Knight-Errant

The biggest problem with this is when does the grace period start? Since there is no log, it would be difficult to know when the traveler was actually dropped off. Notwithstanding, whenever we find a traveler that has not been logged into the cache (either still in possession of another cacher or even still in another cache) we try, whenever feasible, to wait at least three days before grabbing the traveler.

While we have encountered a few similar notes, we really like yours (to the point, but courteous). With your permission, we may well use them ourselves.

We recently encountered one that was comparable to your situation. While there was no log entries made online, with the help of the cache owner, we were able to identify the cacher that dropped it off. When we contacted the cacher, he indicated that he had won the unactivated travel bug at an event cache, but was unsure how to activate it. We provided him with the necessary information (including the proper activation code), but he never seemed interested in activating it. After some time (since we couldn't log a drop for the unactivated travel bug) we activated it ourselves and provided information to the original "owner" instructions on how to adopt the travel bug, but so far he has expressed no inclination to do so. In the meantime we sent in on its way.

We found one that had not only not been posted, it hadn't even been placed. . . What actually happened was that a local cacher had taken several of his caches down a trail for placement (not a power trail as they are all puzzle caches), but to make it easier to carry he placed one of the smaller (regular size) caches inside another larger cache. By the days end, he realized the cache was missing, but wasn't sure where it actually was (but while we supposed that this was the situation, we didn't confirm all this until later). When we found the published cache (FTF) we also discovered the other cache inside. Knowing that the cache owner resided much closer to us than either of us to the cache and not knowing just how another cacher would react to finding it, we retrived the cache and delivered it back to the cache owner, much to his appreciation. We did enter an "honorary" first to find on the cache log (but not the log page yet, as the cache had not been published).

I suspect the last visit feature isn't working or is working in a way that we think it should work. I've seen lots of accounts with 0 logs for years always show today as last visit. For clarification, the "Last Visit" on the profile is only the last time they logged on to geochaching.com and does not imply any log entries were made or even any geocaching activity happened. (However, that doesn't work in reverse. A cacher cannot log entries without having logged into the website.) Mostly the "Last Visit" will give a general idea of recent activity. If a cacher seems to be fairly active, but has not logged in for a week or so, they may just be on vacation. On the other hand, if they haven't logged in for several months or more, it is unlikely that they have been active in geocaching for about the same time (at least under THAT account).

Certainly you are still able to participate. (We found about 500 caches before we were able to take advantage of a GPSr.) In fact, we would almost recommend everyone start gecaching without a GPSr for two reasons: 1) Believe it or not, geocaching is not for everyone. If you spend a even a small sum on a GPSr and then decide you are one of those extremely rare people, you are not going to be very happy. 2) Once you can start using a GPSr, you will appreciate it much more. Until you get a GPSr you can indeed use the online maps. However, you will find that they do have some limitations. Your primary limitation will be when searching in areas without distictive landmarks (i.e., heavily wooded areas, open areas, etc.) and areas that have low resolution for the online maps. (Again, for the comments that will come later, we didn't say you can't use the maps in these areas, just that they are not as beneficial.) The other limitation will be if you try to use the onlime maps only for placing caches. We still highly recommend at least borrowing a GPSr to establish confirm your coordinates before submitting a cache. While it is possible to establish coordinates using online maps only, we have seen a lot of frustration generated using this proceedure. Finally, in our experience, the one of the greatest advantages of the GPSr is often not necessarily in finding a specific cache, but in finding all the nearby caches. Good luck in your geocaching endeavors!

Our three cents worth (have to account for inflation). . . While we fully support the OPTION of Premium Member Only caches (for a lot of reasons that we won't mention here), we believe that because of their unique nature, EarthCaches should NOT ever be restricted to Premium Members only. (Actually, we didn't even realize that this was an option.)

Just for clarification. . . We spoke with another cacher a few days ago who is directly involved in the BSA Geocaching issue and he indicated that the GPS/GIS MERIT BADGE referred to will NOT be specifically geocaching, but may have geocaching as part of it. HOWEVER, they will be having a geocaching PATCH. He also advised me that they are currently encouraging local units (councils and districts) to set up Scouting themed caches in their areas. They are also working on some kind of Scounting coin/geocoin which may be awarded to those who have found all the scouting caches in their area, but most of this is still in the works.

Provided there is a trail there are usually identifiable landmarks. For example, my second find was GC136Z9 - Death Corner. My GPSr was completely useless for the last mile and a half and I could have got to where my device lost the signal using a basic road atlas! The cache is in a deep valley in a forest (i.e. a rural area). I got to it by checking bends and junctions in the trail. The final find was by bearing and distance from the nearby junction. This process is much harder if you don't know how distances on the aerial photo relate to distances on the ground - which is why I said to include the scale on printouts. FWIW, even trees and bushes can be identifiable landmarks. For example, my third find was under trees in a park and although my GPSr got me within 100' it lost signal when I got close to the cache. I resorted to triangulation from a pair of bushes and a small tree, which led me to within a couple of feet of the cache. With that said, I've now got 8 finds (all in rural locations except for the above park) and of those only two would have been more difficult with Google Maps than with GPS. From my experience, I suspect that you'll be able to tell from the satellite image itself whether it can get you to the cache - and thus know which ones to leave until you have a GPSr. HTH, Geoff We didn't mean to imply that you couldn't use Google Maps in rural areas, just that you will frequently find them to be of less help and some times of no help (i.e., 4 square miles of sage brush). However, don't limit yourself to just the satellite maps, often (in other than flat terrain) the terrain feature can be very helpful as well, but it only zooms in so far.

We have been getting the same thing and, while we have been looking up a lot of cache pages today, it certainly hasn't been close to 500 pages (two maps per page). However, the explanation seems reasonable. Interesting though that there seems to be no problem with the either of the Google Map links (Geocaching.com Google Map or Google Maps). Both of the map links seem to continue working just fine. It is a frustrating problem!

I really like that. I hope you don't mind if I use that elsewhere. Since we did not originate the saying, we have no claim on it. Notwithstanding, we like it--which is why we passed it on and would encourage you to do the same.

If a Challenge cache is published, the cache owner has met the Challenge Cache standard in the Mystery section. The cache owner can delete logs of cachers who have not met the Challenge requirements. Things can be a bit muddy with some caches published prior to the addition of the Logging of Physical caches section. There are some caches with additional logging requirements that have the word Challenge in their title. Just having that word doesn't make them a Challenge cache. There are also some legit challenge caches that don't have the word Challenge in the title! Over time, this will straighten out. Cache owners will learn that they cannot delete logs on ALR caches, as cachers complain about it. Re Earthcaches going away: as others have said, it was asked at GW7, and it's just a rumor, likely related to misunderstandings about the death of ALR caches. From what we can tell, while the official posted policy regarding challenge caches does not specify that they are exempt from being included with other Additional Logging Requirement caches, but it appear that information provided to reviewers provides for that exception. We would like to see the current policy (as posted on geocaching.com) reflect, if it really is the case, that challenge caches (caches that meet the proper definition of challenge caches, not just in name only) are specifically not included in the prohibition of Addtional Logging Requirements.

Several? Really? Please educate me. I've only heard of one state that actually passed a law regarding this. If memory serves me correctly, I believe that was South Carolina. By the way, it's CEMETERIES. Personally, I love these hides. Remote rural cemeteries are one good example of places I'd never have known about were it not for geocaching. Without restating all the reasons already posted, I'll just say that if you like em, find em. Hide em. If you don't, then don't hide or seek cemetery caches. First of all, thanks for spelling correction--night shifts can strain the brain. Second, while we do NOT claim to be any expert on the matter--especially since it is not a local issue for us--the following is just another specific example of such laws. In this case it is taken from the Tennessee State Code: "No person shall willfully destroy, deface, or injure any monument, tomb, gravestone, or other structure placed in the cemetery, or any roadway, walk, fence or enclosure in or around the cemetery, or injure any tree, plant or shrub, or hunt or shoot, play at any game or amusement, or loiter for lascivious or lewd purposes in the cemetery, or interfere, by words or actions, with any funeral procession or any religious exercises." Perhaps others will more expertise may be able to provide more examples and/or details.

We concure with Arrow42 and, although we are not familiar with the specifics of the cache location, we would find it hard (although possible) to see how a move of under 23 feet could provide a "significantly different caching experience". In the meantime, while deciding whether to replace or not (if your cache is actually in place), please enable the cache. Too bad you do not get to decide -- it is up to the cache owner. If he / she thinks it is a new experience, you have nothing to say about it. Our apologies, we were under the false impression that the Groundspeak Forums were a place to post OPINIONS. Thanks for correcting us on this matter hikemeister.

More seriously this time. . . Do we log discoveries of travelers JUST for numbers? No, but we do admit that is AMONG the reasons we log discoveries. In addition to the nearly dead horse of "I'm helping the owner," we like to keep a record of the travelers we encounter, so if and when we encounter them again we can verify that it is the same traveler. (Yes we have encountered several look-alike travelers.) This doesn't include the cases where we have actually moved the same travelers more then once. Also, while a note log could serve the same purpose, our discovery notes often serve to let the owner know why we didn't move the traveler (for example, "going the opposite way of the traveler's goal", "traveler is in a race and we may not be able to drop it in as timely a maner as desired", etc.). On a related note, we also try to post notes on the traveler's web page (not just the cache's) for travelers that are obviously no longer in the cache and don't seem to have been logged for some time after we have verified they are no longer in the cache. One more reason for logging discoveries is the one alluded to in our previous post, some travelers simply CANNOT be moved in the normal fashion. For example, vehicles (we discovered a semi truck once), very unique travelers (the Groundspeak Signal HQ Geocoin, O.C.B. [the original can of beans], etc.), human travel bugs, travelers that specifically request a "discovery only", etc.

Let's see if we can help BlueDeuce out. . .

We often find it to be a useful surface for signing the tiny micro (nano) logs.

While there are limitations on the caches you can find, we found our first 500 or so without benefit of a GPSr. Google Maps can be your friend. The primary limitations are in more rural areas that don't have identifiable landmarks.

I'm a newbie, so please go easy on me. I'm a concerned geocacher - but how accurate is "accurate as possible"? I ask because my own GPSr is hideously inaccurate and, like some others I've read about in these forums, can be off by as much as 40ft. It's also next to useless in the majority of likely cache hiding places I've spotted since they're under trees. My plan is to fix the co-ords using Google Maps and verify those co-ords are roughly in the right place using GPS. I base this on GM being spot on for all three of my finds to date - and since two were under trees, I made those finds from GM and triangulation from identifiable landmarks rather than GPS. Actually, the more I think about this the more the question, "How accurate?" niggles. Geocaching.com gives co-ords to six decimal places of a degree, which implies a precision that I suspect few geocachers can achieve (6 DPs implies "to the nearest 10cm or 4in"). IMO five decimal places would probably be more reasonable (i.e. to the nearest metre or yard), but I suspect even that's pushing the accuracy of most budget GPSrs. For example, I did an averaging test over two days, four visits, and sixteen fixes. For all fixes, the HDOP was between two and five and the test waypoint was the end of a park bench in the open. The averaged co-ords were nearly 3 metres (10ft) off where GM Satellite view says the waypoint actually is. What I'm trying to say is that I'll be as accurate as I can when giving co-ords for any hides I make. However, the precision the cache page will imply is certain to unreasonable and I'll consider I've done a good job if the co-ords fetch up within a couple of yards of the actual cache location. Geoff Welcome to the obsession sport! While Google Maps can be very helpful in many cases, be careful using them to hide caches. In some areas (particularly urban) they may be even more accurate than many GPSr's, but in other cases they can be off by quite a bit. Whenever possible it is best to have final verification for hides by GPSr. We do agree that Google Maps can be very helpful in finding caches.

If you haven't done so yet, log onto handicaching.com. It has additional information regarding many caches with some specific criteria for those with specific limitations. Unfortunately, it ONLY has information on caches as provided by cachers, so not all caches are listed. Nevertheless, you should find it at least somewhat helpful.

We are fairly certain that the only way to find/view public bookmarks (you can't view private ones--except MAYBE if the owner gives you the link to them) is from the link off the webpage of one of the caches on the bookmark list.

One rare exception to this rule would be for one of the few remaining traveling caches. Most cachers will log a "Found it" log for each time they find a traveling cache at a new location. Another possiblity might be for a cache that has changed its hiding place substantially (but not necessarily in distance). (For example, a cache that had to be moved a hundred feet or so due to construction.) Aside from these rare exceptions, one "Found it" log per cache.

One of the first questions to be asked (as has been addressed in other threads), "Is it LEGAL to place a cache in that cemetary?" Several states and counties have laws against placing caches in cemetaries. If it is not legal, that ends the question.

While we hadn't really ever noticed that we couldn't log our travelers' visits to EarthCaches, our vote would definately be to allow them. We have seen travelers logged to nano's that could NEVER hold a travel bug, so why not allow EarthCaches.

For clarification, while we REALLY hate to disagree with geoaware, we verified the 30 foot rule on the www.earthcache.org website before posting our previous reply. In fact, that is how we learned about it. (We did, however, mistakely list the EarthCache website as Earthcaching.com rather than the CORRECT www.earthcache.org.) Since it is no longer listed in the requirements there, it is also no longer an issue.