OzzieSan

Hey, I didn't find it as well... Can I log it? edit: Strike that, it looks like he won't be reading this.

Actually, if it's a "Mystery Cache" (?) it needs nothing more than this...

While they may well be "virtual locations" they are NOT virtual caches.

I'm guessing George and ??? were with Handyman (ILC)? What a crock! If it was so dangerous why the heck did you continue? I guess the smiley was actually worth it. You and handyman should be ashamed of yourselves! Now leave the tough caches alone and stick to the 1/1's...

Poor geometry when the cache was placed and the poor geomtry when the cache is looked for could make the coords seem "WAY OFF", add in some obstructions and RFI and the situation only gets worse. How far off was "WAY OFF"? I've seen "WAY OFF" described by as litlle as 20 feet! I may be concerned starting @ 50 feet, but with the variables described above sometimes even 50 feet aint to bad.

I guess you've missed the other 14.000 times this has been asked...

I first think monitoring would be easy..reviewer looks at stats before publishing....simple....However I don't really think this is feasible.... they have enough on there plate? Not trying to change rules/regs/or guidelines....just asking for opinions... Did you miss this part? My wife has 0 (zero) finds on her account. But she has travel bugs out and many finds with me. When she hides her first cache (very soon) she will have an account with 0 (zero) finds and 1 (one) hide.

Since the word litigation has appeared in this thread I feel compelled to add. I am not a lawyer, nor have I played on on TV! Nothing to see here people... Move along. We now return you to your regularly scheduled caching!

And how would you monitor this? My wife has 0 (zero) finds on her account. But she has travel bugs out and many finds with me. When she hides her first cache (very soon) she will have an account with 0 (zero) finds and 1 (one) hide. As been said in previous posts about a "magic" ratio... I've seen some great hides were there were minimal finds by the owner and have found some real trash from folks with 100's of hides. edit:

Whatever the cache owner decides (if any).

I like this bit... And you could always use the logs of the previous finders to argue his point. I wonder what this guy would say about this cache? .... A shout out to handycapt, let us decide for ourselves what is dangerous and unobtainable! You are not required to log all caches as "found it"!

That person sounds like an azzhat to me. The cache seeker assumes all responsibility for deciding to go after a cache. It's no different than any other daily activity. Would you be so kind as to post the GC#? Duhhhhh....

Wow a couple hours? As were 80% of the virtuals posted. It looks like you joined after virtuals were done away with, so how did you miss reading the guidlines for publishing a cache? Member Since: Saturday, September 29, 2007 You did read them right? They are easy to find.

I Know, I Know!!!!! Waymark and Grandfathered Virtual Grandfathered Virtual and Waymark Waymark and Grandfathered Virtual Grandfathered Virtual and Waymark

Sounds like you have selected .loc in the "In the format" drop down. Check and change to .gpx... Yes you are doing something wrong in GSAK. You should be able to fill your waypoint memory with GSAK. Lemme see if I can duplicate your problem. Don't even bother with the Garmin software...

Our "personal" cache is my GeoCaching backpack. We know where I GeoStuff is 99.999% of the time.

Do you mean like this?

See posts 2 and 3...

With this bit from your cache page it sounds like extortion... Hell, send me your address and I'll mail you $25 so you can go purchase some craft items and let those finders keep their .

I don't have time to argue with you... You win!

I would start by going to the reviewer that published the cache and ask them. If I'm looking at the right cache it was published by TM, they would most likely of used their Super Secret Squirrel Communications Network (SSSCN) and had an answer for the OP in short order.

I'm curious as to why the cache was not listed as the appropriate type when you created it?

I can't post that... It's a mystery.

Yes... I just did one like this and it is listed. GC1F26Z (Can't get much more mysterious than that)

Ooops... Gotta hate when that happens.