ZeekLTK

I don't really understand why anyone cares either. One person already mentioned it, literally the ONLY downside to "cheaters" is when they post "Found It" for caches that are not there, and cause you to waste time looking for them when you otherwise would have skipped it due to all the other DNFs (although, let's be honest, some of us still go look for caches that have many DNFs just because "it's close" and "hey, maybe I'll be the one to find it", etc. lol) I also think it's stupid to shut down virtuals due to "armchair logging". People posting that they "Found It" when they haven't doesn't really affect anyone else for those kind of caches, so who cares?

We found that the maps work without having data on. We took an iPad to Europe with us and did not have a data plan for it at all (so it couldn't use data even if it wanted to). We were still able to use the maps to both get around towns (since it still showed our current location) and also to find a few geocaches too (having looked the coordinates up ahead of time)!

Is your problem that you don't know how to convert the coordinates to be read? N 53 21.XX9 can also be read as: 53.(21.XX9/60) - you just divide the "minutes" (which is what the 21.XX9 is called) by 60 (since 60 minutes make 1 "whole" degree) So for example, if your coordinate was N 53 21.999 then the decimal form is: 53.(21.999/60) = N 53.36665 When trying to put in coordinates into websites and stuff, sometimes you need to use the decimal format, instead of the format that is used by geocaching.com For example, I like to use http://itouchmap.com/latlong.html to show me where a puzzle coordinate is (so that I can actually see what to expect). However, the site does not use the same kind of format as geocaching.com, so I have to convert it to decimals in order to see it. If that isn't what you meant, then I guess I don't understand what you are asking.

I think virtuals should come back as well. They are useful to bring people to a location that is not possible to have an actual container to find. For example, in Hillsdale, MI there is a virtual that takes you to the historic "Poor house". The location is not feasible to have an actual cache at, so the virtual is the only alternative to get other geocachers to check out the area. And I thought that was a main reason behind geocaches, to get people to visit places they otherwise wouldn't. Virtuals were a great tool for that. Also I think it is better to just have virtuals at muggle-heavy locations as opposed to all the stupid "nanos" that currently get placed instead.

Came across http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=8670b09a-9dc6-4d6f-9e79-1d1e96f486a7# which has some offenders. 1 guy logged both a "needs maintenance" AND a find. 2 other people only found "the string" but thought that was good enough, and the first guy to report it missing did so as a find. LOL

I think it is stupid to log visits if you haven't gone very far. The only time I log visits is if I find a cache in another state/country but am not able to drop the bug off for whatever reason. For example, I had one that I picked up here in Michigan, I then found caches in Maine, New Brunswick, Florida, Finland, and Estonia but didn't want to drop it in any of those (for a few reasons) so I logged visits for all the big miles. When I got home I found a few more here in MI that I did NOT log as visits... I just waited until I dropped it off to log it again here.

The OP sounds like a miserable (old) person. Oh no, some people moved a few rocks. lol Find something enjoyable to do other than be mad about other people having fun...

I like to do that as well. So far I have 14 American states, 1 Canadian province, 4 European countries, and 2 African countries. I should have 5 European countries but I was unable to find ANY of the few that I looked for in London. :/ I also didn't even think to try to find geocaches when I went to Panama and Costa Rica a few years ago. That could have been a few more!

I really really hate it when I get to a cache and find that it was placed within view of a (busy) road where lots of people will drive by and see you looking for the cache. Especially if the cache isn't obvious and easy to find. I mean, it's one thing if it's obvious - you just make the find real quick, sign it discretely, and then move on... those are "okay" I guess (I'd still prefer a secluded area). But I really hate it when it's NOT obvious where it is. I'm not at all interested in having everyone drive by and see me digging around in the branches of a pine tree trying to figure out where the heck your little "mirco" is hidden... no thanks.

The only way to have something "competitive" is to have a basic foundation so that everyone is playing the same game. For example, in sports - everyone plays on the same surface with the same rules. In basketball, for example, every court is exactly the same - the hoops are the same height, the floor is the same length, each game is played for the same amount of time with the same amount of players using the same rules. That makes it possible to compare results from one area to another and determine which teams are the best, etc. Geocaching is not set up like that at all. There are areas with lots of caches and areas with few. There are areas with easy caches and there are areas with only hard caches. It's not possible to compare results because of that. If I live within easy reach of 200 caches and you only live within easy reach of 30 caches, how can you decide which of us is "better" at geocaching? It doesn't seem possible. I think the only way to make it competitive is to do "live events" - have a group of people go somewhere that they have never geocached and see who can find the most within a certain span of time or something. Then you are using the same "field" (each geocacher is looking for the same geocaches as everyone else they are competing against) and whatnot. That seems to be the only possible way to accurately compare two (or more) geocachers.

This would be useful for me too. I hate it when I make a route of ones that I haven't found yet, and then I start to realize "I've been here before" - yup, DNFs from several months ago. Couldn't find it then, can't find it now... bah. If only I'd have known from looking at the map, I would have went another way and looked for different ones.

I hate it when I get to the GZ and it turns out to be in a very public place (or at least for ones that I do not expect to be in such a place). For example, there was one I tried recently that was suppose to be along a trail that is fairly secluded. There are multiple caches along the trail, and most of them have plenty of privacy to search for them, but when I got to one in particular it was off the path and in a position where cars (from a very busy road) could easily see you looking for the cache as they drove by. I was very upset with that and gave up without ever really even searching because there were just too many cars driving by. I don't understand why the person couldn't just hide it somewhere else along the trail, in a more secluded area (it was a micro too, so there were easily 4-5 other hiding spots along the trail within a 100 feet either direction of the spot they picked).

I feel like there needs to be a "re-thinking" on how visits are logged. To me, a "visit" should only be logged for a cache that is significantly out of the way that (for whatever reason) the bug was taken to, but didn't get dropped off at (such as maybe you're in another state and the only cache you found was too small to put it in, etc.) But I don't think people should log visits for every single cache they visit while they have the travel bug, especially when they are all caches within a small area. It just clutters up the map with a bunch of "5 miles" and looks tacky IMO. I would rather see the map with fewer logs but more miles on each log (for example: pick it up in Michigan, don't log it again until you've dropped it off in Connecticut... someone picks it up there and doesn't log it again until they've taken it to Florida, etc. as opposed to some guy carrying it around his local area and logging like 20 "visits" all within a 15 mile radius). Also I think it defeats the purpose of what travel bugs are about - they are suppose to travel from cache to cache by being picked up from one and dropped into another (for someone else to then pick it up). They aren't suppose to just follow one person around to 15-20 (or more) caches. So I never log a visit for the ones I find/carry around. I only log it once I drop it off somewhere (and I try to drop it off as far away from where I picked it up as possible). *Edit: This is what I mean... it's just excessive (and I see this on lots of travel bug logs): Dropped Off 01/20/2011 [Other User] placed [Travel Bug] in No bark, No bite 26.9mi N Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to "Its Gnarly Dude" 0.7mi W Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Don't fence me in 1.3mi W Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Wave to the nice people. 3.3mi N Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Mina Runs Down The Lane! 2.4mi W Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Sister's Request 0.8mi W Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to 16 Part 2 0.3mi W Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Cardinal Sins 2mi S Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to 16 Tons 1of2 2.1mi SW Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Mowers Road 1.4mi W Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Mowers Road Tower 1.1mi SE Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Esmond RR 1.1mi NW Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Mowers Road Tower 1.8mi SW Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Syco's 1000th 3.6mi SW Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Crack Kills 0.9mi S Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to I'm Baaaaaaaaaaaack! 0.2mi NE Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Kirkland Girls Softball 0.4mi E Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Road Out Of Kirkland 2.2mi E Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Rest Area 2 10.9mi E Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to The Junction Ends Here 1.3mi S Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to The Kilbuck Cache 3.3mi S Visited 11/30/2010 [Other User] took [Travel Bug] to Take a Ride on Easy Street 110.4mi E Retrieve It from a Cache 11/27/2010 [Other User] retrieved [Travel Bug] from Need a Ride 2 Dropped Off 10/31/2010 ZeekLTK placed [Travel Bug] in Need a Ride 2 943.8mi W Retrieve It from a Cache 09/06/2010 ZeekLTK retrieved [Travel Bug] from Make Me Laugh Travel Bug Comedy Club