Jump to content

Armorsmith

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Armorsmith

  1. Looks like someone needs to go to punaholics anonymous...
  2. This made me laugh, might have to stea...er...borrow the idea. (if you don't mind)
  3. Good point, but I was referring to those represented in this discussion.
  4. boy is it fun to say things at you, you always seem to have such wonderful reactions. I just finished writing this in my previous post, but I know I'm "over thinking" it. To expand on that thought, over thinking is the whole point. Everyone who has been caching for a while has a "Personal DNF Policy" it just isn't written down, it usually isn't even thought about. You've developed a, for lack of a better term, "caching worldview" and that is what affects how you make your decisions in this regard. And that is the whole reason for asking a question like this. You don't ask "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" because you're curious about how many angelic dance halls you can open up in your kitchen drawer, you ask it because the answer to that question gives you a glimpse into the answerer. Allow me to explain. Had I stated "I think it's ok to not post a DNF if you plan to go back for a second visit very soon." This thread would have been twenty pages of argument by the end of the day. All sides would state their opinions over and over and over and over again. It is just the nature of how internet forums work. Instead, I asked a question, and gave my answer. I was interested in the answers to the question, of course, but by approaching the discussion in this way, not only was nearly all of the internet pettiness avoided, it also opened up the discussion to actually dig deeper into the answers than such a simple question should have allowed. We haven't actually been discussing DNF's, we have been discussing the very nature of caching. "Over thinking" one single aspect allows us to discover much more about the whole than if we were trying to look at the whole. In what I suppose is an apt analogy for geocachers, we essentially ventured into the forest looking for a single hollowed out stump, but we got to see more of the forest on the journey than if we had stayed in the car. Essentially, it's a way of not missing the trees for the forest.
  5. This is precisely my point. And hence why I feel it is an interesting discussion, but we can't expect to come up with a definitive answer that pleases everyone. This drives home the ultimate point I'm trying to make with this thread. There are always mitigating circumstances, and the beauty of the game is that how you play conforms easily to the player and his or her circumstances. I know you are joking when you say 187 yards, but the question is, what if your car is a two hour hike from the cache and you need to head back for the pen. By your definitions if you have to go back to the car, you're fine, you're golden. But by your definitions if you leave the site it was a DNF because you didn't sign the log on your first visit. Besides, when I get called in to work, it's usually only for an hour or two, so I would make it back to my search site sooner than you would make it to yours if it was near my office. What I'm trying to point out is that with the exception of MythicalUberCacher12, every last one of us makes a judgement call any time something interrupts the ideal caching condition, which is an uninterrupted search. When I stated mine was a policy, it wasn't that I've written it down and that I consult my list when it's time to make a log, it was my attempt to solidify my feelings on the matter in my mind so that I won't have to question myself. And I posted it here to encourage this great dialog. As I stated, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on how they post DNF's. My only hope is that those who take a hardline view will realize that following that hardline view in all situations would cause problems rather than solve them, as in these examples of situations from my real caching career. That view is great, and if you are a traditional cacher who goes out just to find caches and makes "caching runs" and all that, it works perfectly for you. I encourage everyone to post DNF's, they are an important part of the game. But I for one have circumstances in my life that require caching to take a back seat, often at a moment's notice, and I'm often lucky to find 20 minutes to cache in a whole week. (As I said, full time job plus business start-up) All I would ask that you understand our position and that you not look down on those of us who do not have the luxury of being able to cache "traditionally" when we attempt to find a way to honor the spirit of the law when the letter of the law is written for someone else's situation. Both? I understand why someone might think I'm "over thinking" this, but it is in my nature to always ask the "why?". It probably comes from my spending years as an editorial photographer for advertizing. There were no casual decisions, and nothing was ever left to chance. I've trained myself not to do anything unless I know why, and so I think about things like this. I know full well this is purely academic, and that it probably isn't important at all in the grand scheme of things, but it interests me none-the-less.
  6. No you didn't and I got your joke, hence the little laughing frog looking guy. But it did provide the opening to ask for clarification from those in your "camp".
  7. Geez, right after I got done complimenting people on explaining themselves well. But seriously, I clearly fall into the third camp, and I have given you several reasons why. You have stated how you feel about it, but you aren't giving us a reasoned argument, you are appealing to what you feel should be obvious to everybody without actually stating it. Clearly, it is not obvious to us. If you disagree with my arguments, I'd love to hear why you feel that way. I've explained, with examples the reasons I see gray. Don't just keep restating your position, discuss it with us. If you are confident in your position, explain why. Here are some questions that would help us understand your position. Why should a search should be defined as a single visit to the site. Why is it that if my search is interrupted by my "real life," I should post a DNF in spite of the fact that I intend to return to finish what I've started, and if it makes a difference, why the length of that interruption affects the status? If I stop searching to take a phone call and I have to walk back to my car to check something, should I post a DNF? If so, how far from ground zero counts as officially "leaving of the site"? Can you define your terms like looked and found? If you define a find as signing the log, did you find the cache or not when the log is too full to sign? I look forward to reading your reply. Hopefully you can remove some of the gray.
  8. Oops, didn't realize it had gone onto the second page. so I pretty much repeated what don just said. Instead of being repetitive, here is a picture of a puppy: .. .. . ,, .:.~~= . . . . .. . . . . ZI77$$I77 .. .. . .. 778O$7$Z$8 +++=..~=I. ..: ?I7+??I??? .=7$$7++O$II .:=+==~=~D~ . =7+I$$$$OZON .~ :~+?,~O$O+?,=:,Z=D?7II7II== . ..:=8=II7ZZ,:7Z.??NII7I=~,?= .I=,,~~?$+O+Z$~8ZZZ$IO?:,.:. ~7?,,~+:$Z7:7:ZZ$7+==+~=:,. .= :: ?8?N=7.:+O7=~IOI~. ~. NOM?D~$. . 7~?D8. . ,~I7ZZ7. :,M.?OZ8IZ?NIM$~D=7ZZ.,=.~7ZZZO888$ZI?: .. : ==Z.=OO+ NM$ZOD=O=O?+$O8DD8D8$DZZZI7$~+ . . .. .~.~Z$8 D=M .Z?+:ZD77887ZD8OOOZ$$ZZZ? . =:=,7 8$NDN...7$+?I~ZN+IZ8ZD8DZZOOZOO$.. .? ?+IO:8O NNMO+O7$ ?8I+O?7IOO$ND8ZZ$OOZ7.. :=: I8,88NZ8MNMNN.N. ?$?:I=,.ONO$ND8Z$OZZ~: .===I= ==. 7O$M.MMNND.. 7O7.+.,~IDD$ZMMZZ$8O=:~,,,+=?I?. ..8,.MN8MMNNZ .DOZ=:= ,7DDO+MMDOOZ8::++=+I$I7I7 + ,ZZ$ONN8NNN, .DNNZZI=. .OND8$OMD8O$8:++IZ$Z7I$7I . . .I$7$8NMD8MM$ODMMZ$ZO:..IO$DZ8$+MN88O$?IIIZOZZZ$$$ . .. ODMMNDNDNNN~NMDODM=..$$Z8D8D$=N8D8O7$I$Z7ONN8$$,. . =++7$8MMMMM? + .= . .,D ~OM8M.O+:?7$$D8O8?:?NDDN$ZIZ$ONNO$$Z8ZOI=+?~+?$7NMDO .: . , ,OD= ,~+$MMMM7:~IODD8DZD7=?NDOO$O$$DNN8OZZ=+=???+???::+I.. .~:::?+Z8NM$=~?NMM7+=++?$$ODOZD?=INDOZOOZON$MDDZ?+,:+=. . . . :, .:?+III?IZ+?+7OMZONN7ZI$OO8O$8D++ZND8ZOM$88$MMOI:, . . . . :==IND7I?,$7I+I8Z88OIZ$77OD8D??8N888MZ$I~$7$. ....,~??ZDD$88O88Z7+7I77$?++IIO8I?DZO$OM8OO+= . ~OD8ZDMNO77$$$ZI+=+=?ZOOOOZ7I?878?:?. . .7$O=~=~~=.,..,=:?I7$$$Z7??I8+O~I. . ~7?. .~: ...$=. . ...~III?$Z$?~ I?ID.8:. .=ZOZ. .IIM..,=~~:.,~+: . . 7II77II+~. +ZO., . . . +?II?I?IO~...,OO=N++?Z8?==...~I$OO$7I++~.:. . . .Z8D8O$??7Z+. . 7M:I:ZI+ZDDN:=I7$DZO7O$7?=.. . .+I8ZI~:. ?:=.. Z.+.N+~Z?I$$=+?$$I7I= . ..., ,=+I=~: .=. . .=$O+~8DZ77II= . . ,. .~:=:=~ . D.+,I?ZD8Z7??7? .. ,. . . ,,:,~. .. .,.::?I?II=. . ,I . ,, ~:.,+~~ . ....::7~ . . 8=?. ==,,:?~.. . ., .~+:8~. .. = = =~I=. ,++. . .,=M:.,. . .. . 7:7O,,+=? .. ... . ~:... . . ,, .. . : :... : .. .. . .,::,,+. .. ,,.? .=?.. . . ..... : . .,~$,II.~. .$ .. , :. ,. . . :.. .. ,=.,::~~?. . ,. ., ...~ . . , . ..: 7 .,. .,. . . ... .. ~7: .: . .. .+ . .~~:.. . ..
  9. Another thing I think about, is that I use the age/finds/DNF/last find stats of a cache when I'm planning a caching run out of town. If I know I have 3 hours to cache and one of them looks like it might be a tough one due to frequent DNF's, I might overlook the cache completely due to the time constraints, I only want to know how many there are, not why it wasn't found. I prefer to search spoiler free whenever possible. If everybody who is rebuffed on the weekend due to muggles posts a DNF, I will think it's a hard to find cache, even if the place is deserted on the weekday I'm going to be there. Here is another example from my caching experience. There was a cache in a park half a block from where I worked, it was a difficulty 2.5 or 3 I think, and due to its location in the park, GPS bounce meant you could only get about a 50 foot accuracy. One day I decided to go look for it, but when I got to the location, I realized that it would take more than the 10 minutes I had on my lunch break to search 750 square feet the GPS was showing me. So I looked that day, and since I always had a little extra time for lunch, that whole week, I walked to the park, ate my lunch, and then spent a few minutes systematically searching the area which was infinitely superior to twiddling my thumbs while I waited for my break to end. I found it on the 5th day. Was that 1 find, or 4 DNF's and a find? The way I look at it, it was 1 search that happened to stretch over a few days. Each day when I left, it wasn't to give up, it was because of an unrelated time constraint; a suspension of the search not a cessation of the search. I know this doesn't affect many cachers, but it is an interesting point to consider for those who take a hard line view of DNF's. I might make it out for an actual caching run once every other month or so. Most of my caching is crammed into the free minutes I have between other things and as such, my search times and habits are colored by those restraints. I can't count the number of times I've gone to look for a cache because a client was running a bit late, then got the text that they were almost there before I could complete my search. In those situations, I went to my meeting, then finished my search after the meeting. Was the first search a DNF?? I would say no. And I would say the same thing even if there was a week between segments of the search. It that is the case, wouldn't posting a DNF when you know full well you didn't finish looking be misleading to the CO and other cachers? So far, it seems people fall into three camps. The DNF is part of the game. Black and white, find/DNF, no exceptions. The DNF is a statistics thing and posting a DNF adversely affects statistics, so people who don't post them are only concerned about their stats. The DNF is for the benefit of the CO and other cachers. Therefore we must consider the impact of our DNF before we place it. This is all very interesting. I've read a lot of posts stating options on the matter, but hearing the reasoning is great.
  10. Good question worth some clarification. I've lived in places where the weather can go from sunny to downpour walking from your front door to your car. So sudden weather changes are something a lot of cachers have to deal with. The other situation this cropped up in was when I went to grab a cache in Atlanta, I arrived at the park and realized that there was an open air concert and there were 10,000 people facing where the cache was hidden. I moved on, but didn't post a DNF because by the time I got home to post it, the concert was over and gone. A third example came when I was looking for a cache in a park and a pair of muggles rounded the corner and sat down to eat their lunch in the pavilion 20 feet from the cache. I abandoned the search and returned later, but didn't post a DNF. I also wouldn't post a DNF if a place was too crowded to search if the description already states that it is often muggle infested. LOL, no, but I've had a lot of situations where I've moved on to the next cache on my list and something clicked in my brain and I realized where I forgot to look. I usually haven't posted the DNF yet, so I just log the find. I've never been in this situation, but if I got home and posted my DNF and had that realization the next day, and it was convenient (I drive around town a lot as a photographer) I can see myself stopping again for a very quick check on the theory. In that situation, if I didn't find it, I would consider that "second" search and extension of the first and not deserving of its own log. Oh, and don't make fun of my overclocked, ADHD brain. If there was anything that was actually wrong with the cache, I would do so. The kinds of situations I'm talking about is when it is something specific to me that causes me to have trouble. A post stating that I had trouble getting to the cache because I can't get my hands (which are almost a foot in length, 6 inches across, and 2.5 inches thick) into where the cache is is not helpful to anyone of normal proportions. At least in my mind, it would be kind of like complaining at the Men's Warehouse because they don't stock 40-42 double tall dress shirts with a 16 inch neck, it doesn't help anything, it's ridiculous to expect it, and I still have to special order the shirt. If my caching buddy who is normal sized has trouble getting it, it's worth a note. In short, if there is any reason to post a log, or if there is anything that would be helpful to other cachers that hasn't already been stated, I'm all for posting the log, or at least a note in some cases.
  11. Thanks, that's good advice, I'll keep that in mind for the future. I was trying to offer an explanation of why I felt it needed reviewer attention so that they would know where to start looking into it. Here is the (only) other NA I've posted (on another damaged not missing cache), is this better?
  12. Very early in my time as a cacher, I realized that posting a DNF has some outside weight in that in can potentially notify the CO to a problem. I have come to consider that DNF's mainly allow you to convey information to others. So here is my question, how do you relate to DNF's? I've seen it range from "post a DNF for every attempt" to "never post a DNF." If you're like me, which I hope most of you have been spared, you consider a lot of things before you post the DNF. I feel a hasty DNF is as bad as a missing one, and I suspect most people have a personal "when not the DNF" policy, so here is my list of my DNF guidelines, what is yours? I do not post a DNF if I was interrupted, was unable to make a thorough search, or was unable to search at all. Basically, if the DNF's implication that the cache is either difficult or missing is unwarranted do to an external restraint. A DNF stating that the sky opened up and I was unable to complete my search due to torrential downpour is unhelpful. Instead I will return and make a proper search before posting the DNF (usually the same day). I do not post a DNF if I have already posted a recent DNF. For example, if I searched yesterday, and posted a DNF, then I return for another search today, I don't post a second one because I don't want to pester the CO. The exception to the rule is to post some pertinent piece of information, like a change in hours of availability. I do post a DNF if it has been a while since my last search, especially if there have been other DNF's in the mean time. I do not post a DNF if I find shattered, broken, or otherwise damaged containers at GZ, I post a NM log instead. If the cache owner confirms the cache is still there and that the pieces were just normal trash, I retract the NM log and post the DNF. (with apologies to the CO) I do not post a DNF if I found the cache but was unable to sign the log. In situations where I put my hands on the cache and the cache is unopenable, the log is damaged or full, or I am interrupted I post a find *edit* and an NM log if necessary *end edit*. In situations where I can see the container, but can't get to it because it has been, for example, shoved into a crevice or say, my XXL hands can't get into the hole it is hidden in, I don't post a DNF, but return with either the necessary tools or a person with smaller hands to grab the cache. In all other situations, I post the DNF. I mostly search for caches with very recent finds on them so that my ADHD brain won't drive me crazy raking over the memory of the cache site for hours after I leave, so I don't get to put this into practice very often and much of it is theoretical because the situations have not arisen, but I'd love to hear how you all make the.
  13. Looking back, it sounds like fervor. Defend the CO with his words, defend the CO with an altered version of his words, defend cache owner with Aunt Sally argument. Sounds pretty fervorish to me. It sounds like you're just concerned that the CO has a voice in this conversation, so you are speaking for him. But this conversation hasn't actually been about the CO. We have gotten into a discussion about this cache, discussed good NA protocol, even discussed good cache maintenance habits. In this entire thread, the only two things that the CO has been accused of is getting out of caching (nothing wrong with that, interests and life circumstances change) and overreacting to an NA log, which is understandable, if a bit rude. For me, this has been a very interesting discussion. For example, it had never occurred to me that cachers would use NM and NA logs to avoid DNF's. And thus the cache owner's reaction caught me completely by surprise. Now I have a better understanding of what is going on, and if anything, this thread has in some ways vindicated the CO by at least offering an explanation for the reaction. Myself, I hate posting a DNF, but this is due to the overclocked, ADHD part of my brain. If I have to walk away from a cache, the DNF itself doesn't bother me, the fact that my brain is going to go around and around and around and around looking for places I might have missed does. It will actually keep me up nights, not because it is important in any special way, but just because an unsolved problem is still in active memory. So I have learned to filter my searches by caches that have been found recently, and so it has been a good long while since I've needed to post a DNF, only to have this situation rise up the first time I do. I may start a thread about personal DNF policies because that too would be an interesting discussion. See above, I'm fairly consistent when I write, so the language was pretty much as I stated there. (though the full disclosure is that I am restating it from memory, so it isn't a direct copy/paste)
  14. Well, that is something that would legitimately annoy me. I jest, but I did have an experience like that, I went to look for a cache not to long ago in a nice wooded area. Description said it was in a felled tree, gave a container type and size, and a difficulty/terrain rating. I searched almost 2 hours, then I started reading the logs. Finally found a note from the owner two years ago letting everyone know that the container had been lost when the tree had been removed, let everyone know the new coords (250 meters from original GZ), new container type and size, new difficulty rating, and new description and hint. Makes me wonder how much time has been wasted by cachers looking for the original cache that isn't there anymore.
  15. Right, since they were deleted, I don't have access to the exact text, but here are the points I covered. The DNF log stated that we looked for about an hour but came up smiley-less, and that I suspected it was missing. NA log (note to reviewer) stated that the cache had not been found in seven months, including no finds since its reactivation in July. Reactivation log does not mention a visit to check the cache, looks like it was either muggled very quickly after the reactivation or the reactivation was made without an on-site check.
  16. I actually appreciate your defense of the CO, though I do find your fervor a but puzzling. The CO didn't say the cache was there... he said he was "sure" the cache is still there. The word "sure" implies an assumption rather than a confirmed fact. And I'm not precluding the possibility that the cache may be there and that the last 11 people to look for it just didn't find it, I AM saying that it is highly unlikely that this is the case. I am not calling him a liar, I can't call him anything. At first, I thought I knew where he as coming from, I understood that, though I did not intend it, he had been offended. I even understood how, in the heat of the moment, one might overreact and post an overzealous response. I have made every attempt to extend the olive branch and reconcile the situation, and have been met with a stonewalled silence. I am more than willing to overlook the fact that he has, in essence, rendered one of the most personal insults possible against me, that I was impulsive and responded without doing my due diligence. While the accusation is presumptuous, and while I take offense, I cannot in good conscience hold it against him because he could not no how cutting those implications are to someone like me, and therefore his offense was as unintentional as mine. I already know my assessment that he was no longer active was wrong, and I don't care that it was wrong. Being wrong is a part of life. The main reason I started this thread was because I wanted to make sure that, even though my conclusion was wrong, I had not overlooked anything that would have made that conclusion unreasonable. And even the CO, in his reaction has all but confirmed that had I chosen to post a DNF and leave it at that, no response would have been made at all. I continue to watch this situation and will inform you all of the result, because I'm sure you're all just dying to know. Cheers
  17. How can the CO be "sure" it isn't. I've been there and made a search more recently than he has. It's in a place that has remained pretty much unchanged since it was built (by design). It's the attitude that there can't be anything wrong with the cache, and if I didn't find it it was because I didn't look hard enough. And not just me and my caching buddy, but 9 others before us. Last week, I made a routine check on one of my caches, the NEXT DAY I got a DNF from a very experience cacher on my little 1/1.5 cache hidden in a fence. I didn't assume it was still there, I stopped and checked it the next time I was fairly close. And it was indeed muggled. If I had written back, "I just checked it yesterday, i'm sure it's still there, maybe I should up the difficulty" I would have not only been very very wrong, I would have been indirectly insulting this cacher. Heck, I even check my 4diff puzzle cache if it gets two or three DNF's in a row, which I expect anyway, even though it is in a library with a security strip hidden inside it that will set off an alarm if anyone attempts to take it out of the building.
  18. I think you misread that, 9 DNF's in the last 7 months, all with notes about long searches and no smilies This is the same number of DNF's as the first four years the cache was in operation, and of those 9, seven were "couldn't look" Cache timeline: {first four years} - 475 finds, 2 DNF with search, 7 DNF due to muggles {last seven months} - 9 DNF with search I can see how NA and MN logs could be abused, but they have their legitimate use as well. PseudoHybrid said it well, I think, when he said that (paraphrasing here) using NA and NM logs well is the means of pruning the game to keep it lean and fun for everyone. I've got a VERY tough puzzle cache, and while I have not had any NA or NM logs on it yet, I expect to get some eventually from an inexperienced cacher or an overzealous one afraid of posting a DNF. Either way, I intend to follow up on any that arise as though they are necessary. I see it as a responsibility I accepted the day I published my first cache.
  19. Thanks for that, I've been caching for about 3 years now, I love it but can't go as often as I'd like because I have both a full time job and am working on starting a small business as well. I was a little worried that I had violated some unwritten caching rule by the guy's reaction, so it's good to know that a "needs archived" log means exactly what I thought it did. That being said, I don't doubt that there are cachers out there who abuse them or use them instead of DNF's.
  20. That remains to be seen, I'm keeping an eye on the situation because I'm curious if a check will be made... My instinct tells me that they will make the check out of perverse bloodymindedness, replace it if necessary, and post a note saying it was never missing to boot. Cheers, The Armorsmith (interesting side note, apparently, spell check knows "bloodymindedness," but not "hoosier" or "timestamp")
  21. I recently had a run-in with another cacher, I posted a "needs archived" log on one of their caches. There was no response for about a week, then after a reviewer disabled the cache, they did respond, by deleting my log and my caching buddy and my DNF logs and posting this rather rude note in its place: I had thought long and hard about this, in that it was not a spur of the moment decision without evidence and careful consideration, and still feel that I was justified in taking the extra step to notify a reviewer, not just the owner, that I suspected that the cache had gone AWOL. Here were the facts at my disposal at the time: The cache is a 1.5/1.5 micro It hasn't been found in 7 months There have been 9 consecutive DNF logs by experienced cachers with 35,000 finds between them There had only been 9 DNF's in the previous 4 years amongst 475 finds, and 7 of those DNF's lamented too much muggle activity to make any search at all It had spent over a month disabled and was flagged for archival by a reviewer, the owner had reactivated the cache the next day with the single word "go" The cacher had at one time posted prompt and detailed maintenance notes, but had not logged a maintenance check in 3 years. The cache owner had not logged a find in 3 years and had not placed a cache in 4 years 75% of the cache owners caches have already been archived. Another cache from the same owner placed a half mile away had been marked "needs maintenance" for over 3 years. My caching buddy and I searched for nearly an hour, resorting to reaching and grabbing tools to dig into every place we could think of that might hold a magnetic micro As a last resort, I resorted to using a rather clever little magnetic field detector I have in my bag for locating magnets that might be unreachable, but were unable to find anything Given this evidence, I judged that the cache owner was no longer active in maintaining their caches and would only take action if they got a note from a reviewer. As it turned out, the cacher does seem to be interested in maintaining their caches, (I did write to the cache owner to both apologize and explain the reasoning behind my decision, but have as of yet heard nothing back) but they did not see fit to respond until a reviewer took action. Even then, they assumed that it could not be a problem with the cache and that WE were the ones making the mistake. My question is, was it unreasonable to make this assessment or is the cache owner overreacting to something that shouldn't have been a big deal at all? Cheers, The Armorsmith P.S. I have only ever made two "needs archived" requests, this one and one on a cache I found with a badly damaged container that was unrepaired when I followed up six months after my initial "needs maintenance" log.
  22. I actually made the book, my friend just printed the logbook that is glued into the front cover. I'll try to mock up a tutorial on how to do this and post it somewhere. Feel free to steal the idea and the design for the book, but please don't steal the puzzle, I've never seen or heard of another cache that uses this method to hide its location and we have a local cacher with 27000 finds who told me the same thing, so if I really did get an original idea for once I'd love to this one a little time to be unique (at least for a little while). There are two parts to the puzzle, one is a GPS puzzle to find the right door to the library, and the other is figuring out where in the library it is hidden. I won't post a link to the cache page here or state the cache name here because I don't want Google to start handing out hints, but if you look at the pictures you'll know where to find the cache page. I made four books when I started, two for this cache (primary and backup), and two others that I'm giving to friends to hide in other libraries in other states, but each will have its own unique puzzle to solve.
  23. Police can take the railroad track trespassing thing very very seriously. I know a fauxtographer who is currently serving a prison sentence because he always took seniors out to the railroad tracks to shoot them (against our advice). After being politely ushered away a few times and told not to shoot there any more, one of the officers spotted him shooting there again, cuffed him, and took him to the sheriff's department to hold him until the TSA got there. He was nice enough not to arrest the student and her mother though. Basically, according to federal law in the US, railroad tracks fall under the same category and protection as airports. They are essential for commerce in the US and are therefore considered a prime target, and afforded the precautions associated with that status. Besides looking suspicious while in a parking log gets the manager notified, doing on railroad tracks can get a 911 call, especially now that people are on alert for things that are "out of the ordinary." Tracks being "inactive" or "abandoned" has no affect on this status. The ONLY exception are railroad tracks that have been sold along with the land they were originally placed on. The problem is that the vast majority of tracks are on land that was leased long term to the railroad for an up-front fee and it doesn't cost them anything to leave the tracks there just in case they ever need to reopen the line. Repair is a lot cheaper than replacement after all. Beyond that, there is a lot of valuable material in those tracks, so if the lease won't be renewed, the tracks themselves are stripped and either restored for use in new tracks or sold for salvage. I am only aware of two locations where there are railroad tracks you can go on legally. One is in an old quarry where the tracks were left because it is a historical site (the tracks leading into and out of the property have been removed) and the other is in a similar park that originally didn't have tracks at all, the owner purchased tracks from a rail salvage company and built a 200 yard long section of track in the park so he would have a place to park his caboose.
  24. A group of my geocaching friends and I are getting this t-shirt made:
  25. I went ahead and did the math, not sure if you still need it, but if the ammo can is a standard small 350 cubic inch model (about 4x8x11) you'll need at least 180 cubic inches of concrete to make it neutrally bouyant. Round about 10 lbs after it's dry, couldn't find an approximate weight for it wet. I'd go with 15 lbs dry just to be safe though, about 3/4 full, that way it will have enough mass for it to stay where you put it and not get moved around by the currents.
×
×
  • Create New...