List of land management policies for Iowa geocaching

Did you know there's a handy list of links to geocaching policies posted by state, county and municipal land managers in Iowa? You can find it in the Geocaching.com Wiki at this link. If you know of additional policies posted by land managers, please let me know and I'll post the information in the Wiki site.

A Look Back to the Early Days

The following article was recently reposted in the Wisconsin Geocaching Association website forums. I thought it would be fun to share with you here. It was written by a Wisconsin geocacher, rpaske, after he interviewed me and other geocaching oldtimers. 

Back in February 2001, there was only one geocache around Milwaukee and a total of three in the entire state. After Ken Braband found his first cache, in the Chicago area, he wanted to place his own. He had skied and hiked the trails at Pike Lake State Park for many years and always enjoyed the view from the top of Powder Hill. Pike Powder Hike cache was placed.Ken started to feel guilty that he did not ask for permission from the park manager. He found the manager’s email address and advised him about the geocache. A few days later Ken went to check on the cache and discovered that the park manager had been there and signed the log book. The park manager had hunted and found the cache using only a topographic map. He wrote a message in the cache’s journal. “He didn't write anything bad about the cache and did not confiscate it, so I took that as tacet approval." Even at this time, dialogue between the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin Geocaching association continues. Additional information can be found on the Wisconsin Geocaching Association forums.

Everything was going smoothly until one day Ken learned from other geocachers that the plastic container had been chewed open and remnants of a candy bar and a beef stick had been found in the debris field. “It made me realize that this sport was going to attract a broad spectrum of people -- some with outdoor experience and some without.”

Another frustrating experience concerned an email confrontation with an out-of-state geocacher who had logged the cache as a find on www.geocaching.com even though it was not found. Because the cache was stolen at the time, and had not yet been replaced, “The guy got pretty indignant when I deleted his post. His argument was that he suffered a bad scratch on his face while searching for the cache, so he felt he deserved to log it as a find. He accused me of being some kind of geocaching Nazi. Despite his name-calling, I stuck to my guns.”

Nowadays Ken recommends new geocachers find at least 10 geocaches before a cache is placed. “A geocacher has to have a chance to learn what works and what does not. I didn't have that option because there were no other caches in the area. After you hunt a few dozen caches, you start to build a list in your mind of what you like and don't like to see in a cache hunt. Overall I would say create the kind of geocache that you would enjoy hunting,” reveals Ken. His web page offers tips for finding caches as well as his preferences.

Ken adds “If all caches were like mine, it might get old for people because I tend to favor long hikes in scenic locations. Some people like caches that are very hard to find. Others like to bushwhack or solve puzzles. We have some VERY creative geocachers in Wisconsin. In terms of quality, creativity, and diversity, I would put Wisconsin caches up against any other state or region.”

“Geocaching is a wonderful, relatively inexpensive sport which gets individuals and families outdoors. Geocachers can participate alone, with a loved one, with the family, or even with a group of strangers. It has introduced many people to the outdoors who otherwise would never have purchased a county or state park sticker. It has also resulted in lots of trash getting picked up and properly disposed of as we practice 'Cache In, Trash Out'".

There are two big challenges that Ken sees in the future. “As the sport becomes more popular, there will come a time when geocaching is no longer ‘under the radar.’ That time is already here in many parks. Secondly, to keep our sport from being severely curtailed or outright banned, we need to help develop rules and then make sure we follow them.” Lastly, Ken offers this advice: "As GPS receivers become more common more caches are going to be plundered by vandals. Don't give up in frustration. Replace your cache or create a new one somewhere else."

More than 80 Geocachers have found Pike Powder Hike. A few of the finders expressed their views about geocaching. One of the later geocachers to have located this cache is sullyb007. “Geocaching gave me another reason to turn off the TV and go get some exercise. I thought I knew about most of the parks and nature areas. I couldn’t have been more wrong! Geocaching takes me to new places that, otherwise, I would never have seen.”

JeremyV agrees. “The number one reason I keep geocaching is that it gets me to parts of the state of Wisconsin that I otherwise wouldn't visit. I do a lot of back road driving. So often, when I go looking for a cache, I realize that I've driven by the cache site before. Geocaching gets me to stop the car or motorcycle and go explore some pretty interesting areas on foot. If there wasn't a cache sitting out there to be found, I would simply pass by these places and miss the great experiences that they have to offer.” JeremyV adds, “I would like to thank Ken Braband for hiding the two geocaches ‘Pike Powder Hike’ and ‘New Prospect’ back in March 2001. Unofficially, though I strongly believe this is the case, these two caches have attracted more Wisconsin residents to the sport of geocaching than any other pair of caches in the state. They have also served as good examples of how to create quality caches. This was very important back in the ‘early days’, when people were still trying to get a handle on what exactly this crazy geocaching thing was supposed to be.

Sullyb007 is not the only geocacher to share this view. One of the first ten geocachers to have found Pike Powder Hike cache was Kevin Winter. “Geocaching is a great way to get outside, either by oneself or with friends. I still support it but not in the same manner as others. I usually don’t bother logging my finds. I felt it was developing into a contest of numbers and bragging rights between cachers.” On a recent trip to Oregon, Kevin found three sites and left nothing but footprints. “Nothing wrong with folks that log every find, I just don't want too. I worry about the impact on areas if the caches don't get moved every so often. I tend to avoid some of the more delicate ecosystems or very popular sites.” Kevin adds, “most of the Geocachers that I have met are usually very eco-conscious.”

GrouseTales, also one of the first teams to have found Pike Powder Hike replies, “I love outdoor activities and embrace any chance I can get to be in the woods. Geocaching lures me back into the forest after the hunting seasons are over. I find Geocaching is an activity that brings my family together and gives us a chance to spend quality time together. I don't hear many complaints when I say that we are all going Geocaching. “ Reflecting on finding Pike Powder Hike, GrouseTales continued, “In the winter of 2001, I was considering the purchase of a new GPS and had been surfing the web looking for information. One website I stumbled upon was: Joe Mehaffey & Jack Yeazel's GPS information site (www.GPSinformation.net).”

“Right around April 1st I discovered a link to Geocaching.com on Joe and Jacks' website. I immediately became very excited and couldn't wait to give Geocaching a try. I did a search of Wisconsin and found approximately 8 Geocaches in WI. The nearest caches were ‘Pike Powder Hike’ and ‘New Prospect.’ Both of these caches were placed by Kbraband.”

“So on my next off day, I picked up the kids from school and told them we were going to find some treasure. We drove up to Pike Lake and started hiking. Once we reached the area of the cache, it only took a few minutes for one of my sons to find it. We took our pictures, exchanged items and signed the log.”

“My Son's and I had a really great time. I finally had a use for my GPS besides hunting and fishing. I was now hooked on the sport.”

In the winter of 2001, several other cachers and I formed the Wisconsin Geocaching Association. Being actively involved in the WGA keeps me motivated to keep on caching. Even when the weather isn't conducive to caching, I can still keep involved by participating on the WGA website.

One of the last geocachers to have found Pike Powder Hike is the PharmTeam. “It is a good way to get exercise without it seeming like a chore. We have also met quite a few nice and interesting geocachers either on the trails, at WGA events, or through the online discussion boards, or geocaching email.” When the PharmTeam began to geocache with their son, Geocaching served as a way for the family to get together for a picnic, or a nice view. “One geocache would be found per day. Now, geocaching has turned into trips for the purpose of seeking out as many caches as can be found in one day.

LindaFawn thought that this would be a good way to get out of the house and get some exercise. “I was minding my own business, when my nephew asked if I wanted to go for a walk with him.” Together, they found her first cache. “After that I was hooked.” LindaFawn adds, “the world is full of things to do, this happens to put all the little things I love into one hobby: Going for a walk; puzzles; looking for treasures; relaxing; looking at nature; being with friends or being alone if you so desire. Geocaching takes my mind off the hustle and bustle of day-to-day life.”

Lance Newton of team BOOBoys enjoys the opportunity to get outside and discover what Mother Nature has placed there. “Geocaching helps to take one’s mind off the normal grind of life. It sure beats sitting inside watching television or playing videos. Imagine yourself going back in time trudging through the woods with a treasure map looking for that lost fortune. Yes, you could actually be a modern day Indiana Jones looking for that lost cache of small trinkets for trading.”

Like Ken, these geocachers have also shared a few geocaching challenges. Lance continues, “I personally like the challenging caches. We have found quite a few that are just put out for the purpose of getting people outside. There is nothing wrong with that. Certain areas may become over saturated with caches which are less challenging. I also worry about non-geocachers treating the caches properly.”

“I do have some concerns regarding the future of Geocaching,” says Brian Sullivan of team sullyb007. Among them are “People who steal caches for their own kicks. They have been around a long time and have come to be known as Geo-terrorists. It always seems to be someone out there who only finds joy in ruining the fun for others. My second concern is the destruction of parks and nature areas. The more people walking through the woods means more people who might be throwing garbage on the ground or trampling endangered plants and disturbing natural habitats. My third concern is the over abundance of caches in a general area. Eventually, every local and state park will contain multiple caches. This may make it frustrating for new Geocachers to create their own cache and hide it someplace original. One solution might be to set time limits on caches to remain in the same place, one year for example.

“My fear,” says LindaFawn, “is that, the government will step in and require that geocachers have to pay to do this. I also fear that someone will say just how many geocaches can be in one area. My hope for the future is a carefree, fun loving hobby without a lot of rules and regulations, which will ruin the hunt of this hobby.”

The PharmTeam, is amazed that geocaching.com is able to process all of the messages that it does and hopes that it will continue doing so. “There should also be a way to handle caches that seem to be abandoned. Perhaps some more general guidelines or uniformity of restrictions about cache placement need to be developed. It varies quite a bit from state to state.”

JeremyV adds, “Most of the challenges we'll face in the future will have to do with the exponential growth of the sport. We've got the whole issue of regulation of geocaching by government agencies, which is a direct result of the growth of the sport. Back when I found "Pike Powder Hike", the DNR certainly didn't care about the three or four plastic containers sitting on "their" land or the dozen or so people looking for them. The WGA is trying to be proactive in this area and is working with the DNR to come up with a geocaching policy that both parties can live with. Hopefully Wisconsin county and local parks will also adopt this policy if they decide to get into the geocaching regulation business. There are other problems that are caused by the sheer number of caches that are now being placed. When are there too many caches in an area? How close together can two caches be placed? Should caches be forced into retirement after being out in the field for a certain number of years? How to deal with "low quality" caches, etc.”

Continuing with this thought, GrouseTales adds, “I think that as the number of caches increases, the rules are going to become more restrictive. We have already seen many rule changes on the Geocaching.com website. These changes have made it more restrictive to place virtual caches and put limits on how close a cache can be to an existing cache. I think these changes have been made because of the high volume of caches being placed in urban areas. Sooner or later the metro areas are going to run out of parks to place a cache”.

“I think that GC.com will be forced to set limits on the amount of caches placed. There may be limits on how often a cacher can actually place a cache, or the total number of caches they can place. I think the biggest challenge is going to be working with municipalities to allow caching to continue. I think most cites or counties are still unaware of caches in their parks, or choose to ignore them. Sooner or later these parks will have some problem with a cache and will probably set up some rules to govern them. If a community doesn't have a Geocaching organization in their area to represent their interests, it is likely that some parks may outlaw caches in their systems. As Geocaching continues to grow, I think it will be vital for cachers to form local organizations and be prepared to work with Governments to address problems and fight for the 'rights' of Geocachers.”

Brian Sullivan of team sullyb007 believes that preparation and equipment should be considered when beginning geocaching. “Geocaching sounds pretty easy in theory, but it can get frustrating when you just take a GPS into the woods and find out you should have brought some waders along because you started out on the wrong side of a river. You’ll also learn pretty quickly to carry a can of bug spray with you in the summer; for some reason, people like to hide their caches in mosquito hatcheries! “

“Start out by reading about the possible caches. Decide if the difficulty and terrain match your desires and ability.” advises the PharmTeam. “I would start with nearby ones that are moderate or easy before trying the very difficult ones which people are logging as difficult to find. Difficulty and terrain may also make a difference if you are doing geocaching as a family with young children. Our other son has children under 3. He usually picks the easy ones so that the children can have fun helping with the search.”

“Geocaching is not a competition. The number of finds you have does not matter. You don't have to go geocaching every day, or every week, or even every month and, you certainly don't have to go out at 2am in a blizzard to be the first to find a new cache. The important thing is that you have fun.” JeremyV says.

Finally, the GrouseTales have this to add, “Pick a few caches near your house and take your families along. Geocaching is great family sport. If you have younger children, keep the walks short, and let them find the cache if possible. Young children will quickly become irritable if the walks are too long. If they have a bad experience they will most likely not want to go Geocaching in the future. If I am the one to find the cache, I like to keep quiet and try to steer the kids in the direction of the cache so they can find it.”

The GrouseTales continue, “Try to pace your self. Set a goal to find X amount of caches per week or month. Sit back and enjoy the views. I personally don't exchange cache trinkets very often. My reward for finding the cache is usually to see a new park or to enjoy some beautiful views. It's real easy to get in the mode of going straight to the cache and then hurrying back. It's nice to walk around and take in the surroundings.”

“Don't feel that you need to keep pace with other cachers in the area. A lot of people get competitive when viewing other people's ‘finds number.’”

Still another geocacher says, “My advice to people who are just starting out, is to get off their little butts and get some exercise, the world is full of things to do.”

Let's Call Them "Issues". A Blog in INATN.

The New Zealand-based geocaching blog "It's Not About the Numbers" recently asked me to write a guest post on the topic of the most common mistakes that geocache owners make that prevent me from publishing their caches on the first go-round. You can read my post on their blog. I'm also posting it below to improve the  search engine optimization for my blog. :)
---------------
 

It’s Not About the Numbers was kind enough to ask me to write a guest blog on the topic of “the biggest/most common mistakes you see as a reviewer when players submit a new cache listing.” But since geocachers are Groundspeak’s customers, I prefer not to call them “mistakes.” How about referring to them as “issues”?

It’s pretty easy for me to say what the most common issue is that I see: placing a cache too close to an existing geocache. This is sometimes called the proximity issue. As all seasoned geocachers know, Geocaching.com guidelines call for spacing of at least 528 ft. (0.1 mile or 161 m) between geocaches and between physical waypoints of different multicaches. If there’s one issue that red-flags a new geocache and causes a delay in publishing, it’s mostly likely the proximity issue, and it’s often the result of the cache owner neglecting to check the location of nearby geocaches before placing his or her new cache. In those cases, I try to work with the geocacher to let them find a new location so they don’t have to resubmit an entirely new cache page. 

My second most common issue is when a multicache or puzzle cache doesn’t have the final coordinates listed as an additional waypoint. Sometimes geocachers will post the final coordinates in a reviewer note, but that doesn’t really help me much because I would then have to enter those coordinates myself as an additional waypoint before I could determine if it’s too close to another geocache. That’s why it’s important that cache owners use the “add/edit waypoints” feature to enter the coordinates for all the waypoints that are physical caches, including the final location. This not only makes it easier for reviewers to review the new geocache, it also helps ensure that future geocaches don't encroach on the caches we publish. 

Third on my list of most common “issues” are caches that appear to have commercial overtones, which is a violation of Geocaching.com’s guidelines regarding commercial caches. Many times the cache owners are just big fans of the business or organization and have no direct financial connections. They simply want other geocachers to know about the great sandwiches, the delicious ice cream, or the helpful service they receive inside the store. However, such an endorsement of a business still crosses the line beyond what Groundspeak wants to publish on its website. In these situations, it’s usually easy to correct the issue. Usually all it takes is the cache owner removing the name of the business from the geocache title and/or removing the endorsement from the description. 

In addition to those, I also see lots of others issues; ones readers of this blog are likely familiar with such as: too close to railroad tracks, on school property or near a government building without permission, and for Iowa, on land managed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources without permission.  

One of the oddest issues that I encounter is seeing a newly submitted cache with the same coordinates and the same name as an existing geocache, but submitted by a different geocacher. The first time I saw it, I scratched my head as I tried to figure out what was going on. Eventually I was able to determine that the new listing was not actually a new geocache hide. It was meant to be a “found it” log but the newbie geocacher was mistakenly using the “submit a cache” form to log his find. Believe it not, I’ve seen this happen a number of times so when I see it again it’s easier to recognize the reason. 

So there you have it. My list of the most common “issues” may be different than it is for other reviewers around the world. But all the volunteer reviewers will assure you that we don’t seek ways to deny new geocaches. Our goal is to help cache owners get their caches listed within the guidelines Groundspeak has established for its listing service. Sometimes that requires a few details to be resolved before publication. My thanks to cache owners for their patience and cooperation as I work with them to keep this activity fun for everyone.

Challenge caches - Guideline has been updated

Groundspeak has updated the Challenge Cache guideline as shown below.

New guideline
A challenge cache is a variation of a mystery cache that enhances the geocaching experience. It will typically require the cacher to meet a reasonable and positive Geocaching-, Waymarking- or Wherigo-related qualification. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please review the additional specifications in our Knowledge Book article.

Previous guideline
A challenge cache is a variation of a puzzle cache. This will typically require the cacher to meet a reasonable Geocaching-, Waymarking- or Wherigo-related qualification. An example is finding a cache in each county of your state. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, be sure to do your research first.

And here's the update to the Knowledge Book article, which contains more information. (Maybe it's just me, but I had to chuckle when I saw this in the text: "A lengthy list of 'rules' would be sufficient reason for a challenge cache to not be published," which is immediately followed by a lengthy list of rules.)

Updated Knowledge Book Article

What is a Challenge cache?
A challenge cache requires that geocachers meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks before the challenge cache can be logged. Waymarking, Benchmarking, Challenges and Wherigo-related tasks also qualify. The additional qualification or geocaching-related tasks are considered the basis of a challenge cache, rather than Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs).

Challenge caches vary in scope and format. All challenge caches must be in the affirmative and require that something be accomplished. Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are sufficient available caches to meet the challenge at the time of publication. Reviewers may ask the cache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

How will you know when the challenge cache requirements have been met?
Importantly, cache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the cache requirements have been met. The challenge criteria on the cache page must reflect this consideration, and must be verifiable through information on the Geocaching.com website. Challenge caches relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published. Cache owners will need to ensure that geocachers can verify that they have completed the cache requirements without compromising their privacy. Challenge cache owners may also be asked to outline a long-term cache maintenance plan.

What makes an acceptable challenge cache?
A challenge cache needs to be appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers. If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular cache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the cache will not be published.

The requirements for meeting the challenge should be succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document. A lengthy list of “rules” would be sufficient reason for a challenge cache to not be published.

Additional points to consider when creating a challenge cache:

1. Challenge caches must contain the word "challenge" in the cache name.
2. Challenge caches are listed as the Mystery/Unknown cache type.
3. A Challenge cache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically:
a. Challenge caches based on a specific list of caches, such as caches placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published
b. Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on ‘date found’; caches found before the challenge cache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.
4. Challenge caches need to be attainable at any time while the cache is active. A cache that requires “100 multi-caches found in 2011” would not be publishable, as would not be attainable by someone new to the game.
5. A Challenge cache based on non-accomplishments, such as DNFs, will not be published.
6. One should not have to ‘give up’ finding other caches to achieve a challenge cache’s requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of caches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game.
7. Challenge caches may not require the publication of a new cache or Waymark as a challenge criteria; challenge caches must be achievable by those who do not own caches or Waymarks.
8. Challenge caches must not require geocachers to log caches that are disabled or archived.
9. A challenge cache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge cache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable.
10. A challenge cache must be attainable without the need to email the owner. The cache page must include the true coordinates or the means to calculate them, if a puzzle.
11. If a challenge cache is submitted within an area where a similar challenge cache already exists, then it will need to have a unique list of qualifying criteria (geocaches, waymarks, etc.).

Seed caches

For some time there have been caches called seed caches that contain lots of small cache containers -- usually 35mm film canisters -- with instructions that geocachers who find the "spawn" or "mother" cache should take one of the seed caches and hide it "to keep the game of geocaching going." However, Groundspeak has instructed reviewers that seed caches constitute an ALR (additional listing requirement) and therefore reviewers should not publish caches that require or even encourage people to hide "spawn" caches. I think this is a good idea because too often, the seed caches obtained from mother caches were placed in less than ideal locations with little thought going into them and little maintenance provided after the hide.

EarthCache guidelines updated

If you're an avid EarthCacher, you may be intersted to know that the guidelines for that aspect of our hobby have been updated as of January 1, 2011. The biggest change is that:

"Requests for photographs must be optional. Exceptions to this guideline will only be considered if the requested photograph is related to an Earth Science logging activity such as recording a phenomenon. This particular guidelines was updated on 1 January 2011. All EarthCaches must conform to this guideline as photo requests are considered "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) and follow the guidelines set forth by Geocaching.com. Existing EarthCaches that do not meet this guideline must be updated to comply. Cache owners may not delete the cacher's log based solely on optional tasks."

And in case you weren't aware of it, I don't review Earth Caches in Iowa. They're reviewed and published by a different group of reviewers. If you have questions about Earth Caches, you can address them to glewis@geosociety.org.

The end of new FTF series caches

In the past, a few geocachers have criticized me for being more strict than other reviewers -- at least that's the way they saw it. As evidence to the contrary, let me point out that I have been more liberal than other reviewers regarding FTF (first to find) series caches. These are caches that require or suggest that the person who is FTF such a cache is "strongly urged" to continue the series by hiding a similar one in the same area. I have been approving such caches as long as they made it clear that placing another cache was not a requirement. However, I am no longer going to publish new FTF cache series because of clarification that Groundspeak has issued. Essentially the requirement or suggestion to place another cache has been judged to be an ALR (additional logging requirement) so volunteer reviewers have been instructed to no longer approve them. I just wanted to give Iowa geocachers a heads-up: I will no longer be publishing such caches.

Power Trails back in the discussion

Two years ago I wrote about power trails and explained the reasons behind Groundspeak's guidelines and restrictions against placing lots of caches in a row along a trail. That posting led to a number of excellent comments on this site. This spring some additional geocaches were submitted that I felt crossed the sometimes grey line into what constitutes a power trail -- a series of caches along the new Old Creamery Trail near Vinton and a series (not yet published) along the Little Sioux River near Cherokee. In both cases I have corresponded with the cache owners and we have had polite and constructive dialog to get as many as the caches approved as possible while complying with the intent of the power trail guideline. As I said two years ago, power trails are a difficult area of the guidelines for me as a reviewer to interpret and enforce. But if you read what I wrote back in June 2007 about them, and what I wrote in the subsequent comment discussion, it gives you a pretty good insight into what the guidelines are asking -- at least my interpretation of those guidelines.

No more ALR caches

In case you haven't heard the news, the geocaching.com guidelines have been updated and ALR (Additional Listing Requirement) caches have been banned/stricken/outlawed/disallowed... whatever word you prefer. Here's the new guideline text:

Logging of All Physical Caches

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

• Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.
• Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.
• Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

Compared to some parts of the U.S. and the world, I think this change won't affect Iowa geocachers that much because I've seen very few ALR caches submitted in Iowa. Many ALRs had nothing to do with geocaching, such as the requirement to draw a picture, stand on your head, step under a waterfall, sing a silly song, etc.

What do you think? Do you (did you) love ALRs and think this is a terrible idea? Or did you hate them and think it's about time they were written out of the guidelines?

Total caches published

This morning I noticed an announcement for an event hosted by Minnesota geocachers to commemorate Surfer Joe's 10,000th published geocache. This is a well-deserved honor for my fellow reviewer to the north, especially when you consider that he's been reviewing for just three years.
This got me to thinking about how many geocaches I have published. In a post last September, I wrote that I had published close to 6,000 geocaches in my 5+ years of reviewing. I don't recall how I arrived at that figure, but upon checking this morning, IowaAdmin has officially published 6,491 caches since the summer of 2005, which is as early as the "published" log type goes back. I probably published an additional 1,000 in the 12 months before that. And for a year prior to creating my "IowaAdmin" I.D., I reviewed geocaches in Iowa and Wisconsin using the I.D. "WGA2". Because WGA2 is now owned by a different reviewer, I don't have an accurate way to know exactly what my total is. My best estimate is that it's now around 8,000 caches.

Ripping me off on the web

A couple of weeks ago I received a Google alert that a web site mentions IowaAdmin. (I will not mention that site by name here so as not to give them any additional visits from my site.) So I checked it out and discovered the site has duplicated several posts from my blog -- some credited to me, most not. I posted a few comments on that site politely asking that they remove all these posts because it appears I am the one who is selling geocaching goods on that site, which I am not. The site is also advertising for sale geocaching gear from Groundspeak. When I click them, it looks like lots of copyright violations and re-selling of Groundspeak stuff! So far they have not responded to me. It looks like they removed my comments and now they have added even more of my blog posts. This evening I sent a formal letter of copyright infringement to the Internet provider for that site. We'll see if this helps.

I feel like someone has broken into my house and stolen some of our stuff. Have any of you ever experienced anything similar?

A gift from the Frog

I recently received an unexpected gift from Groundspeak, the company that owns and runs geocaching.com. It's a glass award to mark my five years of being a volunteer reviewer for their web site. During those 5+ years I have published close to 6,000 geocaches, which comes to approximately 100 per month. I don't know how many others I have reviewed but not approved, but I'm guessing it would be an additional 10 percent to 25 percent. Sometimes you encounter people who just seem to have a grudge against me, geocaching.com and the world in general. But by far it's been an enjoyable "job" and it's been great to meet and/or talk to so many interesting geocachers.

Stats very interesting

What do New Hampshire and Iowa have in common? If you answered “first in the nation” status, you are correct. But I’m not talking about the presidential campaign process. Instead, I’m referring to the world-wide rankings of geocaching regions.

One of my fellow reviewers who goes by the user name Riviouveur and who reviews caches for France, likes to collect geocache statistics. He graciously consented to let me publish some of the data he collected from the www.geocaching.com site.

One stat that I find especially interesting is that, for the period from May 30, 2007 to January 27, 2008, of all the states in the U.S., only New Hampshire had a greater percentage increase in its number of geocaches (42.8%) than Iowa (42.2%). During those eight months, Iowa went from having 2,943 geocaches to 4,184 – an increase of 1,241 caches. That equates to approximately 155 new caches per month since last May.

According to Riviouver’s calculations, Iowa now has 28.7 caches per 1,000 square kilometers, which equates to roughly .011 per geocaches per square mile (if my math is correct). That puts us 51st out of 143 regions (countries and states) worldwide in terms of cache density. So Iowa is not a cache-barren land. In fact, we’re closer to the top of the list than the bottom.

In terms of population, we currently have 140.4 caches per 100,000 population, which ranks us 28th on the list of 143 worldwide regions. That means Iowans like to hide geocaches more than average.

Another factoid, the numbers included in the spreadsheet are ACTIVE cache figures. Reviewers have actually reviewed more caches than those numbers indicate. The numbers that appear here are the net of total caches submitted minus those that have been archived and minus those that were not approved for listing.

Some additional trivia from Riviouver:
- Five US states hit 10,000 active caches in the last two months.
- The numbers are growing substantially faster outside the U.S. than within the U.S.

Acceptance of additional waypoints feature

Since early 2006, I've been encouraging geocachers to use the "add/edit waypoints" feature found on the edit pages for their caches to enter coordinates for multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches. At first I posted a lot of "reviewer notes" to inform or remind geocachers about this. Recently I don't seem to need to remind geocachers as much because most are already aware of this and doing it on their own. Of course, I can't take all the credit for this (or even most of the credit) because geocaching.com has now made it part of the latest version of the geocaching.com guidelines for hiding a multicache.

People are different

The answer to this question may be obvious, but have you ever noticed how different people can be? Case in point: For the past couple of months I've been asking geocachers whose caches I review and who have additional waypoints for multicaches, to use the "add/edit waypoints" feature on the edit page to enter their coordinates. To my way of thinking, it's a fairly straightforward request and not that hard to do. Most geocachers see it that way. Most will say "OK, I didn't know about that feature," and they do it without whining. Then there are other geocachers who say something like "This is the final straw. I've had it!" and they proceed to let me know how this is the worst thing that has ever happened to them. Yup, people are different, all right. Sometimes that difference makes you appreciate the nice guys even more.

A reminder about adding waypoints

Greetings from sunny (and breezy) Okoboji! I'm logged on to check the cache queue. I was able to approve a couple new ones just now, but for four others I had to post a note to the owners asking them to use the "add/edit waypoint" feature on the edit page to enter the additional waypoints for their multicaches. I know it may take some time for all geocachers to become aware of this new feature, so I'll keep plugging away to get the message out.

A reminder: "add/edit waypoints" feature

For the past few weeks I've been asking cache owners who submit new caches and who have not used the "add/edit waypoints" feature to go back and edit the cache page to add waypoints (if they originally listed additional waypoints in their description). And so far, the system seems to be working well. Everyone has been complying nicely. My thanks to everyone for doing this. It makes reviewing more efficient and it gives us a better way to document where the additional waypoints are for multicaches, which helps maintain the .1 separation.

Additional waypoints -- please use this feature

Back on January 21st I posted some tips about how to use the additional waypoint feature at geocaching.com. Now that this system has been around for several months, it seems to have most of the bugs worked out. I encourage each of you to use this feature when you submit new geocaches. It will be especially helpful for reviewers as we have more multicaches out there if everyone submits all their multicache waypoints using this feature. That way, I'll be able to see quickly if any of the multicache waypoints intrude on each other's 528 ft. rule for cache separation. From now on, if new caches are submitted without using the additional waypoint coordinates feature, I'm going to ask the owner to edit the cache page to include the additional waypoints for multicaches -- and for parking (for those who choose to include parking coordinates in their description). For those who want to go back to their existing cache pages and use this feature -- well, that would be great, too. If the cache is a simple traditional cache with no parking coordinates or no multiple waypoints, then, of course, you won't need to use the additional waypoints feature.

How to use the Additional Waypoints feature

One of my fellow reviewers, gpsfun, posted this "cheat sheet" about how to use the new Additional Waypoints feature of the geocaching.com website.
-------
For those who cannot seem to master the entry of additional waypoints, here's a cheat sheet I created. It has been sent to one geocacher so far as a test.

Feel free to use it as-is or modified to meet your personal style. I will appreciate suggestions, clarifications, or corrections.

Recording Additional Waypoints

1. Sign in to your account on Geocaching dot Com
2. Display your cache page
3. There is a Navigation section at the top right of the cache page where a "waypoints" link will be seen; click on that link.

4. First, you may choose a waypoint type - Final Location, Parking Area, Question to Answer, Stages of a Multicache, and Trailhead.
4a. For a complex cache, you could have entries for the parking area, trailhead, questions to answer, stages of a multicache, as well as the final location.
4b. For a traditional cache, you might want to enter the parking area and/or the trailhead.
4c. For a puzzle/mystery cache or a multicache, it will be necessary to make an entry for each stage and for the final cache location.

5. After choosing a waypoint type, you may enter a name for it. This can simply be parking, stage one, stage two, final, or whatever you choose.

6. Next is an entry field for a waypoint lookup code. As it says on the Waypoint Collection page, STAGE1 or FINAL are good names for the lookup code. You may use anything you want, but each entry must be unique - you cannot have two waypoints with STAGE1 as the lookup code.

7. After that there is an entry field for a prefix code. Unless you have something special in mind, you can just use AA for the first waypoint entry, AB for the second one, etc.

8. Next are the entry fields for the waypoint coordinates, which are completed in the same manner as the coordinate entries on the edit cache page.

9. Finally, there are three choices for how the waypoint should be displayed.
9a. Show all information for this waypoint, including coordinates - this should be chosen for parking waypoints, trailheads, and in those cases where the geocacher is being sent to a location to gather information or to answer a question that may be required to determine the final cache location.

9b. Show the details of this waypoint but hide the coordinates - I do not have a good example for this choice.

9c. Hide this waypoint from view except by the owner or administrator - this should be chosen for intermediate stages of a multicache or a mystery/puzzle cache, as well as for the final cache location.

Hope this helps.

Be careful with the state dropdown menu

When submitting a new cache...
Tonight I went to the Iowa review queue and saw a new cache submission. Right away I could see there was a problem when the map indicated it was in McDonough County. Hmm, I thought, last time I checked there was no such county in Iowa. Sure enough, the cache owner had filled out the hide-a-cache online form correctly, except instead of pulling the drop-down menu to Illinois, he missed it by one and accidently selected Iowa. This happens quite frequently. Not a big deal. Reviewers usually simply edit the cache listing so it shows up in the queue of the appropriate state. However, it can slow the approval process for the cache, because it may take at least an additional day for the next reviewer to check his or her state queue and find it.