BRTango

For translating... I use the google language tools. For refining your search... I recommend Google Earth. You can use the .kml which is available to all members, to look at the areas you will be traveling in. Find a nice spot pick a cache, go to the cache page and you can look all the caches in the immediate area. I do recommend Pocket Queries to help refine your search though. You can sign up for premium membership for $3 for one month. You don't have to renew if you don't want too. It'd be an investment well worth it for you trip.

I like to watch caches in out of the way places like Antarctica and Iran... it's interesting to see if/when they are logged.

Yet again I get blasted about not doing a forum search.... It's funny...Everytime I do one it never returns any matches to the topic.Then whenever I don't do one there's fifteen topics already. wvnewbie-Yes I'm overseas(I'm positive,afterall I did have to get up in the middle of writing this response because a nice big VBIED went off...fun fun),I'm civilian. I think those are the AQ approved caches that some people try and find... I guess the VBIED would be like a moving cache. I'm sure those have been grandfathered in by the AQCaching.com... or you'd only be finding the IED's. The question is... did you log it?

Thats ok. Its kind of like multiple logging an event. DOH!

That's a nice brochure... hadn't seen that one!

Great thank you, everything came through ok, but the logo is upside down. As I look at it, even after cutting and folding it, it would still end up with the logo upside down. I’m I looking at it wrong, or am I just dumb? You have to print the pages back to back and ensure they line up. Then the logo acts as the front cover when folded. When you flip it, the writing will be right side up. Then turn it over to read the rest of the information on the back. Hope that makes sense.

I agree, if possible can we have an option how we want to sort?

That's true... and the cache density in the areas they cache in is pretty light. Still wondering why he wouldn't recommend the membership to anyone else though. That makes it seems as though there was a bad experience. So was the bad experience the problems with figuring out how to cancel? Or was there something else?

Yeah... but that's a pretty big state!!

Is that because of the difficulty you've had in cancelling the membership? Or is there another reason for it? Just out of curiosity, why are you cancelling your membership?

Jennifer&Dean, Very impressive... I hope my map looks like that some day Although I'm off to a slow, but an enjoyable start... I do have a few finds in 17 states plus DC, Ireland and the Bahamas.

I thought that you didn't even agree with the multiple event logging. Weren't you just playing devils advocate? I love your stance though. You are trying very hard to be nice. Thats really cool. I was mostly playing devils advocate, honestly I don't care if people do or it not, and it's not so much that I don't agree with multiple event logging as it is that I wouldn't do it personally. And here's why. 1) Aesthetics: When I review my caches found list (the one in my profile), I like to look through it in pages of 20 (or whatever they are), when you log multiple times, it really screws that up. You'll have one page that shows 2 logs, the next will show 5 logs, etc... 2) It doesn't add the numbers in the right places... if the temp caches were traditionals, I wouldn't be able to go through my logs and see all the traditionals etc... you get what I mean? 3) If there were a way of logging temp caches, that didn't screw all that up, I'd probably do it. Whether or not the numbers counted toward the overall find count... I don't really care. But if there were a sub category for temp caches... I'd probably do it. So in short... for me, logging multiple times wouldn't enhance my experience any, so I wouldn't do it. As for other people who do? I don't care... As long as they have fun doing it... that's all that really matters. If at some point they begin to agree with others here and see it as the wrong thing, and feel a bit guilty about it... then by all means they should go back and delete their finds! But, if they don't... then so be it? While I enjoy my stats... and I enjoy looking at other peoples stats that they post in their profiles, or on www.itsnotaboutthenumbers.com... I am not going to compare mine with theirs... there is simply no way of doing it that makes sense. I'm certainly not going to lose respect for them. Now if they are intentionally logging in order to be harmful (ie. logging finds on caches that aren't there with the intent to decieve) then I'd likely lose some respect for them. Otherwise? Let them play in a way that makes them happy. If the TPTB decide someday to restrict finds/attends to one log per cache/event... then so be it, a rule has been set and we should abide by it. Until then? It's fine either way. I've said it before... I'll say it again. I respect the people who get out and enjoy themselves regardless of how they log... and I only lose respect for the ones that continue to cache even when they hate what their doing. I don't think you'll find too many of them... so just about everyone has my respect regardless of how many caches, how many logs, or how difficult they were.

After much thought and debate in another thread... I have to side on the go back, follow your GPS and find it again. Log it online as a find. I would not log it immediately after placing it, and I would not log it as a FTF. If there were a way it could show up on my hide count, I would not log it as a find. There are people out there that will now look upon me with much disdain... but after a certain comment in another thread I have no solidly made up my mind that caching is about the enjoyment you have, the logs (find, dnf, etc...) are about the pleasure you receive from the caching experience. The reasons I would log it as a find (especially the one which you are talking about) are as follows: 1) I like to look at the caches near me or near the areas that I have cached in quickly see which ones I have done and/or am not planning on doing again in the near future. When I look on the cache page of caches near me, it will show up with a check mark and a grey bar which lets me know that I have had an experience with that particular cache which I can return to the log and reexperience. 2) Without that check mark and grey bar... I will constantly pop on my list of caches that I want to visit. 3) I don't want to put it on my ignore list... because then I can't see it. 4) This is a particulary unique cache based on its location... and that is something I want to remember. For me... I'd log it as a find... if people lose respect for me because of it? Well... I wasn't looking for their respect to begin with... so no lose there.

This comment really sets the tone for me... and it really makes up my mind about how I want to cache. 1) I cache with a one year old kid in a stroller 2) I don't have the experience to do the climbs, caves, dives, etc... that many of the best 5/5's require 3) Most of the time I prefer a nice leisurely stroll along well defined trail than sweating it out over 12 mile 10,000ft ascent 4) I usually have dogs in tow 5) I cache alone the majority of the time I have more resect for the person who does 1000 LPCs and has a great time doing it, than I do for a person who does 10,000 5/5's and hates every minute of it. I have a lot of respect for the people who get out there and have fun, if they have fun doing 500 temp caches at an event and want to record their fun and the experience they had so they can look back on it smile? Well... great... I have more respect for them then the person who logs only 1 attend at an event and can't remember anything about it or looked down on the people who logged multiple finds. Kit Fox, I've read many, many of your posts over the past couple of years and you really seem like a great person. One that I think I'd enjoy finding your caches, or even caching with you. Maybe one day we'll meet at an event... when we do, I hope you don't look down on me because my most difficult cache is a 3 / 4 and my average is 1.53 / 1.75. For everyone else so set in your ways about what is acceptable and what's not? I hope we can agree to disagree and not lose respect for one another because of it. Best Regards, BRTango

Over time a general concencus has developed on what a find is and what isn't a find. We are all caching. It stands to reason that we should all have things in common on what caching is else someone would log a find for every inch they knit on a sweater. I'm not sure I agree with you. I've been following along in these discussions since I started almost two years ago... and while there are many people who do agree on what constitutes a log, I don't think you can say there is a concensus within the caching community. There may be a concensus among many of the people who visit these particular forums... but then there are many who disagree as well.

How is what people in WI are doing at events relevant to you, way over in Idaho, or wherever you are? Its Not.... And dont come to WI, becuase Im guessing you wouldnt be to welcome there.... I think you just proved my point. Apparently logging practices matter. Since Wisconsin is the birth place of such a "cheazy practice" like logging finds on caches that aren't approved on GC.com, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to visit. California cows make far better cheese, and we hide real caches, with GC numbers before events. As for wandering why the practice matters, here it is in a nutshell: Many of us would take the game more seriously than you do, are find numbers are an accurate reflection of how we play the game. It is really hard to compare your stats to other cachers, when the "other cachers" fudge their finds. For me, I wish that geocaching was more black and white, and less gray. If the cache isn't approved, or permanent, why should cachers get a smilely for it? How are your finds any more accurate than anyone else's when there are no rules or definitions as to what counts as a find? How can any fudge numbers when to them it is an accurate count? and why in the world are you trying to compare stats to other cachers in the first place? If you have a cacher with 5,000 - 1/1's and a cacher with 50 - 5/5's, how can you compare those numbers? Who's ahead of who? When you have cachers that climb mountains and ride down them on bikes, and you have cachers with one leg, how can you compare their numbers? When you have cachers who are in their 20s and you have cachers that are in their 80s how can you compare their stats? What about those of us with jobs vs. those retirees? What about the wealthy cachers who can travel the world vs. the not so wealthy who don't regularly cache more than 20 or 30 miles out of their home area? GC.com and TPTB consistently take the stance that this is not a competitive hobby... so why are you insisting that the people who don't log the same as you are fudging their numbers, or logging fake finds, etc... Call me stupid... but I just don't get it!!

I was thinking about making one that looks like a deadbolt lock (the finder would need to disable it) and place in somewhere near my neighbors front porch (I'm thinking like a door or something). I wasn't planning on telling the neighbor about it though. Is this a good idea?

... like running a bot or something? Loading too many pages too fast will trigger that. Lay off the cache for a while and functionality will return. Seriously? I was just kidding

Your new avatar just isn't working for me... you really need to starting writing so that it sounds like Napoleon Dynamite.

looks fine to me... are you sure that someone isn't singling you out? Did you do something bad? Huh... huh... did ya?

Interesting side note on the two Georgia's Georgia (The Country): Derived from Persian Gurj[4][5], probably derived from a PIE term meaning 'mountainous'. In classical times Greeks referring to the region used the names of Colchis (the coastal region along the Black Sea) and Iberia (further inland to the east). Some also believed that Georgia was so named by the Greeks on account of its agricultural resources, since "georgia" (γεωργία) means "farming" in Greek. However, the modern Greek name is now taken to be a derivation from the Persian root "Gurj".[6] Both names probably derive from indigenous Caucasian languages. Gruzia in Slavic languages (Грузия in Russian, for example) and Gorjestân (گرجستان) in Persian derive from the same source. Sakartvelo (Georgian name; in English commonly "Kartvelia"): derived from a pagan god called Kartlos, once regarded as the father of all Georgians. The word Gurj refers to the farming or working the soil. Since the Greek Georgios (Γεώργιος - tiller of the soil) is the same cognate with a similar meaning, the country's name in Western European languages is a proper translation. Vrastan (Armenian: Վրաստան) Georgia (The US State): In honor of George II of England

That is so true... I was born in Georgia (the real one here in the states) how dare they usurp our name like that. Although apparently they call themselves Sak'art'velo... how you get Georgia from that I have no idea

Can someone translate?

It makes Google-ing for Jersey a bit annoyingly difficult to get relevant results, but apart from that... Well... you know... We are the New and improved Jersey over here. So who wants to bother with the old one Actually I kinda find it funny (not quite funny ha ha, more like funny D'Oh) that most people from New Jersey don't know that their state is named after Jersey. Although the same can probably be said about New Hampshire, New York, etc... (although I think the folks from New Mexico probably have it figured out).

Markwell