Ichabod

Here is another side of this story, and I am not alone. On Saturday, my find log for the cache from 2006 was deleted. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...ab-a7c508b86d4d I emailed Team 360 to ask why my found log was deleted but did not receive a response. I asked some other local cachers if anyone else had their logs deleted and sure enough they had. At that point one or more of the other cachers contacted Groundspeak to have these found logs reinstated. It appears that some cachers also posted notes as cache logs complaining about it. I also emailed Groundspeak to let them know my log had been deleted but nothing more. They said they were looking into it and I will let them do so. I can tell you that at the time I logged my find, I was part of a group of people maintaining this cache. About 2 years ago, Team 360 asked us to give the cache back to him as he was unhappy with how we were or were not maintaining the cache. Since it was his cache to begin with, we returned it to him.

I recently created a kml route and then created a pocket query for that route. When I run the pocket query, I get the error below. The pocket query does run and I do receive the results. The query also appears in my pocket query list, but if I try to go into the query to edit it, I get the same error, so I am unable to delete the query or modify it. Server Error in '/' Application. Queue empty. Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code. Exception Details: System.InvalidOperationException: Queue empty. Source Error: An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below. Stack Trace: [invalidOperationException: Queue empty.] System.Collections.Queue.Dequeue() +110 Groundspeak.Web.UserRoutes.UserRoutePoints.EncodeSignedNumber(Decimal num) +269 Groundspeak.Web.UserRoutes.UserRoutePoints.EncodeLatLong() +339 Geocaching.UI.URQuery.ShowQueryInfo() +711 Geocaching.UI.URQuery.Page_UserLoggedIn(Object sender, EventArgs e) +781 Geocaching.UI.WebformBase.IsLoggedIn() +1331 Geocaching.UI.URQuery.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) +515 System.Web.UI.Control.OnLoad(EventArgs e) +67 System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +35 System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain() +750 Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.2300; ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.2300

Add me to the list. I received a couple of published notices early this morning, but nothing since: no watchlist notifications, no owner notifications, etc.

Perfectly said! Why worry and play policemen to check up on someone? If someone cheats they only fool themselves, nobody else. I've got better things to do in life than checking logs. Paranoia is not part of my character so NO I NEVER check my cache logs In general, I agree with this sentiment, however, I hardly feel I'm being paranoid. This is the first time I have ever deleted a log, or even bothered to check the log in this way. One might argue that he found all the caches and just didn't sign the logs. Based on the logs, the account, emails from the account prior to the logs to other cachers, past issues with the same cacher, etc. etc. etc., I doubt he attempted finding even one cache. The actual 2nd to find for the series asked me what was up with the logs for this person, since he didn't see his signature on any of the log sheets. I think there is a small measure of pride by local cachers for completing a series of puzzles that has taken time, effort, a gallon or two of gas, and in some cases lost sleep, not only to complete the puzzles, but to get out and make the finds. It seems to cheapen their effort by leaving such bogus logs alone. If someone wants to delude themselves, well, this is a free country, but I don't feel like enabling them either.

I agree. I always enjoy all the logs that were never posted on-line.

You deleted ALL five logs? Or just the three? If all five....Why? Yes, I did delete all five. Due to some bizarre circumstances, which I don't care to go into, it became obvious that the gc account in question is most certainly a sock puppet. He had only two finds prior to finding my five, which would have required him to travel a bare minimum of 32 miles around the metro area. If he lied about three, I see no reason why he didn't lie about the other two.

I recently put out a puzzle series of five caches. A couple of days after the FTF, another cacher logged a find on all five caches (2nd to find.) The logs were highly suspect, and I have subsequently discovered that this cacher did not sign three of the five logs, so I have deleted the lot. I don't typically compare the actual log to the on-line log, but the nature of the logs, and other factors made me look in this case. How many of you make a regular comparison and possibly delete bogus logs? It is rather sorry that the situation exists at all.

Well, so long as the hole the bolt is in was already there, how is that vandalism? If, however, someone had to make or modify an existing hole ...

Will Wheaton? YUP!!! http://www.wilwheaton.net/ Here's his GC profile: http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=75...27-18108f62fe2d I just did a search here on GC using Will Wheaton. Do you know HOW MANY TIMES the topic of FAMOUS CACHERS has come up over the years??? LOTS....and he's always mentioned. Apparently, he's our most famous. And he apparently hasn't cached since 2004 ... time to champion a new celeb ...

I guess he wanted some more abuse.

Well, since it is YOUR county, I guess you can do whatever you please. Perhaps you should put up "NO TRESPASSING" AND "NO LAME CACHES OR MICROS" signs all along the perimeter of YOUR county, but why on earth are you asking us what we think, since you "make decisions" for YOUR county!

I do enjoy a FTF now and again, but only go after them if I am close or they are on my way. I do get a bit annoyed with some FTF hounds, especially when they don't follow posted information about available times, i.e. going for a FTF in the middle of the night when the cache page clearly states that the cache is only available during daylight hours, etc. That's just rude. Aside from that, no worries.

In the past few months, I have started hunting and finding caches without my GPSr. The first time I did it just because I knew there was a cache in the area and I didn't have my GPSr with me, but now I find that I enjoy this GPS free hunting. Google Earth is great for getting an idea of where to hunt, but sometimes all I need is the basic cache description and/or the clue. I know there are many cachers that racked up big numbers even before they had a GPS, using nothing more than a map (like Mapquest), but how many of you, that have a GPSr, sometimes leave it in the car?

This cache GCMJ1V is not in a safety deposit box, but a locker. You have to find the corresponding travel bug to log it, so a set-up like this could work ... of course there are always problems with the TB going missing, leaving the area, etc.

Certainly not, and honestly, I have found several caches on private property that were under a watering system access panel, or other such box in the ground. I don't think anyone has any problems with caches like this on private property or where permission has been obtained. My question was more to public property. I also totally agree with the sprinkler head issue. There have been times where I have come to a cache location and discovered a sprinkler head that didn't seem to belong there, only to discover that it was actually a sprinkler head. And this may be my concern about caches like this, is that they tend to encourage mucking about with things that we shouldn't be. The mock clean-out PVC cache mentioned above, really had me going, because it could have been an actual clean-out!

I prefer the country, but don't mind urban caches, so long as I can hunt in peace. The thing that bothers me more than the location, is being watched.

I have found several caches that were placed below ground level. I think, given the gc guidelines, that everyone agrees that digging is a BIG no-no, however, what do you all think of caches that are placed below grade? Here are three examples I have come across, all of which made it difficult for me to find (because I assumed no one will place a cache like this ... that's what I get for assuming ) #1: Sprinkler head. I think most people have seen these, involving pushing a sprinkler head into the ground, you pull the top off to reveal the micro. #2: A fake clean-out PVC tube with a cache inside. Unscrew the top and pull out the cache. It appeared that the PVC was just pushed into the ground. #3: PVC cylnder encased in concrete and pushed into the ground. There is a custom top to the PVC that is opened to reveal the cache. I don't quite know how they could have done this one without digging, unless the ground was really soft at the time, or it went into an existing hole. For arguments sake, let's assume that no digging occured to place any of these caches, and no digging is needed to retrieve them. How do you feel about these?

It is all about cache density 2 Dogs. I did a quick search. According to gc.com, there are 7,369 caches in ALL of Australia, which covers an area of about 2,966,368 square miles. In my home state of Oregon, an area of 98,386 square miles, we have 7,213 caches, and there are many states with much higher density than this. It is a simple matter of mathematics.

Nah, there wouldn't be anything to post in the rest of the topics. That's true ... WHAT would people have to discuss then?

My brother made me a beautiful diamond willow walking stick, and I love it. I don't use it much around town, but if I am going for a trek in the woods, it is a very useful and versatile tool. Always good for bushwacking and beating back crazed muggles.

Perhaps there ought to be an area in the forums, just for people to vent about how much they love or hate micros. > Groundspeak Forums > General Geocaching Discussions > Micros> That would make it much easier for me to ignore all the posts about them ...

So how exactly have we "dumbed it down"? The original cache was a five gallon bucket on the side of the road. It doesn't get much easier than that. I certainly love a challenging cache, i.e. a good hide, hard puzzle, etc., but mainly I just love the hunt. If I know ahead of time that what I'm looking for is a micro stuck in a guard rail in an alley, I won't go after it specifically, but if I am in an area, I'll hunt it. Most are of the "micro spew" variety, and I log it and forget it, but occassionally you find an interesting hide among them. It seems to me that one of the reasons for high find numbers anywhere is simply cache density. My brother has been actively caching for nearly two years longer than I, yet I now have more finds than he does. Does this mean that my finds have been less arduous? or is it more an indication of available caches in my area? The first 100 caches nearest my home are all within 9 kilometers. Of those 100, 10 are uninteresting micros, and of those 10 about 5 are totally unredeemable or downright boring. But of the other 90 caches, I have had some of my most memorable caching experiences, having to hunt many of them multiple times in order to find them, or hike up steep terrain, or bushwack through dense vegetation ... and I live in a suburb! My brother, on the other side of the country, has to travel more than 9 km just to get the first 20 caches from his home, and double that to the first 100. I have hunted caches near his home as well, and the range of difficulty is about the same as it is here, it just takes much longer to get from one cache to another. I don't think there is much anyone can do to eliminate the "bad" caches, other than to let them die their eventual caching death, but equating high numbers to "easy" or "dumb" caches is off base. Numbers in this hobby are rather abitrary.

Thanks.

I am suddenly not receiving notifications, even of finds on caches, or Travel Bugs, I own. It was working fine yesterday, but today... nothing. It is a self-run mail server, so there should be no problem with SPAM filters, etc.

Man, can I relate to that. Well said!