Search the Community

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.

I ran across this post through a Google search and thought I would share my experience. Unfortunately it looks like my Vista Cx unit has been affected by this rollover (i.e. my GPS has been y2k'd!). The time of day (if you don't consider DST) and navigation appear to work normally, but the date will be off. My unit will show a date 1024, 2048, or 3072 weeks into the future depending on what the previous state of the GPS was on last shutdown. When it hits 4096 weeks, it doesn't actually show this date but instead the unit does a complete cold start and will eventually show the correct time/date once a GPS lock is achieved. For example, here is the cyclic pattern I've seen with my unit after doing some experimenting this weekend on 2019-04-13: State 1) Date: 2020-07-22, Time: ~5 hours off (DST off). I’m considering this the beginning of the cycle. Every time the GPS starts in this state, it is a complete cold start, regardless if there was a GPS lock before a restart. After the unit searches for satellites and gets a lock, the date and time are updated to the correct date/time. …restart… State 2) Date 2038-11-27, Time: correct (DST off). Hot start - quick lock on GPS. This date is 1024 weeks into the future. The date is never updated even after a good soak with a GPS lock. …restart… State 3) Date 2078-02-26, Time: correct (DST off). Hot start - quick lock on GPS. This date is 3072 weeks into the future (3 x 1024). The date is never updated even after a good soak with a GPS lock. …restart… …cycle repeats… State 1) Date: 2020-07-22, Time: ~5 hours off (DST off). Cold start. Date/time corrected after lock. I can repeat this cycle many times and get the same result. For some reason I don't get the 2048 date (2058-07-13) during this exercise, but I have seen it pop up occasionally when I first noticed the issue. I did this exercise with back to back shutdown/restarts, so perhaps something else happens when the GPS is off for a longer period of time. My concern when I first saw the issue is that I wouldn't be able to save my track logs with accurate time/date information (I'm not a geocacher, but regularly reference my old track logs for planning hiking/skiing/mountaineering trips); however, now that I know the error is predictable I can simply modify the gpx file by subtracting some multiple of 1024 weeks from the date and then correcting the time for DST if necessary. It's an extra step in the process but it will work for now, at least until I talk myself into buying another GPS.

I tried to use the app yesterday the first time. Although my smartphone definitly had a GPS fix (Locus app worked as usual), the Adventure Lab App did not manage to talk to my GPS. Therefore the lab I would have liked to play was shown in a distance of x thousand kilometers... My smartphone still has an older Android version (4.4.2), but the app can be installed without problems on this version and therefore should also work.

Not gonna talk about the tech, resources needed... Didn't the event's page have photos from every cacher that loaded any to it? Yours and others in one spot - a trip down memory lane... The smiley (or whatever) on the map would be replaced by only one pic ? Would only one pic even express "the miles of sweat n tears, hours of laughter n smiles..." ? Along with every member in this hobby, we have a gallery on our profile dashboard for that. Most times it's even in order. - Isn't that what it's for ?

This past weekend I competed in a geocaching race competition call MOGA. It was basically setup as a punch competition where you run around trying to get as many punches in the least amount of time. The event used to be a mega but has recently downsized. There was some talk about other geocaching competitions like this. Does anyone know of other geocaching racing competitions? I thought there were several other events in the US but the only one I could find was the Texas Challenge.

I've never cached with Alamogul but he's local (or was until recently) and bumped into him quite a bit. Hard to talk to him on the trail since he's in a rush for the next one. But he really is out there all the time and I have no problem accepting his on-going pace of 35-45/day for years on end. That said, I have no idea how the logistics of some of the cache runs I've seen where a group gets 8500 caches inside of two weeks. 600/day for a sustained period simply beggars belief. One every minute for ten hours a day for two weeks? I did the first 25 caches on the ET trail inside of 30 minutes and it was completely ridiculous. That kind of pace for more than a day or two may be within the realm of human endurance, but I don't begin to understand it.

I think that Geocaching has changed a lot over the last couple of years. At least that's the impression I have in my area. People are more interested in quantity than in quality. Both the quality of the locations chosen by the cache owners and the quality of the physical boxes have decreased. Many geocachers I know are delighted by weird puzzle caches. Solving the riddle is more to them than actually finding the box. I hardly find any boxes with trade items anymore, but tons of film canisters or nanos with nothing but a log"book" in it and they are hidden in places that have absolutely nothing of interest. Many posters of geocaches are proud to own a lot of geocaches and receiving lots of visits. I think that Groundspeak (successfully) tried to make things a bit better again by inventing the favourites. At least some posters now try to make better geocaches to earn more favourite points. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that they don't care much about the location anymore and that is also true for the geocachers searching for caches. I also search film canisters in a telephone booth, if they are on my way from here to there, to earn another find, but my interest in geocaching has decreased a lot. If some of these geocachers that are avid for visits would change to the Waymarking world, we might get tons of Payphones waymarks in the crowded areas. :-) So, we better search for geocachers that are fed up of the boring geocache locations and talk them to visit a few waymarks (for a start). At least that's how I started with Waymarking.

This is great, but do they differentiate captive portals from other WiFi? I was really disappointed when I tried to connect to a Starbucks Wifi, but the 66 couldn't handle it because the WiFi wants to talk to a browser before it will let the device get through to the Internet. Or is there a way around that?

Feel free to steal from my email template for permission. I presume this is to touch on the limited types, such as springs, waterfalls, and most recently, wetlands. It's not that they are not allowed - they get extra scrutiny, as the generic lessons on those features that used to get by ("This building is made of is granite. Let's talk about granite." or "This is a spring. What's it's flow rate?") are insufficient. They're doable, though; we own a few that fall into this. Overall, these shouldn't be viewed as absolute bars, but as specific examples of the overall requirement that the earthcache focus on a unique feature. What about this spring, or waterfall, or brick, is different? Reviewing process, maybe? Unless you're talking about how reviewers are picked... Wikipedia should be the start of research, not the end. But there's a balance, because the lesson has to be accessible. I found myself doing a lot of reading on a lot of topics that were over my head when I was looking at geology papers. I've had a few instances where I thought a spot would be great for an earthcache, but the sources were either too general or WAAAAY too specific and technical. I found that some of the best sources were not scientific research papers, which can be hard to digest and translate into lay language, but geologic resource reports (the US National Park Service has some great ones - I used a previous version of this one as a main source for our two earthcaches at Fort Jefferson). They get scientific, but the authors are also (usually) pretty good about assuming no prior knowledge of subjects, which is the same approach an earthcache should take.

That reply from NGS must be from someone relatively new who is doesn't yet know that USGS does not have a database - never will. We tried hard back in the '80s and '90s to work with USGS to automate their data for inclusion in the NGS Integrated Database - lots of talk but not much action. They submitted a bit of their horizontal data in some western states but that was about it - none of their leveling data ever came across.

Wow, it really seems like most people here simply have to comment on things that they don't understand. At least some got the point. The issue at hand is NOT data harvesting and is NOT a broken app. Like thomfre wrote, many of us are used to have GSAK update their local database on a regular basis often using up the quota. Now this will affect my caching trip that day using ANY partner app. That can not be good and will cause some bad feedback for innocent partners. I think HQ should rather revert to the lower per app/user quote that was in place in the past! Many cacher don't even know what that whole API talk is about. The average housewife cacher (no offence) will NOT understand that because they used tool A or website B on their computer that suddenly app C on their phone will not work anymore for the next 24h. Yes, the technically versed might get it but the average user does not even know what the 'API' is.... They use and app and it works! Now one app/tool/website can and will impact ALL partner apps. In one word: BAD

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.

Ok, I have spent the last half hour searching online for an answer. After years of successfully being able to find geocaches on Google Earth, suddenly, it is impossible to see any anymore. All I see is a 'red light' in the geocaching KML area on Google Earth. No idea why that is. I use two laptops. Neither one shows a 'green light' and neither one has allowed me to view cache locations in Google Earth! I've reinstalled the program. No change. Is this now only available to Premium members? Searching on this forum for at least a half hour hasn't resulted in any solutions. There's talk of a runaround. I agree because after wasting so much time looking, I have yet to get a solution. One post says the discussion was moved to the "Bugs" Section, and of course, no solution provided Where might I find that formum? Another post says it was moved to yet another forum. Why can't there be a simple answer? Is no one from geocaching.com even looking at these posts? Are they just laughing in their cubicles while those of us without premium memberships waste our time? Are basic members being forced to buy premium memberships even if we only look for caches every now and then? How about a straight answer to what's going on from those who write the code? Could it be that Geocaching.com is so incredibly greedy as to only allow Premium members to use the Google Earth Viewer? This geocacher has been geocaching since 2004. For a while I was really into it until geocaching.com made the downloads to GPS receivers and searches more complicated. It seems that now it is very difficult to play without paying for a premium membership! Seems geocaching isn't a whole lot of fun anymore if it is impossible to find caches on Google Earth. Am I mistaken? Is the goal to drive basic members out? Yes, I really do think this is a runaround. And, it seems that maybe GREED has invaded geocaching.com and made it no fun anymore. Why can't I get a straight answer? I really hope someone can provide a clear answer as to how I can once again view caches on Google Earth and have fun.

Hi there! My name is Patti and I'm a freelance journalist. I'm currently working on a feature piece about people who geocache while on vacation. (The piece was inspired by my recent trip to England. I'm from the U.S.) I'm looking for a few more people to talk to. I'd love to hear about interesting caches you've found, where you've traveled to and any other fun tidbits you might want to share. If you'd be interested in sharing with me, you can contact me at plwoods@sbcglobal.net.

I understand that. Now you know that caches that are too small are sometimes marked as "small". And you're disappointed. That's a good thing to tell the CO. It's not a good thing to get in a fight with the CO about. Yes, I get it, you had to carry all that swag and didn't get to drop any of it. Not a big deal. If this disappointment made you angry, geocaching might not be for you. That's really all beside the point. He may have made a mistake when he called some of them small, or he may have been thinking he made a mistake when he called some of them micros. He may be doing something evil, although, honestly, this is geocaching: how serious is "evil". He may just be messing with people. All interesting theories to talk to him about to find out which is true. None are good reasons to become belligerent because he didn't react to your input. No one's arguing that it would be better to call this a small. We're past that. Now we're just talking about how to handle it when you think a cache should be called a micro but it's listed as a small.

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.

We never had much luck with calls, other than finding out who we needed to talk to. Most times (we believe) the person was there, but didn't want to be "bothered". We ask for permission directly. Tougher to "push it away" when you're right there in front of them, prepared with various containers and lots of info in a bag. - If they are the person who grants permission, (we found) most are comfortable with our plan after presenting it directly to them. Well, sure - in person is always better than phone, if you can swing it. But if you can't, phone beats email.

We never had much luck with calls, other than finding out who we needed to talk to. Most times (we believe) the person was there, but didn't want to be "bothered". We ask for permission directly. Tougher to "push it away" when you're right there in front of them, prepared with various containers and lots of info in a bag. - If they are the person who grants permission, (we found) most are comfortable with our plan after presenting it directly to them.

Sometimes, maybe often, hiding a cache takes some effort and perseverance. My most recent one (GC831AR) began in early January when I was exploring some of the fire trails in Brisbane Water National Park. My initial spot, offering beautiful views south over Broken Bay, turned out to be an Aboriginal site, making it off limits to caches, so I explored a bit further afield, eventually finding an interesting place overlooking the Patonga Creek estuary. The first step was a check with the Aboriginal heritage register, which came back all clear, so I then put my proposal to the park ranger. The parks office here is a part-time operation so nothing ever happens quickly, and it was another week before I received a reply saying it looked okay and I should lodge a formal application, which I did on the first of February. Last Tuesday I received their approval and was then able to place the cache and submit it for review. It was published on Thursday and has had one find so far, but someone has put it on their watchlist so maybe it'll get another. That one went relatively quickly and smoothly. The first time I lodged an application with National Parks, the ranger I spoke to said it looked fine so I lodged my application, but two months later they advised me that it couldn't proceed due to a nearby Aboriginal site (that's when they gave me the link to the register website so I could check it myself). Another one was rejected because, even though there were no Aboriginal sites near GZ, the walking track out there passed over some protected engravings. With that one, I had a fallback location they were happy with but it still took another two months to get through the bureaucacy and then our normal reviewer was on leave and it took another eleven days to get through the publication queue. From when I first created the cache page to when it got published, that one (GC752YF) took almost four months. The craziest one was what was going to be the sixth cache in my Chasing Waterfalls series. The waterfalls of interest were in a section of Brisbane Water National Park, but as I was sussing out the area and taking photos for my virtual waypoints, a woman drove down the service road and claimed I was tresspassing on her property, pointing to a home-made Private Property Keep Out sign nailed to a nearby tree. It turned out her property was a further 3.5km along that road and the park ranger assured me I had every right to be there and they'd have a quiet word with her, but two months later the sign was still there. Before lodging the cache for publication, I sent an email to my reviewer explaining the situation, and he said he'd publish it if I submitted it but if the woman complained, HQ would likely archive it on the spot. In the end I was concerned enough about that woman confronting people doing the cache that I didn't proceed. Like it or not, caching is very much a fringe activity and we have to abide by whatever restrictions the greater community imposes. I think we're lucky we can get caches approved at all in the national parks here, as from 2002 to 2010 they were completely banned and it took several years of patient negotiation by the local caching association to get that ban partially overturned. At the end of the day, if it's someone else's land or property, it's their right to say what is or isn't allowed on it, and the reviewers are often best-placed to know about such restrictions and who to talk to, if possible, to get permission.

I do. Incidentally... Google translate might be leading me astray here, but it suggests that the previous finder “improvised a new logbook” - I’m guessing, a scrap of paper. So, they left a ‘throwdown log’ yet their online log is allowed to stand. The second finder then replaced this ‘improvised logbook’ with a better one, and their log is deleted. Seems a little inconsistent ... and pointless. You make the contact between the two cachers sound nefarious without having any background. I talk to other cachers all the time... “I see you found cache XXX last week. I was planning on heading that way at the weekend, but I see the CO has disabled it.” “Yeh, it was in a bit of a state, but I tucked in a scrappy log, and put it back according to the hint. Shouldn’t be a problem.” “Thanks. No need to change my plans then?” “No, but maybe you could take along a proper logbook to help out the CO?” “Sure.” All pure speculation of course! It might have been nice to have contacted the CO first, but I don’t see that it would have been completely necessary. Had it been me, I’d have been genuinely shocked to see my log deleted. They went looking for a cache. They found it. Why wouldn’t they log it? I really don’t see this as an argument about caching for numbers. Agreed, but I’d only want it used for those situations where you want to keep Geocachers away from the area, such as for those ‘out of bounds’ and ‘local difficulties’ examples, I described above.

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.

Yeah, I was hoping for a bit more "in theme" when I saw that one publish, especially knowing the CO and his penchant for challenging puzzles. But you're right, it's basically his usual event - meetup for morning coffee and breakfast, and talk geocaching. Agreed. Maybe someone else near here will have an event where we all get to play with making a cool container or something. Maybe we'll take the plunge and host an event and make it creative!

A local event, which is just a meetup at a coffee shop, got approved as an official Cache Carnival event, because there's encouragement to share, to talk about cool cache experiences. ... =/ Just host an event. Anything. Submit it for approval. You'll likely get it and be able to get the souvenir. The FP thing seems a lot like the Caching Connoisseur souvenir. But it's slightly different here (no TBs, only FPs with caches), at least with tiered souvenirs which is better. I don't think anyone expects that every cache with high favourite points means it's "a great geocache container". Anything looking for high FP implies having a better chance at finding a cool cache. I mean, you can play it letter-of-the-law and just find favourite points anywhere on anything, or - and this is how you actually have fun - play by the spirit of the theme and have fun with it --> Actually create a carnival-themed event. Go find geocaches with high FPs that are creative physical constructions. I'd love if HQ would actually raise minimum standards for promos like this so it can't be 'abused' (for lack of a better term) by minimizing participation requirements so 'everyone gets a trophy' - but at least the themes are creative and have potential, and the tiered souvenirs is definitely a step back in the right direction.

Sorry, I removed some of the "tolerated" part, as benchmarking and Wherigo may have it a bit tougher than you do... The "point" is there are a few "other hobbies" as well. Since you're asking, don't you think they deserve their own "off topic" too ? Then, where does it end ? Ask for this in the website forums though if you feel it's warranted. When a thread is "off topic", it's simply something not relevant to the subject under discussion. The site's Off Topic forum is " a place for you to talk about everything under the sun that isn't geocaching (within reason)". That's all. If one is only looking for a small group of people they know to discuss things with, a forums is probably the wrong place anyway. I guess the wording could be changed to reflect all of Groundspeak's hobbies in it's Off Topic forum. Right now it does just say Geocaching, so maybe a mail to HQ might help there too...