twjolson & Kay

I think it's a neat idea, however if I may play devils advocate. We don't really need to come up with a new cache type (if that's what you are asking for) because the regular and virtual cache types already fullfill your needs for this. Great idea though, you could have the cache contents be related to what things the person loved, hobbies done, etc.

Even at hunting/camping/speciality stores it can be hard to find. But it's a sure find during hunting seasons. However, if you can't find it, and can't wait, be resourceful. We made our own camo bags (bought the camo burlap at a hunting store) for MUCH cheaper then duct tape ever could be. Some sewing is needed though. Or, buy some dark brown, dark green and black spray paint. Base coat in either brown or green, then stripe the other two colors (although I would use black less then the other two). It works quite well. In either case, to my eye at the least, the result is much better then camo duct tape anyday, and in any hiding place.

It would be harder then I originally thought, but I still think it might be worth the while, as long as it's not to terribly hard to set up.

When submitting a new listing, how about having the number of listings ahead of you in the approval queue? That way you'll have a general idea how long you'll have to wait? Just an idea.

True, and I do agree. But in the same area, one cache can be flooded with mosquitos, while a cache less then half a mile is much lighter. This happened to me last night.

Forgive me if this has been discussed before. GC.com has all kinds of attribute for it's caches, even a section devoted to things like ticks and thorns. Why not mosquitos?

I didn't notice that before, but it doesn't say railroad passes. All the same, general consensus is 150 feet, which is ok for me. Since there is no hard and fast rule for distances though, if I need to I'll go closer then that.

The one I have in mind is a railroad bridge, in a major metro area. There are other caches in the area, so if I go the tenth of a mile rule, I'll be too close to them. Any other opinions/viewpoints on distances?

How far do you have to hide a cache from a bridge? It says in the hiding guidelines that you can't hide them by them, but it doesn't say how far, at least not anywhere I've seen. Any one know?

Thanks very much. I didn't know about the GC format, but that Tiny Link is a simple yet awesome idea I wish I had thought!! Not to be a nitpicker, but I still wish they could shorten it more, geocaching.com/gc123 for example, much shorter then anything else.

That means she's almost found 10 percent of all the caches in the world! She must not have alot of free time for pesky little things like work and sleep. My theory, she sells the swag she gets in caches to pay the bills. How many McToys does it take to pay the electric bill?

I found myself wanting to put a link to a cache somewhere, but couldn't because the URL in the address bar was longer then worth typing in. I was thinking if GC.com has short URL's for referancing caches. I don't know all the mechanism behind it, but the URL would become: www.geocaching.com/GCM123 with GCM123 the waypoint handed out during a caches listing. I suppose instead of rewriting all the coding, you could just write a redirector program, which might add to the URL, but would still make it much better then the ultra long urls now. I have not seen this feature on GC.com, so forgive me if it already exists.

I refer you to a topic I started....

Thanks, these fathers of geocaching, where are they now? Are they still lurking around? I know Jeremy is still involved, but are Mike and Dave?

Who was it that hid the container? We have who found it first, Mike Teague, but who hid it? Is the webpage that Mike made still around, his original log or anything?

But that's the thing, that is your opinion, that's the way you do things. He did it differant. And while I don't do it that way myself, I can understand why he did it that way (assuming his intentions where good, not padding or something, which I would concede is in bad form). He enjoyed himself, he found them, he wants them as part of is stats. There is nothing wrong with that. So what if they were temporary, it was a geocaching.com event. And even if it was a earthcache, terracache or whatever, if he still wanted to log them, who cares? Truly, if he wanted to log the lint he finds in his belly button, big deal. He's doing what he wants, it doesn't hurt no one, he's not logging things he didn't find. It really and truly doesn't matter. Do you agree, no, but does it hurt anyone? No. Does it ruin your enjoyment of the game? If it does, you're missing the point of the game. It's not what some player you've never met, and likely will never meet (I'm assuming) is doing, it's what you're doing, it's you enjoying the finds you have.

I do everytime, I don't see why not to

Well, again I'll state, we don't know why he did what he did. However, to play devils advocate.... I'm assuming that the event attended was a geocaching.com event, and that at that event he found 100 caches, temporary or not. If so, what's it to us? If he chooses to log that event 100 to show that he did find those caches, what's wrong with that? He wants his stats to show his finds, temporary or not. I see nothing wrong with that. I take pride and joy in all my regular finds, and would hate for them to not be apart of my stats. If he takes the same pride in caches found at an event, what's wrong with that? You play one way, me another, and this guy another. If I enjoy the game, and so does he, we have no problem. Bottom line, he did what he did. Why, I don't know. And honestly I don't really care too much, my stats remain uneffected, the caches I hunt for are uneffected. Even if he inflated his numbers, it don't hurt me one bit.

Well one person out of 20; I'm convinced, I'll let her do her dirty old sock cache!!

If he's just logging it to inflate his stats, that's one thing. I personally don't agree with that. But if he goes and finds 100 caches at the event, and wants his totals to show that, what's wrong with that. Technically he found that many, and his numbers are showing the true number of caches he truly found. I thought the same thing. If I went to an event and found more then one cache, it would be disappointing to just get one find for all of them. Don't be so quick to judge; yea, something fishy could be going on, but that person might have a legit reason to do it as well. We don't know for sure.

Everyone wants clean socks! But dirty old socks is the joke, where's the fun in clean socks? As a side note, I did have to talk her down from a dirty underwear cache... Yea, she's wierd.

I was joking around with another geocacher, and they came up with the idea of a used sock cache. People would come, take of a sock, put it in and pull one out. While I think this is really freaking gross, It does raise an interesting question. WHo would go out and find such a thing? Even if you TNLN, would you open it? Would you trade socks? I think it's a hilarious idea, and would like to see it done just to see what happens, a used sock experiment as it were. Whatcha think?

Well, I think that most caches should be regular physical caches, there is something fun in making, or solving, a really hard puzzle cache. Walk to waypoint, find a box under an obvious pile of sticks can get old. We need things like puzzles and cruely hidden caches to make life interesting. I hope to make a puzzle so hard, it's never found. But only one, the rest will just be really really hard

Of course it wouldn't be a mandatory membership, that would defeat the purpose of it. It would be people pledging support for the creed and what it stands. It would be names that could show policy makers that the general geocacher makes it a point not to harm the areas that we visit. You said it's enough to have state and local groups pointing to the creed. I disagree on two counts. First off, it's not like every single one does this. I myself couldn't recall the URL for the website, and it took quite some time to finally find it, buried in the GC forums. Second, just because someone took the time to place a 3 or 4 page website up doesn't mean much, anyone can do that. But if a nice hunk of people have stood up and listed themselves as supporting the creed, that carries ALOT more weight. I posted to enlist ideas to make this work, and to find people to make it work, not to sit and debate. If you don't like the creed, that's fine. If you think having standards is being a wuss, that's fine too. But this thread wasn't created for that reason.

I am currently dealing with the Parks Canada people, they are reviewing the situation of geocaching in the parks; the people in South Carolina are in an even worse situation. I can imagine that this issue is popping up in various places already, and I do believe it will get worse in the future. I don't expect this to be an automatic win in policy making, but if you can take the creed to them, and show them that a good chunk of geocachers voluntarily follow a good code of conduct, it will eliminate the stereotype geocacher that the people can and do have. The whole SC issue is based on misinformation. What I am proposing is something to combat that. Of course there is always bad eggs, we can't fight that. That is true of anything, and if policy makers ban something because of bad eggs, no park anywhere would get used. If we can show that a good chunk of geocachers are good people, more respectful of nature then the majority of park users, we won't have to worry about parks getting closed to us. Policy makers don't assume that there are only a few bad apples. The policy makers only got to see the "Bad Apples" and they decided against us. They won't assume there are only a few bad apples unless we show them that the rest of us are good people. I understand not everyone feels the same as I, but at the same time, if we don't fight, if we don't fight the misinformed opinons of policy makers what's going on in South Carolina is going to happen again.