Morning Dew

I've been pretty involved with a handful of forums related to various things over the years and the dynamics on this one are very strange indeed. In almost all those forums I've been involved with some super moderator would read that very first post on this thread and reply with the following: quote: Done. "Insert Link to Newly created Sub-Forum Here". Enjoy your new area for discussing Earthcaches here. End quote: And then this supermoderator would send of a PM to another moderator saying: "Bob, I'm adding you as a temporary moderator for a newly created sub-forum "Earth Caches" until we get a new moderator for that forum...we'll discuss this and possible nominations for the new moderator on the "Moderators Only" forum." If you have any objections just PM me and I'll give it to Bill instead. Thanks. I know this because I was a "super moderator" on a very large forum for a long time. Now yes, you may say then people can/will request every little thing like "I want a forum discussing Old classic cars that are Yellow" But let's face it this is pretty reasonable, probably popular and sensible request. If it was just done this way, it would be fine and everyone would be on there merry way. But for some reason GS will let this thread become 2-3 pages deep, shoot off and on topic, get into bloody battles about Waymarking vs. Earth caches and let people bicker to no end. Strange place these forums.

I love some of the replies in this thread, they are just classic. I'd hate to break my DVD player......if I fell. Most cachers I've seen are carrying a $250-$400 GPS, a $200-$400 digital camera, a $50-$150 cell phone, a $50-$150 PDA. Some keep a laptop in their car. $800+. I say go for it. I had envisioned that you place the first DVD near the parking stage so the cachers can watch the DVD in their car, return the DVD, lock up their portable DVD player and then begin the adventure. However, you're talking about a DVD at each stage. I think the poster who warned about maintenance night mares is spot on. From what I've seen cachers are hard on caches. But, it will be your baby. If you're cool with "DVD #4 won't play...", "Final DVD is missing last cachers must have forgotten to remove from their machine..." "DVD #2 is cracked and won't play..." etc. then by all means do it. The Big Foot legends fascinate me and I'm betting most cachers as well.

Keystone gave an excellent reply but his hand (not suprisingly) is little too tipped towards Groundspeak for my tastes. I'd simply cut and paste exactly what you typed, add a link to this thread in an email through this site to the cache owner and take it from there. I think just balant honesty is the best approach. I bet he/she moves it a little and all will be fine and you might make a new geocaching friend. If they give you flak or do nothing, slowly begin to turn up the heat using some of Keystones' suggestions.

Sounds good. A couple suggestions. Don't make the "extra" hint cache too hard. It sounds like your main objective is for it to be a fun, informational and requiring a bit of walking and time but you'd like people to complete it. So you have to consider a family from out-of-town. What a bummer to not be able to solve a crossword puzzle because you know nothing about the area and then have to do a level 3 cache to get that information. Instead good ahead and make it a long walk, but have it be a typical tuperware or ammo can in a stump hide. I would handle it this way. In stage 1 make it clear that there will be hints/help solving the crossword puzzle later in the adventure if you need it. Some may sit down immediately and try to solve it, realize they can't and just abandon the cache right there, thinking why invest a bunch of time on a cache they can't complete. In one of the later stages 2-5, make it very clear there is an alternate cache that will basically solve the crossword puzzle for you. A printed card with something to the effect "If you're stumped on the crossword puzzle, you can do an extra stage (the longest walk of any stage) found here N xx xx.xxx W xx xx.xxx but it WILL GIVE AWAY all the answers to puzzle. Make this card laminated with huge letters telling them that it MUST stay in this stages container. In my opinion any multi with more than 3 stages is hard enough to be enjoyable, this of course assumes you take people around a park to learn something, etc. I'm not talking about putting 3 5 gallon pails in a farm field. Good luck!

Yup, You've got it now. Your second visit was just to discover or move a bug so most people will make a note for that visit, indicating why they went to the cache. Most cachers feel you can't "find" the same cache twice but again it's a personal choice. Another thing you might not be aware of. If you "find" a trackable item in a cache and for whatever reason you don't feel like taking it (maybe you can't help it on it's mission, or you won't be caching for a few months, etc.) you can still write down the tracking number. When you get around to logging your finds you go to the tracking page, enter the tracking number you wrote down and you can select "Discover" for a trackable item and it will still show in your stats. Some people like to discover/move as many trackables as they can, so this still allows you to get "credit" for it even if you can't move it or don't feel like moving it.

They've all been said....In order. 1. Poison Ivy - Personally, I think they should be illegal. 2. Anything smaller than a 30 cal ammo box in the woods, unless it's a creative twist with some solid hints or part of a gimmick hide, etc. I just don't get it. Walk into in area with 25 stumps each containing 50 woodpecker holes, the container size is unknown and it ends up being a bison tube tucked in a hole...Yey! 3. Micros in a bush hunt/Bison in a sea of HUGE pine trees. But it really does come down to a personal choice thing. I'm still exploring why I cache but so far it's this, in order: 1. Take me to an interesting spot, even if I've been there before. It doesn't have to be some climatic once in a lifetime moment but please don't take me to the dead end of a road to find a keyhold on a guard rail. 2. Make me think for a bit. It doesn't have to be long, a couple minutes or more is fine. 3. The challenge of finding the container. Some really like the challenge of finding the container and maybe that's why they like finding a bison hidden in the woods, but me, I'd rather find the ammo can and move on to the next interesting area. However, poison ivy, I just don't get. Even if you've never got it, I've heard countless times of people being immune to it for years and then one day they get it. Your time may come and then it's 3 weeks of hell.

Go back to your log and press edit. You'll find a drop down list, where you originally selected "Found It". This drop down list has other choices as well. You said you visited one cache twice. I'm assumming that you couldn't find it the first time and had to go back and then found it the second time. If this is the case then the "standard" practice is to log your first visit as a "Did Not Find" and then seperately log your second visit as "Found It". Most players feel if you search and don't find you should log a DNF, but it's by no means a requirement. However, logging a DNF can be helpful to other players and the cache owner as well. If for some reason you went back to a cache the second time and weren't looking for it. Maybe to see a nice view again, or drop off a bug, etc. Then you can use the "Note" selection as the previous replier indicated. In the end how you log is really your own personal choice. It's just something the website provides to you to keep a record of your experiences. And yes, you're in the majority in feeling that if you "found" 9 caches then your stats should say "9". So just go back to the logs on the cache you visited twice and correct it in any manner you see fit. You should also be aware that the "owner" of the cache has the final say on your logs. For example, in rare cases they may have certain rules you have to follow before logging and if you don't follow them they may delete your log and this of course will change your stats. Some owners refuse to allow 2 finds on the cache, some could care less. You'll discover all this as time progresses but for now, you should think of logs as a diary of what you did at that cache. If you can't find an appropriate selection in the drop down list, just use the catch all "Note".

Some of the advice, if not all is good but I think people are being a little melodramatic here. He said there were 12 plants. This is just some stoners garden that you stumbled upon. I seriously doubt anyone is booby trapping 12 plants. Certainly not with $400+ shot guns. If it were me. I'd create a waypoint. Take a few pictures. Walk out the same way I came in. Probably, call it in via 911 with the lat/long once I was in my car and moving, depending on how my day was going. If I was a serious waymarker, I'd submit it, hoping to score a new category. Then log my cache adventure as a DNF. A month later I'd go back and find the cache without the plants in the way. Stupid stoners....you buy land first, then plant the garden. Pot gets your priorites so out of whack.

I like the clipboard idea. Something I know that doesn't work because of firsthand experience. I was doing a bush search and a guy suprised me by walking up behind me and asking what I was doing. Quickly, I told him my fiance and I got in a fight and she threw the engagement ring in these bushes. I said I had come back to look for it. I thought I was so smart, until he said "Oh my, I'll help you look" Now I'm freaking out thinking what am I going to tell him when he finds this huge plastic container full of kids toys and junk? It turned out the cache didn't exist (it had been muggled) but I always laugh when I think about it.

The problem is that the only caches that get 100 finds are park 'n grabs like LPCs. I happen to like hiking caches. My favorite caches are ones that only 2 or 3 peopl find per year. Sure the average rating of the 6 finders on those caches will be high. I guess if there is a cache with 100 finds that has a high average rating it would likely have to be an exceptional cache. But it seems silly to have people rate caches when only a few caches would get enough ratings to indicate on average people like this cache. If I'm not average, I'm still not going to like the cache no matter how many people rated it high. Markwell had proposed an approach where premium members could have a bookmark list they designated as their favorite caches. The system would then count the number of favorites list that each cache was on. If the cache was on more than some threshold number it would be a recommended cache and you could run a PQ on recommended caches. That would work much better than a rating system that would only give you what the average cacher thought of the cache. It now show the caches that got recommended by many people. You could look at the description of the caches along with the ratings and see if this is a recommended hiking cache, a recommended puzzle, or a recommended park 'n grab. The other system would be to let people rate caches in a Netflix style system and have it recommend to you other cache based on ratings from people who have given similar ratings to caches you have rated. Before implementing any rating system you need to know what you want to use it for. If you are looking for what an average cache thinks of a cache or a cache popularity contest, you could go with a simple rating system. If you are looking for a method to find recommended caches to do there are better ways to go about it. The nay sayers of course can ignore the ratings. But there is only a limited amount of programming resources that Groundspeak has. The nay sayers would rather this be spent on other features they feel are more useful. As ReadyOrNot pointed out, there is something in the works for the new version 2.0. Jeremy has hinted that they may be both an affinity (Netflix type) rating system and a awards system similar to Markwell's use of the favorites list. Why do you guys insist on making this so darned difficult. I just used 100 because it's a nice round number. Like I said in my earlier post, a rating system still requires some common sense on the users part. It's like you want the system to be PERFECT and grab you by the scruff of the neck and say "Go cache Here!" Any system is going to take some common sense from the user but the fact is it most likely will still be better than the system we don't have now. Is it a make or break feature for the website...no...but it would be a great addition to the website. And besides once the system is in place it could still evolve to be even better as more feedback pours in. Of course, if it's a 4 star terrain cache their will be very few finds but if everyone is rating it a 5 and the description says "hiking" involved, don't you think there is good chance you'd like it. It's not an absolute, it's just another tool to help the paying customers. For example, you find 2 caches 30 miles from a spot your vactioning at in opposite directions and both involve hiking. You only have time to do 1 of them before you have to return home. Wouldn't it be nice to know one is rated a 1.6 and the other is rated 4.8 and they both have the same number of ratings? Sure, it's possible YOU'D like the cache rated 1.6 ten times better than 4.8 and possibly you could discern this from the caches descriptions but if you couldn't, it would just be another helpful piece of information for you, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise, you'd be flipping a coin. And you say you like hiking caches. So do I, I wish we could add a feature that allowed cache owners to flag their cache as a hiking cache. EDIT: I NOW SEE THIS FEATURE ALREADY EXIST. GREAT MINDS MUST THINK ALIKE. Would it be perfect....no, your idea of hike isn't equal to my idea of hike but if you combined that feature with a rating system you could quickly sort the top 10 "liked" hikes in your area. That would be cool. Finally, what other features do you feel are more important. I'd probably like to join your plight to get them added. Groundspeak has to keep adding and subtracting features for this to be a sucess and I'm sure they are keenly aware of this. I've actually been part of other websites where the paying members (not geocaching related) would go to an offsite website where a member had put together a list of "feature requests" and you could rate each one 1 to 5. Basically, implying how badly you wanted that feature implemented to the website. You could only take the survey once per month. This kept people from "stacking the vote." He then compiled all the data and kept it up to date on his website and then emailed a link of each months results to the owners of the website to let them know what the paying customers wanted to see for added features. It had bar graphs with trends and everything. It was pretty slick. Of course, this is just another rating system so I don't know how you'd feel about that....but I thought it was a great idea. Thousands of members went to the site and filled out the poll, some just once and several did it faithfully each month. Low and behold when the next major upgrade of the website was published 9 of the top 10 highest ranked requests were implemented.

And this should come as no suprise to anyone......just read my post above. It'll will probably take about 1 year for the data to shake out but I'm really looking forward to finding out what others think are the BEST 10 caches in let's say a 300 mile radius. That undeground cache in one of the southern states looks VERY cool and I'm sure it will get a lot of awards if it remains active.

First of all an averaging rating system WOULD work once the data set was large enough. It's like some of you have never calculated an average. If a cache had 100 finds with a 4.7 out of 5 stars there is a very very high chance that you would enjoy that cache. Please don't give me the "Everyone enjoys something different arguement..." Well, duh! We all know that. But if you see a cache with 100+ finds and a 4.9 out of 5 rating we would all hope you're smart enough to know that there is still a chance you might not like it when you get there. Right? But, it sure beats the heck out of what we have now. On the other hand, we all agree that there is a much higher probability that you will like it. I hope we can all agree on that. The reason this feature is so requested because it's simply a fantastic idea. That's what happens with good ideas and/or improvements made to websites, they get asked over and over and over again. It won't stop being asked. You can post "Please use the search function 'til your blue in the face." But as long as new geocachers continue to join they will continue to ask for what seems like an obviously VERY popular idea. Just about every website on the planet has some form of it. Must be a reason why....... There is simply no reason this cool and great feature shouldn't be added. Just think of all the possiblities. Traveling to a new state or city. Bam! PQ the top ten rated caches with over 100 finds! Find the highest rated cache within 100 miles of your house with over 25 finds! I guess I have to add the following disclaimer "This doesn't necessarily mean you're GUARANTEED to walk away with an orgasmic experience, it just means several others felt this was a cool cache in comparison to others who didn't find it so cool." And finally, if the rating system bothers you that much.....heres a really off the wall, crazy, out of the box thinking solution for ya........wait.....wait....... Don't use it or look at it. Wa la. The nay sayers are happy because they know of it's existance but don't use it, so how could it possibly bother them and The ya sayers have a rating system. As always providing simple solutions for complex problems....

I was thinking about this one on my drive home. At first I thought "Who cares..." then I thought in answer to the question "Is this fair?" Yes...it's fair and I would think it was fair if there were caches for women only. But then I thought...what if I substituded the words white and black for men and women. I would think it is unfair in answer to the question "Is this fair?" Why do I feel it is OK to create gender only caches but not racial only caches? So I've reconsidered my original thoughts and I have come with this feeling..... "All caches should be available to all people" Someone mentioned a scuba cache. This is still available to me. I don't scuba dive but if I wanted the cache bad enough I would still be able to go to the lengths required to get it. Climbing trees is another one. If a cache is 30' in a tree, I'm not getting it, I'll just skip it. I don't like heights but the cache is still available to me if I want it. This of course raises the question of handicap people..... I'll have to think on that for awhile but I'm still sticking to my original thoughts. All caches should be available to all people.

A long time ago I needed to name my boat. Huge fan of the song and group. I used to fish early so I thought the name was perfect. I've stuck with it ever since on various things.

All right I've got it figured out now. My guess is you are one VERY niave person. However, you seem like a very nice person. I want to give you some advice that I hope you take. I'd would go to the SMARTEST person you know. Someone you respect. Someone you know who makes a lot of good decisions. Explain this whole ordeal to them. Show them the threads you've posted. Arm them with all the information you can provide and then listen to their advice. You do realize you are going to be one VERY lucky person if you walk away from this without legal trouble? Sound crazy? It happens all the time now a days. Government is losing their patience for niave behavior at an expontenial rate. Here in my state they are now charging fisherman out ice fishing when they get stranded on an ice flow and have to be rescued by a helicopter. Helicopter rides aren't cheap. Remember the guys in New York with the little "Blinky" sign that people thought was some bomb scare. They basically tried to hang them. They DID end up in court. You've already admitted that the local papers ARE trying to hang you. The simple fact is you put a device that 99.9999999999% of the world would suspect to be a BOMB in a public place. If you disrupted just one single persons live in a negative manner and they get an itch to sue you...would you be at ALL suprised? We live in a society today that loves to rally behind the fact that they think you should be punished for your innocennce. Listen to what EVERYONE is telling you. The idea is grandiose and has some merit but it just won't work. I hope you get out of this one with as little problems as possible. Good luck to you.

That is pretty cool you made a post. I really do feel for you and I can't imagine the ordeal you've been through. I sure wouldn't want to go through that. I wouldn't have the guts to make a post. I applaud you for that. A couple things though.... Did you see the pictures of that thing? Are you really proud of that? I don't care if you stick that thing out it the middle of the woods five miles from the nearest road. People not familiar with geocaching have to be thinking BOMB! Now imagine within 1000' feet of a bridge, school, road, building, house, person, animal, etc. Come on that thing SCREAMS BOMB. Having Bomb Squads check www.geocaching.com is complete waste of time. Do you really think they would do anything different once it's reached the "Bomb Squad" level? I can just hear the conversation at the funeral now. ATF Agent "Yeah, we checked it out on this funky site called www.geocaching.com, they said it was good, you know, whatever you read on the internet is true....How are we supposed to know the bridge was gonna blow...sorry about your husband." The real world just doesn't work this way. They are committed to taking the necessary precautions. They can't afford a mistake just because someone tells them "it's okay...". But, the most important thing here is that you manned up and YOUR RIGHT, hopefully everyone learns from making your lesson public. Thanks.

Not the norm. But people log how they log. You just admitted yourself that you sometimes don't log a second DNF, others will disagree with it. In the end it won't matter. Log how you wish and enjoy. You mentioned "scewed stats". You'll soon find out stats are always smeared. There is no way to keep them intact. In fact you just admitted that you've messed up someone elses stats by not logging a 2nd DNF. Maybe the hider wants to know ALL the DNFs, not just your interpertation of a DNF. But...people log how they log and that's that. Finally, you asked for my opinion. My opinion is that I wouldn't worry about it in the least.

First of all I'll give you the REAL answer. It doesn't matter. Geocaching for the most part doesn't have any rules. As an example, you posted the letters FTF. I'm assumming you meant First To Find. Post a question "What is a find?" You will quickly discover no one knows. This because there is no rule defining it. So....If we don't know what a find is, then we certainly can't tell you what to do with a FTF. Because no one knows what a FTF is. However, to entertain your question, I'll give you my take...but please keep in my mind that the "takes" are endless and the REAL answer is "there is no answer because it doesn't matter". It's perfectly fine to keep your FTF, with one exception that I can think of... If you knew going into the cache that it was in clear violation and probably should be archived and you FTF'd anyways....well then you shouldn't have even logged it in the first place, but if you did log it then I think in good faith you should delete your find. Cache away.....

My pleasure Lep, congrats are in order, it is quite a feat. I didn't have a chance to read the linked thread at first but just did. About the only respect I have is the honesty. But it does further my point. They took some HUGE short cuts. Signing the container w/ a sharpie. No Date. Allowing the members to fan out within a 1/2 mile and essentailly parallel cache. Allowing people to stay behind in the van for quick grab and gos. The mention "research included cache owner help:...this is never defined but again it certainly isn't tradition because the bulk of caching doesn't include us contacting the owner of the cache for help before doing the cache. Even with these HUGE advantages they only managed 312 caches in 24 hours with 44 DNFs. Like I said I've read of posters claiming 250 finds in 24 hours with a 2 hour dinner break, 1/2 hour rest, stopped to admire the view and take pictures on several occassions. And that is poster(S), plural, not pointing any fingers. Like I said doing 250 using traditional methods is one heck of feat. 312 was done by cutting off some very big corners. I would say the 250 in 24 hours with traditional methods is a much bigger accomplishment.

Exactly. Like I said, I'm sure people are doing this but to me it's not geocaching. I figured splitting up would be involved, creative log signing would be involved. Not all memebers actively searching each and every cache, using a driver and/or helpers not involved in the caching, etc. I mean in reality I could get 312 of my closest friends drop them off one at a time next to a cache all armed with our "team" sticker. Have someone fire a starting gun and we'd have 313 caches done within the first minute of our 24 hour journey. That meets all the "rules" you mentioned. Again, assumming no DNFs or muggled caches. Never said it could not be done. Never called anyone a liar. But 250 in 24 hours using "traditional caching" methods. Everyone searches, everyone signs or stamps, the container is found, opened, log book removed, log book signed, replaced, container closed and re-hid, everyone moves as a group to the next search, etc. would be one hell of a feat.

I guess I should bow to experience but I'm with others I call complete BS. I've seen claims of 250 in a 24 hour period. That is one caches every single 5.76 minutes assumming no cachers stop in the group for even one second to sleep, rest or take a drink of water. Of course you could drink water as you walk and/or ride. If you take an average time of 60 seconds to find a cache and 30 seconds to sign the log for all the people in the group (even if one person signed all the names) this means you'd have to travel the next 528 feet in 256 seconds. That would be moving at just over 2 feet per second. You walk about 3.6 feet per second over good terrain, much slower through rough terrain. This also assumes the 250 caches are spaced exactly 528 feet apart. Even by car this would assumme you'd didn't get lost very often, if at all. One bad turn around and you could cost yourself a full 11 minutes or 2 caches. This also assummes you didn't have one single DNF and found 250 consecutive caches in a row without a single miss. This also assummes you find 250 caches in a row without a single non-muggled cache. I'm assumming if your trying for 250 caches in 24 hours your not going on hikes into the mountains or for caches that require rapelling gear. You're looking for all Traditional 1/1. We all know these are the most likely to be muggled and I'm guessing you could see a muggled rate as high as 3%. Typical 1% I would guess. On a great day over 100 hundred caches would have to be found in complete darkness (barring Alaska or similar geography) with another 20 found in low light conditions. I work nights and consider myself an expert at pulling all nighters (24 hours without sleep) and even someone like myself and my co-workers who are very experienced at going 24 hour periods without sleep readily admit that your ability to think, make good judgements and overall coordination is severly decreased during the last 4-5 hours. Someday I'd love to tag along just to witness 250 caches in a 24 hour period. If they actually did it. I could at least say I spent 24 hours picking up trash, signing my name to it and putting it right back down because I certainly wasn't geocahing. In the time it takes to read this you'd better have found a cache and just about to find your second or you're behind schedule.

I feel it's a delicate balance and that is why "good" hiders are so great for our hobby. You have to do the research. If the hider feels there are 2-3 ways into the cache after doing some scouting and sees that one of the obvious ways in is through private property then he should at the very least post a note: "If you think the access involves going through private property, it DOES NOT. You are in the wrong spot and find another way in." This still leaves some mystery. On the other hand if the hider wants to make a fun and easy cache with a great hike then he could post the best parking coords, some detail about the trail, etc. and of course include the warning about the private property access. I think I lean towards the "don't tell policy". Example if a cache is placed in a public park and requires a 250' bushwack from the main entrance parking lot, yet could also be got to from parking on a side road leading up to the park (with only a 25' bushwack), I kind of like it that the hider doesn't say anything. Assumming that the second bushwack is on public park land, of course. But again, this the hiders decision and if they want to post "Don't access from the park parking lot, instead park on road XYZ and bushwack in 20-30' then that's their perogative and it doesn't bother me a bit." I have found several caches have horrible descriptions. A lot of hiders describe the cache as if it's for an all day marathon, "get as many caches as you can in a day type cachers." An example: Lake access cache, hidden in the typical manner. This irks me. Why not some information on the lake, attractions nearby (like hiking or biking trails), etc. With a little research that above cache description could become: Lake "XYZ" access. Research shows it's a decent bass fishing lake about 78 acres in size with a good public boat access. There is a small one mile hiking loop trail that goes mostly along the shore of the lake. There is a great ice cream shop about 2 miles NW of the public access. Parking lot is stroller accessable but the cache is not, however it's not that far from the parking lot. The trail is beat down enough that a jogging stroller would probably be doable. A wheel chair would be difficult or not doable on the trail. I have nothing against "cache binges", my daughter and I are planning one for the near future. But adding the above info to a cache takes very little research and not much extra time at all. This way slow cachers like myself have a little more information.

I think there are a lot of "concepts" being thrown around here but some are missing the boat. When I first discovered geocaching I knew I was going to like it. It had a few things that I loved. Technology, a challenge, a treasure hunt and some built in adventure. What surprised me and furthur hooked me was all the different and neat places it is taking me. And I'm talking just within 20 miles of my house. Take cemeteries for example. I had NO idea how many different cemeteries that were so close to my house. When I first heard about Waymarking, I was very excited beause I thought it was the solution to a problem I've had all my life. I'll give you an example. We're taking a trip to the Upper Pensisula in Michigan. I know there are several waterfalls in the U.P. I've been to a lot of them. But wouldn't it be so cool to go to a site, type in Waterfalls, Michigan, Upper Penisula and BAM it spits them all out with detailed descriptions, pictures, access info, links to map, etc. I'd definately pay money for a service like that and before I went to Waymarking.com I thought that is what is was going to be. However, it's too small right now but it does have that potential. Imagine being able to do a PQ for "15 coolest places in Hershey, Pennsylvannia" And those places ranked 1 to 15 are determined from real people who provide pictures and actual real life experiences. However, I'd be very surprised if Waymarking ever evolves to this or anything frankly. The above posters are right. Geocaching provides a challenge and that is what hooks most people. Finding the Grand Canyon really isn't a challenge. Mapquest tells me how to get there. Now, however, if Waymarking could evolve into this huge data base that allowed me to search "Fabulous non-chain restaurants within 10 miles of HillyBilly, MI" then they have something. I'd become a member just to find new and neat places. I'd probably document some and log a find on a few but for the most part I'd just like the opportunity to see what is out there. By making Waymarking.com a game they are essentially having people build that database for them. The question remains will it ever become big enough to attract big numbers of people that would want that information. From a game stand point I don't think it would ever fly. But from a "Cool Places" standpoint it has some serious potential.

I just don't get the problem/complaints with golf balls. I guess I need to move because in the few caches I've found so far, a golf ball or a pack of 4-6 would be a great! find. My entire family are golfers and used golf balls are always in demand. You can use them to practice putting and chipping, they can go in your bag for those times your on the course and want to try to 'go for the green' over the water hazard instead of laying up so you use a "junker" ball instead. Or for people like me who could care less what golf ball I hit, I just play to talk to the beer cart girls, so a 4 pack of golf balls in decent shape is great for me. Yes, cut up, or dirty or cracked golf balls is pretty silly but four nicely washed junker balls is great! We have a lot of small containers in this area but here is a list of the swag we found in our last 2 "regular size" caches. A yo-yo with no string. A page of peel off stickers (totally soaked!) A pencil sharpner with no frickin' blade (in case the person who left this is reading this, this is not trading it is littering.) A broken plastic American Flag. A carboard token for a free drink...didn't say where but I'm sure ANYPLACE will take it. A plastic spider ring from a gumball machine. (The most valuable thing found in the last two caches) We don't trade anyways (only leave stuff) so we could care less what's in the container but from what we've seen....a 4 pack of some washed golf balls would be like hitting the jackpot. I think used balls go for something like a $0.70-$1 a piece on ebay.

Until any of you come to grips with the fact that in geocaching the numbers mean NOTHING and that their is NO official definition of a find outside of your own personal world, it will continue to take away from your enjoyment of this hobby. Now go discover that tupperware and write about it. 16,371 finds and counting.