robert

It could be you! Mmmmaaaaaaaaaaybe. But I don't have a GPS-enabled PDA or cell phone. I also have a Mac so that may pose a challenge, unless it's web-based. We'll find out soon enough.

Groundspeak can do as it wishes with advertising, but it doesn't mean I can. If they choose to promote a GPS in the weekly mailer or whatever, that's fine with me. Premium membership prices haven't changed, so at $30 it's a great deal. If those ads keep the membership at an affordable $30, I'll continue to be happy to receive them. We're lucky, really. The ads on the Groundspeak sites are minimal (if you're a PM) compared to many others. Kudos to Jeremy and the rest of the Groundspeak team for not inundating us with ads every step of the way.

I'm pretty excited about trying it out too. Wonder who will be the first in my area to set one up?

Not much going on out there in Colorado, eh?

Go to the TB's page and on the right side is a drop-down menu. Click that and select "Mark as missing" from the options. You can do it if you are the TB owner, or the TB is in a cache you own.

Welcome to geocaching! Don't forget to join NoVAGO -- http://www.novago.org See you at an event sometime.

I wouldn't wait 3 months, that is an eternity for them to be missing. Even if a tb is marked missing, when someone grabs it via a site log, it's back in action. The mark as missing option does nothing permanently to the listing that takes it out of play. Should it resurface 3 months or 3 years later, it can still travel with no issues.

When caching with friends, there is a way to do it so everyone has a chance to find it. We usually just keep looking as if we haven't spotted it, eventually wandering away from GZ and sitting down. Of course if you're on some sort of daily record binge, this won't work as speed is key. But at least everyone gets to 'find' the cache!

It is a different supplier than the one from 4 years ago. OK, thanks! I'll be ordering it anyway, my other one is pretty torn up from wearing it all the time plus washing it. Looks like all that's left for the fleece is XX right now. I wonder where all the Christmas cookies are -- that way I can fit in an XX.

Sounds right. edit: You might want to read this thread at some point if that's what you're planning.

I've had a 60CS since they came out (2004) I believe and I've used 3 other GPS before that. None have worked as well as the 60CS. I've truly gotten my money's worth out of it, and I'm sure the Csx is even better. One day I'll upgrade.

There's no such thing as a new virtual, they haven't been listed for about 2.5 years now. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...x#grandfathered

I subscribe to the Announcements forum so if there's something important enough that Jeremy or anyone else needs to post there, I'll get an email with the announcement. It helps keep me up to date with what's going on with the site if something major happens.

Jenn, Is this cap made by the same place that made the last one? The one I've had for just over 4 years now is tattered at the front, but it is THE most comfortable cap I own and I will be sad to part with it, but not if this is the same company.

Thank you!! I have looked everywhere but there "It was in the last place I looked."

Then I sincerely hope I never become a "Real Geocacher." I was referring to the attitude expressed by some when they provide reasoning for disliking them, not stating that as fact.

Forgotten History in Maryland

Reviewers correct me if I'm wrong, but according to mine anyway.....they don't receive any notification of the "needs maintenance" logs (unless they have the cache on a watchlist and would therefore see it like any other cacher that has the cache on their watchlist). Those are supposed to be specifically for the owners to see that their cache needs some TLC. In order for a reviewer to see the cache needs help, it has to be a "should be archived" log. Right, reviewers do NOT see the needs maintenance log, that's for the owner. If the NM log doesn't get any action and the cache continues in disrepair, a Needs Archived log can be submitted, which does go to the local reviewer who can decide what to do from that point. edit: here's a recent thread about that http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=179211

The forums are not designed by Groundspeak, it's a pre-written software package. I find the easiest way to unsubscribe is to not subscribe. The only one I stay subscribed to is the Announcements forum. To unsubscribe, go to My Controls at the top of the page. Choose the appropriate option on the resulting page (at the left) to unsubscribe from a forum or topic.

I recently got engaged and a little birdie told me the photo made the banner on the front page. It was very cool to see it in the rotation. And no, the picture beside us is not the wedding cake

I did that on a PC with no DVD writer, and my thumb drive is only 1GB. The final file was just over 1GB so I'll have to get a bigger thumb drive!

That's because you helped beta test it and wrote part of the documentation. I've tried GeoJournal, but I prefer MacCaching -- and I have no ties to either one. To anyone wanting to know which is best, download both and try them out and make your decision from there. They're both good pieces of software, but the best one is the one that you can get the most use out of with your particular needs.

There are lots of reasons people don't maintain their caches, including laziness, the holidays, being deployed, work, family issues, no longer caching, putting too many caches out there to look after them all, etc. It's disappointing, but by reading some of the logs ahead of time or some creative filtering of pocket queries you can avoid it. Otherwise just chalk it up to experience and move on, don't let it ruin your fun.

"Real geocachers" hate micros*, so it's a pile-on effect. If so many people are down on micros, why are so many others hiding them? (And more importantly, why do those that hate them so much spend so much time talking about them and participating in threads about them? ) Thanks to gc.com for PQs and filtering ... *referring to the attitude expressed by some when they provide reasoning for disliking them, not stating that as fact.