4x4van

Yes, you are correct. However, keep in mind that the closer to the cache you are, the accuracy of that bearing will deteriorate a bit, simply because of the fact that the GPS determines that bearing based on where it currently is, and it only knows where it is within 10-30 feet (depending on satelite signal, surroundings, etc.).

For us, it's the quality (or lack thereof) of the caches that has put a damper on our caching. When we started caching, the majority of the caches were in spots that actually had some thought put into them. They took us to a beautiful view, interesting or educational location, something out of the ordinary. They also generally had quality swag, even if they had been around for a significant amount of time. We enjoyed the hike/education/hide, traded even or up, signed the log, re-hid well, and headed for our next find. I've been to alot of really special places because of geocaching, and that made it worth our time even if the swag had deteriorated over time. The journey was reward enough, and nice swag was icing on the cake. We couldn't wait for our next chance to head out again for more of the same. Now while the number of caches available to seek out has dramatically increased, the quality of most of those caches has, IMHO, gone waaaaay down. Caches are seemingly placed at random, anywhere that one can be placed, with no thought as to "why". And even brand new caches rarely have any swag that would be interesting to anyone other than a 3-year old. And if they've had even a few visitors? Forget it; you'll find nothing but trash and broken toys. To me, a geocache that's worth seeking should take me somewhere that's somehow special or different. And if not, then at least start it out with some nice swag. In other words, Take me somewhere that I would enjoy going even if there wasn't a cache to find. Show me something, teach me something, make me say "Wow" or "Cool" or even just nod my head and say "Nice". I remember something I read about geocaching when we first started out; "Just because you can hide a cache somewhere, doesn't mean you should hide a cache there." I think way to many cachers have forgotten that. A well-thought out cache is a jewel, a container of trash thrown anywhere is simply litter.

I'm sure the PQs are indeed worth it, but I have no desire for them. If MOCs were discontinued tomorrow, I would immediately pay my $30, but as long as they are a part of the equation, I will not purchase a premium membership, because I believe that they divide geocachers based on a very flimsy pretense. There are many ways to contribute to this sport, most importantly (IMO) by placing quality caches and treating existing caches with respect (i.e. trading up, re-hiding well, performing repairs as needed, etc.). My lack of a Premium membership is simply my small way of protesting a feature that I believe does more harm to the sport than good. And yes, I accept that that means I cannot seek MOCs. But as I said, many of the same arguments that I and many others have used to try to convince PMs that MOCs are not good for the sport, are the same arguments PMs are now using (in this thread) to try to convince the OP that an anti-MOC is not good for the sport. Can you say "Irony"? I still can't get the grin off my face. I didn't mean to imply that I was the only regular member he was locking out of his caches. All of us are locked out. Yet I'm quite certain that he has no problem seeking out regular members' caches. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Don't get me wrong; Geocaching.com is a great site, by far the largest and most comprehensive site for this activity there is. And it is definitely a big part of why the sport has enjoyed the growth that it has. But realistically, the website is not the reason for the sport...THE SPORT IS THE REASON FOR THE WEBSITE. If it weren't for people placing and seeking caches, this site would have no reason to exist. Yet if the site went down tomorrow, the sport would go on.

Whew!!! Took me quite awhile to read through all five pages on this topic. Now, many of you know my stand on MOC's from prior threads about them, so I won't repeat myself (much, anyway ), but I've been laughing the entire time I've been reading this thread. I'm hearing things from PMs like: This anti-MOC cache "divides" the geocaching community, which is wrong. Or this anti-MOC cache unfairly excludes some cachers based on nothing more than their ability/desire to pay Groundspeak a fee, which is wrong. Or it punishes cachers who support the site (in a very specific way), which is wrong... The hypocrisy is astounding. Most, if not all, of those arguments can and have been used to try to convince people not to place MOCs, and we have been told "Get over it!" "Pay the $3, you cheap freeloader!" Etc, etc, etc. Yet now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly; "It's not fair!" I applaud the OP for this cache. He has found a way to make a statement against MOCs and try to balance (and hopefully even increase) the number of caches available to all cachers, all while conforming to Groundspeak's rules for the cache listing. I've often thought of doing this myself, although I would in fact modify it so that only PMs who have actually placed MOCs would be restricted from logging. In my area, there is a cacher who places almost exclusively MOCs, quite a few, and none of them are ever opened up to the rest of the caching community. Since there is not a cache maggot problem in this area, I have to assume that his reason to deny me the opportunity to seek his cache is based on nothing more than the fact that I haven't paid for a Premium membership. As I've said before: If I am not good enough to seek his caches, then what makes him good enough (better?) to seek mine? A measely $3.00? I happen to judge people on alot more than that, I would hope people judge me on more than that as well.

I think it's alot of hot air about nothing. As others have said, it is not a geocache "for a fee". It is a geocache placed in an area that requires an entrance and/or parking fee, just like many, many other caches. If the fact that an entrance fee was not mentioned on the cache page, there would be numerous complaints. The only thing that even comes close to being objectionable is the additional links on the cache page, and even that would be debatable. The fact that the State itself placed the cache and stocks it actually speaks highly of their attitude towards geocaching, IMO, as opposed to the many states and organizations that ban geocaching. Will it directly result in more revenue for the state? Probably, but by such an insignificant amount so as to be nearly a moot point. Here in California, a $5 adventure pass is required just to park alongside the road anywhere within the national forest areas, which covers an awful lot of ground. I'm not just talking about "parks" that actually have improvements such as picnic areas or such, I'm talking about anywhere in the national forest. Many, many caches are placed in the forests, as it of course provides some of the best locations (hikes, views, etc.). The $5 fee program was started a number of years ago because gov't spending for upkeep in the national forests was woefully inadequate to cover the costs associated with managing those forests. Now obviously the argument can always be made that the gov't is wasting too much money in the first place, but neither you nor I are going to solve that problem overnight and in the meantime the Forest Service still needs to be able to do it's job.

Because the other satelites are at different angle from you than that first one. By use of triangulation, they can tell where you are, and they really don't care much about your vertical position. It's all about that Algebra & Geometry thing again!

Also keep in mind that your unit may have had 40-50 foot acuracy both days (not at all out of the ordinary)...that would have allowed it to report your position(s) 90' apart at the same coordinates. It's possible that you just lucked out on the first day, and "unlucked out" on the second day.

First thing you've got to realize is that consumer GPSr's are not going to be 100% accurate. 20-30' is considered pretty good in most cases. That accuracy will also vary depending on the orientation of the satelites, which are always in motion, so at times, 50-60' is the best you can hope for. The other thing to remember, which is probably what you're experiencing, is the fact that the maps themselves on GPSr's are not going to be extremely accurate. Some areas are better than others, but don't expect them to be exact. If you mark a location on your GPS, can you do a "go to" and find your way back to that spot (within 20-30')? Then your unit is okay, and the problem is most likely with the imternal map data. Since your waypoint shows up accurately on Googleearth, I'd bet that what you're experienceing is simply the limitations of the map data in your GPS, which can't be helped.

That sounds like the best way, as the owner stated that he would replace the "bug" (actually, a white Jeep) when he received the tag. I'll have to e-mail him and make sure that he received the tag, and suggest that he "grab" it. Thanks, all. Is THIS the White Jeep? Who did you contact? Yes, that's the one. I was contacted by...I think the name was "Coggins". I'm not at my home PC right now, co I can't verify that, but will.

That sounds like the best way, as the owner stated that he would replace the "bug" (actually, a white Jeep) when he received the tag. I'll have to e-mail him and make sure that he received the tag, and suggest that he "grab" it. Thanks, all.

Us non-PM members like "premier" locations, as well. Don't just throw us the lamp-post leftovers, please! Now there's something I hadn't thought of!!

I recently visited a cache that had been muggled. I recovered a Travel Bug tag from the site, but the actual bug was gone. I "retrieved" it online, then contacted the owner, and at his request mailed the tag back to him. Unfortunately, the TB still shows up in my inventory, and I'm not quite sure how to release it. The only options are to "write a Note" or "Discovered it", neither of which seems to fit the situation. What do I do?

To Fox-and-the-Hound: Wow...you have a knack for making my feelings jump all over the board! One second I'm steaming mad, and the following sentence I'm ready to buy you a beer and toast your logic! I may not agree with everything you say, but you make many valid points, and I certainly respect that. I doubt we'll ever completely agree on MOCs, but I would welcome the opportunity to cache with you at any rate. To Lemon Fresh Dog: You make many valid points as well, and I applaud the fact that you eventually convert MOCs to regular caches. That way you are rewarding those who contribute financially to the site, but not excluding those who contribute only in other ways. Ultimately, all I'm asking is for PMs to use MOCs sparingly and/or temporarily and not abandon the rest of us. To all PMs: You certainly have every right to place MOCs; that is without question. But I also have the right to my opinion that MOCs do more harm to the geocaching community than good. Evidence of that is the heated debates that rage every time the issue is brought up. I don't think there is any other topic that consistently gets 3, 4, or more pages of repies in a matter of days. Again, all I'm asking is for PMs to use them sparingly and/or temporarily. Non-PMs do contribute a great deal to this sport and everyone's enjoyment of it, including PMs.

I don't think I automatically "deserve" access to every cache. Again, I simply think that the basics of caching should be available to all cachers, regardless of "how" they contribute. As I said, I think that the placement of quality caches and the respectful treatment of existing caches are a much bigger contribution to the sport than the $3 is. Does that make me better or worse than you? Neither, we simply contribute to the sport in different ways. So again my question to you is: Why do you think i am not worthy to seek your caches but you are worthy (i.e. better) to seek mine? And to Dave&Stacy: My Garmin comment was in jest, as noted by the smiley face, based on the well-known habit of the E-Trex series having trouble under tree cover. A similar comment could be made about Magellan's "sligshot" effect. I happen to own both Magellan and Garmin. Both are good units and both have shortcomings. Debate me on the merits of my arguments if you want, but don't accuse me of cutting you down or "GPS-Brandism", because there's no water in that container.

So you won't stay at Holiday Inn because you won't be a Priority Club member, or get free roadside service because you won't join AAA, or won't get Sky Miles because you won't join the airline's club? Are all those things elitist or just Groundspeak PMs? Fair enough questions. -No, I would not stay at a holiday in if I had to pay extra for a bed or roof, since a bed and a roof is the basic reason for staying at a hotel in the first place (caches are the basic reason for our sport's existence). -I have belonged to AAA in the past; but don't anymore. There are other avenues available to get assistance in the case of a roadside breakdown. And while many businesses offer discounts for their products/services if you have AAA membership, they don't refuse to sell to you without that membership (unlike MOCs). -Sky Miles are a nice perk for frequent fliers, but there are no destinations that I'm aware of that require Sky Miles, so I am not forced to join that club in order to visit a particular destination (again, unlike MOCs). As I said in an earlier post; Boiled down to the basics, Geocaching is about hiding and seeking caches. While Premium Membership should offer perks & features to make that easier/more convienient/more fun, the basic game should remain open to all. IMO, the placement of quality caches and the respectful treatment of caches found is worth alot more to the sport overall than $3 sent to the website. Again, MOCs almost seem designed to cause divisiveness. I like to think of geocachers as one big, extended family in the pursuit of a common goal. MOCs have the effect of dividing that family up into different groups, based on a single criteria that really has nothing to do with whether a person is a "quality" cacher or not. And I don't believe that is healthy for either the sport or the website.

You know, every time someone states that they don't agree with MOCs because it excludes many cachers and seems "elitist", PMs immediately go on and on about the money, how MOCs aren't/can't be "elitist" because it only costs a measley $3. Unfortunately, they're missing the point that we're trying to make. (Maybe most PMs are Garmin owners and can't see the forest for the trees? Sorry, couldn't resist! ) It isn't about the money. It's about excluding cachers, cachers who do, indeed, contribute to the sport and even your enjoyment of the sport. Indeed, $3 doesn't make you elitist. What makes you elitist is you telling me that I'm not good enough to search out your caches, but you are good enough (better?) to search out mine. All on the basis of only $3. I'm sorry if you can't understand that, but perception is reality, and that's the perception that MOCs give. They are the one perk of Premium Membership that seems almost designed to create divisiveness. In fact, as long as that perk exists, I won't pony up the $3, specifically for that reason. However, since TPTB have decided that MOCs will be a part of Premium Membership, you do indeed have every right to place them, for whatever reason you choose, even if for no other reason than "you can". But I really hope that you would consider the "perception" that they do project and use them sparingly and/or temporarily. Please don't forget about the thousands of non-PM cachers who have placed the majority of caches that you yourself search for, and who have in reality created the very reason for this website to exist. If that's not support, then I'm not sure what is.

There are basically 3 reasons people give to justify hiding MOCs (Members Only Caches), and what follows is just my opinion of those reasons: Reason #1: To give back something extra to only those that support the website by “paying the frog”. Regrettably, this completely ignores the support/contributions (in the form of caches placed) that thousands of “regular” cachers have made to the sport, without which the website would have no reason to exist. IMO, the only legitimate use of this reason would be MOC caches that are subsequently opened up to regular cachers after a short time period, giving PMs first crack at them but not permanently locking out the rest of the geocaching community. Unfortunately, MOCs in my area stay MOCs and are never converted to regular caches. Reason #2: Cache Protection: #2a: To prevent caches from being muggled. This is a complete farce, since by definition, muggles are non-geocachers who inadvertently come across caches. Placing a MO cache has absolutely no effect on whether the cache will be found by muggles. Additionally, there are many active geocachers who were actually introduced to the sport by first being a muggle. Locking up the information about a cache could actually deter the possibility of turning some muggles into great, contributing, and possibly even "paying" geocachers. #2b: To prevent “casual”, “new”, or other “non-serious” cachers from causing the deterioration of caches. Being a “newbie” or casual cacher does not necessarily translate into “un-caring”. A jerk is a jerk, and a good person is a good person, regardless of whether they are hard-core, new, long-time, or just occasional cachers. It’s called character, and no one group has a lock on it, PMs or otherwise. Some of the best caches I have found were placed by relative newbies, and some of the most “ho-hum, whatever” caches were placed by long-time cachers, including PMs. #2c: To protect caches from a local “cache-maggot”. This is the only legitimate “cache protection” reason, but even then should only be used on a temporary basis, as cache-maggots tend to lose interest after a while. Additionally, the current requirement that users be “logged-in” before being able to view cache pages/coordinates has probably reduced the number of maggots somewhat. Reason #3: To “limit” the traffic to a cache due to it’s placement in a sensitive area. If the area is that sensitive, then I really have to question the wisdom in placing a cache there in the first place. Limiting the traffic to a cache is easily accomplished by other means, i.e. tougher or longer hike, difficult puzzle, etc. Boiled down to it’s most basic elements, geocaching is about hiding caches and seeking caches. While Premium Membership should offer additional features that make that activity easier/more fun/more conveinient/etc., the basics of hiding & seeking should, IMO, remain free and accessible to all cachers. For PMs that place caches that are permanently MOC, I ask this simple question: Are you willing to put your “smileys” where your money is and stop seeking caches hidden by regular (non-PM) members? If not, it seems that you are being somewhat of a hypocrite by telling us regular members that we are not worthy to seek your caches, but you are good enough (better?) to seek ours. Unfortunately, that's where the "elitist" impression comes from.

See, that's exactly the "elitist" attitude that comes across from MOCs. That since I don't pony up the cash, I must be the type of cacher who abuses the caches that are out there and don't contribute anything worthwhile to the sport. It's pretty presumptious of you to make that accusation, don't you think? Especially since you know absolutely nothing about me, other than I am not a PM. Yup, I guess the sport would be better off without caches like this one. Since it was placed by me (a regular member), it must be junk. Heck, based on the logs, nobody seems to like it anyway, right? Just wondering? Are you the type that sabotages regular caches to make MOCs more appealing, thereby increasing the number of PMs? See, that's a completely unfair assumption for me to make, isn't it? So why do you make the assumption that I leave junk in caches? I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of caches in existence were placed by regular members, and/or PMs before they were PMs. Does that make us all (you included, before you became a PM) pond scum? Somehow I don't think that $3 per month is the defining difference between good people/cachers and bad. I kinda think, and hope, that there's a bit more to it than that.

There are many good reasons for upgrading to a Premium membership, and just that of supporting the site is probably one of the best arguments. However, the one part of the equation that creates the most "angst" in these discussions is the MOCs. Personally, I think the so-called "feature" of MOCs creates more hard feelings among geocachers than it's probably worth. No one is calling PMs elitist because of $3, but rather because some PMs have decided to allow only certain cachers to look for their caches. Unfortunately, perception is reality, and MOCs give an elitist impression by locking out a large percentage of cachers even though they have contributed greatly to this activity in other ways (mainly by hiding caches, without which there would be no reason for the site to exist in the first place). To those who place MOCs and never open them up to the rest of us, are you willing to also quit searching for caches placed by non-premium members? If you can honestly answer "yes" to that, then more power to you. Otherwise, you appear to be at least a bit of a hypocrite. After all, if we are not good enough to seek your caches, why should you bother to seek ours?

That's because there is no valid 6,7,8 or 9 in that "A" position. The format you are using is degrees followed by decimal minutes (ddmm.mmm) There are only 60 minutes in each degree, so once the minutes field goes over 59.999, it goes back to 00.000 and the degree increases by one. Here's an example: DD.DDDDDD : N42.944450, W75.611117 (Decimal degrees) DD MM.MMM : N 42 56.667, W 75 36.667 (Degrees, Decimal minutes, this is the format geocaching.com uses) DD MM SS.SS : N 42 56 40.02, W 75 36 40.02 (Degrees, Minutes, Decimal seconds) All three of those refer to the exact same spot/coordinates. There are 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in a degree; but a decimal number has 100. And just to throw something else at you, there is also something called UTM coordinates, in metric. Same location as above is expressed as: 18T E 450144 N 4754827

Actually, I only use 1 of the 3 pieces of information you've listed as "required" when I'm geocaching; Distance. I use a SporTrak Pro, and when I am quite a ways from the cache, I will occasionally use the map screen, with Distance and EPE (estimated position error) displayed. But most of the time, I use the compass screen (the one that "looks" like a compass, anyway), along with the Distance and the EPE fields displayed. Because of the "northfinder" feature, I'm usuallly confident of the compass bearing that is shown graphically, even when standing still, and a detailed bearing number is only useful if you are comparing it to a good handheld compass. And I've never wanted or needed to know my Track in order to find a cache (Track is where I've been, not where I'm going), so I'm not sure what you use that info for. Unless you are talking about Heading. But the only reason your Heading would be important is to compare it to Bearing, and then calculate/adjust the direction you're walking so the two match, again referring to a handheld compass. For me, the most important info to find something (a cache), is which direction it is (the "go-to" arrow pointing the way on the compass rose, which constantly updates), how far away it is (Distance field), and how accurate my GPS's signal currently is (EPE field). I don't really need or want anything other than that. Just my thoughts... BTW, my ST Pro has 7 different nav screens, one of them even allowing me to show 6 different fields at once. Sometimes, progress is a step backwards, it seems!!

There could be a few things going on...or nothing at all. Most GPS units have multiple coordinate formats that can be used. Make sure they are both the same format. Location could be expressed as Digital degrees only (DD.DDDD), degrees with digital minutes (DD MM.MMM), or Degrees minutes seconds (DD MM SS). Each of those settings will display different numbers for the same location, since there are only 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in a degree, whereas in digital format there are 100 in each. Here's an example of the three formats, all showing the same location: N34.785383,W116.424633 (decimal degrees) N 34 47.123, W 116 25.478 (degrees with decimal minutes; Geocaching.com uses this format) N 34 47 07.38, W 116 25 28.68 (degrees minutes seconds) You can also check for the same map Datum; WGS84, NAD72, etc, although I believe that would not change the coordinate numbers, but rather where those coordinates show up on a map. Finally, keep in mind that there is a margin of error with all units that will vary depending on conditions. If one unit is dealing with a 30 foot EPE (estimated position error), and another unit is also dealing with it's own 30' EPE, they could be reporting coordinates that are 60' apart for the same location.

You know, every response in this thread has made sense and dealt with the issue at hand till this one. Why would a "Premium Only" cache make any difference? I seriously doubt that these kids got the coordinates for the cache off the GC website. Had this been a Member's Only cache, it would have made absolutely no difference, other than the fact that a huge number of legitimate cachers would have been locked out. But I digress, that is a completely different issue (which is kinda why I can't figure out why it was brought up in this thread)., so to get back to the issue at hand: I definitely would've sent a copy of the log to the parents, just for GP, along with a note letting them know that if the cache is further vandalized, legal action could be forthcoming (yeah, I know, it wouldn't really be possible, but...) Thing is, perhaps they are a product of their parents, in which case sending the log to them would accomplish nothing. However, there's probably just as good a chance that they are simply "sowing their oats" so to speak, and really need to be called on it. I know that I did some stupid things when I was a kid, and it wasn't because I was raised wrong or my parents didn't care. On those occasions where I was caught doing something stupid and my parents were told, it made a huge impression on me (in more ways than one!!).

That looks like a great list for medium length hikes with kids. I applaud you for taking the time to think about preparing for emergencies. Take a look at this link for an even more thorough pack/list, yet one that only weighs 10-12 pounds and so is convenient as well. This pack is light enough and small enough that I use it for short hikes, yet it worked perfectly for a 12 mile trek to the 10,800ft peak of Mt San Jacinto that my 11 year old son and I made 1 1/2 years ago, and I had every confidence that it held enough equipment that we could have easily and comfortably spent the night out there, even in bad weather, if the need had arisen. I plan on using the same pack when we head for Mt San Gorgonio later this year, a 15 mile trek up to 11,500ft. And yet again, I also use it for caches that are a hundred or so yeards from the van, too! Having a well thought out and fully equipped pack not only makes great sense when hiking with your kids, but it also teaches them a great lesson; that they should always be prepared and leave nothing to chance.

Okay, I'm gonna admit right now that I didn't even read every reply in this thread (117?), before just jumping to the end and putting in my two cents here. So forgive me if this has been said (probably repeatedly): I have a fanny pack that I use for urban caching. It contains a compass, GPS, small first aid kit, pen/paper, and SWAG. However, for anything longer, I use a larger (but still small) hydropack with much more stowed away in it. I have no real desire to spend the night out in the wilderness, but I cache with my kids and have the responsibility to keep them safe while in the great outdoors. Therefore, even though my pack only weighs about 10 pounds including 2 liters of water, I carry enough well-thought-out equipment to be able to make an unplanned overnight stay, even in inclement weather, at least bearable. In fact, I wrote an article that was used in the Nov '04 issue of Todayscacher e-zine, called "Pack Heavy, Pack Light". Here it is. I think it sums up my ideas on packs pretty well; I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it!