Setan Meyacha

My Garmin GPSMap60c bit the dust. The on/off button came off and Garmin no longer does repairs on that model. So, a Garmin Map 62ST would be a welcome gift from Santa.

Just because a person can't find a cache doesn't mean it needs maintenance or needs to be archived. Nor does it mean the CO should have to assure you the cache is there by making a trip out to confirm it. Some caches are meant to be difficult to find and others can be right in front of your face and you won't see it. I've had a number of my caches logged NM when the cache was right where I placed it and did NOT need maintenance. Nothing, in my humble opinion, can discourage a person from placing caches than to have NM logs show up on caches with no tangible evidence that they actually do. If you want to discourage people from placing caches, just keep logging NM on those you can't find and see how quick there very few for you to even search for. If a cache NM, then give a concrete reason why you are logging it as such; i.e., wet log, container compromised, log is full, etc.; not just because you couldn't find it and assume it is missing.

Ooops!

If you don't mind mailing out the FTF prize even a nano size cache can have a FTF prize go with it. I have done a few micro caches with a FTF prize and mailed it to the person who claimed the FTF. Although I have included some prizes that had a value of 30 or 40 dollars, I never use cash as an incentive to find my caches. You can either look for them or not.

Where in this world do you live that people can afford to leave 100.00 or even 20.00 as a FTF prize!? That sounds a lot like bribery to come check out their cache because it is pretty lame, unless it is a three-day hike into a wilderness area. Wow! I should move there and concentrate on just getting those FTF prizes then I wouldn't have to try to make my SS check stretch so far.

I've given way more FTF prizes than I've ever found and I never expect anything to be left in exchange; nor do I leave anything behind for a FTF prize I've received. A prize is a prize; usually given for achieving some form of accomplishment, without any strings attached. It is nice when the prize receiver posts something other than a "TFTC" log online, but there are no stipulations that says they have to.

You mean like the content of the logs people write? As a finder, if I'm looking at a dozen logs for a cache in my area and none of them is more than a few words, maybe a sentence, my impression is that there's nothing remarkable/interesting about the cache, and I won't make a special trip to find it. Perhaps you are getting the wrong 'impression' just because people are either too lazy or in too big of a hurry to log a lot of caches to leave individual comments on each cache they find. I have been to caches that were in great locations and hidden quite cleverly but found on-line logs that were mostly of the TFTC type. Don't be deceived by the shortness of a log as to the quality of a cache or its location. As to peer review! Everyone has their own opinon as to what constitues a 'quality' cache. And just whom is going to be in charge of selecting that 'peer' group? Are you talking about 'peers' picked by Groundspeak, or just the number of logs that bash a certain cache? And what, in your opinion, constitutes a 'quality' cache? Is it the container, the way in which it is hidden, location, all of these, or only one of them? To me, they are all quality caches in one way or another because someone took the time, energy and expense to place it for me and others to find. Some are of a higher quality than others, but they are all quality caches to me. Guess I would make a poor peer reviewer.

I only got to serve in the Ohio National Guard for a few months. I was medically discharged just prior to graduation from boot camp because of injuries received prior to joining.I was wide-eyed and a little naive, but I wanted to join my buddies in the fight in Viet Nam and was, at the time, disappointed I didn't get to go.

I'm hoping to do the ET series next year, but I have no intention of doing it in a 24 hr period. After seeing the video I can see how it might be done in that time span, but I sure don't approve of taking the cache with you to sign/stamp/whatever on the way to the next one. Are not all the caches numbered? And even if they aren't, it just seems wrong to me to be taking a cache from one location to another, whether in the name of setting a record or not. JMHO

No, there are not. I am the infallible geocaching objectivist, and a CACHE is a CONTAINER OF PROVISIONS, therefore a GEOCACHE is a CONTAINER OF PROVISIONS at particular location defined by GPS coordinates. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER WAY. Y'all can take your mystery geocaches, multi-caches, and any other PERVERSIONS of the term CACHE and SCRAM. Hum? The mountainmen cached beaver pelts; guess those could be construed to be provisions if a person stumbled across them and were hungry enough.

One thing I'm surprised no one has mentioned, unless I missed it, is knives of any type. To date I have found at least five folding knives. Although they were all cheap ones, they were all very sharp. I rarely carry any swag because I'm not in it for the trading, so when I find something like the knife I just found recently, it just disappears from the cache. Maybe some day I'll start carrying some cheap swag for those ocassions when I come across something that shouldn't be left in a cahe

I looked at about 10 of the 37 find logs dating back to some of the earliest ones, and they were all "na". This and others mentioned in this thread have got to be smartphone GPS users with Geocaching apps. There is no other possible explanation; this is happening everywhere with the lame newb logs. Actually I find it is the older users with Actual GPS devices that leave the lamer logs. The smartphone users that have logged my caches always are longer and nicer then the GPS users. I guess it's really just that the old users are getting bored of the game and tired of logging caches whereas all the new users with smartphones are new to the game love it, and want to spend time logging it. I'm kind of curious as to how you came to the conclusion regarding smartphone loggers and GPSr loggers? You have three caches hidden (GC2914B) with 3 logs, (GC279FG) with 11 logs, and (GC261EP) with 15 logs and not one of them, unless I missed something, said anything about caching with a smartphone. Perhaps you know each one of these cachers and know they only use a smartphone? I don't think I've had any of my caches found by someone who stated in their log that they used a smartphone to find the cache, so I'd be hard pressed to make a claim as to whom leaves the best logs; smartphone users, or GPSr users.

I don't get it. Why is not having 'paperless' capabilities an excuse for not reading the cache page. I have never hunted a cache without reading the page and I did not have paperless capability until after I was caching for over a year. I simply printed the important bits of the cache descriptions to take with me. The opposite of 'paperless caching' is 'caching with paper' is it not? I guess the real difference here is that it seems many people don't do any planning before going out caching. They just go out with a list of coordinates and kind of stumble from cache to cache using the next nearest (which is VERY inefficient IMHO). I am someone who prefers to plan (using the six P's theory, Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance) and go out after a set of caches for which I have chosen. Part of that planning includes reading the cache descriptions. No where did I say I didn't read the cache page before loading the coordinates. You assumed too much. What I did say is that I don't have that information in the field with me, just the coordinates. And you also assumed that I do not plan where I am going, but stumble around aimlessly. I map all the caches I am going after in an orderly fashion. Perhaps you might not try to read too much 'between the lines' before you post a response.

I don't have paperless caching capabilities, so most of the time I only have the coordinates to go by and usually have no idea what size or type of cache I'm looking for. I don't do it that way to be 'macho' and I'm definitely not a 'numbers' cacher. I do get some DNFs, probably from not having the description with me to see a hint or some other clue in the writeup, but that's okay too. Actually, I do have the capabilities for paperless caching, I just haven't learned how to use it yet; but I'll probably still just rely on the coordinates, seems to make it more fun for me. And I don't do a lot of 'city' caching, so rarely have to worry about trespassing and will only cross a fence if I know it is to attain access to public lands. But, I can appreciate what you are saying.

I've been fortunate to meet quite a few cachers while out caching and although I am not an extremely outgoing person, I always grab the chance to meet like-minded people. A couple of times the people I met weren't cachers and had no idea what geocaching was until I explained it to them. One of the nicest couples I met while returning to my vehicle from placing some caches. They were returning to their vehicle after finding several of my caches in the area and we chatted for quite some time. On my way home I stopped to check on one of my caches and they pulled in behind me to let me know they were trying to catch up with me so they could give me an ammo can fully stocked. Their reason, because they enjoyed searching for my caches so much they wanted to have another one to find when they came back to the area. I got to see them again last Saturday at a CITO and Flash Mob event in Mtn Home. Even if I received a cold shoulder from someone I met while caching, I would still make the effort to meet and talk to someone on the trail.

After two or three finders report that an 'other' is really a micro in disguise and then a reviewer archives that deceptive micro, the practice of tricking searchers in such a manner will be greatly diminished, IMO. 'Gaming' the system in this manner ought not be allowed. By doing so, we are actually encouraging the practice. Why? I haven't the slightest clue. I'm not sure where you are finding this 'other' as a container option. There is a 'Not Chosen' option that appears on the cache page when no other size has been chosen, but I can't find the 'other' option. As to it being a deception to not list the size of a cache and a reviewer archiving the cache for that reason, I think you are living in a dream state. The option to not list the size of the cache is there as one of the choices when you submit a cache for publication. How can that be construed as being deceptive; regardless of the size of the actual cache? If, of course, all you are able to find are the much larger ammo can-type caches, then I can see how you would be frustrated looking for something you are not accoustomed to searching for; i.e., anything other than the much larger caches. I rarely know the size of the cache I'm looking for because it makes it more intersting to just have the coordinates to get me to GZ. But, that's how I like to play and I don't expect anyone else to change their way of playing the game to suit me. Isn't the object of the game to find 'a cache', regardless of size? Or, to enjoy the places caching takes you to? Or, any number of other things that floats your boat, including, unfortunately, complaining because people don't play the game the way you want it played. Only look for ammo cans if that is your thing, no one is going to give a hoot if you don't look for the micros, whether they are listed as such or not.

I would think that if you are so concerned about the amount of micro caches being placed that you might want to up the number of hides you have with the kind of cache you like. What keeps this sport/hobby going is people giving back by hiding caches for others to find. It never ceases to amaze me that some of the people who complain the most about micro caches are those with very few, if any, hides of their own. Filter out the micro caches if you dont' want to look for them and only use their location to determine where to hide caches of your own of the type and size you enjoy finding. Seems pretty simple to me.

I do read the cache description, if there is one, but it doesn't influence me one way or the other as to whether I'll look for the cache; unless, of course, the cache description implies the terrain is harder than what is posted. Then I might, if I'm interested, pull it up on GoogleEarth to see just what I might be getting myself into. The history or geological information about an area will perk my interest also, but even if the page is blank I'll still go looking for the cache if it's in an area I plan on caching. As some others have already stated, I've found some great caches with no description given and I've found some disappointing caches because I expected more from the description than what I found.

I have a bunch of both; easy to find and difficult to find. However, most of my desert hides are probably a little more difficult than the 'average' cacher would like to search for. But, I don't try to fool anyone with an easy rating either. And every once in awhile I'll change things up when the local cachers become too used to how I hide my caches; different type of container, different method of hiding, etc. The series I'm working on now has a Mystery Cache to work for. The containers are varied and so are the methods of hiding them. Doubt anyone will find all the clues the first time around, but the area is worth the hunt whether you find them or not.

I'm pretty sure I've had several people log some of my caches without ever having visited them. I haven't compared the physical logs to determine this, but knowing what other caches are in the same area and the area being off the beaten path, I'm fairly certain they never visited the caches they logged. Do I feel it is cheating to log those caches without having visited them? You beat your booty I think it is cheating! But, I believe they are cheating themselves more than they are cheating anyone else. Have I ever deleted logs I felt were visited only online? Nope. I won't waste my time, energy and money to check the logs to make sure everyone who has logged the cache online has also signed the physical log. Life is too short to worry about what and how other people play the game. BUT, if I just happen to visit one of my caches and find that someone has logged the cache online but not signed the physical log...it will be deleted and they can argue their case with GS.

At what point does the owner have any say in what I decide to trade out? If you are trading out, that is one thing. If you are just removing something because you don't like it, that is quite another. Pornographic material doesn't belong in any cache, that's a given. Business cards, unless pornographic, religious tracts, New Testaments, or other non-hazordous items are to be 'traded' out, not removed without trade just because the 'finder' doesn't like whatever it is.

I've noticed in several different threads that a number of people are taking it upon themselves to 'police' other people's caches; i.e., CITOing items found in a cache that is objectionable to them; whether it is business cards, religious tracts, New Testaments, or whatever. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the CO's perogative/responsiblity to leave or remove such items and not the cache finder's? Unless I'm wrong in my thinking, you are either to trade up, trade even, or don't take anything at all. If they are items that have been damaged due to mositure, then cleaning out the cache container and disgarding items that have been ruined seems to be an acceptable practice and one appreciated by most COs; even though the CO should make a maintenance trip to determine why the cache contents became wet. But, I fail to see the logic that we, as cache seekers, have the right to impose on others what we deem objectionable by removing items we don't like from a cache. BTW, I rarely ever do any trading and I don't leave business cards, religious tracts or New Testaments; it's the principal of the action.

I think you just like to stir the pot, as you've done in the past. Nothing there that even hints of advertising for the business.

I've hidden a couple of caches of that size; one is No Trade Cache GC1VKG4, the other is No Trades Cache 2 GC1W53V. In both instances I wasn't concerned about them being well hidden; to the contrary, I wanted them to be easily found. However, as some others have suggested, if you really want to have it 'hidden' well, then just find a good rocky area or one with lots of downed trees and you should have no trouble 'building' a cache site out of what is at hand. With those types of materials you can make it as difficult or as easy as you wish for seekers to find your cache. In a moderately heavy muggle area I would stick to a smaller type cache to minimize the disappearance of your cache before it has a very long life. Good luck and a pic of your results would be great, as long as it doesn't give the location away.

Lunch isn't necessary, but I would enjoy a cup of coffee with you next time I'm over there. I didn't refer specifically to you because it isn't the only time this type of thing has happened and is an all too common mistake some new, as well as experienced, cachers make. In your defense, the cache being in the open would nessisatate it being placed in a less obvious hiding spot to keep animals and two-legged critters from making off with it. And I believe that is what you did to the best of your ability. But, I have had other caches moved just because they weren't where the finder thought they should be, according to their GPSr or some other reasoing. In several of those instances they logged that the cache was found in the open when one of their caching buddies informed me it was not. And I do thank you for making sure the cache was no longer in the open. Hope to meet you at our next Meet & Greet at the El Sombrero restaurant in Jerome on June 14 at 6:00 p.m.