papu66

I have only seen one cache supported elastic bands, that you had to pull down with a sling. It was nice idea, but probably wouldn't work around here because it may not be so elastic in the winter. Pulley caches tend to get lot of favorite points.

Yes, thats weird. I noticed that too. Also, some caches show the most recent find on that cache and not the date when the user found that cache.

Even more embarrassing, the yellow face can turn blue if you are not able to find the cache again

Just a little. I was just pointing out that there are other solutions to solve the present problem (that caching has becoming a numbers game). Other than archiving perfectly good caches, GS can allow multiple finds on caches or scratch the saturation rule (yes, that too has been discussed to death). Obviously it would be easier to place caches where there previously was one, but why would you archive the cache so that you or someone else could make one at the same spot? If multiple finds were allowed, those that are in this for numbers can get their 1+ and the rest of us can choose which places we like to visit again. I sometimes visit old caches taht I have found just for the fun of it. IMO there's two good guidelines to making cache. 1) I make caches that meself likes. It's just like in public elections: You stick to your candidate even though he's not polling well. That's how democracy (supposedly) works and that applies to caching too. My cache is my vote and popularity is not a factor. 2) I publish caches with intent that they are for forever ( 10+ years ). I'm in quite good position here. I live in urban "city". I think I'm a prolific cacher with my 1000 finds per year but I'm still about 40% through the caches here after five years and they are putting out new caches faster than I can find. I know my 1000 finds/y is nothing these days, but I think that's plenty and I hate it when people archive caches before I had chance to find them because "they have run their course".

How about you can log a new find on a cache if it's more than say 5 years from your previous visit? In that time you have probably forgotten about it anyways so it will seem new.

That's a negative view, not of my suggestion but of the COs. Sure, if their objective is to pack as many caches as they can to a given space, this scheme will work only for a while. Since it still limits the cache density, it will eventually saturate if the number of caches keeps increasing. My experience is that there is typically just one cache preventing me from placing mine and its always a question of a few meters. Then what you do, you find a worse hiding place nearby or place cache somewhere else. Good hiding places are not organized in a perfect grid. I would have to run simulations, but I would expect it would allow about twice as mane caches and saturation conflicts would be rare assuming that owners motivation would still be placing quality caches in good locations. Forgot to mention the bonus advantage: It would allow much finer detailed geo art.

My suggestion to this problem: The system should allow placing a cache if at most one cache is closer than 161 m. There could still be say 30 m limit so caches would not be hidden in the same hole. I'm sure this would be easy to implement. This would make placing new caches significantly easier. This should seriously complicate battleshipping This would still set upper limit for cache density in an area.

Yep, I was just about to post pretty much the same thing. Unless all caching is disabled, people are just going to drive further away for active caches.

Sorry, my bad. I meant to say I have no problem with the found it logs. I understand that the purpose is to visit the coordinates and picture of the statue is only necessary as a proof.

Is the cache disabled? If it wasn't, I don't see any problem with the dnf's, unless they faked photos of the statue being there.

Exactly. The first thing to came to my mind too. Also would help to find "birthday caches" .

Actually, I have never been able to get the coordinates out from what3words.com. They just show the location on the map. which I used to click-convert to coordinates using another net site. Now of course Toolbox does the conversion back and forth and I would assume most COs would use that to set their cache coordinates. As far as I understand, the word addresses are distributed randomly so there's no algorithm to calculate the coordinates from the words. But I may be wrong.

First time I solved w3w puzzle, there was three pictures or something else (don't remember now) that suggested three words. Frustrated, I googled "how the (explicit) I get coordinates from just three words?" or something like that and I got a link to their web page. I was pretty proud of myself for solving that because I had never heard of this. On retrospect, I just used the best tool there is for solving. Still, recognizing what the problem is (if it is cleverly hidden) to me equals solving. Doesn't matter if it comes instantly, but of course is more rewarding if it requires some analysis (text or numerical) of the "input" .

I needed two tries for one and three for the other. I have noticed, if there is palindromic coordinates pointing to a reasonable spot, there's a good chance there's already a cache. I found one mystery that way that I otherwise was not wise to solve.

I thought it was you who came up with that hypothetical year 1995, the OP merely said it would be one of the oldest caches. My opinion is unchanged regardless of whether it's approved by HQ. I don't remember if there was anything in the instructions what to put in that field, but if it says "hidden", that's unambiguously tells me when the cache was placed here. For me, it's just a piece of information same as attributes and ratings. They are not supposed to be misleading.

I would rather have that the hidden date is the actual date the cache was hidden of at least not deliberate lie. If it messes statistics, so be it. Maybe some of the stat algorithms could be rewritten so they ignore caches where there too big difference between hidden and publish dates. I have sometimes (though not often) looked at the hidden date for help. For example, if my GPS point to a bush of nettles, it makes difference whether the cache was hidden in April of in July. Or it may be that the coordinates seem to point to area that is open now, but was off limits at the time the cache was hidden, so I don't need to look there. This discussion is very much like the other thread about whether FBA is allowed as a find (and/or as a first to find, FTF). The hidden date works as a practical limit set by the CO in full honesty. You can't have finds before hidden date, so the hidden date can't be set arbitrarily.

I'm sorry, but these are the only two definitions of "going in certain direction" that I can understand. Either you keep constant azimuth of you keep on the plane that is set by center of earth, your current position and your current velocity. The intersection of that plane with the globe surface will give a closed loop which is circle, ellipse or something in between. (Inasmuch as circle is also an ellipse I guess that amounts to saying something between ellipse and ellipse, which I assume is also ellipse).

If it's P&G and advertised as such I'd slot 5 seconds time searching. Depends on d. If it's a good hike away then half hour to full hour is decent time to search. Cachers have different practices and standards so you shouldn't feel aggravated if someone does not find your "easy" cache.. However, it would be good to always mention the time spent and other circumstance that lead to this CGF. I don't do this always, but I should.

No you all got me confused. Surely, if you keep on the great circle, i.e. follow planar route around the globe, you end up where you started. If you keep the same heading, you end up on the pole.

I could also argue that the history of cache includes everything that has happened to cache up to present date. The cache does not need to be in mint condition to be significant. You wouldn't scrap Colosseum of Rome just because it is no longer maintained by the Romans? OK, it still may be, maintained by Romans but that's beside the point. From historic POW maintenance of lack of it is part of life cycle of cache irrespective of who does it. I liked the phrase "grandfather's axe" , never heard that before.

Yes, this would speed up the process of doing a power trail. Lots of gasoline saved because no need to stop for logging

I also struggled trying to correct coordinates on a mystery. I realize now I have to wait approximately 5 seconds before clicking coordinates or I am directed to cache seek page. Also, when logging the cache, changing date takes really long waiting time for the pop-up calendar to pop up.

Yes, I suppose that's why there is so few left. If the webcam is removed and CO can't find another camera close bye, of course it has to be archives. My logic says that this should be argument in favor of placing new webcam caches, not against. I have to say I have found only two webcam caches. Both have run long time without problems. GCQDYF has 1811 "finds" and only 8 DNF, Disabled three times and the CO could fix the link or find replacing camera. GC3156 has 1861 "finds" and only 5 DNF. This too has a broken URL in description but also a working one. Based on these two I assumed that CO may need to update the links from time to time.

Of course CO can fix the link on his own cache page, why not?

OK, spying on muggles then. I don't know the approprate word for use with geocachers.