Highpointer

It appears that far too many geocachers don't know that they aren't supposed to post travel bug or geocoin tracking numbers in log entries. This is a problem not just with new geocachers, but with experienced geocachers as well. For example, a geocacher with over 1,000 finds posted both the tracking number of a travel bug they took out of one of my caches, and the tracking number of the geocoin they placed in it. I sent them an email to request that they edit their log entry, which they did. They called me and told me that they didn't know that it was wrong to post such numbers in log entries. I send out an e-mail to geocachers whenever I see tracking numbers in log entries, but I am getting tired of doing this so frequently. Therefore, how can we educate geocachers from the first day that they start geocaching that they should not write travel bug or geocoin tracking numbers in log entries? Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

About 10 days ago, I dropped two travel bugs in two easy caches about 0.2 miles apart in Glendale, AZ. These caches are Rocky and back yard Target practice. Both caches are behind a large shopping center. Since I have dropped these travel bugs in these caches, both of them have been visited frequently - one cache seven times, the other cache eight times. However, in none of these 15 total visits did a geocacher take a travel bug. I firmly believe that geocachers should pick up every travel bug that they see in a cache and not let travel bugs languish in caches. I feel that travel bugs are fun and interesting to find, move, and track. Therefore, why do so many geocachers ignore travel bugs in caches and fail to pick them up, thereby letting them languish in caches and increasing their chances of becoming lost? Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

In my opinion, geocachers should pick up and move every travel bug that they see in a cache. Based on my experiences following geocaches and travel bugs, it seems that whenever a travel bug is passed up by responsible geocachers, the odds of the travel bug becoming lost increases. If a responsible geocacher fails to pick up and move a travel bug, the next person who visits the cache may be an irresponsible "geocacher" who fails to log the travel bug and does not move it to another cache. If this doesn't occur, then the cache itself may become lost before the travel bug is removed, resulting in the loss of the travel bug. Travel bug movements should be random and unpredictable, not just in one direction to its goal. Even if you are going in a different direction that its goal, it will eventually reach its goal if the travel bug is picked up and properly logged by every person who sees it. It is a good idea to drop travel bugs in remote caches. Such caches are generally located in more scenic areas and are more satisfying to visit. The problem with dropping travel bugs in easy caches is that such caches are more likely to become lost, stolen, or ransacked, resulting in the loss of every travel bug inside. (This is one of the reasons why it is not a good idea to place more than one travel bug in a cache). Another problem is that such caches are more likely to be visited by new, inexperienced geocachers, geocachers who soon quit geocaching, and irresponsible "geocachers" who don't log their travel bug finds. As a result, the travel bug may be picked up by someone who never logs it and the travel bug becomes lost forever. Geocachers, please don't let travel bugs languish in caches. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

That is not one of the rules of travel bugs. You are encouraged to pick up any travel bug that you see in a cache and move it to another cache, even if that other cache is nearby. If you ignore a travel bug and let it languish in a cache, then that increases the chances of the travel bug becoming lost, because the cache could be muggled or the travel bug taken by someone who does not log its find. In my opinion, as more responses geocachers fail to pick up a travel bug left in a cache, the odds of the travel bug becoming lost increases.

It appears to me that many geocaches that I find are placed in highly exposed, public areas where any person with an ounce of common sense would conclude that such a cache won't last very long in such a location. Examples are cache containers include: * A cache in or under a bush that will be removed by landscapers and become exposed when the bush is trimmed (damage to the bush also occurs as a result of geocachers sticking their hands in it and moving the branches around); * A non-camouflaged container the size of a soda can attached to the visible side of a utility box; * A standard-sized container partially covered with rocks next to the parking lot of a busy restaurant; and * Many other caches that don't appear markedly different from the trash in the vicinity. Therefore, why do so many geocachers, even experienced geocachers, continue to place so many low-quality, short-lived caches? Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

Here is another example of a new geocacher (2 finds with an account that is 2 days old) who has used the "Discovered it" option to log a travel bug, even when that geocacher stated that he physically removed the travel bug from the cache. Here is his log entry (name has been deleted): 8/20/2008 xxxxxxx discovered it [visit log] I guess this guys hitchin a ride to NYC. I'll take him here from Chandler, AZ as far as I can NE haha. I had to send an e-mail to this geocacher to explain to him to use the "Retrieve from..." option to log the travel bug in this instance, and not the "Discovered it" option. The "Discovered it" option is used erroneously by many geocachers, particularly newer geocachers, and its meaning and purpose are misleading and ambiguous. The "Discovered it" option discourages many geocachers from picking up and moving travel bugs, as geocachers can earn "credit" for a bug find even if they don't move the travel bug. Geocachers should be encouraged to pick up and move every travel bug that they find, even if the move is only for a short distance. Therefore, I firmly believe that the "Discovered it" option should be eliminated. What can we do to make this happen, and get rid of the annoying and misleading, and frequently incorrectly used, "Discovered it" option for travel bug logs? Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

Pick up and move every travel bug that you see. Passing up a travel bug that you see in a cache increases the probability that the travel bug will become lost, because the cache may become muggled before the next geocacher finds it, or the next person who finds the cache may be someone who doesn't understand geocaching well, and takes the travel bug without logging it or moving it. If you are a responsible geocacher, please pick up and move every travel bug that you see. Travel bug movements should be random and unpredictable, not necessarily in the shortest route to their goals. Please don't let travel bugs languish in caches. Have fun, pick up and log the travel bug, then drop it in another cache, even if that cache is a short distance away.

Recently I got a BlackBerry to replace my cell phone, and I love it for geocaching. I can access geocaching.com while outdoors and log my cache findings right from the cache. If I am in a location where I haven't uploaded the caches to my GPS, I can use my BlackBerry to find the nearest caches with the full descriptions that one can read on geocaching.com. Therefore, if you geocache a lot, I highly recommend getting a BlackBerry or some other wireless cell phone system that will allow you to access geocaching.com while traveling or outdoors. This will enable you to log a travel bug into a cache at the same time you place the travel bug in the cache. (Note: It may be difficult to access the Internet on your BlackBerry in very rural areas, or outside the USA). Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

Determine the latitude and longitude of a place you are planning to visit, and find the caches near those coordinates. If you use trails.com (subscription required), you can find a trail, such as Hay Meadow to Long Lake, and on the Tools on the right side of the page there is a feature called Nearby caches (by Geocaching.com). Try the cache Rocky Mtn Way (GC155DC) - you can get a first find there. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

I just returned home to Arizona after a trip to CT, NY, NY, and PA. I brought 31 trackable items with me and distributed 27 of them to 27 different caches. I picked up a total of 27 trackable items during my trip, so I now still have a total of 31 trackable items in my inventory. However, I found these 27 trackable items in far fewer than 27 caches. Therefore, my trackable item exchanges all balanced out.

I hate the "Discovered it" option for travel bugs and geocoins and I would like to see this option abolished for log entries. A major reason is that many geocachers use the "Discovered it" option instead of the "Retrieve from . . . " option when they acquire a geocoin or travel bug even when they physically take possession of the item. For example, a new geocacher, who has only been geocaching for six days, picked up Laval K-9 Geocoin from Stage Door, but used "Discovered it' for their log entry when they should have used "Retrieve from Stage Door." How can we encourage geocachers to not use the "Discovered it" option anymore? The "Discovered" alternative is very confusing, especially to new geocachers. I advocate that "Discovering" travel bugs and geocoins be abolished to make the process simpler, and to encourage geocachers to pick up geocoins and travel bugs instead of allowing them to languish in caches. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer) P.S. I contacted that geocacher by e-mail, and he responded and corrected his log. His reply to me stated, "Thanks for the info on the coin. I logged it like you requested. I'm pretty new at this so I appreciate the info."

This is not a good idea. Most "travel bug hotels" or similar types of caches are too accessible and easy for non-geocachers to find, and many have become muggled. This has resulted in the loss of many travel bugs. A cache should not be located in a "spot that is close to the highway and easy for passers-by to access." Such a cache can be easily found by non-geocachers, and therefore has a high risk of becoming lost or stolen. Caches should not be placed to close to busy roads as such caches tend to have a short life expectancy. One of the problems I see with geocaching is that there are too many geocaches that don't last very long, so geocachers should strive to make high-quality geocaches that will last a long time and are not likely to become lost or stolen. In my opinion, it is not a good idea to encourage geocachers to leave multiple travel bugs in a single cache, especially one that is not secure. If such a cache is muggled with multiple travel bugs in it, then all of the travel bugs that are in the cache at that time become lost. I have explained my strong opposition to "travel bug hotels" in previous postings. I do not believe that such caches should be approved unless they conform to several strict criteria to ensure that they are likely to be secure and will not present a high risk of travel bug losses.

That is not selfish at all. Travel bugs are not to be kept by the geocacher who finds them, as they are to be moved to other caches. I prefer to take every travel bug that I see and distribute them to as many different caches as possible. I prefer not to leave a cache with more than one travel bug in it, to reduce the risk of multiple travel bug losses if the cache is muggled. As long as I drop off every travel bug that I pick up, then overall the number of travel bugs that I drop off equals the number of travel bugs that I pick up. For example, I might pick up 10 travel bugs from one cache but during the day I may drop off 10 travel bugs in 10 different caches. Overall, there has been no change in the number of travel bugs distributed in caches. However, after my day of caching there are now at 10 different caches with a travel bug in them, so more geocachers have an opportunity to find and log a travel bug.

Get with someone who has a 4X4, take a long weekend and do both Dial Out & His or Hers and you can retrieve the cache containers with all the contents. You can then place new caches close to where you live. Most of the containers are ammo cans. There should be a total of 11 containers, 10 regular size and 1 small Altoid size tin. John Please keep the caches where they are. We need more caches in remote areas. Caches shouldn't be just in areas that are close to where people live. I enjoy finding caches when I travel. If the cache is located in a fairly remote area, make sure the container is something very durable like an ammo can, and make sure that it is hidden well so it is not found accidentally by a non-geocacher.

I do not like the "Discover" option, as it encourages many geocachers to claim a travel bug find without gaining possession of the bug. It is also confusing in my opinion. In order for one to gain credit for a travel bug find, one must actually pick up and remove the travel bug from a cache, and move it to another cache. I pick up every travel bug that I see and I move it to another cache. I do not use the "Discover" option.

I do not recommend "travel bug hotels," since most such caches become lost, stolen, or ransacked, resulting in the loss of many travel bugs. I have explained in numerous previous posts why I feel that "travel bug hotels" are a bad idea and should not be approved. Most "travel bug hotels" that I have tracked near my home have become lost and archived. Do not make a cache and call it a "travel bug hotel. Please do make a high-quality cache with a durable container such as an ammo can. Make sure that the cache is well-hidden and not too easy to find, because caches that are too accessible and too easy to find tend to have a short life expectancy. If you want to encourage travel bug placements, secure the cache with such features as a lock and chain so a non-geocacher cannot easily steal it or remove its contents. Also, make it a "Members-Only" cache to encourage only serious geocachers to visit it and to discourage visits from non-geocachers. It is important to have no restrictions whatsoever on the number of travel bugs that a geocacher can remove from the cache at one time. As long as geocachers move every travel bug that they take to another cache, then there is a one-to-one exchange of travel bugs in the geocaching world overall. Although it is not called a "travel bug hotel," a good example of a cache which should have the features that should be mandatory for a "travel bug hotel" is PRGCGC in Phoenix.

Eight out of 12 is ⅔, which is 66.7%. If nine out of 12 were missing, that would be ¾ or 75%.

Here is the front page of the Jeep website. In 2008 Jeep has seven models. I think the Jeep promotional travel bugs are great. Some of the options which could be considered include the orange Jeep Patriot, the blue Jeep Compass, the black Jeep Liberty, or the silver Jeep Grand Cherokee. Which Jeep vehicle would you like to see in the travel bug? Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer) I would love to see the silver Jeep Grand Cherokee become the 2008 Travel Bug. That would be awesome! Here is another example of a new vehicle that Jeep could incorporate into a promotional travel bug. It is currently featured at the North American International Auto Show: Click here for a video.

Here is the front page of the Jeep website. In 2008 Jeep has seven models. I think the Jeep promotional travel bugs are great. Some of the options which could be considered include the orange Jeep Patriot, the blue Jeep Compass, the black Jeep Liberty, or the silver Jeep Grand Cherokee. Which Jeep vehicle would you like to see in the travel bug? Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

There is nothing wrong with dropping travel bugs in caches that are in remote locations and/or are more challenging to visit. These caches are usually far better in quality than most urban and easily accessible caches. Travel bugs placed in more challenging and less frequently visited caches are less likely to get lost. Travel bugs frequently become lost when dropped in easy caches, because such caches are likely to be muggled or the caches are visited by inexperienced or unreliable caches who take the travel bugs but don't log them. Avid geocachers should encourage the placement of more physically challenging caches and caches located in regions where there are fewer caches. This would include the placement of travel bugs in such caches whenever they are visited.

Thank you, Mike, for picking up my travel bug, Ichiro Suzuki Mini BobbleHeadBug.

I drop off every travel bug that I pick up in another cache. Therefore, for every travel bug that I pick up, I am dropping off another one either in that same cache or another cache. Overall that is a one-to-one exchange of travel bugs. A few days ago I picked up 20 travel bugs and geocoins in one cache, and dropped off one travel bug. However, over the next few weeks I'll make 20 travel bug drops so this will be an overall even exchange. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

A few ways to look at this. Sure, they will move slower. But the people that go through all the effort to reach a cache that is rarely visited are usually more experienced and there is probably less chance of a muggling or maggot intervention in a cache like that. They are also more likely to get better logs and photos posted on the page. That is a good point. I agree with that. I prefer that the travel bugs that I own be placed in remote caches. Travel bugs placed in very easy caches often become lost because they are picked up by inexperienced or infrequent geocachers who don't log their finds online, don't know how to log travel bugs, or drop out of geocaching altogether. Easy-to-find geocaches often become lost due to muggle intervention, which results in the loss of all travel bugs in the cache at the time that it is muggled.

I think the Jeep Travel Bugs are great. Thank you to the Jeep division of Daimler-Chrysler Corporation and other sponsors and advertisers for supporting geocaching. Without commercial sponsors like Jeep and Garmin, how would Geocaching.com pay the expenses to maintain and operate the website? When I get my next SUV, I will seriously consider getting a Jeep, in part because of its support of geocaching. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

People think that travel bugs are always traveling on the ground in a straight line. However, we live in a world where people travel by air all over the place. Let's say during late summer a highpointing geocacher from southern California climbs Maine's Katahdin (the highest point of Maine, in the sparsely populated northern part of the state) and after the climb finds a cache in rural Maine with a travel bug in it. The goal of the travel bug is to get to New York City. The cache is an easy find, located a few feet off a paved state highway near Baxter State Park. This geocacher has to make a five-hour drive to the airport in Manchester, New Hampshire to catch his flight back home to Los Angeles and has no time to visit another cache. Therefore, he can either leave the travel bug in the cache or take it home with him, where he will drop the travel bug in a cache in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Which action will improve the bug's chances of reaching its goal? In my opinion, the bug has a better chance of reaching its goal if it is dropped in a cache in the Los Angeles metropolitan area than left in the rural Maine cache. Even though LA and NYC are on opposite sides of the continent, they are the two biggest cities in the USA, so the number of people who fly between LA and NYC on any given day is greater than the number of people who travel from rural Maine to NYC in a given day. Even if the next person who finds it in the LA area is not going to NYC, that person may soon be traveling to another large city that will provide the travel bug with easier access to reach NYC. Even though this cache find is easy, there are few local residents in the area to pick up the travel bug, and if the cache has been in existence for a significant amount of time then all of the local geocachers have probably already found it. Maine does get many tourists from the New York City area during summer, but since the time is now late summer, the number of visitors will soon decline to almost nothing within a few weeks. Thus, the chances that a New York City-area visitor will pick up this travel bug before the onset of winter is lower than the chances that an LA-area geocacher will pick up the travel bug in an LA-area cache and bring it with him on a flight to the northeastern USA. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)