Search the Community

"What is the difference in their experiences?" Are you kidding? What's the similarity? It's like two different games. With traditionals, all you do is find the cache and sign the log. With a multi, you have to read the coordinates of the next stage, copy them into your GPSr, and then you have to figure out where the next stage is and how to get there. You don't know where you're going when you start, so you can't plan your route and you won't know where you're going to end up. The only similarity is that there's a container at each specific location. (We'll ignore the fact that multi stages don't have to be anything like cache containers.) I don't doubt there are a lot of people that skip multis because the same number of traditions will give them a higher count, but I think far more people skip multis because they think they're too much work and are unpredictable. And that's just 2 stage multis. Talk about a multi that takes a day, and only a very special group of people will do it. You can't tell me that the other 95% of cachers are all numbers hounds. It's just obviously not true. There's no doubt people often do the power trails because they think the stats are important, but I think that argument evaporates when you talk about about a day's worth of typical caches. 20, 30, even 100 finds doesn't make much of a difference in statistics considering what's impressive by today's standards. If someone picks 10 traditionals over a 10 stage multi, it's hard for me to imagine they're doing it for the stats. There have to be other reasons...and I think I've explained what they are. (For the record: I love multis and do any I run into. On the other hand, I've never done a power trail.)

It isn't really a "use at your own risk" kind of issue. It's really more of a "don't talk about these things on our foums" issue. For example, someone might want to discuss... the differences between an unauthorized smartphone app and other apps (Groundspeak's app and/or the authorized API partner apps). the latest location-based game that isn't geocaching. a new geocache listing site, and the new features it introduced, or the mistakes its making, or whatever. what geocache listing sites are best for cross-listing a cache (in addition to listing it at geocaching.com). what geocache listing sites are best for listing cache concepts that were not published on geocaching.com. the details of an upcoming geocaching trip that includes someone banned from Groundspeak's forums. There are any number of conversations that would not be allowed on Groundspeak's forums. Groundspeak is perfectly free to set such rules for their forums. But those rules may discourage local geocaching groups from using their forums.

The app was convenient, so it brought more new people in to try the hobby. It's no surprise the more new people mean more mistakes, but I think it's the number of new players, not the fact that many of them were using the app. Have you really seen much of that? It does happen, but only a few caches a year. And, man, talk about being discouraged: the newbies that get into it and drop a couple sub-par caches get bored really fast when people complain about bad placement and poor containers, so they rarely plant more than a couple such caches before giving up. Since I don't believe this happens often enough to worry about, I'm against "doing something about it" just in general, but the fact is that some of the best COs in my area started out this way then quickly learned from their mistakes. We'd have missed out on a lot of good caches if the process had discouraged them from trying because they'd fail. More new players, more problems makes sense. But, the ratio is different between the groups. Lets say we get 100 people that stumble upon the app and 100 stumbling upon an article in a magazine or newspaper. It stands to reason that more app users will make mistakes because they download and immediately try to play. At the same time, the article readers get more information right off the bat and thereby tend to make less mistakes. Mas38's statement is certainly what's happening in my area. The vast majority of new app owners only stay with us for a short time. New names pop up once or twice and then they're gone never to be heard from again. We are lucky though that they don't tend to place caches in the short time they're interested.

The app was convenient, so it brought more new people in to try the hobby. It's no surprise the more new people mean more mistakes, but I think it's the number of new players, not the fact that many of them were using the app. Have you really seen much of that? It does happen, but only a few caches a year. And, man, talk about being discouraged: the newbies that get into it and drop a couple sub-par caches get bored really fast when people complain about bad placement and poor containers, so they rarely plant more than a couple such caches before giving up. Since I don't believe this happens often enough to worry about, I'm against "doing something about it" just in general, but the fact is that some of the best COs in my area started out this way then quickly learned from their mistakes. We'd have missed out on a lot of good caches if the process had discouraged them from trying because they'd fail.

Placing caches in residential areas is always tricky. You'd have to get permission first of all. I don't know how easy it would be to get permission to place a cache in/on a street light. Municipalities would probably frown on people tinkering with their street light. I'm guessing that 99-100% of lamp post hides do not have permission. Asking the owner of the Little Free Library would be easier in the long run - they're already wanting people to come and rifle through that bookshelf, so they're probably going to be OK with people coming and looking for a cache there. But besides the permission angle, you have the neighbor angle. Are there houses nearby where people might get jittery if people start hanging out in the area, looking suspicious? If people start frequenting a street light by their side yard, will they think there's a new drug drop or something? Personally, although it sounds harder, I'd get permission from the LFL owner. If you don't want to knock on their door, try leaving a note in the library itself with an explanation and your email address. However, you've got to talk to people eventually. Bite the bullet and knock on the door.

My events are simple: Meet at a local homemade ice cream shop Stand around the parking lot and talk about geocaching To a muggle that might sound boring, but my one hour (scheduled) events often last two hours or even more. And I've gotten to know some really nice people! Sometimes a kid will attend with their parent(s) and get to meet a cache owner whose caches they really liked, and for them it's like meeting a celebrity. "I found your cache! It was so cool!"

Yep. Most of the time, geocachers sit around a table and talk. There is often a log book for people to sign. Sometimes there are name tags. There is usually a table where trackables are placed so people can discover or retrieve them. Sometimes there are organized activities, like games or raffles. An easy and fun ice-breaker game is "Geocacher Bingo", where you get a bingo card filled with various geocacher characteristics, and you have to get people who match those characteristics to write their names in the corresponding spaces. Examples include "owns an EarthCache" or "has found fewer than 100 caches" or "does not own a smartphone". Often there is food. Many events are held in restaurants or coffeehouses, or at patio seating outside such places. Some have been potlucks. There is a 24-hour donut shop that is sometimes used for midnight events (events that run from 12:00 to 12:30 AM, usually to be the first event on a day where a special Souvenir is available).

Although there has been talk about replacing the PQ system (I can suggest a design for that) there still needs to be a way to encapsulate geocache data so that it can be transferred from the site, other applications such as waypoint managers (GSAK, EasyGPS, Basecamp), and the devices we use for finding and hiding caches (smartphones or handheld GPS devices) and for the most part, that's a GPX file.

Maybe it's just here, but one of the reasons so many went to faceboook from local websites is because a bunch didn't want to really discuss things. New folks mostly, ask for the fifth time "If I only drive a nail in this one tree, would it be okay?" , then get pissed when they hear the same answer. They don't wanna hear no. One of the last threads on a local site to me, a member said, "you couldn't talk to me like that on faceboook..". I said what he was talking about never happened (I was there. He wasn't.), and that he just made that up. - But my reply was, "So how do you ever hold actual conversations if everyone's always agreeing with you?" . The few times I ask a friend to show me what's going on with the faceboook, it's someone says something (usually about themselves...), with a line of submissives agreeing afterwards. We've yet to see "discussions" on anything related to the hobby at events unless it's a rare Geocaching 101-type event. A further area, we used to see more talking about a competing site more than this one ... at an event from this site. - A "respected" cacher too no less... Another in the same area talked more about their stock options than the hobby. We left early on both. One of the reasons I rarely log events anymore. Guilt by association maybe... A few states now, I'm not gonna bs and say even most members give two figs about the guidelines. I ask questions, often from threads here, but usually just ignored unless a low showing. Stats, " how I got my numbers" (that "all about me" thing again...), stats, "give me a hint", "we're doing (pick a cache name) later, and anyone who'd like can tag along" and stats, seem the norm, along with games, prizes, sometimes a potluck. Did I mentions stats are discussed a lot?

I dunno about the rest of the crew, but I'm sitting here watching Twilight Zone (talk about your anachronisms) on my Waaay Back Machine and putting off writing up a few more Contributing Buildings. For just the third or fourth time in my life I'm doing a historic district in which I have all the contributing buildings. Keith

Sadly, many are. Micros and nanos are small, and can easily be overlooked, espcecially if the camo is well done. Assuming it's missing because you couldn't find it seems a bit, well, arrogant may be too strong a word but that's what it amounts to, IMO. A string of DNF's may make it more likely it's missing, but I don't think I would ever presume to replace a container for another CO unless (in the case of a few of our son's hides) we have him on the phone and we are both convinced it's missing and he gives permission. Finding more than one container at GZ seems to be becoming a common occurrence for us - one an original, one an obvious replacement, either with or without permission. By reading previous logs, you can infer a throwdown - a few DNF's, then a few finds (with no owner maintenance or any hint of a replacement container), and a logsheet with the newest loggers' names on it, then another nearby container with an original log in it ... In other cases there is talk in the logs of a replacment with CO permission, or the CO himself comes out and replaces - and we find both the old and the new container, or sometimes just the original! With larger caches it's easy to tell if it's missing in most cases. nano's and micros are more elusive!

Here's one of the artcles: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html Please, with all policy on the side. We are only going to talk about it from the geocaching point of view. From the geocaching point of view only, How many of you geocachers feel about this? I am sure many of you are working on the 50+1 state challenge(or even finished it) and this might cause a few setback(s). It will set me back as well if California become a three states. I never geocache in one of the "future" planned section. I do wonder how much headache this was cause for Groundspeak. I am not saying I am against it or for it. Its just a setback or more on my challenge goals. Anyone else?

It is a promotion designed to get people out finding geocaches, not a Geocaching event where people gather to talk about Geocaching. I've stopped most of my geocaching for the current time, waiting for the summer temps to go below 90F. Maybe September in my area.

The first rule of Platinum Membership is that you don't talk about Platinum Membership.

I have been out of the scene for a few years, ever since my son got old enough that it wasn't 'cool' to cache with dad anymore. :/ anyway, I have recently gotten back into it when my brothers have developed interest. I have the Garmin 60csx, and it wouldn't work with anything I did on my windows 10 machine. None of the browsers or add ons or anything would work. So, I drug back out my old desktop, opened up Firefox (which is version 19.0) and did a search for the garmin plug in. found the signed version, got it running, and it worked. I was able to send the cache to my GPS once it finally detected it. Now, since it's an older browser, the front page of Geocaching.com didn't load right. I couldn't click anything but the video, so I just adjusted the address bar and added /login at the end of the address. took me to the log in page, worked, opened the map, and yeehaw! I do have a problem with the diffrences between the phone app and the computer site. the phone app won't let me see anything above a 1.5 unless i'm a premium, and I can see ALL basic hides on the computer. I only have one account. I think it's bull to make you pay to use your phone. It takes all the fun out of a spur of the moment cache search. I saw a newer cache in a town that I was going to and wanted to grab if I had time. I logged into my phone, and it was listed as premium and I couldn't open it up!!! even when it wasn't on my computer. Talk about salty!!! anyway, the whole point was to say, the older firefox browser (and make sure you make it so it won't update) running on win 7 for me, will install the old plug in that will let you use your 60csx units!

My recommendation would be to do nothing at this point. You don't want to poke the bear and make the situation even worse. If it gets up to more than a week or two with no sign of activity or communication, I'd send a very contrite and apologetic follow-up message. Take this as a lesson learned: the reviewers have ears everywhere, so don't talk about them behind their back. Even if you think you're saying something about them on a seemingly-private platform, they may have friends that will forward your comments to them.

IMO, the best thing you could do is talk to whoever is in charge of the preserve and let them know that they can get a free Premium membership in geocaching. That way, they can keep track of whatever geocaches are on their property and deal with them as they see fit. If they then decide they want any of the caches gone, they should just remove it and ask to have it archived. In my experience, when such a property manager asks for an archive, it is done immediately.

Talk it over with the cache's owner. He might not be aware of the restriction -- perhaps because he's oblivious -- so he'll understand his error if you talk to him about it. Or he might be fully aware of the restriction and convince you his cache isn't a problem. This might include him thinking that there's a logical non-intrusive way to get to GZ, in which case you can help him see why that logical approach wasn't apparent to you. Or you might find out the CO's just a jerk, in which case you can think about whether to alert to trail maintainers or Groundspeak, or just want to keep it to yourself.

Interesting stories y’all. :-) I had had been out of town and was just getting back. I needed to call a friend about dinner plans and since I don’t talk on the phone or text while driving, I pulled into a parking lot to make my call. Made my call and then thought “Well, let me just check and see if there are any nearby caches.” The closest one came up... about 6 feet away! It was an LPC and turns out of allllll the empty parking spaces in the lot, I’d parked right in front of a cache. All I had to do was step out of my car. From reading the listing to find was about 1 min. I have another one buuuut.....it’s kind of embarrassing. I’ll have to think on whether to tell that one or not....

Ha! I honestly didn’t notice it was so old. They have not. I honestly don’t know who to talk to about that or if it’s even possible for that it to happen at all in the first place.

I've held events to go after a series of caches (like this one). We all had to meet up a a central location to head out, so might as well make it a meet-up where we can eat. That way, we all get at the right spot at the right time, and even the locals that won't or can't make the cache trip has an excuse to stop by and talk for awhile. As a personal guideline, I've never logged "attended" on events that I host, so it's never a "numbers" benefit to me.

To answer the Original Poster, Geocaching is not dead, it is just ever evolving. Urban caching requires nano's and micro's or the homeless, children and other's will muggle it in no time. I have hidden everything from the black nano's to five gallon buckets. Sometimes, my hide is about the LOCATION and not the cache itself. Other times, it is about the fancy cache container. While power trails are about the numbers, while power trail caching, I have seen herds of wild horses, herds of wild antelope, snakes, scorpions, spiders, old buildings, old rail road tracks, thunder storms, dust storms, and so much more. Things you won't see under a lamp shade post across the street from Disneyland. But if you are visiting Disneyland, it's nice to grab a quick one nearby. I have done power trails solo, with 2 of us, 3 of us and with 4 of us. The best time is with 4 as the social aspect is really active. We bring folding chairs and a picnic basket for lunch. We trade stories. We trade ideas. We even talk investing. I guess I really enjoy the many friends I have made geocaching and I have cached with over 150 different people!

You are mistaken. Garmins can handle multiple gpx files. In fact, when you use the 'Send to GPS' feature, it just creates a single gpx file for each cache that gets sent, so you can rack up hundreds or even thousands of gpx files quickly if you don't delete them. All of the communicator plugins - whether Garmin, Magellan, DeLorme, etc. were built on the NPAPI platform. It's NPAPI that is the problem, and any plugins and add-ons built on that platform are rendered obsolete as browsers disable support for the platform. Thus the Send to GPS function is affecting every GPS brand. While Garmin may have taken down any support or forums from DeLorme's old website, they can't control 3rd party forums where people go to talk about and get help with their GPS. For example, Garmin can't take down any posts on these geocaching forums related to DeLorme units. For such a common problem, I would have expected some mention of it somewhere on the internet, but it seems to be difficult to track down. It sounds like DeLorme may have had their own format for distinguishing geocaches, and the 'send to gps' feature may have converted the single gpx files to the proper format to be used with DeLorme. Meanwhile, loading a pocket query manually might have loaded the geocaches as waypoints instead? I don't know. Your best bet for full DeLorme support with geocaching will be to use GSAK to grab your pocket queries and single caches (via API search; all of this can be done within GSAK) to curate a library of geocaches in your area. GSAK can then export the geocaches to your DeLorme in bulk, even filtering out your finds, etc. using the proper file formats. It can even take care of those pesky special characters that are causing you problems. Your other option is to switch to a Garmin device.

Compared to the tens of thousands of logs that are submitted each day, the number of anecdotal reports of false positives in the forums is vanishingly-negligible. The sample size is far too low to make any meaningful conclusions. About all you can conclude is that - judging by the small number of people who have reported false positives - the system is working extremely well and is triggering very few false positives. Only a miniscule fraction of cachers participate on the forums, so for every false positive reported here there must be many more we don't hear about, indeed there must be enough for the reviewer at the recent mega to specifically talk about what to do when you get a CHS email but you know the cache is fine.

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