New England n00b

What is the character limit for 'Found It' logs? If I exceed that limit, what order do I post follow-up notes? In other words, if I have two 'pages' worth of text, do i post 'page' one first, or 'page' two, so that the entire thing is read top to bottom (as opposed to the top half being underneath). In other words, is the order determined by order of entry, or by log type (Found vs. Note)? Thanks in advance!

Dave's not here, man. Whoah, Futurame reference, and it fits! +1, would giggle again!

Well, you could create a forum account without the '&', right? Inactive of geocaching.com, but works for the forum? The downside is that you would have to put a link to the proper profile in your signature, but done once, that should be that. Not sure if teh geocaching.com policies would allow for that, but seems like an easy fix.

I've gone into a park after it closed for the night, but I had NO idea that it (and all city parks) closed after dusk. No signs at the trail I went in, and never thought much about it. I later read another log on another cache advising that all city parks were dawn-dusk only - so I never went back in after dark. Simple as that. If we play nice, hopefully land managers will appreciate that and allow expanded geocaching in currently restricted places. The more people act like jerks, there will be less expansion - and I would not blame the managers one bit.

Didn't read the whole thread, but my two cents: Every cache I have found is a gift. No-one should be obligated to give gifts.

Dadgummit!

I did when I saw it was by Amish Hacker.

I have two caches in flood plain areas. One I had tethered to a tree with a chain (loose around the trunk). There other was placed in a gap of a stone culvert, but not tethered. We had our seasonal flooding, and the tethered one was held underneath 3 feet of rushing water, and survived dry as a bone (.50 cal ammo can). The other one? Still looking for it - somewhere downstream.

Maybe some folks think it's none of your business. What do you care? That's always your mantra -- "Play the game your own way"... Yet, you sure care a lot about other people seeing your find count.. Wonder why that is? Um, because it is HIS find count, not yours?

Several reasons. If a random numberless cacher posts a comment on my cache that requires a judgment based on experience. Numbers help me gage my responce. Do I check on it? Do I just let it go because they expected to easily find what I know to be a hard cache. Next of course compettion. You may not be competing or even care. But if I'm trying to be king of my town...It does me not good to be amogn 3000 cachers and I'm the only 1 with a number. "yeah I'm #1..I think..." It takes the fun out of numbers for those who do like them. I really have a hard time with vice versa. How is having numbers harming those would really could care less? This has been the only response with any thought put into it, so I'll reply. To those who think that motives are because I or anyone else is 'ashamed' of our low numbers... If you can't even give a small effort to try and look at things from anyones elses perspective, I am not gonna waste my time trying. So, RK, your first point is one that has some validity. As a cache owner, I can see using those numbers to make a judgment call on experience. If that were tacked onto the email that is generated for the cache owner, fine. It doesn't NEED to be online for everyone to see. The second point I don't agree with. "How is having numbers harming those would really could care less?"? Simple. When people say things like "It's not about the numbers", they SHOULD be saying it's not about teh competition. I want to know my own numbers for tracking purposes, not for count purposes. I do NOT want to be in ANY part of a competition with others. I know you do, and that is OK. But PLEASE don't include me in it. I am not in a race. I am not caching to prove something to anyone but myself. I don't want my lawn measured so some group can get together and pat themselves on the back about the deviation ratio between their lawn height and mine. Leave me alone. You want to compete, fine. Why do you have the right to tell ME that I am going to compete with you, whether I like it or not? So you can have a greater pool of numbers from which to declare yourselves superior? This is what I really don't understand about this issue. I don't want to compete, you do. By using my numbers, you are forcing me to do so. There are assuredly many cachers that don't post online for this reason. I like posting online for a number of reasons. Being used as a gauge for someone elses ego is not of those reasons. So, if the first point, which I concede is a moderately valid point, is addressed by the number attached to an email of the log, why is there a NEED to force anyone to display numbers publicly? I say there isn't a need. It is a 'want'. And not a 'want' by desired by every account holder. EDIT: RK, by writing 'you' I realize I am implying you personally. I use it as a literary convenience, not an attempt to demean you as a person.

Hrm, so long as it wasn't mistaken for trash were the 'cache' to be left out in the open to make it looked muggled. Of course, if you did that, it might GET muggled. On the other hand, well-hidden, it might be kinda funny.

Assuming that Group B is being somewhat non-intrusive about how they obtain the timing - what difference does it make to anybody in Group A? Ignore the numbers if you want. Look at them if you want. Hiding them seems to serve no purpose except some kind of "commentary" on how you feel. Well we certainly can't have THAT now, can we? I'd love to have the option of checking a box in my profile to hide my numbers from others. Why would this make a difference to the other group?

As someone who really likes these forums, I have to say I agree. There is a place for sock-usations, but this is stupid. The OP didn't rant, geocide or throw poop-bombs at anyone. They just asked a simple question that seems to have hit some sacred cow nerves. Sorry that you had to have that as an introduction. Please don't let that color your perspective of the forums. They can be heated and passionate at times over certain topics, but that is good for the game. Dismissing someone in such a manner isn't.

Make it a puzzle cache, and title it "The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing (away) In The Wind). I don't think geocaching.com allows moving caches.

You wouldn't be talking of needing a sharp pointy stick or other digging implement to create a hole in the ground under said stone, would you? That would be a bad idea in a real cemetery, never-minding the Guideline prohibition against digging to place or find caches. Neat idea though, if you make a secret compartment inside the tombstone itself. Make it out of wood, seal it and put a watertight box inside. And place it anywhere but a real cemetery. Guaranteed that the next time the trustees go mowing the lawn they run over it because they don't know it is there, especially if it is laying down. Concrete, metal and/or wood in the blades of a lawnmower will make a very angry caretaker.

I like those. Now... if only there was some way to incorporate those into the existing system...

Cachemate does the conversions itself, through a program that comes with it called cmconvert. Extremely easy to use. Love it. Lots. Highly recommended.

When a pocket query is generated, does it include the text-based cache attribute information? Not for the purpose of filtering during PQ generation, but merely as cache description 'extra' info? I recently have done a few caches at night by accident because I didn't get the attribute text info via Cachemate that they were the "No 24/7" type cache. If these are not included in Pocket Queries, can they be? When you click to make cache pages 'print friendly', these are added there, and it would be really nice to have them in the PQ, as the user-created cache descriptions did not mention the restrictions. If these text based attribute descriptions ARE included, perhaps I can lobby Smittyware to include them (or they can show me what I am doing wrong that they aren't displayed). Thanks for your time!

Be aware that some places prohibit laptops in the front seat where the driver can see it (rather, anything that can display a movie or otherwise distract the driver). Check with 'the law' in your area before doing that.

The E2 I saw seemed to be USB only. I've read of people using bluetooth to connect, but I don't want to carry another contraption (BT plug in device). The E2 allows for an SD card, both units are 200 Mhz... I guess it is probably better to get the better one and have expansion room in the future.

I need some $$ leftover for my new GPS...

My venerable Palm III died a while ago, and now I can afford to replace it. I'm trying to decide between buying a Tungsten E2 or a Palm Z22. One is $200, the other $100... Ultimately what I want to do is to connect the PDA to a GPS (soon to be upgraded as well) so I can have Cachemate pull up the closest caches - this is not REALLY necessary, but I'd like to be able to do it sometime in the future. I'm not sure which of the two would serve better. Any advice between the two would be appreciated.

Wow. What an... odd... topic. The only people I give money to for this are the guys operating this website. Of course, there are the peripheral beneficiaries - Garmin, local restaurants, various 'pay' parks (though few and far between), gas stations... A geotax would reduce caching overall, therefore those other taxable income sources I have cited above would see less income, and thus pay less into the federal gov. In order to compensate for that loss, they'd have to increase the geotax. Fewer cache outings would occur. This would create an endless loop with no real benefit. So such a tax would be a completely moronic maneuver. And would make me a felon, because there is no way I am going to pay a direct geocaching tax.

Congrats!

Come on now... You make it sound like they are hiding in the shadows victimizing hapless good citizens like yourself, then wonder why they are silent after you've called them out (on an assumption). "Cries of 'conspiracy'" referred to your actions. That you didn't actually USE the word doesn't change the WAY you put it out there.