Cedar Grove Seekers

Thanks for the clarification. I personally wouldn't consider this an FTF as it was the same cache (same GC#) that had just been "maintained" with a new container. Regardless, your log seems innocent enough as you're qualifying it with the 're-hide'

If for some reason I want to get a sense of a cacher's experience I may put some weight on their number of finds, but more importantly I look at the type of finds and hides they have. A cacher may have a lot of finds, but if they're all Traditionals then I likely wouldn't consider that cacher to be very experienced.

This past summer we had a coyote trot down our street every night - that's in Toronto. I keep an eye on my two small dogs when I walk them off-leash in the ravine and golf course (and don't let them off-leash at dusk or dawn) but otherwise I have no concerns.

This seems to suggest that the cache should be approachable by car. As others have suggested, a long hike might be a safer option. Without all the details, I would assume that the highway bridge crosses a watercourse (or possibly a railroad), but not a road as that's excluded by the OP's description. Assuming not a railroad, couldn't one hike along the watercourse to the bridge? This does not involve parking on a highway. EDIT: Posted this before SSO JOAT provided the cache. Looks like the highway bridge crosses a river and a railroad. Although I don't endorse crossing a railroad, it appears that one could easily walk to this cache from a nearby sideroad without crossing the railroad or walking on the highway. Not sure why this cache is such a problem? Maybe some people are beginning to expect that every cache should be a park'n'grab.

Introduce the kids to caching by doing a few caches with the entire family.

I don't answer for others, only for myself. It is rude because the sole purpose of doing something like this is to frustrate others. I find the "supporting" a new cache argument extremely weak. If the only draw of a geocache is being the FTF, perhaps it is time to rethink that hide. And duping someone into doing that sounds like a good idea to you? Is there a rule or directive or something supporting this? FTF's aren't even real stats, so rude or not, logging or not, whining or not, does it even matter what each cacher chooses to do? If they are breaking a geocaching rule, then ban their arses. If not, who cares? But, because I'm stuck inside right now and not caching, the only thing to entertain me besides not logging a FTF right away is reading silly comments(including mine!) on this thread. Sure FTFs are real stats...maybe not ones kept by gc.com, but certainly kept by individual cachers who enjoy the race for FTF - that's real enough. We don't need a rule to tell us what is common courtesy. As for "who cares?", well those who enjoy FTFs care - and if you don't go for FTFs then there's no impact on you either way.

Congrats on your MFFTF! Count me as one who also considers it rude to wait to log. Glad to see that you kept an open mind about it and were willing to consider an alternative.

Until a year or two ago, freight used to also run down the centre of Town Line Rd in St.Catharines (east of Merritt). The tracks are still in the middle of the residential road.

We used to race for FTFs on a regular basis. Although we liked being FTF, we liked the race even more. We still had fun when we were STF, especially if we met up with the FTF at the cache. For us, the race enhanced the social aspects of geocaching and added a bit of friendly competition.

Common practice around here is NOT to "gift" and FTF to an "honoree". Attempting to to do so will get you in a bit of trouble with local cachers.

It's ironic that someone who logged a find twice on the same cache is concerned about cheating.

In general, if you want to remove an item that you consider offensive, then trade it out. Even if others don't find the item to be offensive, nobody can fault you for trading it out, regardless of your reasons. As for the condom, my kids are too young for it to be an issue, but I like to think I wouldn't have a problem with it when they are older.

What is "the mainstream event horizon?" This is what I think it is: (See the bolded print.) Has anyone managed to calculate the approximate date when that will occur? Yes. Nov.14, 2009.

My opinion too. I have always naturally hovered around 10%.

Yes, he should have recused himself. A large part of FTF pusuit is the race, and he had inside information.

My question: Did he find them first? If so he is the FTF. since ftf isn't officially observed who cares. ??? A lot of forum topics are not 'officially observed', yet people still care. I always find it odd that those who say they 'don't care' actually take the time to post to the thread indicating as much.

I'll guess; Alexander Graham Bell Glasgow Canada, Scotland, US

Which results in S 32°11.597' E116°01.085'. Which is east of the Southwestern Highway, just south of the intersection with Eleventh Road. ah, not quite. Jim I get the same result as DENelson.

The reviewer's note is posted above. I certainly hope the reviewer has additional information and is making these comments based on actual knowledge and not merely on assumptions. Otherwise I personally think it's too bad that it has come to this. Sure, the reviewer is giving the owner a chance to explain (actually requiring it), but ony after concluding the puzzle is not solvable and needs to be fixed. In this thread I have seen no evidence that the cache owner has admitted it is not solvable. It is possible the owner once commented that the bar codes are not scanable, but it doesn't mean they can't be interpreted. Maybe they're just a red herring. At first glance I thought the bar codes were intended to be the hint and not the answer - not even sure you need them. I have some thoughts on what they are hinting at, and if I'm correct then one does not even need to scan them. As for adding a geochecker, what about going to the location and searching for the cache instead? I would also suggest that puzzles like these often have a solution that is obvious once you figure it out, so rarely need for a geochecker. However geocheckers can be used to brute force a solution. Finally, are there not other 5 star caches out there that took a long time to be found, or have still not been found? Are they being threatened to be archived? What's wrong with the occasional difficult cache that requires a lot of effort to be found? Wouldn't it be better for someone to legitimately solve and find this (maybe not for another couple of years) than to force it to be archived because people don't want to admit to themselves that they couldn't do it.

Intentionally bad coords goes against the spirit of geocaching; in fact geocaching only came about once our GPSrs had the ability for precision. I don't mind difficult hides, but don't hide a cache in one spot and take me to another spot - that's not geocaching.

A virgin logsheet. Yup. Either one will make a great FTF prize.

YES THIS IS IT!!! Love it!!! Perfect!!!!!!!! So, like this, right? That's it! Great idea DENelson, and thanks to sbell111 for the tweaks.

I have shortcutted three multi-caches. The first was because I accidentally spotted the final on my way to a stage (kinda hard to ignore it). The other two had extremely bad coordinates on various stages, and I was able to glean enough information from the hints and the cache descriptions to FTF the finals. I don't regret short-cutting these (especially the FTFs after others posted DNFs) however I typically try to find the cache in a manner that I suspect the owner intended. I appreciate the work that went into a multi-cache and want the full experience of the cache. I have also had people short-cut some of my multi-caches (and admit as much in their logs) however I would never consider deleting their logs. They chose to find my caches their own way, and obviously my cache wasn't designed to prevent this (some might view as a flaw).

I'd say you're the closest to the optimal karma value of 1. You have a nice balance of cache types too. I think the OP's karma calculation is interesting, but it may promote more LPCs and quick and easy traditionals - not good.

Couldn't say it better myself, so I won't Personally, having accurate "found" dates is more important to me than milestone finds. But that's just me. I don't have any problem with doing what you did, so long as the dates are too far off. I do feel it is being a bit obsessive compulsive (to use a nicer word) but again it is harmless, and all of us are to a certain degree. If you feel better about it, go for it. Couldn't say it better myself, so I won't