QuackAttack

That is interesting, thanks for the post and information. We are planning to be at tomorrow's launch and now know even more about it to share with others. Thanks again for posting such facts. John - Orlando

Personally, I don't think caches should be placed in areas such as Disneyland, but that's just my biased opinion. Cancelling your trip to Disney? Is that not extreme? Seems a little overboard on your part, but hey, at least then the lines will be shorter for me and I can park closer to the gates.

Hmmm, though there is no booty with a BM neither is there with Locationless, virtual, and micros. Many of the BMs are way off the beaten trail not directly near roadways, same as caches. Apples and Oranges because you don't have to use a GPS? We know of some that don't use a GPS to find the caches, for they get close using the maps and then with the clues have found the caches, one guy with over 1000+ finds. If we are going to count virtual and location-less, many of which you are on the roadway in traffic, then why not BMs. Have you tried to find a BM using just the information they give about it? It is worse than finding a cache. Some are against counting BMs and some are against counting locationless, etc. If you have to use a GPS why not count them all? Those that call themselves "true cachers" think locationless and virtuals should be gone from the count. Maybe they should for the points and facts you have stated, booty and roadways, etc, would indicate those don't qualify as well towards the total count and are no apples in themselves. Can't have it both ways, are we looking for just booty then let us state that and drop all these mircos, locationless, and virtuals where people list them and never care for them. There are far more micros and virtuals than "true apple caches with booty" out there. BMs are not just on roadways, one could only wish for such easy access as there is with most caches. So where do Letterboxes fit in. Another fruit in the basket...oh...and they count towards the total, that's odd for they are far from apples as well.

Why is it that when you find benchmarks they do not reflect in your total finds? I think they should and for several reasons. 1. You have to locate them using a GPS, no different than the virtual, regular caches, or others like location less. 2. They can be very fun to find and often lead you to interesting places, history, or views. 3. More geocachers I know of would look for (or more) benchmarks if they counted in the total. Many I talk to cite that as a reason not to bother. 4. Many are very difficult to get to and take some thought and work. Many we have are on roof tops, deep in the woods, etc. 5. It is fun for the family to look for them as well as the caches. We have a "competition" going with our friends on total finds, what we find, etc. It makes it more fun to add some competition to finding them. I would like to see benchmarks reflecting in the total finds. Some virtuals and location-less are too easy and they count, why not benchmarks where many are very hard to locate.

Agree quote:Originally posted by woody33:I am all for keeping the coordinates only to members, ill be the first to pay for such a service, please not to much. i believe in the honor system, that is what makes this sport so fun, but something needs to be done to protect it. If it were protected i would be more willing to put more substantial things in the caches, does any one agree?, or maybey im wrong all together. what are your views? e-mail me at woody33@charter.net. please give subject. i delete alot of junk mail.