Team RedCow

I see that it's been several months since the last post on this topic. Is Groundspeak ignoring the players again? Frankly, I seriously doubt Groundspeak really cares what people think. The forums give folks like us an opportunity to vent, but then nothing ever happens. For the record, I would love to see challenge caches get their icon and cache type. Some people like to do puzzles, and some like to do challenges. Personally, I hate puzzles, but I love challenges. However, with the current system you have to click cache by cache to find which is which. A new cache type would easily solve this problem. And for those who don't like challenges, the answer is the same as it is to any other cache you don't like: If you don't like it, don't do it. So come on Groundspeak. Are you really listening to the people who actually play this game and who PAY you every year to be a premium member? Act on this suggestion and establish a new cache type.

Well we have been using the term "geocaching" for about eleven years now. What about a twist on that with "GEOcache" or "GEO-cache"? As for a type of earthcache that actually encompasses ALL types or earth science, whether GSA or Groundspeak approves them, Groundspeak has the ability to simply add an additional type of cache to the software any time they want to. GSA can't stop that. So it seems to me that the people to complain to is Groundspeak. So forget trying to change the earthcache guidelines--just add another category of cache for ALL earth sciences.

I hit platinum level a few months ago. Got any idea how many reached that level or beyond now? By the way, I have noticed that I frequently have to delete logs even by experienced geocachers because they log the cache and never answer the questions. Is this a common occurrence?

Looks OK, but for me, I have no problem admitting it is ALL about the numbers. I'm not in any great contest with anyone; it's just an issue of personal goals. Each milestone just makes it that much more interesting to try to rack up enough numbers to make it to the next milestone. That said--if it doesn't count toward my numbers, it takes all the fun out of it for me. I love doing locationless caches. It's a high tech scavenger hunt that I enjoy as much as the straight treasure hunt of Geocaching. But if it won't count toward my numbers, it just doesn't have the same thrill anymore.

Along the lines of logging caches I have a question. I've been at this for a couple of years now so I'm fairly familiar with the rules and etiquette. I was looking for a cache a few days ago that wasn't there. However, when I checked the recent logs later to see if others had found it the most recent "found it" log admitted that he did NOT find it. He claimed to have found where he was sure it should have been but there was nothing there. Yet he still logged the cache as found. I looked at his profile and, while his membership was a couple of years old, he only had eleven finds to his credit (including the one I just mentioned). I sent him a polite email and mentioned that geocachers don't normally log a find unless they actually found it. I was merely trying to be helpful to someone that appeared to have had almost no experience. He responded with a very rude and insulting email and claimed that it was I who didn't know the rules of geocaching and that he could log it if he felt like it. His note also stated that there had been other geocachers there simultaneously and that none of them had found it. I noticed that the others had only posted "didn't find it" notes. The cache owner is also a seagull cacher who only has eight finds herself and probably doesn't check on her caches. So who's out of line here? Was he being rude and out of line or am I the one out in left field? I was only trying to share my experience with another cacher.

I just read through the thread regarding the JAX parks system on the NEFGA site. That kind of crap just BURNS ME UP. Since when do those worthless government employees own the parks? Last time I checked the parks belonged to the taxpayers, which includes those who happen to geocache for a hobby. While I no longer live in JAX and my only interest there is from the perspective of someone who occasionally happens to be in the area hunting a cache or two I see this problem as having much greater repercussions later. If the city of JAX gets away with denying honest taxpayers the use of the parks then it will be a matter of time before other Florida cities jump on the bandwagon. We live in Ft. Lauderdale and also own property in Clearwater with caches in both areas. I have no voice in what goes on in JAX, but if Ft. Lauderdale or Clearwater jump on that bandwagon then we have a problem. It's unfortunate that a lot of government bureaucrats have to be told the hard (legal) way who really owns public land. Are there no geocaching attorneys who can inform these people what "public" means? Is there a local geocaching group around here? If not, can anybody tell us how to get one going? The last thing that we need is for the Broward, Palm Beach, or Dade parks systems to outlaw geocaching without us having a local voice to fight it.

I noticed one of the Florida group meetings was at Starbucks in Brandon. Would you consider the Palm Harbor Starbucks? One of the assistant managers is a geocacher. (Team Starbucks. What a name--gee, who wudda thunk??)

Not really from south Georgia, but my mom lives in Tifton. We'd be willing to meet up and go caching together next time we're up for a visit.

We'll try to go and help if Infosponge makes it an event cache--provided we can get the time off.

We'd be up for it if we can get the time off. One of us is in school and the other is working a weird-hours-&-never-any-time-off kind of job in between "real" employment. We have a friend that caches with us a lot that would come, too. (Team Starbucks)

Ditto. Sounds like a good idea. I'd have a charter membership myself if I could afford it, but being out of work prohibits it. An idea like this would certainly give me incentive to run out and try to find one first.

If I wanted to pay for something I'd go to the Groundspeak website and buy something. I've been out of work for seven months and being forced to pay for this sport would necessitate my dropping out completely. Food and bills come first. And I would have absolutely no incentive to ever post a cache again if only paying members could get it, even if only for the first week. I'm not trying to be contentious, but the cost (or lack thereof) was one of the attractions for this hobby. It gave me something to do with my son that I could afford. Besides actually being fun.

I sent you an email.

OK. Fair enough. If, in fact, there is some discussion among reviewers so that no single individual is dictating the game to the thousands of us playing it, then I can live with that. (Like I really had a choice. ) Just one question, though. If I had a cache that I wanted to dispute (and I don't, for those of you who will assume that I have an agenda in all this.) how does one take it to a reviewer, whoever that is?

What approval board?? Seems to me that every cache is approved (or disapproved) by ONE volunteer. One person's opinion against another. So what's wrong with getting second opinions? I wouldn't have an issue with it if there was some indication that the approval process was more than just one volunteer's opinion whether or not a cache is a good one or not. Nor did anyone say this was a democracy, but in a sense that's part of my point. This game has grown beyond just a few enthusiasts grouped together via a website. There are thousands now, but consider how many opinions are actually represented via this forum. Compared to how many are geocaching world-wide this forum represents a very small percentage of opinions. Sorry about the nazi comment. Frustration slipping out.

The issue with the police car cache was just an example. Haggling over whether or not his cache should have been approved isn't the issue. Chasing rabbits like that to get a discussion completely off the issue at hand has been tried before. In addition, claiming that the forums accomplish the same thing as an appeals committee is rubbish. You can discuss something to death, but when it's all over nothing changes. It's still up to the approval nazis to make the decision. Or are some of you afraid of letting go of your little oligarchy??? Absolute power still corrupts absolutely in the 21st century.

I have noticed that there has been a lot of discontent over the past few months, including some of my own, over caches that were disapproved. It seems that the approval of newly submitted caches is dependent on the opinion of a select few with Groundspeak and the small volunteer force. I know of one geocacher who got so frustrated over the disapproval of his police car cache that he quit the game. What was never mentioned in the postings about his cache was that the cache owner was himself a police officer. He naturally took the disapproval of his cache quite personally. I even submitted a locationless cache proposal of closed military bases. It, too, was disapproved. And there are a lot of others. The issue here is NOT locationless caches. (Many of you don't even like them. Face it, hunting regular caches and locationless caches is basically two different games. One is high-tech hide and seek; the other a global scavenger hunt. Personally, I like to do both.) While locationless caches seem to get the brunt of disapprovals the issue here is whether the select few should have total authority over the approval of caches. Let's face it, this game has grown WAY beyond the select few who are making the rules. What I suggest is that a committee be formed that geocachers can appeal to if they disagree with the approval/disapproval decision. Don't tell me that's what the forum is for. BULL. After all the forum opinions are posted the decision to approve or disapprove still rests in the hands of Jeremy, Erik, et al. Why can't we periodically elect/select a group of regional volunteers who would form an appeals committee? For example, each state can elect via the forum one geocache team/person to represent geocachers in that state/province. These volunteers would be up for election once a year. Then when a cache is disapproved, if the geocacher wants to appeal the decision he/she has someone to appeal to. The committee can read the cache report and vote yes or no. If the vote is no, the disapproval is upheld. If yes, the cache is approved and goes online. Now don't tell me this is too much work. As I said, this game has gone way beyond the opinions of a select few. Setting up an appeal option on the geocaching.com website would not be that difficult. Place a button on the website that would take you to the appeal option. Submit your cache. The site could then email a copy of the cache report to the committee for consideration. Each committee member then sends his answer back. The results are quickly tabulated online and the approval/disapproval occurs. Easy. Now why can't we do that and eliminate all the disagreements and hard feelings over disapproved caches?