ecanderson

Not exactly true. If you somehow miss all of the "sampling" caches, you won't be added automatically, but if you wish to be included and have >200, you can request it from the owner. FWIW, it's not just the US, it's international. Again, not exactly true. It's not looking for caches that "high volume cachers" get to, it's looking for caches were there is a high correlation between having >200 finds and having visited a particular cache. 200 isn't exactly "high volume" these days. The sampling method is pretty slick. Not very many folks who hit caches in major areas fall through the cracks. There's something wrong with that. If your caching handle is in the list, your statistics are automatically updated every time the site does its update from the data at gc.com. You don't have to keep hitting the "sampling caches". Any chance your gc.com handle has changed since you hit the list?

Had no plan to get involved in this, but your post intrigues me. What exactly was the nature of the "threat"? Caches placed outside of their area of authority, followed up by threats? Even my skin isn't that thick. I'd have been working my way up the supervisory chain as a matter of principle, if for no other reason than to assure that someone, somewhere, learned some better manners.

People often get their ashes parked where they ask to be parked or in a favorite spot known to friends and family. No matter how out of the way that may seem to be, a cache may be nearby. Had the exact same thing happen to us looking for a cache near one of the visitor pull-outs that is at one of the entrances to Estes Park, CO. The coordinates weren't right on the spot, and in the process of overturning a goodly number of rocks, found a brass box with "Donald" in it. We covertly got Donald back to his final resting place and looked about the same distance from GZ in other directions and finally found the cache. I wrote the owner and suggested that 1) the coordinates be tightened up to keep people away from the cairn, and 2) a hint be added to suggest to the finder a more correct location for the search. Alternately, move the cache altogether. As I recall, they opted for the "move the cache altogether" in the long run. GCQ6Q0 I added a note to my "found" log advising that if finders found something they did not expect during their search, to please be respectful. Nothing more specific than that, but enough for someone who actually ran across the same brass box to have a clue. Was a good thing, as a couple of others did find behind us. Write the owner. Explain the problem. You've done what needs to be done.

For lots of reasons, this may be hard to say. One of those reasons is that some "cachers" are in fact groups of two or more cachers combining their finds (each of the individuals in the group does not necessarily visit each of the logged caches). It appears that Alamogul attends each of the caches logged, however, and he's currently top dog in the known rankings at over 35,000.

I think this oversimplifies the issue in a way that unfairly paints the government as being draconian. The ideal is: Set aside some land that we are allowed to visit, but not alter, so that our children can visit, and also not alter. Could be worse. If that were the philosophy of Boulder Cty Colorado, I'd still be voting for their use of taxpayer funds for open space acquisition. Here, it's "Set aside some land that no one will be allowed to visit, period. Now, set aside some more land that no one will be allowed to visit, either." We are developing a large inventory of land here that no one can even SEE unless they've got access to an aircraft or thinks Google Earth is a reasonable alternative. Here in the Peoples' Republic, it's "People bad, fence good". The percentage of land being acquired that is accessible to the public is very low indeed compared to other areas of the country. So here, there's not much issue about whether a geocache is placed on THAT land. The County finally budged at least a bit on the accessible open space, but requires a form be filled out and that the cache be pulled or moved after 6 months -- even if it only gets a find every other month. Better than nothing, but not great. http://webpubapps.bouldercounty.org/pos/ge...e2/default.aspx

??? Who's to say you didn't slow down before taking the screen shot? Think it through just a little bit and I believe you'll retract the question.

You lost me there. What is it that you would tell GSAK that would avoid having it send waypoints in GPX format when you transfer the caches to the handheld Garmin? GSAK's option is "GPS" / "Send Waypoints". For other units like your Nuvi, I fully understand, and in fact, my TomTom gets the full load via its own POI file format from GSAK (just a simple file copy - not using GSAK to transmit)... but an 60csx or an eTrex???

If you're caching in Quebec, I think you have to enter the coordinates in French Apart from that, your performance should be identical to what you see in NY.

I'm not sure what anyone is smoking. Have never had the feature work as advertised. I've never been able to get the 'quoted expression' technique to work at all. From: Advanced Search All Geocaches By Keyword Try placing "Side Bet" in quotes, like that. None of my "Side Bet" caches show up at all. Some that should include GC19QE3 GC1B03D GC1B049 If anyone can shed some light on that...

Your logic seems to be stuck in "binary state" mode and we've got a state machine with more possibilities than that. Try this on for size - 4 states, remembering that "didn't find" fits 800,000 caches, and instead really implies, at a minimum, TRIED to find: if (attempted to find cache){ if ((!search_impeded) && (!search_foreshortened)){ if (found cache) log_find(); else log_DNF(); }else{ if (in_the_mood) write_note(); }else{ nop(); } Providing that the log info was in front of you on site, you'd have all the information necessary to interpret the DNF. But if, like MANY of us, you use a tool like GSAK to load the local caching info on your *reasonably* priced GPS (excluding those that provide oddles of log data & etc for a healthy price), what you SEE for each of the GCs is the information on the last 4 logs in a somewhat cryptic format. For example, a good GSAK export to my Garmin Summit HC will show FNFF if the next to the last finder logged a DNF. If four people try to score a new cache the same weekend that it snows, my Garmin will show me NNNN even after the snow melts. If the cache is rated as a 1.5 difficulty and shows "NNNN" for the last 4 logs, I'll assume there's a 99% chance it isn't there, and pass on it. Only later would I discover, using your system, that I probably should have stopped to have a look. Also understand that while you and I would take the time to note the reason for not finding a cache (piled under a ton of snow) using different log types, at least we'd take the time to DO it. Not everyone does. As an owner, I'd rather not have a bunch of unexplained DNFs which would lead me to have to go out and check a cache prematurely. Not everyone is very good about adding a bit of useful detail to their logs. Although some write nothing more useful than "TFTC" for an entire "found" log, at least you know the cache is there and evidently in good enough shape to sign the log. A DNF that said nothing more than "No joy" could mean it was buried under a ton of snow, or many things other than "you looked for it, but were unable to locate it". The latter can be of concern for the owner for several reasons noted in prior posts. Misrated caches, missing caches, moved caches, whatever. If a proper search never happened, as an owner, I'd prefer that you leave a note if there's a problem performing the search, or a DNF if you gave it a shot and came up blank.

That's where I'll just log a "Note" for the cache, with a "Did not look" somewhere in there, with the reason involved. If it's a muggle problem at certain hours, I'll note that. If it's a blocked road, mountains of snow at the end of a parking lot -- whatever. In the latter case, it lets fellow cachers know not to bother unless they've got a front-loader ... or wait until the snow melts for a week or two. What is there about the simple declarative sentence "I visited the cache and did not find it" that you don't understand? The posting of a note makes no logical sense to me. You either found it or you didn't find it. Those are the two mutually exclusive options that logically cover all cache visits, in my opinion. I am a logic designer so I may be being too literal, but a note saying "I didn't find it" boggles my mind. So if I drive by the location in my car and glance in the direction of the cache, it's a DNF? If no real effort was (or even could be) made to make a find, logging a DNF just raises red flags for both the owner and future finders unnecessarily. With your logic, I should log a DNF on every cache I haven't found yet, whether I made any attempt to search for them at all -- providing I was in the vicinity. What part of the simple declarative sentence "I could not look because [xxx] made it impossible" bothers you? Such notes say something very useful about the status of the hide -- without raising concerns about whether a 1.0 difficulty cache might have been muggled, or was misrated.

There's no easy answer to this since cachers come and go. There are cachers with quite a few finds that have dropped out altogether, and some that only found one or two caches and aren't active. But to give your daughter at least a LITTLE information about the distribution of cachers around the world, use the 200+ club at www.cacherstats.com. It includes cachers both past and present that have 200 or more finds. What you'll find there is a record of the majority of 66,746 cachers. If nothing else, it will give you a statistical sample of who is where... If the sampling is valid (you'd need to talk to the GHP about how this is managed in foreign countries), you'll find the hobby is wildly popular in Germany (11944 ranked cachers) and not very popular at all in France (274 ranked cachers), and just plain insane in the U.S. (33306 ranked cachers).

Seems to get managed pretty well in log entries. If I feel that a cache is more than 1/2 a star +/- of what I expected when I find it, I'll usually make a note of it in my log entry. Sometimes I'll even note a 1/2 star difference -- e.g., send me down into an easy 4 foot ditch to find a cache under a bridge, and I'll politely suggest in the log that your 1.5 is really a 2.0. Then again, if someone is out there with only the basic information (no logs), they'll never see it.

After posting, noted Sky King's assessment, and concur 100%. I, too, will not post a DNF if I just check out a 4.0 difficulty for a few minutes during lunch to see what the access is like. I won't actually put in a real search for harder ones unless I know I have the time, so no DNF if there's no real attempt. Even with info attached to explain, the DNF entry shows up in PQs in GSAK and does nothing to help other finders, and may just confuse them unless they have time to go back and look at the details.

That's where I'll just log a "Note" for the cache, with a "Did not look" somewhere in there, with the reason involved. If it's a muggle problem at certain hours, I'll note that. If it's a blocked road, mountains of snow at the end of a parking lot -- whatever. In the latter case, it lets fellow cachers know not to bother unless they've got a front-loader ... or wait until the snow melts for a week or two.

I vote for the use of bait bills wrapped around explosive dye packs. Seems to work well at banks. Of course, you'd need to dissuade the innocent from making the visit!

Indeed they do. I've found that wide, concrete, open drainage ditches up the sides of hills even show up once in a while here in Colorado. They're picking up high contrast, straight features and making some bad assumptions.

There's a good tutorial on a number of methods here => http://www.markwell.us/route.htm I've used the GPX->KML conversion and Google Earth with some success, and that one is free. Don't know about the others.

Using the "Clayjar" rating method, a rock climb or tree climb that requires the use of hands to achieve the objective could very well be rated at a 4.0. Just because you could roll up to the cache in a wheelchair (terrain = 1.0) does NOT mean that merely bumping your cache by 0.5, or even 1.5, is sufficient. The terrain rating, while sometimes unclear due to more than one condition in reaching the cache, really should always reflect the most difficult aspect of the trip. If you choose to place a cache in a tree that must be climbed to reach the cache, and are honest about your terrain rating, yes - that may tend to give it away as a result. Terrain ratings, if done correctly, sometimes DO give a finder additional information about the location of the hide. It's just the nature of the game and the system. Someone who knows their physical skills aren't up to much more than a 2.0 terrain cache shouldn't be out looking for yours. One alternative is to come up with a clever mechanism for raising and lowering the cache from the tree that can is available to someone without having to make the climb. I've seen some pretty good ones -- even ones whose "control" isn't even in the same tree.

... and sometimes in our area of Colorado, this is done either with either the help (or at least the blessing) of local county officials. Do you see that down your way as well? It can sometimes be very hard to tell what territory is fair game and what's not out there.

I try to hit a cache at each port of call on a cruise. Especially on the trans-Atlantic cruises, that makes for some unusual logs (e.g., the Azores or Canary Islands)! Everyone has already noted that you don't really need a base map in your GPS to do your caching. Do your homework up front using the maps supplied by google or msn as they are provided at geocaching.com. You mention looking for caches where the ship docks -- that isn't always easy. Your first problem will be understanding where your ship will dock in the first place. That's not too difficult on small islands and small ports, but in a large port area, you will need to do some real research to be sure you know where you'll land. Some port areas are HUGE and you need to distinguish between a couple of miles of potential docking areas. It's not always very easy. Asking regular cruisers on a forum like cruiselinefans.com or cruisecritics.com may get you some detailed information. Also, you'd be surprised at what you'll find with a detailed search of some of the web pages of the ports themselves. You can also sometimes get a clue as to where your pier will be by a close look at google earth. The big cruise ships are pretty obvious. If you don't find anything around the docks, don't forget that shore excursions often take you to popular sites where a geocacher might also have dropped a cache. As an example, I'll be at several ports in early November off a cruise ship. Didn't see any caches right near the docks in some cases, but after researching (with gc.com and maps of the areas described by the shorex information) what was around some of the points listed in shore excursions, I found several caches right where I was headed. A shorex in Marseilles will take you to Longchamp Palace, site of GC1DXT5. In fact, I found far fewer caches near the docks on this next cruise than at shorex sites. Here's what I selected for some of my ports of call based upon proximity to docks and my excursions (no doubt this software will make a dog's breakfast of my carefully formatted text ... sorry: Marseilles, France Shorex: MR07: Avignon & Wine Tasting at Palace of the Popes GC113AJ M/2.5/1.5 "Pontificus DGSTRUCH LXVII" Less than 300' SE of Palais des Papes GC1139Z M/2.0/1.5 "Saint-Bénézet" On the bridge at St. Benezet Barcelona, Spain Docks: GC1AQ9F ?/3.0/1.0 Das Boot Shorex: W/Patrick GC5A26 V/1.0/1.0 Barcelona Possibly at the church in Tibidabo GC1T5NX M/1.0/1.0 Carril bici Sant Cugat Pl de la vila ½ mile WNW from Monastery Mallorca, Spain Docks: GC17E49 M/1.5/1.5 Parc de la Mar Across the street from park – quick find GC1D9PK M/1.5/1.5 Es Baluart At the Museum Shorex: PJ10: Panoramic Palma Walking Tour GC17E49 (see above) 350' SSE of cathedral Cartegena, Spain Shorex: RA08: Elche & Palm Tree Park GC1M9A0 S/1.0/1.0 PyJ: Palmeral de Elche Under big hwy bridge in center of park Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain Shorex: LZ18: Camel Ride & Fire Mountain GC1BBMT "E"/1.5/1.5 El Diablo / Lanzarote Earth cache at visitor center parking lot? Note: requires photo holding GPSr and coordinates! Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain Shorex: TF39: Pyramids of Guimar GC10X34 R/1.5/1.5 EL MISTERIO DE LAS PIRAMIDES About 700' WNW of the parking lot

Every single situation is unique. Once, I even co-opted the adjacent landowner in the hunt! He's written back that once he returns from this tour in Iraq, he plans to take up the hobby, so we made a convert in the process. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...58-8f928fde02db

Should take care of what you need. As for maps that go beyond what's displayed at gc.com (which mirrors google maps), I've sometimes used the old "Live Earth" system, now renamed "Bing" or whatever it is - it's referenced on the cache page, too. They use the competing map service, and in any given area, it's often true that one service has more up-to-date maps or aerial / satellite coverage than the other. If I don't like the looks of the google map set out by gc.com, I'll check the other to see if it is better.

Are you talking about a cache page map or an area map? If what you meant was not being able to print the area map (yeah, the bogus little "printer" icon that won't print, but runs you off to the "Order a topo print at MyTopo.com is pretty self-serving advertisement for a gc.com partner) .. you've got one suggestion above. There are all kinds of screen print programs available that let you be more selective than the Shift/PrtScr option, too. One of my favorites has been "Any Capture" 3.50, although there's a $25 fee for that one. Sure is flexible, though. For one thing, I can set up a rectangle of any size on the screen and print just as much as I really need from any window I can see. For a freebie, I would recommend http://download.cnet.com/Screen-Print-Capt...4-10135610.html. While not as flexible as Any Capture, it should be useful for what you are trying to accomplish. It also allows you to define a specific area to capture (and print).

Alternative to WHAT?