn or any other official who plays the game AND wants to act the part of a park official. Create an official park account that is not a player account. Segregate the two accounts to remove the look of impropriety or anything like that. One official e-mail to the reviewers and we know forever that things from this account are park sanctioned. As for the general practice of "I have permission and want that spot from someone who doesn't", it sets a bad precedence and creates cacher to cacher disharmony. I don't know the logistics of this geotrail but in general, I feel you gain more by working with the community and/or individuals than bulldozing over them.

On November 19, Google withdraw support for the Google Maps API V2 interface. I wonder if it has to do that with.

There are no caches that have (or had) a proximity issue with All Tangled Up that made it to a listing. It could be a different site or a private cache.

I would say #2 says it is against the guidelines... Commercial geocaches are disallowed.

I even have a template* for it! *In almost 10 years of caching, I'd never found a flash-drive log and then I found two in one day!

They are already on your profile page, all the way at the bottom. You have 10 lab cache finds.

Since the biggest power trail is already misusing the SCUBA attribute for this reason. It would be nice if they had an attribute to use that made sense.

Neither of these rules really fix that it is an almost static list; no choices.

Its like anything else, it depends on how it is written. I believe that while a challenge cache should be challenging, it should be doable. The one or two that I've published, I believe, have been point valued forgotten caches. I'm making the number up but I would publish it: Forgotten Challenge: Must have 100 forgotten points. 3 points for a cache unfound for 3 months 6 points for a cache unfound for 6 months 9 points for a cache unfound for 9 months and so on. The longer the cache is unfound, the more points it is worth. Again, this lets people work on the challenge at their pace, does reward people for finding unfound caches where as doesn't hurt people after the unfound cache is found. I've seen older ALR caches (pre-challenge), where they were near impossible for people do them because once the 2 year unfound cache was found, you'd have to wait over a year and hope the next one wasn't found before then. The other issue I have with strict forgotten caches challenges, instead of letting a missing forgotten cache die when they should, some would replace them quietly to be able to say they found it; even if there was a string of DNFs. This never sat well with me. Challenges should encourage you to play the geocaching game, not do sketchy things just to qualify.

As a reviewer, I see it as a fixed list. When I get challenges like that, my answer is something of combining what the cacher wanted and what the reviewer wanted. I would suggest "Find 12 of the oldest 20 caches". This is challenging, is not a fixed list and can be listed rather quickly. The reason it is a fixed list (to me), is that if one of the caches goes missing; anyone actively working on the challenge has to wait for it to get fixed (or archived) to complete the challenge. The leeway list (12/20) gives caches the ability to keep working even if a couple have problems.

Here is a nice Help Center article on throwdowns. Maybe you could send it to them.