niraD

One other consideration--someone may have created a puzzle cache based on the logs for the cache, and deleting your DNF log (or converting it to a Found It log later) may break the puzzle.

FWIW, I always leave my own sig token (if it won't fit, then I leave it in the next cache I find). But when I take someone else's sig item for my collection, I always leave something (besides my own sig token) in exchange for the sig item I took.

Actually, for most puzzles, my notes are electronic, and I do have the solution in pretty much the same format as the (bogus) coordinates in the cache description. But even if I were typing from hardcopy notes, breaking up the coordinates into so many chunks reduces usability. (See item #7 in Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005, for example.) I hope you aren't relying on client-side scripting for any real security.

I went to the confirmation page for the imaginary test cache. Instead of being able to copy-paste the coordinates from my notes ("N 38° 00.000 W 76° 00.000"), I would need to copy-paste each piece separately ("38", "00", "000", "76", "00", "000"), or type them in again (risking typos if they were real, non-trivial coordinates). And after I do that, and after I type in the text from the captcha, I discover that the form doesn't work without JS enabled.

The one flip-bail mason jar I found was sitting open, half-full of water. I wouldn't count on everyone knowing (or figuring out) how to reclose them properly.

A cacher around here leaves steel pennies as a kind of sig item. Others buy cases of single-use pouches of Tecnu and leave them in caches, especially in caches near PO.

I can't speak for 5¢, but I've found my own (non-trackable) sig tokens in caches that I've found. Someone took them from the cache where I originally placed them, and left them in some other cache. Personally, I collect sig items (including sig cards). For non-trackable sig items, I'll trade for an item that I don't already have in my collection. For trackable sig items, I'll trade for the first one I find, and then I'll keep it in my geocaching kit. When I find another one, I trade the one I've been carrying around with me for the one I just found. (This only applies to sig items though. I don't collect TBs or geocoins; I just try to help them on their journeys.)

I copy-paste content from cache description pages to Palm Desktop memos, and then HotSync to get the memos on the Palm itself. Since I cache without a GPSr, I need to consider each cache prior to seeking it anyway. Also, I've heard of people using Plucker (freeware) to view cache description pages on Palm devices. I think the gist of it is that you create an index page that links to the cache description pages you want, and then tell Plucker to load the index page, following links 1 level deep. I've seen CacheMate demoed though, and I'm impressed. I'll probably get it (and upgrade my GC.com membership) sometime soon.

Yes, I've found an ALR cache that was more fun and more memorable because of the ALR. (FWIW, I could say the same thing about a lot of local puzzle caches, where the location hint is often some variation of "in the usual place".) There's an ALR cache on my "nearest to home" list that is more involved, and I'm still working on collecting the necessary tokens. I think it presents a fun challenge. I don't want all caches to be ALR caches, just as I don't want all caches to be puzzle caches. But they are interesting and fun in moderation. I just don't think ALR caches should be listed as traditional caches (except perhaps if the ALR can be met after the fact by writing/editing the log appropriately).

There's a cache in my area that is based on the enigma encryption machine.

It isn't? Seems pretty clear to me...

The guidelines for a traditional cache say that it has a container and a logbook, and "the coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache." But clearly, many people have expectations of traditional caches that go beyond that. I've seen notes posted to ALR caches that say something like "another traditional cache with not-so-traditional requirements" after someone finds it and then realizes there are additional logging requirements. And the guidelines for mystery/puzzle caches say that "the only commonality of this cache type is that the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location", but I've found puzzle/mystery caches where the container was at the posted coordinates, but you still needed to figure out some sort of puzzle to find/reach/open the container so you could sign the log. So while the current guidelines are clear, I don't think they match the common expectations.

Google can be especially effective for puzzles that present a list of words/names/phrases/whatever, and those words/names/phrases/whatever somehow map to numbers, like this one. Googling may not get you the answer, but at least it should help you figure out the theme. Some of my favorite puzzles have been "just show up" puzzles, where you're supposed to go to the posted coordinates and figure out what to do once you get there. I'm also fond of puzzles with heavy misdirection--at least, once I cut through the misdirection and figure out the (usually simple) solution.

A while back, while researching a location for a new hide of my own, I found a geocache. A little research revealed that it was the container for a cache that had been archived a year and a half ago. (Someone had hidden it "better" than the owner had originally hidden it, someone else logged a DNF, and the owner archived it when he couldn't find it where it was supposed to be.) The owner could have unarchived the cache. It turns out that he didn't want to, but this would have been a situation where he could have.

In my geocaching kit, I carry a couple sizes of ziplocks, and a couple sizes of preprinted stash notes. The stash notes are sized to fit the ziplocks, and they're folded like a little 4-page brochure, with the stash note on page 1 and lines for logging on pages 2, 3, and 4. When I'm driving, the defroster is handy for drying out damp logs. And I've occasionally used a Sharpie to make fading writing legible again.

In what way does a film canister (even if it were identified as a geocache) help someone who is looking for a long-gone regular-size cache? It didn't help me. It doesn't seem to have helped any of the cachers who have posted DNFs since then. And if the owner never gets back to the site, because he quit a week after creating his GC.com account? The cache should be archived, and the film canister doesn't help. Or maybe a person who drove 100 miles just to find a cache will find the wrong container, and be deprived of the (much better) actual hide. IMHO, the point of the game isn't to find "something". The point is to find the cache you're looking for. I always find "something" while looking for a cache. I sometimes fill a bag or two with "something", which I toss in a trash can or dumpster.

Reminds me of a couple caches where I found litter that looked a lot like a muggled cache. It didn't quite match the descriptions of the containers on the cache pages though, so I kept looking--and found the actual caches perfectly intact.

Don't laugh. I recently found a film canister with a signed scrap of paper (nothing identifying it as a geocache, however) that was left as a "replacement" for a missing regular-size cache. And the cacher logged a find for it. Makes no sense to me...

Well, I've seen cachers look out for each other, and that has included cachers replacing missing containers (when they had previously found the cache, knew how/where to hide the replacement, had checked that it hadn't just migrated, etc.). And I've left my share of replacement logs, stash notes, and ziplock bags. But IME, "replacement" containers left by those who didn't find the original container haven't really helped anyone. [Edit: grammar]

FWIW, I've seen logs signed very effectively (and creatively) by cachers who didn't have a pen or pencil.

I really don't get this one, and it isn't about the numbers. I just don't see how such "replacement" caches help. How do you know it's missing? Maybe you just didn't find it, and your "replacement" cache will interfere with others finding the real hide. Or maybe the reviewers were about to archive it, but now your geolitter is left behind where before there was nothing. If you've found the cache previously, if you know what kind of replacement container to hide, if you know where and how to hide it, if you've checked to make sure the container hasn't simply migrated, if you know the owner is still maintaining the cache, then it might make sense to save the cache owner a trip by replacing a missing cache. But "replacing" a cache that you just couldn't find?

I've found caches that were "buried" in landscaping bark, leaves, and other loose material. I could see a beach cache like those being similar. Where do you draw the line between "burying" a cache and concealing it with local materials? GC.com seems to decide based on whether "a shovel, trowel or other 'pointy' object is used to dig".

IMHO, this goes for both the cache owner and the cache seeker. For the owner, signatures on the log verify who really found the cache. For the seeker, the log itself verifies that you really found the cache, and not a decoy container or some random litter.

But is there any chance that the GC.com guidelines will be updated to clarify the situation? The status quo is that such such caches are listed as traditional because the container is at the posted coordinates. Personally, I don't mind caches where I have to do something extra after finding the container at the posted coordinates. But a strict interpretation of the GC.com guidelines would have these caches listed as traditional caches even when that (IMHO) is not at all appropriate: If I need to solve a puzzle to open the combination lock on the container before I can sign the log, then it should be listed as a puzzle cache. If the cache owner requires me to do something else (e.g., post a photo of a certain combination of his signature tokens, trade a coin with a date one year higher or lower than the one I found in the cache), then the "Mystery or Puzzle Caches" description ("The 'catch-all' of cache types") fits nicely, except for the phrase "The only commonality of this cache type is that the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location".

I recently completed a multi where one of the stages was too far to pace from the previous stage. But it happened to be within pacing distance of a nearby traditional cache that I was prepared to find, so I ended up completing the multi in one trip after all.