Jeep_Dog

Gulped beer?

Sigh. I took the time to find earlier threads, and guidance on this issue straight from the horse's mouth. After doing all of this, and getting the links, and the message is posted, I see the "horse" responded already. It is the thought that counts? edit: the horse spoke

No, I certainly do not. While some others in my area may have quite a bit of angst with our reviewer, I certainly believe the reviewer is doing a phenomenal job. With the exception of two caches (after my first placement), my caches generally are approved within hours. I find this very impressive. Oh, for inquiring minds, of the two caches that are exceptions, one cache was within .10 of a virtual, and took a "whopping" 5 days to run the approval wickets (and the reviewer was on vacation, to boot, and regardless the reviewer posted the initial "sorry, not in guidelines" note within hours), the only other one not wihin hours is one currently in the que, and it has not hit 24 hours, which I would not comment on even if it went beyond 72 hours, since I see no trend for latency from my reviewer, which would indicate to me that there is probably good personal reason for the delay.

Not to be contentious or anything like that, but, no, that thread, while quite enlightening, did not answer my question. I could perhaps infer from some different styles of reviewing that your lot was so kind to share that what I outlined occurs. For example, Keystone mentions hitting "easier" caches further down the que prior to puzzle/multi caches (and that sidebar created a flurry more activity) that take more time. This makes sense... yet in some cases the "easier" caches to approve could possibly be caches submitted by a consistent owner. I appreciate your Markwell, since it did indeed enlighten me into other review aspects, and is a great note to when submitting puzzles to be quite thorough (which I took to heart prior to reading the thread).

I would not log one of my own caches, but that is how I play the game. I do not see any sense in logging my own caches. I have not set up an event, nor attended any (poor selection of event times for my schedule, for example, lunch time during the week and 35 miles away); yet, I doubt I would log my own event. I really like Reviewer Jone's tagline in regards to this question- "It's a lot like finding your own Easter eggs. There's no regulation that says you can't, but people are going to whisper and shake their heads." That is the most common-sense answer to the OP question I have read...

I did a search, but didn't find a category a general question such as the one I am about to pose would fit. Hence, a "generic" category that is easy to find on the search engine. If it already exists, and my search prowess is not up to par, please forgive me. Now, my question is: Are some cache hiders intrinsically deemed more trustworthy than others? For example, in a long que of caches awaiting approval, have some cache owners demonstrated consistency in abiding by the guidelines and obtaining land manager/owner permission, and thorough effort to maintain their caches, thus their caches get a slight "bump" in the que priority? I have noticed that some cache owners' approval is lightening fast, on a somewhat consistent basis for their caches, than some of their comrades. No, this is not a "masked" question dealing with any of my caches, rather, just a general observation I have made. I know this could be a can of worms to some folks, but it would seem a somewhat consistent trend. It would make sense for something like this to be practiced, and good in these forums since it may perhaps be yet another reminder to folks when they place their caches to ensure all the i letters dotted and t letters crossed, and all guidelines met; this thoroughness may also mean a quicker approval for a tried and proven cache owner. The only other trends I have noticed, this one definately relating to my caches, is lenghty delays are caused by a cache "on the fringe" of the guidelines (rightly so!), and when ALL new caches have a bit of a delay to them (which I hope indicates that reviewers actually have a life, eg they are out geocaching, going to dinner, taking vacation, or -gasp- spending time with friends/family).

There certainly are many ways. With the new upgrades, perhaps one of the more fun ways are utilizing a .kml file provided by GC to use with google earth (link to info provided by GC).

Oh, my goodness. Our new upgrades include Google Earth KML capability, and we can even create our own with bookmarks. If Jeremy and crew were not thousands of miles away from me, I would hug them all. Well done, and THANKS!

One of my caches not only has permission to have a cache at the location, but the manager/curator actually ENJOYS having the cache at the location. Because of this, I get quite a few interesting stories from her when I check up on the cache. One of the stories involved cachers asking her (muggle) where the cache is located.

Also, the Texas Geocaching Association site could probably help in your quest of finding fellow cachers in your area.

You can visit this link for one of the easier, and from what I have seen on profiles, more popular ways to do that.

Oh! I guess I could have done that! I had not thought of that. I suppose you operate with more RAM than I do. If I was a light bulb, I would probably only be in the 20 watt range. If I was a GPSr, I would probably be a Magellan... Actually, on one outing I had PDA issues, I continued hunting with just coordinates in the GPSr. I found that method more challenging and/or fun (more surprise in the hunt), so I stuck with it.

Uh, does that make those of us who use the Garmin Venture slightly less cool? What I really wanted to say was "welcome!" to the new chap! I hope you get your Garmin problems resolved. If the "someone else's" data pops up exactly before, then you are finding the pre-loaded test coordinates someone above already mentioned.

That is exactly why I gave in to my little girl and put one there. I thought "golly, perhaps it would be nice to have a cache that gets a lot of visits so I have something to read." In my slight defense, I at least avoided the "light pole" paradigm, and exercised just a wee bit more creativity in camo and placement, which was facilitated by the massive nearby store with all the supplies we needed. We actually shopped for the materials, built and cammoed the cache in the parking lot, then placed it. My two year old was thrilled. I was grumpy that I had actually stooped to that level.

First, if it is in a really nice area that is enjoyable to visit, then when the first finder snags it and comments on the nice walk, the pretty scenery, and the enjoyment they had getting the cache, then folks would probably take notice and decide to experience the fun, too. As briansnat commented, your cache may be a bit on the "difficult" side, meaning the hunt takes a bit of a hike, bushwacking, and finding. Personally, that is a type of cache that I prefer. Generally speaking, though, folks tend to prefer the quick gratification caches. For example, one of my more scenic caches that is a very nice hike, and very well reviewed by folks that visit, has been visited merely 14 times in almost a year. It is a multi with a micro first point that includes a 1/2 mile round-trip hike that just does not seem to attract masses of cachers, despite the cache being initially loaded with some pretty nice swag (most of the items in it from the $7-$18 range). Conversely, my only "park and grab" cache (this type of cache, if you look at all of my caches, is definately not in character for me, I placed it to placate and amuse my two year old daughter who picked the spot one day and insisted we put a cache there) has received 39 visits in 4 months! So, we have a cache in a beautiful lakeside spot, with wildlife, fossils, a great view, and a pleasant hike that, relative to a cache with nothing much more than an awesome cammo job, gets very few hits. That is just the nature of our hobby. Give it time, folks will eventually get to it.

How about "we use our God-given 'palm pilots' and write the information on the underside of our hands?" There. Paperless again.

Sept1c, what we really need is an IQ and/or conscientious test. Good luck in devising one of those that can make such an assessment. My frustrated geo-ego agrees with minimal number of finds before hides (this based in similar finds with the problems described on numerous points of debate on this forum). Unfortunately, however, my practical geo-experience (id) side feels this is a bad course of action. I have found experienced cachers place really poor caches with bad coordinates. I have also experienced new cachers with less than 20 hides put out well-planned caches with spot-on coordinates (back to the IQ/conscientious factor, as opposed to experience). Indeed, the on-line comments on my first cache, placed when I had a mere 19 finds, attest that setting a minimal find number could stiffle excitement in the sport and the placement of quality caches. I shall let you know if it is either ego or id that eventually wins.

I am glad to see I am not the only insane one out there. I did neglect to mention that I add to the GC waypoint name some shorthand information. After the GCXXXX, I believe I have about 5 more figures. If the cache is a traditional standard size (ammo can or such), nothing is added to that name. If the cache is a micro, and a film canister, then I put in something like GCXXXXMF, indicating micro film. If a multi, then GCXXXXMMFRT (which would mean Multi, first leg Micro Film, final Regular Tupperware). Like you, for offset or mystery/puzzle caches, I take notes. Hints? If the cache looks nasty, I put an H in there that a hint exists. I either call for someone to decode for me and tell me on the phone, or tough luck for me on that cache if I cannot find it. I go home if a DNF and look at the hint, and if the location was worthy of a return, I have the hint stored in my neurons to assist me. The two times I have DNFed a cache with a hint, the hint did not really assist in the find anyhow. The first was one where knowing where not to look (already covered many hiding spots) assisted more than a hint to where to look (under a rock... in a field of rocks...gee, thanks for the hint), and the second today, where telephone back-up gave me the hint, and I still could not find the cache. I generally tend to remember the cache description from reading the listing, which is facilitated by my record day being 17 finds, and my average finds in a day (other than drive-by opportunity caching of new local caches) is 8 or 9. Again, this is by design to fit my style. This method does not necessarily lend to racking up numbers quickly, and some folks are appalled that I could consider caching this way. However, I tend to stop and smell the flowers in the area, and appreciate why the hider has brought me to the location. If I DNF, and the area has no intrinsic value and is a long distance from my caching HQ, then I ignore (gasp!) that cache.

No, I would not have changed my log. I have not found several caches that were not there. The owners never suggested I could change the DNF to a find, but that would not matter since I would not anyhow. I did find substantial debris, to include the large container lid, some swag, and a signature item, for one cache I logged as a DNF. I signed the lid as a log, and replaced it at the posted coordinates and left a note to follow-on cachers on the lid. My DNF online log stated I had the swag and was happy to return it when the cache was replaced. The owner archived, suggested that I log it as a find since I signed what was left of the physical cache. This is the only case where I changed the DNF. By the way, all the swag went into one of my new caches at another location with the swag I put in it, with the items on the original inventory listed as coming from the archived cache from which it came.

You could use my method of paperless caching, involving nothing more complicated than my GPSr.

This posted twice for some reason. The point wasn't THAT important to post twice.

I would go for it, "find smilie" or not! Especially if the "surprise" was a take-what-you-like but do not feel obligated to leave anything (since someone may not have swag with them for the micro). I like the idea, and think it would be fun, especially on a day with a long string of micros, for a change of pace. Yet, I could see many cachers who would indeed ignore it since it would not help their "numbers."

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that caching without a page is "wrong." That is the OP's point - that the cache should be listed as a multi if it is indeed a multi. If the cache is a traditional, there may very well be no need to "have the cache page with you." If sold as a traditional, and is actually a multi, and the cacher shows up with only coordinates, in my opinion, if there is any "egg" involved being smeered on visages, it is on the owner's visage this "egg" falls upon. 80% (estimate) of my finds were done without cache pages on me. I started off printing the pages, then went to paperless. My PDA frustrated me to no end (batteries were unpredictable and the unit insisted on turning itself on in my pocket and draining the batteries), and I soon discovered I enjoyed the challenge of hunting with only coordinates loaded in the GPSr. Plus, I am saving on paper and ink. Once in a while, I may list cache names, waypoint name, and coordinates on a single page, with small hints such as "hey, dummy, this one's a micro!" to keep them straight on a longer hunt day, or I may summarize the caches in one or two sentences if I have novice cachers along with me so they can read the description. Yet, my preferred method is to simply load the .loc files in my GPSr and head out, following the needle. Different styles for different folks...

That is a nice, succinct way of describing the very fuzzy boundary line between a puzzle and a multi. It really doesn't matter too much at the edge, anyways. It is heartening to see reviewers pointing out that the Mystery/Puzzle caches do have fuzzy boundaries, and the edge is not worthing ansgting about. I have a mystery/puzzle cache where the coordinates get the cacher to a point, where they have to use a magnetic heading and a distance calculation to investigate another point. The second point has two sets of numbers, one of which completes the coordinates for the final. This is an easy puzzle, where intuitively one set of numbers makes sense to complete the coordinates, the other makes no sense. For experienced cachers, this is hardly a "puzzle," but for new cachers, it can be quite confusing. I have had two cachers come across this and state "gee, this sure feels more like a multi than a puzzle." I took the first stage of this to fall under the guideline "the only commonality of this cache type is that the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location," since it is indeed a general reference point from which to shoot an azimuth and go a short distance. I believe the two folks that differed with the type chosen found the "puzzle" part of bogus numbers and real numbers to be self-evident. I must be on the right track, since my area's excellent reviewer who is quite thorough in reviewing caches approved it without question (and I know from experience that he quite rightly questions!). I suppose my point is that the line is indeed fuzzy, reviewers recognize this, and the initial determination really lies with the owner's gut feeling and/or experience.

Answering your question, I would not even dream of doing a cache that consisted of an electrical component with my kids, nor would I allow them to investigate such places. If a warning or hint was listed on the cache page, we'd bypass it that day, and if no warning or hint present and we encountered such a hide, I'd pretend with the kids to look in less dangerous spots, and state "oops, I guess we didn't find the cache. Time to move on to the next one." Does that mean there shouldn't be caches designed as such? I do not think so, for I am the cacher who assumes responsibility for my hunts, as listed on each cache page. Further, if I'm solo doing more "dangerous caches" (those I deem not 2-3 year old friendly for whatever reason) without warning or hints (subtle or not so subtle) that a cache resembled an electrical device, I would not investigate such objects if encountered. I would note the cache, and confirm with the cache owner that is the container or hiding method. If that is the only likely type of container in the area, then I would investigate after confirming on a second visit. If there was more than one device, and the cache was not obvious, then I would ignore the cache. Surely I am not the only cacher "plagued" with common sense when conducting hunts?