J-Way

The article doesn't answer the question. The OP wanted to know how to 'delete' his/her account not how to disable it! It looks like the answer is he/she cannot do it! That doesn't seem right. Why can't it be done? Maybe one of the Groundspeak techies can answer the question??????Because if the account is deleted, then what happens to the post that started this thread? Does it stay? Get deleted? Get sucked into another dimension? What about replies, such as this one... wait... who are we responding to? The point is that it's very hard to completely delete things off the internet once they enter the public domain. Check out the Wayback Machine if you don't believe me. So the admins of this site don't even try. If you object to "4Go" having a geocaching account, you can request that the name get changed. Pick something like "Arrow43". Change all the personal info (email address, location, hobbies, etc.). Change the password to something you'll never remember. Then simply never come back to this site. The other option is to get banned. Fly to Seattle and pee in Jeremy's latte or something. The account will still exist, but you can't log into it.

My personal best is 27 (Geowoodstock VII day) covering 10 different icons. Second best for me is 13 caches in a day. The generally accepted "record" is 300+. About 314 or so. This was done by a team of people with dedicated drivers, navigators, searchers and signers. They spent weeks planning and researching the fastest route. They used locals to pre-confirm that the caches were still there (no "pre-finding"). They all stayed together within reason (no splitting up to find multiple caches at the same time). They video-taped it for proof. Yet still lots of people call them liars. Personally, I remember all 27 caches found on my best day. I doubt the record holders can say the same.

UFO: Unnatural Formation of Objects (i.e., suspicious pile of sticks or rocks)

I haven't seen the movie, but FWIW every review I've ever read mentioned the foul language. Not safe for kids.

Yes it has: announcement link The discussion is here: link

It doesn't happen all the time, just often enough to be really annoying. And it's not the main page, it's the stats pages. Say I'm going on a trip out of state and want to refresh my memory about which counties I need to find caches in, or want to know how many more caches I need to find in other counties/states to change the map color, or refresh my memory as to which squares in my D/T grid I still need to fill, etc. It appears to be working right this minute. Yes, it's very easy to imagine the hit to the system. But, and I'm probably exposing my ignorance here, doesn't the Google Maps option do the same thing? Every pan still results in a hit to the system to know where to display each icon, plus you also display found and disabled status. Is there no way to incorporate this exact information into a Google Earth KML? This is just speculation, not a demand for a new service. Now THAT makes sense, and I'm glad StarBrand reposted this info. Actually, I may officially be one of the infamous "200". I remember 3 or so times where I ran into the max hits limit when planning a long trip to a new area where I was looking at caches in areas spanning hundreds of miles. But those 3 times were spaced out over a period of a few years; it's not like I hit the limit once a week or even once a month. But one of those times happens to have coincided with Raine's report to the head honchos then I contributed to the number. So I guess this is my fault... This sounds promising, and is hopefully NOT a vague promise to get us to shut up. Incidentally, it wasn't my intent to pick on Raine, it just looks that way.

Cache owners have the option to enter secondary waypoints in the cache description in a special table. These can be suggested parking, trailheads, trail intersections, waypoints in a multi, etc. If entered correctly these "child" waypoints are sent along with the main waypoints in the same zip file. I always just drag the intact PQ zip file into GSAK so child waypoints are automatically included.

A 40° slope is almost 1:1 and is pretty darn steep. If the slope is rough rock, with good shoe traction and plenty of places to step, a 40° slope wouldn't be much of a problem. If it's dirt, mud, or covered with loose leaves, it would be almost impossible to climb without some sort of hand-hold (small trees and such).

Up until right now, it's just someone asking a question about an alpha-numeric code. If the OP posts the GC number or anyone else is able to figure out the GC number from the OP's home area, then it becomes a question about how to solve a specific puzzle cache, which is a no-no. If I go to all the trouble of creating a puzzle, I don't want people posting the solution in public. Most owners are willing to give hints to people who politely request one, unless the puzzle hasn't been solved yet. Have you asked the owner.

People often hide caches in areas belonging their own personal homeowners' association. These areas are typically restricted to homeowners and guests. The loophole they're using is that the seeker is a guest of a homeowner (the hider). In this situation the new owner doesn't appear to live there and isn't a member of the association. Even if the original hider obtained adequate permission, the authority to walk along that trail went away when the original hider moved away. Current seekers are not guests of a resident. If everything I've assumed is true, specifically that neither the new nor original owners currently live in the subdivision, the cache should be removed before someone has a close encounter with a local LEO. The presence of "No Trespassing" signs clearly indicates that the locals do not want you there. Looks like you did the right thing in notifying the reviewer, now it's up to them.

Just curious, but will we see improvements in site usability because of this? As I understand it, itsnotaboutthenumbers uses a Groundspeak server. I'm still getting "500:Internal Server Error" when I visit.

Puppymonster is the only volunteer (not paid) reviewer, with mtn-man as head assistant. All other reviewers are sock puppies. OpinioNate is the only Lackey; all others are sock puppets. As already mentioned, they do occassionally hire actors to attend events.

Be careful, or the "no food in caches" extremists will jump in to further pull this thread off topic! FWIW, I mostly agree. A thick glass container hidden in an area with no rocks and with a soft covering on the ground (leaves, etc.) should never break. It could even last forever. In general, glass and ceramic are poor choices as container material. The thick jars are expensive. The easily obtained thin jars break easily. Broken glass could cut people. You could ignite the entire state of Florida. Etc, etc, etc. But you shouldn't prohibit an entire material class just because some cachers don't have the ability to realize that hiding a cheap, thin, glass jar in a large pile of rocks is a bad idea. If you followed that logic, then plastic containers would be banned because people keep hiding cheap gladware, and metal containers would be banned because somebody hid one near a courthouse and the bomb squad was called.

Some CDCB brought up traveling caches in the forum AGAIN??? What's the CDCB'ng deal? Don't they CDCB'ng screen these CDCBers? Nah, just doesn't flow... Edit: Just to be clear, I see nothing wrong with asking about this issue in the OP.

It's your cache, so build it to satisfy you. However, I would argue against such a tactic. (pun intended) Muggles are a curious lot. If they pull into a parking area at night, and see a string of reflectors leading down a trail, they might be inclined to follow it, possibly locating your cache in the process. With my 3 night caches, I started the reflector trail at a minimum, a couple tenths of a mile away from the parking area. Also, rather than locate your cache at the end of your trail, I would have your trail lead to a tag or a micro containing coords to the final. Just my $0.02. Back on topic: A reflector, affixed to a tree, for the purpose of leading night cache seekers in a particular direction, is not a waypoint as used in the common geocontent. That being said, my night caches utilize about 600 reflectors, total, and I've got the coords for all of them in my POI file. This helps a lot when doing maintenance. The plan is to start the "trail" around the bend from the parking lot, not visible from parking. Along the main trail, the tacks would not be visible from each other. Just the occasional tack every hundred yards or so to confirm that you haven't missed a turn. The tacks would be a bit more dense where the main trail splits, where you leave the main trail for a side trail, and where you leave the side trail for a game/social trail. The game trail will be difficult to follow at night, so here they would be your typical arrangement of the next tack visible from the last tack. I'm actually planning for the trail to go well past the final location and end at coordinates on a tag. They you backtrack and bushwack off trail for about 50-ft. And I was planning on shooting rough coordinates for all the tacks for maintenance purposes, but I was NOT planning on reporting every tack as an intermediate waypoint in the cache description. niraD: Yours would be the only argument I've seen that they should be protected waypoints. But I don't want to prohibit people from placing caches along the trail, and I want to be able to place my tacks near existing caches. But if I do it this way then Riff is right - nothing would stop someone else from placing another tack trail that follows or crosses mine.

I'm well aware that I could avoid this issue by simply neglecting to report the coordinates of intermediate waypoints. Actually I never intended to record the locations of dozens of night tacks, mainly because I've never seen it done on any night cache. But using jholly's argument, the owner of any multi could place physical intermediate stage containers within a few feet of an existing cache by simply not telling Groundspeak it's there. But that would be ignoring the guidelines. I'm not trying to split legal hairs here or argue semantics. I'm sure I could list the night cache, correctly reporting all true intermediate waypoints (tags with coordinates, final, etc.), and it would fly through the review process. No one would care about the glowing orange triangle in the tree 8-ft above an existing cache. I'm just curious to see what our international reviewers think. Should a night-tack be considered a physical waypoint, or is it an exception? Is every night cache I've ever heard about in violation of the guidelines regarding physical waypoints?

I agree with wastro. But in contemplating the creation of a night cache, I recalled something mentioned by a moderator (briansnat, I believe), which agrees with wimseyguy. Anything placed by the cache owner in relation to the cache is a physical waypoint. Considering how closely you must place tacks in an overgrown area without a well-defined trail, a night-tack trail would essentially become a continuous line of blocked area. The other way of looking at it is that it would be impossible to place night-tacks along a trail where caches are already present. I'm hoping a reviewer will jump in here and say that night-tacks, and similar objects without any specific directional information (reflective tape, etc.) are exempt from the 528-ft clearance requirement. For the cache I'm considering the best option would be to start the tack-trail near the parking location and have it follow an existing trail before it turns off into the trees. But there are several existing caches along that trail. I think there is a even a cache within 528-ft of the turnoff point (where you leave the main trail), which would make the turn difficult to locate if I can't put tacks there. The final, and any specific directional information (tags with coordinates, etc.), would be well beyond 528-ft from the existing caches.

Or coming home to find strange cars blocking your driveway. And lots of people will never bother to hunt it because of the reasons listed by the fuzzy one.

I've read here that anything left in the field as part of a multi cache should be listed as a protected waypoint (no other caches within 528-ft). This was specifically mentioned in regards to plastic/metal tags with coordinates for the next waypoint. Does this also apply to night tacks used in night caches? They are, technically, waypoints, but the actual location of the tacks isn't usually critical to the success of the multi. [Edit: fixed distance]

Stay inside, planning trips for cooler weather?

Why not have an Event "by geocachers for geocachers", and structure it around the workshop. The best scenario would be if you had roughly equal numbers of geocachers and non-geocachers for 1-on-1 or 1-on-2 pairing up. People without receivers could pair up with experienced cachers, most of whom have an extra they could loan out. And even if some student brings in a obscure, off-brand receiver they got on a trip out of the country, you'll likely have at least one experienced person there with knowledge of that receiver. Instead of you frantically running around the room showing each person how to enter coordinates and start a "go-to", you'll have a room full of assistants. And even if they can't come to the event, experienced cachers could loan you their back-up receivers. But whatever you do, keep it structured! Use a megaphone if you have to. There's an annual "Welcome to the game" event held locally, theoretically as a class for new players and non-players who want to know what this activity is all about. The last one I went to had about 50 attendees, with about a 4:1 ratio of experienced to new players. It turned into a free-for-all. No one could hear the speakers because of all the side conversations. People left in random groups to go on cache runs. People were trading coins. It was an interesting time, but I don't know how much the new players learned about geocaching. And as already mentioned, - Cover trade items (trade up or trade even) - Cover how to handle trackables (move, not keep; they're not trade items; etc.) - Go over logging DNFs (it's not admitting failure), logging notes, etc. - Use practice caches, not real caches, unless the real cache owner gives permission. ESPECIALLY if there are minors in the class. - Go over standard receiver inaccuracy (just because you get to 0.0 distance, doesn't mean the cache is within arm's reach) - Print out the Geocaching FAQ for more topics to cover. Good luck!

Bad form to post someones picture(s) without their permission.On most forums, that is a bannable offense. I am going to be polite. I am going to be polite. I am going to be polite.Good dog! *pat* SQUIRREL!!! The dragon is right, posting someone else's pictures to public forums is usually considered bad form. HOWEVER, these pictures were already in the public domain. Pictures in your gallery are there because they were posted to your cache logs or to the descriptions of caches you own.

I like KBI's idea (as already indicated in the General forums), but I like it better as modified by mrbort. So we have a new category: Locations Features Historic Place Educational Location Beautiful View Scenic Hike Strange Spectacle Nostalgic Setting Engineering Marvel Natural Wonder (I think this would cover biological, geographic, etc.) Park and grab Highway Access (most like used in the negative, i.e., no highway access) No Redeeming Value OMG You Won’t Believe This Until You See It And yeah, you'll never get all existing cache owners to add these attributes. Quite a few owners still can't figure out how to remove the "Needs Maintenance" attribute, much less add new ones. All of my caches controlled under various accounts would get new attributes (if applicable), but one person is not a majority. Iif TPTB adds these attributes today, filtering on them tomorrow would yield exactly zero caches. Which brings us to the topic mentioned by Maingray. Why isn't attribute data included with Pocket Queries??? This would be so simple to implement, just add ten comma separated text values. Or even just ten numbers (11=Parking, 01=No Parking, 12=Snowmobiles, 02=No Snowmobiles, etc.). Within a very short time GSAK would issue an update allowing filtering, and off we go! I could download a PQ that eliminates the attributes I absolutely have no interest in and allowing everything else. Then I could very quickly see which caches meeting certain requirements are available using GSAK filters. Three caches along the route are "Historic"? GREAT - flag for installing into BackCountryNavigator. No caches along the route in one county with any interesting attributes? That's OK as well, just flag a Park-n-grab or two. Everybody's happy. Even that dog that knows a guy named Chad.

I prefer the plain-old regular-sized cache. Most large caches I've found were in poor, leaky, containers (4-10 gallon buckets) and were wet and moldy inside. But since I rarely trade items, this preference is probably because I prefer the locations where people can successfully hide a regular cache. Usually something that requires a little work to get to it.