ePeterso2

I think this alone is one of the greatest aspects of Waymarking. I think the McDonalds, Post Office, and other similar categories are some of the mostest stupidestest things ever. But if the site gives a home to everyone with a crazed need to be an amateur volunteer Yellow Pages research assistant, and that site also gives me the power to ignore all current and future such individuals with just one click, then more power to it. Also, there are very few waymarks in my area right now (there is a grand total of 87 within 100 miles of here). You can view this as a problem (there's nowhere to visit) or an opportunity (hey! I could be the first one to write up the spots I think are interesting!). I've taken the latter approach. Snag those low numbered waymark waypoints before it's too late! -eP

I placed a cache inside a spigot on the end of a fake pipe sticking out of a wall behind a nearby strip mall ... I even painted it and let it get dirty for a while to match the other spigots on the wall. It was a great camo job ... cachers looking for it would have to unscrew the spigot to find the log sheet. I had a great write-up for it, along with a cleverly encrypted hint, everything was all set to go. But the reviewer was concerned, and she asked me to get permission first. So I went around to the store and asked for the manager. The assistant manager was there, but when I described what I wanted he said I'd have to speak to the owner who wasn't there. When I finally managed to drop by when the owner was there, I found he spoke no English (and I speak muy poquito de espan~ol). Going back later, I was able to talk to the assistant manager who said I should talk to the owner. After waiting a month for the owner to come back from vacation, he said he was fine with it but that the store owners on either side of his shop might have concerns so I should call them ... I gave up at that point. It would have been faster and easier if the first guy had just said "no way" :-)

Searching for GCZZZZ gives: This cache has not been published yet. Are we there yet? -eP

I don't know what it's like in your area, but our reviewers seem to be doing this already. Caches with Needs Maint or that have been disabled for too long get a reviewer note prompting the owner to take action. If no action is taken, the cache gets archived. -eP

In one scene of the movie Hoot, there's a car chase across a bridge. That bridge is the New River Swing Bridge, and I recently posted a waymark for it. There's also a geocache at the south end of the bridge that was there before the movie came out.

You just described the Waymarking process. -eP

Well, it worked for Earthcaches, didn't it? ;-)

I've reported two waymarks so far, and I must say that there's a lot to like about the interface. I bet the OP would appreciate it, too. After using it for a bit, many aspects of the GC interface seemed "lame". ;-)

I don't know how the mods of this forum feel, but in other forums in which I participate starting a thread with a petition or an "open letter to the admins" is one of the best ways to get your thread locked and ignored. It seems to me that the admins have already addressed the issue of virtual caches and, whether you agree or not, waymarks are the answer. I just did a search for waymarks in Toronto, and there are a bunch of interesting ones listed! A lot more than where I live.

I don't need to email the owner. Any cache I can't find automatically gets an SBA.

I exchanged email a bit with the reviewer over this issue. She said there are some great puzzles out there, but there are a bunch of broken links, too. I asked if Groundspeak might consider offering its own hosting service to ensure that the puzzles stay active ... either hosting more complex web pages or even allowing uploads of binary files that could be downloaded and executed. She said that had been discussed but nixed. It sounded like Groundspeak is concerned about the effort and resources required for that extra level of support and to ensure that they don't create more problems for themselves. Their servers are already the targets of security attacks; they don't need the added risk of possibly spreading viruses, trojans and worms (oh my!) on top of that. And, frankly, I agree. I think geocaching is more about getting outside than about spending even more time in front of your computer than you already do. I don't think every puzzle idea has to have a cache associated with it ... there are tons of puzzles, puzzle sites, and other groups on the net. One alternative that just came to mind is java script: can we embed JavaScript in our cache descriptions? That might enable some advanced puzzle coding while still staying within the existing GC framework. I don't know if the JS is stripped from the description or not. I would guess that they would be allowed, because a coordinate checker is a convenience item, not a requirement. If you want to check the coordinates without a checker site, then hit the road and go searching. Which, arguably, is what you really should be doing anyway. It sure sounded to me like they have. And, as a software engineer myself, I can totally understand their rationale. -eP

Recently, I submitted a cache report for a similar cache I hid - it used puzzle links on a web site that I own and operate. It was rejected by the reviewer. Apparently, there is a growing problem of multi and puzzle caches with links to external web sites that are down temporarily or permanently. When the site goes down, nobody can find the cache. My reviewer told me that the reviewers were being instructed not to approve any caches that weren't wholly self-contained. That is, all of the elements needed to solve whatever puzzles are there are either on the Groundspeak servers themselves (as description text or uploaded images ... no scripts nor executables) or rely upon researchable information that is widely available (such facts in an almanac or encyclopedia). She also said that such constraints will likely change from informally enforced to a hard requirement in the near future. I totally agree with this requirement ... it will improve the longevity of such caches. -eP

SBA.

If that were true, threads like this wouldn't exist. They're rare. They give your profile page a special icon. Possession of one allows you to bestow that icon upon other people of your choosing. They're a measure of your geomanhood. The relative power and status that go with hoarding them are worth far more than $2.00. That silly social phenomenon is not limited to geocaching. I'm guilty of holding the one and only white one I've ever found for a month or two. I got lucky and saw it sitting in a nearby cache while visiting relatives across the state. I even did some minor repair to it - I glued the headlight bar down since it was about to fall off. But I haven't shared its code with anyone, I haven't taken it to any events, and I don't have a caching trophy case at home where it's on display. I don't feel like it's "mine" in any sense. I know its existence will draw attention to whatever cache it's in, so I've been keeping it until I can get to one where the Jeep will be a good reward for the effort. I did the same thing with the only green Jeep I ever found after hanging onto it for a week or so. But the white Jeep is significantly larger than the green one, which limits the places it can go somewhat. It's going to go into a cache that will be placed very, very soon (location, container, log book, and cache page are all set ... all I need is for the FTF prize to arrive in the mail). -eP

Mine wants to go to Kingston upon Hull or more commonly just "Hull". I have a friend who lives in Sheffield, which is reasonably close to there. I'm planning to send the bug to her so that she can place it in a local cache. Maybe I can even convince her to drive over to Hull to drop it.

How sick are you when you fine tune your hiding spots to the local core group? "Can't put it there, Dennis will find it in a minute. And it can't go there, because Robert showed me that kind of hide. But I've gotta make it tough or those two sisters will steal the FTF away from the rest of the group ... AGAIN." For real.

I *really* dislike 2-stage multis whose first stage is a film can in a relatively uninteresting location with coords to the second stage in an interesting location. I mean, Gentle Cache Placer, why did you waste my time taking me to the pill bottle in the palm tree first when you could have just as easily sent me to the final? And I also don't care for 2-stage multis whose first stage is far more interesting than the second. I mean, if stage one is a film can at a pretty memorial fountain and stage two is a lock-n-lock full of mildewed McToys in an unmanicured areca palm full of rats, then I would have been perfectly happy stopping after stage one, had I known about stage two. I've got a plan in mind for a 10+ stage multi/puzzle cache in a relatively small area, solely as an endurance test, but also as an antithesis to the lamp skirt micro that seems all-too-common here. But even then, it will still have something important, unique, and reasonably interesting to do along the way (as opposed to just forcing you to walk back and forth across the park for no reason). I don't realistically expect it to get visited much, but hopefully folks who do will feel like they accomplished something worthwhile. I strongly suspect that folks actively ignore multi and puzzle caches as a general rule, fearing them to be of the same ilk. Or folks just download a bunch of waypoints into their receivers but don't bring the cache pages with them, so they can't solve the multi or have no idea why there's no cache at the posted coords. I don't know if that's true or not, but it seems strange to see logs for a particular cacher all over one area but never at any of the puzzle/multis. I guess that's not a bad thing ... makes it worth more to those who do accomplish them. -eP

For me, that would depend upon how interesting each of the prior stages was. I would gladly do a 20-stage multi if every point along the way was cool, interesting, or meaningful. I placed a multi with 7 prelim stages (can be done in any order), where each stage/waypoint corresponds to an educational information plaque along a trail through a restored nature preserve. Information gathered from each plaque (and hopefully folks will learn something interesting about the area along the way) gets transformed into a set of coords of the final stage. Personally, I think the test of "Why did you bring me here?" needs to have a good answer for every stage of a multi. A stage that exists only to give me one number in a series isn't as compelling as something that gives me a nice view or teaches me something about the area or challenges me with a fun puzzle to solve.

Wow. The cremated dog remains wins. I did find a pair of women's underwear in a nearby cache ... apparently unused, fortunately. I'm willing to bet that the feminine hygiene products were left in caches by women who have been in situations where they really needed one, didn't have one handy, and were miles away from the nearest source.

Using the clues left in this thread from the OP, I was able to find that person's profile and his big series of caches. While I'm sure many (all?) of his hides are "lame" (whoa, sorry -- wrong thread), people do seem to be going out and finding/logging them and expressing appreciation for their existence (inasmuch as "TFTC" conveys that). Yes, his descriptions could be a bit more interesting and could use an editor to spell/grammar check some of them. But it looks like he's playing by the rules, as far as cache pages go (assuming he isn't drilling holes in trees and fence posts like the other poster mentioned). This problem has absolutely nothing to do with the reviewers.

Got mine yesterday after waiting only a week for it. Looks like it wants to go to Kingston upon Hull, and there's a good number of caches nearby.

I can't see how anyone can prove in any measurable way that any specific person solved any specific puzzle in the precise manner in which the puzzle writer intended. Most puzzles will succumb to a brute force search for any missing pieces if you can narrow the search space sufficiently ... does that mean that the puzzle wasn't "solved"? And how do you measure the relative contribution in a group of solvers? Suppose you've got a group that consists of someone who's good at word puzzles, another that's good at math, another at trivia, another at logic, etc. And suppose they've got a fellow cacher that goes with them that is a poor puzzle solver but offers to go along for the hike, carry the water and snacks, and is a phenomenal conversationalist and keeps the others focused on the goal instead of trying to outdo each other? Obviously in this hypothetical example, the pack mule didn't technically solve the puzzle ... but his/her actions enabled the others to crack it. I can't imagine how you'd begin to apportion credit for the find among a team like that, and I'd think that the mule deserved just as much solving credit as the rest. All you really know is that someone crossed the finish line (signed the log sheet) with a different pen and/or handwriting style than anyone else who signed the log. And given the relative anonymity of the game, even that's not hard proof. I think the idea of heavy logging requirements enforced by the owner to be kind of silly. I find the more that something seems like police work, the less fun that something is. -eP PS: Unless you happen to be a police officer and really enjoy your work, of course :-)

I would think that if you just treat that person's caches like any others, then this situation will probably take care of itself. Here's what I'd do if I were in your situation. Visit the caches in question yourself. If a cache is missing or badly in need of repair, log a Needs Maintenance entry. Same thing with coordinates in the middle of a house. If the placer does not respond to the Needs Maint log, then eventually it'll get archived during a regular scrub done by the reviewers. If this person's caches are placed as poorly as you described, they should end up being muggled rather quickly on their own. Plus, that person will eventually get burned out of time, money, or motivation to place such hides before too long, I'd imagine. I wonder how caches with overwhelmingly poor grammar and spelling and such get past the reviewer in the first place. Maybe you're in an area with too many hides and not enough reviewers to handle the load? Maybe you or someone else could step up to the challenge of being a reviewer? I don't know what the become-a-reviewer process is, though.

Uhhh ... I think the national lands are pretty much the definition of "off limits". -eP