BeachBuddies

Congrats Bis!

BeachBuddies Categorized Locationless (Reverse) Checklist

I enjoy meeting other cachers. It used to be a very rare event, but it is becoming more common. Personally, I always introduce myself, and join in the hunt -- or more often, just sign the log since it's likely they will have already found it. It's no big deal I think, most caches are the 1/1 or 2/2 type anyway. However, there are exceptions. If you're hunting a very tricky cache (we have a few 5/x caches around here), then I would probably just leave and come back later. But there's much less chance of running into another cacher at one of those caches anyway, so it's not really a problem.

You guys crack me up! I think I actually made only 3 or 4 finds the whole day hehe. My MeriPlat was having trouble zero-ing in most of the time. It seemed to work fine after a wait of a couple minutes, but by then GLM and GaiterMan had found the cache, logged it, and were 2/3 of the way to the next one. There was one especially good example -- a beautiful spot at the top of a foothill near Charlottesvilled (Round Top). It was a fairly steep hike, and after we'd already found about 20 in the morning. Anyway, I was huffing and puffing up the hill, trying to keep up with GaiterMan. (He has a few years on me, but I have about 5 pounds on him for every year he has on me.) When I finally get within 500 feet of the cache, I start angling off in the direction my GPSr is pointing. G-Man is off to my right, about 10 degrees. By now of course I should have realized he was probably right, but no, I'll trust my GPS... So, I get about 100 feet from my target, and start looking around. Nothing downhill that looks promising. A few trees, but no big ones that might be hollow. No good rockpiles here. A few flowering shrubs, maybe in there I think. Uphill looks better, more rocks. This quick scan takes about 30 seconds. I haven't even reached my target according to my GPS yet. I turn to head uphill, and there's GaiterMan, sitting on a downed tree, cache open, log signed, halfway through his copy of War And Peace. (He had to have something to do while he waited for me to catch up at all the caches.) I'm not sure if it's the GPS they are using, or if they just have a more finely honed cache-seeking instinct. But either way, those guys can cache! I was just along for the ride. So yeah, we did set a new record for me (tripled my previous, the Burke Decathalon). 30 caches (4 multis, 10 micros, 13 regular, 1 roaming, 1 virtual, and 1 event -- roughly). We did have one other DNF, and I took pics to log 1 Locationless (the Observatory at UVA), but someone beat me to that one. Everything was ok at home too, apparently the kids were behaving themselves for Mom. So I might even get to go caching again someday, if I'm careful. "GaiterMan? No honey, he moved back to Arizona. I'm just going to pick up a couple nearby. I should be back soon. Don't wait on me for dinner though, you never know how traffic is.!"

After a brutal but fun day at the Spring Fling, GLM picked up another 30-some caches, and passed 600! Congrats!

I think archiving them might be a good idea. But -- if you do, I would suggest posting a note to the cache page indicating when you intend to archive them -- especially if anyone is watching the page. I know I have several caches that I have not had a chance to find (including some puzzle ones I've solved). I would be a bit unhappy if they got archived with no warning, and I had not yet found them.

Wow... it would never have occurred to me that you could submit and post a cache before actually hiding it. How would you know the coordinates? I guess if you scouted the area, got the coords, and just wanted to get gc.com approval before placing the cache, that would make sense. Just never thought of that before. My first cache (way back) I hid in a National Park. My local approver very politely told me to RTFM (not in those words), and I went back the next day to retrieve it. Took me a long time to find it, even with the coords. Rather embarrasing. I could definitely imagine a case where you could hide a cache, and not realize that there was another cache too close (either a new-and-not-yet-listed cache, or a members-only cache you didn't have access to, or a puzzle cache not at the posted coords). So, maybe it does make sense to get the approval first. Hmm.... Maybe new cache pages should be hidden/unavailable until the cache-hider explicitly makes them available.

Very interesting Bug&Snake! Sort of like the letterboxing concept. If it could be done economically, I would be happy to participate. I've hidden 8 caches so far, and I'd love to make custom cards to put in each cache as a memento. You could even do special cards (such as holo or foil) for the FTF. The hard part would be the design I suppose. I wonder how much a print run of only 100 or so cards would cost? There are *so* many collectible card games now, seems like we ought to be able to take advantage of all the production facilities....

Congrats, Hwy!

Awesome!

Fritz -- I think I know the cache you're talking about (LN4?). If so, I think the posts are not too bad. They do reflect some frustration, sure, but that's not unreasonable after hours of unsuccessful searching (with a very experienced team of cachers). Here are some of the questionable quotes: "Coords may be the culprit here -- recommend a verification check to preserve the sanity of those who have gone away with no joy" "Maybe someone needs to independently verify the coords." It's not unreasonable to assume the coords might be off a bit, when you have 35 DNFs logged (and no finds yet). Anyway, I know some of the posters, and they're good folks -- I don't think they meant to insult the hider. In fact, they'll be the first to sing his praises once they find the cache.

National Geo? That's unfortunate. I have not read this month's issue yet, but it sounds like something that we might want to respond to -- with a polite but accurate letter to the editor.

Way to go Scott!

I talked with Matt today -- his nearest cache is about 30 miles away now... I think we'll be seeing more of him up here in NoVA. :-) Congrats Matt!

I find a little kudzu goes a long way.

I used to subscribe to a SCUBA magazine several years ago (I forget the exact name, it was one of the more popular ones). They always had a one-page article on the last page which I really enjoyed. It was called something like "I Learned About Diving That Way". The point of the article was for the author to describe a dive he or she made in which something went wrong. Usually this resulted in a dangerous, even life-threatening experience. The idea of course was to highlight certain things divers need to be aware of, and how to avoid the mistake, or perhaps recover from it if it ever happens to you. Made for interesting reading; I can still recall years later some of the specific tips I learned just from reading the article one time. Geocaching is not at all a dangerous hobby. (Though multi-day camping trips, encounters with predators, and level 5 caches can certainly get your blood pumping sometimes). Still, there are a lot of things we can learn from each others experiences, and sometimes learning from someone else's mistakes is an easier way to do it. So that's my suggestion -- steal the SCUBA idea, and let's hear some stories of geocaching nightmares. -BeachBuddies

I think the more attributes (such as container size) that we could search on, the better. However, there would be some issues to resolve. What exactly constitues "microness"? Is it the container size alone? I've seen some pretty small caches that still had trade items (such as coins or pins). If so, what size? I guess most would agree that film canisters are certainly micros. How about the 2x3x4" decon canisters? Those are pretty small, but maybe not micros. Though out in the woods they can be quite hard to find. What about the "inside" size? The gc.com fake rocks are not small, but they certainly don't hold much. PVC containers can be quite long, but the opening isn't big enough for most trade trinkets. Is it the fact that the cache only contains a log, and no trade items? That seems like a reasonable distinction. But then you'd probably want to make a new icon for "logbook only" caches, and size would be less relevant. It would probably lead to fewer traditional trading caches too, since having it's own category would probably encourage easier-to-place log-only caches. What about multis that have some micros and some other parts? Overall, I don't really care so much about the icon or separate category; but I do think we should be able to easily search for (and filter by) all sorts of attributes. These includes size, water caches, night caches, puzzle caches, etc.

200! Ack! I don't have time to be posting on the forum -- I'm going out caching! ps. Congrats!

The new TB pages are pretty cool too. Looks like it will be much easier to keep track of your bugs.

I like the calendar!

Amazing! Congrats, G-man!

I liked Mopar's idea, but I think Bloencustoms' may be even better. It really makes more sense to make it part of the cache page I think. I suppose you could always do some sort of combination of the two. In any case, I don't think a new log-type (as the poll currently suggest) is the way to go, but I do think it's great that you are thinking about it. -BB

Way to go Titmouse!

Thanks for the answer, sorry to hijack the topic I really like the idea of a geocaching page on the 60. Even if it isn't perfect yet, just the fact that they did it is great. Hopefully Magellan will do it too, and they will compete with each other to make it better for us cachers...

How do you create different waypoint files on your Meridian?