Sol seaker

Read the thread, dude.

A thought on illegal caches: There is one I'm very embarrassed about. I was trying for FTF, but missed, you've got to be REALLY quick around here. I ran into a fairly new cacher right after I put it back. We chatted as he found it. He mentioned that its partially buried. I said I wasn't going to report it. Now I deeply regret this for three reasons. 1. The new cacher got the wrong message. It should have been reported. 2. Other new cachers could have seen it after me and decided it was okay to do. 3. I realized that the reviewer probably looked down the list of finders and saw who did not report it. That really embarrasses me. I want a good local reputation. That's not the way to get it. I will report it next time.

My all time favorite remains the island challenge cache here. It's something like 24 islands you've got to find a cache on in WA state. I went to the most amazing places for that challenge. Now every chance I get at finding a cache on a new island I grab.

Sometimes I'm in the mood for easy ones, sometimes I'm in the mood for tough ones. If I find them all every time I get bored, so I appreciate a tough one now and then. What I really hate are caches that call themselves a 1 difficulty when they are a 4. I appreciate it that you rated your cache high so then I could look for it when I am in the mood for a tough one.

It only needs one person to 'dig' and it spoils things for all of us. Rumor has it that caching in National Parks was discontinued when someone placed a partially buried cache. It's not worth the risk. There are so many creative cache ideas that don't require a pointed object (as stated in the guidelines). Do a bit more caches and you'll see many of the great ideas people have come up with that don't require any digging at all. (a partially buried cache is exactly what you're describing)

Hi Dazar, I notice you've only found two caches. It sounds like you've got some creative ideas for caches, but you might want to find some more first before you place some. You're not required to, but it helps you get a better idea of what you're in for with a cache, especially with a cache on private property. Welcome to the game. Have fun! SS

Now after reading this topic I'm all itchy for some reason.

This is actually a crappy, lazy way to go about it. He's leaving his mess for others to clean up. If he had to leave in a hurry, I'd rather he at least put out a note on the local forums to ask for volunteers. I'm sure many would be happy to help out, but as it is, he's just leaving his geo-trash mess.

Whatever you do, PLEASE don't use the same "prefix" for the name. It is really a pain when you are searching for a cache by name and 5 of them come up because the prefix is the same and your GPS doesn't show the full name. +1 No matter how GSAK sorts at home, it's really important to me to have distinct names in the field. I've been caching with others a few times and run across the problem, "Okay, which cache next?" "Evil hide #" "Which one?" "I don't know. It got cut off, but I seem to remember there were at least 8 of them around here." then... "You missed the turn!!!" "No, it's up ahead." "No, that's the NEXT evil hide. Not the one we're looking for." "That's the one up on my GPS. Which one do you have on yours?" "The one you just passed." And so on and so forth. It can add a great deal of irritation to an otherwise wonderful day of caching.

Using events for the numbers is a really SLOW way to increase your numbers. Not like you can find a power trail of events. Even if there are a few on the same day they are miles apart. A number of people tried to log a few on some of the major caching days. People were on the road for hours to log 4 events. No, not a great draw for number hounds. I think they take a whole lot more time and energy to log than a single cache. Why not get credit? Besides, it draws more people to events to have them count toward your total. More people at events mean more community, more people to meet, more fun. I think it's a good thing.

Since you asked these are approximations to the nearest 1,000, not the actual number: AL-14K AK-5K AZ-27K AR-12K CA-111K (most) CO-23K CT-6K FL-37K GA-15K HI-2K (least) ID-17K IL-27K IN-18K IA-16K KS-10K KY-10K LA-6K ME-8K MD-9K MA-11K MI-30K MN-24K MS-7K MO-10K MT-5K (surprising that ID has 17K and only 5K in MT) NE-7K NV-16K NH-8K NJ-13K NM-12K NY-26K NC-22K OH-26K OK-11K OR-31K (a lot for this population, but it is where it all began.) PA-30K RI-2K SC-7K SD-9K TN-15K TX-56K UT-26K VT-5K VA-14K WA-28K WV-23K WY-5K Comparing land size to number of caches may have some correlations. Two of the top three in land mass have the top two in cache counts. CA and Texas also have the highest populations. List of states by population Then Rhode Island has the fewest caches, the smallest population and the smallest land mass. Rank State Name Area (Sq Miles) 1 Alaska 587,878 2 Texas 266,874 3 California 158,648 4 Montana 147,047 5 New Mexico 121,599 6 Arizona 114,007 7 Nevada 110,567 8 Colorado 104,100 9 Wyoming 97,818 10 Oregon 97,052 11 Utah 84,905 12 Minnesota 84,397 13 Idaho 83,574 14 Kansas 82,282 15 Nebraska 77,359 16 South Dakota 77,122 17 North Dakota 70,704 18 Oklahoma 69,903 19 Missouri 69,709 20 Washington 68,126 21 Florida 58,681 22 Michigan 58,513 23 Georgia 58,390 24 Illinois 56,343 25 Iowa 56,276 26 Wisconsin 56,145 27 Arkansas 53,183 28 North Carolina 52,672 29 Alabama 51,718 30 New York 49,112 31 Louisiana 47,720 32 Mississippi 47,695 33 Pennsylvania 45,310 34 Tennessee 42,146 35 Ohio 41,328 36 Virginia 40,598 37 Kentucky 40,411 38 Indiana 36,185 39 Maine 33,128 40 South Carolina 31,117 41 West Virginia 24,231 42 Maryland 10,455 43 Vermont 9,615 44 New Hampshire 9,283 45 Massachusetts 8,262 46 New Jersey 7,790 47 Hawaii 6,459 48 Connecticut 5,006 49 Delaware 2,026 50 Rhode Island 1,213

Your observation could be the key there. There are areas that are more prone to muggles. If it's a well populated area with a lot of foot traffic walking right by, sure they're going to get muggled by accident more often than the lone ammo can out hiding in the woods.

For future reference I agree with deleting the logs. If someone is obviously logging a lot of fake finds, delete 'em. Now and then I get obviously fake logs. I email them and ask what the container looks like. If there were a bunch that were really obvious I probably wouldn't bother with the email.

There are a number of herbal products on the market that are pretty good. Not all of them will work, so don't just grab anything. Deet stores up in your liver and other fatty organs like other toxins. It can cause some nasty problems. I won't get near the stuff. I've used the herbal stuff for many years and not had a problem. I've been in heavily tick infested areas too. My real secret though, is the fact that ticks will crawl around a while before they bite. I always immediately take off my hike clothes in a safe area (like the bathroom where you can see them on the hard floor) and put my clothes into a plastic bag and tie it until it gets in the wash. I then get a shower and wash my hair with a lot of soap. I suspect a whole lot of ticks have gone down my drain. I started this routine after I got bit by a tick- one week AFTER a hike I went on. I'm fairly certain the tick was crawling around in my bed for that week. Ever since then I have done the above and haven't gotten a bite in more than 20 years. (BTW I wasn't using the herbal stuff when that tick got on me)

Around here events are well attended. Many people like them, although its annoying when some just show up briefly for the smilie. Try them maybe you'll find you like them and find a way to promote them in your area.

If there is a string of DNFs that is inconsistent with the history of the cache (if it's a tough cache that might not be unusual), then log a "needs maintenance". This will send an email to the cache owner. If the cache owner doesn't respond for over a month and it still is not found, then you can put a "needs archived" on it. This will alert the local reviewer, along with another email to the cache owner. The reviewer will take it from there.

I don't know about the i-phone, but I use my Garmin H and go to "closest" while I'm on the way. My Garmin 401 T will also come up with the closest cache at the top of the list. Is that what you meant?

This is a good topic for me right now, because I'm wanting to buy a WA State themed geo-coin for an out-of-state geocacher. You've given me some ideas, but if anyone has any other ideas that are good for gifts, then please let me know. Thanks! This cacher is a geo-coin collector so I want something special, but still reasonably priced.

I'd love to see the "search" page improved to be able to search a number of different variables at once. For instance, I was just updating my "Sudoku caches" bookmark list. The list is just for Sudoku caches in WA state. I'd like to be able to search for the word "Sudoku" just in WA state. As it was I had to search through 67 pages of Sudoku caches all over the world to find the 4 or 5 new ones in WA State. A bit frustrating. I find I need this function a lot. Recently I found a puzzle cache that required you find caches with the word, "Cow" in it. I would like to find cow caches within driving distance of my house, at least just in WA State, without having to search through every cow cache in the world. If there is a way to do this that I have missed, then my apologies. Please let me know how. Thank you, Sol

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. I'm a man. How was that? You're a MAN??????? And all this time I thought you were a dog!!!! Dang. And I was trying to get that cute little puppy to follow me home too.

In general I agree with the idea that if a cache owner isn't taking care of a cache that it should go, but I think there are notable exceptions, and it sounds like this is one of them. Yes, I do think it would be pretty rude to archive the caches of an organization that is doing so much for geocaching and geocachers. I commend your willingness to help. There are some really old caches in my area that local cachers watch and take care of. There's one I know that has a whole lot of people on it's watch list. When a couple of DNF's are recorded someone checks on it and writes a "note" on the cache page that it is there, or they have replaced the container in the same spot. It is a large community watching one that I'm thinking of that is very old. I think the idea is that it stays maintained. That's what's important. If the whole community is willing to come together to maintain a cache it must be a well loved cache and is only bringing people together. If you are supporting an organization that supports geocaching, then I think it's a great thing. Just put a watch on it, and respond when you see more than a couple of DNF's. You don't have to wait until you see a "needs maintenance". Check the log sheets now and then and whether the containers are holding up. Talking to the people in charge of these is a great idea. Tell them you think they are doing a great service and would like to help out. That way in time, they may let you adopt them, and also you won't be stepping on anyone's toes.

about two weeks ago, I went out with a friend to get a FTF, we spent 30 min looking and came up empty. Another local cacher came by shortly after and scooped up the FTF. GRRRRR grrrr I had this happen. I searched with another cacher for a FTF for an hour. I looked in one place many times. I didn't have a mirror. I was convinced that had to be the spot, but as much as I searched there, I couldn't it. The other cacher couldn't either. We finally gave up. Upon searching again later, twice I searched and looked again in "that spot." DNF. Finally I talked to one of the many finders. Yes, it is exactly where I thought it was and couldn't find it there many times. I'm going out and buying a mirror this week

As a Facebook user, do you understand that members of a group can sign up to receive notifications when someone posts to the group's page? Reviewers are allowed to be members of Facebook groups about geocaching. We are geocachers, too. So, when you made your post, any reviewer who was signed up for notifications would have received your post directly in their email. Upon receiving information directly from a geocacher (your Facebook post), what's a reviewer to do? You "tattled" directly to that reviewer's email inbox when you posted about your defacement of the tree. AGAIN: I take responsibility for doing the wrong thing, however, it would have been "nicer" if the Facebook user sent me a private message stating my mistake and I could have corrected it. As it stands now, the cache is archived/disabled. When my husband and I have a moment, we will replace it at another location sans defacement of the surrounding area. You absolutely missed my point. Looking over my prior post, I think I omitted one thing you need to know. (Sorry about that.) When a reviewer learns facts about a cache issue in another reviewer's territory, our normal operating protocol is for the first reviewer to contact the reviewer for the area where the cache is. So, in this example, the first reviewer (the one you keep calling a "tattle tale") received your statement in his email inbox. Following protocol, he advised the reviewer privately about the information he received. Your home area reviewer then advised you privately of the impact on your cache review. That was the right thing to do, to have the right reviewer communicate with you. "Tattling" would have occurred if either of those reviewers came here and started a forum thread called "look what LVDJ did." We don't do that. Thank you for the clarification. It is my OPINION, that if a reviewer sees/reads something on Facebook, then it should be off limits to use that information in approving/denying the cache publication. However, I realize we live in a computer mediated society, and college admissions offices look at Facebook before accepting a student and employers use Facebook before offering a position to a potential employee. Again, I think, strictly my opinion, the fair, kind and proper thing to do in my situation was for the person who "reported me" to the reviewer could have taken a more kind and gentler approach. To be clear, I was "reported" as per what the reviewer sent to me. To look at it in a different way, if a child does something wrong, would it be better to yell, and scream and discipline the child? or would it be more conducive to point out what the child did wrong, make it a learning process, and hopefully the child will carry the lesson with them. Of course, there are different scenarios, so lets save the back and forth. Plainly, it would have been nicer and more conducive for the Facebook person to have corrected me, not to report me. End of story.I have learned my lesson, however, by the wrong approach. The point you're missing, is that it's not within the geocaching guidelines. When you get mad at the person who reported you, whoever it is, you're blaming someone else for what you yourself did. You're saying, "It's their fault I didn't get away with breaking the guidelines!" You're the one who broke the guidelines. If the reviewer hadn't found out this way, a cacher would have reported it. Cachers report caches that break the guidelines. If it wasn't the reviewer, it would have been a cacher. Take responsibility for your actions that could only end in turning someone into a "tattletale". These rules are in place for a reason. One new cacher sees your tree and goes out and carves a live tree. The people who run the park find out why the tree was carved and bans caches from all the parks in the city. Etc. etc. The results of your actions could have had far reaching consequences. Thank the reviewer who kept worse from happening.

I agree. And let's archive all regular caches that require thinking too. Heck, too many of them require you to think. Maybe we should all stay home and watch TV.

I been to one that I still cant find! Yes, its way under rated. UGH!! http://coord.info/GC1HGVX Yeah, that's a great one. It's a 1/1 yet has 24 DNFs and 49 finds with a lot of them having a tough time. At least you're not alone in this one. There was one cache I DNFed that was a 1.5 and everyone before and after me seemed to have no problem. The annoying thing was I found a 4 difficulty cache right after it, then went back later and still couldn't find it. After many newbies raved about its simplicity I didn't log the next DNF.