Search the Community

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

Here's an unpopular point of view. "One and Done", "Weekend Cachers"; whatever you call them. People who download the app and go out without knowing or caring what they're doing. We talk about them here in the fora all the time. This doesn't make them necessarily bad, just uninformed or uncaring. People tend to see what's in front of them as "it". The App can say "Go to the Website" on every screen, but the average person;e tendency is to say "Well, I'm here in the app, playing the game," so they won't. ---------- If you have to balance the 'business needs' of GS as a money-making entity against our needs of protecting the hobby against people on a joy ride through random things to do, I'll pick protectionism every time. This ISN'T Angry Birds or Candy Crush as someone alluded to above. At it's core this is a manually constructed, human effort hobby that exists in the physical world. It doesn't matter how many people have access to the top level of Angry Birds (if there is such a thing) because NOTHING is at stake except profit from app-sales. In Geocaching, what's at stake is the physical effort, time, expense and materiel that goes into the creation and maintenance of the playing pieces in the REAL WORLD, otherwise known as geocaches. Yes, you can play for free forever. You can even HIDE caches for free! That's a wonderful, respectable operating foundation of the company. But, it's SOOOOOO easy to ruin a geocache, even if you have no malice. Even if you have respect. Take stuff home, leave it exposed, log spoilers, relocate to make it easier, throwdowns.... We get all that from PAYING players who presumably should have a higher chance of knowing better! To allow access to all but the most elementary game pieces for players with NO skin in the game is irresponsible and abusive to cache owners. I WISH there was a way to give cachers more perspective and education. I WISH human nature didn't tend toward ONLY self-fulfillment. I WISH that there was a way to immediately get across the concept that the COMPANY didn't hide this stuff; your fellow PLAYERS did, and maybe people wouldn't treat caches like they do public facilities. So, no, the unlockable features of the app should be a reward for actually joining; investing in the hobby. Basic membering which involves using the website may not be the most efficient way to play, but think of it as a toll road. You can take the smaller roads for free, or you can 'join' and get a smoother, faster ride. With reststops and bathrooms. But, it's said, how can people really tell if they want to join unless they can play? Well, I think caching is something that will grab you if you're the right type. Want to try 'higher' stuff? Get yourself a one-month inexpensive membership (or whatever it is). Put SOMETHING personal into the game to be granted access to the shared property of cache owners. Otherwise, there are LOTS of "Angry Birds" games to play. The unpopular part of this? I suppose I'm all for a 'smaller', well-played game. "After all, Bill," my Dad would say. "If everybody does it, then EVERYBODY would do it."

Re: cerberus1 wrote: "You're saying the Geocaching Regional Policies Wiki isn't good enough ?" Yes. I am saying that. The Wiki is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far nor cover a very large percentage of current cache placements. Let me define the issue as narrowly as possible. The goal is to have good caches placed in interesting area with the permission of the landowner. The guidelines require that anyone placing a geocache get landowner permission. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is actually a requirement that The Reviewer follows. Let's say I want to place a geocache where one has never been before. I need to get permission. It's up to me. I accept that. I figure out who to call, get permission, place the cache. No problem. It's something I've done many times in several different states. In my expirience permission, is either flatly denied without explanation, or granted after some process is followed. Now lets say I want to place a cache where one or more caches have previously been placed. Supposedly whoever placed thse caches, got permission, and passed that information on to the Reviewer. It's a very simple matter for The Reviewer to look up that information and supply it upon request. In the discussion above it was stated that if a landowner objected The Reviewer would relay the information to the landowner about who gave permission, so why not relay the same information upon request to a cacher who requests it? It is still up to the cacher to make the call, get permission, or if the "things have changed" figure out who to contact. Not a big deal to supply some possibly helpful information upon request, is it? For caches placed "where caches have been before" there are really only two reasons for The Reviewer not to answer "Who have other people contacted to get permission?": 1, The Reviewer has the information but chooses not to share it. 2, The Reviewer does not have the information because it was not previously provided. This is an instance where the person enforcing the Rules could be helpful to the person attempting to follow the rules. Why not be helpful? If someone asked me "who did you talk to toget permission" I would be happy to pass it on. Why aren't Reviewers willing to do so upon request?

That's fair enough, but some people talk as though it's the only way, and the website is redundant. Personally when I started geocaching, I found my first 180 caches without a GPS or a phone, and I could only see some caches, and had no idea other caches even existed. I LOVED that, as when I finally became a member all these other caches appeared near where I lived. Rather than get upset I couldn't see them, I was thrilled I hadn't been able to see them, as now I had a whole lot more local caches to find. It was like a birthday present for me. Also, not having a GPS or phone for my first 180 caches, taught me to look for other clues when searching, such as moved pebbles, broken twigs and bent grass.

If you're looking at just putting a bit of metal with the code, or the code and a small amount of text such as the TB name then you could look into letter stamps for metal which come in a variety of sizes and styles. Many hardware stores carry the heavy duty ones that will work on steel, some craft stores carry light duty (read: cheaper) ones that will work on aluminium or thin stainless steel. If you get friendly with some local engineering or engraving place, you might be able to talk them into laser engraving some metal tags for you on some scrap metal for only a few dollars. I haven't had any TB's go missing (yet), not sure how much a difference it makes that I've only sent out proxies. But I've only sent out a few and none have been out long.

Man... tell people "this is how you should do it" = baaaad. Tell people "this is how I do it, other people do it differently, do it how it works for you" also = baaaad... There's just no win. Why discuss anything I guess then? As soon as you explain your experience and personal choice you're just "trying to talk people into following your example" and that's just baaaaaaad. No, sir. If I explain how "I" do something, it's not to tell people how "they" should do it. It's to provide an example of an option that from one person's perspective works, especially if it's not attached with "this is the best way" or "do it this way". So yeah I'll continue explaining how I do things if I think it's a solution to a present problem or concern. Likewise, I'll change how I do things if I think someone else's experience or recommendation is worthwhile to adopt, which incidentally is exactly the purpose of explaining how I do things. We learn from each other. I'm not shutting anyone down, as I explicitly stated above. "Sure. Of course. So go ahead. You have my blessing." Which was not sarcasm. Secondly, I wasn't arguing against your opinion, or your choice, but you are explicitly doing so against mine. You are telling me that I'm doing a bad thing for choosing not posting a NM from the couch without having visited a cache location (that is "arguing against my presented opinion") - when what I actually said was that no one who has not visited a cache location any any obligation to post any log remotely. Tell me how that statement is wrong? If you agree, then I'm not making the wrong choice for deciding not to post a NM from the couch because "I" don't believe I'm confident in posting it accurately. Maybe I should just tell you when I choose not to post a remote NM, and you can judge the situation yourself. It wouldn't bother me at all if I see a NM the next day; whether or not it's found to be accurate. Where circumstances make it reasonable and appropriate, for example, where the CO is known to have left the game months or even years earlier and a body of evidence which clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that the CO has consistently failed to maintain other of their caches which have fallen in to disrepair. If the CO has also previously failed to respond to reviewer calls for maintenance that adds further weight to the argument for posting NM/NA on caches which warrant it without needing to go all the way out to GZ. Okay. I don't disagree. Seems you missed the point of my comment to dprovan. I said: "So, I generally won't post a NM unless I have visited and verified that to my satisfaction, the cache does need maintenance." dprovan replied: "But visiting GZ doesn't really change anything. You could go to GZ, get whatever satisfaction you need to make yourself feel comfortable, go home and the CO could still go to the cache and fix the problem between the time you visited the cache and the time he saw your NM log." That's when I said: "Why post any NM/NA at all unless you do it from GZ?" First, I said "generally"... (I rarely deal with absolutes) Second, I took dprovan's rebut to the extreme for illustration. I was not saying you should never post a NM or NA unless you're at GZ. His response claimed that with any log something could change between the visit and log (true), thus essentially any log could be inaccurate, which means ultimately he's making the argument that posting a NM or NA is meaningless unless done from GZ immediately. Which of course we all agree is ridiculous. And most definitely not what I said. And I also made a clear distinction about how differently I treat the posting of NM and NA logs. In the example you cite above, some might choose to remote-log a NM on a cache with a string of DNFs which clearly indicate the cache is in disrepair, and the CO is known to have left the game. Okay... I have no problem with that. But I'd say there's also a problem with the local community: Why did none of those DNFers post a NM if it's clear from their logs that there's a problem? Rather, I could be led instead to contacting one of them, and in an effort to help improve the community ethic regarding NM logs, recommend that they consider posting a NM log - since that is what it's for. After a time if they don't do it then I might post the NM if I haven't already. Basically, if it's "clear" that a cache needs maintenance, why must I be the one to post a remote NM without verifying that it does? I have chosen to generally not make that assumption. I haven't done that whole contact-a-past-DNFer thing yet, but I think that's a reasonable course of action if the goal is to help improve the state of geocaching against "dying" if this is one of the proposed reasons people think that "geocaching is dead" (ie, sub-par cache quality not being reported). So hey, it's a learning point! If you search, don't just log a DNF if you visited the site and it's clear the cache needs maintenance, log a NM too! Just like Harry Dolphin explained he did above. Then none of us would even be faced with the decision of whether or not to post a couch-NM, because there'd never be a cache with a string of DNFs "clearly indicating" the cache needs maintenance with being accompanied by a NM log! Win all around! It's a problem for me because you don't file the NM when it's needed because you've managed to talk yourself into an unlikely scenario where it won't be needed. You not posting the NM isn't a problem in itself. That's certainly up to you. But you coming here to the forums and making it sound like not posting the NM is the most reasonable choice is what concerns me. Did I say it was the "most reasonable choice"? Certainly not! Nor did I say or imply it was wrong to ever post a NM without having visited GZ. I said it's the way I choose to post logs. You do something different, and that's just fine with me. I said that multiple times. I was countering your claim that it's somehow bad to choose not to post a NM since not having visited GZ. You were arguing against that choice, which is ultimately making the argument that we have an obligation to post a NM if we merely believe (even if found to be correct) there is a problem with a cache even though it hasn't been verified first-hand. Man, if that were true it would be better for people not to have even looked at a listing that potentially needs maintenance at all! Ignorance is bliss! Otherwise the cacher-cops will be out telling people who've simply been exposed to a potential problem but didn't immediately log a NM from their couch that they're doing something baaaad. I'll say it again: Anyone who has not verified a cache's current state is under no obligation to post a relevant log from their couch. If they choose to because they feel it's justified, that's fine, it can be dealt with easily and swiftly by the CO, whether it's accurate or not. But they are not doing something bad by not posting it. In no way is that telling you what to do. It's framework in which both of our choices are valid, reasonable choices. I'm only replying because I feel my comments have been misrepresented. But to bring it back to the topic, if there is a factor towards the "death of geocaching", it may not be just "cache cops", but "cacher cops" as well. (and no, I don't think geocaching is dead, not in the slightest) I completely agree with this.

It's a problem for me because you don't file the NM when it's needed because you've managed to talk yourself into an unlikely scenario where it won't be needed. You not posting the NM isn't a problem in itself. That's certainly up to you. But you coming here to the forums and making it sound like not posting the NM is the most reasonable choice is what concerns me. You understand exactly! So stop telling people to worry about it. There are a zillion possible reasons an NM or NA might be wrong. If you start worrying about those possibilities, you'll never post any NMs. (Well, I suppose my tense is wrong: everyone's already given up posting NMs and NAs, so the reviewers have taken over that job.) Well, of course. People who have visited GZ have absolutely zero obligation to post any log on a listing whatsoever. When you come here to the forums and explain why you didn't post an NM for no reason other than you haven't been to GZ, I take it as trying to talk people into following your example, so I argue against your publicly presented opinion. It doesn't matter to me what you actually do or why you do it.

Hi all, today I had a rather frustrating experience with Adventure Labs. After more or less ignoring the cache-type completely, I tried one next to my homezone called Rothsee. Went to the first station, entered the answer... wrong. Again... wrong. Verified the correctness with some friends who already did it. Right answer, no typos... wrong. Thing is, while we in fact are in Germany, my iPhone runs English. So we pulled my wife's iPhone (running German), installed the app, logged in, provided the exact same answer... correct. So while we were able to complete the cache, I still wonder if there is a problem with the internationalization of either that particular lab or the app itself. Answers should the unique b/c e.g. the solution on a plate is always the same word (in this case the name of the manufacturer), no matter the nationality of the player, or clearly state "provide the translated version of the word." What should not happen is that the app fails with particular language settings. What does a tourist do, if he can't easily switch his entire phone to German? If there are any developers of that app listening in here... we need to talk. #Carsti

as close to a stalking target as I have been was a few years back. someone who I had never communicated with previously saw that I was going to attend an event. I got to the event and these two guys were sitting there that no one recognized so they were introducing themselves and asked "which one of you is bulldogblitz, we came just to talk to you" heh...it was a question about a cache in another part of the country and they were visiting my home area (not that they drove 700 miles to meet me... but it was convenient). they happened to be from the town where I grew up so we had much more to talk about than a single cache 100 miles from them and 600 miles from me.

Thanks! I finally found it. The blog entry was posted way back in November and isn't in any of the categorized lists, so it took me a while to track it down. No reason for you to apologize, but you might want to see about the souvenir description giving some slight hint about what the souvenir is actually granted for. With every other similar souvenir I looked at, the description always ends with "You earned this souvenir by...". It's as if Last 2020 was done by "the new guy" who didn't realize there was a defined formula they were supposed to follow. (I'm not complaining, mind you, I just think it's funny, especially because thread came up at just the right time for me to even look at the souvenir.) I did find the newer 2020 Geocaching HQ souvenir moments blog entry which doesn't mention Last 2020 but does talk about the traditional 12/31 and 1/1 souvenirs. I assume the person writing that newer article hadn't heard that the one day souvenirs have been replaced by these week long versions this year.

First, I agree with RuideAlmeida: if you want to be strict, that's fine, but in order to reject the find, you really need to know for sure whether they signed the log, so physically check it. If you want to let it slide, that's OK, too. To avoid the problem cerberus1 mentions, when you check the physical log, that counts as owner maintenance, so post an OM and mention the missing signature and admit you've giving this one person some slack, but no one else should expect any. (It doesn't matter whether that's true or not. ) In my opinion, what you do or don't do about it as a CO are somewhat secondary to the question of how to teach the seeker about multicaches in case they really don't know about them. Whatever you do with their log, they'll likely never notice or won't understand. To help them learn, don't worry about being a CO: you're just another friendly cacher. I agree the message center is probably out, but they'll notice an email if their address is set right. (If it isn't, then there's nothing you can do unless you meet them in person sometime.) So I tend to send email with enough information to make them realize how multis work if they don't know without flat out accusing of them of not knowing what a multi is in case they do. The most important thing is to think of it more like you're explaining what a double IPA is to your drinking buddy and forget anything about the original owner/seeker, somewhat antagonistic dynamic in which they technically did something wrong that you have to prevent or correct. Imagine you noticed this in a log for someone else's cache so when you're dealing with the newbie, there's no need to talk about whether you'll reject his find.

I don't necessarily hate them, but I do value them far less than any other cache. I could talk about them for a while but I guess I'll just sum it up. -I remember almost none of the micros I have found. Meanwhile I could talk for hours about interesting small to medium caches I found and the memories I made searching for them. -When looking for normal sized caches I generally expect the journey to be the majority of the fun, and the actual hunt to be somewhere between leisurely to moderate. When hunting for micros I know I will be scouring around for 10-20 minutes for something minuscule. Not a particularly fun prospect. -Some people "micro-bomb" an area, placing tens of them all over an area in a wide radius. I have a fair few problems with this. Due to the proximity rule it cuts off large areas where larger, more deliberate caches could be placed. When one cacher drops 20 micros in an area, I feel 1/20th of the accomplishment in finding them, and it becomes a chore. No matter how much effort it may have taken to place them all, it appears lazy when that's all they hide and they're all over one area. Plus, finding nothing but micros over and over again gets boring! -I feel excitement and happiness and anticipation when I find a normal sized geocache. I feel nothing when I find a microcache. "Well, there it is." You could probably analyze that further but generally speaking I just have no fun finding them anymore.

Here in Australia we also have events for the following: May 4th - Star Wars Day September 19th - International Talk Like a Pirate Day November 14th March 14th - PI Day June - World Wide Flash Mob December 23rd - Festivus

@Grasscatcher, I don't mean to be rude, but your insistence on saying that I am not aware of what all those different terms are is becoming a little bit inappropriate. If I am talking about tracks, it makes sense to talk about track points; If I am talking about routes, it makes sense to talk about route points; If I am explaining how I use the trackback feature (and by that I mean how Garmin devices allow you to use it, even though it might not stick to the fundamental definition of tracking back), it makes sense to talk about trackback. Nowhere I even grasped the idea that all of these terms are interchangeable and I really do not understand how did you come up with that conclusion. Furthermore, every single reply of yours enforces the idea that you are the only one who knows what all these terms are and how a GPS is used, which you must agree that is not true. For instance, I had to create the video that I shared with you in order to make you realise that "Have you ever seen, or are you aware of any model of Garmin GPS that "automatically creates Routepoints" ?" does actually have a YES answer. Based on your previous replies, it is fair to say that you did not know that it was possible and I really hope that is not the reason for your rather harsh reply. I am pretty sure that newer devices allow you to perform some actions better than old ones and I will not even discuss that. Nonetheless, the fundamental question of this topic, which I will not repeat again and again, still does not have a conclusive answer / solution. If you don't know how to do it, that is just fine, no one is obliged to know everything about their devices. But please don't make it sound like I (and anyone who is trying to achieve the same goal, as @happydutch) am not capable of using or learning to use a new device. In the end I appreciate all the time you took to reply on this topic, and don't get me wrong for getting this out of my chest, but I think the original question by @happydutch is fair and you will have to agree that up to now no reply addressed an explanation for doing what we are asking about. And that is all I wanted in the first place, to find someone that has some more expertise than I on these devices so that he/she could help me figuring out how to do it. I'm somehow frustrated because that did not happen, but that is just how things are.

Now that you've had the DriveAssist 51 for awhile, what do you think? I just dropped by DriveAssist 50 (which we loved) and totalled it. I tried to order another, and they sent me the 51. I'm not really sure what the difference is. I've heard talk about having to use a smartphone app while driving, which I'd rather not do. I used to upload caching routes from GSAK or Cachetur thru TripPlanner.

No, I believe I am reading exactly what they wrote in the blog post - you're inferring something more positive from it. And that's fine... Seems you selectively disincluded the following point I made: And there has been plenty of talk about 'mundane', 'run of the mill' geocaches proliferating in various places of the community, so they're not pulling this 'archive' idea out of thin air. I'd wager this advice is based on general community feedback. Some people are labeling this advice to consider archival a negative thing. Clearly that opinion is contested. I'm not inferring something positive, I'm saying there's no need to infer something negative. It is what it is. And since clearly the rest of the intent is to encourage more positive geocache hides, why would one infer that considering archival of a cache the cache owner feels is worth archiving, a bad thing? Unless you consider merely asking a cache owner to consider archival for any reason (let along reasons generally to be considered good things) a bad thing? How am I dismissing opinions? You're entitled to them. We all are. But yes, let's start going meta in this disagreement and try to discredit the other person's position by saying they're discrediting yours. Disagreeing is not dismissing. Probably because of a lot of community discussion and complaints and feedback about the proliferation of mundane geocaches, powertrails, lack of maintenance, lack of creativity, etc etc... Again, it's nice seeing your stats. But it doesn't apply everywhere. And not everyone likes the same cache styles or hides. So, if I enjoy mundane caches, does that mean they should be protected against archival because they "can" be enjoyed? The intent to encourage cache owners to consider things that indicate a geocache may be more widely providing a positive experience. If a good cache gets archived because the cache owner decides it's time, sure, if I found it before I might sad because I may know some other people who'd enjoy it like I did. But it's that's CO's choice, their decision. I can only hope that perhaps they're thinking of another good idea for a cache. HQ wants to encourage that. Let them. They're not telling people to archive caches. They're implying, rightly I would say, that favourite points and regular (which is a relative term) finding of a cache is a good sign it's a positive experience. I would not expect a 3 day wilderness camping excursion cache to expect 15 finds a day to be 'regular'. Likewise, I wouldn't simply look at FPs to determine quality, but the tone of the logs that are posted. So if I were the cache owner I wouldn't archive that 3 day camping trip cache solely because it's found twice a year and has 2 FPs out of 15 finds, especially if all the logs are praising the experience. There, I've now considered the suggested indicators of a good cache and chosen not to archive. That's all it takes.

This has come up before. Encouraging a positive isn't discouraging everything else. You have to infer that everything else is a negative. They are encouraging people to create quality geocache listings. And there has been plenty of talk about 'mundane', 'run of the mill' geocaches proliferating in various places of the community, so they're not pulling this 'archive' idea out of thin air. I'd wager this advice is based on general community feedback. They didn't say no one like mundane caches. They simply asked cache owners to consider their geocache hides more carefully and aim towards quality hides. Again, I never said the wording was the best, but I never got from them that people should archive all their caches that don't get FPs or are found rarely. Seems like the people who are inferring that are more likely the ones who are or have been critical of HQ's leanings for a while - ie, have a bias already. If someone wants to hide geocaches, and they infer that they should archive their FP-less, lonely geocaches regardless of any other factors, most likely they will hide new ones, and having already 'heeded' the advice, they'll probably aim better with that mentality in mind. Or, they may keep those old hides without archiving them and just start placing more towards that mentality. Who knows how people will interpret the advice. But the fact is, the advice is entirely towards geocaches that are attempts at being more "FP worthy" (generally excellent advice) and more likely to be attractive to more geocachers to find (also generally excellent advice). And all of those concepts may be regionally interpreted; there are no objective standards or thresholds or universal definitions provided, which means one must interpret it for one's area, and consider providing geocaches that people will enjoy - whatever that may mean.

If you want to tell someone you liked their log, email works... We do that all the time. +1 - if your intent is for the CO to show appreciation to the writer of a log, a message or email will do that. It's happened to me (CO messages me with thanks for a helpful log or glad that I enjoyed their cache, etc.) and I, as a CO, have also contacted finders when I liked their write up. It's a bonus when you meet each other at an event, and can talk about each others' caches in person (which hasn't happened in a loooooong time, and I miss the interaction). Back on topic - a personal note is more direct if you want to show appreciation to the finder who wrote the log. Unless I go back to visit a previous find and read other logs, I'd have no way of knowing if the CO marked my log for "appreciation".

We kinda understand except for this jumping through hoops thing... We never knew of a "wiki" until entering the forums. Never called or emailed anyone, instead heading personally to township buildings, county offices, and the like to find out who to talk to. - One cache had the other 2/3rds attend months of township meetings before they could "fit her in" to discuss it (no parks director). We found that a plus with standing in front of a parks director is it keeps the "paper shuffling/passing the buck" at bay too. The "wiki" is only reference. It says on their page "This site may not be a complete or accurate list of land policies.", and, "if no policies for the area you’re looking for are listed, that doesn't mean no policies exist. You must still obtain permission to place your geocache from the landowner or land manager..." - We've asked for permission since starting, and never considered it "jumping through hoops", but respect to the landowner. On the page (to the right) it does say, "If you have an update, email the community reviewer(s) listed." Why not be proactive and offer known areas to your Reviewers to get things rolling?

I'm not sure in which category I should put this in. There is a Jewish cemetery in my neighbourhood. It was used from 1904 to 1941. There are no funerals here since ca. 1945. It is not abandoned, because there is a person taking care of the whole old complex. So it's not fitting in "abandoned cemeteries" You can see some part of the cemetery, because of the low situated wall. But it's also not open to public. You can't enter there just like that, you would have to talk to the keeper. So i don't really think it fits into "cemeteries worldwide". There are some graves with no names, but many of them are visible, so it's not exactly "graves of the unknown". I can't fit it in any category so it would meet the standards of it, but this is an important place on the map of my small city. What do you think?

I have read (much of) the above and cannot help thinking about a sport you do not talk about here: strolling. Not a sport, you say? Indeed it has no element of competition, you do not get any points added to whatever, heck you don't even have the effort that is associated with trekking/hiking. You only walk to a place, maybe to another place, then in the end you return. That's it. Lots of people do it, only: they are not geocachers. The latter kind of animal seems to be motivated by a treat, a reward at the end of the effort. I don't know how many geocachers are aware of Groundspeak's proprietary version of strolling, but there can't be many, as GS decided to leave out of the new dashboard the link that has been present in the old one for as long as I can remember. My guess is that hardly anybody clicked it to go visit the Waymarking.com website in the last so many years. Like AL, Waymarking has a separate website and isn't really connected to geocaching. And of course the animals don't get a treat to lure them there. As I see it, AL is the new flavour of strolling and this time, GS decided to include the reward. That's how I interpret the fact that you can increase your counter really fast with it. For the record: I don't particularly like AL, but I don't fulminate against it, I just choose to ignore it. Those who like AL should go strolling. Live and let live.

To cerberus1: Re: "Are you referring to the "frisbee rule", where people assume that if other hobbies are allowed, this hobby "must be" allowed too ? We took months at meetings until a township would talk to us about this hobby (asking for permission...), and were very restricted on what they'd allow. Within weeks people who never bothered to ask placed caches there too. Some in sensitive areas we were told to stay away from. - We knew they never bothered because the park told us to take our carp and leave, and they don't allow caching there now." I hadn't heard of the "frisbee rule" but understand what you mean. I'm actually refering to land use that is open to other hobbies such as hunting, fishing, and hiking which I consider equivilent to geocaching as they involve walking on the land while minimally disturbing it. What you point out about getting permission and then having others not bother is the inverse of my point (other's didn't get [permission but I was required to) but it makes my point rather nicely: Since a cache can't be placed without "The Reviewer" giving the "OK", that fact that you took the trouble to do so, and noted it, meant The Reviewer was aware of the land policy and who to contact yet they did not inform other cachers, nor follow the policy of the landowner which was known to them. To me this is the same issue: if The Reviewer is aware of a landowners policy then they should share that information. The fact that contact people change all the time makes no difference. They would supply what information they have and if it turned out to be dated, they could update it with the new info. Sharing information on which office to contact even if who is changeable is an improvement over not sharing. edexter

I came here to see if there was talk about it. My DNF drafts show up as finds. As there is already a thread, I don't have to create a new one or try to recreate, lots of others see it also.

I'm curious if anyone knows of any gadget caches in Ireland. Search by field puzzle attribute turned up a few, but I know that not everyone is exceptionally diligent on their attributes and I'm sure many caches were placed before their introduction, and they do seem to be mostly visual puzzles rather than the more physical gadget caches I've seen discussed elsewhere. I see a lot of US cachers talk about these types of caches, and I do think they look very intriguing and engaging - are there any around? Or do I need to start planning some post-pandemic trips abroad?

Anything you're not sure of, feel free to ask. You may get more appropriate and / or faster replies if you join a local group on Facebook or other social media. Though I'm sure your Brother would love to go out on a caching trip with you now that you're interested and would probably talk your ear off with advice and hints if you don't live near each other. Welcome!