Search the Community

We did talk a while but I didn't ask to be 'joined FTF" and he didn't. The reason? It's not important. When meeting other cachers we always have talks about each other's caching experiences and more importantly about nice caches. When meeting cachers along a series though we tend to wait a while so others can enjoy finding the containers themselves or if we are on our bikes we try to get ahead far enough. Nope. But I see a "team" as people who know each other and make arrangements beforehand, not people who accidentally meet at a cache and "team up" to be FTF. Besides, did I miss a memo? Is there something to be won? (besides FTF )

Again, just because it works that way in your neck of the woods does NOT mean that it works that way everywhere. Just as terrain ratings differ based on the general topographical features one area has that others do not, there are various ways that FTFs are determined. You believe it's a black and white, clearcut determination, whereby only one person is entitled to the FTF. There are many of us here who have pointed out that while this is certainly a possibility (and one that is valid), it's not the ONLY way to determine who may or may not lay claim to the FTF and that a group of cachers, regardless of whether or not they know each other, can discuss it and come to some arrangement that each cacher can abide by. Sometimes that may mean a singular FTF and other times it may mean a shared FTF. We're not asking you to change your determination of who may claim a FTF. We're only pointing out that cachers in other areas have come up with some other solution that appears to work and co-exist within each others' manner of playing. If it happens not to work, then it reverts to the manner in which you play, which is perfectly fine as well. The fact that it didn't even come up seems a bit odd to me as, at least in my area, cachers tend to be talkative when running into other cachers, even if we don't know each other, be it at events or at a cache. We realize we're part of a community and socialize as such, which typically means that a P&G can turn into a 5-10 minute meet and greet. It doesn't always happen that way but more often than not, it does. Having managed quite a few FTFs, I can only think of one time when another cacher (or group of cachers) didn't talk about the FTF. There used to be 4 of us that were serious FTF seekers during my first couple of years of caching and we'd continuously run into each other at newly published caches or just miss out running into each other. Each time we did actually meet up at a newly published cache, we discussed who was going to claim the FTF if it was found with more than one of us at GZ. The longer this went on, the more it changed to a shared FTF style of play, except when the other cacher requested they be the one to claim the FTF (for whatever reason). I (and hopefully the others who feel as I do) am NOT telling you that you need to change your style of play. What we hope you realize is that your way isn't the only way and that both styles can co-exist. Logically, it may not make any sense to you but for those of us who choose to play this way, we're fine with this determination of whether or not we are willing to share a FTF. Beats? Are you trying to win something here? We're discussing various methods of determining how cachers rectify FTFs and throwing out, in essence, two different variations of how cachers determine who gets to claim the FTF. Your way is certainly a valid way. No one here is really disputing that (at least I don't think so). Since it's not a recognized thing by GS and there are no guidelines that specify exactly how a FTF is awarded (first to put hands on it, first to find it [someone else may have unknowingly touched it without realizing it was the cache], first to sign the log), we are left to our own devices and those of us who feel like a shared FTF is a valid decision are comfortable with that decision, assuming everyone else at the cache is fine with it as well. If not everyone agrees, then we arrive at some consensus that allows a singular FTF and that's usually the one who pulls it from the hiding spot, although I can think of one instance when it was the first person that actually saw it but was unable to retrieve it due to physical limitations.

I'm working on my AL; a tour of wineries near me, in our Valley. At a socially distanced event in a park in June, (the first in months!) talk turned to AL's - turns out another gal was also working on highlighting our Valley - we did have a couple of the same spots on our list! We decided to focus each a bit differently, as I'll do all wineries, and she will focus on fruit, olive oil and some of the other things produced by local farmers - the bounty in our Valley. And we compared our locations so that they are all different. She will have a winery on her list, I will have 5 and will not include the one she is using for her AL. Without the in person event and actually talking with people, Neither of us would have known the other was working the same locations. It was good we could cooperate and make each one unique! I need to get mine done and out there before someone else does one first!

Yeah, I'm tempted to do just that. I'm holding an event as I've held off hosting an evening since sometime in February. Would be nice to talk to other cachers again. I'm sure people will show up, but if not then I likely won't log it as it just feels wrong.

I don't see any problem here considering the finds of the last week. The cacher was in South Africa (vacation I think) and found some caches that were recently found by others and the owners are still active as well. Then (s)he returned and made finds in california which seems possible, too. The number of caches found isn't too big - and if someone wanted to boost the staristics (s)he could do better: find more caches, find more countries, find more of the rare icons (and not so many traditional caches) .... So maybe all the bad logs have been deleted but from that what remails I can't see anything that proves your (bad) claim (so I am not sure if I like what you do here). I think it would be fair to inform the cacher that we are discussing about her/him so that (s)he can give her/his own version of the story. We shouldn't talk behind the back of someone as long as there isn't any evidence..... Jochen

My assumption was that reviewers might only do this when they happen to know the exact location, e.g. probably not all that often. I don't really know how much responsibility any individual reviewer has to enforce any particular rule, so I perhaps wouldn't go there. Well no, I was assuming the multi was blocking large area, as that was the premise. (somewhere between a single waypoint and an entire town) Addressed in my premise: "unobtainable to most cachers for a reason that isn't related to the location (e.g. a run-of-the-mill T5 tree climb near a waterfall) ". There's also been talk of "dumbing down" things, which I haven't perhaps properly addressed after that premise, but I did mean unobtainable in a fairly literal sense here. The argument wasn't for popularity at all costs, and that wouldn't be an argument I could ever see myself supporting. Take your example puzzle cache, almost anyone can go look some letters in a sign if they choose to; it's just that some don't want to. But the skill and gear for T5 climbing or scuba diving, or the intelligence/domain-specific knowledge required for certain types of puzzle present a barrier that can't be overcome by simple choice. In fact there's probably a very finite set of people in any area that can ever do those caches. The few hour hikes and boat caches that don't require an actual seaworthy boat and skill fall somewhere in the grey area in my mind. I'm still healthy enough to do that kind of thing fairly effortlessly, and I kinda like doing them, so I might easily come to think that anyone could. But that might be biased. It will but the reviewer wouldn't normally even know what the container is. So what was the scenario you imagined that this would come up in? I imagined a perhaps inexperienced CO asking the reviewer, typically a more experienced cacher, if their container of choice was fine, and getting an answer like "that container type has the following known issues: [...] so it might be a good idea to consider something else if those issues apply to your hiding place." I'm getting the idea that you think reviewers shouldn't be able to talk about this kind of thing at all, so I thought it relevant to point out that the example you chose is something reviewers were arguably meant to enforce at one point. E.g. that the "allowed topics" can change. Of course now that it's been agreed that PTs are ok, individual reviewers have to stick to that. If that's trivially possible, then I guess the location isn't completely blocked. I guess I'm assuming either the reviewer would notice that and not ask, or the CO would notice that and point it out in their response to the reviewer and that would be the end of it. I own a multi, the last time I found a multi was today. But my premise to this was "Ignoring remote locations for a while, is there any merit to this type of targeting of unpopular caches in otherwise busy caching areas?" And I said I have not decided what my own opinion on this is, but acknowledged that I'd play the devil's advocate if need be. So if you'd like to discuss this further, could you perhaps do it without making it be about me personally? I was taking "leaving almost no space for anyone else" to entail that there in fact is someone else. From this response, and your many others, I understand this generally doesn't seem to be the case in your area. So if these were the rules and I were a reviewer in your area, I probably wouldn't think they apply. (As a side note, that kind of location would have been great use of one of the new virtual caches.)

You can talk about that topic here: https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/358303-release-notes-website-attribute-search-filters-august-31-2020/&tab=comments#comment-5851476

There'd be a whole lot less discussion overall in the forum about ideas, and a whole lot more demanding if that were the case; or at least incentive to brainstorm and things through. I don't think the system needs to be changed, but that doesn't mean we should not talk about ideas for how the system could be changed. So no, respectfully, I don't think I'll take that suggestion (especially when plenty of other users regularly post complaints about the current system) Yep, looks like they went with what's probably the technically easiest implementation, combined with a few other related updates.

My post did not talk about any attribute except for the Challenge Cache attribute, and the guidance provided should be limited to the four corners of my post. Reviewers generally do not have jurisdiction over the correct use of attributes. There are existing exceptions, such as use of the Wheelchair Accessible and Wireless Receiver Required attributes. The Challenge Cache attribute is part of that list of exceptions.

Bonus caches, including bonus caches solved by completing an Adventure Lab Umm. Is there any other type of Bonus Cache? And, while they may now always have to be Mysteries, there are those that are not. Does anyone at GCHQ talk to each other?

Wow.. I looked it up, seems in Belgium Covid-19 (PCR) tests cost €46 (max.) and it's 100% paid by health insurance if it's a mandatory test. If voluntary (not by doctor's request) it's at the patient's expense. A test for travel is probably voluntary. We're not prepared to sit shoulder to shoulder in a confined metal tube yet (although air is very clean and filtered and it seems no infection has been traced to air travel yet). Ouch. We thought it was quite high but still cheaper than eating the airline and hotel costs. Plus honestly we felt over 6 months in Thailand was more than enough. Now if Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam had of reopened... Fortunately the whole shoulder to shoulder thing was not an issue. In both flights there were many more rows of seats than people. In fact the first flight was a 777 with roughly 40 people. Would of needed a carrier pigeon to talk to someone else. I hear you though. I am severely immune system compromised so flying probably wasn’t the wisest action.

Some place where there is a caretaker, but does't require interaction with the caretaker would work. A library or chamber of commerce building, for example. I found a cache at the chamber of commerce in Kansas City. The coordinates took me to a spot where I could see the cache. Even though I didn't have to talk to the woman working there to find the can I had a nice chat while signing the log.

Go back year after year, season after season? Mebbe actually go in and talk to them AND buy some of their produce? After all, you're a growing boy - you need your fruits and veggies.

Can't argue with that at all, that's reasonable, but Tom's talking about someone who wants to talk to the manager because he's got to provide two photos.

Hi All: I’m in the process of building a tour-type Wherigo for a local museum using the Earwigo builder. I would like to have the geocachers interact with same character in more than one zone using the “Talk to” command. How can I accomplish this? Would I need to move the character (much like I do with items) into the same zone if I wish to interact with him or her? Many thanks in advance! CWillyPngn

I have previous used an android tablet and LocusPro when out as a back up for the GPS. Then I bought a new phone. I have loaded the Geocaching app on my new phone and most of it works fine. However, when I click on 'directions' I get the message "This device does not have a compass". This could well be the case as it wasnt one of my priorities when chosing which phone to buy. There are many compass apps around but does anyone know a way of getting the geocaching app to talk to any of them?

Thanks for the link Max. Nice to know that it isnt just me. However, my question remains. Does anyone know of a way of getting the Geocaching app to 'talk' to any of the Compass apps available out there.

Hello Very new to all this but I'm completely hooked already! I've hidden a cache near my house. Today, when I was sweeping the drive, a treasure hunter came for the cache. When she'd logged the stash she came over to talk to me about the gadget I was using to get the weeds out of my drive. Should I have mentioned that it was my cache??? I wanted to but didn't know what the etiquette was.

A couple of years ago, one small team put out a series in every one of the Denver Public Library branches -- 36 in all as I recall. Looks like most of them are up and running still. There was a nice geocoin from the library system for the first xx finders of the entire series. You might want to talk to the crew that did all of ours. Note that as mentioned above, none are traditionals, but they do represent an interesting cross section of other types.

Girl Talk Going It Alone —Can You Solo Safely? by By Tamia Nelson Good article as a reminder for women.

that secret Platinum membership is a secret, cannot talk about it. Shhh

Yes, but I have to wonder whether cheating is really such a widespread problem. Most of the duplicate logs I've encountered have been accidental, a lot due to that old problem in the app where it'd make multiple retries if reception was marginal and each one would create a log entry. Removing stats from the website won't stop the cheaters, they'll just find another way to cheat, instead it'd just reduce the enjoyment for those who like stats. There seems to be a lot of talk about cachers with big find counts as if they're some huge problem, but in my entire state (New South Wales, Australia) there are only 20 cachers with more than 10,000 finds and many of the names in that group are prominent cachers with a decade or more in the game. They're the names that pop up on the regional association committees or as frequent event hosts, with at least one reviewer amongst them. My own meagre find count (and even more meagre find rate) puts me at number 399 on that list, so the great majority of cachers here don't make all that many finds or are particularly motivated by their comparative find count. Then there are cachers who enjoy other statistics, such as their D/T grid (filling the grid, getting their average D or T up or whatever), filling their calendar or bettering their "best day" or longest streak. I wouldn't mind seeing my number of finds on regular-sized caches get ahead of my number of finds on micros as it's only 46 behind, but that's probably not something I'll actively pursue given the limited caching opportunities here. I'm in awe of one local cacher whose average terrain score is 2.65 from just over a thousand finds - there are some wonderful stories in his logs. As I've said before, one of the great things with caching is its appeal across such a broad range of interests. I'd much rather see that diversity embraced and celebrated than restricted and despised.

Here is the message I received, I'm not available, so I thought I put it out there. Please reply if you contact Michelle, so she doesn't get hammered. ______________________________ Does your brother know of an avid geocacher that would like to give a brief 10 minute talk about geocaching and travel bugs…possibly including a few personal stories? If so, do you mind passing their info to me and I’ll forward to Doug, please? The time commitment would be on 4/12 from 4pm for 10 minutes and they could stay until 6pm when the event is over or only stay for 10-15 minutes. Thanks so much!! J Michelle Michelle Watson College of Technology and Innovation 6049 S. Backus Mall, Sutton Rm 301L Mesa, AZ 85212 (480) 727-1881 phone

The biggest group I have been part of has been about 30 people, and that was a one off to find two caches in a tricky place. Many people were not willing to attempt those caches, except in a group. Most groups I go in are five or less people. I go to events here, and I have never heard talk of groups of 50 plus. Regional differences it seems. Yes, I've been in a couple of groups of 20+ cachers in the lead-up to Geocaching NSW events, where there was an optional meet-up a few kilometres from the event location and a walk from there grabbing some caches along the way. Someone at the head of the pack would make the find then pass the log around for everyone to sign. These were all 1.5/1.5 traditionals close to the paths, nothing exotic. All the other outings have been with a small group of friends, either on foot or on kayak, doing a handful of higher terrain caches over the course of a day. Again the person who makes the find passes the log around for the others to sign. On one occasion lee737 signed my name for me as my hands were covered in mud, but I was standing right next to him at the time with no armchairs in sight! I don't know whether my 1100 odd finds and seven years in the game makes me experienced or not, but you can't infer anything about a cache from my DNFs. A few weeks back I DNFed three in a row, two of them 1.5/1.5 and the other 3/1.5. The latter and one of the 1.5/1.5s have since been found with logs saying "Quick find" and "Easy find". Unless I've also logged an NM with my DNF, there's at least a 90% chance the cache is still there and will likely be an easy find for you.

The biggest group I have been part of has been about 30 people, and that was a one off to find two caches in a tricky place. Many people were not willing to attempt those caches, except in a group. Most groups I go in are five or less people. I go to events here, and I have never heard talk of groups of 50 plus. Regional differences it seems.