Search the Community

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.

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.

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.

Wow! Lots of new caches. Yet you and your friends are complaining? That seems odd, particularly since there's every reason to think the established COs that are on the ball enough to put out caches when the trail is available are odds on favorites to have better caches and do better maintenance than your friends who only just recently got the bug and could well lose it as easily as they got it. Anyway, teach your friends that they can reach out to the owners and talk about them making some room on the trail. Just emphasize that if the CO makes room for them, that it would be really embarrassing to you, as their mentors, if the cache they hide on the trail don't compare favorably to the caches the CO pulled for them.

For me, there are a few bad cacher types, on various degrees of bad. They have one thing in common: No regard for others. - Cache saboteurs. In the worst case, they damage the cache, intentionally or not. They break locks, pry boxes open, disassemble what should not be taken apart. Others leave it in a bad state that ruins the experience for others, not putting things back properly. - Throwdowns. Didn't solve the puzzle? Just put in a fake log! Didn't find the cache? Or couldn't reach it? Hang a petling at face hight and pretend it is the cache. - Copy-pasters. Looong boring logs about nothing (just to fake that author badge) and not a single word about the cache, on a special, unique cache with much work in it. Yes it is legal. Legal to be impolite. I don't mind a TFTC much, but getting piles and piles of these boring copy-paste logs on something I have worked hard on... it makes me considering quitting the hobby. Really. - People who can't communicate. People who misunderstand everything, takes offense when you try to help them, or don't respond. Can be both COs and finders. But now I'd better think about the good cachers. Cachers who have fun and let me know it. Cachers that are careful. Cachers that you can talk to.

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.

I'm a Boy Scout GC Merit Badge Counselor as well. It was alluded to above, but one of the biggest headaches with teaching kids about caching EVEN if they all get it (watch out for the uninterested kid in the back) and buy into all the etiquette, respect for the CO's effort, time and money and the collegiate nature of the hobby (NOT "US (cachers) vs. THEM (hiders)", but rather a collaboration) is that they now know about something REALLY KOOL and they HAVE TO tell everyone about it! So, they talk about it and "C'mon; I'll show you!" And, it's gone; a nifty ammo can left at the mercy of uninterested, uninitiated kids with no perspective on the game. MAYBE, your Scout is left standing there shouting, "Hey, wait! You can't take that with you!" What a spot to put them in. What I've done, especially with younger Scouts is start with and keep pushing the concept that GeoCaching is like a club; a club that's an honor to be a part of, and you're being trusted with secrets that CANNOT be shared. As sacred as the Cub Scout Oath! Would you tell any of your friends where your family keeps the secret Hide-a-Key outside your house? This is the SAME THING! Play it up for all it's worth; you'll be exposing the time, money and effort of a lot of local people to the whims of little kids. ALSO, if you take them hunting, consider reaching out to a few local CO's and asking them if they mind if you take Cub Scouts to their hides. If the local Cub Pack went after mine, I might not be all that enthused.

What is official then? Because nothing is Official then, you can log a find even you haven´t found it. You can place a cache and say you find it. You can co with the CO and say you found it. Because, even tho a cache as been archived by Groundspeak you can still log a found (in caches not locked). Hoooooo...but wait, why would Groundspeak lock a cache if it is still part of the game? Why did Groundspeak locked almost all virtual caches that are archived? I don't know if answering is a feeding, or actually helpful... Here goes, and the reply will tell me everything I need to know: The game of geocaching has been loosely adopted by Groundspeak Inc. and a listing service was created at Geocaching.com back in the year 2000. The game of geocaching (lower "g") was started after GPS Selective Availability was turned off, allowing consumer-level GPS units to have a huge improvement in accuracy. Some people started to talk about how accurate their GPS units would become, and a fun test, of sorts, was created. Dave Ulmer decided to place a container in the woods outside of Portland, Oregon, post the coordinates for the container online, and invited others to look for it. A great success! Someone found it, and proved that accuracy was better, and a game could be played where people hide containers and have people find them. Wahoo! Caches started out with containers, logbooks (not unlike a summit register), and some fun items to trade. The game most certainly had races to see who could get there first, and still does to this day. When geocaching was "formalized" and listing services hosted by Groundspeak, there were, and continue to be, other sites hosting geocache locations online for people to seek. Geocaching became Geocaching (as in Geocaching.com, big "G"), and the Geocaching.com site became the most visited and comprehensive hosting service for the game. Cache types were developed, and guidelines were hammered out on these very forums for the first handful of years. (You can still search here for some of the old, very relevant discussions about cache types, log types, use of logs, etc. Very interesting stuff, and fun to read. History is good to know when taking on this game and how it is played on this website.) The guidelines for the game hosted by Geocaching.com were "published" online, and are updated here and there still to this day. The main tennent for the game is still the same: Hide a cache, record its coordinates, publish it online, someone seeks it, finds it, signs the logbook, and then logs their find online to talk about their experience. When the game was "new", many people took the time to talk about the hike, the scenery, the cache, the fun they had seeking, and more. As the game grew, people had fun placing fun prizes for people to trade--and some also started to place items for the first person there to keep for themselves as a special prize for finding what was, at that time, a new and exciting test of emerging gameplay technology. It may have been a gift card, a small piece of art, an unactivated trackable item, etc. The guidelines remain essentially the same, yet one thing has never been entered into the guidelines on Geocaching.com/Groundspeak's sites: "First-to-find" guidelines. That side-game developed out of the funloving and creative minds of people playing the game and paying it forward with their generosity. As more and more people came to the game, the race was on within moments of publication, and many had fun challenging others to "beat them to it if they could". As with any side-bet or lighthearted competition, there are variations on ability, skill, and involvement. Some took it very seriously, others dabbled in it, and others just didn't care. Those same camps exist today, 14 years later. The guidelines as posted for guiding the gameplay and publication of Geocaches on Geocaching.com are "official". They are the way we all agree to play the game when we sign up for an account, or click the "I have read the..." checkboxes when we publish caches. If we ignore the guidelines, logs are deleted, caches are not published, listings are archived, and more. That much is enforcable on this website, and for all listings and accounts under the Geocaching.com/Groundspeak umbrella. Because this game is rooted in 14 years of history, there are certain ways the game is played. Owners are able to delete logs--liek if the logbook is not signed. So if you decide that actually finding a cache or not signing a log is ok because you think the guidelines and owner responsibilities are not "official", then you are up for a surprise when your logs are deleted, and you suddenly find yourself on the outs with the Geocaching.com community for repeatedly logging armchair or 'bogus' logs. Essentially, this is herd mentality. If you don't follow the guidelines that have been created and managed (mostly) by the community input, you won't find yourself enjoying playing the game here at Geocaching.com, or others enjoying that you're playing in their community. That's because deleting improper logs is the responsibility of listing owners, and is backed by "common practice" over the last 14 years of how this game is played. That is what separates "FTF" from bogus logs and archived caches. Geocaching.com does not own the listings or geocaches themselves, but they do have the right to archive listings that no longer meet the guidelines or cache types hosted by this site. If an owner no longer manages their listing--as is set out in the Terms of Use and Guidelines--then their caches can and will be archived. That is why Virtuals are now archived--the owners are no longer managing the listing, the cache type is no longer publishable, and users can--and have--abused the logging of these caches because they are fully aware that an owner will not delete their bogus log. The same goes for archived caches; however an active owner will delete a bogus log of their archived cache if they decide to do so. Groundspeak can also lock any archived cache as requested or seen fit according to the terms of use. Geocaching.com is both of those things. A place that hosts record of the Geocaches you have found, and a host of the listings that are published if they meet guidelines for listing and existence posted by Geocaching.com and Groundspeak. Play by the "rules", or play elsewhere. As there is no guideline outlining when someone can or cannot claim a "FTF", it is not an official Geocaching.com activity. They may talk about it on the blog or in videos, but that's just because it has been a part of the Geocaching lexicon for years. They can talk all they want, but they don't run the FTF show. That side-game is, as we've said, played differently by different people. So long as you're playing the game here at Geocaching.com, you have be be ready to be ok that others play that side-game differently than you do. Sharks and Jets, man. I do think that it is you that doesn't "get it". Either that or you're trolling us. Your replies will tell us that answer, I think. There are no "purists" or "puritans" of the FTF game, because anyone can claim that they way they play that side-game is the "way" it should be played. True "FTF" puritanical idealism would stay at the root of the phrase: "First to find". If you found it first, it doesn't matter if it was before or after publication. Once that cache is hidden, it can be found by anyone. And if nobody else but the hider has been to that site and found the cache yet, they are first. Now, if your gang of Sharks says that FTF only happens after publication, that's great. Just know that there are Jets out there that think a FTF can happen before publication. And then there's other gangs out there who dance differently than those two gangs...because there is no "official" way to play this side game. Why does my post say NeverSummer?

Really good point. I will make sure to emphasize this when we talk with the scouts.

What is official then? Because nothing is Official then, you can log a find even you haven´t found it. You can place a cache and say you find it. You can co with the CO and say you found it. Because, even tho a cache as been archived by Groundspeak you can still log a found (in caches not locked). Hoooooo...but wait, why would Groundspeak lock a cache if it is still part of the game? Why did Groundspeak locked almost all virtual caches that are archived? I don't know if answering is a feeding, or actually helpful... Here goes, and the reply will tell me everything I need to know: The game of geocaching has been loosely adopted by Groundspeak Inc. and a listing service was created at Geocaching.com back in the year 2000. The game of geocaching (lower "g") was started after GPS Selective Availability was turned off, allowing consumer-level GPS units to have a huge improvement in accuracy. Some people started to talk about how accurate their GPS units would become, and a fun test, of sorts, was created. Dave Ulmer decided to place a container in the woods outside of Portland, Oregon, post the coordinates for the container online, and invited others to look for it. A great success! Someone found it, and proved that accuracy was better, and a game could be played where people hide containers and have people find them. Wahoo! Caches started out with containers, logbooks (not unlike a summit register), and some fun items to trade. The game most certainly had races to see who could get there first, and still does to this day. When geocaching was "formalized" and listing services hosted by Groundspeak, there were, and continue to be, other sites hosting geocache locations online for people to seek. Geocaching became Geocaching (as in Geocaching.com, big "G"), and the Geocaching.com site became the most visited and comprehensive hosting service for the game. Cache types were developed, and guidelines were hammered out on these very forums for the first handful of years. (You can still search here for some of the old, very relevant discussions about cache types, log types, use of logs, etc. Very interesting stuff, and fun to read. History is good to know when taking on this game and how it is played on this website.) The guidelines for the game hosted by Geocaching.com were "published" online, and are updated here and there still to this day. The main tennent for the game is still the same: Hide a cache, record its coordinates, publish it online, someone seeks it, finds it, signs the logbook, and then logs their find online to talk about their experience. When the game was "new", many people took the time to talk about the hike, the scenery, the cache, the fun they had seeking, and more. As the game grew, people had fun placing fun prizes for people to trade--and some also started to place items for the first person there to keep for themselves as a special prize for finding what was, at that time, a new and exciting test of emerging gameplay technology. It may have been a gift card, a small piece of art, an unactivated trackable item, etc. The guidelines remain essentially the same, yet one thing has never been entered into the guidelines on Geocaching.com/Groundspeak's sites: "First-to-find" guidelines. That side-game developed out of the funloving and creative minds of people playing the game and paying it forward with their generosity. As more and more people came to the game, the race was on within moments of publication, and many had fun challenging others to "beat them to it if they could". As with any side-bet or lighthearted competition, there are variations on ability, skill, and involvement. Some took it very seriously, others dabbled in it, and others just didn't care. Those same camps exist today, 14 years later. The guidelines as posted for guiding the gameplay and publication of Geocaches on Geocaching.com are "official". They are the way we all agree to play the game when we sign up for an account, or click the "I have read the..." checkboxes when we publish caches. If we ignore the guidelines, logs are deleted, caches are not published, listings are archived, and more. That much is enforcable on this website, and for all listings and accounts under the Geocaching.com/Groundspeak umbrella. Because this game is rooted in 14 years of history, there are certain ways the game is played. Owners are able to delete logs--liek if the logbook is not signed. So if you decide that actually finding a cache or not signing a log is ok because you think the guidelines and owner responsibilities are not "official", then you are up for a surprise when your logs are deleted, and you suddenly find yourself on the outs with the Geocaching.com community for repeatedly logging armchair or 'bogus' logs. Essentially, this is herd mentality. If you don't follow the guidelines that have been created and managed (mostly) by the community input, you won't find yourself enjoying playing the game here at Geocaching.com, or others enjoying that you're playing in their community. That's because deleting improper logs is the responsibility of listing owners, and is backed by "common practice" over the last 14 years of how this game is played. That is what separates "FTF" from bogus logs and archived caches. Geocaching.com does not own the listings or geocaches themselves, but they do have the right to archive listings that no longer meet the guidelines or cache types hosted by this site. If an owner no longer manages their listing--as is set out in the Terms of Use and Guidelines--then their caches can and will be archived. That is why Virtuals are now archived--the owners are no longer managing the listing, the cache type is no longer publishable, and users can--and have--abused the logging of these caches because they are fully aware that an owner will not delete their bogus log. The same goes for archived caches; however an active owner will delete a bogus log of their archived cache if they decide to do so. Groundspeak can also lock any archived cache as requested or seen fit according to the terms of use. Geocaching.com is both of those things. A place that hosts record of the Geocaches you have found, and a host of the listings that are published if they meet guidelines for listing and existence posted by Geocaching.com and Groundspeak. Play by the "rules", or play elsewhere. As there is no guideline outlining when someone can or cannot claim a "FTF", it is not an official Geocaching.com activity. They may talk about it on the blog or in videos, but that's just because it has been a part of the Geocaching lexicon for years. They can talk all they want, but they don't run the FTF show. That side-game is, as we've said, played differently by different people. So long as you're playing the game here at Geocaching.com, you have be be ready to be ok that others play that side-game differently than you do. Sharks and Jets, man. I do think that it is you that doesn't "get it". Either that or you're trolling us. Your replies will tell us that answer, I think. There are no "purists" or "puritans" of the FTF game, because anyone can claim that they way they play that side-game is the "way" it should be played. True "FTF" puritanical idealism would stay at the root of the phrase: "First to find". If you found it first, it doesn't matter if it was before or after publication. Once that cache is hidden, it can be found by anyone. And if nobody else but the hider has been to that site and found the cache yet, they are first. Now, if your gang of Sharks says that FTF only happens after publication, that's great. Just know that there are Jets out there that think a FTF can happen before publication. And then there's other gangs out there who dance differently than those two gangs...because there is no "official" way to play this side game.

When I have taught kids that age geocaching, I've spent about half an hour explaining the basics of geocaching to them, with lots of hands on props. For example, I pass around containers of various sizes, I pass around examples of trackables, and I pass around examples of trade items. Then I take them out to practice geocaching. For a one-hour class, I will have set up a couple dozen hides in a small outdoor area near my classroom, and then I have the kids stay behind a line and raise their hands when they've spotted a hidden container. If I have more time for an actual geocaching hike, then I take them to a park or open space some distance away from home so we can find actual caches there. (The half-hour talk can happen at the trailhead right before the hike, or it can happen beforehand with a brief reminder of the rules before the hike.) I specifically DO NOT take them to find urban/suburban caches in the neighborhood. Even if I trust all my kids completely, I don't necessarily trust their friends and classmates who hear about hidden treasure in the neighborhood.

Yes, I used the basic stuff to glue the paper down and do the initial seal over the top, then sealed it with spray-on acrylic outdoor furniture sealer. I think I ended up with two coats of Mod Podge and three coats of sealer. The sealer I used is Dulux Duramax which is supposed to be pretty good for wooden outdoor stuff. Assuming it doesn't get scratched on a sharp edge somewhere, breaking the seal and letting the water in. I've heard people suggesting nail varnish as being relatively robust, or mixing up some epoxy resin / UV resin but I don't have either available.. Totally agree. My preference is to make TB proxies in etched aluminium though my current method isn't working as well as I'd like (correction - the results are pretty good, it's the hours of prep and lead up work that I'm trying to streamline). I also tried simple letter and number steel punch on aluminium which is great for making a quick and easy proxy (about six minutes for this one) but I need to slow down and use some guides or something to help keep the lettering even. I'd also really like to make things by melting and recycling HDPE plastic but that's better for swag than TB's (mass produce the same thing over and over again once the mold is made). Due to my wife having lung issues I'm reluctant to do anything that will generate a lot of chemical fumes. Which also takes resin casting off the table. I'd prefer to, as you suggest, use water resistant / proof labels, but my main consideration is keeping costs down. If I can buy a standard TB for AUD$9 (average price to get one shipped here in northern Australia) and it's going to cost me $10 or more to make the proxy, then I may as well just send out the original TB. I have scrap aluminium and the punch set, so that method is almost free for me. I had some leftover sheet wood, sealer and paint from another project, so I wanted to use those up on something - hence this idea. The most expensive part of these was the mod podge, which I can use on other projects as well. On my math, these cost me just shy of $2 each to produce (plus the cost of the TB's, but I keep those at home and only send proxies out). It would have been less, but I had the first couple of attempts that didn't work out. Unless I factor in my time, then they would be horribly expensive and it would be cheaper to just go to a laser engraving place and get them to make some professional ones with their industrial laser. That would be pretty cool! But with this method, I still have a lot of material left over, so if I wanted to make another dozen it would almost be free (other than time and buying TB codes) and the cost of printing the designs onto paper. Plus I also take pleasure in making things and trying out new methods. Agreed, which is why I started my first post with an apology. It's my old sales training rearing it's ugly head - make the headline attention-grabbing, anger-inducing or have an error and people will talk about it. Very rude of me. Also agreed, but the average life expectancy of a TB around here is 3 - three months or three caches - then they disappear. If these are travelling long enough to start deteriorating from age or the elements then I'll be delightfully surprised. At which point I can either create a new one to re-release or post a replacement out to whoever has the old one. Overall I'm mostly happy with how these turned out and I'll be releasing them soon. I did make a deliberate mistake in that they don't have a hole to add a hitch hiker, because I figured if I left a hole through the wood with a ball chain, it would rub and cut open the seal - leading to water, swelling and destruction. I don't think I'll be making any more in this style anytime soon (maybe next year?) but I am looking for other options on how to make low-cost, durable proxies that can travel around. I got hold of some nice scrap 3mm (1/8in) aluminium which could make some nice GeoCoins, but I don't have the tooling to work with this size material yet.

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.

Nope, but I know of several geocaching vloggers who are trading swag for money found in caches and donating the money they collect to St. Jude's Children's hospital as part of the Geocache Talk podcast's "Podcast of Hope" (St. Jude's fundraiser) this year. They're calling their effort "Coins for Kids".

Oh, and the lack of pagination is a fairly hilarious UI failure by the way. Talk about Unintended Consequences.

Any news on this matter? Talk to us!

I was trying to use the new search on my phone to look up my recently found caches. I gave it an honest try. I went in to do a couple simple searches. WOW it feels like 3 steps backwards from the old search! First and most importantly: Having only one parameter viewable at a time is extremely inefficient and results in a significant loss in functionality. Let's say I want to find the terrain rating of several caches I found a couple weeks ago. First I click on my link to All Geocache Finds. Now I scroll down (scroll, scroll, scroll) to find the cache from a couple weeks ago. But it's only showing the found date so now I have to click terrain. Click the 3 dots. Click terrain. Now I'm back up at the top again! Scroll, scroll, scroll back down. Finally found it! Now how about the difficulty? Sigh... Click the 3 dots. Click difficulty. Back at the top. Scroll, scroll, scroll. Now when did I find that cache again? Double sigh... A simple task that used to take me seconds now is a huge chore. Here's a sample screenshot that shows JUST terrain on my phone: Also, where's the GC code? How come the GC code is missing on the mobile version, but not on the desktop version? I do, however, like that in the mobile version it does not say "Traditional", "Mystery", etc next to the cache icon. Next, I was surprised that while some caches take up only 2 lines (for both the title and the cache owner), some caches take up a whopping 5 lines! There's also an additional line added to tell me the cache is PREMIUM (6 lines of text are wasted in the screenshot below to tell me the various caches are premium). Talk about inefficient! It doesn't look very good at all, either! On the old search page, the columns were long enough such that the title and cache owner would ALWAYS fit on 2 lines. Next, I think there's a bug: my found date just disappears after some point? And finally, something a little strange, but when I'm at the top of the page, some caches show as 3 lines. But when I scroll down and the title rows freeze to the top, suddenly some of the caches switch to being 4 lines. It almost makes me sad to see how inefficient and buggy this new system is compared to the old search. As a tool with the intended use to be searches of recently found and owned caches, I just don't think the functionality is there.

Well, first of all, to answer your question, of course you log the find. Why wouldn't you? As to the outraged property owner, what did you do to make him mad and why couldn't you resolve it? Did you talk to him or just ignore him? It seems as if you were in the perfect position to resolve his problem, but that requires you immediately accept his position as valid and apologizing profusely on behalf of the geocaching community and trying to understand his position about where his property was and whether the cache is on it. It could just be on his property, or it could be you accessed it through his property even though there was another way to GZ. For all I know, you tried to do all that, and he was just irrationally belligerent, so I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong, but I think it's important to recognize that even irrationally belligerent is a valid response if the cache was -- or just you were -- really were on his property. As others have mentioned, naturally you'd post an NA in addition to your find unless you work out with the property owner that there really isn't a problem with the cache itself, and even in that case it sounds like the lease you need to post is an NM explaining what needs to be done so that this person's property rights are violated.

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!

The old search is still there. They just have to change back the links, talk about an easy fix. Of course that would mean admitting they were wrong.

Sent my info to Laval K-9: 2.27.21Name received from Laval K-9: 3.6.21Sent my gift: 3.10.21My gift arrived at destination: 3.15.21I received a gift: 4.19.21 I had the surprise of a mission in my mailbox tonight! Thank you Semmels123! The Triceratops coin is impressive and the light up tag is cool! I totally noticed yours when I was doing the Geocache Talk "live coverage" of the Texas Counties Finishers Event. Thanks for all the Kansas and sweet treats too.

Compairing numbers as always - the more the better!? Who is the "better" hider? It is not about the numbers but about many other factors. I "only" have hidden 37 caches in 12 years (plus events which I don't count). My current goal is to hide one (in numbers: 1) cache per year so even less then before. My latest mystery cache took me more than 100 hours of creating and in this time I could have thrown out 100 simple traditionals. So please do not look for the pure numbers if you want to "judge" others. I don't want to compare my overall effort in cache hiding to someone with several 100 hides. And I know that there are great cache owners who created one cache that took them years to build - I don't want to compare with them either. It is not about the numbers but about if you (!) like the caches. And that's subjective, of course, so I don't want to talk about cache quality here (*). :-) Jochen (*) Mine are the best, of course! :-)

And there's the difference. I don't agree with the highlighted statement. Again, we're asking different questions. I agree we're discussing our opinions. I don't pretend to be presenting the only correct answer. But I'm justifying my position, I'm not just pushing one answer. So, for example, please explain why the number you think is better is concrete and meaningful. I think we all agree that all registered geocachers isn't meaningful. I'm using the time period of the last month because it excludes people that have already quit, particularly the fly-by-night phone cachers that everyone loves to complain about. The complaint against that is it cuts out the ardent but occasional geocachers, which I don't deny is a valid concern, but I see absolutely no way to count them concretely. I've also explained why I think I'm interpreting the OP's question as more about boots on the ground and why it seems unlikely they're thinking about people that talk about geocaching without actually looking for geocaches. In other words, I'm discussing our opinions to flesh out what numbers we could actually count and what meaning they'd really have. The observation that we all have different opinions is as obvious as it is unhelpful. What I'd be more interested in are actual ways to count something that would produce a more interesting result, not just people complaining that I'm not including this or that group that they hold close to their hearts.