AustinMN

The young lady is PJayCee.

This is another that is probably on the Roadside America list: Voyageur

While there are a variety of reasons this might be a good idea, he's not going to listen. In the string of bad ideas that has been my life, getting married was not one of the bad ones. But I'll be quick to admit my wife might not have the same perspective. Austin

Who says Earth Caches can't have SWAG? Lake St. Croix ~ A Wide Spot in the River

I'm guessing that this giant prairie chicken is on the list:

The rule has a lot more to do with park relations than with tree harm. The Minnesota DNR would not look the other way if you (or I) were nailing signs (or geocaches) to their trees, damage be dadgumed. Austin

How do I do this? Can you explain a btmore? Geocaches on Google Earth Thanks GREAT !! Didn't know this. It is important to know that the Google Earth plug-in deliberately Obfuscates the exact cache location. Every time you refresh the cache view, they will all be in different locations, because none of the locations is right. They are in the general area, but my assesment is that they may be off by as much as a tenth of a mile (~161 m). Austin

These two news articles describe an incident from March of this year where a young man had aparently committed suicide, and the remains were found many months later by a family out geocaching. There was a little bit of speculation in the MNGCA forums as to which cache they were chasing, but no firm conclusions. http://kstp.com/article/stories/s3736765.shtml http://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/2015/03/16/body-found-sunday-melrose/24854589/ Melrose, Minnesota is about 100 miles NW of Minneapolis. Austin

The cameras I use have a built in GPSr that makes geotagging easy if I remember to turn it on. The Canon 6d also can connect to an external gpsr, but I have not tried that. Before I do, I am interested in your experiments since I sometimes use a gpsr and generally have a camera close by. How close was the camera to the gpsr when you noticed that the problems occurred - within a foot to be sure, but it seems that with your initial set, it might have caused problems even further than that. The GPSr causesd camera noise at about 3 inches (7.5 CM). The camera reduced the accuracy of the GPSr at about 2 feet (about 0.67 meters), and made it incapapable of getting a fix at all by 6 inches. As I said, both the GPSr and the camera have been replaced since then, and there is a lot less interference between the new units. I have not repeated the experiments to see if there is a problem threshold. Instead, I continue to carry them on different parts of my person. Austin

Under some circumstances, it is OK to link to an original photo (i.e. you are using the owner's copy), as long as you also credit the photographer. But to do that, you have to make sure it is specifically allowed in the web site's TOS and TOU. I use a google-owned site that does exactly that. As long as 1) I am credited with the photo, 2) they did not download and re-upload the photo (i.e. they used a link), and 3) clicking on my name or the photo takes them to my page, then they can use the photo. I have hundreds of photos that have been used this way, and it drives a small amount of traffic to my main page. I have seen nothing in the TOS or TOU that would lead me to believe that is allowed with user photos on Geocahcing.com Austin

I do something similar, but I use GPicSync. I learned to keep my GPSr and camera physically away from each other. A set of carefully designed experiments proved that the GPSr introduced a small amount of noise in the pictures. But what the experiments did that I did not anticipate is explain why my GPSr would sometimes go haywire, showing me walking across the lake at 45 miles an hour (72 KPH), only to come back a few minutes later. I have replaced both camera and GPSr today and they seem to cause a lot less interference with each other, but I still keep them at least a foot apart when in use, and I would never physically attach a GPSr to a camera. Austin

I have helped to hide three unlisted caches on church camp property for use by the camp. They were not listed on any web site. A lack of GPS receivers (and the puropse of the excercise) led us to give three different means to find each cache. One set of instructions used GPS coordinates, and you got that set if your team had a GPSr. The second set used compass headings from known landmarks (similar to orienteering), and you got that set if you had a decent compass. The third set used "clues" that could be figured out (somewhat similar to traditional letterboxing). The campers were sent out in teams, and because each team had a different means of finding the cache, even if you encountered another team, they would be doing something different to find the same cache. It was called "GPS - God's Positioning System," and was used as part of a program intended to demonstrate that God can use different means to bring us to the same place. In our case, the objects in the cache were supposed to be left there, but information about them recorded. Later, they (as a group) were asked about items in the caches. How many had yellow objects? What cahce had a red comb? Which container was the largest? etc. There was some information made available about Geocahcing.com, for those who found it interesting and wanted to do more. After camp, the containers were removed.

Frontenac Geneology Hidden Falls Earthcache It is extremely rare for me to include myself in a caching photo. Lake Mille Lacs

I like finding caches that bring me someplace I have to photograph. I don't like nano's near a dumpster sandwiched between a supermarket and an office building with the "scentic view" atribute set.

As I've already explained, the OP continued to look after finding the first container because of personal knowledge not available to someone not familiar with that CO. That's what I consider unreasonable. I see that stuff in logs all the time. Get over it. It's not unreasonable. It is not.

...not as valuable as finding a new place where I need to take photographs.

What you're really missing is that there is no reason to scrutinize anyone else's stats. This is a game, but it is not a competition. Maybe he aspires to be the world champion of caching! Why shatter a dream? Encourage him to quit his job and make caching his full-time obsession! Unnecessary post. I'll make it three unnecessary posts in a row.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. More and more, I make a list of caches I'm thinking about chasing that day, but not planning a specific route.

I'm honored. But when I say "unreasonable", you hear "really hard". I'm not objecting because it was hard to find the right container. I'm objecting because there was no reason to look for the right container. I see. That's why the OP did look for the right ontainer.

No field puzzle attribute, and a 1.5 D rating. OK, that changes my opinion. D4, D3, maybe, D1.5 should not be tricky. Austin

Nonsense. This thinking is what spawns practical jokes involving pretending to be seriously hurt and then laughing at the person that takes you seriously and tries to help. This is, without a doubt, the most absurd thing I've ever read on this site. There is a cache near me that has a dozen DNFs and a single find. That one time, the finder was able to find it on their third try by feel while the CO had a drop line from a boat on the surface. It isn't reasonable, but it is perfectly OK. In another case, there are only two ways to get to the logbook. One is PAF for all the answers, the other involves multi[ple trips to the cache and to a library to figure out the answers. Each trip to the cache involves climbing 30 feet up a tree. Unreasonable, but nothing wrong with it. By comparison, having a container with a false bottom is trivial. Austin

I'm still waiting for a day when I hate geocaching. (No, not really waiting for it.) There are days it does not appeal to me enough for me to go out and do it (especially when it is -15°F/ -26°C outside), but never been a time I've said "I hate geocaching." Austin

Seems to be the most logical for me as well. Right, and the brouhaha shows the CO's error here. If you're going to have a decoy, people need to know it's a decoy when they open it. Why? Because it would have fooled you? If the point of the cache is to be tricky, then it should...ready for this...trick peiople! It sounds to me like it worked perfectly, and then the OP was the first one to figure it out. He had enough to figure it out despite a string of failures before him. The existence of cachers being tricked is not a reason a tricky hide should not be tricky. Austin

I think you forgot that you were the one that said it was clearly and obviously a decoy, so I asked why. You're responding as if I am claiming a decoy must be clearly and obviously different by definition, and I didn't. I have no problem admitting when I've been tricked, but I will object if there was no reasonable way for me to avoid getting tricked. In this case, for example, I do not see why it would be reasonable for me to continue my search after I found a container that doesn't have a log in it since missing logs are known to happen. Go back and read the first post. There was enough information for the OP to figure it out. That is sufficient for me. Also, with a hide that is supposed to be difficult or tricky, "reasonable" is not a valid expectation. Austin

1) How long have you waited for a response? Reviewers are volunteers and have a right to take time off from reviewing. 2) Have you repeated your request for info, assuming that your prior email got lost somewhere? 3) Is it possible that the town has a new policy that requires you to get permission from some town department (Parks & Rec, Memorial Farm Oversight Committee, etc.)? There is an appeals process, but you should patiently try to work the issue out with the reviewer first. Austin