JL_HSTRE

Thanks for the responses everyone. Based on the feedback here I've logged a Needs Archived. If it gets archived, I'll stop by the park and send the container to the nearest garbage can.

Went looking for a local cache today: Not Bad But Rotten (GCJQW7). We found it, but: the container is a badly rusted Altoids tin the log & baggie need replacement the description and hint are outdated due to changes to the park (read: lots of tree removal) since the cache was placed in 2004 the CO appears to have been inactive for years What is the proper procedure for a cache like this? I'm not sure if "Needs Archived" is appropriate since the cache is physically still there but if it needs maintenance and the CO is history it might be good to remove it so an active cacher can place something in the park...

My friend has an iPhone 3G with AT&T. I have a borrowed Garmin GPS72. We've found the iPhone is nearly always as accurate as the GPS. Of course, in a more rural area or with a newer GPS you may get better results with the GPS.

The influx of smartphone cachers seems significant. I've see the topic come up a fair amount, particular with concern about the accuracy of some of their hides. But it definitely makes geocaching more accessible. I don't know that I would buy a GPS just for this, but starting was easy with my friend & fellow cacher having an iPhone. It's certainly encouraged me to upgrade to an smartphone myself.

I started using Waymarking a week ago and have two gripes so far: 1) The same Waymark may be listed multiple times because it falls into different categories. I think same building/bridge/etc should only be listed once, but make it possible to list it in multiple categories. 2) It's less obvious what Waymarks you've visited already. Where are my big red checkmarks? Where are my smiley faces on the map? Where are my totals for how many I've visited broken down by category? I have already submitted by first Waymark (and had it approved): an Army Corps of Engineers benchmark I came across. I'll probably try to add a few more around town.

I found 100 caches in 3 1/2 months before I came across one of the skirts. Except the first one I found was inside a broken skirt. So it wasn't for another couple weeks before someone made me aware that the skirt caches existed - I didn't realize the ones that weren't broken could lift up! I have since found 4 of them, 2 of which were previous DNFs. There are also the occasional fake sprinkler head but be VERY careful you've really found a cache and not a real sprinkler that happens to be at/near Ground Zero!

Why are Benchmarks still part of Geocaching rather than part of Waymarking? Seems like they have more in common with Waymarks (something you visit and photograph but no log to sign). Just curious...

My experience with "newbie" caches: a local cache was placed at the beginning of this month (April). The CO has 3 finds, all of nearby caches. The cache is a pill bottle (based on the hint), micro-sized, placed in a sea grap hedge. It has a 1/2 2 star difficulty. Based on a similiarly described nearby cache by other cacher (one of the 3 found by the CO - presumably their inspiration), it should be at least a 3. So far this month there have been 3 logged DNFs: myself (doesn't mean much) and cachers with 1200 and 3000+ finds. And goodness knows how many failed searchs have not been logged. It's near the end of the month and still hasn't been found. I've been caching since the beginning of the year. I hit 100 caches in 4 months and have not yet placed a cache of my own (though I am formulating some ideas). My friend I frequently cache with has 60+ finds and will be placing his first cache this month. I think some kind of threshold before you can place a cache is a good idea. 100 finds seems fine to me, but I think 50 would be easier. I would also put a minimum time requirement for the account: a couple months with your account in addition to # of finds. Just to make the person think about what they are doing rather than find a couple caches and overzealously placing something, especially if their interest later wanes or they realize they don't have the time for proper cache maintenance. You need to know what you're doing. If there is a hard limit, I could also see giving reviewers the right to waive the limt if the cache was seconded by an experienced cacher (ex: child who has cached with their parents getting an account and hiding a cache, newbie who has been introduced by an experienced cacher thus has some to tell them if the cache is a bad idea). Even if there's not a hard limit, perhaps the questionaire when submitting a cache should be more detailed so the reviewers can more easily spot issues or the reviewers just prod COs for more details on vaguely described caches to avoid issues? What newbie finds 100 caches in one weekend? That sounds like an excellent idea! Passing a cache hiding rules quiz before hiding your first cache would probably be a better idea than a Finds requirement.

1) Where do I find the small ziplock baggies to put logs in? I don't recall ever seeing normal Ziplocks that small so I'm guessing I need to get them from some place like a fishing or crafts store? 2) What's the best way to attach a bison tube to a tree? Fishing line? Thanks!

I'm 28. I went caching this weekend with friends who are 25, 25, and 23. None of us have kids.

I have commited the most common cache sin of logging finds where I did not sign the log. Usually it was an issue with the condition of the log or the cache in general, but sometimes I have not signed simply because I forgot a pen. But I have never logged a find where I did not actually find the cache so I have no guilt because I know have been truthful in my finds, even if I didn't follow the exact letter of the rules. But I do have a more serious cache sin: I unintentionally contributed to the short lifespan of a local cache. I was inexperienced (maybe 40 finds?) and the cache was very near my home. But it was a 4 star cache involving an unknown container hidden in a large quantity spanish moss hanging from a tree (later revealed by the CO to have been a bison tube painted a similiar color as the moss - and I am told some moss was also glued to the container itself to make it uber-camo'd). The cache only lasted about a week before being archived due to the amount of damage to the moss. I think I was caching beyond my skills and will likely skip any mossy caches in the future for fear of damaging them via my poor searching techniques. I'm pretty certain other cachers also contributed to the damage but I felt terrible about it when I saw it was archived and why; I still feel bad about it. I have not met the CO but if I do in the future I would really like to do something to apologize to them for it. Suggestions for how to atone for this sin are appreciated.

Based on my admitted limited experience, film cans seem to manage as long as the log itself is in a ziplock baggie inside the container. Same goes for the ever popular magnetic key case.

Ditto.

The only premium caches I've seen (albiet in only a few months of caching) are premium because the cache is unique and an cacher who is careless and impatient could do damage. One is a locked box where you must figure out how to get the lock open (no bolt cutters please) and the others are a series of hollow electrical junction boxes some of them in very close proximity to REAL junction boxes (don't shock yourself, damage the real ones, or accidently cut the power to a building). That to me seems like the perfect reason for a premium cache: reducing the risk of damage to a cache or things in close proximity to the cache because of the unique nature of the cache. Not every premium member is a patient, veteran cacher but these seem like caches best done after you have some experience despite not deserving a high difficulty rating. Premium caches that are relatively normal but made premium just to make the cache high quality and free of riff-raff is probably both ineffective and elitist.

There is a local cacher who has some fake sprinkler head caches and I do not think he has had any problems with them. Based on how he has done them, let me make the following suggestions for that type of ache: 1) For all the locations, he has permission from the property owner. 2) In all the cache descriptions, he explicitly states that the cache container has a screw lid and you should only remove the lid and NOT to try to remove the container itself. 3) He uses the same brand of sprinkler head for all caches in the series. Each cache is placed in an area with sprinklers, but the real sprinklers are always of a different brand that the cache container.

I've been caching since the start of the year and have no real qualms about logging DNFs. Sometimes I'll make a very brief search which I will not log a DNF. But if I make a serious search effort and turn up nothing then I will log a DNF (and put the cache on my Watchlist to see if anyone else finds it). Sometimes I am pretty sure the DNF is my shortcomings as an inexperienced cacher and/or just a really clever cache and I will note that in the log. But if I spent the time and effort to make the search I'm going to log it.

My friend and I use a combination of an iPhone 3G (using the official Groundspeak app) and a Garmin GPS 72. In our experience, the iPhone has been about as accurate as the Garmin most times: usually a reported 15-20 ft accuracy. Admittedly, we've only done urban and semi-rural caches. If you're out in the true boonies I suspect it's not as good. Also, a newer/better model GPS will probably help. The battery time is an issue too: a full charged iPhone seems to only last us 3-4 hours, even when turning it off when not using it for navigation & cache info. Having the full info on a cache at your fingertips is great though, especially as newbie cachers.

As long as the terrain is appropriate and the dangers are noted in the description, it seems fine by me.

Something I've come across repeatedly in my few months of caching is caches where the logs have gotten wet at some point and started growing mold. Being in south Florida probably makes it particular bad with humidity we frequently have and getting alot of rain. Problem is the geocaching procedure is of course to sign the log to prove you visited the cache. But personally I prefer not to go touching stuff with mold on it or possibly breathing in mold spores. Especially since it is nearly always black mold. Does anyone else have this problem?

Is it possible to filter cache search results by size? Example: all medium caches in a particular zip code. Thanks.

I've got a friend I cache with. Makes it more fun. And having a second pair of eyes is really good sometimes. Also, he has an iPhone with the official app so it's nice to get the full info on the cache instead of having to print out or write down stuff in advance. He also has a good knack for spotting 35mm film canisters in small trees (usually walks into them).

I got a shirt from the Groundspeak store to wear when I got geocaching so other cachers can spot me clearly.

I was driving from the post office back to work today and I passed two people standing on the sidewalk. They looked like they were looking at a seemingly random palm tree by the sidewalk. My first thought was to wonder if they were geocaching. (I looked up the area but there are no caches there, at least not on the mothership.)

Thanks I'll have to look for those. I don't intend to hide micros if I can avoid it (as far as generic caches go I love me some ammo cans), but if I find a spot where I don't think an ammo can would be good and I need something small I want to have a plan B.

In my few months of geocaching I've seen a variety of micro caches from film containers to bison tubes (something I had never heard of before finding one that was a cache). Other than the Groundspeak store, where can one buy a Bison Tube or similiar waterproof container? And in terms of keeping the log dry is that the best type of micro container? Thanks!