ecanderson

Some people seem to think the "fix is in" but as the board has presented the award to others it is obvious that it is a fair, well thought out process. So what did you do to get yourself in the family Board of Directors doghouse in the off-years?

Add: Long piece of copper pipe with a big wad of gummy stuff (typically used for temporary mounting of pictures, etc) for retrieving those caches placed by a local who is something like 6'6" tall (and a few others that have disappeared down a few galvanized fence posts). Add: Tweezers! Gotta have those for some of the nanos around here.

It is silly, which is why cache saturation guidelines do not apply to non-physical stages of multis and puzzles. Believe me, it's happened out here in Mile High territory. Don't ask me why. Ask "spammer" who was the victim of his own multi. We never figured it out, and pointing out the illogic didn't help.

I've asked our reviewer here in Colorado about pre-clearing a set of coordinates, but have had no response ... even after encountering a similar situation. We played this strange back and forth game for a few emails until I managed to locate it at > 1/10 mile. In our area, the problem isn't usually a multi, it's the final for one of a bazillion puzzle caches in the neighborhood. Unless you solve all of the puzzles within a couple miles of your intended cache coordinates (and here, that could easily be 50 or more), you haven't a clue where the minefields are. These can be a real bugger. We had one cache placed not far from where I live that must have taken the guy ages to drag in, only to find out there was a puzzle with an actual GZ within about 100'. He had to drag his large and heavy container out of the woods and relocate it. I'm glad he took the time, as it's still on my Top 10 list. There should be some sort of rule that the admins must give you a hand with pre-clearance on request. Edit: Due to the aggravation factor, I have become aware that cachers placing multis won't always disclose any of the intermediate waypoints if there aren't physical caches associated with them. Seems fair to me. Why should a set of coordinates derived from a virtual waypoint using existing signage for a calculation interefere with the placement of a traditional inside a 1/10th of a mile? That's silly.

You might check the owner's profile to see if they've disappeared. I've run across several caches where the DNFs were piling up, checked and found the owner hadn't logged into geocaching.com for a year, and recommended that the caches be archived. That frees up the space for a new cache.

Not quite all, Boneman. See the sig below. I've had one CO supply an unsolicited hint after a DNF where I swore to return with a metal detector to find his buried Altoids tin , but apart from that, I've run a "clean" show. I've even DNFd a few that were really gone, and had the owner reply with a "I've replaced it, log it if you like since you were in the right place". I return to sign those as well. Removing those "unfound" blemishes from my geomap isn't a "right" in my book. Just the way I play the game. As a result, there are still a few "nemesis" caches out there waiting for another visit. I'll DNF it if I've done a proper search, put it on my Watch list, and see if someone else makes a find. If they do, I'll haul back out for another try. Unless you just want the number, or can't stand that unfound cache icon, the game becomes you vs. the cache owner vs. the cache vs. the weather vs. the terrain.... which seems to be what the guys who started all of this had in mind. I think I'd find the whole thing pretty boring if I was always assured of a find via lifeline.

If all of the experienced cachers here were to think back, I suspect they'd all admit to finding caches without use of the GPS. Surely we've all driven up to at least a few, not even bothered to take the GPSr out of the car, and successfully signed the log? I'd bet this has happened to me 50 times, and another 50 times where I took the GPSr out of the car but never looked at it. You drive up, look at what's out there, and you already know where you're going to look. Any of those caches could be found with ease using GE.

It works well! I never get sad because out this way, we have more bags of chocolate chips than I will EVER have time to eat. The Front Range is loaded with caches, both trivial and wonderful. Besides, those little green box pimples keep popping up on my map all the time and need to be dealt with. We have a very active caching community here, so except for people with a lot more time on their hands than I've got (Hi there to GHP and Mondo!) there's no way to exhaust the opportunities.

Well, gee ... I'm not sure how to follow that act. I certainly don't have a beaver fetish! If anything, my objective will be to clear an entire area of anything but faces. That means setting aside time for the nasty 4.0 and above difficulty caches, setting aside time to get to locations that require a sizable hike or a tough drive or ... and includes getting those puzzle caches converted to faces, too. I feel good when there are no "blemishes" on my map. It's not the same as trying to make "numbers", but the net effect is certainly the same. For me, it's a "map thing".

Ditto. I've used GE to verify the coordinates of all of my caches before posting them except once -- and wouldn't you know it -- that was the one time I fat fingered things and had my cache off position when I wrote down the numbers from the GPS. Had to move the numbers for that one to where they belonged. I don't know if the accuracy of GE is a regional issue, but anywhere in the Colorado front range, it's been right on the money. I don't know that I'd depend upon how GE places its markers, but using the mouse to read the coordinates at the bottom of the screen puts me right on the spot. If there's a disagreement, I'll go back out with the Garmin and remeasure before posting. Good sanity check.

"Coordinated"

To answer that question and further assist in taking your otherwise great thread even FURTHER astray ... The quality of the fashion statement depends upon the quality of the tatts. YES, I used an "a".

Mine would certainly be different. I'd guess that my ratio of "missing in action" to "didn't find it but it was there" is probably on the order of 5:1 or more. Since I don't tackle the harder ones unless I can make the time to do a proper search for them, my "didn't find it but it was there" numbers are very low.

Yeah, you can't even pull up a list of DNFs on a PQ. The only way I can remember where all of my DNFs are for sure is to always put each new DNF on my Watchlist, then once in a while, run a PQ that includes only caches that (("Are on my watch list") AND ("I haven't found")).

Read the log in question, and read several of other of the logs by this person, and he/she seems perfectly sane to me. I'm beginning to think that he/she was just being silly in an explanation of the fact that the stories/stuff wasn't in the cache as expected when finding the cache.

None of my other caches have been disturbed, but they're all micros or nanos. I had sincerely hoped to keep at least one fairly ordinary "regular" size cache in the area for bug swaps and stuff, but that just may not be possible. The one that got muggled certainly didn't get muggled by anyone "passing by" as it was well hidden in an area that gets no nearby pedestrian traffic. Anywhere else, it would easily have been a "safe" hide. But watching these guys work, I'm beginning to think that they don't leave a single bush on the whole bloody 963 acres untended during their semi-annual cleanup sessions. They own enough leaf blowers to move every last grain of sand from the Sahara north into the Med!

Working for me now. Strangely, the javascript is still there, and looks identical. So either the problem is in the back end, or it was misdiagnosed. Appears to have been misdiagnosed. Problem was evidently not in the page itself, but a counter page for which the cache stats page contained a link.

The LO is aware of the caches, but the members of the grounds-crew seem to change on a very regular basis and the message obviously isn't being communicated. The LO has plenty to do without worrying over something that isn't a priority to begin with. We're not talking your typical little business park, either. This thing is 963 acres, and while I don't know the total body count for the guys that keep this place tidy, it's considerable. There's trucks and people all over the place all the time. So it's no surprise that word isn't being passed along, and I can't really expect more. The dual language stickers would be a good move, and something I should have thought of before. Edit: Also understand that the groundskeeping outfit is a contracted company, and that none of these guys work directly for the LO, so it's not like the communication lines are all that tight to begin with.

Tried to translate, but "tonto GPS" = "idiot GPS"??? I'll have you know that my Garmin Summit HC is brilliant! I had an ammo can cache muggled recently by the maintenance crew that takes care of our huge business park. While good for the park, these guys make it tough for finding a hide for a larger container. They are exceptionally thorough (good luck finding a single stray leaf in a bush when they're done!). I hadn't even given thought to needing a dual language geostickers, but having tried to start up a conversation during a break with the guys working around our building, it's clear that some of them have very limited English skills. In retrospect, dual language stickers make a whole lot of sense here, too... but I'm not so sure about "tonto GPS"! Watching is wandering out in the weeds, nos toman por tontos already.

I hate fiddling with them, too. However, I understand the need in most cases. Even a mil spec watertight d-con container doesn't work if the finder doesn't snap the lid on properly -- have run across far too many of those. So the CYA approach to avoiding wet logs is to bag it, too. The best container will eventually be foiled by a too-casual finder. As for what to do with logs ... I've run across a couple that were nothing more than moldy paper pulp. I didn't even try to salvage those. Sometimes I'll toss a bagged one in to replace it. If I can dry one, I'll take the few extra minutes to do so before returning it to the container. Had one hanging out on a piece of barbed wire fence while searching a combo cache/benchmark just recently. Left it to dry while I went off to find the associated benchmark. If I can't dry one in the time available, and they can still be read at all, I'll replace them with a new log and email the owner asking if they would like to have the original returned. There's no point in leaving a wet log in place to go moldy and illegible.

I don't know about where you live, but around here the local property owners are sometimes offered the ability to buy the right of way. I haven't heard of the government just giving that property away. I suppose it could happen, not all local governments are the pinnacle of honesty. However, without proof otherwise I would assume the landowner paid for it. Also some right of ways are on easements, and the easement is suppose to revert back to the property owner if it is no longer going to be used for what the easement was given for. ( not usually relevant to public roads though.) In one of the two local cases that come to mind (and to set aside some guesses above), these roads are not the result of easements from previously private land. "Our fair county" includes a fair bit of federal land within its borders. There are some legacy situations where houses remain on federal land, and many other situations where private property is adjacent to federal land. In both cases, roads exist on federal land that provide access. Let's say that there's a fair bit of weekend 4WD traffic on one of the roads that runs along one side of the federal land, and that this road actually has a real FSR designation number and all. Understand also that this particular road has been in continuous use for at least the last 80 or so years (which in itself answers one of the obvious legal questions). Let's further assume that there are homeowners out in the boonies across the road from this federal land that don't appreciate the unwashed masses appearing out there on the weekends. They make their appeal to friends in County government, the road is gated and padlocked at its head on a county road, and the keys handed over to the landowners. From a legal perspective, this behavior by the county is so bizarre on so MANY levels as to defy belief. I was talking to someone from the sheriff's office about the gating and asking his opinion of where he thought the county got off gating off FSR roads that weren't and never would be in the county's inventory of rights of way. He chuckled and just shrugged -- he knows as well as the rest of us that it doesn't make sense, but the county writes his check every month.

Oh, you mean cake eaters? Naw - even cake eaters can have coordinates.

The attempted conversion of public property for private use is a battle that goes on constantly. While I would not necessarily bother to fight those battles in the context of a geocache, they are certainly worth fighting. I've also run across attempts by local landowners to convince the unaware that public land or roads are private when they are not. Perhaps the saddest of the problems of this type are actually caused by local government. We have situations here where roads that can be demonstrated to have been "public" over the course of decades are handed over to well connected private property owners by local government. Good grief, we even have problems with the local county gating or otherwise blocking off Forest Service roads (national) to make local landowners happy. Where they imagine they derive the authority to do that is beyond me. Problem is, they'll blithely ignore FLPMA/RS2477 rules unless someone actually calls them to task. Unfortunately, people are too often unwilling to make the attempt. At some point, it's incumbent upon us to take issue with this sort of garbage. Again, involving the finders of a cache in the problem isn't fair to the finder, so I'd deal with the issue separately, but I'd certainly make a point of dealing with it.

Rather than "the great unwashed" (earlier post), or Plebs, or muggles ... "The uncoordinated"? (pun intended)

Based upon terminology in this thread, I would say that would be 'bad evil', on the order of a nano in a giant rockpile. Nothing original about it -- just a pain in the arse to find.