DudleyGrunt

I see no problem with it, Mama Wolf. I would think that if a particular forum only wanted locals, they have a statement to that effect. Did you check your Junk Mail folder?

I fail to see where Groundspeak is being a bully. If anything, the general tone of some of the alternative sites hasn't changed much since I first discovered them a few years ago...that tone being the angst of disgruntled cachers complaining about Groundspeak on a regular basis. 1. It doesn't really matter if they are being a bully, if they are being perceived as acting like one by enough people. I'm not sure that is the word I'd use, but I do think it's become less about providing a service to geocachers and more about the business. 2. We all have our own perspectives on things, but it is the forums here that I have found to be way too negative. For that reason, I don't come here often. I have 8 or so other caching forums that I use and they largely meet my needs. I rarely see any bashing of Groundspeak / GC.com in the forums of the "alternate" caching sites. Expressing a difference of opinion with the Lily Pad isn't necessarily unusual and it should be expected for folks to compare and contrast the different sites. This comment and a couple others earlier in this chain show the real problem here. The philosophy of Groundspeak is that people should only participate in one geocaching site, and that one should be Groundspeak's. They have come to see it solely as a business competition, not recognizing that many people participate in more than one subset of geocaching, and that what I do on other sites doesn't have any impact on their profits, since I'm still a member here. That attitude has cost them money by creating a vibe here that makes people consider the other options. They certainly don't need the advertising, but some businesses recognize the benefits of a good public image. Thanks for the comments, SF! You know I use four caching sites, myself, and they all have good and bad points. I think very few people realize that one of these "alternative" sites is only a few months younger than GC.com AND that GC.com was NOT born on May 3, 2000.

Why, thank you.

I'm referring to their general policies / guidelines, whether in their forums or on their cache pages. Two of the three, even have links on their cache pages to find the nearlest caches on other sites. They also don't mind mentions of the other "alternative" sites. Though, I'd think, they would have more to lose from people discussing Groundspeak than Groundspeak would have from people mentioning them. Believe it or not some people make it to site X, Y, or Z as their first caching site. If the first site you come across is Site X and it has 10,000 caches wold-wide, and you read a post than mentions GC.com with it's 1 million plus caches, you just might be tempted to move over here. I think it's just more of a philosophy than anything else.

Sorry, I hadn't responded sooner. I dont' make on these forums much and hadn't gotten (or seen) reply notifications, witch I thought I'd set. niraD - I don't agree that what my fellow cachers think doesn't matter. It may not matter to some, but I'd rather discuss things with fellow cachers first in an effort to flesh out what I want to do. Then, when I know what I want to do, if I can't make it work on a particular site, I can go elsewhere with it, if that is the best option. A&T - Since Groundspeak frowns on even mentioning other sites, it's sort of necessary to be a bit vague. The other sites aren't afraid of acknowledging each other. I guess your note on the other forum wasn't as tongue-in-cheek as I'd thought. Despite the vagueness, I have been attempting to decide exactly what I can and can't do and have no desire to provide any false information to my reviewer when it comes time to publish the cache. Keystone - the users would not have to log any other caches or even log into any other site. As I'm envisioning it now, they'd be able to figure the coordinates of three other stages / containers where they would collect information to find the final cache (on GC.com) as with any other puzzle cache. The only different thing would be that these other stages would also be their own caches on the other sites. I know there are there are plenty of caches on two of the other sites that are "crosslisted" on Groundspeak. To my understanding Groundspeak does not forbid crosslisting caches on other sties. That is pretty much the same thing as my 3 intermediate stages. One way to not have to worry about any of this would be make one of the other sites the final and the GC.com cache simply one of the ones caches along the way. However, it seemed sort of natural to have the GC.com cache the ultimate find as they are the one that stands apart from the others. I'm not sure there are any GC guidelines that would / could prevent me from requiring some one on site X, Y, or Z from finding a GC cache in order to log a cache on Site X. Of course, I could also fully acknowledge and concede to GC's desire to not play well with others by leaving them out of it all together, but then it would seem a bit incomplete. HD / TT - the difference, of course is that Waymarking is part of the Groundspeak family and therefore would be acceptable. Thanks to everyone else, as well for you input.

If you plan to make the puzzle this vague I doubt it can be published, let alone found. The cache will be solvable, but like many puzzles I've looked at perhaps not immediately clear what you need to do. Some examination, thought and research would allow the cacher to figure out what to do. I just don't want to give it away here. I'll hazard a guess that this will be the first of its kind. As such, it will likely engender some discussion.

It'll fit those guidelines. Do the "no solicitation" guidelines limit my options? No money would have to be spent to retrieve the information.

I'm curious about any limitations of the sources of information collection in order to solve a puzzle cache. Without going into detail, I'm considering a little bit of a different puzzle cache. I was wondering whether the Groundspeak community understands there to be any limitations where I can require people to go to get information to solve the puzzle. The cache page itself will not specifically direct them anywhere, but they will need to figure out where to get the information and then use specific resources to get to the specific location(s) to get it. Is this vague enough?

Thanks. I've just finished explicitly changing all my coins and my vehicle TB to "Not Collectible" and moving them from an unlisted / archived cache to my collection. A friend is having a problems moving some TB's to their collection, though. They aren't ones that were transferred to him, though, which I've heard might be (or was) an issue.

Looks like GS may have made a change to the TB Collectible settings OR I completely missed something before. Even if an item is marked as "Not Collectible", the OWNER can still place it in his / her own collection. Not sure why I'd mark any of mine as "Collectible", then or why anyone would have a problem with his feature, as long as the default for existing items was effectively "Not Collectible". I can just mark ALL my trackables as "Not Collectible" and not worry about others placing them in theirs. Can anyone tell me if this is a change or did I just miss this aspect of the feature.

The only issue I have / don't understand is why anyone would need to add trackables they don't own to their collection. However, since they'd have to grab it from me first (and they could do that now), I can always just grab it back. Usually, I've see this happen when someone is attempting to discover one of my items and accidentally grab it. I would be nice if items in my collections could not be grabbed by others, but I still think I'll start using the collection option for my "held" items, instead of putting in my archived cache, like I do now.

I'm sure book will list 4. Maybe... 1. Search for caches in your area. 2. Identify the cache you wish to find. 3. Navigate to the geocache site (parking / trailhead). 4. Follow GPS to geocache.

Not everyone believes that silent treatment is necessarily the best response to these kind of people. Some believe it is better to shine the light on darkness. Of course, it may also be useful to discuss certain specific responses in private / offline.

Agree with StarBrand, you're not compelled to leave anything for a TB or geocoin. I will generally not take multiple trackables, however, unless I know I can help them on their mission. If there is no indication of their mission, I'll generally only take one and do my best after checking the page at home. As far as FTF's go, I see no issue with trading multiple items, as long as it's "even or up". Welcome to the game!

Kryptic - great article. Thanks. * * * By calling her a "true believer", I simply meant to say that she seemed more motivated by a deranged sense of mission. I am definitely not saying she's actually improving the state of the forest by her actions. While she may be the "lowest form of cache maggot", I just think she has a different motivation than our attention - unless you think the whole "Forest Defender" thing is a complete ruse that she doesn't even believe. Neither do I think we need to be "militant" about it, but assuming these caches have proper permission, I think that the CO's should organize and work with the land owners / managers. If some caches do not have proper permission, they need to start getting it. It would probably also be a good idea to explicitly state on the cache pages the details about who permission was granted by. Both as a message to Forest Defender and for the benefit of future cachers seeking the cache or considering placing caches in the area. As far as her leaving the cache contents strewn around the area, that's a bit surprising, but then again, she may well be more interested in the accolades of her fellow eco-nuts who read her blog than in affecting actual change. Who knows how a sick mind works, though? As far as catching her in the act, there are ways to increase the likelihood of that, as well. All in all, I think it is better to shed light on the darkness than to turn your back to it.

I disagree with that philosophy, though I admit that I brought this person to TBC's attention and suggested they be discussed on the next Caching in the NorthWest podcast. This person seems to have her own agenda, apart from attention. She seems to be a "true believer" eco-nut. Our maggot in Maryland seemed (hopefully, he seems done) to be a bit more after the attention, though who knows what really motivated him. We tried to work with Groundspeak to deal with our thief, but they were unable / unwilling to really do anything. Eventually, we were able to work with both the Maryland Municipal League and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, at least in regard to caches on their lands. I don't think the caching community needs to cower to these people like helpless sheep.

Heard about this on Podcacher today. If this person were working with the appropriate land managers / owners, then I don't really think we could complain. However, I see no evidence of this on her blog - only an imaginary conversation with a park ranger. I wonder if she's even considered whether these caches just might have the approval of of those actually responsible for the land. I would recommend that people placing cachers in "her forests", be sure to get approval and make the owners / managers aware of FD's activities. If they are granting permission, then they may join in trying to put a stop to her activities. In central Maryland, we've had an issue with a "cache maggot" (as we call him) stealing caches and using various geocaching.com accounts to log his activities. Through the Maryland Geocaching Society, we've been able to enlist the support of the Maryland Municipal League and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission in trying to combat our thief when it comes to caches on their properties. Members of the Military Association of GeoCaching (MAGC) have worked closely with the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center on historic Kent Island, MD to place caches at CBEC to increase visitations and develop a group of people who are willing to come out a couple times a year to provide free manpower to help improve the area though CITO events. I know they would not be happy with "Forest Defender" if she were to "liberate" CBEC of geocaches. Of course, typical of this kind of person, there is not way to contact them or even leave comments on her blog.

Those are good changes. As an ASM for my son's troop, I am planning on being a MB counselor this badge and would probably either adopt the caches from the scout when they are no longer interested in them or see that they were archived. However, I assume not all counselors will be "serious / veteran" geocachers and may not take as much of a personal stake in these caches. At least GS does have good processes for getting caches archived when they've been abandoned, put hopefully, it won't be too much of a problem.

I like the idea. It's creative and different. I don't see a problem with paying for a phone call or text message. However, it's hard to tell if Groundspeak would. If your reviewer decides it's too outside the box, there are alternatives.

True, I'm just not sure there are any other merit badges that require the use of a particular commercial entity. I'm not sure that a merit badge that solicits on the part of a perticular company is in the spirit of scouting.

I was disappointed to see that the MB is Groundspeak-specific and not a general geocaching badge. Without naming them, there are other sites dedicated to publishing geocaches and it's a shame that BSA didn't leave the MB open to be worked through any of these.

Thanks. The term "Kanji" might be helpful.

I'm looking for any info on the wooden nickel below. 1) Has anyone seen one of these before? 2) Does anyone know who might have created it? 3) Anyone know what it says? 4) Any sort of transcription would be great, even if it doesn't make sense. Feedback I've gotten so far, has ranged from "it's gibberish" to "maybe it's a puzzle" to "Japanese using Chinese characters". I'm wondering if the last line might be the cachers name or the cache name if this is intended to be part of a puzzle cache. I received this in a package of wooden nickels Spring1 sent me after they saw my online gallery of wooden nickels and poker chips. You can see a larger image of the script by clicking HERE Thanks! DG

The use of a "Confirmtion Code" such as antoher cache listing service uses, would prevent fraudulent logs Found It and the need to lock it.

Figured I owed to all involved to share the resolution.