Yurt

Rivets, spawn of Satan. The rest are okay provided they don't leak and the logs are maintained. I don't love them but I don't hate them. Just boring a lot of the time, like the locations they are usually placed.

Just found that this old TB of mine is still alive. It also travelled the looooong way from Canada to New Zealand: http://www.geocaching.com/track/map_gm.aspx?ID=2556428

Yes. This is the one I was talking about but it's happened before. I know it didn't happen in the past though. http://www.geocaching.com/track/map_gm.aspx?ID=267700

I recently moved a few TBs from Australia to Canada and one from Canada to USA to Australia. According to their maps they all travelled from North America across Africa to Australia which is the longest 'direct' route. Of course the TBs went across the Pacific via Los Angeles to Sydney but the map doesn't reflect that and I assume the miles or km on the TBs is somewhat exaggerated. This seems a recent thing as I've moved them before without this happening. Seems like a bug as it should assume the most direct (shortest) route. Anyone see this on other routes?

Just discovered the same anachronistic measuring system as well. Was already set to metric so changed to imperial and back again but no dice. Had to check here that I wasn't the only one. So we can look forward to the same site being converted to smoots sometime soon.

I've seen where someone has adopted out their caches and then claimed a find on them! Legit I guess. I assume there's no 'rule' against logging your own cache or logging the same cache multiple times otherwise geocaching.com would have something in place to warn you that you are logging your own cache or logging the same cache again. Of course. Therefore let the numbers flow.

Thanks - I don't use GSAK. Use the phone a lot these days and it would be good if it showed up there as the app is linked to the website and the coords do actually update to the solved/changed coords which is a bonus.

I, and many others out there, solve a lot of the unknown/mystery caches as we find them online. The best thing that was ever done to the website was to allow updating the coords on the webpage which meant downloading the cache details gave the correct coords to your device. Brilliant! However when looking at a list of the nearest unknown caches to home I am unable to see which ones I've solved and which ones I haven't. It would be very handy to give it a different colour or some mark to show you have solved it, or at least you have posted a solution as sometimes there is no checker so you can't be certain you have solved it. Sometimes I discover I have solved a puzzle ages ago only when I'm in the area. It would be really handy to have. Thanks.

Woot! I must say they are not something I look at but I noticed I have two from the Canadian provinces visited back in 2009 and one for California. I've noticed I picked up one for Oregon which I haven't visited in over 20 years (B.G.) - I worked out it was the 5/5 movable that came through Sydney a few months ago - it came originally from Oregon. I've cached in all Australian states and territories (with the strange exception of ACT) so I will get a good collection when they come online.

Having found both of those caches I can say the cemetery one is not disrespectful in my opinion. It showed me a cemetery I never would have visited. I struggled with the shopping centre one and I'm not a fan of such hides but no one makes me look for them. Plenty of worse hides out there that need archiving!

You can just as easily muck up your milestones by discovering that you failed to log a cache you found many years ago. Someone I know found a cache and felt it was all rather familiar - they checked the logbook and there was their log some three years earlier! So all their subsequent milestones were wrong. Nothing you can do about it afterwards though. If someone logs 'TFTC' three times in a row on the same date it is likely they've done in on a phone and thought that the log hasn't gone through so clocked a couple more times. No one should have a problem with these extra logs being deleted. By rights you should even be able to log a cache twice accidentally - you would expect a warning "you have already logged this as found - do you want to continue?" or the like. Why would anyone deliberately log a cache twice?

The tricky caches and the injuries never put me off but now and again where someone has put a cache in a spot that is only going to get me into trouble I do consider it and walk away (if I don't find it very quickly) - who puts caches in playgrounds, next to day-care centres, opposite police stations anyway? The only time that I seriously consider it is when I get a strange moment of clarity and realise what a really strange hobby this is. Why on earth am I trying to get a find on every day of the year? Why am I trying to find a cache on 100 days in a row? Does anyone really care? But then I realise it's all part of the game - play it how you like - you are only ever cheating yourself. It's the great caches (usually multis or mysteries) that rekindle the interest along with remote hides or awesome camo/tasks. Will I still be going in five years? Watch this space I guess. I wonder how it feels to give it up.

It's surprising they are 'allowed' as they are limited to a small number of cachers. Even Wherigo caches can be got around with free software for smartphones but there's no way for people who don't have access to a Garmin Colorado or Oregon to find these. One placed locally was found so infrequently the CO gave the coords to people at an event to boost the find numbers I heard. A back up QR code would be nice alternative.

Is there any reason why the site can't recognise that you've logged a find before and say something like "you have already found this cache" to remind you? I have seen many times multiple identical logs one after the other although these are probably from smartphones when the user thinks the log hasn't gone through and hits enter again. Still it would make sense. Also it should be set that you can't log your own cache, or are people okay with that?

You need to find caches PLACED by cachers with usernames starting with those letters or numbers. It's not the actual cache name. Cache long enough and you'll pick most of them up by osmosis. Still haven't picked up Q and Z after nearly three years plus there's a few numbers to go. Not sure if you can search for caches by cacher name, that would make it easier.

Well it's quickly closing in on the record. 144 DNFs and NO finds. We've had people come from interstate just to look and go home again. Even got the locals into geocaching, could they have started on a worse cache? Next thing we'll see international visitors dropping by. After four DNFs by us I can't think of a reason to go back... still... maybe it's in the... One team has logged 11 DNFs. Imagine if everyone logged their DNFs how high it would be? A DNF on Bifrost is a badge of honour anyway!

Thanks for the reply. The reviewer managed to fix the date for me. As I'm not placing another cache right now I can't check if it's still a problem.

Got it to work in the end by not changing the date from the original one I'd entered when first drafting the cache. If I changed it at all it wouldn't accept it. I did want to have the correct placement date on it but couldn't do it. Bizarre.

First time thread starter and I won't make a habit of it. Just trying to publish a new cache, my 16th so I'm not a newbie, and I keep getting the error message "You do not have a valid Date Placed". Now I initially thought it might be due to the fact that Australia is a day ahead of you folks in North America most of the time but this late in the day here even west coast USA has caught up. I originally just clicked today's date from the pop-up calendar but was told 11 characters was too many (as it was in 13/Jul/2011 format for some reason). So I changed it to 13/7/2011 and got the above message. Thinking that maybe it's because over there the month comes first I changed it to 7/13/2011. No dice. Then I spotted it wanted it in mm/dd/yyyy. So I tried 07/12/2011 (I even wound it back a day to be sure) and got the same message. Now I can't even save my changes in draft form after unchecking 'enable'. Is it just me? Never had this problem before.

How 'bout making it that you can only hide caches with a premium membership??

I'm thinking that DNFs beget DNFs which lead to NMs and then NAs. If you struggle to find a cache and then check the logs to find the last one or two didn't find it you may well start to think that it's been muggled. However quite often it is not the case! Think positive!

Nice work! A while back we were looking for WP1 for a multi and found a bird that had somehow wedged its head between some railings. It couldn't get its head out so I grabbed it and lifted it up to where the railings opened up at the top (hard to explain). Then I released it and it flew off seemingly okay. I don't think anyone was coming along there any time soon so I think I may have saved its life, thanks to geocaching. It was a kookaburra in case you were wondering!

Guilty as charged! Our first cache, which we placed after a month or so (and about 30 finds) after starting caching, was published before I'd had a chance to place it. Everything was sorted except for something we wanted to place in the cache. I went ahead and sent it for review thinking it would take two or three days to get through the reviewer's list - the website says expect it to take two or three days or words to that effect. Lo and behold it was getting DNFs within hours! I hastily put notes on the cache that I'd be out there to place it any hour and did so. Disappointed a couple of FTF hounds but they were good about seeing as I was a newbie. Of course I know a lot better now! The time a new cache takes to get through the queue (or "line-up" as they say over there) varies considerably. I've sent a cache for review hoping it would be published Friday night or Saturday morning and it hasn't appeared until Tuesday. Another time I sent the cache for review just as I was heading out to place the cache (a few kms from home) and just as I was heading back from hiding it I got notification that it had been published! The lesson here is that the reviewers have lives of their own (really? ) and the time to publishing can vary. As for the original question: if you didn't find it, it ain't a find.

Same here on my Garmin 60CSX. I had to install the latest plug-in but it says it is installed correctly however I get the same message every time I try to "send to my GPS".

I've noticed the same decline here on the other side of the world. But then again I am guilty of the same sometimes. I tend to want to enjoy the spot rather than write a long log in a notepad that very few will ever read. I do put an effort into the online log with an average of 90 words per log. I try to write something funny or interesting or just talk about the experience. If it was rather dull then it will be a rather short log without saying anything hurtful. Whatever happens the person who placed one cache and found a few has probably contributed more than someone who has found hundreds and never placed any. Unless of course that person helps maintain caches. On the written logs - I've come across a couple recently where there is a large (A4/letter) sized logbook in the cache and the owner has asked finders to answer a question of a philosophical nature. The first one I found had a lot of long notes in it. In the second I was about 10th to find and I was the first to answer the question!