Geo Leo

I navigate as close as I can to ground zero. Then I wander around in circles playing with my gps and compass while my son finds the cache (usually within a couple of minutes). Geo Leo

A similar situation happened to me in that I went after a cache and found the location, but no cache. I searched everywhere (so I thought), and I was so convinced that I had found the intended hiding spot that I took several pictures so that I could email the owner and let him know that the cache had been removed. I logged my visit as a 'not found,' but before I got around to sending the email, someone else logged a find. I went back (despite having to repeat a roundtrip of several hours), and searched again. Sure enough, there it was (not in the location where I originally thought it should be). The coordinates were off and the location didn't match the description as well as the location that I had previously found (maybe it had been moved), but nevertheless, it was there, and I had missed it the first time. Bottom line, if you don't find the box, don't log a find. Geo Leo

I carry my etrex legend in a Garmin case which protects the unit, including the area around the rubber flap. This might be the best solution, as I haven't noticed any problems yet. The case also protects the screen from getting scratched, which is the main reason I bought it.

Mapblast will give you the coordinates if you enter an address.

quote:Originally posted by cheater!: I stand corrected. Stealing "from" somebody's car equates to posting a find you din't actually find. Therefore you "should" be put in jail for stealing. After all you stole an increase in you find count. Mommy!!!! She got 3 red M&M's I only got 2 red ones. You're still missing the point. I wasn't suggesting that cheating on a geocache and stealing from a car were equally serious. Obviously they are not. The point I wanted to make is that it is not okay to cheat just because the cache owner made it easy for you to do so. Just as it is not okay to steal from a car because the owner made it easy for you to do so by leaving the doors unlocked. In other words, it is not okay to do something wrong just because it happens to be easy. (Sort of like setting up a fake account to start a flame war so that no one would know your real username?)

It may not be possible to catch every cheater, but some are obvious and their logs should be deleted. By definition (read the FAQs), a cache find requires physically going to the location. Looking up the answers on the internet may be fun and educational, and I wouldn't have a problem with someone logging a note to indicate that they had found the answer in that manner, but it should not be logged as a find unless they actually went there. If this is not cheating, then why do these people lie in their logs by claiming or at least implying that they were there, instead of admitting the truth about how they got the answer? I agree cache owners should be more careful with the proof that they require in order to prevent cheating, but that doesn't excuse cheaters when the proof is found on the internet either. That's like saying that it is okay to steal from someone's car if the doors were left unlocked.

I've noticed the same thing. When the picture appears on your screen for the first time, it looks terrible. Click on the picture, or come back to it, and it will look fine. The picture in the link looked very good to me.

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot: If the point of the virtual is to bring geocachers to a specific place, however, I tend to agree that an actual, physical visit should be required at the site. But it's up to the cache owner to state that in the description and enforce it. The point of EVERY cache is (or should be IMO) to bring the geocacher to a specific place. The geocaching.com FAQ page defines a virtual cache as follows: "Virtual caches - A cache is actually an existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue. You have to answer a question from the landmark and let the "cache" owner know as proof that you were there." The whole point of the cache is to go to the location. Finding the answer to the question is secondary and is intended only as "proof that you were there."

quote:Originally posted by MajBach: I thought some more about this idea of 'arm-chair caching'. I had never even realized the idea of doing a search on the net to answer a clue for a cache. What's so bad about it anyway? My last day of geocaching didn't go so well and the weather here sucks totally today. One of the worst days of winter came on the first day of spring. I'm anxious to do some geocaching, but I really don't feel like being outside today. I'm thinking about doing some virtual caches. I think I'll start by doing the one's Cooper has done - they're to far for me to drive to anyway. Why don'y you consider doing the same? BTW, you can always log your visits by saying it was a 'virtual find'. Ha Ha. MajBach: Thanks for your comments, but I think I'll pass on "arm-chair" geocaching. I suppose if someone wanted, they could log every cache in the system by looking it up on the on-line map, viewing its location on the map, and logging that as a "virtual" find. But what would be the point? I don't go for the "no rules" approach either, because I think it diminishes the integrity of geocaching. In fact, we do have established guidelines that have been put in place. Among them, I found the following in the Geocaching.com FAQ: "Virtual caches - A cache is actually an existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue. You have to answer a question from the landmark and let the "cache" owner know as proof that you were there." (Italics added) I think many cache owners may have been unaware that some cachers were logging finds without actually visiting their caches. Maybe this thread will help them to develop better criteria for logging there cache if they wish to do so. My final comment is this: I still hold the opinion that logging a cache without going there is not a legitimate find, BUT, I also respect the opinions of others who may disagree. After all, it certainly isn't up to me. The main thing I have learned from this discussion is not to worry about what everyone else is doing anyway. It isn't worth the grief. I'd rather be out geocaching (in the outdoors )...

quote:Originally posted by MajBach: I thought some more about this idea of 'arm-chair caching'. I had never even realized the idea of doing a search on the net to answer a clue for a cache. What's so bad about it anyway? My last day of geocaching didn't go so well and the weather here sucks totally today. One of the worst days of winter came on the first day of spring. I'm anxious to do some geocaching, but I really don't feel like being outside today. I'm thinking about doing some virtual caches. I think I'll start by doing the one's Cooper has done - they're to far for me to drive to anyway. Why don'y you consider doing the same? BTW, you can always log your visits by saying it was a 'virtual find'. Ha Ha. MajBach: Thanks for your comments, but I think I'll pass on "arm-chair" geocaching. I suppose if someone wanted, they could log every cache in the system by looking it up on the on-line map, viewing its location on the map, and logging that as a "virtual" find. But what would be the point? I don't go for the "no rules" approach either, because I think it diminishes the integrity of geocaching. In fact, we do have established guidelines that have been put in place. Among them, I found the following in the Geocaching.com FAQ: "Virtual caches - A cache is actually an existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue. You have to answer a question from the landmark and let the "cache" owner know as proof that you were there." (Italics added) I think many cache owners may have been unaware that some cachers were logging finds without actually visiting their caches. Maybe this thread will help them to develop better criteria for logging there cache if they wish to do so. My final comment is this: I still hold the opinion that logging a cache without going there is not a legitimate find, BUT, I also respect the opinions of others who may disagree. After all, it certainly isn't up to me. The main thing I have learned from this discussion is not to worry about what everyone else is doing anyway. It isn't worth the grief. I'd rather be out geocaching (in the outdoors )...

I think some of you should re-read my original post. Did I accuse anyone of cheating? NO. I simply pointed out that a cacher was apparently posting finds to virtual caches without actually visiting the location. (Unless you really believe that they were in Alberta, Texas, Georgia, and Pennsylvania one day after visiting Wisconsin, Illinois, and Ontario the day before). My question was whether or not you think finding a virtual cache on the internet without going to the location qualifies as a legitimate find. If you think so, fine, say so. If you think not, say so. Isn't this forum supposed to provide for a free exchange of ideas and opinions? I thought so until I got my head chopped off for asking a simple question. As far as CCCooperAgency is concerned, there is no question that they have legitimately found a large number of caches. Now, back to the question...

quote:Originally posted by Geoffrey: There was one cache called "Hometown anywhere", and i took a picture of my hometown sign, and logged that as a find. I have 48 real finds and that one, that does not qualify as a real one. This is it: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=15791 Or do you consider something like this Legit??? http://members.aol.com/geoffr524/5_Rubik.gif I would consider it legit since you were actually went out and found the location of the sign. If you had somehow managed to get a picture off of the internet, I wouldn't.

How is it that someone has managed to log over 600 cache finds? I checked a few log entries and this is what I found: On February 21, 2002, this cacher logged caches in Wisconsin (GC3244), Ontario (GC31A7), and Illinois (GC3097). Busy day I guess. Then on February 22, 2002, he logged two caches in Georgia (GC3A18 and GC38BF), three in Pennsylvania (GC2AFC, GC3507, and GC350A), one in Texas (GC2C00), and one in Alberta (GC36FA). Most were virtual caches where the required information was probably found doing an internet search. The log entries, though, don't admit this, and clearly suggest that he was actually at the location. (None of the above are locationless or multiple location caches). It seems to me that finding the answer to a cache on the internet without going there should not be considered a legitimate find. I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but it does bother me a little. What does everyone else think?

My wife is about 5 months pregnant. She won't go hiking into the woods, but she will go along for the drive and wait in the car if it's going to be a short hike. Then my son and I can talk to her on our FRS radios. "Honey, can you read me that clue again..."

I bought the Garmin brand cover for my legend, and I really like it. It has cut outs to allow for access to the click stick and the side buttons, and a clear plastic window over the screen. The plastic window does make viewing a little more difficult, but it also protects the screen from being scratched which is the reason I bought it. The etrex is pretty rugged, but if you drop it and the screen hits a rock, forget it. It could also get scratched up if its being carried loose in a bag. If you're worried about the case covering the antenna, don't worry, it has no noticeable effect.

quote:Originally posted by Pote: Geo Leo, I voted for the middle one, but it's not exactly the way I feel - it's the closest, however. I enjoy the hunt and the find. The total count is a measure of my personal successes and an indication of my effort and for that reason, I enjoy seeing it go up. There may be a small element of competition (one day I will have a count that rivals CCCooper or Stayfloppy), but over all the # is for me to measure myself, not for others. Excellent point. I slightly modified the middle option to say "competing with myself and/or other cachers." I hesitated to modify the choices, but that seemed to be a reasonable and necessary modification, as well as being consistent with the posts by those who chose this option.

quote:Originally posted by Pote: Geo Leo, I voted for the middle one, but it's not exactly the way I feel - it's the closest, however. I enjoy the hunt and the find. The total count is a measure of my personal successes and an indication of my effort and for that reason, I enjoy seeing it go up. There may be a small element of competition (one day I will have a count that rivals CCCooper or Stayfloppy), but over all the # is for me to measure myself, not for others. Excellent point. I slightly modified the middle option to say "competing with myself and/or other cachers." I hesitated to modify the choices, but that seemed to be a reasonable and necessary modification, as well as being consistent with the posts by those who chose this option.

I got tired of reading the log. Let me know when the movie version is out.

I've noticed a number of posts referring to find counts. Some cachers seem to accumulate extremely high counts. Others minimize the significance of find counts. I though it might be interesting to see a poll of how everyone feels about them. [This message was edited by Geo Leo on March 19, 2002 at 12:08 PM.]

I've noticed a number of posts referring to find counts. Some cachers seem to accumulate extremely high counts. Others minimize the significance of find counts. I though it might be interesting to see a poll of how everyone feels about them. [This message was edited by Geo Leo on March 19, 2002 at 12:08 PM.]

Mine is on the way. Great idea.

quote:Originally posted by peter: I'd suggest you look at Garmin's MapViewer at: http://www.garmin.com/cartography/mapSource/ to see how much detail is shown in some areas with which you're familiar before you decide. Thanks to everyone for the excellent replies. Especially Peter for the above link. That gave me exactly what I was looking for. I already knew that MG was great on the road. I was wondering how much better TOPO would be off road. I checked a familiar location and liked what I saw. It is somewhat limited, but it is better that MG which gives you very little off-road. Thanks.

quote:Originally posted by Web-ling: I tend to think that multiple-location virtual caches are OK. You still have to use the coordinates to log the cache. Admittedly, I'm a bit biased, as the http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=13198 cache is one of mine. I forgot about A Pair of Quintuplets. That's one of the multiple location virtual caches that I have done, and I enjoyed it very much. (Thanks Web-ling). Also, I'm not saying that the locationless caches should be banned either. I have done one or two of those that were okay. I just don't think that they are in the same class as the others. I'm sure Jeremy will come up with new categories for different types of caches as we go.

Do any of them allow you to use a cigarette lighter plug? Included or optional? How many AA's can you charge at a time with the PS4-B?

quote:Originally posted by Scott Thomason: Bottom line, the dividing line for me is whether or not coordinates are used __to find__ the place or thing. I agree. I would consider caches like A Cache of Palindromes, 911 cache, or the NGS Benchmark cache to be "multiple location virtual caches" moreso than "locationless caches." They all require the finder to use a GPSR to locate specific qualifying locations by their coordinates, even though there may be many locations that may qualify. I have found this type of cache to be both fun and challenging, and an interesting twist to traditional virtual caches. However, caches that you find without a GPS, such as the Hometown cache, or the Yellow Jeep cache really don't have anything to do with using a GPSR at all. Getting your picture taken holding your GPSR in front of a particular item that you located without the use of your GPSR just doesn't make a lot of sense, and it sure doesn't seem like geocaching to me. [This message was edited by Geo Leo on March 16, 2002 at 09:15 PM.]