Dread_Pirate_Bruce

All I'll add is that I put a 500 query PQ onto my GPS for the general area. I use an iPhone with the geocaching application. It provides info on the caches I'm seeking. Sometimes, I'll follow a route that I've planned. Other times I'll find whatever is nearby. Now, here is my original contribution to the discussion: When I'm going to whatever is nearby, I look at the map, either on my GPS or iPhone and see what is nearby and also near other caches. Note that this may not be the closes cache or even the second closest. However, once I've found the one I'm going to first, there will be others not too far away. In my early days of caching. I found myself going back and forth along the same road because the nearest was the opposite direction from the second nearest, and that when I got the nearest and then the second nearest, the third one was in the same direction as the first, so, back in the original direction again. Now I look and say: "That may be the nearest, but its in the wrong direction ... I'll pass on it."

I was worried it would be a bit chilly to go caching today... so I put on a long sleeve shirt. However, by the time I was ready to leave, I decided to switch down to a t-shirt.

With two waypoints and two distances, there can be either one or two intersection points. There are two intersection points if the two distances, when added together exceed the straight line distance between the two waypoints. There is one intersection point if the two distances, when added together exactly equal the straight line distance between the two. It seems to me that for a puzzle cache, there must be a unique solution. Therefore, if the cache is at the intersection or is located somewhere based on the intersection, there should be a single intersection point. And, that is on the straight line between the two waypoints, exactly the distance from the one as given by the radius of its associated circle.

I've got more than 500 within the 10 miles. And, since I live on the coast, nearly half the area covered by those 10 miles is in the ocean.

I've found most of the caches that are within 6 miles of my home (and there are lots of them). I've found many of the ones that are between 6 and 12 miles from home (and there are many of those, too). As a result, if I've got a half-day or even a whole day to go caching, I'll drive somewhere, say 15 to 30 miles away. Here is my dilemma: When I get there, am I best to thoroughly cover a small area or to cover a wider area, but not try for all the caches in it? And, if that is not enough of a problem, is it worth while to go after some of the caches that are on the way to the location I'm planning on covering or should I pass on those and just wait until I'm where I'm going?

I read part of this thread when it started. Now it is very long and the recent posts do not say what the upshot of the matter was. Having now read some of the recent posts, I'm sure I don't want to read the whole thing. So, would someone give me a short summary of what transpired and why?

Except on puzzles, I use the best coords I can come up with. I even check them with FlashEarth. If it does not put the crosshairs on the hide, I re-check my coords. As far as "soft" or "bad" coords: I would not object for something like the giant ammo can. However, just because a cache is in plain sight, that does not necessarily mean someone will spot it. I can think of many fake switch plate covers, junction boxes, sprinkler heads, lost pet posters, etc. that are in plain sight, but would be very hard to find as a cache without good coords. Remember that once you know what you are looking for it is easy to find it when it is in plain sight, but until you do, it is not easily found. (Note: often cryptic hints make sense only after you actually find the cache.) Bad coords can lead to damage to surrounding areas as a cacher works harder and harder to find a cache that isn't there. They can also lead a cacher to explore things he or she should not be exploring. He or she might figure that the cache is that very real looking junction box, because there is nowhere else it can be at the posted coords. The bottom line is to consider what exactly is our game? I've always believed it is to hide as large and easily found a cache as one can without it getting muggled. If you need to make it hard to find to protect it, fine. If you need to make it small to protect it (and can't find a better spot), fine. If you need to make it small because you are hiding a series of caches while on a long hike, fine. But, don't make it harder than it needs to be.

The biggest cache I ever found was GC1R6TV. You can actually see the cache container itself on Google Maps! In fact the container is so big that finding the log sheet within it can be somewhat of a challenge.

It is a large cache, and one of the all time great caches, with over 1,000 finds. However, it is not the biggest by any stretch of the imagination.

November 13 - Los Angeles ... Los Angeles is a big place. Where in particular will you be? I'm on the "West Side" and would be interested in going caching. "West Side" means Santa Monica, Venice, Culver City, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Beverly Hills, etc. E-mail me through GC.com

Sometimes, figuring out how to solve the puzzle IS the puzzle. Consider: GC17V6Z

If you have a standard drill (as opposed to a press) then you could just bolt the bolt to something for stability and drill away... This is probably not the best idea. And, drilling a safe is not a good idea either. However, you'd be amazed at what an angle-grinder with a cabide cutoff wheel will do ...

I recall the international outrage when the Taliban destroyed some ancient Buddhas in Afghanistan. I'm not saying that archiving this cache would rise to that level. But, from what I know of this puzzle, it would be an outrage to the caching community and to outstanding puzzles. While I've never managed to solve this particular puzzle, I periodically try and have hoped to actually find the cache. Given the puzzle, itself, I would hate to see it go away. I am generally familiar with the area where this cache is hidden and would expect that very few caches would last any length of time unless they are very well constructed and placed.

I just posted a reply in a thread discussing cut and paste logs. It make me think about logs I've read recently. That led me to wonder whether the thrill is gone. When a relatively new cacher logs a find on an inspired hide, the log may read something like: "This was really a challenge to find. Thanks for making this such a fun game." When was the last time any of the more experienced cachers thanked an owner for making it a fun game? For me, its been a while. I will tell about my search and if I think the cache is clever, but I'm afraid I haven't thanked anyone for making it a fun game. Is it because the thrill of the game has gone? I hope not.

As a general rule, my logs include something about why I was in the particular area. For example, I might say "I was in the area on business and since I arrived early, I decided to grab a few caches." If I am with someone, I might include a sentence about that. I think giving some background makes for a more interesting reading experience. I then try to say something about the particular search or cache. If I find more than 2 or 3, I will cut and paste the introduction and background. After all, I'm in the area for the same reason or am caching with the same partner. To someone who just glances at my logs many will look like they are just cut and pasted. However, for anyone who reads the whole log, each is generally unique, even if I have to say something like "I'm getting tired of all of the guard rail hides I'm finding." I also like to be able to say something like: "I like the hides around here ... of x finds, not a single one was under a lamp post skirt."

When I'm out caching, I try to include something about why I was in the area. For example, I might say something like: "I was in the area on business and after my meeting, I decided to grab some caches from an area I don't regularly visit." I then try to say something about the particular cache or my search for it. As a result, when I grab a number of caches on the same run, I do cut and paste the introductory sentence or two. If there was something unique or memorable about the cache, that is specially prepared. But, when I go along and make 5 finds on 5 newspaper machines, there isn't a whole lot to say beyond why I was there.

To clarify: We had the "Whatchadoing?" conversation in 1987. We are still together.

Of all the caches in this thread, this is the only one that I've visited. It is clearly one of the great caches and ought not be missed. I can't recommend one near my home ... there are simply too many along the coast in Santa Monica / Venice Beach / Marina Del Rey, California. Sorry.

When I lived in San Diego, some 25 years ago, I did a lot of riding on a road bike. Since moving to LA, have not really biked much. However, I just got a somewhat decrepit mountain bike that I want to use for caching in some of our nearby hills. I'll have to figure out how to mount my Garmin Map76 and to carry some caching gear, but that should not be too tough. Now, I need to figure out some routes where I can ride and cache.

Be careful. Very careful. I had something sort of similar happen with a young lady from my office in around April ... 1987, but it did not involve caching back then. Today, we went caching.

My thoughts exactly. I'm sorry to say, it takes no skill to toss a cache in the ivy or in the hedges. Now, maybe there is a reason to bring someone to the location and the only place a cache could be hidden is the ivy or hedges. Maybe, it is an ok cache. But, it should at least be "tied" to something significant rather than just tossed in.

A very entertaining little article, but what makes the author think his little world is the real one? Most of my friends think the one where finding geocaches is important is the real world and anyone else is in an odd parallel world. Why else are such people called muggles?

The thing that is wrong with using a metal detector is that I have found the security wands they use at places like airports to be better.