terrkan78

There are days when I would SO love a level zero! I swore when I was relatively new to the game that I was going to buy a giant dartboard, attach a cache to the bullseye, stick the dartboard out in the forest somewhere with big red arrow signs that pointed to it. I was going to name it "Now THAT's what I call a Level 1 D Rating!"

I'm not positive if we're talking about field notes or we're talking about logs - you can send either from your phone. Assuming we're talking about actual logs, if you're using the Groundspeak app on your phone, you can click on the "logs" tab at the bottom of the main menu and see if you have some logs still pending (and you can see if they're in the "sent" category). From your last post, it sounds like you've already checked this. If the missing logs are in the "sent" category, do they show up on the various cache pages? If you have five logs for today showing up on five different cache pages and they're not showing up on your find list, then something really weird happened. If the missing logs are in the "sent" category and are not showing up on the various cache pages, then I think it's safe to assume they're stuck in some glitch and you'll need to re-log them. I've had logs fail to go through when I've been on the fringes of cell service, but I don't know that I've ever had any disappear altogether like that. Now if we're talking field notes rather than actual logs, I had one that seemed to vanish into thin air many months ago. I'd just do a new log (either from the computer or from the phone). But it sounds to me like we're talking about actual logs, not just field notes.

Not how many times you visited their cache, but how many times you looked at their cache's webpage. If they have their cache set to "premium member only," then they get an audit log that shows who looked at their cache's webpage and when. I have to admit that even though I'm sure no one gives a rip that I've looked at their PM cache page, it still bugs me that the feature exists. I like to go back and look at recent logs, etc., on caches that I enjoyed, or caches that I'm thinking about hunting. Sometimes I'll go back once, twice, ten times--or at least I used to do so until I found out that people know that I've looked at their PM page ten times - it's akin to being embarrassed at getting caught snooping (I know it's not exactly "snooping" since it's a public page, but...)

I like this idea a lot. I bought my kid Minecraft a couple of weeks ago. I find myself anxiously awaiting for him to get off the computer so I can play it (he's made one world that he doesn't mind my dinking around in - I've been forbidden to touch the others).

Not all benchmarks are in the database - I've found a couple like that. The Geocaching benchmark database is a copy of the NGS database, and in order for a benchmark to make it on to the NGS database, it has to go through a certain process first. More info on the subject is here: Benchmark Hunting (the section that talks about benchmarks not being in the database is near the end).

I wonder if they just mixed up their logs on the TBs they discovered that day? It seems unlikely that anyone would purposefully make a false log of that sort on a TB (I've certainly never come across that anyway). It seems more likely that they just made a mistake and perhaps some other TB they discovered that day was missing its attached toy (maybe it was a hot wheels toy, too). Good luck on your TB's journey! I've had some of my trackables go far and wide (which is a blast), and some disappear right off the bat (not a blast, but not unexpected either).

When I was brand new to this game, I hunted for the caches closest to my home. A guardrail cache. Several lamppost caches. Altoids tin in the bushes. One ammo can chained to a bush outside the fire station. I was eyeballing a nearby guardrail to hide a cache of my own, but then I discovered an awesome multi/puzzle as my searches kept taking me farther from home. This cache involved looking through PVC tubes attached to trees and then walking to the location viewed through the PVC. That’s the cache that really hooked me. Before then it was kind of “meh” – just something to do when I was bored. After the PVC multi, I wanted to find more like that…caches with creative twists that sparked my imagination. That PVC cache is now long gone, as is the person who hid it. But I’ve hidden a couple of my own creative multi/puzzle caches. I would never have done so if I hadn’t been inspired by someone else. I wouldn’t have known how to do so without getting ideas from others. When I read about another CO archiving their older caches because they don’t like the newcomers, they don’t like blank/short/c&p logs, they don’t like smartphone cachers, they don’t like this or that, it’s a sad thing. Sad for the game. The game will evolve…nothing ever stays stagnant. You can influence the way it evolves, but only by participating.

After reading this thread I spent some time trying to separate the first paragraph from the second paragraph on my cache descriptions. It took me a bunch of tries (I know zilch about HTML), but I finally got it. I clicked the "Description in HTML" box. I added a <p> at the very beginning of each paragraph (including the first paragraph) and then a </p> at the end of the each paragraph. I'm glad I read this thread. That kind of bugged me but I figured there was nothing I could do about it.

I think different people have different ideas of what constitutes "damage" to flora. Around here it rains a lot and plants grow fast and thick. One person walking off trail in soft or muddy ground inevitably leaves footprints and smashed vegetation in their wake. It grows back pretty fast (unless more feet take the exact same path). Some people call leaving any trace at all "damage." Others don't. I honestly don't know which is worse - walk on a geotrail, thereby making it slightly more visible than it was before I trod on it, or walk on top of the vegetation off trail, which in soft or muddy dirt (common around here) definitely leaves a trace. Either way I've left a trace. With respect to scorched earth searching, what makes an area "sensitive"? From my own experience, I think I left more of a mark when searching in wet, moist areas, but that's also where the plants will grow back the quickest. I think I've left less of a mark when searching in dry, desert-like areas, but I've heard it takes forever for anything to grow in those locations and, thus, it's sensitive. What isn't sensitive? I mean other than sidewalks or asphalt. My own subjective definition of "sensitive" is any location where non-geocachers are likely to see the traces I might leave behind if I circle each and every tree/stump/log/etc. three times while touching everything in my search for the cache (like along a popular trail on the outskirts of town). If I'm out in the middle of nowhere, I don't worry much about it - if it takes three circles around touching everything in sight to find the cache, then so be it. I recognize that that's an environmentally pathetic definition of "sensitive." I've taken this all into consideration when hiding caches myself. I found a spot where you can access the cache with both feet firmly planted on the main trail. Those spots are few and far between, and, frankly, it's kind of a not-much-special-about-it spot. Whereas had I hidden the cache up on the ridgeline 200 ft. above the main trail (which would require people to either bushwhack or make a geotrail to the cache), that'd be a much more impressive spot for the cache. But it's along a popular trail (thus "sensitive" in my book). I have another cache where you'll have to bushwhack and smash all sorts of vegetation getting to the cache, but it's in the middle of nowhere. For all I know it could actually be in a more environmentally "sensitive" area that the first. I kind of just shake my head, because I don't really know, and I suspect I'd get different answers (as to what constitutes "sensitive") depending on who I asked. I kind of like my own definition.

I usually print out numbered maps, too (using the old "original" maps, not the Beta maps--there's a link to the old maps on the Beta map page). I just tried it for the three caches I intend to get tomorrow. While all three caches show up just fine on the actual map, the list of cache names (which used to print to the right of the map, but now print underneath the map) only has one of the three caches listed. So we've lost our numbered "lists," but the map itself prints ok. In fact, the map itself prints larger (wider) than it used to, which I kind of like (before the update, any caches on the far right side of the map (showing on the computer screen) were cut off the printed version (or at least on my WindowsXP/printer combination they were). I'm just going to hand write the numbered list on there and call it good. If they do delete the old "original" maps, then I'll have to figure out how to do a screenshot or something because the Beta maps don't print right at all. Not a problem until/unless they take away the old maps.

Interesting story! I wonder if the other CO happened upon your final stage, thought it was abandoned and decided to use it (by leaving it pretty much right where it was and submitting it as a new cache for publication)? If so, I think it's kind of odd that he didn't move the final cache to a new location farther away. On the other hand, maybe he does have another container out there (maybe his coords aren't great and you didn't search far enough out to find it?), in which case he didn't steal anything - all he did was apparently manage to submit his cache before you did. If it was me, I'd go back out there and search thoroughly for his cache (and maybe your prior search was really thorough). If I couldn't find it, to the point where I was pretty sure he couldn't possibly have another container out there, I'd take my final stage with me, in effect forcing him to at least go put a container of his own out there. I'm not sure what Groundspeak can do about this other than write him and ask. It could well be your word against his. And if he submitted his for publication first, you're not likely to get your spot back. Although I'd be tempted to e-mail the other CO and ask what's up, I would be very, very careful about accusing him of stealing anything - that probably won't end well no matter what. In other words, if he's not a thief, he'll probably be mad at being accused (and rightfully so). If he's not exactly a thief but "appropriated some abandoned property," he'll still probably be mad. And if he is a flat-out thief, he's very likely to be mad at getting caught.

I came upon this cache a while back. Fun one to find after a bushwhack out in the middle of nowhere. I love the camo - I have no idea what it's made out of.

I really dislike getting soaked to the skin, but with a rain parka on, it's fine - I keep one in the car now. I've signed lots of logbooks underneath the rain parka. I especially like rain caching in places that would otherwise be overrun with muggles - I generally have the place to myself in the rain. Sort of like Disneyland in the rain (no lines = good times).

My 60 csx does that. Not all the time, but plenty. It did it last weekend and there was a thigh-deep swamp between where I was and where it wanted me to be. Bushwhacked my way around the swamp and, of course, it then told me to go back where I had just been. Never did find that cache on either side. DNFing a cache that I really wanted--a cache that I set out to find as my main goal for the day--one that maybe took a few hours to get to--that puts a damper on my day. Might not rise to the level of "ruining" my day, but I hate it when that happens.

Now, now... don't blame the Lord, as I am sure he didn't do it! Blame the husband!

Also, check to make sure that your "style" setting (underneath the "log type" setting - on the menu where you choose whether it's a "found it" or a "didn't find it," etc.) is set to "post as log" rather than "submit as field note." If you've got it set to submit as a field note, then they won't show up on your "found" caches yet. If you have submitted some caches as field notes, then check your geocaching profile (on a computer, not your phone), and on the right-hand side there will be an "access your field notes" link. You can turn field notes into logs from there.

Did you recently move up to Firefox 4.0? If so, exactly the same thing happened to me. The LeetKey extension, which I've used for years, isn't compatible with 4.0, either, so decrypting logs has become a bit of a pain. I actually had to do it the old-fashioned way this morning. My Pocket Decoder geocoin is finally earning its keep. --Larry I'm using one of the 3.x versions of Firefox and I have the same problem not being able to decrypt parts of logs (hints decrypt fine, but not logs). I'll have to try it on another browser (didn't dawn on me that my browser might be the problem - I just gave up and decided I didn't really need to read the logs that bad).

Here's a few in the Pacific Northwest: GCN32R GC1192 GCD71 GCQ6YZ

In the "maps" app (the app came with my iPhone), you can search by coordinates (including DD MM SS format, GPS format, decimal, etc.) and it usually works fine. You can see the results in map/terrain/satellite view. However, I have had it give me a wrong result a couple of times (and, like yours, it was about a half mile off each time). The last time it did that I triplechecked and made very sure it wasn't my error. I don't know what's up with that. The official Groundspeak app allows you to enter a waypoint in GPS format (not DD MM SS, etc.) and then see it on that app's map.

That's good news! Thanks for sharing. I like hearing about happy endings.

I'd make a bullet point summary at the top of the article - brief and to the point. Then go ahead and expand below. That way you've gotten your info across fast via the bullet points to people who don't want to be bothered to read the whole thing (if part of your intended audience is the "TFTC" crowd, then I think short and succinct is a plus). And yet you've still got more info down below for people who do want to know more.

What an awesome story! I'm so glad you found the puppy in time!

For me not finding bugs me more than not grabbing. If my 5-gallon bucket won't get me high enough to reach, or if the tree doesn't have branches that start nice and low down to the ground, then inevitably I'm not going to get my hands on the thing, but I still feel a sense of accomplishment. I found it - it might not net me a smiley, but I found it. When I don't find anything at all, though, AAUUGGHH. That feeling of "failure" kicks in (whether it should or shouldn't).

Major congrats to you crazy guys!!