ghs

Oh, okay. Interesting. I guess that could be a problem for people who've hidden substantially more than my one cache. (I just check my cache page.) But as it is, I'm thinking about turning off my email notification option. (Well, I think there's an option for that.) I can't imagine how many emails people who've hidden a lot more than one cache get.

Okay to cut to the chase, for lack of better words, you lost, the cache owner won, he deleted you find if I remeber correctly. Why do you keep defending yourself if you know you did not win in what you did? Notice I didn't say that what you did was wrong......I did that on purpose because I know what you did, and it did not constitute as a find. At the time you logged the cache as a find, you did not know for sure that you found the cache or a decoy. So at said time, in self reflection, you could not have said you found the cache, because there has to be a log book in the cache to prove that you found the cache. Nuff said. Hello? What are you talking about? No one deleted any log of mine. But I'll address a few of the irrelevant things you said. What's a decoy? Something placed by the owner of a cache in the general area? If I found something hidden by the cache owner where he said the cache was, I'm going to think I found the cache, especially my first time out. You don't think not signing a log is fair. I don't think leaving decoys is fair. "Crafty behavor" breeds "crafty behavior." But it wasn't a decoy. And I should've pointed this out before, but I didn't so I'll point it out now. In addition to being nothing important to worry about in regard to a light hearted game, this verification thing is greatly overrated. A signature in a log book proves nothing. (And BRTango says I just have to see the log, so there.) Even if you found my signature in one of your logs, you don't know how it got there. If you really think people are out here cheating (to win absolutely NOTHING), you might as well consider the possibility that someone else found your cache and signed both his and my "name" while I was out finding other caches and signing my and his name. If you're really thinking dishonesty is a big part of what's going on in this game, you've lost the game. (Paranoia is a mind killer.)

Three problems with this. "First, the cache owner doesn't get a notification of the find. Many cache owners enjoy the notifications and reading these is one of the reasons they place caches." That confuses me. (Don't worry, it happens.) I clicked on the "Found it." Why doesn't that notify the owner? "Second, it doesn't update the "last found" date of the cache. This could throw off people who prefer to search for caches that have recent finds and discourage them from looking for the cache." Well, okay. I can see that as a problem sometimes. But 1) there were many recent finds just before I actually found it, and 2) although it's just a coincidence with this one, I actually did leave a note the day after I found it (indicating that I had edited my website log) because I wanted the owner to be aware that his cache log was slightly damp. (Maybe people should either leave the DNF as is and then log a find, or do what I did and then just leave a note on the right date. My original intent was to avoid cluttering the site with more logs than I thought the owner might want there.) "Finally, it alters the history of the cache. Finds and DNFs provide information to other geocachers. If they scan the logs and see some DNFs they will realize that the cache might take a little effort to find. If everyone sanitized their DNFs like you do, the cache could look a lot easier than it is. I know from a personal standpoint, if I see nothing but smiley faces, I'm not likely to search very long before I'll give up and assume the cache is gone. If I see DNFs sprinkled throughout the cache logs, I'll assume its not a slam dunk find and put in some extra effort." Well, that might be an issue if they just look at smiley faces, but I left everything in the log's text. They can read that and see where it took me four trips (go ahead, have a field day). But okay. There's logic there. It's pretty much reinforcing a decision I already made to be more careful next time before prematurely logging a DNF. However, in regard to this one cache, it's sort of ironic that my inadvertently making things more challenging is seen as a problem. The entire description of this particular cache was written in a manner to make finding this cache much more challenging than it would have ordinarilly been. (Most of the difficulty in finding the cache arose from believing the description. He appeared to *want* people to believe it was easier than it was.) I suspect that my confuscating things worked to the advantage of the owner's goals. (I sure hope he appreciates that.) Thanks.

What everybody else said. My Garmin emap will get about 15' accuracy if I'm not in "battery saver" mode (or sometimes if I am and I stand still long enough) and not near buildings or trees. I almost never find a geocache just by following by GPSr to it. I eventually have to turn the thing off and just start "turning things over" (in a graceful, nondestructive way).

Your topic keeps on cycling to near the top so I had to eventually get caught by it. It occurs to me that people who don't think about geocaching a lot probably don't hang around forums devoted to it much either. (As for me, if I don't quit thinking about it as much as I do, I might have a few more "life problems" soon.)

And all I did in regard to the initial post was mention that his particular finder wasn't the only one in that situation, in case he cared. If the "OP" had not already basically gotten the answer to the question he asked, I would have said, "It's your cache and your webpage. If you don't like a log, delete it. It doesn't really matter why you don't like it." (What ensued afterwards was not my intent, but I expected it. I've been to forums before.)

Just curious. I hope I don't regret asking. Where did I say anything contradicting that? (THAT was never an issue.) The owner can delete my log if he doesn't like how little hair I have. It's his page. Did you see the part where I said I mentioned in the website log that I didn't sign the log and the part where the actual *owner* didn't seem to object? I think I mentioned at least once that I thought it was an issue between the owner and the cache finder, not the cache finder and a bunch of people on some forum on the internet with an opinion.

The same goes for trying to disqualify a find based on an interpretation! Who's trying to justfiy a find to anyone but himself? (My going there and finding it means I found it. The log on the vast wasteland known as the internet means nothing.) Who's trying to convince who of anything or trying to get them to "join their side"? I don't have a side. (Not that I feel the need to justify anything to anybody, but I've signed every log since that one. I don't do it because of rules. I do it because doing it is part of the fun. Not doing it is like going to climb Mt. Everest, getting to within 3 feet of the top, and then going, "Oh to heck with it, I'm going home." Rules don't have anything to do with it.) What part of "Just a note from the other side" was confusing? How did you get so arrogant to think that I go geocaching to impress you or anybody as a geocacher. (I don't try to impress anybody...ever...in regard to anything!)

Well, I was out on Sunday and didn't have any problems. I just checked solar activity at http://sidc.oma.be/index.php3 They indicated that the solar wind was increasing but didn't expect there to be any big effect of it.

Interstingly enough, rules 1 and 2 imply that TNLN is a DNF! Which is why they're probably not RULES in terms of the context of "requirement."

Well, if you don't see a distinction between seeing a visual replica of a cache and the cache itself, that's between you and the cache owner. Good luck! (Might be a good plan for really cold days.)

They're they go again, making stuff up and calling it a rule.

Just a quicky note to state that I am in no way trying to accuse anyone of cheating, if that is how I came across please know that it isn't my intent. I am just sharing my understanding of the "rules" and how I play the game. I would not consider logging a find for a cache if I haven't found it AND signed the log. If another geocacher logs one of my caches as a find without signing the log would I delete their post? Yes, absolutely! I appreciate that other folks play the game their own way, that is part of the fun of the game; however, I believe the rules are intended to be followed. If others disagree, no worries! Happy Trails! Well, I don't have a problem with anything you said. And I didn't mean to imply that you said anything about cheating. Sorry for any misimplication by a general comment. I think it's just a matter of what the word "rule" means. (In other threads, I keep seeing the word "guideline" thrown around a lot.) As I said, I don't see the big deal about the verification thing, but if others do that's up to them in regard to caches they hide and find. But the verification via the log thing is a little interesting from another perspective. One guy in my area, in addition to signing the log (actually, he doesn't say anything about THAT) insists that you email him a code that you find at the top of his caches' log sheets or he'll delete the log at the website. Now, how come I don't get to be "lazy" for not crawling under a bridge to sign a log (primarilly because I didn't want to look like a geocacher when I went back to work) but he gets to be too "lazy" to actually go look at his cache log to see if someone actually found the cache???? (I personally think that geocaching.com might need to be a little more explicit, both in regard to geocache finders and geocache hiders. If the people who are supposed to define things explicitly would, the rest of us wouldn't have to define them implicitly.) Now, there. Let's see if I typed all that for once without needing to use the edit feature. (I doubt it.) (I was right...crud.)

There is, the rules are posted on Geocaching.com's web-site. The sign-the-log rule is not "made up by the players" it is an official rule. Read the site and you can see for yourself... Actually, there is a lot of interesting information available on the web-site besides just the rules: the games history, suggestions about caches, variations of the game, etc... But yes, there are official rules listed on the web-site which include signing the log. Well, in between this excitement, I was back at geocaching.com. I didn't really see anything that wasn't already said above. The word "rule" has different contexts. I didn't see them as a requirement relating to an a priori definition of "bogus" or cheating. They're more like rules to follow if you want to maximize your fun geocaching.

What you quoted from geocaching.com appears to leave it up to the cache owner to define "bogus" (and you did say that). Simply not signing the log at the cache does not a priori define bogus. But if the *cache owner* (not some person I meet in forum unrelated to the specific cache ) wants to define that web-log as "bogus," that's his/her business. And as you point out, they don't explicitly say signing the log is a requirement. Given that it's a light hearted game and there's no big prize to win, I really think this verification issue is utter nonsense (I couldn't care less whether people who say they've found my cache actually did), but if the owner of the cache I found really needs the verification, I can tell him precisely where it is. (I wouldn't know any better if I had crawled under there, got my work clothes all muddy, and opened the silly box.)

I was actually waiting for someone to say that. Rules made up by the players works against the game. I'm no more "throwing out a rule" than you are. If it was a "core element" and an actual rule, there'd be something official from geocaching.com about it being a requirement. (If there is, then someone should have quoted that from the get-go. I didn't see any indication that signing the log at the cache is any more of a "core element" than logging the find at the website. It appears to be just something you're used to and taking for granted.) If individual geocache hiders have specific rules regarding their cache, they should put them in the cache description. When I see such "rules," I generally, sometimes grudgingly, follow them, in spite of the fact that I think some of the cache descriptions I've seen violate some rules that I think should exist...but apparently don't. If things were as obvious as some of you seem to think they are, this thread wouldn't exist.

Don't confuse with me with someone who cares, but since it's also my opinion, I'll say that some people are apparently taking a light hearted game a tad too seriously.

Well, religious arguments don't do anything worthwhile for forums, or much else. I'm not going to argue about what the word "find" means.

Well, you're free to your opinion wiseye, however irrelevant it is, but there's more than one side to the issue. (It's a two-way street.) My position on the issue stands. I'm the guy who logged it as a find. My log's still there. My goal of having fun going out to look for something hidden in the woods is still intact. (I even mentioned that I didn't sign the log at the cache in the website log. The owner of the cache apparently doesn't have a problem.) And "auditing log books" and there being any specific reason for the log book being there other than as part of what's supposed to be just a *fun* activity sure doesn't seem consistent with this being a "light hearted game." The website log is there for some reason too. But there are at least two people who signed the cache log for the one cache I hid but yet didn't log it on the internet. That's there business. I realize that isn't quite the same thing and if there was some big deal here, i.e., there was something serious about geocaching, I'd worry about that difference. But as it is, it's not a big deal. There's no big prize someone is going to falsely win by saying they found a cache they didn't. And there's no big prize they're going to miss because they didn't register a find on the internet.

As a professional at feeling silly and stupid, I'll echo what others have said. quit worrying about that. (I completely embarrassed myself with my first one.) I've found it helpful when looking for something in the woods to look for arrangements of rocks or small logs that nature isn't likely to do. Sometimes I can't find a microcache because I have a certain amount of trepidation about even gently "manhandling" things that I don't own. And don't rely on your GPSr too much. I always get to a point where I realize that I need to turn the thing off and just look around. (Think about where you'd hide a cache in that area if you were the one hiding it, and remember that the word "obvious" isn't all that well defined. )

I turned my one DNF that later became a "found" into a "found" but did it by just editing my original post, leaving the original history (and date) there, just putting the date when I actually found it in the text.

I suspect the Bluetooth issue would be similar to the one with cell phones. I doubt that either would really cause a problem, but if a problem's going to occur, as you point out, it would be much more likely to be caused by a device designed to radiate than a passive device. (Can the Bluetooth feature, or whatever it's called, be turned off? I know of at least one instance when a cell phone was allowed during flight to play games because the user was able to show that the "phone part" was turned off.)

I too can get a lock on an airplane but only if I'm sitting in a window seat with the receiver right next to the window. (But even though using it was allowed and one flight attendent was actually fascinated by it, another one looked at me like I was going to stand up and say, "If you don't take this plane to Cuba, I'm going to tell you where you are!")

Just a note from the other side, I didn't sign the log for the first cache I found, but I logged the find at the website. I didn't know that was a big deal at the time and I didn't feel like crawling around in the dirt underneath a low foot-bridge. But I saw the ammo box. As far as I'm concerned, I found it.

Well, I can't tell from what was said above whether or not any software will communicate with your GPSr, but if the only problem is that you have a COM/serial port and not a USB port on your computer, I think there are "adapters" you can attach to your serial port that will emulate a USB port and communicate with USB devices (at a much slower rate than you'd get if you actually had a real USB port). But unless your computer's not particularly new, I'd be surprised that it doesn't have a USB port.