Search the Community

All this talk of waypoints is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The point is that the task (and the result of completing the task) should be the same for everyone. In the example you quoted above, everyone would end up with the same result, because there's only one "tallest statue" of the five statues. It doesn't say that they can take their picture with any of the five statues. With your earlier example of GC7B78E, all finders need to visit the same locations, so the task is the same for everyone and they should always get the same result. With pri0n's cache, the task is not the same for everyone and there can be different results.

Why is that a dilemma? If they're responsive, then obviously you post the appropriate NMs and NAs so they know what they need to respond to. Get used to COs not always maintaining caches. Get used to bad caches. Both happen. But by "get used to", I mean get used to dealing with it, not ignoring it or expecting someone else to do something about it. You don't have to be satisfied with bad COs, but the solution is to talk to them and try to convince them to do better. No reviewer or GS lackey is in a better position to do that than you are. HOW is to post the appropriate logs and let nature takes it's course.

Likewise what PB above said. I wouldn't trust any information off a government website to be up to date. I've had numerous issues with such information with NFS and BLM not keeping their website information up to date. I would talk with a live person who knows the latest information. I would keep their contact information handy in case further follow up was required by a Local Reviewer or HQ.

I will talk with bootron if we have an easy way to seek for archived waymarks.

This is a very good cache hider and good cache maintainer. I think he has passed 500 hides and NO power trails. He archives them when he needs to. The only time I have replaced a cache for him is when I am able to get a hold of him, talk to him about where the cache is supposed to be, and then I OFFER to replace it if it is missing. Sometimes he says 'no', that he will replace it, but occasionally he gives me the go ahead and says 'thank you.' My Geocaching enjoyment has gone up 1,000% since I really started to work well with others. Just yesterday, I got a call from a cacher who was on the phone with another cacher, about a cache she couldn't find that I found in 2012. I was just a couple of miles away and drove over and helped her find the cache (it was on the way to my bank any way). Helping folks find caches, helping folks maintain caches and enjoying the camaraderie of caching, why is any of that a 'bad' thing?

I have had the same windows Ten problem. After reading some of the fixes given i decided to take my tower to my local computer shop . Even the tec-was getting frustrated with it! After awhile he figured out the problem! He said and I Quote! that Magellan Comunicator will not work with certain browers on your comuter with windows ten. Firefox and Googlr Chrome will not let it work ! It does work using Windows Explore! he loaded it in and my computer works with Magellan every time. I asked him if i could give out his name and phone number and he ok'd it! Jeff's Computer at 1E.Main Street ,Webster, NY. Phone -585-265-2550 ask for Patric! PS: He said he would try to talk you through it for those who live far away! Good Luck- From the JARTeam!

You just don't get it. I'm saying the bad assumption is what led you to think you should report it to the reviewer. Yes, report what you see to the CO and talk it over with him. You don't need the reviewer involved unless the CO's response doesn't satisfy you.

Wow. I'm impressed. I keep a bookmark list of the caches where I leave a note in my log saying the cache is actually a micro, not a small (and link to, or provide the size capacities). There are 30 on the list (I stopped bothering to add to the list after a while) and only one changed the size to a micro. niraD wasn't explicit, so I can't say what he's talking about, but the exchange he commented on specifically used the phrase, "talk directly with the cache owner" which I took to mean a personal note discussing the issue, not just dropping a quick comment in a log without a supporting argument. I rarely care about such things because they are so often subjective, but if I run into something that seems objectively wrong and I send the CO a note explaining why I think it's wrong, I'd expect to either see it corrected or to get a counterargument explaining why the CO thinks it's right. niraD caches in the same area as I, so I assume he'd expect the same thing. Are the expectations different in your area?

You logic is failing. Only reviewer would know all details about the reviewing process. Public disclosure of this type of information (as OP made) can be considered spoiling. Example: I have cache which seems to be buried. Actually the cache is inside a hole in bedrock and there is a camouflaged plastic cap covering it. This cache is rated D4 because the camouflage is so unnoticeable. Sometimes geocachers interpret it as being buried instead of covered which is the case, I have no problems if the reviewer would ask about the implementation. Actually one reviewer questioned wether it is in line with the guideline after he found it. But, if such a thing is brought up in the log entry or forums, then I interpret it spoiling.You may talk directly with the cache owner but I suspect it is useless as it wont work even on minor problems like wrong cache size or terrain level.

You should consider all fellow geocachers your friends. Talk to him about it. If he can explain, you'll have your explanation. If he did something wrong, you can explain to him what it was and why it's wrong. The least interesting and most useless option here is to anonymously call the authorities in so they can punish him.

Well...if we're going to talk about avoiding removal of underbrush and vegetative obstacles, perhaps we ought not use the term "bushwhacking" when publishing or logging a cache. I mean, I know it's just a word, but it does imply a certain degree of latitude is given with respect to removal of pesky green stuff.

Yep. I've read cachers talk about retaliation to any cache owner that would insist the sign the logbook individually. They would purposefully fill the logbook, then post an NM.

Hello ! Thank you very much for answering ! You motivated me ! Sorry for late answer but I had a lot of work this week. Several points to consider: 1) I still cannot connect to Garmin Servers. Why? It is still a mystery 2) I loaded GSAK. And….. I am happy as a clam. I still have to fully understand GSAK user interface but everything is moving in right direction. 64 connected without problems.Finally I can mange my caches. 3) 60CSx did not wanted to “talk” to GSAK. I installed new Garmin GPS drivers and it is working!!!! It is a Veeeeery Goood news. 4) I am really gratefull for your answers. It was my first post on this forum. And YES Mr. Red 90 I really dont know what I am doing but am slowly getting better . I knew about GSAK but you know, Communicator made my lazy.... As I said before I was occasional user. I like this hobby but I simply do not have enough time. I know that “hard core cachers” may consider this a heresy ...but… I still believe that for occasional user Garmin communicator is probably the best way of loading caches. Especially if you have 60CSx. 5) Yes, Communicator is still working but now I probably will not use it. GSAK is much better. 6) This forum delivers more real help than Garmin “help”. 7) I understand people loading hundreds of caches to their device. I am not going to do it. My personal preference is: quality over quantity. 8) I also noticed that in the last 2-3 years this hobby is moving a little bit slower. I my area ( western NY State) we have some excellent caches slowly sliding into oblivion. Especially multis are vunerable to neglect. Owners are non responsive and maintenance is non existent. Do you notice the same things in your place ? 9) If you ever going to my area let me know. We have several nice nature preserves and they deliver nice geocaching. 10) I will consider premium membership. It is not really about money. It is about time.I do not have enough time but i have two GPS receivers. Greetings ambeer

I hadn't considered the earthcache permission standard as a way to compensate for limited local knowledge by geoawares, but that does make sense. How often does cross-talk occur between geoawares and Groundspeak reviewers? Do they ever reach out for a local reviewer's opinion, is it a stovepipe operation, or something in between?

I'd talk to a manager, and be sure that others will be aware as well. If you want to fib on your cache, clicking the box that says you got permission to hide, that's kinda up to you. Not having permission, don't be upset if issues with the landowners (or the police) were to happen, not to mention the way you've now presented yourself to your Reviewer ("fool me once...") and your fellow members. My biggest concern may be one of restricted areas (safety for others). Most I see are around 150 feet from a RR track, but have seen some exceptions. If in doubt, the Regional Geocaching Polices Wiki for your area might be helpful.

Oooooooo talk data to me, Doug!!!

Just talk to the cache owner and respect his or her wishes.

If anyone is feeling like they can't maintain a cache or that they're moving out of the area and don't want to see their cache be shutdown.. I might be able to help as long as it's in the East/Southeast section of Richmond area (64 and 295 and Rt 5 to Main St). Please feel free to PM me to discuss. I have one currently in Hanover that I might be willing to give up for adoption to someone that's active in the Hanover area. It's called "Line out the Church". I was planning to do maintenance on it this weekend just to check on it. If you have caches in the general area and are looking for one more spot close by...PM me and let's talk about adoption. Thank you, Lizard

I will talk with bootron to free all limbo dancers at once. Thanks for the reminder.

Well, geocachers sometimes have crazy ideas , and in 2015, some friends and I came up with this scheme for a cache in North Korea: Obviously, the container can't be in NK. Therefore, it must be a multi. For puzzle caches, the final must be within 2 of the listing coordinates, but there is no such limit for multis. There are multis where the final is several hundred miles from the first stage. We wanted to have one or two virtual stages in NK, which can be found trivially even if you have no GPS (like, say, a big monument), and which are de facto immutable. As none of us was ever in NK (or has plans to go there ), the stage(s) would be created using photos on the internet. But that's not against any guideline either. Get a few simple numbers from the virtual stages to calculate the final coordinates. The final would be near our home (Munich in this case), to facilitate cache placement and maintenance. We didn't find any guideline which would prevent such a cache design. But before actually creating a cache page, we contacted a reviewer to talk about the idea. The substance of the answer was, that the principle itself is not against any specific guidelines, but NK is a no-go. He said that GS will never publish a cache, where you have to locate anything in NK, or go to a specific location there. The reason is that any GPS-enabled devices are strictly forbidden in NK, and therefore geocaching is impossible "by definition" (even if you wouldn't actually need a GPS to find the spot). As a side note, we eventually pulled the stunt with a cache on the Solomon Islands, which at that time also had zero caches listed. The reviewer was not amused, the affair went through HQ in Seattle, but in the end the listing was published. Whether it was a great or stupid idea is definitely debatable, but at least the cache was unique among all the 3M+ active caches in the world . Anyway, back to NK. The reviewer also indicated that it might be possible (although he said he'd definitely double-check this with HQ before publish) to place a puzzle with header coordinates in NK and the final in China or South Korea. In fact, there is a cache in China very close to the NK border (GC3PTMZ), and several caches in South Korea within 2 miles of the NK border, where the border is in the water and there is no DMZ on the south side (e.g. GC28ZWR). So it is definitely possible to place a physical cache within "puzzle distance" from NK. Therefore, if you want to have a cache in North Korea, start looking for a partner in China or South Korea .

That's the key. For me a cache is special depending on the overall experience I have lived in looking for it. And for this there are many factors that the owner can not control, so there is not always a correlation between the effort of the owner and the satisfaction that I find. Some of the caches that I consider "special" are mere eppendorf in urban environment that do not catch the attention of other geocachers. It's all so subjective! But if we talk about what makes a special container (considering only the physical aspect of the cache), then I would be prone to answer that one that facilitates signing the logbook and is designed to last. There are too many containers that try to be original and / or "special" but that are very fragile, last little and only maintain their charm if you find them in their first weeks of life. If the goal is to give ideas to those who hide to make their caches special, then the only thing I can say them is to think about what kind of caches they like to find themselves. If a cache does not satisfy the owner, it will hardly satisfy others.

I'm a fan of the extra information not related to the cache, don't get me wrong, but I start to disagree when you talk about cut&paste and the idea that these other things all apply just as much to all the caches. Your justification here is to list a few people that won't be negatively impacted, but that doesn't excuse all the other people you do impact. The fact remains, some people will, in fact, look at all the same caches you found, and those people will be inflicted with the repetition. For me, I don't feel there's anything about my day that actually applies equally to all the caches. I usually feel my first cache is the place to explain what brought me to this area. The middle caches are more likely to be the places where I'll talk about riding the bike or hiking up a big ridge or whatever else there is to say about my mode of transportation or the weather or my companions. If I feel like summarizing the trip, the last cache usually has that. I understand that some people think all those things are relevant to all the caches, but that's not the way I feel about it. You are correct, and you're certainly free to continue doing what you're doing. I can, in fact, skip them. I'm just pointing out that the impact isn't really as small as you're telling yourself. But it's still your decision whether the cost of inflicting this information multiple times on some people is worth making sure all people see it at least once.

Hi all, a lot of great feedback and opinions so far. There was definitely talk of having the optional checker be allowed across other types, such as multis/letterbox hybrids so it helps to hear your thoughts. It sounds like having one field is heavily favored, having the corrected coordinates update being potentially options, plus it sounds pretty consistent of which features from popular checkers are being asked for. We don't have anything planned for the next steps as it is better to decide off of what we hear post release.

Periwinkle (or anyone else) ... when you talk to the Parks guy, these stats may help him realize how important this cache is to the caching community. It is the SECOND oldest cache of New York’s 33,433 caches. It is the world’s 76th oldest cache (of the over 3 million caches out there) And one of only 115 caches left from the year 2000.

If I don't know the state of my cache, when I visit it to see if it's OK, I think that clearly counts as maintenance by most definitions. Certainly OMs can be excessive. As you well know -- it's why you brought it up -- your little library example is silly on the face of it. But if you want to talk definitions, then I claim the person with the little library knows full well that there's unlikely to be any change day-to-day, so the fact that they casually look at the cache site wouldn't count as an act of maintenance. Besides, the point isn't to force COs to post OMs for every visit, rain or shine. The point is that if you visit your cache to check on it, it makes sense to post an OM. Certainly if you don't think it adds any information, you shouldn't bother. I don't know about anyone else, but I just don't like that people think there's some rule about only posting an OM when you physically do something. The log is Owner Maintenance, not Owner Fixed It.