Team OPJim

I've planted a number of letterbox hybrids recently. I would like to hide a letterbox that requires finders to locate some of these letterboxes, then using the stamp image in these caches determine what the final coordinates are to my new letterbox. I would have a total of 5 other finds required. The "posted coordinates" I will use will have the first 5 digits for both latitude and longitude, so it would really be the last three coordinates (those after the decimal) of each. I have done something like this before, where a "multiple choice" test based on previous finds is the key to unravel the final coordinates. http://coord.info/GC44ZM7 For variety sake, I would like to do something different and unique. Anyone seen anything like this before?

It takes me places I would never have gone otherwise.

Sometimes I go out at first light for a cache that was published the night before, only to see a log that could only have been done via flashlight. The next time I see a cache published, and three days later it is still unfound. There is simply no logic in getting FTF, so making a big deal about it seems more random than than anything. The two major reasons I don't like FTF are: 1. Some people get so competitive that they behave poorly and make geocaching cease to be fun. Many cases of this are documented above. 2. I have placed many caches that I spent alot of time and energy on. Once the FTF is claimed, the cache is ignored. I even started a series of Second to Find caches, where I would give minimal information or hints until after the FTF, to encourage the STF.

I concur. If you say scavenger hunt that usually works.

Last post is over a year old, so I am hoping that maybe something has happened with Wherigo for iphone. I have never found a Wherigo cache, and I don't want to buy a new GPS to do so. HOwever, I do have an iphone (4). What is the latest information on using it to find Wherigo?

Instead of the subjective wow factor, how about the simple rule that they can only be placed where a regular geocache cannot? I don't particularly see the value of a virtual at walmart. However, I would like a virtual in a national park, state park, or some similar area. I thoroughly enjoyed geocaching Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. The problem is that only earthcaches can be placed there now, and sometimes it would be nice to have a non-geologic cache.

I agree it is time to bring them back. Yes I've heard all the complaints, etc, but the fact is that virtuals really can be fun. Challenges were virtual-lite caches that no one ever bothered with (and yes I've read the entire account of all the problems and why they went away).

For those in the southwest, there is LCP: http://www.lonelycache.com/

IT is unfortunate that Groundspeak continues to reject the concept of requiring a certain amount of activity (# of finds, time in the game, etc) as a prerequisite to hiding caches. I think that most of these issues could be solved by not allowing newbies with 5 finds to drop a cache somewhere. Alas, the issue has been discussed ad nauseum without any effort to address it.

One of our fellow cachers made a good point about micros in the forest: "600,000 acres of forest and they hide a micro" There is nothing like an ammocan!

I enjoyed this one: "I got off the trail pretty easy and started searching around the boulders hoping I could spot the cache quickly, as it was starting to get dark. We got a later start than we planned on and had to call it quits after this one to our disappointment. I thought I might have found a likely spot for a cache, and moved a few rocks and sticks around, only to hear a buzzing sound coming from directly below my crotch. I decided to move slowly not wanting to have to explain to the emergency room staff how I had got bitten in such an important place. He kept rattling while I slid myself up and off the pile of rocks, and I never did get a chance to lay my eyes on the critter. It was a fitting end to the day, as I figured it just wasn't meant to be today. We'll be back to finish off the rest sometime soon. Our thanks to opjim for placing some tough caches in such a beautiful place."

If it was my cache on that hill, I'd contact the reviewer and tell him/her that the unarchived cache is too close to an existing cache (mine) and needs to be removed. Reviewers do make occasional mistakes. I considered that. The problem is that I live in a small town, so I actually know the other CO. I decided the best plan was to remove my final: actually changed it to a one stage (back when you could still do this on your own) and moved on. Still, whenever I see a thread about a cache being denied because it is too close to another cache that is unknown (because it is multi or mystery) it really rankles me for the CO who didn't know it was there, but then has to go back to remove the cache and reposition it.

I use an iphone app as well. My experience is that the iphone is great in the city. In trees, canyons, mountains, it isn't enough, and a handheld gps is far superior. I suggest you get handheld GPS for those situations

On another note. I had a multicache where I placed the final on a hilltop. Previously there had been a cache on that hilltop, less than 528 feet from my location, which was muggled and archived. One day, the reviewer unarchives the other cache at the owner's request. I have never understood why this was done.

I understand your frustration. I agree that if it isn't apparent that there is a stage in a location, how can you be held responsible for placing a cache close to it? The argument "to prevent saturation" doesn't hold water because it isn't readily apparent that the cache is there unless you have solved them. I'm one of those people who prefers to be out in the field finding or placing caches, rather than sitting at the computer trying to solve them. Having said that, the best plan is to develop a good relationship with your reviewer so he/she will help you with this. I have done so and this makes it much easier. Don't give up on your plan: I had a cache take 9 months to get approval on, but the comments I've had about it from the finders made all the effort worthwhile. I really do like the suggestion someone made to increase the saturation requirement for puzzle caches so they don't exclude placing traditional caches in good locations. It is really frustrating to have a puzzle or challenge cache that I will never be able to solve or qualify for get placed in an area that is particularly scenic (of course, somebody may think that about a few of mine ).

I am also curious about this: is this a new trend amongst reviewers?

I have to agree with the large number of people who have said that if it is ok with the CO to log a find, then go ahead and log it. The issue of whether the cache should be there or not or archived or not is not the question that was asked. It is a dead horse that has already been thoroughly whipped in other forums. I live in a rural area where some caches are close but hard to get to. On several occasions, other cachers have been visiting one of my caches that I was unable to get to for a month (because it was either a long drive or hike to GZ), and I have communicated with them about replacing the container. In these cases, they have helped me out so that the cache was maintenanced sooner than I could have done it. [it would be different if we were talking about an LPC hidden half a mile from my house.] I have been very grateful for this and have certainly allowed them to find the cache when they were done. They were there, they signed the log, it wasn't their cache (so they weren't logging their own cache). In any case, these cachers are some of the best people with whom I've interacted with. I've also maintenanced caches for other COs in similar circumstances, and if I hadn't already found the cache I signed the log.

While my feeling towards puzzle caches are more ambivalent than anything else, I too would like to be able to separate them out. I agree that I would rather spend my time out caching as opposed to doing google searches. However, I really enjoy the challenge caches.

Forgive my ignorance, but who is Jeremy?

What kind of caches are designated with a question mark? 1. Puzzle caches: the posted coordinates are incorrect, instead you have to solve a puzzle to find the real ones. This is a particularly popular type of cache with some people 2. Challenge caches: the posted coordinates are correct, but you have to accomplish something (say find 10 other caches with a certain criteria: the Delorme Challenge is a good example). There are far fewer of these. Currently, both appear under the same cache type. The unknown/puzzle cache type appears to be the general wastebasket for caches that don't fit another category. This is confusing, because some people may like one type but not the other. I proposed that it is time to separate them into two cache types. The puzzle cache can remain with the question mark. The Challenge cache can have a new symbol: I don't have a current preference. The CO could be asked to designate which type of cache their current unknown/puzzle cache is. This would not be onerous. Thoughts from other cachers?

I too share the frustration of caches placed by newbies with few finds who then drop out of the game forever. I personally would like to see the minimum number of finds and time doing the game before a cache could be placed, but suspect it will never happen. Instead, I recommend that if your area is small enough that you can recognize when a new cacher suddenly begins a hide that you encourage them to stay with the game.

I see no problem with leaving cache or coins in a geocache. Most of the stuff in most caches isn't worth much anyway unless you find a cache early on that was placed with good stuff. A quarter, nickel, or penny is as good as anything else, but obviously some things are better than others. I did leave $20 in one of my caches in the hopes that it would encourage more finders. 4 months later no one has bothered to go after it.

I'm curious how the starting coordinates could be within 20 feet of one cache and 50 feet of another: this implies that these two caches are less than 100 feet apart??? However, I agree that only the final cache position would have to be 528 feet away from other caches. However, it may not be the best place for firetacks if it is so close to other caches. I assume it is an urban cache: my two nightcaches are rural and far from other caches.

Oh, the dangers of loading all area caches into one's GPS then looking without reading the descriptions first

I have stopped sending my own TB because so many disappeared. I have found that if they can get into Europe that the cachers there will work very hard to keep them moving, but the ones here in the states just seem to disappear