Search the Community

No i dont blame anyone but you cant tell me you can search for a cache without leaving search marks or without trespassing maybe prohibited property... And you talk in one person, i talk in manny persons who seek on the wrong places because of the fact there puzzle answers is wrong.

Not publishing on geocaching.com is determining what is reasonable. If it's not reasonable, it won't be published. They might indicate what should change. If it is published, the reviewer has deemed it is reasonable to publish. What it is not is your strictly literal definition. We will continue to disagree until we agree on the definition of "Date Hidden" in the context of a Geocaching.com listing property. Until then, continue to bang on. No opinions changing, per all the discussion up until now. Already answered that, and as others have said, because most likely a reviewer will recommend making the date the date the container was hidden as a geocache. Oh they make many decisions I may not like. But I make every effort to determine the reason for such a decision. And at worst it comes down to people trying to push the limit so far that they simply have to say "No". Sometimes parents and teachers have to do that with unruly kids. In the case of this website, they make the rules, they define what is allowed. For a "Date Hidden", they have every right to determine what is "reasonable" for their website. Even if I don't like it. But for the record, I don't think 1995 should be allowed either. Because I believe the definition of (and I believe they define) the field is explicitly in the context of a geocache. (psst and if it's not already clear, I also believe that to be reasonable =P) Hey, we agree. No one said you can't talk about how restricting 1995 for whatever reason is a silly reason. But you can't say we can't repeatedly disagree with you = P If you created or owned the sky, or you fundamentally defined "blue" and "green", you'd have every right to say what is or isn't blue and green. Well for the cave, no, because the cache is in the cave. The example was using the actual container as the cache. If that box is the cache, and it's been there since who knows when, then the box itself was hidden way back then, so why not use that year? Why would you say that's not reasonable but 1995 is? Why is it okay to use someone else's box with their placed date because it was a geocache and owned by a geocacher but not the ex-summit log box because it wasn't? These seem to be entirely subjective parameters you're adding to the situation to define "reasonable" in your own opinion. Now if you owned your own geocaching website, you'd have every right to allow that date, define it however you wish, what you believe to be "reasonable" across your website. But HQ owns geocaching.com, and they get to decide what is a reasonable set of parameters for the value of the field. And as described by IceColdUK, pretty much every aspect of the listing is in the context of the geocache. At worst, we can infer by context what is reasonable for the hidden date, before a ruling is made by a reviewer. If you infer something different, well then there's a test - find a way to publish a listing using a container with a relatively extreme Hidden Date by your definition of 'reasonable' that may be in conflict with the argument we're making. Then find out what a reviewer decides. Heck if they say no, you could even take it to appeals and get an official ruling from HQ directly. And even if they still say no to the date that you think is 'reasonable', you would still have every right to believe that HQ is being "unreasonable". Probably won't change much though I think this is what I would do! Such a cool idea Absolutely! I think it would be awesome to find a cache that's actually been there decades, with a very interesting and inspiring story Depending on how much is still tied to that time, it could even get loads of FP recognition.

And what reason do you think - just your opinion, as a non reviewer like me - a reviewer might come up with for telling said CO they cant use 1995 as the hidden date? Can you think of any solid reason other than upsetting stats hunters? Serious question. Yes a reviewer and HQ can deny publishing, but that doesn't mean it's for a good reason, it's simply that they are in a position to make an arbitrary decision (absolute power over the geocaching.com database) and it doesn't mean we cant talk about it being a silly reason. No one is going to die because of it, either way... The sky is blue. You can say the sky is green - it doesn't matter if you do, but that statement is still untrue. A reviewer can tell me I cant state the sky is blue and I have to say the sky is green. It also doesn't matter, but it's still just as untrue. Whether it is an important data point, doesn't affect whether something is truthful or not.

So you did talk to your adivsor and she talked to him? Now that he's starting to receive more official attention, he may stop. He clearly doesn't respect you, but an adult with some authority might get is attention. I'd ask a real policeman to talk to him next; that'll scare him, especially since he told you not to report him. He's scared of authority. You could stop a destructive behavior from escalating into a real crime. Once he gets bored with stealing caches, it's not much of a stretch to move on to smashing mailboxes or other vandalism. Maybe one day he'll thank you for this. I already said I can't report him to the police, do you really expect me to defy my parent?

So you did talk to your adivsor and she talked to him? Now that he's starting to receive more official attention, he may stop. He clearly doesn't respect you, but an adult with some authority might get is attention. I'd ask a real policeman to talk to him next; that'll scare him, especially since he told you not to report him. He's scared of authority. You could stop a destructive behavior from escalating into a real crime. Once he gets bored with stealing caches, it's not much of a stretch to move on to smashing mailboxes or other vandalism. Maybe one day he'll thank you for this.

Do you honestly believe that ALL abandoned caches are caches that qualify people for challenges? You seem to think that everyone caches based on challenges they're working on. Sometimes, contrary to your belief, people wish to pay a cache a visit because it intrigues them, not because it manages to fulfill a challenge. I will sometimes pick a cache to visit because it fulfills a challenge, but only if I am actively thinking about it. Finding caches is only about the numbers if you choose to make it about the numbers. If I have the time, I'll go out of my way to find a multi over any other type of cache. It's not because I want to get to some pre-determined number of multi finds to qualify for a challenge; it's because I generally prefer multis over other types of caches. I'll select non-traditional caches over traditional caches because those are the ones I prefer, not because they fulfill some challenge. I did too but I don't see an issue with this because that's how some players choose to play. Why should we eliminate caches based on the sole factor that they're caches that allow some people to qualify for challenges? What happened to the notion of "To each their own."? There are some who would say eliminate PTs because they're bad for the game, promote throwdowns, take up way too much space, and only provide a +1 to those who go find them. There are some who would say eliminate puzzle caches because they're too hard to solve and they take up space that could be better used for a cache that will actually get visited. There are some who would say eliminate multis because they take up an inordinate amount of space that also prevent many cachers from placing their own caches. There are some who would say eliminate LPCs or GRCs because they're not really "good" caches. That's part of the beauty of geocaching; there's something for everyone and you are the one that gets to determine the manner in which you choose to cache. I'm not a fan of cut and paste logs that tend to talk more about the challenge than they do about the cache they found that helped them meet the challenge. However, I don't get upset that some cachers have chosen to find one of my caches because it happens to fill a hole in a challenge they are working on. There are LOTS of reasons that cachers choose to visit a cache and, contrary to L0ne.R's opinion, it's only about the numbers if a cacher chooses to make it about the numbers. Some do and some don't. I fail to see the harm involved in someone caching that way because it's not how I usually cache, it's how they usually cache. This urge to dissuade finders from caching to fulfill challenges (and instead find nice geocaches in nice locations) seems to be more about a personal pet peeve and the desire to castigate all who choose to cache that way vs. realizing that both types of caching have merit, even if one doesn't like the reasoning behind it. I get it. I really do. I'm not a fan of PTs but I'm not going to tell those COs and those who choose to find them that I think it's in their best interest to stop finding them because it's not really about what geocaching is or that they're finding them because they only care about the +1. So what if they only care about the +1? So what if someone only cares about a certain cache because it fulfills a challenge? That doesn't mean that every cacher who visits that cache has chosen it because it fulfills a challenge or some other number based reason. As it pertains to this particular thread, I understand what they're trying to do but I wonder if it's truly the best way to approach cache quality, if that's truly the motivating factor behind this test policy. If we're looking at just 1.5% (that would mean there are roughly 31,200 caches in GA?) of the caches in GA, then I have to wonder what percentage of caches in GA currently have outstanding NM logs that haven't been addressed by the CO within 30 days (the typical amount of time a reviewer will allow for a disabled cache to be fixed). I would think that percentage would be higher, hence the potential impact to cache quality would be even greater as it would remove caches with unattended NM logs or get those caches fixed by their COs. I understand the reasoning behind this but like someone else has stated, I question that this will noticeably improve the quality of caches that are being found in either of the two states where this is being tested. Sure, it will remove some caches that might be poorly maintained but it will also remove some caches that are just fine as they are, other than the fact that they have absent COs. Eventually, if cachers were to go through the right process, they would get NM logs, then NA logs and then disappear from the listing site as they're archived. I think they'd get more potential benefit from a renewed focus on NM logs, why they're not a bad thing for seekers to file, how they should be approached by the CO (they're not personal attacks but factual comments about their cache status that should be addressed), as well as the follow up procedure of filing a NA log if the CO is unable or unwilling to address the initial NM log that was filed in order to get a reviewer to help get needed maintenance done or remove them from the listings because they're not up to the standards listed within the guidelines.

If you read the above posts... You will see that I'm inquiring about designs specifically for urban landscapes. I personally work as a design and artist, so this aspect of geocaching is what excites me. I've been geocaching for a while now but was working with a friend. Didn't get my own account until recently... So I'd appreciate you all not making assumptions about me based on my stats. Good for you... If you've found more caches than me... But I'm sorry that does not give u the right to talk down to me over a fun GPS game. Like wow... What is wrong with you people? 8f this is what you need to feel superior to other people that's just sad . This is supposed to be a fun game. If other people's responses to my original question were off topic that is not my fault ... it's called conversation... and sometimes its organic. Talking and conversations aren't meant to be policed... and all this policing has effectively KILLED this conversation. How come the people now complaining about bullies and "newbies".. Who are in fact acting like bullies.... Not being policed to stay on topic? This subject is more "off topic" now than people talking to me about their urban caching strategies... Which I THINK has a lot to do with DESIGN. It's called UX. Look it up. Why has my thread turned into a bunch of complaining gate keepers... Literally putting down people new to the game. It's TOXIC. This is really disappointing... And this is why there seems to only be a handful of people who chat on here. It's Cliquey and unhelpful. I will look elsewhere online for a positive and helpful geocache community... I've found some on facebook groups who are WAY NICER to me than anyone on here.. Because whatever this is is LAME, judgemental, Cliquey, toxic culture and gate keeper ish... And geocaching.com should maybe reevaluate some of their mods "dedication" to their "job". My topic of conversation has been officially killed. Thanks a lot guys.

Thank you for your brilliantly insightful thoughts everyone. I need to contact BLM about this one since that's who's land it's on. I'm on first name basis with the guy I need to talk to but I feel like I should remove the ammo can while waiting for permission, in which case it wouldn't have been hidden for years and years - just mere days. I'm glad I read my journal and remembered this. This was a great thought exercise though. It'd be nice to somehow patch the thinning parts of the Jasmer chart worldwide, but at the same time, perhaps the rarity is what makes it so fun. Also, the chance of containers being genuinely hidden on those specific summer months in 2000 is so unlikely, I'd even call it suspicious if we see it crop up.

That "obvious intended way" is not even hinted in guidelines or FAQ. The HQ has gone out of their way to create a UI for turning off geofencing (it's literally a checkbox). Geofencing can't even be applied to videos so if there's a video hint (like the LABrador lab) the CO couldn't stop people from watching it wherever they want even if they wanted to (the idea being that logging and watching videos could be done on hotel wifi). The "inspiring tips" section does talk about physical locations, but creators are also asked to "innovate and test new ideas". Every creator involved here seems to have a track record of contributing positively to the geocaching community, so I don't really get your attitude just because you don't like their newest cache.

I don't have the option of adding a filename.type when posting photos hosted in Google Drive. My links look like this (I copied it just as it is in the page, without removing formatting stuff): <img width="650" height title="Michigan State Parks Centennial GeoTour:" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=&amp;confirm=no_antivirus&amp;id=1Raa4DiQz9wpAcKoliBBz3lT4irLOlsx-" style="border:7px ridge #AAAAAA;" /> There is a lot of talk about content-type and content-disposition. For us lay-people, how do we use that. Searches I've done this morning lead to something far too detailed to know what to do with it. Is there anything I can do to repair this short of rehosting every image (probably a couple thousand)? In many cases, rehosting is not possible. Would someone at HQ please offer some technical help other than "rehost your photos to the geocaching page"?

Hmmmm... I was wondering why the geocaching discussion forums on here were barely used... And why not a lot of people talk. Now I know why.

Wow, the discussion just took a sudden turn there... I don't see a lot of angst in the quote in the original post, just an announcement that the person had learned something they did not previously know. You know people are allowed to disagree about something, and/or talk about it, and it doesn't make them angsty or bad people that should be de-friended.

In our company we make employee interviews once a year, where team leaders and employees talk about the (not) accomplished goals of the last year, the goals, trainings etc. of the upcoming year, and so on. My team leader fortunately doesn't like to do these interviews at the office. Instead he tries to find a place that the specific employee likes. He and I share the hobby of taking photos, so we always try to find a city or place with good motifs for taking photos and after taking photos we eat lunch in some restaurant and make the interview there. Last year we drove to Hollabrunn and afterwards I was able to create several waymarks. The year before it was Retz and I also created several waymarks back in 2018. And this year I found another great spot. Another "city with a population with more than 10,000 and no single Waymark" for the Waymarking Challenge. So, fingers crossed that I find enough waymarks to once again fulfill this challenge. But, most of all I'm looking forward to this trip, because we will also visit the only Bismarck tower in Austria. So far there are only 46 waymarks in the Bismarck Towers category and mine will be and remain the first and only waymark in Austria. WooooooHoooooo!!!!! Depending on the weather and the mood of my team leader we might also visit some other spots that will help me fill my category grid, but for now I keep dancing when I think of the Bismarck Tower. And even if you tell me, that the approval of a waymark in that category can take a loooong time, I will still not stop dancing.

And it's scary talk like that that helps explain why foreign visitor numbers to the the USA have dropped. And why I hear people here in Australia (and I can imagine in Europe too) warning friends not to visit the USA and if they want to go to that part of the world visit Canada instead. (That and your unfriendly immigration officials who make the most outrageous claims that are rarely encountered when visiting other countries. Such that your biggest desire is to stay and work in the USA. Really...um, NO WAY! There are whole threads on the internet about this one.) Thank goodness I live in a country that knows that civilisation is not toting around guns. For whatever his other faults were, the Conservative Prime Minister John Howard will be long remembered and thanked by Australians for bringing in gun control (guns are not banned in Australia despite the lies spread). Sensible laws such as a background check and banning military style guns...except for the military. He had a big job doing this and his coalition party leader Tim Fischer was even in a tougher position, standing up to many in his party to get legislation through. Many people are alive today because of this. It is possible to own a gun in Australia. Just give a reason, such as being a farmer, hunting, belonging to a gun club, and then being able to pass the background check. No big deals, but makes gun ownership a lot safer. I had two friends (and had met a third person) killed at the Port Arthur massacre which triggered this. Within days the men had built a case for gun control and proved they were leaders.

SLT, I wouldn't expect that combination to be well supported. Phones with GPS have been common for 8+ years at this point and development mindshare for add-on devices just isn't wide. Additionally, Groundspeak recently wrecked their developer interface and required extensive changes from apps that talk to the site, so most of the old versions of any apps you'll find appropriate for that phone - even before GLO - are not at all likely to work these days. You don't say if you already have the GLO, but if you're really wanting to stay geocaching with a phone, Moto makes some really good entry-level devices with GPS that'll run modern apps for about the same price as the GLO. (They're very popular in the weather balloon projects in schools...) Not to threadjack, but lots of Androids DO have that option. xda-developers.com Android builds like LineageOS focus on exactly the problem you're describing: capable hardware that's abandoned by the maker not keeping it up to date.

I was bushwhacking towards a dirt road. I'd been cross country checking out two spots visible from aerials, as possible springs and possible cache locations (no). Green Swamp West is opened to hikers, bikers, horseback riders and geocaching. Open to vehicles only by hunters, and only a few days each year during Special Opportunity hunts. During special hunts, area closes to all other users. Driver of officially marked truck on the road noticed me. Laid on horn, and got out of the car and waved me to him. I wasn't real happy about this, it wasn't my line of travel, and I figured he could come to me to talk. And he kept hitting the horn over and over, even after I'd acknowledged him and was headed his way. As I got close he started shouting, his language was inappropriate. I got onto the road, read his name tag. Addressed him by name, objected to the $!%*&* language, and asked what the issue was? He did apologize for the word choice. But stayed loud, aggressive and hostile, told me he was going to arrest me for being there during a Special Opportunity hunt. I asked if he were lost? That I'd be happy to help him locate Green Swamp EAST, where it was Special Opportunity Spring Turkey. He didn't speak again, got into the truck and left.

Yes! We have done that many times although when my husband makes believe he's talking on the cell...he doesn't talk or move his lips. lol Looks suspicious when he does it!

It seems you mean, if everyone used NAs as you would deem proper--which is rarely, and only when someone won't prop up or throw down a cache. This is ridiculous. I think everyone should use NAs as they deem proper. If I disagree with their use, we can talk about it, but it's not up to me to dictate what they do. Anyway, let's not talk about my personal foibles. I was responding to someone else that positing a correct way to use NAs. I took "correct" in the way that I would mean it, which is, "When you think the cache needs to be archived", but now that you bring it up, they may have meant, "When I think the cache needs to be archived".

Yep, absoulutely agree. Completely agree as well, but I think it misses the point of this thread, which is to talk about our *feelings* on the subject, and not based on any actual facts. So let's get back on topic and talk about how we feel about this new tool Light blue touchpaper. Stand well back

Yep, absoulutely agree. Completely agree as well, but I think it misses the point of this thread, which is to talk about our *feelings* on the subject, and not based on any actual facts. So let's get back on topic and talk about how we feel about this new tool

We talk about Argyle Socks, replacing one square at a time.

Vielen Dank schon mal für Eure Antworten... In der Tat geht es mir eher weniger um die GEMA Thematik. Die ist mir in groben Zügen bekannt. Auch, dass die GEMA bei jeder Gelegenheit zuschlägt, ob es nun passend sei oder nicht. Auf Musik würde ich sicherheitshalber bei JEDEM Event verzichten. Bezüglich öffentlichem oder privatem Event hatte ich mal versucht selber im Internet zu recherchieren hatte aber nichts zufriedenstellendes gefunden. Deswegen hatte ich die Frage ins Forum gestellt, um zu erfahren, ob sich andere schon mit der Thematik beschäftigt haben. Tenor im Internet scheint zu sein: wenn man alle Leute persönlich mit Namen und Vornamen kennt und schon eine persönliche Beziehung zu den Teilnehmern vor diesem Event bestand, dann wäre es ein privates Event. Sobald man die Leute nicht mehr persönlich kennt (also zum Beispiel nur der Cachername) oder die Anzahl über 100 Personen ginge (außer bei Hochzeiten) wäre es ein öffentliches Event. Ich mache mir da keine Sorgen für Sit-and-Talk Events. Oder Meet-and-Greet-Events. Allerdings hatte ich die Idee mal etwas mit originellen Spielen zu veranstalten, und da tut es mal ganz gut zu wissen, worauf man sich eigentlich einlässt. Wahrscheinlich ist das wohl der Grund, warum es für größere Events oft "Geocaching e.V." gibt. Nur ginge mir dies organisatorisch zu weit. Wahrscheinlich werde ich wohl doch wieder auf "Wo kein Kläger da kein Richter" spekulieren... Viele Grüße, Remburn

We are pretty new to geocaching. We started it some years ago but quit do to a very bad experience unrelated to what I am writing here. I want to make a travel bug hotel. Here are my ideas so far and if you have thoughts that would improve it let me know. It will be on our property near a hwy and active park so it seems like a good place for people to drop off or pick up travel bugs. There is a lane way on the least used corner of our property where geocachers won't disturb our dogs. There is a dense bunch of cedars beside that laneway and the cache will be tucked in there. The cache is an old Canada Post mail collection box that was put out of commission decades ago and given to me as a gift. Inside I want to put in a plastic tool drawers for the hotel "rooms". I want to set it up with a fun theme like that famous one in Florida did such as have a hotel lobby were the large TBs can hang out and a box of tradables as well as the log book. I want the hotel to be precisely at the co ordinates. I know how to do that by checking carefully multiple times on different devices. I want to make opening the lock on the cache a good tough challenge. I've been working on ideas for this. When we first started geocaching two things turned me off. One is still to upsetting to talk about. The other one was buying a geocoin, giving it an assignment and putting it in a cache only to have it stolen that same day. I say stolen because it was never logged as removed from the cache, never entered a new cache, and is now marked unknown. I have 2 unknowns now. I realize it happens but when you first start it makes for disappointment. I sent out a stunning Ontario coin and was quite worried about it. I would like to retire it and get it back. I wonder if that can happen? Thankfully it is in safe hands that keep it visiting caches and I can learn about it's travels. I have purchased a number of geotags, geocoins, and travel buddies and have been holding them, building up to stock this TB hotel. I won't put them all in at once but release them slowly. Hopefully my cache will provide a safe place for other people wanting to move TBs along their assigned missions. My hope is that people would read the missions of the TBs and only take one if they can help move it on it's mission. For example, I have a friend with a tb that he wants to have go to harbours. If you don't plan to go to harbours then leave his TB for someone who can. That seems fair to me. I have one that's mission is to visit forests, that is pretty easy and so I expect it to move frequently. People grabbing all the TBs in a cache might not be stopping to read their missions and see if they can help the owner move them in the direction they wish. It doesn't feel thoughtful to empty a cache of TBs just because you can hog them without thinking of their owner and the assigned missions. The owner wants them moved along yes but according to their missions. Someone here mentioned they feel TBs are becoming somewhat rare. If that is true could it be from people who grab them and hoard them, people who had them in their possession when they quit the game, and from caches that were muggled? Those aspects would discourage someone from buying TBs. I think a secure TB hotel cache could be a fun and useful place if it is near where people travel through. I think cachers are on their honour to take only the TBs whose mission they can help and leave some for others, preferably swapping with one you are carrying if it doesn't contradict or impede the mission of the TB.

The makeup of a local region's cache landscape really is dependent on the local community. I get the concern - it would be annoying if say a whole neighbourhood was taken up with LPCs. Or tree climbs. Or challenge caches. Or ... whatever. OTOH if the community likes it, they really do sort of dictate the 'feel' of their own community. I think the way to change that would be to change people's thoughts about what geocaching is, or can be, in their local community. Groundspeak won't implement a worldwide style-guide for the variety of cache experiences within some arbitrary regional scope. The closest they've got to that is the proximity rule. That's about as universal as it can get it. The other age-old recommendation is - hide what you like to find. Put a watch on a caches close to where you'd rather see a different style of hide. If/when that gets archived, snap up the location as fast as you can. Or talk to that cache CO and see if they'd be willing to give up the spot for a hide of another style. Again I get it - in my area we have some regions that are blanketed with the same styles of hides. But those regions become known for that style of hide. If anyone wants to change that, there are ways to go about it. But HQ won't tell people "Nah you can't put a T5 there because there's a bunch of other T5's in the forest 10km away for people to find", or "...there's a beautiful waterfall right there, try to make it a T2 so more people can enjoy it", or something like that. The game is filled with variety, but ultimately the community shapes the face of their local geocaching hobby.

Sounds like the problem has been resolved, and even though I'm still not sure what the problem or the solution was, I'm going to guess that the reviewer thought someone could find the fairy light by just knowing it's "somewhere around here", then find the cache from there without a GPSr. GS draws a fine line here. It's hard to understand, and I'm not sure it's worth drawing, but it is a reasonable requirement, so I can't argue with it. Even though you posted coordinates, even though you gave them an offset to follow, you've nullified all that if you then say, "the cache is at the foot of the statue of Joe Shmoe" since, assume Joe Shmoe's statue is an obvious feature of the park you told them the cache was in, you've turned it into a follow the clues game instead of a follow the coordinates game. In your case, it sounds like you just needed to be more clear. That's the big lesson here: always, always, always, your first reaction to a rejection should be to talk it over with the reviewer until you fully understand the rejection...or the reviewer understands what wasn't originally clear that makes his objection invalid.