Kit Fox

One less category to ignore in my PQs. They could do it right and list there caches as micros.

Infrared LEDs illuminated by a TV remote. Invisible U.V. paint Combining geocaching with Aviation Archeology http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/sgbo...eckhunter-1.gif Combining geocaching with a history lesson of the area. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...18-5dccc9a0ea7e http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/sgbo...LlanoDelRio.jpg Lasers Braille Rope Climbing / Tree Climbing

The hobby is what you make of it. May I suggest reading my Recipe for fun (Share your techniques for avoiding caches you dislike) Thread. I have one cache (Eisen-Faust ) with two finds in three years, nine months total. One found it log was 600 words, the other found it log was 459 words. I would rather take those two logs of geocachers having a blast, over 1000 TFTC logs any day. I derive great pleasure in knowing the majority of "park & grabbers" avoid my extreme caches. I can't stand, "This was #1 of 452 today TFTC." Logs.

Make little notes about each cache throughout the day. Logging is part of caching, if you don't like it then don't log them. I went a step further, If a series of caches is devoid of any "wow factor," I'll skip them completely, and only hunt caches worthy of a nice long log.

I think many (tiny micro) hiders use "Other" because they know many cachers filter out micros from the PQs. A very weak justification. The best solution is to remove the "Other" category completely.

ooh come on now, admit it you love scrolling for 5 minutes through the same pictures Once the images download on your computer, they don't need to be downloaded twice.

Desert pictures = Mojave Desert Mountain Pictures = Pleasant View Ridge (Angeles National Forest)

1506 finds, 145 hides 10.39:1 ratio. Not one of my hides is found under a lamp post'

I'll describe my personal geocaching terrain using pictures:

because a nano is at least 10 times smaller than your usual micro, whereas the differences between your usual "regular" sizes caches is maybe 2 or 3 times (there's exceptions of course). but the biggest difference is probably that you have to search for a nano quite differently than for a micro. this isn't true for different sized "regular" caches, or even for small vs regular vs large. nope. everyone who considers the guidelines to be devine law would say that. but people with some common sense (and a "working brain") would not. yes, under the guidelines, the proper category for nanos is "micro". but language is the best proof that in reality, this isn't correct: if people would consider nanos to be micros, they wouldn't call nanos nanos, they would call them micros. but they don't, they call them nanos, which is definite indication that in everybody's mind, there is a clear difference. therefore, claiming that nanos are micros just because the guidelines say so, completely in the face of what the community (culture, subculture, whatever) has decided through the language they use, is a fallacy. another quite strong indication of that is the sole existence of the "other" category, because if you strictly go by what the guidelines say, every imaginable container would be covered under one of the "micro"-"large" categories, rendering the "other" option totally nonsensical. of course i can see a big problem with introducing a new size for caches: GPX files, or rather the applications which process them. quite a few of them would very likely break when they suddenly see an unrecognized new "size". this could be remedied with a new selectable GPX version, let's say 1.0.2 would report the new "nano" category, while the older ones would say "micro" (or maybe "other"?) in its place. why is it so hard to understand that guidelines are just guidelines and are open to interpretation? it's a nice interpretation of the guidelines, and taken by itself actually makes sense. but, since you like quoting the guidelines so much, acknowledge the fact that the guidelines don't mention any of that, and therefore it is just your interpretation. my interpretation is different. An Employee of Groundspeak has spoken against the nano category: "There is no need for a nano type. As mentioned above the Micro type includes nanos. It also includes picos. even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro. At some point there has to be a cap on types. The Micro was a good point to stop. " Add another cache size to selection Feature request: Nano cache size, Smaller than micro Nano Caches why is there not a new size on the website for nano sized caches Feature Request: Nano size option Discussion on adding nano to the size options for listing Nano cache category Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

Photography has taken over my passion for geocaching. I take nature photography pretty serious, and wouldn't be happy with a snap shot. I scaled the side of a steep slope with two kids, and my trusty D90 around my neck yesterday, for one cache. The wildflowers (especially the endangered one) were quite the caching highlight for me. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...2b-b83979610237

Why don't you come up with an original avatar and turn that into a geocoin? Seems like a far easier solution than tippy-toeing around copyright infringement, and the loss of an account.

I tried that once, and the owner never updated the cache info. Mystery Building My note: The mystery building was built in 1927 by the Redman School District, and it was known as the 2nd Redman School. It was built on top of the original Redman School (which was built in 1911). The 1933 Long Beach earthquake spurred new state building standards, and the school was condemned until the tile roof was removed. The building was no longer used by the school district when the Eastside School (70th East and H) was built. The Redman School was taken over by the Joshua Tree Grange. The Grange met at the old school until 1990, when building inspectors labled the building "potentially hazardous." The doors were finally closed, and the building was boarded up. In August of 1993 the building was destroyed in an early morning fire.

If I had a choice of the two, it would be Les Hands down. I would much rather go geocaching with a real survival and bushcraft expert by the name of Ray Mears. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...+mears&aq=f

It's a step up from couch potato caching, more like plain potato caching. If they have the CO's permission, then it's sweet potato caching. If it's a bunch of micros, then I'd call it tater tot caching... More like affirmative action caching. This is for cachers who can't, or DON'T have the ability to find the cache as intended. Since this meets the liberal criteria of being UNFAIR, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO RECTIFY THE DISPARITY.

Excellent question! From 2006 The New Numbers Game, I hate to admit it: Jeremy was right The majority of the number padding schemes are directly related to the "non-existant competition." These schemes degrade geocaching, in my opinion. * Fake found it logs for the purpose of increasing your find count. Found it = didn't find it * Power cachers who spend 3 minutes looking for a cache, then place their own cache when they can't find it, just so they aren't denied a smiley for their "effort." * Placement of non GC approved caches which are then logged as "attended event" to further increase find counts*Pocket caches *Geocoin Sheets passed around to increase trackable stats *Micro spew / Lame Location spew (not to be confused with creative caches hidden in creative locations) *FTF seekers who ignore posted signs, hours, etc, so they can be FTF and pound their chest. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...amp;pid=2835399 From Briansnat back in 2007

The caches I like best almost always have multiple "favorites" bookmarks, and large photo galleries. If this was ever implemented by Groundspeak, it would help many of us.

As geocaching has become more mainstream, it is more popular with "park & grabbers." The quest to find the maximum number of log only caches is quite popular for some. The proliferation of easy micros is similar to a breadcrumb trail of potato chips. May I suggest my Recipe for fun (Recipe for fun, Share your techniques for avoiding caches you dislike.)

I have to agree with your sentiments. I could easily paraphrase it to "if people have time to go bass fishing..." or, "if people have time to go bowling", or even "if people have time to make mindless statements to the press..." If people have enough time to stay home everyday and collect a welfare check, they should go out in the community and pick up trash. Most geocaching related conflicts with the law are the fault of cache hiders and occasionally cache finders. * Hiding geocaches on private property (residential or commercial) * Hiding geocaches in full view of the general public * Disobeying posted hours (a FTF hounds favorite thing to ignore)

Thanks for the great compliment! Sadly, I've been in recovery mode for six months, due to a hip injury, so I haven't had many great adventures lately

I've argued this on many previous threads: Difficulty rating system: **** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete. Most climbers require about four days to ascend Mount Everest from Base Camp (It takes 8-10 days to reach Everest Base Camp). The fastest ascent from the north side is held by Hans Kammerlander of Italy and took him 16 hours and 45 minutes from Base Camp. The fastest ascent from the South took just under 11 hours and was accomplished by Lakba Gelu Sherpa. Babu Chiri Sherpa, who was at the summit for 21.5 hours, holds the record for the most time spent on top of Everest. However, people typically spend about an hour at the top on average. Cost The average cost of a fully guided journey up Everest from the south side is $65,000. A fully guided climb from the north costs somewhat less, averaging around $40,000. These costs do not typically include personal gear, international airfare, or insurance, all of which can add thousands to the trip. Starting from scratch, the required gear would run at least $8,000. The figure is closer to $15,000 with the addition of items like a laptop and digital camera.

Three years, and four months Are you experienced? My 1000th find! 1206 days and counting. 1 1/2 years March 2006 - October 2007 Viper's Hummingbird Mystery

Not geo-related but they were outdoors, in an area with geocaches.

I think I would need to carry about 50 sardine cans to carry my survival gear. Note this is an old photo, the amount of survival gear has actually increased. The sardine can is mostly worthless IMNHO.

I think that that oft repeated environmentalist bugaboo 'story' is a totally unproven and unsubstantiated fantasy of urban legend proportions. And in my opinion born out of envy. Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhage...iar-wedges.html