TheNomad

I was lucky - 5 FTF's in one day/trip owing to five new caches being placed in the same wilderness area. All after 3:00pm on a weekday. One was a stand-alone, three multi-cache stages with the final stage of the multi-cache being the fifth. Each stage of the multi-cache were seperate caches - so, I got five FTF's in one trip.

I log about 99% of my DNF's. The only DNF's I don't log are those where I didn't spend what I consider a reasonable amount of time looking. For example, if I have about five minutes to check around for a cache (because the wife's waiting), and I don't find it, I really don't consider that a thoughtful or thorough search. But if I spend ten or fifteen minutes searching, and can't find it, I always log a DNF. AFAIC, a DNF is good feedback to the cache owner, and no reflection on me. Plus, the sport is all about me having fun searching for something hidden - not about my cache count, or DNF count. That's my $0.02 - that, and another $1.27 will get you a cup of coffee.

Funny - I was asked by a cache owner to do this recently, and I declined. The cache owner asked me to change my DNF to a found because the cache went missing. I declined. My stance was and still is, if I didn't find the container, it isn't a find. Plain and simple. I'm caching for the enjoyment of finding a hidden treasure, not for stats. So, I'll log a DNF if I didn't find it.

Very nice! I agree that a delete link would be more convenient. Thanks for the improvements!

Not really. I just find it distracting. Several of the bugs I collected five months ago have large, wild and ugly fonts. Plus, it's not something I ever want to reference when I initially to to my cache page. The ones I'm currently holding, perhaps. But otherwise, no.

Here is an example of one of the misidentified caches. It's a neat idea for a puzzle cache, but it is definitely not a traditional.

I think that is a good suggestion. In the future, I'll e-mail the owner of the cache. Thanks!

You make a valid point. No, I didn't read the cache description. But let me ask - have you ever been at a cache site, and done a search for nearest waypoints? You're absolutely right that reading a cache description would/should provide additional hints or information on the availability of a cache. Yes - I agree. But the cache description shouldn't be used to change the TYPE of a cache from traditional to puzzle or multi-cache. But that's what's being done in this and many other caches. It's analgous to ordering a McBurger from the list of burgers because it's a "burger" only to find out that the description says it's fried fish. That is, the description should be used to augment the given information about the cache. It shouldn't be used to say something like "even though this is called a burger, it's actually a fish". I assert that a traditional cache shouldn't start out saying something like "You won't find a cache at the above listed coordinates. To find the cache, you must...". That's my $0.02. That, and another $0.99 will buy you a cup of coffee in Florida.

I'm absolutely certain someone else has mentioned this before. I did a search (though it wasn't comprehensive), and I didn't see it immediately. Here's the thing. The way that my travel bugs are displayed on my cache page makes me not want to collect travel bugs anymore. They take up so much space on the page, that it's really getting in the way. I'd rather see either: a) A simple link that will take me to a list of the TB's I've found. or A drop-down list box and a button listing the TB's I've found. Otherwise, the TB's are making my My Cache Page unusable. What do you guys think?

You know, if I were a local, I might consider it. I suppose that the folks in that city are quite content with the cache types. As an outsider to the area, going to the reviewer, in my opinion, would be very bad for public relations. It's a shame that, after pointing it out, the cache owner wasn't/isn't willing to fix it/them. I'd like to think that I'm open enough to constructive criticism on my caches that, if someone complained about the cache type, I'd hear them out and consider the change or the suggestion. But, I'm new enough to this sport to believe that most everyone has more experience and wisdom. I just made a suggestion based on my understanding of the cache types. Of course, I'm probably living in a utopia.

I'm getting a series going in the Orlando area called Terra caches - they are eppendorf tubes.

On my initial approach into the city, I didn't have time to read any of the cache descriptions. However, after posting several DNF's on misidentified caches, I read the cache description on each one before approaching for the rest of the trip. On this one, and on the other ones, the cache description does tell me where to go and what to do. But I was relying on the cache type to properly filter such things. When I'm searching for caches at 11:30pm, I doubt that a trolly will be coming by to whisk me along the journey to the cache. That's why I only get traditionals when on business. You're right though - it is water under the bridge. But, since I definitely bristled some people in the area (I didn't mean to raise any hackles), I just wanted the data to be correct. Probably the anal engineer in me or something. I'll say this - searching like an idiot for a cache that isn't there is pretty frustrating. Especially in 25 degree weather. []

I was chastised recently for pointing out that some caches in another city I was visiting on business were miscategorized. One of the cache owners even stated that I shouldn't look for his caches because I was whining and complaining. AFAIK, traditional caches are supposed to lead to a cache. Puzzle- and Multi- caches are used when the posted coordinates don't actually take you to a cache. Since I download only traditional caches to my GPSr when on business, I reasonably expected to be taken to a cache area on each of the caches in my GPSr. On one (that was categorized as a traditional micro), I wandered around the entrance of a mall for 20 minutes in 25 degree weather only to find out that the cache has you enter the mall, take a trolly, disembark at the end of the line, and follow various headings and such for about 540 yards. Not exactly a traditional cache in my opinion. Anyway, I don't know if this is whining, or what. You guys be the judge. Here is my log on the cache. Also, if you have a suggestion on how to handle this in the future, I'd appreciate it. I'm a software engineer by trade, and I'm a firm believer in making sure that data is correct and accurate. Note - This is the cache log from the cache I described above. The owner of this cache is not necessarily the cache owner that stated I shouldn't look for his/her caches. ----- Begin Log ----- IMO, this should be a puzzle cache, not a regular. The posted coordinates don't take you to the cache - that's what puzzle caches or multi-caches are for. Traveling on business, I only download traditional caches to my GPSr. In this case, I spent 20 minutes foraging around the entrance of the mall looking for a cache that wasn't there. To change the cache type, you'll have to work with your local administrator because geocaching.com doesn't open that field for edit. Sorry if the tone of this log is harsh - I just hate searching for a cache only to find out that it is misidentified.

Every chance I get. I get a bit frustrated by poorly categorized caches though. Mainly, multi- or puzzle- caches that are not categorized as such. Nothing worse than searching 30 minutes for a "traditional cache" in a foreign city, not finding it, and then going to post a DNF only to read the first 9 words of the description: "There is no cache at the above posted coordinates - "... Grrrrr. Back at the beginning of December, I posted requests to several owners of incorrectly categorized caches to get the cache type changed - they remain badly categorized. []

Taking my daughters on an urban micro hunt works best for me. One time, in a small very populated urban square, I set my 10-yr-old daughter out to be distracting. She started shouting about the lizards (ok, in fairness, she does quite a bit of stage acting and performing), and she caught a couple. While she was blabbering about the cool brown lizards, I was was able to reach down, say in a loud voice "WOW - Look at this one", and snag the small swim-tube micro. In all, it was a very successful caching outing. Now, we use that "trick" regularly. That, and for larger parks, we take a small football and play "catch". Then, dad who "doesn't know his own strength", manages to lob it into the bushes near where the GPS says to look. Then, we're searching in front of everybody for the football... Really, we're searching for the cache.

My Cemetery Gauntlet multi-cache is setup in exactly the same way. Four nano-caches (very small cache containers) that lead to the combination to a lockbox. This lockbox has instructions for completing the final stage of the gauntlet which includes information from gravestones near each of the nanos. Anyway - users can simply find each of the nanocaches and log finds for those, or with a little effort, fully complete the gauntlet and find a full-size ammo can with nice (above average) goodies.

I found that using Spinner gives me the control I was looking for. Thanks for a great idea - it's just the ticket.

I tried robertlipe's suggestion to go straight from gpsbabel into my GPSr. I am able to upload the waypoints with no problem, but unfortunately, micro-caches don't get either a special icon, or any mention in the description. I also tried using the gpx,gsshortnames in the hopes that if it used a shorter name, it would use the container type in the description. No dice. I do notice that when I convert to MPS, virtual caches get a special icon, but that's not so for going directly to the GPSr, and micro caches don't get a special icon. I'm disappointed - that sounded soooo goood... []

Let me clarify my point on GPS Babel - I don't want to appear to be disparaging - it's a very cool and powerful tool. But, I'd like to determine what fields in the gpx file are important to me, and use them as the output in the description. For example - for caching out of town, I would like to have my Mapsource file contain the short description of the cache, and the cache container (Micro, Regular, Etc.) It really doesn't matter to me who placed the cache when I live in FL, and I'm caching in CA. I just need to know whether I'm looking for a Micro, or a regular. I haven't been able to make GPS Babel use the short description + cache container. I haven't been able to make EasyGPS stop removing vowels from the description, or stop including who the cache is by. It seems that my requirements are pretty simple, but I'm just not finding anything that will let me do what I want. I hope this more lengthy description helps. Thanks for the input.

I have a Garmin GPS-V, with Mapsource v5.2. To interface with geocaching.com, I have to use a fairly round-about route, and I'm wondering if there is a better way. What I end up doing is this: a) Use a Pocket Query to generate .gpx and .prc files Import the .gpx file into EasyGPS c) Send the waypoints to my GPSr from EasyGPS (which hoses the names) d) Import the waypoints from my GPSr into Mapsource so I can see 'em on a map What does everyone else do? I like/need to see where the caches lay themselves out on a map, but I don't like the choices that EasyGPS makes in describing the cache. I guess my questions are as follows: 1) Is there a better tool to go from a gpx file which isn't supported by Mapsource into Mapsource? I tried GPS Babel at one point, but it wasn't very robust when I tried it. 2) Or, is there a better tool to open a .gpx file and send it to my Garmin GPSr? One where I can choose how the fields get mangled, and what's important to me.

Personally, I love the satisfaction of the find. I'm not necessarily fond of long (4+ mile) hikes to get to a cache, but I love the idea of finding particularly well-hidden caches. I love unique hides, and the fulfillment of "out-smarting" the hider.

I just did maintenance on one of my multi-caches today - four stages were missing! And these were hidden in rather remote areas. I actually suspect that squirrels are involved (these were rather small micros). I've never had a traditional cache go missing though.

Well, here in central Florida, we have gators and snakes mostly. There are fiddle-back spiders occasionaly, but mostly just the snakes and gators are the major obstacles.

What a great idea. That would be sweet!

Hey all, Have you guys noticed a high frequency of deadlocks? It seems that every time I go to log finds and such, I keep getting deadlocks. The site is getting slower and slower I noticed. Anyone else noticing this?