DocDiTTo

I run a few pocket queries including some for the caches along the route I'm taking. Then I run a couple special GSAK macros to find the few caches I want to visit out of the hundreds that came through in my pocket queries. Then I plot those caches out on a map to determine what the order in which I'll visit them. Then I set the order in GSAK so I can print a list of the caches for my trip in the order that I'll get to them. Finally I upload those caches into my GPS along with parking coordinates so I can easily navigate to them.

Sounds like you've already unlocked your Mapsource data for your 400t. You can't unlock it to the 550t unless you buy another unlock key. Once you spend an unlock key on one GPS, that's it. When you buy City Navigator it can be used on only one GPS unit. I think you've done that with your 400t, so you'd need to buy a new license (aka unlock key) for your new GPS. There is no "going back" if you've already used your one key.

Plane crash sites have always intrigued me, although I've never actually been to one (other than the Flight 93 memorial in Western PA). It might be cool to write up a fictional history of a plane crash and in the writeup tell other cachers that this plane, which had been missing for a long time, was recently found. Mysteriously, there were no bodies in it. However, this cache would take them to the actual plane crash site where they could see the wreckage for themselves. Of course you'd never mention that it was a model airplane.... And then you could use the "plane through the tree" idea someone else mentioned earlier.

I've been known to solve a great puzzle cache and then not even bother with the actual cache find -- regardless of container size. I probably have over a dozen puzzle caches solved now that I haven't yet found. If I know the final is is a great location, it'll get on my "to do" list... but if the final is just a parking lot hide, eh, I have plenty of smilies already, so one more really doesn't do much for me. I have been known to go find "meh" type caches just because they were attached to a REALLY HARD puzzle though. In those cases, the puzzle, not the cache, it what added the fun. Signing those logs is almost a badge of honor -- regardless of size. The few puzzle caches I've hidden have all been regular containers, as far as I know (and I don't care enough to go check right now). But, I always try to use regular containers, because I have a bunch of ammo cans in the shed my wife would like me to get rid of.... ... and they are the caches I most like to find, so that's what I try to hide.

Am I the only one who read that URL as "www.dogcatcher.com"?

I can see the usefulness of an OPTION chosen by the cache owner on the cache edit page that would require approval before log TEXT was displayed, but still allow the log to be displayed. In other words, when a find is logged on a "moderated" cache, the log would show the find for the cacher but not the text of his log. Therefore, the find is counted immediately. After the text is approved it would be shown as well. This way no one misses out on their Most Precious Smiley but the owner can protect the integrity of his cache as well. But I think this will probably be added to the ever growing list of "good ideas never to be implemented".

I think the Scouts are "getting" geocaching pretty well. My son and I recently completed a 12 cache course on a local scout reservation and he walked away with his "Cache to Eagle" patch. I walked away with both a special BSA travel bug and BSA geo coin, BOTH with a unique BSA icon (check my profile to see it) Apparently the scouts are really embracing caching. Rumor has it a new GPS/GIS merit badge will be forthcoming too, and from the looks of it Geocaching will be part of that. Here's more info on the Cache to Eagle program and a picture of the patch: GeoScouting And the merit badge mention: Merit badge site I think we'll see better maintenance and more caches hidden by scouts in the future.

I use Delorme for planning caching trips. I tried S&T before but never liked it. One downside is that it didn't understand coordinates in minutes decimal format -- which is what geocachers use most. Whether that's been fixed in newer S&T versions I don't know. I actually use Delorme Street Atlas 2010 Plus -- the plus version allows me to load cache data in as separate databases which can be toggled on and off in the display. So I input caches based on size as well as type. If I want to get rid of the bazillions of micros cluttering my map, I just uncheck a box. Same if I don't want to see puzzles or multis. The regular version of Delorme Street Atlas doesn't have the database feature (called "Xdata" in Delorme terms) The plus feature also has a phone number database which I've found extremely useful on perhaps 2 occasions -- it's great if you want to find out who lives on a particular street and perhaps call them. Not something I need to do every day. Anyway, I've tried both and decided on Delorme. I also use Mapsource, USA Photomaps, and Google earth for planning cache runs but my route planning I always do in Street Atlas USA.

My "front yard" cache has been active since 2005, has been found 271 times and has had 717 travel bugs pass through it as of today. I've met a lot of nice folks who were passing through because of the cache, and many of them have returned a few times to trade TBs or geocoins. To my knowledge, none of them have found my cache creepy. All my neighbors and the local police know the cache is there and it's really no big deal. Since the cache is visible while you're driving down the road you know immediately where it is. Getting inside it, however, is a little trickier. Feel free to stop by if you're ever passing through the area, or keep on driving to the LPC a quarter mile down the road. Whatever makes you happy.

Those in charge of the Appalachian Trail (which is policed by the NPS) have proven time and time again that they loathe caches and cachers. No love for us there.

I picked up a geocoin from a cache today and noticed the website now sticks some coordinates (for the cache I assume?) before the text I typed into the coin move log. But it doesn't even put a space between the coords and my text. Here's a pic. Looks like the one place where they needed more white space they left it out.

Same here. I have no need for any drama, so when I find a hide that's a guideline violation I send an email to our reviewer. It's very rare that that happens, but when it does the issue is dealt with swiftly. Violations can give our hobby a black eye and ruin it for everyone.

Climbed a number of trees, carried a desktop computer a few tenths of a mile into the woods (after gutting it and sticking a 50 cal ammo can inside); built numerous "birdhouses" that no bird ever has a chance of getting into; figured out how to print text in mirrored image on the back of a piece of paper with Microsoft Publisher; spent way too much time testing reflective tape and glow paint; disassembled and re-wired about half a dozen voice message recorders; completely gutted and re-wired a pair of old intercom telephones to work with aforementioned mesage recorders; purchased a heat laminator, painted dozens of pennies gold; painted / re-located my old mailbox. I think that covers most of it.

I've set up and maintained my one night cache using nothing but LED flashlights and headlamps. They work fine. They trick is to get a good one that uses a Luxeon or CREE LED, not one of those cheap things that has 5 or 8 or 25 dim LEDs. A good LED flashlight only has one LED, and it's a strong one. Now my cache doesn't use "stealth" tacks, just the white reflective ones that you can buy in any hunting store. That could make a difference. One key to getting the best reflectivity is holding your light at eye level. Light is reflected back to its source, the closer that source is to your eyes the better you will see the reflections.

I'm not a fan of nano-size caches. Most of the locations I've found them in would have supported a larger cache if only the hider had a little more creativity. Nanos are, however, part of the geocaching universe, like it or not. With a little know how you can avoid most of them using filters -- I've created a GSAK macro that scans all cache writeups and logs in my database for certain terms like "nano" and flags those caches for my review. It helps me avoid caches I probably would rather not hunt. Accept the fact that you can't change the world, but you can change the way you hunt. Do what works for you. Exterminating nano sellers, however, is not recommended.

I've had a couple, but the most recent one was when I was caching with 3 friends and one of them fell while going crossing a steep rocky ridge and disappeared from view. I thought he might have been seriously hurt so I raced over as fast as I could, turns out he landed on a ledge just out of sight. Had me worried for a little bit but we laughed it off and continued on our way.

DocDiTTo, Any way you could explain the procedure. I would love to try it but I need a little 'step by step' help. Thanks for the help ! I don't think USA Photomaps will work in Canada, so you probably can't get this to work. I believe the program only works in the USA.

Nice pics! I especially like the one of the lake with the 3 stones in the foreground. Nicely composed.

Thank you for making my point. A few caches placed to highlight the scenic areas or other "special" spots like those in your pictures would be wonderful. Littering an area with dozens of caches just because you can means that all those special spots are lost in the midst of the spew. When I travel, I usually don't have an entire day to spend caching -- maybe a couple hours if I'm lucky. It's great when geocaching takes me to special places I might otherwise have overlooked. When an area is littered with caches I either have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out which ones highlight something special and which ones are just placed for numbers, or I just ignore the whole mess altogether. I'm sure you had a great time on the power trail. Nothing wrong with that. My point is that not everyone caches that way and not everyone appreciates the cluttered mess that power trails bring to our pocket queries.

I'm a firm believer in Tecnu -- I had the worst PI outbreak of my life this summer, and usually I don't even get it at all. (Someone hid a cache at the top of a PI covered bank and I was dumb enough to go get it, thinking I was immune. Ha.) Anyway, I didn't use the Tecnu scrub like I should have.... my left arm broke out in the rash and it lasted for a couple days. I bought the Tecnu scrub as well as the Rash Relief and started using both immediately. In 2 days my rash was dried up. Had I used the scrub the day of exposure I probably wouldn't have even broken out. Lesson learned. I keep both on hand now. BTW, there's a PDF with info here: http://www.teclabsinc.com/facts/OaknIvyGuide.pdf that describes the product and has a printable coupon should you choose to try it. Of course there are other products, including one which is about $30 that's supposed to be great... I just had a hard time forking out $30 when there are other products less than half that cost.

Nevermind any extensions. Frankly, near as I can tell, my entire idea is being ignored by those who would implement it. That's ok, you're in good company. Many excellent ideas that have been suggested here have yet to be acknowledged and/or implemented.

No, and I never suggested any such thing. I merely pointed out a flaw with the existing attribute system. Complex? It needn't be complex at all. Implemented correctly it could be as simple as clicking an attribute icon then clicking Agree or Disagree. How is that overly complex? Your attribute idea has merit and I'm not knocking it. Frankly we'd probably never see my extension of your idea implemented. No money in it for Groundspeak. I'm not suggesting your idea was bad, or wouldn't stand on its own, I think it would be an improvement over what we have now. I'm just suggesting that it could be taken a little farther.

Attributes are great if they're accurate. Too many cache hiders abuse the ones we have now. People flag non-applicable attributes just to be "funny" or to try to make their cache appear better than it is. Now if the finders had a say in which of the attributes were actually applied, that might make a difference. The hider could choose which ones he thought were applicable and the finders could vote whether they agree or disagree with the hiders choices. The votes would determine whether the attribute was actually shown on the cache page or not. Obviously this is not part of our existing attribute system, but for subjective attributes like the ones proposed here it might be an improvement.

Seriously, the world is full of great geocaches. Instead of frustrating yourself and lamenting the few great caches that happen to be buried among caches you dislike, why not simply move on to different hunting grounds? I'm not frustrated at all, just pointing out the negative aspects of power trails. Some folks seem to think they're a wonderful addition to the hobby, others like me disagree and I've provided my reasoning for my opinions. I've come to accept the fact that not every cache I find will be a life-changing, earth-moving experience -- usually far from it. However, I've also learned over the years that I most often enjoy caches hidden for a purpose other than just to inflate numbers. Power trails are all about numbers. That's fine, I just won't participate in that part of the game. Unfortunately there's no perfect way to separate the "numbers" caches from the "placed with some other purpose in mind" caches -- but I'll do my best. Interesting idea, I'll check that thread.

Maybe what we need is for the guidelines to be modified so as to prevent any two interesting locations from being within 1/10 mile of each other. For example, if a 1000-foot waterfall and an ancient sequoia tree are ever found to be only 300 feet apart, then one of them clearly has to go, or at least be moved far enough away so as to be within compliance. That way, one interesting-location cache won’t ever be able to block another cache from being placed at an interesting location. Of course you jest, however I'd suggest that a multi, rather than 2 traditionals, be used to highlight both the neat features. My particular problem isn't that power trails exist, it's that they make it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. To use Toz's ice cream example, let's say I like vanilla ice cream. I don't want any other flavor, just vanilla. So when I go looking for vanilla, I find that there are 100 ice cream cones all in a row that all look the same. But maybe only 2 are actually vanilla. Now how do I know which ones are the ones I want without sampling each and every one of them? For someone who caches like I do, power trails are annoying because they cause nothing but clutter that needs to be sorted through. Thankfully in the case of these Maine caches almost every one of them is a micro and they're all hidden by the same person so filtering the whole trail out of existence would be very easy. Sadly, there probably are a few of these power trail caches hidden in spots I'd like to see, but I'd miss those locations just because trying to pick out those few isn't worth the time it would take. This is when a rating system would be handy, but that's a whole other topic.