Dread_Pirate_Bruce

I recently found a dead horse. As I was driving up, it was right where my geosense said the cache was. Fortunately, the GPS said it was 50 feet away.

I am having a strange issue with PQs. I want to do a PQ for certain area with certain criteria and then to find the caches within that PQ that have high favorite points. I stated I wanted 200 caches included in the PQ, the location I wanted as the center point, and then to make sure I got 200 caches, I said within 90 miles. I created the PQ and everything seemed fine. I could click on the map icon from the PQ page and see the caches in the area I wanted. I could click on the list icon from the PQ page and get a list of the caches in the area I wanted. Then, from within the list, I clicked on the favorite points icon to sort by number of favorite points. The list I got was sorted by favorite points, but it was not the 200 caches centered around my center point. Rather, it was the 200 caches with the most favorite points that were within 90 miles of my center point. I suppose I could reduce the radius a few miles at a time until it included only the 200 caches that I wanted and then sort by favorite points, but that seems an odd way of doing it. Any idea what is happening? I used to be able to do just what I did and then sort the limited universe of caches by favorite point. Thanks for any ideas.

Anything new on how to delete unearned souvenirs?

Geocaching has been upstaged by Pokemon Go. Bringing back virtually won't make geocaching as popular, but may help prevent defections. I should note that when I do pocket queries for caches with many favorite points, virtual seem to have a disproportionate high representation and number of points.

Home how geocaching got upstaged. Perhaps GS should not have abandoned virtual caches.

I really liked the MapBox Outdoors maps for use in the wilderness and would pay extra for them.

Delete the log because it improves your chances of winning the game. ... Oh wait, there is no winner.

I agree with those who point out that if you hide a cache that may not be hard to replace, it may not be replaced properly. I'll add that not everyone reads the cache page or checks the attributes. So saying not to grab the cache unless you can replace it may be irrelevant. I've wanted to use a puzzle box as a cache, but realized that if someone can open it, they may not be able to close it. So I have not done so.

For those who don't want to pay the high price of Internet access on the ship, it is easy to find free wifi on shore. Starbucks can be found nearly everywhere in the world and has free access. Also, members of the ship's crew tend to know where to go for free access. Just follow them when they disembark for shore leave.

I look for previous events, but also look for the cruise ship terminal.

What irks me: I was on a trail through the mountains that is heavily populated with caches. I did not read descriptions or logs for all of the ones I was hoping to find. I found several. Then there was one I couldn't find. At that point, I pulled up the description and past logs. It turns out the cache was missing; the cache owner had left the area; the last logged attempt to find the cache was 6 months before; and the CO had posted a log note asking that someone replace the cache. I posted a NA because it did not appear likely it would be replaced. I reasoned that the only way it would be replaced was if (1) someone made a special trip after discovering the cache was gone, (2) someone read logs for a lot of caches before going on a hike, thereby discovering the cache was missing, or (3) someone had a spare container. Since that had not happened in 6 months, I figured it wouldn't. The CO archived the cache and chastised my for the NA.

I totally agree. I've searched for some micros in the woods battling mosquitos, briars, and heaven knows what, only to come back empty handed. I've often said to myself "do they want me to find them, or not". I agree somewhat. While a large cache might be successfully hidden, carrying a large cache that far might not be practical. If my goal is to take you somewhere special and I can successfully hide a big cache I will. But, if my goal is to make your hike a bit more fun by providing periodic distractions or to encourage people to hike a given trail, I'll likely hide several smaller caches since smaller caches are easier to carry. I'll rarely make a cache harder to find than is necessary to keep it from being muggled.

Yes they are. They're not finding the same container, that's all. A cache is not simply the container... it is the whole experience. The listing, the history of the location and scenery... even the logs on the cache since the beginning are part of it. Even the owner changes in 8 years... I did. While I as the OP appreciate all the commentary, this really says it all. I can go about caching fully satisfied.

What is the real importance of the date on which a cache was hidden? There is an option for limiting a pocket query to caches hidden during a given time frame. There are challenges that entail finding caches hidden during each month since the beginning of geocaching. People seek out the oldest cache in a given state or county. When I had to replace one of my caches recently, I realized that the hide date is really irrelevant. I initially hid the particular cache in 2008. It stayed there until 2015, when it was muggled. The replacement is similar and in the same location, with the same GC number. But it is not the cache I hid in 2008. I'm not going to archive the old cache and publish the replacement as a new one. There is no reason for anyone who found the original to revisit the location and they will get no new experience in finding the replacement. But someone who finds the replacement is not finding the cache I hid in 2008, even though the cache page says it is a 2008 cache.

I would never throw down a cache so I could log a find. (I might replace one at the owner's request.) Regardless, I have found caches that I'm pretty sure we're throw-downs. Sometimes, the log sheet on a supposedly old cache will be blank or have just a few signatures. Sometimes the online log will say it's a replacement. Sometimes I will deduce that a cache is a throw-down from a series of DNFs followed by finds. Sometimes what I find is not what the cache page describes. I subscribe to the rule that I'll play the game as I want and you play the game as you want. As such, sometimes I'll feel justified in logging a find on a throw-down and sometimes I won't. When I elect not to claim a find, I may post a note saying that what I found probably wasn't the real cache. I don't post a DNF as that may confuse those who are ok with logging finds on throw-downs. As far as throw-downs that I will log as finds, I will claim a find if the throw-down is a fair representation of what the cache probably was and the place it was probably hidden. Otherwise, I won't. I'm just wondering how others handle this kind of a situation. As a corollary, what do others do in the following situation: There was a cache rated at D4 because it was very cleverly disguised and hidden. However, someone broke it and as a result could not put it back as it had been. This made it very easy to find and many people logged finds. I did not realize this when I went hunting for it. I found it and signed the log. I have not logged it online. How do others handle this?

I travel a lot and travel to interesting places. I often carry TBs. If there is a good place to leave a TB, I will. If there isn't a good place, I dip the TB to reflect mileage it actually accrues and take it to the next place. If I end up bringing it home, I dip it into a nearby cache to keep the mileage accurate. I don't dip a TB into every individual cache I visit. Occasionally, I'll hang onto a TB for a while so I can take it somewhere interesting. I'd never dip a TB somewhere I haven't actually been.

I regularly cache while on a cruise. I'll suggest a few things not mentioned. 1. I like to host an event at the first port of call, as close to the ship as possible. In the description, I note that I am on the ship and suggest that if there are other catchers aboard, they contact me. I've discovered other catchers on several cruises and met several local catchers -- one of whom drove me around caching for several hours. 2. Load wayopints onto your GPS and the pocket query onto your smart phone. Being able to look at the description, recent logs, etc. is often helpful. 3. Bring a travel bug or two and find a safe place to leave them. If there is no safe place, bring it home.

As I've said in other posts: "You play the way you enjoy it; I'll play the way I enjoy it." Beyond that, I can't contribute anything new to the conversation except to ask if anyone wants to do MY version on a group: The group will consist of catchers in every state. We will meet via Skype talk a bit and then go caching, each in his or her own state. At the end of the day, we will meet via Skype to chat and have beers. I'll compile a list of all the caches the group found and we will all log all of them. In the process we will satisfy the "50 States In 1 Day Challenge." Is anyone here from North Dekota?

You log finds the way you want and I'll lig them the way I want. If I'm out on an adventure, I'm going to write about it, even if it is a bit long winded. If I've found a number of caches on the adventure, they will get cut-and-paste logs because they are part of the same adventure. However, if there is something special about a cache that warrants an extra comment, I'll provide an extra comment. I could give a full write-up only for the first cache of the day or series, but someone who skips that one cache will miss the opportunity to read about my adventure. Of course, one who is bulk caching is unlikely to read any logs. Unless it is to say the coordinates are off, my logs aren't supposed to help anyone find the cache. I'll leave it to the CO to say what needs to be said.

Why place a cache for the "sole purpose of being difficult to find"? The goal of the game is to find caches. A hide should only be as difficult as needed to keep the cache from being muggled, and if it is likely to be muggled because it isn't difficult to find, perhaps it shouldn't be there.

I came upon a "no Trespassing" sign warning that it was U. S. Government property and was closed due to fire danger. It even cited to a provision of the California Penal Code relative to defacing signs. However the proper citation would have been to the United States Code or Code of Federal Regulations and I was pretty sure there was no federal property in the area. Mountain Conservancy Recreation Area rangers took it down, but wouldn't let me keep it as a prize.

1. There is a difference between a throwdown and a replacement. A cache is a throwdown if one carries spare film cans and simply drops one in a convenient spot when he can't find the real cache. A replacement is of the same size and nature as the original, in the same spot as the original, with swag if the original had swag. If it's the same thing as the CO would have placed as a replacement and the original is 100% certain to be gone, it's not a throwdown. 2. As far as how old a cache is, i.e. the oldest unfounded cache, it is not the container that makes it old or the oldest. Otherwise, every time a cache is muggled and replaced, it should get a new hide date and GC number. In fact, if the CO does maintenance and replaces a weathered container, it would count as a new hide. Thus, IMHO, it is the location and quality of the hide that counts. 3. Now an interesting aside. I recently went after a 5/5. It was underwater and required scuba gear. It also required searching along a length of encrusted anchor chain in 2 foot visibility. The CO came to watch. He brought a replacement cache because he feared the cache was missing. Given that the last finder was breath-holding, there is little wonder the cache was not properly replaced and went missing. The CO did not bring scuba gear with which to replace the cache. When I reported the original was missing, the CO had me replace it using his replacement. I did. ISince it wasn't a throwdown and since I had it in my hands and since I signed the log, it is definitely not a DNF. That means it must be a find.

The first cache that I tried to find was one that was close to my house. I visited the location 3 times without finding anything. A big part of the problem was that I really had no clue as to what I was looking for. I kept thinking I was looking for some sort of a box. I looked everywhere I could imagine a box being hidden. The hint said "remember the Sesame Street song about one of these." I managed to figure out that the song was "one of these isn't like the others." It did not help me a bit, though I looked at everything of ehich there were mote than two. I finally gave up. Fortunately, I decided to look for another cache and did find it. I eventually found the elusive one. It was a fake lawn sprinkler. It was dead center of the area where I had looked. In fact, I had stepped on it many times. I sure could have used a more useful hint, something directing me to the sprinkler as I almost gave up on the game without a single find. Perhaps the person who asked for help needed someone to really hand-hold them.

1. In the video, the cars talk about finding a way to put the town back on the map. Just put 1,000 geocaches along the road. Oh, wait! Someone did! Check out Rachel, Nevada. 2. The fun is in the adventure of being with friends out in the desert trying to see how many caches they can find. 3. My wife and I found 128!caches in two hours on the E.T. Highway. One drove, the other grabbed, signed and replaced. No leapfrogging. You could see the reflector post where the next cache would be from the prior one. GPS was unnecessary. It was really quite a bit of fun. 4. Doing this on a bicycle would be even better, except that you'd end up miles from the car at the end of the run.

Scuba.