Wet Pancake Touring Club

Check the list of Geocaching API Partners. They create apps for use with Geocaching. https://apidevelopers.geocaching.com/partner-list

Because the cache includes a terrain rating, which is based on "the hike" to GZ, looking for the cache could be considered to start at the trailhead. Interesting, GS used the word "look", not the word "search", in their reason to log a DNF. While they might be synonymous, their definitions are not identical. Based on one definition of look, "To cast one's gaze on a person, or in a direction", it can be argued that just viewing a cache listing and declining to take any further action would warrant a DNF. As the OP stated, they have to make the decision on how to log this, assuming that they do log it at all. It really boils down to one's personal definition for "look for a cache". To answer the OP question, I would do a Write Note. My personal definition of "look for a cache" requires that I at least arrive at GZ.

Getting back to the OP question, how do we stop cheating? Based on this, and other discussions, I think it is safe to say cheating is not well defined. Maybe if we focused on a specific example of "cheating", we could come up with a viable solution. Personally, given the fact that most activities involving geocaching rely on the honor system, I don't think there is any viable way to combat any cheating. (Heck, last I checked, which was a while ago, you didn't even need a verified e-mail address.) And, adding systems to combat cheating would alter geocaching so drastically it would change from being a hobby to a sport. Actually, as I write this, maybe the way to combat cheating is to remove the statistics page from everyone's profile. Nothing to compare against means nothing to brag about, which reduces the reason to "cheat". On the other hand, how many people would give up geocaching as a result.

Based on the log notes example above, it sounds like either beta testing, or, as stated, cache location confirmation. The CO is out with a group, places a cache, and asks everyone else to verify the coords of the cache. Questionable, but not necessarily cheating IMO. I know of similar scenarios, where practice or training caches are placed. The students will log the cache, then the cache gets published at a later time. So, the log will have prior signatures.

I've already documented my experience with a fake log on a single cache on a single day. Your OP limited caching to a single day. Yet, in a different follow-on post, you changed to caching experience. Those are not the same. Experience includes the planning process, and can span multiple days. The underlying question not asked is why did I decide to go after a crappy park n' grab. At the time, I was trying to get enough caches to qualify for a 50 day streak challenge cache. My geocaching on that day wasn't a leisurely day of caching, it was a chore that needed to be done in preparation for a future day of caching. It was a work day, and I had an evening commitment. This meant that I had limited time to go and find a cache, about 15 minutes. For planning, the cache location had to be within a small area between work and home. I needed a quick park 'n grab, with a high likelihood that the cache was still there. This cache met those requirements. I went to GZ because the fake log was a part of why I decided to search for this cache. There are multiple impacts. If we limit this to a single day, and and ignore planning and overall geocaching experience, the impact was that my chore was going to take at least twice as long as I had budgeted. Looking at my overall geocaching experience, the impact was two-fold. I decided to ignore all streak challenges, and I changed my planning to discount caches placed by this CO.

Sorry, but in your reply, you implicitly invoked the cache owner. If the cache was relocated, that would have been done by the cache owner, who should have updated the cache listing as part of their maintenance. So yes, by your own reply, the cache owner is part of the equation. No prior DNF, but prior real find was almost 2 years before. I know the CO, they put out park n' grabs, and generally they only do maintenance when someone else notes a problem. Little to no pre-emptive maintenance. The locals quickly find them, and then they go dormant. When I got to GZ, the housing development was nearing completion. Curbs installed, landscaping being done, housing in the final process of finishing. No place to relocate to that wasn't being worked on. GZ on the cache listing was still in the middle of the road. And, as for how this affected my caching experience, I was trying to maintain a streak for a different challenge cache. I went out of my way to get this cache. Now, I had to research another park n' grab cache, and go even farther out of my way to find it. And seriously, a throwdown?!? I illustrated how a fake log affected my caching experience. However, like many others on this forum, coming up with a list that illustrates a potential problem is not enough. We like to come up with possible solutions to the problem. And some of those solutions will involve the cache owner.

There have been a couple of caches in my area with fake logs that caused me to head to GZ. When I get there, it is obvious that the cache is gone. "Hidden under the jersey barrier at the end of the road." Well, the barrier is gone, and the road has been extended into a housing development. A cache owner that didn't check on their cache in over a year (these were park 'n grabs, and were within 5 miles of the CO's home), coupled with a couple of fake logs. So, yes, these fake logs did have an effect on my caching experience.

IMO, HQ should not be making any determination if any or all events should be cancelled. That doesn't mean that HQ shouldn't do anything. I would suggest to HQ that they e-mail some guidance to the CO of all upcoming events, and post that guidance on their help pages. I'll even go so far as to make suggestions as to what that guidance should look like: CO's are responsible for determining if their event should be cancelled, relocated, or postponed. CO's should routinely check with local public health officials for the latest recommendations or rules on public gatherings. CO's may want to post announcements with updates, even if the update is that we are still going ahead with the event. For new events, the Reviewer may want to pass that guidance onto the CO in a Reviewer Note, and get acknowledgement before publishing the event.

There is a second reason for everyone to be concerned about this pandemic, and it has nothing to do with catching COVID-19. The medical profession is trying to cope with this virus directly. Public health officials are trying to make sure that medical facilities are not overloaded to the point where you cannot get treated for the broken leg you got while climbing after that 2/4.5 geocache you needed to complete your D/T grid. The health and safety folks are trying to 'flatten the curve'. Google for it, there are lots of good articles.

Not cancelled (yet), but no fans in attendance.

J Grouchy mentioned that the GPSr they use is sub-standard compared to their smartphone. For me, it's the exact opposite. The trans-reflective screens on my GPSr's are readable in direct sunlight. I cannot see my smartphone display without turning my back to the sun, and creating a shadow. As for accuracy, each device has their own little quirks. Generally, my Montana is OK, but the Oregon does better in trees. They both have multi-pathing issues downtown in large cities. The smartphone is usually better downtown, because of its ability to use WiFI and Bluetooth enhancements, however that backfires in large downtown parks. My take-away, smartphone versus GPSr, it depends on a lot of different factors. YMMV.

I do multiple lists on my Garmin, using GSAK to load. I create three character keywords for each list, (in one of the user data fields) and pre-pend them to the cache name when I load. It doesn't scale well, but I only have five lists so that doesn't matter to me.

Looking at the video, the zip line appears to be optional. That creek was not very wide. So, if someone was uncomfortable with using the zip line, they don't have to. And, the line is short, so the family with 5 children can let each one have their turn, and resetting won't take the parents much time. My suggestions are to keep your zipline short (so that multiple users can do it quickly), low to the ground (to reduce the risk of injury if someone falls), and consider an optional way to retrieve the object.

While size denotes whether or not a trackable will fit, suitable for trackables could also mean that there is something extra about the cache container that promotes trackables. Like separate bins for trackables heading north, south, east or west. Regardless, I'm against it, along with the other three mentioned regarding WiFi, cell service and App required. These are too transitory, WifFi and cell coverage can vary too much, and app required is already covered by the type.

To me, creating an arbitrary pattern (make an X, make a circle, etc.) in the D/T grid is not a geocaching accomplishment. However, finding a cache for each difficulty, and a cache for each terrain, is. That could be some kind of 'well rounded cacher' challenge. To me, if you can make a statement about a cacher or their style of caching (well rounded cacher, well traveled cacher, etc.), it would be a geocaching accomplishment, otherwise it is not. (Think BadgeGen.)

With regard to the question asked by the topic "bumper", I'm against the idea of an EV charging station nearby attribute. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Fuel Nearby attribute should be deprecated. IMO, it's not as relevant in today's day and age. There are a number of ways to look up up-to-date information regarding fuel, both at home, and on the road. When the low fuel warning comes on in my wife's new vehicle, the in dash navigation system pops up and asks if I want to look for gas stations nearby. Regarding electric vehicles, Google Maps shows me a bunch when I search for 'electric vehicle charging stations'. I wouldn't rely on an attribute on a 5 year old cache listing. Every weekend, I drive by a cache where there used to be a gas station across the street. The gas station is now closed. (And, even when it was open, it was only open 8-5.)

To me, solving the puzzle is determining the method needed. I've seen a couple of puzzles based on the German Enigma machine. I don't need to understand the internals of the Enigma machine in order to use it, solving the puzzle is recognizing when it is the right tool for the job. So, where is '756e696f6e2e68616e672e64617368'? I don't know of any single tool that will get you the coordinates, but I know of a pair that will get you the answer with a couple of quick cuts & pastes. If I ask, where is '--... ..... -.... . -.... ----. -.... ..-. -.... . ..--- . -.... ---.. -.... .---- -.... . -.... --... ..--- . -.... ....- -.... .---- --... ...-- -.... ---..', it now takes three tools, rather than two. (For on4bam and others that 'hear' morse code, one of those tools is their own mind.) In both examples, some of the steps could be done with pencil and paper or a web site, and one of the steps requires an online tool. To me, solving the puzzle is determining that the hexadecimal conversion is not to decimal, but instead to text.

You could also consider getting a Bluetooth GPS receiver for your phone, especially if your smart phone does not (yet) have GLONASS and/or GALILEO. I use mine with an iPod Touch, and several different laptops. Interestingly, comparing the locations shown on maps between my Pixel 3 and my iPod Touch (both with all the location services features turned on), the Touch with the BT receiver is more accurate. I didn't do any kind of formal study on this, just an observation. My guess is that the difference is between how the two devices incorporate the non-GPS based location features.

I read an estate planning guide that recommended that all of one's online accounts should be documented, and given to the personal representative(s) or executor(s). Just like the mundane things like cancelling phone service and credit card accounts, online accounts should also be managed. Geocaching accounts, eBay accounts, online advertising, Facebook, twitter, Hulu, etc, should all be taken into consideration.

One concern that I hope HQ takes into consideration is with sock puppet accounts. Sock puppet accounts may not show any activity for a long period of time if no new caches are created, or there is no reason to post OM or notes on an existing cache. Another issue is invalid e-mail addresses (again, primarily on sock puppet accounts). The e-mail for the CO in the example GA cache could be invalid because the CO changed to a different e-mail service, and forgot to update this GC.com account. I don't think that this happens often. And, there is a good case to be made that as part of the maintenance responsibilities of a CO is to have working e-mail addresses on their accounts. If HQ does implement this policy, I hope they mention steps that a CO can take to avoid missing out on the cache disabled messages. It may be as simple as logging into all of your accounts annually. It could be as complex as adding some kind of master account system where a cacher could link together all of there accounts. And of course, e-mail validation would also be useful... That has been well discussed in other forums.

Also note, there may be multiple options for park fees. For example, a one-day pass to a Washington State Park is $10. However, you can purchase an annual pass for $30. My point, if there is more than one fee level, I would suggest including a note on the cache listing either explaining that there are multiple fee options, and providing a link to the agency charging the fee. Sometimes there are different in-state versus out-of-state fees. Primarily because of geocaching, I currently pay $120 per year for state (WA and ID) and federal (US) annual passes. I don't consider that too onerous. Of course, the definition of onerous depends on ones situation. (That is soon to change. In a month I qualify for the over 62 $80 lifetime federal pass.)

I've coupled a few geocaching trips with business trips, and the company would pay standard mileage based on Google Maps distance. For one particular trip, the company paid me for ~1300 miles. My actual driving distance based on the route from my GPSr was just shy of 2600 miles.

One thing no one has commented on is the security concerns with QR codes. While a QR code is just data, and not executable, as NYPaddleCacher pointed out, they can contain embedded URL's. Which can lead to malicious web sites. To counter this, everyone that uses QR codes needs to take precautions. Yet how many people actually do? A quick FB posting of QR codes purporting to be from geocaches, and the cyber criminals have a new attack path.

Yep. That matches the federal highway system documentation. Also, Wikipedia has an interesting page listing all of the Interstate Highways, and what state(s) they traverse. How about a challenge based on the last digit in the interstate number? A cache in a state that has an interstate that ends in 1, another in a state that has an interstate that ends in 2, etc.

I would place the caches under your name. However, I would also recommend that an account be created for the hospital, going to a distribution list of interested parties, and have that account 'watch' the geocaches. That way, they can get a copy of the logs directly.