Woof!

You: You drive a bright blue Honda CRV with a Magellan GPS mount on the dash and a white/clear Geocaching.com decal on the drivers side window. You were parked on Cardenas Ave. in Park Merced near SFSU Tuesday around 1pm. Me: I was walking from home to class and saw your vehicle. I would have left a note for you if I weren't running late. Is there another geocacher on campus? Or better yet, are we neighbors?

This would be an awesome improvement! I've been hoping for something like this for a while...yay!

Recently I did the Ohlone Midway cache in the Ohlone wilderness and really had a blast. I just found out that I have another opportunity to do a two day backpacking trip this Sunday and Monday, but I have no idea where to go! The Ohlone cache was perfect- 10 miles of a strenuous uphill climb the first day, camp at a peak with a gorgeous view, and a nice leisurely 10 mile downhill hike the next day. I'd really like to find a cache with the same qualities. I wouldn't mind a little less up and down, and maybe a little more shade now that the summer heat has really picked up, but I'm open to suggestions. Any ideas? Oh, by the way, if anyone is free those days (Sunday the 22nd and Monday the 23rd) and wants to join me (and maybe BuckyDef if I can convince her to go), let me know.

This cache was just approved in GGNRA land. The same GGNRA land that I was once asked to remove a cache from. Hemlock?

The article seems to be saying that POST is acquiring the land, not GGNRA. Am I wrong? Even so, we haven't gotten any clarification from Hemlock yet on the rules for GGNRA. The other GGNRA land in Pacifica has still had caches approved somewhat recently.

My area does not have a geocaching organization and I do not wish to create one on my own. I believe that my idea would help alleviate the approvers of having to email the rules to a hider every time a geocache is submitted that does not meet the guidelines. It's much easier to write the rules up once, than to write them up every time someone breaks them. Again, I believe that my idea would alleviate the approvers of responding to emails that are sent to the wrong approver. If I had an issue with a cache, I would probably go first to the approver I am most familiar with, which may not always be the right one. There is no reason that my idea has to create any more "work" for the approvers. All that needs to happen is that the submitted coords are stored somewhere, and come up automatically when the approver does a search in an area. With all the checking and "approving" that the approvers do, I think it's important for all caches to be treated the same way. Caches shouldn't be approved that are 326 feet away from my puzzle, just because the approver didn't know it was there. After all, why did I submit the final coords in the first place?

Nobody else has this problem? Well, while I'm at it, I might as well ask for a few other random things too: 1) Is there any way to get a link to "remove this cache/TB from your watch list" on the emails that are sent? When I'm done watching something, it usually stays on my watch list for months because I'm too lazy to go find the right page to remove it. 2) I would love to see a centralized location for local approvers to list and update local issues like property/land restrictions. For example, in my area there are areas of land owned by the GGNRA (Golden Gate National Recreation Area, I think) of which some allow caching, and others do not. If there was a centralized place for listing these restrictions, hiders could check there before placing a cache, and without bothering the approver with an email. 3) I'd also like to see a link on each cache page to "Email the approver of this cache". Currently, there is now way to even know who the approver is, and so no way of contacting them if there is an issue. Sure, we could guess that it's the local approver, but some people (particularly new cachers, or those who haven't yet placed a cache) don't even know who their approver is. The "archive this cache" sends a note to the approver, but there are other reasons to contact the approver than wanting a cache archived. 4) There needs to be a centralized location for approvers to keep notes about caches in their area. For example, when coordinates are submitted to an approver privately for a multi-cache or puzzle cache, the approver checks the coords, approves the cache, then does who knows what with the coords. The next time the approver goes to check a new cache's coords, they don't see the hidden multi/puzzle coords. What happens is that they approve a cache that is too close to the multi/puzzle (this happened to me). If there was some place for approvers to keep the notes (or even better have the coords show up on their searches/maps) then this could be avoided. This is also an issue when non-local approvers fill in in another area, and are unaware of these multi/puzzle coords. That's all I can think of for now.

Double check the date. If you accidentally put a date in the future, the log won't go through. Sometimes I change the day, and forget to change the month, causing this to happen. You've probably already checked that though...

I think this has been asked for before, but I haven't heard anything in a while. I just got back from a two+ week road trip during which I moved around a ton of bugs. It became increasingly annoying that I had to post a new note to a page in order to drop bugs off if I forgot to do so when I made the original find log. I would really like to be able to drop off bugs while editing a log. Puhleeeeease?

Thanks for the clarification, Marky. The Presidio itself is part of the GGNRA, operated by the NPS, e.g. http://www.nps.gov/prsf/. So, nothing new and non-virtual is allowed, I'm concluding... Not that long ago I was asked to remove somebody else's GGNRA Presidio placement that wasn't approved (by Hemlock) who stated that GGNRA caches aren't allowed. I also found somebody else's cache in the GGNRA on the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge that was never approved because of the same GGNRA rule. However, caches in other GGNRA areas have been approved since then (like Pacifica), though they were in different GGNRA areas. Does this mean that some GGNRA land is OK, and some is not? I think we need a centralized place for these kinds of local land rules and regulations and such to be collected to make getting this kind of information easier. Have you heard anything from Hemlock yet?

Speaking of which...any TB's desperate for a ride to New Orleans or anywhere in between should be placed in Es Effo TB Hotel before early, early Saturday morning. Have fun at your little events this weekend...we'll be sure to wave good bye on our way out

Last night the same thing was happening to me (I wasn't around on 7/14 to know if it was happening then too). Anytime I opened a new window I would get logged off the site. I hadn't changed any settings with my cookies, and clicked "remember me" each time. I mentioned it in the IRC channel and one or two other people said the same thing happened to them. It seems to be fixed today.

From todays SF Chronicle: "County park gates swing shut..."

Um, I don't think it's all that big. It's just an extreme close up, right?

Ooh, ooh, do Ode To My Leg! It can either be a short hike, or a long hike, depending on what you want and wether or not the gate is locked. Usually when it's closed, it's not locked and you can just open it and drive up. In either case, I'm particularly proud of this one.

Since we didn't know the area, they were with us to 1) get some hiking in and 2) make sure we stayed on the trail, not to point us straight to the cache (though we did have to cry for help a couple of times). With caches every 880 feet, there was a question you wouldn't stay on the trail?

So I just picked up my first Jeep 4x4 travel bug today and wanted to see how the new icon looked on my My Cache Page. I noticed that there was an asterisk next to the icon, the same that is used to indicate which totals are included in your found cache total at the bottom. The Jeep TB isn't included in the total, which is correct, but the asterisk is still there. Is there a reason for this I am missing, or is it just a typo. Obviously not a big deal, it's just fun to nitpick sometimes.

Congrats Jamie! I had the pleasure of meeting you at your final destination in Southern California. I hope your adventures in China are as successful as PacifiQuest. May the wind stay at your back, and your head above water!

The problem I reported here is now back. I'm not sure how it was fixed the first time, but once again I can't access my list of pq's to edit them. I am logged in. Another minor problem that I think I saw mentioned in another thread just started plaguing me tonight too; when viewing gc.com maps, certain caches don't appear on the map, but do appear when using the "identify" feature in the location where I know the cache is. Thanks in advance for your time.

I've been using an old Palm IIIe that was given to me by a friend. The Palm IIIe has only 2MB's and I was able to load Plucker and a 500 cache pocket query just fine. The unit was slow, and the 500 cache limit was sometimes a problem, but it more than did the job. I was just thankful not to have to print out pages anymore; the freedom it gives you to cache on a whim was also nice. I just bought a Palm M505 on ebay. I didn't do much research, I just needed a new one cheap and fast. The M505 seemed like enough of an upgrade from the IIIe without over doing it on bells and whistles I didn't need for geocaching. The reason I needed a new PDA cheap and fast was for exactly this reason...

1,000 CACHES!? CONGRATULATIONS! Yeah, that's a lot!

The great thing about geocaching is that no matter how different two cacher's goals are, they are never in conflict (unless someone does something malicious like leave fake hints at a cache site that leave you getting scratched up in juniper bushed for no reason). If someone wants to play for the numbers, does that really effect my caching experience? No. To me, my numbers only reflect the fact that I like geocaching, not that I like the numbers. In any case, there's no reason to do away with the leader board. People will compete with or without and that is perfectly OK.

This doesn't work if, let's say for example, 35 of your most recent finds don't have the correct difficulty ratings

First, kudos on the new improvements. Second, I went to work on my pocket queries just now and couldn't for the life of me find the list of current ones with the check boxes and run times. It's like it just disappeared, unless I'm losing my mind...which is quite possible. Anyhow, if I remember correctly, I should be able to see the list on the page www.geocaching.com/pocket, or at least be able to link to it from there. Now, there is only a link to create a new query, which I did successfully. I have checked that I am logged in, and have also checked with a friend who is not having this problem. What's going on?!