Search the Community

Wow, it really seems like most people here simply have to comment on things that they don't understand. At least some got the point. The issue at hand is NOT data harvesting and is NOT a broken app. Like thomfre wrote, many of us are used to have GSAK update their local database on a regular basis often using up the quota. Now this will affect my caching trip that day using ANY partner app. That can not be good and will cause some bad feedback for innocent partners. I think HQ should rather revert to the lower per app/user quote that was in place in the past! Many cacher don't even know what that whole API talk is about. The average housewife cacher (no offence) will NOT understand that because they used tool A or website B on their computer that suddenly app C on their phone will not work anymore for the next 24h. Yes, the technically versed might get it but the average user does not even know what the 'API' is.... They use and app and it works! Now one app/tool/website can and will impact ALL partner apps. In one word: BAD

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?

Ok, I have spent the last half hour searching online for an answer. After years of successfully being able to find geocaches on Google Earth, suddenly, it is impossible to see any anymore. All I see is a 'red light' in the geocaching KML area on Google Earth. No idea why that is. I use two laptops. Neither one shows a 'green light' and neither one has allowed me to view cache locations in Google Earth! I've reinstalled the program. No change. Is this now only available to Premium members? Searching on this forum for at least a half hour hasn't resulted in any solutions. There's talk of a runaround. I agree because after wasting so much time looking, I have yet to get a solution. One post says the discussion was moved to the "Bugs" Section, and of course, no solution provided Where might I find that formum? Another post says it was moved to yet another forum. Why can't there be a simple answer? Is no one from geocaching.com even looking at these posts? Are they just laughing in their cubicles while those of us without premium memberships waste our time? Are basic members being forced to buy premium memberships even if we only look for caches every now and then? How about a straight answer to what's going on from those who write the code? Could it be that Geocaching.com is so incredibly greedy as to only allow Premium members to use the Google Earth Viewer? This geocacher has been geocaching since 2004. For a while I was really into it until geocaching.com made the downloads to GPS receivers and searches more complicated. It seems that now it is very difficult to play without paying for a premium membership! Seems geocaching isn't a whole lot of fun anymore if it is impossible to find caches on Google Earth. Am I mistaken? Is the goal to drive basic members out? Yes, I really do think this is a runaround. And, it seems that maybe GREED has invaded geocaching.com and made it no fun anymore. Why can't I get a straight answer? I really hope someone can provide a clear answer as to how I can once again view caches on Google Earth and have fun.

I'm going to sound like an old fogy driving a Model T here, but I like the old style of geocaching better than the way it is now. When I started in 2002 there was no such thing as a smart phone, a nano cache, or GoogleEarth. GPS units like my original yellow eTrex often had little or no satellite reception and normally had only 50 - 100 feet of accuracy. Geocaches were almost always nice large ammo boxes or similar hiding styles in the remote woods or other non-urban areas. They almost always contained logbooks (not log sheets) and people wrote interesting notes in them. Many had those disposable cameras in them and finders would take a "selfie" (although that word wasn't invented then) and when the camera was full the CO would retrieve it, get the film developed, and post the pictures. FTF prizes were often good swag, like T-shirts or $10 bills. There was something fun to read in the log book at the site. Going geocaching was an excursion that took planning. You had to look at printed maps or download USGS photos of the area to figure out a good route. You needed to write down, print out, or memorize the cache information and maybe draw yourself a map or load various guide waypoints into your GPSr to tell you the route and the critical turns. When you got to the cache, it was often hard to find because the coordinates were so dicey and your accuracy bad, too, but the cache rarely had hard camo on it. The challenge was in the planning, navigation, and physical effort to get there. When you found it, you felt like you accomplished something, and the number of geocachers was small due to the effort involved. You felt like you were part of an exclusive group of similarly accomplished people. You wrote a nice long, good log. I knew most of the regular geocachers within 50 miles and made many friends or at events, many of whom are still good friends. You often met other geocachers at a cache because the placing of a new cache was a big event that drew many of the local cachers for the FTF. Nowadays it seems everyone expects all the information on a cache to be at their fingertips on their smart phone. If they have trouble finding a cache, they call for a lifeline. Most hides are urban and contain nothing more than a log sheet, or occasionally some geo-trash trinkets for the kiddies. People log TFTC from their phones and that's it. Hiding a cache brings little or no benefit to the CO. The caches are usually bison tubes in a bush, a magnet under a lamp post skirt, nanos, or something equally uninteresting. If they're challenging it's just because of good camo that serves no purpose other than to make it hard, unpleasant, and frustrating to look for. I never meet other cachers at the cache sites now. There are just too many caches out there. When I go to events most other cachers have not found the same caches I have so we have little in common to talk about. Even when we have found some of the same, the caches are so unmemorable that they don't even recall them - they all blend together. Too many just talk about numbers and powertrails. Their hardware and software is so different from mine it feels like they have an entirely different hobby. There are still ammo cans out in the woods to find, but it just isn't the same kind of accomplishment. It's sort of like a mountain climber who struggles up a high peak for the view only to find a parking lot full of luxury SUVs there. Why bother to climb? By becoming so accessible, geocaching has become less rewarding. So there's my take. Let's hear some other views.

I understand that. Now you know that caches that are too small are sometimes marked as "small". And you're disappointed. That's a good thing to tell the CO. It's not a good thing to get in a fight with the CO about. Yes, I get it, you had to carry all that swag and didn't get to drop any of it. Not a big deal. If this disappointment made you angry, geocaching might not be for you. That's really all beside the point. He may have made a mistake when he called some of them small, or he may have been thinking he made a mistake when he called some of them micros. He may be doing something evil, although, honestly, this is geocaching: how serious is "evil". He may just be messing with people. All interesting theories to talk to him about to find out which is true. None are good reasons to become belligerent because he didn't react to your input. No one's arguing that it would be better to call this a small. We're past that. Now we're just talking about how to handle it when you think a cache should be called a micro but it's listed as a small.

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.

At first thought, you would think there shouldn't be a problem with geocaching in "public" parks. After all, they're areas that set up to provide recreational opportunities for the general public and are usually supported by that public's tax dollars. It almost seems as though we shouldn't even have to ask for permission. What happens sometimes is that there is a cache placed and then follow up caches are placed with the notion that the first was probably placed with permission and that any newer ones should be fine. You did do the right thing by asking for permission. I myself would go downtown and talk to someone in person about it. It's just easier for me to go in person and talk about what geocaching is and is not. I've had great luck doing this with almost all our placements.

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.

Caches get placed inside and outside businesses at times. The key is to talk to your reviewer. Explain your intent and the situation with the business. The reviewer may even want to contact said business. Most reviewers will work with you to make sure what you intend to do will fall within the guidelines. Personally I don't like going into anything other than a library to find a geocache. Have had some negative experiences before, but also some good ones. Talk to your reviewer, and good luck.

For first time geocachers, it's enough to show them the beginning of a geocache listing. You can talk about the difficulty, terrain, and size ratings. Pass around a few containers as examples of different sizes. Talk about the fact that there are different cache types, recommend that they stick with traditional caches at first (the container is at the given coordinates), but briefly describe other types (multi-caches, puzzle caches, events). That should be plenty for first time geocachers. Maybe show how to find the Play > Find Trackables page when you're discussing geocoins and travel bugs, but you really don't need to go into all the details about how the site works, about searches and pocket queries and everything else. Spend time outdoors, somewhere near your classroom, where you've hidden a bunch of geocache containers. Let them get a taste for geocaching by taking turns spotting the hidden containers. There's no need to teach them about GPS yet: just take them to the location you've chosen and let them look for the hidden containers. Even on the longer classes where we give students pre-programmed GPS receivers and spend a couple hours finding actual geocaches, we don't spend any more time explaining the web site than that.

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.

Welcome to the game! You can start by emailing your local Reviewer to introduce yourself, and let them know about your plans for a hide. The local Reviewer should know the local policies for cache placements in your area, and can guide you on who to contact. It looks like your local Reviewer might be Mongo? For a city park, I'd recommend calling the city clerk to ask who you should talk to. It might be someone with a title like "Parks and Recreation Director" or something similar. That's who would have to give permission, if not someone higher up. Best bet is to start with the Reviewer, but you should also check with the city to know who to talk to for certain. I wouldn't worry about having a cache page written up at the time of discussion. You're only asking about permission, so the first question to ask is if they've heard of Geocaching. If the answer is no, then you should start with directing them toward the website (geocaching.com) and the Land Manager information (geocaching.com/parksandpolice/). If the answer is "yes", then you can proceed with the discussion about what you're planning on doing. For a museum cache, you're looking at some grey area between the black and white. In that case, I'd be sure to work with your Reviewer to see if it is allowed, how to make it work, and how to go about getting the required permission to hide a cache in that manner.

My first thought is it sounds like a training issue. If the Land Manager doesn't have the time or inclination to properly train their seasonal staff on their responsibilities, then maybe the seasonal workers shouldn't be put in a situation where this sort of thing might happen. The alternative is to have a clear policy on geocaching posted on the website for the area, or in public areas. Doesn't leave much room for guessing if there's adequate communication. For Federal agencies (as far as I can tell), there is really nothing to "train" on for geocaching. Other than at specific stations (offices, parks, refuges, etc.), there isn't any talk at the top about geocaching as a priority, so it isn't a "training issue" at all. It all depends on how it is presented to the person they are talking to. How is the cacher presenting their case to the person they are talking to? Are they being forthright and clear about what they are asking? Are they casually leaving out details about what geocaching is? You see, it is all about how it is presented for how someone will respond. Generally people have not asked at all at my specific station if they can hide caches--they've just assumed they can because it is "public land". However, I then had to go back and sweep up caches published on Refuge lands across Alaska with the help of our current, local Reviewer. Now the Reviewer knows exactly what needs to be in place for permission at USFWS lands in Alaska (and elsewhere in the country), and also has access to the most current overlays of federal properties including USFWS Refuges. Does every Reviewer have that information? No. Should they? Yes! Groundspeak should really work with Reviewers to be sure that those Reviewers have the tools they need to make a decision about geocaching on certain lands. The assumption all too often becomes, "If I don't know about a policy, there must be no reason stopping a cache publication...", when in fact the opposite is true. And I'll admit that it is very confusing to know which USFWS Refuges allow geocaches and which do not. Some do! (But they have geocaching addressed in their Refuge CCP as a compatible use, and also likely have a local Friends group, staff member(s), or other volunteers who help monitor and maintain the listings...) The bottom line is that Reviewers have a lot to pay attention to, and they really need to know--specifically for USFWS and other DOI agencies--who "permission" must be granted by for a geocache placement. Local geocaching organizations can also be proactive by approaching their local USFWS Refuges and asking about a Special Use Permit, or if Geocaching could be found as a compatible use under the CCP for that specific station. The Refuge Manager or Project Lead for that station makes that call about whether or not a geocache or geocache event is something that can happen there. The overall stance on geocaching for the USFWS is that it is not a compatible use: But, do Reviewers ask geocachers for the Special Use Permit from the Refuge if that cacher says, "I have permission from the Refuge to place this geocache"? I'd guess that most do not. That geocacher could have received "permission" from someone who is not at all aware of the CFR, CCP, or other issues regarding geocache placement. The person geocachers must talk to is the Refuge Manager, but I'll guess that the Reviewer isn't going to know or check most of the time when they are told via a cache submission that the cache placer "has permission". This goes the same for HOAs, city, county, borough, regional, state, and other federal land managers. Do geocachers know who to ask for permission on the ladder for each land manager? Likely not. Do Reviewers? Likely not. But this doesn't change the fact that we play a really abstract, covert, small-potatoes game that really doesn't register as a priority for most land managers until they realize there is a trespass or property damage issue. And, as geocachers, we shouldn't ever think that we can place a cache somewhere and let it go "until there's an issue". That's backwards. And wrong. And in most cases illegal. Sorry, but not buying into the argument that failed training of policies relevant to performing ones job is not the issue here, and that under some perverse leap of logic that Reviewers and Grounspeak are somehow to blame. Truly unbelievable! To blame? Not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we are playing a game that is not even on 99% of Refuge Manager's radars. To them it is a new issue which isn't even a consideration for a compatible activity or use for the lands they manage. To that end, without we the players of our obscure game taking the time to be thorough and working to obtain proper, elevated permissions, we're set up for failure. It isn't in the job description of the visitor center docent or seasonal Park Ranger (this isn't a gun-toting, Law Enforcement Officer Park Ranger, mind you. Those are altogether different, and would be more familiar with CFR and other legal/regulatory processes for something like geocaching...but still aren't the right person to get permission from!) to know what geocaching is, or what the policies are for geocaching. It is their job to know how to interpret the resource, how to help people engage in the education and outreach of the site, etc. Those types of public engagement folks are not going to be well-versed or even knowledgeable at any level (especially in their job requirements or description) about who or how to grant or deny permission for geocaching. And some of them may know or be trained to say, 'I'll have to direct you to our Project Leader...", but others may hear the idea for what geocaching is from a geocacher and think it sounds harmless enough. That employee might not know that something as 'harmless' as a geocache actually needs to be approved at high levels. That employee may only be a low-level public contact person with a patch and name badge, but to the geocacher suffices as "an employee told me it was fine..." (See the example of Target cashier versus asking the actual Store Manager for a serious inquiry.) This also has more applications than just the USFWS and Department of Interior (DOI--includes USFWS, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management, e.g.) examples I have given. The bottom line is that we have the onus to get permission from the appropriate levels of land management, and that Reviewers should also be acutely aware--as Maingray states above they are in his experience--of the levels of permission one must obtain from an neighborhood HOA, city, borough, county, state, or federal land manager. I can tell you that seasonal, temporary workers at a visitor center desk (let alone volunteers) really don't have a firm grasp of the policies and requirements to give permission for playing this abstract, obscure game. Depending on how the geocacher presents the question, it would be very, very easy for a seasonal Park Ranger to think that it is harmless enough. Even then, there are cases where employees may not be familiar enough with the management policies, regulations, and laws which would apply to allowing a geocache on their lands. So yes, I'll give you the fact that all employees of any business, nonprofit, or agency should know the protocols for land or property use. But you can't train and expect that they will apply their lesson learned when approached by a geocacher asking about an obscure game who might not be honest or forthright with how they describe the process. You get a naiive person or someone who isn't clear on protocols, and suddenly we have a problem. Again, the onus is on all of us to get permission at the proper levels for cache placements. And I'm telling you to tell your friends that this means a Special Use Permit or Compatible Use ruling against an existing CCP for all USFWS, many NPS, and some BLM lands from the Manager or Project Leader for the site they have in mind--not a Park Ranger, Biologist, or Visitor Center worker.

My first thought is it sounds like a training issue. If the Land Manager doesn't have the time or inclination to properly train their seasonal staff on their responsibilities, then maybe the seasonal workers shouldn't be put in a situation where this sort of thing might happen. The alternative is to have a clear policy on geocaching posted on the website for the area, or in public areas. Doesn't leave much room for guessing if there's adequate communication. For Federal agencies (as far as I can tell), there is really nothing to "train" on for geocaching. Other than at specific stations (offices, parks, refuges, etc.), there isn't any talk at the top about geocaching as a priority, so it isn't a "training issue" at all. It all depends on how it is presented to the person they are talking to. How is the cacher presenting their case to the person they are talking to? Are they being forthright and clear about what they are asking? Are they casually leaving out details about what geocaching is? You see, it is all about how it is presented for how someone will respond. Generally people have not asked at all at my specific station if they can hide caches--they've just assumed they can because it is "public land". However, I then had to go back and sweep up caches published on Refuge lands across Alaska with the help of our current, local Reviewer. Now the Reviewer knows exactly what needs to be in place for permission at USFWS lands in Alaska (and elsewhere in the country), and also has access to the most current overlays of federal properties including USFWS Refuges. Does every Reviewer have that information? No. Should they? Yes! Groundspeak should really work with Reviewers to be sure that those Reviewers have the tools they need to make a decision about geocaching on certain lands. The assumption all too often becomes, "If I don't know about a policy, there must be no reason stopping a cache publication...", when in fact the opposite is true. And I'll admit that it is very confusing to know which USFWS Refuges allow geocaches and which do not. Some do! (But they have geocaching addressed in their Refuge CCP as a compatible use, and also likely have a local Friends group, staff member(s), or other volunteers who help monitor and maintain the listings...) The bottom line is that Reviewers have a lot to pay attention to, and they really need to know--specifically for USFWS and other DOI agencies--who "permission" must be granted by for a geocache placement. Local geocaching organizations can also be proactive by approaching their local USFWS Refuges and asking about a Special Use Permit, or if Geocaching could be found as a compatible use under the CCP for that specific station. The Refuge Manager or Project Lead for that station makes that call about whether or not a geocache or geocache event is something that can happen there. The overall stance on geocaching for the USFWS is that it is not a compatible use: But, do Reviewers ask geocachers for the Special Use Permit from the Refuge if that cacher says, "I have permission from the Refuge to place this geocache"? I'd guess that most do not. That geocacher could have received "permission" from someone who is not at all aware of the CFR, CCP, or other issues regarding geocache placement. The person geocachers must talk to is the Refuge Manager, but I'll guess that the Reviewer isn't going to know or check most of the time when they are told via a cache submission that the cache placer "has permission". This goes the same for HOAs, city, county, borough, regional, state, and other federal land managers. Do geocachers know who to ask for permission on the ladder for each land manager? Likely not. Do Reviewers? Likely not. But this doesn't change the fact that we play a really abstract, covert, small-potatoes game that really doesn't register as a priority for most land managers until they realize there is a trespass or property damage issue. And, as geocachers, we shouldn't ever think that we can place a cache somewhere and let it go "until there's an issue". That's backwards. And wrong. And in most cases illegal. Sorry, but not buying into the argument that failed training of policies relevant to performing ones job is not the issue here, and that under some perverse leap of logic that Reviewers and Grounspeak are somehow to blame. Truly unbelievable!

My first thought is it sounds like a training issue. If the Land Manager doesn't have the time or inclination to properly train their seasonal staff on their responsibilities, then maybe the seasonal workers shouldn't be put in a situation where this sort of thing might happen. The alternative is to have a clear policy on geocaching posted on the website for the area, or in public areas. Doesn't leave much room for guessing if there's adequate communication. For Federal agencies (as far as I can tell), there is really nothing to "train" on for geocaching. Other than at specific stations (offices, parks, refuges, etc.), there isn't any talk at the top about geocaching as a priority, so it isn't a "training issue" at all. It all depends on how it is presented to the person they are talking to. How is the cacher presenting their case to the person they are talking to? Are they being forthright and clear about what they are asking? Are they casually leaving out details about what geocaching is? You see, it is all about how it is presented for how someone will respond. Generally people have not asked at all at my specific station if they can hide caches--they've just assumed they can because it is "public land". However, I then had to go back and sweep up caches published on Refuge lands across Alaska with the help of our current, local Reviewer. Now the Reviewer knows exactly what needs to be in place for permission at USFWS lands in Alaska (and elsewhere in the country), and also has access to the most current overlays of federal properties including USFWS Refuges. Does every Reviewer have that information? No. Should they? Yes! Groundspeak should really work with Reviewers to be sure that those Reviewers have the tools they need to make a decision about geocaching on certain lands. The assumption all too often becomes, "If I don't know about a policy, there must be no reason stopping a cache publication...", when in fact the opposite is true. And I'll admit that it is very confusing to know which USFWS Refuges allow geocaches and which do not. Some do! (But they have geocaching addressed in their Refuge CCP as a compatible use, and also likely have a local Friends group, staff member(s), or other volunteers who help monitor and maintain the listings...) The bottom line is that Reviewers have a lot to pay attention to, and they really need to know--specifically for USFWS and other DOI agencies--who "permission" must be granted by for a geocache placement. Local geocaching organizations can also be proactive by approaching their local USFWS Refuges and asking about a Special Use Permit, or if Geocaching could be found as a compatible use under the CCP for that specific station. The Refuge Manager or Project Lead for that station makes that call about whether or not a geocache or geocache event is something that can happen there. The overall stance on geocaching for the USFWS is that it is not a compatible use: But, do Reviewers ask geocachers for the Special Use Permit from the Refuge if that cacher says, "I have permission from the Refuge to place this geocache"? I'd guess that most do not. That geocacher could have received "permission" from someone who is not at all aware of the CFR, CCP, or other issues regarding geocache placement. The person geocachers must talk to is the Refuge Manager, but I'll guess that the Reviewer isn't going to know or check most of the time when they are told via a cache submission that the cache placer "has permission". This goes the same for HOAs, city, county, borough, regional, state, and other federal land managers. Do geocachers know who to ask for permission on the ladder for each land manager? Likely not. Do Reviewers? Likely not. But this doesn't change the fact that we play a really abstract, covert, small-potatoes game that really doesn't register as a priority for most land managers until they realize there is a trespass or property damage issue. And, as geocachers, we shouldn't ever think that we can place a cache somewhere and let it go "until there's an issue". That's backwards. And wrong. And in most cases illegal.

I'm operating under the assumption that, in Bittsen's satirical example, proof of said maggotry existed. If that were the case, none of the suggestions Bittsen made were even remotely illegal. Telling an employer what their employee is doing is not a crime. Telling a clergyman what their constituent is doing is not a crime. Telling a wife what their spouse is doing is not a crime. Whether it's irresponsible and/or ill-advised is a matter for debate. Fair enough. I appreciate you speaking from your professional prospective. My opinion is this- if he has proof then follow the proper channels. Report it. I working with the assumption, based on his described plan, that he doesn't have proof and that any "proof" he obtains may point him towards the wrong person. I'm also of the opinion that it's not his place to jump in the Mystery Machine and gather proof. I do know this, if some fellow cacher started visiting my employer, clergyman, and wife this would set off a red flag on my creep meter. A private individual hunting down information about me- where I work, where I go to church, even approaching my wife to talk to talk about me? I'd be filing a complaint and a restraining order first thing the next morning. Maybe he gets his proof and it points him to the right person... Great. Tell all the other cachers in the area. Share the video on Utube. Talk about the maggot behind his/her back. Talk to the parents if it's a minor. See if somebody else in the community knows the person or has contact them on a regular basis. Sure. Fine. Starting leaving sticky notes on their private property. Maybe once. Said maggot is a gun owner that "not afraid to use it"? Not so much. Good luck with your maggot, Bittsen. I've got nothing more to say on this.

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".

Time Limit: Yes I believe there should be a time limit between a cache that has been archived and when someone is allowed to remove it providing that it is indeed geotrash and not crosslisted anywhere's else. Sorry if you disagree but that is indeed the way I feel and I think that should be part of the agreement of placing a cache. There seems to be a bit of a mix up in communication here. Archived for a year, Not found for a year and then archived is not what I am talking about. Before removal is made there must be an honest attempt to contact the owner on any cache site. Is that a little better? Not trying to sound arrogant, just asking. I'm wondering why you find this information to be so important that you want to inconvenience him and risk making him grumpy. If you find a great place for a cache, do some of your own research. Determine whether explicit permission is needed at that location. Scout out the location. Do you see a bunch of muggles that are eyeing you suspiciously? Are you in plain view of any structures who's residents might cause problems? Are there good hide locations? I gave a list of reasons why an archive can be so important and gave my own example of my archived Swizzle Creek cache. I do my own research, look over maps for hours, talk to DEC officals, State officals that have authority over the lake I'll be placing caches on, visit museums and talk to the museum currators, talk to local historians and historical societies, search cemeteries for important figures, use the internet to scan town, city and village history pages, talk to locals, other cachers and do my own foot work hiking to spots that are seemingly in the middle of no where's. Add helpful links to my pages when I feel its neccesary. I've sought after and gain permission several times, gained a special permit for 3 of my caches and I don't run up to the first tree hole I see and throw a cache in it. Most of my caches are specilty caches made for a certain situation. I even painted a picture of the old covered bride on my old covered bridge cache. Archives are just one of the many tools that I use to find locations and to get information from. All of the questions that you are hoping to have answered by reviewing dead cache pages could be answered by YOU and, as some have already pointed out, would not necessarily be answered by an archived cache page. I would not inconvenience a reviewer by asking for information that I can get on my own and that he might not even have access to. That would be rude, in my opinion. I don't believe its true in every case that I can answer all of these questions myself by doing the research without using every tool available. I will contact geocaching directly to answer any more of my archive questions. I hope that's a little more organized and easier to understand now. Any there any more questions that I forgot to answer for you? These are all just my opinion so please keep that in mind. Some people can fix a car with a hammer. I prefer to have my whole tool box set and ready to go. Swizzle

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.

I'm not being severe, I'm just advocating common courtesy. Common courtesy is a moving target. Sign the log. Make sure your written log is long enough. But make sure it doesn't take up too much space. Make sure it has a date. Better still, add a time, in case there's some sort of dispute about who got there 156th or 157th. Use a stamp to save space, but don't use a stamp for more than one person in a team. Make sure your log is in the correct place on the paper. Make sure you fold the paper up just right. Make sure the cache isn't open very long in the rain or snow while you're making sure your log has all the required information and is in the correct place and is the correct size. Make sure your swag is good. It should simultaneously be a toy, not a toy, plastic, not plastic, new in the package, and recycled. Log your find online quickly, but don't do it from the field with an app. Make sure your online log is long, but doesn't have anything boring in it. Talk about your adventure but don't talk about it too much. Everyone hates short logs and nobody wants to scroll through long logs. Be sure to thank the cache owner profusely, but don't use any acronyms to do so. Anything less, and you are a lazy, discourteous, disrespectful cheater. And anthing more, and you are a selfish, discourteous, disrespectful cheater. As has been said, any way you cache is wrong.