brdad

I only knew Mark from the chat as well, but to many of us regulars like him are a second family. He was always willing to help those who passed through the channel, and was ready for comment on nearly any subject. May your memories ease your pain in this difficult time.

Will there be a spell check in the next update of the WYSIWYG editior? In Firefox, I have it in the source but not the WYSIWYG...

I have been placing these in caches since 2003 IIRC. The first ones I made I used clear 5 minute epoxy because it is clear and dries quickly. They held up well about 5 years and then I guess the difference in expansion/contraction separates the glue from the glass on some. I don't think the Elmers will last long on glass for the same reason (though for kids, it's a wise choice!) So I have since switched to E6000 craft glue, which is clear and has some elasticity. We will have to wait another 5 years to see if it's any better. I have always used photo paper on mine. Also, if you put magnets on them like I do, don't set them too close together to dry if you use slower setting glue - they will attract/repel from 2 or 3 inches away from each other.

Funny, I've gotten that response several times. It is just the reference number, the tracking number is blurred out on the TB tag.

Neat idea for a sign, perhaps you should make them trackable! I recently carved and donated to my local group a sign with an embedded TB tag to make it trackable, which will travel to events and be placed on the TB table or hung up to help promote the site. It is about 12" high and 20" long. It has only attended one event so far.

I don't hide my caches to be found. Most of mine are hidden to draw the cacher to hopefully see something they may not have seen otherwise. Finding the cache is an added bonus. If they don't find the cache, most will still be happy they went. I think the definition of why the cache was placed would have a more broad meaning, including why the individual location was chosen.

I'd be against a power trail attribute. There could be a numbers cache hidden by another player that is not technically a power trail cache but might as well be. There could also be a power trail cache that was hidden for more than just a number (scenic spot, historical marker). Treat every cache individually! If there are multiple "numbers" caches in a row you can assume it is a power trail.

What if those caches were placed to have a awesome day in teh desert? What if they were to spend a fun time with friends? How about if they were placed just because they could be? You can't predict how good a time someone will have any any cache, and there is no attribute that says it's only good if you come with friends. I have had less fun at some nice caches and have had a great time at some lesser caches. Rating caches would do no better, everyone has their own idea what makes a good cache. Regarding caches placed because they could be, if there were attributes describing why the cache was placed, one could be added that was "For no particular purpose". Read through the UK forum thread I posted earlier and consider the possibility. It seems to me this would be a good thing for both sides. Those that like to find these numbers caches could find them more easily, and those who don't would have less reason to complain because there would be a way to somewhat effectively filter those out. The worst that could happen is a cache owner who his a cache for no purpose would lose a few finds from someone who didn't really care to do the cache anyway.

Why not just have a new cache type for caches placed mainly for the numbers? Those that want to do them can run PQs just for them, those that don't can filter them out. Another interesting option I read earlier in the UK forum was to have an attribute set for why the cache was placed. Sure, the designation may be up to the placer, but it's better the the current system. I think these types of caches are not great for Geocaching. I'd like to see all cache hiders have to give a good reason why the location of each cache was worthy, much like the virtuals did at one time. But if they have to exist there should be a way to identify them.

I think this is an interesting idea to pursue if cache hiders were willing to participate. Are any efforts being made to advance the possibility further?

I picked one up just next year!

Year 3000. The lack of cache hiders obtaining proper permission and the quest for the numbers has all but exterminated caches as we know them. Caches now are smaller than today's nanos and cannot be opened. Instead they are equipped with radio frequency identification, much like the electronic toll passes of yesteryear. Cachers carry a receiver with them which fits in their wallet. Cache hiders can buy a bag of 1000 of these caches for $1,000,000,000 Progressive States of Obama currency, which equates to $2.95 in 2010 currency. They are magnetic, self gluing, and have claws so they can attach to any surface when thrown out the vehicle window. They can be programmed to self seek the closest light pole, street sign, or telephone pole. When it senses being attached to a surface, a signal is submitted automatically to gc.com with the coords and any other pertinent area information. Gc.com has further relaxed it's rules due to the accuracy of GPS, the minimum limit is now 5.28 inches. As cachers walk, bike, fly, or otherwise travel, their receiver picks up the signals automatically and log the cache as found and update their stats page in real time. For those that want to be notified of their find, their receiver can emit a beep for each 1000 finds or every minute, whichever is longer. If the signal is too weak to properly obtain all the cache information, a DNF is automatically logged. This can be remedied by later logging into Google Cache view and updating your find manually. There are still a few old timers who long for the old days, when a find meant something. Back in their day, they had to open a door and lift a lamp post skirt to claim their find. Sometimes they even had to walk across parking lot or drive off paved roads. A few were even in the deep woods, almost out of sight of the road! These folks are chastised for their views and reminded they should just let everyone cache the way they want to, and reminded since they have not hit the 5,000,000 cache find mark, their opinion means nothing. While this was meant to be humorous, you will not catch me saying it will never come to this.

So, we rely on the honor system for cache finders to log caches but don't trust the hiders to return email? And why hasn't this restriction carried over to earthcaches? It seems earthcache owners are allowed to force email verification as well as additional logging requirements. Are they better or more trustworthy, have they proved more than I or anyone else has that they intend to stick with the game and return emails? Perhaps another way to remove a point of failure is to only allow people who have cached over a year or two to hide caches, or at least caches requiring email verification or the like. It's not really a big deal, and I hate to carry on. But there seems to be so many discrepancies to this particular subject. And if a cacher doesn't want to search out an email verification cache, they don't have to. I say let hiders hide with or without, have them make it clear in the description, and let the finders choose if they want to do it or not. Everyone wins.

We face that possibility on all caches. You could meet the requirements for the challenge and go to find the cache and have it be missing. And yes, most challenges are more extensive than a typical cache, but I have been forced to DNF several caches many miles from home I would love to have logged had they been there. I'd suggest if anyone were doing one of those challenges a long ways from home contact the cache owner ahead of time to verify they will be available. I have done that when I am planning a trip and I see disabled caches that I would really want t find - I email the owner asking the actual status of the cache and whether it will be fixed before I go. Sometimes I get a reply, sometimes I even get a phone number. Occasionaly I get no response, so I skip that cache for the trip.

That's fine for a multi or puzzle cache. But the point of the challenge is to find the group of caches that satisfies the challenge. I don't understand the need to solve a puzzle to find a challenge cache, unless the challenge involves solving puzzles. I don't see anything wrong with knowing where the cache is hidden. In fact it can help build the anticipation. "Only three more counties/letters/rating combos/etc. to go and then I get to go HERE and find another special cache. At that point I might be just as happy to visit the cache anyway, log the logbook, and log the cache online as a note. Other than not getting the smiley, you can still visit the cache, enjoy the possibly great location, take and post pictures, trade items, pick up/drop off TBs, and most anything else associated with actually finding a cache. Having a bogus set of coords helps insure (but not guarantee) The finder has to complete the challenge to earn those privileges. Now I agree partially with a previous poster, if the final is behind a store behind the dumpster, who cares. But if it's in a little known swimming hole or an unknown vantage point for a great view, I think that should be earned. I also think it is a good idea to have the posted coordinates in the general area of the actual cache, I'm not suggesting a cache hider should be allowed to post coords 50 miles away. If, for example, the cache was at a swamp, the coords could be somewhere in the center of the swamp, but away from the actual location. The finder would have a general idea what he was in for, but not know the exact location. A couple of my mystery caches have the posted coords at the parking location. I don't see why that's inappropriate for a challenge cache. It seems the biggest reason emailing of coords is not allowed is because of the unreliability of some cachers to validate the challenge and forward the coordinates to the finder in a timely manner, is that correct?

I may be misunderstanding your post. There's no reason at all to have to "make workarounds for true challenge caches". Ok, I should have said borderline challenge caches - challenges that don't quite fit the gc.com guidelines. For a simple example challenge caches with a geocaching related ALR, like logging your find in Rot13. Regarding posting of the actual location - maybe it's just me, but I'd rather surprise the finder with the location rather than have everyone be able to look at Google Earth and see the exact position ahead of time. Not a big deal, but it is a preference.

I was thinking something along the same lines. A tough puzzle cache where there is an option for a cacher to complete a challenge in order to get the answer to the puzzle, a hint, or an easy method of decoding the puzzle. It seems this also solves the issue of having to post the final coords. How could this not be allowed? If the puzzle is solvable and the cache is approvable on it's own, getting a hint or final coords by completing a task, ALR or Challenge type, should not be a factor IMO. It seems a bit cheesy, it does not seem right to have to make workarounds for true challenge caches.

I'm still here! I do hang out in the Maine forums more now, but I do check in here on a semi-regular basis and I have friends in like Planet who alert me if someone mentions my name or posts a subject she thinks I might be interested in. It's too hard to keep up with all the topics here nowadays.

Well of course Paul Bunyan was Born in Maine! is is on the official Maine coin, that should be proof enough! Buy yours now to see for yourself.

They will ship outside the U.S, but as the order page suggests, you will have to contact Sudonim for pricing.

Better late than never. Just took this one a few weeks ago.

I recently bushwhacked .75 miles one way through the thickest woods I have ever been in for a virtual cache, bugs and sticks down my shirt and scrapes on my arms and muddy feet and people have a problem reaching into a bush from a paved sidewalk? I think we have enough attributes already!

What I find interesting - if you load the satellite page, you will find that some of the GPSrs are using different satellites than others.

Pretty funny, but i wouldn't go that far. Although few may try to fake logs for numbers, i would guess the majority do not. It does show the difference between a puritan and a purist. The geocaching purist would tell you that an attended log is meant to record that you attended the event not that you found a temporary cache at the event. The proper way to log an event is The puritan believes that if you logged the temporary event caches some other way, you are morally deficient. You are cheating in order to get your numbers up and you can't be trusted to do the right thing in any endeavor. I just can't understand how one can make the leap that because someone has decided that they are comfortable viewing the temporary caches as being loggable that they are evil. They may be wrong or mistaken, but I haven't seen any evil intent. It is clear that in order to provide some incentive to find temporary caches hidden at a event, some event hosts have told attendees to log an extra attended for each the temporary caches they find. Until TPTB change the way events are logged, it is up to the event host to determine which logs are legitimate. If the host allows multiple logs, they are defacto legitimate for that event. Since the puritan or purist is still allowed to log the event with only one attended log - or post just a note if they don't believe that attending an event should count in their find count - they can continue to have an "honest" count of their own finds. I have no objection to someone stating in the forum what they believe is the proper use of the attended log. However, to believe that the only reason someone might want to use the log in another way is because they are cheaters who will take any excuse to inflate their numbers has no basis. Even the "slippery slope" argument, that if you were to allow this you would have to allow logging for each time you find the TV remote is not valid. This is a specific case of event hosts allowing an extra log for finding an actual (albeit temporary) cache and no one is suggesting that an event host should invite people to log extra attended logs for any arbitrary reason. I suppose fake could be a bit harsh, but you can't let the cacher with an inflated find count label his totals as found, either. Perhaps... May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(88 claimed) or May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(2260 claimed) I guess you could also use "discovered", but that would create confusion with TBs. Perhaps there's another fair word. Actually, maybe if there was "Searched for" log, a few people who log finds on caches they didn't really find could have their own set of numbers. May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(88 claimed)(92 Searched for) or May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(2260 claimed)(2298 Searched for) Let Premium members hide any or all of these numbers and everyone gets their own set of numbers and gets to compete or not compete as they wish!

Not bad, but it's still not honest. It should be May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(0 faked) or May 19 by TeamBarstool (88 found)(2260 faked)