admo1972

I don't get the logic in not logging it again. Maybe I am just missing something. If I attend the event in June, and then attend it again in July, that should be two attended logs. If it was given a new GC each month, would you still be against logging it as attended? I see no difference, and keeping the GC the same simplifies when having the event on your watchlist.

Yes, log it again.

You don't activate it. Jeep will activate them, and then you use the log option of "grab from somewhere else" and begin it's journey. It was all in the instructions when you requested the TB.

Hmm. This year it is the same, they should already be activated. Perhaps they won't be activated until July 1? Wait until you see more people post, and see if theirs are already activated or not. BTW, how did it arrive? Regular US mail, or what?

Congrats, Mike! Wish I coulda been there (dadgum ticks). You told me yourself that you don't care about numbers, but 100 is still a worthy milestone.

While not quite the same thing, I like puzzle caches for this very reason. When I'm stuck inside (or at work), I'll just do as many puzzle caches I can. For me, it's a way of caching when caching is unavailable. But I woul dbe interested in a geocaching game. Especially if there is a palm version.

Well, I've driven past it many times, and even glimpsed what I think is the virtual landmark mentioned. I just haven't stopped yet (was planning to do so tomorrow or Friday). So, it seems the owner may be getting out of geocaching (all but 1 of his caches have been disabled last I checked), so there may be no interest on his part to "authenticate" our find via email. But by the same token, he probably won't be deleting logs if he is just simply done with geocaching. Who knows. I'll try it.

This may be your problem. Not all caches have attributes. So, by clicking on "include" attributes, you may not get caches that have no attributes. I'd leave all those unselected (greyed out, not black or black with a line through it).

There is a virtual near me that I have been planning to visit. It is GC4205 It was archived just a few days ago. I still plan to visit it. Will I still be able to log my find? Either way, I'm going. I'm just wondering how this one would work.

Just to add to that, you may want to avoid some virtual caches unless you are sure that they are safe. This weekend I headed out on my own to a virtual cache, and it was amazing! Walking up a wooded trail, up up up, and the location all of a sudden appeared as a breathtaking view from the top of the mountain! It was also at the sudden edge of the tall cliff. dogs and small children could easily topple over the edge.

I think I misunderstood. You pretty much NEED a gps. The TX doesn't have GPS built in (GPS receives radio signals from satellites). Cachemate allows you to store much of the information from GC.com on your TX (coordinates, description, hints, logs, etc), such that you don't need to print out the pages from gc.com. It's a method of paperless caching.

All you need is CacheMate. It's about $8. I use a TX for caching as well. The most glaring problem is the risk. Things happen on the trail. And the TX just isn't made for outdoor use. *note to self: get a hard case for TX*

cachemate. I use it on the palm, but there is a PPC version as well. Cachemate is pretty much a requirement for paperless caching. You can use it free with a nag screen and some limitations. It's worth every penny (about $8)

Just to confirm once further. I went out at lunchtime today, and found a cache. When I got back, I checked on the finds. Seven people logged finds, but the logged visits summary said 6. As soon as I logged my find, The summary immediately jumped up to 7 (even though there are now 8 logged finds). Should be a pretty easy fix. I think what is happening is that the first finder is find #0, the second is find #1, and so on.

I took my 3 year old to 4 caches. The first two were close to each other, and he was more interested in throwing rocks in the water. There was a nice playground right by the caches too, which made it a very enjoyable trip. And, he seemed very excited when I found the cache. When I spotted the second one, I kind of pointed him in the right direction so he could "find" it. Word of warning, the next time I took him geocaching, he didn't realize ahead of time that it was a different cache. He was very disappointed and had a small tantrum when there was no playground this time.

Probably going to use Safari for iPhone syncing.

It is not a lag. It is a definate counting error. I only really noticed this because of the abundance of new caches near where I work. GC132EK - Shown in summary that there are 15 finds. Logs show 16 finds. If is was a lag, that would mean only the most recent find, June 13 is not tallied, but June 11 is. GCVMXW - Shown in summary that there are 31 finds. Logs show 32 finds. The most recent find June 2. So obviously, if it is simply a lag, why would the older find on the latter cache not be tallied, but the more recent find on the former cache be tallied? There are other definate issues with newer caches: GC13BJG - Has 1 find on June 7. No summary smiley face. GC1376B - When I was FTF, it had a summary smiley face, but with the number zero following it.

It's a definate bug. This cache: GC1376B I was ftf. And the smiley face count showed 0. It wasn't until the second finder found it that it increased to 1. Perhaps with new caches, they are all of by finds minus 1? I'll have to look at some other recently placed ones... I just spot checked a bunch of new cahces (all placed in the end of may) and all of them were reported as having 1 less find than the logs indicate.

1 find per GC. That's the general rule for me. I was the last to find for one cache, followed by a string of DNF's, and even the CO couldn't find it when he visited. It was archived before I could make it back. Anyway, I went back, found it buried under soil, and re-hid, emailing the CO exactly how to find, leaving him the option to try and reinstate the cache if the local reviewer wanted, or simply remove the cache. In this case I would think that logging it as a find would be acceptable (giving previous DNF'ers a chance to go back if they were watching it), but I chose still not to. I wanted to leave any notice of the status of the cache to the owner and the local reviewer. One cache I went out to get in the morning in order to be FTF. I couldn't find it and gave up. At work, usig googlemaps and a trail map of the park, I realised my mistake. I went on the wrong trail that would have forced me to go through private property for about 1/4 mile to get to the cache. Never saw the other trail. Went back after work the same day and was indeed FTF. I chose not to mark this one as a DNF. My personal rule is if I find it the same day, it's not a DNF. (I do log my DNF's, I have 3 DNF's for 21 finds). All subsequent visits to a cache will be marked by notes for me. Mostly to drop off or pick up bugs and coins.

I tried it briefly last night (I use a mac, but tried Safari in XP both in Parallels and Boot Camp). Seems fine.

*sigh* Lack of viruses on macs aren't for writers lack of trying. There are simply very few routes for hackers to get their warez onto macs. Windows is wide open. Look at XP SP1, something which an insane number of people use even though SP2 is free and more secure. Every port is open and must be closed manually. On the Mac, they are all closed. That's just one example (and a glaring one at that) as to the robustness of the Mac OS. I never said it's immune (every month there seems to be 1 or 2 security updates to close various holes, usually with quicktime or java).

Completely not true. I'd like to see where you read that, if it is credible at all. Security through obscurity is certainly a part of why the Mac OS is less vulnerable to viruses. But the OS itself is indeed more robust against malicious software than Mr. Gate's OS. If Macs make up 5% of the market, then you would think that, all things being equal, they would have 5% of the viruses. Truth is, it is much much less than that. I'm not sure how Vista stacks up, though. I would assume it's more secure than XP. Probably just copied which ports are left open and which are left closed from the mac side.

No. unavailable logs (temporary or archived) just don't show up on normal searches. Email notifications are still sent if anything is logged on it.

That is what I was thinking. I interpret archiving normally to mean a cache that is actually gone. Stolen, destroyed, or otherwise rendered obsolete. In this case, the cache is in fine shape, it just inadvertently got buried at GZ. I would think that in this case the CO will go back and find it, hide how he wants it it be hidden at that location, and then a reviewer simply make it active again. Meh. I leave it up to the CO and the reviewer.

My worst fear, being the last to find before a string of DNF's. Then the cache was archived. Was it me? Maybe. So, using only memory and no GPS, I went back to GZ, and got a bit worried that the area didn't look exactly how I remembered it. But, finding the spot where I think I last hid it, I got out a stick and dug. Success! When I last hid it, it was at the base of a tree, buried loosely under pine needles. Now it was buried under about 3 inches of packed soil. I rehid somewhat and emailed the CO on how to find. Finding this archived cache was about just as fun as when I found it proper before. Anyone else the last to find before a cache was archived, only to go back later and find it? Can archived caches be unarchived by the CO?