Search the Community

One honest cacher out of a group of six. “F” Premium Member Caches Found 94426 Found it 05/29/2015 Out with our team “ABCDEF” (from “5 states”) on our “State” run. Thanks for the caches and the fun! “E” Premium Member Caches Found 16525 Found it 05/29/2015 Found this while caching with Team “ABCDEF” -- thanks for adding to our fun & TFTC ! “D” Premium Member Caches Found 87925 Found it 05/29/2015 w/”A”, “B”, “C”, “E”, “F” as “ABCDEF” I was invited over for my first experience with “State”. I got the east of the “Mountains” tour, meaning fairly flat land so I could see several rain storms miles and miles distant. Can't see something like that where I'm from. I guess, though, that's close to what I remember from “Other state”. This time, though, my distance sense was a little messed up because the area out here is just so vast--and the caches were farther apart than I realized (still wonder why). Despite the storms moving around us, the weather was wonderful and so was the company. I switched between cars as much as I could so I could get to talk to everyone. I even did one of my fun things, standing on the car's running board as we zoomed down dirt roads to the next cache. Fun times. Thank you for contributing to the caches I found during this trip! “C” Member Caches Found 44649 Found it 05/29/2015 Wrapping up a two week caching trip. This was one of many we found. Enjoyed the craxy weather, rain, thunder and lightening and the long hours of caching. Road trips are always worth it! As always, thanks to the CO's for the for the hides, the fun, and another smiley on the map ! See you on the trail and keep on caching ! Everything logged as “ABCDEF” “B” Premium Member Caches Found 78517 Found it 05/29/2015 Thanks for all the CO's who made this caching journey a nexessity. “A” Premium Member Caches Found 54666 Didn't find it 05/29/2015 Out with a great group of friends to cache the plains - thanks to everyone for placing caches and making this a great trip. We signed our logs as “ABCDEF” We hunted for this one but didn't have the correct TOTT to make the find.

Ignoring the Earth, just thinking in 3D space. Distances from three points provides 2 intersections. Now, being on the surface of the Earth, ... here I realize the confusion. Being a smartphone user, the phone can deduce which of the 2 locations is more likely based on other data, like service provider, cell towers, recent location, etc. Where a smartphone can 'talk' to another non-satellite source, a handheld GPSr may require the 4th satellite to make that distinction if it has no recent data from which to deduce. However, once either device has its single location, to whatever accuracy (in 3D space), altitude and/or elevation can be determined. One way is by cross-referencing the elevation at the lat/lon calculated and citing the difference to the device's location in 3d space. Or having the algorithms for the curvature of the earth calculate the height over sea level for the calculated lat/lon. Point being, with a single location determined from the intersections, the 'location' (+/- accuracy) is already in 3D space, thus elevation can be calculated relative to sea level (whether you're on the ground or flying in an airplane). 4 or more satellites (depending on device) strengthen the accuracy of the gps location. The more spheres intersect in the general vicinity (within meters or less), the closer the average will be to the actual location. (barring signal loss and bounce and other uncertainty factors) ETA: As for time error, that's a matter of accuracy, really. It's a +/- give or take from the calculated location (one of 2 intersection points in 3-space having 3 spheres). The 4th (sphere) isn't required to determine a single intersection of the two unless no other reference data indicates which of the two points is most likely. But the 4th (sphere) will absolutely confirm and reduce intersection points from 2 to 1 if any device receives the 4th satellite signal (and helps to improve calculation accuracy) Dislaimer: IANAM(athematician) - but I understand geometry ;P

I understand you think there's some kind of logic, but since I don't see it, I'm trying to understand your thinking. If a cache needs maintenance, logic says you should file a needs maintenance log. When I can tell from the logs that a cache is missing, visiting GZ will provide me with zero information: I already know I won't find it. Do you consider yourself some kind of supercacher that will always find a tricky cache that others have missed? As long as they have reasonable experience, I trust the people that filed DNFs before me. When you talk about morals and ethics, you imply that there's something wrong with filing an NM. That's exactly what the problem is. There's nothing wrong with filing a competent NM even when it turns out to be wrong. Sure, don't go off half cocked, but when you can read enough DNFs to know that plenty of expertise has looked for the cache and not found it, your one additional DNF will be meaningless. The only impact is that an NM which you could have filed right away while you're looking at the cache description will be delayed until whenever you get around to getting to GZ. And, worse, if you decide not to go to GZ -- and why would you? -- the NM will never be filed. By all means, feel uncomfortable if you don't know enough to file the NM. Gather more information if you need to, including visiting GZ if you think that will tell you anything. But visiting GZ without finding the cache is just one data point. It's as illogical to require that one specific data point as it is to file an NM based on only that one data point. Naturally I'm not demanding you file an NM even if it makes you uncomfortable. But I hope you will consider that there's really no downside to filing the NM -- worst case, you're wrong, big deal -- but there is a downside to not filing the NM when it's justified.

I just happen to have a basically unused Oregon 600 with free OSM New Mexico road maps installed. With some effort (learning curve) in Demo Mode I managed to move the focus point across state lines to a street in downtown Santa Fe. From there it was possible to route to the searchable Harry's Roadhouse POI !! Direct interpolated street address number routing is not (may not be) possible with this Oregon 600 or with the Garmin 64s and OSM maps, although there may be intermediate reference street numbers available. There are several aargh moments in starting over in the same city. The newish Garmin Drive 51 or better automotive devices with full USA maps are a pleasure to use in comparison, and they are cheap and talk to you. But then I'm not much into geocaching, except for the toys.

Link for reference: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=427 Sounds like you have some strong feelings about older caches. You might want to express those in the following survey and some possible solutions to keeping them alive: https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2018/12/lets-talk-some-more-about-geocache-quality/

Why do you think so? I'd call myself experienced cache owner and I feel the opposite. Year by year, game & players are more and more driven by quantity. 10-12 years ago I could read pages of stories in my physical logbooks & online. Now - kudos to exceptions - I'm happy if I find at least a nickname in the logbook and high % of online logs are just copy-paste summaries of cacher's day, hardly relevant to my cache. I'm not complaining, I'm not hiding for logs and it does not say much about quality. Just pointing out - this trend means depersonalized geocaching to me & deteriorating importance of CO. I welcome this broad discussion & survey about quality. Finally! Finally here's serious talk about caching for adventures, instead of caching for numbers. No, these proposals are not depersonalizing geocaching. We are talking here mostly about maintenance, because many COs of hundreds of caches are worried that maintenance & ownership expectations are still important for players and HQ. They are feared of restrictive changes, personally I hope changes will be more about new, healthy motivation factors, lesser so about new restrictions. Presented ideas are much broader, targeted to praise responsible owners. Let me remind us with some of them: For me as a cache owner, these proposals sound rewarding and highlighting my importance. If implemented properly, they can motivate owners to create maybe lower amount, but better caches, for all of us.

Many people are convinced that "cache quality" is a problem, but when they talk about how to fix it, it's obvious that everone's talking about different problems, and none of them strike me as problems. Just my opinion, but the problem with "cache quality" isn't about the container, or how often it's maintained. It's a growing mentality that quality is not as important as quantity. When quantity is the primary consideration, cache owners aren't going to invest in a good container, and there is a problem with it, or it goes missing, just archive it and put out more quantity. Poor cache containers, unmaintained caches, and even choosing a location for the hide are all just symptoms of the "quality is not as important as quantity" mentality. Sorry, but don't know how to change that mentality (perhaps souvenirs are the answer ).

I took the survey because I dreamed there might be questions about whether I think there's a problem and what it is, and I hoped there was a way to answer at least some of the questions in a way that didn't support the notion that there was a problem. Unfortunately, what I found was the worst of both: questions that couldn't be answered without assuming "cache quality" was a problem despite nothing at all trying to work out what problem was being solved. Many people are convinced that "cache quality" is a problem, but when they talk about how to fix it, it's obvious that everone's talking about different problems, and none of them strike me as problems. What's worse, all of the solutions seem intent on depersonalizing geocaching and minimizing the importance of cache owners.

I would hope that number of finds or "popularity" doesn't become a measure of cache quality. The ones that get the most finds are the urban P&G micros in tourist hotspots, whereas the ones that get the fewest finds tend to be the more challenging and, for me at least, rewarding ones. Sure, that's what we'd hope, but that wouldn't be the reality of the situation. Popularity can only mean quantity of activity -- given the measures we have, how else can it be determined? Favourite points are just as subjective, find count is only a measure of activity, there's no universal quality rating system. "Popular" right now means that the caches found the most tend to be the ones that most people enjoy (not that I agree with that in the slightest). 'Awesome' caches (which is also subjective) that get few visits will be drowned out by the quantity of caches that people BOTH place and find. What we should hope is that HQ realizes that quantity cannot be considered the sole indicator of popularity. The only other way really is by listening to buzz. What do people talk about the most? Or wish they could do the most? There's no metric for that. But that aspect tends to put everything on an even playing field. LPCs may be super populous, but how much buzz is there about LPCs? Consider that general sentiment with all the talk about bucket list caches, which by comparison are found only a fraction of the time and you can count on your fingers relatively speaking. I'd argue there's a whole lot more buzz and excitement about such caches despite being far fewer and rarely found by comparison. But again, there's no metric for that. So, the only measure of popularity is by what people place the most and find the most. Activity will determine what the landscape of geocaches will look like in the short and long term, varied somewhat by region and local community makeup. It's the promotional strategies of geocaching that can only help to retain that feel of what "quality geocaching" looks like (not just 'geocache quality'), by catering to the social buzz, the word on the street -- not merely statistical data.

Two issues strike me with regard to the plan to pick up remains of archived caches as a CITO: 1) it's locationless - ie go somewhere and pick up trash. CITO events may spread out, but they are defined by coords, and target a specific "cache friendly" place. CITO as locationless - ie, pick up some trash somewhere and meet and talk about it, is submitted from time to time. It doesn't work. ? 2) pick up geocache containers belonging to others isn't going to be advertised on the site. Geocaching.com operates from the premise that the physical container and the cache page belong to the cache owner.

I haven't taken the survey yet. Any thoughts from those of you who have? https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2018/12/lets-talk-some-more-about-geocache-quality/

As each case similar comes up for a hider, aren't we asked to talk to our Reviewer ? When we're talking about varying regional policies within every country in the world here , I guess I don't understand what kinda set, catch-all "guidance" you'd expect from HQ. Even if we could make some sort of "list" similar to the Regional Policies Wiki, it'd take some time to create.

We literally just started this after listening to a few in our network talk about it over the years. Havent set out on a day of just hunting but were taking one a day that are close and begining to enjoy the "bonus" fun it offers us when we are already out enjoying the outdoors. Being an Army guy I've already ordred a geocache kit that will offer up some Army themed swag as well as set in motion a trackable. It will be more camoflaged than even I was back in the day! Eventually we will register it and get it going. Until then...cheers folks. Easy fun that gets you some quirky looks from unknowing bystanders when you are literally on top of it with the GPS but still can't see the dang thing!

Actually. I got to thinking that the "PISA" might be because, like the best known edifice in the town, you also lean to the left. Even I got a chuckle out of that one... Keith EDIT: Talk about your coinkidinks - I just saw a news item on the tower on CTV news. It seems that engineers have straightened the tower somewhat and intend to straighten it a bit more in the future to minimize the danger of its falling over...

Since we don't know why this task is being forbidden, I don't think we can guess whether there's a way to talk about an optional task and explain why it's only optional without tripping over the same "problem". I doubt you can get away with, "This is an optional task because some people will offended by the location, but I can't tell you why without talking about lingerie, so please go to the location and decide for yourself whether you're offended." I gather they didn't give you any justification more specific than "underwear bad"?

I have the same feeling that all those caches which may at some level require interactivity with the staff have earned lots of favorites. Here comes the question. Why this kind of contacting is not allowed? Who is against the idea? I can understand it if the staff person is working in a commercial business, but the "no commercial caches" should handle that case. I've encountered one which was in a hotel where one had to go to the concierge desk to get the container. Although the hotel is a commercial business I don't think that the concierge is going to try to talk a geocacher into checking into a room. I've also seen on in a small bar, where it would be more likely that I geocacher might feel uncomfortable asking for the cache container without buying a drink, but even for that one the logs all mentioned how nice it was to meet the bartender. Some people just might feel comfortable interacting with someone to get the cache. The way I see it, if you're uncomfortable finding a cache, just remember that you don't need to find every cache. If the no contact rule were strictly enforced it would like result in quite a few caches getting archive (and not replaced in a manner which didn't require interaction with staff). For the one in the hotel I did, it was originally placed outside the hotel and was muggled at least a couple of times before the CO moved it inside about 7 years ago where it could be protected. It hasn't had a DNF since. When I found it, it was 1 of only 2-3 cache in a city of over 3 million people and many of the logs mention that it was their first and only cache found in the country.

I agree with the statement what quality or excellence of a cache should not be an exception for compliance with the guidelines. However, as I've noted in the bolded portion above, sometimes non-compliance with a guideline does not result in a cache being "problematic". Like redsox_mark I've also geocached in 30 countries (got #30 this year) and have come across quite a few caches listings which indicate that contact with a caretaker of the cache is required. When I've looked at logs for those caches, in pretty much every case, "contact" with a caretaker of a cache has always been described as a positive experience that made the cache more enjoyable. I know of one cache at a very small school in a developing country where all of the logs talk about the experience of meeting the children and teacher at the school but don't say much about the cache itself. I suppose that if the "no contact" guideline didn't exist there would be some that would place caches which required contact with someone at a business with the intent of soliciting business but I suspect that in most/many cases the need for contact is primarily to provide a care taker of the container to avoid issues with muggles taking the cache.

The header for the forums, "Talk about trackable and oh-so-collectible Geocoins" doesn't sound like more about trading to me... We know of a few families that use a "personal trackable" for their kids, who were too young to log on their own but were present. They bought them close to when starting, and back-dated the ones done beforehand to it. When/if the kids want to open their own accounts, they have a record of all hides found. IIRC, rather than edit previous logs, most simply logged a note for that log date, so the CO was aware they "added" to the cache history.

I have no idea what GS or the reviewers think about, but I can't help but imagine that there are some areas where if they didn't allow caches that skirted some of the requirements, there's be no caches at all. If that's what's going on, I can't blame them for ignoring some of the rules once in a while. In particular, in some places, a cache not protected by a business might not last very long. Calling it "trying to fill up their maps" isn't really fair. Geocaching is a hobby, and people enjoy adding their hobby to their vacations. There's no need to belittle that by asserting that they don't enjoy it on vacation for the same reasons we all enjoy it every day and only want to look for caches on vacation because of some mindless numbers grubbing. (Is that why you're looking for these same caches?) While I generally understand the negatives of, say, business caches, are the negatives really so large that you don't want the caches available for you to seek at all? Historically, business caches have been upfront about the requirement to interact with the business, so I've never had much trouble when I'm traveling understanding that a cache had that requirement and skipping it if I didn't want to interact with anyone. But with the rules having changed, particularly if people complain, you're likely to run into more caches that do require interaction because there's no other way to have a cache in that area, yet don't talk about it because it wouldn't get through review. I'm not sure that's better.

"Hey wait! You’re about to leave Geocaching.com. Are you sure you want to do that?" "( ) Allow dialogues from www.geocaching.com to take you to their tab" (Or similar words. I only saw it once.) What is the meaning of the tortured English I've highlighted in bold? Take you to their tab? What?!? (BTW, "dialog boxes" in Canadian English are spelt "dialog boxes", in case you're trying to translate. No need to translate that word. Dialogue isn't a computer term up here, it's when people talk.) Why did this only appear once? If that's intentional, shouldn't there be a "don't ask again" or similar gadget? *** E161118: Parse Error - unable to detect Language ***

I consider it one way. Not only is that what I sense is standard in my area, I also claim that it makes sense logically: the CO is only rating what it takes to find the cache. Getting back isn't the CO's problem. I would tend to make the terrain rating higher because of the AWD requirement, although I'm not sure exactly how. If the AWD trip isn't too long, I'd be tempted to just assume no AWD and rate the terrain based on hiking from where someone with a mere mortal's car would have to park. I'm not sure how I'd handle the possible AWD parking. Without having a specific example, I'd generally just not talk about it, hence not feel any need to explain that 2WD is ill advised.

Years ago waymark categories/waymarks would state "no cell phone pics" because the quality wasn't the best (I'm guessing). These days the quality is amazing, and everyone takes photos with their cell phone. But now I'm starting to think the community needs to talk about photo options with today's technology: dashcam photos for posting waymarks (I have only seen bad quality) and drone photos.

What exactly is "the rest of the story", that I did NOT tell in my posting? I said that they have 5 shops in 2 Austrian cities. Would the situation be so different, if there were 3 in Vienna and 2 in Graz? And thank you for the explanation "Regional means just that - regional.". That really helps a lot. :-) I was hoping for some facts like "at least 3 cities" or "half the provinces of your country" or... anything. Instead you feel attacked and blamed for whatever. That "let's talk" sounds like you will consider it again when there is another shop in Berlin, but maybe that is a misinterpretation by me. Anyway, I know what I will do. When the "chain" opens the next shop in a different city, I will post that waymark again and I will continue to post it with every new shop they open in an additional city (they're planning to open one in Berlin, Germany and one in Bern, Switzerland too) and one day - I hope - this chain will be "regional" enough for the category. Just for the records: I'm not a fan of vegan food, but their burgers and fries are really delicious. I have the impression, that what you told us is your interpretation of the word "regional". I wonder, if the other officers have the same opinion. Or is it possible that another officer would have accepted it and another one would expect more locations than you? In other words: Is there no defined limit and if there isn't, wouldn't it be good to have one, so that waymarkers know from the start, whether their new waymark has a chance of being accepted or not?

I was the one who denied that waymark. Please PISA-caching, continue with the rest of the explanation of your waymark and tell the rest of the story. 4 of those locations were in Vienna and the single other location was Graz - not hardly a "regional" chain. Regional means just that - regional. Just getting a second city isn't a "regional" presence. If you are going to call someone out, please make sure you give all of the story. elyob, really? I would be careful making comments on things you have NO idea what you are talking about. Here are the requirements: * Franchises or chains that are confined to one country will be considered "regional" for the purposes of this category. It was considered.* Franchises or chains that have outlets in more than one country may be considered regional if it is a relatively small group and still confined a small, well-defined area. These will be evaluated on a case by case basis. (emphasis mine) 4 in one city and 1 in another isn't a small, well defined area. It's a burger idea that may become regional, it isn't at this point. Now, if that German location finally opens, let's talk - it would then be eligible, or if another Austrian location opens, or even another in Graz. Until then, though, SEE THAT LAST SENTENCE!!!!!!!!!!! My definition, as an officer of regional:. "An established chain, usually franchised, that has a wide spread footprint in one large state or many states. Too many states and international then makes it a "National" chain." Now, with the Burgers, Five Guys started as "regional" it has since gone "national", however we will still accept Five Guys. In the Pizza category. I would say that Pizza Hut, Papa John's, Domino's, Little Caesar's, and Marco's are national. Per the category description - What qualifies as a REGIONAL franchise or chain: 1. Any franchise or chain already on the list! As new waymarks are submitted, that franchise/chain will be added to the variable drop-down list and we'll try to keep the list here updated. No, Marco's Pizza does not fit here because it isn't on the list.2. Basic definition for the United States and Canada * In general a chain should have outlets in several states, although in some cases they may be confined to one large state. No, doesn't fit here because it is in LOTS of states.* If a group of businesses is family owned, or has only a few outlets in a smaller geographic area, then it is probably in independent shop. No, it is definitely NOT independent.* The line between REGIONAL and NATIONAL is more difficult to draw. We will try to be flexible on this, but in general we will follow these guidelines:- Outlets in fewer than 20 states - Marco's Pizza has MORE than 20 states and is in 2 International Countries.- Confined to a geographic region such as west coast, east coast, midwest or south. No, it has a large presence in the South, in Texas, in the upper MIDWEST, and starting to have a large presence in California and the West. (usually there will be a concentration in the original city or state, dispersed outward. So to answer the original question, the answer is no, Marco Pizza would NOT be regional, It is national. As far as changing the category - you will need to contact the category owner who just happens to be inactive. I've tried to get a new owner, but I was blocked. Also, changing category descriptions like that caused a hew and cry when the Solar group did it - probably not going to happen. My suggestion - try to start a new category, if you can, for these national chains. This could have been discussed with an email to me privately which you have done many times in the past. You did seem more than willing, however, to drag me onto this forum discussion when none of the officers were getting involved. Really not cool. Forum discussions are an optional activity - if you really wanted an answer, contact me directly, don't try to call me out here. But, by, sending this to the forums, however, I have had to defend myself on a denial on a totally unrelated issue, which I am more that willing to do, and to tell someone else to mind their own effing business as they are getting involved into something where they didn't have all of the facts. Ah well, another day of Waymarking.

While I hope that my logs are interesting to a cache owner, barring the times when I just can't think of much to say about a particular cache, I tend to look at my logs as my record of my caching and are ultimately for me. As such I will often talk about a lot more than just the cache itself and the search thereof. If particularly memorable then it might be the whole adventure that took me to that cache - some good examples here and there. I've had a few that have gone past the length of 1 log and I had to write a note to include the rest of the story. Never to pad the log for any stats though.