Search the Community

I think that challenges are so unique that they should still remain as Mystery Caches. Having own type of "challenge" would probably lead to having a lot of easy challenges, just to have a different cachetype. By the way, when we talk about new cachetypes, I think HQ will never introduce any new types ever. I'm not saying that they won't rename or change currently existing types (like they did with the CCE), but we will never see new, and the reason is somewhere deep in the webpage code.

What is official then? Because nothing is Official then, you can log a find even you haven´t found it. You can place a cache and say you find it. You can co with the CO and say you found it. Because, even tho a cache as been archived by Groundspeak you can still log a found (in caches not locked). Hoooooo...but wait, why would Groundspeak lock a cache if it is still part of the game? Why did Groundspeak locked almost all virtual caches that are archived? I don't know if answering is a feeding, or actually helpful... Here goes, and the reply will tell me everything I need to know: The game of geocaching has been loosely adopted by Groundspeak Inc. and a listing service was created at Geocaching.com back in the year 2000. The game of geocaching (lower "g") was started after GPS Selective Availability was turned off, allowing consumer-level GPS units to have a huge improvement in accuracy. Some people started to talk about how accurate their GPS units would become, and a fun test, of sorts, was created. Dave Ulmer decided to place a container in the woods outside of Portland, Oregon, post the coordinates for the container online, and invited others to look for it. A great success! Someone found it, and proved that accuracy was better, and a game could be played where people hide containers and have people find them. Wahoo! Caches started out with containers, logbooks (not unlike a summit register), and some fun items to trade. The game most certainly had races to see who could get there first, and still does to this day. When geocaching was "formalized" and listing services hosted by Groundspeak, there were, and continue to be, other sites hosting geocache locations online for people to seek. Geocaching became Geocaching (as in Geocaching.com, big "G"), and the Geocaching.com site became the most visited and comprehensive hosting service for the game. Cache types were developed, and guidelines were hammered out on these very forums for the first handful of years. (You can still search here for some of the old, very relevant discussions about cache types, log types, use of logs, etc. Very interesting stuff, and fun to read. History is good to know when taking on this game and how it is played on this website.) The guidelines for the game hosted by Geocaching.com were "published" online, and are updated here and there still to this day. The main tennent for the game is still the same: Hide a cache, record its coordinates, publish it online, someone seeks it, finds it, signs the logbook, and then logs their find online to talk about their experience. When the game was "new", many people took the time to talk about the hike, the scenery, the cache, the fun they had seeking, and more. As the game grew, people had fun placing fun prizes for people to trade--and some also started to place items for the first person there to keep for themselves as a special prize for finding what was, at that time, a new and exciting test of emerging gameplay technology. It may have been a gift card, a small piece of art, an unactivated trackable item, etc. The guidelines remain essentially the same, yet one thing has never been entered into the guidelines on Geocaching.com/Groundspeak's sites: "First-to-find" guidelines. That side-game developed out of the funloving and creative minds of people playing the game and paying it forward with their generosity. As more and more people came to the game, the race was on within moments of publication, and many had fun challenging others to "beat them to it if they could". As with any side-bet or lighthearted competition, there are variations on ability, skill, and involvement. Some took it very seriously, others dabbled in it, and others just didn't care. Those same camps exist today, 14 years later. The guidelines as posted for guiding the gameplay and publication of Geocaches on Geocaching.com are "official". They are the way we all agree to play the game when we sign up for an account, or click the "I have read the..." checkboxes when we publish caches. If we ignore the guidelines, logs are deleted, caches are not published, listings are archived, and more. That much is enforcable on this website, and for all listings and accounts under the Geocaching.com/Groundspeak umbrella. Because this game is rooted in 14 years of history, there are certain ways the game is played. Owners are able to delete logs--liek if the logbook is not signed. So if you decide that actually finding a cache or not signing a log is ok because you think the guidelines and owner responsibilities are not "official", then you are up for a surprise when your logs are deleted, and you suddenly find yourself on the outs with the Geocaching.com community for repeatedly logging armchair or 'bogus' logs. Essentially, this is herd mentality. If you don't follow the guidelines that have been created and managed (mostly) by the community input, you won't find yourself enjoying playing the game here at Geocaching.com, or others enjoying that you're playing in their community. That's because deleting improper logs is the responsibility of listing owners, and is backed by "common practice" over the last 14 years of how this game is played. That is what separates "FTF" from bogus logs and archived caches. Geocaching.com does not own the listings or geocaches themselves, but they do have the right to archive listings that no longer meet the guidelines or cache types hosted by this site. If an owner no longer manages their listing--as is set out in the Terms of Use and Guidelines--then their caches can and will be archived. That is why Virtuals are now archived--the owners are no longer managing the listing, the cache type is no longer publishable, and users can--and have--abused the logging of these caches because they are fully aware that an owner will not delete their bogus log. The same goes for archived caches; however an active owner will delete a bogus log of their archived cache if they decide to do so. Groundspeak can also lock any archived cache as requested or seen fit according to the terms of use. Geocaching.com is both of those things. A place that hosts record of the Geocaches you have found, and a host of the listings that are published if they meet guidelines for listing and existence posted by Geocaching.com and Groundspeak. Play by the "rules", or play elsewhere. As there is no guideline outlining when someone can or cannot claim a "FTF", it is not an official Geocaching.com activity. They may talk about it on the blog or in videos, but that's just because it has been a part of the Geocaching lexicon for years. They can talk all they want, but they don't run the FTF show. That side-game is, as we've said, played differently by different people. So long as you're playing the game here at Geocaching.com, you have be be ready to be ok that others play that side-game differently than you do. Sharks and Jets, man. I do think that it is you that doesn't "get it". Either that or you're trolling us. Your replies will tell us that answer, I think. There are no "purists" or "puritans" of the FTF game, because anyone can claim that they way they play that side-game is the "way" it should be played. True "FTF" puritanical idealism would stay at the root of the phrase: "First to find". If you found it first, it doesn't matter if it was before or after publication. Once that cache is hidden, it can be found by anyone. And if nobody else but the hider has been to that site and found the cache yet, they are first. Now, if your gang of Sharks says that FTF only happens after publication, that's great. Just know that there are Jets out there that think a FTF can happen before publication. And then there's other gangs out there who dance differently than those two gangs...because there is no "official" way to play this side game. Why does my post say NeverSummer?

That depends upons the agreement between the adoptee and the original CO. If the original CO says, "Please keep the cache going.", then yes. If the CO says "Do what you'd like.", then no. I have adopted a cache from the second CO to "own" it and was told that there was a slim possibility that the original CO might want it back. That mandates, at least to me, that I'm supporting that cache until such time as the first CO wants it back or the area is developed and the cache isn't viable anymore. If you're against maintaining a cache that wasn't yours to begin with because it apparently has no value to the community, then why would you support someone placing a new cache and maintaining it when the entire community won't value it either. Why can't just some of the community value the cache and find it a viable cache to keep going? That's well and good but I, like many of the earlier posters, wonder what the purpose of adopting these caches is if you have no intention of keeping them going and refreshing/maintaining them. Did you and the CO have any sort of talk about the original CO's desires regarding these caches?

What is official then? Because nothing is Official then, you can log a find even you haven´t found it. You can place a cache and say you find it. You can co with the CO and say you found it. Because, even tho a cache as been archived by Groundspeak you can still log a found (in caches not locked). Hoooooo...but wait, why would Groundspeak lock a cache if it is still part of the game? Why did Groundspeak locked almost all virtual caches that are archived? I don't know if answering is a feeding, or actually helpful... Here goes, and the reply will tell me everything I need to know: The game of geocaching has been loosely adopted by Groundspeak Inc. and a listing service was created at Geocaching.com back in the year 2000. The game of geocaching (lower "g") was started after GPS Selective Availability was turned off, allowing consumer-level GPS units to have a huge improvement in accuracy. Some people started to talk about how accurate their GPS units would become, and a fun test, of sorts, was created. Dave Ulmer decided to place a container in the woods outside of Portland, Oregon, post the coordinates for the container online, and invited others to look for it. A great success! Someone found it, and proved that accuracy was better, and a game could be played where people hide containers and have people find them. Wahoo! Caches started out with containers, logbooks (not unlike a summit register), and some fun items to trade. The game most certainly had races to see who could get there first, and still does to this day. When geocaching was "formalized" and listing services hosted by Groundspeak, there were, and continue to be, other sites hosting geocache locations online for people to seek. Geocaching became Geocaching (as in Geocaching.com, big "G"), and the Geocaching.com site became the most visited and comprehensive hosting service for the game. Cache types were developed, and guidelines were hammered out on these very forums for the first handful of years. (You can still search here for some of the old, very relevant discussions about cache types, log types, use of logs, etc. Very interesting stuff, and fun to read. History is good to know when taking on this game and how it is played on this website.) The guidelines for the game hosted by Geocaching.com were "published" online, and are updated here and there still to this day. The main tennent for the game is still the same: Hide a cache, record its coordinates, publish it online, someone seeks it, finds it, signs the logbook, and then logs their find online to talk about their experience. When the game was "new", many people took the time to talk about the hike, the scenery, the cache, the fun they had seeking, and more. As the game grew, people had fun placing fun prizes for people to trade--and some also started to place items for the first person there to keep for themselves as a special prize for finding what was, at that time, a new and exciting test of emerging gameplay technology. It may have been a gift card, a small piece of art, an unactivated trackable item, etc. The guidelines remain essentially the same, yet one thing has never been entered into the guidelines on Geocaching.com/Groundspeak's sites: "First-to-find" guidelines. That side-game developed out of the funloving and creative minds of people playing the game and paying it forward with their generosity. As more and more people came to the game, the race was on within moments of publication, and many had fun challenging others to "beat them to it if they could". As with any side-bet or lighthearted competition, there are variations on ability, skill, and involvement. Some took it very seriously, others dabbled in it, and others just didn't care. Those same camps exist today, 14 years later. The guidelines as posted for guiding the gameplay and publication of Geocaches on Geocaching.com are "official". They are the way we all agree to play the game when we sign up for an account, or click the "I have read the..." checkboxes when we publish caches. If we ignore the guidelines, logs are deleted, caches are not published, listings are archived, and more. That much is enforcable on this website, and for all listings and accounts under the Geocaching.com/Groundspeak umbrella. Because this game is rooted in 14 years of history, there are certain ways the game is played. Owners are able to delete logs--liek if the logbook is not signed. So if you decide that actually finding a cache or not signing a log is ok because you think the guidelines and owner responsibilities are not "official", then you are up for a surprise when your logs are deleted, and you suddenly find yourself on the outs with the Geocaching.com community for repeatedly logging armchair or 'bogus' logs. Essentially, this is herd mentality. If you don't follow the guidelines that have been created and managed (mostly) by the community input, you won't find yourself enjoying playing the game here at Geocaching.com, or others enjoying that you're playing in their community. That's because deleting improper logs is the responsibility of listing owners, and is backed by "common practice" over the last 14 years of how this game is played. That is what separates "FTF" from bogus logs and archived caches. Geocaching.com does not own the listings or geocaches themselves, but they do have the right to archive listings that no longer meet the guidelines or cache types hosted by this site. If an owner no longer manages their listing--as is set out in the Terms of Use and Guidelines--then their caches can and will be archived. That is why Virtuals are now archived--the owners are no longer managing the listing, the cache type is no longer publishable, and users can--and have--abused the logging of these caches because they are fully aware that an owner will not delete their bogus log. The same goes for archived caches; however an active owner will delete a bogus log of their archived cache if they decide to do so. Groundspeak can also lock any archived cache as requested or seen fit according to the terms of use. Geocaching.com is both of those things. A place that hosts record of the Geocaches you have found, and a host of the listings that are published if they meet guidelines for listing and existence posted by Geocaching.com and Groundspeak. Play by the "rules", or play elsewhere. As there is no guideline outlining when someone can or cannot claim a "FTF", it is not an official Geocaching.com activity. They may talk about it on the blog or in videos, but that's just because it has been a part of the Geocaching lexicon for years. They can talk all they want, but they don't run the FTF show. That side-game is, as we've said, played differently by different people. So long as you're playing the game here at Geocaching.com, you have be be ready to be ok that others play that side-game differently than you do. Sharks and Jets, man. I do think that it is you that doesn't "get it". Either that or you're trolling us. Your replies will tell us that answer, I think. There are no "purists" or "puritans" of the FTF game, because anyone can claim that they way they play that side-game is the "way" it should be played. True "FTF" puritanical idealism would stay at the root of the phrase: "First to find". If you found it first, it doesn't matter if it was before or after publication. Once that cache is hidden, it can be found by anyone. And if nobody else but the hider has been to that site and found the cache yet, they are first. Now, if your gang of Sharks says that FTF only happens after publication, that's great. Just know that there are Jets out there that think a FTF can happen before publication. And then there's other gangs out there who dance differently than those two gangs...because there is no "official" way to play this side game.

Perhaps I've in the minority but I often talk about the cache, especially when I find a clean, dry container with lots of room in the log sheet. I may simply mention that the cache in good shape because that provides a real time notification to the owner of the state of the cache. I would also talk about the cache if it's in poor shape and mention a very wet log or broken container as that is also useful information for a cache owner, more so than writing that it was 72 degrees, with clear skies and a light wind. Unless the weather was significantly bad or an exceptionally warm day in winter, I can't see the CO or other log readers caring about the weather when I found the cache.

Yes! I hunted an AL that is found by driving, and in that subdivision, Apple and Google failed me. I had to open Waze, then guess where the icon goes, to be given proper navigation info. Due to missing features (and added complications), I had FIVE Apps open, and switched between them, to hunt the AL and its Bonus Cache. Apps that don't talk to the AL App. Wild guess, at some point The AL App will go away, and become incorporated into The Official App. So it has no extensive features at this time.

Lets see over the years I have found 2 bags of drugs in/near a cache. The second one was heroin that I had touched on the way to the airport to board a plane. I was really hoping the drug dog was not working. I was on a walking trail with another cacher when I got to GZ to find a loaded 9 mm gun next to the cache with a school across the street. Trying to talk to the police was interesting. The most interesting set of three caches was in Barstow doing the Planes/Trains series. The first cache i came across had a rusty can as cover and I lifted the can and then reached to grab the pill container that was covered in camo tape when I realized that there was way more camo there than there should be. I removed the sunglasses to find a Rattle snake under the cache. The next cache I came across had a California King snake leaving the cache. I was on the way to the third cache and rounded the corner to find a large desert tortoise in the middle of the road. At that point I figured I was 3/3 and caching for the day was over. The most bizarre situation was doing Route 66 and going off a side and driving down it when the navigator yelled at me and said look out there is a tarantula on the road. I said what did you say when I heard the squish. There was a question from the back seat asking what happens when you run over a spider of this size? Well a few hours later we were in a major Thunderstorm with very heavy rains flash flooding etc. The weird part about this was after I ran over the spider and we got back on the road on Route 66 was all the tarantula walking down the white line on the right shoulder for the next 10 miles. Yes these are a few of the weird things I have come across.

Derek from the Behind the Cache Vlogg came on the Geocache Adventures podcast to talk about creative and gadget caches. Check it out!

Don't take it personally. I can't believe someone tall would seriously be condescending towards someone not as tall, so I suggest you take it as a joke, since that's almost certainly what it was. You're input on the terrain rating on this cache seems valid, and you expressed that observation in your log. I certainly encourage you to keep making this point to COs, and feel free to talk to them in more detail. And you brought it up here. I think you've done what you can. Please try not to be irked.

I don't necessarily talk about the cache, but I might talk about my day or the way to the cache or something I found interesting about the area (especially if it involves social housing in any way...). But I never cut and paste and I'm not padding my logs deliberately. The same here. On the more memorable caches, the ones where my logs run close to or over the length limit, it's mostly the story of my adventure on the way to GZ and back, with the cache itself barely rating a mention if it's just a standard box, and if it's something special that's meant as a surprise for the finder, I won't say anything at all about it that might spoil the surprise. My logs do relate specifically to my journey to that cache, and if several caches were found on the trip, I'll split the narrative between caches rather than just repeat everything. The only time I've done any cutting and pasting was for a series of geoart caches associated with the recent mega here, and even then I tried to add a sentence or two specific to each cache if I could.

I don't necessarily talk about the cache, but I might talk about my day or the way to the cache or something I found interesting about the area (especially if it involves social housing in any way...). But I never cut and paste and I'm not padding my logs deliberately.

Speaking of cynical... No, I'm saying these are people that are always arguing over various ways to improve the game, so they're open to all manner of changes. If they object as a group to any given suggestion, it's because something like it has already been considered at length -- or tried -- so the downside is well understood and you should listen to what it is. Taking off means having a community. I think you're mistaking my use of the word "community" for something specific, like events. Every place is different. Every community develops in its own way. That's why a central solution isn't likely to work for your area, and why the community can only grow from people in the community. Unfortunately, I'm not sure every area can develop a healthy community, but I do think that the only way you can have a healthy community is by first recognizing the it is a community and not mistake it for nothing more than a tiny, indistinguishable part of "geocaching". I'm not sure if anything more could be done to make life more rewarding for cache owners, but I've observed two things. First, cache owners need to be motivated by their caches first, and I've found they usually are. If they aren't, the best any rewards GS hands out will produce is more low quality caches. Second, the more GS produces artificial rewards for ownership, the more minimized the owners that don't need artificial rewards feel. If makes them feel like large quantities of inferior caches are considered more important than the heartfelt caches self-motivated COs put out. Wait. "Inspire"? Yes, that's a great idea. Work to inspire cache owners, not to reward them. GS tries to do a lot of that, and god bless them for it. But it won't help if there aren't any COs in your area to inspire. People regularly talk about this in the forums. I don't read much of what GS puts out, but I seem to recall blogs about the joys of good logs. As you observe, upvoting is already being studied. I don't think it will help, but I'm not opposed to it. The reason I don't think it will help is much the same as why I don't think CO rewards work: while imagining you're rewarding logs of the type you describe, in the end you only reward logs that win the reward, and that often is something quite different. You call it manipulation, but if they do something other than what you wanted them to do, blame the reward. Anyway, I think upvoting will be harmless, so I'll be all for it if only because it will make you happy, so don't accuse me of being negative or obstructive. But I predict it will be soon forgotten and ignored. I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing here. You talk about aiming higher, but I don't understand how a owner-only souvenir would do that. But, no matter, I'm all for it, too. In this case, I suspect that it will just be completely ignored. I doubt many people give any serious thought to next year's rewards. So at the same time I doubt it will do much for your cause of more or improved ownership, I also don't think it will significantly increase the number of bad caches that should never have been placed. So, sure, give it a try. I would have no problem with this if GS wanted to give it a try, but I think they try very hard to make the challenges simple so that anyone can understand it without much thought, so I doubt they use it. But to give it your best shot, maybe start a new thread on this specific idea and start bouncing ideas around about exactly how to structure the points and explain it to everyone. As you seem to understand, the devil's in the details, but I don't see any evil at the end of the road if the details can actually be worked out, so have at it!

What do you mean "not located at the posted coordinates"? It is. It's room coordinates, inside the building, parking coords are nearby. Also I changed the hint. I really don't understand that - "not located at the posted coordinates." No hard feelings, but my cache are really on new coordinates, hint is simple, no need to talk with workers.

I had an odd find yesterday. I stopped at a small cemetery to make a find, and there was an SUV already parked maybe 100 feet from the cache. A man was standing behind it, bent over a boxy object. It turned out to be a live trap covered with a cloth, and he was shaking out... something. Then a skunk popped out. The guy calmly put the trap and cloth back in his car, got in, and drove away. The skunk waddled down the fence line at the back of the cemetery property until it found a hole big enough to get through, and it disappeared. I didn't talk to the guy - he looked like he wanted to just be gone. I assume he trapped the skunk in his back yard, and didn't want to kill it. The land behind the cemetery is heavily wooded, and unused, so I think it's a fine place for a skunk to make a new home. The man is a braver man than I am - I would have never put a live skunk in any vehicle I planned to drive ever again.

Your vision of the tasks counting as individual finds is something I understand and feel the similar way. But I think that if HQ would make the labs only count as 1 find for the whole scenario, there would be problems if someone couldn't get the right answer for 1 out of 5 for example. Imagine you are trapped on the last question and the whole adventure cannot be finished, counted in the stats. Of course you can contact the CO, but many things can happen to us, and there is not always the possibility to talk to each other. Contact should always be optional. You've said that this is a completely different game and you're right! But... If this game would be completely separated from geocaching itself, it would just be dead. Existing of AL is also a great opportunity to show places in a different way or places blocked by the 161m / 528ft minimal distance required in regular caches.

Once again, I set out to prove I had my finger on the pulse of the Geocaching community; and once again, I was shown to be wrong - this time by a factor of more than 2 to 1. I set up a poll on the Facebook Geocaching group (*) to see how (or if) people thought Adventure Lab finds should be incorporated into the overall Geocaching find count. The poll has been up for 21 hours, and seems to have run its course. Here are the results: A number of the comments on the post talk about the problems that would be caused by changing the current implementation, so maybe some of those votes for the first option are more for maintaining the status quo, rather than outright approval of the method. But I'm just clutching at straws. It's a pity the question wasn't asked before the current solution was implemented, but I guess the answers may not have been very different... (*) A private group with over 17,000 members worldwide.

Yes, indeed, I said: "Many cachers like it and I have to ask you, why do you want to ruin someone else's fun? " Where exactly do you see that you would ruin MY fun, did I talk about me anywhere? Same question for you as above: are you concerned it will ruin your own statistic or do you just don't like the idea that someone is getting 5 points for very little effort?

OK. Having a look at 8QW1Y here. Firefox 82.0 (64) on Win10. I *do* have some ad blocking in place (lots of domains referred to 0.0.0.0 in hosts file) Initial use for that page is 14.3MB. Just sitting on that page, it remains at 14.3MB. You talk about viewing images -- Viewed all 12 of the log images. Memory use increased to 15MB. No doubt images have been cached. To check that... Again viewed all 12 of the log images. Memory use holding steady at 15MB. Unable to replicate you problem with my configuration.

Any custom waypoints you’ve defined on the website can be carried over in the gpx file. Just like you could manually type them in the XML right now. If you want the interactive equations, talk to Garmin I guess. Garmin GPSr have built-in coordinate projection and the official app doesn’t, so feature parity obviously isn’t a high priority for anyone,

Is the train or car stationary ? IIRC, it's simply a stage to another cache, not an actual cache type. You're requested to place the beacon attribute on the cache. They can be a wifi router, chirp, nfc, or even a radio transmitter. One sorta near us had a radio transmitter tuned to a certain station. Sounded like a talk-radio setup, and every so many minutes they gave coordinates for the final over your car radio. For as cool as that was, the final was just a micro in a cemetery. I'd hope you'd plan better.

We have to do that frequently here for certain CO's caches. One of our locals who is great at being VERY persistent for an FTF has provided us coordinates in his logs as much as 100' from GZ (yes, GZ is where something blows up, not where it's aimed), and for that, we are always very appreciative. That said, it would nice for our FTF hounds if they weren't searching half a planet for certain CO's caches all the time. Until someone does post alternates, everyone is being treated to the un-fun. Somewhere over in the "irks" thread, I know we've had people talk about COs who don't take a hint from the logs and recheck and update coordinates when they see this sort of thing. I was surprised when GCHQ removed the tick box and input field to readily note alternate coordinates, the location in the log entry was always up top and predictable that way -- but most of us are still pretty diligent about noting them somewhere in our log entries if they're far enough out, or the site requires it to avoid needle/haystack situations.

If a previous finder looked with a new cacher and couldn't find your cache, I'd take notice and go look. I would also ask them not to log an NA on a cache. IMO in general a NM log should precede a NA log, and some time should be gives between the NM and the NA. If the CO doesn't address the NM after either some time or some DNFs, then an NA is warranted. Obviously there are caveats, like if there was an immediate need to remove the cache (property owner doesn't want it there, etc.). I recently logged an NA on a multicache in which the last unassisted find was four years ago; two years ago there were finds but the finders needed to message the CO for help with a missing stage that subsequently wasn't fixed. A year ago a NM was posted for a missing stage 1, but the CO didn't respond nor has the CO logged into the site in years. So I logged an NA. After some time, a reviewer posted a Temporary Disable, and after more time with no response, archived the cache. As far as Cache Health Scores, I don't know why forumites here worry about it so much. I've never heard it discussed anywhere but here, not on social media nor events or between geo-talk with other geocachers. If (gasp!) I got a CHS notification, I'd just address it. No big deal. I recently had a DNF on a cache that I wouldn't expect to be muggled, but guess what, it was! So I replaced it and logged an OM log.

Are you referring to the "frisbee rule", where people assume that if other hobbies are allowed, this hobby "must be" allowed too ? We took months at meetings until a township would talk to us about this hobby (asking for permission...), and were very restricted on what they'd allow. Within weeks people who never bothered to ask placed caches there too. Some in sensitive areas we were told to stay away from. - We knew they never bothered because the park told us to take our carp and leave, and they don't allow caching there now. When we ask for permission, we know who we talked to, and provide that info. Sometimes we write it on the cache page too. Some areas here have an open, "other use" policy, and the Reviewers are aware of some of them. PA Game Lands is one. - The other 2/3rds and another cacher actual made sure that this hobby was included in "other uses" in one area. It wasn't clear before... IIRC, providing a name & phone number happens when enough people have tried to skirt the "ask for permission" thing, embarrassing a Reviewer or two. One locally has to do that now, after getting caught with a cache clearly on an area that needed a permit, but the coordinates were on the other side of a tiny brook, in an "other use" property.

When we talk about ugly babies, I'm thinking of logs that talk about what a stupid place this is for a cache or imply that the CO is incompetent in some way. So "the container leaks and the log was a mess" is fine, but "only an idiot would use a container like this" is more of an ugly baby comment. I think a lot of people don't recognize the difference. If you do, then you can carry on without worrying about me. The point is that there are many factors a finder might not understand, so suggestions should be neutral and explanatory, not dictating and self righteous. Local standards are just a good example of one such unknown standard, but a particularly good one because people that believe they know the one true standard are often snotty about telling other people what to do. I admit, I don't really have any idea which is true, but my impression from posts in the forum is that more often than not, the person complaining wrote a log that wouldn't be easy to view as helpful. I'm glad you presented this hypothetical example because it allows me to ask you what I've said to make you think I'd object to this log. It looks perfectly good to me. Sounds like a lot of logs I've written, actually. The ugly baby version would be, "Hike was too long. Nothing interesting in this area. Terrible trail, and it's outrageous that I had to cross a creek on a fallen tree. Obviously should have been rated T4. The CO tried to kill me by planting thorns around the cache. Stinky container, obviously being ignored." My suspicion is that some people will actually write something more like this, yet believe their log is as polite as your is. And then come here and saying that COs shouldn't out caches (babies) if they can't take feedback ("your baby is ugly").

Perhaps I am the only one but I do not like this idea at all. I remember that for a long time lab caches were connected to mega events, too, and with any big event there were several temporary lab caches waiting for the event participants. [I haven't done any of these as I don't like mega events too much. I prefer the smaller ones where you can talk to anybody of the visitors.] Shouldn't the idea of visiting a mega event be to visit the event, take part in the given attractions, workshops, .... and to have fun at the event? Whenever there are temporary caches just listed for this event the main idea shifts to collecting points, making everything just a statistics thing (especially with such rare icons as webcam caches)!? That is not my idea of events. I have to admit that I do not like the idea of any temporary caches at all. Caches should be listed for a longer time in any case. If you want to connect these what about a smaller version: Groundspeak may allow mega (or giga only?!) event owners to put out one (1) webcam cache. Not a temporary but a permanent one. That way the number of webcam caches would slowly (!) encrease again. The event owners may publish those up to one month after the event so it is more like a thank you for hosting a big event than a statistic thing for the event itself. Jochen