shunra

quote:Originally posted by Bull Moose:Way to go. Not finding this cache is going to bug me until I can get it. Well, I should no better than to try to amke up time on a trail hauling dead weight. I feel the same about the Aquacache in Seattle. 3 no-finds so far (I logged only the first.) A source of utter embarassment, considering that it's an urban cache found everyday by someone... http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

Had a great time, and found the cache. Was hoping to meet one of you, but met only geomuggles. Read the log! What's the best way to identify a fellow cacher on a remote trail anyway? http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

OK - last call! Tomorrow my brother and I hope to start from the upper trailhead at about 10 am. Hope to meet some other cachers to join me in what might be the last chance before next summer... Noh Funpuns, sans Funpuns. http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

PS - read your report. There are no months ending with 'rary', so the game is still open :-) http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

Hi Bull, Thanks for the update - we'll consider it a warning. As you said, it's the hike, not just the grab... You seem to have had an exciting day. Can you let me know what you took up in terms of equipment? Do I see ski poles in the picture? Noh Funpuns http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

quote:Originally posted by Bull Moose: quote:Originally posted by Criminal:The hike from the upper trailhead is much shorter. Bring a stick or trekking pole. Yeah, but in this case it's the journey as much as the destination. I need a longer walk. What I would really like to do is start from the upper trailhead, and end up at the lower one. It depends, of course, how much of a hike it would be back up to the upper trailhead. This is, BTW, a reason I hope that someone will team up with us... we'll have two cars, and things will be much easier. http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

quote:Originally posted by Bull Moose:Chewie, Cow Moose, and I are planning on sneaking in a trip to Criminal's http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=666b7ad8-78f1-4427-a9b4-94d37b7b0f64 tomorrow, Saturday Nov. 1. Trail/road conditions have been reported good as of yesterday with some snow above 4500 feet (summit is at 5944 ft). We will probably be starting out from the lower trailhead about 10 AMish. If anyone is interested in coming along and doesn't mind a little dog slobber and perhaps waiting for a newbie hiker (my sister may be coming) we'd love to have someone join us. I'll be watching your report closely, as I intend to go there on Monday, with my brother and my son. Could you include in your on-line log your impression about the road and trail conditions to/from either of the trail heads, whether you took what the NFS calls the summer or the winter route, and in the latter case, whether any special equipment was required? I'll post a similar invitation here: We hope to start out on Monday, Nov. 3rd, at 11 am, probably from the upper trailhead. http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

quote:You really need to set camp the night before by Big Creek. Well, if you just did almost dreamy, you could do all that in one day. It's an easy 5+ miles via the Taylor River road trail to the Big Creek Bridge and beginning of the very rough trail that leads to the first cache. <snip> I wouldnt' recommend kids. Especially for Dream lake. <snip> If you are serioius about attempting this, I will send you a large jpeg file of the map and coords. I'm afaid that hikes that requiring overnight outdoors are not for me, certainly not this winter. unless I find a more experienced camper to team up with. I don't have too much camping experience in this kind of terrain/weather to do this on my own... http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

quote:Originally posted by Right Wing Wacko:I'm not that familiar with the Mt Baker Hiway, but the following news may make that cache somewhat more difficult: <snip> Mount Baker Highway closes for the winter at noon. BELLINGHAM -- State Route 542, Mount Baker Highway, will close at noon today for the winter season at the Terminal Lake parking lot, above the Mount Baker Ski Lodge. As a result, Austin Pass, Heather Meadows Visitor Center, and Artist Point will not be accessible by vehicle. The highway, open to traffic only a few months each summer, opened on July 15, 2003. Well, that seals it, for the next few months. I wonder why they close the road that low, that early, though. couldn't that have een done in increments? Oh well. Time to hide some other caches... http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

quote:Originally posted by gaviidae:We have the opposite "problem" here. Anything hidden in the Olympia/Grays Harbor area seems to be found almost immediately. Yesterday I hid a cache at noon, it was approved that day at 7:30 (thank you very much Moun10Bike), and by 10:30 that night a find was logged. You have to be hardcore to get a FTF around here. That's the usual situation, here too. The fact that my Iceberg cache sat there during the last weeks of the hiking with nobody going there seemed exeptional. http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

quote:Originally posted by CachinCin:At the top of my list of Must-Do Caches: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=cda3fa9b-21c3-4b5d-8f92-8c217716f4fa Aw... Now I'm warming up! quote:I've really been wanting to get up to Mt. Baker. I see it from my deck, and I've been itching for a visit ever since I moved here. I don't know that I'm prepared for a wintertime hike to the cache, but it's definitely on my list of hikes for next summer. ... people are worried that they don't have the winter gear or that the roads will be closed at this time of year. Say, would this one be accessible for a group of snowshoers? Perhaps the WSGA will be putting together another snowshoeing excursion this winter.... I haven't been up there since September, and I haven't ever walked in snowshoes, but: There are two parking lots up there. From the upper one it's mostly an easy even or downhill hike, but I don't know if you can get to the upper parking lot. The lower parking lot should be accessible, but then it's a not too steep switchback trail up to a pass, and then down to the lake. I think that this is certainly possible for cross-country skiers. I haven't done that ever, either. I suppose I should start picking that up, or I won;t be doing many mountain caches this winter... http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

quote:Originally posted by EraSeek:It's pretty well out of my normal area, but the saying goes, If you hide it, they will find it. It may take some time, but someone will get it eventually. I've hid some that I thought no one would ever find. That was early on. The sport grew and people found it. The problem now is that there are so many caches that it extends the wait period for finds. It may be next spring, but someone will get it. I always took pleasure in knowing I had one out there that may not get found. But... they always did. Thank you all for the encouragement and for the good ideas. I see that it is not as unusual as I thought. My concern was that as the cache (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=95115) is no longer new, it is off the radar. I would suggest that the 'New' indicator would highlight a cache until it's first find... http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

quote:Originally posted by evergreenhiker!:Might be awhile before someone finds my cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=96173 Why don't we trade? :-) You'll attempt mine (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=95115), I'll attempt yours. Yours would involve at least a two day expedition, considering the place where I live. Do you know of a cacher-friendly budget (youth) hostel in the area? Is the season still OK (and how long will it be, you think?) Is it child-compatible? http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

Guys, I've been caching since June, but I have hidden only one cache so far. It's the Iceberg Cache on the Fairy Trail, and it's giving me grief. I hid it just over a month ago, and no find, not even a no-find, has been logged. True, it is a bit remote, up near Mt. Baker, but it can certainly be reached, even now, probably even without cross country skis. I see many remote caches being found, and mine is not at all inaccessible; when I was there, there were plenty of people on the trails. Is there anything I can do to promote my cache? http://www.shunra.net ______________ e ____________ H I D E___&___G O___G E E K !

Around December 5th, I'll be for business in Orlando for a few days, and I'd like to take a day for doing some caches in the area. I'll probably rent a car, and will be able to drive a few dozens of miles. I'd like to know about nice off the beaten track caches, which may involve some hiking. No urban caches. Any recommendations? Thanks! http://www.shunra.net ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'e' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' H I D E ' & ' G O ' G E E K ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

But what should I log? Just the reset? both? The reset as a find and the original as destroyed? http://www.shunra.net ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'e' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' H I D E ' & ' G O ' G E E K ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

Please compare the descriptions of TR0558 and TR2726, Officially, they have the same location. They are both disks, one designated S 257, the other S 257 reset. Can it be assumed here that the latter came to replace the former, which was lost? http://www.shunra.net ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'e' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' H I D E ' & ' G O ' G E E K ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

quote:Originally posted by Wreck Diver:At the present, when searching for nearest geocaches in my area, the list of caches also includes red check marks to the left of the cache name to indicate that I have already found that cache. When searching for the nearest benchmarks in my area, the list of benchmarks is several printed pages long, but there are presently no check marks to indicate that I have already found a listed benchmark. This gets particularly confusing when attempting to download benchmark waypoints by lat/long for my home, lat/long for my station, and by my zip code. Some benchmarks appear redundantly in all three lists. Would it be possible to code the benchmark section so that listed benchmarks that have been found by the user are indicated by a check mark? This would make downloading new benchmarks to search for much easier, as each waypoint wouldn't have to be cross-checked against a list of benchmarks that I've already located. Yes yes yes please! http://www.shunra.net e H I D E & G O G E E K !

quote:The "Destroyed" option needs to be removed immediately from the BM logging form, and a "Condition" field (with dropdown list or radio buttons) added for all "Found" logs. This field will indicate that the station is either "Good," "Poor," or "Destroyed." In most cases I would hesitate to mark a station as "Destroyed" until I could file an official recovery report to NGS and a determination was made by them and added to the datasheet. I'd go back and edit the BM log afterwards. (Also, once a station has been logged as "Destroyed" subsequent "finders" should not be allowed to log it as "Found." I would agree on principle. Unlike you, when I am convinced that something is destroyed, I mark it as 'not found' rather than as 'found'. I have used the 'destroyed' option extensively, but ONLY in order to mark the BMs that are already marked as destroyed or lost in the official history. I don't touch those that are officially described as 'ought to be considered destroyed', etc. If it's officially destroyed, it should be removed from the database, or at least be marked as such. If noone can do it, we should do it ourselves. However, we should not assume the authority to claim 'destroyed' somethign that was found when it was last checked officially, no matter how sure we are. That's not up to us. http://www.shunra.net e H I D E & G O G E E K !

Except that a nautical mile is not 6000 ft, but 6076.131 So, to adapt your calculation: a second is 6076.131 / 60 is 101.269 ft And 6 seconds are 607.613 ft. Veni Vidi Cachi

Re TR1680. The official history for 1941 mentions a station, and says that no RMs were established. The official history for 1962 mentions that same station, plus a different station benchmark. Can someone enlighten me what is what, here? Thanks!

But 'poor' isn't one of the options we have, or is it? We geocachers can only choose between found it, didn't find it, destroyed, or note. So - if you think that the elevation doesn't matter, I'll change my log into a find, and quote you :-)

Hello there, could I have your learned opinion about PID=TR1687? Three months ago, it was logged as a find, but the finder wondered whether it shouldn't actually be classified as a 'destroyed'. I think it should, but am not entirely sure. I'd appreciate your input!

Well, I did contact the owner! I am talking about the 'How Vane It is' reverse cache. It specifies that unique finds are required. So when I came and wanted to log my find, I saw it wasn't unique. So I posted it as a note, and specifically mentioned that I'd be back. Two days later, I had a unique find, and posted it. This morning I find it deleted, with a comment that no two finds are allowed. Well, I had only one 'find', and that's the one they deleted. That's what I told them. So I uploaded it again, and they deleted it again, this time saying that the unique vane wasn't unique, but saying that my previous one was actually OK. So I changed the wording of my original note and turned it into a find. But the point is not 'having a log'. The point is the arbitraryness of the deletion, twice, without prior consultation. And my question was whether, in case a deletion was done by mistake, it can be undone. In this case, I had to go out and get the coordinates again, just to find them deleted a second time. This is rather frustrating, and I consider such behavior on the part of a cache owner rude. I am starting to understand why TPTB placed a moratorium on further reverse caches.

After having had no problems and being logged in for months on end, I am suddenly asked every few minutes to log in again. Moerover, sometimes it tells me I am logged in, but refuses to go to the 'My Cache Page' section, but just prompts me to log out and log in as a different user. what's going on?