Geocaching Icons

As happens from time to time Groundspeak makes a change on that some members of the user community do not like.  I’m not one to resist change.  Change is inevitable.   The only thing I want to say about the new icons is I like this set created by thebruce0 a lot better.  The colors all mean something:

RED - problems with a cache/negative cache availability
GREEN - related to cache availability/location
BLUE - Attention grabbing (DNF will of course be the most common, and won’t appear alongside event announcements)
YELLOW - FIND COUNT INCREASERS (Finds, Attends, Webcams)
GREY - Informational

If you like Geoff’s creation why not pop over to the forum and let others know how you feel about the geocaching icons.

Geocaching Icons created by thebruce0

Geocaching Icons created by thebruce0

Choosing a Headlamp

Headlamp BeamI’ve been answering questions on a few threads lately so I decided to write a post about choosing a headlamp.   As with most of my technical posts these days they are being posted to the blog over at Cache At Night.   The gist of my post is that there is more to selecting a headlamp that raw brightness.   The throw and spread of the light play an important role in the selection process.   I have 5 criteria that I recommend you use when selecting a headlamp.   Follow this link for the complete post on How To Choose a Headlamp.

Garmin Will Buy

qr code from

QR code from

If the folks at Garmin are smart they will buy  Why would Garmin buy a smart phone game?  To start with, the new generation of Garmin GPS receivers with built in cameras already support QR codes.   Once it’s supported in hardware telling the device what to do when it scans the code is just a firmware upgrade away.

Last month I posted some stats indicating that munzee has crushed based on the number of placements in Waterloo.   munzee has definitely seen aggressive growth world-wide in the last year and Opencaching has not.   There is already a greater than 90% overlap between geocachers and munzers.  If Garmin is going to continue to pump money in to Opencaching they are going to have to increase growth.

So what would it cost to buy munzee?  Only the four founders at munzee can answer that one but I have some guesses.   Aaron Benzick at munzee reported that they have 50,000 members world-wide.  If we assume 20% of them are paying the premium membership fee of $30/year.   That works out to about $360,000/year in revenue.   Add in sales of supplies and average that out at $2/placement for a total of about $340,000 in the last year.  In total that’s about $700,000 in revenue.  I suspect that’s a bit high so let’s say it’s $500,000 with a profit margin of 30% or $150,000.   These numbers are based on conjecture.   Only the founders of munzee know for sure.   With an annualized profit of $150,000 and a valuation of four times profit the value of today might be something like $600,000.  My guess is that this is less than what Garmin has spent developing

For argument’s sake let’s assume the cost to acquire munzee is the $600k I’ve worked out above.   I have to believe that if Garmin is truly serious about making a go of then a price of $600,000 to acquire 50,000 members and 172k placements.   Based on these numbers that’s a cost of acquisition of only $12/user.   These numbers sound quite reasonable to me.    The founders at might have different ideas of valuation.

I asked Aaron Benzick to comment on this post.  He neither confirmed nor disputed the assumptions I made.   I take that to mean that at least some of those assumptions are on the high side.   According to Benzick “Despite trying new ideas, Groundspeak hasn’t been able to latch on to ‘the next big thing’ and munzee has been able to create a whole platform that disrupts the adventure hunting scene with fresh ideas …”  I take it from that comment that the folks at munzee see themselves as leaders in the space.    Forward thinking leadership would be another reason for Garmin to acquire

A similar argument could be made for to buy   Both companies have smart phone applications.   Most munzers are already geocachers.   Could afford to buy is the question?  Garmin certainly has deeper pockets but having cash doesn’t inherently make you smart.

What do you think will happen? crushes

munzee logo

A little over a year ago Garmin Launched to much fanfare. In that time Opencaching has managed to attract less than 50 geocache listings in the Waterloo Region. Compare this with the almost 2300 munzees placed in the region of Water in just over a year. With this stat alone munzee has crushed Opencaching, at least in Waterloo. There are fewer than 1000 geocaches in Waterloo region. Based on these numbers I think munzee poses a real challenge to

munzee is a GPS game similar to geocaching. I don’t play the game, munzee is not supported on Blackberry platform but I have been with other players. Here are the main differences in the games as far as I can tell.

  1. munzee is all about the numbers, I’m not kidding. There is a leaderboard on that allows players to see their standing against other players.
  2. Device dependant. Each munzee account is attached to a particular device. This means that teams of more than one person will need to share phones. I was out with a friend the other night and he had his wife’s phone so he could do captures.
  3. No pen required. Logging is accomplished by the scanning of a QR code or the reading of a chip using near field communication.

In most other respects finding a munzee is similar to finding a cache. Using the munzee app on your smart phone you go to coordinates and look for the munzee, which is usually some kind of tag/label with a QR code. The NFC mode is a recent introduction to munzee. You do not use your GPS although I have seen a GPS loaded with munzees in order to save the smart phone’s battery. Using the GPS feature on a smart phone tends to deplete the battery faster than normal.

For many years the official line at Groundspeak has been that geocaching is not about the numbers. As much as they try and down play the importance of raw numbers, milestones for finds still play a big part in the game. Unlike for munzees in geocaching there are few stats for the number of geocache hides you have placed. With munzees you are awarded points for the munzees you hide. Awarding points for hides creates an incentive to hide munzees. This is one reason the game is growing in scope if not in popularity.

munzee map

According to Aaron Benzick at there are over 50,000 active munzee players. This is still a small number compared to the over 5 million geocachers at What munzee has been able to do that has not is build a critical mass of hides. There are over 172,000 placed worldwide. Germany ranks as the second most active munzee area with about 68,000 munzees placed.

Geocaching has helped create a knowledgeable audience for this new game. I recently attended a munzee event. There were 30 people in attendance and 26 of them were existing geocachers. munzee is just different enough from geocaching that it is attracting players.

Benzick of doesn’t think they are a competitor to, “We don’t like to look at ourselves as competitors of geocaching. I think we supplement it nicely and allow options for people as they are out and about interacting with the real world. We are big fans of getting out and doing things in your community so the groundwork that the geocaching community has laid for the outdoor adventure crowd is something we respect!”

As I mentioned previously I do not play munzee but I can see the real attraction in the game for those that care about statistics. What do you think the future holds for munzee?


Peer Review is Flawed

I’ve been meaning to write a post about this for a long time.  I saw something today that propelled me to the keyboard.  I’ll start by saying I love the idea of peer review.  It’s a transparent process that hopefully will allow more and better caches to get published.  I fear that is not what is actually happening over at

I saw a forum post today that talked about peer review so I bounced over to and had a look at the review queue.  The first listing I looked at had a score of -126.  I thought perhaps this was a poorly executed cache so I looked at the listing.

Peer Review of Opencaching geocache OXZTMNT

Peer Review of Opencaching geocache OXZTMNT

Is the geocache in the water

Is the geocache in the water

In reading the reviewer comments all them them used the same option: From looking at the map, it looks like the coordinates might not be correct. Please double check them.  Well how bad are those coordinates?  I did what you would do and looked at the map.  I zoomed in as close as I could and sure enough the cache looked like it might be in the river.   Then I looked at the scale on the map.   Based on that scale the cache is about 5-6m in the river.   I don’t know about you but at best I get 3m accuracy on my GPSr and in most cases it’s closer to 5m.   Add in the fact that the arial imagery may be off slightly doesn’t that make it it more likely that this cache is in a tree than in the water?

Why do I think the cache is in a tree?  Well because the cacher left a reviewer note that said “small pill bottle in hole of tree about 61/2 feet high”.    To be fair I don’t know if the reviewer note came before or after the cache was reviewed.  In either case wouldn’t it be prudent to revise a vote if there is a better understanding of the cache placement?

While I like the idea of peer review for geocaches I think the process at is flawed.  That’s the nice thing about dedicated reviewers at  We may not always like their responses and we should have better transparency of who the reviewer is but at least they are reviewing caches based on experience.  The appeals process at also seems to work.  My preference would be a combination of the two processes.  I’d like to see a minimum standard for peers before they can review.