["Other" size and it's relation to the Guidelines]

On 3/16/2024 at 11:57 PM, 173Carver said:

Their main and most fact based complaint is that it doesn't have a container (as the guidelines spell out) which I acknowledge. However, it had been approved by our local community volunteer reviewer who's been serving for over a decade, they've published hides that are the log bookless A/C vent covers I mentioned before (you just sign the vent itself, generally on the internal or concave side of it).

 

 

The volunteer reviewers do not visit the hides as part of the review process. Your reviewer bases their evaluation on the information you provided in your reviewer notes. If you weren't forthcoming about the lack of a container, they don't know you are missing one. With 200+ hides under your belt, I am surprised you did not know that one is necessary.

Those two older caches (from 2016/17) that you cited were probably published for the same reason. Your reviewer simply did not know about the lack of a container. Someone has already linked to the No Precedent guideline so I won't double down on that.

Finally, it might just seem like semantics, but there are legal reasons why HQ changed the terminology from approved to published. Some volunteers modified their names to remove approver from them.

 

My advice is to stop looking for community support to disregard the guidelines and update yours as requested by your reviewer.

[Geocaching in India]

11 hours ago, Kingpirux said:

Then the problem is not Crow T Robot strict action or some times overreacting like the case of the cache existing but disabled because a FOUND IT LOG mentioned the hard to open lit, but the lack of interest from geocaching headquarters? 

If the problem is we need more volunteers then i will start to see what is needed to become one and help on this underdeveloped countries that needs a human hand, not a robotic one.

 

You do realize that Crow T Robot is the nickname that a human has chosen for their volunteer user name? I have net him several times and he is far from robotic even if he does have an unusual sense of humor much like his namesake on TV.

[Setting dates in Filter for a search]

23 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

If you click on the year field in the calendar widget, you can type the year you want (or use the up/down arrows to scroll through the available years). As you have found, that functionality is not very discoverable.

 

Thanks for the quick response.  That does cut down on the necessary clicks. But what is the benefit of hiding that feature? Or preventing users from just entering the desired date themselves?

[Setting dates in Filter for a search]

I wanted to get a count of how many active 2001 caches are in my state. But the before (and probably the other options) field does not let me enter the desired date. Instead, the system expects me to click the back arrow ~150 times to backtrack from Sept. 2003 to Dec. 2001. That isn't a very friendly user interface. I was smart enough to just let it show me all of the caches in NC, sort by placed date, and count them manually. There are only 50 in case anyone wonders.

 

I'm not a developer or site designer but I don't understand why it is this way. I also understand that some countries display the date differently than others. But that issue can easily be resolved by showing "Be sure your date is posted as MM/DD/YYYY or DD/MM/YYYY" or whichever format is needed in parentheses under the field like so many other websites do.

[Reviewer refused to tell me why my cache is not allowed. Could someone help me understand?]

On 7/1/2023 at 8:54 PM, WoodlandAlliance said:

Thank you. All I've been looking for is an understanding of why it's not allowed, so I don't repeat the mistake.That's it.

 

Maybe if you had read and digested your reviewer's notes instead of preparing your next response you would have gotten that understanding? From what Keystone has posted it seems that they provided a detailed explanation from the beginning, then showed you how to contact HQ's appeals when that didn't seem to be enough. Yet you persisted in your lack of understanding.

[List view should match Map View]

It looks like this flaw has finally been correct. TY to whoever was responsible for getting this fixed.

[[BUG] Right-clicking on Google maps throws an error message]

Thanks Sven, I had just noticed that myself and was coming to post my gratitude.

[[BUG] Right-clicking on Google maps throws an error message]

It's no surprise that the same problem exists with google satellite view maps.

[[BUG] Right-clicking on Google maps throws an error message]

This is a relatively new situation. I prefer to view google maps over the default geocaching maps most of the time. I also like to zoom and pan while determining which caches to target. I then right click on them to open in a new tab to read the page without losing my spot on the maps. This isn't possible right now. Instead I have to click the cache, click the arrow in in the left side column and then the return arrow.

 

Here's the error message I'm getting when I right click on a google street map today.

Quote

"componentStack": "\nf@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/GoogleMap~LeafletMap.5de59a9e01cc679c831b.js:1:376\ndiv\ndiv\ndiv\nt@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/vendor.7ac094c553497cf96dc5.js:2:755839\ndiv\n1222/i<@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/GoogleMap.7dd3bec08dee83fbec3a.js:1:7740\ndiv\ndiv\nt@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/vendors~GoogleMap.ec462fd66b82190e44e4.js:2:37973\ndiv\nt@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/vendors~GoogleMap.ec462fd66b82190e44e4.js:2:1473\nx@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/GoogleMap.7dd3bec08dee83fbec3a.js:1:997\nn@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:420460\nSuspense\ndiv\ndiv\ndiv\noe@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/SearchMapDecorators.193f8c808cb61ac1575c.js:2:91292\nE@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:192569\ns@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/SearchMapDecorators.193f8c808cb61ac1575c.js:2:81568\nO\nu@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:399689\nL\n1156/t.SidebarProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/SearchMapDecorators.193f8c808cb61ac1575c.js:2:10941\nM\n935/t.ActiveCacheProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/SearchMapDecorators.193f8c808cb61ac1575c.js:2:75327\nT\n1162/t.MobileListProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/SearchMapDecorators.193f8c808cb61ac1575c.js:2:15960\nP\n937/t.ActiveListProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/SearchMapDecorators.193f8c808cb61ac1575c.js:2:77313\nD\n1165/t.ViewProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/SearchMapDecorators.193f8c808cb61ac1575c.js:2:17697\nE\n1166/t.ApiProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/SearchMapDecorators.193f8c808cb61ac1575c.js:2:18208\nA\ns@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/SearchMapDecorators.193f8c808cb61ac1575c.js:2:80438\nx\n939/t.MapProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/SearchMapDecorators.193f8c808cb61ac1575c.js:2:78458\nF\n1171/t.BrowserProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/SearchMapDecorators.193f8c808cb61ac1575c.js:2:28112\nk\nt@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:109512\nSuspense\nt.TranslationProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:782280\nn@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:420460\nt@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:111628\nt@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:106009\nl@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:350549\no@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:352002\nE@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:192569\nf@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:190632\nE@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:733282\ndiv\ni@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:1087336\nE@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:711806\nh\nt.LimitSearchProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:224781\np\nv@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:317171\nv\nt.FiltersProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:705457\ng\nt.ExperienceProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:703852\nm\nt.UserProvider@https://www.geocaching.com/play/map/public/web-map.3.1.0.2cb53c89d0656fc9a77f.js:2:796372"

 

[Geo-art questions]

On 1/10/2022 at 10:11 AM, 74vwBus said:

Never said he wasn’t. Keystone has been reviewing 60 recent placed caches of mine. I’ve bugged him enough lately. I don’t see anything wrong having a open discussion on the matter. 

 

You're right, there's nothing wrong with starting an open discussion on this or any other topic; that is why we have these forums.

Just keep in mind that the answers you get here might not be correct guideline interpretations, but they would be if you asked your reviewer.

[List view should match Map View]

Why these two data view options disconnected? It's practically impossible to do any trip planning involving AL's by panning and zooming the map when the list view reverts to my home coords. If I am traveling to an area that has more than a few AL's it doesn't make sense to have to click each pushpin and read the cover page info rather than scrolling down a list. Why is it setup this way?

 

I suspect many of us are considering trips to the PNW next August. Both Vancouver/Southern BC and Seattle are full of ALs. How should I decide which ones will be interesting to me and worth my time?

[Ad Lab timings]

On 11/27/2021 at 8:10 PM, Moun10Bike said:

On 11/27/2021 at 4:38 PM, wimseyguy said:

But the really crazy time is the one on the one I helped set up for the state organization. There are two five stop sets in towns that are over 100 miles apart, yet it has a rating of 0-30 minutes. That is simply impossible.

 

There are currently some errors in displaying the time when there are less than 5 completions of the Adventure or when the median time is especially long.

 

 

Thanks for the answers. It has to be the latter as there are 18 reviews and 23 ratings of the AL with 30 finds on the bonus cache. Is there anyway to correct this misinformation? We already receive the occasional nastygram due to the distance between the sets. Providing a false completion time is just setting us up for more complaints from dissatisfied customers.

 

 

[How do I become a volunteer]

In the old days offering to be a volunteer reviewer was a sure-fired way to not get the job.

[Ad Lab timings]

I agree that some of them are questionable and perhaps best left to the AL Owner to determine the elapsed time. I'm sure they created some sort of algorithm to calculate those suggested times, but I don't think the times are something you can really count on. I've placed three ALs so far, two under my account and one for a statewide organization.

 

Both of mine are rated at 120+ min. One is spread out over 6 miles from one side of town to the other. All stages offer easy parking and fairly easy questions. A few seekers have reported struggling with one stage and have returned to it the following day after getting a hint; I wonder if that has skewed the timing? The other one is set up all in downtown and shouldn't take more than 60 minutes. It too has a 120+ minute rating. It highlights some of the top sweet treat businesses here, perhaps people are stopping to enjoy the offerings along the way and that's adding to the elapsed times?

 

But the really crazy time is the one on the one I helped set up for the state organization. There are two five stop sets in towns that are over 100 miles apart, yet it has a rating of 0-30 minutes. That is simply impossible.

[Goals for 2020]

20 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

My goal for 2020 is to create a geocaching topic in the forums which will rally the entire geocaching community into peace and harmony throughout the ages.

 

 

Aren't you just channeling Steve Martin's Christmas Wish?

 

 

[Puzzle Cache Distance]

I apologize-the NA log follows your posted note that essentially asks for archival.

I don't know Erik all that well but I have cached with him a few times and shared a meal or two. I suspect that he's more interested in preserving your local history and not enabling challenge chasers. I didn't see any challenge finds on his profile. He's a Charter Member and was one of the first volunteers outside of Seattle. Perhaps that's why he's been granted some latitude in this unusual situation?

[Puzzle Cache Distance]

On 1/2/2018 at 2:57 PM, J Grouchy said:

There's one from 2001 posted right at the Atlanta airport that's actually hidden about 54 miles to the northeast. 

I didn't start caching until 2002, and my memory might be fuzzy, but it's quite possible that the guideline wasn't in effect back in 2001. You didn't start until 2010, but have been around long enough to know that caches are reviewed under current guidelines, and there's never been any rules about retroactive application of the guidelines.

 

Quote

Of course, this CO also happens to be a reviewer and has several caches that have been disabled for over ten years, so it's clear they get a pass when it comes to the rules.

 

AFAIK those long disabled caches are on NPS land. So those caches are not blocking any new hides nearby. And since they've softened their position on caches placed on their properties there's really no reason for archival if there's a chance that permission might be granted is there? Perhaps you're just taking it personally since your NA log from 2016 was ignored?

Also since you're local you're probably aware that Erik retired from his position as a volunteer reviewer after 15 years of service to the community over a year ago, so really you're just posting to grind an anti HQ axe aren't you?

[Cache Finds In All 50 States]

It's rare that a old bumped thread is so well received. But like others who've posted I'm glad this one was. It's pretty cool to see those old semi-forgotten names who used to post regularly in this sandbox. For the past few years I've made some day long treks to add neighboring states when I'm on a geo-road trip. I'm now up to 47 states, but doubt I will get the last three on the same trip. I've never visited Arkansas, Idaho, and Hawaii. When will that bridge/tunnel be completed?

[Caching Abroad - HELP!!]

Here is the Help Center article on Pocket Queries.

Here is the Help Center article on Lists.

Here is a Help Center article on caches in foreign languages.

It's amazing how much helpful info is in the Help Center. I suspect some lackeys and volunteers have put a lot of work into it.

GPSfiledepotdotcom has free maps available for most of the globe. I just got back from a week in Costa Rica; the maps available at the website were excellent.

You also could consider reaching out to a local cacher, they might be willing to become your new geopal and tour you around. Then you'll have a new international friend who speaks the local language. There might even be an event where you're going to be too.

 

PS-focus on the FUN and ADVENTURE and not the streak. It will make your travels a lot more enjoyable.

[accepteble task for new virtual]

12 hours ago, apneli said:

what about drawing in a sand, let's say sun or cloud or fish on a beach and take a photo of it. is that acceptable?

I don't see how making this drawing helps to prove that the finder was there. Since it isn't part of the proof it is an Additional Logging Requirement. You cannot make a mandatory ALR, but it could be a fun optional task in addition to finding the cache. Anytime you tell a finder what to do, feel, or think in addition to signing the log or answering the qualification question for a virtual you're running a strong risk of crossing the guidelines.

[Updated Geocache Hiding Guidelines]

On 9/23/2017 at 10:15 PM, JSmiles07 said:

Anyone have any thoughts on the guideline "No contact required. Caches cannot require geocachers to contact the cache owner or anyone else."? Had a really cool multi-cache in place in which one stage had cachers enter a business and tell an employee they were looking for the stage, and the employee would then provide them with the coordinates for the next stage (via a really awesome item I had pre-bought to be given out). I had permission from the manager, they were entirely on board with it, I spent a lot of money pre-buying the items, and now it's being disabled by the reviewer because it requires cachers to contact someone. I read the guideline and think more along the lines of contacting someone via email, phone, messaging,...etc. in which cachers are required to provide private information which would obviously not be OK. But is it really that awful to have to walk into a place and simply ask for a stage, and be given a really awesome item to get to stage two? I just don't understand. I've done caches at libraries where you have to ask for the final at the circulation desk. Why can't I do this with my cache? 

It's too bad you have misunderstood this guideline before investing some coin in the project. Face to face contact anonymous or not is still contact.  Business staff are trained to sell their products. Exposing cachers to any such pressure would break the commercial guideline as well.

[Tree climbing for the older generation, not a good idea]

Kudos to the OP for being in touch with his emotional younger self. That post reads like a whiny entitled millennial, not someone from the so-called older generation.

[Multi-Cache or Puzzle?]

If there is something to find at the posted coords it is a multi in my book.

[I want more caches in my neighborhood!]

A quick check reveals that there are 96 active caches within a ten-mile radius of Leavenworth, Washington. If you've found most of them, or a significant number of them are yours (13 today) then do something about it. Your post describes an area rich with potential sites worthy of excellent geocaches.

 

Start by getting your currently-muggle friends into the hobby. Get them to find all of YOURS, then encourage them to start hiding THEIR OWN.

 

Then, they work on THEIR friends, and so on, and so on.....

 

When you have more than a handful of people, host an Event, with contests and raffles.

 

Host a "Geocaching Nite" at the local library. Advertise it directly to groups that might be interested. What these groups are would change, based on local stereotypes.

 

As you build this community, encourage fun, exciting hides and containers. Try to discourage (maybe even 'disparage') LPC's and every-tenth-mile guardrail caches.

 

REALLY sell the "Take Me To Someplace Great" concept.

 

REALLY really sell CITO.

 

In other words, if you want a local geocaching community, go make one.

 

Come back and post more in this thread and let us know how it goes!

 

BRAVO-one of the best posts I have ever read during my 15 years playing in this sandbox!

I completely agree with the Rabbits. Explore social media and the blogosphere to learn more about cool caches. Then share this enthusiasm with your friends and share your new hobby with them.

[Under-rated cache]

<snip>

 

Would Groundspeak address this with the CO?

 

No they will not. But feel free to share your opinions in your log. Perhaps they will influence the CO to reconsider his ratings. Or perhaps your log will alert other future seekers to this situation.

 

Keep in mind that CO's rate their caches based on their abilities and experiences. Perhaps this CO is a serious rock climber and he feels it is really just a 1.5T cache?