CloneZone

Until I got a handlebar mount for my eTrex, I always used to carry it in my bike jersey back pocket, and received signal about 99.5% of the time, even through the jersey fabric. I suppose it helps that my big, fat ugly head is leaning forward out of the way while I'm biking. I think the Camelbak solutions are good ones as well. Pretty much anything that minimizes your body blocking the signal, especially your head.

Someone in the general forum asked about the painted rock by the old quarry north of Greenfield after seeing a pic on the internet. It's a little far for me, but there are some good suggestions for placing a cache at this site, if anyone is interested. Here's the thread: Iowa Rock

quote:Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:County road right of way...That would belong to the citizens of the county, or in other words, public property. Team GPSaxophone - Just to clarify for you, county road right-of-way in Iowa is in easement from adjoining landowners, hence not truly in the domain of public property, hence I would be reluctant to place a cache in the right-of-way. I do appreciate your suggestions though, and some type of camo may well work at this site, given the owner's permission. It's very near to my old stomping grounds as a kid, but unfortunately, since it's now nearly 100 miles from me, I think someone else will have to do the dirty work of setting one out, as I only get out that way a couple times a year. I'll see that the Great Plains forum sees this thread. Again, thanks for the suggestions.

quote:Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:You don't have to hide an ammo box to make it a traditional cache. A virtual wouldn't work, as all the verification info is obviously on the Internet already. The only way it could be done is to post a picture of yourself in front of it. Traditional cache suggestions: First pic: fake rock under soldier's right elbow Second pic: ammo box in the bush behind and to the left of the rock Third pic: micro attached to the road sign with magnet. Fake rock/plant in the weeds behind and to the right of the rock. Fourth pic: nothing stands out as a good hiding spot Fifth pic: micro attached to telephone pole. Could use a fake bolt or something camo'd to blend in Sixth pic: fence in background, so probably private property, otherwise near the tree behind and to the left of the rock Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness Team GPSaxophone- Everything you see in the pics is either private property or county road ROW (which isn't private, but it's not exactly public land either). I appreciate your suggestions, and I like the fake rock and the micro-magnet-on-the-road-sign. However, I don't think the fake rock would last, anything bigger than half a fist is going to get thrown in the quarry lake by local teens, just for the fun of sound effects.

quote:Originally posted by seneca: CloneZone, you have presented a good argument in favour of virtual caches. How would you feel if they were listed and kept track of entirely separately from physical caches (like Benchmarks) and were then pro-actively encouraged by the admin? Seneca, I see that as an alternative, if it needs to come to that. But then you just as well dump off multi's, locationless, etc. into their own separate "place" as well. Personally, (at least so far) I enjoy all of these equally well, if they are well thought out. I would enjoy a good hunt, regardless of what's at the end of the hunt. The more unique, the better. quote:Originally posted by enfanta: Virtuals aren't hidden: they're quite public, rarely a challenge, involve a test and are usually something I never stopped to look at for a reason. Enfanta, I can understand your frustration with lame virtuals, but I think you paint with too broad of a brush, and I think over time there have been plenty of examples of good virtuals posted to these forums. Is it really that important to you to find a box at the end of the hunt, or do you enjoy the hunt more? I'm not against not approving lame virtuals, but if we go that route, let's get a little more selective in approving ALL types of caches.

If this is the rock I think it is, I don't believe the surrounding area would be suitable for a physical cache, as it is all privately owned, and nearly all Iowa farmers take a dim view of strangers trespassing (go figure). The area behind the rock is, I believe, the abandoned quarry the rock came from, and now full of many feet of water, and still owned by the quarry company. But, if you CAN get permission, go for it.

I would just like to add my two cents into the fray here. For various reasons, virtual caches appeal to me as much as physical caches, or even benchmarks. The majority of the virtuals I've logged have been pretty lame and/or easy (or at least I think others would perceive them that way) BUT they still mean something to me. For instance, GCA4B0 is one that probably shouldn't have been approved, as the verification answer should be easily found on-line, but for me, just visiting the site brought back childhood memories of seeing this event. Likewise, GCE1CD is one that brought back memories of singing some of the songs made famous by this 'character' with my parents when they came on the radio. Just being at these locations was emotionally uplifting to me. A physical cache at either location would be out of the question, and placing one offset wouldn't have added to my experience. The other virtuals I've sought out relate to Lewis and Clark, which is a topic I personally find very fascinating, but not everyone shares that passion. Now, for someone else, I'm certain these 2 virtuals I mention mean nothing, and I'm fine with that. Quite frankly, if it weren't for the childhood memories these two evoked, I probably wouldn't have done them myself. I've placed one virtual multi-cache out there (GC635E, and I think/hope that it would be approved today. It is certainly more difficult than 90%+ of the physical caches out there in my area, and so far every one who has finished it has loved it. I don't think every virtual has to be as challenging as this one, but I do agree with other posters that it should be more than just go to a "waypoint and e-mail some number or text to verify". But, as I mention above, some "lame" ones are still worth doing (at least for some people). The thing I don't understand is the prejudice that some posters have against virtuals. Sure, a lot of virtuals are just a point you go to and find some information, but a lot of physical caches are basically the same thing, except instead of finding information, you're finding a box full of trinkets (which, so far, I've been able to find in a couple minutes each time). What's the big difference? In the end, you're finding something you sought to seek out. Does it [i}really[/i] matter that much what's at the end of the proverbial rainbow? Now, before anybody jumps down my throat, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to advocate one type of cache over the other. I just don't see the big deal. A well-thought out and placed physical cache and a well-thought out virtual cache seem equally rewarding to me, and I would like to see the opportunity to seek both continue.

quote:Originally posted by welch: quote:So far, the map is 11-01-01>>>(the map)<<<3-22-02, right? Ummmm, no, actually, as you'll notice right above your post, I made note that the map is from before 1-11-02. So it's 11-01-01>>>(the map)<<<1-11-02

The map has to be before 1/11/2002, based on the SW Iowa caches. One of the caches down by Shenandoah was placed then, and is not on the original map. That narrows things down quite a bit.

My understanding of Benchmarking when I first became aware of it some time ago was that you needed to physically observe the benchmark location (not just the structure it was on). Obviously, this makes some BM's more difficult than others. (no pun intended)

quote:Originally posted by leatherman:_Save your ignorant elitist comments for your pompous frat boys._ Ouch leatherman, that would have hurt if I were a frat boy. Man, don't get so testy, I certainly wasn't attacking you! Please notice I said should be able, not can. Please also note that IQ tests were not really designed to measure your 'absolute' intelligence, it was originally designed to identify those children with special educational needs; in the last 100 years the intent has been completely twisted to how we view it today. An IQ test does indeed reflect what you have learned, not what you are capable of learning. Generally speaking though, those who are above average in one area tend to also be above average in all other areas, and I would contend that someone with an IQ of 120 is very likely capable of further developing basic and advanced math skills (or any other cognitive skill for that matter), regardless of past learning experiences. So please do not misinterpret my phrase of should be able to as saying you're a dummy if you can't do math puzzles. And Criminal, you are correct, just because I possess the skill to do something does not mean I need to utilize that skill to do a cache. As always, we are free to choose which caches we do and when; it was certainly not my intent to imply otherwise.

quote: Especially since most of us here probably have an IQ of 120 or higher. I would contend that just about anyone with an IQ of 120 or higher should be able to do any math puzzle, short of one requiring knowledge of calculus or differential equations. (hmmmm, now there's something I hadn't thought of doing yet!)

Oh, I am all for math here. Math rocks! My only cache is a multi that is math intensive, and it requires numbers you find at each step along the way. Not terribly difficult if you follow my suggestion to bring a calculator. I'd link it, but I'm feeling lazy after mowing this evening.

You might also consider looking at Great Plains Geocaching website for possible links to your area.

car key, house key, 6 keys that I have forgot what they go to but I keep anyway and a Klingon knife

I'm looking for a little friendly advice, so any and all help is greatly appreciated! I'm going to be in the Portland area in a few weeks, and my wife and I were considering spending a weekend on the coast. We don't want to stray too far south (i.e. not more than 100 miles from Portland), I was wondering if any of you had any suggestions for places to stay, things to see/do, etc. for a weekend stay. Of course, I'll do a little geocaching too! Thanks!

quote: Harrald wrote:You're wrong. This is from the Hide a cache page. Difficulty rating: * Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching. Terrain rating: **** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.) ***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult. Harrald, I would respectfully disagree with your statement about me being wrong. IF YOU USE Geocache Rating System, and you recognize that climbing a tree such as this is, for the large majority of people, a serious physical challenge, you will see that DIFFICULTY should be rated a 5, even if it IS in "plain sight". quote: from the Geocache Rating System:Difficulty rating: 5 * Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching. ** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting. *** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon. **** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete. ***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache. Likewise, for terrain, I've never found it necessary to have specialized equipment or knowledge to climb a tree, but it CAN be extremely difficult, so terrain could equally be a 5 on that basis, although I would tend to rate on the terrain to get to the tree, not the tree climb itself. Just all in how you want to interpret things I guess. BUT, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

quote: originally posted by Sissy-n-CRI've looked into the rating of a cache similar to this one. The difficulty is correct, it's not hard to find. It's the terrain that is difficult and that is correct. As for warning people about what to expect, well, what if you just logged it for them as well? Maybe, post a picture pointing directly to the cache? Tell them exactly what equipment to bring? I will respectfully disagree on the difficulty rating, if you use the suggested rating scale for rating caches difficulty and terrain, the fact that this requires some serious physical exertion qualifies it as a 5 for difficulty, not terrain. It would seem the terrain GETTING to the cache is probably pretty easy. Maybe it's the Latin in me, but terrain (root word terra) means earth, ground, terra firma to me, not flora and fauna. And yes, for a difficult cache, there should be some forwarning of what you're in for; after all, if you assumed it was going to be difficult based on assuming you would need to do some rock climbing and then you get there and you're climbing a tree instead, wouldn't you be P.O.'d if you had lugged rock climbing gear for nothing? The hint of bringing a monkey is ambiguous at best. Do I need a "monkey" to get 5 feet or 30 feet off the ground? A huge difference in my opinion. And certainly, someone clever enough to put a cache 30 feet in the air ought to be clever enough to describe it as such, without giving it away.

Although this tree doesn't look any worse than some I've managed to climb up in my day, I'd have to say I was younger and more foolish back then too. Certainly, the rating needs to be changed, it's not a 1 for difficulty, it looks like about a 5. At the least, the description should be expanded to forwarn people who go in search of this, that some serious tree climbing is warranted. At the most, caches of this type need careful evaluation, lest someone be foolish enough to attempt it and have a serious fall. [edited from here, misread a previous post, sorry]

quote: originally posted by GroundClutter ... Think of why you would want to place a cache in a cemetary. If you think its simply a cool location, its probably in poor taste. However, a virtual or a multi cache in which there is a lesson learned, a bit of knowledge gleaned or an appreciation for local history, I don't see a problem with. Think of your reasons, and if in doubt, don't. I would agree with GroundClutter, unless the cemetary is designated off-limits to visitors, a virtual/multi that highlights some local history or offers some knowledge to be gained is OK. I know in my town, that there are several monuments in our various cemetaries that are actually listed as points of interest on the local chamber of commerce website. However, I would NOT, under ANY circumstances, place a traditional cache in a cemetary. Cemetaries are not meant as places of entertainment, and the deceased should be shown proper respect, and even in virtuals, people should pay their respect to those buried there. Even though there are lots of potential hiding spots (and they've been put to good use by spies, for instance, in the past), I just feel that leaving something permanent in a cemetary (other than the marker to show the grave) desecrates the ground they are buried in.

It looks like in the article that this will be replacing an existing satellite?

dave and jaime, not sure what you are considering as being nowhere near sensible? I think the regulations posted are to make sure that no one ruins it for everyone else (and were drawn up before 9/11), while the other document tells people what kind of behavior to be on the watch for. Seems fairly common sense to me, 9/11 notwithstanding.

Another thing to consider is this recent bulletin from Dept. of Homeland Security. It's probably little wonder Birds & Bikes was approached. quote: Department of Homeland Security POSSIBLE INDICATORS OF AL-QAEDA SURVEILLANCE Information Bulletin 03-004 --March 20, 2003 DHS Information Bulletins communicate issues that pertain to the critical national infrastructure and are for informational purposes only. Al-Qaeda operations have been characterized by meticulous planning, a focus on inflicting mass casualties, and multiple, simultaneous suicide attacks. Operatives are highly trained in basic and sophisticated surveillance techniques, posing challenges for counterterrorism and security forces in identifying terrorist surveillance. Recent information and analysis point to surveillance practices that traditionally have been utilized by Al-Qaeda-affiliated operatives. While not exhaustive, the following list suggests possible indicators of terrorist surveillance. --Unusual or prolonged interest in security measures or personnel, entry points and access controls, or perimeter barriers such as fences or walls. --Unusual behavior such as starting or quickly looking away from personnel or vehicles entering or leaving designated facilities or parking areas. --Observation of security reaction drills or procedures. --Increase in anonymous telephone or e-mail threats to facilities in conjunction with suspected surveillance incidents-indicating possible surveillance of threat reaction procedures. --Foot surveillance involving two or three individuals working together. --Mobile surveillance using bicycles, scooters, motorcycles, cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, boats, or small aircraft. --Prolonged static surveillance using operatives disguised as panhandlers, demonstrators, shoe shiners, food or flower vendors, news agents, or street sweepers not previously seen in the area. --Discreet use of still cameras, video recorders or note taking at non-tourist type locations. --Use of multiple sets of clothing, identifications, or the use of sketching materials (paper, pencils, etc.). --Questioning of security or facility personnel. General information on possible terrorist planning activities proceeding an attack can be found at www.dhs.gov <http://www.dhs.gov/>. DHS encourages individuals to report information concerning such suspicious activity to their local FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) office, DHS, or to other appropriate authorities. Individuals can reach the DHS (NIPC) WATCH AND WARNING UNIT at (202) 323-3205, toll free at 1-888-585-9078, or by email to nipc.watch@fbi.gov <mailto:nipc.watch@fbi.gov>.

Like a couple other posters here, I would advise you fully cooperate with any Federal officer while on Federally controlled lands. I would suspect the person in question was a park ranger, and they do have authority to enforce certain regulations. In my dealings with park rangers, most don't give you "attitude" unless receiving it first. Take that for what it's worth. Anyway, I was curious as to what all regulations were in place at this dam, and found this information: Rules and Regulations Governing Public Use of Project Land. Note especially Sect. 327.24, looks like if you don't fully cooperate with them, you are indeed subject to fine and imprisonment. And even though I couldn't find a notice anywhere, I would guess that all dams everywhere are on high alert, so don't expect to go unnoticed.

Have you tried contacting the person/people who have logged the cache between when the key was placed and when it was noted missing? It's only a week, don't get too stressed out about it yet!