Fredact

I've been following this topic for years and I'm happy(?) to say I got my first one on one of my hides: Logged by: Someone with 3 caches Log Type: Found it Date: 07/19/17 Log: Found but didn't sign log because so overgrown so couldn't reach it. 3rd cache today

If I got into the hobby today, I can't imagine I'd waste money on a dedicated GPS. I still use my old Garmen 450 for nostalgia purposes, but I'm sure that the tech in my iPhone 6 is far superior. And if it's an urban cache, I'll only consider the phone, as it's so easy to pull up the satellite image to zoom in.

I post a DNF if I don't find it regardless of my effort, along with a description of how hard I tried. E.g. "We were still 1/4 of a mile away, but decided the hill was too steep to climb". Or, on a lamppost hide: "I'm sure I know where it is but too many bees around today". Not sure why folks have phobias about posting DNF's. I consider all the choices to be valuable ones to use.

Does rule 6 "One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge cache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game." prevent a challenge like "Cacher must find exactly one other cache on the day he finds this challenge cache"?

I often cache with a friend from another part of town. We both also cache on our own. When we plan our caching together, its a bit tedious to try to find a park or area that neither of us has been to. It would be so nice if there was a way to overlay his find map on mine or vice versa, so that we can easily find those areas that we both have not found.

The cache owner should have deleted the log, but only wrote a note: B. +5 Nice polite note by the CO, but if all he did was post that log, that newbie finder will likely never see that, as most people don't look at subsequent logs on caches they've already found.

<<Vancouver, Canada, where there are currently over 22,000 within 100 square miles. >> Putting on my math geek: there can only be about 100 in any square mile due the distance between hides requirement, so if those 100 square miles were completely saturated there'd be only about 10,000. (I'm just having fun, I know you meant within 100 miles of there).

I agree with how you marked it, but I've never been that worried about muggles that I'd not have signed it. People really don't see what you are doing. A friend and I once carried on a conversation with a lady, all the while I was getting the cache and signing the log--she never knew we'd done it.

No, the find should be removed whether or not the original is found. Thankfully I've not run across cachers where I'm at that feel it's ok to throw down a cache, and then worse yet, claim as found a cache you yourself have hidden!

You should definitely tell her. I'd want to know if I were her. Just send her a note, not accusingly, but just stat the facts. It can even be light. "I was looking for a cache found something, wouldn't you know it you did too, I kept looking though and found the real container--just wanted to let you know it's out there", or something like that.

There are several munzee 'hides' near Jacksonville, FL. No log or container to find. The only thing at the site is a munzee tag zip tied to a fence, post,etc. You have to read the munzee with a smartphone and it will give directions how to log the cache on line. Isn't that an entirely different game, and company?

Trackables also have become easier to find. You don't have to actually see them, nor do you even need to be in the same room, or what the heck, even in the same state: It wasn't my trackable (just one I'm following), or I'd have deleted it and had a great day. Then a couple of days later, this one came through on that same bug: What the heck, just start guessing TB numbers and "discover" them all.

No, not at all. This doesn't mean they are equal! Think of it this way: What if you lived on a small planet where there were 1000 caches, and on each log you found 10 people with 1 find, and 10 people with 1000 finds. Clearly each of the "found 1" finders would be unique on each cache. On that planet then, there would be 1000x10=10,0000 "found 1" people, and just the 10 "found 1000" people. Your numbers above would say that about 1% of the people in your area have at least 1000 finds and maybe 10-15% have more than 100.

I suspect you'll get a few now!! Edit: Got me!!

I always log DNFs. I've logged them when I got to GZ and couldn't get out of the car, because there was a muggle leaning against the lamppost. I logged them when I got to the area, and decided the trail looked steeper than I like. I've logged multiple DNFs on the same location. The logs are the record of my geocaching adventures, why wouldn't I log them? Are people that insecure that they won't log ones they set out to find, but never got to?

I believe you mean it would be a great way to cycle my collection, as you'd need to add one every time you took one.

I've never understood the concept that distance from home affects whether or not to count something as a find. If I found and signed a cache that I did not know was a throw down, I would not delete it later. If someone put a throw down at one of my caches, I would only delete the log of the one who did the throw down. I really can't blame those that find a throw down. Unless of course the throw down is very obvious as to what it is. Fortunately I've not run across this problem yet in my area. But I think as a cache owner, if someone replaced one of mine, I'd delete their log, aa well as anyone that found the fake cache. I don't look at it as "blaming" those that found the fake, they just didn't find the real cache. I want them to find MY cache.

The only time I think I would accept being told "heck no" is if a cache hadn't yet been found, which I have seen several times on difficult puzzles. Other than that, I can't think of a reason why not to at least answer the question "Am I in the right area?" That's certainly the "rule of thumb" I have grown accustomed to. However...there have been some exceptions of late in my area. Good to know I'm not crazy. I just like to think that geocachers would like to help folks out in some way or another, rather than being obstructionist and not helpful. When one asks a simple nudge-type question, it would be great to get some help--especially after a cache has been found a few times, and one has DNFed it. I once had someone send me an email and ask for help on one of mine. It was one of those fake bolts. They said they'd searched and couldn't find it. I responded with "I hope you took your time and didn't bolt out of there." They responded with, "No we really looked, can't you please help us?" Was I a bad person?

This comes up every now and then, and I honestly can not see any problem at all. These caches that you show are 100% safe. There is no electricity going to them! Your concern seems to be with some other caches, completely unrelated to these, that may be near a real electrical connection, and because someone once found a fake one, they'll be stupid enough to poke around a real one. I'd suggest, that if they are that stupid, they'll poke around a real one whether or not they've found a fake one or not. And in fact, if they've ever found a fake one, they may realize how different it is from a real one. Do you really think, if there were never any fake ones, that stupid people still wouldn't poke around a real one?

Surprised there's not more discussion of Mapheads on this forum. I got the book for Christmas (on audio), and am listening to it as I commute. Excellent, very entertaining, but then I love maps. Iidentify with him in almost every chapter--from loving maps as a kid, to being fascinated by historical maps, etc. When I got to the Geocaching chapter, it was as if I was reliving my own entry into the hobby--from what the heck is this, to holy cow this is great. I highly recommend the book.

What, no "First LPC" on the list?

I find the aerial views better than a GPS for urban caches. This is one of the best ways to learn that the hider's coordinates were off. Out in the woods, the satelite views are pretty much worthless.

I once reached in and cut my hand on a cigar cutter someone left in a cache. Not good.

Got another note about a find at Antarctic Andy, checked on the finder, saw logs in all the usual spots (Northwest territories, barrier reef, etc). Sad.

A couple things I would have done differently, (Not that you did it wrong. We just have different tastes), is made it an ammo can.... And thus illustrates the problem, there is no concensus on what is, or is not, a bad hide. I personnally dislike ammo containers, almost more than any other choice. They get mildewy inside, leaves end up in them and decay, they are hard to open (I've cut myself a few times), and are in all ways (from my perspective) far inferior to a good lock and lock. But again, to each his own, that's why I think letting newbies hide is great, maybe they'll not be put in "the box" of the local customs, and come up with some unique hides.