Team OUTSID4EVR

Sounds like fun, we'll be there! OUTSID4EVR, MAJELLIN, and Little Monkey

I know the Cecil County cache is missing the color/number clue. For some reason I did not inform the hider of the code in time to get it added. THE DAM TROLLS have told me that they will be adding it soon. Just send them an e-mail and they will give you the information. As for Frederick County, it has been found at least once. Simulatmore has found all 10 caches and reported that they are in good shape. OUTSID4EVR

I have a cache "Baltimore, the City that Reeds" GCE981 that is near the Baltimore Highlands stop. A "nearest caches" search will turn up a few in Southwest Area park. As for other caches along the route, Robert E Lee park GC1D31 you will find a few within a half mile of the light rail stop. As for other caches, there are caches in Oregon Ridge Park, which is a mile or so from the Gilroy Rd stop. Hope that helps...

My "All Around Town" multi-cache uses the Baltimore Light Rail to get from cache to cache. Most of the finders have used their own vehicles, however.

Store parking lots are private property. I'm sure many managers have bigger fish to fry than a hide-a-key on a lamp post, HOWEVER... This is where the issue lies, IMO: It's the *perception* of geocaching that we should be more worried about. At some point, some person will call the cops about suspicious behavior. In the post-911 world, odd behavior is noticed and reported. This will bring another negative light to geocaching. Another point: I have done 2 of these caches. I probably won't go out of my way to do more, because I consider them lame. If the public thinks this is what geocaching is about, then GEOCACHING=LAME.

This is the issue. Having a "last found" date that means "the last time the cache was seen by anyone" is much more useful that knowing the last time someone else found the cache. Divide it into two different data fields if you wish. (last found/last seen) Good idea, Brian!

The ratings would matter to people who are selective. There are many cachers who will find all of the caches in their area, regardless of quality. That's their goal. Ratings would help the traveler, and newbie to find a cache that was worth finding. After all, if newbies find trash in a bush, then when they place a cache, they will assume that is a quality cache. Ratings would help to denote quality caches. The ratings idea has been brought up many times over the past 2 years. I would love to see this feature implemented, on a voluntary basis. Cache hiders could elect to have their cache exempt from ratings by checking a box. That way they could avoid the issue entirely, if they so chose.

But it wouldn't tell us which caches weren't worth the time of day. True...There are so many caches in my area, I have become very selective. I would probably only seek out those that got somebody's "Top 10%" vote.

QuestMaster's idea would work. "X out of Y finders have placed this in their top 10%" This offends nobody, yet gives special recognition to caches that are better than the average gladware in the stump.

My Tuckahoe By Sea cache requires a boat. Some brave cachers have tried it by land and only one has succeeded.

It really depends on the type of cache I wish to place. If it's a simple "family" cache, then I may give the parking spot (either in descriptive form, or coords). If the cache is presented as a challenge, then I leave most aspects of the preparation up to the finder.

Magoo, We are thinking of doing a statewide cache hunt here in Maryland. How was the NJ hunt organized? The MGS is getting a committee together to develop this. I am heading the committee. Any good ideas would be appreciated. outsid4evr@comcast.net

Sometimes you don't know a cache is lame, or potentially dangerous until the last moment. I would like to read about bad caches in the logs so I can avoid them. Lame caches and dangerous locations are a waste of time. Before I stir up the "No cache is a waste of time" folks, consider that all caches are not created equal. Some caches are really poorly chosen places, like 50 feet from a road in a bamboo thicket with 2 hobo encampments nearby. I was not aware of the situation until I actually got near the cache. You bet my log reflected what I saw. I wasn't rude, but future finders should know the facts. Tell it like it is!

Yep. Could you describe the location of the cache?

The quality issue has been mentioned in this thread already. When I started, the caches were serious efforts on the part of the hider. There was almost always a camera in the cache. Today, it's a rarity. Since all of the prime locations for caches have been taken, some less than desirable locations have been used because someone had "hiding fever". I rarely visited the forums in the early days. I feel changes in the community come much quicker now (RULES). I need to stay abreast of the changes.

I think a conscientious hider asks himself/herself if THEY would enjoy finding the cache. I think hiders should go with their first instinct. If THE HIDER questions the quality/placment of the cache, I KNOW some other cachers would too. I keep this in the back of my mind..."When in doubt, don't put it out" That's why my hide # is not that high. Every strip of woods is not worthy of a cache.

I have a cache that uses projections. It's called "Play it Safe!". One way you can do projections is by using the GOTO function. If you need to find a waypoint that is 1.35 miles from your current location at a bering of 180 degrees, then all you would do is start walking south (180 degrees) from your current location, making sure your BEARING (back to your starting point) remained at 0 degrees (the opposite direction). When the distance reading on your GPS reads "1.35 miles", and the bearing reads "0 degrees" then you would be at the projected waypoint. It's geocaching in reverse!

Sometimes, a really poor quality cache is a waste of time, and an unpleasant experience. I have been to quite a few caches placed in briar patches of small parks. No favor to me...

I certainly think being as objective as possible in log entries is admirable. If the cache is a cracked leaky tupperware thrown from the freeway, say it. The only way somebody improves is through education and constructive feedback. Saying something like "Fun cache, quick find. Took XXX left XXX. Thanks for placing it!" suggests it is not a stellar cache placement, but does nothing to help improve the hider's placement skills. We need more positive peer pressure, rather than more rules from above.

I posted this comment awhile back in a forum with the same topic: Here's the way I like to think about this issue: Think about the item you are leaving in the cache. Now ask yourself this question..."Would I have taken the item I left in the cache instead of the one I actually took?" If you can answer "yes" honestly, then it's probably a fair trade. If you would not take the item you are leaving for someone else, then something is wrong. Yes, they are game pieces. I just think our game pieces should show some pride in our game. I have done 2 interviews with the media. In both cases, the caches had interesting items in them. That was 2 1/2 years ago. Now, I would be embarrassed if the media opened the typical cache. Food for thought...

Mentioning in a constructive way that the micro you just found was lame might let peer pressure do what rules and regs can't. The micro in the woods is uncool, but if the majority says that they are fine, by positive log entries, then so be it. It would be more constructive for those that dislike a particular cache type to either avoid them, or suggest a better way to the owner. Micros have their place. No rules should be added.

I agree Mopar. In my area, hiders have sometimes gone crazy and cache bombed an area with many "needle in a haystack" hunts. I have always believed, if a LARGE container is appropriate, use a LARGE container. If an ammo box or tupperware is appropraite, use that. If the ONLY container that would work in a given situation is a film can, then that's what you use. I am now avoiding cache bombed areas that are full of micros. As a result, I am travelling farther away to find caches. BTW, the small caches in Central Park are great!

When MAJELLIN and I started, I would venture to say that the 100th unfound cache was probably 100's of miles away. Obviously, it is much closer now. We tend to take day trips to find caches that are outside of our 100 closest caches that have not been found. Coupled with the fast rate of cache placements, our 100 cache radius is shrinking quickly (now 16.5 miles).

As a long-time geocacher, I wholeheartedly agree! Thanks for posting, Criminal.

NY, NJ, MD, PA, DE, WV, DC