rosebud55112

Okay, so go to the first stage (the posted coordinates), and then follow the instructions on the page: That will give you the coordinates for the second stage. Enter the coordinates for the second stage into your device, then go to the second stage, and then follow the instructions on the page: That will give you the coordinates for the third and final stage. but how do you subtract or divide from the cords If you are asking how you enter these new coordinates into your GPSr so that you can go to the next spot, you'll need to do that manually. Check your GPSr User's Manual for how to do that.

I didn't claim that it is a new problem or that it began when phone caching began, merely that I've seen a huge reduction in trackables in the wild lately, and that I think there's a reasonable connection that may be drawn, although I have no backup data. I am happy to state that of the two caches I found today which were big enough to hold trackables, one of them did have a TB in it.

I think part of the problem is one of the downsides to smartphone/android caching. The availability of geocaching coordinates and apps on phones has led to a big increase in the number of people who have gone geocaching at some point in their lives. Many of the people who enter via phonecaching become good strong cachers, who are welcome additions to the geocaching world. However, I think that you also get dabblers, people who are not into geocaching so much as trying out what their new phones can do. These people may see TBs and geocoins in a cache they find, and under the "Hidden Treasures" idea, take them thinking they now belong to them. These dabblers are by definition not long-term cachers, and so may either never visit another cache where they can drop off the traveler, or never be into it enough to check out the website explaining what a traveler is, and why they are important to other cachers. As such, they get removed from the caching world. I'm no old-timer, having just passed my fourth anniversary of caching, but I've noticed a severe drop in the number of travelers seen in the wild in the past 18 months or so. And to be clear, I'm not saying people who use smartphones for caching are bad. I'm saying that smartphones allow a lot more people who aren't serious to dip their toes into the pool, and disappearing travelers is an effect of that. Overall, I think the advantages to phonecaching outweigh the disadvantages (to geocaching as a whole), but this is a disadvantage. And that's just my opinion, I have no data to back that up.

OZ2CPU--I think you are refering to the new guidelines for Challenge caches, and those guidelines do not apply to puzzle caches in general, or even caches in general. I've seen a lot of "I don't mind if people give hints on my caches, so I give hints on other people's caches" in this thread. Suppose you put your feet up on your coffee table while you watch television. I certainly hope that if you were visiting someone else's home you would have enough courtesy not to do that without checking with the homeowner or seeing them do so. Go ahead and do whatever you want with your caches, but have a little courtesy to defer the hint-requesters to the CO.

OZ2CPU--I think you are refering to the new guidelines for Challenge caches, and those guidelines do not apply to puzzle caches in general, or even caches in general. I've seen a lot of "I don't mind if people give hints on my caches, so I give hints on other people's caches" in this thread. Suppose you put your feet up on your coffee table while you watch television. I certainly hope that if you were visiting someone else's home you would have enough courtesy not to do that without checking with the homeowner or seeing them do so. Go ahead and do whatever you want with your caches, but have a little courtesy to defer the hint-req

If someone calls me and says they've torn up the area looking for someone else's cache, I wouldn't be rewarding them with the location of the cache, I'd be telling them that they are poor representatives of the caching community and that maybe they'll find the cache as they restore the location. Or should we start leaving caches out in the open from now on so people won't rip everything apart in their desire to get a smiley for finding a cache that takes more skill than they have?

Perhaps, but the cache owner is part of the community too. In fact, one could argue the cache owner is the most important part of the community because, after all, we would not have caches to find without others hiding them. As a cache owner myself, I don't mind if others give out hints on my caches. However, I don't own any that are especially difficult. IMHO, a 4 diff. (even a 3+) is *supposed* to be hard to find. I could imagine that if a cache owner spent time constructing a cache with the intent that it be a challenge (perhaps a many stage multi) for those that attempted to find it, and then rated it accordingly, and others started freely giving out hints and even outright spoilers, the CO might start getting a little ticked. If I were that CO I'd start to wonder what the point was for having higher difficulty ratings if others were just going to circumvent my intention of creating a 4 star diff. cache by sharing the final location. I might even decide that rather than just toss another easy find out there so others can pad their stats I would stop hiding caches entirely. It other cache owners felt the same way we'd end up with fewer caches to be found and fewer that presented a challenge to those that don't *want* every cache to be easy. Wonderful response.

I'd say direct them to the CO. I don't like the PAF idea, it seems like an attempt to change the cache experience that the CO intends. In that way, it's different only in scale from hiding the cache in a manner different from how you find it. If you wouldn't rehide a cache to make it easier for future searchers, why would you tell future finders where to look?

That's uncalled for. Rosebud55112 is a Minnesota cacher with quite a few mystery caches. The question, in my opinion, was a fair one, and in my experience, the speculation was pretty accurate. Thanks, knowschad, for understanding what I meant and the tone of it. As I read my comment now, it does sound somewhat snarky, so I can understand Chrysalides' interpretation as well. Enough with this diversion, though. Back to the main topic....

Is that why sometimes mystery caches have so few solvers for a long time, then an explosion of solvers? Because people are passing around the solutions? That doesn't seem Minnesota Nice to me.

I'm working on creating a puzzle which requires me to put together a PDF file showing the puzzle layout. How do I upload this to the cache description page? I've uploaded photos before, but because this isn't a jpeg file, the upload image procedure won't work for me. Thanks, rosebud

When I log a DNF, I note approximately how long I looked. The CO can use that information to determine how relevant my DNF is. You just changed my DNF thinking. From now on, I'll DNF with the time I put into looking for it. I have to agree with another poster about logging "Finally found on third attempt" without even a single DNF is an admission of less than genuine logging. Austin Some people like to remove their own DNFs after finally finding a cache, so just because you see a "Finally found on third attempt" without any DNFs doesn't mean those DNFs weren't there. Of course, if you're the CO and know that's not the case, that's different.

Deleted duplicate post

I'd say don't do it. As was mentioned above, with some of the power trails available, 1000 caches (or many multiples thereof) don't necessarily mean anything, and there are plenty of people who hit such milestones but don't get tribute caches from the community, which can cause hard feelings.

Mike, if you are looking at GC1G9RE, your stats profile is enough to show you have it. Or are you looking at specifically finding the GC numbers of your caches?

Does "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers" mean that challenge caches cannot be PMO? Or does the backdoor method of logging mean that they are not specifically excluded. I'd think that most non-member cachers neither know how to backdoor log a PMO cache, or even know that there might be one just down the street from them. It is hard to argue that you are not excluded from something when you don't even know it exists. Also then, does this essentially indicate that those who think PMO caches are elitist have GS on their side?

The No finds before the publication only made it easier on new cachers because they hadn't found everything around them. For example if I publish a challenge for finding 10 Letterbox caches in SC after 3/13/12 since I have found all the ones within 30 miles I have a very difficult task. A new cacher has an easier task. Remove the date and both new and old have the same amount of work to do. The only difference is the veteran cacher may already qualify and FTF the challenge cache. So all the ALR did was make it easy for a newer cacher to FTF. It's not an ALR any more than saying "Must be Letterbox" or "Must be in SC" is. The timing issue is geocaching-related. The issue being that you and I would essentially be looking at a different set of caches available to fulfill the challenge. That's an implication of having cleaned out your home base area. So what if I find that clearing everything around me has some disadvantages? Don't go for the challenge that has the time restriction on it. I still don't see why giving newer cachers a break compared to veteran cachers is such a bad thing.

Outside the caching world, a challenge usually refers to a future event, in my opinion. If at today's staff meeting, my boss challenges us to treat our customers with respect and fulfill our orders gracefully, she won't be thrilled if I say "Did that yesterday. Think I'll pass on it today." I know, bad analogy. I just don't think there's anything wrong with a CO saying "Do this post-publication." I wouldn't want to take away the ability of a CO to allow pre-publication completion of a challenge (and that makes it easier to show that a significant population of cachers can complete the challenge), but I don't see the need to tie COs' hands like that. I've seen (and own) a challenge cache published on Jan 1 (or thereabouts) with a challenge for the new year. That type of challenge will go away, and strictly speaking, any 2012 challenges which are grandfathered in will need to be disabled on 12/31/12 or 1/1/13.

This was always one of my least favorite parts of lots of challenges. It usually made the challenge much easier for a new cacher and much harder for a veteran. Having some challenges that were easier for new cachers than established cachers was a benefit in my mind. It helped get new cachers involved. It also tended to even out the field as far as difficulty goes, in the sense of a person seeing the challenge for the first time thinking "How much work am I going to have to put into this?" You don't wind up with a chunk of cachers saying "Oh look, another gimme." Admittedly, sometimes the established cachers can be overly penalized by this, but I prefer giving the newer cachers a bit of a break. Strictly interpreted, wouldn't this restriction kill a challenge like "Find a cache every day in January"?

Not going to be on that cruise, but my wife and I visited Alaska on the Island Princess last July. You're going to love it! I was able to grab a couple of caches at each of our ports, except for Whittier--that was a get off the ship onto the bus and off to Anchorage type of day. I hope you get the same naturalist we had on our cruise--he was very good, except for pronouncing "pelts" like "pellets". I was a little confused about why the early explorers were selling sea otter pellets at such exorbitant prices. Have fun!

So, do you suppose that picture in the weekly update is the souvenir for Leap Day? Think they'll change 262 to 362 on it?

There was an event in Minnesota a year ago, GC2HPXH, which was based around solving puzzles. This event was a great success, due to the fact that it directly acknowledged some of the concerns mentioned in this thread: 1. Puzzle owners were invited to include some of their mystery caches in the event. Over 300 in total were donated, each strictly with the CO's permission. 2. Two levels of "solution" were handed out at the event. An official packet was put together with CO-provided hints to the solution. Those hints could be at any level, short of outright giving the coordinates. So the hint owner could say anything from "This communication system was developed by a man who had an accident with an awl as a boy" to "It's Braille". Some COs gave varying levels of useful hints, so the solver could choose to use only the level of hint he/she desired. 3. A sealed envelope was given to each participant. This envelope had the final coordinates for each of the 300 puzzles in it. Again, these were provided by the CO's, knowing that there would be some people who wanted only to rip open that envelope and "solve" their puzzles. 4. Most of the people at the event were interested in learning how to solve puzzles in general, not necessarily find Puzzle X. So discussions that I dropped in on included using all the info on the cache page, figuring out the significance of a title, learning puzzle methods favored by particular hiders, etc. This event was a major success due to the incredible amount of work put into it by the Event owner. Between coordinating all these puzzle submissions and printing off 40-page packets and solution envelopes and the other basic responsibilities of an Event owner, it was a major job. I submitted a half-dozen or so puzzles for this event, and was pleased with the results. I have great respect for those who solve puzzles and do not share solutions without the CO's permission. I try to rank my puzzles on the difficulty of the puzzle/find together, and when someone is willing to tell other finders "It's at NX WY" I really think lesser of those who tell and those who later "find". Also, as a cache owner I like to receive favorites. Sometimes those favorites are due at least in part to what I hope is a clever, entertaining puzzle. Those "finders" who skip that part tend not to give out as many favorites for those caches. Call me egotistical, but that irks me. You got free difficulty stars and left a smaller tip. I have no problem with people working together on any of my puzzles, and would hope that in a group everyone at least attempts to donate something to the actual solve. Group breakthroughs are fine. The original event mentioned in this thread didn't look to me like it was going to be like that.

I think that was in reference to properly posting NAs. For some reason, when you post a valid NA on a cache that truly does need to be archived, for whatever reason, this will cause some folks to twist up their knickers. As to why? I honestly don't know. If I ever reach a point where I am so apathetic about this game that I don't even care enough to fix my cache, or at the very least post something on my cache page letting others know I will fix it, I can't suddenly caring enough to get angry over an NA. But folks do strange things sometimes... I'm prepared to be called a geocop. Submitted a NA today. The last log on the cache was a NM log from the CO stating the cache has been stolen. Not that he replaced it, just that it is unavailable. That was four months ago. He somehow left that note without logging into GS. His last logon to GS was 5 months ago. Even with that, I'm sure someone will tell me I should mind my own business.

I don't find that weird at all. You know where the cache is, you can find it and sign the log, so why shouldn't you? The same reason I don't take all the pennies from the penny jar at the checkout, although I know where it is, and I can. Are you implying that finding a challenge cache that you don't qualify for and signing the log does harm or damage to anybody? No.

Not really if I said in the log found on an earlier date. Yeah, you still are to some extent. Some of the software out there may indicate what the last four or so logs were (DNF, Found It, Post Note, etc), and your 9/1 FoundIt log shows as a found log. I'll grant you that cache owners and cache seekers have a responsibility to check actual logs for cache history, but you are implying something here. Also "I found this on July 1st" on a September 1st log doesn't mean that you didn't come back, although it may imply it. I don't find that weird at all. You know where the cache is, you can find it and sign the log, so why shouldn't you? The same reason I don't take all the pennies from the penny jar at the checkout, although I know where it is, and I can. I know there are COs who allow this, and that's their business. I just think its weird. Perhaps its a regional thing. Offhand, I can think of only two Challenge caches near me where the CO has specifically stated that you can sign the log prior to completing the challenge. I have a Challenge cache which was published January 3rd which has gone unsigned (unless someone did something this weekend), although many, many cachers in my area will be able to eventually qualify for it. I expect that it won't be signed until people have completed the qualifications.