Search the Community

So, suppose I tell you that your proposed location is 110m northwest of the final coordinates for "Cacher Conundrum," a five-star puzzle cache that only four people have ever solved and logged in the past three years. Armed with that intelligence, you track down the container and sign the log at the same time when you move your cache to a spot that's 162m away. What do I get for being helpful? A flaming email from the CO of "Cacher Conundrum," who also posts to three Facebook groups, and files a complaint with Geocaching HQ that I gave away secret information and ruined the puzzle cache. Having had that happen to us enough times, reviewers nowadays are constrained to be less forthcoming with details. Depending on your reviewer, you may get a hint, like "you are less than 161m from "Cacher Conundrum," GCABCDE, or you may get a hint that you should strongly consider moving to the southeast, or you may not get any guidance at all. So, that's how come. In a world where people hack lab caches and share the final coordinates of puzzle caches in Facebook groups, the inevitable outcome of such a feature would be to spoil every puzzle cache, multicache and Wherigo cache, plus a fair percentage of letterbox hybrid caches. There are people who like placing and finding these cache types. Geocaching.com has chosen not to alienate them by ruining the ability to keep the actual locations a secret. "But all I need is a distance and direction," you might say. So, the cheater simply enters enough coordinates into the planner tool to permit them to hone in on the actual location through triangulation. Think that can't happen? Talk to the travel bug stalkers who watch for drops of trackables in unpublished caches so they can figure out the locations and log a pre-publication "FTF." Talk to the group of cachers who hid traditionals in every conceivable spot within two miles of a 5-star puzzle, knowing they'd eventually "battleship" their way to a hit, and then they could do a scorched earth hunt within that area. I foiled them by publishing their cache even though it was 200 feet away from the puzzle final. Reviewers are smart humans*, you see, and that is better than an automated system. *Many reviewers are dogs.

AKA Mentor Wanted! Hi all New girl in town and living in the gorgeous Prescott Valley, Az. Just joined the site as a premium member so will be learning about all the functions and offerings. I stumbled over a cache accidentally last year while checking out an historical marker/graveyard and was officially hooked, though I'd been familiar with the site and concept for awhile before then. I was given a Magellan sports trak GPS but wasn't very intuitive and had no manuals, cables or anything and couldn't figure out how to use it. Anyway, I'm browsing Amazon ready to order something solid, reliable, and easy to use in the $300 range. I'm seeing high reviews for the Garmin Rino, so thought I would post and ask if anyone here is using it and how it fares for a complete noob and anything I might need to be aware of, and especially if I'll end up spending more $ on back end accessories that I will need but that don't come with (and worse, aren't even mentioned). Finally, if anyone is in Prescott Valley Az area, I would love to meet you. We're relatively new in town too and I've had little opportunity to meet people so far. Geocaching buds would be ideal! Thanks in advance. I think the email is shown, maybe in profile if you prefer that option too. Have a great evening!

Well, Easter is here, and now, this thread ressurects (no pun intended). The time has come to contact all geocachers interested on participating in this research interview. Hope to talk to you all soon! Take care! Shak.

Im giving a talk on geocaching for my moms watershed meeting tonight,and Im not really sure how to go about it.I was gonna start by giving the meaning of the word and a brief word on how it got started,then for there Im kinda lost.Any Ideas????

I've found 10 or 20 caches since the lockdown, and not a single one had been touched by anyone within the period that the virus is known to survive on that kind of surface, discounting the remote possibility of a non-cacher finding it and handling it without a corresponding log being entered. With golf, the person you're worried about was there touching that object 5 minutes ago. So I don't consider the risk for geocaching large, although for the run where someone had found the caches the day before, I used gloves just to be sure. But I'm not trying to talk you out of not signing. That's up to you, and I expect most COs will understand if you explain in your find log and don't play games like not climbing a tree but then claiming the find. If you're worried about the CO, you could just log a note: they can't complain about that.

How about getting a few college interns from down the street to help with this excellent idea? Though Siri offline you'll have to talk to Apple.

It took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about because, although it might seem odd, I see little similarity between what a CO does and what the powers that be do. A CO has a lot of say in his cache, but, nevertheless, he has no authority. He's just another person playing a game with his friends, so, yes, of course I agree he should be patient with others, thorough in his explanation, and flexible when he can. As I said, I wish TPTB could be like that, but the fact is that they're just making decisions: yes you can do that or no you can't. In a case like this, there's no explanation: the people promoting virtual logs know full well they're against the guidelines, so there's no need to explain that. There's really no advantage for the powers that be to be nice once they've made a decision after considering all the facts. That's one of the reasons I don't think I could ever be a reviewer. Reveiwers are great. They're always fair and helpful. But we're talking about a situation where all the cards are on the table. There's no possible outcome other than "No". In that situation, I can understand when they see no reason to pretend there's anything to talk about. No, in fact, I don't agree with that statement. This isn't about a matter of opinion whether a guideline can or can't be broken. And, in fact, I think the idea that respect has anything to do with following the rules is absurd. This is simply observing that TPTB have made a decision, so that's that. In this case, I happen to agree with their decision because I don't see the benefit and dislike the precedent, but my purpose here is to support the TPTB's actions once they made the decision regardless of how I feel about their ruling. I can see them being more lenient in the case of a CO allowing a find that doesn't result in a signed log. I haven't seen them mind that in the case of a container that can't be opened, although I'm sure they'd get upset if it went on a while without the container being replaced. So I'm not surprised they're allowing it, but I also won't be surprised if they change their minds after it becomes more obvious this is going on as a matter of course.

A few thoughts : First, unless there is some puzzle on the cache page they need to solve to find the locations of those bits of information, or the information itself is a puzzle, that's probably a multi not a puzzle . Second, practically speaking, why 16 portions of information ? Is that because of the length of the co-ordinate string ? Remember that the first few digits of both latitude and longitude are going to be exactly the same for a huge area, so unless your chosen site is near the border between .for e.g. , 50 north and 51 north, most smart people will skip visiting those predictable digits. A lot of puzzles in my area give a portion of the solution on the page like this N50 0x.xxx W 000 0x.xxx. Third, 16 (or however many) pieces of information are many times (16 ?) more likely to go missing than a single cache container, and in towns those do seem to get muggled easily. If one of your pieces is removed, painted over or whatever, you will need to maintain it. Similarly, you need to be sure your pieces of information are going to stay readable despite fading or water damage (or frost damage, or whatever your climate throws at you, I've not checked to see where you cache ! ) As baer2006 mentions, inbuilt redundancy of some kind reassures cachers that a single missing piece of information will not mean they have to post a DNF , if you can work it in, it's very worthwhile. Fourth, you need to ensure your pieces of information are placed in a way which causes no damage, personally I'd not ever contemplate putting a sticker or marking with paint or pen on someone else's property , or municipal street signs etc. Using a magnet (or magnetic sheet cut to size) or a magnetic fake bolt would mean no risk of damage . You could maybe talk to some property owners in the town, a friendly small shop, cafe, museum or whatever might be happy to have a discreet sign placed in the corner of a window facing out and visible from the street .

Haven't read the whole thread, but wondering if there has been any talk/rumours of extending the first CITO season for this year since many if us are now in lockdown with CITO events cancelled or unable to be published during this time.

i have asked this question several times before and have yet to receive an empirical answer. where did this idea come from that an activated coin is worth less than a non-activated one? same coin, not circulated. i feel it is a myth, a false concept. if that myth was destroyed, then all coins of one type would be equally valuable, even those that were activated because someone wanted the icon. i can understand if we are talking about a circulated coin versus a non-circulated one. just like in the real coin world. this came up recently because of my "fix walter" sales. someone suggested that some of the coins were less valuable because they had been activated. i have long said to that "baloney!" if i want a coin, i don't give a flying hill of ducks if it has been activated or not. it is the same piece of metal, activated or not. so, let's keep it friendly, but let's talk about this.

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.

Nice try. It was an interesting idea, but I agree with GS that it was misguided, so I'm happy they shut it down. I can see why you're upset about them not posting an explanation, but your description makes it clear the caches were published under false pretenses, however noble the intention, and GS usually doesn't react kindly to that. Try something else, and maybe talk it over with GS or come on the forums to discuss it before you decide unilaterally that it justifies pretending to be geocaching when you're actually doing something else. I haven't looked at the recent "virtual event" thread, but I'm guessing that's someone thinking along the same lines, so you might want to check it out.

We joke about attending Skype events in our local WhatsApp group but definitely against the rules. I you need caching talk just organise a group chat. I am sure people are not that desparate for a log.

You could always log a Note with the intention of logging a legitimate Find after signing the Log. Hard to see how HQ would have an issue with a generic Note. Since my experience informs me that HQ usually only gets wind of these things when another User complains, maybe you should invite the person/people in your area that appear to have an issue with this practice to a video chat to talk it over and find some sort of solution. Zoom Happy Hours are becoming quite the thing in my area.

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.

Is there a place I can read about the various chipsets? MTK v2, Sirf 111, Cartesio, Mediatex? I totally don't understand them. I am not even sure they are chipsets? Is there a chart that compares them? Or a chart that indicates which chipset that the GPS unit has installed? Seriously, I am just trying to learn. Thanks, Yvette

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.

I disabled my cache last week, when I was surprised to see someone had visited it. This is NOT essential activity. Clearly everyone should err on the side of caution and not talk about what is "most likely" while having zero experience in epidemiology. Just stop this reckless behaviour, which is now criminal, at least in the UK. Personally I think it's poor that geocaching.com haven't just turned off the data feed.

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.

Did anyone listen to yesterday's show? Elliott was talking about how cars will drive up to the top of the parking garage on Rockville Pike, MD, and get out of the car, walk around, get back in the car and drive away. Usually 1 or 2 people and always different cars. A caller called in guessing that it might have been a geocacher--of course Elliott had never heard of it, so he and his morning crew completed busted this caller using words like, dork, loser, etc. What do you guys think?

I wish I could say that I was going on the trip with my parents to Sweden, but being a new father I am unable too. My parents have just learned to use my gps and want me to put in the cords for 2 places in Sweden. I is called Gillersklack (which is a ski resort in Kopparberg) and the 2nd is Arlanda Hotellby, Stockholm, Sweden (Which I believe is a Hotel) It would be very appreciated if someone could email me with these cords. gps_junky@yahoo.com

If 10 DNFs isn't enough for a CO to self-check the cache, then it should be archived, unless it's a high D cache, in which case the NRA wouldn't really be appropriate either. The first step should be a NM to notify the CO that something might be wrong, not jump immediately to a reviewer with a suggested NRA. If no action is forthcoming from the CO, the next step is the NA. There's no need for a separate NRA log in this example because a mechanism exists and should work as it is supposed to but cachers don't want to file the correct logs to get this addressed. In this example you've provided (and assuming the NRA was in place), does that mean you would bypass the NM log (and suggest others do as well) and go directly to a NRA to initiate reviewer action on this cache? If so, then what does that say about the NM log? You've essentially rendered it irrelevant. Also, if the CO doesn't respond to this reviewer action, then the cache is archived. Basically you're asking for the reviewer to disable a cache that has no NM log (because a 10 consecutive DNF cache probably needs a CO check), see if the CO responds, and then archive the cache when they don't. And that's somehow a different process and result than the current NA log we have available now because the implication of the terminology is better and not used out of context? I'm all for changing the name of the log but I honestly can't think of how the process and possible results would differ from how they currently stand or do anything to address the issue of not using the proper logs for needed maintenance and/or reviewer action. I did and there's very little that addresses examples, only most people agreeing with the suggestion of a name change of the NA log to the NRA log. I suggested they keep both (in my initial reply) because there are some cases where immediate action/archival is needed (cache on private property without permission, for example) vs. just the normal progression of an unmaintained cache from NM to NRA. NRA makes much more sense because it applies across the board to every situation but since that hasn't happened, the NA is what we have so that's what we have to use. I still don't think there are any examples that would make sense for a community member to forego the NM log and proceed directly to a NRA log. Most examples (like the 10 consecutive DNFs) should be just as adequately addressed using what we have in place (NM then NA). The problem is that the community is hesitant to use them or refuses to use them. The NRA isn't needed if people file the correct logs and use the established process. The NRA apparently is needed when people choose not to file the correct logs and not use the established process. Creating or renaming a log that asks for reviewer action doesn't address the problem of people not using the correct log types. It doesn't change the process already in place, although if you're going to bypass the needed NM log (in the example you provide) to file the NRA log, then it completely changes the process and renders the NM log irrelevant. It only clarifies the implication of the log being used. This does nothing to address the root of the problem. It's because the community hasn't been "educated" or properly "refreshed" in their proper use. Now that the CHS and reviewers are apparently pro-actively seeking out caches like this particular example, the community doesn't feel like it's a needed action on our parts, despite the fact that it is. Some of it is related to the actions of GS, some of it is related to COs' reactions to NM/NA logs, and some of it is related to the community's hesitancy in their use. All this talk between Bruce and I about NA/NRA is completely irrelevant if the community just follows the protocols laid out for us and files the NM/NA logs and COs get over themselves and realize that it's not some personal attack but instead a plea for them to maintain their cache. They fail to maintain it and it's off the books, as it should be. Like Bruce, I wouldn't have taken action like you did but I would be just as frustrated at the lack of action by the community prior to you. I might have contacted the CO and/or written a note on the cache page but like some (but not others) I prefer to have firsthand knowledge and visit a cache before filing a NM log. I have no issues with following up later (I typically wait 4 weeks/30 days), if no action is taken by the CO, with a NA log. If I didn't file the NM log, I won't file a NA log because I'd prefer to have visited the cache to feel confident in my choice. I'm sure dprovan doesn't feel like that's needed but if a reviewer is going to take action (or is summoned to take action), then I believe they need as much firsthand information as they can get to help make their decision, not someone else acting, in essence, as a reviewer from afar. I don't think it's wrong what they do, although I'd not endorse their actions; I feel it's wrong for me based on how I choose to participate.

As a RN, I can talk about 16 hour shifts all the time. We get that. It sucks, but its our reality, COVID-19 or not. Also consider, this is not a one size fits all situation. Our policies and protocols within the hospital change several times each day. Yesterday evening we separated a brand new baby from its PUI mother five minutes after birth. Today, we would not do that; they would stay together and mom would wear a mask while breastfeeding. I am 20 miles north of the first Washington state COVID-19 case in Snohomish County and 50 miles north of Seattle. I'm not being negligent. I'm avoiding stores, crowded areas, my nursing conferences have been cancelled, practicing social distancing, etc. I'm following the recommended guidelines AND caring for patients with inadequate PPE, not nearly enough supplies, etc. However, the fresh air part is recommended by State of Emergency declared by the Skagit County Health Department that recommends people getting outside. It's also recommended that kids spend two hours playing outdoors. People who are sick should self-isolate except to seek medical care. People at higher risk of severe illness should self-isolate now. This includes physical isolation from non-household family members, including grandchildren. People at higher risk include people over 60 years of age; people with underlying health conditions including heart disease, lung disease or diabetes; people with weakened immune systems; and pregnant women. Everyoneshould limit activity outside the home to essential activities only. However, outdoor activities such as walking, running, biking, and hiking are encouraged. If you go with another person, maintain 6 feet of distance. So, to answer your question, CITOs ARE good for you, if you are healthy.

I'd argue with your cause and effect order. In my area, at least, NAs were common until reviewers started taking action based on DNFs, and only then did people stop posting NAs. If it bothers you to search for something that isn't there, then geocaching isn't the game for you. There's always a first person to search for a cache that has gone missing. Nothing can change that, and I think it's detrimental to the game to pretend otherwise. From what I've seen, the reluctance to log DNFs is entirely cultural. All the serious geocachers in my area log DNFs when they can't find the cache. I've never noticed the casual geocachers being very shy about it, either, although I'm sure there are some that don't, and that doesn't really concern me. To be honest, I'm always a little puzzled when people from other places talk about it being common for people to not file their DNFs. Even with the reviewers swooping down on caches with a couple DNFs, everyone still seems it's more important to tell everyone else that they couldn't find it and not worry about how the reviewers will react. It's kinda sad you think there are people that can't laugh at themselves when their DNF comes between two easy find logs. If you think you know someone like that, you should definitely remind them that they're geocaching so they can enjoy themselves, not so they can compare themselves to other people. Failure is an every day occurrence in geocaching, so if someone finds it embarrassing, they're not going to have much fun in this game.