AZBuckeye04

MooseMob! Did you add your other personality as a friend! I guess I'm going to have to start creating some sock puppet accounts so it looks like I actually have some friends in this game! haha Just teasin' ya. BTW, I am experiencing this same issue and an issue with the log type totals on my most recent cache. It show 0 Found, 14 DNFs, 9 Notes and 1 Reviewer Note In actuality there are 1 Found, 13 DNFs, 9 Notes and 1 Reviewer Note Prior to the find it was still showing an incorrect number of DNFs so I'm not really sure how it's calculating that. The firefox plugin that gave these totals and automagically showed you all logs still works great though. Jared of AZBliss02

And I pity those cachers who don't know how to use their GPS unit and I end up finding their caches over 50+ feet away (or not at all). Or those who just like to put caches in places I'm very uncomfortable going to. Yeah, I would like this feature. There's only one cacher who's caches I ignore but there is one other who I would probably add to the list simply because his hiding style just doesn't mesh with my finding style (I'm not saying anything is wrong with his though). Jared of AZBliss02

This would be a great option! I live in cache rich area and although the new icons show which I have found, you still have to filter through to locate those that I havn't. If I could exclude those that I have found it would make life much easier to locate the unfound ones!! If you're a premium member try this: 1. Create a new Pocket Query that is setup to only show caches you haven't found, from your home coordinates (really you can use any PQ you want). 2. Once you've created it go back to your main list of Pocket Queries. 3. Locate your desired PQ and under the "Preview" heading click on the right icon (looks like a magnifying glass over a map). 4. That will open your pocket query in the Geocaching.com Google Maps mode and you will only see the caches pulled from the pocket query. Jared of AZBliss02

Our most caches in one day is 80. Unofficially it is 81 but one of the caches ended up being archived without the ability to still post the find (even though the container was definitely still there). It took place in August 2005 back when Phoenix had a lot of caches but not nearly as many as it does now. I spent a month laying out each cache and the specific order and time that we should hit each cache. We timed things perfectly so that we arrived at our first cache at just after midnight on the far far east side of town (Apache Junction, AZ). We ended up caching (in 100 degree temperatures) until nearly 10pm later that day when we finally finished on the far Northwest side of town (Surprise, AZ). We named it a Cache-til-u-Crache marathon. In all honesty (numbers aside) it was a great time for Heather and I. We worked as a team and were able to test each other's stamina and desire, especially dealing with Arizona's hot weather. The downside was that it lead to a very long caching drought for the following weeks because we were just wiped out from the whole thing. But never have I seen Heather so geared up for something, she really had a fun time. I was recently looking at the GC.com Google Map and noticed that some areas of town we don't travel to often have TONS of caches, making me really want to plan another cache run. Heck one spot I found has just over 100 caches within a 5 mile radius (all urban area). Even if you're not a big numbers fan, you gotta consider doing a marathon. Whether it's urban or rural. Heck I've got a buddy that's interested in seeing how many caches we can find while hiking in South Mountain in one day. There's like 70+ caches in the area and the mountain range spans 13 miles west to east and 4 miles north to south. Now that would be a fun challenge! Jared

This was taken from the bottom of the Pocket Query page. I noticed the other week I couldn't get a PQ to run that I had last ran 4 or 5 days prior. I decided to "copy" the query and then I requested the new, copied, query to run and within 3 minutes I had the emailed PQ. Newer queries have priority, so if you can't get one of your regular PQs to run try making a copy of it and requesting the copy. Jared of AZBliss02

Just like FamilyDNA, I use non-public bookmark lists to keep my puzzle caches organized. I actually use two lists. List #1 - Any puzzle cache in my area that I'm aware of that I want to solve. If I figure out some of the puzzle I can simply add that information to that cache's listing and then pick up there when I have time. List #2 - Solved puzzles. Once I solve a puzzle I add it to my Solved Puzzles list along with all of my "work" and the actual coordinates to the cache. After finding a puzzle cache I edit the listing and put FOUND in front of the cache name. This allows me to keep a record of the puzzle caches I find and if I ever want to return to a puzzle cache (say to grab a cool geocoin or TB) I don't have to waste time solving the puzzle again. I just go to the cache page and click the bookmark link and I have the details. It's simple and it already exists. No need to reinvent the wheel. You could even separate solved puzzles and found puzzles furthering the organization. Jared of AZBliss02

http://www.amazon.com/Kingston-MiniSD-Secu...9636214-3664615 That one is only $23.99 which I think is cheap. If you really want to bargain shop for the absolute cheapest (to the penny) I'd recommend trying Froogle (by the fine people at Google). www.froogle.com Jared

That's kind of like saying, "Napster wasn't responsible for the illegal trading of music over the internet, they were only publishing lists of songs supplied to them by users." First the RIAA went after Napster and SHUT IT DOWN. After they did that they started going after the individuals and still do, along with throwing lawsuits at other sites such as KaZaA (technically it was KaZaA's parent company but I'm too lazy to look up their name right now). I'm not saying this would happen to GC.com, but I don't think it's right for any of us to just throw out a wild assumption that it can't possibly happen without a shadow of a doubt. Do they fall into my Napster scenario or would they be categorized under TheAlabamaRambler's Newspaper scenario? That's very subjective and honestly the only way you'd probably ever know is if it happend. Has anyone ever tried to sue a newspaper for a faulty car??? Might be worth a try. I also don't think we (or TPTB) should assume that GC.com has enough CYA material on their site to be able to just wash their hands of anything, IF something did happen. It might happen, and it might not. The only thing anyone needs to be worried about is whether or not there was a chance to do anything about it before it all went down (or didn't go down). Anything is possible, and none of us have been able to provide a statistic that states whether this is more likely to happen or less likely to happen. But I bet all of us knows someone, who knows someone, who's 2nd cousin (once removed) knows a guy who has a statistic to prove his/her theory is golden.

AHHHHHHH! Wait a minute........Is that you Chicken Little? There is no Chicken Little, there is only Zuul

I wonder if yelling "fire" or "bomb" right now would get everyone to leave this thread??? It's gotta be worth a try... FIRE!!!!!! BOMB!!!!! ..........................................................

These non-profit groups are only allowed because when they tried to ban them (which they did while I was there) there was such an outcry that they reversed the decision. I believe the official policy does allow not-for-profits, but they have to be outside and no closer than 15 feet from an exit. Why did they try to ban them? Because allowing them set a precedence that might allow unions to be allowed to solicit. Yes, in Wal-Mart's case, you can sleep in your rv there. Geocaching is an organized activity, sleeping is not. By allowing an organized activity, the same precedent is set that concerns the stores about the Girl Scouts. Sad but true.The Girl Scouts are there. They sell their cookies right next to the door. I'm beginning to think that, while you present yourself as Wal-Mart management, you might not really be an authority on this issue. There is quite a bit of truth to Too Tall John's comments. After a number of searches on Google I did find information that WM does have a "No solicitation" policy and when it was first drafted it did prevent the Salvation Army from ringing bells. But just like the cache review process exceptions to the rules are made. A few years back I remember our local Salvation Army was forced to move from directly outside the WM doors to a little shack they put up in the front row of the parking lot. We haven't had CHRISTMAS wrapping for a long time but the Girl Scouts have been allowed to sell their cookies (thin mints rock!). The problem I see is that this is a "No solicitation" policy. That means you can't be gathered outside Wal-Mart in an attempt to solicit (ask for) money from their patrons. Obviously a cache container isn't soliciting money from people (but if you take a dollar you better at least leave four quarters). A search for any anti-union policies didn't turn up anything that seemed related to the topic. But we do know without a doubt that Wal-Mart goes well out of their way to prevent anything that could possibly be related to unions. On a side note while researching this topic I nearly got sucked into another debate. Whether or not to ban Wal-Mart! Maybe those wanting LPCs to be banned are taking the wrong approach. Let's just ban Wal-Mart and a quarter of our LPC problems will be solved. In a related story, my statistics show that Target LPCs are 90% more likely to be clean, dry, maintained and well stocked than Wal-Mart LPCs. Go figure. Jared

Yeah, Canada doesn't have that problem! Wait, does Canada still exist? *Opens the attic of the United States and peers inside* Ahh yes, there they are. Such a quiet nation, you wouldn't even know they were there if you didn't go up every now and then. Why can't we be quiet?

How would you control the growth of LPCs placed at specific places, without banning them in these places? Why ban something that hasn't been a problem? The national parks came to gc.com and asked them to quit allowing caches there. Has Walmart? People also said similar stuff about the popular Off Your Rocker series that are placed at Cracker Barrel restaurants. The issue made it pretty high in the Cracker Barrel management chain and they gave us an official "knock yourself out" policy. They realized it was good for business. My guess is that if it ever gets that far along, Walmart will do the same. I'm not sure that it ever really was an issue with the Cracker Barrel (CB) management. Obviously it was an issue with some on the forums but it is my understanding that CB found out about the series from a well-minded cacher that was seeking approval prior to placing his/her own OYR cache. I haven't determined exactly who that cacher was (not that it would really matter) but I know my father (also a cacher and owner of a few OYR caches) has spoken with the Head of Advertising at CB a couple of times and he has been very welcoming of these caches as long as they are placed in good taste (i.e. family friendly) and meet the guidelines set in place by gc.com. I've actually contacted a few cachers that own OYR caches to make them aware of this and to hopefully get them to add a note to their cache pages mentioning the level of permission. So far it has been well received and I've even found out that at some locations the CB store manager keeps an eye on the cache for the owner. So you see, it doesn't have to be this big negative thing and I really don't think we need to be trying to keep it secret from big companies such as Wal-Mart (which I highly doubt it is). All it takes is a good representative of geocaching to spark up the right relationship with someone at the WM corporate offices and this could all be settled. Personally, I'm not a fan of caches hidden at Wal-Mart or the like. Will I still attempt some of these caches if I find myself at one? Sometimes, it really depends on how safe I feel hunting for it. Would I miss them if they were gone? No. However, I would rather have Wal-Mart's approval and have twice as many of these caches (which as stated above I'm not a big fan of) than for us to continue placing them without approval and running the risk of causing a big stir. Along with that I would also rather have Wal-Mart's complete disapproval and have all of them archived than to continue as we are. Jared

I think a change was made a while back where pages aren't updated every time someone goes to it. For instance, if you go to a page, you request all of the logs and information for that page from the database. It's a decent hit on the servers and can cause a lot of traffic. So now they use caching (not our caching but internet caching) to store a copy of the page. This allows them to show information to you faster although it can sometimes be a little slow on showing the most up-to-date logs. I wouldn't worry though, your logs should be there and should show up in due time.

Please define 'numerous'. Actually, there have been amazingly few negative articles about this game. According to princeton.edu numerous - amounting to a large indefinite number; "numerous times"; "the family was numerous" Since I cannot count the exact number of articles (I've probably read a handful or more from South Carolina alone) then to me it's indefinite (meaning vague or not clearly defined or stated). Seems to be a good word for my statement. The fact is, you have a different definition of 'adequate' than some people do. Please see any post on this subject by Criminal for more information. adequate - lawfully and reasonably sufficient. IMHO just being a citizen is not "sufficient for a specific requirement" (i.e., permission to hide ANY container (LPC or other)). Unfortunately there is a good amount of people who don't follow common sense when out caching. Reading through the log entries on a few caches can quickly prove that.Is this just a throwaway comment, or is it actually about the topic of whether LPCs should be banninated. It's neither. Very few of my comments have been 100% on topic which is why I offered to start a new thread but no one responded yet the conversation has seemed to shift toward the realm of "permission" issues instead of banning. Besides, it seemed right on topic with geomann1's remark.

Maybe if more people were following the rules and there weren't numerous negative articles about caching, more organizations and businesses would be willing to say "Yes". If you take the time to approach a business owner (or the like) in a positive, respectful manner, with a good reasoning and explanation of the game, I think you stand a good chance of getting permission. I know this method has worked for me. (from one of my earlier posts) Currently GC.com has the following to say when it comes to permission for caches: "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." You must receive adequate permission. In some cases towns have posted statements online allowing caches in their city parks so you don't have to specifically ask for permission (it has already been granted). Same goes for caches at Cracker Barrel restaurants which have all been pre-approved by the Head of Advertising. To not receive adequate permission is to mislead and lie to the volunteer reviewers and TPTB, which does pose a potential risk to the game, depending on how the land owner (or the like) reacts. Unfortunately there is a good amount of people who don't follow common sense when out caching. Reading through the log entries on a few caches can quickly prove that. Jared

Very well put Captainmath. Although there is no way of enforcing it, it's a nice "Golden Rules" for leaving hints.

Thanks, wine just came out my nose.

That's a fair question. Unfortunately, I believe you are confusing two different things: Enforcement of public safety rules vs. enforcement of creativity rules. Security vs. Entertainment. No, I'm not an Anarchist. I don't see how any reasonable person can be, as I undestand the definition. I am among the strongest supporters of the rule of law in this constitutional republic under which I live. When I said geocachers should be allowed to be "as good or as lame as we want," I was not referring to 'lame attention to one's own safety.' I was refering to 'lame attention to the presence (or absence) of pizzazz, excitement, entertainment value or WOW-factor present in one's own cache hide.' So in reality, KBI, you and I share a lot of common ground. Please know that I myself am not confused about the enforcement of public safety vs. creativity. I do believe however that my comments are slightly deviated from the original topic and may have confused others. While I do have some strong feelings toward certain caches (particularly in their location) I do not believe it is TPTB's place to stifle a cacher's creativity or lack there of. Leave that to the log entries left by those who find their caches What I was addressing (and let me know whether we agree on this or not) is that given an increase in popularity and a seemingly lack of reading before doing, maybe TPTB should re-evaluate their guidelines. I think the existing guidelines are great and I'm not proposing a change to them, merely an addition. If everyone carefully read these guidelines prior to placing a cache, maybe we wouldn't have some of the problems we do. I believe that if a reviewer is looking at a cache (say they're using google maps aerial view) and they notice the cache to be in a parking lot (perhaps even behind a building) then they should be able (and possibly obligated) to request that the cache owner submit contact information from the land owner (or similar) who has approved the placement. That being said, there are some potential downfalls, which is why I'm seeking more opinions from reviewers. #1 How feasible would this actually be? I mean when I think about the number of parking lot caches in just my area, it seems that the average "review time" of a cache would be substantially increased. Then again, reviewers are already checking to make sure a cache isn't near an airport, school, highway bridge, federal buildings, railroad tracks, etc. would it be a big hassle if they were to add another thing to their checklist? #2 What's next? Will we have to require the same information for other urban hides that are not in parking lots but in locations where the property owner is someone other than the cache owner? Where would it end? Those are just two thoughts that come to mind. Any idea is bound to have its pros and cons. I just wonder if it isn't time to weigh them out. Thoughts? If I'm too far off the original topic let me know and I can start a new thread for this... Jared Oh, and thanks for all the answers KBI, well done.

Not that it's a perfect solution, but if you're viewing a cache after it has been published (with the "published" log being the most recent) you can find out when it was published. At the bottom of the cache page you should see something similar to: Current time: 2/13/2007 7:10:19 PM Last Updated: 2/12/2007 8:36:13 PM The "Last Updated" value changes whenever a new log is posted or if the cache owner makes a change to the cache page. So if the last log posted is a "published" log then you should be able to figure out how long the cache has been available based on the Last Updated time. As far as your request, I like it. Personally I'm a big fan of knowing exactly when someone has found a cache and I almost always note the time on my log entries. It would be nice to also know exactly when a cache was approved, regardless of the time zone. I'm no genius when it comes to knowing everything about Time Zones, but I do know that the time listed in my example is 7 hours ahead of the actual time here in Phoenix. By knowing this (by looking at the "Current time" listed on the cache page and comparing it to the actual time on my watch) I can determine what time a cache was published in Arizona time and thus be able to see how the FTF was nabbed within just 10 minutes of the cache posting. Jared of AZBliss02

KBI (and everybody else)- I just picked up on this thread and lets just say it's been a long hour or so of reading. After taking several pain killers to stop my head from ringing, I feel ready to weigh in. First off, you ARE twisting and manipulating Team GeoBlast's (TGB) comments and it is having a negative effect on how I read your other counterpoints. TGB is trying to bring to light something that many cachers are concerned about. Reading his comments it seems to me that he's calling out to the rest of the community to weigh in with their comments/suggestions in hopes that TPTB might take notice. In your rebuttals you often speak very personally toward TGB saying "Yes, you’ve made it quite clear that what you want is to control everyone’s behavior; that you’re not content to manage your own affairs and leave the rest of us alone." I don't believe that TGB wants to manage everyone's caches. I do believe that he wants the caching community and Groundspeak to take a good look at where we are and possibly reevaluate this hobby's guidelines. Whether you are or not, your comments really seem to portray that of an Anarchist. Are you an anarchist KBI? Are you a mostly law abiding citizen or do you think we should just be able to run around and do whatever we want, "as good or as lame as we want"? Do you think that a law requiring you to wear a seatbelt is ridiculous and you should have the right to decide whether you need one or not? What about drinking and driving? Who is the government to take away our fun of getting drunk and then heading out for a cruise around town? Certainly they are only thinking about their well-being, their agenda. They want to take away our fun. And micros are fun right? Urban caching is fun. But the increase of news articles making mention of bomb squads blowing up caches, property owners getting upset and their security guards threatening cachers is cause for alarm. In Arizona we have a "Stupid Persons" Law. Basically if you do something stupid that requires taxpayer dollars, then you're footing the bill. Yearly, during monsoon season, somebody gets the idea to drive their Dodge Neon through 3 feet of water. They quickly stall out and are swept into a wash. If they are lucky enough to survive police and firemen will arrive and lift the vehicle out. Luckily, because of the "Stupid Motorists" Law, my tax money doesn't have to pay for his dumb mistake. The state of Arizona can't keep that guy from driving through 3 feet of water, but they can put laws into place to help prevent such things from happening. Similarly, GC.com does not typically allow caches on highway bridges, near elementary schools, government buildings, airports. When the reviewers look at caches they try their best to determine whether a cache fits into one of these questionable areas, and then they handle it accordingly. In some cases if the cache owner has received explicit permission from the superintendent of a school or if they can show that there is no cause for concern when their cache is within 150 feet of railroad tracks, then their cache will be approved. It's the approval process and the guidelines issued have helped the sport. Have they eliminated the chance for some potentially great cache hides, yeah. But what are a few less caches when the overall safety of everyone is taken into consideration? Caches placed without permission on private property (which does include parking lots) poses a risk to the cache owner and cache seeker. Not only that but the repeated exposure of the public to poor publicity regarding the "illegal" placement of these caches and the perception that the public forms of geocachers could have a negative impact on the sport. Whether it will happen or not places across the country are discussing whether to allow geocaching or not within their jurisdiction. If there is something that we can do to put their minds at ease about caching, I think we should. Currently GC.com has the following to say when it comes to permission for caches: "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." I think what some of us are suggesting is not that we get rid of all LPCs and PLCs, but that an amendment is made to the caching guidelines to better address the placement of caches on private property. I am a big fan of the "Off Your Rocker" series. Growing up we would always stop at Cracker Barrels during long trips so whenever we go on trips now I enjoy doing the same. Being able to find a cache while there is a pleasant bonus. Because of this I maintain a public bookmark list of all caches located at Cracker Barrel restaurants. Often I've seen mention of these caches during discussions of PLC caches that should not be allowed and a lot of assumptions are made about whether or not permission is received. In fact all Cracker Barrel caches have been pre-approved by the Head of Advertising at Cracker Barrel Corporate Headquarters (as long as they are placed within the guidelines set forth by GC.com). They do like it if you let the local manager know of the cache, but atleast if someone is questioned there is a contact person within the company. Unfortunately not everyone that seeks (or even hides) one of these caches is aware of its acceptance. In an effort to promote proper use of the caching guidelines I have been contacting some cache owners of the Cracker Barrel caches and asking them to place a note on their cache pages with the corporate contacts information. Hopefully this will help to let everyone know that it is okay to go searching for these caches, and if they are stopped by someone they will be armed with information to help explain themselves. Would it really be a bad thing for reviewers to request contact information for someone with the authority to approve the cache location? They wouldn't always have to contact the person, but knowing it is available (and has been provided) might help ease the mind of some cachers and of the publics impression of caching. If there are any volunteer reviewers perusing this topic, I would encourage them to chime in. Even if it is against what I've said. My .02 .20 cents worth. Jared of AZBliss02

When in reality you should have turned around and just left. When you drove around to the back of the Sam's Club was that not enough of a hint of what kind of caching experience you were getting into? I can sympathize with you to some extent. We run certain caches through a "screening" process to try and determine if they are going to be like the type of cache you listed. Unfortunately, you can't always tell. But if you make the decision to search anyway once you get there, don't be mad at anyone but yourself. Something you could do is comment about the location of the cache (as constructively as possible) so that maybe you can help out the next cacher who feels the same way you do. A well placed cache with permission from the property has its place in this sport. However too many cachers are doing these caches and assuming that they can hide their own without getting permission. Maybe if there were certain measures taken when you submit you first cache hide then we could help avoid this problem. Say maybe the first cache you hide the reviewer requires written permission from the property owner or something. I don't know, just throwing an idea out there. AZBliss02

First of all, congrats to Find-me on 12 FTFs. I hope nobody in your area is complaining, considering you waited 3 days before finding the 12th one. Second, I'd say to whomever sent such an e-mail as the one above "What reward is there in an FTF if they are given to you? The only thing that makes an FTF important (to some) is the fact that they are difficult to get." I would try responding with this great quote: "Life sucks, get a helmet". Here in Phoenix the NBA Suns have had two winning streaks of 15 or more games this season. I assure you, they didn't decide to lose a game because they felt bad for making the other teams lose. It's part of the game. And if you decide to play the "game" of geocaching then you've got to learn to handle that. We've dealt with the same thing here in Phoenix. A good caching buddy of mine is approaching his 900th find and at the same time his 300th FTF. That's right, 1 out of every 3 caches he finds is an FTF. Sure there are some people that don't like it, but there are other guys out here that go after them also and the thrill of chasing around trying to beat them, that's a great thrill. Congrats on the 12 FTFs, they're well deserved. Wear the "FTF-hog" badge proudly. We had a cacher in this area place 3 new caches all along the same bike path. I'm not sure if it was something that he worked out with the reviewer or not but the caches weren't all published at the same time. There was about an hour or more between each cache being published. A good idea if the cache owner wants to give everyone a good chance at each one. A bad thing if you're like us and wasted a lot of gas going back and forth to the same place! Jared of AZBliss02

I think the rules should be changes to disallow these types of caches unless explicit permission is obtained from the establishments (which I doubt they would). I agree though, seems like the guidelines should already disallow these types of caches. Okay, you know that whole saying about what happens when you ASSUME? All caches placed at Cracker Barrel restaurants have been pre-approved at the Corporate Level by the Head of Advertising as long as they are placed within the guidelines set forth by GC.com Corporate Contact: Nick Simulia Cracker Barrel Corporate Headquarters Lebanon, TN 800-333-9566, option 3, ext. 2504 It is still recommended that cachers notify and ask permission from the local management, informing them of the approval from corporate. I FULLY agree that caches on private property need to have permission. In reality almost any urban cache is on private property. The GC.com guidelines do require permission for these caches, but unfortunately it is just ASSUMED that permission has been obtained. It's an honor system. Why would I want to send someone to a place where they don't have permission to be there??? Think about it folks. And lay off the people placing caches at Cracker Barrels, they have permission.

I've got a few examples: Heather and I were at a "park" (it was actually just a small patch of grass with some kind of cement structure and that was pretty much it. While searching two park rangers pulled up (go figure, they're checking on this small park when we happen to be there). The one park ranger asked, "So, whatcha guys doin'?" I responded "Well, have you ever heard of geocaching?" he immediately got out of the vehicle and said, "What! There's a cache here?" He and his partner helped us search for about 5 minutes or so before heading off. In more and more places the local police and park rangers and become more and more aware of geocaching. It's always good to be honest with them. Case in point... A buddy and I were on a late night cache hunt that was along a bike path that went alongside some homes in an urban area. There was really nothing wrong with us being there, there weren't any time restrictions for the bike path or anything like that. While scouring the area with our flashlights I noticed another beam of light way down the path heading our way. At first we thought it might be a cacher and then we noticed the flashlight was darting back and forth too much for someone walking toward a cache location. We decided to jump behind some of the bushes. While waiting there I asked the question: "What would be better? For this guy to find us searching for a cache or for him to find us crouched behind some bushes hiding." We luckily made the right decision and went back to our search just before the police officer showed up. He approached with his hand on his gun (shining his flashlight in my face). Officer - "Do either one of you have any weapons?" Me - "No sir, just a GPS unit and a flashlight" Officer - "What are you guys doing here?" My buddy - "Just looking around." Me - "We're geocaching. Have you heard of it?" We then proceeded to describe geocaching to him. He then asked, "Well, have either of you seen any women's clothing lying around?" We politely replied "No" and he said, "Well, I'll let you get back to... I don't know whatever it is you're doing I guess." He left, we found our cache and on the way back to the car we kept an eye out for both women's clothing and a naked woman! We saw neither. Jared