Polar B's

If I understand you right, You have gone back to a cache that you found before and it's missing? If this is the case I would post a note or send a friendly email to the owner stating that you knew where the cache should be (since you found it) and it's not there. Either way will notify the owner that the cache is missing or moved. I belive that the DNF log only applies before you find it, after all you can't really log a find more than once (ok you can but probably shouldn't)

Move it out of Nebraska? Joking, CU Alumni

Deleted, too tired for ME to understand where I was going

Since you did bring up the lawyer thing, I would like to point out that GC.com does cover this in the geocaching disclaimer that is on all cache pages And I didn't increase the size for effect.

My question would be is why would some on use a screwdriver to pry open any cache. If the cache needed a tools to be opened then the cache owner would be required to tell you, shouldn't they? I mean that seems like a special equipment to me. And any true electrical device is always kept tightly sealed by bolts and screws, unless of course tampered with. If all cacher used this simple logic, then it would be easy to dicipher the difference. No one gets shocked by touching the boxes live or not. As for the children questiion, why are your children carrying screwdrivers with them? If cachers simple use common sense then I don't see a problem. If the object that I think is the cache requires tools or might be dangerous and the owner has said nothing about, I usually move on. But in the case of the electrical boxes of the examples given in this thread, it seems pretty obvious that the caches can be easily distiguished. 0.02

yeah, I had the same problem with a usb/serial adapter. I thought it kind of funny that the manufacters did have the diver either, almost like they expect you to have it. I actually had to find the driver somewhere else than the manufacturers site. What make/model do you have?

I concur, Just get started finding caches and the rest will seem less confusing as you go along

Guess I am REAL STUPID. I have GSAK & Cachemate. I can not get the caches to download anywhere much less where I want them to go (on the palm pilot). I am so frustrated I am ready to continue using paper. I have a Palm Pilot. These forums have not helped me much. I tried several the forums suggested. No Luck. I did PQ's and they don't even download. I can download caches if I go onto the cache page and hit the GPX download button. In this day of HI TECH it should be easier. It seems they should recognize all the formats. Can anyone please HELP?????????? Jack & Ret The Challengers I emailed you some suggestion. A little long for the forum. Please let me know if they helped Edited to add: Apparently the server for PQ was down this morning so it might take longer to get the email for the PQ

That just wrong, just plain wrong

Yep, Cachemate works with all the palms except two (the originals two pilots). Or to be more specific any palm with palm OS 3.0 and newer.

Now I can see this. A "Take the Geocaching Quiz" page where new geocachers can see how they do on Geocaching etiquette and a few regulations. As long as it is fun and pretty easy, I think most newbies would do it. Just as long as it's voluntary and not mandatory. Being voluntary I think more geocachers, even old- timers would do it because it would be new, and the new geocachers would be curious as to how they stack up. I would do a voluntary quiz. I don't think the scores ought to be published, that's only for the individual cacher to know and they can share if they want to, or not. Maybe not individual scores be posted, but a percentile type thing or comparison just for fun that you can see when you finish the test

You signed the log, you found it, you can log it.

I am pretty sure you would have to load the appropriate palm desktop for the palm you get, but it free from Palm. As for a upgrade for palm, you can but only to a point that palm OS has decided to make the upgrade, so you can upgrade a v2 to v5 on any palm.

Deleted post, due to that fact that I can't read

Any palm work just the same as the other. However to use Cachemate Palm OS 3.0 or later is required. edit to add: which is all of them except the very two oldest (pilot and palmpilot)

You get it here Cachemate

Wild-Weaver I have an M500 and it works great. but my real suggection is to go with whichever you can get for cheaper. Both do the same thing and you don't want to drop and break something expensive while cacheing. I got mine for $40 from ebay including shipping.

Yeah like hiding a pine cone cache in an oak tree and seeing if someone notices

I Have always wanted to ask this question and this seems like a good place... If you go a search for a cache and don't find it, however keep coming back and looking for say on other days, should you log a DNF for each time? or just when you done searching for that cache, ie given up? By the way just to keep on topic a little, I don't believe that you can log a find without actually finding the cache and signing log.

has that mattered in the past??

There's this particular woman's way out of this mess...discrimination. She should tell them she can't read. If McD's has to have a picture menu, then the park should have to have a picture below the sign...now what would that picture look like??? Probably no reason for her to lie. The law smacks of discrimination on many other levels. It no different than segregation, one type person can't use the PUBLIC park but another can. Whether the amount of tax actually paid by an individual is small or not the park is still publicly funded and is legally required to allow all people. This would include anyone even if they don't live and pay taxes in the city, state, country where the park is located. I sure the law won't last long in it's current form. TIME OUT!!! Of course you can use the park, feel free to bring kids with you and use it. There are tons of public facilities that are only used by a subset of the public. If you can't walk, do you complain that they offer skating rinks, tennis courts or baseball fields? Do you feel the need to use the women's room if you are a man? Maybe these are not good examples, but the point is that we pay for a lot of stuff that everyone can't use equally. We have a large park in downtown Frederick with multiple blocks and various special fields. The main part of the park has two ball fields which share space with open green areas (the outfield just keeps going, and going, and going...). I don't play ball, but I toss boomerangs. It has been more than once that I was using the green space to throw the rangs and got bumped off by people wanting to play ball. I just accept that since ball was the intended use. EDIT I just thought of a better example, adult swim! How does that make the kids feel??? But the issue is that there is no law against you using the park. When you got bump no one tried to have you arrested or fined did they. You left most likely out of curtesy. As for the park people don't use, they are choosing to not use the park. Big difference between choosing and being banned by law.

Just because a law doesn't outright say that it excludes something, doesn't mean that it can't be argued that it does. By requiring something that is not reasonable to get, without have your own, those people are being excluded.

That law is not exclusionary...stupid, yes. I would think a lawyer would find it difficult to challenge it on those grounds. That women was not excluded from using the park. She just broke the dumb park rules. It would be like claiming your being excluding from using a park because you want to geocache there and they have rules against geocaching in that park. Salvelinus Not quite the same, In the geocaching case you would still be able to enter the park just not to geocahche. In this case they are excluding people that do not have children, and not allowing them to enter the park at all. Agreed....a bad example by me. But that women is still not being excluded from using the park. She would be allowed in there if she brought a kid with her. There is a "reasonable" possibility anyone can comply to the law even if they don't have kids of their own. It may not be a very fair law, but its not descrimination. Maybe this is a better example: In my line of work (see profile), we have portions of streams where you can only fish there if you are using fly-fishing gear and artificial flies. The use of natural bait and other artificial lures is prohibited. Bait and lure fisherman have tried to challenge this in court saying its descrimination against them because they don't own fly-fishing gear. They always lose the case because the law has been judged to have a reasonable possibility that anyone can comply. There is nothing in the law prohibiting anyone from going there, as long as they abide by the laws set for that area. I'm pretty sure the only way it would be exclusionary in legal terms would be if the law stated that single people are not permitted to use the park. Salvelinus Edit to clarify thought Maybe, but I am still not sure that one could say there is a "reasonable" possibility of finding a kid to borrow. It's not like you can buy or rent a kid for the day. If you did the law might have interest in you for the exact reason for the law. And I don't think you have quite found the right example, unless the law for the fishing thing disallows them access at all. In the example you could still just be at the river not fishing. Is it really reasonable to have to find a kid to sit in a park and read?

That law is not exclusionary...stupid, yes. I would think a lawyer would find it difficult to challenge it on those grounds. That women was not excluded from using the park. She just broke the dumb park rules. It would be like claiming your being excluding from using a park because you want to geocache there and they have rules against geocaching in that park. Salvelinus Not quite the same, In the geocaching case you would still be able to enter the park just not to geocahche. In this case they are excluding people that do not have children, and not allowing them to enter the park at all.

There's this particular woman's way out of this mess...discrimination. She should tell them she can't read. If McD's has to have a picture menu, then the park should have to have a picture below the sign...now what would that picture look like??? Probably no reason for her to lie. The law smacks of discrimination on many other levels. It no different than segregation, one type person can't use the PUBLIC park but another can. Whether the amount of tax actually paid by an individual is small or not the park is still publicly funded and is legally required to allow all people. This would include anyone even if they don't live and pay taxes in the city, state, country where the park is located. I sure the law won't last long in it's current form.