Resolution

A big CONGRATULATIONS to Mighty O'Bees for scoring their 500th find at Lenape Park - Life on the Edge. Way to go!!!

A big congrats to Fire-n-Air Cachers who logged #300 while visiting Kids are Cachers Too! WAY TO GO!!!

Wow! I can't imagine hitting that number. Congrats!

AWESOME!! Congrats!

WOO HOO!!! 200 is right around the corner. Congrats!

Amazing! Congrats!

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the scenario. From what I understand: 1. There was a container placed in the woods during the set-up process of a series cache. At the time, the location and container were going to be the final. 2. Upon being seen, the CO decides to instead make that location a third step in the seies and temporarily rehides the container in a slightly different location. 3. He goes home and creates a new container for this third stage. I've done caches by this particular CO before. The unique stage containers are a big part of the adventure. 4. Upon returning to replace the original container (which is still going to be the container for the final) he discovers that the log for the final has been signed by the person that had seen the initial hide. 5. He swaps the new third stage container for the final container and takes the final to be moved to a completely new area. 6. He removes the signed page from the final logbook, places the final in its new location and submits the entire four stage series for approval. 7. The debate starts over whether the log for the final cache is a legitimate FTF. This is where I lose the story. I can see an arguement for claiming FTF. But FTF for what? Should it be for cache listing whose coordinates lead to the location where the container was found (which is now the location of the third stage container)? Or should it be for the actual physical container and logbook that have their own cache listing at completely different coordinates (which is the new location of the final)? What defines which cache listing is the correct listing when logging a find?

So the FTF in question was for a cache that wasn't even the final in the series, it was stage that was changed prior to submission for approval? Then why is the OP claiming FTF on the final? It sounds like he just found one of the first three stages. If you choose to circumvent the intended spirit of the cache to log a find, you lose part of the adventure. If you attempt to claim a FTF prior to completion of the placement and approval process, you risk the "find" being meaningless because things change during that time. We all know that. In this case the OP seems to have stumbled on a work in progress. If it's that important to him to have another FTF notch on his bedpost, regardless of its integrity, let him have it. But at least claim it for the correct listing. The CO can always designate an official and unofficial FTF on the cache listing.

oups, didn't read that posting until now and I admit I didn't do it that way because I thought it will be always like the first bonus feature (I could claim both - the bonus and the first cache although I am the same cacher) If a bonus can't be done by the cacher who takes the coin to the next cache it would mean that I could log only a few bonus features as "real" bonus as my coin is moving normally (i.e. no events, no grabbings) - I would just "loose" the normal feature. How do the others see that point? UGH! I didn't see this either. When did the rules for the bonus feat change from the first one when the bonus and a regular feat could be claimed in one move (cache)? I've been trying to play the game as I thought it was inteded by the adminitrator. My understanding was 1 cache = 1 feat (with the excpetion of the bonus feats). Thus 80 feats = 80 caches, which is where the name of the game comes from. If the coin must be and logged into a cache for the bonus feats too, then it becomes more than 80 caches necessary to complete the game, no? If this is truly the rule, then I'll go back and delete all of my bonus feat claims, because they were ALL claimed along with another feat. But if the bonus is treated just like any oter feat, why call it a bonus at all? And more importatnly, why use the TB ID to log the feat. Why not use the cache ID? I think this whole business of using the TB ID to log bonus feats just supports the misunderstanding(?) that the bonus was allowed to be accomplished along with another feat, then logged along with that feat when placed into the next cache. Please clarify. It seems like we're still playing by different rules. There is no way to tell any true standings whatsoever. Thanks.

Congrats to FOG on his 700th find! Accomplished while completing the Legend of Sherwood series. Way to go FOG!!!

It looks fantastic! Can't wait to get one, or two, or...

Nice!

Way to go! Congratulations!

Thanks everyone! We've had so much fun and met such nice people. On to 300!

Wow! Congrats! That seems like such an impossible number. Simply amazing!

Email sent. Great idea!

Resolution would love to be represented!

A stolen coin is NEVER good news! We have had luck tracking down missing coins by contacting anyone who visited the cache after the coin was dropped. Ask them if they saw the coin in the cache instead of whether they took it or not. This way you can generally narrow it down to one or two cachers Good luck!

Thanks. Actually, that link was just added. I emailed site admin about it. I have now corrected our claims. How do you get all three cachers in the drawing if only two claims can be made? We just want to make sure we claim this feat correctly. And now I came across one more question: For the Activity category (Moves 10 times in a month for example) can one cacher take the coin on a run of 10 caches and claim that feat?

Mark, I have two questions... First, I'd like to remove a feat that we incorrectly claimed. How do I do that? Second, Feat #41 (The coin gets discovered): Does this feat have to correspond to a move? The act of discovering is not a move. I guess my concern is more for the cachers who perform feats than for the feat claim itself. If cacher A performs a feat and drops the coin in a cache, cacher B discovers the coin, then cacher C grabs the coin and performs another feat before dropping it in another cache, according to the rules only 2 feats may be claimed. Who gets the short end of the stick when it comes to getting credit and being entered into the drawing? My concern is more for the good cachers who make the effort to perform a feat and then not getting credit for it. Thoughts?

We agree with you here! The name of the game is Around the World in 80 Caches. 80 Caches = 80 Moves = 80 Feats. It is stated in the rules that "Every time your coin moves you can pick ONE and only one feat to check off your 80 feats Checklist." We thought grabbing a coin from a player was not a move. It doesn't register as mileage. We figured once mileage is recorded, then it's a move. Except for Bonus Feats, all we need to do is compare the number of feats claimed to the number of caches visited to see who is and is not playing by the same rules. We kind of disregard the teams who interpret the rules differently. You've got to compare apples to apples! It looks like we have two methods: the Anything Goes method and the 1 Feat per Cache method. Either is fine. We enjoy playing the game the "per cache" way because it involves a little more strategy than simply checking off feats.

I just had this question asked by a cacher and I'm not sure of the answer... The rules state... "During the whole duration of the race, no geocacher may earn more than 3 feats for your racer." Since the bonus feat can be claimed in addition to a regular feat (one move, two feats) does the bonus count towards the "3 feats" limit, or is it a bonus in that sense too?

I can try to answer that since we already logged the first Bonus Feat... We logged it the same way as any other feat. The bonus feats are at the very bottom of the dropdown feat list. For the waypoint, we used the coins TB number. I hope that answers your question.

When logging the bonus feat, what is used for the waypoint ID?

Nice! Congrats on your milestone!