Sagefox

I don't completely agree with this policy. I didn't respond earlier this year because I understand the potential for caches being placed where they shouldn't be. For our out of area caches we now make maintenance arrangements and place a hidden HTML note on the page for the approver to see. I suspect most people commenting on this subject don't travel and live in remote areas like we and many other cachers do. We love to make frequent stops for caching while on 700 to 2500 mile trips. It makes a long, sleepy drive much more fun. We have discovered some very wonderful places in the Mojave Desert, Owens Valley, Central Oregon, and Northern California because vacationing cachers left their marks. I pray for out of area cachers to place new caches in our remote Northern California County even if they are from out-of-state because there are too few local cache placers. How else are we going to get new caches to find here? I would like to see special consideration given for remote areas because if this policy is strictly adhered to, attrition will take a big bite out of our future vacations. We plan to place caches in the California deserts next spring but I haven't yet figured out how to get them approved.

I'm all fixed up and logging again. Thanks Jeremy. And I did see the cool new login line that tells exactly who is logged in. Nice that you could start your week out with a new problem so you can forget the old ones momentarily.

I haven’t been able to log on to individual cache pages for two days. Appears to be the same problem others have. From My Cache Page or, from the Find Cache page or, from clicking links to caches from watch list email I can’t get access to the individual cache pages. When the cache page comes up it says I am logged out. When I click to log in I get shunted to My Cache Page which says I am logged in. I can log benchmarks and I can get into travel bug pages. This started the same time the Nearest Caches list changed.

Well here is another twist for consideration. Death Valley Rocks cache is not on the Ft. Irwin reservation. I was with the owner when we placed it in Death Valley. A simple transposed number posted the cache many miles from the actual location. Usually a FTF attempt would have discovered the error but since there are no public roads in the remote Ft Irwin area no one was interested in chasing after it. Death Valley Rocks and companion Panamint Rock Cache were an attempt to place caches in Death Valley National Park respectful of park rules. The caches are made out of native rocks and contain only rocks as trade items. We were wondering why people were hitting one cache but not the other. Cacher mrcpu's intent to bring our attention to this error produced immediate results. Thanks.

I'm not clear on what the software mechanical problems are but I like the numbers being posted. I use them for the psychological profile I compile for hider/finders. If the numbers only update with each log or edit that is fine with me. I rely on the numbers in many ways: To sort out no-find notes as in, if 5 newbys can't find it I might go for it. I like to see how names I recognize are doing and I don't have time to check out all the profiles. I like to see the experience level of the finder as I read their notes. Its fun to see early cache-maturity in newer cachers and late maturity some of "old-timers". I'm sure there are more reasons but maily I noticed what happend for me when the numbers disappeared. I didn't like it!

I have the same question.

Trouble with a proprietary rechargable in a gps is that when the battery goes dead you are dead. Unless, I suppose, you buy two $45 batteries.