Search the Community

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.

Perhaps I've in the minority but I often talk about the cache, especially when I find a clean, dry container with lots of room in the log sheet. I may simply mention that the cache in good shape because that provides a real time notification to the owner of the state of the cache. I would also talk about the cache if it's in poor shape and mention a very wet log or broken container as that is also useful information for a cache owner, more so than writing that it was 72 degrees, with clear skies and a light wind. Unless the weather was significantly bad or an exceptionally warm day in winter, I can't see the CO or other log readers caring about the weather when I found the cache.

As I said, either confusion or to be funny. Not sure what you mean by "high maintenance". It doesn't make much difference to me. I'm imagining it's such a simple hide that I won't need other logs. Anyway, we still all agree that he shouldn't do it. That's why I mentioned I'd talk to him about it.

I think it goes to the overall requirement that an earthcache be unique. "This is granite, let's talk about granite" is not unique. "This is granite, check out the inclusion at these coordinates and let's discuss it" is unique.

Yeah, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that one should talk about the cache specifically ("well, it was green, made out of metal, kinda rusted..." LOL ?) I meant people weren't keeping their log entries to talking about the experience of that cache. The day or the weather, or getting to GZ or what have you. I agree that a bit of detail about what brought you out that day, what you found interesting about the area, experiences you had getting there - totally relevant. It was the folks going on about their vacation - not even the caching part of the vacation - that made me

I don't necessarily talk about the cache, but I might talk about my day or the way to the cache or something I found interesting about the area (especially if it involves social housing in any way...). But I never cut and paste and I'm not padding my logs deliberately. The same here. On the more memorable caches, the ones where my logs run close to or over the length limit, it's mostly the story of my adventure on the way to GZ and back, with the cache itself barely rating a mention if it's just a standard box, and if it's something special that's meant as a surprise for the finder, I won't say anything at all about it that might spoil the surprise. My logs do relate specifically to my journey to that cache, and if several caches were found on the trip, I'll split the narrative between caches rather than just repeat everything. The only time I've done any cutting and pasting was for a series of geoart caches associated with the recent mega here, and even then I tried to add a sentence or two specific to each cache if I could.

I don't necessarily talk about the cache, but I might talk about my day or the way to the cache or something I found interesting about the area (especially if it involves social housing in any way...). But I never cut and paste and I'm not padding my logs deliberately.

Speaking of cynical... No, I'm saying these are people that are always arguing over various ways to improve the game, so they're open to all manner of changes. If they object as a group to any given suggestion, it's because something like it has already been considered at length -- or tried -- so the downside is well understood and you should listen to what it is. Taking off means having a community. I think you're mistaking my use of the word "community" for something specific, like events. Every place is different. Every community develops in its own way. That's why a central solution isn't likely to work for your area, and why the community can only grow from people in the community. Unfortunately, I'm not sure every area can develop a healthy community, but I do think that the only way you can have a healthy community is by first recognizing the it is a community and not mistake it for nothing more than a tiny, indistinguishable part of "geocaching". I'm not sure if anything more could be done to make life more rewarding for cache owners, but I've observed two things. First, cache owners need to be motivated by their caches first, and I've found they usually are. If they aren't, the best any rewards GS hands out will produce is more low quality caches. Second, the more GS produces artificial rewards for ownership, the more minimized the owners that don't need artificial rewards feel. If makes them feel like large quantities of inferior caches are considered more important than the heartfelt caches self-motivated COs put out. Wait. "Inspire"? Yes, that's a great idea. Work to inspire cache owners, not to reward them. GS tries to do a lot of that, and god bless them for it. But it won't help if there aren't any COs in your area to inspire. People regularly talk about this in the forums. I don't read much of what GS puts out, but I seem to recall blogs about the joys of good logs. As you observe, upvoting is already being studied. I don't think it will help, but I'm not opposed to it. The reason I don't think it will help is much the same as why I don't think CO rewards work: while imagining you're rewarding logs of the type you describe, in the end you only reward logs that win the reward, and that often is something quite different. You call it manipulation, but if they do something other than what you wanted them to do, blame the reward. Anyway, I think upvoting will be harmless, so I'll be all for it if only because it will make you happy, so don't accuse me of being negative or obstructive. But I predict it will be soon forgotten and ignored. I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing here. You talk about aiming higher, but I don't understand how a owner-only souvenir would do that. But, no matter, I'm all for it, too. In this case, I suspect that it will just be completely ignored. I doubt many people give any serious thought to next year's rewards. So at the same time I doubt it will do much for your cause of more or improved ownership, I also don't think it will significantly increase the number of bad caches that should never have been placed. So, sure, give it a try. I would have no problem with this if GS wanted to give it a try, but I think they try very hard to make the challenges simple so that anyone can understand it without much thought, so I doubt they use it. But to give it your best shot, maybe start a new thread on this specific idea and start bouncing ideas around about exactly how to structure the points and explain it to everyone. As you seem to understand, the devil's in the details, but I don't see any evil at the end of the road if the details can actually be worked out, so have at it!

Not a problem at all. Everyone her speaks the English language and would be happy to talk with you. Just give it a try. Best greetings, MB

That explains a lot. I've jumped back into catching after not being as active for a couple of years, and newly noticed these huge logs that don't really talk about the cache itself at all. I didn't realize there are log length challenges. There are challenges for every hecking thing now. ?

Talk about going off the rails. No one's advocating legislating morality. I know you're already off the rails by your own admission, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, whatsoever, which is examining the feasibility of whatever incentives could be offered for good cache ownership - their merits and their drawbacks.