Jeep_Dog

Ah, do not feel too bad. There is no provision for displaced US citizens anywhere outside, wherever they may be.

I do not find three pathetic in the least. It all depends on your style, and especially the type of caches. One of my best days was finding two or three and requiring a good hike (actually, I ran and used a compass and map, orienteering style) over terrain with almost nonexistant trails. A second great day, like criminal, involved a signficant hike and a DNF. Goodness, even if your three is park and grab micros, that is significant for you, right? I hardly would be judgemental and deem that "pathetic."

On 8/13/05 I had 16 found in about 6.5 hours of caching. My goal was 20, but had a couple of DNFs, and had a couple I found requiring serious bushwhacking and/or a hike (one a tricky multi with a couple of DNFs), so it was not necessarily a numbers run per se, since I could have done more if I slected P & Gs. That is not my caching style in the least to get even half this many in a "run." I like to stop and smell the flowers, and explore the region in which a cache is placed. I simply did it becasue, well, "I could," and wanted to see what a cache numbers run was like. You know, just in case I was missing something. Well, it was fun for the one day that I did it, but I probably will not do it again, since I do like to take my time and explore. When I return home, I will probably stick to the 4-8 routine that seems my most prevalent pattern.

1) You should be so fortunate. My family had the pleasure of walking with him on one of the great H.O.T. caches that actually requires a bit of a hike. My wife was a trooper, since she was carrying a 2 month old, I was carrying the 2 year old. He is quite pleasant, and was patient enough, even being on a big caching spree day, to slow down to stay with the family and allow the 2 year old to find the cache. I find people much more amiable and interesting in person. At any rate, this is coming from someone who has publically, at least in a forum, disagreed with his methods. People really are much better in person... 2) Alabama Rambler asked if this was about finding caches or signing the logbooks. It is both, I think. "Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple: 1. Take something from the cache 2. Leave something in the cache 3. Write about it in the logbook" I would interpret this as each person who visits writes about it in the logbook. Obviously, other folks interpret #3 much differently than I. I agree with eagletrek's actions as a cache owner based upon his interpretation. As a cache owner myself, I would email the first individual signee on the online log and ask for verification of who was in the group when the cache was found. Then, I would be able to verify "bogus" logs as required by the cache submission guidelines. While disagreeing with his methods (and I would have handled it differently, I believe, as just outlined above), I do agree with his logic and application of his interpretation of responsibilities as a cache owner. Let's face it, the team logging is a grey area. I told him "good call" by acting as he feels a responsible cache owner. 3) My thoughts on CCC actions - "so be it." If that is what allows CCC to enjoy the game, and not done on someone else''s cache, so be it. Now, I have a much different opinion about CCC's cache find count, but I doubt CCC could care a less about my opinion. Again, so be it, and good for her, since apparently her find count is not for others, it is for her's (or at least from what I can discern from her logs). However, the logs on her cache probably fall into the "bogus" category along the same line of the recent temporary caches, but we are not the cache owner police, others fill that roll. If TPTB choose to do something about that, so be it. Even if they do not, and in the future chide me for not abiding by cache owner responsibilities, I will not hide behind this "precedent." I checked the boxes as the bottom of the submission, and CCC's actions on her cache page are irrelevant. 4) I do not see how the CCC logs fit into the "New Numbers Game" OP. I believe CCC's motives were much diferent than the OP...

Too late. I already used tanks to spew micros. BOOM!

You know it is time to hide something when you get the urge to do it. Otherwise, if under any other obligation, the cache placed not from the "heart" risks being mediocre at best. So, if the urge hits, you get a great idea, and find a neat spot, then place it, for it is the "time." If the urge does not hit you, then do not place a cache.

Bah. I am secure enough to say it: 1) Criminal 2) Jeremy 3) ChiefEagleBear The three men I most "wanna" cache with. Make your own opinions as to "why." Au contraire, my Colorado friend. Real men aren't afraid to wear kilts.

AND ANOTHER THING... Being about the numbers, et al. There's a cacher I know of with a relatively high find count, who very seldom will log a cache that requires more than a .2 walk in the woods, and has to be chided to log anything that requires a 1-2 mile one-way walk. In addition, on caches within .2, this person is renown for driving their all-terrain vehicle over ANYTHING to get to the cache. The find count I am talking about here is in the thousands. I noticed in one day of caching, this person logged 40 something caches (mostly of the "spew" type), while I logged 2 (and walked 9 or so miles and had to make a climb), yet that person got praised in local circles for a "great day of caching," while others like me, who also had a "great day of caching" went unnoticed. Would this be a "good cacher" or a "real cacher" in your eyes? In the case above, many would say "yes, that is a great cacher, look at all those finds." I know of another cacher with less than 30 finds who is dedicated to caching, loves caching, and will without thought log some very hard ones requiring walks/climbs/whatever (in fact, has at least 14 micros that I know of that were never logged). Yet, this is not a "real cacher" in your eyes? I find this all rather disappointing. Then again, it is disappointing if only I let it bother me that someone may be judging my find count. There will always be those out there that support all cachers, great or small numbered, and whether they log a bazillion micros in a day or climb a mountain to log "just one."

...er...well....uh...hmmm. Sad to say they're all there. Thanks, brother. You gave me a good chuckle on that one. I wonder if anyone looks with derision upon those with 300 something caches? 200? 100? Wow. I thought I was a "cacher" at the first find. Sure, I did not do the activity at the frequency of many in my area at the time, since I do, after all, have a family and knew I was between deployments. Now I see that there are some that say "it is not about the numbers, so please quit fussing" where there are certain circumstances where it *is* about the numbers. I would suppose, then, that someone with less than 100 in 4-5 years is a "pseudo cacher" and hence looked down upon in their current caching activities since someone has "been there, done that, but years ago?" Wow.

Sorry to have ruined your record, Mudfrog, but I was operating under the same rules. I did not know it was done before, and how many times. However, you probably still have title to being the first. You see, a week ago I logged a DNF on GW4. I *really* wanted to attend, but couldn't, and the closest I could get to the event, even though I had tried, was about 7,331 miles. Having made a good attempt, I logged a DNF. Now, there is irony with this log. I received several emails asking why I would do something so "stupid," logging a DNF on an event I could not possibly have attended. Even more ironic? One of those people sending me an email were one of the same who chided me for being offended by people in TX submitting an online log here in Iraq. It was at that moment I became very discouraged, for then I realized that some folks are so entrenched in their ideas that despite a logically sound argument about guidelines, GS archiving caches, and a majority of at least forum visiting cachers stating that they feel such logging is not appropriate, that they just will never see that logic.

I do not, either. Why do you not ask those who originated the term and attributed to other cachers on the two threads already referenced above?

Those were the first times the Puritan term game up, now that I think about it. I also recall, between the email and one or two moderately rude notes on the cache in question, a Puritan was one of the more nice things I have been called, just for stating my opinion about some interesting caching practices. Stating an opinion in a rather level-headed manner, too, if I recall. At any rate, I rather like the term Geo-Puritan now. Except for the witch connotations... Back a bit more to the OP, I remember a time not long ago when those that conducted themselves according to acceptable community guidelines were simply "good folks." Now, the same folks are labeled. Such a pity.

Well, since the thread I started got hijacked by folks calling each other names, and was locked down, I suppose I will head over to this one. Seriously, though, thank you for so succicntly stating the true problems lately. I personannly have been called everything from a "complainer" to a (explitive deleted) for stating how I thought logging certain caches does not seem proper. I have cleaned up my record, since I think this is important enough for the activity. We do need consistency. I changed a find to a note on a cache where the cache owner stated if a puzzle was solved, a cacher could take another "smilie." I did so very early in my still young caching career. Since, I have come to realize a smilie is not a smilie, but an indicator of a unique find at posted coordinates. The other was a cache I placed for an owner, with coordinates and description for placement. Truthfully, this was one of the harder things I have done in geocaching, since just finding the cache would have been easier than finding the exact spot the owner wanted it placed. It took me some time. However, I did not "find" the cache itself, just the location. More importantly, the biggest reward for that adventure was the new friend I gained during the walk. Even though I "found" the cache, I did not find it at the posted coordinates. Perhaps some day I will make the trek, and actually find the cache and log it, but it is not something I plan to do. That cleans up my record. Each smilie equates to a find. I am proud of the integrity in my numbers. I'm rambling. I suppose it would be just better to say that I also pass accolades for succintly defining the problem as to why certain practices bother the community at large.

I found this wonderful cache called Liberty Key Master today. I was very pleasantly surprised, and got a huge kick out of it. What it lacks in subtlety it certainly makes up for in secutiry. Indeed, this is one of the safest caches I have encountered! Unfortunately, it may be difficult for the average cacher to visit this one.

That is a good suggestion. If I was an owner on a micro in the woods (most of micros are placed where regular sized cache would not be appropriate, with one exception that is a puzzle cache, and the cache size is relevant to the theme of the cache), I would accept the challenge in a heartbeat. Then, as I was collecting up my micro, I would get to log another cache. Oh, goodness all around, and everyone wins.

I keep a Rite in the Rain tablet with me in my caching backpack. If I find a cache that has a wet log, my assumption is that the cache design makes it prone to wet logs. So, I pull out a couple sheets of waterproof paper, sign that and place the sheets in the cache for follow-on cachers to be able to sign. Also, on a cache container I am not too certain about (like a cache under water), I use the H2O proof paper for the log, just in case.

A) I am glad you enjoyed GW4. It is nice to meet fellow cachers, no? B ) I can report quite definitively that the cache you saw at GW4 was not "brought" from Iraq. I visited the cache in March 06. Then, when the "found" logs began showing up, and knowing the owner was 7500 miles away, I went to verify the "finds" against the "found logs" in attempt to assist the cache owner, being away, in verifying false logs (in accordance with cache placement guidelines). The cache on 28 MAY 06 was the exact same cache that I saw in March 06. So, based on the fact that the cache appears the same on this end, complete with the same log book, I would presume the "cache" you logged at GW4 was a "sister" cache of the one over here (I would wonder if even it is a true "duplicate" or twin... that is moot, just being very precise since everyone attempts to roast my *% on semantics lately). C) Have you actually read this discussion upon which you choose to opine? No one doubted the intentions of the cache owner. This was made clear in several posts. D) To whom do you refer as a "pseudo commando?" E) Are feelings relevant? There have been several notes on the cache page that posting finds on an Iraq cache by people 7,500 miles away, was bothersome. At first, I admit I was "offended." However, as time passes, I am not so much "offended" as I find it not within my interpretation of the guidelines, and not sincere in support ("if you get a reward for doing something for somebody, who are you doing it for" scenario). The bottom line on that is that, contrary to all guesses and feelings, it was not appreciated. If even by one cacher over here, one would think that someone with true altuistic motives would have no problem leaving a note of support as opposed to a "TFTC find," and the debate would be moot.

Many years ago, my mother taught me something very valuable. We were visiting an historic site, and I desparately wanted to get a photo of it. I insisted on a camera, et al. She looked at me and said "take a memory photo of it. That will serve you better through the years." So, I stood there and very deliberately took mental snapshots. I can still see the place clearly today. Through the years, I have been rather hands-off with cameras. If for my own memory, I do not bother. Another stoy is on a Denali trip, with all the tourists and their fancy telephoto lenses snapping away at the wildlife. With no camera, I just enjoyed the trip. Most of those folks that day never really saw any wildlife until they got their film developed. Only recently, have I really endeavored to take a lot of photos of much of anything. Even then, they are relatively few in number. One reason is that after having a photo taken and I have left home, my daughter has been sleeping with it. Golly, that is pretty important, so I get a bunch of photos taken so she can get on the computer and see some more. Family photos are important, too, since you just never know. At any rate. A solution. 1) Cache owners maintain their caches within the guidelines. 2) Sign the log book. 3) There are no rules for signing the online log, but "false" logs are supposed to be cleaned up. Is a "find" on somehting you never visited really a find? Well, that ties to a "relativity" discussion on another thread. So, some courtesy in not asking a cache owner to apply a definition on your behalf may be the answer. So, this #3 is : Log caches only withint the guidelines, and log them once as a find (ok, there may be small exceptions out there for one or two extras). 4) Put a list on your profile page. 5) Cherish the memories of fellow cachers. Now, if TPTB want to do more work, having another tab along the lines of a bookmark list where someone could list cachers they have met, it would not hurt (I used to list, as many others, my milestone caches on the profile page, but bookmarking made it so I do not have to do that; a similar list of met cachers would also eliminate this HTML. Nice? Yes. Required? No.).

1) My wife. 2) My daughter. 3) My mother. Yup, it is cheesy alright, but that is the truth. EDIT: I am talking about MY GIRLS. Until, of course, I get home and after 3 or so months.... Nope, now that I think about it, those would still be the top 3.

Logging a cache 7500 miles away seemed slily to me. I am glad we can find a common ground via silliness. In response to your first point, I had already added this log on the cache page: May 31 by Jeep_Dog Thank you to erik, one of the most responsive reviewers I have come across, for reconsidering this cache and getting it back on line so quickly. Obviously, this cache means quite a bit to some of us over here. Thank you to the cache owner for considering Iraq cachers' and veteran Iraq cachers' opinions, and enforcing the guidelines on this cache. Thank you to the TX cachers for considering our thoughts on this cache, and changing finds to logs. Your unselfish thoughts are quite appreciated. A HUGE thank you for the wonderful notes on this cache. Please also remember to watch other caches in this area. Your support, appreciation, and good tidings mean the world to us. Enough said from me on that topic.

I agree. All but four of my caches (and all but one placed in Iraq) are constructed this way. Plays on words and puns in the description, as well as a twist in names on my caches all contain sublte (and at times not so subtle, but seem to make little sense until getting close to the cache. Most of the caches with these plays on words generally somewhat more interesting logs than the "Thanks. TNLN." Probably my favorite is this one, where I have received mail from folks who will not even be able to search for it comment how they like the wording.

Yes, I guessed as much. However, just in case someone did not realize your poking, I thought I would still type out brilliant excuses for having 20 some FTFs. Besides, I poked first. Uh, er... nevermind.

Well, since my list is so public, it is relatively easy to look up my FTFs. A savvy cacher would note that most of my FTFs are a day, and often two or more, after they were approved. All of my finds on new caches fall in that timeframe, it just happens most of the ones that I have logged as FTF seemed to be on the days when the FTF hounds were busy, or something along those lines. Hrm. Also the way I cached plays into it. I cache only with uploaded coordinates into my GPSr. No pages, no PDA, just the coords. Sometimes, especially when visiting a new area, I do not even know what is new and what is not. Anyhooooo..... Look at others as you view yourself, I suppose, so no matter what I say, if someone is a FTF hound, they will never believe in a century that I am not a hound.

Goodness. I had never considered such a bookmark list as "gloating." It could be percieved as gloating in the way the list is presented, or if maintained by a known FTF hound. I keep such a list. I do not use it to gloat or show off (I only have 20 or so), but to keep track of caches that I was first to find. Being a fairly open fellow, I share all of my boorkmark lists, just in case someone is interested. I wonder if anyone sees my list as "gloating" or "showing off." I tend to doubt it, since only one of the FTFs on the list is deliberate. In other words, I did not go out of my way to rush to a new cache and log it for a FTF stat (I did do one, which was only 2 miles from my home, and had popped up as I was logging the day's finds). Within my caching area, any new cache that pops up is certainly something I will go find, but all were not a rush, and I reasonably expected them to be found already. It could be this mentality or philosophy is prevalent in the list, thus not crating open disdain?

AMEN! Hey, wait a minute. Not only was it a traditional cache, it was regular sized, too. So, God likes regular traditional regular-sized caches? Now, a rule question. If I un-find a found cache the same day as my accidental find, then am I even? Also, if I DNFed Geowoodstock 4 from here in Iraq, does that get me extra sad faces toward my record? Can I DNF Geowoodstock multiple times, especially if I DNF all the pocket caches? EDIT: If you think I am kidding about the DNF, then click here for the log!