DocDiTTo

Met this little guy in the woods while doing cache maintenance with a friend. And this young copperhead was hiding under a cache container in Maryland. This one almost got his teeth into a fellow cacher.

A few pictures from north-central PA the weekend of October 11-12:

I'd suggest talking to Garmin again and ask the rep if it's possible to reduce the cost since it's just the plastic that's broken. Ask him if he can get the repair cost down to $60. There's a good chance they'll do it. It can't hurt to try to bargain the price. I know of one person who was successful doing that. The worst they can do is say no. Or try to replace it yourself, that's always an option. Not one I'd be comfortable with myself, but that's just me.

I think limiting access is on the agenda. They've already started counting visitors in certain areas, and hope to do that along the whole trail. They're also pollling visitors to see how their experience was. That sounds like an attempt to determine if too many people think the trail is overcrowded. If so, they'll have more of the ammo they need to start limiting visitors. Read this post to see what those in charge of the trail have to say. The quote is from the AT Mega-Transect on the ATC web site here. It's hard to imagine the NPS/ATC condoning geocaches (which would equate to more users) if they already think the trail is being over used. The NPS used the reasoning that as long as there are unauthorized caches along the trail they aren't willing to talk to us at all. While that implies that if we remove the caches they'll be willing to talk, I have my doubts. I don't think geocaches fit into the ATC's vision for the trail at all.

Bright Eyes, Fire tacks lots of brands. Look in the hunting section at Walmart, they're in stock now because it's hunting season. Box of 50 is around $3.50.

Yes.

I just got a Garmin Nuvi 200 for free, because I signed up for a credit card. It doesn't have much in the way of bells and whistles, but hey, free! Info is detailed in this thread. The 200 is really the low end model of the Nuvi line, but it'll get you where you're going. The down side with the free one its that it takes about 5-6 weeks (or more) for most people to get them. But if you're not in a hurry and all you need is to get "out there" and home again, it's a pretty good deal.

If micros and nanos are something you'd prefer to not hunt, you can filter them out when you run a pocket query. I do. I too have found that caching without micros makes the hobby much more enjoyable for me and my kids (who are all about the toys). Regular sized caches are often easier to find, so the kids aren't disappointed because Daddy had to find the cache. I like them because they're generally in nicer locations than micros. Has caching changed overall? I think so. But it's not just in your area. Fortunately this website provides tools to help us to separate the traches from the caches.

I've put together one night cache that's been pretty well received. It's a multi-stage hunt that uses short reflector trails that end in a container of some sort. Finders need to locate the reflectors, follow the trail to the container then figure out how to view the coordinates there. Once they do they go to the location specified and find the start of another reflector trail. The last trail ends at an ammo can for the final cache. Having a few short reflector trails instead of one really long one makes maintenance much easier. The puzzle-like stages add to the fun factor as well... everyone figures them out in 2 or 3 minutes, but they need to try a couple things first before they get that "Ah HA!" moment. My cache uses 3 intermediate puzzle steps before the final and covers a distance of 2 miles in the woods. For most people, walking in the woods after dark really throws them out of their comfort zone. Doing it with a couple friends adds a social aspect that many caches lack, and the puzzles require a little cooperation and thought to pull everyone together as a team. The result? Just read the logs.... they say it better than I ever could. A regular reflector trail hunt is fun, but add some imagination and creativity and you'll have a cache that people will absolutely love.

And it wouldn't surprise me if that's where the NPS keeps coming up with the whole "caches are buried" idea.

I got the initial "Congrats you've activated your card!" email on August 19 (about a week after I made my first purchase with the card), I got the shipping confirmation email 2 days ago on Sept. 22 and the GPS arrived in the mail today. So it took about 6 weeks from the first time I used the card until I had the GPS in hand. Hardly a fast process but for free, well, I'm not complaining.

GSAK has an export for Street & Trips, so yes, that will work. I don't know about MapPoint though. I personally use Mapsource and Street Atlas USA 2009 Plus by Delorme. Tried S&T, but never really cared for it.

While I agree in theory, in practice telling the NPS to buzz off where they don't technically have control of the land may not be the best idea. If there are side trails from the AT to a cache (or, more correctly, if the NPS perceives that there are or will be side trails) then they're going to want that cache gone. If we're not willing to remove it ourselves, I'm pretty sure the NPS will either remove it themselves, or try to convince the landowner that it should be removed. In the case of state lands, chances are the NPS would get their way every time. The last thing I want to have is the NPS telling the Game Commission or other state land managers that caching is really bad and they should have some policy against it. You know the NPS isn't going to suggest they "control" caches, they're going to suggest they BAN caches. And it's probably easier for a land manager to simply say "banned" than it is to work with us to develop a policy and/or permit system that would require more time and effort to manage. Just because the law may fall on our side in some cases doesn't mean we should try to force our will on the NPS. I think working with them in a cooperative effort would probably be better for us in the long run. If that means that caches just off the AT that are technically legal have to go, then so be it. One of mine falls into that category, but I'm not arguing it. Better to lose one cache than to lose the ability to place caches on SGL or in State Forests or wherever. At the same time, I don't think rolling over and giving the NPS whatever they want on lands they don't control is good for us either. There has to be a balance, and yes, the NPS does have its limits, even if it may not like them. Sometimes they do need to be reminded of that.

I've often thought it would be a good idea if there could be a specific reviewer for the AT, (or at least a portion of it). Someone who has all the GIS info the NPS has, but who isn't an NPS employee. Someone who would know where the "sensitive" areas are, and who could look at potential placements in the same way an NPS ranger would. Would they ever be open to a dedicated reviewer and/or a permit process? One can only wish...

After loading up a track of the AT in Mapsource and mapping out 98 of the archived caches (2 came back as "unpublished" so I don't know where they are) here is a list of those that I'd suggest are worthy of a review. I don't know for sure these aren't in violation (except for 3 in an area I'm very familiar with) but I'd suggest they come under close scrutiny. GCZ3CW & GCGVQB Both caches are over 1.5 miles from the trail and appear to be hidden in the G.R. Thompsen State Wildlife Management Area. Whether that's OK I don't know, but the caches appear to be way out of NPS jurisdiction. GCVD1P, GC146J4, GC1DYGW All three are at least 8/10 of a mile from the AT on PA State Game Lands and accessible from blazed trails other than the AT. The NPS was simply wrong about these 3. (One of them is mine). One of these even has a 650 foot elevation difference from the AT. GC10GMH Cache is over a half mile from the AT, property ownership unknown GCZDX3 Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT, property ownership unknown GCY9BB Cache is 4/10 of a mile and across a road from the AT, property ownership unknown GC1CC4P Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT, property ownership unknown GC504F Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT and on the opposite side of a lake, property ownership unknown GC10WAW Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT, property ownership unknown GC178MB Cache is 3/10 of a mile from the AT on the opposite side of a river, property ownership unknown GCZ65N Cache is about 400 feet from AT on the opposite side of a river, property ownership unknown (I doubt there are side trails forming across the river) GC1F4XY Cache is 2/10 of a mile from the AT ON AN ISLAND! Property ownership unknown, but side trails shouldn't be an issue here. The other caches on the list appeared to be right along the AT so for the sake of argument I just assumed they were legit complaints -- which may or may not be correct. A bookmark list of the 98 archived caches that I could find is right here.

I'm working on updating the bookmark list. I have 50 of them on my list so far, I'll add the other 50 as soon as I can so we can run a pocket query and compare the cache locations to the actual trail to see how many are questionable. There's a GPX file of the trail right here that should make the comparison easier. Granted it doesn't show land ownership, but it will show how far some of these caches are from the trail.

Thanks Shauna for providing that information. I appreciate it and I'm sure many others do too. By my count, there are exactly 100 caches on that list.

nevermind, MM beat me to it.

You're right that the NPS doesn't own all the land, but they do own a lot more than you might realize. They own a quite few miles of the AT here near Harrisburg. Where the AT crosses state land, the NPS has signed agreements with the landowners (including DCNR, PA Game Commission, PennDOT, etc) that give the NPS authority over the AT corridor. In the majority of cases in Pennsylvania, the AT corridor extends 200 feet on each side of the trail for a total width of 400 feet. That's not always true, but it is on State Game Lands. There's a whole list of "Memorandums of Understanding" or MOUs that the ATC and the NPS have with these other landowners that define things like the corridor width and what rules apply both in the corridor and outside it on these lands.

The majority on my list are in PA only because my notifications and pocket queries are based there. It's biased against surrounding states because I live in PA. Don't read anything into that; I don't have all the info. I know the one you're thinking of, and we both know there wouldn't be a side trail there any longer. Trampled weeds would have grown back long ago. However, per the Ranger, geocachers were responsible for painting orange marks on trees in one instance. I have no idea what evidence he has that a geocacher painted the marks, but that was one thing in particular he mentioned. If that is true, then that certainly gives us a black eye. We didn't get into details so I don't know how sure he is that the paint was put there by a geocacher. Why would any of us need to paint trees? Our GPS tells us all we need to know...

I've created a public bookmark list with all the ones I know of -- which is probably nowhere close to accurate since there's no easy way to view archived caches any longer. I have 43 caches on my list -- the majority of which are in Pennsylvania. If anyone knows of others not on my "NPS Hit List" bookmark, feel free to email me the waypoints and I'll add them. If Groundspeak would like to simply tell us the number as I'd asked in an earlier post, that would be fine too.

If I found a piece of paper that was offensive to me personally for my personal choices or lifestyle, I'd have thrown it in the trash and no one would be reading about it here. But that's just me.

I don't see why this process should have been so hard to get right. One would think that the NPS could have provided Groundspeak with a data file that contains the route of the actual AT. In turn, Groundspeak could have run a query of all caches within a specified distance of that route to obtain a list of questionable hides. The results could have been reviewed by the NPS and/or Groundspeak to sort out the bad from the good. Rather than having "pockets" of the AT targeted, the entire trail could have been checked. I see caches that are still questionable that went untouched. I know of caches that are perfectly legit that were archived. Because there are still caches along the AT that were missed, the NPS is probably not going to be happy with the final results of this latest hit. Because there were caches that were archived in error, geocachers certainly aren't happy with the results of this either. No process is ever going to be 100% perfect, but come on... the way caches were picked for this list appears almost random. I actually think the NPS relied on public bookmarks of AT caches for a lot of their data -- that's what they've been known to do in the past. Did they even try to get Groundspeak's help? I'm pretty sure Groundspeak would have cooperated.

Groundspeak being uncooperative? Hardly. This most recent sweep of caches certainly proves Groundspeak is being quite cooperative with the NPS. At the risk of ticking off and losing customers, they've archived every cache the NPS specified without question. How is that being uncooperative? My frustration with the NPS continues to grow, especially since one of my caches was an "innocent victim" of this recent "crackdown". I'm trying to be patient, civil, understanding, and cooperative. However, I'm going to fight for the re-reinstatement of the cache that I lost. I'd encourage others who have lost legitimately placed hides to do the same.

The referenced link doesn't state anything about their policy regarding geocaching, only that it exists. The entire page is devoted to GPS info, so I don't think that page can be construed as them permitting geocaching on their lands.