Search the Community

I might never have met them and have no idea who they are or how to find them to talk to them. It might not even be in my country. That could be considered storking too. Besides, I consider the comments written in a log as 'talking' to the CO. It's like the old fashioned letter that 'talked' to the recipient. I read my logs and take them seriously. If the coordinates were regularly being mentioned as off I would investigate. I don't need someone to track me down and talk to me, even at events. If they waited to do that and not write what was wrong in a log, I would find that very strange and unhelpful, as I should have been told earlier. If it's only one person's comments, say the coordinates are out, that might not be enough to go on (although that is affected by how experienced they are), but after several comments, time to act and go check those coordinates. I found several caches recently by a CO whose coordinates were often out. It was not only me mentioning this, but others too. After I logged NM explaining the problem, the CO checked and did a OM, saying log and cache good. That wasn't what the NM was about, but the off coordinates. I messaged the CO and explained the problem again (politely). They said they would check this. Nothing has changed. The coordinates are still not fixed. I don't want this archived, so am not going to log a NA. Besides, I find that sort of rude if the person is at least looking after the cache and log. People are still mentioning the cache is not being found at GZ.

I said talk to the CO, not post yet another log. Your initial note made it sound to me more like you've occasionally run into COs that made a mistake, not that you were talking about COs that willfully and regularly post bad coordinates. So I suggested you focus more on fixing the CO so he doesn't keep doing that instead of focusing on getting each individual cache archived which you'll be doing the rest of your life if the CO isn't educated. My experience is just the reverse. First, COs normally post good coordinates so it doesn't come up very often. More often than not, it's the person complaining that has the bad coordinates. Second, when there really is a problem, the COs in my area will quickly adjust the coordinates. That's why I'm suggesting you teach your COs to be more like mine. Now if a CO is clearly making a game of posting bad coordinates, refusing to listen to reason, and deleting any logs that post the correct coordinates, then feel free to talk to the reviewer about them. GS will be interested if they insist on breaking the rules on purpose.

I'm kinda disappointed by the answers you're getting. Yes, of course it's fine to talk to the CO and ask if he'd like some help or even let you take over the area. All I can imagine is that the other people responding to your OP think you're going to say, "Hey, your caches suck, and I demand you archive them." But, naturally, you're just going to politely talk it over with him and work with him to make the geocaching in that area better for everyone. Sure, you do something like that in a rude way if you try hard enough, but it's not inherently rude or offensive, and any reasonable CO should be happy to hear the input.

That seems to be more for inappropriate placements, though I don't know what happens after I enter my email address and select Other as the problem - whether it then gives me a text field I can explain the problem. However unlike normal caches where you can see there are a few other DNFs (so it isn't just me suffering cache blindness on the day) you don't know if you are just being stupid or if there is really a problem, unless of course you talk to others in the local community who may have run up against the same problem (as was the case with this one with the missing sign). Side note - in this case the CO has provided the answer in the question temporarily until he can get there next weekend and pick another sign, so it's not a problem here. But as ALs get abandoned by owners who lose interest I can see it could be.

First, have a hard talk with yourself about what you're really complaining about. Is it really that bad? For example, when you complain about parking, are you just being car centric because there's a perfectly good sidewalk that goes past the cache? One you really have a good understand of what the true problems are you're worried about, then just talk to them. Not as adult vs. teenager, but just as friends that geocache. A lecture about forgetting a pen won't be effective, but good natured ribbing about making this mistake over and over might pay off. Don't say you can't have a cache without parking, but point out that it looks difficult and dangerous to get there, and ask about how they suggest safely looking for the cache. Maybe they have a way, maybe that didn't think about that problem, but either way, they'll start thinking about the issue in the future. Don't bother with the anomalies in finding each other's caches. If you think they're being cheesy, go ahead and express your opinion, but there's no reason to make a big deal out of some dubious finds and insider FTFs. You're right to be worried about how they're approached, though, so I encourage you to step right in. It's become far too common for people to see any situation as being a slight against them, and that would drive a "mentor" to go into the conversation with a goal of forcing them to do it The Right Way instead of helping them see the issues and come to their own conclusions about how to best interact with the rest of the community.

Don't spoil it, but after reading a bunch of articles, and looking at various pictures, I still don't know what to look for when it's time to look for it. Will it be a readable, identifiable tracking number (as a typical 6-digit/letter Tracking Code), or is it a puzzle to first "decode" which then reveals an official Tracking Code? How do I know what to look for when "the image" is published? Or is that also a secret? This may have been answered, but I scrolled through 4 pages of this thread, and read the TB page, and didn't see an explanation. External news articles that talk about all the "Easter eggs" say the image on the target (and I think they are more confused than I am) is "a Geocache" or "geocaching", if the article mentions it at all. EDIT: Nevermind. I tried an obvious thing, and it looks like it will be tough to be more specific without spoiling the surprise. But it sure brings up some questions, so I'll be back later.

Ah, merci bien pour l'information! But can we talk English now, please? How did you do that - quote my English spoken post in French? :-) This one looks difficult if many leaves (or snow) are covering the ground. This might explain the many DNFs. I don't know why you have used the snow attribute here ("availabe in winter" doesn't match the picture too perfectly - with the snow flake it should be "available with snow"). I don't think you have good chances to find the cache if it is covored in snow. Keystone has given you the right information - the mail was sent before your log - but I still think you could use the (wrongly sent?) mail to rethink the cache. Or do you want a found it quote lower than 50 percent? If not there are several ways to help the cachers finding it, give a hint for example? That's a nice spot in the forest and I hope it doesn't get destroyed by the non-finders searching this hide. Micro without hint in the forest....

Groundspeak has always forbidden the use of alternate listing services. The most they have been willing to do is look the other way as long as the cartridges were cross-listed on their site and the cache listings didn't mention anything concerning the Wherigo Foundation: player apps, builders, and the listing service itself. Nothing outside of the iPhone app, of which Groundspeak acquired an interest, can be mentioned on a geocache listing. This has been true in 2009, close to when the first player app came out, and it's still true now. This is also one of the reasons that development of Wherigo Foundation initiatives has slowed: if Groundspeak is taking such a passive-aggressive approach, why put in time on a development project? That's especially true of the Wherigo Foundation listing service: since I could be asked to take it down at any moment, putting in additional time into advanced features might make it even more popular and result in its demise from a takedown request--and that wouldn't help both sides, Groundspeak and the community. True, I don't believe Groundspeak has a legal standing to demand such a thing, but not acquiescing to the request would forever prohibit the possibility of future cooperation. I spent years trying to get Groundspeak to acknowledge the Wherigo Foundation. Though I came close to it with a few drafts of a partnership agreement on the table, it just didn't seem like Groundspeak was genuinely interested in moving forward, much like it has been with Waymarking. Not once did they initiate any action on their side. The Wherigo Foundation site was made public to demonstrate it to Groundspeak as has remained public to demonstrate its stability and usefulness to the community. They know it exists and it's fine to leave public (the footer on the listing service site was created by Groundspeak, by the way). They also know the guidelines under which the reviewers are operating. I've always officially and unofficially stated a Wherigo geocache must link to a cartridge hosted on Wherigo.com. It's an interesting existence, isn't it? In short, the Wherigo Foundation is Fight Club. You do not talk about Fight Club. I usually try to avoid posting about this topic or answering questions because some people might think I have a conflict of interest on the matter. In fact, I can separate my roles just fine, and have my statements conflict with each other depending on the role I'm filling at that time. Yes, I have my own personal feelings on the matter. I'll sum it up by saying that if you feel it's a shame that you can't mention the Wherigo Foundation site on your cache listing, what must it feel like to people who have invested so much time into creating these things and supporting the community only to have the rule being that people can't mention what they've created? My endgame was never to run Wherigo: it was to improve what it offers, grow the community, make it more enjoyable for all, and make the creation of content easier. If running it was the only way to reach those objectives, then fine, though I don't have the time to do it properly. Anyway, things have worn on over the years and dealing with the same things without the promise of improvement is really wearing me out. So, those are my feelings. Oh, but you're free to talk about Wherigo Foundation topics in this forum. Just like the old reviewer rule is that Wherigo Foundation things can't be mentioned in cache listings, the old 2009 rule is that they can be discussed in the forum. It boils down to that, back then, due to a situation that happened, I was given the unusual responsibility (for a moderator) of approving which third-party Wherigo sites and apps are discussed in Groundspeak's forum, without having to ask again. My own guideline on that is as long as it's noncommercial and doesn't negatively impact the community, it can be discussed. Much later, during a discussion with Groundspeak, we both added an amendment: though not forbidden, I should try not starting topics regarding the Wherigo Foundation listing service as this could be seen as a conflict of interest, though I've always been free to answer questions and contribute. And as I've explained in the past, the moderator role is seen as a public relations extension of Groundspeak, so being in the position I am with also starting the Wherigo Foundation movement, I need to make sure there isn't any confusion as to which role I'm acting under--community member, Wherigo Foundation member, geocacher, or moderator--lest there be confusion on Groundspeak's position. So that's most of the story. Half of the rest involves details and history and the other half is close enough to a non-disclosure agreement.

I assumed Tahoe Skier5000 was worried about what happens when the battery's lifetime is up, not what happens when the fixed source of power runs out and needs to be recharged. He says the battery is not replaceable, but you say you can carry spare AAs. How does that work? The specs on garmin.com don't talk about AA batteries. My 66st would have been a brick if I couldn't replace the lithium batteries when the first set faded out after a year. Well, I suppose I could use it with a wire running to an external battery in my pocket, but I think I might have given up geocaching if that was my only option.

Hey, I found a thread you can talk about quantity & quality I am pretty sure the discussion would fit better in it Thanks

Can we just remember that there are people who love "quality geocaches" as well as people who love "quality time". Some won't prioritize a "quality geocache container" but a "quality location" or a "quality time with friends". Flip the table and you may have people criticizing someone who puts a long multi around a trail system when there could be multiple geocaches. Who should have higher priority? Neither. Because both are enjoyed and both are allowable. Find a place that works for the kind of cache you like, while also realizing that if you place a cache for an experience you like you may well be removing the option for a cache experience someone else likes that you don't. (and I'm not arguing for numbers - I have one of those single-cache-that-takes-up-a-trail-system caches; only arguing for remembering that people like different things (as we all know) but how we talk about people who like different things really sets a tone for the community.

Absolutely. The puzzle could be connecting to the wifi then visiting a URL by ip address which serves a website. (or who knows what other experiences could be provided by that sandboxed wifi) 100% feasible! I'm the developer of a couple of web based applications that use a web server and browser but are intended to be used without (or very limited) internet access. One of them has been installed in hundreds of research locations around the world, exclusively in developing countries. Another similar project is something called SolarSpell (https://solarspell.org/) that basically a solar powered digital library that can be built (instructions are on the web site) by a local institution in a developing country. I've met with the the developer of the project several times to talk about some potential collaboration.

For the same reason you do not stick to logging one type only? Would you be happy if you eat the same meal every day? Sorry to say, but it almost sounds like you are against a level playing field? As was mentioned, some prefer one type over another, and that right there should be enough! To be honest, I feel a remark like that can only come from someone who sits neck deep in geocaching luxury and is spoiled for choice with no reason to complain about anything. Your remark about quality also suggests we do not have quality caches, somewhat arrogant and not appreciated! According to your profile, you are located in Germany (beautiful country btw), more specifically Karlsruhe, I could not help but notice that you have about as many caches in a radius of 8km as we have in entire Malaysia, an area of 330.800 km². I do not know how many active players Germany has, be we have about a dozen only, half of them expats (read: temps), please refer to the geocaching map for detail. Before you say, "place more caches" , another thing I have noticed is that I have created twice the amount caches than you have. In any case, you definitely get more out of the game as a seeker! Before the virtual rewards we had only 1 virtual, nothing else. When Virtual Rewards 1.0 came out, exactly 2 were dropped in Asia. Only 0.1% had landed outside North America and Europe! We had to remind HQ that the world is larger than that! They tried to correct the situation with Virtual Rewards 2.0, but yeah, you can't distribute caches when there are no players to distribute them to, right? If you want to check "geographic spread", feel free to check the distribution maps for virtuals and adventures! But the list goes on, no webcams, no mega/giga events, no reviewers or lackeys visiting with their pockets full of goodies, none of that. We do not run out for FTFs, we save the caches we have for the souvenir runs, and the demands for those are not always friendly to cachers in remote regions! You tackle me when I talk about cache diversity, and suggest to go for quality instead. About quality, we have spent years cleaning up the scene of zombie caches, and have brought up the quality of our game significantly! The number of caches has increased significantly too! We have also successfully lobbied for our country souvenir, we had articles published in newspapers, started social media, we handed out caches, promoted however and whenever possible! But... we're only a dozen strong, and we can only do so much! Any player has a limited reach, and can only realistically maintain a certain amount of caches. So why should we not ask HQ to look our way and ask for extra support? We are few, and virtual caches allow us to expand the game beyond our reach and personal limits. I doubt they will unlock the game to allow geocaching to grow unrestricted, but supplying virtual types to the few players who keep the game going outside North America and Europe, the same ones that allow HQ to keep touting the game as "global", that comes at no extra cost for HQ and should be a no-brainer. Mind you, because there are few cachers in Malaysia, most of the geocaching traffic, say 99%, comes from tourism, so we are not so much placing caches for ourselves, but for the many tourists (many Germans btw) that visit. Right now we suffer lockdown and restrictions, but while the game is going strong in Germany and is actually promoted as an outdoor activity, the game is flat on its behind in Malaysia since March 2020 and unfortunately it will be for some time to come. So excuse me if I suggest that HQ should invest more in the few players that currently keep the game going against all odds. As I so often say, we too are part of the game, and deserve more than the odd bone thrown, a bone for which we actually have to remind them (beg?) every so often. As NLBokkie mentioned a few posts ago, personal preferences are subjective, and of course quality caches are a must, but it would be good to be aware that not all countries bathe in geocaching luxury the way Germany does. And it is not because Germany has been served, and you have a distinct preference, that we have to settle for the standard cache types! If you look at the geocaching maps, any of them, it is clear that HQ should invest more virtuals in the countries that could use a leg up. As said, it cost them nothing, but it would make a huge difference on the map! If you know that there are cities with more virtuals and adventures than some continents, you really have to question "geographic distribution" as it is today. They love to refer to their own rules when it comes to "requests", but they seem to forget they also make the rules. In an effort to allow left behind countries a fair chance to catch up, why not handpick a few prominent cachers and supply them with 10-20 virtuals and a handful of adventures? More caches on the ground (virtuals tend to be reliable and have a longer lifespan), more chances to attract new players, ... do it right and everyone benefits! Cost for HQ to drop credits based on reviewer feedback is minimal, and requires good will more than anything else. Apologies for the long post, only because I care. Cheers!

Not quite true. Groundspeak actively pushes the FTF prize on a very regular basis as one of the benefits of buying premium membership. They talk about it in mailings, sure. But they never talk about rules. They just say it's when you find "that clean, unsigned logbook...". And that's just external affairs/outreach talk--show me where Groundspeak outlines anything specific about a FTF "prize" (especially in the guidelines, or with an official mention or validity with, say, a statistic on your profile) beyond mention in some emails. Back to my popcorn. Of course they never talk about rules - why would they? Their sole purpose in pushing FTF hard in their, what was it again? external affairs? outreach talk? Is purely to dangle the carrot in a bid to tempt more individuals to hand over cold, hard cash in return for a shot at the prize of that clean, unsigned logbook... Groundspeak actively pushes the FTF prize on a very regular basis as one of the benefits of buying premium membership. Enjoy your popcorn. Well, yeah... It's a business afterall... There are no rules, we can all admit that. Groundspeak mentions it on the blog or in weekly mailers, yes. That's the outreach/external affairs side of things. Then there's the internal affairs of programming, financial, daily operations, the store... Someone with a job to promote the game on Geocaching.com is doing just that: promoting geocaching on Geocaching.com, which includes the option to get some cool features if you sign up for a premium membership! They may not be too worried about a few angsty people battling out over dictionary definitions and chicken-and-egg scenarios in the forums, and therefore only trouble themselves with the simple, general aspects of the FTF side-game. Groundspeak is aware that the "FTF" is a well-established side game, and that it is practiced all over the world. Being FTF can be fun, and the race to get there first can be a hoot. It can also cause a ton of anxiety, as I can see oozing from your posts. Sheesh...settle down! Who brought the butter? I seem to need more for my popcorn. Oh, wait...

Not quite true. Groundspeak actively pushes the FTF prize on a very regular basis as one of the benefits of buying premium membership. They talk about it in mailings, sure. But they never talk about rules. They just say it's when you find "that clean, unsigned logbook...". And that's just external affairs/outreach talk--show me where Groundspeak outlines anything specific about a FTF "prize" (especially in the guidelines, or with an official mention or validity with, say, a statistic on your profile) beyond mention in some emails. Back to my popcorn. Of course they never talk about rules - why would they? Their sole purpose in pushing FTF hard in their, what was it again? external affairs? outreach talk? Is purely to dangle the carrot in a bid to tempt more individuals to hand over cold, hard cash in return for a shot at the prize of that clean, unsigned logbook... Groundspeak actively pushes the FTF prize on a very regular basis as one of the benefits of buying premium membership. Enjoy your popcorn.

I found out about this because you popped in on Geocache Talk one night and talked about it. I have a feeling that led to an increase of participants this year.

We've been talking about L5 here in the forum for a while, and are looking forward to GPSIII satellites in the future as well. L5 should help to resolve some of the issues that degrade positioning performance. GPSIII will mean that we no longer need to depend upon ground based references like WAAS and EGNOS, which will be nice as well. And more birds in the sky has already improved ephemeris issues and the occasional lousy HDOP that we used to encounter for a couple of hours on particular days when the constellation was a bit whacked relative to our ground position. But there will still be challenges to getting the level of precision described in that talk in anything but ideal conditions. Multipath issues, which I think will likely be improved by L5, will always remain a bugaboo that has to be dealt with in software to some lesser or greater benefit. Quickly sorting whether a signal is direct or reflected is certainly something that continues to perplex some GPSr manufacturers now. S/N ratios will remain an ongoing technical challenge as well. Again, not an issue under ideal open sky conditions, but we don't always cache in an ideal environment. Heck, I don't even know if Garmin's clocks (or any others in consumer goods) are tight enough to resolve the levels that this guy is talking about (0.63m?) Would be interesting to know whether the GPSr chip manufacturers are going to have to improve their own specs to take advantage of this, and how difficult or costly it might be. They may be there now, or it could pose a hurdle. No way to know from where most of us sit. As an aside: Good on them for finally preparing to dump NAD83 in favor of a more realistic model. Long overdue.

I will be on Geocache talk podcast show #222 discussing creating Adventure Labs that go beyond the "magical history tour" model that is so common. You don't have to have anything interesting to make an AL that can amuse. I just published one that tells a story but uses nothing from the environment. It could be transplanted to Iowa and play the same. It uses simple puzzles and riddles for the player to solve in the field. A very simple way to do something in an area with nothing of interest, is an I Spy game - particularly good for kids. Listen in Live or watch it later. November 1, 6 pm Pacific.

Ultimately, since it'll likely involve a listing on geocaching.com, this is up to your reviewer. As for just a Wherigo cartridge alone, there's no issue: it's not for sale, no one is making money off it, and it's fair use. I brought that up as a question with Groundspeak in 2008, and their stance at the time was only reactionary, meaning they'd only do something if copyright holders contacted them. So I suggest asking your reviewer. If it proves a problem to get a cache published, you could leave off the name "Gruffalo" and say this story is based on a book. As a geocacher, I've found caches based on and that talk about books, movies, TV, and so on, but heard talk of people having trouble mentioning things like the Little Free Library (though I've found caches on, in, and around them). Go figure.

That seems like the best answer to me. GerandKat's rules of thumb only talk about the specific physical location. I find that often the least significant part of a cache.

I thought you asked for our opinions because you recognized there were other valid opinions. But apparently you were just hoping we'd give you ammunition. The way you handled it in the logs, you told the CO he was wrong, and then kept insisting he was wrong and there was no room for him to be right after he clearly demonstrated his contrary opinion by not changing anything. You're done here. Time to move on. Repeating it over and over -- never mind the bold -- told the CO you weren't going to take "no" for an answer. Things escalated from there, and now you've made an enemy for no good reason. I'm sure appeals (i.e., "HQ") would reinstate your log since I can't imagine them coming down against a legitimate find, but I suggest that instead of asking them to, you just talk to the CO, both to make sure he agrees where your opinions differ and to apologize for being so insistent. Then ask for permission to relog the caches if you don't talk about the size. As I said in my initial response, I might mention the size seeming wrong to me in one or two of the logs, but now that you're in this situation, you should just drop it. I think you've forfeited your right to mention your opinion about the size. The basic problem here -- and I'm seeing this more and more often -- is you seeing the CO as an enemy combatant instead of a friend who hid a cache for you. Is there any chance you can take him out for a beer or meet him at an event to have a friendly discussion about container sizes? Figure out where he's coming from, and see if you can accept his opinion as valid for his caches and let him try to convince you it's valid for other caches. Maybe he really is trying to inflate the value of his caches -- kinda hard to imagine in this day and age, frankly -- and, if so, see if you can change his mind about that, perhaps. Naturally you want to make sure he understands the impact on you and others like you when you thought there'd be room for swag and there wasn't. Maybe he hasn't consider that.

Even this, although a good rule of thumb, is not always the rule to follow. I found a cache a few weeks ago, nice big ammo can at the final of a Wherigo. It had visitors discover the TB's that were in it, but the TB's had been in there for nearly 2 years!!! I took all 4 of them, and didn't leave any; if it takes from April 2017 til January 2019 for someone to come along and grab them, I'd rather have it traveling with me for a month or two, taking photos, and gaining miles than just sitting in a cache for months on end, waiting for someone who can further its mission. Well, I claim that what you're saying you did was moving them, so I think you're following little-leggs rule. But I basically agree with you: the rule shouldn't talk about the absolute notion "soon", it should talk about whether you can move them sooner than they're likely to move if you leave them where they are. Clearly these four TBs were stuck, so almost anything would move them sooner than where they are. And I feel like, in general, that's true for any active cacher taking a TB from any given cache. The times I sometimes pause and leave some behind is when there are many TBs. In this day and age, it can take me a while to find 4 caches large enough to take a TB, so I'm more likely to leave a couple where they are under the theory that the next finder will be able to share the burden so all four TBs will move more quickly.

There has been talk of a system that would fulfill this requirement.

Okay looking for a little assistance on a new EC(s?) I'm building in Alaska. Southeast Alaska has a LOT of ECs on Glaciers (it's what we're famous for) however I notice most of them talk about the glacier formation, retreat, causes of shrinkage etc, but they don't talk about (or only mention in passing in the description) about the "left behind," geologic features: kettle ponds, glacial striations, erratics etc. NOW WAIT JUST A MINUTE I can hear you saying it already "Glacial Erratics are no longer an accepted form of ECs." What I'm proposing is incorporating these features into a "Track the Glacier" EC, where evidence is taken from several points around the park and analyzed to determine facts about the glacier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My queries 1) Is the fact that other Earth Caches mention some of this data in their descriptions going to limit my placement of the Earth Cache or will this violate the "unique geological feature" rule? A note on this, none of the logging tasks for the nearby ECs mention anything about the above mentioned features. 2) Would it be better to separate each feature into it's own EC or should it be fine to "lump them all in" as one? 3) If I do lump them all in as one, is it fine if the cache focuses on the scientific process of determining information about the glacier given the geologic evidence at hand or does it need to focus more directly on the evidence and not the analysis of the evidence? (Mainly I'm trying to gauge whether or not it would fall under "Tools used by geologists, such as index fossils, rocks, and historical geology sites." which is an accepted category, or if it would stray too far from the geologic roots.) Thank you in advance for your help! I'll keep you all posted as I move forward!

Some odd reason, once in a while I forget that I went into the woods with a hiking stick. I always have a hiking stick. We don't usually buy cheap, so then I have to lug my can wherever I left it last. Talk about a spoiler ! "Yoo-hoo ! The cache is right here...!" The last time was only eight miles, but it was almost dark. I was second-to-find, so left a note if someone would grab it for me. - And they did. But I never forget a writing instrument.