Web-ling

Usually, I don't use a GPS. I just hunt with topo maps and aerial photos. When I get lazy and use a GPS, I use the little yellow Etrex.

Of course, then you have to factor in the difficulty of the cache. 50 finds in a year is nothing for a 1/1 park-and-grab, but would be extraordinary for a 5/5 cache.

quote:Originally posted by The Falcon:Is that why bars are often next to churches? Maybe the other way around.

I'd probably take it if it is marked with your signature. If it's not identified as a signature item, I'd probably ignore it.

1.) Is it cheating to read the clues and location vicinity of the cache? Absolutely not! If it were cheating, the clues wouldn't be there. 2.) Am I supposed to navigate blindly only using the GPS from my home? Or am I supposed to find out where about the cache is and only use the GPS after I drive there? Either/or. I typically don't use a GPS at all. I hunt about 2/3 of my caches using only aerial photos and topo maps. You can hunt them any way you like. 3.) Is it suggested that my wife need a GPS unit as well? I found that my wife, who isn't really all that thrilled with geocaching, enjoys it a lot more when she has the GPS. 4.) Should I have a paper map as well? If so what kind? I would think the answer would be topo, but where I live it is all flatlands, the entire state for the most part. Would a topo be as effective or would there be something else suggested? Check out LostOutdoors.com. Key in the coordinates, and you can get aerial photos and topo maps of pretty much anyplace in the USA. I use Mapquest maps to navigate to the area, and LostOutdoors maps and aerials to navigate from the parking to the cache. I like LostOutdoors, because the site puts a little dot on the map or aerial at the correct coordinates. I've found it to be just as accurate as a GPS, and more accurate in dense tree cover. Bottom line: Geocaching is a game where you can hunt in a wide variety of ways. Hunt them any way you like! Use whatever resources you wish to use. The main thing is to have fun.

quote:Originally posted by jeff35080: quote: However, I don't feel any obligation to delete or change finds for hunts previous to the rule changes. These were found under the rules at the time of the hunt. There's no reason to change your logs. As you have mentioned, you were playing under the rules at the time. No one could ask for more than that Happy benchmarking! Jeff I guess my point is that there are some older logs that are incorrect by the current standards, but by the standards at the time were correct. In the early days of benchmarking at GC.com, there really weren't any standards. As for more recent logging errors, it would help if benchmarking were more prominently a part of the Geocaching.com website. Which it supposedly will be in the future. I think a lot of geocachers completely bypass the main Benchmarking page and access the benchmark pages by clicking the "nearest benchmarks" links from individual cache pages. They never see the instructions on the main Benchmarking page. I'm not really sure how long they were there before I ever noticed them. Perhaps a link to the guidelines could appear prominently on each benchmark page to assist the geocachers who dabble in benchmarking to be more aware of what constitutes a legitimate "find."

Back in the days when Benchmarking first appeared on Geocaching.com, I asked the following question regarding RMs in the forums: quote: What if the main disk no longer exists, but I find one or more of the auxillary disks? How should I log it? Jeremy's response: quote: A find. Good enough for government work So, for a long time, I logged "finds" for benchmarks where I had only found the RM. Later on, the following was added to the main Benchmarking page: quote: The only reference marks and azimuth marks that can be logged on their own are those that have their own PID. If you're looking for a triangulation station and only find its reference mark or azimuth mark, you can't properly claim "Found it" (unless the reference mark or azimuth mark has its own unique PID, in which case you'd log it under that PID), but you could log it as "Couldn't find it" and even upload the picture of the reference mark. So basically, the rules were changed. I no longer log finds when I only find the RMs. The current rules say this is incorrect. However, I don't feel any obligation to delete or change finds for hunts previous to the rule changes. These were found under the rules at the time of the hunt. Just to ease some minds, these "questionable" finds under the "old rules" were NOT logged at the NGS as finds. The NGS has yet a different set of "rules" for logging.

I believe this one was THE original cache. Unfortunately, the owner deleted all the logs and trashed the cache page before being banned from the site.

quote:Originally posted by mtn-man:I did count the number of caches found on the plane out to Colorado So, how many caches did you find on the plane out to Colorado?

quote:Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:There is a cache where Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma meet, but it is listed as in Missouri. Hey! That's MY cache! This multicache has the first leg in Alabama, the second leg in Texas, and the third leg back in Alabama. My finds by state: Texas 552 Ohio 60 Tennessee 36 Kentucky 13 Colorado 12 Arkansas 11 Missouri 9 Indiana 4 Oklahoma 3 New Mexico 2 Illinois 1 Alabama 1

A multi-cache would have a single cache page. Something found at the first waypoint (a micro-cache or some sort of "clue") gives the coordinates to the second waypoint, and so forth, until the cache itself is found at the final waypoint. A cache "series" would have individual cache pages. Clues in one cache would lead to the next, and so forth. Unless the different waypoints are unique and fairly widely dispersed, I'd go with the multi-cache.

Virtual cache: Go to the posted coordinates, find an object. Locationless or Reverse cache: Find the object, then post the coordinates. Neither has an actual cache container or logbook.

When my family and I took out a reporter and camera crew, I took the liberty of finding the cache the day before...

quote:Originally posted by pater47:Have fun with them. Send it back with bogus info. Or your mother-in-law's info.

Poison Ivy

Specialized equipment needed? I don't need no stinkin' specialized equipment!

quote:Originally posted by Caspian of CG: The cache would be placed in a friendly terrain but the difficulty of finding it would be high and require logic and puzzle solving skills (a multi cache for sure. quote:Originally posted by Heart_of_CG: This would not be a difficult cache. It would be a 1 difficulity perhaps 2 ( on a childs thinking scale) and a terrain of 1. We're getting conflicting information about the proposed cache. I think a cache like this is OK, as long as the difficulty is fairly low. A lot of TB owners get really upset when their TBs get logged into difficult caches. Also, I'd like to discourage you from detouring TBs from their published goals. For example, if a TB has a goal of heading west, please don't grab any TBs that are already west of your cache and bring them east. Some TBs have very specific goals, and their owners can get upset when someone intentionally disregards those goals.

First, as BrianSnat asks, Why would you want to? The whole point of a virtual cache is for you to visit someplace interesting. If you and your friend formed a geocaching "team" under a single account, then sure, why not. If the cache page specifically states this would be OK, or if you email the owner of the cache and they say it's OK, then go ahead. (There are a few virtuals set up to be done remotely.) Otherwise, no. I've deleted logs from my virtuals when I found out the cacher didn't actually visit the site. Why not just wait until you have an opportunity to visit your friend, then visit the site yourself?

Unless you've gotten permission from the land owner/manager - DON'T BURY IT! Stuff it in a hollow log, hang it in a tree, cover it with bark, hide it under rocks, but PLEASE don't dig a hole! We have enough trouble convincing park managers that geocaching doesn't harm the environment.

I often leave TBs in my own caches, because most of the closest caches to my home are mine. I pick a TB up, take it home, log it, and then get it back into circulation as quickly as possible.

I prefer hunting GPSr-less. I've done about 2/3 of my finds that way. I generally use maps and aerial photos from LostOutdoors.com and a couple of other sources. I typically use the GPSr on most multi-caches and caches in heavily forested areas where the aerial photo doesn't show many clearly identifiable landmarks. I'm at approximately 470 GPSr-less finds on non-locationless caches.

AWESOME!

Come and Get It If you want it here it is come and get it Make your mind up fast If you want it anytime I can give it But you better hurry cause it may not last

My other current hobby is orienteering. I've also done some genealogy and own about 65,000 baseball cards.

Of the 145 benchmarks I've found so far, I've only used a GPSr once. I rely entirely on the description, maps, and aerials. Of course, I also only use a GPSr about 1/3 of the time for geocaches, too.