Search the Community

Since you're asking me, I'm going to say, no, you shouldn't log it because you didn't in any sense find it. You just happen to know the answer. Having said that, I would not care if you logged it, and, in fact, I'll freely admit that if it were me, I might very well talk myself into logging it, too. Who said I was asking you in particular? I was asking the forum. You can certainly answer, but don't pretend to be special. As for your answer, I would argue I DID in fact find it. If I happened across a container that ended up being a geocache...happened across it completely by accident, would you not argue it was reasonable to log a find? What if I was walking down the street and noticed a friend standing in the street and stopped to talk to him. Later at home I realized he'd been standing there getting his picture taken by a webcam and, by chance, I happened to be in the picture. Couldn't I also log that find on the webcam cache? What if I was out at a restaurant and spotted a friend and sat with him for a while talking...then found out it was an event. Would it not be reasonable to claim attendance at the event? I was at the location, saw the object mentioned in the cache page and only later realized it was a virtual cache. I'm not really trying to "talk myself into logging it". In fact, I have not yet. I've actually emailed the CO to present this, asking if he was okay with it. If not, I won't. It's not a big deal...but I honestly feel it's perfectly reasonable to claim a find.

I'd examine the logs for systemic mis-spellings, peanut butter and consistent use of 'baby-talk'. If no real evidence exists that the baby is the one doing the typing, then it's probably OK. On the other hand, I once had a GF who talked like a two-year-old all the time, so maybe it's not indicative of anything.

Best wishes with your podcast! That sounds like fun. Earlier this year I tried my hand at livestream interviews, not as a podcast, but as part of my geocaching YouTube channel "Geo Elmo Geocaching". Covid was keeping us indoors and I couldn't do any filming for my regular short films; I had never done anything like that before. It was a lot of fun but a lot of work, I interviewed two lackeys, a geocoin designer, and the geocacher with the highest number of finds. I really enjoyed talking to each of them. After my last interview I decided to get back to doing short films instead; that's what I really love doing. That's cool that you got Moun10Bike to be on your show, he would be fun to talk to.

I realize that this post is several years old, but: From the site of the Mass rock in Cork From the site of the Mass rock in Armagh 'If the stones could talk'

A true D1 cache should be fairly rare, as a true T1 is. It should most be limited to large, impossible to miss hides like five-gallon buckets, an ammo can uncovered on the back side of a prominent tree, or really obvious Virtuals (take a photo of yourself with the lighthouse). I think COs tend to underrate Difficulty. I think that using the number of DNFs as a hurdle for D-rating would help bring some clarity to an otherwise vague rating system. I emphasis hurdle, as in a minimum bar to clear, but not the only factor. T-rating is actually remarkably clear in most instances, with specified ratings for distance, trail surface, climbing, and wading. Given that we can accept... A. a tree climbing cache in a paved parking lot is T4ish B. a handicap-accessible cache on a level, paved trail but 5 miles from the nearest trailhead is not T1 ...then why can we not accept that D1 getting DNFs is problematic? That's the point. To make a vague, inconsistent system closer to being black and white, even if will never get all the way there. To bring order to chaos. The log types are few and finite so they need to be used somewhat consistently. The inconsistency of D/T ratings and Find vs DNF is a problem to be solved. The way you talk we might as well dispense with Finds and DNFs entirely, and instead everyone should use Notes.

Here are your logs from last week: Nov 25 11:38:36 signal2 postfix/error[9786]: 0469C6C0779: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=0.1, delays=0.1/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta27.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Nov 25 12:27:42 signal2 postfix/error[2474]: 0469C6C0779: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=2946, delays=2946/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta35.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Nov 25 13:26:40 signal2 postfix/error[8597]: 0469C6C0779: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=6485, delays=6485/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Nov 25 15:27:01 signal2 postfix/error[17378]: 0469C6C0779: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=13706, delays=13705/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta37.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Nov 25 19:25:22 signal2 postfix/smtp[7216]: 0469C6C0779: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147]:25, delay=28006, delays=27949/57/0.1/0, dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 554 imta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast 66.150.167.158 Comcast Blocked for spam. Please see http://postmaster.comcast.net/smtp-error-codes.php#BL000000) It appears that we were added to their blocklist sometime last Monday between 15:27 and 19:25 PST.

[Oh, hi! Until I looked at your profile, I didn't recognize you as "the new guy" planting caches just north of me in the San Ramon Valley.] To be honest, 2 months isn't that log for TBs. I mean, I agree TBs should be moved more promptly, but it's not uncommon for someone to take that long yet still move it along eventually. But, unlike NanCycle (although that advise is also good, by the way!), I'm not going to suggest that you just move on and forget about it. Go ahead and talk to the person holding your TB. Maybe they think 2 months is too long, too, and they're already feeling guilty about it. Maybe they think 2 months is normal and will be interested to hear your opinions about that. Listen to what they have to say and find out. You don't need to pay attention to the time factor, just talk to them about your TB. But don't accuse them of abusing it. Too often people approach other geocachers as adversaries instead of as the cohorts we all are. It will be fun to make friends and exchange ideas. Never let geocaching.com or these forums get in the way of getting to know people through personal interaction.

During the review process, we look at two things when a fee is involved. First, is it a commercial fee or not? Second, is it a reasonable fee? For the first part, it can't be a for-profit entity - if it is, Groundspeak would have to allow it. But national/state/county/municipal park fees are allowed, and so are non-profit entities such as the Nature Conservancy, botanic gardens, and museums. For the second part, reviewers have discretion as to what might be a "reasonable" fee in their area. Since you're in Florida, unless you're planning or discussing a cache outside of your normal commute, I'm your local geoaware. I'm happy to discuss specifics if we're talking about an existing or potential earthcache in the SE USA. Or we can talk it here, up to you.

Spitballing, I wonder how hard it would be to rig up some type of 3D-printed "funky" case, the guts of an old smartphone for brains and something like the LiPo battery out of an RC car for power? Though the next person to pick it up wouldn't be too happy about the long charge time. The phone would only need to be smart enough to run the logging software, so older hardware running some flavour of Linux could do it. I wonder how hard it would be to make it "talk" to the person that picks it up, make a bit interactive? Maybe have a single, big button in the middle and when someone pushes that, it "wakes up" until it detects no motion, no signal, or some other variables to denote "stop paying attention and go back to sleep".. I don't think I have the smarts to do something of this caliber, but would be kind of cool to do. I wonder if it would have better results than poor hitchBOT did, travelling in geocaching circles rather than the general public?

When I first started in 2010, throwdowns were fairly normal in my area. Yes, it was mainly experienced cachers, but that's more because they carried supplies, not because they got huge numbers from dropping replacement caches. Over the next few years, opinion turned against throwdowns, so now it's pretty rare for a replacement to be placed without getting in touch with the CO. In short, I think this is a cultural thing that varies from place to place and over time. I suggest you talk it over with whoever you think dropped the throwdown. Maybe you can change their minds about whether they're really being as helpful as they think they are.

Should we talk about Waitawhile?

OK. I'll confess to keeping all of my DNFs in a separate GSAK (yes, Windows) database. There, it is easy to see which ones are already found afterward (they show up in yellow) so that they can be quickly found and deleted in two simple steps, or are archived (they show up red with black line through them) so that those can be deleted as well. What remains are the ones that I still need to go out and find. For Windows users... As you may have noticed, GSAK comes up here all the time as a solution to particular problems. It is also said that there is a steep learning curve for GSAK. That kind of comment is both untrue and true. Everything depends upon just how extensively you want to delve into the possibilities. You will probably never use all of the blades on this Swiss Army Knife. Most of the things we talk about here, the OP's request being an example, can be learned in about 10 minutes. Creating and loading a GSAK database with caches is pretty trivial. Learning the searching/filtering options most used is as well. OTOH, if you can do your own programming, you can make it dance and sing and recite poetry if you like. I have built a macro that downloads all of the caches in the area from gc.com, compares my unfounds to my caching friend's, adds in my solved puzzles, excludes 'problem' caches, and builds unique POI files for my TomTom of everything. Yes, it can take some time to prepare something like that, but it's not something anyone need learn how to do for the kind of basic problem the OP is trying to solve here. There are also all kinds of macros already written by other users (that are shared on the GSAK site) to perform some common (and quite uncommon) tasks that only need to be downloaded and run by the new user to benefit from other users' prior experience. I would encourage anyone with a Windows box consider this tool as a potential friend for geocaching. It's being offered for free by the author at this point, and contains no advertising, so no one is going to profit from my recommendation except the new user.

Well, we've got that (the mention) now! Honestly, if you'd talk with Clyde, you'd have a better picture of how ugly the situation actually is. And if you didn't pick up on it here or elsewhere, understand that Clyde's ability to contribute to the current project is pretty limited. Fortunately, he's got a couple of people helping. I've also spent some time porting code for a living (I used to do printer firmware development, and all emulations had to be ported to different platforms), and it's only after having a better understanding of how GSAK was built that I suggest that moving it to another platform would be a train wreck for anyone trying to tackle it.

What else do you expect when you talk about a new PT, be it made of ALs or real caches? The numbers crowd falls all over itself from excitement. Quite a while ago, in a German FB group someone mentioned there is a new Mega-PT in southern France - more than 5000 caches (which is absolutely huge for Europe). A lot of people liked that, and many were like "We MUST do this ASAP!!!!!". So, of course you get "wows and yays" for an AL-PT(*). I'm still not convinced that it's a good idea, though . (*) I just noticed that "ALPT" are the first four letters of the German word "Alptraum", an alternate spelling (less common but valid) of "Albtraum", which means "nightmare" !

With all of the talk about the crappy, unmaintained, or boring caches and how to get rid of or discourage them, I thought I'd start a topic about what makes a cache good. Now this is highly subjective, so there's no wrong answers. I'm looking for two things mainly. 1. What is considered necessary to make a quality cache (i.e. containers, contents, any other specifics about the quality) 2. What makes a cache "good" or rewarding. I expect to get a wide range of answers here but things to consider (location, difficulty, cleverness, etc). I think I get just as much if not more enjoyment placing caches as I do looking for them. I enjoy a wide variety of caches, everything from PNG's to bushwacking into the woods. I have kids that tag along so I look for shorter hikes generally speaking. In any case, Let's talk about the positive aspects of caches. I'm looking forward to the answers as I work towards placing my first small series of caches with a bonus puzzle cache. I want to keep them all in my town but want all 6 of them to be different but of good quality. Fire away! And keep the cache bashing out of the discussion, we've all heard about throw downs, power trails, missing CO's, etc etc. I want to talk about the good stuff.

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

Well caveat: this is going to become a long post again, but as you somehow asked again. On the one hand, at least I understood a number of statements in this thread in the way that some cachers here think that socializing and hiking do not go well together or go less well together than for example eating and socializing. On the other hand, if hiking and socializing are a good combination for the target group and if indeed the worry that some cachers might use hiking events for caches is causing the ban of real hiking events, then that's a real shame that once again those who are sincere and follow the spirit get punished (and yes, I feel that way regardless of the existence of workarounds). A event that announces a picnic at the meeting point which lasts for 4 hours is a pure picnic event in my eyes. Even when a meeting point and time at a potential trailhead were given and most of the attendants were hiking to the picnic together (not the case in the example), I would classify this event as a hiking event as the distance to the event location does not seem to be that large (roughly one mile as I understood it - so one need 15 minutes to the cache location one way - hardly a hike in my opinion and not in relation to the 4 hours picnic). That is not relevant for my classification. If I drive to a ice skating pond where an event takes place by car it is still an ice skating event and not a car driving event. The organized option for socializing takes place during the picnic at the example event. If I wanted to have some socializing also during the hike I would have to contact some cachers by myself, apart from the fact that the walk is short. For me it's neither about smilies, nor about going for a hike alone or with some people I need to organize. A hiking event offers the same option for socializing than a meet and greet at a restaurant with the sole difference that the side activity is hiking and not eating. The example event not even suggests a route or a parking lot - so in this respect every normal hiking multi cache is to be preferred from my point of view. There I at least do not need to do the planning myself and if I want to organize someone who joins me, I can do that there too. A real hiking event is different in the sense that I do not need do all this planning and I do not need to try to convince others to join me. If I hike in to a picnic event that takes place for 4 hours, I would feel extremely ashamed to leave after a few minutes and would not have ended up with lots of possibilities for socializing. Those who prefer socializing while hiking to socializing while sitting or standing are not well served by the example event. There are certainly people who are good at socializing and do not need special requirements - they can even socialize nicely if they do not feel well in a setting. I can't. The example event would typically work out for me as follows: I walk alone to the picnic area or accompanied by a friend who might have talked me into attending the even and then would spend some time at the picnic without ending up with that much socializing. A picnic event that takes place for 4 hours and is reachable by a short walk (so not at least 1 hour one way) attracts a completely different audience than a real hiking event. In my area such an event have at least four times as many participants as a hiking event and it would already be hard for me to find and identify those at the event I'd like to talk to because there is something that connects me to them. In a smaller group I can talk longer with a person which fits my personality and communication style much better. At events with 100 or more participants I feel terribly lost. Somehow the typical expected behaviour is to spend some minutes to talk to A, then talk to B etc and never get end up with a consider as an interesting communication. It's mainly smalltalk.

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.