mchaos

Hum.. these look familiar lol.

35 mm film can??? No. That's no good at all. Now one of those Orange match holders for $1 at wally world, now your talking. BLAH @ film cans...

Only barefoot caching I do is in my truck.... But it has nothing to do with my feet. Break break..

Only thing I have to comment on is how much of a tool bag the writer of the article is. I think that is enough said....

I would hide them, and go check the logs. However the online log I think more then anything, helps with quality control of caches. You get the information that the cache is no longer there, or needs maintenance etc.

Heh, what are the chances lol.

I like this idea.

Went to the most recent one I did, and I went with my Mio Moov 200 (hacked with beelinegps) and my triton. I did some testing. I found that both my mio and my triton both bring me to the same place, 60 some odd feet away from where it is. That's 2 completely different GPS units. One is a mobile GPS. the other is a hand held. If that doesn't give a broad enough spectrum for a test, I dunno what will. I am not gonna run all over kingdom come testing all of this persons caches. Beings that the day I hunted this cache it brought me to the same spot as this time with 2 different units, and as well I emailed another finder confirming that it is off to them as well, that's enough for me that its not just me, and these caches are off either by accident, or deliberately. whichever. I am done worrying about it, I will just have to keep in mind when I search for this CO's hides that I should expect an error of anywhere between 40 and 80 feet from my experience. As for any one complaining I didn't give any examples: I am not looking to tick any one off by complaining about their caches. There is always the chance that I am completely wrong even with the evidence I have,(even tho I feel I am right about them being off) In which case it would be a jerky thing to put someones name out there saying all of their caches are off, if they are not, and ostracize them. For information and opinion of the forum, I do not have to mention one of the cache's from this specific CO. All that is needed to know is: Every cache I have found from this CO has seemed to be off. It ranges from 40 feet, to 80. The once that are 40 feet I wouldn't care about except a lot are more then that. I have tested at least one with 2 different GPS units. I have emailed one other person asking about accuracy and they agreed it was off. The CO mentions "Signal bounce" on a lot of cache pages. While hunting my GPS consistently brought me to the same spot not near the actual GZ. The best thing I have herd that can explain this is, "wrong datum" which would make the most sense unless this person is just trying to make the caches harder. Also, One of the CO's hides was not in heavy tree cover. It had some. This one was off by 80 feet. In the area, there was another one from this person. Off by almost 100 feet. Both instances signal bounce was mentioned to be heavy. In the same area there was another cache from some one else, in heavy tree cover. As well the camo of this one was exceptional. Really amazing. My GPS was reading 30 feet accuracy in that heavy cover. It took me about 30 feet from the cache. I found this one in less then 5 minutes, because even tho it was 30 feet away, I was still in view of where it was. Upon letting my gps settle after finding it, it showed I was only 20 feet from the cache, standing at the cache. So letting it sit let it catch up. The second hid from the CO in question was under some what heavy tree cover, and was around 30 feet accuracy on the unit. But 100 feet vs 30 feet is a big difference. Everything I see points too this persons caches being off. EDIT: I have also had some one I know confirm with another GPS that he is going to the same place as I was on one of them.

apparently he must have figured it out...

Yeah but there are threads that show replies, but views 0. Since last night and on new topics. I am not speaking of real time. I have refreshed the page a few times by now.

Sounds cool, I will have too. Why not? You're paying them to develop the pictures. Besides, they wouldn't know until after the pictures were developed. When you get pictures developed on the machines they use now, the negatives get scanned into a computer to be processed. When they see an inappropriate photo the blank it out. One hit of a button and its black. I once got a disposable camera developed, and I didn't realize some of my friends too pictures of their testies as a joke to me when I wasn't aware. There were 3 pics, each one of 3 friends. They thought it would be funny to find them in the mix of pics on the camera. When I got the film developed, I got the pics back and found it to be short 3 pics, and saw 3 consecutive blank photos on the little sheet they give you that has all the pics on it as thumbnails. I asked why they were black. The photo attendant said they were inappropriate pictures and they cannot develop them. This was at CVS. I found out later that they were... Nut shots.... I believe Wal-mart has the same policy. So I believe these sort of pics will get blanked out before they are printed as I have seen in the past. EDIT: A quick google search shows that it is illegal for places that develop personal photo's to print any nude photo's. This would include testicles I suppose. So as stated originally, with one small edit, No one will ever see them, except the split instant the photo technician sees it and hits the blank button.

For whatever reason, in the geocaching topics forum, it is not counting the views of new threads...

Was it all six sides covered or did they leave a side or two uncovered so you could open the lid? I'd love to see how that looked. Looks like they put it in a bag, to get the odd shape of a small bolder. I would guess they then filled it with spray foam. Probably made sure while it was drying that it had a good bolder like shape. Then ofter peeling off the plastic bag, they cut a slit for the lid. There was no foam on the latch or hinge. But the sides and top were covered, with like i said a slit for it to open. Then painted.

that's where you learn not to use the forum itself at all, but rather use google (which is a really bad sign for the forums btw. but we all know that anyway.) I have seen, but have not done: expanding spray foam used to make it look like a rock. Looks like the put it in a bag, and spray it in, then paint it like a rock.

Yeah, that one lol. I tired finding it but the site was being slow.

I see it when I bring up caches. Are your subscriptions up to date? The other thing it could be is updating to the site. Clear your cookies, and try again.

x2 Yeah, this has already been done before in another form. Entire forum in one thread, thread. You are certainly the king of unoriginality, and your only goal is to spark angst. Ni!

Not true. If the person continuously does this, they can block his IP and MAC address. there are still ways around that, but by that time it will sure ruin the fun.

Yeah, I figure if its something like a micro, who cares any way. If it gets destroyed by mother M, then GOOD lol, unless its a really cool one. Its so hard to tell any more. So many poor micros ruining it for good micros.

I find that if you specifically ask in the cache description, people are more likely to do it. As for placing a camera I just have reservations of dropping it off at a film developer. You never know what turn up in a photo. I've never heard about a problem but I still worry about it. Most places will not develop the inappropriate pictures anyway.

As long as its not a poor micro I am fine with it.

I really preferred it with only the single image. Would you change it back again? Thanks Yeah I need another look with just one pic..

Which cache, I would love to see.

I figured I may get some bad picks, but we would just ignore those. This was the kind of thing I was shooting for.

Yeah but how many people actually post a pic?? There is an overlook about 600 feet away from where I plan on placing the cache. I am hoping people will take advantage and take the picture there.