SylvrStorm

This is mostly for BC geocachers. I was in Watershed Park in North Delta today, and stumbled across the remains of the Lost In The Woods cache. The cache was archived over 2.5 years ago. From its condition, it had obviously been muggled, moved, and discarded. The cache is in very poor shape. Its contents appear to have been exposed to the elements for at least a year, possibly much longer. Everything's wet and dirty, and the log book is very mouldy. It's a shame that the cache was mistreated this way, but in a way it's also kind of neat to find its remains after all this time. In any case, the point of this post is that I'm trying to locate the original cache owner, in case they want it back out of curiosity, for old times' sake, or whatever. I know I'd want to know if a stolen cache of mine were ever found. But they haven't logged on to geocaching.com since November, 2002 (the same day they archived this cache). I tried emailing them through their profile, but it bounced. So now I'm hoping somebody might happen to know where they are. I know it's a long shot, but I figured it's worth a try. Here's what I know: Their caching name was wcrow, and the cache was hidden by "Tina, Will and Lacie". That, plus the limited info from the mouldy log book and the bounced email, suggests that his name may be Will Crow. Feel free to respond here, but I don't come to the forums much these days so if you really know this person or how to contact him, please email me through my profile. Thanks, SylvrStorm

Just a guess here, but it look as though the cache went missing and the owner intends to replace it, but when they tried to disable the cache they accidentally archived it. That would explain cache-tech unarchiving it (probably following an email from the owner), but it's still disabled until the owner replaces the cache and enables it. This is all just conjecture though. I'd think the first step would be to contact the owner, grizzlyG. Have you tried that? SylvrStorm

I wouldn't say it's necessarily better, and it's not generic like yours or 2oldfarts, but I've got a cache that I think you need every number to find: Memorial Benches. I like the fact that it's not an offset (unless you count it as an offset from the minute integers). You are calculating the actual coords directly. Took a bit of fiddling with the numbers to get it to work out. By calculating the coords directly, you reduce the hidden clues, like 'this digit will have to be less than three for it to work out'. I think the key to anything like this is to include multiplication with a minimum of one two digit number, and if there's any addition in the final step, it must be at least a two digit number, and those digits must be completely unpredictable. At a more fundamental level, it's important to use math (even simple math) rather than direct substitution, because then the impact of one missing number will always be to more than a single digit in the final solution. SylvrStorm

Personally I think it would be a great idea, and in a geocaching forum you're not likely to get a lot of dissenters. But realistically I think the percentage of the general public who would find it useful is too small, and the percentage who would find it confusing too high, for them to consider it a good idea just yet. Maybe as more cars are on the road with onboard GPS systems this may change. Then again, the public likes to be spoon fed information in formats they're already comfortable with, so it's more likely the trend will be cars with text-rich databases, so you enter a place name and it'll figure out the coordinates internally. I think making lat-long more mainstream would be a good idea, but I don't see it happening. SylvrStorm

In general I don't think there's any need for additional rating or ranking systems here, but CoyoteRed's idea is a good one. A numeric cache rating system would be unlikely to ever provide any useful information, but this idea of marking your top 10%/1% finds has a lot of merit. It focuses on the relative merits of caches, rather than applying an absolute value. It also doesn't have the stigma or bad feelings that a low numerical cache rating could have, because you're only highlighting the good ones, and you only get to give your 'blessing' to a relatively small subset of the caches you find. Yep - I like it. SylvrStorm

What part(s) of Vancouver Island do you plan to visit? And what do you mean by a tough challenge? You say a 'fair walk', so I'm guessing you want a good scenic hike with a nice view at the end, but not involving serious rock climbing. If you want something really tough (like needing climbing gear or an overnight camp), ignore this post. But if you just want a really good hike, and will be in the Nanaimo/Parksville area (mid-island) consider Operation Hot Star. It's rated 3.5 for terrain, and I think that's accurate. It's a decent hike, not what I'd call gruelling, but certainly not stroller-friendly. Preteens and up could handle it, but I wouldn't bring very young children (unless they're in a back carrier or similar). Don't know if you have kids, but even if not, that should give you an idea of the difficulty. The trail is marked and kept clear, but far from what you'd call "groomed". Warning: this cache was reported missing. However, it was never confirmed missing by the owner (at least not on the cache page) so I'd consider that just like any other DNF. I recall that when I found it, it took me a bit of looking around, and wasn't in the first one or two 'obvious' places (at least to me). Could be that the last people up there happened to find a garbage bag in one of the 'obvious' places and assumed the cache used to be inside it. If you're concerned about the cache's existance, you might try emailing the owner (Team KFWB is very nice) and see if they've had a chance to check up on this one. But really, it's one of those ones that the view at the end is worth the hike, even if it turns out to be a DNF. Hope you enjoy your visit. SylvrStorm

I've been told I look like Nicolas Cage. There is a definite resemblance, but with my glasses on it's less obvious so I don't get the comment too often. SylvrStorm

Anybody know if Costco in BC is carrying these? SylvrStorm

Hey Jamie - you should just do a couple quick drive-by passes on all your cache hunts and get those first two out of the way. Then you can do your third attempt and take advantage of that 100%! SylvrStorm

I don't know if they're "must do", and I don't want to come off as tooting my own horn, but two of my caches are right on the route but have been removed from the cache machine list for various reasons. People have really seemed to enjoy them, as they provide something a little different from the traditional cache hunt. The first is Cache Practice 2, which falls very close to Cache Practice, currently number 37 on the cache machine route. This is a very clever hide (which I can't take credit for, as I adopted it from the original owner) but it was removed from the route at my request because it can be difficult to do without being seen by muggles. However, since you'll be parking close to it anyway, it wouldn't hurt for a few cachers to try it, as long as you're willing to wait for the coast to clear if there are too many people around. Oh - also a note - the nearby Cache Sampler, number 36 on the machine list, has been deactivated because it's contents were stolen. I'm not sure if the container is still there now or not. The other cache you might want to try is Check It Out Microcache. This was left off the list because it's a multi, but it's a very quick multi (all the points are close together and easy to find). You can see from the log entries that most people have quite enjoyed it. Again, it wouldn't be a good one for a lot of people to hit because stealth is critical, but if a few visitors want to add it, it's right along the route between Let's Get Wet! (number 43) and Timbits Cache (number 44). I hope everyone enjoys the visit and tour of the area. SylvrStorm

Actually, any original writing is legally protected by copyright law as soon as it's fixed in a tangible medium (i.e. written down on paper or stored to a computer disk). You don't have to register it with the copyright office to own the copyright. This only applies to original "creative" work, so a "TNLN, Thanks" log entry would not be protected, but those aren't the ones that would be interesting to post online anyway. What this means is that legally, the contents of a log book are owned separately by each contributor, not the cache owner. And technically, scanning or transcribing the contents and posting it on the internet without the original writers' permission would be considered theft. However, Bloencustoms makes a good point: This would indeed be the best choice. If you make a brief note on the log book (wouldn't hurt to have it on the cache page too) of your intention to scan or transcribe the contents and post it online, then simply by writing in the log book the writer is granting permission for you to "publish" their words. They still own the copyright, but have granted you the right to publish. Problem solved. I do think it's kind of a cool idea. Personally, I wouldn't care if anyone posted my log book entries, as I write pretty much the same thing in my online logs anyway. SylvrStorm

It's funny - when I read the thread on granting extra finds for doing CITO, I had this crazy idea that it shouldn't affect the find (that's really a different thing) but wouldn't it be nice to still get credit for doing CITO? Maybe by leaving the find count alone, but enhancing the logging to track CITO activity? Then I thought, TPTB would never go for doing the extra work to track yet another statistic. So I didn't bother even posting. Silly me! Now that this idea has been broached, here are a few thoughts. * I agree that it should be separate from the find count. * Not sure about a separate log type - wouldn't that just add a whole bunch of extra logs to caches? * What about a checkbox that would appear on any log, regardless of the type? * How do you confirm? If you don't, then some people would log CITO on every cache find, regardless of whether or not, or how much trash they picked up. If you require a photo, what about people without a digital camera? Overall, I really like the idea of recognizing people who CITO. It would probably be possible to abuse any such tracking mechanism, but it would be a good idea to have some way to reduce it, or make it more difficult. (Kind of like you can fake a cache find, but the cache owner can always check the physical log book to confirm you were there.) But I don't know what confirmation mechanism would do that for CITO, and still be easy for everyone to do. SylvrStorm

That's odd. Like I said, I don't use MapPoint, but I know others do. There's a good chance some MapPoint user will happen upon this thread and clear it up, but if not you might try contacting travisl. I know he's used MapPoint to put together routes for cache machine events. Is there a chance that Microsoft did something weird like using the wrong datum just in the area where you live? Might be grasping at straws, but if that's the case they might have a patch on their website. At the very least, you could let them know and ask them about it. If there really is a problem in the MapPoint map, it's probably better to fix the problem at its source rather than come up with a manual workaround that's going to be an ongoing hassle. Good Luck. SylvrStorm

I don't know MapPoint and don't have a solution for the problem you stated, but it sounds very much like you may be using the incorrect datum. Does MapPoint support a variety of datums? If so, make sure it's set to the same datum as the coords you're using, namely WGS84 for geocaching. Hope this helps. If not, hopefully somebody else knows a way to do the coord conversion. SylvrStorm

So there are others like me! With a bit over 100 finds I too can remember each cache hunt. Sometimes it's instantaneous, sometimes it takes several seconds to click in, but I can recall every hunt, including the DNFs, just given the name. Can't remember most of the trades though. I could probably only list 10-20 of the trades I've made. And like others have posted, I'm terrible at remembering peoples' names. Now here's a twist that never occurred to me before. Given the name, I can always recall the cache hunt & location; but given a cache location, I'm only 90-95% able to recall the name. SylvrStorm

A couple notes that I haven't seen mentioned yet. Namely, the direct problems with one-time caches. As I understand it: 1) Generally speaking, when you hide a cache, many people will try to find it. If it's gone after the first person finds it, you'll have several people hunting in vain, possibly damaging the environment in an attempt to find something that is not there. This is also a big part of why travelling caches are no longer approved (though there are some that have been grandfathered). 2) Because one-time caches are by definition only found by one person, allowing them would place a large burden on the volunteer cache approvers while providing a relatively small benefit to the caching community as a whole. Hope this helps. SylvrStorm

I ran across another reference to WWMX today and thought it interesting. While it's not specifically geocaching related, it is GPS related. Sea-to-Sea hike SylvrStorm

I agree with FarSideX - ask in the Geocaching.com forum for a definitive answer. My understanding, FWIW, is that the 'NEW' flag will appear on any cache where the date hidden is newer than one week ago. This has nothing to do with when the cache was actually hidden, or when it was approved, but is a simple math function performed on the date entered in that field when the cache is submitted. Some implications: - A typo in that field can play havoc on the 'NEW' flag. - A cache that takes over a week to approve (for whatever reason) may never display the 'NEW' flag. - A cache with a future date, such as an event cache, will show the 'NEW' flag until a week after the event. - A cache owner can cause the 'NEW' flag to appear at any time just by changing the Date Hidden on the cache page. SylvrStorm

I won't even set foot in a Future Shop any more. Too many bad experiences. I don't particularly like Canadian Tire either - I'd never have them do anything to my car, and I wouldn't buy anything there if there's any chance I'd need to return it, and I agree with the comments about the glass cases and nobody around to help if you want something out of one. I don't shop there often, but that said, I do go in now and then. But having poor service is, IMO, less bad than having staff outright lie to you in order to make a sale. That's been my experience repeatedly at more than one Future Shop location. I've had enough of the high pressure sales by staff who try to gloss over questions they can't answer, or worse, make up totally bogus answers. I've experienced them lying in fliers, on the phone, and to my face. I've had them pull blatant bait & switch tactics on me, and then deny to my face what they'd just said. Nope, I don't like Future Shop, and will never shop there again. Sorry for the rant. I'm done. I wonder if this really is a BC thing. I thought maybe it was a Canadian thing, as I often get better service in US restaurants (Washington and Oregon anyway) than I do in Canada. But my experience in eastern Canada is pretty limited, so maybe it's just BC that doesn't understand customer service.

As to deleting logs, I don't think that's a good approach, for much the same reasons others have expressed. The potential harm to the area and exposure of the cache to geomuggles are real issues. With my caches, there are some that would not be a good idea for a cache machine, and some that would be fine. I know TravisL is planning a cache machine in this area, so I'll wait and see if any of my caches end up on the proposed list. If they are, and they're ones of concern to me, I'll let him know. I'm confident that he'll be reasonable about it. Bottom line is I guess you can't really do anything about it if you don't know in advance, but cache machines are usually widely publicized to get lots of people participating. This also gives you as a cache owner a chance to raise any red flags that might be necessary, and I believe CM organizers would be willing to listen to your concerns. SylvrStorm

Huh?!? I thought Ontario was the east end of Vancouver. SylvrStorm

I had a couple of posts deleted, but it made sense to do so. I started a thread asking a question about avatars. When all was said and done, the question and some of the discussion didn't make sense in context anymore, but the answer still did, so the early posts were deleted. No problem. It's funny now though, as the thread still shows I started it, but I don't even have a post in it anymore. Don't know what you had deleted, so I can't comment on that. SylvrStorm

No problem for me @ 2:16 pm SylvrStorm

Here's an analogy. My wife used to work as the assistant to a VP of a large company. He could certainly afford any vehicle he wanted, but drove a rather old car. One day the subject came up as to why he didn't get rid of it and buy something newer. He pulled out a file containing detailed records and calculations showing exactly how much it was costing him to keep that old car repaired and running. He also knew exactly how much his next car would cost. He said that when the cost of the old car exceeded that of the new car, he'd trade it in. Until then, there was no reason to. Geocaching is a hobby, and like any hobby it's something we choose to do for reasons of personal pleasure. There are many reasons to enjoy geocaching, and each person must decide for themselves how big that pleasure benefit is. That's like the value of the old car. There are also negatives, which in this discussion seem to be mostly about attitudes of others, but can also include things like caches being plundered. These negatives are like the cost of repairs on the old car. As long as the pleasure exceeds the negatives, it seems a good idea to continue the activity. But that's not the real analogy. So far we've only talked about the old car. If we don't go geocaching, what would we do instead with that time? All those other hobbies and activities that we could choose from, those are like the cars on the lot. Each of them will have its own pleasures and negatives. When we choose an activity for our free time, we're not just deciding whether a given activity gives us a positive pleasure balance, we're deciding which activity gives us the highest pleasure balance. As those balances change, it doesn't help to lament that an activity used to be more fun. (Though sometimes it does help to work with the community to make it more fun again.) In the end, if it's still better than the alternatives, then keep doing it. But if not, then do something else. Keep the old car as long as it's cost effective. If and when a new car is more cost effective, make the switch. SylvrStorm

Hey Dagg - If I had one of those the commute to work wouldn't be so bad! SylvrStorm