Cairngorm

In Sacramento there are 26 (or so) challenge caches lined up over a 3-mile (or so) cycling route. Start reading at GC1WB7C and work your way north for ideas you could ask permission to re... er... cycle. (I don't mean ask me, I know nothing about it)

Could I have psychic entries for all the ones I didn't log, please.

A useful feature like this would encourage cachers to actually log their DNFs. And I think that's a good thing.

I don't know if that's what you're looking for, but just offering it up as an example. That probably is it. Three feet? I've broken that in recent weeks, and I was about to drag an ammo can up a serious hill tomorrow. Oh well. Back to the tv I guess. Deal or No Deal is coming on. Again. Thanks Touchstone!

I've noticed a couple of mentions in the forums in the last few days that there are agreements with major landowners around Los Angeles not to place caches more than a few feet from the trail. Can anyone give details, or just point me to them? Yes, I tried using the forum search function.

I like anything with Gladware and camo tape.

We snagged a T5 on the drive home from the in-laws. Okay, it's not a typical 5 - I was out of the car for like ten seconds. But the story is true, and what a great Christmas.

There certainly are some standing stones in Islay, as there are all over the mainland, which is easier to get to. But if the purpose of your trip is to see stones on an island, wouldn't you prefer Lewis (which has twice as many caches) or the islands of Orkney (which I can't be bothered to find in the GC index below the startling number of caches in Orkney, South Africa)? from Los Angeles -

That's the right answer! A better url is http://www.fizzymagic.net/Geocaching/Info/CacheNumber.php and the solution seems to be what Downy288 said. Okay, gotta go get a life now. Or half a day of caching.

Cannot believe I actually did this . I started with fizzymagic's statement that "the last 4-letter combination, GCZZZZ, will be cache # 512,400." My math confirmed that. So then the millionth cache would be the 487,600th entry in the new 7-digit system, which makes it GC0FTZQ. But when I tried to look at that cache, the system fed me the page for GCED33. I looked around a little more and discovered that the GC0xxxx series hasn't been used and "GC10000 is the 512401 geocache created on geocaching.com and it has taken just over 6.5 years (2429 days) to reach this point, with an average of about 210 geocaches created each day since the first geocache was placed back on May 3rd, 2000." So my latest guess is that the 1,000,000th hide might be GC1FTZQ, "Clifftop Cache" in Ontario.

But luckily it's all been done already. And oh yes, I meant base 31. I knew that .

[slightly off topic, I know] If anyone here cared enough to do the math in both decimal and base-21 (or whatever the heck it is), it would be trivial to figure out what GC number represents the 1,000,000th placing. Or two of us could do it, and then argue ad hominem about our solutions for days on end.

It looks like you'll pass my find count before the end of the year, yet I've been at this about 15 times as long. Which of us is more of a newb? I certainly can't tell. I can (pretending the question wasn't rhetorical just for a moment), because a quick eyeball says you go for quality caches more than I've been doing, and that implies competence as well as commitment. My competence is untried and so is my ability to make a seven year commitment, so at any cachers' party I'll stand in the kitchen with the newbs. But I'm working on it, and I like that, and that's why I like knowing other people's numbers - knowing the class average, if you will.[Edited for not making a point]

That's the point for me. I'm playing a game where I like to know where I stand on the spectrum from beginner to expert, just like when I look sadly at my chess ranking. That's not about privacy, still less identity theft. I've reached the stage where I'm not a total newb, and I feel I can slow down and let it be more about quality than about the numbers: but the numbers, and looking at the numbers of others, are what told me that. I can't think of a better way. Thank you all for sharing what I needed to know.

I started caching as mountain_lion, because of a vague interest in cougars. But a lot of people have similar names, and one of them caches around here. So when my wife joined the game we looked for a pair of names that would say something personal, and we came up with names that reflected where each of us grew up. Cairngorm is the sixth highest mountain in Scotland. It gives its name to a mountain range where part of my soul has lived since the weekend in 1988 when two of us climbed Braeriach, camped out in a thunderstorm, did some other stuff and hiked home through the Lairig Ghru. And since the other weekend a few years later when two of us camped by the highest lake in the British Isles before climbing 700 feet through snow at midsummer. And some solo trips. And some orienteering around the foothills.

It's possible to do both - a cache on your Ignore list can also be on your Watch list. Regarding the original question: just last week I was the second of 3 people to DNF a cache, and yesterday it was found. So . . . no. Tomorrow I'll look for it again, and I'm glad to be able to.

Sure did. There's a trail not far from home where I'd found three or four, but never knew EXACTLY what they were for. And it was fun to go back and "find" them again.

Same problem. The default "My Finds" PQ is correct, and so is my GC profile. But I have another PQ which is designed to, and usually does, return all my finds - there are fewer than 500 of them - and shows nothing since October 30.

...and it's fast and easy. I did it. No problem at all. Don't be shy, just ask 'em.

A few months ago I emailed Groundspeak a request to change my name, gave a good reason, and it was done next day, no problem. Thanks GS - praise where it's due.

Great - I'd like to thank everyone for all these helpful responses - I can't sum it all up in one easy rule but I did get a sense of the way to think about it, and I feel ok about having rated my new cache a 3. It's a safe place to start until the user feedback comes.

Cache owners - how do you choose the difficulty rating for your new puzzle or mystery cache?