solid-rock-seekers

I understand the proposal as being one to allow a new log type that allows one to specify a waypoint for the log. However, I'm confused by the need for the new log type. "Found It" logs already allow the addition of a waypoint - how would the new log be different than a "found it" log? Is the only difference the log name? (i.e. "mark waypoint" still counts as a "find", it still shows a smiley in the cache page, etc.) What is the motivation for having a new log type? The existing "found it" log seems to work well for locationless caches. I think understanding the reason for the new log type would help understand why it may be a good (or bad) idea. --ken

CallawayMT and GEO*Trailblazer1, Thanks so much for the excellent responses on the "Meridian Control" marker. I've learned a lot more about surveying and the history of it in the USA! --ken

While completing the Pine Island Cache this evening in Manchester, NH, we happened to observe this "Meridian Control" marker. I've never seen anything like it before, and am wondering if anybody else knows what it is. It appeared to be a "stake" of some sort driven down into the ground adjacent to a small stump. I didn't try to pull on it at all, so I have no idea how firmly embedded it was. It is quite small (the top is about the size of a quarter) as can be seen by its size relative to my eTrek GPS. Please post if you have any idea what this might be! Thanks, --ken

I like this idea with the implementation that Jeremy described! This allows "friends" to easily keep "up to date" on another cacher's logs, yet also addresses privacy concerns by requiring friends to be "opt-in." --ken

I may be misunderstanding things here, but it seems to me that the primary motivation for making the logs uneditable is so that the cache owner receives notifications on late edits. It may be that the best solution for this is to have the cache owner emailed any time a "late edit" takes place on a log. Currently, "late edits" have a line of text automatically added to the log indicating when the edit takes place. It may be that the best solution would be to also have any such late edits automatically mailed to the cache owner. This would address the issues of spoilers being added / removed, inappropriate langugae being added to log, and changing DNFs to Finds without the cache owner being aware of it. I think the main issue is one of notification of changes, rather than prohibition of changes. If there is a mistake or error in a log, I see no reason to prohibit the mistake/error from being fixed later. Sometimes it takes days or weeks to find the error in the log, particularly if the cache owner is on vacation. (One would not want *all* edits mailed to the cache owner, as that could result in a lot of emails to cache owners for all of the little "typo fixes" made when logs are first written.) --ken

OK, now that I have thought about this a little more, it doesn't seem that it should be so difficult to fix the "All Cache Finds" on the User Profile page so that it is not simply "All Non-Locationless Cache Finds." It seems to me that the desired "All Cache Finds" function could be implemented by taking the union of the current search (which is really "All Non-Locationless Cache Finds") and the search that is performed if one clicks on the "Locationless (Reverse) Caches" search and putting these into a single sorted list. Jeremy: Would this be doable? I would really appreciate being able to have the "All Cache Finds" on the user profile page include all caches in the total number of caches for a user. Thanks! --ken

OK, I understand that there is an implementation reason that makes the "All Cache Finds" search exclude the locationless caches. However, it is very confusing to have the "All Cache Finds" search on the user profile page actually return "All Cache Finds Except Locationless." Personally, I would really like to have the "All Cache Finds" search on the user profile actually return *all* cache finds, including locationless. Alternatively, if that cannot readily be done, I would suggest at least changing the title of the search to instead be something like "All non-locationless Cache Finds."

Another story of an incredibly successful Travel Bug -- Big Red Speedy has not only completed it's goal, but it has completed it THREE TIMES! This really amazed me, as this travel bug has not only criss-crossed the US twice, but is a larger-than-usual TB that was in excellent condition with a pull-back mechanism that still works, making it very likely to be "adopted" by somebody that likes it! This TB seems to have violated a number of Snoogan's TB longevity guidelines, but just keeps on going! I felt privileged to be able to place it in the cache to complete its third goal.

2oldfarts (the rockhounders): I do agree that the cache you referenced does not exactly fit the description of the offset cache. However, I do think that it more closely resembles the offset cache, in that the posted coordinates are not that of the cache container. The traditional cache instructions are very clear on this: Personally, I would suggest that multi caches and offset caches be made two separate cache categories, and that the offset cache description should be broadened to include the cache you referenced.

Thanks!

WildEarth2001: You can be sure that the point you raise is one that is very much in my thoughts. There are currently 4 geocaches placed in Bedford, NH where I live. These caches have been placed by three different cachers. I have emailed each of the owners to find out if they have already "paved the way" by working with the town officials in placing the caches. I had been hoping to leverage any goodwill they had already established. However, it turns out that all were placed unbeknownst to the town. As such, I think you're absolutely right that it may jeopardize the existing caches to make the town officials aware of the fact that I would like to place an additional cache. I definitely think it would be tragic to have the existing caches removed. Then again, maybe the best way to ensure their long-term acceptance is to have the advantages of geocaching explained before a bad experience brings a cache to their attention? Or, maybe the best way to get long-term acceptance is to continue to have the hobby expand "underground" until it is so pervasive that there's no stopping it? Admittedly, I'm still on the fence about this endeavor. Definitely the easiest thing to do on my part would be to just place the cache without notification to the town. I anticipate that if I make a presentation to the town, I would spend dozens of hours in preparation and that the dialogue with the town officials may require months of patient interaction. However, you can be sure that if/when I make a presentation to the town regarding the caches I would like to place, I would only make the presentation if I felt that the presentation was likely to result in an affirmative answer! I also would intend to ask the existing cache owners in the town to be able to review / proof my presentation, if I go forward with it. Any templates, presantations, outlines, and notes are very much appreciated! --ken

OK, I read the entire discussion (well, admittedly I skimmed through the last 150 or so posts) that briansnat referenced above. Clearly there has been an ongoing debate about whether or not express permission, implied consent, and/or notification is required for placing a cache on public lands. I really don't intend to enter that fray, as I can see valid points made by many people with different perspectives. I also went to the link for Geocaching Policy Info to check on published policies. Alas, none are listed for either Maine or New Hampshire, the two places I would be likely to maintain a cache. Which brings me back to my original question -- can anybody point me to a presentation that would be used in talking to a town council, or parks & rec committee, or conservation commission that serves as the "land manager" for a piece of land? Thanks! --ken

Hmm. I suppose I may have been a little overzealous in my reading of the Hiding Your First Geocache page, but it reads as follows: For private land, express consent is indicated. For public land, I agree that one would not need explicit permission to place a cache if the rules of the managing agency were publicly available and said that geocaches were permitted to be placed without express consent. However, I have not been able to find that for my town. Nor have I seen it for NH State Parks -- does anybody know where I might be able to find this? --ken PS: Thanks for the link to the other discussion. I'm still reading through it. I have a feeling it may address my interpretation as to whether or not express consent is required for public lands...

Hello, I am looking to place my first cache, and am looking for a presentation slide show (power point?) to use to present geocaching to my local town council to receive permission to place a cache on town-owned land. I may be naive, but it seems to me that such a presentation would almost surely be readily available on the Hiding Your First Geocache page since no cache that is not on your own property cannot be placed without permission from either the land owner or the managing agency. However, even after searching through the forums for "presentation" in the title of postings, I haven't been able to find a presentation of this type. I have found a number of presentations to give to grade school students, to community groups, and to radio hams to teach them how to become geocachers, but I have found no presentations to help in persuading a likely skeptical audience about what I would like to do -- place a geocache on town owned land. I'm sure that somebody must have gone down this path already -- do you have a presentation that I can tailor for my specific presentation? I have seen the alacache.com TV News video, and could see using that in part of the presentation. I anticipate describing CITO and the fact that geocaching appeals to an amazing cross-section of people in the community. However, I haven't seen a powerpoint presentation that puts all of this together. Somebody out there must have given such a presentation to the folks in their town! Any help/guidance would be appreciated. Other suggestions of video clips that portray geocaching in a positive light would be helpful. Thanks! --ken

Hemlock, Thanks for the possible explanation. I sent an email to "drawbridge" to see if they know what happened. Any ideas on the "ROBO-Pooch" situation? I'm puzzled, as I've had something like this happen at least a couple other times, and am wondering if this is an ongoing intermittent bug of some sort. Has anybody else seen similar behavior lately? --ken

About three times in the last two weeks, I have made a travel bug log or seen a travel bug logged where the bug was placed or retrieved by a log entry, but the bug location was not appropriately updated. A current example of this is the bug Howard Hedgehog. The bug has a current location of In Sudbury/Concord River Cache 2 but the most recent log entry was one for cache retrieval. As I understand it, the bug should be shown as "in the hands of drawbridge. I found this bug in a different cache today where it was not logged in, presumably because drawbridge couldn't log it online since it wasn't in their inventory. I have also had the same problem with a placement I made last week on Robo-POOCH. On 6/17, I placed it in Dirigo, but the TB remained in my inventory. I made a second log which then resulted in the plaement taking place! (In the time since I placed it, this bug has since been picked up and moved by another cacher.) Have others seen these problems? Any idea of what is going on? Suggestions on how to fix? My first thought was that the id number had been mistyped, but that wouldn't explain the problems with TB placement, where the number isn't even typed in! Thanks! --ken PS: Note that these problems are not consistent -- most times the logs work properly, but sometimes they do not. I haven't been able to detect a pattern or a cause of the trouble. Ideas?

I'd be willing to place one for you, too. --ken

Well, a follow-up regarding this same issue.... Jeremy fixed my profile so that I could log in, and all worked fine. However, I'm now trying to update my profile again. I've been working to try to reduce the amount of text in my profile, to keep it under the 8060 character limit. The problem is, however, that there's still a lot of extra text that gets inserted with the HTML. It appears as though there is some sort of "pretty-printer" that formats my HTML and adds spaces to indent it nicely. Normally, the pretty-printing would be good, but with the use of tables, it inserts extra lines and insists on putting 8 or 12 blank characters at the begining of the line. This is expanding the size of my profile by about 30%. Is there any way to turn the pretty-printer off? Or to change the level of indentation from 4 characters per statement to about 2 characters? I'm just trying to squeeze as much as I can into those 8060 characters for the profile, and am running into trouble doing so... Thanks! --ken

Plot Hound, I'm sorry to hear that you removed the "Fourth or First" cache! Believe it or not, but I was looking for the "most remote caches in NH" the other day, and came across yours. I had been planning to make a late summer trek to try to find it. (I've just about given up on getting a First Find down near Nashua/Manchester with ThePetersPack and Mountain_Wanderer going at it... ) I was going to email you before setting out though, just to make sure that the cache was still there with accurate coords. Actually, I think the four no-finds may have discouraged other possible finders, who may have figured that it was lost, had bad coords, or was unfindable. I think for the owner to post a note to the cache page after a no-find or two saying that the cache was revisited to ensure that it is still there, and the co-ordinates were rechecked would help let people know that there is still hope of finding it. Also, I think this cache would be the *perfect* home for a yellow jeep travel bug! I bet if there was a YJTB in it, somebody would find it within a week! If I get my hands on a YJTB, I'd be willing to hand it over to you to put in this cache. Deal? --ken

It works! Awesome! Thanks! I'm very impressed, and thankful! A problem affecting me and me only fixed in the same day! I've never seen that response from Microsoft! --ken

Where I live in Bedford, New Hampshire, USA: 34 within 10 miles 193 within 20 miles 829 within 50 miles But, at our "summer home" in Lincoln, Maine, USA: 0 within 10 miles 3 within 20 miles 7 within 30 miles 40 within 40 miles 80 within 50 miles Depending on where one lives, getting 100 caches can be either the result of a handful of days of geocaching, or could require a few months of geocaching days! BTW, for a good quick overview of "cache density," look at the maps on Buxley's Geocaching Waypoint --ken PS: This is one reason I really like the "locationless" caches. Even in some of the more remote areas, there are still opportunities for at least a few of those...

Yes, the legend and vista have the same default basemaps. The one feature that I really like in the vista is the electronic compass. Since the electronic compass does increase battery usage, I generally leave it off until within a hundred yards or so of the cache. I then turn the electronic compass on so that I can get more accurate bearings to the cache location without having to remain moving. It's also nice to not have to deal with the correction of magnetic/true north. The electronic compass alone may not be worth the extra price of the vista, but it sure is a nice feature to not have to use a traditional compass for this sort of thing. I do, however, still carry a traditional compass in my cache-pack in case some sort of emergency arises and I run out of batteries...

When attempting to log in on geocaching.gom, I now get an error message reading as follows: I believe this may be because a line in my profile may be a few characters longer than it should be. All was working fine yesterday when I last made changes, but it does seem that extra spaces seem to get inserted somehow into the HTML code in my profile. Any suggestions would be appreciated -- I would fix my profile to shorten it, but I can't log in to do so... It's a cache-22 situation. --ken

I will concur with others that the maps are often a little off. In specific, the maps including the area of "Mine Falls Park" in Nashua, NH all seem to have some of the major features (a river and a parallel canal) off by about 75 feet or so. In most cases, having a map be a little off isn't a big challenge. However, in this case, Mine Falls Park is bisected by a river with a parallel canal not too far away. There is only one bridge across the river/canal combination, with well over a mile of unbridged water in both directions from this bridge. Caches can be placed on the strip of land between the river and canal, or on either far bank. For some cleverly placed caches, (I think the placement had to be intentional) the map will show the cache to be on a different bank than the one where it actually is! To find the cache, one may need to look in three different locations, each only about 150' apart, but each separated by a walk of about 1.5 miles unless you plan to get very wet! (Or unless you're caching in February, when the over-the-ice shortcut is no problem, especially with cross-country skis...) In any case, some of these otherwise easy caches can be quite tricky for that reason! In sum, don't worry about the coordinates. It is most likely that the map is just a little bit off! As I understand it, the existing topo maps really weren't intended for the level of GPS precision we sometimes expect of them.

Nick & Ali, I don't think there's a way to correct the TB mileage and release the TB in the UK, after it went missing in the states. About the only solution I could think of would be to contact a cacher in the area where the TB went missing (I'd suggest a cache owner of a nearby cache) and send the TB to them via the post. They could then release the TB in the approximate area where it went missing.