Search the Community

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

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

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Each summer I usually host two ice cream socials but haven't hosted one since 2019. I've hosted 16 ice cream socials in the same location, a great homemade ice cream shop nearby. I also enjoy hosting GIFF events, I rent a movie theater out and people donate to help pay for it. I'm in NJ but I get attendees from NJ, NY, PA, and CT regularly. It's a lot of fun. Of my 102 geocache hides, 40 have been events. I've learned that "if you host it, they will come. And talk about geocaching."

Like "child molesters and people who talk at the theater."

Hi, the new system won't upload my fieldnotes at all as in my visits.txt file there are more than a thousand drafts from the recent years and the system tells me that it can't upload more than a 1000 drafts at once and nothing happens. So I conclude that it tries to upload all of them. So probably it is just for the first time as I have never used the new system before (because of that reason!)? That's not very self-explanatory so thank you very much for your information. If I understand you correctly I have to upload an empty visits.txt ONCE to activate the "don't upload drafts before ...." feature and next time using the new system it will only take the newer ones? But if I ever switch back to the old system I have problems again as the systems don't talk to each other? Thanks again. Jochen

I agree that you've pointed out a problem we should consider. It actually never occurred to me before that there was no checking of ALs for overlap, but I suppose that's because there are no rules against overlap, as far as I know. Should there be? I have no idea whether there's any kind of approval process for ALs, but if there isn't should there be? All valid question. The specific example strikes me as a big "meh", though. You friend decided to switch back and forth. More power to him if he finds that the best way. I'd be more inclined to do them one at a time, ignoring any redundancy, and possibly using it to advantage by enjoying the park a second time on another day to do the second AL. I'll certainly concede the example and join you in discussing it. But, in the end, I don't consider this a problem and would have no trouble with the resulting rules and procedures continued to allow overlapping ALs. I'm particularly concerned about forbidding two ALs exploring completely different aspects of the same area. I'd be OK with that if we talk it through and decide to do it, like traditional cache distance requirements, but I'd also want to consider a more EarthCache approach where ALs can be close as long as they don't overlap in subject matter. To me, the only clearly demonstrated problem here is that AL creators have no way to find out about each other so they could avoid such overlaps if they wanted to. Any thoughts about what we can do about that? I have no interest in doing an AL, so I don't know whether there's anything mechanisms already in place that failed in this case.

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.

In response to complaints from community members who want to talk about the souvenir challenge, I've hidden a number of off-topic posts from view.

That's a good question that I can't provide a full answer. Let me just focus on my video and then provide observations from my time out there. I lost count of the number of trips I've made to Nevada and the desert areas of the surrounding states, but at least I've seen a lot. The side road itself was always next to the main road. It's how the sage was cut. The parenthesis curves we turn onto are what I'm wondering about. If these were created by geocachers getting as close to the cache as possible, I wonder why they didn't go right next to the caches. You'd figure people would begin driving even closer to the cache as time went on, yet there wasn't any evidence of that. However, every now and then you might see trucks and campers pulled just as far off the road. The dirt roadsides are also graded every year or two, and you see a lot of tracks from those vehicles. Though it's possible some geocachers might drive over the sage, I'd say geocachers form an insignificant part of the problem as you see quads and offroad vehicles every now and then. And the number of shotgun shell casings and litter that's out there, too... I never did get to do the alien head geoart. I knew it was walking, so the three or four times I was out there, the groups I was with always skipped it because of that. Honestly, it did occur to us to drive it, but then it was followed up with a "you're not supposed to do that" and the conversation ended there. On some other trips, I remember following a power line road and some other roads. Many times, I really wondered why there was a road out here to begin with (prospectors?). Caches tend to follow those roads--you can even see them on satellite imagery. Seriously considering going off road to get closer to caches just never came up. We'd just follow the roads where they led and stop as close as we could while still on the road. That was just what you did. At times, you could tell when one car drove over to a cache. Doing so certainly wouldn't make the clearcut paths you saw in my video, though. And when we saw something like this, we'd just think they were lazy morons who risked tearing up their vehicle or puncturing a tire. Not many caches were that far out there, and those that were a hundred meters distant were just seen as part of the game to walk that final distance. I did get to do the Heart of Mojave Desert geoart (shaped like a Gx) with mondou2 and others. We left the cars in the parking area and walked the distance. There was never talk about driving it and, at the time, I didn't see evidence it had been driven. If I may make a tangent, I remember they were shoving water bottles into backpacks. I walked up, took two bottles and put them in my hiking pants pockets. They looked at me strangely. It was supposed to warm up to 110F (43C) that day and that's all the water I was taking for an eleven mile hike (the outer heart, then I'd be able to guzzle and stock up at the cars again before the inner design). I'm always dehydrated--I still am, while typing this--so the water I take with me is more for emergency purposes instead of normal use. I just don't like having anything on my back or weighing me down. Let's see, then there's Yerington. I guess I've been there about half a dozen times. Larry's caches were usually beside the road, so I didn't see any evidence of offroad driving, unless you want to count if a sage came close to the road. He'd just find a road and put out caches along it. There was the state star series, but we walked that. Sure, there was a way to get off the road, but you had all this sage in the way and it would have been faster just to walk. Other places and power trails, you usually had a berm from people coming by and scraping the road every year. I wanted to do the eagle series, but I knew it was a walking one. Larry told me some people had driven it. I didn't want to do that, so never did find the series. That's fine: there were other things to find. Really, if you want to be critical of cachers' impact upon the desert, I'd suggest instead being critical of all the foot trails cachers make from the car to the cache. It's not major, but you can tell people have walked that way, same as people who have used the desert for other reasons. They don't last--the foot trails, not the other people--which at times is somewhat of a disappointment when you have a few dozen sage bushes to look through and then have to realize it's a small rock pile some thirty feet away. But, in conclusion, I'd say the only ones who can answer this question fully are the cache owners and those first to find the caches. I can only provide my observations and try to make them as unbiased as possible. You're always going to have the inconsiderate people doing stupid stuff. The best we can do is set a proper example.

Actually, that wasn't sarcasm. I didn't know someone had already done that. Thank you for giving me more credit than I deserved. (I don't listen to podcasts, don't read blogs, don't receive Groudspeak's newsletter, don't watch videos, don't read much of the forum except for Wherigo, and am generally out of touch. I just go out and find crap, and that's enough for me. I'd rather play the game than talk, read, listen to, or watch something about it.)

I've done the ET Highway a couple times, Route 66, and other power trails. Here are some answers: Why would you do that? I hope it's with others. Since I'm usually alone, it's a treat being with others. And when you do a thousand or more in a day, you get loopy and everything is funny. The run isn't about the caches anymore. It's about having fun with others--oh, and here's the next cache. But you're also doing it for the numbers. Why numbers matter to someone is a personal reason and changes from cacher to cacher. At first, numbers mattered to me (in 2006) because I wanted to find a lot to demonstrate to others I wouldn't slow them down if they invited me to go caching with them. Later, it became about getting to 10K because it was five digits. Still later, it was about how far I could go. These days, it's about activity level and output. I want to relax and find whatever most of the time during the year, but I still want to average around 5K a year because that's a good level for me. All I need to do to do that is take two or three trips, each a week long, during the year. This forces me to take time off work. Without caching as an excuse, like last year due to the pandemic (and I'd imagine most of this year), I wouldn't take time off work and would instead put in ridiculous amounts of uncompensated overtime. Last year alone, I put in ten weeks of uncompensated overtime. You see? I'll pour a ton of effort into something. If it's caching, I'll get a lot of numbers. If it's work, I'll put in a lot of uncompensated overtime. I'm going to do something because I don't know how to let up and all this time and energy must go somewhere. By the way, I'm the type of person that might not even be able to have fun at Disney. I'd make a list of things to do for an ideal experience. Then, when I'm there, it becomes all about doing that list and some other spontaneous things. When asked if I had a good time, I'd say I accomplished the list, which would have been the whole point. I'll then have to think if I enjoyed myself. I guess I may have, but that was secondary to making sure I did the list. How can you find 1000 caches in a day? That's easy. Line up caches next to a road, make the hides easy, and have the caches be the minimal distance apart. Have two to four people in a car. Start early. When I did the first ET Highway, we started at 4AM and later took a break around 6PM for two and a half hours, then finished just before midnight--but that was the first large power run I was on, so everyone was inexperienced. We could have done better and found more that day. These days, if you're doing a number run, it's normal behavior to stamp logs and swap out the cache with the previous cache. You see that a lot. That behavior should be constrained to caches within the series. I don't like it when people do that for other, non-series caches. If you have two cars, you can leapfrog on a road. The lead car keeps finding the next cache. The trailing car, once it finds a cache, eventually passes the lead car, becoming the lead car, and finds the next caches until it's passed. You keep going like that. I'm okay with doing that because it keeps people together. Some people do what I call "divide and conquer". I was in a car with xxxxxx when yyyyyy called. He was in a neighboring state, said he was doing this other power trail, and asked if they wanted to share finds that day. xxxxxx said sure. The only reason I was fine with that was because I had already found that other series. Other times, a crowd of cachers gather (around twenty) and they split up and find different parts of a series of caches. Since I'm not fine with that, I'm not invited that often for number runs. True story, but I'd better not reveal the names. It's possible to solo a 1000 day, but you'll be exhausted afterward. I did one solo and it destroyed my interest in solo power caching for a few years. I did it because I was in a foul mood that I couldn't find anyone to cache with. I don't consider this an achievement and don't want to talk any more about it because I hated what led up to it and my time doing it. I never want to do that ever again. Am I sure it's possible? Definitely. On one trip, someone in the passenger's seat was bored, so began timing us using a stopwatch. I noticed that and it became a fun game. We'd start the stopwatch the moment the runner was back in the vehicle. The driver would drive to the next cache, the runner would get out and swap caches, then run back to the car. The bad times were around two minutes because the runner and team had trouble noticing the cache. The best times were close to fifty seconds. If you averaged a minute per cache, that's 1,440 in a day. But if the caches were all in obvious spots, the road straight, and you knew what you were doing, you could have some sub-minute times throughout the day. No one finds 1000 caches in a day Yes, they do. Even on my first ET Highway run, we did it. We signed every log with a team name and put each cache back where we found it (no swapping, no stamping). That was not the first and only 1000 day I've had. That said, 1000 days are rare and it takes ideal circumstances to pull off. While it's easier to leapfrog, it's doable with one vehicle. Fox's Number Run Team Role Theory From my observation, the ideal team is four experienced cachers in one vehicle. Here are the different job roles, what they do, and why they matter: Driver: The driver is responsible for navigation to the next cache and targeting the one after while the runner is out of the car. An incompetent driver will not consistently park close to caches, costing the team both time and critical stamina. The driver needs to be good about getting as close to the cache as possible. Also, the driver is responsible for the team's safety. If a runner has to cross to the other side of the car, it should always be around the end of the car not pointing towards the next cache. The driver and runner need to communicate to make sure the runner is safely inside the vehicle. Due to the amount of time required to get back into the vehicle, belt up, and start going forward, the driver should be the last that must get out for a cache. Navigator: The navigator sits in the passenger seat and is responsible for several things. First, the navigator is responsible for being aware of where the team is in the series and how the roads and caches connect on a macro scale. The navigator should prep the driver when a branch is coming up. During the cache run, the navigator is looking out the window, trying to spot the next cache as the vehicle is approaching. If the navigator spots it, that information is relayed to the runner. If the person in reserve is resting, the navigator takes over the role of stamping the logs and making sure the runner has cache. Runner: This is the person who hops out for the cache. Swapping roles should be based upon the runner's stamina, but role swapping should always be done before the runner is fatigued. If the runner cannot find a cache in an agreed-upon time, the reserve cacher or navigator should get out and assist. Once back in the vehicle, the runner communicates to the driver his or her save arrival, then hands the cache to either the reserve cacher or navigator. At times, when we had a van with a door that could stay open, I stood on the threshold and hung on to the roof rack. This gave me a better view of the cache site as we came up. I could also jump off before the vehicle came to a stop, using the vehicle's momentum and saving my stamina. To communicate to the driver I was secure, I stomped my foot when I was ready. Only then did the driver move the vehicle. Safety is a priority. Reserve: The reserve cacher is recovering. During this time, the reserve cacher is responsible for communicating to the runner any pertinent information about the next cache. Either the reserve cacher or the navigator can stamp the cache log, but the reserve cacher should be the one to hand the cache to the runner and take the cache from the runner upon his or her return. The reserve cacher is also responsible for distributing food, water, and equipment to the other team members. If the next cache is on the opposite side of the road, the reserve cacher will be called upon to exit the vehicle and retrieve the cache. For the most part, the reserve cacher's primary purpose is to recover prior to swapping to another role. Make sure everyone takes their turn as a reserve or there's another role that recharges them. During a run, the team should agree how to swap and which roles can be swapped. For example, every half hour or twenty-five caches might be an easy way to keep track of when to swap. Never agree to swap only when a runner is fatigued. The point of swapping is to refresh the team so everyone can cache longer. The swap should happen before anyone in any role is fatigued. If you wait too late, you'll burn through stamina and the team will be more tired than it otherwise would have been. Also, pay attention to who is suited for which role. If someone can't stop very close to caches and constantly needs help, that person should not be put into a driver role. Likewise, if someone has mobility issues, the person would not make for a good runner. I cached with a team whose driver needed a lot of assistance and I personally saw the cost. I was later able to swap to the driver spot and put this theory into action. I saw a massive improvement in energy all around: the navigator got excited, the runner wasn't as tired--it was stark and quite obvious. When it came time for my turn to swap, both the runner and navigator--the original driver was asleep in the reserve spot--both enthusiastically said I should continue driving. I did. Personally, I'm a stellar driver and trip planner, so I need no help when it comes to routing and managing both the macro and micro parts of a route. I'm an above average runner, but I've seen some phenomenal runners. Fox and Numbers I'm excited to reach 100K at some point. I have what I call a bucket list project. Since I've never traveled anywhere except to do geocaching, I've assembled a list of things I've wanted to do but geocaching got in the way of doing. Once I hit 100K, I'll pick two things from this list and do them as celebration. I will, of course, find a dozen or so caches a day during that time, but the entire purpose of those trips will, finally, not be for geocaching. I thought of soliciting ideas from the forum, too. One trip I will take, though, will be to somewhere in Japan to try out some onsens and get some photos of nature. I don't know what I'll do for the other trip yet. All I need to do is have two weeks in Yuma to do 4K or a week and a half in Yuma for 3K and then a week around South Dakota or London, Ontario for 1K or 1500K. But I have to wait for the pandemic to be over, though I'll gladly risk myself if I can find the right person or people to take with me as I seriously don't want to do this alone. The bucket list trips must not be done alone or I might devolve into just caching because it's easier just to go to the next cache and the next one instead of figure out what else there is to do in an area and drag myself over to do it.

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.

They made the choice to talk about their lunch on Facebook. Maybe even limited that online discussion to "friends" (not public). The AGF list is not a choice.