Happy Bubbles

Here's the thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=215376

I don`t see how this feature would add any information that isn`t already in the cache description. The reasoning behind most cache placements can be inferred from reading the cache page. If they go on and on about the scenery or historical significance of the site, you can assume that they placed the cache there to show you the place. If the entire extent of the description is "micro in a walmart parking lot," then you can assume there wasn`t a significant reason behind that one and put it on your ignore list.

Why? Oh, and since I`m picky about word choice, I`d call the series "More Light Pole Caches" or "Another Light Pole Cache." The final would be "Cachers` Cache of Caches."

I thought you might respond to this thread and I was pretty sure that was going to be your answer. Oh, am I posting enough that people are starting to remember me? I guess it`s time to disappear from the forum for another two or three years.

Lot's of people are having that problem. Here's the main thread about it: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=215376

None.

I've found my nearest since my earlier post in this topic, and my new nearest is now 50.5 miles away. It looks like an interesting one, with a nice hike to an abandoned tunnel, so I've been thinking of taking a day to go after it. But the last find was in December 2006, and since then the only log is a lone DNF. I'm reluctant to go all that way to look for a cache that has quite possibly been muggled. Hmmm, what to do?

When a cacher has personal problems with another player, the common advice is for them to ignore that person and not look for any caches they hide. If you were being ignored in such a manner, would you notice? Assuming that the cacher didn't leave logs like "Found them all in this area EXCEPT FOR THOSE LAME CACHES BY THAT ONE PERSON WHO SUCKS" or stick all my caches on a public bookmark list titled "Caches I'm ignoring because the person who hides them is totally nuts," I don't think I would notice. You'd have to notice them finding all the other caches in the area except yours, and back when I lived in a cache-dense area I never paid that much attention to caches I'd already found unless I had some particular reason to. I never monitored logs on other caches closely enough that I would have noticed anyone finding all the other caches but not mine. How about you? Think you would pick up on a snub?

Two questions: 1. If you don't give a hoot that he deleted your log, why did you delete his? 2. Do you want him to look for your caches? Why should he, when you are waiting to delete his logs?

Whoah, way to go everyone jumping on the OP for one little word. He said it was among dense fir trees - those things drop tons of needles that build up thick layers underneath the tree. It would be easy to scoop some away by hand to make a hollow. No pointy digging implements required. OP, it`s pretty awesome that the security guy was so cool about it! And now that you`ve talked with him and he`s aware of it, hopefully future finders of your cache will be less likely to get hassled.

I`ve got a couple caches where I could have used bigger containers or put them in more accessible places, but I chose not to in order to avoid damage to the surrounding area. In my town there are the remains of an old castle, complete with stone walls with all sorts of gaps that could accommodate a cache. But I didn`t want people to pick the walls apart in their search, so instead the cache is up on top of the mountain in a part of the castle that`s now overgrown with trees. I`d probably get a few more finds on that one if there wasn`t a hike involved. And I`m not terribly fond of magnetic keyholder micros, but that`s what I hid near some really cool basalt formations. I could have hidden a regular sized cache in a pile of rocks or under some brush just off the path, but again I didn`t want people picking apart the stones or trampling the vegetation, so micro under the bench it was.

Oh wait, nevermind, I think I figured it out. Maybe the second cache was listed at the wrong coordinates at first (with a W where there should be an E.) The bug got put in the cache when it was mistakenly listed on the other side of the planet, then the CO corrected the coordinates before someone took the bug. Think that`s a viable hypothesis?

http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=106180 This isn`t my bug, and it vanished years ago. I just came across this bug`s page while looking at something else, and I noticed a strange discrepancy in its recorded mileage. I`m curious about why this would happen. It was retrieved from a cache in central Osaka, and then put into a cache in a suburb of the city. It only traveled eight miles, but the log is labeled "Japan 4854.4mi NE." Then, when the next cacher retrieved it from that same cache, it came up "Japan 4852.3mi NW." So the bug picked up an extra 9000 miles. What`s up with that?

65% of my first 100 have been archived. Since my 100th find was in March 2004, my first 100 and my finds from 5+ years ago are pretty much the same caches.

I wouldn't, and for that cache you mentioned, it seems that the reviewer is already aware of it, so it should not be necessary. I wouldn't bother going out of my way to search for it either, unless I'm there for some other reason. I`m not sure that the reviewer is aware of it, though. Now that I take another look at the cache page, I see that the reviewer note was posted in October of 2007; the last find was January 2006. There`s no local reviewer in this area - caches here are approved by the reviewers who cover the world at large, so it seems unreasonable to expect them to keep track of this cache when they`ve got the whole world to pay attention to.

Do you folks post SBAs for caches you haven`t personally searched for? There`s an MIA cache with an MIA owner in a city I`m planning to go caching in sometime in the future. It hasn`t been found in a year or two and there`s a months-old reviewer note saying "hey, is this one still here?" and no follow up after that. I don`t want to go out of my way to look for a cache that is clearly no longer there, but I also don`t want to look like the armchair cache police by posting an SBA without ever having been there. What would you all do, SBA or leave it alone?

I agree. In addition, if the cops said to remove the cache, it should be removed and not replaced. Ideally the owner should decide what to do with it but if you can't get hold of the owner, contact a reviewer or post an SBA. We're playing a game and causing the police to be called is not a good. We should be trying to build a rapport with authorities, not causing avoidable problems. It`s on a hiking trail in the woods, according to the description. What`s wrong with playing games there? If you were birdwatching or jogging or playing hide-and-seek you`d be just as likely to get the police called on you if the neighbors were already alert for burglars. Would you tell people to never do anything at all on that trail, ever again, just because it might "cause problems?" That cache has been there a long time and has been found by many people without any previous problems. This incident seems to be just a coincidence - the OP just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It`s not like it has been a persistent problem for anyone, neighbors or the police. So I say the cache should be put back.

Japanese warning signs tend to be adorably cute.

I just looked at your finds and found the cache, http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...29-b4fa17a511f7 It looks like the owner hasn`t logged into the site since 2006, so you`re not likely to be able to get in contact with them. I`d say just wait a bit and then go put it back where you found it. or. . . If you don`t put it back in the same place, you should put a "should be archived" log on it so that a moderator can close the old listing- that way, no one will go looking for a cache that is no longer there. Then you could re-hide the old cache in a new location, and submit it as a new cache with a note on the page stating its history. I see that there are some travel bugs in the cache - if you do archive and re-hide it, you should use the tracking numbers on them to log them out of the "old" cache and into the "new" one.

1. Most of them 2. Yes

Last weekend I drove almost two hours to find the last cache within 50 miles that I hadn`t done yet. I`m two or three hours away from Kyoto, Osaka, and Kobe (though they`re all in different directions), so if I happen to get a free day without any plans I`ll make a day trip and go to one of those places. But I like those cities anyway, even without the caches.

More than a few, enough to know some of the common features of good and bad hides. You should find enough that you know what you`re doing, and that will be different for different people in different areas. Twenty-ish should be enough finds to give you an idea of the variety in any given area. I`ve seen some people look askance at anyone with less than 100 finds, but that seems like too high of a threshold to me. When you live in an area with not so many caches it can be difficult to quickly rack up a high find count; if all the cachers in my area had waited until they had x number of finds there would be even fewer caches to look for around here. It`s definitely good to have some finds, but then again, I just finished up a cluster of caches in a very,very rural area hidden by someone with only one find. They were all great hides, in my opinion.

re: the headstone When I first saw that, I thought it must be a pet`s grave marker. Someone`s beloved mutt Rags lived to the ripe old age of 16 before passing away, and years later the grave marker was disturbed from its resting place and ended up there.

Why would anyone want more rules? Then you`d just have the hassle of enforcing them. Travellers are supposed to be fun and creative, and size is just one more way they can vary. If you don`t want to deal with a big travel bug, then don`t take it. I like the idea of traveller that`s a bit of a challenge, something that can`t just be dumped in any old cache. I think this one is pretty amusing: http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=27797

double post