TheLimeCat

If only GS could personally examine each individual cacher and set different requirements for everyone. That way nobody could worry over the loss of a small virtual square on their online page. Of course, then those who were expected to find more caches would be the "penalized" ones. If only GS would stop doing fun promotions to avoid hurting the feelings of those who can't complete 100% of every given challenge.

We've got a Class A, but the difference in this sense is probably negligible. We've taken it on two trips with caching interludes. We did not tow a vehicle on the first, and our caching options were definitely limited by that. We managed to hit a few caches near large parking areas and some with long pullouts, but we did have to skip a few due to parking concerns. There was also a bit more walking involved with the caches we did attempt. Depending on the parks you're visiting, you will be limited in different ways. We could easily have fit into many of the parking areas in Yellowstone and Grand Teton, but you'll have to do some extra planning and there will probably be some caches that will be out of reach. On our second trip, we brought a jeep and had a lot more fun. Towing a vehicle is a bit more effort, but it was well worth it. Apart from finding easier parking, the jeep was much more maneuverable. Worrying about parking in a large camper put a bit of a damper on our experience and we burnt out faster. The jeep allowed us easy access to some great hikes that we wouldn't have been able to do otherwise and I was much happier with the experience overall.

This topic has been brought up a number of times. If you'd like to read through the unofficial numbers, you can try any of these links - My personal impression, which is reflected fairly well in these threads, is that the average cacher is a 40-year-old male. Groundspeak has been criticized here a number of times for their pattern of attempting to appeal more to new users rather than creating a better experience for the ones they've got. I'm thinking that the demographics displayed in their advertising material are just a reflection of that mentality, though I can't blame them for using younger faces to attract users. The strategy isn't exactly unheard of.

The past logs on that cache were an interesting read, so thanks for that. It's a bit off topic, but I'd like to voice my opinion on this webcam. It being a virtual cache type, I fail to see what problem is created by it being disabled rather than archived. It has no involvement in the placing of other caches and is clearly being monitored by the CO, who posted a note less than a month ago regarding the situation. I find it somewhat laughable that so many logs have been posted about it being an issue. Why? The only change that would come as a result of archival is that the blip on the map would disappear. A task that could be accomplished by simply ignoring the listing.

I'm in the same boat it seems. I won't say that I held onto too much hope being in the most cache-heavy country on earth, but I can't say I'm not disappointed. That said, I do have the solace of being able to get out and find some new virtuals. I just wish folks in my area were less interested in urban features and more on the wilderness areas where caches would not otherwise be allowed. I also wonder if we'll get some information about how many applicants there were of the 50,000 and perhaps also an estimate for each country.

It's not always that muggles found their way to an extremely obscure location and discovered an extremely well-hidden cache by accident. Sometimes it's that they saw a cacher rooting around in said location and returned after they had left to see what they were doing.

Honestly, I don't think you'll run into any opposition. Most people are glad to see their trackables travel and I guess I don't see the harm in returning once to pick up a forgotten trackable. The only way that I could see this being a problem is if you were routinely returning to the same couple caches to nab trackables.

I suppose it depends on the purpose. If your only goal is to increase your number of trackable logs, then no, though I'm assuming you wouldn't want to revisit a cache unless you had some specific goal in mind for the trackable. Short answer: you should be fine.

As I've said, I don't approve of this idea, but it doesn't seem right to conflate an individual removing reviewer archived caches (the topic I was addressing) and GS instituting a site-wide program to incentivize the removal of archived caches.

I think the purpose of the original suggestion was to remove litter produced by abandoned listings. A cache that is archived by its owner is not abandoned. I'm not sure that one could find anyone to advocate for community involvement in the removal of caches archived by their direct owner.

Pardon me, but I find it hard to believe that this hypothetical individual actually exists. This individual who would ignore a cache for so long that a "needs archived" log is warranted, then refuse to respond when asked about the container, yet is somehow involved enough to perform some maintenance action and list the container on some other site. How could one so dedicated to the life of their cache containers be so completely oblivious to the state of those containers and their contents? I don't approve of going out and snatching up just any archived cache, but one that was archived at the hands of a reviewer at one's own request seems like a reasonable exception. For what it's worth, I also don't approve of a system which incentivises the removal of archived caches, but I wouldn't conflate that with L0ne.R's actions.

The point is that the offer was made to return the property. If the previous owner no longer cares about the cache container, then they don't pose a problem regardless.

I started caching when I was 12. Speaking from experience, I enjoyed the large, easy to find and easy to access caches with plenty of loot. You'll probably want to double-check that you've got a decent amount of swag to trade. Obviously, not all kids are created equal, but I would probably rule out micros and roadside caches. I'd look primarily at low difficulty, low terrain caches, and especially those with a good amount of favorite points. Small, local parks are probably a good place to search. You could also try filtering by the "kid-friendly" attribute, but I'm not sure how effective that is.

That's a fair point. I have found more than my fair share of this type of cache, however, my comment was in response to this specific situation in which maintenance was being done by finders. If finders are performing maintenance, then there is necessarily some issue to be addressed by the CO, hence my comment.

It isn't our job as searchers to maintain a CO's cache. It may be a common courtesy, but a cache that isn't maintained by its CO won't last long. I find it funny that this CO mentions how the NA logger is whinging while simultaneously engaging in a rant about how others aren't doing a good enough job maintaining their caches for them. Maintenance or NA log is posted > cache owner addresses the problem. 'Nuff said. The logs are there to keep the community notified, not to act as an insult to one's honor.

Truth be told, my area got far more than our fair share in the past event. Something like 24 within 50 miles. I do hope areas like yours are treated preferentially, and it seems that they might be. That said, I have still applied in the hopes of introducing a new one somewhere near Mount Rainier. I saw your proposed location and it looks quite nice. I would rather see 1 unique remote virtual than 5 in a major city, though that's just my preference.

At least an 8% chance. Potentially more if not all of the qualifying cachers decide or are able to sign up to receive one. Best not to count one's eggs before they are hatched, but it is nice to fantasize about some of the more fantastic locations for a virtual. Good luck to you!

I see that there are quite a few puzzles' final locations revealed in some of the above images. I have cropped my home zone so as not to include anything revealing, though I doubt anyone would make use of the information anyway. I know some folks in my area who have likely turned the entire greater Seattle area yellow through their caching exploits. I'd love to see some of their find maps. They're quite nice to look at.

What is the actual problem you have with this? You could probably just open with that instead of this non-sentence.

I am actually quite excited to hear this news given that I just met the requirements last week. I will admit that this announcement would've been a crushing blow otherwise, though it will be nice to see some more new virtuals regardless. I am hoping that more people in my area will take advantage of the vast national park spaces that would be otherwise unable to support cache placements (apart from earthcaches).

I'm truly sorry to hear this. The story seems rather bare-bones. I assume more information will be forthcoming, but nobody should have to suffer such a loss at the hands of a geocache.

It seems to me that Groundspeak believes that I enjoy clicking additional buttons, so they've begun adding them whenever possible. Now I have to click an additional button every time I want to use the map and another one when I want to change the map type. Ditto to the above responses, however, I do typically access my map tool from my google home page, so no problems there. That said, I do really like the fullscreen feature and the search tools would be an excellent addition if they weren't the default. My one gripe would be that the total number of caches displayed at a single time is relatively small, but I assume there is some good reason for this limitation. I also enjoy being able to hover over caches from a distance and be shown the cache type and found status, though I'm not sure how important that is.

I'm sure the people out there who neglect to obtain permission for their caches are not rushing to admit this fact in the public geocaching forums.

That was my bad. Keystone mentioned a discrete number in a park so I had parks in mind when responding. I am well aware of this rule. I will say I've never understood the practice of coming up with locals that qualify. Maybe I've missed the point of a challenge cache, but ideally for me, nobody qualifies initially and my challenge pushes people to experience something new. I understand that in an area where people have tens of thousands of finds, people will inevitably qualify, but this builds on my point that challenges have become more about what cachers have already accomplished or would've accomplished anyway, rather than about encouraging them to attempt something new.

Yes, I was aware of the moratorium. The more pressing question I guess is: Would a mapping program like this streamline the process in such a way that a blanket ban on blackouts and user-defined maps is no longer necessary? The reasonable objections I can see relate to the ambiguity of these maps as well as their lack of ability to be checked on project gc. My thought is that if a checker/progress tool were available and standardized for this type of cache, these objections wouldn't be as strong. As for your hatred of blackout caches in general, I can understand that. I feel the same way about streaks and calendar fillers. I quite enjoy the challenge of blackout caches. For me, a lot of these "find X number of caches within X area" challenges are so watered down that they aren't particularly challenging at all. I like the challenges that push me to work hard to complete a difficult task that is satisfying to complete. I feel as though the recent moratorium has moved things in a direction such that new challenges are just markers of progress I've already made or would've made regardless of the challenge's existence. I will say that the majority of blackouts near me don't include mysteries, which I can appreciate because I totally understand the frustration with these non-sequitur puzzles that might happen to fall within a certain boundary. Regardless, I'd find a mapping tool like this helpful for those positive challenges as well. PS- I've thought that the guideline about finding a discrete number of caches in a specified area is rather ambiguous. If there are say, 43 caches in a specific park, and I have a challenge that requires 40 finds in said park, would that be valid?