baer2006

I know all that, but location data via WiFi or other non-GPS means is not nearly as precise as GPS. So it depends a lot on the allowed tolerance in reaching the location coordinates. If this is like, say, 100 meters, then it should work in the location I have in mind (it's not deep inside a concrete bunker ).

Yeah, the documentation has some gaps in my view (or I just DNF'd the info ). After playing around a bit with the Builder, I had come up with a few questions which I e-mailed to the given help address. No answer received so far (not that this is a problem), but maybe you can give me a hint on one very basic question. A "wrong" answer would immediately kill the location(s) I have in mind, so I'm kinda curious: At one point, it says "Adventure Labs can be ... indoors", and on the other hand you have location validation to enter the find code. But you usually don't have a GPS signal indoors, so how is this supposed to work? Place the location coordinates into the front yard, and asking the cachers to come back here when they found out the answer indoors?

I applied a few hours after receiving the first invitation e-mail. I admit, that I had no firm idea what I was up to, and thought that with only 250 "rewards", I most likely wouldn't get one anyway.

I got an e-mail yesterday from GS, saying "You won an Adventure Lab", with a few links to documentation, and an invitation to log into the "Adventure Lab Builder". I had a semi-quick look through that "Builder". As far as I could see (but maybe I overlooked something), there is nothing substantially new which I couldn't also do in a normal multi-cache. The main difference seems to me that there is no need for a physical final container. There are some options for "visual sugar", like e.g. optionally displaying a video whenever a "stage" is completed. There is no complex game play like in Wherigo. One restriction is that the players need good cellphone reception all the time (at least at the exact coordinates of each "stage", to enter the "find code"). In my area, that excludes many of the more interesting rural locations.

Just in case anyone is actually wondering, the "selection" (I think the invitation said it would be a random draw) has apparently been done. I got an e-mail yesterday from GS with the subject "You won an Adventure Lab".

I don't remember what was said in the invitation, but the documentation of the "Adventure Lab Builder Tool" explicitly quotes a limit of 10 locations. So power trails are out .

Online-Fundlogs mit mehr oder weniger deutlich vom tatsächlichen Fundtag abweichendem Datum können für Owner und nachfolgende Cacher ziemlich nervig sein. Stell dir vor, dein Cache bekommt 2 DNF, aber ein paar Tage später wieder einen Fund. Dann denkst du dir "Schön, dann passt ja alles, haben die DNFler halt einen schlechten Tag gehabt". Aber wenn der Finder den Cache in Wirklichkeit 3 Wochen vorher gefunden hat? Dann ist so ein falsches Logdatum effektiv dasselbe wie ein reines Fakelog (mit dem man aus solchen Gründen, anders als oft gesagt wird, auch nicht "nur sich selbst bescheißt"). Ich weiß auch, dass es in den GS-Guidelines keine Vorschrift gibt, einen Fundlog auf den Tag des tatsächlichen Vor-Ort-Funds zu datieren. Trotzdem halte ich es für ein Gebot der Höflichkeit und Ehrlichkeit, es trotzdem zu tun. Ähm ... ja, ich merk's grad selber ... Appelle an Höflichkeit und Ehrlichkeit in einem Geocaching-Forum sind irgendwie lächerlich. Ok, sorry

"Netherlands Antilles" is in the drop-down list for the "country" field for a new listing, and can be selected. "Unknown" is also in that list, but if you select it and try to save the listing, you get an error saying "Please select a country".

Es gibt definitiv keine Regel von GS, dass zum Legen eines Caches eine Mindestzahl an Funden vorzuweisen ist. Eine feste Regel dieser Art (egal, wie hoch die "Hürde" ist) würde aus verschiedenen Gründen überhaupt keinen Sinn machen.

I have found several (must have been at least five) of these "dowel with bolt in a bottle" caches, so let me share my experiences... None of the listings offered any help for the cacher. You just find the device, and have to work out for yourself how to get the logbook out. Getting the logbook out is almost trivial, once you have the basic idea how to do it. BUT: It's much more difficult to reassemble the bolt inside the bottle! This will inevitably lead to maintenance issues, because cachers sign the log (and claim a find) but fail to properly reset the puzzle. More often than not, the owner will not be notified. Whenever I find one of these puzzles, I look into its log history. The maintenance problems are always visible! You should make it very clear in the listing, that the hardest part is resetting the puzzle to its original state. Also, it's a good idea to appeal to cachers' honor, and at least ask for a notification of someone fails to properly reset it. I suggest to let the bison tube with the logbook move around in the bottle. Depending on the exact geometry (bottle diameter, length of bolt), another rigid object in the bottle can make it easier to screw/unscrew the nut (hard to describe ... the nut can be "rolled" on an edge of the object). Apart from that, I can't really say that I enjoy these caches . There is always the fear of not being able to put everything back, and having to confess to the owner that you messed up their cache. It actually happened to me on the very first cache of this kind, because I had never seen it before and ended up having no idea to reassemble it afterwards.

There are several such "projects" in Germany. I know people who have "completed" one in a single day. I put "completed" in quotes because I know that some "creative logging" was involved (like splitting the group, and each subgroup signs for everyone). My own experience is limited to an incomplete project of this kind, where the owner gave up after about 50 of 81 caches. In these 50, the D/T ratings were often way off a realistic assessment. E.g., T3 was sometimes on the ground right by the path, and sometimes 4m up in a tree without branches below the cache.

There are already enough tools available (project-gc has been mentioned) for those who are into all sorts of "side games". I really don't think that GS should add more features to please the statistics crowd.

Kenne ich. Aber trotzdem logge ich auch dann den DNF, denn es könnte ja sein, dass der Cache gemuggelt wurde. Wenn ein D1er gemuggelt wird, und sich dann keiner traut, den ersten DNF zu loggen, kann es lang dauern, bis der Owner mitbekommt, dass da was nicht stimmt.

Well ... this liability issue is actually a hornets' nest . I'm not a lawyer, but I know that it's complicated. When the issue once came up in a geocaching group, the discussion was interesting and it seemed to be like "Ask three lawyers, and you'll get five opinions." Effectively, it's decided on a case-by-case basis. The landowner does have some obligations, but isn't responsible for everything. Some general guidelines seem to be these: - If there is a path through your property, which is regularly used by the public (or even signed as a hiking trail), then the concept of "Verkehrssicherungspflicht" ("obligation to secure safe traffic") comes into play. E.g. the walkway along a road often belongs to the owner of the land beside it, and then this owner has to do basic winter service in case of snow. Or if a dying tree might fall on the path at any time, the land owner must cut it down. - On the other hand, if you walk cross-country off an path, the land owner is definitely not liable, if you e.g. fall into a ditch and break your leg. The same is true, if you climb a tree and fall down. - There are some special rules for forests. Even when you are walking on a roadway, the owner is not liable for "dangers typical for woods". This e.g. includes falling branches from otherwise healthy trees. It would be impossible for the owner to permanently check all trees near all the paths for loose wood. On the other hand, if a tree beside a roadway is obviously a danger (e.g. bent in a storm, and likely to break off anytime), then the owner must act. But there are many grey areas here, and in general, a land owner should have a good legal insurance. Well ... usually yes, I'd say. But of course you have the usual idiots who don't respect anything. So in that respect I don't think Germany is different from the rest of the world.

In Germany there is a thing called "Gewohnheitsrecht" ... don't know how to properly translate it, but "customary law" might be close. Typical example: There is a footpath across your land, no gates or fences, and the path has been used since many years. Then you are not allowed to close off the path simply because you don't like the public traffic any longer. It's not a public path, it's still your property, but you can't close it without a valid reason - like, say, you want to develop the land. And in some cases you can't close it at all, when it's the only access to a (truly) public piece of land with "public interest", e.g. a lake shore.

This is a very good summary of the situation in Germany. Well ... at least I hope it's a good summary, because it matches my understanding of the situation . That said, I (usually) don't climb over fences, because a fence is a legally relevant indication that a property owner want's to keep the public out. But things can get complicated, because (at least in Bavaria, where I live) there is also a law which allows the public free access (on foot, not in motor vehicles) to the "nature". This specifically includes privately owned grassland and forests. So e.g. a fence around a part of the forest could be illegal itself (and therefore legal to cross). Back to the thread topic ... If I can positively identify the cache (or its very likely location) a few meters inside a fenced-off area, I decide on a case-by-case base: - If I'm physically unable to cross the fence, or I could do it but there are muggles around: I log DNF, describing the problem. The "muggles" can also be livestock inside the fence. It might be technically legal to cross an area, which has been temporarily fenced off to herd goats or sheep - but it's usually not a very good idea . - If I'm very sure that the area is really off limits to the public: DNF + NM - If I can cross the fence, and it's in the middle of nowhere with nobody around: I proceed to the cache, but will mention the fence in my log. In any case, if I only see the cache but don't reach it, I'd never log a find.

An example of what irks me (and happened last year): I tried to find a cache, and failed. In my DNF log, I said that I gave up the search after a few minutes, because nasty thorns were all over the place and I just wasn't in the mood to get my clothing and skin tortured any longer. That should have made it clear that I didn't make an exhaustive search. However, I also said that I saw something which might have been the remains of a cache (a loose piece of wire). Several months later, someone claimed a find - it was the first log after my DNF. The log was a copy&paste standard log, with only one cache-specific line: "Placed a new container" ... classic throwdown. Some weeks later, another find is claimed, saying like "Two containers found close to each other". I didn't find the cache, scratched my hands and arms quite a bit during my attempt ... and the next guy comes along and just drops a throwdown! To me, his log sounded like "How stupid can you be to stumble around in thorns and ending with a DNF. See my throwdown, that's how a pro handles it!". I'm sure wasn't really meant like this, but still ... it irked me a lot. The fact that the cache was there all the time and that the CO apparently doesn't care about the throwdown, just topped it off. Also, it didn't help that I know the throwdowner personally, and he has his nose rather high about what a "great cacher" he is.

Around here it's definitely not standard procedure to delete OM logs after maintenance has been done. I have logged over 350 NMs in 10+ years, and exactly one of them was deleted by the CO because "otherwise, the maintenance flag wouldn't go away". I know this isn't true (also, the CO did log an OM), but I wasn't in the mood to argue. Regarding the opinion, that it's "their" (the CO's) webpage ... well, sure, but it's my log . So I'm always a bit irritated when one of my logs gets deleted, although it doesn't contain anything which could be viewed as spoiler or "inappropriate" language. NMs are admittedly not so important anymore once maintenance has been done, but deleting them whenever OM is done still deletes part of the cache's history. In some situations, I as a cacher would like to know beforehand if a cache is "trouble prone", i.e. if there are unusually many NM/OM pairs in the past. Finally, from the OP ... In this situation I would definitely have reposted the NM, because an OM log admitted that maintenance is yet to be done!

OM without Enable can make perfect sense. I have posted OM logs on one of my multi which said things like "Fixed stages x and y today, have to check the others later". Followed by a second OM logs a few days later, together with an Enable log. I did maintenance on both occasions, and logged it as such. Of course this only works when the cache is disabled. Otherwise, after the first OM the red wrench is removed, and cachers will have the wrong impression that the cache is ready to be found.

It's the same here (Germany), except that by far the most micros-labeled-as-small are PET preforms. Whenever I do a caching tour with more than a handful of caches, chances are very high that I can write "A preform isn't a 'Small', it's a Micro" in at least one log. At one point I thought about making this a signature line in all my logs . On the plus side, the chance that a CO corrects their listed cache size don't seem to be that bad over here.

Exactly the same is true for my eTrex 30x, whenever the cache name starts with an emoji. Also, when find the cache and log it on the GPS, the corresponding line in the field notes .txt file is corrupted, which in turn means that the find is not imported when I upload my drafts later. When there is an emoji in the middle (or end) of the cache title, everything up to that emoji is displayed correctly. Needless to say, I don't like emojis is cache titles .

Hi, the other day I solved a series of ~20 puzzle caches, where all listings had Groundspeak's "built-in" geochecker to verify the solution. The puzzles were not difficult, and I almost always got the right coordinates on the first try. But beginning after about 10 caches, the "I'm not a robot" checkbox came up with increasingly annoying tasks to complete. At the end, it took dozens of clicks on sometimes fuzzy photos (leading to one or two errors on my side, which further extended the procedure) to finally being accepted as a live human. Had the cache series been even longer, I would have thought about not using the checker any more, and using my solution unchecked. But this defeats the whole purpose of a geochecker (even with "simple" puzzles, one can make stupid errors or simply mistype the coordinates). So, my question to GS developers is: Would it be possible to implement it in way that "green" checkers (i.e., when I entered the correct solution) do not "count" in the tries-over-time stat? I have no problem with captchas to block scripts (or cachers with too much time ) which try to find solutions by brute force. But someone solving a longer series of puzzles shouldn't be hassled when they just enter one correct solution after the other. Regards baer2006

Ein Vakuum wäre nicht ganz so praktisch wie Luft. Aber immer noch besser als Vakuum in der unteren Hälfte ...

In theory, you are right. But what I meant by "padding the find streak with challenges" is, that some cachers log a find for the completed challenge at an arbitrary date after they completed it. With a log going like "Oh, I just saw that I now fulfill the challenge. I found the box a long time ago, so I'm now logging a find".

You can select everything from a posting, including its quotes, and then click on the little "Quote selection" popup. The "select everything" part is not entirely trivial , because you must take care not to select too much (e.g. the "Posted <some time ago>" headline), because then the "Quote selection" will not appear. So do I. Anyway... I've also noticed this, and while it doesn't irk me, it can indeed be irritating, if it leads to misleading find logs when the cache is actually gone. But since the guidelines are unclear here (at least, they're not clear for me ), I don't blame the cachers for logging this way. My own standard operating procedure in this case is to log another note, stating that I have now completed the challenge, and changing the type of my original note to "Found it". This way, the find appears in my stats for the day on which I actually found the cache, which is the way I prefer it. Interestingly, others sometimes use the "Log a find when I meet the challenge criteria" strategy for padding a find streak for days when they couldn't get out to find their cache-of-the-day .