Geo_Bird

SBA = Should Be Avoided? I'd want to know what was in the cache that killed all those mice. Jim

I emailed this cacher in case it was a mistake. No reply and he's been on line since. Very Sad. What was the mistake? Misspelling "muggles"? Typing in all caps? I think it was that he logged the same cache twice on the same day.

iPAQ 2215 and a text editor. Jim

The snow covered the evidence. Jim

I've never been to a Cabela's store and it's been a while since I lived near an REI. I have bought a lot of clothing from Cabela's, and a pair of hiking boots I like a lot. Their brand. I read the reviews, and have never been dissatisfied. Jim

I remember that episode. IIRC the cache was buried in the ground, but it's been a while. Jim

Definitely! I don't bother with P&Gs. I could quadruple my count in a few hours, but that's not what appeals to me. I like caches that take some hiking and give me some scenery to look at along the way. If you cache them, they will come. Jim

Zebra F-301 Compact I've gotten them at Wal-Mart. I made a lanyard with heavy kite line. Jim

There is, TerraCaching. I signed up for that site. You have to go through the motions of being "sponsored" by two other "members," which took about 15 minutes. The caches seem to be placed by many of the same people who post them on GC.com. All of the TC caches are >10 miles from me, though. I don't mind walking, but unless I have another reason to go to an area, I don't feel right about driving very far to look for caches. I got my GPSr for other uses, and took up geocaching as a sideline. But there is at least one alternative. Personally, I find GC.com suits my needs. Geocaching is an avocation, not a necessity. If they are getting rich, it's through money voluntarily paid by users, not a government bailout! Jim

Ditto. That must have been a one-day sale. Check out the last listing on this Amazon page. A refurbished 60CSx for $852.83 + $9.87shipping. Jim

I think I've seen the aftermath at a few caches. The area was so trampled down you could find the cache without a GPSr. Jim

CACHER: "Teach me about the geoforce, Yoda. I am not afraid." YODA: "You will be!"

I took a wilderness survival class and one of the exercises involved breaking us into teams to build shelters. Each team found more than enough materials on the ground to build a shelter. No need to chop down saplings. The only time we need a knife was to cut the string we used to lash stuff together. In the northern winter, when snow covers the ground, you might have to cut branches from living trees. When I hiked and x-c skied up there I always carried something that would cut small branches. YMMV. Jim

The Force is everywhere! Jim

You've signed the log. But the idea, in the post above yours, that it's okay to claim a cache frozen in the ground can lead to the slippery slope. Yesterday I could touch a micro hidden in a fence next to the tennis courts at a park. But if I extracted the cache the muggle-tennis players would see it. So I could actually touch it but not sign the log. Another local cacher went there two days earlier and apparently had the same problem. Only he claimed the find, even though he admitted in his report that he hadn't signed the log. I suppose in his mind the cache was frozen, not by ice, but by muggles. You may say, Ah, but that's different, but is it really? Do we want to get into parsing the difference between frozen by nature and frozen by muggles? Or just say, If you can't sign the log you shouldn't claim the find.

With all respect for your experience, which is vastly greater than mine, isn't the only acceptable conclusion to seeking a cache signing the log? I think it's a too-short step from what you are suggesting to someone concluding that because he or she can't find the cache, it must not be there. So they either throw down a micro or take a snapshot and claim the find. Finding the location is not the same as finding the cache, which can only be claimed by signing the log: http://www.geocaching.com/faq/ I have logged two DNFs that led the COs to determine the caches were MIA. Some others would claim them as "Found It" because they were sure they were in the right place. I think that diminishes the sport or hobby. If you can't sign the log for any reason, I think it's a DNF.

Well, when you leave the door open so wide....

In one of the parks I cached in today, I found a $10 bill, two singles, a knife, and a bottle of fish hooks, plus some other stuff I just trashed out. Must have been a swell party last night. Stopped for a free dinner on the way home!

I'm new to caching but have been on the Internet since 1993, so I feel qualified to comment. First, you don't have to pay to play. I haven't subscribed to gc.com yet, but I've been able to see all the caches in my area and log my visits. I have been on the Web since its inception and have a lot of experience building and maintaining personal and business sites. It takes time and money. When the site goes down at 11 pm, you can't just go to bed and leave it for tomorrow. You have to get it back online because users expect it to be there. When the site breaks, you wrangle with code, when you might rather be out caching, or sleeping, or getting a root canal. So the owner is certainly justified in trying to make some money from his investment. The Web has changed the way we do business in countless ways, good, bad and indifferent. When the Web began, the town where I then lived had a few new bookstores and several used bookstores. All but one used bookstore are gone, largely due to Amazon. Amazon got in early with a good business plan (and patient investors) and captured the market. In similar fashion, eBay has demolished the ham-radio hamfest "boneyards," where second-hand equipment is traded. On the other hand, when it came time to buy a GPS, a few clicks on amazon.com and one was on its way. Most of the books on my shelves came the same way. I can't complain about sites like gc.com without gainsaying the many other sites that have made life easier and cheaper for me. A proliferation of geocaching sites like gc.com would, IMO, really mess it up for everyone. A fragmented userbase would have caches on top of caches, because users of Site A would not know about caches placed by users of Site B and vice versa. Having all activity concentrated in one site makes the hobby much more convenient and has no doubt greatly increased its popularity. I would protest against forced pay-to-play, where you had to subscribe before you could participate in geocaching. Such a move by gc.com would probably spawn a host of other, free, sites, and result in total chaos. I like things the way they are. If you still dislike status quo, my advice would be to set up a Website and try to enlist local cachers to post to it. See how it goes, and see how much work is involved managing such a site. I think you'll be glad we have gc.com. Jim

That pretty well sums up the process. A null, meaning no log at all, is not a dishonest act. While the report may be useful to the CO, at least you aren't making a fraudulent or questionable statement: "I found it." Were I a CO, I'd like to see even casual DNFs logged, to know people were interested in my cache. But saying you found my cache when you didn't is worse than not reporting a DNF. A couple of us, a few days apart, recently reported a local cache as DNF, causing the CO to investigate, as it should have been easy. Turns out it was destroyed in a prescribed burn in late November. Without our DNFs, more people would have gone on fruitless searches in an area that is pretty messed up after the burn. I'm sure this happens all the time. It's too bad that as long as this thread had been running, and as prominent as it is on the list, that the practice continues. If the alleged finders won't clean up their acts, it's up to COs to delete incomplete logs, and the practice of granting permission to log a non-existent cache has to be dealt with. Enabling cheaters is bad for the sport. If you didn't sign the log you didn't find the cache. Period. Jim

Yes, despite the efforts of Those Who Have Gone Before to tear down this wall of ignorance, many cachers remain comfortably numb. If you don't sign the logs, you can't have any smilies! How can you have any smilies if you don't sign the logs? You! Yes, you behind the Micro! Sign the log, buddy! Jim

There are more from this same person, but you get the idea. Jim

I think the Palm desktop software can be downloaded for free from Palm. They have it for the M125-550 series, anyway. http://www.palm.com/us/support/downloads/win_desktop.html I've been using an iPAQ 2215 because I had it. I don't do much caching so I just make a text file for each one, named with the cache ID, and sort them into directories by general location, such as a local park. Then I dump the basic info into the text file. No software to buy, but definitely not optimal for d/l-ing several at a whack. The iPAQ was pretty expensive new, so I'm thinking about a Palm to use just for caching, and appreciate the info. Jim

I've been caching less than two months. My first several finds were pretty easy, even though some of them were in cities I'd never been to before. It's been some local caches that foiled me. One in particular added an extra mile to the hike. As a result, I've had a blister on my foot for a week. After reading this thread all afternoon, because I am too crippled to go caching, I decided to check on my DNFs. Wouldn't you know, the owner just discovered the cache was destroyed during recent prescribed burning? Now, I logged it as DNF, but it is only logical that you cannot find something that isn't there. I mean, okay, you should be ashamed of yourself for not finding a 1.5/1.5 that's there, but I think it's only right that because I suffered for this torched cache (GCM4M1), that I should be allowed to change my log to Found It. I can't prove I would have found it had it been there, but nobody can prove I wouldn't have found it, either! After all, even when my foot heals, I have been deprived of the chance to go back and look for it again, through an act of the Div of Forestry. The prescribed burning was big news in the paper, so shouldn't the owner have gone out and checked on the cache? Why should I suffer the consequences of others' actions or inactions? How can I hope to get the big numbers if I can't claim a few burned-out, non-existent caches? Would a photo of my blister be proof enough? Jim