MapheadMike

Since we're keeping score manually for a while, let's add an out-of order visit to the Milwaukee Mile cache for MrCOgeo's Rusty Wallace to the scoreboard. That'll give him the option of going straight from Indy to Infenion when he reaches that point in the race. The #2 hasn't had a Darlington visit yet.

With no GPS nor a PDA, it's either paper or a map memory exercise (I've managed a few dozen of those, usually easy ones). I can fit 1 to 7 descriptions (extraneous junk cut out) on a page, depending on how much map/aerial photo I need to print. If I feel like adding any log notes or photos that might help/spoil, I can add those too. For me, carrying a piece of paper (even with a baseplate compass) seems to draw less attention than carrying a GPS.

We're still racing as far as I know. No reason to stop just because the scoreboard is broken for the moment. Not a lot of goals met lately that I've seen. Fishhook's Martin Truex Jr TB cleared through Watkins Glen and is headed for Indy. Patty Moise (mine) and Ward Burton (BareLi) cleared Bristol, so that's a total of five through there. Harvick and Sadler got into Darlington County but were taken away before reaching the right cache, so we're still at only 15 through Darlington. Hang in there. We knew this race was going to take a long time when we organized it.

USAPhotoMaps and Lostoutdoors.com's Map Maker utility both do a good job in plotting points onto USGS topo maps and aerial photos in WGS-84. I regard these two products as the most accurate out there. I prefer Lostoudoors since it doesn't involve downloading a seperate program. I've found most of my caches using maps and topos from these sources, and they've proven accurate over the long haul. The main flaw is that they both use USGS data which can be dated, so newer developments won't appear. But if you're trying to select land for hunting, that would presume that the land isn't developed, so the data should be OK in that area.

As someone who finds caches with maps and aerial photos, I can tell you that Google's products have a degree of randomness anyway. Some areas in WGS-84, others in NAD-27, areas where the various layers don't match, areas where the layers are fudged together because they saw something was wrong but not what was wrong, and areas where they don't offer the resolution needed to be useful. So Google is only good for general observations anyway. Putting the coords off by a decimal place or two doesn't hurt anything because Google is off by the same anyway. I sometimes wonder if Google is intentionally obfuscating its data at their end.

The canoeists have a good resource page for this issue, with links to the relevant state laws.

Putting it in your next find is completely acceptable. Happy caching.

I vaguely recall reading once upon a time in some FAQ or tutorial that this was supposed to be SOP, but I can't find the source.

What happened to the frog and stone? Are they still up at that cache in Vermont? Of course you should call for the tag and fix it to a large object. Since you seem to be fairly close, maybe you could go get the original object (presuming it's still at the Vermont cache) and repair it to its original condition. While you're there, you can check the log book and see who may have committed this foul. Ordinary lost TBs should be blown off, but this was an intentional foul on someone's part, and fixing it seems possible. There's no reason not to go for it.

I'd like to respectfully suggest that even the most experienced geocachers have been fooled by this or that from time to time, even on easy caches. So the only way to properly use the phrase "definitely not there" is to have a prior finder who remembers the cache go back and say it's not there anymore. In a utopian world, someone who found these previously would check to make sure they're really gone, make sure there is no geo-litter remaining, and cause the archivals. In the real world (since these are supposed to be easy urban micros), you might want to make a second search (a big effort, expand the zone in case the coords are off, use the clue) and go ahead with SBA. The site volunteer will probably ask the owner to check the cache. When the owner doesn't respond after a few weeks, then it'll likely be archived for failure to meet the site's guidelines on maintenance. I would put limited value on the note from the muggle that said one cache was moved. If the gentleman didn't know enough to replace what he found where he found, he may not know enough to properly identify which cache he muggled.

The problem I'm finding with Google and the Terraserver Viewer is that some of the data is NAD-27 instead of WGS-84. With Google, it's hit and miss while the Terraserver Viewer may be consistent NAD-27. I will disclaim this a little by pointing out that I just spot checked a few easy urban caches and didn't check their entire database. The problem of layers being off on Google is that some layers are on one standard while other layers are on the other standard. I wrote to Google about this and the notes apparently went into the same black hole. For now, I'm sticking with Lostoutdoors, which uses the "latest" USGS data. The maps and photos are older (and therefore a problem in newly developed areas), but they are consistently accurate in WGS-84 and available at 1 meter resolution. If the Terraserver Viewer was set up for WGS-84 and good accuracy, it could become a useful product.

Considering your user name and location, I think four Hot Passes for next week's Nextel Cup race would be cool. Four top row tickets between S/F and the pit exit would be nice for STF. Seriously, FTFs aren't "owed" any special prizes. If you want to leave something, cool. If not, cool. Whatever you choose, cool.

Until VE offers searching by lat/long in WGS-84, it's of limited value to geocachers. Is there a way to search VE by lat/long that I may have missed?

You'd stand a better chance of avoiding trouble by just walking in during the day like you actually belong and hope no one really checks. It seems to have worked so far for those ignoring the No Tresspassing signs. There was some discussion among some of the first month finders as to why or why not the signs may not be valid. The best reason mentioned is that the homeowners association (maybe) improperly marked land really belonging to the local utility company. There is a pretty big powerline in the picture, so that might not be a bad theory. If anyone in the region is really worried, they can always hit an SBA and cause some explaining and researching (and arguing and angsting and other forms of ill will) to occur.

I've found one in a SB rest area south of Harrisonburg and I'm sure there are a decent number close to the road, especially near Harrisonburg, Roanoke, and Winchester. You might be on your own for researching the specifics though. Here's an overall discussion of how to find them in this thread. And there is the old fashioned technique of loading up the maps (as a paying member, you have the better maps to pan and zoom with) and reading descriptions to see what looks fun and convienent.

HD, Do you manually retype that story every time a thread of this nature comes up or do you cut and paste it from some source? Perhaps we should have a sticky for procedures when you find a TB that's not in the cache you found it. Of course, that would mean determining which procedure is "correct". Does the subsequent finder wait for an undetermined time for a vacationer to (hopefully, maybe) catch up on logs, as HD thinks is appropriate? Does the subsequent finder grab it right away, make a drop/grab to fix the TB map, and go on without delay, as I think is appropriate? Or do we not worry about it at all, so long as the future finders of the TB play fair with it? As far as the original question, StrikeForce has a good list for when the next cacher is still holding the TB while BlueDeuce has a good list if the TB is already been placed by the subsequent cacher. An alternate method if the next cacher is still holding the TB is to suggest to the cacher who picked it up to make the drop/grab entries in/out of the cache the TB was placed. That has the same effect of fixing the map.

The TB owner phrased the goal kind of loosely (travel around...then go to). IMO, no need for a special effort, just place him at an upcoming find. Yes, you can carry a TB by airplane on a trip that you are making. Objections don't usually start until you start using the mail. The other TB you're holding warrants a thought. Some people are uptight about any changes to their TB. Make sure you are communicating with that TB owner to see if he has a preference regarding repairs.

It looks like all of Griffis AFB is completely decommisioned and in private hands now. That should help show that whatever was formerly going on at that tract isn't now a security matter. If it's available online for the relevant county, a land record search that shows that someone other than DoD owns that tract now could help. Adding: From the OLD topo map, the entrance "road" in question doesn't appear to go all the way through. It looks like it might have been a utility easement, not an entrance, with the actual entrances to the facility (which no longer exists) being on the west (Marsh) and south (Elpis). Some googling finds Camden Test Annex on a couple of cleanup type lists, but nothing active. The photos on maps.google show the area to be quite abandoned.

Norwich? Cool!!! They did a good job at the Intercollegiate Orienteering Championships in Missouri last April and I'm looking forward to seeing their current team at the Beaver Brook NH meet next month. How close is MGRS to UTM or lat/long? I would think that if you offered MGRS with something a GPSer could use, or used UTM which both map users and GPSers can use, that could be a nice compromise. Three miles of hiking is a major expedition for more than a few in this hobby as is. Those who are new to topo maps should probably have some easier efforts for their first few tries at battery-free caching. For those of us who have crossed over from orienteering (and others with some map experience), this does sound like a lot of fun. Having a gridded map gives us a chance at a multi without returning to the computer at each stage to plot a new map on lostoutdoors.com. One other possible compromise, (1) provide coordinates to an easy first stage just off the parking lot with the map and instructions stored there, (2) spell out the traditional coodinates to the later stages in ROT-13 (proofread it!!!) and provide those onsite with the map instructions. That would provide a mulligan for those who just miss it trying with the map and a way around for those who insist on sticking with the GPSR. One final point, there is always room for a geocache that involves a cool hike. Try to find a format that anyone who wants to hike can enjoy, regardless of how they navigate.

Allow me the pleasure of Markwelling #2 on Markwell's own FAQ page, part of the FAQ thread pinned above.

I might be up your way next month. When I figure out some more specific plans, we can pick a cache for you to leave it at and I'll give it a movement .

Don't laugh too hard.

Wouldn't the same theory speak against fake sprinklers, fake bird nests, fake electrical boxes, and fake anything else that is usually considered favorably as "creative"?

In SE Virginia, the photos are NAD-27 while the maps are WGS-84. There are a couple of places where the road goes through the middle of a building. In some other areas, the maps and photos match up better. Complaints to Google have gotten nothing more than a form response, that everything is supposed to be WGS-84 and they'll check on discrepancies. And that stupid first down marker with a shadow blocks out detail to the north of the location, what's wrong with a dot or a thin crosshair? There are some areas (new housing developments and their parks) where having the up-to-date map/photo on Google creates an advantage over the older USGS material on LostOutdoors. But they are still in beta and, IMO, they have too many problems to be the main resource for the map and photo cachers. LostOutdoors is still my first choice.

Absolutely. You said it in plain English. You would seem to need a shovel (or trowel or something similar) to hide it and that makes it a foul.