Dread_Pirate_Bruce

Today I read a topic in which someone complained that when he arrived at a newly published cache 5 minutes after it was published someone had already logged it as FTF. I then read a topic in which someone asked if it was ok to log a find when he was present when the cache owner hid it. There was lots of debate about the "ethics" of logging finds. It reminded me of other topics in which people debated what constitutes a find and when someone can "legitimately" log a find. And I thought it was all a big waste of time. So, I came up with a GREAT idea to give meaning to all of the debate over logging finds ... Let each geocacher contribute $10 to a fund and let that fund be split between whomever makes the most finds in the course of one year and whomever makes the most FTFs in the course of that year. Since there will now be a valuable prize for the winners it will give meaning to the debate about whether a team find is sufficient to enable every member to log a find or whether every member of the team must actually put pen to log to have made the find.

Does anyone here still look for tupperwear in the woods anymore? Or is it more fun to debate a dead issue?

I am regularly in the LA County courthouses, including Van Nuys. I regularly bring my GPS and my iPhone with me. I have never had any problems. The one thing I do to speed up the security process is to toss everything from my pockets into my briefcase and tie my belt to it. That usually gets me through the detector, though Van Nuys is sometimes very sensitive. By doing this, I can simply pick up my briefcase after going through the detector and not have to worry someone will take something out of the wooden box. BTW: The breakfast burritos at Van Nuys are great. Just tell the chef to make it as he would make it for himself. Finally, I will be in the courthouse on April 16 and may be starting a trial on the 27th.

Here is something I have not yet seen referenced: When I find a cache that has an ALS, I will only log it as a find if I perform the ALS. Now, for those who are upset that ALRs have been eliminated, go on record as promising to perform all ALSs before you log a find. You can then pretend they are ALRs.

I started out to say something profound. I had intended to talk about the whole nature of the game and how that related to ALRs and ALSs. However, I so confused myself that I gave up. Instead I'll simply say that I can't think of any legitimate ALR that won't work equally well as an ALS. True, some people won't do the ALS, but then it is their loss. Such people are no better or worse off than if they ignored the cache in the first place. Remember, this is not a game where there is a winner or a loser and that logging a find only gives one a smiley, not points toward a final score. As far as arguments that letting someone log a find without doing the ALR/ALS somehow cheepens the find for those who do, I think that is spurious. This is not a competition where the winner gets a prize and the loser doesn't. The reward is in the journey...in the enjoyment of finding the cache and performing ALRs or ALSs. One who finds a cache and performs the ALR/ALS does not feel cheated by someone who ignores the same cache, so why should he or she feel cheated by someone who claims a find without performing the ALR/ALS? The same goes for those who hide the cache. When I hide a cache, I do it so that others can have fun looking for it. I get a good feeling by knowing that I am enabling others to have fun. And, however they want to have fun is good with me. If someone thinks well of me for having hidden a good cache, all the better. In terms of hiding caches, if someone does not do the ALR but logs the find, I am no better or worse than if they ignored the cache entirely -- unless, I get enjoyment out of making someone miserable or do something stupid. And, if that is the case, then I am being selfish. An ALS is satisfactory.

I have read many, though not all, posts in this thread and here is my 2 cents: 1. Given the split between those favoring ALR and those who favor ALS, it is clear that TPTB have not gone off on a lark. 2. Removing the ALR does not mean that cachers won't get the fun of complying with the ALR. Those who want to do the ALS will; those who don't, would not have done the cache in the first place. That someone gets a find by doing less than someone else does not diminish from the fun of those who do the ALS or the CO ... unless their fun is to know someone had to perform some, often lame, requirement. And, if that is the case, good riddance. 3. By removing ALR in favor of ALS, it eliminates perceived unfairness in how reviewers react to caches with ALR.

I am a fan of the TV show "24." A couple of seasons back, the hero obtained the coordinates of the villains hide-out. They were only a couple of miles from me ... albeit in a rather questionable part of town. So, I hid a puzzle cache there. To solve it, one simply needed to get the coords from the show. There were only two problems: (1) I heard the coords differently than anyone else, so my cache was not where anyone else was looking, (2) only someone as tough and well armed as Jack Bauer could safely make the find. I archived it without anyone ever having found it.

I echo what NYPaddleCacher says. I love my iPhone, but use a real GPS to find the caches themselves. The newest revision to the gc app is marvelous. In the city, it will give me directions to get me near enough my target to start using my GPS. And, there are tons of other useful apps for caching and just life in general. Yes, the iPhone and AT&T are pricy, but I think it is worth it.

I am not nitpicking. I swear. But, I have a concern about the new requirement that the physical log be signed before the cache may be logged. 1. If one finds a cache and the log is too wet to sign or too full to sign, does that mean one cannot log it as having been found? The "too full to sign" problem is particularly acute with some of the nanos. I, myself, have found some nanos where the sliver of paper is so full that all I can do is put a dot onto it. Will that count in the future? 2. When a team finds a nano, the entire sliver of paper will be filled up when every team member signs the log. Is that really desirable?

Here is a tree that seems to have eaten itself in Pennsylvania. (Turn your head sideways ... I can't figure out how to rotate the photo) And, while this tree does not appear to have eaten anything, the cache is not appropriate for the location. (This is a fake junction box cover)

When you place a cache, double check your coords. When you write up the cache page, double check your entry of the coords. When your cache is published, look at it on the "Geocaching.com Google Map" uusing the satellite view and really zoom in on it to see that your coords are good. DO NOT ASSUME THAT YOUR ERROR AND THE SEARCHER'S ERROR WILL CANCEL OUT AND TAKE HIM OR HER TO THE EXACT RIGHT SPOT.

Sorry, this thread is not nearly as funny as the other. However, let me warn everyone against the ubiquitous: "Are you looking for what I'm looking for." If, despite my warning, you think you might want to use this because it is sufficiently ambiguous that you won't give yourself away as a geocacher, consider standing before a Judge and Jury and explaining that you were not soliciting, but rather looking for Tupperware. Now consider explaining to your cell mate that you were not making fun of the Judge and Jury. I find "Didjafindityet?" works well enough. If it is a cacher, the answer is either "yes" or "no." If it is a muggle, they either look at you oddly or walk away.

1. My guess is that it was archived. That would explain why you saw it listed once, but did not see it listed more recently (if that is what you were actually saying). 2. paleolith has a good idea on how to find out about the cache. 3. If you don't want to go to that trouble, post the names of a few people who have logged finds and the dates of their finds and someone around here will do the research.

That is truly brilliant. On Monday, I'm going to the magnetic sign shop. I may also have company t-shirts printed. (I'll remember to put a local telephone number on it.)

I would not go on a planned outing without my GPS. However, for spur of the moment caching, i.e. when I don't have my GPS, the iPhone is adequate. I also would not go caching without my iPhone for on the spot information. I can get the difficulty, terrain and size. I can get the cache description and recent logs. And, I can get both a map and satellite image of where the cache is. This is very helpful in urban caching. I could do most of those things on paper before I go out, but I don't like having to print the pages as that limits where I can go when I go out.

This may not be much of an insight, but I think a significant part of the puzzle is figuring out what you are supposed to do with it in the first place.

I got a notification of a newly published cache nearby and decided to try for FTF. It was called "Hell Hole." As I drove up and parked, I saw an outhouse and the GPS took me pretty much right to it. I debated for a while over whether to even try. Then decided to look at other possible spots. It was about 10 feet away.

I need a birthday present for my nephew, who sometimes goes caching with me. I was thinking in terms of a GPS of his own. I use a Garmin 76map and an iPhone which are our workhorses when we go out caching, so I need something inexpensive for him. I need advice on inexpensive GPSs for caching. I would like it to be able to download waypoints and at least be able to point in the right direction. Mapping is probable too expensive, but I'm open to suggestions. thanks

If you've looked and looked for an urban cache and have gone over every square inch of the hiding spot and still can't find the cache, that may be because where you are looking is not the hiding spot.

If you've looked and looked for an urban cache and have gone over every square inch of the hiding spot and still can't find the cache, that may be because where you are looking is not the hiding spot.

Sample subpoenas. They give me a reason for skulking around places that are not ordinarily skulked around. I can explain that I am looking for so-and-so. After that, people generally leave me alone ... and when they don't I ask their name as I look through my stack of subpoenas.

I have found several caches that were fake lawn sprinklers. Some were just in holes, like a regular sprinkler. Others were inserted in PVC pipe that was in a hole. Either way, these violated the words of the requirement. But, until reading this thread, I did not consider them to be violations. No one needed to do anything but use their eyes to find them. I have also found a few caches that were in fake drains. There were grates visible to the naked eye. I suppose these are violations.

I go on three outings looking for caches every two months. I've got lots of caches within 30 miles, so those three outings are generally within 30 miles. Apart from these caching trips, whenever I go somewhere, I take my GPS and pick up a few caches, if time permits and there are any. Two or three times a year, I'll go with my wife on a business trip to another state and use the opportunity to look for caches. As far as within 4 or 5 miles of my house, I've got most of those caches. As new ones are published, I'm leaving them alone so that when I go on a local run, there will be enough density to make it "worthwhile." While I enjoy every find, including most lamp post base micros, I really enjoy the getting out and doing, so even if I only get one or two along a nice trail, that's just fine.

I'm the OP. I note that most people agree with my observations. FWIW: I am using a Map76 for my GPS. I had been using a Palm for paperless. Now I use an iPhone 3G. Additionally, I compute with a Mac. For software, I use two programs for getting data from a PQ to my GPS. One is called "Link2GPS" and the other is "GPSWrite." "Link2GPS" is basically the driver to interface the Mac to the GPS. "GPSWrite" imports a "loc" file. It has fields for the waypoint type, waypoint number, lat, long, altitude, and a comment. The comment is the cache name. (A "gpx" file does not get the cache name right...at least not in GPSWrite.) My GPS sorts waypoints by the waypoint number. In contrast both my Palm and iPhone sort by cache name. At any given moment, my GPS will tell me where the nearest cache is. I use this to then get information about it either from my Palm or iPhone. However, to do so, I need the cache name. (Remember that the Palm and iPhone" sort by cache name.) I can look at the cache name on my GPS, but it truncates the name. (Remember, that is the whole point of this thread.) When there are several caches with the same truncated name, I have to look at multiple possibilities on the Palm or iPhone to see which is the right description for the cache to which the GPS is referring. It is far from impossible. But it is also far from convenient.

If you are really intent on making a cache that is deliberately hard to find with a GPS, how about simply failing to place it where you say it is ... or place it at all? You save the money it would cost for the spoofer and for the cache container! Besides, lots of cachers now punch up a satellite map when their GPSs seem to wiggy to make a find. When the map shows GZ is by a lamp post or a newspaper machine or even the third big rock, it is a lot easier to just go there than wander around with a wiggy GPS. BTW: Is there a way to set up a PQ so that it ignores all the caches hidden by a given cacher?