WaldenRun

That with the right sort of hide, I can motivate folks to go for a walk in the woods. When they come back out, I just think the World has gotten a little better. -WR

MA has 173 pages of actives. I have found all the caches on the last two pages. I had to scroll forward to page 64 before finding a page without a find. My first two hides are on page 165 of 173. -WR

I have heard these tales about GoogleEarth before, but haven't been able to verify one yet. Is this the cache you are talking about?: It looks about right to me. -WR

I've heard this but Google Maps seems to be very accurate in the San Diego area. Of course, if our GPS measurement tool is only accurate with 15-30 feet then it's hard to know if Google Maps is off unless it's way off. By the way, don't the reviewers use Google Maps to check the locations of new cache submittals? Yes Fizzy, I certainly can understand where the GoogleEarth coords need to be checked against a second source. Can you supply a set of continental US coords where I can see a large discrepancy with something like USAPhotoMaps or Topozone? Thanks, -WR

First thing I would try is to add ballast until it sinks in my bathtub. Of course, I would have to adjust for salinity if I was going to hide in the ocean (or certain lakes). -WR

See if you can zoom in with GoogleEarth and convince yourself that you have a good idea where the cache is in the photo. Mark a waypoint there and use the coordinates from GoogleEarth. -WR

Lately, email has not been the most reliable part of the site. I am currently experiencing the same issue that you are, but I know another cacher for whom it is working quite quickly. I dunno. -WR

I am surprised you begrudge the $5 to maintain a park more than the $20+ dollars to the oil companies and Middle Eastern countries: 100 * 2 / 20 * 2.25 -WR

This summer, we lost five marks when this event went off: -WR

I'd probably think about something above my head that looks like a piece of a tree. Maybe a burl that has been hollowed out, or a branch stuck back into a drilled out hole. Please let us know after you figure it out. -WR

I usually end up playing the "kid". I get to swim the nasty river, swim out to the island, climb the tree, cross the tree, hang over the edge, go over the edge, etc. The biggest challenge doing this is dealing with an SO who is hysterical about the challenge, but wants the smiley. -WR

I know one that was pulled ON me. Last Spring, we saw a new cache pop up. Being FTF hounds at that point, we headed right out the door. We searched long and hard trying to get FTF on that "Sloop Fair Lady" cache, without success. Later, back at the apt, we started seeing Found logs from other cachers. Eventually, we returned and made the find without too much trouble, swearing we must have looked in that spot during our first visit. Fast forward to a GeoMeet help this Fall. The host of the event comes over to chat and asks me if I ever checked to see what you could anagram from ""Sloop Fair Lady"... -WR

I can't help but think some Boston caches might get "discovered" and blown up today. Check CNN if this doesn't make sense to you. -WR

Fancy that. My five year was day before yesterday. Lots o' changes in the game. -WR

An honest post would have included a bit more information about this cleanup. There was a "whole bunch of folks" because they all wanted to log ANOTHER find on the caches. That certainly brought a lot of "happiness" to the Nashville folks. There are now some "new" micros in locations not too far from the old hides. Takes too much time to cache outside the city. -WR

Near as I can tell, you found waypoint two of this cache. Good job. Shorting multi's is one of my favorite parts of the game. Were you in the area of 34.1706 / -116.8868? -WR

The thing you are overlooking is the fact that the cache doesn't see the same amount of traffic for the entire three years. In fact, it is not extraordinary to see a mature cache in the woods to go weeks, months or even years between visits. That is not so true up this way. We still have limited micro-spew, so not everybody has developed a drive-by habit. Our newer cachers learn that woods are part of the game, and come to enjoy visiting them. If your Christmas crop of cachers is pavement bound, well, you reap what you sow. -WR

This article is somewhat more complex than an ad for a water purification system: http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?reque...4&page=0235 I will be quite happy if just ONE Madison Avenue junkie lets the words sink in enough so that next time his mind goes past the hiking hottie bending over the stream to use her PUR. -WR

Filter schmilter. Bubbling brooks flowing over moss-covered rocks have always served me well. What is the advantage of the back-country if you can't trust the water? Yes, there are risks, but Taco Bell worries me a LOT more. -WR

The Big Dipper -WR

Talk about "Remember When?"! I was just looking at the PQ results for my micro finds. I started caching at the end of January, 2002. I found my first micro in JUNE of that year, and at my first anniversary I STILL only had ONE. -WR

Great thread! Y'all should come up to New England. I have been fighting micro-spew for a while, with moderate success. Of the 2157(!) caches within 50 miles of where I am sitting, only 221 are traditional micros, or just about 10%. I've had to be nasty at times, but we gotta make a stand Yes, like the OP, I have lost my top spot to some numbers guys, but all of them have traveled out-of-region to hit high density spew areas. I'll only complain about that if they return and spread the infection. I'm no so anti-micro that I don't hunt them, but my 195 traditional micros out of 2783 finds (7%) is sure to be one of the lower percentages amongst cachers with 2000+ finds. -WR

I am now thinking that anywhere near the perimeter is a bad idea. While I was taking some photos to log this locationless cache, someone wrote down my plate number. I was subsequently called into the FBI office in Providence RI to explain myself. That experience was recalled when I found a recently hidden micro quite near the same airport. That led to this log. Sooooooo, we are out this morning trying to FTF a new multi-cemetery cache. Yes, one of the stages is right next to the SAME airport. We were not there more than 90 seconds when Office Letsmovealongnow stops to see if things are OK. -WR

Not that I have ever used any of this, but GUIDs have not always been around. While they are now used in most places in the code, you should still be able to find areas where the old-style lookups are used. Those lookups tended to be based on adding one (1) to the ID of the last created item of that type. Take log IDs for example. When using the site, you will usually see "?GUID=xyz" in the URL. However, "?LID=n" will also return a log entry. If n is latest log in the database, the next log will be n+1. So, a bot could TRY looking at each log as it is created. Rumor has it that this would also show you reviewer logs. That hole may have been closed. In the OLD days, you could look at newly created caches quite easily using this technique. Fixing that was one of the first defenses made against FTF hackers. I dare say the war is still being fought! -WR

Well, there is the story behind this log. -WR