STNolan

Aha! Spent a few minutes searching and now I too have those coords... for a cache that's no longer there... I may need to find better ways to spend my time. This quarantine...

I'm assuming you had to battleship the coordinates for a puzzle like that where the links are gone and there's not much else to go on (combined with some good guesswork et al).

Personally one of my favorite archived cache "solves" involved some internet sleuthing as several of the multi beacons had been removed: https://coord.info/GLVDJVWR Sometimes when I'm bored I'll look at the Project GC map and see which ones were archived for reasons that indicate they're still there (parts of a multi trail are gone, or owner didn't respond to a NM regarding a wet log or something trivial like that) and I add them to a bookmark. If I'm in the area, I'll search for one.

I've been to the Coliseum, but it was when I was a child (back in 2001 or so). I went to the Great Wall of China back in 2008 but that was before I started geocaching. As for the natural wonders of the world: I've seen both the Aurora Borealis and Australis (lived in Alaska and have traveled down to Antarctica twice). I've made it to the Grand Canyon. I've sailed over the Great Barrier Reef (but much to my chagrin I didn't get to dive there). Still so much to see and do in the world!

To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart... "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of caches I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["power trail"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..." (Emphasis mine)

Huzzah! A much awaited feature!

Some photos taken at Fort Jefferson in Dry Tortugas National Park - I didn't get there until after the last ferry of the day had returned to the mainland, so I had the place essentially to myself! Nearest cache is @hzoi's Earthcache: GC45GJG - Castle in the Sand: Building Fort Jefferson

I've seen an argument in here so far for an addition of a challenge attribute, the addition of a challenge cache icon and the challenge cache star system. So far I'm not sure if any of those three have made a case for changing the system. At this point I'm more inclined to leave things as they are. Full disclosure I opened this thread first vice the stars thread so I'm responding here first.

I guess what I'm failing to see is why the un-challenge cache reward metric is somehow intrinsically worse than the challenge star metric? In both scenarios you can log the cache as found as soon as you sign the log. In both scenarios the challenge is separated from the smiley In both cases the cacher has the opportunity to ignore the challenge if they so wish In both cases the hider has the opportunity to create an optional challenge for people to complete The only real difference I see is how the metric is tracked: Stars or a completion list on the cache page. I tend to think of this in a legal sense (Hzoi will probably jump in here and correct me). It feels as though the precedent has been set by the higher court (Groundspeak) in allowing Challenge Caches to exist in their current form as an ALR. Yes they are an exception to the standard physical cache model, but one which has existed for many years and without a compelling reason to overturn the system the precedent should stand. I've seen a lot of arguments in here about why the system should be changed in one way or another, but none of them seem to really justify the overhaul that would be required. Challenge caches are simply different. The argument has been postulated here that "all other physical caches don't require an ALR" and I agree that's an accurate statement. The rules for them are different, but different doesn't mean bad; it just means different. I don't think we should attempt to homogenize geocaching anymore than it already is. I'm open to differing opinions, but based on what I've read in this thread and in the original thread about challenge stars, I'm sticking with stare decisis: let the caches stand.

Why do we have to find a way to regulate cache owners into hiding quality caches? Why can't cache owners just be intrinsically motivated to hide good caches and maintain good caches? If we're at the point where we need to legislate every aspect of finding/hiding a cache then we're at a serious cross roads in the caching community. I'm of the laissez faire mindset here - if it's not broke don't fix it. If a cacher finds a container with a log and signs their name to the log sheet; they have found the geocache. It's not the finders responsibility to not find the cache if it's in poor condition; it's the Cache Owners responsibility to ensure the cache is in good condition to find.

I completely understand; when I travel I also turn off my phone data. WhereIGos can be done on some GPS devices though. Also, part of the planning process for a trip that I know includes geocaching would likely be searching out any caches that might cause issues like that for the method that I'm geocaching. I still use an old 2001 era eTrex when I go caching overseas; I manually load in all the coordinates and go from there. I realize that's not ideal for everyone but at a certain point if that's the work around to solve the problem then that's what you have to do. I don't believe taking away functionality from cache owners is the right answer here. I thoroughly enjoyed solving and finding the emoji puzzle caches I found. Why should those not exist? What you're asking for is to completely remove functionality from a cache owner for no other purpose than to make it easier for you to load caches to your GPSr when in fact there ARE workarounds. Ultimately, like many others, I think that GARMIN should be the one you should actually be annoyed with. Groundspeak is providing a service which your device is unable to recognize. Why should they cater to the lowest common denominator? In that case my 2001 little yellow eTrex can't receive any texts other than a title. Descriptions, hints and photos should be disallowed.

I skimmed through most of this and I would counter there are sometimes a need for emojis. For instance I found a few puzzle caches in an "Emoji Puzzle Series" and the cache title was part of your hint. The puzzle was in the decoding: EMOJI #1 EMOJI #2 And while I agree this may be an annoying/breaking bug for some cases; I'm not one to advocate in a reduction of services/amenities provided by ground-speak.

I own two "longer" multicaches. The first is a 14 Stage Mulit that is designed for visiting Cruise Ship passengers to tour some of the "unseen" sights of downtown Juneau. Ideally it's to pull cachers away from the cramped tourist traps of the main drag and to get them exploring the city. It ends with a great view of the harbor. With the exception of the final, all stages are virtual. - GC7KX27 The second is a 13 Stage Multi (though it used to be 15 before some signage was removed) that takes the cacher to a variety of different parks in Newport, RI. Unlike the first multi, this one is geared towards an out of towner with a vehicle. While one or two stops are "park and grabs" the rest require at least a bit of a walk (anywhere from a couple hundred feet to 1/2 a mile or so). The final is in a tiny pocket park in the heart of the town - GC6Q3CP The key with both multi caches is that they're comprised of virtual waypoints. The upside - easier to maintain! The downside (as I found out in Newport when I first published my cache) is that it's easier to "cheat the waypoints."

Okay so how about this example? (Bold parts changed by me) A T5 terrain cache that requires a 4x4 vehicle (special tool) to reach. Only one cacher drives their vehicle out there and everyone else rides with them. Since they didn't drive out there should they be able to claim the find? They just sat in the passenger vehicle. That to me seems even less useful than the human pyramid example up there. I personally would argue that both are equally valid because the cacher made it to GZ and their name is on the log.

I hid a 15 stage multicache a few years back (it has since lost a stage or two). The first few cachers were able to skip the first NINE stages of the cache because they had local area knowledge - even more than I did as the cache CO. Was that the experience I attempted to lay out for finders - No Did they cheat - No Did they sign the cache log - Yes (I verified their signatures in the log book) I have since changed some of the descriptions to make it harder to skip around, but at the end of the day the cache owner can only frame an expected way forward for finders they cannot CONTROL the manner in which they experience the cache. I for one think those finders missed out on some seriously amazing views by skipping the first 9 stages; but that's on them. If someone shares the final location of one of my caches, I'm disappointed that they didn't get the full experience that I had planned, but at the end of the day they signed the log. If enough people stop getting the experience that I intended because of coordinate sharing, I would probably disable the cache, but again that's on me as a CO. I attended the Block Party (GC4CPG0) at HQ in 2014. During that event hey brought out the giant treasure chest that is the GCHQ cache (GCK25B) into the pavilion next to HQ for people to sign the log. The cache was brought from GZ 30' outside to me (in the pavilion). Is that find not legitimate? I took a tour of HQ so I've been to GZ, but the log was not at the intended location at the moment in time. Your analogy seems to be an example of Reductio ad absurdum and at the end of the day I think it boils down to "we all know what cheating the system looks like when we see it." Terrains are outside the control of the finder though. Same with attributes. Those are solely the responsibility of the cacher owner. If I go out and find a pill bottle in the desert with the scuba diving attribute, and you see it on my profile, you would assume I went scuba diving to find a cache. I did NOT go diving to find a cache in the desert. Is it my fault that my profile now displays this attribute? What if the cache owner incorrectly labeled a terrain rating? Or if you found one of the few remaining "Liar's Caches" that are out there? Those statistics may give you an indication of my caching history but the only way to actually know MY experience is to review my found it logs. Those are the only aspects of the cache experience I control. In that case you're being misled because you didn't look for the correct information. It's akin to coming into my house, picking up a book with a picture of a dolphin on the front of it and taking it home to read without asking me about it and then being bothered by the fact that the book is actually about elephants. I didn't write the book or design the cover, and if you had asked about my experience (aka read my logs) then you would have a better notion about what actually occurred.

Wish I could post one, we move about every two years, so we don't have a "caching area." Since I started caching in 2012 I've lived (and cached in) New London, CT Seattle, WA Newport, RI Juneau, AK Virginia Beach, VA Sure we'll have a few more places under our belt before we settle down for good.

The one I personally always struggle with are Earth-caches or virtuals on public right of ways/public access. Having to request permission for a container-less cache that asks an individual to walk up to a location on a sidewalk or a declared right-of-way always seemed so odd to me. Even when wording the request it sounds odd: "Hey do you mind if we encourage people to walk on the sidewalk here?" I recognize the importance of asking permission in Parks and such where there may be concerns about the volume of people visiting an area but even that seems a stretch to me. Alas rules are made to be followed - Time to email the city council LOL

See this is why I always have other people proofread my work. Spelling correction fixed! I'll see if I can tone down the terms a bit more; I figured since all the words are (mostly) defined in the section above that it should be fairly understandable; but perhaps it could be better worded. Thank you!

Hello all, Back in the earthcache creating game after a few month hiatus. Any feedback on this newly submitted one will be greatly appreciated! -STNolan

Same ship Hzoi; hope your PCS isn't delayed!

Whelp our honeymoon (and my caching trip!) is basically kaput - UK, France and Italy were on the list... can't go anymore #TravelBan

I think I'll just add a source code note with the original background url. something like <!-- Background - URL -->

It appears I am late to the party.... Someone just reached out for help on one of my caches, it involves using a background image hosted on a standard photo hosting site. Additional clues/ information were found on the photo comments in the hosting site that are required to solve the cache... Originally in the source code the background image appeared as such: <body background="i.imgur.com/0u38bBj.jpg" class="cache details page"> But now it's this monstrosity: <body background="https://imgproxy.geocaching.com/9660e2daac2e9e8461ceb68de1b8f1c378eb7ed1?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0u38bBj.jpg" class="CacheDetailsPage"> Now without knowing that you have to remove the "%2F" and 98% of the background html, you can no longer find your way directly to the source and solve the puzzle. Any recommendations on how to make this puzzle "solvable" again?

Someone just reached out for help on one of my caches, it involves using a background image hosted on a photo hosting site... Originally in the source code the background image appeared as such: <body background="i.imgur.com/0u38bBj.jpg" class="cache details page"> But now it's this monstrosity: <body background="https://imgproxy.geocaching.com/9660e2daac2e9e8461ceb68de1b8f1c378eb7ed1?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0u38bBj.jpg" class="CacheDetailsPage"> When did this change? Anyone find a work around?

Nice! I flew through Ketchikan all the time from 2017-2019! It's a great little town!