Sagefox

edit to delete post - not really on topic

I am quite sure the disk we found in 1965 was the real thing and I suspect the disk in the Times article is that very selfsame disk. Since I did not log the benchmark as found I can be quite bold in this assumption. The marker was loose when we found it and, as I recall, it was at the summit. I think it has been lying around on its side under the snow most of its life and occasionally comes to the surface and gets replanted at the top. We need someone to get a photo of it and since the Times article made notice of it perhaps photos will be available soon. I was able to dig up a couple of historic relics from my climb:

So this brings up for me a question about logging benchmarks that I observed prior to gc benchmarking. I have logged some as found where I observed the marker or saw (intersections) the item prior to gc benchmarking. This marker included. We saw it in 1965 and I actually picked it up and jammed it back in the snow. It was loose at that time and I have photos of it. Other examples are that I saw and was in the King Dome prior to its destruction as well as seeing several chimneys or other structures that were destroyed prior to gc benchmarking. I believe I have logged three to ten of these. What are the current thoughts about this? Logging a benchmark as found that was visited prior to gc benchmarking but the bm was destroyed prior to 2002?

I see what you mean. Forum type disputes are definitely inappropriate on cache pages.

Yep. WB3E will not likely be available. The two jholly noted both sound good, though, and the wheat harvest appears to be over.

Hello Shirene, Local questions are best posted to the NW Forum where local Washingtonians will help out. This topic will likely get moved to the NW forum so you don't need to start another one there. But... since you asked. GCWB3E in Almira should take care of your need. We just finished page 52 on Monday but we drove down the Grand Coulee where there are plenty of caches. It is surprising to me the US 2 only has one cache close to the highway on this page. Good luck with your WDC progress. Ed

I strongly agree. I have no idea where they get the idea that it is o.k. to log a find in this situation. I strongly disagree. These pages are for opinions and if we held back disputing those opinions because we are not party to the find then how would the points be discussed? I have changed some of my geocaching practices in the past due to forum arguments by third parties. If anyone has a problem with this Found It than maybe some type of stereotyping name might be needed.

The depression in the ground is not a cache. A travel bug or two on the ground could have fallen out of someone's geopack. A container that is the current container but is now muggled and empty IS the cache regardless whether there is a log in it or not. The log is NOT the cache. The predominant and intuitive practice in the field is to get your signature on something and put that something in the container for the owner or subsequent cachers to find.

You have provided some rationalization for why you should log a find but the object of this game, where physical caches are concerned, has not changed in any degree since the beginning. Your "facts" don't really support a find of a cache. They do suggest that you want to log the challenge cache badly enough that you will compromise the intent of the game to do it. Simply because some folks have logged finds of caches that were not, in fact, found does not mean that the game has evolved. This argument has been around since the gc forums started. I once claimed finds for replacing missing containers and offered to award finds to folks for non-cache find actions. I don't do either of those anymore because it make no sense to do so.

This is a request for opinions and my opinion is that I would not feel good about logging a Found It when the cache was missing, relocated or otherwise not actually found. And especially if it was to be used as a qualifying requirement of a challenge cache. Many cache owners will award finds when a container is not found. This is a friendly offer and I used to do it myself but doesn't really make sense. Finding a cache means finding something physical (earthcaches excluded). In order to log a Found It we should actually FIND something. I do not agree that a log has to be signed in every situation. There are some situations where signing the log is not possible. For muggled caches, if any part of the container is found and a preponderance of the evidence tells us that it is the currently active container then we have found that cache. It would be good to bag up the remains and sign something to leave with the contents but in any event it has been found. For an intact and viable cache the container should be opened and the log signed. We should not claim a find if we see the container but don't retrieve it for whatever reason. If the container can't be opened we should sign the outside of the container or attach some kind of proof of visit. It is not our fault that the lid is jammed shut. Cache owners should not AWARD cache finds for effort, good behavior, or any other "feel-good" reasons. (There you have it from my caching world.)

Very nice! The graphic layout makes this version fun to read. I had pretty much stopped reading the old letter because it was difficult to find what I wanted. Now it's easy. Thanks.

Yep. Every once-in-a-while I get to a cache site and say to myself, "Haven't we been here before? (I always refer to myself in the plural when asking myself a question.) Isn't the cache hidden right over there?" Then I feel lucky that we get to log that cache as found.

Really, if it was me, i would probably want to give that "accuser" a quick little heads up explanation. One email, nothing more, and if they still wanted to accuse you of somehow cheating, then ignore the heck out of em! I was looking to see if this was said. If someone sent me an email like that I would simply and politely explain the adoption situation. That should cover it. As to logging a find after adoption I can't see how anyone should have a problem with that. You didn't hide it, you didn't know where or how it was hidden, you didn't have any insider information. How could it possibly be a problem?

Whoa! They just showed up. I would not have reported this had there not been an open topic on it but I "piled on" to add data for GS staff.

Sunday: Asked for 5 existing (none of them run since July) got three. Monday: (7:30 am) Rescheduled the 2 that did not run yesterday for today - neither show action as yet.

A benchmark is a benchmark, therefore it doesn't count as a cache find.

Because they aren't geocaches. Exactly. They are benchmarks. Why would anyone think a benchmark should count as a geocache find?

I do LIKE this lineup.

Yes indeed! Remote, Oregon locations are great for geocaching. Edit: smaller photo.

It gets money from those of us who send periodic donations so that the site owner will remain motivated to keep it active. I love that site and gladly send money to them. Don't be shy about clicking the PayPal button and sending a contribution.

Has anyone posted a Needs Maintenance log? If not, you can post one and give a brief description of how long the cache has been in need. I would suggest waiting 30 days after the NM before posting an SBA. If others have already posted NMs then I'd not be shy at all about posting an SBA at this time.

Hey, I've lived near both these (edit). I like this one though. It's under the Aurora Avenue bridge about two miles north of the Frog Pond.

And they qualify for this DC. (And it should be mentioned that they are great stops. Big time geology, views and information). When you get to Diablo Dam be sure to drive across it for the closeups of that dam and geological spillway. Diablo Dam was filmed in the movie Deer Hunter pretending to be in some New England mountains. Good luck with your Highway 20 loop.

You posted this note without having read through the previous pages where all your points have been addressed. It is actually pretty good reading right from page 1. For each page first search (Control Find) for "ventura kids" and then "ecanderson". That will give you the specific details and facts about this record run. Any remaining questions you have after that might be interesting for this group.

This is where I usually say that typically, most cachers have about 10% of their finds in the moderate-and-up difficulty caches (source: Fizzzymagic and INABTN programs and forum topics requesting that information). A 10k cacher typically will have over 1000 difficult finds. A cacher with 500 finds, even if 25% of those finds are of moderate-and-up difficulty will have found around 125 of these caches. The high numbers folks almost always have more difficult (and interesting) cache finds then anyone who "specializes" in these tougher caches. You could say that they ARE playing the same game many of us are but they are playing an additional numbers game on top of it. I am thinking that because some folks don't like the game they perceive the high numbers cachers are playing they are inclined to discount what they say about high numbers of finds in one day. I don't know if that is true for you, or not.