larryc43230

You are totally correct though. In the big scheme of things it really doesn't matter. I see a lot of posts from people saying they are avenging a DNF as if tupperware laying in the woods has murdered their entire family. It's always fun to "avenge" a DNF, that's part of the thrill of the hunt. Though that term does make it sound a bit more epic than it is. What I've never understood is what difference it makes whether I have a lot of DNFs or very few DNFs. Maybe I have a lot of DNFs because I go after challenging caches. Maybe I have a lot of DNFs because local cachers are lousy at maintaining their caches and lots of them are actually missing. And maybe I have lots of DNFs because I'm lousy at finding them. Unless all cache hides were created equal (and I can assure you, they're not), comparing DNF counts as part of some made-up competition is completely meaningless. I include my DNF count in my profile simply because it's just as much a part of my geocaching history as my finds (and some of the stories behind those DNFs are more fun than those behind the finds). I would hope that no one would compare my DNF count or DNF Ratio with theirs or anybody else's. That simply makes no sense to me. --Larry

This is exactly what I use, and display on my profile page. As an aside, I always find it amusing when someone discusses whether a DNF "should count against me". Against what, some imaginary scoreboard in the sky? Is there some punishment for admitting too many DNFs, or some reward for never admitting them? This isn't golf, it's geocaching. The only thing that should really matter is whether you're having fun. --Larry

A few months ago, in my area, a cacher hid a new traditional cache and got it published. After publication, using a series of 50 and 100 foot moves, all in the same direction, he managed to move the cache location to the bottom of an abandoned tower. Which already had an active cache more than a hundred feet up the tower. The reviewer caught the subterfuge (which was even bragged about in the cache description), and promptly archive the new cache. So, no, verticality doesn't count. --Larry

I just ran a test using my Oregon 650. As always, YMMV. * I deleted all geocaches (pocket queries) from the unit * I downloaded a pocket query covering an area east of Pittsburgh. The closest cache in this file is 157 miles away from my current location in central Ohio. * I booted the unit and pressed the "Geocaching" icon. "No results Found. Try Adjusting Search Parameters." * I never use Filters, but I checked anyway. The unit was set to display all caches, in other words, no filtering. * I Tried it again, hoping to use the Search by Name feature (it displays as "Spell Search" when it displays). * The icon that normally appears in the lower right corner (three horizontal lines) doesn't display at all. I can't search by name. I deleted that pocket query from the unit and reloaded the pocket query I had deleted in the first step (which is centered on my current location) When I booted the unit, the icon reappeared, and I could search by name. Based on what I'm seeing, the limit applies to name as well as distance. The unit will not display caches more than 100(?) miles away, whether searching by distance or by name. --Larry Edited to add that the unit has Software Version 4.30 (the latest as of this writing). In case that makes any difference.

I have caches within 60 miles of home loaded on my Oregon 650 at the moment. I just did a search for one that's 59.9 miles away, and the unit found it when I did a spell search. --Larry

Is it 100 miles with the 600 series? It was 50 miles with the older series. To the OP : check the map to see if the caches are visible. To be honest, I'm not sure whether the limit is 50 or 100 miles. There was another thread in the past month or so that claimed 100 miles. Anyone know for sure which it is? --Larry

Are any of the caches you're looking for more than 100 miles away from your current location? If so, they won't show on the list. --Larry

There are a couple of select cache owners in my general area who either 1) make it a point to hide caches which I actively dislike looking for, and therefore will not bother looking for, or 2) are sufficiently cranky or over-sensitive that I simply prefer not to deal with them. In these cases, I don't want their caches cluttering the data I load into my GPSr. I see no reason to "just find" any cache I wouldn't enjoy finding. I'm a big fan of the Ignore List. --Larry

If you use GSAK, there's a way to do it. --Larry

This cache owner logs a find for his own cache every time he does maintenance, logs a note, or archives a cache. I've never understood that. I get notifications for caches in that area, and I see him do that all the time. --Larry

Thanks for posting this, Hornby-Hunters. The distance limitation is fairly well known (it applies to my Oregon 650 as well as your GPSMAP 64), but there's been some uncertainty about the actual maximum distance involved. Now we know. --Larry

I've seen CAD used as an abbreviation for "cache and dash", meaning a fast and easy find. --Larry

Apparently for good reason, according to this Web page. ---Larry

Works fine here, too (Firefox 33.0.2, Windows 7). All the images are displayed correctly. --Larry

Wow, I hadn't even noticed that until now! Somebody fixed the spelling. Whoever did that, thank you. It was driving me nuts. --Larry

I just clicked on the link to Garmin Communicator that splashy provided, and I was informed that there was a new version, 4.2.0.0. I installed the new version (after telling Firefox 33.0 that it was safe), then successfully used the "Send to My GPS" function to download a cache to my Oregon 650. I rarely use the "Send to GPS" method, so the new version might have been available for awhile and I simply wasn't aware of it. GrateBear, do you have 4.2.0.0 installed? If not, it might be worth a try. If that doesn't work, check your Firefox security settings. It works for me, anyway. --Larry

That aspect has come back to bite me a couple of times. I'll see a forum or Facebook post about a cache that piques my interest, and when I try to look at the cache page I can't find the blasted thing. --Larry Then you are looking wrong. Put the cache identifier in Google and you get it. That is exactly how I track down these things, once the reason for my not finding the cache page using normal methods dawns on me. I have more than 700 caches on my Ignore List right now. I can't remember all of them, and I don't want to. --Larry

For the same reason people slow down to gawk at car accidents? --Larry

That aspect has come back to bite me a couple of times. I'll see a forum or Facebook post about a cache that piques my interest, and when I try to look at the cache page I can't find the blasted thing. --Larry

It's a bookmark list with at least two significant differences from all other bookmark lists: You can use it to prevent caches from being included in pocket queries, and the Ignore List can include far more than 1,000 caches, the usual limit for a bookmark list. --Larry

baack40, I'm watching a bunch of your caches (but, as it happens, not the one you're having the problem with). Whenever I visit a cache, regardless of the outcome (a Find or DNF), I put that cache on my Watch List. If I found the cache, I'd like to confirm that the next seeker could find it, too. It's just nice to know that some unseen muggle wasn't watching and made off with the cache or its contents. If I DNFed the cache, I want to read the logs of cachers who come after me. That can (hopefully) tell me whether the cache is still there to be found, and might give me a clue as to where and how to look the next time. LEGO's log of your Rock Stall cache was what inspired me to return and look again. Once the cache has been found by another cacher, it usually goes off my Watch List. I also have a ton of caches in any of 15 Bookmark Lists that I maintain for various reasons (none of which involve the potential theft of travelers ) . Most of those lists are private, and a cache owner wouldn't have any way of knowing I'm monitoring those caches. I guess the bottom lines are: 1. The fact that someone is Watching a cache says nothing about their reason for watching it. 2. There are quite a few legitimate reasons for someone to Watch a cache. 3. There are plenty of ways to monitor a cache other than using the Watch List or actually visiting the cache page and leaving an entry in the Audit Log. I've lost more than 120 of my own travelers through mysterious disappearances, so I can feel your pain, but the Web site doesn't really provide any useful tools for dealing with it. --Larry

My Instagram account. --Larry

^ ^ ^ This, or at least some way to validate the email accounts of all users. I don't care one way or the other about collecting icons, virtual caches,webcam caches or lab caches, but I do care about all the (mostly but not all) new cachers who can't be contacted when they (innocently or otherwise) screw up. Geocachers have to have a way to contact other members when things don't go right. --Larry

If a cache owner is proven to have deliberately provided false information regarding permission to place the cache, I would hope that, at minimum, cache reviewers would place that cacher on a "special scrutiny" list to help make sure that doesn't happen again. --Larry

I have an e-mail address that I created specifically and only for geocaching. I've used that same e-mail address ONLY to register for the geocaching site and the GSAK site. That was more than eight years ago. With my general-use e-mail account, maybe 30% of the incoming mail is spam of one sort or another. I have never, ever, not even once, received spam mail to my geocaching e-mail account. Groundspeak has never sold that e-mail address to any third party, and no one has succeeded in "stealing" it from either Groundspeak or the folks at GSAK. If history is any indication, I'm not worried about getting spam from Groundspeak. I vote for mandatory e-mail validation of geocaching accounts. --Larry