BeachBuddies

We found this one today... hard to hide hehe...

Well, it's not actually a new idea... maybe someone will Markwell some previous threads where it's been discussed. There are pros and cons, but I think most of us find the honor system works pretty well. Who cares if someone wants to inflate their numbers by posting false finds?

Finally found a Project APE cache today. So, other than CITO Events, what types am I missing? I think there are some special icons for some of the geo coins?

I came across these kids bandages in a store recently (I'm sure all you parents are familiar with them). I thought it might be a pretty cool item to leave in a cache. They'd have to be sealed of course, and maybe in a ziplock if the box is cardboard. I know my kids are always gettings lots of scratches when we go caching (they still seem to enjoy it though ) They not too expensive, and about the right size. I don't know if they have a "safety" seal or just normal cellophane, and I could see how some folks might not like the idea of using them. So, what do you think? Would you have any problems using bandages found in a cache?

Actually, I'm hoping the floating cache they found was the original Galadriel's Gift cache, which went missing last June. I replaced the cache 5 months ago, shortly after it vanished. I think it is the original, since they mentioned they camera, which was in the original cache but not the replacement. I assumed someone had muggled it too, and was rather unhappy -- mostly because it was a hybrid letterbox, with a hand-carved stamp and a nice quality journal for the stamps -- hard to replace. But now I think the cache probably washed away on its own. It was hidden under a bridge, and if someone didn't re-hide it well, a good rain storm could have dislodged it. Sure, someone may have take the camera, but that's no big deal. The fact that the park rangers took the trouble to retrieve the cache and contact me was great. And if it is the original cache (I'll find out tomorrow when I pick it up), I'm going to rehide it (somewhere else), and rename it Boromir's Boat, which seems fitting.

The various Magellan user groups are quite good. You may also want to post questions like this in the GPS and Software forum instead of here.

I read about it in Knights of the Dinner Table

Just got this e-mail: Park staff found your Geocache floating in the creek at Rady Park. You can pick it up at the Warrenton Community Center in Warrenton. Everything in the box looks fine but the camera in missing. -Fauquier County Parks and Recreation You gotta love ammo-boxes, and helpful park rangers! I glad they didn't blow it up hehe. Most of mine have the large "Geocaching" stickers on them, but this one did not. I did have a laminated insert that explains geocaching, with my e-mail address on it. Glad I did!

I started using the Handicache links on some of my hides (in No. VA) recently. Unfortunately, only 2 of my hides are even close to "1" terrain. And both of those still require a bit of searching at the cache site that might not be possible in a wheel chair. Unless you're hiding an urban micro, I think you'd really have to plan in advance to make an accessible cache. Now that it's been brought to my attention, I will hide some that qualify. I'd really like to hear from some handicapped cachers what sort of things to avoid, or what makes a cache accessible or not. Is it mostly about wheel-chairs? Paved or smooth paths? Or is the cache hide a big factor?

Thanks for the responses. I hope Groundspeak gets some sort of comission, since I imagine you'll be bringing them lots of business. It sounds like a really good site, but $50 a year is pretty pricey. That would buy a handful of trailbooks, more than I might use in a year. I think if they charged about $20 a year, or maybe $50 for a lifetime membership, I'd sign up right away.

I just checked -- Gaiterman is still in AZ, and he's already found over 130 caches on this trip! I'm going to start following him around. Even more, I mean.

Does anyone use Trails.com? It's the site that you can get to via the "all nearby hiking trails" link from most cache pages. It requires a membership that seemed fairly expensive (I think it was $50 per year, automatic billing at the beginning of each year). They have a free trial period, but you have to give them your credit card info, and then you have to remember to cancel, or you get billed -- so I didn't bother. I'd like to get an unbiased opinion (or at least a geocacher's opinion ) before trying it... thanks.

The categorization is a bit tricky, since we're dealing with several factors -- exterior volume (the size you have to hunt for), interior volume (what it can hold), smallest dimension (e.g., a pipe-shaped cache), and opening size; all of which affect what you can put into the cache. The Groundspeak fake rocks are probably "Small" as far as exterior volume goes, but "micro" if you consider interior volume. I would use "micro" for any container that not's going to hold anything except a log. Ammo-boxes or tupperware with a large opening are "regular." I would probably classify most others as "small", since they probably have either a small opening, or at least one small dimension (like the afore-mentioned pipe). A quart-of-milk container would be "small", but that's border-line. A cube-shaped box with a large opening might be "regular" even though it just held a quart.

Umm... that's what the "Small" size is for.

Is there any way to run a pocket query (or something similar) to get a GPX or LOC file containing ALL of the caches I've found (including archived ones)? And what if the number is over 500? Thanks...

Congrats, Don! Well on your way to the big K!

Well, the drop-down menu on the cache submission page is pretty descriptive. It includes the following choices: Not Listed Micro (e.g. 35 file cannister) Small (holds log book and small items) Regular (rubbermaid, ammo box) Large (5 gallon bucket) Virtual (no cache container) Other (see description) Those seem good enough to me.

I have QuickTime, but it didn't work for me either. I could see the control bar, but no movie.. I guess I have to upgrade something?

With Thot's permission, I've added a link to his software from my Categorized List of Locationless Caches. It's a good program. While it could help someone looking for locationless caches, I think it's much more useful for the owners of locationless caches. Every cache I checked using this program showed duplicate entries. I'm sure maintaining a Locationless Cache page is a bit of pain, and many owners end up archiving their cache because they don't want to do it anymore. This program makes it very easy; I hope some of the owners will begin using it. As for the scraping, it would be a good idea to contact Groundspeak. But Thot's program only scrapes a single page, so (in my opinion) it's no different from a user surfing to that page with a browser. You have to enter the URL for each page -- it's not spidering or anything. So really it's almost exactly like a browser. Just my 2 cents. If you own a locationless cache, please check it out!

Yep, that's the same as the ones I saw and tried (poorly) to photograph.

Ok, count me in! I'm a shrubber!

Nice picture. My camera is a pretty cheap digital. I can't control the focus at all, other than to switch between close-up and everything-else mode. But, it was cloudy that day, the flash didn't go off for some reason (I don't seem to have control over that either), and it's tough to take a picture of your own chest hehe (that's my excuse anyway)

Many caches are categorized incorrectly. There is now a "Small" size rating that should be used for caches that are between micro and regular -- that includes most of the caches I've seen lately. Lots of older caches need to be re-classified, but unless you have an active cache owner willing to do it, it's just not going to happen. I also wish cache owners would classify caches that are not hidden at the posted coordinates as "Mystery" caches, so they could be included or excluded, depending on what you want to hunt for. Nothing like hunting for a cache that isn't there. Reviewers should ensure that all new caches are properly classified; hopefully they do. I think we (as a geocaching community) also need an easy way to report mislabeled caches, and hopefully we can encourage the owners (or approvers) to fix them. I'm not trying to say we need more rules, or that this is a serious problem; it's not. But if we had clear policies on cache type (maybe we do, and people don't realize it?), it would help. I have e-mailed cache owners when I thought a change should be made. Sometimes they respond, sometimes they don't. Maybe we need a button on the cache page to "Request a Change" for cache size or type....

Yes, I took our troop of Webelos (8-9 years old) out caching, and they had a blast. Some of the parents even came with us. We spent about 2 hours. I spent about 10 minutes talking about geocaching and GPS, and then we headed into the woods (at a big local park we have). We found 3 caches (one easy, one medium, and one multi). I had stocked the multi with lots of RPG miniatures (the little metal ones that you paint, orcs, elves, and such). The kids had a lot of fun picking out one to take with them. We had one DNF too. Two of the caches (including the multi) I had hid, so I was sure we'd be able to find them (didn't want to risk not finding any just in case). We also made a new cache with contributions from the kids, and I let them hide it. It's called Pack 1388. They really enjoyed that. We had 8 kids and 3 GPSrs, so they all got a chance to play with them. I think they part they liked best was crossing the stream. The caches were hidden along a small stream, so they must have crossed about a dozen times during the hunt. Lots of fun!

Wow, I've heard of niche magazines, but having an editor just for a type of shrub is pretty amazing. But this is geocaching I guess... Can I be the Mountain Laurel editor?