va griz

When you have a unique container and stating the size may give it away, then I can see the need for a "?" size. But when it's used to artificially up the difficulty it strikes me as the same level of creativity as soft coords. But that's just me, I still look for them.

Sure looks like it. Fortuneatly I am used to being wrong

In July 2001 I'll bet that 126 caches was most of the caches that existed.

The following is fron this article from Car & Driver magaine. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/02q2/...al!-feature Also interesting is out of over 200 cars tested at a true 70 MPH, 3 read less than 69, and 90 read more than 71 MPH. So (if you believe them, I do) the good news is speedometers in newer car are pretty accurate, but they are optimistic on average. They said tire wear from brand new, to ready to replace, made about a 2 MPH difference.

Every time I've seen real measurements, be it a test done by any of several magazines or a vehicle I've checked myself, the speedo reading has always ranged from correct, to up to 10 percent faster than the actual speed. (for a vehicle with stock tires and gearing) That doesn't prove that the manufactuer are doing it intentionally, but it seems likely and I can see why they would do it. By the way, the odometers are often off by the same amount. That makes your gas mileage seem a little better than it is.

You already have some good advice on finding them, and it's good to get more than a handful of finds before hiding your own. Hints can't be misleading, but they can be tricky, funny, or a giveaway if you want. The only clue I don't like is something like "none needed". If that's true, just leave it out. Pictures are your choice, lots of pages have none. The coordinates for you cache should be as close as you can get them. Even to the point of visiting the site at different times to get readings under different conditions if that is practical. Sooner or later you will stumble on a cache with the coords off by 70 feet or so and probably come to the same conclusion. Good luck, enjoy, Griz

OK, admit it, you also created that cache page out of thin air for that one I DNFed and everybody else seems to have no problem with! Or is my tin foil hat just a little too tight?

That makes sense. Curious, but not antsy.

I just received a notice that GC20XE4 was published, followed by one that said it was archived. I can understand that, things happen. What I don't understand is why the page for it says it isn't published yet. Not really a big deal, I just don't understand how it was de-published. (is that a word?)

Can you scroll down to the bottom of the page?

That's weird. The chances of randomly finding a cache are pretty slim. The chances of finding one by a particular owner must be almost zero.

Pay attention to the distance as you get closer, but don't fall into the trap of believing that when it says one or two feet you are standing on top of the cache. Due to small errors it can be anywhere from 0 feet to 20 feet, sometimes even more. Good luck and tell us how you did.

If the reviewer had not implied that the cat was there when clearly it can not be known if the cat is or is not there........ Sorry, physics humor

Looks like I'm with the majority that doen't mind a difficult one if it's "good". Good seems to vary from one cacher to the next, but like several others I like one that is in plain sight but well hidden from muggles. I remember one micro in the woods that took me two trips. It was a piece of wood on a stump, but somehow wasn't a needle in a haystack. Just perfect camo in the most obvious spot at GZ.

You are not in that discussion, you already declined. You are only saying you have already spoken about it (but are too lazy to find the comment) and will not repeat yourself. But the pot shots continue. To me that's just slinging mud, not a serious dicusion.

PLEASE, lets not let this thread drift over into a rehash of the "other" thread about a cache archived after years of DNFs. My question is about caches that are so tough that they may take large numbers of cachers many attempts to find. Apparently (I'm going on info from local cachers on the other side of the country) some hiders make a nano NIH hide and even throw out washers to thwart metal detectors. I just don't get it. Is that really the object, to make an unfindable cache? To me it's not a cache if I can't have another cacher find it. By the way, I'm not trying to get any policy changed or outlaw caches with more than X number of DNFs. I guess I'm just saying they aren't for me. What do you think?

On a more serious note than my last post, since you have already declined to participate in an ongoing discusion of how to handle a difficult situation, pointed jabs at those talking is really uncalled for. Just sayin', my friend.

Nice summation, but it doesn't do it for me. [snark on] I am just about to change my mind on this topic, and need some help. Maybe if one more person would describe how offended they are at having an insult cross their path. Perhaps another tortured analogy would do it*. At least help me by telling me who the burden of proof falls when somebody is trying to find the truth about something somebody said about something that might not have been. One more circular argument might work. Please help, I've almost decided which way to think. [snark off] * guilty of this one myself

You don't think SF could figure out that GS needed proof of the cache when the reviewer said it did not exist? That would be like trying to defend yourself against a ticket for no drivers licence without bringing the licence to court.

First, I'll add to the chours in thanking you for the well reasoned responces. Second, I will avoid saying who is right here due to the overwhelming lack of evidence. My real comment is on the bolded part of your quote. From my reading of the note he clearly asked for the owner to check on it, but I would not say he asked for an email if the cache was good to go. He only reminded the owner that he could contact him, not should. I mention this because it seems to get to the root of the "handled badly" comments. I have no reason to think it was intentional, but as a learning opportunity I would suggest the reviewers be a little more pointed in their comments if they expect a specific responce to a request. Again, I lean toward support of GS position in this and most matters, I just have that one suggestion for future difficult situations.

As far as I know there is no way to fool the map displayed on the cache page. More or less echoing what RC said, the purpose of the map is just the convienence of not having to enter the coords in a seperate map page, and you can't fool all the map sites.

This is one I found. Not so much a CCC, but I enjoyed finding a real log BOOK in a micro. And this is one of my easy ones. It has a film can inserted in the other end, and is "hidden" in a decorative ship.

Maybe your friend misspelled youe name and got a different player? Devita, for instance, has no hides. Edit: Never mind, I see the post now that shows all the other info correct. I don't have a good answer.

I guess I/we are in the minority as we have a seperate account to log team finds. What sparked the question were mentions of teams such as a group of military folks who logged their collective finds (from all over the world) as a team find in addition to their individual accounts. Just looking for other ways of enjoying the game.

His profile shows the team to be the owner of many caches in a short time, all adopted. That isn't a problem in and of itself, but on some of them he has found the cache only through someone else. Just seems odd to me. If you are going to adopt a cache that someone else found for you, doesn't maintemance become an issue?