Doctroid

Would those be the two that are difficulty 3.5 — Number 5 Is Alive and Derailed? It does seem odd to me that D3.5 would be highlighted for beginners.

And the CO would win. I'd appeal it, myself. Win what? Is there a prize involved that I don't know about? We're talking about a DNF log here, folks. The prize is the ability to violate gc.com rules with impunity.

Don't know about other platforms and software, but on my Android phone, using Barcode Scanner, it displays the URL and you have to press a button before it goes there.

And the CO would win. I'd appeal it, myself.

Guess that really depends on how you look at it, but if I was out on the streets starving I would much rather be saved by a Big Mac that a religious tract. The tract might taste better.

That'll work. I know a case where there's a cache and a letterbox in the same tree. Last time I was there (it's in the cemetery my parents are buried in) over 30 geocachers had signed the letterbox logbook. I found a cache recently which, judging from the logs, must have started out maybe not 200 feet but at least some tens of feet from a letterbox. When I found it, it was sitting on top of the letterbox. I couldn't tell from either the cache page or the letterbox page whether the cache migrated to the letterbox site, or the letterbox to the cache site, or if they both sort of fell into the same local gravitational anomaly. To make matters worse the cache was missing its log, and recent cachers had been assuming both containers were the cache (one for swag, one for the log) and signing the letterbox log.

Some have been known to just sign the container with a Sharpie and be done with it. I try to quickly figure out where the last finder signed (start by looking at last non-blank page, verify the last date there is fairly recent and more recent than other dates in the log) and sign after that. I don't page through the log scrutinizing each entry to find out which was THE last, though. Quite recently I found one where the apparently-most-recent entries were on the inside back cover, but the first several pages had been signed on only one side. (Later on people were using both sides.) I wrote "continued on back of 1st page" on the inside back cover, "continued from back cover" on the back of the first page, and signed under that. Which may have been a bit too anal, but hey. It's not like there were mosquitoes eating me at the time.

The sum of all its parts. But some geocaches have no swag, no logbook, and no container.

My first cache find (several years before my second) was when I stumbled across one while looking for a place to hide a letterbox.

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.

I don't believe one should have to use GSAK to solve "problems" Not everyone uses it, I wish more CO's would think about that. For one thing it's Windows only.

In the present case, his first cache was placed on 10/28/2000 and his latest, today (only one! but 23 hides yesterday). I wouldn't hold my breath.

I think that you would be quite surprised at how many of us could care less about smilies and stats, and in fact quite a number of us think that doing away with their public display would be a good thing. I know quite a few geocachers; I don't know any who play just for the numbers. I play for all the other things AND the numbers. I don't care what anybody else derives from my numbers, but I want my numbers. Then keep track of your numbers. Make a spreadsheet or a database or something to keep track of the virtuals? challenges? whatevertheyares? you've completed. If you "don't care what anybody else derives" from your numbers then there's no necessity for Groundspeak to add them to your cache finds. But it's easier to complain, isn't it? Just like it's easier to complain that benchmarks aren't worth doing because they don't add to your finds. Never mind the fact that the web site does tally your benchmark finds, and all you have to do if you want the grand total is to add that to your cache finds. But apparently it's unacceptable that Groundspeak doesn't add those two numbers together for us.

Here's a map of Hogsback Road in South Onondaga, from openstreetmap.org: (link) And here's what one of the better parts of the middle section looks like: I would not regard the caches on this road as "park and grabs".

No container is waterproof after someone closes it up wrong. As mentioned in another thread, you can make containers out of wood lined with tin and send them to the bottom of the sea, and have them keep water out for 2000 years. That doesn't mean, if you use one to make a cache and hide it on dry land, the log book won't get soaked within a month.

If you have never found it before - how could you possibly know that it is missing?? If you have never found it before - how could you possibly know that it was indeed hidden very well (assuming the difficulty was correct - there are are HUGE differences of opinion on search time for each level)?? If you did not find it and did not know if it was missing or not - how can you conclude that you 'suck' at caching?? If you go back and re-read my post, I said: You can't generally know any one of those things. I do think, though, that in most cases you know EITHER (1) it's one or another of the three (you just don't know which) OR (2) it's something else. If it's something else, and if I think it's of sufficient interest to the CO and/or other cachers, I'll post a note. If it's not something else, I'll log a DNF. Nope — to repeat myself again — it's not 'did I search?', it's 'why did I stop searching?' Because I hadn't found it and decided I wasn't going to find it that day (because either it wasn't there or it was hidden well or I suck)? Or because I got attacked by badgers? Granted, there's some potential for ambiguity, if I was right on the cusp of giving up and leaving just when the badgers attacked. I'd probably call that a DNF. You can play it that way if you like. But if I select a cache on my GPSr, start driving toward it, and then while still five miles away realize I'm going to be late for an appointment if I don't forget about caching and head for where I'm supposed to be, that's just not something I'd log as a DNF.

And ya know... as a relatively new cacher my opinions are not yet fossilized. Having posted that I started thinking about it and I'm starting to think differently. One problem is the ambiguity of the idea of "I looked for it". Where does one cross the boundary between intending to look and looking? It's not generally clear. The other is this. Suppose, just for discussion, you disagree with my take on the above scenario: You think I should have posted a note, not a DNF. Fine. Now consider this: Same scenario except I get out of the car, I go to GZ, I spend a minute or two searching (and let's assume it was a D4, so a minute or two really isn't expected to be enough time for a real search), and then I realize I'm in full view of a busy road and likely to attract attention, so I stop and leave. Is that a DNF? By the "if I got to GZ and started searching" standard it is. But it's really not substantively different from my original scenario, is it? The reason for not making the find is the same, it's just where and when I made the decision that's different. If "I got to GZ and started searching" makes one log the first scenario as a note and the second as a DNF, then to my mind there's something wrong with that approach. Okay, so how's this; rather than deciding on the basis of what one did, decide on the basis of why one didn't find it. In particular, take DNF to mean "Did Not Find, for at least one of the following reasons: (1) The cache wasn't there or (2) It was hidden really well or (3) I suck at geocaching." (While one often can't be sure which of those reasons is the correct one, I think one can usually decide it's one of those three versus some other reason.) If one fails to find for any other reason — too many onlookers, too muddy and not wearing boots, sudden attack by badgers, whatever — then it's perhaps a note, but not a DNF. I think I'll try adopting that policy and see how it works out.

At least it didn't shatter!

I'll log a DNF if I Did Not Find it. But only if I looked for it. But what does "looked for it" mean? If I didn't get to GZ, did I look for it? That depends: If I didn't get to GZ due to circumstances that might affect, or be of interest to, others looking for the cache, I'll log a DNF. For instance: there's a micro near me; I drove up to a point nearby, pulled over, checked my GPSr, and realized the hide must be in full view of the road. It was rush hour and there was heavy traffic. No way I could get the cache without drawing a lot of attention. I drove away, and logged a DNF to let people know that cache needs to be sought at quieter times. Yes, I could have logged a note instead, and some would, and that's fine. But to me it was a (marginal) DNF.

Wait, you all see only the 2-dimensional icons?

This article has nothing to do with geocaching, except that the following gave me pause: And yet we seem to have difficulty keeping the inside of a plastic container dry for six months on dry land. OK, granted, no one was coming along and taking the tops off these pill containers and then trying to put them back on upside down.

If you read the actual text of the guidelines, I don't think that interpretation is sustainable. What they explicitly say is that if you sign the log, that gives you the right to log the find online.

Agreed. But do you think it may have something to do with the use of cell phones as GPSr's or Google Maps or Google Earth? I heard that it's easier to find a cache with a smart phone than it is to place accurate coordinates with one. Is that true? Depends on the phone, depends on what you're comparing it to, depends on whether you're in the woods or not, depends on how you use it, depends on... stuff. Properly used, with a clear view of the sky, I believe my Android phone's GPSr is entirely accurate enough for geocache finding and placing. Improperly used, it isn't. In deep woods it has problems, more so I would assume than a high end dedicated GPSr.

How do you define "farthest east from your coordinates"? Probably the same way you define "farthest east from the Prime Meridian", only using your home meridian instead. Admittedly, if you happen to live at the South Pole, there's a certain amount of arbitrariness in your home meridian...

Wait, someone pays attention to being the only DNF on a cache? Well, I pay attention to how many DNFs there are before I go looking. If there are 67 finds, no DNFs, and I can't find it, then, yes, I'm aware of it. But I log it, regardless.