narcissa

I have known some cachers who drop business cards into caches instead of logging, but I don't know anyone who considers their swag trade to be equivalent to signing a log. In any case, does this matter?

I've seen a few cedar hedges where the cache placement was obvious due to a large hole where everyone had stuck their arms in to grab the cache. It happens, and it's something that cachers learn to avoid once they have some experience. Everyone has their likes and dislikes, and it would be impossible to have searchable categories for every type of hide out there. Sometimes playing this game means you end up looking for caches that aren't that great (in your opinion). Oh well.

Wow, that is lame. The only explanation I can think of - and it's reaching - is that they opened the logbook upside-down and backwards and didn't see your log. That happens enough around here that some cachers actually write THIS IS THE BACK at the back of new log books. It sounds to me that this was THEIR FIRST GEOCACHE EVER. That is something to be proud of. The more people that play the game the better in my opinion. ummm, no. they were claiming a first find on the cache. here's one of their logs: and the other: would you still like to question my understanding of their intent?

This thread makes me hate people.

they cant be that good or you would have provided a link for them my favourite so far "The Missing Link" (see that wasn't hard) I know I haven't been caching for long, but it was an interesting reversal to be disappointed to find the next tag in a multi. I probably would like The Missing Link more if it hadn't taken us THREE SEPARATE TRIPS to finish it. I really enjoyed MOSSBACK.

The game took off because it's fun to find things that other people hide.

I don't hate nanos, and I'm not really into swag that much (but I do like to move TBs around), but I still find that there's just something viscerally satisfying about finding a larger container. I usually don't trade swag, but I enjoy looking through the cache and flipping through a logbook. Opening up a nano and squinting at the initials on the scroll just isn't the same. I do appreciate the challenge of a micro or nano hidden well. Similarly, but on the other end of the size spectrum, I find it a bit silly when people go to ridiculous lengths to hide a larger cache in a space where a small or a micro would be safer and more appropriate.

As long as the difficulty rating is appropriate, the cache page mentions the size, and they aren't hidden in a spot that would support a larger cache, I don't really see what the problem is. If you don't like a particular sort of cache, nobody's forcing you to look for it.

Geocaches in downtown Ottawa, Ontario and Gatineau, Quebec (Canada)

It's not really news that participating in an internet forum sometimes requires a thick skin. Often, the snarky comments are intended to get a response, so when you comment to complain about them, you're actually providing positive reinforcement.

http://extreme-caching.com/

http://geonarcissa.wordpress.com/2009/07/2...olving-puzzles/

Remember that the attributes feature was added to the site after many caches had already been placed, so there are lots of older caches still out there that were never edited to include attributes after the fact.

Instead of littering the comments with whiny comments about how mean everyone is, why not just ignore them? It's an issue for the cache owner to deal with. I could care less what he does.

It would be a little less popular if the people who drew insulting conclusions about geocachers out of thin air disappeared from the game.

The VERY FIRST guideline for creating an Earthcache is this: EarthCache sites must provide Earth science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions or reveal how scientists understand our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.)

^Yes, that's the problem. Earthcache.org is pretty clear about its mission and what is required to create an Earthcache. If you think there ought to be some sort of Biology-based geocaching program, then start one.

IAWTC

I cached with an eXplorist 500 for ages, and I loved it (right up until I left it on the roof of my car in North Carolina ). If you want some one-on-one help, feel free to send me a message privately and I'd be happy to get you going.

I combine geocaching with hiking, snowshoeing, camping, and just going for a drive. I also have many other interests that have nothing to do with geocaching. Most of the serious cachers I know are interesting people with a wide variety of pursuits. Then again, so are the Star Trek fans I know.

You can't control everyone else's behaviour, but you can control the way you react to it. Stomping around the forum telling everyone what to do is an immature reaction to your pet peeves.

I have done several Earthcaches where the cache owner asked cachers to photograph fossils and then identify them. Under these new guidelines, it seems like that would now be an "optional" task, even though it's a very good way to get people engaged and learning about fossils. I have seen other Earthcaches that required cachers to bring a thermometer, a bucket, or other kinds of equipment in order to complete tasks and measurements. If taking a photograph at an Earthcache site is one of the educational requirements, then the onus should be on the cacher to go to the site prepared to fulfill that requirement.

I just had a look at the ones I found in that area. The cache owner "Steve Brown" archived his because of the amount of email he was getting. The cache owner "Todd & Tracy" were being pressured to delete armchair finds, and disagreed with the reviewer.

Yes, that was already covered in this thread. They recognize that it's something people do, but they don't keep stats on it, nor do they have rules governing it. It is ridiculous for individual cachers to expect others to abide by arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with geocaching.com or Groundspeak.