Search the Community

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.

I can understand why some feel the need to share, but I am not one of them, I log as I talk IRL, short and too the point, my wife has compared getting words out of me as like pulling teeth!!

Thanks for the list but could I ask what exactly it means? I assume that it is an either /or list. I am interested purely from a Geocaching point of view and getting as many cache coordinates onto my 20x as I can When you talk about 2000 gpx files, does that mean 2000 caches listed on one GPX file? What does 5000 Geocaches mean? I tried to load 5000 caches on a gpx file from my GSAK to the 20x and I got a message that the maximum number of caches has been exceeded but it didnt tell me what it was. In what format can I get 5000 geocaches on?

Many of the caches I enjoy (and hence hide) are an adventure, with signing the log just the icing on the cake. The golden rule of creative writing is to show, not tell, so I'd much rather see and write logs that talk of glimpses of wildlife, rock-hopping over the stream and falling in the mud than just "it was a fun day, TFTC".

Invest time in not trolling and being snarky. Do you understand the spirit of this game, when it was started? Keep the original spirit of this game alive. And bite your tongue from time to time. Life is short. No need to talk when there is no need to, if you have nothing to contribute, just stay silent. Little man quiet is way better than little man with a big something else Have a great night <3 And the title of the thread is now alive...this is the worst irk....trolls. I just answered, and now some *%@$( is all over me. Part of the sport, I guess. But its not fair. Reported all over the place, and making sure I still get my place and voice even though Dick, well, tried to shoot me down. I am sorry my "numbers" aren't what...you know what? I don't care. Numbers. Whatevers. Might be time for a new sport, other than harrassment

Hi everyone! I just joined today! I'm an avid BookCrosser from Puerto Rico, and had heard lots of BCers talk about geocaching. I love to read, write, sing, and take pictures. I can't wait to start finding geocaches!

I'd be happier if the automated process was eliminated, but I still wouldn't be happy that everyone, including the reviewer, thinks the reviewer is required to scan the database for problems. I certainly agree that, whatever the approach, the reviewer shouldn't be made upset. That's one reason I argue that the reviewer should not be considered responsible for cache quality. It's a little hard to talk about the CHS in this context, since the reviewer would almost certainly be using the CHS, too, but an e-mail from an impersonal robot is much more like Big Brother than a reviewer personally filing a log that he's willing to stand behind even if he is using CHS to justify it. But in the broader view, yes, absolutely, one of the most important reason I hate the idea that reviewers must step in because geocachers won't do it is the fact that reviewers have to risk their incredibly important neutrality by presenting the case against a cache and its owner instead of evaluating cases presented by peers and impartially picking between them. I've never seen anyone react that badly, so I have to take your word that such COs exist and are immune to any reason, but even stipulating this, these COs (or whoever) you're describing strike me as a really huge problem, much bigger than cache quality. So I think it's doubly wrong to deploy robots specifically because you want to leave this problem to fester in a hundred other ways. I'd much rather spend reviewer's times to resolve this kind of personal conflict than have the reviewer clean up a vicious CO's caches, making the unhinged CO especially annoyed with the reviewer, just so that CO can plant new caches and be nasty to even more people. I'd like to hear about that. I assume you don't really mean "abuse" in the technical sense, since that would obviously call for GS intervention and the rapid elimination of the other player. So I assume you mean more like you were given a bad time, and I'm wondering on what grounds the offending party rejected your explanation about why you needed to contribute your input. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't be bringing it up in the context unless the case you presented was cut and dried, since that's the kind of cache we're expecting the algorithm is going to identify, so I'm at a loss imagining how the clear expression of that cut and dried case could result in a response that's abusive, but not so abusive that GS doesn't step in.

I'm not talking about cachers getting bent out of shape. The cachers I talk to are reasonable. If someone logs a DNF and thinks it is likely missing (and so logs NM), they understand that. They don't understand getting an email telling them there may be a problem when the DNFs actually say they never looked for the cache. Nor do they understand that once this happens, even if the cache gets found, the health score won't be fully restored unless they do an OM. I was about to say the same thing, Mark. If a person actually at GZ makes an assessment that the cache might be missing and logs an NM, I'd be happy to go and check because I want my caches to be found and really do want to keep on top of actual problems. There've actually been a couple of situations where my caches have been disturbed that I've wished someone HAD logged an NM as it would've alerted me earlier. Its this alogorithm making totally bizarre calls on caches where blind Freddy could see there's nothing wrong that's got my goat.

I'm not talking about cachers getting bent out of shape. The cachers I talk to are reasonable. If someone logs a DNF and thinks it is likely missing (and so logs NM), they understand that. They don't understand getting an email telling them there may be a problem when the DNFs actually say they never looked for the cache. Nor do they understand that once this happens, even if the cache gets found, the health score won't be fully restored unless they do an OM.

Firstly it's a philosophical point of assigning meaning to DNF logs when that meaning wasn't the intent of the logger. We now have the single click option of adding a boilerplate "the cache might be missing" NM to a DNF log if that's what the DNFer thinks, so why do we have to assign that meaning to all the other DNFs that don't imply a missing cache? This may over time have some repercussions, like discouraging people from logging DNFs if they don't think the cache is missing or discouraging COs from hiding caches that might get more than some unspecified average number of DNFs. Secondly, although the email is couched in "might" and "may", it's still an official email from HQ saying that, in their eyes, your cache has been singled out for special attention, and, with that, the implication that the CO is expected to do something in response to make things right. It even lists their expected responses - visit the cache to fix the problem and log an OM, disable it until you can or archive it. This is backed up by the Help Centre page that says further action might be taken if the cache's health score doesn't improve. How can you improve the score if there's nothing wrong with the cache? It's all well and good to say here that it's a harmless email that can be simply ignored, but that isn't conveyed to those receiving the email who aren't following the forums. And regardless of all the logical arguments saying that it isn't, it still comes across as a slap on the wrist or a wake-up call to an allegedly slack CO. Thirdly, it's the nature of the caches that it's catching, like one of the more recent ones reported here: a D3.5 with no history of NMs, the most recent log a find but a few prior DNFs. The mind boggles as to why this cache was singled out. A D3.5 should be getting a fair number of DNFs, otherwise it'd be a D1 or D1.5, and even if it does, the find should surely clear any implication the DNFs might have meant it was missing. If it were just borderline ones, like a D1.5 that suddenly gets a string of DNFs, then perhaps it could be forgiven, but it's not. The ones I've seen reported are just completely out of left field. It's almost like it's just picking caches at random or specifically targeting higher D/T caches, like the D2/T5 of mine it pinged for just one DNF or the other high D/T caches mentioned a couple of pages back that had only one or two DNFs. Finally, we now know that the CHS is being used for more than just sending out harmless emails. What will it be used for next? HQ have committed resources into creating it so presumably they'll want to maximise their bang for buck. Perhaps, um, there's been some talk recently of blocking negligent COs from creating new caches - will the CHS be part of that? Who knows, and we probably won't even be told if it is.

I thought guidelines are new, so they should have everything needed for placing the cache listed in the document? Beside I got first post reviewer note where is it listed what should I follow to satisfy criteria for cache to be publish. I did follow the exact guidelines and still, there is a problem like I describe it in first post. 1. I'm talking about public city park without accessing (or photograph) restriction. There are some geocaches in the park already. 2. There are no stated restriction about placing cache on playground. 3. Our country is not listed on the Regional Geocaching Policies wiki. 4. Help center is taking virtual cache as grandfathered type of cache, virtual reward cache have it's own guidelines where is also not stated anything about placing cache on playground. 5. And there are still problems with our reviewer even if I follow first four steps. Ok, I can see you have similar thinking (and I do understand your views), but if there is no restriction about accessing or photographing the place in local laws and I stick to guidelines, how can become that a problem? I believe guidelines should be a document where we can find our answers. If there is no statement about issues inside, than that can not become an issue. We can only talk about opinions from this point on. It is better for everyone to make guidelines clear and strictly.

Some reviewers group playgrounds in with schools as an inappropriate cache location, due to concerns about protection of children. This is supported by text in the Help Center: "Avoid areas near schools or playgrounds, where cache hunting behavior may worry parents or school staff." Ordinarily the concern is the suspicious nature of someone poking around in bushes, bending down to peek underneath park benches, etc. In your case, you say you are hiding a virtual cache. If the verification method involves photography, this can also raise suspicion. ("Why are you taking pictures of my grandchild, you dirty old man?") To answer your question, to know where to place a geocache: Talk with the land owner/ land manager Read the listing guidelines Read the Regional Geocaching Policies wiki, linked from the listing guidelines Read the "Hiding a Cache" section of the Help Center, linked from the listing guidelines Contact your reviewer by email or by submitting a cache page (even in draft form)

You're right, I checked it and all worked. Now it's not working again, so I will talk with the developer again later. Strange.

Hello, I am very new to geocaching. I just found a new/unopened DeLorme Earthmate PN-40 in my garage. I have learned that Garmin bought DeLorme and I have already contacted them, but they refused to help (sorry, not our product). I have downloaded the system updates but cannot figure out how to get my computer and geocache.com to "talk" to the GPS and send geocaches. I think I need a plug-in (which is what I contacted Garmin about). I tried to download Garmin's alternative but keep getting a message that I have a Chrome window open (as directed I'm using Internet Explorer) and I know I have no windows open. I also made Garmin a trusted site and tried loading through Firefox. Any suggestions? I'd really like to use this device. Thanks!

So far the new way seems to be to use lists. Save a cache to a list. On the list page you can then download each one individually to the garmin through their supported garmin express software. In a future update they should change their -send to gps - garmin tab to go link to the garmin express software which will work instead of an unsupported plugin, communicator, which probably won't work. Going through the garmin express software seems to be the current way to talk to a garmin gps.