JimmyEv

I thought this thread was about a 'public property' attribute, not a 'permission' attribute. The hider always has to have permission, whether explicitly or by default. What's the big deal about providing finders with more information through attributes? Public property in the US is owned by the government (i.e. 'the people'). Some is accessible to the public, some is not. Some require explicit permission to hide a cache, some don't. It's just more information to use when filtering pqs if you don't like caching on private property or don't like caching on public property. Kind of like if you don't like puzzle caches or poison ivy or snakes or whatever.

First put them on your ignore list. Then put them on your watchlist. When they're enabled, you'll get an e-mail and you can take them off your ignore list.

I don't see anything wrong with public/private attributes. Might actually be useful if you just want to stick to public property.

It is always beneficial to know from the cache write-up in questionable areas if permission has been obtained. But I don't get the point of an attribute . Why would you use this for screening in pqs? I can think of only two reasons: 1. You only want to do caches on private property. 2. You only want to do caches in parks that regulate geocaching. Caches placed on public property that don't regulate geocaching wouldn't have the icon and would be filtered out. Would this be useful to most geocachers?

You could do a multi, use something on one of the legs (they might have some kind of numbers on them) or the number of structural components (cross-braces) above the road to redirect to a final cache somewhere close. I like that bridge.

Obviously, I'm making assumptions. I assume that cachers are relatively intelligent and that they have a basic knowledge of their town. This knowledge would include the location of the public library. A quick check on another library cache had 118 finds. Tallying up the logs that mention when the finder 'figured it out:' 36 logs indicate the finder figured it out when at the site (some after searching outside a bit, some when driving up), 6 logs the finder figured it out before going to the site, and five logs never figured it out.

How? This only works if you already know it's a library cache. The only way you would know this was a library cache is if you read this thread, or you did one before, or you're just really really smart. A lot of people, including me, that have found these caches before must be really really dumb because they couldn't figure out beforehand that it was a library cache. A few couldn't even figure it out when in front of the library.

If you look at similar caches to the proposed, like the one I pointed out earlier, people use the co-ordinates not to find a library, but to find the spot where the cache is. That's when they figure out it's a library and where the cache is. That seems just about how a GPS is used on any cache hunt. It takes you to the location, then you figure out where the cache is.

This does not seem to be borne out by reading the logs of an extremely similar cache, GC6B6C. If you read the logs, it becomes evident that the vast majority of finders used their GPS to find the library. Nor did the vast majority of them have any clue that the waypoint led to the front door of a library. This means that for most finders, the use of a GPS was an intergral part of the search. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see any reason to believe differently for this proposed cache.

Maybe that's a change based on the new guideline. I've never done one that takes you specifically to the first reflector. The one I did Sunday night took you to a location on a trail and you had to find (took about 20 minutes) the first reflector about 50 feet into the woods. The one I did before that took you to a hill and you had to locate a reflector about 300 feet away that began the trail. But if the coordinates have to be the location of the first reflector, that would be useful to know before setting one up. This line is a little bit too fine.

This scares me because one of my favorite types of caches are night caches. Like the library cache, the co-ordinates merely lead you to a starting point. With the library cache, it's supposed to ring a bell in your head that the title is in dewey decimel. Then you put your gpsr away, go in, and find the cache (logbook). At a night cache, you shine your flashlight around until you pick up a reflector trail. Then you put your gpsr away and follow the trail the rest of the way. You could actually pick up a night cache trail without the use of a gpsr if you just know the general location to be shining your flashlight.

IMO, at some point geocaching goes from being about the hide and the container to simply being about the adventure getting to the cache. I try to make my logs reflect the adventure, regardless of the cache. For example, I've gushed on and on about a walmart micro done after hiking five miles and finding three caches in 101 degree heat with typical Houston humidity. It just felt really good to jump out of the A/C car and grab that cache on that particular day. If the cache involved a long hike, it's going to get a long log. If the cache took five minutes, it's usually going to get a short log and I probably should have chosen a different mode of transportation to the cache. Your log, including these DPMs on average caches, just reflects your approach to the cache.

At first, caching was great for weight loss. But, after doing all the big parks within 50 miles, all that was left and all that kept popping up seem to be those park and grabs. Be careful of those. The past two years, I've gained something like 50 pounds driving around. I finally realized this and now I'm trying to change the way I cache. Maybe, eventually, I'll get a bicycle to do the park and grabs. But for now I'm just trying to do 'hard' terrain caches. However, I'm running into a lot of 3* terrain park and grabs with 'hikes' of 500 feet. I need to rethink how I'm doing this again.

Correct! This would be a problem in the NPS but in most all other cases, would be fine. There's one near here that's fairly new that does that. Whistle Stop. Haven't done it yet but looking at the page it looks pretty cool. Why would this be a problem on NPS land, other than the fact that in some cases you'd have to go pretty far before you can place a physical container? I was thinking along the lines of using serial numbers from the oil drilling equipment scattered about a national wildlife refuge as the legs for a multi culminating in a container in a near-by state wildlife management area.

I might be wrong, but I don't think that virtual legs of multi-caches that end in an actual cache container are banned. That would mean that, in a way, virtuals could still be done at gc.com. They just have to ultimately end in a physical container somwhere or another.

People can't be protected from their own stupidity. If there is a fake electrical installation with no conduit running to it from any possible source, then it might be the cache. I'm not talking about stuff mounted on walls --- I'm talking about ones that are mounted on 1/4" thick I-beams, on trees, or in other locations where there absolutely couldn't be any hidden conduit. If there's 'conduit' running to it, it's locked, and the cache description included a puzzle or whatever for the combination and the combination works, it might be the cache. That's just commong sense. Those types of hides really aren't that dangerous. On the other hand, I've seen caches hidden very close to bare conductors (including in light poles). I don't know if the conductors are live or not. Common sense would tell you not to get near and, vice versa, not to hide anything near. Some finders might assume that since the hider placed the cache there, it must be dead. This seems a reasonable assumption. But I wouldn't assume it and wouldn't get near until I got out my tic tracer. But is that common sense or specialized experience?

I don't think there's currently a custom of revealing this information. There wouldn't be anything wrong with one, but what purpose would it serve when you don't know the direction of the second leg? You still can't plan...

I connected the cord on the back of the gps upside down. I thought it didn't matter. And it's counter-intuitive. Weird.

I'm trying to install the firmware update to my 600, but I keep getting an error message that the USB device is not recognized. It basically wants a driver for the gps. I already installed the software that came with it. Anybody know what's going on?

Thanks guys. Now I know where to start looking.

I agree with this. I've found quite a lot of useful things in the forums here, and quite a few deals posted to our local forums. It's always nice to know if a store is selling explorist 100's for $50, or is having a half-off clearance on kayaks, or has $10 trekking poles that rock compared to the ones you saw for $45 somewhere else.

I know I've read of some stores where you can buy fire tacks for night caches here on the forums. But I can't do a search. Can anybody help me out?

I went camping up in Hemphill last Spring. There weren't that many caches in the immediate vicinity, just a few with some really nice hiking. Looks like some more have sprung up around there, though. Like Team Cotati said, just look for the 1/1's and 2/2's. The concentration increases over towards Lufkin/Nacagdoches and down towards Beaumont. There are not any black bears left in East Texas, so I'm not sure what you'd need protection from...

Some agencies, such as EPA, aren't permitted to ban anything, such as the 30,000 or so new organic chemicals developed each year, until they have empirical evidence proving that the chemical is detrimental to the environment. Other agencies, like DOI, seem to be able to ban activities based upon anecdotal evidence, or a perception of what might happen. They 'err on the side of caution.' Even after empirical evidence is gathered proving that the activity is not detrimental to the environment, as in the case of mountain biking, the activity remains banned because it is much harder for the Interior Dept. to lift a ban than implement one. Unless lobbyists are involved. Then its a whole different ballgame...

The logs from Quantum Leap could make a novel.