funkymunkyzone

This sounds a lot more fun than if you had found the cache you were actually searching for!

Not picking on the Chief in particular here, but how is the brownie maker supposed to know there may be an issue with their brownies unless someone speaks up? Um, when everyone else stops eating them? And/or when someone else brings along some really nice ones, and everyone says how nice they were!

Love this analogy! Me too. And to add my 2c worth, I say lead by example. If you have some ideas for great caches, then do them and see what kind of response you get. The best thing that can happen is that you'll end up with some kind of arms race on who can hide the coolest cache in the best spot, and the worst thing that can happen is you get some good logs and personal satisfaction that your caches are amongst, if not clearly, the best in your area. I would like to say this though - not every cache is a masterpiece and nor does every cache need to be one. Sometimes people do just want to find a cache for the sake of finding a cache, not for the purpose of visiting some amazing spot they never knew about before or necessarily being amazed by some awesomely creative container. Maybe sometimes it's just an excuse to get out of the house or go for a walk, even if it's to find a magnetic micro on a fence.

The trick is to get some speed up... About 500mph in a jet airliner ought to do it.

Thanks for the kind words and you would all be extremely welcome at our event!

Hi everyone. The organising team for the upcoming NZ Mega 2013 have designed and minted the first ever Auckland, New Zealand geocoin. The coins are being sold as a fundraising effort for the mega event, all proceeds going to the event. We have minted 4 editions of the coin: SE standard edition in polished gold LE limited edition in polished copper (just a few left) XLE extreme limited edition in antique gold (sold out in the first 24 hours) ULE uber limited edition, one of a kind, in antique copper (we're not sure what we're going to do with this one yet) If interested, these coins can be purchased from the NZ Mega online store, and as mentioned above, all proceeds go towards the event in October this year. (Link to store with permission from Groundspeak) Thanks for looking!

My first cache was a puzzle where the finder had to match 10 photos to 11 locations, 1 of which had no photo, and then use those relationships to calculate the position of the final, all within a nice urban park in Lisbon, Portugal. It was probably a bit stupid doing something complex like that as my first hide, but ironically it wasn't that that tripped me up, it was a poorly placed final. After a few days in, we modified the puzzle having found a much better spot for the final, and it has been there ever since it was placed in 2007. I must have learned quickly because my 4th or 5th cache placed all the way back then, is in the top few most favourited caches in the country, and has been "geocache of the week" on the Latitude 47 blog.

It's an extremely low priority change. The only thing that happens when you add a device to your list (other than showing up in your device list) is that the number of "Owned" in the GPS Reviews section goes up by one for that device. I would think fixing bugs and completing the many half-completed features are much more important, so changes like this one get bumped down the list. This *change* is not exactly brain surgery. They have a system for selecting owned GPS units and being able to provide a review of them. Frankly, at this stage I'd like to give my Oregon 650 about a 2 star review, but that's another story. This *change* should amount to no more than adding a couple of text items to a list in a table somewhere in their database. Perhaps doing that instead of creating 31 souvenirs for August...?

I'm always puzzled by statements like these. It seems to imply that it's only English speakers that travel. What about all those French, Germans, Czechs, etc. that travel to North America or other English-speaking countries? I bet they'd like all those English-text caches to have a translation into their own language. I think you'll find the OP is French - at least they live in France. Anyway, as an ignorant lazy English speaker with little bits and pieces only of a couple of other languages... I would personally never be so arrogant as to expect the world to speak English just for me, however, I have seen this topic come up before a number of times from non-native-English speakers who simply see English as a common language between themselves and others of many other nationalities. If geocaching had been around 100 or 200 years ago, it might have been "why aren't all cache descriptions translated into French, the language of diplomacy?" But anyway, once again, I'd never ask for or expect this myself, but I can sympathise with others of Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, etc native tongue who see English as simply becoming more and more widespread the common way of communicating between them, irrespective of us English-only speakers.

I love reading long logs on our hides. Bring 'em on!

+1. I'd like to see it as a table with a number of columns - number of finds, number of DNFs, active/disabled/needs maintenance, icons representing the last N finds (a string of DNFs is just as important to see as a needs maintenance flag). This would be a very useful tool for cache owners.

I emailed them about this recently too. Not sure why it's taking so long - surely it can't be that hard to add these new models to the system!

Or better yet, make several copies for others to wear... Don't forget to give them all bowler hats too. I was thinking tinfoil hats, to stop 'em dang satellites from reading your mind! On a related note... worried about privacy and being tracked in real time? Never play munzee!

I'd definitely agree with this. Magellan is a sponsor of our NZ Mega 2013 event, and is giving us some eXplorist GCs and a 310 to give away. I did look at the specs between the GC and the 20, and I thought the GC compared well, although that was a wee while ago and I'm not looking at them right now. Glad to hear that you can now load maps onto the GC - that makes it a great little GPS unit!

What might be better is if the Your Geocaches page wasn't just a dumb list, but rather a table that showed the state of each cache, when it was hidden, last found and symbols for each of the last n logs. This would be VERY useful for planning maintenance if you have more than just a handful of caches.

I just had to laugh when I saw this sentence in a note recently. The cacher said they had hunted for the cache a few times but...

Well I'm sorry, but I don't own a horse (high or low), nor have I ever owned one. A friend of mine owns two horses and they are kind of high, but only when they are partaking in illicit drugs. And I wasn't implying you had a bad geocaching attitude, but rather that your statement was was faulty. If you feel a reviewer is mistaken, just use photographs to show exactly what the area looks like and logic to defend your position. What resources the reviewer and GS had available led to believe that there was a disconnect somewhere between what the CO had in their description page and what other resources were stating. So they chose to error on the side of caution. My statement was not faulty. I never once said that a reviewer should not err on the side of the rights of a property owner. Read it again. You seem to be trying to turn this discussion into something other than what it is. It was never about permission from a property owner. "And this attitude is the reason"

And this attitude is the reason why some property owners HATE the idea of geocaching. The reviewer should always error on the side of the property owners' rights. Didn't you read it? The property owner gave permission. And in my post I even said if "all permission has been obtained" right before the bit you made bold. Because, in this case, the information given by the CO is not ALL of the information available. As you can see from Keystone's post, there is clearly a gate that is closed and locked and there is a second gate that is closed just beyond that. Plus the fact that the description the OP gave about being able to drive around a perimeter road doesn't seem too creditable (not saying they are lying, just saying the photo evidence doesn't seem the same as what they are saying). If I was a reviewer and this came across my email, I'd probably do the same thing. No, you jumped on your high horse implying I had a bad (for geocaching) attitude and that reviewers should err on the side of property owners' rights. On that - the attitude part - you're just plain wrong. But now that you're back pedalling, let's analyse two scenarios, to illustrate the point I was making, perhaps not as clearly as I'd have liked. Scenario 1: A cache hider gets no permission from a property owner and the cache gets published. Finders have to either obtain access under false pretenses or outright trespass (one could argue the former = the latter) in order to find the cache. I think we can agree this is bad, very bad, but that this is also not the story of the OP's caches, so long as the OP could give the reviewer the property owner's details as they have suggested they would. Scenario 2: A cache hider hides caches on private property with the express permission of the property owner, who is running a business on the property but promises cachers won't need to interact with the business in any way. Finders go looking for the cache but find they get bothered by the business wanting to sell them stuff - they mention this in logs, NA's, and the cache gets archived. No real harm done.

And this attitude is the reason why some property owners HATE the idea of geocaching. The reviewer should always error on the side of the property owners' rights. Didn't you read it? The property owner gave permission. And in my post I even said if "all permission has been obtained" right before the bit you made bold.

Do as your Reviewer instructs you. This just the forums. Non-reviewer opinions are trumped by Reviewer instructions. The forums don't represent the geocaching community. It's just us in the vocal minority. Another thing to remember is that not everyone is required to find every cache. If something doesn't suit their fancy, they're perfectly able to ignore it. Sounds like a fun cache to me. But I get sick and tired of "micros" and "nanos", too. I take a lot of time trying to pick and choose which caches to search for. You should go ahead and place caches that are interesting for you and comply with the Guidelines. I'm sure the cachers in your area will appreciate something other than micros, too. B. Thanks. I really appreciate that reply. Actually, the Groundspeak Help Centre sums it up nicely: According to the Help Centre, the field puzzle attribute applies to only mystery/puzzle caches, which seems to support the argument that a traditional cache is exactly that - traditional, no funny business. It's ok, reviewers are only human and they make mistakes too sometimes. Of course, at the end of the day, it's up to you as the CO because as can be seen from the differing points of view here, either way could be valid. If you're still pondering it, and you think it's still worth thinking about, then just ask yourself which description will keep visitors happiest and expectant of what they'll find, rather than being disappointed that it's not what they were expecting, because clearly it sounds like your cache is a really good one. Happy caching!

If it was my cache, I'd list it as a puzzle with the field puzzle attribute. I'd do that because I interpret the basic description of the types... ...to mean that a traditional is a "no funny business" traditional cache container - you find it, open it, sign the log, close and rehide it and you're on your way, but a mystery/puzzle may have some funny business before, during and/or after I find it, being the "catch-all". Around here, they are mostly listed as puzzles with the field puzzle attribute, although I have also found a couple listed as traditionals *without* the field puzzle attribute...

I know it wasn't your intent, but this just suggests the OP might have been too open and honest for his own good. It would be a shame to discourage honesty.

The caches in Jamaica may well fall before the "current interpretation" of the commercial guideline, but I've definitely seen caches published far more recently, all over the world. I've seen more than one that actually *requires* trespass on a resort, and I guess I figured that was never allowed. I'm not about to point any of them out specifically as I'm not the geo-police and have no intention of causing trouble for their respective owners. I'm well aware of the "no precedent" rule - I was merely expressing my opinion.

I'm staring at a Google Street View picture of the (closed) front gate to the resort, and the fence around the entire resort property. Going in that gate is like going inside the Walmart, no? Interesting. I started to think about how many times I've found caches (or attempted to find caches) located in resorts. I lost count. One, in Jamaica, actually requires a cacher to be a paying customer, or talk (lie) their way onto the secure property, or outright trespass. I failed to get that one as I tried to talk, honestly, my way in. Another in Jamaica required payment for entry. If what the OP is saying is true then this seems far more harmless than the ones I've seen. If that's the case, and all permission has been obtained, why not err on the side of allowing the caches and if people start posting that they are being harrassed and asked to pay, then shut it down?