Jeep_Dog

Right. Now I am pissing and moaning. That pesky virtual here in Texas is owned by someone in Colorado Springs. Go figure.

You can do this without the effort of walking. Mark a waypoint. Without moving, select your GOTO function (whatever that is, navigation, etc). Immediately you will note your "destination" is at least 2-4 feet away. I utilized this technique demonstrating how to use a GPSr to a happy new owner, and have done this several time when instructing on the use of a GPSr. The technique is ironic in that it is 100% accurate at hitting the target, unlike the accuracy of the GPSr.

LOL. One of the virtuals was particularly crazy in that it was a multi virtual that started at one end of town and worked across to the other, and about where the final was for that virtual bumped right up on the .10 radius of the virtual giving my fledgling physical cache problems. Talk about an annoying virtual that canvasses an entire ville. Either the data of all the stages was lost between the old reviewer and current reviewer, or perhaps the reviewer noted this huge virtual, since the town's first phsysical was located within feet of one of the stages. I've abstained from other caches in this town based upon needing to complete this virtual, and found that tidbit out over the weekend. On a sidenote, there I was completing the virtual, doing homework/scouting for future caches, and it gets archived that very morning.

Thanks mtn-man. Contact info for PA is moot. Noting this, I thought that I had started off asking for an exception. Knowing y'all are volunteers, I did not believe asking for an exception on the exception was and exceptional course of action. If the nature of my approver note isn't clearly an exception, perhaps I need to readdress the reviewer.

Compared to our North American neighbors and European friends, we don't have much to complain about, but wow, fuel prices certainly are climbing. I've always tended to logically lump caches together to avoid excessive or unnecessary driving. So, my caching won't be impacted too much. In addition, I had a feeling we were going to see more increases, so I traded in my gasoline Jeep and got a new diesel Jeep. I'll squeeze every mile out of that costly fuel. Anyhow, the cheapest diesel in this area is $2.09. Most likely that's already gone up. So, I'll just get the nearly 500 miles out of this tank and pray for lower prices relief. I, too, am disgruntled that diesel, less refinement and the step to gasoline, costs more. There's something terribly fishy about this...

Thank you for the suggestion. I have sent an email to the virtual owner, suggesting perhaps collaborating into an "uber" cache that goes along the offset cache guidelines; I sent this email along after the new cache was not approved. However, given the guidelines of "this is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another," I thought perhaps an exception was in order. The primary purpose is to reduce confusion between caches, and clearly there would be no confusion between a virtual and a physical. While natural physical barriers are not present, the town setting of the caches and the need to travel in restricted lanes (vis a vis fence break, roads, buildings, and sidewalk), there's more distinction geographically than meets the eye on a map scan. I have no doubt that a consensus among cachers in this area would agree that both merit a cache, especially given the opportunity to work with the town's museum manager, annual festival organizer, and all-around respected matron. There's some nostalgia to the original virtual, as well. I couldn't very well respect the region's history, and expect a stand-down of a virtual that was the very first cache in the town. Both caches have their merits, and I truly believe both should be approved. Again, I appreciate your help, yet the nature of my post wasn't a query for ideas as to how to get my physical established. Rather, I was hoping for a discourse on when to recognize the guidelines for what they are and honoring the intent of the guidelines as opposed to being chained to them.

Excellent point! I spent a lot of time on a cache without a FTFer on it, with exactly that problem. Negative reinforcement (eg "pain") is an excellent instruction tool with me, and I resolved no more FTF. Different strokes et al, but I prefer to let a new cache rack up a couple of finds before I hunt it. In fact, based upon last weekend, I may let a couple of WEEKS go by to ensure the cache is well-thought out and planned to avoid being muggled. Available time to cache for me is a precious commodity, and if I get a chance to cache, I at least want the cache to be there (I am not fearful of a DNF on a cache that is there). Since being burned early on, I have gotten a couple of FTFs. They have to be REALLY convenient and/or on the way to doing something or caching already. I don't get heartbroken if one of the many local FTF hounds gets there first. So, I don't understand the OP's point of view. If there's a local FTF addict snagging the FTFs, at least the cache coordinates have been verified!

Ok, ok, ok. Before 1500 folks post supporting or flaming approvers, please read carefully. I have no issue with my approver, they are upholding cache guidelines, and in fact even being helpful in suggesting alternatives. Yes, I understand the guidelines, and read them every time I create a cache in case there are any changes I should understand and consider. No, I am not whining, and merely wish for an intelligent discussion without angst. Here's the story: A very historical town nearby was blockaded by two virtuals. One virtual was archived last weekend. The other still in place. This is an awesome little place to visit, and one redeeming factor is this history is literally 3 minutes off an interstate. Among other things, the town maintains a museum for the region, managed and curated by a town matron who married into one of the region's founding families. This wonderful lady is a personal friend of mine (Scottish connection, see posts regarding kilts ), and has been interested in my geocaching activities since I began the sport last fall. She has even asked me several times if I could create a cache at the museum, each time I've had to decline since a virtual straight-line distance is definately within .10 miles. She sees geocaching as literally part of this region's continuing history, and even volunteered to keep an eye on the cache and let me know if anything is amiss! Part of the intended description: "Located on the grounds of the Central /EDIT/ Area Museum. Be sure to stop in and say hello to Ms. Cille (prounounced "seal") the museum manager. She's an expert on central /EDIT/ history, and specifically the Scottish influence in the region. She's very excited to support a geocache on the grounds, and would like to meet geocachers. My note to the approver summarizes the above information, and also outlines the straight-line distance is not in accordance with guidelines, but true walking distance (measured by me, of course) certainly is outside of that distance. You can probably guess the outcome of the attempt. The approver replied in a very courteous and helpful manner, as I already mentioned. However, are we cutting off our nose to spite our face? Honestly, if we get such a helpful property/land manager that could greatly promote geocaching in an area, shouldn't we perhaps bend the "guidelines" to account for this? Please, no flames, just intelligent discourse on the topic. By the way, the cache is not moving. The museum manager is too excited (blah blah blah, I should have emailed approver first, blah blah blah, but I can't) to move it, so I will list it on an alternative site. Naturally, the "cache" will be stripped of any geocaching.com reference. Loving GC as much as I do, I will create a GC cache based upon the approver's suggestion, when I get the time to do so.

Reading this is incredibly dissapointing! I pity the type of folks who would do something like this. Something is terribly amiss in their lives. Oh, the angst. It may be judicious to keep an eye on an area's caches. Once a trend develops, it may be time to convert caches to members only caches. At least this way if some malicious folks out there want to destroy caches, they at least have to pay and support the web site to satiate their sick cravings.

Huh? That's a lot of caches in one prison. Pretty good cache density, but going to prison is definately not on the high-priority list to increase cache counts. I don't WANT to know what crevice or dark spots the micros are hidden!

Perverts! LOL. I wonder how this cache overwatch rates on the Snat Pervert Scale (SPS)?

It was a reference for your uncanny ability to summarize a long and confusing post with a simple one-liner. Such as "That makes two posts that I don't really understand. To get back on track, we'll put you down as a 'No'. " Thanks for the comment on attitude. Actually, there's a good chance you will see me and Sarah hitting the LA area cache logs in April. First (and only?) goal: Definately get the center of Disneyland cache. Already been there, and know what the answer is , but not as a geocacher. Other goals? As whims take us, we'll see. We will be headquartered in Burbank, so any suggestions for toddler-friendly caches would be quite welcome. Cache on! (edit: Silly grammar mistake few would have noticed)

I agree, and I did not mention there was anything wrong with them. I do not begrudge others for setting numbers as goals; they just don't work for me. That being said, like anyone I'll have a list of caches dowloaded for a particular cache excursion. The spouse will ask how many there are for the day, and I'll state something like "I have six of them dowloaded in this region," but it is not a goal, per se, since if the universe aligns and we get them all, great. If it doesn't, or someone in the family would like to deviate from the "plan" to do something that looks really fun in the area, then so be it. Last weekend, caching with only my daughter, I set a "reverse" goal. Heading out the door, I mentioned that we'd do "no more than four." This was an eye to the cache pages that stated nifty neighborhood parks, that are always inviting to a toddler to safely play and explore. I just happened to realize that in my drive for the first 100, I was literally forgetting to stop and smell the flowers (actually, Sarah loves sniffing flowers and must sniff any and all we encounter). So I throttled back. As sbell would be quick to point out, I've been verbose on stating a simple axiom that goes something like "I don't set X caches by Y as a goal, but I do list X caches on Y day as a 'plan.'"

If you think that is something, check out this local cache and experience with the land manager.

Yeah, I set a huge goal. Don't let geocaching get in the way of my enjoyment of the sport. Huh? The sport gets me out to interesting places that the entire family enjoys. I endeavor to enjoy the places and the PROCESS, not the count. I take my time and don't mind if Sarah and I end up spending 45 minutes in a park and log only one cache when we could have logged 4 or more. Look at the joy on my daughter's face! Yes, the time spent here could have been 5 or 6 more logged caches. They will be there next week, and if I only knock one out every Saturday and we have this much fun doing it, then good for us. I began getting caught up in the "numbers." I started eyeing that first "100" and setting goals to get there. No, that is not for me. So, close to the "prize," I pulled away for a couple of weeks, and refocused on the process of the sport and the ultimate goal is to enjoy it with the family, not logging finds. You know what? It made 100 that much nicer.

<shrug> Someone can adopt the cache or remove and archive it prior to redeployment. No different than any other cache in less hostile regions. Then again, in my case, redeployment wouldn't necessarily be moving away from the cache. There a year, home a year, there a year. I'd be able to take better care of my caches in Iraq than here in Texas.

Have been awakened by both mortar and rocket fire. This leads me to believe if coordinates were posted for a position 3 feet from my bunk, it would not make a difference, since they were trying to hit that spot to begin with. In fact, I can think of a couple of locations of caches in FOBs, such as burn pits, out-of-the-way corners, etc, that I'd prefer to have posted. Might as well let 'em shoot (assuming coordinates would be of any great assistance to firing mortars or rockets from the back of a pickup truck) at these types of places instead of a sleeping area, eh?

There's also the "green one", the etrex venture, that comes with a cable. Only 1 meg of RAM, but relatively cheap and just a wee bit over $100. Edit: Link a an inexpensive eTrex Venture. Add to cart then view cart for actual price, which is significantly lower than the list price shown.

I go with the second type, too. Just a little more information to get folks re-engaged and out of a rut whilst on the trail. In one cache, I got a little creative and did this with a little humor, and have received positive comments (about hints!?!?!?). Check this one out: "I love the hint. Couldn't figure it out until I found the cache. Real funny." You can decode the hint on the cache page, and most will think "that's a worthless hint." Now, isn't this just in line with the game? A hint that does the cacher very little good until they get to the cache area, and then provides humor/entertainment to enhance their caching experience?

LOL. Renegade, you knew better. When two caches are slammed in by someone new in the area, and their profile shows less than 10 finds, then perhaps reading the logs and as much about the cache owner is appropriate? Seeing the utter psychotic rants on the cache pages would have been an ignore from the start for me.

Gurer vf ab checbfr! Fpheil eng sernxf chg va fbzr fvyyl "abguvat arrqvat uvag urer" sbe hf gb chyy bhe unve bhg naq qrpbqr juvyr ba gur genvy! Teeeeee..... THERE IS NO PURPOSE, save causing frustration for hapless cachers on the trail decoding something like "what moron needs a hint for an easy micro cache in 100 acres of forrest!"

Ahhhh. No, I don't see. I do not view geocaching.com a business. I consider it a service provided by a business (Groundspeak). Indeed, if your theory was correct, that this is a "business" and premium members were "customers," then you would see preferential treatment in all regards to premium members. This certainly does not happen, in fact I think TPTB do a remarkable job about not discriminating between members on this site (charter members, premium members, or basic members). All seem to have the same vote. So, you and I see the site very differently, and is the reason for our difference of opinion.

I thought it was all about finding the cache, not the online logging. If a cache is found, and log signed, it is a found cache.... but if you log a find and don't go to the cache, then it is not a find (ok, except for locationless caches). I've got family members who cache and log the caches, but choose not to go online to log them (due to not caring about online logs, not having a computer, etc). In my view, those are still "finds."

Uh, perhaps to support this wonderful service/website? I liked what I saw, thought it worth supporting, and sent the $$. Then again, before I switched to satellite radio, I also supported NPR. Guess I'm just freakish that way. The PQs were beyond my wildest imagination in utility, though, and there's no loophole for that. Frankly, if every feature had a "loophole," I wouldn't feel slighted in the least. To each their own, I suppose.

I think this could be an effective way of robbing real estate from parking lot caches. Obviously, other threads debate whether or not this is a good thing. Opinion seems varied and heated. However, also pay attention to what is in the area. There could be a really nice neighborhood park less than .10 mile away that you jam up with a multi in an attempt at fighting back wally world micros.