CKayaks

Yeah!!! The ideal resolution on this for sure!

Yes, very cool to hear about this.

I'm not sure the reviewers want to take on the responsibility of maintaining logs on abandoned caches. (i.e. the suggestion that the reviewer delete the bogus logs.) Nor should they. If the cache owner does not want to maintain it, why should the reviewer be burdened? Make an exception for this one?? Maybe, but what about some other cache popping up that some other group things is valuable. It would be a mess I don't think we want to launch the reviewers into. Regarding adoption today's rules say a virtual cache cannot be adopted. But that was not always the case. Adoption requests went to the CO before that rule went in with no answer. There was also the broadcast message PupPatrol posted above. Wish I had seen that back in 2011! I would have gladly adopted this one and OHDA2 for that matter. It could have been cleaned up and kept alive as well. It will be sad to see this one go, but it clearly is abandoned.

PS...there may be a Keyote/Beveridge WIGO in the future if I ever get around to completing the logistics on that one. Some guy posted a "Highest WIGO in California" further north that may have to get renamed.

Multi and Earthcache actually. I placed them both. The BLM does not allow Traditional caches in the wilderness area. I had to be checked out by several department representatives before I got the EC published to make sure I was not disturbing any historical sites, native sites, or sensitive wildlife areas. It took a bit of discussion back and forth. I posted a Needs Archive a while back on OHDA and stand by that. There have also been numerous appeals to the CO to maintain it. They were also asked to adopt it out. (There was a time when you could on virtuals.) No response, so they obviously do not care about the cache anymore. The cache needs to be archived. The history is there to look at, even with the archive. You can still access the pages, you just can't find it on searches anymore if it is archived. I also raised concern with the reviewer after the latest lame find. The guys story is pretty sketchy. He logged many, many other caches across California and the west without meeting various requirements. Looks very much like an arm chair cacher from his log history. Just on my caches and OHDA he went to Whitney, Pinnacles, and Beveridge all in one day??? Not even with a helicopter! Others may disagree, but armchair finds on caches like OHDA irk me. I my opinion, it takes away something on caches like this that have to be hard earned. Both of those newer caches take you into the same area as the original OHDA. The multi was intended to mirror the Beveridge part of the OHDA2 cache that was archived because parts of it were in a restricted Death Valley area. The challenge of exploring this beautiful area still exists for those that want to attempt it. I have been into Beveridge three times now and back into the Inyo Crest many other times in places other than Beveridge. It is one of the most rugged, tough, and yet beautiful areas I have had the pleasure to put a pair of boots into. I put the two new caches out there exactly because I saw OHDA2 get archived. I wanted others to be aware and come to the area still. Abandoned virtuals are always sketchy.

Seeing them now. Thanks!

Ditto. Seeing this on my son's account as well. Some of the 5 we had scheduled to run did, some did not.

I am seeing website issues this morning. Cache pages are not loading properly. Content is scrambled and links do not work. The drop downs on the banner also seem to be non-functional. Profile page is now also looking scrambled. Things are there, just misplaced and the sizing is off. Running Firefox. Have not tried looking via Chrome or Exploder yet.

It has been a while, but it looks like this bug is back. Three of the five PQ's that generated today threw "no longer available" errors when I went to download them this morning. The PQ then disappeared from the list of PQs available for download. Checking the PQ schedule page, they are showing as run today.

Any updates on this topic? I see the caches are still in disabled mode. Heading down that way in January.

That looks like one of the two Berkeley Pier caches that floated away. I would be interested in retrieving the container setup. Thanks!

I think I have found a bug with the field note upload. Did a quick (not thorough) search and don't see anything posted on this. Here is what I am seeing: 1) There seems to be a limit of around 200 caches to a file. 2) If caches in the field notes have the same hour/minute combination, only the first is uploaded and the rest are ignored. Comments on 1) There appears to be a limit to the number of caches that can be loaded. I believe this is around 200, but I have not done a full range experiment. For most folks this is a non-issue, but with all the power trails popping up it is going to be more common. A group of us just did the E.T. trail in Nevada, hence my experience with large field notes files. I am having to parse the field note files from my Garmin 62s into 200 entry chunks, uploading them one at at time and processing the logs. Not a huge "bug", if one can even call it that, but something that deserves at least a note about the limit on the upload page. Comments on 2) The bug that I think is going to be a bigger issue is one regarding the time stamps and the field notes uploads skipping caches. In loading my field note files, I am finding that it sometimes skips caches. In the case of the ET Trail run, I am seeing this in the range of 30-50 out of 200 caches being skipped, making the problem obvious. However, I have also noticed it in normal uploads of a handful of caches. Here is what I think is happening. As you log caches on your field note capable GPSr they are timestamped. They are recorded down to the second, but it appears that the GC.com upload only reads off to the minute. If you have two caches with the same hour/minute combo, it will ignore the subsequent entries until the minute changes. Normally this is not going to be a problem as who ever finds more than one cache in a minute? Well, on a power trail doing 75 caches an hour you will! More importantly, this will also show up if you do catch up type logging, quickly entering two caches because you forgot to put one in earlier. So even if I am doing "normal" caching, if I quickly enter two entries without waiting for a minute or so between, the entries in the upload are going to be off.

Vision yeah? Someone sampling the local produce?

Road to the White House http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...b7-b65079e02ab2 Trail of Fears http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...af-9321d3f32a6d Trail of the Gods Part 1 - Letters A to I http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...e0-1b02718c2d39 Trail of the Gods Part 2 - Letters J to Z http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...ac-e75f7c71887c

Just to restate my earlier log, I in no way challenge the record and heartedly congratulate the team on the accomplishment! We did 204 on Saturday and 160+ on Sunday. It was a blast, all about the teamwork, and I can imagine the fun the group had going for the 500+. I can also verify the difficulty of dealing with most of those log sheets. It was a pain getting them out of the containers at times. My original comment about the stickers was about style, not a challenge on whether the cache was "found" or not. The placement was not how I would have placed the stickers, but that is just my opinion. DuckeyLee and I did a regroup with some folks over dinner this last week to talk about the cache run and swap war stories about the recent trips GBA members have done to the trails. Given feedback from Motorbug and bthomas about the record team members , I withdraw my complaint. I will take VT and f0t0m0m at their word about the sticker on the outside of the caches being anomalies and that they were not intentional. I think others should do the same. Doing 566 caches on this trail was an amazing accomplishment. These are not urban drive ups and it takes some skill and fortitude to make the run, especially in the dark. We can nitpick the “rules”, but the caches were run and found. I can verify about 350 of the 566 anyway!  Let’s see if anyone can top it!

I was getting hit with the hamster message yesterday as well. * Running IE8.0.6001 * Factory install. No scripts; no add-ins other than Webex; plain vanilla as far as I am aware * I was using GSAK for the logging with the following steps: 1) Type text in GSAK logs 2) Hit the "log cache" button. That does run a macro, but it is local I believe. 3) That opens up the browser to the log page for the cache. 4) Check the date, set status to found, copy in the log text, hit the submit buttion. 5) Go back to GSAK for the next cache. I usually close the browser window as well, but not always. The really hilarious part of getting the message was that I was logging the 360 caches I did on a power run south of Las Vegas last weekend. With the error, it is taking me longer to log the caches than it did to do the caches!!!! I type fast, but give me a break. Even considering I was just putting "TFTC" on most of the logs, I still took time to put in a date and time stamp and cycle through the GSAK procedures. It had to be at least 45-90 seconds between cache logs. If GC thinks that is "super human" speed they need to hire some new engineers. My users at work (I manage IT teams at a network equipment company) would consider that slow for system response time for the user interface, let alone a bot type routine.

Congratulations to the group hitting the record on the finds! DuckLee and I were out on the power trail this last weekend as well, likely right behind the record group at one point on the Whitehouse string. (We saw a white SUV with a fast moving group on the south end of the run.) We only did 205 on Saturday, 160+ on Sunday, restraining ourselves to more or less daylight hours. (We did cache into Saturday night to about 8:00 to make sure we crossed that 200 line.) Have to say that I cannot imagine doing 566 non stop as our run for personal bests was pretty frantic as it was. Have to say that if I had found any one of these caches by itself, anywhere else, "lame" would have been the word for it. 99% of them are placed the same; there was two dominant cache container types; and most of the approaches were straight forward once you got the lay of the land. The joy of this trail was getting into the rhythm of moving from one cache to the next, figuring out the best approach, doing the dash and sign at high speed, moving onto the next, seeing how many you could crank out in an hour. It got to be quite a game. After a while you get pretty giddy. We got slap stick silly about fig newtons at one point. Don't EVEN mention hair dryers to me now. (Long story on both of those.) I would compare the joy of this cache string like this. I drive an SUV to get to the mountain peaks for the views. If I was on an Autobahn, a Jaguar would be a whole lot more fun. Nothing wrong with either. This is not a sight seeing run, though the Mojave is one of the most beautiful landscapes around. This is a power trail setup to run up numbers. It does it well. On another point mentioned above, I have nothing against stickers. We used them on our run. I've used them on group outings in the past. I think they make great sense as they conserve log space. However, I do have one point of annoyance on the record run. I hesitate to bring this up as it will likely unleash a firestorm, but it is still bugging me after two days back from the trip. For this run, a lot of the record holder stickers seemed to be just slapped on without even removing the log, slide onto the outside of the rolled up sheet. One was on the logbook cover positioned over the MooseMob logo. A few were even on the outside of the container. As a cacher following after them, it was obvious that speed was the only objective. The "etiquette" of "signing" the log in the next open spot on the log was not followed. For folks that seem to stress the "rules" and boast of "no cheating" on their finds, this seemed to be a bit of ethics breach of the informal etiquette/rules/whatever-you-want-to-call-it of the caching culture. Let me say that I love the fact that they went for the record and that it was hit on this trail. I don't challenge that accomplishment. I just wish they had been a little more clean about it on this one point. Let the fire now rain down...

Groan...what is the point of people doing that kind of logging? And what is the point about worrying about the few and far between idiots that do? Glad to see that EC submittals are up and running again. They are my favorite type of caches to visit and enjoy.

I will be traveling through the Dallas Fort Worth airport next week. I have a three hour layover and thought I might run out and grab a couple caches in the area. I did this a couple years ago in Frankfurt and ended up meeting another American going for the same cache. Small world! Anyone have any suggestions for quick caches within a short cab ride of the airport?

After a couple weeks of testing, here is my feedback on the Triton 2000. I have been using GPSr's since the old Garmin 12 was released. I am an IT professional, so know my way around the hardware/software. I own a Garmin 60CSx, Geko 201, and Delorme PN-20. The 60 is my main unit for caching, sea kayaking, and hiking. I have used NG Topo! since the early versions, before NG bought them. I have been a beta tester for them and participated in focus groups in SF. All that to say I ain't no rookie when it comes to this stuff. While the promise of the feature set on this product had me ready to switch from my Garmin, the implementation is horrible. I have been testing it for about a week now. Do not buy this unit until Magellan re-releases it correctly. Areas of problem so far: * Random crashes. Reminds me of WIN 98. It crashes often. * SLOW!!! It is especially slow when you switch to the map screen, the main one you use. * No street maps * "Nearest cache/waypoint" feature does not work. For some reason, it consistently points me to waypoints/caches at a park about 5 miles away as the closest even if I move around to different locations within the range. Can see waypoints nearby (across the street in one test), but it ignores them. * Interface with PC is slow. Loaded my Garmin side by side with the Magellan. Garmin took about 10-15 seconds to load 900+ waypoints. Same load on the Magellan took ~2 minutes. * Magellan on-line help is HORRIBLE! There support page does not even list the Tritons yet in many of the drop down lists. FAQ's are more marketing material then help. I got a reply back on my post to their support email. It took them three days to respond. * Issue: Triton is not listed on their support drop downs. Response: It is a new unit and they have not updated the web page. "Wait for some time until this unit gets updated" (Last I checked, that would be a one day job for a competent programmer.) * Issue: "nearest" function not working on geocaches. Response: please call tech support regarding this issue. (Call to tech support number refers you back to the web page.) * Message from tech support was obviously from someone who stuggles with writing English. Grammar errors and typos.

Well, here is my two cents after a couple weeks of testing the unit for geocaching and hiking here in Northern Cal. While the promise of the feature set on this product had me ready to switch from my Garmin 60CSx, the implementation is horrible. Do not buy this unit until Magellan re-releases it correctly. Areas of problem so far: * Random crashes. Reminds me of WIN 98. It crashes often. Sorry, that is NOT acceptable on a computer nor on a $500 handheld! * SLOW!!! It is especially slow when you switch to the map screen, the main one you use. * No street maps * "Nearest cache/waypoint" feature does not work. For some reason, it consistently points me to waypoints/caches at a park about 5 miles away as the closest even if I move around to different locations within the range. Can see waypoints nearby (across the street in one test), but it ignores them. * Interface with PC is slow. Loaded my Garmin side by side with the Magellan. Garmin took about 10-15 seconds to load 900+ waypoints. Same load on the Magellan took ~2 minutes. * Magellan on-line help is HORRIBLE! There support page does not even list the Tritons yet in many of the drop down lists. FAQ's are more marketing material then help. I got a reply back on my post to their support email. It took them three days to respond. * Issue: Triton is not listed on their support drop downs. Response: It is a new unit and they have not updated the web page. "Wait for some time until this unit gets updated" (Last I checked, that would be a one day job for a competent programmer.) * Issue: "nearest" function not working on geocaches. Response: please call tech support regarding this issue. (Call to tech support number refers you back to the web page.) * Message from tech support was obviously from someone who stuggles with writing English. Grammar errors and typos.

I can forward some CKayak coins. Might be enjoyable for your kayak club participants as well as the cachers. > I also have some other coins that can be sent. Send me your address by email and I will drop these in the mail. Peace, CKayaks

Add me to the list. I can send out some of my personal coins for the event.

My suggestion would be to check with the owner of the coin to see if they have a preference. Personally, I want my coins out circulating in caches and people having the fun of finding them in "the wild." Sharing coins while caching with friends is not a problem and I even encourage that. However, I routinely delete mass discovers from events. To me, "discovering" a coin sitting on a table at an event is not what I want to read about in my coin logs. Just my opinion. Enjoy the coins in any case!! Some of them are quite nice pieces of art.

Check out http://www.sigitem.com/. Marky has a nice little setup for tracking signature items. I track my personal coins through the site.