Cache Not Approved, Your Help Needed

January 21, 2006

AZBliss02 - I'm sorry. after 6 pages of civil discussion, it appears that my post has triggered (sp?) a descent. I sincerely apologize, as that was not my intent. I do support your claim, and am willing to say that there are two points of view on this, but like one of the recent posts, I just can't see the other point of view, and no one's explained it in a way that makes sense to me (or, obviously, to several others). I hope that YOU at least reach a point where you are content with the process.

Maybe we are all cynical. Maybe there really is an appeals process here that is legitimate. Maybe. Maybe at the end, regardless of the decision, it will at least be explained in a manner that makes sense to the majority (I know I know - this isn't a democracy; but if we don't understand decisions, then cachers will become dissatisfied. so, it really IS in the best interests of the site to at least explain WHY to us in a way that we can understand. clearly, a number of people still are not understanding the logic being applied here).

No blood, No foul Beffums.

You haven't been alone on your opinion as I've seen similar posts in this thread and others. I do however feel that as things are going right now, this appeal is actually being handled as it is described in the approval/appeal guidelines. Now granted it may not have the outcome that a good amount of us are looking for, but as long as a clear and concise reasoning is given for the final dismissal of this cache, I think I'll feel pretty satisfied in the appeal process. Of course, I say that now...

I do hope this doesn't ruin caching for you. One of my closest caching friends out here actually does get annoyed with certain aspects of the game from time to time and he'll take a few weeks (sometimes months) off so he can forget about things and kind of "rediscover" his love for the game. I guess that's my suggestion if this really starts to get you down. Otherwise, I'll be feeling very bad for turning someone away from this great activity.

Okay, honestly I'm going to bed now. Although, I could find some nighttime caches???

AZBliss02

January 21, 2006

Wow, has this gotten ridiculously complicated. 2 quick thoughts:

1. Maybe a user poll would be appropriate on this? I know, I know, "it's not a democracy." Ok, but if a decent number of people want to see it approved, as represented by hard numbers in a poll, why not approve it? And that brings us to:

2. WHY IS THIS ANY KIND OF BIG DEAL? I can't believe it's made 7 pages of debate with no resolution. Here's a thought: approve the darn thing. Those that view the cache page and like it can seek the cache. Those that don't are free not to. Why do the moderators feel the need to make that decision for people? I mean, I'm a newbie and even I "screen" caches - I look at several and choose the ones most interesting to me. Why not list the darn thing and let people make their own decisions? I mean... it really is just a game. Right?

2.5k · January 21, 2006

I've been noticing this breakdown in communication between cachew and Keystone and I think it has just be mentioned over and over in so many different ways that both sides are just very confused about what's going on.

AZBliss02,

If you are now satisfied with the decisions and appeals process, I'll back off. I just didn't want to see the wool being pulled over your eyes. For the record, I'm not confused over what's going on.

Your cache was denied because of poorly written guidelines. What happened to your cache was as silly as denying an event cache at a restaraunt, for providing the coordinates to the door, rather than the coordinates to the table where to log book is located. I suppose the same could be said for CITO caches.

And before anyone points out that they are events and not caches, go look at the perfectly written guidelines and see how they are listed. Good luck on your cache approval.

Edited January 21, 2006 by cachew nut

3.9k · January 21, 2006

It seems that this thread is near the bottom of a bottomless pit.

OP, I hope your not upset if I close this thread. Feel free to PM or e-mail me.

Thanks all.

Moose Mob

3.2k · January 21, 2006

It seems that this thread is near the bottom of a bottomless pit.

OP, I hope your not upset if I close this thread. Feel free to PM or e-mail me.

Thanks all.

Moose Mob

I don't think closing the thread solves the problem. Doing what is right and approving the cache might. Concise writing of guidelines and universal interpretation will.

3.9k · January 21, 2006

It seems that this thread is near the bottom of a bottomless pit.

OP, I hope your not upset if I close this thread. Feel free to PM or e-mail me.

Thanks all.

Moose Mob

I don't think closing the thread solves the problem. Doing what is right and approving the cache might. Concise writing of guidelines and universal interpretation will.

That is issues being discussed in the Reviewer's forum at this moment.

January 21, 2006

Moose Mob and I have been discussing this thread a bit. My first thought was that by closing this thread down, it would be like watching the first 1hr 55min of a 2hour movie. Or reading all but the last page of a great novel (at 7 pages this thing might be considered a novel ). However, we both seem to agree (and a number of people on here agree also) that this has been thoroughly discussed and at this point there really isn't anything else to say. It also makes since to close this thread FOR NOW so the reviewers & administrators can adequately discuss this without any distractions from this thread.

So at this time I will close the thread down. But stay tuned...

If you should need to contact me for any reason feel free to do so through PM or my profile.

AZBliss02

22.2k · January 25, 2006

I am reopening this thread to announce the outcome of the appeal brought to the Forums by AZBliss02.

After further discussion among the volunteer cache reviewers, and with Groundspeak's consent, the cache owner's appeal has been sustained and the cache will be published without requiring him to make any modifications on the point that was appealed. The reviewer who's been working with the cache owner has written to him to let him know this news. I can't link to the published cache just yet, as they are still working on other details of the cache, unrelated to the appeal.

The cache listing guidelines will remain as currently written. GPS use needs to be available as an essential element of every hunt for a physical cache. When interpreting the guidelines, however, the reviewers should not disallow a cache for "insufficient GPS use" if the cache page provides accurate coordinates for the entrance to a building in order to start off the hunt for a cache in that building.

On behalf of the volunteer team, I would like to thank the forum community for their input and discussion of this issue. We especially wish to say thank you to AZBliss02 for conducting his appeal in a patient and respectful manner. Working with the reviewers, even at the appeals stage, is the best way to get your cache listed. We like to list caches!

Edited January 25, 2006 by Keystone

January 25, 2006

Congrats, I followed this somewhat and I think you carried yourself very well and we all needed this clarification to the guidelines.

Z

January 25, 2006

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you, on behalf of cachers everywhere, but especially those in northwest Ohio.

January 25, 2006

This forum was handled extremely well and had a happy ending to boot. Great job everyone!

24.7k · January 25, 2006

... We especially wish to say thank you to AZBliss02 for conducting his appeal in a patient and respectful manner....

Agreed. Well done.

2.5k · January 25, 2006

Congrats to the hider and to Ohio cachers who will have this nice new cache to hunt. While I'm glad it was approved as is, I find it humorous that after all this time reviewing the cache, and during the appeal process, nobody picked up on the fact that the building is the cache container (a rather large one at that), and the coordinates were very accurate indeed, meaning that it was correctly listed from the beginning. I guess we could all be happy now that it's been "approved"

January 25, 2006

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you, on behalf of cachers everywhere, but especially those in northwest Ohio.

Pip! What are you doing up at this hour!

I must say I am VERY excited about all of this. If we all could, let us please give a huge "Thank You" to the reviewers and administrators for carefully and thoroughly considering this issue before responding. I have no doubt that these people put in a lot of time on this and they deserve a huge amount of respect for doing what they do.

Also, to those of you who have said, "The appeals process is crap", "What appeals process?", "The reviewers just try to protect each other", etc., etc. All I can say is, NOT this time! The reviewers did exactly what they were suppose to do and in great fashion too!

I hope this can serve as an example of how to properly appeal a cache. This was a tough issue, with some very strong opinions. Yet nearly all who came into this thread and posted their opinions did so in a respectful manner.

[Quick Thought: if an amendment is created for this specification, will it be called the "Library Amendment"?]

My final comment: Life is about compromising.

Something that was mentioned numerous times in this thread was ways I could better the cache (and at the same time gain instant approval). I felt strongly that my cache should be approved "as-is" so I stuck with it. However, I did start to understand the importance of making this cache meaningful. While it is different from the usual cache, it was also at a special location. One that deserves more attention than my original cache idea could give. There is so much history surrounding this library and other surrounding places. Therefore, I have decided to modify my cache listing in order to make it a more beneficial cache for the caching community.

The reviewers listened to my concerns, and now I'm listening to theirs.

For now, I plan to keep this post open for a little while longer (of course the moderators have the absolute power). However, this is now only an area for congratulations. There should be no more debating on the matter now that it has run its course. If people start posting anything negative towards the reviewers, this appeal, myself or others it will be closed.

Those that contributed to this thread (regardless of the argument) deserve praise for the way they handled themselves. And the reviewers deserve praise for their work in this appeal process, so without further ado, get to it!!

Thank You Everyone!

AZBliss02

January 25, 2006

AZBliss02, has Mama AZBliss not told you what a night owl I am? (I know she isn't!)

5.6k · January 25, 2006

And thank you AZBliss02 for presenting your appeal in such a nice manner, fair reporting of both sides of the question. I'm glad it worked for you. And I'm pleased to see that the appeal process works.

January 25, 2006

For all those interested:

GCT0J9 - Home Sweet Home #3

Yeah, I know I'm not very clever with my cache name, but hey, it works!

AZBliss02

January 25, 2006

Congratulations. This thread was conducted in a very respectful manner by reviewers, op and posters (for the most part) and am extremely happy to see the process works. We are in the sport to have fun and I think that the reviewers know this and have that uppermost in their minds. If I'm back in OH any time soon, I'll try to visit your cache. Again, congratulations, not just to you but to the reviewers whom I know did a lot of hard work on this.

Doc

January 25, 2006

AZBliss,

Congrats! It's good to see that sometimes it really does pay off to just have faith in the system! I only wish I wasn't 600 miles away so I could hunt this cache!

7.2k · January 25, 2006

I have to say I am very pleasantly surprised. Congratulations are in order.

Well done!

January 25, 2006

Congratulations! This is one of the best threads in a long time. I did read every post and I do like a good respectful debate. What set this apart from every other thread about not publishing a cache was the respect shown by all parties. People can disagree and still be friends.

Lets all lift a beer or whatever you prefer to put in your glass and give a toast to AZBliss02, all the reviewers, and Groundspeak. No matter what the final out come would have been, this was still a great thread. (if I knew where to get the beer drinking smilies, there would be a few inserted here.)

1.3k · January 25, 2006

I also read every post in this thread, and while I had some doubts that the decision would be overturned, I must say I am happy with the outcome. Kudos all around.

January 25, 2006

I poked my head in here this morning to get my daily dose of angst, actually before I came in I was quite surprised to see that this thread hadn't been locked down and committed to the dust heap of angsty threads...

Wow. Good job, way to work together. It's so easy to drum up an angry crowd of peasants with torches (hey I've done that myself), but to really work together and clarify the new guideline in a way that leaves the door open to future library caches as well as night caches and other caches where the coords are just the starting point for a different kind of adventure, well...

...For once I'm speechless.

I think I'll have some popcorn.

January 26, 2006

Oddly enough I listed a cache last night that is also in a library. I did not know this discussion was going on when I arranged for the cache. I was excited about my library cache because i think its a neat idea.

I was a little miffed when i got the news that my cache had not been approved so I went to the forums and found this dicussion. I was delighted to find the exact situation being discussed here in the forums.

I didn't mention that it was in a library anywhere in the cache and gave as a clue the name of the author of the book the cache is hidden in. When you look up the author there will no mistaking which book the cache is in.

I worked with the head librarian to place the cache and she was excited about the project.

The co-ords I gave in the listing were for the front door so I was very surprised when my reviewer did not approve this cache. I could be wrong but it has seemed to me for a while that my reviewer has been a little hard to deal with. He cited the same issue - that a person could find this cache without a GPS. So i got a little miffed and shot off an email - not to firery but I told him that I didn't like it much the way he had been handling my cache listings.

It was obvious to me that nobody could find this cache without a GPS. But while it might be my "cruise" - it sure isn't my boat. I'm fairly new to geocaching and I guess I've got a lot to learn.

I read the suggestions of making a cache like this a multicache and placing the clue in some micro container on the outside of the library building and I don't have a problem with this. So I will make the necessary edits to my listing and try again. The only problem is i think i might have made my reviewer mad and he may not release it no matter what i do.

Good advice possibly received too late but i hope not! Goodluck with you cache.

3.2k · January 26, 2006

I'm sure this has been discussed at length among reviewers. Unless there is some additional problem you should get yours listed. This discussion went way beyond a single cache. This was all about having clear guidelines and having all reviewers on the same page. If that doesn't happen then these 7 pages of discussion have been for next to nothing.

January 26, 2006

Organized crimefighter Elliot Ness was once asked what he would do if Prohibition was overturned. He responded, "I guess I'll go have a beer."

Since your "prohibition" was overturned, let me be the first to buy you a beer! :mad:

January 26, 2006

Hang in there. I have found that ok'ing a cache can be like "Mr. Smith goes to Washington". A lot of red tape here for a thing that in the end is supposed to be fun. The meglomaniacs of this world are alive and well, polite as they may be. :mad:

2.5k · January 26, 2006

Oddly enough I listed a cache last night that is also in a library. I did not know this discussion was going on when I arranged for the cache. I was excited about my library cache because i think its a neat idea.

I was a little miffed when i got the news that my cache had not been approved ...<snip>

This probably has something to do with the new consistency plan that was put into effect since November, I read something about that on page two of this thread. The good news is that you will be getting an email shortly telling you it will be listed as submitted soon, right after you make the recommended changes. It may take several days though, to be consistent. :mad: Seriously though, hang in there and everything should work itself out. Good luck.

5.3k · January 26, 2006

After further discussion among the volunteer cache reviewers, and with Groundspeak's consent, the cache owner's appeal has been sustained and the cache will be published without requiring him to make any modifications on the point that was appealed.

I think this is an historic event.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first appeal brought to the forums that has ever been granted. I will admit to quite honestly believing that the whole "take it to the forums" thing was just pro forma to brush people off. I am quite pleased to have been proven wrong.

January 26, 2006

Lets all lift a beer or whatever you prefer to put in your glass and give a toast to AZBliss02, all the reviewers, and Groundspeak.

[ACTION]bones lifts glass of beer.[/ACTION]

Here Here!

January 26, 2006

After further discussion among the volunteer cache reviewers, and with Groundspeak's consent, the cache owner's appeal has been sustained and the cache will be published without requiring him to make any modifications on the point that was appealed.

I think this is an historic event.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first appeal brought to the forums that has ever been granted. I will admit to quite honestly believing that the whole "take it to the forums" thing was just pro forma to brush people off. I am quite pleased to have been proven wrong.

my faith is being restored -- yay!!

and, congrats azbliss. maybe on a trip home to PA I'll be able to swing by and find this one someday.

22.2k · January 26, 2006

After further discussion among the volunteer cache reviewers, and with Groundspeak's consent, the cache owner's appeal has been sustained and the cache will be published without requiring him to make any modifications on the point that was appealed.

I think this is an historic event.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first appeal brought to the forums that has ever been granted. I will admit to quite honestly believing that the whole "take it to the forums" thing was just pro forma to brush people off. I am quite pleased to have been proven wrong.

Successful appeals have indeed been few and far between, and it was nice to see the process play out in an orderly fashion, for the most part.

I can think of a handful of other situations where caches have been listed after being discussed in a forum appeal. One was this scuba cache, which ironically was never found after special permission was granted for its placement. The guideline at issue was the "commercial cache" guideline. And here is the forum thread where it was discussed.

In both threads, the volunteers who posted were insisting that they were applying the guidelines appropriately. In the scuba cache thread, Groundspeak made a special exception. In this thread, we relaxed a bit on how a guideline is applied in the specific circumstances of this cache.

There are probably other examples of successful appeals, but I had trouble finding any. It took a fair bit of detective work to unearth this one, especially since the cache is archived!

EDIT: to add that there are many more examples of caches that do get published after being discussed in the reviewer forum, never needing to come here to the public forum. That is the first step for an appeal. If that step doesn't succeed, then the cache owner is advised of their right to post here. So, many of the other appeals we've seen in the forums have been for cases where the reviewers have already given a firm "no way" for good reason. This was a much closer case.

Edited January 26, 2006 by Keystone

22.2k · January 26, 2006

Oddly enough I listed a cache last night that is also in a library. I did not know this discussion was going on when I arranged for the cache. I was excited about my library cache because i think its a neat idea.

I was a little miffed when i got the news that my cache had not been approved so I went to the forums and found this dicussion. I was delighted to find the exact situation being discussed here in the forums.

I didn't mention that it was in a library anywhere in the cache and gave as a clue the name of the author of the book the cache is hidden in. When you look up the author there will no mistaking which book the cache is in.

I worked with the head librarian to place the cache and she was excited about the project.

The co-ords I gave in the listing were for the front door so I was very surprised when my reviewer did not approve this cache. I could be wrong but it has seemed to me for a while that my reviewer has been a little hard to deal with. He cited the same issue - that a person could find this cache without a GPS. So i got a little miffed and shot off an email - not to firery but I told him that I didn't like it much the way he had been handling my cache listings.

It was obvious to me that nobody could find this cache without a GPS. But while it might be my "cruise" - it sure isn't my boat. I'm fairly new to geocaching and I guess I've got a lot to learn.

I read the suggestions of making a cache like this a multicache and placing the clue in some micro container on the outside of the library building and I don't have a problem with this. So I will make the necessary edits to my listing and try again. The only problem is i think i might have made my reviewer mad and he may not release it no matter what i do.

Good advice possibly received too late but i hope not! Goodluck with you cache.

I took a look at your cache page, and saw that you had left a follow-up "Note to Reviewer" to alert your reviewer to this forum thread. Did you also send an e-mail? That is the method of contact recommended by your reviewer in the archive note. We are not automatically notified when a reviewer note is added to a cache page.

Like everyone else in the geocaching community, reviewers vary in the amount of time they are able to commit to reading the forums. Your reviewer may not have noticed either this thread or the discussion in our separate forum. At any given time, we can have six or ten caches up on appeal. Once everyone reads up on the latest thinking on interpreting the guideline at issue here, perhaps other similar caches like yours can be published. I know that I have already reversed my own decision on a library cache nearly identical to the one discussed here, and published it this morning!

7.3k · January 26, 2006

After further discussion among the volunteer cache reviewers, and with Groundspeak's consent, the cache owner's appeal has been sustained and the cache will be published without requiring him to make any modifications on the point that was appealed.

I think this is an historic event.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first appeal brought to the forums that has ever been granted. I will admit to quite honestly believing that the whole "take it to the forums" thing was just pro forma to brush people off. I am quite pleased to have been proven wrong.

Successful appeals have indeed been few and far between, and it was nice to see the process play out in an orderly fashion, for the most part.

I can think of a handful of other situations where caches have been listed after being discussed in a forum appeal. One was this scuba cache, which ironically was never found after special permission was granted for its placement. The guideline at issue was the "commercial cache" guideline. And here is the forum thread where it was discussed.

In both threads, the volunteers who posted were insisting that they were applying the guidelines appropriately. In the scuba cache thread, Groundspeak made a special exception. In this thread, we relaxed a bit on how a guideline is applied in the specific circumstances of this cache.

There are probably other examples of successful appeals, but I had trouble finding any. It took a fair bit of detective work to unearth this one, especially since the cache is archived!

EDIT: to add that there are many more examples of caches that do get published after being discussed in the reviewer forum, never needing to come here to the public forum. That is the first step for an appeal. If that step doesn't succeed, then the cache owner is advised of their right to post here. So, many of the other appeals we've seen in the forums have been for cases where the reviewers have already given a firm "no way" for good reason. This was a much closer case.

Thanks for pointing that out, Keystone, because I was about to say that I remember at least twice before where a cache got approved after coming here. :lol:

6.1k · January 27, 2006

I can see it now. Someone using a library computer to look for caches in an area, checks the site and notices......a cache is right behind them! They walk over and find the cache, then return to their seat and log it online only seconds later.. :lol:

January 28, 2006

Geocaching does not require at any point a GPS unit. you can ALWAYS use the stars the sun and moon and a Map and map tools etc..

GPS only makes it easier and FUN to me personally.

Its not called GPS Caching its called GEOCaching.

I have some issues with stringent guidelines BUT his cache DOES meet the guideline requirements.

the reviewer simply realized waht the coords led to and took it upon himself to disqualify which is something that should be OUTSIDE of the realm of a reviewers power. the cache AS IT WAS met the guidelines perfectly.

Second when we start making rules to reject caches to me thats spells the end of geocaching.com

Rules are NIOT SUPPOSED TO RESTRICT they are supposed to ENHANCE the FUN

we should not be looking for reasons to disqualify instead we should always be trying to STRETCH IT to QUALIFY as much as possible.

ENCOURAGE not DISCOURAGE. the rules were used improperly in this case.

I think his cache idea is awesome SO awesome I am thinking of stopping by my local library to see how interested they might be in working with me on this though now I can t use dewey decimal since you all know about it now :-) huahaha

Good job man keep up the good work and GOOD JOB on not making that little change. It should never have been asked of you to begin with.

With google maps you simply do not need a GPS for the majority of the caches.

GPS IS NOT THIS HOBBY !! ANY more than ANY tool is any hobby.

This hobby is about FUN exploring thinking chatting etc.. the GPS is nothing. it is only a TOOL to make this hobby easier or more enjoyable for some practical for others etc.. its just a tool. an important "focal" tool but still just a tool.

Chris Taylor

http://www.nerys.com/

January 29, 2006

Geocaching does not require at any point a GPS unit. you can ALWAYS use the stars the sun and moon and a Map and map tools etc..

Ummm, well, at least for placing a cache, from the guidelines:

You as the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS.

As for finding, each to their own!

January 30, 2006

You dont need a GPS for placement either. you could (YES I know this is really stretching it but its correct nonetheless) do it the way it was done before GPS. with maps and lots of math.

The Point is GPS is not the hobby its simply a TOOL used in this hobby.

Chris Taylor

http://www.nerys.com/

8k · January 30, 2006

You dont need a GPS for placement either. you could (YES I know this is really stretching it but its correct nonetheless) do it the way it was done before GPS. with maps and lots of math.

The Point is GPS is not the hobby its simply a TOOL used in this hobby.

Chris Taylor

Of course the point is that GPS is the hobby. Prior to Dave Ulmer hiding the first geocache, there were letterboxes and treasure maps. Plenty of ways to hide things that people could then look for. The idea for geocaching was based firmly on the use of GPS technology. Once SA was turned off and GPS accuracy was within about 30 meters, it became resonable to use the coordinates taken with the hider's GPS unit to find the cache with a different GPS unit. Of course people without GPS units then began looking for these caches using only maps and found that with good maps you could find the cache. The history of geocaching on the Groundspeak website does mention that a group in Finland did use maps for hiding and finding items since the 1980's. You don't need a GPS to find a cache. The guidelines do say you need one to hide the cache and that you should be able to use a GPS as an integral part of finding any cache.

3k · January 30, 2006

I've only been following the threads for a few months, but I've learned a lot about the people and the process that takes place here. I want to say congrats to the appeal and thank you to everyone involved. It shows what can be accomplished when everyone has an equal voice to be heard and is in turn respected for their opinions (even if disagreeable). All of you have been inspiring in your thoughtful debate and it reinforces the idea for me that this is more than just a game. It's a community, a way of life and an ideal.

January 30, 2006

and I dont disagree with a single one of your points. I just dont want it to be forgotten that this hobby is not gps its geocaching GPS just happens to be a very central and useful tool in this hobby :-)

for example I would not have even tried this hobby without a GPS. This guys idea was an awesome idea and it DID meet the technical rules required of him but it was still held up because some reviewer WANTED to hold it up. It does not matter that he could fix it with a slight change he is then bending to another person will (no matter how small an amount) and he should not be forced to do that. at that point the kid realized and correctly so that it became a matter of principles that he NOT alter his listing and I happen to agree with him.

this is NOT good for a hobby. over regulation is always bad for a hobby its what RUINS hobbies. why do I care? why am I posting ? because I LIKE this hobby even though I have yet to SUCCESSFULLY find a cache grrr !! I plan to remedy that tommorrow :-)

I dont want to see this hobby go down that path. we need to ENCOURAGE innovation even if that means a little less GPS.

the excuse that it COULD be found without a GPS was used I refuted this with the rebutal that ANY cache can theoretically be found WITHOUT a GPS :-) thats all. :-)

Chris Taylor

http://www.nerys.com/

January 30, 2006

For example once I have a few caches under my belt and have my own cache hidden here is one way I plan to introduce people to geocaching. Get there curiosity juices going.

I plan to hide a well camoflauged cache in plain site and I plan to lure some friends to it and suddenly I will go hey look at this and point to the cache and wait for them to find it.

I will then go into you know what this is ? and start explaining geocaching and when they say there are thousands of these just lying around? I will say yes and when they say well how do I find them. thats when I pull out the GPS and say well this helps etc.. etc. etc..

GPS is a TURN OFF to geocaching. most people dont like getting technical. but once you have there undivided attention and THEN introduce the tech now that they WANT to do this they are much more receptive of the technology and the potential work that might be involved since now they also have experienced the rewards.

If they are a really good friend yell BOOM as they open the lid :-) hehehe

Chris Taylor

http://www.nerys.com/

3.2k · January 31, 2006

You dont need a GPS for placement either. you could (YES I know this is really stretching it but its correct nonetheless) do it the way it was done before GPS. with maps and lots of math.

The Point is GPS is not the hobby its simply a TOOL used in this hobby.

Chris Taylor

http://www.nerys.com/

A few years ago you could do it with maps and a lot of math.. now all that is needed are the maps.

January 31, 2006

Yes I was surprised too. I printed google satellite maps of all the caches I want to go see. (I used hybrid so I can see street names and get an idea of where to park :-)

I wonder just how accurate those coord positions are on the satellite maps. I plan to find out.

Google maps is also VERY cool because I can see the cache positions relative to each other and decide what I can get in one outing and the relative route I should take to get them all without getting lost :-)

Chris Taylor

http://www.nerys.com/

Cache Not Approved, Your Help Needed

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation