Search the Community

We never had much luck with calls, other than finding out who we needed to talk to. Most times (we believe) the person was there, but didn't want to be "bothered". We ask for permission directly. Tougher to "push it away" when you're right there in front of them, prepared with various containers and lots of info in a bag. - If they are the person who grants permission, (we found) most are comfortable with our plan after presenting it directly to them. Well, sure - in person is always better than phone, if you can swing it. But if you can't, phone beats email.

We never had much luck with calls, other than finding out who we needed to talk to. Most times (we believe) the person was there, but didn't want to be "bothered". We ask for permission directly. Tougher to "push it away" when you're right there in front of them, prepared with various containers and lots of info in a bag. - If they are the person who grants permission, (we found) most are comfortable with our plan after presenting it directly to them.

Sometimes, maybe often, hiding a cache takes some effort and perseverance. My most recent one (GC831AR) began in early January when I was exploring some of the fire trails in Brisbane Water National Park. My initial spot, offering beautiful views south over Broken Bay, turned out to be an Aboriginal site, making it off limits to caches, so I explored a bit further afield, eventually finding an interesting place overlooking the Patonga Creek estuary. The first step was a check with the Aboriginal heritage register, which came back all clear, so I then put my proposal to the park ranger. The parks office here is a part-time operation so nothing ever happens quickly, and it was another week before I received a reply saying it looked okay and I should lodge a formal application, which I did on the first of February. Last Tuesday I received their approval and was then able to place the cache and submit it for review. It was published on Thursday and has had one find so far, but someone has put it on their watchlist so maybe it'll get another. That one went relatively quickly and smoothly. The first time I lodged an application with National Parks, the ranger I spoke to said it looked fine so I lodged my application, but two months later they advised me that it couldn't proceed due to a nearby Aboriginal site (that's when they gave me the link to the register website so I could check it myself). Another one was rejected because, even though there were no Aboriginal sites near GZ, the walking track out there passed over some protected engravings. With that one, I had a fallback location they were happy with but it still took another two months to get through the bureaucacy and then our normal reviewer was on leave and it took another eleven days to get through the publication queue. From when I first created the cache page to when it got published, that one (GC752YF) took almost four months. The craziest one was what was going to be the sixth cache in my Chasing Waterfalls series. The waterfalls of interest were in a section of Brisbane Water National Park, but as I was sussing out the area and taking photos for my virtual waypoints, a woman drove down the service road and claimed I was tresspassing on her property, pointing to a home-made Private Property Keep Out sign nailed to a nearby tree. It turned out her property was a further 3.5km along that road and the park ranger assured me I had every right to be there and they'd have a quiet word with her, but two months later the sign was still there. Before lodging the cache for publication, I sent an email to my reviewer explaining the situation, and he said he'd publish it if I submitted it but if the woman complained, HQ would likely archive it on the spot. In the end I was concerned enough about that woman confronting people doing the cache that I didn't proceed. Like it or not, caching is very much a fringe activity and we have to abide by whatever restrictions the greater community imposes. I think we're lucky we can get caches approved at all in the national parks here, as from 2002 to 2010 they were completely banned and it took several years of patient negotiation by the local caching association to get that ban partially overturned. At the end of the day, if it's someone else's land or property, it's their right to say what is or isn't allowed on it, and the reviewers are often best-placed to know about such restrictions and who to talk to, if possible, to get permission.

I do. Incidentally... Google translate might be leading me astray here, but it suggests that the previous finder “improvised a new logbook” - I’m guessing, a scrap of paper. So, they left a ‘throwdown log’ yet their online log is allowed to stand. The second finder then replaced this ‘improvised logbook’ with a better one, and their log is deleted. Seems a little inconsistent ... and pointless. You make the contact between the two cachers sound nefarious without having any background. I talk to other cachers all the time... “I see you found cache XXX last week. I was planning on heading that way at the weekend, but I see the CO has disabled it.” “Yeh, it was in a bit of a state, but I tucked in a scrappy log, and put it back according to the hint. Shouldn’t be a problem.” “Thanks. No need to change my plans then?” “No, but maybe you could take along a proper logbook to help out the CO?” “Sure.” All pure speculation of course! It might have been nice to have contacted the CO first, but I don’t see that it would have been completely necessary. Had it been me, I’d have been genuinely shocked to see my log deleted. They went looking for a cache. They found it. Why wouldn’t they log it? I really don’t see this as an argument about caching for numbers. Agreed, but I’d only want it used for those situations where you want to keep Geocachers away from the area, such as for those ‘out of bounds’ and ‘local difficulties’ examples, I described above.

Yeah, I was hoping for a bit more "in theme" when I saw that one publish, especially knowing the CO and his penchant for challenging puzzles. But you're right, it's basically his usual event - meetup for morning coffee and breakfast, and talk geocaching. Agreed. Maybe someone else near here will have an event where we all get to play with making a cool container or something. Maybe we'll take the plunge and host an event and make it creative!

A local event, which is just a meetup at a coffee shop, got approved as an official Cache Carnival event, because there's encouragement to share, to talk about cool cache experiences. ... =/ Just host an event. Anything. Submit it for approval. You'll likely get it and be able to get the souvenir. The FP thing seems a lot like the Caching Connoisseur souvenir. But it's slightly different here (no TBs, only FPs with caches), at least with tiered souvenirs which is better. I don't think anyone expects that every cache with high favourite points means it's "a great geocache container". Anything looking for high FP implies having a better chance at finding a cool cache. I mean, you can play it letter-of-the-law and just find favourite points anywhere on anything, or - and this is how you actually have fun - play by the spirit of the theme and have fun with it --> Actually create a carnival-themed event. Go find geocaches with high FPs that are creative physical constructions. I'd love if HQ would actually raise minimum standards for promos like this so it can't be 'abused' (for lack of a better term) by minimizing participation requirements so 'everyone gets a trophy' - but at least the themes are creative and have potential, and the tiered souvenirs is definitely a step back in the right direction.

Sorry, I removed some of the "tolerated" part, as benchmarking and Wherigo may have it a bit tougher than you do... The "point" is there are a few "other hobbies" as well. Since you're asking, don't you think they deserve their own "off topic" too ? Then, where does it end ? Ask for this in the website forums though if you feel it's warranted. When a thread is "off topic", it's simply something not relevant to the subject under discussion. The site's Off Topic forum is " a place for you to talk about everything under the sun that isn't geocaching (within reason)". That's all. If one is only looking for a small group of people they know to discuss things with, a forums is probably the wrong place anyway. I guess the wording could be changed to reflect all of Groundspeak's hobbies in it's Off Topic forum. Right now it does just say Geocaching, so maybe a mail to HQ might help there too...

Looks like the cache has frequent visitors in a relatively dense urban area, and it was probably the quick succession of 3 DNF's (with one Find in between) over the past couple of weeks or so that probably triggered the "...stupid Health score algorithm...". Judging from the Find logs, it sounds like a pretty tricky hide. Many people talk about finding the cache on their second visit, having to read previous logs to get some clues, and PAF in order to make the Find. It's your cache of course, but I would probably consider bumping the Difficulty up from the current 1.5 Stars to something a bit more "logical".

So my own two cents; I love Earth Caches. I love placing them and finding them. Part of my love for them started when I realized that as someone who frequently moves, theses are the only types of caches that I can hide AND expect to maintain longer than two to three years. Naturally as I started hiding and finding more I started enjoying them more. Then add in the fact that many locations in the US don't ALLOW physical cache placement... you're left with two options A multi-cache with virtual stages Earth caches! Additionally what you describe as "complicated (and often very subjective) questions" is unfortunately a natural manifestation of the evolving Earth Cache guidelines which require a lesson to be specific to a location, shouldn't be "google-able" and pertaining to a unique geologic feature. Combine all these together and you start getting into the realm of difficult and convoluted questions. That being said a good Earthcache is one that if you read the entire description and you stand at GZ, you should have no problem answering the questions. Ideally the cache page should explain all of the geologic information and ask you to make observations and deductions based on your reading. The general rule of thumb is that the information presented should be that which an average 14 year old can understand. While it may be more time consuming than a P&G I find it infinitely more rewarding. There is no comparison for me when you talk 98% of traditional caches compared to ECs. Feel free to join us over in the EC specific thread if you have questions or you want to try and design your own!

You're not incorrect. But this is technology. It changes. Quickly. Standards change, and if you are unwilling to keep with the standards - if you insist on using older and often outdated technology to serve your needs, any problems you run into are your personal problems, not a problem with the general system. Hardware and software makers can only support older models of their product for so long before it becomes unsustainable to do so. You can't blame Microsoft if features of Windows XP stop working when they are now 4 OS generations beyond and a decade past support. If you choose to continue using XP instead of 7, 8 , or 10, you do so at your own responsibility. In this case, GPSrs that support GPX files and direct loading with mass storage have been around for over a decade. The Communicator plugin was somewhat necessary to move data between websites and the GPS in earlier models that relied on using Garmin's proprietary serial interface to talk to the computer. But these new fangled fancy GPS models communicate over a standard USB interface, one that allows for mass storage. Transferring data is no different than uploading/downloading files from your hard drive. So when it became known that the platform that the communicator plugin was built upon provided vulnerabilities to end users, browser makers began removing support for those classes of plugins. Garmin decided it wasn't worth their effort to create a new, more secure communicator plugin because you can just download data directly to folders on modern GPSrs. Groundspeak took their time, but finally recognized that keeping the "send to GPS" function that relied on these defunct plugins was causing more confusion than functionality (or worse yet, encouraging people to keep their systems vulnerable to attack by using outdated browsers just to keep the feature working). So, "Send to my GPS" is dead. Getting geocaches to those old GPS models is now a convoluted process. You either accept that, or use modern solutions that made geocaching easier in general. Paperless caching. Direct GPX file interaction. Mass storage. Phones that do everything a GPS does including store data for offline use. You don't have to be a power cacher to take advantage of these features. You don't have to find 20+ caches a day to justify using them. Of course you are welcome to cache however you want and with whatever equipment you want. You can make the process as simple or complex as you desire. But if you choose to use legacy hardware and methods, it is not the fault of Geocaching.com or Garmin that some legacy functions get retired, causing you to change up your workflow. We at the forums are always happy to help. But when we come up with solutions that don't even require you to buy new hardware, and you reply with "well we just don't do it that way," forgive us for losing sympathy that you are experiencing troubles that are simply caused by your stubbornness.

The material below is reproduced from the geocaching discussion forum, and it should be reviewed by every benchmark hunter. What we do as a hobby is enjoyable and has value to the community. We need to be on our "best behavior" at all times so we don't ruin a good thing. Be polite when speaking with landowners and other persons whom you encounter during a hunt. Respect property. Honor DO NOT TRESPASS signs and chain-link fences. If the mark is in a cemetery and is recessed eight inches, perhaps you should let that one go, rather than being seen digging near a grave. Moreover, given the attention to unflattering photos of cache hobbists romping on private property, it might be a good idea if we eliminated the cartoon characters from our benchmark photos. They're cute, I admit. But this could give the wrong impression if we ever had to defend our hobby, as the geocachers in South Carolina are having to do. Likewise, we should watch what we type in the captions. In the original thread, you'll see a reference to "The Money Shot" [a term from the pornographic movie industry] which was picked up on a cache photo by that hobby's enemies. The identical wording recently found its way into the benchmark gallery. -Paul- Pasted Material Follows: I was at the meeting yesterday. The Special Laws Subcommittee meeting was scheduled to last an hour, and topic H. 3777 which seeks to restrict Geocaching was the third item on the agenda. The subcommittee has 5 members, there were 6 Geocachers in the room a half hour before the meeting. Our intention was to give the subcommittee introduction to Geocaching. We were prepared to demystify it, to talk about what it was and who was doing. We knew of six South Carolina Policement who were Geocachers, a firefighter, three paramedics, a retired missionary, an active minister, the General Manager of a hotel. More importantly, we knew the occupations of Geocachers in the districts represented by the sub committee members, and we were prepared to show Geocachers as a responsible group of citizens who could be trusted with the sensitive areas within the state. We were lined up to talk about CITO, and we had pictures from past projects as well as the calendar of future events. We were pysched. Ten minutes before the meeting, the sponsor of the legislation enters the meeting room and she sets up material for her presentation. In addition to lots of printed material, she sets of two large poster boards on an easel at the front of the room. These poster boards are covered with text from log entries from finders who were logging cemetery caches, as well photographs they had taken while within the cemetery. They had done their research well, and they were displaying the worst of the worst. (I'm working with the Representative to identify every picture and every log entry, and rest assured that I will post them all here once they have been identified. In the meantime, I will have to describe what was displayed.) There were photographs of groups of people out night-caching, posing for a group photograph as they leaned against old grave markers. There were photographs of caches that had been found, temporarily resting atop prominent gravestones so that a picture could be taken. There were several pictures of people lying on the ground right next to markers, and getting their pictures taken so that their smiling face, the marker and their GPS were all visible. There were log entries too, some of these said things like: "There was a freshly dug grave but no one was in it yet, this was so cool." "It was great fun spooky fun to be out at night in the graveyard." There were many more pictures and logs as well, and over and over they underscored the "game" aspect of this pasttime, and they showed the worst practices engaged in while cache hunting in grave yards. These images and logs, which had been freely provided by Geocachers in their own log entries, were incredibly damning evidence. They were appalling, and not one of us there could take a stand and defend those practices. Needless to say, for those of us who were there our tactics changed at this point. We could have talked until we were blue in the face about the educational value of geocaching. That was not going to be disputed. We could have talked about the benefits of CITO. That was not going to be disputed. They were going to talk about disrespect in cemeteries, and they had evidence provided by Geocachers to do so. It was also apparent as the meeting time approached that the meeting was filling up, and I was not recognizing additional Geocachers coming in. The other legislative items on the agenda were discussed first, and about twenty five minutes went by before the Geocaching Bill came up for discussion. The sponsor of the legislation got up and introduced her bill. She talked about how Geocaching started, even referring to the Clinton Administrations actions regarding Select Availability which led to the production of accurate civilian hand held GPS units. She spoke of the general cache hiding and seeking process, and then she told of the assault by geocachers into the cemeteries in her county. Background- At one point in time there had been a series of cemetery themed multi caches in the Beaufort county area. The owner had done careful research to make sure that all of his chosen locations were in public cemeteries, and he had been very responsive to any complaints found in logs about neighbors & residents who didn't want the visitors in their cemetery. Despite the careful planning and the historical nature of these caches, the influx of primarily white geocaching visitors into these rural historical primarily black cemeteries was noticed, and as some of the cemeteries experienced vandalism or even digging and looting, the local residents became increasingly uneasy with the visitors, many of whom seemed more interested game-playing than in the history of the area. During her introduction of the topic, she read aloud a handful of logs by people who had found these (and other) cemetery caches. After she spoke, the next speaker was the State Archaelogist for South Carolina. This gentleman spoke of the impact on Geocaching in sensitive historical and archaeological sites within the states. He had a list of caches which were on or near sensitive sites, and for over a year he had tried to make contact and had not found anyone who was responsive to his issues. So, it's ten minutes into the discussion of the of this legislation, and here's where we stand: 1. We have pictures of incriminating behavior taken by Geocachers themselves within cemeteries. 2. We have log entries read aloud which show that romping around in cemeteries at night is fun (as opposed to educational and of historical value), and it's even more fun if that was find number 8 of 10 at night. 3. We have the state archaeologist talk about his attempts to contact someone to talk with, and futile that experience has been for him. The next speaker for the state makes similar comments and makes the point that since it is has not been easy to contact us and since this behavior has gone on for a while, the time for Geocaching to police its own behavior has come to an end, and the state must take action to protect its own sensitive areas, and this includes cemeteries, archaeological sites and historic sites. And these last two speakers were impassioned. They were folks who had obviously had frustrated by what they perceived as out of control rogue behavior, and they spoke with a force that had built up over time. Someone for our side spoke next. We had a copy of a letter written by the Geocacher who had created the original Beaufort county cemetery series. In the letter, he explained on how he choose these sites based upon their public access locations and their historical value, and that he never had intended the series to be disrepectful in any way. His letter contained logs from Geocachers who had encountered local residents during their cache hunts, and in all cases but one the contact between Geocachers and local residents was friendly. The letter ended with an apology for any tension that might have been caused by the placement of these caches. Our speaker acknowledged the damning photographs and condemned the actions of those who appeared in them. He thanked the committee for allowing him to speak and took his seat. The next two persons to speak where from Beaufort county or nearby areas. They were caretakers of cemeteries and other historic sites in the area, and they spoke out in support of this Bill. There was time for one more speaker, and I spoke. I stated that I had prepared remarks last night and I was fully prepared to talk about the educational benefits of Geocaching and to even mention the responsible Geocachers across the state, but instead I wanted to acknowledge how ugly and indefensible those pictures were. I talked about the Geocachers in the state, the retired missionary and other clergymen, the policemen, the firefighters and paramedics and others. And I said that all these folks would be as appalled to see this evidence as I was. I thanked the chairman for letting me speak, and I took my seat. The chairman then spoke and acknowledged that since there were so many visitors who had not spoken, that this topic would be continued next week, and it would be the first item on the agenda. For what it's worth, they had 8 more folks who could have spoken, we had 2 more who were prepared to speak. I've tried to record these observations as accurately as possible without spinning. We were definitely caught off guard by how organized the supporters of this legislation were, as well as being caught off guard by all the evidence that we gave them freely through the website. The frustration in their voices seemed genuine. Given the evidence presented to us and the mood of the room, yesterday was not the time or place deliver the positions that we had intended. It was better yesterday to acknowledge how embarrassing the evidence was, and to pledge to work to stop that behavior. I've typed parts of this hurriedly because I'm running late for an evening engagement. If I've been unclear, please let me know and I'll try and clarify. I plan on being at the second meeting next week, and I hope that we will be able to act from a stronger position at time. I will post the entire poster boards as they are made available to me, as quickly as possible. They are absolutely 100% right about this based on the evidence they have been able to present. How apalling! It only takes a few to ruin it for everyone. These cachers should be banned from caching. I'm sorry but that is the way I feel. There is a certain amount of decency and respect that we should have for all aspects of life or death. This has turned from just a game to something better with CITO and the education the "game" provides with it's historical aspects. It's time for the good to reign in the bad. I strongly push the point of banning any cacher that is resposible for such wreckless irresponsible activity. This discussion is ongoing in the GEOCACHING forum. Read the original 28-page thread at: South Carolina Proposed Legislation

Exactly. So how is it relevant to this discussion? It's only relevant to your reviewer. It is not a universal mandate of all reviewers. It's a once-off decision made by your reviewer. Or maybe a regular process for your reviewer. I don't know. So again, it's between you and your reviewer, and/or appeals. That's as far as that situation goes. If you're trying to understand your reviewer's judgment by discussing it in the forum, then that's different, and we can only provide so much input before the discussion will be fruitless. And you should talk to your reviewer.

Cause it's fun t' talk like a pirate. Specially on talk like a pirate day! Groundspeak should give buckos a souvenir fer doin' sumtin that day lest we just go ahead and take 'em anyway. Aye, matey. Fun it be. It's all about having fun. Dress up in pirate garb and put on your best Long John Silver. ox)P-) There was (don't know if it's still active) a boat only accessible cache not far from me that was published prior to the ALR rule which asked finders to post their log in pirate speak. Most did, and I went a bit further and took a selfie at GZ then photoshopped in an eye patch and a parrot on my shoulder and added it to my log. So you admit to doing some photoshopping. Hmmmmmmm, how do we know you didn't just photoshop ground zero into the picture as well? That would have been dumb. It would be a lot easier to photoshop a picture of myself onto a picture of GZ. If I recall, it was my 500th find. I wrote that on the physical log in the cache too. Arrrggghhhhhh, i got it backwards. Hope you realize that i'm just kidding around here.

Cause it's fun t' talk like a pirate. Specially on talk like a pirate day! Groundspeak should give buckos a souvenir fer doin' sumtin that day lest we just go ahead and take 'em anyway. Aye, matey. Fun it be. It's all about having fun. Dress up in pirate garb and put on your best Long John Silver. ox)P-) There was (don't know if it's still active) a boat only accessible cache not far from me that was published prior to the ALR rule which asked finders to post their log in pirate speak. Most did, and I went a bit further and took a selfie at GZ then photoshopped in an eye patch and a parrot on my shoulder and added it to my log. So you admit to doing some photoshopping. Hmmmmmmm, how do we know you didn't just photoshop ground zero into the picture as well? That would have been dumb. It would be a lot easier to photoshop a picture of myself onto a picture of GZ. If I recall, it was my 500th find. I wrote that on the physical log in the cache too.

Cause it's fun t' talk like a pirate. Specially on talk like a pirate day! Groundspeak should give buckos a souvenir fer doin' sumtin that day lest we just go ahead and take 'em anyway. Aye, matey. Fun it be. It's all about having fun. Dress up in pirate garb and put on your best Long John Silver. ox)P-) There was (don't know if it's still active) a boat only accessible cache not far from me that was published prior to the ALR rule which asked finders to post their log in pirate speak. Most did, and I went a bit further and took a selfie at GZ then photoshopped in an eye patch and a parrot on my shoulder and added it to my log. So you admit to doing some photoshopping. Hmmmmmmm, how do we know you didn't just photoshop ground zero into the picture as well?

cruise ship Were you forced to travel alone or was this your choice? There are several thousand travelers with you on this cruise ship to talk to and having fun with. Why not just enjoying the beauty of such a journey?

Cause it's fun t' talk like a pirate. Specially on talk like a pirate day! Groundspeak should give buckos a souvenir fer doin' sumtin that day lest we just go ahead and take 'em anyway. Aye, matey. Fun it be. It's all about having fun. Dress up in pirate garb and put on your best Long John Silver. ox)P-) There was (don't know if it's still active) a boat only accessible cache not far from me that was published prior to the ALR rule which asked finders to post their log in pirate speak. Most did, and I went a bit further and took a selfie at GZ then photoshopped in an eye patch and a parrot on my shoulder and added it to my log.

Cause it's fun t' talk like a pirate. Specially on talk like a pirate day! Groundspeak should give buckos a souvenir fer doin' sumtin that day lest we just go ahead and take 'em anyway. Aye, matey. Fun it be. It's all about having fun. Dress up in pirate garb and put on your best Long John Silver. ox)P-)

Maybe it should be Talk Like a Hollywood Pirate? Does anyone have any idea how a pirate really talks? Unless its in Somali. This cynic still don't get it. So I had to Google it didn't I. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110919-talk-like-a-pirate-day-2011-myths-busted-science-facts/

Ahoy matey! Even this old salt would go on th' account wit' mi fellow buckos. Nother time and I mite hoist the jolly rodger and sail into yer fair port fer th' usual plunderin'. But alas! Maybe next year I should host a gatherin' on th' water fer pyrate paddlers. Cause it's fun t' talk like a pirate. Specially on talk like a pirate day! Groundspeak should give buckos a souvenir fer doin' sumtin that day lest we just go ahead and take 'em anyway.

This has been my lucky day! Can it be yours too? This cointest is for one of my yellow MWGB ducks. If you are in possession of one of my purple glitter ducks you are ineligible for this contest--sorry and I know who you are! I have condensed the official 76 pages of cointest rules down to the following rules: 1--I (further called “Management”) am the sole and final judge of the correct answers. No back talk allowed. Any back talk will result in all of your entries being disqualified. Management reserves the right to determine what qualifies as back talk. No back talk to complain that your disqualification is not fair. Said further whining or back talk will result in you not being able to participate in future cointests I may put out there. 2--In honor of a recent cointest the declared winner will be the fourth different person who posts all the correct answers. You cannot just copy and paste your own answers that you have posted previously-- it must be the 4th DIFFERENT person to give the correct answer. No sock puppet account answers allowed or tolerated. Anyone with less than 30 valid posts (as determined by management) cannot participate in this cointest. 3--Mystery rules are allowed to be put out by management, but no mystery answers--be specific! 4--All answers must be in the correct order as determined by management. 5--No editing of posts are allowed. 6--One post every 10.5 minutes. 7--Whiners are not allowed and will be disqualified--see rule #1 8--****Extra points are given to those who vote for my jeep contest entry**** VOTE HERE 9—Management reserves the right to be as ridiculous and vague as deemed necessary 10--If after 3 days there is no winner I will put all the names in a hat of those with the most correct answers + bonus points (as determined by management) and draw a name OR I may use a random number generator OR some other method still to be decided by me to choose a winner. In the event this happens answers will be revealed. But remember if you have my purple duck you are not eligible to play. Purple and yellow ducks do not get along—they clash. 11—Coinfusion is expected and encouraged by management. ;o) Read on to find out why this has been a lucky day! Questions: 1---My local library has a shelf called Your Lucky Day. They put copies of books on that shelf that are recent and in demand. Today I went there and found a book I have been wanting to read and checked it out. What is the name and author of the book? 2---I took my dog to the vet today for extensive dental work. I was very apprehensive about it as I recently lost a dog because of vet error and I have not gotten over that. I received a call saying the procedure had gone well but the cost was at the upper end of the estimate and I have no idea how I will be able to pay it. Why is this my lucky day? Because I was able to bring this dog home alive and well. Now for the questions. All my dogs are named after rock and roll songs. a. What is the full name of my dog? I am not looking for the call name but the official name. You do not need to put in the kennel name. b. Who recorded this song 10 years after the original recording and hit and again made it into a hit song? c. I am sitting here listening to a rock and roll band play live in the basement. Does that make me lucky or not? Expand on your answer so I can tell them! 3---Almost a month ago I went to the Midwest Geobash. Before I left I said there was one coin I wanted and if I was able to trade for it, it would make my whole weekend. There was a second coin that if I got that one also would be the icing on the cake. What are those two coins? Please note that my coin list is not yet completely up to date. **Bonus points given if you can name the coins I traded to get these two desired coins ** 4---I received a coin in the mail today that I was lucky enough to be one of 7 people to receive it. What is the coin and metal? 5---What is the location of the highest point in Michigan? What is that elevation? Why are these questions here in a lucky day contest you are asking? I don't know I just thought they are interesting trivia.

I was at the meeting yesterday. The Special Laws Subcommittee meeting was scheduled to last an hour, and topic H. 3777 which seeks to restrict Geocaching was the third item on the agenda. The subcommittee has 5 members, there were 6 Geocachers in the room a half hour before the meeting. Our intention was to give the subcommittee introduction to Geocaching. We were prepared to demystify it, to talk about what it was and who was doing. We knew of six South Carolina Policement who were Geocachers, a firefighter, three paramedics, a retired missionary, an active minister, the General Manager of a hotel. More importantly, we knew the occupations of Geocachers in the districts represented by the sub committee members, and we were prepared to show Geocachers as a responsible group of citizens who could be trusted with the sensitive areas within the state. We were lined up to talk about CITO, and we had pictures from past projects as well as the calendar of future events. We were pysched. Ten minutes before the meeting, the sponsor of the legislation enters the meeting room and she sets up material for her presentation. In addition to lots of printed material, she sets of two large poster boards on an easel at the front of the room. These poster boards are covered with text from log entries from finders who were logging cemetery caches, as well photographs they had taken while within the cemetery. They had done their research well, and they were displaying the worst of the worst. (I'm working with the Representative to identify every picture and every log entry, and rest assured that I will post them all here once they have been identified. In the meantime, I will have to describe what was displayed.) There were photographs of groups of people out night-caching, posing for a group photograph as they leaned against old grave markers. There were photographs of caches that had been found, temporarily resting atop prominent gravestones so that a picture could be taken. There were several pictures of people lying on the ground right next to markers, and getting their pictures taken so that their smiling face, the marker and their GPS were all visible. There were log entries too, some of these said things like: "There was a freshly dug grave but no one was in it yet, this was so cool." "It was great fun spooky fun to be out at night in the graveyard." There were many more pictures and logs as well, and over and over they underscored the "game" aspect of this pasttime, and they showed the worst practices engaged in while cache hunting in grave yards. These images and logs, which had been freely provided by Geocachers in their own log entries, were incredibly damning evidence. They were appalling, and not one of us there could take a stand and defend those practices. Needless to say, for those of us who were there our tactics changed at this point. We could have talked until we were blue in the face about the educational value of geocaching. That was not going to be disputed. We could have talked about the benefits of CITO. That was not going to be disputed. They were going to talk about disrespect in cemeteries, and they had evidence provided by Geocachers to do so. It was also apparent as the meeting time approached that the meeting was filling up, and I was not recognizing additional Geocachers coming in. The other legislative items on the agenda were discussed first, and about twenty five minutes went by before the Geocaching Bill came up for discussion. The sponsor of the legislation got up and introduced her bill. She talked about how Geocaching started, even referring to the Clinton Administrations actions regarding Select Availability which led to the production of accurate civilian hand held GPS units. She spoke of the general cache hiding and seeking process, and then she told of the assault by geocachers into the cemeteries in her county. Background- At one point in time there had been a series of cemetery themed multi caches in the Beaufort county area. The owner had done careful research to make sure that all of his chosen locations were in public cemeteries, and he had been very responsive to any complaints found in logs about neighbors & residents who didn't want the visitors in their cemetery. Despite the careful planning and the historical nature of these caches, the influx of primarily white geocaching visitors into these rural historical primarily black cemeteries was noticed, and as some of the cemeteries experienced vandalism or even digging and looting, the local residents became increasingly uneasy with the visitors, many of whom seemed more interested game-playing than in the history of the area. During her introduction of the topic, she read aloud a handful of logs by people who had found these (and other) cemetery caches. After she spoke, the next speaker was the State Archaelogist for South Carolina. This gentleman spoke of the impact on Geocaching in sensitive historical and archaeological sites within the states. He had a list of caches which were on or near sensitive sites, and for over a year he had tried to make contact and had not found anyone who was responsive to his issues. So, it's ten minutes into the discussion of the of this legislation, and here's where we stand: 1. We have pictures of incriminating behavior taken by Geocachers themselves within cemeteries. 2. We have log entries read aloud which show that romping around in cemeteries at night is fun (as opposed to educational and of historical value), and it's even more fun if that was find number 8 of 10 at night. 3. We have the state archaeologist talk about his attempts to contact someone to talk with, and futile that experience has been for him. The next speaker for the state makes similar comments and makes the point that since it is has not been easy to contact us and since this behavior has gone on for a while, the time for Geocaching to police its own behavior has come to an end, and the state must take action to protect its own sensitive areas, and this includes cemeteries, archaeological sites and historic sites. And these last two speakers were impassioned. They were folks who had obviously had frustrated by what they perceived as out of control rogue behavior, and they spoke with a force that had built up over time. Someone for our side spoke next. We had a copy of a letter written by the Geocacher who had created the original Beaufort county cemetery series. In the letter, he explained on how he choose these sites based upon their public access locations and their historical value, and that he never had intended the series to be disrepectful in any way. His letter contained logs from Geocachers who had encountered local residents during their cache hunts, and in all cases but one the contact between Geocachers and local residents was friendly. The letter ended with an apology for any tension that might have been caused by the placement of these caches. Our speaker acknowledged the damning photographs and condemned the actions of those who appeared in them. He thanked the committee for allowing him to speak and took his seat. The next two persons to speak where from Beaufort county or nearby areas. They were caretakers of cemeteries and other historic sites in the area, and they spoke out in support of this Bill. There was time for one more speaker, and I spoke. I stated that I had prepared remarks last night and I was fully prepared to talk about the educational benefits of Geocaching and to even mention the responsible Geocachers across the state, but instead I wanted to acknowledge how ugly and indefensible those pictures were. I talked about the Geocachers in the state, the retired missionary and other clergymen, the policemen, the firefighters and paramedics and others. And I said that all these folks would be as appalled to see this evidence as I was. I thanked the chairman for letting me speak, and I took my seat. The chairman then spoke and acknowledged that since there were so many visitors who had not spoken, that this topic would be continued next week, and it would be the first item on the agenda. For what it's worth, they had 8 more folks who could have spoken, we had 2 more who were prepared to speak. I've tried to record these observations as accurately as possible without spinning. We were definitely caught off guard by how organized the supporters of this legislation were, as well as being caught off guard by all the evidence that we gave them freely through the website. The frustration in their voices seemed genuine. Given the evidence presented to us and the mood of the room, yesterday was not the time or place deliver the positions that we had intended. It was better yesterday to acknowledge how embarrassing the evidence was, and to pledge to work to stop that behavior. I've typed parts of this hurriedly because I'm running late for an evening engagement. If I've been unclear, please let me know and I'll try and clarify. I plan on being at the second meeting next week, and I hope that we will be able to act from a stronger position at time. I will post the entire poster boards as they are made available to me, as quickly as possible.

I was trying to do bitwise ORs so the player had to talk to three characters before proceeding. Returning to a character a second time would be ignored So, talking to the charaters would OR 1, 2 , 4 Probably a bit excessive for this project so I've used three flags instead now Thanks

Some of these -- based on ownership, based on specific caches, not based on geocaching -- seem clear cut. What problems do they cause? Is there anything more to it than the reviewer makes a simple, unassailable decision that the CO argues about and appeals? When get get to judging them for clarity and coherence, we're sliding into a quality issue. Sure, I'd like to see COs submitting challenges to get help with clarity, but I'm wondering if once improvements have been suggested, it shouldn't be up to the CO to publish, anyway. Reviewers don't, after all, reject traditional caches because they're bad hides. I feel similarly when we talk about whether the challenges are appealing and even when we talk about whether they're achievable. How many unachievable challenge caches will one CO want to publish? Verification is an important aspect of challenges, but I have to admit I'm having a hard time imagining why it would be a problem +x20. I can't remember if a verification statement is now required in the challenge description, but if not, it should be. For 95% of the challenges, "list the appropriate caches" should cover it, and for most of the others, geocaching.com statistics would do the trick, obviously allowing a screen shot for those that don't want to open their statistics to everyone. So what verifications are left to cause reviewers problems? Can't we allow those 98% to be rubber stamped, then force the 2% that want to do something fancy for verification submit their idea to some kind of Challenge Czar?

I have to disagree with this. Yes, I'm sure without looking that the guidelines talk only about what it takes to find the cache and sign the log, but that's only because the guidelines aren't expecting a significant reset task that's even harder than what it took to sign the log. Saying that the difficulty rating doesn't include the reset effort implies that resetting the puzzle is optional. (Now that I've written that, I'm starting to worry that it's not responsive. I'm taking for granted you don't really mean "Reassembling the cache is not required PERIOD", so you must mean reassembly is not required in order to sign the log[/]. But correct me if I'm wrong.)