Kirbert

Well, there's a fundamental difference there in that, at most of those places, you'll be back in an hour or two. So, as you say, you can just hide your stuff in the bushes and come back for it. But when you're getting on a plane, you may not be back this way for days or weeks, and you may not come back ever. Dropping your contraband off at a nearby geocache is better than the TSA finding it because 1) they don't give it to someone else, they just throw it away, and 2) you don't get interrogated.

I'd like to suggest a new series of "themed" geocaches. These caches are to be planted either near or on the route to/from a commercial airport. Here's the idea: Just before you catch a flight, go find this geocache and drop off all the stuff you're carrying that won't make it past the TSA: pocketknives, metal nail files, boxcutters, handguns, hand grenades, AK-47's, you know, whatever you forgot to leave at the house or just picked up along your travels. Meanwhile, anyone just getting off a flight into town and feeling naked without your pocketknife, stop by this geocache and see if there's anything in there you can use. Obviously, these are not typical geocache trade items. Heck, they're not even ACCEPTABLE trade items! Hence, the cache listing should be topped with a warning that some of the trade items found in this cache may not be suitable for children; use discretion. The cache would probably need to be pretty large, lest it quickly fill up. It also needs to be hidden very well, which may be a challenge in the vicinity of a commercial airport. To be clear, it most certainly should NOT be hidden on airport property! Better it's a couple of miles away than too close. I'm suggesting that these caches be named "For Those About To Fly" followed by a dash and the 3-letter designation of the airport in question. For example, such a cache planted near the airport here in Tallahassee would be named "For Those About To Fly - TLH".

You guys are aware that you can buy craft baggies for about 2 cents each, right?

Yes, actually! That's why I'm saying you really need to experience this to appreciate it. Even completely impervious items such as golf balls and rubber erasers, despite not being destroyed by water, still end up looking grungy after bopping around inside an ammo can for a while. Sure, perhaps you could take them home and clean them up and use them, but you're not tempted to. The same items, wrapped in baggies, look new and desirable for months, perhaps years. Usually. Probably depends on the packaging. A lot of toys come packaged on "bubble cards", plastic front with a cardboard back. These end up in three pieces inside a cache, the cardboard back rotting in the bottom, the plastic cover bouncing around in there somewhere, and the toy itself looking grungy. If the entire package had been bagged, it would remain literally new. True enough, but a lot of people are getting annoyed now at all the worthless junk in caches.

I must say I am surprised at how many of you oppose the idea of making this a guideline -- even among those who agree that bagging is a good idea. I'm sure most of you are seeing the same level of deterioration of trade items inside caches that I'm seeing. Oh, well, if it won't fly, it won't fly.

It's clear you haven't visited an area where individually bagged trade items are the norm. It simply must be experienced to be believed. Swag degradation may be inevitable, but if so individual baggies must slow it by about 95%. I dunno about you, but when I look through the swag in a cache, I find it pretty easy to tell which items were probably junk when they were first dropped off and which were probably nice enough that some kid might actually have wanted them except that they have degraded into absolute rubbish while they were in the cache. The latter is, in my experience, the much larger problem. Hence I hesitate to accuse other cachers of failing to trade fairly. It appears to me they are trading fairly for the most part, it's just that their trade items are deteriorating badly before anyone takes them.

Not putting everything in individual baggies also creates a lot of plastic waste! That'd be good, but there's still a lot of Gladware junk out there. It's understandable, I think; I know that, before I started geocaching and letterboxing, I expected all plastic food storage containers and film canisters to be watertight. It came as a surprise to learn that a true seal is a rarity in such items. The letterboxers on atlasquest.com have learned that Lock & Locks are the way to go, but geocachers as well as the letterboxers on letterboxing.org still often use unreliable plastic containers.

We've been doing that. It's not working.

Something I forgot to mention: In some cases the trade item may have sharp points or edges. In such cases, having the item individually bagged also enables and encourages the practice of wrapping such items in a paper towel before putting them in the baggie, which protects not only the baggie but the finder digging through the container as well.

The large baggie for swag is better than no baggie at all, for sure. However, usually this large baggie ends up getting torn up by being repeatedly opened by finders, by having the occasional jagged object inside it, and by being tugged and stuffed in and out of the cache container too many times. The individual baggies on trade items tend to go with the trade item itself, so a new trade item gets a new baggie, which helps insure that trade items are protected by intact baggies. Regarding having to dig to find the log book, yeah, that is an advantage of the one large baggie for swag. However, with a cache full of individually bagged swag, it's not difficult to dig to find the log book.

1.2 million geocaches out there sounds like it's late to suggest a change to this game, but I'm going to anyway. I would like to suggest that geocaching.com begin promoting the idea that every trade item in a geocache should be packaged in its own baggie. There is one area I have visited where this practice was popular -- Gainesville, FL -- and you simply wouldn't believe how much better it makes this sport. Rather than a whole bunch of rusty and worthless junk in the bottom of an ammo can, you find neatly packaged toys in pristine condition. For those unaware, to outsiders that's one of the biggest criticisms of geocaching. "Why would I care about finding a box full of trash?" It's even nicknamed "geotrashing" by some of our critics. And, as you oldtimers know, it's been getting worse over time -- geocaches today tend to be far trashier than they were a few years ago, partly because the nice trade items tend to get replaced with lousy ones and partly because all the trade items deteriorate so badly in the caches, but it's evolved to the point it appears that geocachers are actually dropping off worthless trade items as though it's standard practice. Gives a whole new meaning to CITO. Besides protecting the trade items, encouraging the bagging of every trade item would also discourage leaving stuff that's utterly worthless to begin with. If it's not worth a baggie, why leave it at all? Just throw it away. I believe this idea calls for more than just a suggestion here on the forums. It calls for a guideline on the "getting started" page on geocaching.com (which doesn't seem to mention trade items at all, actually) and a one-time announcement sent to all geocachers. And the policy should be established that all non-baggied trade items in a geocache should be removed by the next finder and either cleaned up and baggied for dropping off somewhere else or just thrown away altogether. The rusty junk commonly found in geocaches today isn't doing anyone any good and it's harmful to the reputation of the hobby.

I have no problem zooming whereever I want, but it won't show me any caches once I get there. And it won't show me any GPS coordinates, so I can't go back to the search engine to find any caches! benh57 confirmed having the same problem. If you zoom too much, it quits displaying any geocaches. The problem is, zooming is pretty much the only reason I'm on the Google map search in the first place. If I wanted the caches right where I first brought the Google map up, I didn't need the Google map, I coulda just brought up the list of nearby caches for that spot.

The "Search with Google Maps" has NEVER worked, ever since it was introduced. I've just been sitting back and hoping it would get fixed in the course of events, but it's been several years now and it still doesn't work. The Google Maps part works fine, you can slide around and look at different areas and zoom in and out, but the thing won't display any geocaches once you get where you wanna look. And much as I'd like to just snag the coordinates off the URL and go back and type them into the search, the coordinates on the URL are of where you first started looking at Google Maps rather than the area you've moved to! Aaaaargh. It's so frustrating. If the town you're looking for doesn't happen to be one listed on the Local State page and you don't happen to know the zip codes or GPS coordinates of where you want to go geocaching, you're just screwed.

Gee, none of you guys came up with the answer I did! I presumed we were talking about 10 square miles of trail, presuming the trail is 10 feet wide. Each square mile is 528 miles of trail, with 5280 boxes at one every 1/10 mile, so 52,800 boxes would fit in 10 square miles of a trail-shaped area 5,280 miles long.

Is there a way to ignore micros in searches?

I seem to recall a couple of years ago someone mentioning that a court had found that a geocache was *not* litter, and therefore a placer was not guilty of littering. Does anyone know if such a precedent has, in fact, been established? Someone just reported on one of the AtlasQuest forums that anyone planting a letterbox in a Wildlife Management Area in Georgia is probably going to be fined for littering. They even quoted chapter and verse of the regulations against littering. And the officials involved apparently are quite irate about stashing games and are out to put a stop to them at all costs. I dunno if anyone has actually been fined yet, but if they tried to fine me I would most certainly point out that I was not littering. I don't believe either a geocache or a letterbox constitute "litter". Now, if the land managers were to establish a policy on geocaches and letterboxes, I'd be perfectly willing to abide by whatever regulations they establish. But I don't believe regulations against littering apply to placing geocaches or letterboxes.

It was the passing of LandRocket that brought this to my attention: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/lofiversi...hp?t154545.html On his caches, I was seeing notes about people volunteering to help maintain them. It sorta sounded like something happened to him, so I checked his profile page, and it sounds like everything is hunky-dorry. I had to do a Google search to find out what had happened to him. It just seems to me that when someone passes away, it'd be a good plan to update his profile accordingly. At the very least, it'd prevent people from sending him e-mail.

Another issue just occurred to me. If a means of reporting non-compliant caches is established, it should be set up so non-members can use it. IOW, the owner of the property can use it. "This geocache is on my land, and it needs to be removed ASAP!" Of course, I dunno how many muggles would actually go to the effort of looking up the cache listing online, but for those who do this might be a good vehicle for addressing their concerns.

There's also the possibility that the finder is unsure whether it's out of compliance or not. Basically, he'd like to point out the situation to the reviewer -- who presumably is an expert on compliance -- just in case it is. Ideally, the reviewer will check it out, and if not in compliance appropriate corrective action will be taken, but if within compliance the finder will learn something without anyone other than the reviewer knowing that a concern was raised.

Here's another example for consideration: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...99-6d524913296d After a couple of unsuccessful attempts to find the way to this cache, I decyphered the hint. The hint took me to a spot where I was facing new "No Trespassing" signs. So I posted a SBA log. The owner replied (using an earlier date for some reason, so it's out of order) that there were other ways to the cache. Hence, the cache has not been archived -- but the hint still sends you to the spot where you're facing No Trespassing signs. I've done all I can do, and perhaps that's all that should be done. But I won't ignore No Trespassing signs.

Apparently not. Check out this cache listing: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&Submit6=Go This cache is now (after a listing update) clearly out of compliance as indicated in the cache listing itself, but that's only due to a single complaint back in November 2005. If the listing had been left as it was originally posted, there'd be no clue that it's out of compliance. And there's no indication of problems within the last five logs, the ones you normally see. Fact is, I don't consider this cache a serious problem *because* it makes clear in the listing what to expect. IMHO, it was worse when the listing didn't mention it, you just got there and found the propaganda in the cache. However, it's been suggested that this cache needs to have the cache listing edited to be in compliance, with the *contents* of the cache being a smaller issue. It might be a question of how the listing gets edited. Perhaps making it clear what's in the cache without being as preachy about it would be better. -- Kirbert

OK, let's say he removes that entire note from the cache listing but continues to stock packets of religious literature in the cache itself. Would that be better? Because IMHO it would be worse. -- Kirbert

I'm an atheologist. In theory, yes, but many generations of experience seem to indicate otherwise. Politely pointing out the flaws, inconsistencies and dangers of indoctrination has led us from the Spanish Inquisition to today's terrorism with barely any headway toward ridding the world of superstitious nonsense. The *only* possible path to an end to the senseless violence is a universal disavowal of theism, and the only way that can possibly happen is if those who cling to these outdated notions are scorned and ridiculed rather than admired and emulated. This is not an appropriate venue, though. I'm gonna quit on that, respond only to the discussion about what to do about caches that violate guidelines from now on. -- Kirbert

We are in the midst of a quagmire in Iraq because too many people think religions are benign and harmless. -- Kirbert

I do this all the time. In fact, it's surprising how many pocket knives I've collected, I don't really want them for anything, but some of them are too nice to throw away. But this sort of policy really only works when dealing with geocachers that are dropping off inappropriate stuff. In the case of the cache in question -- and I presume the point of the placement guideline -- the problem is a cache OWNER who intends to keep the cache stocked permanently. Remove the offensive stuff, he'll just install more. In this case, each packet was in a baggie. I was thinking of taking them all, discarding the contents in the *nearest* trash barrel (being sure to tear them up first), and then entering in the log that I took a bunch of baggies and left something in trade. But I wasn't as rude then as I am now. -- Kirbert