wandererrob

Nah. When you're really new, DNFs sting a bit sometimes. The first one is always the worst. Try looking for easier caches first (those rated 1.5/1.5 roughly). As you find more and your develop your geosenses, start looking for harder ones. Don't worry, you'll get better at it. EDIT: ok with 20 finds, maybe you could step it up a bit more than 1.5/1.5

?? oh, additional logging requirements... got it now.

Could make for a fun theme, huh?

oh my god, I HAVE to use that somewhere!

Yeah, that was on the ignore list right after McDonalds locations.

Like on the road to Hana? Couldn't believe how many derelict cars were out there. Oddly enough, one of the above mentioned derelicts was near a very nice little path to a small waterfall that nobody stops at much.

Like others have said, some of the originals are veen still in place after 7 years. I've seen others tank before their first find. It all depends on the situation. But one thing is for sure, if one isn't there anymore, there will still be plenty of others to be found. It's all part of the game.

Bud,you ain't kiddin.Read the cool cache container thread and do a forum search for clever caches or something of the like.You'll be even more frustrated. I LOVE the CCC thread. I'm always impressed by tthe ideas people come up with. But yeah, with over 400,000 active caches in the world, it's getting tougher and tougher to be truely original. There was a time when even the LPC was new and fun in a way.

Almost has a Chronicles of Narnia ring to it. It's just gofy enough to be fun if you can make it fly. Perhaps pick up a driveway lamppost setup at Home Depot or something? Or were you hoping for a full-blown parking lot lightpole ?

That certainly would have been a better option in my opinion. But it seems they preferred to take Waymarking in an entirely different direction. I'm guessing their intent was for Waymarking to stand entirely on its own.

The lack of PQs is my biggest complaint with Waymarking. It's rather tedious to add a bunch of waymarks before a trip where I like to load up waypoints and such (geocaches and waymarks alike) before I leave since I likely won't have internet access.

The location IS the physical satisfaction, the cache is just a bonus.

oh wait, I forgot the appropriate icon. Thanks for the reminder... ok, carry on.

Got her started in January '05 while in Maine. She now has my old GPSr. She's got 52 finds logged, 8 more to catch up on.

Given the proliferation of parking lot, light post, and other such micros, what if micros were banned all together. I have found some wonderful micros mind you, but for the sake of argument let's say they were banned by TPTB. Would it eliminate these "lame" hides? Would it then force hiders to be creative in trying to get a larger container in the spot they want? Just putting it out there purely for the sake of discussion. Discuss.

I think that is an overly simplified evaluation, perhaps not for some though. In my view: - Waymarking is more a replacement for locationless caches than for virtuals. You have a thing to find (i.e. category) then provide examples, which then loosley resemble virtuals. It basically opened locationless sites to repeated visits. - virtuals showed up nicely in PQs along with all the other caches, unless you fliter them out. Warmarking does not offer this. Best you can do is download .loc files, 1 page of waymarks at a time. - if still viewed as the replacemtn for virtuals, I've found Waymarking tends to take away the mystery many virtuals I've done have offered in that you sometimes, often even, didn't know what you'll find when you get there. With waymarks, you've got a picture and description showing you exactly what you're looking for. That's not unlike posting a picture of the cache container and it's hiding spot. Personally, I don't care about the smiley. And yes, I do sporadically waymark regardless of it's flaws becasue it's cool in it's own way. I just don't think it adequately replaces the virtual caches.

At the very least I think the same basic guideline of expected "permanence" would apply. "Wow" however is a very subjective thing.

I wish we could post up a poll. Maybe there is a way that i'm unuware of? Just a simple poll: "Would you like to see Virtual Caches brought back to GC.com" [ ] Yes. [ ] No. No discussion, no debate. Just a straight forward poll to see what people think of it. Thoughts?

Kewl thread! I'm one of those guys that doesn't "get" virtuals. According to my oft mistaken internal dictionary, a "cache" is a container, with at least a log, hidden somewhere for others to find. A rock shaped like Jesus' face might be a kewl place to visit, but it is not a cache. A plaque commemorating the very first Ben & Jerry's eaten by Rosie O'Donnel might be kewl, but it is not a cache. Perhaps we need a website called "Neatplaces.com", where folks could list the coords for Jesus' face and Rosie's binge, assuming they didn't want to hide a cache there? Perhaps "Neatplaces" doesn't quite sound right......how about "Waymarking"? I think you hit the nail on the head. The reason there is disagreement on this topic and others is that everyone's internal dictionary is not in agreement. Many people certainly disagree with your narrow definition. only because it ignores the word "virtual" in virtual cache. virtual(a): existing in essence or effect though not in actual fact

And people that say Hamp-ster, Lie-berry, Expresso, and Sher-bert. My father warshes things when they need to be cleaned. No clue why.

How about this... they have it on the Waymarking site. Simply 1-5 for hated it to loved it. If it can be done there, why not here? Sooner or later the "cream" is bound to rise to the top. My god, did I really just suggest a Waymarking feature be adopted here and not the other way around?!

That gives me an idea for an amusing cache

I think you had reasonable criteria there. I've seen a questionable cache here and there and tend to take a similar view of things. I use my head, check it out first without touching and see if there's anything that clearly tells me this is the cache, and if in any doubt at all I'll walk away and take the DNF. A good hider will usually put something on there indicating the cache for those who are actually looking. Some sublte signs I've seen were a small geocaching symbol, initials of the cache name, even the GC code marked somewhere just out of obvious view but visible to a cacher. Like I said though, regardless of the hide... if in doubt, don't. There's no shame in a DNF.

Alternatively, if you have one already, you can convert the gpx file to a v-card file and upload it to the Contacts folder in an iPod. <-- my method of choice since I already had it.

Well, I've ben trying to give it another go, but it's still rather cumbersome in my opinion. Most notably as of this weekend: 1) no ability to download a .gpx file of the waymarks in an area. I can download a .loc file (only 1 page at a time) but this only provides coordinates and no descriptions making paperless Waymarking difficult. Yes, you can work around it, but it's a process to say the least. 2) repetition of waymarks. I've found a number of them listed in multiple categories. One page of 25 in my most recent search yielded only 16 that were actually different. the other 9 were simply the same location under other categories (up to 4). This seems a bit redundant. Now if they were at least cross-listed/cross-linked so it only comes up once and you only need to log it once, that might help. This really only adds to the clutter over there IMO. Why wasn't more of gc.com's successful and useful functionality used there?