peterkraatz

While I agree with the Jeremy's sentiment I have to share some surprise that the "don't care, not hurting anybody, buzz off" crowd is completely absent here. The Internet must be down for a good chunk of the world right now...

Thanks...Thanks a bunch. I lol'd.

Either way, I still wouldn't care. You seem to care enough to tell us, at least twice, how much you don't care. I do care though. I think there are good reasons for the proximity rule, and if it's nullified by people gaming the system, I see that as something harmful to geocaching. Well said. To answer the OP: this exact same situation temporarily migrated to North San Diego County for a few years. I spent some time working in SLC; coming home to cache the same geo-trash was frustration writ large. I always wanted a PQ filter to ignore all hides by that UID. By definition, 2500 caches are all trash. If you can't or won't maintain them, they're trash. There are hundreds of cachers who want to create that something special cache but simply cannot because of a rolling mass of crap that archives itself and is reborn periodically as more crap. Finding and correcting one out of the lot after a whack of forum posts is not a confidence builder in the reviewer community or process but a confirmation that they only have time to address issues when they are specifically raised. Shame won't work in this specific case but I think it's the right tool most of the time. The caches are only meant to be found by a small number of cachers in any event, not the community at large, so appealing to the greater good and all that jazz is not likely to work. Boy, you are a fount of positivity this morning. Who are you call all of someone's caches trash, especially when you have only a small hand full of his caches? Successful troll is successful. My sample size of actual finds, coupled with my extensive use of the same profile information you obviously used to find me answers the question: I'm a guy who's actually looked at them. The good ones get just as much attention as the rest: 1/2500th of all available time. Why do you think I only have a small handful of these finds? Wait for it. It will come to you eventually. I really need to enable reply notification. Fixed. Sorry for the original drive by...

Either way, I still wouldn't care. You seem to care enough to tell us, at least twice, how much you don't care. I do care though. I think there are good reasons for the proximity rule, and if it's nullified by people gaming the system, I see that as something harmful to geocaching. Well said. To answer the OP: this exact same situation temporarily migrated to North San Diego County for a few years. I spent some time working in SLC; coming home to cache the same geo-trash was frustration writ large. I always wanted a PQ filter to ignore all hides by that UID. By definition, 2500 caches are all trash. If you can't or won't maintain them, they're trash. There are hundreds of cachers who want to create that something special cache but simply cannot because of a rolling mass of crap that archives itself and is reborn periodically as more crap. Finding and correcting one out of the lot after a whack of forum posts is not a confidence builder in the reviewer community or process but a confirmation that they only have time to address issues when they are specifically raised. Shame won't work in this specific case but I think it's the right tool most of the time. The caches are only meant to be found by a small number of cachers in any event, not the community at large, so appealing to the greater good and all that jazz is not likely to work.

Along with the majority of the folks here, I don't see a problem with this. Is it frustrating? Yes. You probably wouldn't have wasted your time prioritizing this as a FTF attempt, though you probably would still have gone after the smiley. Late logging is not an issue in my book, especially if you have dozens of finds to log. Around here (north San Diego County) there are a small handful of FTF-hounds who are in constant competition with one another for FTF. They tend not to log their finds for 12-24 hours after a successful FTF on purpose. Partly, this drives up interest from the other hunters (nobody likes to let a blank log sit all lonely and sad, FTF or no). Also, it is a tactical move when multiple caches in a smallish radius are published and one is trying to beat others to multiple hides. In the end, it's all about bragging rights between friends and nothing more. The accidental/occasional FTF hunter is going to learn quickly that there are a few people who are prepared to walk out the door at 10pm on a Tuesday the moment a notification comes in. It's completely silly but the practice (FTF) adds a dimension of friendly competition. Late logging...meh. No big deal. False logging? Well...that's a flogging.

Yeah, the "add to queue" button is the right choice. The fact you were able to "change the distance to 2000 miles" means you are not running the "my finds" query. You can only run that query through the "add to queue" button on the PQ page. The normal PQ you are running probably has the box ticked for "caches I own". That will miss distant hides since you can only go so far in your search radius with a standard PQ.

What you get out of your Premium membership and your GPS are two different things entirely. For the device, you should look at the manual and see what additional data fields your GPS supports per waypoint type. As for the premium membership: you're buying access to advanced features such as the ability to download hundreds of WPTs at a time, setup notifications and etc. (I oversimplify somewhat here) Almost everyone I know has a two-device solution for carrying around descriptions, hints and additional cache information (or one GPS and some printouts) unless they are caching with a mobile phone GPS.

Do I need to add a category to the brackets for "Oldest able to actually sign the log"?

Going to have to adjust the brackets for the next run!

Keeping your running tally up to speed... Average (Mean): 34.33 Median: 29 years Mode (Most Common): 21 years Total entries: 73 0-17: 15 entries 18-34: 26 entries 35-52: 15 entries 55-68: 17 entries Youngest: 3mo Youngest able to sign the log: 5 years (new leader!) Oldest: 85 (new leader!) Keep em coming...

Fixed: Average (Mean): 35.13 Median: 34 years Mode (Most Common): 16 years Total entries: 53 0-17:12 entries 18-34: 15 entries 35-52: 13 entries 55-68: 13 entries Youngest: 3mo Youngest able to sign the log: 8 years Oldest: 68

Actually, yes! My entry: 38 years old. Including the CanadaKate with the puppy we have the following... Average (Mean): 35.15 Median: 33 years Mode (Most Common): 16 years Total entries: 52 0-17:12 entries 18-31: 14 entries 35-52: 13 entries 55-68: 13 entries Youngest: 3mo Youngest able to sign the log: 8 years Oldest: 68 I have no idea why this thread fascinates me so, but if this data is representative the question is answered: most Geocachers are older than 30 or so.

This one time, I ended up taking a wrong route through a neighborhood that apparently has residents who like to call the police on folks who come around. I got to enjoy the company of 3 police officers while in handcuffs for an hour while explaining Geocaching and them saying "there's no such thing, that just sounds stupid". The Walls are Alive. (see the June 6, 2008 log). Good times.

Yup, the TomTom won't get the job done at all. A suitable hand held unit can be had for about $100, up to $600 as the last poster mentioned if you want to go crazy. Since you already have a street routing model you can afford to go cheap and not risk a huge investment on something you may not want long term.

I try to use Watcher to automatically filter my pocket queries before taking a look at what's out there to find. After Watcher removes some of the obvious "it ain't there" candidates I read the descriptions just like you've seen recommended here a few times. DNFs are unavoidable but you can maximize your potential for a smiley with preparation. And just like some of the other posters here- logging DNFs is a must. It's the only tool the owner has to check whether the cache is healthy, perhaps rated too easy or just needs a little more detail in the description.

Sadly, I've got so little respect for myself I've taken to documenting just how to ruin your caching experience through organized caching and dashing, here. So yes, 30, 50, 100 or more in a day is entirely possible; trivial even. It's just not the same kind of fun as hiking to a remote hilltop, but then the kinds of caches you are forced to find in a 50+ day are not offering that kind of fun anyway.