Bloencustoms

Most influential... After some thought, many names had come to mind for their humor and insight. As I continued reading this thread, I began to think "Who has had the most impact on the forums this past year?" Well, when you consider that the topics that have come up the most again and again for months on end have been about the forum moderators, I would have to say that they have had more influence on the forums than any other person or group. As I continued down the thread, I read that the original intent was to vote for who had the most positive influence. When you consider the events that occurred on Thanksgiving day, and the selfless effort of the mods to keep the forums sane when we were all enjoying a holiday, once again they are the obvious choice for me.

Certainly not. Injuries are part of the experience and should not be seen as criticism, rather an account of what happened. Exactly. The "negative" logs I was referring to are the ones that complain about asthetics. I should have been more clear. So what if the cache isn't the most fantastic thing we have ever seen. It's still a reason to get outside and do something fun. I just don't see the need for people to complete a cache hunt that they thought was not fun enough, then complain about it. If you're not having fun, then stop and log a DNF. If you do find it, be happy someone placed a cache for you to find. The first cache I ever found wasn't anything special compared to some of the fantastic hides I've seen, but at the time it was awesome. Literally the best cache I'd ever found. So before we go doot on someone's cache in a log, we should think about whether what we write is informative and constructive, or just plain mean.

Or, you could make a cache that led someone to a good place for viewing the night sky, far from city lights. In the container place instructioms for finding a bonus cache using the stars as a guide. This way, the cache would be available year round, and you can still offer a neat reward for those who are there at the right date and time. Take a look at a solar puzzle cache I haven't placed yet. Perhaps a mini sky model could be made to work in a similar fashion. The Rise of Huitzilopoctli

Uh, woodsters smiley?

So if you factor in the admission, gas and time spent... Still would have been cheaper to order on-line? That bites! Well, if your primary goal was to attend a gun show to look at guns, then you would have attended anyway. So, the price might not be that bad after all.

Great idea! I love the creativity. Most of us have no trouble following coordinates to a box. It's fun to use nature as a key to solving a puzzle, ultimately resulting in coordinates.

Wouldn't /= mean not equal since <> is less/more (or translated to 'more or less')? More or less...

If you don't know where to look, it is unlikely you will find something hidden. This applies to both caches, and the urls of the pages upon which they are listed. A box in the woods with no identification is just that. The only thing that makes it a cache is the fact that it is labelled as such. Imagine a park ranger who finds a box of beer hidden in the woods. Will he automatically assume it is a geocache he has found? If he is not aware of geocaching, he will only know that he has found some beer stashed in the woods. If he is aware of caching, and the guidelines, will he assume it is a cache? It has no ID, or anything to identify it as a cache. He is likely to make the obvious conclusion that it is only what it appears to be. Beer in the woods. This will not hurt geocaching. We see litter in parks all of the time. I never assume that the junk I stumble across is a geocache just because it is out there. If I did, I might have to apologize for trashing out someone's cache. If the only way to find the location of an X-cache is by invitation, and there is no log or contact info in the cache, it is a simple box in the woods to everyone else. Nothing more.

I was just as surprised to find out about this kind of thing. This thread from back in October has more discussion about the same topic.

I was using AOL with no problems receiving 500 cache GPX files unzipped. I recently changed over to Earthlink, because I was fooling with wireless, and AOL does everything they can to stop you from sharing an internet connection. Earthlink webmail requires the files to be zipped in order to work.

Heh, that did not go over well. No, I do not expect people to lie about their experiences. "Bad" is a matter of opinion. In some people's opinion, multis are bad compared to single stage caches. For instance "Found the cache. I would have liked it except it was a multi. Multi's suck." That's an example of a negative log. Many of us hold the opinion that if you don't like a particular type of cache, you shouldn't search for it. I believe that can apply to any individual cache of any type. If the area is so bad that you stop your search, then go ahead and log a DNF stating your reasons, by all means. But remember, this is a game. If you are made so uncomfortable by the search that you feel the need to bash someone for placing a cache that is not to your liking, the fact that you continued to subject yourself to the very things you complain of just to play a game does not strike me as being intelligent. If the cache is worth finding, it can't have been all that bad. If something happens to you on the hunt, like insect bites, broken bones, sprains, etc. Those are not the hider's fault. Many of the examples of reasons to put criticism in logs are legitimate, because they are examples of poor maintenance and/or caches that should not even have been approved. In that case, because the moldy piece of garbage you followed the coords to doesn't meet the guidelines, it isn't a cache anyway. There's a difference between informing a cache owner of a maintenance issue they might need to address, and saying "the cache stinks, it was too quick and easy." If you feel the need to say that, go ahead. It would make me pretty angry to see a log like that on one of my caches. I probably wouldn't delete it, just leave it there for all of the other finders to gawk at and think, "Jeez, what a jerk." As for complete honesty, I'd better not.

Well, I will have been using this site for a year in January, so I'm not really a newcomer, and not really an old timer either. But, It feels more appropriate to reply to this thread. Geocaching has done quite a bit to change my life. I knew nothing about computers untill I started caching. In the past year I bought two computers, and have learned enought to find my way around them without asking too many questions. These forums, and the people in ClayJar's chatroom have been a great help. I pretty much owe any computer knowledge I have to geocaching, without which I'd have considerably less interest or use for a computer anyway. More importantly, I have enjoyed taking some of my friends caching, and met a few local cachers who have become good friends. We hang out all the time now, even if there are no caches to be found. I also realized that after posting as much as I have, I could have written a novel in the past year if only I could limit myself to one cohesive subject. My impressions of the sport changed quite a bit after I found a few caches. I used to get a feeling of "secret knowledge" for lack of a better trem. It was cool to find a box hidden in the woods somewhere that only a select few knew of it's existance. When I found my first cache, I was thrilled that there actually was something there. I couldn't believe that I had found something that small by following a set of coordinates in my GPS. And I was exited to have a use for the thing at last. Up until then, it was little more than an expensive novelty that collected dust on a shelf. Now, I don't get the same feeling of wonder and mystery that I did finding the first few. I suppose It's because I've become accustomed to the process of finding them. It's no longer surprising to find a cache, it's more like "Ah-ha! There it is!" I think the old exitement does come back a little when I find the occasional cache that has been placed far out in the woods, after a long walk and hasn't been visited in a long time. When you have to clear off a little leaf litter that settles on the container, and it begins to look like it almost belongs there, the old excitement starts to creep back in. Anyway, those are my impressions.

Last time I looked, the upcoming events list had caches that were the next few to actually occur. Harly enough time to prepare for a trip.

I still believe that there should never be a bad or negative find log on a cache page. An intelligent person would stop searching for the cache if they felt uncomfortable. If the area is too dirty for you, go away. Don't keep looking in all the filth untill you find the cache, and then complain about it. We all have the option to stop searching the instant we decide we don't like the conditions at the cache site. The fact that people press on through the very stuff they complain about until they find the container is interesting. It obviously wasn't bad enough to deter them from finding the cache, so they ought to keep their mouth shut. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. On the other hand, I have never deleted or encypted any of the logs to my cache pages, even the spoilers. There is a warning that the logs can contain spoilers right above the logs on every page. I will however delete any logs containing references to seafood written in french, or the letters DPM.

The object of this thread is to try to see how many people would rather find a virtual cache, or a physical cache at the exact same location. Before repying, ask yourself, "Would this virt I just found have been more enjoyable if I had to find a container at the end, and sign in?" Please don't argue about the merits of virts vs. Traitional caches. There are already many such threads. This one is only asking one simple question. If all things were equal, would you rather verify your find by email, or signing a logbook after finding a physical container. There is a distinct difference between the two games. One involves finding a hidden object, the other involves finding clues to verify your presence at a given location. Which do you enjoy more?

It's not on the geocaching.com website, but what you're suggesting sounds very much like what we are trying to do at the Geocaching Policy website. There's no reason we couldn't note park systems that are "in negotiations"; just let us know about them through the email address at the site. Steve I have recently discovered the geocacching policy site, and it in fact inspired this thread. It's a great resource. Just today, I referred some park officals to that site because they wished to learn more about existing caching policies to make a better informed decision. Perhaps it would merit mentioning that it is ok to list parks in the process of developing policy in a prominent place on the site. I'll go ahead and submit the park, and update info as it becomes available.

I'd like to see a comparison of virts and physical caches based on number of DNF's. None of the virtuals I have found had any DNF logs on them. I'm sure there are some out there, but I suspect the ratio of DNF's will be strikingly different. This is because in most cases, it is easier to follow the instructions on the cache page, than to actually search for something. They have their merits, and can be fun, but amount to little more than "puzzle waypoints" in my opinion. I would not like to see them banned, but they are not the same thing as physical caches. there is seldom any searching involved. I'm sure some people can link to a few pages that are exceptions, but we're discussing them as a whole. Anyway, virts are a last resort when a physical cannot be placed. If you wanted to place a container initially, then why the complaint? Your mention of possibleproblems with muggles at the site suggests two possible reasons. One, you don't wish to have to bother with frequent maintenance. (Not a reason to place a virt where a physical can go.) Or two, the place is just not suitable for a cache at all. If it has not met the coffee table book requirement, it's not interesting enough to stand alone as a virt. If it's too busy an area, then leave it to someone who can find a way to hide and maintain a physical there. When that happens your ultimate goal will be achieved, bringing cachers to the site.

Well, I can see your point, but how many events would really be at the top of a page at once? Also, as they would be in the regional forum, they would be viewed mainly by people to whom the particular events are important. And, because they would drop off the page after the event, you wouldn't really have that many pinned simultaneously. Bumping threads for the sole purpose of keeping them at the top of the list works, but it takes up more space than is really needed. As of yet, I have never seen a pinned topic in the south and southeast forum, and event anouncements aren't that frequent. I don't know what it's like in other regoinal forums, because I haven't needed to visit them so far.

Huh? Do you mean to say that you would knowingly place a cache in a park that is developing a policy, even if it might hinder the process? I was trying to figure that out as well... But I think what they were saying (as a joke???) is they would 'flag' all the parks, and then report back as they get to them(like reserving a whole park for themselves). Ah, ok. That makes much more sense. Thanks for pointing it out. I need to go read some good jokes so I can recognize humor when it's staring me in the face.

Huh? Do you mean to say that you would knowingly place a cache in a park that is developing a policy, even if it might hinder the process?

Um, notoriously dangerous areas?

Like the John Wayne TP, it's rough and tough, and it don't take no **** off nobody.

I was wondering if there is currently any way for the approvers to flag areas they know are in the process of making policy, or decisions about caching. This way, new caches submitted during the negotiations will not be listed untill a policy is in place. There have been stories about the problems that arise when a cache is approved in an area where someone is attempting to gain permission. What can we do to ensure this won't be a problem in the future? Is there a way to make sure these areas are flagged so that all cache approvers will know of the situation to make better informed decisions when approving caches? For instance, a regional approver goes on vacation, and a new cache enters the queue. Another approver who is not aware of the particular regional issues sees the cache, and has to make a choice. It appears to meet all of the guidelines, but the area in question is in the process of making a decision or policy for caching. The new cache's approval could present a hurdle to those seeking permission for that area.

I was thinking it might be a good idea to "pin" threads announcing event caches in the regional forums, so that they will be less likely to be missed.

How about the aimless loiterer? You know the type... They stand there, and move about a very small area, occasionally shooting an intent stare at you. They never leave the small area (usually less than 50' square) and it invariably is right where you need to be to retrieve the cache.