Search the Community

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.

I will be on Geocache talk podcast show #222 discussing creating Adventure Labs that go beyond the "magical history tour" model that is so common. You don't have to have anything interesting to make an AL that can amuse. I just published one that tells a story but uses nothing from the environment. It could be transplanted to Iowa and play the same. It uses simple puzzles and riddles for the player to solve in the field. A very simple way to do something in an area with nothing of interest, is an I Spy game - particularly good for kids. Listen in Live or watch it later. November 1, 6 pm Pacific.

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.

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

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.

I wouldn't consider travelling anywhere at present, unless it was for an important reason, such as medical. Europe is having a surge in Covid. Fine to talk about future trips in years to come, but to talk about a trip this year appears to be living in an alternative universe, where there is no Covid. As for myself, I don't know when I will be able to travel overseas next (our borders are closed); maybe not even next year, unless the few remaining Covid caches in Australia (I think about 15 new cases today) can be eradicated and we can make a bubble with NZ and perhaps some Pacific Islands. Even some state borders are closed to cross border visits. My last new country was PNG in February.

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.

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?

Hi all, A couple of geocaching video creators from New Zealand recently shared an interesting talk about the events leading up to Selective Availability being disabled. I thought it was really interesting and wanted to share it here. From the video description: "This Cache Walk is a talk by Jason Kim from the National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing, Washington, D.C. He talks about turning off the Selected Availability (SA) feature in 2000 which increased the GPS accuracy to the public allowing the game of geocaching to begin." I hope you enjoy this.

Why would they need to hide geocaches to battleship the finals? They could just use the saturation checker without actually submitting any caches for review. This is not the first time this topic has come up. Here is one of Keystone's replies to one of the earlier threads: So, suppose I tell you that your proposed location is 110m northwest of the final coordinates for "Cacher Conundrum," a five-star puzzle cache that only four people have ever solved and logged in the past three years. Armed with that intelligence, you track down the container and sign the log at the same time when you move your cache to a spot that's 162m away. What do I get for being helpful? A flaming email from the CO of "Cacher Conundrum," who also posts to three Facebook groups, and files a complaint with Geocaching HQ that I gave away secret information and ruined the puzzle cache. Having had that happen to us enough times, reviewers nowadays are constrained to be less forthcoming with details. Depending on your reviewer, you may get a hint, like "you are less than 161m from "Cacher Conundrum," GCABCDE, or you may get a hint that you should strongly consider moving to the southeast, or you may not get any guidance at all. So, that's how come. In a world where people hack lab caches and share the final coordinates of puzzle caches in Facebook groups, the inevitable outcome of such a feature would be to spoil every puzzle cache, multicache and Wherigo cache, plus a fair percentage of letterbox hybrid caches. There are people who like placing and finding these cache types. Geocaching.com has chosen not to alienate them by ruining the ability to keep the actual locations a secret. "But all I need is a distance and direction," you might say. So, the cheater simply enters enough coordinates into the planner tool to permit them to hone in on the actual location through triangulation. Think that can't happen? Talk to the travel bug stalkers who watch for drops of trackables in unpublished caches so they can figure out the locations and log a pre-publication "FTF." Talk to the group of cachers who hid traditionals in every conceivable spot within two miles of a 5-star puzzle, knowing they'd eventually "battleship" their way to a hit, and then they could do a scorched earth hunt within that area. I foiled them by publishing their cache even though it was 200 feet away from the puzzle final. Reviewers are smart humans*, you see, and that is better than an automated system. *Many reviewers are dogs.

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.