funkymunkyzone

If history teaches us anything, idiots will always find a way to remove themselves from the gene pool!

I thought the answer to that was self-explanatory. *If* the goal was to clear the map and this unfound cache was sitting there then the importance is to turn it into a found cache, regardless of the number it added to the find count.

On an unrelated note - when an innocent spelling mistake seriously alters the meaning.... I can't imagine what it must be like to be forced to dance 2 minuets with a policeman in the back of his car!

Is there a back-story? Have there been caches here before (that were a problem)? It's odd though - I know the OP has stated no cost, no interaction with any business or employees for these particular caches - but I have always wondered what the purpose of the $ attribute really is. I've found caches with that attribute (and had to pay to enter various commercially operated areas, tourist attractions, beaches, etc) and I've placed one or two with that attribute. These did require me to interact with a business and hand over cash. They got published. My one was held back for a while but because of other issues that eventually got resolved.

When you say load maps, do you mean by state, im confused. And i was trying to keep an under 120 dollar price, but thanks for the help! To clarify, my understanding was that the GC comes with a worldwide base map that's not terribly detailed, and that you couldn't load better maps on for your area. The Magellan website seems to agree with me. On the eXplorist 310, you can load more detailed maps on. I have an eXplorist 310 sitting at home as an evaluation/review unit, and while I have barely done more than turn it on, get a satellite lock, and walk around the living room, it looks to be a nice little unit, and really compact too so it fits nicely in your pocket (same would go for the GC on that front). The difference in price between a GC and a 310 is less than a tank of gas! Edit to add that my comment that the worldwide base map is not terribly detailed is entirely conjecture based only on my experience with Garmin worldwide base maps so don't shoot me!

I didn't think you could load maps onto the eXplorist GC (but judging from other's comments, I'm wrong). I would have suggested looking at the eXplorist 310.

That's how I read your original comment. The destroyed town would be a pretty big indicator that caching is not on the cards.

It's about the number zero. Nice Of course, however, there's a big difference between trying to keep your unfounds to 0 and trying to find every cache out there in order to rack up the numbers. One of those has a find count ceiling beyond which a "map clearer" doesn't really care - they're not out to find more than others, but rather their goal is entirely personal, based on their home coords.

You are probably quite right! Although thinking about it, it's not necessarily a bad thing. If you think souvenirs are a bit silly then you can ignore that page, if you love souvenirs then great, here's another 31 coming your way, and if you like your souvenirs now but think these 31 are silly then... sorry I've got nothing for you. But, if GS can market itself and get some more revenue, and assuming some of this additional revenue makes its way through to development and enhancement of the site, then it's a good thing. Edit to add: GS is supporting our mega and that's greatly appreciated - they can only do that by getting revenue, and justifying that there will be continued revenue as a result of it.

+1 I was about to say more or less the same thing.

I know some for whom clearing the map is a motivator and whether there are many others isn't the point. For some others, it's about racking up the finds, and for others it's about challenging themselves to visit amazing places that are difficult to get to. Everyone plays the game their own way for themselves, with their own goals and motivations. Interesting that you should suggest that probably so few geocachers out there would want to play the game for a different reason than you do - do you think almost everyone wants to play the same as you?

Ok - I'll bite, but I'll put this in context by establishing that I'm personally not at all interested in clearing my map. If one of my motivations in geocaching was to clear my map within a certain radius from home, then I'd consider using the ignore list to be cheating myself at my own goal. Basically, I can't find cache x so I ignore it and *pretend* it's not there. I might see an empty map, but I'd know there are actually a couple of caches there, hidden. You're probably right that almost no one uses the ignore list though. I have caches I could put on the ignore list as I'll never attempt them, but personally I have no trouble ignoring a cache without actually trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

That one icon on the map in a sea of smileys getting on your nerves? Get rid of it by placing it on your ignore list. I made no accusations back there. The OP asked a question and I gave my opinion. There must be better things to do than watching forum discussions waiting for a chance to chime in as being offended. (Hint: That was an accusation) Offended? Me? Hehe - no. Sorry to disappoint. I stand by what I said. It *might* be all about the numbers for you, given you brought up the value of 3 smileys and that they should go find 3 others and feel better about them (meaning it's the 3 find points that are most important), but the OP never suggested it was for them. With regards any smileys on the map getting on my nerves - no not at all, but then this isn't about me. For the OP - I don't know, but we all play the game differently and no one's motivations are any more or less valid, including whether or not it's all abut the numbers. What I was referring to as annoying is the projection onto people of it being "all about the numbers" for them, and the implication that this is in some way a bad way to play the game.

I actually think it's healthy to be forced to consider from time to time whether you want to claim a find simply because it's a find. The proper response isn't to be annoying, but rather to think about it and decided whether or not your motives really are different. For example, "clearing unfound caches" might easily be just about the numbers when you really think about it. An unfound box on the map might be seen as a blot against a quest for perfection. After all, if that's not it, what's the big deal about seeing a cache on the map that you know personally? Are you thinking the original owner is 1) going to be looking at this area regularly, and 2) not remembering that that cache used to be his? If someone is motivated simply to "clear the map" within a radius from home, I would suggest it is unlikely to have anything to do with numbers. One could have 1000 within 50 miles from home, or one could have 50 within that same distance... the number of caches is not relevant.

While I don't really care one way or the other about these 31 souvenirs, etc, and I'll probably give this 31 day thing a go, what does strike me as interesting is that encouraging a streak like this seems to go against the essence of some of Groundspeak's own guidelines - particularly those governing the publishing of challenge caches. Challenge cache guidelines specify that a challenge must always be in the affirmative - do something as opposed to not do something. Attempting a geocaching streak (particularly if you have already found a lot of caches in your area, or if there aren't many to begin with) often requires, or at least encourages, a cacher to go out and find *just one* cache and leave others for another day. Reading between the lines of their "top 8 tips" seems to confirm this (most obviously tips 5 and 6). Sure it begs the question whether any "streak challenge" should be allowable under current guidelines, and there sure are plenty of those challenge caches out there, but I would have thought Groundspeak themselves would want to play well clear of any grey area in their own guidelines...

Honestly, this is what annoys me about discussions like this. Whether you meant to or not, you are basically accusing the OP that it's "all about the numbers" and ignoring the possibility of there being any other motivation, such as clearing unfound/unowned caches on the map (there is a difference).

Even with that restriction, we will never know how many CACHERS that number represents. How many families of eight are under one account? Groundspeak doesn't know, and I'd say it is an unkowable factor. My wild-donkey guess is that the raw number of created accounts probably compensates fairly well for the multiple cachers under one account issue, and indeed there are 'about' '5 million geocachers worldwide' that have gone Geocaching in the last year. Being involved in the organisation of a mega event, I can say that from our admittedly small sample of the geocaching population, I can tell you that number of people in a "team" under one caching name seems to average out at about 1.75 people per account. It doesn't mean they are all cachers, and also it might not be that all the cachers usually caching under each account are attending our event, but I can say that that average has been consistent throughout our registration process. Extreme extrapolation is prone to large margins of error, but you could certainly conclude that if you're happy with the order of magnitude of the number of accounts, 1.75x will give you a ballpark for the number of individuals.

Anchovies are on my ignore list.

+1 Furthermore.... who's family? As I understand it, families also visit clothing-optional areas...

If, anecdotally, for every one cockroach you see there are 1000 more you can't, perhaps we could apply that to forum posters (that you see, vs geocachers you can't)?

Agreed. +1! I've seen a cache that is one big *adult* joke about a sexual act. It's not my cache and I never found it but rather disappointingly DNFed it instead while attempting the FTF. Basically, a suburb of a city shares it's name with a slang term for the sexual act in question, and the innuendo-ridden cache page very obviously pokes fun at it. If one was to be offended by crude innuendo at any level, one would be highly offended by this particular cache. It appears everyone who attempts the cache enjoys the humour and empirically it seems anyone who might be offended simply avoids it.

Well, apparently there are ~2 million subscribers to the weekly newsletter. Given some active cachers don't subscribe and there are probably inactive accounts that are subscribed, maybe ~2 million is in the ballpark...

Say what? Did you really just suggest that because a finder needed to know something then it must be a puzzle? Seriously? And there was me thinking that the D rating quite nicely handled "level of knowledge" required to find a cache... "Cache likely requires special skills, knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days or trips to find" Yes, seriously, its a puzzle. There are more than a few around here like that, and they are all listed under "Mystery". Difficulty rating is always in reference to finding physical stages, unless it is listed as a puzzle. If you are scratching your head because you can't find a stage, its a multi. If you are scratching your head because you have to solve something, its a puzzle. Or its always possible that you could have ticks, chiggers, dandruff or head lice. Multis have a narrow definition compared to the mystery icon, which can refer to a wide variety of hides. A multi stage cache should not require any type of special knowledge other than basic math, but can include special tools. A mystery icon is for solving puzzles, answering knowledge questions, offset coordinates, following firetacks on trees, and anything else. I suppose the conflicting opinions are due to regional differences, and what each person has gotten accustomed to finding in their area. I think you've decided it should be a puzzle and now you're justifying your decision. What if you need to read a date of a plaque and have to do some maths to work out the final coordinates from that date. That might be hard/impossible if you're hopeless at maths, so that should be a puzzle too then! In fact, that means basically all multi's with virtual waypoints have to be puzzles instead of multi's because they almost invariably ask you to do something with a number or text that is not simply "read the coords for the next stage". I had a 2-stage multi that used "position of letter x on line y of the sign" - by your definition that should be a puzzle because there was something to solve at the waypoint? No. Re "Difficulty rating is always in reference to finding physical stages, unless it is listed as a puzzle" and "A multi stage cache should not require any type of special knowledge other than basic math, but can include special tools" - not according to the accepted definition of the D rating under the clayjar rating system that was integrated into the geocaching.com site.

I think that's key to this debate. Since Groundspeak has elected not to weigh in, officially, on the issue, any and all opinions are perfectly valid. Log 'em as finds. Log 'em as notes. Don't log 'em at all. All are okay. It's when one person hops on the proverbial soapbox, telling others how the game must be played that problems arise. Like you, I'll follow the herd on this issue. Yeah, don't mind me - I just habitually (annoyingly) question the placement of arbitrary lines. Or more accurately why some will defend and justify to their dying breath the precise position of an arbitrary line.

Having to stop in the middle of doing a multi-cache and say to oneself "I don't have the knowledge/skill/equipment with me right now to complete this cache - I better go home and come back better prepared" does not a puzzle make.