Search the Community

Here is a misunderstanding. A compass is a device that shows the cardinal directions used for navigation and geographic orientation. It commonly consists of a magnetized needle or other element, such as a compass card or compass rose, which can pivot to align itself with magnetic north. Other methods may be used, including gyroscopes, magnetometers, and GPS receivers. I think that the correct term should be relative bearing when we talk about the arrow pointing to the waypoint.

It can also cause frustration when the different devices on different days are off in different directions. So your gps could be 15 feet off to the left, the cache owner's gps could have been 15 feet off to the right when they placed the cache. So even if you are 100% certain you are at exactly the right coords, you could actually be 30 feet away from where the cache physically is. It's why some people talk about "geo-senses", which really just means past experience. Which can also be why it can be very frustrating when you come across a new way of hiding a cache that you haven't experienced before but others have. Lots of "so easy" and "obvious" logs, but you've spent the last two hours checking every nook and cranny in a larger and larger area...

+1 here When I have hosted an event, I made sure to talk to everybody--at least to say hello and thanks for coming. As the event progressed I made sure to talk to those who were not sitting with a group--if they are just hanging on the edge of a group and not participating in the conversation I may not notice that. But if I'm not the host, I talk to whomever I want to--usually this is a person by him/herself because I do better in a one-on-one than in a group conversation (poor social skills ya know). Mostly people talk to others that they know; that's just natural and it's not a "clique" at all, though it could look like it to someone who wants to see it that way. Cliques deliberately shut others out; all geocaching event group conversations that I have seen include newcomers. But if someone is going to sit apart and wait to be included, that's not likely to happen. The person who wants to be included has to make some effort to be included.

My assumption was that reviewers might only do this when they happen to know the exact location, e.g. probably not all that often. I don't really know how much responsibility any individual reviewer has to enforce any particular rule, so I perhaps wouldn't go there. Well no, I was assuming the multi was blocking large area, as that was the premise. (somewhere between a single waypoint and an entire town) Addressed in my premise: "unobtainable to most cachers for a reason that isn't related to the location (e.g. a run-of-the-mill T5 tree climb near a waterfall) ". There's also been talk of "dumbing down" things, which I haven't perhaps properly addressed after that premise, but I did mean unobtainable in a fairly literal sense here. The argument wasn't for popularity at all costs, and that wouldn't be an argument I could ever see myself supporting. Take your example puzzle cache, almost anyone can go look some letters in a sign if they choose to; it's just that some don't want to. But the skill and gear for T5 climbing or scuba diving, or the intelligence/domain-specific knowledge required for certain types of puzzle present a barrier that can't be overcome by simple choice. In fact there's probably a very finite set of people in any area that can ever do those caches. The few hour hikes and boat caches that don't require an actual seaworthy boat and skill fall somewhere in the grey area in my mind. I'm still healthy enough to do that kind of thing fairly effortlessly, and I kinda like doing them, so I might easily come to think that anyone could. But that might be biased. It will but the reviewer wouldn't normally even know what the container is. So what was the scenario you imagined that this would come up in? I imagined a perhaps inexperienced CO asking the reviewer, typically a more experienced cacher, if their container of choice was fine, and getting an answer like "that container type has the following known issues: [...] so it might be a good idea to consider something else if those issues apply to your hiding place." I'm getting the idea that you think reviewers shouldn't be able to talk about this kind of thing at all, so I thought it relevant to point out that the example you chose is something reviewers were arguably meant to enforce at one point. E.g. that the "allowed topics" can change. Of course now that it's been agreed that PTs are ok, individual reviewers have to stick to that. If that's trivially possible, then I guess the location isn't completely blocked. I guess I'm assuming either the reviewer would notice that and not ask, or the CO would notice that and point it out in their response to the reviewer and that would be the end of it. I own a multi, the last time I found a multi was today. But my premise to this was "Ignoring remote locations for a while, is there any merit to this type of targeting of unpopular caches in otherwise busy caching areas?" And I said I have not decided what my own opinion on this is, but acknowledged that I'd play the devil's advocate if need be. So if you'd like to discuss this further, could you perhaps do it without making it be about me personally? I was taking "leaving almost no space for anyone else" to entail that there in fact is someone else. From this response, and your many others, I understand this generally doesn't seem to be the case in your area. So if these were the rules and I were a reviewer in your area, I probably wouldn't think they apply. (As a side note, that kind of location would have been great use of one of the new virtual caches.)

Yep. The pace is your own, and the last thing I want when relaxing outside is idle chat, talk politics, or hear rumors.

I'm guessing that's because the caches in your area aren't that interesting, so the COs aren't expecting anyone to say anything interesting about them. I'd be really puzzled by a CO that placed a cache to encourage people to take a nice hike up a mountain to a beautiful view and then didn't read the reactions. That's the kind of cache we're talking about here. But to react to your comment, if a CO placed mundane caches and didn't even scan the DNFs for longer than usual logs that might indicate a problem, I'd say they weren't planning on maintaining their caches. I'd talk to them about that; I wouldn't accept it as a given that COs don't even glance at logs. But beyond that -- to go back to the original point about DNFs that don't reflect the cache's health -- I'd be kinda tickled if they got a CHS alarm and then ran out to fix a cache that wasn't broken because they didn't even bother to read the DNF logs that caused the CHS. Serves them right.

Last year we did Cape York from CQ, 6491.4 km without leaving the state. But all this talk of remote travelling, and looking at photos and caches found, has my brain ticking over, so I have just posted this to our 4wd clubs Facebook page. I reckon it would be well over 10000km over the 4-5 week trip. Must be time to put forward a proposal for another big trip. Hopefully all this Covid rubbish is gone by then. Autumn/Winter 2023. Central Australia. Approx 4-5 weeks. Simpson Desert crossing west to east. It can easily include Plenty Highway, or better still Sandover Highway, Birdsville Track, Oodnadatta Track, Strezlekie Track. So, a potential itinerary, up to Mt Isa, Sandover Highway, Alice Springs, Mt Dare, Simpson Desert, Birdsville, Birdsville Track, Oodnadatta Track to William Ck, Lake Eyre, Coober Pedy, Port Augusta, Strezlekie Track, home via Cameron Corner and/or Haddon Corner, Windorah, Blackall, Tambo, Springsure, Biloela. No idea of what distance that involves. Just looking back at some of the photos from our last Simpson Desert crossing about 7 years ago, and thinking, we should do that again. Thoughts?

I've never seen anything that bad, but I have no trouble imagining it. I suggest you talk to the new CO and mention how his inaccurate ratings have ruined your statistics. Point out to him that, like most geocachers, you aren't interested in meeting challenges using fake data.

If we are allowed to talk about our own "children", I would vote for Victoria Amazonica and Jaguar.

Okay, yeah, I misread your comment to infer that YOU updated something, which really, really threw me for a loop. There have been some changes in years past in the Datasheet program on how it interprets log entries for stations, which likely helped these stations get an accurate monumented date. (I only know this because one such update that was made back about a year ago) caused a whole bunch of logs that had no status, no agency, and no date appear tacked onto the history list on the datasheet. Had to talk to them and point out some stations that were causing this.

I don't think so, not for me. I usually talk to the people I know and not to all 100 who have signed-up. Just recently have attended an Event with more than 800 People https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8GVCH_event-am-see-2021-event-at-the-lake-2021?guid=1768bcdd-034c-4155-950a-718a51a3accc and I have been in contact with about 10. The other 790 were not even close to me.

Nope, I still doubt it. He's claiming the FTF because he sees himself as the FTF, just like 1400+ times before. That doesn't mean that one FTF is important to him, it's just a fact. Even if he said, "HAHAHA, another precious FTF to add to my prized collection," I'd still think that was just how he logs FTFs, not that FTFs are so important he'd go to the trouble of carrying spare containers all the time just to be sure he gets one more. I just think the image of the halo over his head is a much bigger motivation than the +1 that no one will notice. So if you talk to him, sure, go ahead and rib him about being a numbers fiend, but if you want to stop him from dropping throwdowns, talk him him about why throwdowns are not a good idea. He won't listen if you say it's just because it makes him look like a numbers fiend.

Thanks Keystone, this is the same advice I offered the cache owner when the caches were first submitted. Dan, In regards to the distance, the distance is variable but what we take into account is the audience and if the cache is part of a series. Let me talk in a local example for you. If for example caches were placed around the Canberra region but to the cardinal points then these caches may be further than 100km from each other but are set to appeal for the same audience. This is even more the case where the cache have the same names as a Platinum step within a series. In regards to appealing a reviewers decision this is always an option. Reviewers don't take offence and it helps us to ensure we are following the intent of the guidelines. Often for borderline case we will take a cache to appeals for you. Hope that helps.

Here we have a classic example of WHY we have peer review for new categories. Talk about a category that is completely subjective - one person's "urban legend" may not be another's... Then, you have the creator of the category bugging out of Waymarking the same year he created this "interesting" piece of Waymarking. My question is - if you expand to just "Legends", and these are people, how would this be different than "Epic Beings" if Epic Beings allow a statue of Lewis and Clark to be included in their category????

The definition of "game" in general is oft debated. I don't think there will be any consensus here But I primarily refer to this as a hobby. Occasionally a game. Depends on context I think. If I'm talking about stats, my mind may jump to game. If I'm talking about the fun and adventure, usually hobby. A game doesn't have to be competitive, or necessarily even have win/lose conditions. Some may even call some hobbies games, depending on their motive for 'doing' the hobby (could building and selling crafts be considered a game to some? *shrug*) I don't think the label is as important as how we promote the activity and talk it up.

How do you know that before you talk to them? Besides, even if you do already know that, all you're saying is that there's another, even bigger reason to talk to these people and try to fix your broken community instead of putting up with people that are intentionally irritating.

Good time to consider what you mean by "it". If you mean the "problem" of poorly chosen ratings, I deny it's a problem. If you mean those specific examples of badly rated caches, what you should do about it is talk to the CO and other members of your community that support badly rated caches. Make your arguments for accurate ratings to them and try to talk them out of rating caches arbitrarily. Among other things, remind them that challenges based on ratings are based on ratings because the ratings reflect the challenge of the caches, so their bogus ratings aren't really helping people meet those challenges, they're just giving them a way to lie about whether they've met them in spirit.

My opinion? Let's talk about extremes. If we (theoretically!) excluded all the categories mentioned above, I don't know if I will ever find a waymark for this category. If we include all of them, we will have a lot of crosspostings, but we will also have a category with a lot of fine art on a grave and won't miss any great pieces of art, just because it also represents his/her hobby/occupation or the deceased is a Dead Poet. So, I guess we need something in between. Maybe we should think about it that way: Is the category to be ex- or included also an art category or not? For example: One of my Out of Place Graves is a wonderful piece of art (in my humble opinion). Not sure, if it will create a "wow" for everyone, but let's just pretend that it does. Would you post that one in "Out of Place Graves" or "Funerary Art"? One is an art category, and the other lists graves that are not on a cemetery (artful or not). IMHO there is no reason for preventing a crossposting in that situation. I would understand, if a grave artwork was posted in two different art categories. F.e. "Funerary Art" and "Relief Art Sculptures". In the bottom of my heart I would even allow crossposting in 2 art categories, but that is most likely just my opinion. What I really would like to clarify: Are we talking about "figurative" art to compensate, what the Figurative Public Sculpture category denies (= animals and humans) or are we also considering f.e. abstract art? I posted a photo of the grave of Hedy Lamarr in this thread on July 28, 2017, but received no feedback. PS: Don't worry, I won't shoot you. I don't even own a gun.

OK, so I am working up preliminary areas where Funerary Art could be found. Up front I will say I am not religious, so I have not been raised in any religious tradition (calm down, I am not going to talk about religion). Therefore, I am not familiar at what types of tombs/stones/art on final resting places would be found in places of worship. Most of the locations I am finding are related to Christian churches and burial traditions. If anyone can help with other religions/burial traditions, I would be quite grateful. Remember, the reason this category is getting up and rolling is that Figurative does not accept Funerary Sculptures. We are not trying to create a redundant category and there are many categories that deal with markers for the deceased. The thrust of the category is funerary art, not final resting places or type of monument for the deceased. This category recognizes that most of the sculptures would be found in a cemetery. However, there are other burial locations that may include sculptures that are funerary in nature, such as churches, cathedrals (bigger church), mausoleums and some burial locations that were owned by the deceased (family burial locations). Are there other locations common in other faiths/burial traditions I am missing? (Help please.) Any comments/thoughts on what should/shouldn't be accepted and why. Here are some locations where Funerary Art could be found. Should the category accept/decline from these various locations and styles of burial for the deceased: Sculpture/Artwork found on a headstone, columbarium, crypt, tombstone, mausoleum, ledger grave marker, cenotaph, tomb, effigies, church monument, cadaver monument, .... ? I know some of these have their own categories. Any of these that are related to s specific burial of an individual would not be accepted in Figurative. Figurative only accepts monuments that are, in essence, honoring all the deceased. Figurative does not accept pieces of a specific ('known") individual--that goes in Statues of Historic/Religious Figures. Just looking for comments/thoughts on what should/shouldn't be accepted and why. Existing Waymark Categories (I probably missed some) that need to be considered to be included/excluded: Death Mask Gravestones Broken Column Headstones Occupational/Hobby Grave Stones Woodmen of the World Grave Markers/Monuments Headstones of Centenarians **Veteran Memorials (Many categories - Specific wars and general categories) Homemade Tombstones Graves Mentioning a Cause of Death Out of Place Graves Statues of Historic Figures Statues of Religious Figures Dead Poets Society Zinc Headstones Mausoleum Relief Art (I am contacting Relief Art to verify if they accept/reject relief funerary art) Figurative Public Sculpture Sphinx Sculptures Equestrian Statues Epic Beings Lions, Bears, ... Pet Cemeteries (**There are many categories that honor the resting places of Veterans. For my convenience, I am grouping them into this overall term.) I am not against cross-posting and NOT suggesting all the above should be excluded. Remember the goal of this category is to highlight the art of the memorial - not the final resting place of the deceased. Members are concerned about the premise of the "Wow" factor as to what the category is wishing for. There is concern that the criteria may be too subjective (though there are many categories with 'wow' factor, this is not new). The reason for that idea of "Wow" is that, for instance, there are many headstones with little lambs (for the tragic loss of a child), or fingers pointing upwards, etc. Would a size criteria help (ex., roughly over 3 ft/1m square)? The piece must not be mass produced-it need to be a unique piece. How would members like to see this phrased/defined? Please don't get bogged down in format for title, etc. Right now, we need to best define what the category is trying to highlight and thus clearly define the types of sculptures/art the category is looking for. And I know there are always exceptions when a Waymarker finds something so magnificent we did not anticipate that. Again, I am just thinking aloud and looking for input. Please don't shoot the writer [grin]. Take care, Outspoken1 (Sandy)

The one playground I went to was in a state park, and no one around. It turned out to be a magnetic altoids tin under the front of the slide. Moms with jogging kid-carriers are the worst, and I even hear the angsty talk on phones on rails to trails, and small local parks by moms... Sheesh... - I could imagine what it'd be like if santa in camo was found on his back under the slide by one...

The only real way is enforcing the minimal rules which can be verified (typically that's HQ and the TOU for the website), and finding some way promote values and ethics where not verifiable. Promote positivity in the game, community, aspects that people enjoy the most which negatively affect people the least. Talk down practices that make things worse off for people, or which promote competitive behaviour (where not everyone involved has opted in), and promote benefits of it in an effort to help people have overall great experiences, and encourage people to realize it's an individualistic hobby and not take offense when people do things differently or enjoy different aspects of it... It's really not an easy system to make "work for everybody" - and it never will. All we can do is help to try to make it a great hobby for as many people as possible.

The obvious answer is that it's up to the CO of the challenge cache. But unless they're pretty clear about it -- and I've never seen that -- I'd assume it's just find logs. I wouldn't expect a problem, but, worst case, I'd be ready to try to talk the CO into accepting my finds if he initially rejects them. (I don't think I've actually run into enough caches in this state to cause me a problem in achieving a clear success at the challenge. What keeps happening to me is that I far exceed the requirement by the time I get around to signing the challenge cache log even when there's an initial period where I have to work towards that goal. Once I started looking for unfound caches, I couldn't stop myself.) My reaction to your question is that this is a good reason not to call them "lonely" precisely because it opens up this ambiguity: a CO's or previous finder's visit means they're not lonely, right? "Unfound" is more accurate, but not as cute. I think "unloved" works here: someone that can't find a friend might be called "unloved" even though their parents love them. The first few challenges I saw of this type used the terms "recovered" and "neglected", but those have fallen out of favor. I always liked those terms better, but I don't think they're any better at making it obvious CO visits don't count. Indeed, "neglected" kinda implies even more strongly than "lonely" that the CO hasn't visited.

I know what you mean, but happily in this case I don't have to question the veracity of the claim because the solution remains the same: the person that's so sure this is happening can go talk to the people. explaining how silly they look to people that recognize the obvious subterfuge. If the person making the claim is really blowing smoke about how much evidence there is, then they can decide for themselves whether to initiate a conversation that might make them look petty for accusing someone of doing something they didn't do. If I was that sure, I'd just say, "FTF@8am. Ignoring the signatures from before the cache was hidden." Oh, wait. They sign the log in the middle? Obviously they don't intend to claim FTF, so I'd just take FTF without commenting on it. If I saw this in my area, I'd assume they were people that were there when the CO hid the cache and are planning on claiming the find after the FTF. I consider that kind of "finding while hiding" a little silly, but it doesn't sound to me as if they're trying to block you from claiming FTF.

That's pitiful, both for the seekers and the CO, but I don't see why it matters to you. Sure, I'd talk to them all to try to figure out why they're wasting their effort that way instead of having fun finding caches, but there's no way to prevent it and every reason to think anything you try to do to prevent it will only have the effect of making it hard on people that are actually geocaching. Worry more about other people that are playing the same game you are and worry less about people playing some stupid game that makes no sense.

My estimate is that if your rule had been in effect for the last few years, I would have at least 10 times fewer caches in my area, and they wouldn't be anywhere near as good as the ones I have now. Why would I think that's better? I'd much rather have my experienced COs who have hidden hundreds of high quality caches than a smattering of caches by people who, by law, don't have the experience from hiding even 10 caches. If the prolific COs really did "shut out" others, then I might at least listen to you, but I'm seen them do no such thing. The high volume COs in my area hide hundreds of caches because they easily find hundreds of places to hide caches, and there are thousands more places after that for anyone else to use. If caches aren't being maintained, then they should be archived. In my area, the caches hidden by the high volume COs are the best maintained. It's much more common with a CO with 10 or fewer caches to neglect their hides. But, in any case, they should be archived because they aren't being maintained, not forbidden in advance because your faulty logic predicts that they won't be maintained at some point in the undefined future. In other words, my experience contradicts every single one of your assertions. So please, please, if you really are experiencing those problems, please look for ways to fix it in your local community. And, in fact, that's the obvious place to start anyway: if someone's dominating your area with crappy caches, talk to them. Work with them to make more areas available for other COs to hide caches. Treat them as the friends they should be, the friends you're playing this game with, the friends hiding so many caches for you to find. You're acting as if they're impersonal powers inflicting this situation on you for their own evil ends that you can't discuss with them. My guess is that they're just filling a vacuum and would welcome anyone volunteering to plant their own caches.