TexTiger

I'd be interested in the csx.

Being a former reviewer, I think you have an insight as to what it takes for a state as large as ours. I would think a reviewer for the North, East, West and South regions of Texas would be beneficial, if for nothing else than to ease the load on the 1 reviewer we have. PR is in the Dallas area I believe, so why not give them North Texas. I know of a couple of people here in the West Texas area that would be willing (and have asked) to be the reviewer for our area, and I'm sure there are people in the South and East parts that would be interested as well. I don't know why TPTB would shooot someone down who wants to volunteer to help, especially since some states have multiple reviewers, unless it's PR's declining of help that is the reason. The more caches published quickly, the more apt people would be to place I would imagine. TT

I'm wondering if anyone has heard of celebrities that GeoCache? Sports or entertainment, either one.

2001 Jeep Wrangler

What about a non-saturated area and one proximity violation only by 70 feet?

I've only been gettting the Retreived notice, not the Drop notice also.

I thought you had to have the cache in place when you submit it for approval. Since it could be approved within minutes, and then found 10 minutes after that (with some of the FTF people around here), "saving" the coordinates isn't something you could do...or am I wrong on this one? If not, I know of few places I could go stake claim to until I could place a cache...

I think what he is pointing out is that you cannot set up a new virtual cache, so all virtual caches that are in place now were grandfathered in. Because of that, the fact you have a physical cache near a virtual cache makes the 528 rule moot. But here's my question...why would your cache be denied when the cache in question that was too close was unpublished? If it wasn't published, especially after 3 years, then it shouldn't disqualify yours...

And to clarify this further, they usually are ok with being inside that on one cache, but as you stated, you were inside the circle of three caches. That's an obvious saturation hit. Knowing this, you should have had some inkling you would have been declined; shrugged your shoulders and moved on. See my above post for how best to work out the issues. You're confusing me with the original poster. I was only in the circle of 1 cache.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary Ok, since wikipedia is the de facto truth source on the internet...we can also use their definition of "rule of thumb" (term used in the guidelines) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb Let's take that one step further and use their definition of "guideline": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guideline So even if we take your definition of "arbitrary", (which applies more to an action than a number, two different meanings, as in math, arbitrary equates to "any"), then there is still an argument for a cache being closer than 528 feet to another by the definitions of "rule of thumb" and "guideline" Actually the facts are that due to the defintions shown above, you don't have to be within 528 feet. It may be the recommended distance, but not a minimum distance, nor a rule. It is a "rule of thumb" that is a "guideline"

Actually, no, considering the cache is an ammo can, and there is no cover for it further away. I put it as far away as I could to still be hideable. I could make it a micro and move it further away, but there are too many lampost skirt micros in town, and too few regular sized caches. Then why say it's "arbitrary" instead of saying, "the minimum distance between caches must be greater than 528 feet unless natural obstacles (cliffs, rivers, etc) are between one cache and another. These caches will be considered on an individual basis"? That is wording that is pretty straightforward. To say it's "arbitrary" is what gets people frustrated about the "rule"...it's a direct contradition.

Make sure you get the rechargable battery as well. That comes in very handy. I loved my 500LE, after starting with the 210. You'll love the color screen, and I don't think I could get another GPSr without the color.

If the goal is to reduce the number of caches in an area, then why allow them at all. That seems totally contradictary to the purpose of placing a cache. If you read the part where I said the area wasn't saturated, then you would see that wasn't an issue. I'm guessing you never have dealt with the frustration of having one denied...

I had one denied because it was 455 feet away from the nearest cache, even though the next closest one (when I placed it) was .6 of a mile away. From the guidelines: Cache Saturation The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. The two bolded sections is what bugs me. The fact it is stated in the guidelines that the 528 ft rule is "arbitrary" means that there is no 528 foot rule. Abritrary by definition means that there is no set number. "Guideline" does not mean "rule." A cache 455 away, across a park and street from another cache should be more than enough distance away to "reduce confusion." Considering the next closest one is .2 away now, then .6, the area is not oversaturated. Unfortunately the reviewer doesn't agree, and holds fast to a rule that's not a rule.

That's not quite accurate. You've submitted 3 caches So, on average, your caches have been reviewed and published in 1 day. I think this deserves a reply by TexTiger, Reviewer has called you out but you have yet to come and explain... I had not replied because I didn't appreciate the tone with which Prime Reviewer responded, and her information was inaccurate as well. I know how pointless it can be to get into an argument with someone in a position of "authority" on boards such as these, especially since I have been informed by people who have dealt with Groundspeak that it's better not to question their volunteers for risk of retribution. My question was not intended to start a flame thread, merely to ask why there is only one reviewer in the entire state of Texas, which was not answered. Instead, PR chose to attack my post, and proceed to try to discredit what I said. There's no point in replying to someone who obviously wants to skirt the subject that was broached. Believe me, I could have gone on a rant about it, but decided discretion was the better part of valor.

Define "different entity". On a cache I recently placed that has been turned down by the reviewer because it was "only" 455 feet from the next closest one, they stated that a different cache type (ammo can vs micro) was not a reason for an exception. I do understand the ease of .1 mile being a justifiable distance if for no other reason than the "roundness" of the number. I don't understand how it can be defined as "arbitrary", then have a specific number attached to it. That's a little contradictary. Again, I'm not advocating a distance of 10 feet for the minimum. But even in wooded areas, 100 yards should be far enough, considering it may not be reachable by "bee-lining" due to overgrowth, etc. TT

And using the transitive property....Just because it wasn't ok at one point doesn't mean that it will be forbidden forever. This is my gripe on the "528 rule" There should be times when being inside 528 feet is permissable, as long as it's not 10 feet away. 450 feet, sure... I think a more logical number would be 100 yards (300 feet). I know a lot of people that can't even hit a golf ball that far, regardless of the club you give them. Placing a cache 100 yards away seems more like an adequate number...especially since the 528 rule is, per the guidelines, "arbitrary"

If you can find a way to work in a random encounter, that would be cool. Venemous Snake with a 7AC sounds about right, cacher will lose initative due to being surprised, called shot to the foot, Snake gets attack vs AC 6, THAC0 of 12, poison damage over time of 1d4 pts per round...

I used to be, many years ago, and still play some online MMORPG's from time to time. I do know that there is Geocaching in Second Life. I think any themed caches are interesting, regardless of whether or not I partake in the activity they are themed around. TT

We use the term "Street Pirates" instead of "Muggle". Made more sense to my boys when we started caching and they were 3 and 4 years old.

Technically the term as coming from HP is being misused. A muggle is just someone who does not have any magical ability, whether or not they are aware of magic is irrelevant. So techinally someone can know about geocaching and not do it and still be a muggle. My boys use the term "Street Pirates" for those people that aren't geocachers that we see while out caching because they have the potential to steal the cache. If a cache is missing, we say it was Pirated, not Muggled. This started because we called caching "Treasure Hunting" when we first started.

That headline is horrible...and I guess we should just place flashing lights around them also...or maybe neon glow tape. If they know what caches are, I agree with the poster that said they should look the coordinates up on geocaching.com.

That's a good thing. Well done. (After the intitial posturing it appears). One of the news stations is actually doing a full report on Geocaching tonight, my wife being the one they are interviewing. I talked to the reporter on the phone and he was really interested in Caching and wanted to kind of clear the air on how they reported it. Also, a reporter from a local paper also expressed interest in writing a feature story on caching and has asked for interviews from our local caching association.

Well sort of..they kind of explained what Geocaching was, but that was followed by the fact the police are planning on lifting fingerprints from the ammo can and are searching for the 3 people who placed the cache. Technically they were replacing it, but of course the media didn't really do their homework before they ran with a story. One of the stations even went so far as to say "it was a game, that got out of hand" or something to that effect....

Looks like one of the other stations is going to do a story on Geocaching in the wake of this event. A New Game You Can Play All Over the World 7/29/08 CBS 7 Staff July 29, 2008 "Geocaching" is basically a high-tech treasure hunting game. And it's played all over the world by adventure seekers. All you need is a GPS device. Basically you locate hidden containers called "geocashes" using longitude and latitude co-ordinates. Then share your experiences online. There are more than 623-thousand *active* geocaches around and hundreds of "cachers" in the Permian Basin. For more information on “Geocaching”, click at the link http://www.geocaching.com/ Might see an influx of cachers in West Texas now...