bittsen

BIZARRE!!! Thats the one I did reply to. I swear this forum is haunted or something.

The decision to keep geocachers off certain public lands has a bt of logic to it. In cases where hunting is allowed, it is disruptive to the hunting if geocachers are going through the hunting grounds making the animals a little edgy. After all, we want Bambi to be calm, relaxed, comfortable right before we blow his head off, right? As for the painballing ban, it would be a good defense for a hunter if he said "I saw something hiding in the bushes and it looked like a deer" when asked why the paintballer was sent to his maker. Now, I don't agree with the bans, but I see the logic. Personally, I find it silly that people can hunt and kill the wildlife but its not cool for people to hunt little treasures while respecting the wildlife. The bottom line is this property is PUBLIC, for PUBLIC use. To limit one kind of public use but not another (especially when it is more destructive) is ridiculous. But, hey, my opinions aren't always the popular ones.

Why not use http://groups.yahoo.com ?

Whats the approximate cost of the 1:24,000 topo maps. I'm sure that would be good enough for me. I'm not all that interested in mapping a 2 foot elevation drop.

Ah, I'm not so worried about the amount of memory because it's upgradable, right? Since I am a member of the GPS for dummies club, I don't really know all the difference in the maps. I ask because it's pretty easy to get a colorado 400c for about $300 but the 400t is hard pressed to get for under $350. To get additional maps would be additional $$$, yes? If one had a friend with a 400t, could one use the friends topo maps and load them to their 400c?

Thanks. I suppose it also helps if I have "notes" selected to display in GSAK. I had to go into the options to enable the notes. Got it going now.

I see that there are at least 3 versions of the Colorado 400. There is 400c, 400i, and 400t. Anyone have a comparison of the feature differences? Thanks

Cool, but you could you write that as if it was a chapter of "Logging from GSAK for Dummies"? I'm not seeing a notes section. or a button for a built in macro. (and I am incredibly macro challenged)

I logged a dozen or so finds yesterday in GSAK. Is there a way to upload those to geocaching.com or do all the online logs have to be done manually?

I am fully aware of those knuckleheads. They have gone from "protect the public" to "punish the public". It's gotten sickening how those "authority figures" think they are above the people who pay their salaries, whether through taxes or hefty fines for ridiculous things.

Exactly. I can't believe how much easier it is to load pocket queries than to do everything manually. I was skeptical about the $30 at first but now I know it's a bargain.

What kind of stats do you want?

If that were the case then there would have been a LOT more geocaches destroyed by now.

Thanks for the answers. I think I'm well on my way.

So, I have been curious. How do these people get notified of a new cache in their area? I remember, once, seeing a "new" icon somewhere but that is it.

I recently placed my first cache, some things I learned (to show no hard feelings about the other thread ) 1. One thing you can do is to e-mail your reviewer for a coordinate check. That is usually the reason a cache is disallowed. It pains me to say this but puzzle caches and multistage caches are usually the culprit here. 2. As Aquanalie mentioned, you can fill out the form but uncheck the "Cache is active" box. It means the reviewer will not automatically see your cache though so it doesn't really help you there. It will, however, give you the GC ID, so that you can write that in your logbook or cache if you want to. 3. If you fill in the form, but uncheck "This cache is active", the coordinates are "reserved" for you. Meaning, if someone later tries to publish a cache, the system will inform the reviewer that your cache is going in there, even though it has not been approved. It seems that the earlier submitted form will have priority. Some reviewers are very quick to publish. On a slow day when the reviewer has nothing much to do, caches might be published minutes after you submit the form. So thinking you might beat other cachers to the cache site might be unrealistic. Good luck with your first cache. OK, so if I deselect "Cache is Active" then I can get the GCXXXXX code before placing the cache? I would like that

I also have a Magellan and got a premium membership so I could use the Pocket Query function and upload gsx files to GSAK. It is awesome!! Doing a pocket query along a route is the way to go! You will never go back to the old method of paper recording caches.

I would love to do this. Here the dominant rock type is pumice (or Tuffa) and is already exceptionally light. I've thought about hollowing out a larger than average rock for an ammo can -- wouldn't be too hard and would be a fun find. I would place it where it's not in a pile of rocks... maybe under a BIG PILE OF STICKS..... (i laugh every time I see chuckwagon post about them).... Actually thinking about posting it as an offset at the end of a labyrinth... meditation plus caching could be neat Think BIGGER. BIGGER!!!

I was watching the old "land of the lost" show today and it caught my mind for an awesome cache. It just occurred to me to post it. This would have to be done in a less traveled area but it would be so cool. One thing that was obvious on LotL was the fake rocks they used. If you watched it enough you could see the same rocks appearing in different scenes and they always moved whenever someone was close. Anyhow, to cut to the chase... You could make a "rock" that was actually a lot biffer than the traditional "rock" hide. I mean BIG. Boulder sized. Make it out of fiberglass and make it as real to the surroundings as possible. You could have a 5 foot tall boulder that weighed so little that a child could lift it up to find the container underneath. It would be funny to find out how many cachers couldn't find the biggest cache ever. They would look all around it but with the size, few would think to check under it until they found out it was fiberglass.

Get a realistic looking skull and make a container out of it. Hide it in a pile of rocks. Or would that scream for a muggle to find it?

When hiding a cache, do you hide the cache, then fill out the form, hoping for approval or do you fill out the form, wait for approval, then place the cache?

I didn't get a shock opening the cache but I got one when I pulled it from its location. I was removing a simple guardrail cache and all of a sudden a lizard cones screaming out from the edge of it. The thing was tiny but moved FAST. Scared the heck out of me for a second. It was apparantly relaxing on the edge of the cache and was probably as scared as I was.

BTW, there isn't anything wrong with being undertall. I happen to like my women a little on the short side.

I dont think there was any attempting going on. You have presented a viewpoint that seems to be very counter intuitive. Presenting a front that Caches should not be be 5's Requiring special equipment or skills.... To be precise, I said I see no need for them but also said I couldn't care less if they existed. I see some as ridiculous. Much as I see arguing with people on the internet. It hassnt seemed to stop you. I dont see much use for 1/1's sometimes. I mean whats the challenge? In fact somtimes the thought of "Why the Heck am iI standing in the middle of the woods looking for a tupperware container???" drifts through my mind. For a sport/hobby of looking for objects that really have no use, you seem to think that your brand is more useful then others. You also seem to care that they exist with as much effort you have been putting into defending your position. You seem to think you know what I think. What am I thinking now? (I'll give you a hint, it's not Tacos) Why, exactly, do I have to defend my position? I didn't see that in the rules anywhere. This thread has gotten ugly and there are a few who are now on a witch hunt. Should we have a witch hunt cache?

At first I was kind of irritated at your nonsensical remarks. The more I read the more I thought that this person has few finds. My guess was less than 100. Now I understand that you may not log them online, but your find count shows that as true. From your ideas it sounds as if no one should hide caches because someone who is paralyzed from the neck down couldn't find log them and that's not fair. Anything else would be "elitist". It doesn't sound like you cache. It sounds like you go around and visit geocache logging stations. Many of us don't necessarily enjoy writing our names in the log. We enjoy the journey, the hunt, and the challenge. I don't get upset if it takes 20 minutes to find a cache. I appreciate the good hide! By your terms though, this would be an "elitist" cache because not everyone could find it. How dare them? You are aware, of course, of how ridiculous you have become? I don't cache like you do so I'm not a real cacher, right? How elitist is that?