Knight-Errant

Another option is to simply ATTEMPT to log the travel bug. When you do, you should get a reply indicating that the travel bug has never been activated and give you a link directly to that travel bug activation page. (However, as stated by others, if there really is a glitch in the system [as they say "it happens"] the process will be more complicated and will require direct contact with Groundspeak.) Good luck in your geocaching endeavors. Knight-Errant

Interesting related situation. . . We also retrieved a little yellow duck from a cache in Utah, with what appears to be nothing other than an official Groundspeak travel bug dog tag attached. Both the duck and the dog tag appear to have put in quite a few miles each, but the clearly legible travel bug code comes back as never having been activated. Just found your situation and ours quite coincidental. Good luck in your geocaching endeavors. Knight-Errant

Although it appears that in this case your dilemma solved itself, it seems that (despite getting some very good information) you never got a very good answer to the question you actually asked. So here's our three cents worth (have to account for inflation). First, it appears you DID attempt to log it correctly, but the previous cacher had not logged a "drop" for the traveler. Generally, there are multiple reasons why this may have happened (cacher simply forgot to log, cacher hasn't had the opportunity to log, cacher doesn't know how to or care to log, etc.) Whatever the specific reason, it still means one of two things: 1) either the previous cacher isn't going to log the drop or 2) the cacher just hasn't logged the drop YET (as it was in your case). Side note: When logging your finds (or didn't find its) and traveler movements we strongly suggest logging the retrievals and grabs first, then the finds (and associated traveler drops). In our experience, this will frequently reduce the number of additional logs necessary. (An example is given later as to why this can be the case.) So, if the cacher isn't going to log the drop, you will need to grab it from the previous cacher (or perhaps even retrieve it from the previous cache--but logged as "grab it from somewhere else"). Next, as part of logging your find, you should log the traveler as dropped in the appropriate cache. (As mentioned before, if you don't log you retrievals first, you will have to make another log for the cache to drop the traveler--following our recommendation will avoid this additional, unnecessary step.) Finally, you can log your retrieval of the traveler and move on. However, if the cacher just hasn't had the opportunity to log the drop YET (as it was in your case) you may need a bit of patience. While there is NO official time frame given, unless there is a specific need to log it sooner, we recommend allowing at least 72 hours (or perhaps even more if the cacher is not from the local area) for the previous cacher to log their drop. (In your case, your patience solved the problem.) Keep in mind that while some cachers have the ability to instantly log their activities, many do not (vacations, tight schedules, etc.) (While caching out of state, we actually had a fellow cacher posting a note complaining about an unlogged traveler that we had dropped less than six hours before.) However, if the previous cacher DID log a find for the cache, but not a drop, then no waiting is necessary. Finally, the best recommendation in all unusual situations is to simply explain why you did what you did in the logs. For example, if your specific reason for not waiting was that you already dropped the traveler again, say so. Good luck in your geocaching endeavors! Knight-Errant

That could be hard to answer. If the cache description states that the cache is an ammo can, there obviously shouldn't be any reason why you couldn't include picture of the cache container (with or without its contents). However, if the cache owner chose not to include the size of the container, a picture of it would obviously be unappreciated. Basically, it comes down to the question, "Could the picture be a 'spoiler' for other cachers?" If so, it would probably be best not to post it. If not, your probably okay posting it.

Good answer: Simply log the TB as "grabbed" from where it was last logged before moving it on to its location. Better answer: Grab the TB, then enter a log note for the cache and drop it into into the cache. (Such cache notes are often just as short as "Dropping TB for mileage".) Then grab it again before moving the TB on. This will allow for more accurate mileage and travel history of the TB. Best answer: If you can, wait up to about 72 hours before attempting any action. Often times a cacher may be on a road trip or have other reasons for being unable enter their logs immediately. (We had the occasion of having another cacher complaining about an unlogged TB even though it had been in the cache for less than 5 hours.) 72 hours is a fairly reasonable time to allow for log entries. If its not logged by then, follow the previous steps. However, you WILL have to follow the previous steps without waiting if you end up dropping the TB again before the 72 hours has passed. Hope this helps.

More of a note to the Groundspeak Lackeies. . . We have also noticed the map change on the cache web pages (from Yahoo! to Google) and don't see much difference with them, but do have two issues: 1) The upper map (general) seems too detailed. We use that one to tell us approximately what city it is in and the lower for a more specific area. The new upper map is currently too detailed to even determine the city. 2) We have had an ongoing problem with the Geocaching.com Google Map link maps. While it appears great on the screen, a printout of the map alway cuts off the right 1/2 to 2/3, making printing this feature useless to us. If there is a way around it (aside from elimiating the search results list from the printout) we have not found it. The Google Maps link maps print fine, but don't show cache name or nearby caches.

Just above the Logged Visits section on the cache web page there is one called "For Online Maps..." (next to the lower, more detailed map). Try them out, some have satellite, terrain, etc. options, but your success with each will vary a lot depending on the area and your personal preferences. We have found our best success with the Google Maps link. Good luck!

Interesting the differences between states. . . Utah currently not only allows geocaches in state parks (without any permit or state approval), but last year the Utah State Parks service actually placed nearly fifty geocaches and purchased eighty GPSr units that park visitors could check out to find these caches. There are obviously some specific problems caches (sensitive areas, etc.), but the State has chosen to address them on a case by case basis (for now), rather than blanket policies.

While the OFFICIAL Groundspeak policy is that you must use a GPSr to place your cache, it is POSSIBLE to get accurate coordinates without one. HOWEVER, much of the "possible" depends on how current, accurate, and detailed the maps are for the specific area in question. Maps can also vary significantly in accuracy for areas fairly close to each other. In most cases it is very difficult to get good coordinates for a non-urban areas. As you have probably found in searching for caches using maps only, some seem to be almost dead on, while others are substantially off. You have also discovered that the size of the cache, the location, the cache description, and the hint (if any) also affect the search process. Having found about 500 caches without the direct benefit of a GPSr, we do speak from a little experience and our best suggestion is to plan your cache, get approximate coordiates, and then borrow a GPSr (with our without its owner) to confirm your coordinates before submitting it for publication. That way you get the most accurate coordinates possible AND comply with Groundspeak policy. (Many cachers would be very willing to provide this occasional assistance for the corresponding opportunity to have another cache to find.) Good luck!

Not to detract from the new features of the Geocaching.com Google Maps, which many seem to enjoy, but some of us still would prefer access to the old style (not just because it is what we are acustomed to using, but because it REALLY did meet our needs better).

As has been expressed several times in this discussion, we conceed that the new Geocaching.com Google Maps may offer some features that some cachers want, but many of us REALLY want, like, and need the older format. Is it really too much to ask to have access to both. Also, as said before, that map option used to be BY FAR the best map option, but now is nearly useless. (It seems that the Geocaching.com Map and the Google Maps were combined while giveing up the best and most desireable features of the old Geocaching.com Google Maps.) Groundspeak, we hope you are listening!