i_think_we_are_lost

Perhaps not. The last log indicates someone is going to hold on to it to take to other events and then to Florida in a couple of *months*. If I lived in the area and wanted a shot at this I'd be upset that someone is holding on to it . The cache instructions state it is to be placed within 24 hours (yes there is an exception). Back when I was active I found this in the wild 2 or 3 times. It's difficult because so many people are trying to get it. Now it is either impossible because someone holds it hostage, or easy because it is at an event. Not at all the original intent.

There's a great old traveling cache: Stop & Go Go Go #3 (GCCCC7) that a bunch of people just logged at an event. To me this isn't a find. Someone found it, brought it to the event, and then others logged it. Go ahead and accuse me of taking this too seriously, but finding this type of cache in the wild is a real find and often difficult - almost like a FTF. Someone holding on to it for many days just to bring it to an event violates the spirit of the cache, and it is a joke that people log this as a find. Find it, move it, log it in less than 24 hours. (Yes, I know there's an exception). Let everyone have their shot at it. -Lost

so....where can one find the mapping between state_id and state name?

I had a cache sit for 10 days a few weeks back. I didn't want to bug the approver so I let it sit, but then I got curious. There were hundreds (if not a thousand or more) caches posted after mine that had been approved. Caches of all types - micro, regular, mystery, virtual, etc... So I started doing an analysis of how long caches sit in various states. I looked at the state of the last few 1000 caches (automatically via some simple unix scripts). I don't have the numbers with me, but what I recall (I can go back and dig up the numbers if anyone really cares): Most get approved in a few days. About 10% get archived. About 10% just sit there. They can sit there for a long time. The approvers will approve the easy ones first. If there is something obviously wrong with it, it gets a note and gets archived. If the approver thinks the cache is probably ok but might take a while to check, they can leave it sitting in their queue - it doesn't get archived, it doesn't get a note attached to it - it doesn't get anything. They mean to get around to it, but the steady onslaught of new caches makes it easy for them to put off doing the hard approvals. For example, if a cache is a multi-stage cache each set of coords need to be checked. In my case, I did finally send an email to an approver who had done some of my other caches. I asked if he could see if my stuck cache (I supplied a link to make it easy for him) had a problem. He checked it out and it got approved. Personally, I think the approvers should not approve new caches if they have old ones in their queue. They all have to get approved or archived eventually, so they may as well do them in the order they come in. It really should be FIRST IN, FIRST OUT. IMHO

Some mystery caches are extremely difficult. I have always tried to solve mystery caches by myself, occassionally with a hint from the cache owner. Do you think it is ok for a group of geocachers to work together to solve a mystery cache? Does it matter if it is all internet based? What if one person in the group figures it out - should everyone working on the cache get to log it? What if only one of the people can physically get to the cache (because of distance)? Is it ok for that person to 'proxy' sign everyone on the team, and for them all to log it as a find? What do you think?

Try "The Sphere" GCJVZ9 It links you to here: http://lamneth.thequest.com/thesphere/

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gcfc71 Not inside, but close. There are others nearby.

One thing I've noticed with my Etrex Vista (and may be true of other etrex units) is the first waypoint I set is often quite different than the next two or three. Say you are in map view - walk up to the cache location - set a waypoint. Now walk away 30' and come back to the same spot. For some reason the new waypoint and all those that follow will be clustered away from the first waypoint. Perhaps this is due to some settling time once the GPS has stopped moving - say for example, I'm riding a bike or driving a car and take the first waypoint with in a few seconds of stopping. I'd probably not notice this if I just set the GPS down, placed the cache and then take the waypoints. I usually take four or five readings when placing a cache (not that I've placed that many) and will throw away any oddballs. Sometimes I've averaged waypoints taken on different days. The other place where averaging is useful is when the cache location has poor gps reception. Take waypoints where you do have good reception at fixed distances in different directions from the cache and then average those. You can also load your waypoints into a program like GPS TrackMaker and look at them visually. If you haven't downloaded and tried this program you should it's pretty cool. (I have nothing to do with this program other than being a user :-)

I thought being a tadpole was cool - now I'm a geocacher. Does this mean I'll have to pay $30 just to be a tadpole again????? <-- if you pound on this does a bell hop come? oops, forgot this isn't abject silliness

I've logged a couple of locationless caches, but if I look in my 'All Cache Finds' list they aren't there. My stats show them, and if I check the logs for the locationless caches the log entry is there. For some reason they're being excluded from the 'All Cache Finds' list. -Dave

Hmmm...the quote to new content ratio is asymptotically tending towards infinity...

Does the "new cache assignment to approver" software know the depth of any one approver's queue? For example, I imagine the cache placement rate in some areas is much greater than in others, so some approvers could have full queues while other nearby approvers could have empty queues.

Just wondering if this is one of the 'perks'.

It is a drive up cache - so no long hike required. Thanks for the feedback - I think I've figured out some good clues so that if the people think about it, and use all the clues they'll know what to bring.

I'm planning a cache that will require a person to bring something to get the cache. The cache location is about 5 miles out in the country. I could give some clues that will help the person figure out what to bring and avoid having to come back out again. How would you feel if you got to the cache, knew where the cache was, but needed something to get it? I think I'd be irritated. On the other hand not giving the clues makes it more difficult of a puzzle, and that is what this cache is intended to be - a puzzle. The answer is unique and fun. I'm afraid if I start giving clues I'll have to give so many there will be nothing to figure out.

...and don't forget the ever popular fake dog turd. I had to look and think twice before turning that one over, and then with a stick -Dave

You can just call me -LOST- (instead of i_think_we_are_lost). It is a generally true statement for either my physical or mental state. -Dave

I do the following: 1. Learn to ignore them and go about your business. 2. Bring some other people with you to act as shields The bummer of course is having to out wait someone who is hanging out where you know the cache to be. -Dave

A lot of questions there norbu I believe the following is true, either based on direct or empirical knowledge: 1. new codes are assigned as the cache is created. 2. the next code used is one greater than the previous 3. not all caches get approved, some are archived for not meeting cache placement guidelines, some approved caches get archived later when the cache is missing or removed. I don't know what database product is used, but I think the server is a microsoft product (based on error messages I've seen it emit when it is overloaded) and so I'd guess the database is some microsoft product. If you like math problems here's a simple one: Given 1. hex (base 16) codes were used for the caches GC0000-GCFFFF, 2. the new base 31 coding system was started from GCG000 (seems to be archived but GCG0001 exists), 3. a bunch of codes are permanently unavailable such as GC00ZZ or GCFZZZ. How many codes are permanently unavailable because of the restriction that any code starting with GC0xxx-GCFxxx can only be hex based? How many codes exist between GCG000 and GCJTX8? That is the highest existing waypoint at the current time. This would be the total number of caches (archived or not) in the new numbering system. Have fun, Dave

I stand corrected!!! Thanks for the detailed followups. Now that you mention it I've seen other codes where the letter O was removed to avoid confusion with the number 0, likewise with L and 1, 5 and S. -Dave

I checked out the FAQ. It's full of good stuff, but I have to disagree about the base 31. Base 31 would only allow 0-9 A-V, and there are caches out there with W,X,Y, and Z in them. For example see GCHH0Z http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0Z&Submit6=Find -Dave

The numbers and letters after GC are not random, they count up base 36. That is 0,1,2...8,9,A,B,C,...X,Y,Z,10,11 etc... Note that after 9, the next 'number' is A, and then up to Z, which is followed by 10. New caches today are up around GCJT00. I don't think there are caches at all codes, because JT00 base 36 = 924048 base 10. I found a website that claims there are about 123,000 geocaches world wide, so obviously all the codes aren't being used. I just did some geocache history research by looking for the oldest geocaches. For example this one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...C8&Submit6=Find from 5/28/2000 is still out there waiting to to found. There isn't a GC1 (not even an archived one). Too bad, if there was it would be like the holy grail of geocaches - or maybe like Graceland. You pick -Dave

OK, thanks. I sent an email to the reviewer, but wasn't sure if there was anything else that needed to be done. -Dave

I recently placed a cache (GCKT4G) that had a couple of problems, that I have since corrected. I updated the cache page and fixed all issues raised by the reviewer. At the top of the page it says: The reviewers will not see this listing until you activate it. On the cache edit page there is a check box: "Yes, this cache is currently active (Approvers will not see this listing unless box is checked)" I checked the box, but when I came back and edited the page again, the box is no longer checked. Is there something else I'm supposed to do? Thanks, Dave