bhoard

This is exactly how I feel. Cachers can decide for themselves whether a necessary permit is worthwhile to pursue, or not. That's all there is to it. I could understand a problem if Greykitties was concealing the permit requirement until the cachers arrived at GZ, but she's not -- she's been 100% forthright. I'm disappointed at this outcome. Profoundly.

If you are able to do so, please do, greykitties. Please do. As many others are, I'm concerned at what I see as a gradual erosion of what is considered "permissible" for creating and listing a cache.

Personally, I think the rules for cache placement are too restrictive, and don't allow cache hiders enough latitude to truly innovate. In the Virginia-area, I haven't seen many groundbreaking NEW cache types in a few years, other than the ones promoted by Garmin and GS that require expensive new equipment. I fault the cache hiding guidelines for that, but that's just my opinion. I understand that there's a reason those rules are in place, but I think there are occasions when the rules need to be rationally applied, even bent. Isn't this why we have human reviewers, and not some automated cache-evaluation computer program? In my opinion, this is one of those occasions where the rules need to be set aside after human evaluation. To my eyes, I see no valid argument for blocking this cache listing on the basis of "accounts on third-party web sites" or "executable code". Neither applies. And if the issue is the permit and "id theft," then cachers aren't obligated to even go find the cache any more than I'm obliged to go find all the lamppost caches hidden around Richmond, VA. Cachers can use their heads and evaluate whether or not the "risk" of pursuing a cache is worth it. I mean, there's a 5/5 cache in the Raleigh area that includes climbing a smoke stack from a 19th century brick factory, and dropping off a shear cliff face and a bridge over a rocky river. So if all the caches are supposed to be squeaky-clean and "no risk" then why are such "dangerous" caches even posted? There are all sorts of "risks" involved with caching. ID theft from dropping my wallet in a parking lot? Maybe I'll even be bitten by a snake or twist my ankle with nobody around to help me limp home? But I don't see those as valid reasons for dropping all those cache listings where the aforementioned "risks" apply, do you? Aren't those risks "dangerous" at some level too? If you don't like the associated risks of a cache, then add the listing to your block list and move on. That's what I do. In my opinion, there's a point where the nanny-like rules get a bit silly for thinking, rational caching adults. We need to think for ourselves and evaluate whether any particular "risk" with a cache seems worth it, and proceed from there. -Brent (bhoard)

I could not have stated it any better than this. I see this as a selfish move by those who do not enjoy ALRs. Frankly, I'm appalled by this regulatory move, and disheartened that once again, the creativity of cacher hiders has been stifled. This is a sad day.

I noticed that the first paragraph of logs doesn't appear to be surrounded by <p>, though subsequent paragraphs are. The text below in bold green is what's missing. Ok. You were warned. I told you this was a minor thing. <span id="LogBookPanel1_LogText"><p>When I pulled into the church drive way, I know this church had been around for a while -- it has that certain look. Anyway, I made the quick find, signed the log and was on my way after taking a quick look at the construction in the back. (What's up with that tower?)</p><p>Anyway, thanks for bringing me back to this location. I use Ashcake to get to and from work every day, but I've never gone out this side of the road, so it was very interesting to see the area. I had no idea there was this much forest out here! Again, TFTC!</p></span>

It was only a suggestion, based on some anecdotal evidence I've gathered from other cachers in my area -- didn't mean to insult anyone's usage of the PQ feature, and I realize I probably could have explained my suggestion better than I did, particularly with respect to the origins of my assertions. I still feel that the GT users are probably fewer than the LT users, but I'll just concede the point. PRIME, the "assumption" is for the default selection on the PQ setup to be initially set to LT, and not to GT, not that the wording is ambiguous. The problem only comes in with folks not reading what's on the PQ, but in development one might try to setup default form options to reflect the most common user settings -- that is, when folks don't notice a particular setting, then the default is more appropriate to what they are likely to have wanted initially anyway. Again, I'm not going to debate whether there are more GT or LT queries -- Groundspeak has that data, and we don't. My feeling about the most common setting before was just my general instinct on the subject, and I may be incorrect. Anything beyond this is simply conjecture, and PRIME is exactly right -- we can't just assume. Groundspeak can read this post and make their own evaluation, as they have access to view the global settings of PQ's for all of geocaching.com's premium members. Again, this was just a suggestion for Grounspeak, and I didn't intend to stir up such controversy.

If possible, I would highly appreciate the inclusion of cache attributes in the Groundspeak namespace of the GPX generated by Pocket Queries. This would enable for the attributes to be viewable in the field, and perhaps be sortable/filterable while mobile too. This update would have the possible advantage to Groundspeak of allowing cachers to generate fewer Pocket Queries on Groundspeak servers. I, for one, have a Pockey Query established specifically for night caches in my area, in addition to a standard Pocket Query for all caches -- I would gladly allow my PDA or other mobile device to sort out night caches based on this attribute from my primary Pocket Query, and remove the additional PQ from the processing queue. Again, just a comment I thought I would share. Thanks. -bhoard

This is minor, but I've encountered a possible site usability problems a few times over now. When selecting attributes for difficulty and terrain while setting up a Pocket Query, it seems the default setting is assumed to be "less than or equal to" when, in fact, it is defaulted to the opposite. If the community agrees, could the default for this setting be reversed to "less than or equal to"? My feeling is that the setting is most commonly used by travelers who are visiting a particular area, and have no time for 5/5 adventure caches and extremely lengthy hikes. That being said, the group that is interested in such caches should be able to switch the setting, much as the hypothetical majority flip it to "less than" now. Anyway, just an observation I thought I would share. -bhoard

I cannot speak for the Central Virginia Geocaching association, but I will state that I have followed the Fredericksburg Geocaching group discussion though -- it mirrors my own opinions as well. This feature isn't quite as helpful as I'm sure it was intended. I'd like to see an option for toggling it on and off -- set it to on by default, if desired. Anyway, just my two cents. -bhoard

Well said. I'd pay double to keep the ads away - I really don't need to refinance the home I don't own anyway. At least move the ad so it's below the cache inventory... I'm in accord. Frankly, I now feel that I was lead to create a premium account under somewhat false pretenses. That said, my primary interest in becoming a premium member was and remains in the interest of supporting GC.com as the main hub for this hobby that I enjoy -- I'm open to continuing that support, even by increasing my dues payments in lieu of advertisements. Secondly, my goal in becoming a premium member was to avoid seeing advertisements, which I regard as visually accosting and wasteful (of space, printer ink and bandwidth). If GC.com is to continue advertising to premium members, then I will personally consider one of the primary benefits to a premium membership gone, which may force me to reevaluate my status as a premium member whence it expires in September 2008. I hope in the intervening time, GC.com closely considers the effect of placing ads on premium members views. In my opinion, GC.com may benefit from short term gains in profits, but may well lose out on potential membership dollars in the long term.

Disagree with me if you will, but the ONLY means by which you came into contact with *my* email address was by harvesting it from our local geocaching listserv. I have 3 posts (now!) on this forum and have otherwise NEVER come in contact with you, or requested any such information. Now I know that statement smacks of "just being difficult" but I feel that our private association listservs have been violated by you. Now, had you joined our list strictly for the purpose of keeping a finger on the pulse of local geocaching associations, then that's one thing and I would whole heartedly support you in that endeavor. But your intentions to join *my* local group appear to be more in line with SPAM marketing; in this case, your actions speak louder than your words via the SPAM generated on 12/23 and 12/24. If nothing else, its the perceived intent of your interest in our local associations that concerns me, and the fact that you've potentially cracked the door to *more* "direct marketing" on our private channels. These local groups are not commercial in nature, nor should they be bridled with any intent of personal gain. In most cases, these groups bear this disclaimer in bold print, right up front. You have to AGREE to that purpose prior to joining; I know this is in place with my local group at the very least, so it should not have come at any surprise. But more to the point, please *CONTRIBUTE* to the local association listserv discussions or lurk quietly if you're only interested in reporting on our activities within your magazine. That shifts the purpose of your membership entirely, and we would not even be having this discussion. In time, if we (as local geocachers) ASK for the information about the magazine once we actually DO have an established report, then it would be appropriate to send it along. Now, please know that I'm *very pleased* to hear that you've developed a positive relationship with one local group in California after they reached out to you. But don't use our listservs to market or assume that we want the commercials; and surely don't abuse our spaces to harvest contact details to "target" us individually for direct, unsolicited email marketing. Respect is all we're asking for. Again, good luck on the magazine. Edit: Pardon me; I have a total of four posts to date on the GC forums.

You're assuming they HIT it. It is altogether possible that they SHOT it from a great distance away. (I've heard stories of geocaches with bullet holes before! )

Amen. I logged onto this forum specifically to voice my opinion on that subject. I not only resent the fact that this individual has emailed many of us individually, but I highly dislike the fraudulent nature of their application to my local geocaching listserv. It isn't that they sent unsolicited marketing emails to my group, but that they did it under the guise of an actual, honest interest in my local caching association -- their only *interest* was selling more overpriced ad space and generating additional magazine subscriptions. That flies in the face of our listserv spirit, and attempts to exploit and commercialize our local geocaching groups -- I really don't like that. But going back to what was said earlier, under no circumstances will I *EVER* support an organization or individual who seeks to promote themselves through SPAM emails. The problem with SPAM is far too grave, and contributing to the problem is unacceptable. Geocaching Magazine should seek to market itself through legit means; e.g., ad placement on GC.com (Duh!), Google Adwords, et al. SPAM is NEVER an acceptable method of marketing.

I just came in to report that problem too. Looks like someone forgot to dynamically set the <title> tags. It happens. Anyway, I'd like to say that GS has done an OUTSTANDING job with the site overall. The additional database horsepower is making a HUGE difference and all the new features are exciting! Great work, folks!! -bhoard