Jump to content

Introducing Virtual Rewards 2.0!


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

 (and I'm a native English speaker unlike, I think, the person you were responding to).

 

You are right with this one. Probably everyone can read my German accent... :-) I'll do my best.

 

2 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

In this context, the meaning of should is perfectly clear.

 

I thought so to and the reviewer (who I was talking to) felt the same. But as we all know everything can be seen from several sides.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

One of the most vocal criticisms of the initial round of Virtual Rewards is that too many of them were awarded via the algorithm to cache hiders who were no longer active, or who were barely active. 

That seems a relatively inflammatory comment without any substance to it.

And you've made that clear twice.  Duly noted.   Make sure not to apply for one to avoid having the ignomy of owning a virtual cache thrust upon you.

Posted Images

2 hours ago, frostengel said:

The purpose of the required logging task is to show that the geocacher was at the location. Anything other than that should be optional.

Acceptable logging tasks:

 

For webcam caches, the cache owner can "require you to pose in a specific location or in a specific way."

 

I don't see any similar language for virtual caches though. Presumably, a virtual cache can require a photo in a specific location (that's kinda the point of a virtual cache), but I don't see anything that allows a virtual cache to require posing in a specific way.

Link to post

I'm responding based on my interactions with an Ontario reviewer when trying - very strongly - to get a Virtual idea published (not the one I ended up publishing).  Based on the requirement to have a photo that shows the photo is unique by the geocacher - a selfie, or a personal object, following the instruction for the photo.  You can require just a selfie or personal item, but you can require a photo that demonstrably was taken as the completion of the task so not just some old photo dressed up for the log.

 

I didn't ask if a CO would be allowed to delete the find log of someone who didn't follow instructions for the photo.  I would think the CO would be allowed to.  But maybe not. I'm not sure so I won't make a call on that.  But it was strongly implied that the point of the photo is to show you were at the location; doing something in the photo I'd think would need to be relevant to the theme. A selfie is already sufficient, so it may be that a selfie doing something is redundant, so the 'doing something' should be optional. A personal item photo is fundamentally an 'instructive' one where the photo composition needs to be clear as evidence of being at gz; likewise anything more than the sufficient task as evidence may need to be optional.

One example given for me was say at a bird sanctuary hold your hand out and get a pic with a bird feeding from your hand. I have reason to believe that that suggestion (by a reviewer) isn't actually valid, based on further discussion, but the whole point of this is that reviewers may interpret guidelines beyond the strict words, and there may be regional differences as well.

 

All that said, I won't make a claim to know whether a CO can require a task to the point of having the right to delete logs if the photo isn't following the instruction. I believe it's possible, but I don't have confirmation from a reviewer.

Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

I thought that sounded somewhat familiar.  @CAVinoGal beat me to the punch on this one.  I was in CA last year and found this one.

 

https://coord.info/GCD530

 

"The sign was removed for painting. Museum personnel have advised that it will return, but in the meantime, please provide evidence of your choosing that you were there."

 

I like this.  "Please provide evidence of your choosing"  

Link to post
23 hours ago, frostengel said:
Quote

In this context, the meaning of should is perfectly clear.

I thought so to and the reviewer (who I was talking to) felt the same. But as we all know everything can be seen from several sides.

Well, let's be a little more thoughtful. The phrase is "should be optional". English interpretation of "should" in that context implies an option: it is optional that it be optional, so that means it can be required. Is that the obvious interpretation the three of you are agreeing to? It's hard to tell because you say the meaning is obvious, but then you patronizingly refuse to actually say what that obvious meaning it.

 

My guess is that the help article is, indeed, wrong. What it should say is that any requested details must be optional if they go beyond a photo proving the seeker was at the location. So, in this case, the description should have been rejected -- it clearly makes the "C" a requirement -- and the CO wouldn't be allowed to delete the C-less find. Not that it matters: the CO has no intention of rejecting that find. It only came up because of the inconsistency between the description making it a requirement even though the CO doesn't really care.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
33 minutes ago, dprovan said:

 Is that the obvious interpretation the three of you are agreeing to? It's hard to tell because you say the meaning is obvious,

 

Pardon, I think it should (!) be obvious (!) what we think. ;-) [SCNR]

 

As I said: I had this discussion before. I can't remember if it was an English or a German phrase but I was told that this was some kind of "have to" in case of rules/laws/guidelines though it was used otherway in normal speech. Perhaps it was the word "shall", perhaps it was something different. I argumented the same way you do know...

 

I am not a master of (any) language, especially not yours so I will not tell what a word means - so please don'T ask me to. But I - subjectively thought - read this as "don't do it".

 

As we all know: It is not a proof of anything when a cache gets published like that. Luckily some reviewers see things other ways.....

Link to post
On 9/23/2019 at 8:28 PM, dprovan said:

Well, let's be a little more thoughtful. The phrase is "should be optional". English interpretation of "should" in that context implies an option: it is optional that it be optional, so that means it can be required. Is that the obvious interpretation the three of you are agreeing to? It's hard to tell because you say the meaning is obvious, but then you patronizingly refuse to actually say what that obvious meaning it.

No.

 

I didn't want to get all semantic about it in the response I posted (which I think is the first one you quoted). Particularly given the post I was replying to - the bold, larger font italics and emoji choice in particular.

 

To me it's obvious here that should is suggesting that there is an obligation in place - given the context of the wording of the help article and the history of additional logging requirements and so on I don't see any other contextual interpretation of the phrase.

 

Of course, people will argue the semantics of stuff like this until the cows come home.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Blue Square Thing said:

Of course, people will argue the semantics of stuff like this until the cows come home.

Someone raised a reasonable semantic point that you and Blue Square Thing could have simply acknowledged, but instead you both acted like it was an invalid question. I don't know about the original poster, but I agree with you that the intent is reasonably clear, yet I also think that the wording in the guideline is poor if not flat out wrong. The English word "should" explicitly indicates that there is not an obligation in place, only a strong recommendation, and I agree with you that that's probably not what the guideline was meant to say. I think the authors of that section got a little confused about where "should" fits into the sentence: it is required, not suggested, that additional poses be suggested, not required. It's a simple fix: "Anything other than that should +must be optional."

 

If you don't want to get all semantic, then stop arguing against a simple semantic point by talking about context and history.

Link to post
19 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It's a simple fix: "Anything other than that should +must be optional."

 

And, I think it's left as "should" to give reviewers a bit of leeway for judgment. If it's worded as "must" then it's an absolute, and would be more difficult on reviewers to defend exceptions if desired or necessary. 'Should' implies that there's an expectation but not a requirement, giving reviewers a basis for their standard decision (make it optional) but room for flexibility if they deem it justified, without blatantly breaking a guideline (which they are technically allowed to do, but it certainly becomes less dramatic when the guidelines allow for it than if they need to defend an explicit exception). Just a thought

Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And, I think it's left as "should" to give reviewers a bit of leeway for judgment. If it's worded as "must" then it's an absolute, and would be more difficult on reviewers to defend exceptions if desired or necessary. 'Should' implies that there's an expectation but not a requirement, giving reviewers a basis for their standard decision (make it optional) but room for flexibility if they deem it justified, without blatantly breaking a guideline (which they are technically allowed to do, but it certainly becomes less dramatic when the guidelines allow for it than if they need to defend an explicit exception). Just a thought

Good point. That might be the intent, but I still think it's wrong. Boy, I know I'd be annoyed if I did something against a guideline that only said "should" and the reviewer came back and used the "should" clause as justification for not letting me do it. If that's what they want, the correction would be "You may request other actions, but don't require them," or something like that. Are there other examples of "should" using the guidelines for things reviewers regularly enforce? If so, I'll have to concede it's a normal approach in the guidelines, but that doesn't mean I'll like it.

 

Although, to be honest, I don't really see why GS would want to give reviewers any flexibility here. Remember, we're talking about ALRs. The door's well and truly slammed shut on those, isn't it?

Link to post

While we are on the subject of "should" and "must": shouldn't Geocache hiding guidelines be titled rather "Geocaching hiding rules and guidelines", based on "must" and "must not" phrases used there? Like f.ex.: "Geocache containers and physical stages of different geocaches must be at least 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) apart." or "You must not create a hole in the ground to place or find a geocache.". Just a thought.

Link to post
3 hours ago, rapotek said:

While we are on the subject of "should" and "must": shouldn't Geocache hiding guidelines be titled rather "Geocaching hiding rules and guidelines", based on "must" and "must not" phrases used there? Like f.ex.: "Geocache containers and physical stages of different geocaches must be at least 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) apart." or "You must not create a hole in the ground to place or find a geocache.". Just a thought.

 

Up until fairly recently the title at the top of the page was Geocaching Hiding Requirements and Guidelines.   I didn't notice when the changed actually occurred or why the change was made.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, colleda said:

I see that the use of "should" as a requirement with an acknowledgement or expectation that it may not be complied with. It does not, by my reckoning, mean "optional".

 

To add on to this, I also believe that "should" means that it's a generally accepted idea (of whatever it is that is being applied) and in most situations initializes the expected/required action, with some leeway in there that allows for some exceptional, yet accepted, contradictions to the generally accepted idea that initializes the expected/required actions.  Optional implies (to me) that you may or may not choose to do the suggested "thing", not that it's generally accepted practice or a generally accepted standard that might have some exceptions.  I believe "optional" is a strictly 2 choice decision - yea or nay, while "should" is a mostly required/expected 1 choice decision - yea - with some leeway that allows for rare exceptional nays.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to post

How about this comparison - each sentence implying something different:

"Anything other than that must be optional."

"Anything other than that should be optional."

"Anything other than that may be optional."

 

Each has a different emphasis on the imperative about optionality(?).

If the intended meaning of the 2nd is actually the 1st, then the wording is inaccurate. Otherwise there is indeed a specific reason as to why the word was chosen and shouldn't be conflated with a different word.

 

However...

"Anything other than that may not be optional."

generally implies the same meaning as:

"Anything other than that must not be optional." (as if the 'may' option is now disallowed entirely)

and if the intent was to imply that it 'does not need to be', then the wording might be more akin to:

"Anything other than that is not required to be optional." (as if the 'must' requirement is not applicable)

We're dealing with a negative in this case not a positive, which at least in western english does have different generally understood grammatical implications.

 

Englishing is hard.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...
Quote

 

The purpose of the required logging task is

to show that the geocacher was at the location. Anything other than that should be optional.

Acceptable logging tasks:

  • Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.
  • Tasks for the finder to fulfill at the location (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log).
  • Photos of the geocacher at the location; a face cannot be required in the photo.
  • Photos of a personal item at the location. Examples include a trackable or a piece of paper with the geocacher’s username.

 

 

I can't remember the exact reason why I talked about this with a reviewer but he confirmed that a photo may be required but you can't force cachers to do anything special here. The photo's reason is only to prove that the cacher is at the right place nothing more.


This takes away several creative ideas (and that's why it should be allowed) but it takes away some over creative ideas about people making fools of them (and that's why it may be good that this isn't allowed).


But my experience tells me that most cachers try to fulfill the optional wishes by the owners and that's great! :-)

(In my humble opinion forming a C is not that creative but I would do it, of course.)

 

 

I need some help. I was given a virtual reward, and this quote summarizes my problems with it. I had some fun ideas, but... what can I do? Ask people to go and look at this church/whatever? Nothing more? Must a virtual be a D1?

 

In what way is this something I would want to create? Is there any way that I can make this *fun* to visitors? Is it impossible to make a fun virtual? Should I just reach for "archive" and get it over with?

 

I am not angry, I just feel helpless. I am given a once-in-a-lifetime to create... nothing?

 

Or should I go for the last statement and humbly hope that people follow my non-mandatory wish? Are there other COs with odd virtuals that share that experience?

 

Suggestions, please!

Link to post
28 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

I need some help. I was given a virtual reward, and this quote summarizes my problems with it. I had some fun ideas, but... what can I do? Ask people to go and look at this church/whatever? Nothing more? Must a virtual be a D1?

 

In what way is this something I would want to create? Is there any way that I can make this *fun* to visitors? Is it impossible to make a fun virtual? Should I just reach for "archive" and get it over with?

 

I am not angry, I just feel helpless. I am given a once-in-a-lifetime to create... nothing?

 

Or should I go for the last statement and humbly hope that people follow my non-mandatory wish? Are there other COs with odd virtuals that share that experience?

 

Suggestions, please!

 

Fyi: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=936

Link to post
40 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

I need some help. I was given a virtual reward, and this quote summarizes my problems with it. I had some fun ideas, but... what can I do? Ask people to go and look at this church/whatever? Nothing more? Must a virtual be a D1?

 

In what way is this something I would want to create? Is there any way that I can make this *fun* to visitors? Is it impossible to make a fun virtual? Should I just reach for "archive" and get it over with?

 

Good question. I suggest that you check the description of all virtuals you can. Most of them go where the fence is low. Look at virtuals with high favorite numbers. You may learn new ways that are better than go somewhere and claim a find.

Edited by arisoft
Link to post
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

 

Thanks, I have seen that list, but the only thing *close* to fun is a mountain top, but a physical cache is usually a better choise for those places.

 

I have seen what the local virtuals are about, and the new ones are generally rather boring. "Go to a somewhat famous place and take a photo there." I wish I could do something better.

 

Sorry for being negative, I just don't want to make something that the visitors find dull.

Link to post

These are a few of the out-of-the-ordinary virtuals I've come across:

  • Newcastle Coastal Tour (GC7B6V6) - D4/T2.5 with 24 FPs from 40 finds. A 6km journey along the coastline with 8 locations of interest to visit along the way. The requirements are to answer questions and/or post photos at each of the locations.
  • The Royal Botanical Gardens (GC892PC) - D2/T1.5 with 28 FPs from 57 finds. A 12-stage walk through the picturesque gardens on Sydney Harbour with questions to answer at each waypoint plus a photo required.
  • Figure Eight (GC7B9MJ) - D2/T4 with 14 FPs from 44 finds. A hike through bushland and along the foreshore to a figure-eight shaped rockpool. The logging requirement is to enter the water and provide a photo.
  • Fortress (GC7B6E4) - D2/T4 with 16 FPs from 26 finds. A 3km hike in the mountains to a rock pool on the edge of a 70-metre high waterfall. The logging requirement is a photo of yourself in the pool.

Other memorable ones I've done didn't have any unusual logging requirements but were at places that were fascinating enough in their own right. For example:

  • Whatarippavista!! (GC7B7JN) - D1.5/T3 with 32 FPs from 58 finds. A lookout with amazing water views as well as a climb down to an historical WW2 gun battery. The logging requirements are questions to answer from the lookout and battery plus a photo.
  • The Grandis (GC89225) - D1/T1.5 with 1 FP from 1 find. A long way from anywhere to a loop drive through the forest, taking in what is claimed to be the largest tree in the state. The logging tasks are questions to answer about the tree and local fauna plus a photo in front of the tree.
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, lee737 said:

This one would be cool - and still has FTF up for grabs....

https://coord.info/GC88ZX5

 

That's one heck of a hike to get to. Would be hard enough in summer and, having personally experienced the unpredictable (understatement) weather of the south island, it's no wonder no one has gone in there in winter. I wonder how deep the snow would be? However, it would certainly be worth the effort.

Being a National Park sometimes means no containers are allowed which is why a Virtual may get by.

 

BTW "Trampers" is kiwi speak for "hikers".

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

GC7B6ZB is one of my favorite virtual that I found and can only be found at low tide after a hike in the provincial park.

4 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

In what way is this something I would want to create? Is there any way that I can make this *fun* to visitors? Is it impossible to make a fun virtual? Should I just reach for "archive" and get it over with?

 

I am not angry, I just feel helpless. I am given a once-in-a-lifetime to create... nothing?

When you asked Groundspeak to enter in the draw you should have gotten an idea of where you wanted it. Please don't archive because people didn't get your chance to create one.

Link to post
8 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

When you asked Groundspeak to enter in the draw you should have gotten an idea of where you wanted it.

 

Oh, I did. But it wasn't approved.

 

Thanks to all that gave pointers to good examples! I will check all out.

Link to post

Hello Ragnemalm,

 

I was one of those being allowed to make a virtual in the first round (2017). And by then it seemed to be even more exclusive than it is today and I wanted to create something special, too (I always want to do so ;-)).

In 2017 and 2018 I was looking at all the new virtual caches (in Germany) just to find out that most ones are nice but boring - go to place XY and answer one question or take a picture. There were some exceptions, of course! A really nice one in my area was https://coord.info/GC7B9A9 for example.

 

It didn't take me too long to create my own idea and in the end I created https://coord.info/GC7B76A. It is a rather long journey through my home town but not just going from coordinate to coordinate (which I have also seen) but with picture searches or following a textual description. So far the finders had fun and probably those who wouldn't have fun just don't do it. :-)

 

Your virtual does not have to be limited to one place and there are several ways to make the finding process more fun than just "go to coordinates XY.....". Be creative! Have fun!

 

Jochen

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
On 10/13/2019 at 9:29 AM, Ragnemalm said:

Or should I go for the last statement and humbly hope that people follow my non-mandatory wish?

If your wish is truly fun, and your motive is truly for people to have fun, why would it need to be mandatory? The people you want to have fun would do it voluntarily, wouldn't they? Why do you care about the people that will claim the find but don't want to have fun? You aren't making the cache for them, anyway.

Link to post
9 minutes ago, dprovan said:

If your wish is truly fun, and your motive is truly for people to have fun, why would it need to be mandatory? The people you want to have fun would do it voluntarily, wouldn't they? Why do you care about the people that will claim the find but don't want to have fun? You aren't making the cache for them, anyway.

 

True, I definitely make caches to be enjoyable, but I am quite fed up with "this was one more during the trip"-logs (in other words, couldn't care less for the point with the cache) and I fear that a virtual would be one. Especially now that they are rather many.

 

I will have to think twice whether my original idea can work as a non-mandatory one or not.

Link to post
2 hours ago, frostengel said:

It didn't take me too long to create my own idea and in the end I created https://coord.info/GC7B76A. It is a rather long journey through my home town but not just going from coordinate to coordinate (which I have also seen) but with picture searches or following a textual description. So far the finders had fun and probably those who wouldn't have fun just don't do it. :-)

 

How on earth did you get that through?! I have drafted on similar things (hard to make JavaScript do good positioning though), but with the ambition to do it as a mystery or Wherigo, but I am not sure if the reviewers would like the demand of of accessing a web page even for that. For a virtual, the thought didn't even cross my mind! I don't think that would be allowed by our reviewers.

 

Did you have any arguments with reviewers? No objections about this way to do a virtual?

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

I don't think that would be allowed by our reviewers.

 

Ask permission from the HQ before you submit the cache to reviewers to prevent "diplomatic problems".

Edited by arisoft
Link to post
2 hours ago, frostengel said:

It didn't take me too long to create my own idea and in the end I created https://coord.info/GC7B76A. It is a rather long journey through my home town but not just going from coordinate to coordinate (which I have also seen) but with picture searches or following a textual description. So far the finders had fun and probably those who wouldn't have fun just don't do it. :-)

 

Your virtual does not have to be limited to one place and there are several ways to make the finding process more fun than just "go to coordinates XY.....". Be creative! Have fun!

 

Jochen

Holy Moly! 26 tasks!

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, frostengel said:

It didn't take me too long to create my own idea and in the end I created https://coord.info/GC7B76A. It is a rather long journey through my home town but not just going from coordinate to coordinate (which I have also seen) but with picture searches or following a textual description. So far the finders had fun and probably those who wouldn't have fun just don't do it. :-)

 

Assuming that this is indeed possible, you might have given me an idea. I have drafted it before and it sure would fit! So maybe, maybe I can thank you for it! :)

Link to post
1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

How on earth did you get that through?! I have drafted on similar things (hard to make JavaScript do good positioning though), but with the ambition to do it as a mystery or Wherigo, but I am not sure if the reviewers would like the demand of of accessing a web page even for that. For a virtual, the thought didn't even cross my mind! I don't think that would be allowed by our reviewers.

 

Did you have any arguments with reviewers? No objections about this way to do a virtual?

 

Hi,

 

no, I had no problem at all getting this one published. And I do not see why I should have. :-) The cachers only need to download two pdfs and pdfs have never been a problem here.

You only need the full description, best printed out, no need for further website use.

 

58 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Holy Moly! 26 tasks!

 

And as you can assume, when I started thinking about the route and the stages I had many more ideas..... :-)) But in the end I found a compromise between what I wanted to show and the doability (on foot on one day). :-) I had to shorten the route....

 

"Nearby" (only 44 miles ;-)) there is a virtual with even more stages (https://coord.info/GC7B701) but - and that is a little boring in my eyes - any stage is given by coordinates. I wanted some kind of pathfinding with a little more "adventure" (as best as this can be found in the city ;-)) where even those living here have to explore and search and (though they know many stages) have to find the way.

 

I have been told that the virtual is too long (especially for tourists). I have not only been told once. ;-)) But - I don't care and I am sure I would do it the same way if I ever had to do it again. The logs (especially those from the tourists) show me that I am right. :-) Or at least I am not totally wrong. ^^

 

Best wishes

Jochen

 

PS: World's number one virtual considering the favourite percentage according to project-gc is.....

Link to post
10 hours ago, frostengel said:

no, I had no problem at all getting this one published. And I do not see why I should have. :-) The cachers only need to download two pdfs and pdfs have never been a problem here.

You only need the full description, best printed out, no need for further website use.

 

Ah, sorry, now I mixed up your two links. I was thinking of the PacMan virtual, which uses positioning information somewhat like a Wherigo.

Link to post
10 hours ago, frostengel said:

I have been told that the virtual is too long (especially for tourists). I have not only been told once. ;-)) But - I don't care and I am sure I would do it the same way if I ever had to do it again. The logs (especially those from the tourists) show me that I am right. :-) Or at least I am not totally wrong. ^^

 

Yes, it is amazing! I don't have a single cache with 100% FP. I have some that I thought were exceptionally good, but they still get too many "one more on the way". Even well designed T4.5's and D5's get that!

 

I can only congratulate you on that. Good work!

Link to post

Hello Ragnemalm (oh I love this nick name but I have problems writing it),

 

I am sure that with the Pacman virtual the reviewer has been asked before (and some compromises may have been made). Luckily enough he had no problems with it (and I see no either) as it is a really great cache. (I couldn't create something like that. :-( )

 

My experience with any kind of caches in the past: if you have an idea just ask the reviewers. They are (mostly) willing to help and they are open to new ideas. And if there are problems you can find a way.

Asking may give you a "no" but not doing it is a "no" at once. So why not ask? Keep it friendly, of course, they are only doing there job. :-)

 

Have fun with your virtual. That's one of the things I noticed, too: if the owner has fun creating the cache, the finders will (mainly) have fun, too. :-)

 

Jochen

Link to post
16 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Also I don't understand how doing 2000km one way is only D3.

 

Driving distance has been a point of discussion/debate on its impact on D for a while. It's easy. But it takes time. Maybe money depending on length. Does that qualify as difficulty?  In this each waypoint is simple and each task is simple. It doesn't have to be "one way", it can be done in segments, over a long period of time, as desired. The CO felt D3 was sufficient. But yes, that first log looks, umm, highly suspicious.

Link to post

Ontario's size can be deceptive especially up north - a flat map stretches distances longer farther N/S so visually Ontario looks very top heavy :)  It is still a vast land though, so yeah, 2000km is a good chunk of the continental span!  (and we only have up to 3 active reviewers for the region to boot)

Link to post

We haven't done anything with ours yet.  Trying to make it interesting, at a place that has meaning to us, but that doesn't already have a pile of virtual caches nearby.  And as you note, we only get one shot at this, so there is some pressure to make it a cache that can endure.

 

The deadline for hiding will be up before we move from Germany to wherever it is the Army's sending us next, and the reviewer will need to confirm we've been there recently.  So it's going to have to be somewhere in Europe, someplace unlikely to change after we leave (as it will not be easy to return and adjust it if things change at ground zero after we publish).  Might be in our current hometown, might be one of the places we visit between now and June.  We have some thoughts, but haven't committed yet.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...