spirothebudgie

For me personally I enjoy actually finding and signing the container myself. I have never done group caching although I have been to an event which was great fun! I don't personally see the appeal in claiming a find on a cache if you didn't actually find it yourself, but everyone is free to play the game their own way. It is nice to receive a well written online log on your cache and I prefer to do this rather than using generic found it logs. Of course when people are logging a lot of caches at once it would be impractical to write out each one separately though.

Yes it would be great if it were to be cleaned up. It probably won't happen for a while though unless a land manager or council discovers it and decides to do it since asbestos is expensive to dispose of safely.

You should direct your ire at the cache owner, not the reviewer. When it comes to the matter of caches being unsafe, only the cache owner should be archiving it for that reason. Not a reviewer, not a Groundspeak lackey, not even Jeremy himself. In this case, the cache was archived correctly when the owner tried turning it into a virtual. As nasty as asbestos is, Groundspeak is not going to get involved in matters of safety, nor should they. Looking at this as an outsider, things went as they are designed to. A cacher came along that realized the cache was hidden near exposed asbestos, realizes the danger, notifies the CO, the CO does nothing beyond trying to turn the cache into a virtual and once a reviewer saw that, they archived the cache. The only shameful thing is that had the CO not done the "photo only" trick, this cache would still be active. That's not due to any fault of the reviewer, but of the CO. I understand what you are saying, and again I'm not blaming anyone. I just think that regardless of who is legally responsible for safety I personally would have had a moral obligation to archive it. If the owner doesn't sort out the problem then a reviewer should have the right to archive the cache on the grounds that it is inherently unsafe. I am all for challenging caches (tree climbs, rock climbs etc) but this is a very different issue because the danger is beyond the control of finders. As a cache owner myself I would certainly have archived the cache, even though I am not legally responsible for anyone's safety. This is a family friendly game and the last thing I would want is for some kids to be rummaging through asbestos just to find my cache. I am very sorry if I came across as rude, I did not mean to cause offence and our reviewers generously volunteer their time to do an amazing job to keep this game running for us all.

I agree. I think if something like that it is seen then it would be appropriate to archive the cache to discourage people from going there. Again, I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just saying that it would have been good if either the CO or a reviewer had done that to discourage people from visiting the area. Of course it isn't Groundspeak's responsibility. But I think that discouraging people from visiting a site is an appropriate action to take in this particular situation.

I completely understand that and of course safety is your own responsibility when caching. I'm not at all saying all caches need to be overly regulated to make sure they are safe. Of course whenever you go caching you are taking a risk and it is always your responsibility. The moderators and reviewers do a fantastic job for the geocaching community, I did not mean to offend anyone. I just feel strongly about this particular cache because unfortunately asbestos isn't something that everyone can identify and reading the logs makes it very clear that a number of people have searched for the cache not knowing about it. It would have been easy for the CO to just archive it to stop people from visiting. Choosing to take a risk and climb a cliff is a choice you make. Breathing in potentially deadly fibres you don't know about is not.

I'm very surprised it appears that the cache was archived over the virtual logs and not because of the rather more serious issue of the presence of asbestos! In my opinion it should have been archived immediately by the reviewer after the log indicating the presence of the asbestos nearby! Asbestos is not something to mess with, especially the cement products. It is potentially lethal and unfortunately not everyone would identify it or even be aware of why it is lethal. Having had relatives who grew up in Wittenoom (a now closed country town covered in asbestos) I am well aware of the dangers of it. There is absolutely no excuse for encouraging anyone to visit such a site, and if I was the CO I would have archived it to be on the safe side. The grey substance in the image certainly looks very suspicious to me and you are both well qualified to identify it. The fact that it has been crushed makes it very dangerous since the dust is free to spread through the air if disturbed, especially by people walking all over it. It was definitely good to warn people about it on the cache logs!

I am slowly getting accustomed to the work-arounds for the new search. Sometimes I have to resort to the classic search. It would really be wise for the gurus at Groundspeak to incorporate the older functionalities from the classic search into the flash and pomp of the new search, giving a really user friendly cache search engine.They still need to fix the snafu in the "Geocache name contains" - it works only about half the time. Also, I'd like to see the search radius brought back to 100 miles. What would really be nice is to allow the user to input more precise locations such as the city or county or even coordinates from where a center-point will be and to be able to input the radius. For example if I want to search in a 50 mile radius of Nashville, TN, I can't do it. The reason is that maybe I'd like to see what's available in southern Kentucky along I-24 or I-65. Bottom line, the new search still needs a lot of work. I agree, I feel like it is harder to search for more specific things in the new search than the old one, in which it was easy to just type in an area or even the cache name or name of the hider and it worked 100% of the time, no exceptions. The new search is still in development though and will get better over time!

Thanks for that! I'll have to try saving the gpx file instead! I just assumed I couldn't do that because I thought nothing worked full stop, but it makes sense now! Still it would be good to remove the send to gps option because it's a bit confusing for people who don't know it doesn't work!

I can no longer download files onto my Garmin Gpsmap 62s using chrome either , instead I have to use Internet Explorer which takes forever and can't even display the site properly because it's the ancient version that comes with windows 7. Apparently the plugin which worked fine before is no longer supported by Google, not entirely sure why. Lately I have just been manually putting the coordinates of caches straight into my GPS. I've given up trying to make the plugin work. I miss being able to just click on the cache and load it straight in!

Interesting! I have had similar things happen with the site as well on the cache listings where I have put in plain text and when I go back to edit it later symbols have been changed into weird strings of what looks like programming or something. The site has been running a lot slower on my machine since all the new updates, my computer is ancient so it takes a long time to load up the pages sometimes, especially the video that automatically plays when you go to log in about how to hide a cache! Personally I preferred the old system of hiding a cache which I had used for the last 2 years, but I'm sure the new one works just as well, I just need to get used to it! Back to the original problem: it was probably just a glitch anyway, I haven't had it happen since fortunately! Maybe I need to get a new computer!

Hello all! Just noticed a minor but slightly annoying problem with the new system of making a geocache listing on the website. I went to set up a new cache this evening and put in the coordinates of the location I wanted to place it. As usual it displayed the spot on the map showing that the area was clear with no other caches less than 161 metres nearby. I then clicked on the next button where I was taken to the page of additional waypoints to add. Seeing as I had none to put in I just clicked through it quickly. It then took me all the way back to the start all over again. I did this several times thinking I must have missed something or the location was too close to another cache, but eventually worked out that if you click through it too fast it does this! Has anyone else had this problem or is it just something to do with my internet connection? I found waiting about 10 seconds between each page stopped the problem. Thanks! spirothebudgie

Wow that's a pretty amazing story! Can't believe it kept travelling without the tag!

Thanks for all the replies and help! It seems this is quite a common problem. I like the idea with the steel cable, looks neater as well! I agree that the bead chain seemed flimsy to me when I first saw it, should have known! I do happen to have some garden hanging basket chain with bendable joints in the shed though, it's easy enough to bend to attach a trackable/trinket but not without pliers! Might try that for my next one, and having a note would be a good idea as well as what the trackable already says! Also makes sense that the more attractive something attached to a trackable is, the more likely someone will want it! Probably fell off though, those chains looked ok but I now know they are hopeless!

Hi all! I happen to have a trackable (dog tag type) that I released into the wild just for fun. I know this is taking a chance whenever you do this (the tag can get stolen, lost etc.) The tag is still out there, but on the last log it was mentioned that the small resin turtle I had attatched to the tag to travel with it had gone missing. I can understand the whole tag going missing but given that it is clearly labelled as to what it is it seems strange someone would actually take the small trinket off it which is worth less than $2 I'm not upset as honestly I didn't expect it to even last this long and of course the trackable is still fine to log, but I'd like to know whether anyone has had anything similar happen where someone has gone to the bother of removing something attached with the trackable. It seems to me as though maybe someone thought it was some kind of trade item and not part of the trackable given the whole thing didn't get taken. For my next one I may have to label the object I attach so it doesn't get taken. Any ideas on how to stop this happening? Thanks!

Strange, I have the Garmin 62s and google chrome and it works with no problems, though I have had to re install it a few times due to problems, maybe try that if you haven't already?

I would think that overall the probability of a tree being climbed is fairly low compared to the probability of other things happening (fungus and logging) that can also cause damage to trees, so in a whole environment the impact would be quite low. However just because most trees don't get climbed doesn't mean that there is no damage done to the ones that are. I have seen the impact of geocaching before on areas where smaller plants have been pushed back and stepped on or branches broken because of the number of people searching for the cache. Some of my caches get 30 or more visits in a year, so if a cache requires a climb up a tree, then the bark could be getting damaged too frequently without having the chance to repair itself. People think it is ok to hide a cache high up in a tree because everyone has climbed a tree before at some point, but the impact of the tree getting climbed every week could cause quite a bit of damage. Of course there is no problem with caches placed within reach from the ground as no climbing is needed, provided there are no nails used. I have never seen nails or screws cause damage to a tree but the guidelines are there for a reason and it looks bad for geocaching if a tree is left with holes and nails stuck in it from a geocache placement. Besides there are plenty of ways to avoid using screws or nails, most caches can be gently wedged in or cable ties are fine as far as I know, have seen a few done like that.

I've never seen a single LPC hide over here as we don't have the metal cover on the poles, they are just bolted straight into the ground, you can even see the bolts! I have found a few which were simply a magnetic tin on the back of the post, and I have no problem with that. However in general placing caches on electrical equipment in current service is a bad idea, you don't know that people are going to search for it in the way you intended and instead attempt to open things or push their fingers under covers. I never put my hand into gaps/spaces that you cannot see what you are touching when searching for a cache, you just don't know what could be in there (live wires!) I think the guidelines in place are fine, it's up to the hider to think about the placement carefully and the seeker to use common sense and not mess around with electrical equipment. I have simply walked away from caches because they were too dangerous to search for in general or because of the conditions (bad weather) in which case I can come back another day. The problem is the temptation and urge to find the cache once you have gone to the trouble of getting there, but you have to recognise that no cache is worth your life!

Definitely agree with the above, being a cache owner is great fun and very rewarding but can also be a lot of work, you have to maintain all your caches!

I agree! I think one of the best things about the hobby is when you expect a cache to be a certain type of container or hide but then it turns out to be something completely different from what you were expecting! Also you start to get good ideas on how you want to hide a cache the more of them you find!

Yes I agree with the above posts regarding muggles, it's always best to just be honest about what you are doing if asked! Most people don't pay that much attention anyway, and one trick I sometimes use is to quickly retrive the cache and take it away to sign the log. I then put it back when I am not being watched! The most important thing is to try to put the cache back as best you can out of sight. I have noticed some of my caches do get put back wrong occasionally (I have one which is glued under a small rock, one time I went to check it and the rock had been overturned, leaving the container completely visible to anyone walking past!) Hiding caches is great fun and I have really enjoyed making interesting containers and finding good spots to place them. I like to make the containers out of anything I have around, so I collect old tins and other small containers. A quick coat of black spray paint or even just black tape is a simple but surprisingly effective way in helping the cache to blend in, and you can go to a lot more effort than that as well (I have hollowed out logs and tried other interesting ideas to conceal caches, though you need some basic tools to do it usually!) The thing I find most frustrating about the game is when your cache gets taken, sometimes repeatedly. I usually try to solve this problem by moving the container slightly, improving the camouflage or even using cable ties to secure it to another object such as a pole! Most important have fun! I have been to lots of places I would never have been to if it hadn't been for geocaching, and it has been a great motivation for me to get outside!

I don't think there is anything wrong with logging a needs maintenance log, as a cache owner I sometimes don't get to check all of my caches regularly so the maintenance log lets me know if there is a problem with the cache so I can disable it and go fix it up as soon as I can. Personally I will only use the needs maintenance log for more urgent problems (for example broken/missing containers) if the log book is full I usually just mention it in my online log and verify my find with a picture of the logbook. Unfortunately sometimes the problem gets ignored by the owner and the cache ends up with lots of temporary logbooks inside, in which case it is time to log a needs maintenance. I don't care if the old logbooks are replaced/removed in my caches, and I really appreciate it when a finder just puts in a temporary log until I can get there to put in a new one. I have done this a few times myself, including a small ziplock bag so the logbook stays dry. Some cache owners might want to keep the logs though, so I never remove or throw away full logbooks. And of course I certainly don't expect people to replace logbooks for my caches! Unfortunately some caches don't always get the maintenance they need, so I do carry a small caching kit with me sometimes just with a few spare logbooks and some duct tape for fixing a cracked container to help keep the cache in decent condition for the next finder until the owner is able to perform maintenance.

You can go geocaching without maps on the gps, I do! I simply download the GPX file from the cache page and print out the paper map if I need it or write down the directions to the cache. I probably could set my gps up with maps (it's a garmin gps map 62s) but I'm too lazy! So actually if you already have a computer and printer a cheap gps is probably fine if you just want to go find a cache sometimes. Of course the more expensive units are nice though!

Yes I have noticed that sometimes it seems to be a bit dodgy, you click the close button and it ends up opening another cache or doing something else! Not sure why it happens but it always has for me, I'm using chrome, so I don't think the browser is the problem if firefox does it as well! It might be that it is having trouble distinguishing exactly where the cursor is on the screen, I find that if I zoom in first and then click on the cache it seems to work better. Just my thoughts on it anyway...

I'm finding the new search a bit confusing to use too. I personally found the old search easier to use but I'm sure I'll get used to the new version eventually! It certainly seems to have some new capabilities with the search filters, the only thing I don't really like is how the cache listing results take up the whole of the screen to display. I found the old method of displaying the results easier to understand and it looked neater in my opinion. I also preferred the page selection at the bottom of the screen compared to the new method where you just keep scrolling down and have to wait for it to load. Anyway I'm sure it will continue to be improved and it is still fine to use once you get used to it. I tend to use the maps function more than the actual search anyway as I can see the location of the cache, and then have a look at the cache listing! The maps function is the main reason I keep paying for the Premium member account, apart from supporting the game of course! Just my thoughts on it anyway.

I have to admit that the new search is a bit confusing to me at this stage, especially how the caches displayed on the search seem to take up the whole screen. I found the previous system easier to use, but then I had been using it since I started geocaching! I'm sure I'll get used to it eventually, but for now I might just stick to using the maps function instead to search for caches! I'm not too interested in using the filter function as I always have a look at the full listing for the cache to decide if I want to search for it or not! There aren't too many caches close by anyway that I have not already found so I tend to search for any cache I can get to!