purple_pineapple

granted, and with the number of caches available, we HAVE to be selective about which ones we do - ignoring certain cache types, or circuits, or drive-bys, or micros or whatever. I know that you are an advocate of reading cache pages, logs and so on and trying to determine which caches to do - I suspect everyone does it to a certain extent, especially when away from home ground and can't do everything! My point (I think!) is that with all the other guides to which caches to do, I don't think I've ever used the written skills on the cache page to help decide, as I don't believe there is any correlation between that and cache quality. I do agree that a bare bones description may put me off, but not the writing ability. But thats not the same thing - I can place a p**s poor cache with one line of description - the grammatical correctness of that description could be perfect, but the cache itself would still be useless, and probably rightly ignored by visitos (such as yourself when you're visit the reigate area!). maybe so, but it was the best I could come up with! Lets take a different hypothetical situation of looking for a good plumber! I could examine all their CVs and ask them to produce an essay on how to replace a radiator in a closed heating system, but it probably wouldn't mean much, and I'd rather get recommendations and see some examples of their work instead! I don't expect my plumber to have good English skills (or any other language skills in this day and age!)

Just to clarify my own post, although I don't think this was particularly directed at that, I agree, and wasn't attempting to use dyslexia as an excuse for all badly written cache pages. Indeed, we all know that there are people who can't spell, can't do maths, can't draw or paint, have no hand/eye coordination, or are tone deaf! This doesn't make them less educated, less proud of themselves, or less able to do any particular job or participate in any particular hobby. (with obvious exceptions of tone deaf conductors, for example!) My point is that everyone is different, everyone has different skills, and so long as an inability to spell (or whatever) doesn't affect their ability to do a job/enjoy a hobby, then that's fine by me! I've always thought of geocaching as a very inclusive hobby, more so than many, and I can honestly say I've neevr cmoe arcsos a chace pgae taht is SO bdlay wirtetn taht I can't atcaully go and look for the ccahe! Dave

Jeez, there's some rather old-fashioned opinions being expressed here this week! I must confess that I find it hard to understand why folks would form an opinion about a cache based solely upon the spelling and grammar on the cache page. Can I assume that these folks would carry that same opinion through into other, more important, areas of life, such as refusing to be treated by the paramedic with dyslexia, (a good friend of mine) who can't spell for toffee - on the basis that if she can't spell, she obviously can't treat anyone either! Where's the correlation? There are relatively few jobs/hobbies/interests where the ability to spell can affect the ability/enjoyment of the job/hobby. Indeed, I love seeing some errors in documents - references in computer studies papers to hard diks, floppy diks, and 3.5 inch diks are always good for a giggle! Cheers Dave

I tried selling a few of my activated/untravelled coins on ebay last year but didnt get much response. Maybe because they are secondhand or people dont want to be bothered with the adoption thing (Although its not hard). So mine are still languishing in a drawer like yours Terry. Let us know how you get on.... if you're not fussed about the money, how about putting them up as raffle prizes or similar in a local event? Alternatively, post them to Dave Gerrie St Thomas' Hospital London

I thought that the price was only an "invitation to treat" and does not, in fact, have to be honoured. It used to be the case that the store had to honour a displayed price but I thought this had changed. Anyone offering to price match will probably check the price is valid though, and this seems not to be. Handtec are, IME, very reliable though. getting a bit OT, but this is essentially true, and gives shops the ability to not sell an item which is incorrectly priced. HOWEVER, they are not allowed to deliberately put incorrectly low prices on to encourage visitors (either online or in shops!) Anyway, lots of good advice - I'll mention one thing though - the new Dakota doesn't have the ability to deal with Wherigo caches, so for proper future proofing, the Oregon or Colorado are the way forward. We have a 200 and its the bees knees! Dave

of course, last delivery is still in place, now with new owners...!

the only answer is to put some 'proper' 5/5 caches out, to make all the 'fake' 5/5s look silly and inferior! Talking of which, I lugged all my climbing gear to Weston in August cos you said it 'might' be useful - where was my climbing cache?!

Some people will use the Clayjar rating wossname, and some will guess based on their experience of similar rated caches. Even using the rating thingy, there's still room for interpretation when the terrain problems are due to something other than steep bits or impenetrable vegetation. I'd suspect that the source of a fair few over-rated 5/5s is the "Finding this cache requires very specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment. This is a serious mental or physical challenge" bit. What, exactly, constitutes a serious mental challenge? For some it could be a total sod of a puzzle, for others it could be one of those "You want me to go in *there*??!!!? You are joking, right? No ****ing way!" moments. I don't think it's possible to create a rating thingy that covers every last possibility, so there are always going to be some caches where the rating may be a bit skewed based on what the CO thought when he placed it. It's a shame we don't have a means for people to vote on what they think the D/T rating should be when they log a find . . . that might be a way of getting the ratings to end up being more or less correct even if the CO was having an off day and got things a bit wrong in the original listing? I tried the Clayjar ratings a couple of times and wasn't happy with the result. Specialist equipment wil often skew the ratings dramatically, and I think its a real shame that there is no where to distinguish between 'specialist equipment' and 'special equipment'. The first will often require training to use, and may or may not be inherently dangerous (ropes, scuba, etc) the second does not, but is something that probably wouldn't be in a cache sack. For example, a screw driver, socket set, coat hanger, large volume of water, arguably a torch, and so on. All of these pull the rating up of a simple cache under the current system. At the end of the day, I'm not sure how much it really matters. I always assume that the ratings could easily be 2-3 stars adrift in any direction, and don't rely on them to hunt caches, and the only one I feel is important is 1* terrain rating indicating wheelchair friendly. I could say that some of the 5/5s we've done are much more difficult than other people's 5/5s, but there's no actual prize for getting one, and my feel good factor comes from having thrown myself off a cliff to get a cache, not from the rating combination I got at the end!

I can't remember if it was Beast or BeastleyToo, but your point about additional dangers on top of the fact that one is dangling off a rope is very well made. I can absolutely guarantee that i wouldn't be here today if i hadn't had a helmet on, not something itrinsically necessary for abseiling. The 1 foot diameter rock that clobbered me while i was on my way down would have finished me off no problem! Arguably, this isn't part of the terrain, as the same cache on more stable cliffs or a brick wall may not need a helmet... who's to say! I probably have no problems with regrading - i'll check my charts to see if any of yours are the only one of a certain combination! Talk to you on Thursday about it! Dave

How do you know ? Have you tried many of them, around the country ? Correctly graded unfortunately means that if you require a toothpick to extract the cache box then this is a grade 5 as 'Specialist Equipment' is required !!!! I confess that I have a number of 5/5 caches and you will require rather more than a toothpick to extract them as Purple Pineapple can vouch for !! I am glad that my caches are not correctly graded in this context !! I think we in the Surrey area have a very specific view of % terrain caches, due to your sensible choices. Namely, if it requires equipment, its 5*, but if it doesn't (even if its hundred feet up a ventilation shaft) then its 4.5 star at most. Its a system I like, but its not to everyone's taste! I may have done some of your 5*s without equipment, but I'm not sure if we were supposed to! Many of yours are multis, and can probably justify the 5* difficulty as well, but I wonder your thoughts Andy on an easy to find box on a cliff? Is it 5*Diff? Oh, and I have no knowledge of the cache MrsB mentions, so it may well justify the diff AND the terrain! At the end of the day, many ratings are subjective, although I do think a cache that can be done by wheelchair is unlikely to be a 5* terrain! And yes, I've done one that is...

Thats a good point - how many 5/5 caches are really 1/5 or 2/5? It could be halfway down the White Cliffs of Dover, but if its in a neon yellow box and not hidden, its not 'difficult' from that point of view... Should a real 5/5 require something more than just hard to get to? Maybe a hard puzzle, or a combination lock to be cracked at the cache site... Just a thought! Maybe I should look back though our 12 5/5 caches and see how many really were! Dave

We have some near us - Cachu-U-Nutters Beastley Too is an abseiling multi that requires about 7 caches, almost all of which require climbing/abseiling. They get increasingly more difficult We were 2TF, about a year after FTF! We are also planning our own climbing caches - it all adds an extra dimension to the obsession! Not for everyone, but you can't please all of the cachers all of the time! Dave

Are you thinking of the Black Pearl?

All true except the prices! I'm almost certain that we got our new Garmin Oregon for about £180 from Amazon for the 200 model. MrsPP knows how much she spent! this will suffice for an entirely paperless caching experience - you can load an entire PQ (or the results of an offline database (eg GSAK) filter), and holds the full description, hint, logs, and allows you to mark it as found, unfound, etc, in the field. You can then sync this with GC.com's Field Notes feature, for easier logging. We used a Mio P550 PDA until about 6 weeks ago. Generally considered the bees knees for paperless caching, we had full offline database and Memory Map to 1:25000 - all the advantages of a top end PDA. Unfortunately, it also had the disadvantages of a PDA, and I got it wet... Its now off for a repair, and we treated ourselves to an Oregon. Having been a PDA fan, I'm very impressed with the Oregon - the only thing I miss is the OS Maps at 1:25000. I suspect when we have both units working, the Oregon will be #1 choice, with the PDA as backup and for OS Maps when needed. Oh, and it will live in its waterproof case this time! Hope that helps! Dave PS - battery life for the PDA is as quoted, about 4 hours. We used a battery extender (has 4xAA batteries in it) and never had any problems when out for a day's caching.

we've noticed it in the car as well. To be honest, I'm not even certain if the map will auto-scroll - and we often have to zoom out and in to get it to refresh. Oh, and this isn't with the OS maps - we're using OSM... Dave

we've got a large ammo can here if you need somewhere to store them...

Apologies for advertising our own 'cache' but finally, after much talk and attending other monthly meets, the first of (hopefully) many Surrey monthly meets is published... I won't post all the repeat events in future - just wanted to let a wide audience know! Event Page Obviously, not restricted to Surrey cachers! More the merrier! Thursday 8th October at The Black Horse, Reigate. Less than 10 minutes from J8 M25... Cheers! Dave and Mary

What a year that was!!! First time I have made this public but a year later I got another "claim". Thanks to Peter (Lacto') the "dim wit" who tried it on, got a short answer which ended with OFF!!! We do get some strange ones!!!! Still have no insurance, have active caches, still married and she still thinks I'm round the twist!!!! It's only a game OR to quote another cacher "just a hunt for a tubberware box" Cheers Nick jeez Nick! What sort of caches you putting out?! I think to people in your area its more than a game. its a money-earning exercise! Glad the second one didn't amount to anything!

Oh the irony. I've bought bagfulls of pre-decimal coins off fleabay and I put a small selection into money bags and use this as a swap item. Y'know a couple of pennies h'pennies, thruppny bits, shillings, etc. Last log I got was "x took bag of old coins, left TB" My favourite is "Took 300 gb hard drive, left biro" nice! I'm in the wrong part of the country - which cachers are leaving 300Gb hard drives in their caches? I need a new one for my media streamer...

good idea! I'm in sunny Dumbarton from 15-17th next week, but too short notice to organise an official do, especially as I'll only know if I'm being called on the 10th...

If it was my multi, I wouldn't have a problem with it! Indeed, it could help attrract more visitors, as folks often ignore multis in favour of trads, however if they are at the site anyway, they may do the multi while there. As you say, there's no way of knowing unless you've done the multi yourself, or the multi lists all its points as additional waypoints, and you still have to make an effort to see them! It sounds like the site is worth visiting (hence having two caches at it!) so if more visitors are going, thats probably a good thing! Just my opinion though! dave

As andy says - explain the situation and they'll probably pass on the tracking number (and most scandanavians speak good english, if you're worried about that!) alternatively, put a note on the cace page and/or bug page and ask the next mover to let you know the number, and then you can sort out between you!

All good ideas! As a cacher who has found several abseil cachers, and about to place some as well, I have no problem with 'specialist interest' caches, and I am well aware that I'll be lucky to get more than 3 or 4 finds per year on mine, and less after the initial rush! However, we like placing them, others like finding them, and if you can't do them, there's plenty of other caches! Whats more, with some good arguments with the reviewers, you can usually ignore the proximity rule if comparing it to a 'normal' cache. However, regarding your bike cache (as an ex-biker, it sounds a good idea even if I'm not going to be on a bike again!) be warned that your requirement for a photo wouldn't be allowed. Additional Logging requirements (ALRs) are prohibited on any caches, although you can ask for photos. the only type now allowed are termed challenge caches, and have to be a caching related challenge. Of course, if you can make finding the cache so hard that only a biker could do it, then thats perfectly allowable! ta! Dave

almost... In order to make a claim you need prove nothing at all, not even that you have been injured. In order to win a claim, then the above is essentially true. Unfortunately, there is nothing to stop anyone lodging claims against anyone else - and there is still expense, stress and aggravation involved in dealing with it, even if you are eventually proved not to be at fault. Not trying to be pedantic, but I do feel that it is an important point to make. The moral being, if you are putting out a cache that has risks, make those risks abundantly clear on the cache page in order to prevent un'qualified' people attempting them. cache-U-Nutter's climbing caches are a good example. Is that not what the D/T ratings are for? If I rated a cache at 5 terrain, surely it's down to the hunter to know what 5 terrain could consist of before making a judgement on whether to attempt the cache or not? Having said that - unless the hazards in looking for a cache are hidden, anybody looking is going to know if they are uncomfortable with a location when they get there. As an analogy - look at this site If I upload a route, and somebody gets hurt attempting it, would I be held liable? Or would the site be liable, for listing it in the first place? Would a solicitor even take the case? I agree about the terrains, however I personally don't think they are sufficient. For a start, they are subjective - so a 5* terrain in one person's eyes is not even close in another cacher's eyes. A case in point is the night cache we did at Mega - a 5/5 cache. However, I have spent the last 3 months doing a series of 5/5 caches which can only be done by abseiling. However accoring to the ratings given, they are the same. Unfortunately, attributes simply don't work, as they aren't actually included in the PQ files that most of us use! Maybe there should be extra ratings, or some other system, but I prefer to simply put a bl**dy big warning on the cache page! Obvously, no one in they're righ mind is going to attempt a cliff face cache without the right equipment anyway, but I'd rather not even take them to the area unless they know what to expect! Better safe than sorry... As for solicitors... there's always someone out for a quick buck... unfortunately. Anyway, slightly wondering OT, who wanted recommendations for personal injury, which may not be a bad idea if tackling extreme caches!

From http://www.geocaching.com/pocket/ although i suspect the GC.com quote is a little misleading, as I believe it is 5 in a day, not in a 24 hour period. Keep in mind this is a Groundpeak day - on Pacific Time - so runs from 8am-8am GMT. I admit I've not been tinkering with PQs at 8am in the morning though, so I don't honestly know if you can run 5 at 7:55 am and 5 more at 8:05 am...