[Team Deejay]

It works just like your current GPS. You load the PQ, but it doesn’t only get the coordinates, but instead gets all the cache information in the GPX file.

[Team Deejay]

The site is still there. (They really did make the site harder to use.)

http://dnr.wi.gov/Contact/OfficeLocations.html

For Green county, I would send it to Fitchburg. FYI, they have never had the property managers for these smaller areas on the website.

[Team Deejay]

I will never forget the Cache Bash where we were logging a cache and stamping our card near the Washington County Fairgrounds when a certain group drove up to GZ (150 feet from the nearest road/driveway) as we dove out of harm’s way. I don’t want to mention any names, but at least one of the “racers” is very active in the WGA (I don’t believe (s)he was the driver.)

Let’s just say “racing” is not the way we like to promote geocaching to local law enforcement and other government officials.

[Team Deejay]

You might have a “non-geocaching” need to contact the wildlife managers, but for geocaching placements in wildlife areas, fisheries, protected habitats, islands, unclassified DNR land, and the like, just send your notification form to the local service center. We are preapproved for these sorts of locations, so you don’t need to wait for a response. If there is some issue with your placement, they will contact you to let you know.

[Team Deejay]

@Woodland3000 wrote:

In response to your question, you are not allowed to use ALRs to verify signatures. You verify signatures by going out and looking at the log. Of course, you can request other info, but you can’t delete logs on that basis

But that is what did happen.

She didn’t answer your emails because she had no reason to prove anything to you and was not happy about your accusations. So you deleted her log.

Well, don’t do that again! Whoever “she” is can petition Groundspeak to get their log restored or just relog it.

[Team Deejay]

In response to your question, you are not allowed to use ALRs to verify signatures. You verify signatures by going out and looking at the log. Of course, you can request other info, but you can’t delete logs on that basis.

[Team Deejay]

I plead the 5th.

[Team Deejay]

Ralph, it is already on the cache rescue list (CR1501). If the owner was willing to have someone else replace who hadn’t previously found it, we would certainly give them credit for the rescue.

[Team Deejay]

Its not on the list because it was last found in June, and the list is of cache not found since May 22, 2011. And I tend to not pay attention to out of state people logging NA without visiting the site first. Grrrr!

That said, if you know the owners, please ask them to disable the cache and post a note with their plans.

[Team Deejay]

That isn’t right. Only the cache owner can start the adoption process.

[Team Deejay]

@gotta run wrote:

@Team Deejay wrote:

In the case of ALRs, when people complain, we will either convert the cache to a traditional or archive it depending on the owners preference.

You have told me on at least two occasions that you will not change cache types after publication because it “messes up people’s stats.” Archive and republish is the only option.

So why the exception here? Or has the rule…guideline…whatever changed???

Groundspeak made this an explicit exception when they eliminated ALRs, because the old rules were not grandfathered in. I’m not aware of any other cases where we have asked people to change existing caches when the guidelines were changed.

[Team Deejay]

@CodeJunkie wrote:

I have some serious questions about the latest changes to challenges though. It appears they want to make it attainable for everyone so nobody gets excluded. I think this was actually them caving into the opinion of other cachers who demanded it. Examples: Some people aren’t capable (or are unwilling) to do 5/5 type caches. These people can choose to put them on their ignore list if they don’t want to see them. If I try to publish a challenge cache that requires the finder to have 25% of their finds be puzzles that’s not allowed because it excludes some users.

The issue with percentages is that the requirement becomes impossible to achieve without severely changing how one chooses to geocache. For example, let’s say that you have 5000 finds, and of those 200 are mystery caches. To get up to 25%, you would need to find 1400 mystery caches in a row, to the exclusion of all other types of caches. This would be effectively impossible. The same math applies for challenges calling for an average terrain or difficulty rating on finds. Once a finder has a significant amount of finds, it becomes nearly impossible to correct. These types of challenges were eventually categorized as “negative” challenges, because you had to NOT find a particular type(s) of cache(s) to achieve them.

The fact was that Groundspeak didn’t want people to have to NOT find a geocache to meet a challenge. You can still make a challenge for finding 1000 mystery caches if you want. You can still make a challenge for finding 100 5-star terrain caches if you want. Hard is ok, negative is not.

[Team Deejay]

@zuma wrote:

As owners of the game, Groundspeak has the right, maybe even an obligation, to change the rules as they see fit to protect the interests of the game long term. So, I dont have a problem with the new rules.

What I do have an issue with is the selective application of existing rules. For example, it has been a long time since the rule was made against ALRs, yet I still run across caches that have ALRs attached. It has been over 2 years since Earthcache owners were notified of the rule change that prohibits requiring a photo at the Earthcache site, yet demands for photos at Earthcaches are still common.

I archived or modified all of my ALR caches to comply with the rules. I dont require a photo at any of my Earthcaches because I recognize the need to live by the rules. So why should I have to comply with other people’s ALRs or post a photo at an Earthcache? The rules should be for every one, and I wish Groundspeak would do a better job of enforcing existing rules prior to dreaming up new ones.

zuma

Just so you know, we basically try to avoid going back and looking for violations like this. In the case of ALRs, when people complain, we will either convert the cache to a traditional or archive it depending on the owners preference. So, actually you don’t have to comply. If you choose not to comply and someone deletes your log, let Groundspeak know and they will take care of it.

[Team Deejay]

Many people enjoy waymarking. If you are one of those people who enjoy geocaching for the places it brings you, rather than the containers, or the numbers, or the puzzles, or whatever, you probably would like it.

[Team Deejay]

@Northwoods Tom wrote:

@Team Deejay wrote:

1. “Challenge caches based on a specific list of caches, such as caches placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published.”

So does this mean that a new cache similar to GC2M3MW Wisconsin Roadside Weirdness Challenge by Trekkin’ and birdin’ would not be acceptable? (A cache that would require you to find specific caches that have a specific feature/quality/etc. in the state).

I am in the process of creating a cache that requires you to visit specific caches and log them to complete the challenge. All of these caches are located in very specific locations. The way I read it now is this is a no go. Sad to think that it’s true.

I am personally logging all these cache and had planned to include them in the challenge and now I won’t be able to bring others to these spots through the challenge process.

What you are describing would not have been publishable before the change. The other cache only requires you to find a small subset of a list, not the entire list. I’m not certain how that particular cache would fare under the changed guidelines, so if you submitted a similar one, I would check with the home office to determine if it was publishable.

[Author]

Posts