OConnellz

Whoops! Network error... I didn't mean to list this twice.

I have a Garmin 76S for sale. Nice greyscale display, data cable, and external antenna. I am looking for quick sale, as I have procrastinated this long enough. $125/OBO + shipping? I can load topo maps on it for as much of your local area as it will hold. Here is a link to the description from Garmin https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?pID=183

There are lame regular size caches, and lame micros. I think lame micros are easier, because you can always have the container ready and drop it where ever you want (like say, your favorite shopping mall). What we REALLY need is an icon for LAME caches, no matter what size...

Ultimately, the real responsibility for cache placement will always lie on the placer. Like Keystone pointed out, it is impractical for approvers on one site to enforce the rules, or monitor placements on another. Terracaching does have its sponsored membership, and recently geocaching.com stopped displaying coordinates on the page if you are not logged in with a current account. For geocaching.com, the entire state of Montana has only one approver, who I don't believe to be active on other sites. My sponsor on terracaching.com is banned from geocaching.com. If I want to place a cache (which I do on both sites), it is entirely up to me to make sure that I am placing good caches, not oversaturating an area, and basically following most of the guidelines that should be common sense anyway. In rare cases, when you encounter a cache placement on any site that you feel violates those guidelines, or the law for that matter, you should deal first directly with the cache placer. Keep in mind that they may not care to have you policing their placements, and certainly may not be impressed that you are playing on more than one listing site. It can be frustrating when you encounter these placements, but sometimes you have to let other kids play their own games, even when you share the playground.

Poor guy. His daughter has known about caching for years and all of a sudden decided she wanted to participate in the fourms by bumping one of her dads controversial threads. Tell him hi over in the Sandbox. They won't ban anyone over there. I know, I've tried. El Diablo ??I think you got skydiver confused with someone else. I am willing to bet you accidentally quoted the wrong post...

skydiver had some really great caches on this site, and then came up with great tools (SGPS, and New Cache Alerts), then his skydivergear. (which I think is still running) Oddly enough, he was AngryKid BEFORE getting banned, not the other way around. Friends and family just thought he bore a strong resemblance to the claymation character.

It seems like the few terracaches in your area don't live up to your expectations. Frankly, from your descriptions, they don't impress me either. While this particular tangent of discussion is probably better suited for the forums over there, I would suggest a few options: 1. Rate them SBA (should be archived). I generally don't agree with this if you haven't found them and they don't violate any laws, but it is an option. Your rating counts 10x more if you have actually found the caches. 2. Post better ones. Lead by example, I say. Actions speak louder than words. I would guess that you could post some caches that might inspire others to seek them. 3. You can bring them to the attention of the community on the forums over there, and let the community go after them. Caches that are cross listed, or just relisted without being relocated, don't go over too well. There are occasionally threads there dedicated to that purpose. 3. Continue to exclusively cache here. Obviously, the terracaching community in your area could use a good boost, but unless you want to contribute to it, it seems counter productive to just sit there and continually complain about the same few caches. If it was up to me, I would encourage you to pursue #2. Looking at your stats here, I think I would enjoy the types of caches you place, and they would do extremely well on either site. Recent changes to the sponsorship process on tc.com have been geared towards localizing the community to discourage situations like yours, and give the sponsors more ownership in the caches they approve. True enough, each site has its own appeal, if you are looking for something. I like to hike in the mountains, and find caches there. I enjoy doing that on both sites. I don't really care about the competition over there, but I do like the statistics that are required to post a cache there (altitude gain, total RT distance are the biggies).

ditto! I thought that searching the forums was a premium membership benefit, but I can't find any documentation to support that belief.

This discussion doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, and there has been no response from TPTB. The suggestion that you could SBA a cache that seems obviously dangerous is probably the best resolution. What do you do when the cache in question was placed by the local reviewer, or their friends? Best bet is to probably ignore it, and hope that it doesn't train n00bs to unscrew electrical covers on public lightposts, or to explore the bases of lightposts by feeling only. I think that 'fake' electrical boxes, or caches attached to real ones aren't the problem. Usually, that is obvious enough without putting a finder in danger. Caches that are in live electrical equipment are dangerous, and it is our responsibility to address those seperately. A general, specific guideline would be nice, but it would always be up to the placer and the finder to observe common sense safety practices. Just like bridges, train tracks, cliffs, and unpredictable microclimates. Overregulation tends to quell creativity. I would suspect that any obviously dangerous caches should be reported to contact@geocaching.com, and let them take responsibility for caches listed on their site. I fully support caches placed on tops of mountains. Caches superglued into condoms or inside motorcycle gas tanks don't really interest me.

I have found a few that were in light poles. I don't think that the ones in the false base (usually able to lift right up) of the light pole, but there are a couple that were up in the pole near wiring, or required the finder to take a tool to the light pole (public street lamp) to find the cache. I think that these types of caches should be archived, both for the safety issues it presents, and the image it puts forth of geocachers. Consider the plethora of sprinkler head caches. How many people have found a few of these, enough that they wind up tugging on perfectly good sprinkler heads to test them. I found one of these in an environment where it was clearly out of place. That was great! Transfer the analogy to light pole/electrical box caches. Maybe the great and creative cache was well planned, and totally safe, but then impressionable cachers are ore likely to proceed to the next pole and probe areas they shouldn't. Nevermind the image of someone taking tools to public light poles in this post 911 world. If these types of caches are against guidelines, do we report them to contact@geocaching.com? I have tried to address lawbreaking caches with the cache placers in the past with negligable results.

I don't agree that ratings are bad for caching. I have seen a lot of redundant, lame caches continue to pop up. I have also seen some good, creative caches. Unfortunately, there are people driven by smilies who place and hunt caches on a 1:1 basis. When I am taking potential 'recruits' caching, and we find the lame ones, their response is more often "and this is fun for you?" Likewise, I have placed some urban micros that consistantly get a positive response, regardless of what site I list them on. I don't think that harder is always better, though. For me, the ideal rating system would allow each individual to rate a cache based on their experience, and for me to evaluate a cache that I am considering pursuing based both on its 'score', WHO rated it, and how they rated it. This transparency would be condusive to 'fluffy' ratings, and I don't really have a good solution to that problem. A bookmark list of favorite caches that the finder maintains seems cumbersome (I barely have time to log them!), at least for me. Maybe if the ratings were anonymous on the cache page, and the system maintained a list of the the top rated caches on each cachers profile, based on caches that they have rated highly... Relying on logs doesn't cut it for me. I know how I log a cache I wasn't impressed by, but I don't know how to read into everyone else's log. I think it is fairly rude to cut down someone's cache (unless it was REALLY bad) in the logs. I prefer to email the owners directly if I took issue with their hide, and express my concerns privately.

Personally, I have no problem with the login requirement. I am actively caching both here and on terracaching.com, which also requires a login to view the data. Seems like a logical method to somewhat muggle proof it. if the real issue lies with data 'scraping,' if that scraping is being done by regional/additional service (not listing) sites trying to provide an enhancement to cachers, then it would be nice to see something being done to address that need. At one point, Buxley and Skydiver both provided very useful tools to geocachers, as do many others. I am seeing more and more of those features popping up on geocaching.com (thumbs up for notifications!), but the fact remains that there are many people out there who can offer services that shouldn't necessarily fall under the Groundspeak umbrella. For those people, it would be nice to have some method of obtaining data that didn't undercut geocaching.com TOU. Oddly enough, I was recently told by Hydee that a crossover cache I wanted to do, where I expected searchers to login on both sites, was unapprovable due to the requirement to create an account on the other site. I have retooled the caches, and they will stand as two separate caches...if they get approved. It might be that the objection no longer stands, but I think I have two great caches I want to get out there, and would rather not burn more time fighting over it that could be spent caching! Keep on cachin'!

<sigh>... As I said above... Is there really any point in continuing that 'argument'? I didn't think so. Back to the topic of value here... I liked the revised/updated story that made it clear that the cache that WAS in question, and the cause of all this strife was in violation of the general practices of geocaching. I also like the fact that so much of the community, on both the sites I use to geocache, recognize the fault here, and I am especially that glad that no one seems to be able to identify this as an approved cache.

Which was EXACTLY what I was saying. It was just unfortunate that anyone's first response was, "it must have been over there! We certainly wouldn't have let that go!" When, in fact, it was never clear that this actually was an approved cache ANYWHERE. There are of examples, on both sites, of caches that could be considered in violation. As I said in my post, it wasn't my objective to point fingers and say, "no, not true," but rather to say "Whoa! Is that the appropriate first response?" As Jeremy said, the responsibility goes back to the hider, no matter where it is listed. Moreover, we, as a community that has always been pretty good at self policing, need to make sure that we are supporting each other, and caching in a responsible manner. That means placing caches responsibly, being mindful of the environment when seeking, and making sure that when someone DOES pull something off like this, or many of the other possible examples, it is communicated with the placer, and TPTB when necessary, to make sure that the situation gets corrected. In reality, I don't think that Ron's cache that I linked to was ever a threat (aside from bums), nor is Jennifer & Deans. I found it ironic that a stone was cast by someone who had a cache actually attached to the underside of a popular bridge. The capitol/memorial cache I mentioned was one I thought would be an issue, and I immediately contacted the placer to let them know. I felt like I did the responsible thing, and now they have learned something new. And thank you for supporting the argument that on terracaching.com, the community does consist of responsible cachers who will take action when a fault is revealed! It is precisely that type of action that I am saying we need to focus on rather than "not over here!" I have always enjoyed geocaching, no matter where I find the listing. The enjoyment of the activity supercedes site preference. So does the responsibility of the community, and the individuals within it!

I feel that this is very well put, well-stated. And that is all that any listing website CAN do. Ultimate responsibility for placement "sanity" and conformity with guidelines commonly accepted in the geocaching community lies with the cache placer. I agree! No matter what site you list it on, the hider has the ultimate responsibility. Now, if only there was a way to get them to actually read ALL the guidelines before they start placing caches! It is hard to be aware of all the guidelines, local regulations, etc. In Montana, we have the MT Geocaching Advocacy Council (started by Jennifer of Jennifer and Dean). It serves as an information sharing connection, so that members can be aware of the land management issues across the state. The primary focus was to try to help promote a positive geocaching policy with the main agency that oversees state lands. <cheers to Jennifer!>

Or is listing it on a site that doesn't believe in such 'rules'. I haven't been able to find a cache on geocaching.com that matches the location yet. Fine words from someone who approves caches, yet also places them on bridges! Oddly enough, no site seems to be able to identify this cache! Accusations and finger pointing in ignorance is the worst possible reaction. Makes me wonder if you were ever the head of FEMA? While you will find caches that have slipped through the 'cracks' on any listing site, I think you would find that terracaching.com doesn't have as many caches that violate the geocaching.com standards as you would expect. Considering that most (98%?) of the players over there are also players on geocaching.com, those are basically the rules widely accepted by the people that do all of the playing, and approving (Sponsors serve as the approvers for their sponsorees). Before you throw stones, watch your own glass house! I have also found at least one cache in the embankment of a very active railroad, one cache on a very popular bridge in Missoula, and one at a memorial site on state capitol grounds. At least in Montana: 45-6-104. Desceration of capitol, place of worship, or memorial (1) In this section, "capitol" means the Montana state capitol building and any permanent monuments on the capitol grounds. (2) A person commits the offense of desecration if the person purposely: ( places on or attaches to the capitol or a place of worship, cemetery, or public memorial any mark, design, or material not properly a part of the capitol, place of worship, cemetery, or public memorial; I am not trying to start a debate about which site harbors more violations. I am just pointing out that they will be found anywhere, sometimes where you least expect it. For the record, when I found out about the memorial cache mentioned above, I emailed the owners, and they said that they are going to re-tool the cache. I think that this situation should bring to mind the value of some of these guidelines, that don't always make sense when they rival what the placer considers to be a great idea. As a community of communities, we need to cache responsibly, and try to make sure that others do the same. At a time when local, state, and federal agencies are starting to turn an eye at caching, we especially need to be mindful of the activities of our respective communities and the impression those actions make.

If the topic is gc.com-centric, which it seems to be, I vote for Moun10bike. We miss him here in Montana~!

I place a cache for the experience I want to provide someone. If they don't go through the experience enough to sign the log book (or get the code on tc), they don't get it as a find. I heard of one instance (not one of my caches) where one co-cacher delivered the log book back to their partner to sign. I have seen offset caches that a group finds, where it may be obvious that not everyone did the work required to get the experience intended by the cache placer, but they all knew about it, and did what it took to sign the log book. Did they short themselves, or the cache placer on their experience? Either way, it doesn't really affect me here. On other sites, where the number of finders in a given time relates to a cache's point value, I might feel differently. On my caches on this site, if they sign the book, they get the smiley. Otherwise, no.

Some people like to hide caches at or near WalMarts. Generally, these tend to be micro caches, due to high muggle density.

I appreciate the time and effort that the volunteer reviewers put in to make sure that we all have plenty of caches to seek. Living in Montana, we only have one reveiwer (that I am aware of), so there is no way around that individual if you don't like the way they conduct business. I have repeatedly suggested that there should be some mechanism to allow cachers an 'alternative route' to cache approval. I know that several local cachers don't like the local reviewer (for a variety of reasons, some business practice related, most not), and don't want to go through that person. I have decided that I will place fewer caches on gc.com, and have moved one to another site. I will still place them here, though. I don't like not being able to choose (or at least opt out) who will review my caches here, but that is the way this site is set up. If I really don't like how it works, there are other places to go. Lately, I have been seeing a lot of positive changes on gc.com. Hopefully, the reviewer selection (or de-selection) process, for cache placers, is something that is considered in the near future. If nothing else, It seems like the current process would hinder the fun and challenge that a reviewer would have in solving a good puzzle cache, or surprising multi-cache. I know that in some areas, the reviewers will 'pass off' an offset cache to another reviewer if they know they will seek it themselves. In our region, that doesn't seem to be an option the reviewer takes. It might not exist as an option, if there is no back-up reviewer to send it to. That might be something else to consider- a plan B!

Umm.... FORMERLY skydiver on geocaching.com. I don't believe that he is allowed to play here anymore. I guess there are reasons, but I know that some of the 'features' he implemented (SGPS, customizable To-do lists, Cache Notifications) enhanced my interest in geocaching, and motivated me to go after some doozies! In any case, yup, it was written by a cacher, with help from some other cachers. Darn good article, too, if I say so myself!

Around here, we had a nicely setup multi/offset cache that featured micro containers hid around campus. Each container had a clue to the next one, and digit towards the final coordinates. It was based on a virtual tour that could be found on the University of Montana website. gc.com is down for maintenance, but it was "UM Campus Cache" by Yumitori. It faced certain challenges in that a few of the steps were in high muggle traffic areas, and the containers were disappearing often. Then, the university went and changed their virtual tour. It has been disabled for maintenance for close to two years, so the placer can re-tool it. Hopefully, he finds a way to make it work. I thought he said he was going to try to stick with the virtual tour method, removing the use for the many micros. Aside from disappearing steps, it was a really neat cache. IMHO, sticking with the virtual tour that leads to a physical cache somewhere would be the best way to overcome the obstacles that the UM Campus Cache faced. (And would probably be much easier to maintain!)

I feel strongly that both sites benefit from having caches that are unique. I also think that if someone has a good idea, it is better to share it with everyone. I am one of two people in this area that play on the other site, and I wanted to let more people enjoy the idea. Turns out, both versions got rave reviews by the first finders!

This is misinformation. Cross-listing is not allowed on Terracaching.com . If you're seeing cross-listed caches, the hiders and sponsors involved are either ignorant of the rules or simply breaking them. Regardless, TPTB at TC.com, the players, will eventually notice and shut those caches down. If I was listing the exact same cache on both sites, it would get low rated and eventually archived, or one of the sponsors might archive it. As I said though, the starting point and format of the caches are the only similarities, the questions are different, calculations are different, and the final caches are in different locations. I have it on VERY good authority with TPTB at terracaching.com that a suttle mention would be allowed.

I would plan to make it a brief mention, not really an advertisement. For the benefit of the cacher, more than the site, I guess. I could see allowing it as a 'goodwill gesture,' as long as it wasn't really an out and out advert. Something like 'this cache has a doppleganger on terracaching.com also'.