Quest Master

Um, SHE is one of our most respected geocachers, and her hides, along with her 15,000+ finds logged, may qualify her as the most experienced and highest finder in the world. I know her personally to be honest and reputable, and have to ask if there is not more to this than was explained. Lastly, replacing a full log, just dropping a new one in the cache, is standard operating procedure and one small way you can actually be of benefit to your caching community. Ed I don't know about "most respected"or "most-experienced" but there can be little doubt that she has the most apologists.

Contrary to what the uninformed might have you believe, there have been numerous reports of strange helicopter encounters in SWPA. This was discussed at length on TRI-GO awhile back. There have been several reports of helicopter encounters at my Liston School Road cache and some others in Fayette County (SWPA). I was "followed" by a small black helicopter while on a maintenance run and Nellsnake had this close encounter with a larger attack helicopter.

If ThePropers bring the ice cream, I'll bring the guardrail.

I'll add a few (off the top of my head): Fruity View Serenity Brush Mountain 3 Falls Cache The Stone Cabin Cache Revisited Furnace Village Explore the Wild Area Pt. 2 (Kune Camp) Death Chamber

I try very hard to care about important milestones like this, really I do, but nowadays I often wonder how many lightposts and guardrails this person must have kissed and why. That's not fair because I think of this without knowing what they found, but that's where my mind goes when I consider find counts these days. I cringe when I think that others must think the same of me. Yikes! I'm inspired to burn the whole mess and start over.

This isn't accurate. Burning Man and Rainbow Festivals are very different things. Burning Man is open to the public but it's essentially a private party held on public land with government (BLM, I think) sanction. Access to the festival is restricted to paying customers and it costs plenty. The location is not secret, and I'm pretty sure that it's held in pretty much the same spot every year, but I don't think that you could hide a cache there because there's nowhere for a cache to hide. Even if you could hide a cache there, it probably wouldn't survive the festival. On The other hand, there's probably nothing stopping anyone from hiding a cache at a Rainbow gathering. These events are likewise held on public land but they're not sanctioned by the government because the Rainbows don't want to be regulated by them. It is for this reason that they are constantly at odds with the authorities. The location changes, and isn't exactly public knowledge, but this information is not difficult to find if you go looking for it. I'd be surprised if it didn't already happen that a Rainbow gathering was held where there was an existing cache. There would be nothing to stop you from hiding or hunting a cache in the middle of a Rainbow gathering except that it would almost certainly get muggled with so many people swarming all over the place.

If you can't do Burning Man, there's Burning Micro

Of course, if you do that search, you'll discover that gladware has about the same odds of getting destroyed by the men in blue as does PVC pipe. Exactly. I used an old coffee thermus as a cache recently - could that be a bomb? A mentos container - could that be a bomb? A gladware container painted camo - could that be a bomb? In the history of geocaching - I truly wonder how many times a bomb squad has actually been called to blow something up 600 feet in the woods. With a little searching - I did find this. It's basically a little common sense - LABEL the Cache. http://arkgeocaching.org/modules.php?name=...56c6bdb65e97f3a Thanks for this information! With the national heightened state of preparedness over the past three (3) years, relating to IED’s (improvised explosive devices), police departments everywhere treat such “finds” with extreme caution. As is required for such possible serious/sensitive events, I was immediately contacted about this “emergency”: additionally our Fire Department’s Bomb Squad was tasked to respond. We all were greatly relieved when it was determined to be a harmless ammo box containing fill matter (rocks & earth) that was related to your group’s GPS hunt. Our comfort zone may be less taxed, as well as our budgets, by diminishing our “off-duty” callout of emergency services personnel, if each “cache” had a label affixed externally that clearly explains this GPS game, to include 24/7 contact names and numbers. I genuinely support your group’s goals of litter clean up and outdoor activities; however, to preclude subsequent diversion of Officers to set up a perimeter and/or the unnecessary calling in a municipality’s bomb squad, etc., a phone call to you or whoever would probably clear up the issue. Please think on this and let me know if this is plausible. Thanks! Randall Chief Randall Aragon Conway Police Department 1105 Prairie Street Conway, AR 72032 (501) 450-6126 (ofc) (501) 733-2111 (cell) cpd.aragon@conwaycorp.net I think that it isn't possible to determine what types of containers are more or less likely to cause bomb scares. In order to do so, you would have to know how many of each type of container has been used for geocaches. If you read through this of Bomb Scares and Other Funs Stuff, however, you will see that pvc causes more than its fair share of incidents. At the same time, it's apparent that no container is immune even if it's labeled. I'm convinced that hiding caches in places that could be perceived as a threat is the most likely cause for a cache to be mistaken for a bomb. Container choice and labeling are certainly important secondary considerations that reduce the chances of a cache being blown up. The recipie for a cache becoming a bomb scare is pretty simple: If somebody sees the cache, think that it could be a bomb, and calls the authorities, it's probably a goner.

I suspect the difference is that you are less sensitive than they are. That's easy to say if you don't bother to check the facts. Your suspicion is built on ignorance and bias. The fact is that micro spew varies wildly from place to place. I did a survey of 35 large cities and found that there is anywhere form 13 to 59 percent micros within 25 miles of the cities surveyed. The incidence of micros as a percentage of total caches was found to be 12.7 percent in Boston (the city closest to BomberJjr)which is the lowest of the cities surveyed. Nashville, by comparison, has 49.7%. At some point, some people are going to start complaining, especially if the micros are really lame like so many of them are in places that have a lot of them.

I quit hunting micros more than 2-1/2 years ago and never looked back. Too many of them are just lazy hides by lazy cachers. They are often of the numbers, by the numbers, and for the numbers. It's long odds to find a decent one that makes sense. I play for the location, location, location and to get some exercise and fresh air. I'm not impressed by so-called "evil hides" (yawn) and I despise the dodge the muggle game that some micro people like to play. This pretty much kills micros for me so I just don't bother with them anymore. I can easily live with missing out on the occasional worthwhile micro. There are just too many caches these days to bother with crummy micros. I am also leery of small caches, caches in urban and suburban areas, caches close to roads, and caches by certain hiders that are known to consistently hide junk. I filter out many of these as well.

I agree with the wholeheartedly with the sentiment of the OP but I offer the following advice: It's absurd to equate find counts with effort. Period. Let it go.

That's it? I was hoping for a better reason than that. I'd also like to be able to get a list of archived caches for the reason stated by the OP but I also have other reasons to want this data. We all know it's available in the database and I've been told that the reviewers have access to it. Why can't the rest of us? Caches have a history and a legacy even after they're gone. I'd like to see that preserved better than it is. One of the reasons I keep a database of caches is because it contains this information that I can't readily get from the website. I don't think that I'm doing anything underhanded or shady but maybe I'm wrong about that. Now that I think about it, I have noticed that the website is very reluctant to let us have this information. I remember having to download the waypoints for archived caches one at a time from the cache pages because you can't download from the search pages. I realize that there's probably a few skeletons in the closet but is that the real problem?

Can somebody tell me why the website is opposed to this? I like having the data for archived caches for a variety of reasons. I'm sure that this question has probably been asked and answered before but I can't find it. A markwell would be good. Thanks.

From the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines This is rarely enforced by the website but it has happened. In the wake of GW4, "pocket" caches were archived and locked for being logged when they were not hidden in their proper spot. In theory, caches could be delisted for a great variety of logging irregularities! I agree that the "pocket caches" that achieved notoriety because of GW4 should have been archived because they were not at the posted coordinates. However, we now have a handful of forum posters who are trying to control the way finders log the caches, and it's really none of their business. As the guideline states: "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings." Historically, this has meant that the validity of a find log was between the cache owner and the person logging the find. If the searcher discovered that the cache was missing, or mostly missing with just part of the empty container at the spot, the owner can tell the cacher to log it as a find. If an event organizer wants to place temporary caches for the event and allow the finders to multi-log the event, that's up to him. If a multi-cache owner tells finders that they can log for each stage, it's his decision. So we have a cache owner who says that he's fine with seeing a find log for any of these examples, and we have a finder who wants to log the find. It's their business. No one else's. There are no guidelines that say this can't be done. One of the biggest attractions to geocaching has always been the variety. You can play a lot of different ways, and it's still geocaching. That's why there are guidelines, not rules. But we have a handful of forum posters who want everyone to play by their rules, loudly proclaim that any who don't are liars, cheaters, morally bankrupt, of low intelligence, etc., and are trying to get the website to change to represent the way they think the game should be played. I will continue to fight them to preserve the form of geocaching that attracted so many to the activity. You're no better than the "handfull of forum posters" that you speak out against. You presume to know what is meant by "bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements" but you don't and I'm pretty sure that you are not authorized to speak on behalf of TPTB. Historically, "pocket caches" were allowed until one day they weren't. Whatever the history, it's just not true that a "find" is whatever the cache owner determines it to be. We know that this simply isn't true. Somebody offered an example a few posts back of a cache that was archived recently because the owner failed to delete a log that appeared to be bogus. We cannot predict when and how this rule will be enforced but we know now that it may be enforced at any time. If somebody in a position of authority offers an interpretation of this guideline, I'd like to hear it. You're just blowing smoke.

From the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines This is rarely enforced by the website but it has happened. In the wake of GW4, "pocket" caches were archived and locked for being logged when they were not hidden in their proper spot. In theory, caches could be delisted for a great variety of logging irregularities!

I am reminded of the little boy in The Emperor's New Clothes. Criminal is right, of course, but there is legion of apologists in this game (and especially in these forums) who will happily carry that imaginary mantle as this farce of a procession continues.

Here's a list of caches that had a brush with the law. Many of them were blown up. The recipie for having a cache blown up is pretty simple. If somebody finds your cache, thinks it's suspicious, and calls in the authorities, it's probably going to get blown up. Labeling containers is one good way to reduce the chances of a cache being perceived as a threat but it certainly isn't foolproof. Location and container selection are other factors that should be considered when hiding caches. I think that education of bomb squads could help. I received the following from a bomb squad LEO who saved at least one cache from being blown up: I think that there are some lessons in here for all of us.

I have a permit that's about to expire and I have been told by a reliable source that I can get it renewed for another 3 years. It's up to the discretion of the park or forest in question. I intend to follow through with that because caches have a legacy and I would like to see that legacy preserved until I am no longer willing to maintain it. There's plenty of space in the park for other people to hide so that's not an issue. I also don't see that there would be a point to somebody else hiding a different cache in the same location, location, location. "New" caches in recycled locations are a waste unless it's about the numbers, numbers, numbers. I don't cater to that philosopy. I think that most cachers will live up to their end of the bargain and I don't think that the DCNR is terribly concerned about a few rogue geocaches overstaying their permits. It probably won't be a major problem since most people will comply. They have only to confiscate the cache and notify geocaching.com in the rare cases where people do not. I expect that they probably won't even bother to check in most cases because they have more important things to do. I expect that geocaching.com is even less concerned and will probably do nothing to enforce expiration of permission unless they get a complaint about a specific cache from a DCNR official. This brings up a related question. Is it appropriate to post an SBA for an expired permit? What would be the official response to an SBA posted under this circumstance?

If there were no numbers (such as found counters on cache pages and stats in profiles), Would there still be this incessant bickering about what is and isn't a find? Would there be an 18 page thread squabbling about "The New Numbers Game"? Would there be so many pointless parking lot micros (spew)? Would people still log events multiple times? Would "pocket caches" have been invented? Would somebody write on the outside of containers instead of the logbook to set a record? Would somebody delete somebody else's log because they signed as a team rather than an individual? Would sombody else log their own cache to compensate for logs that were deleted? Would everyone quit geocaching if they didn't get to score a point for each cache that they found? Would there be a mass geocide if the numbers suddenly disappeared? STOP THE MADNESS!

If somebody can get me a link or the waypoint number, I can add this cache to Bomb Scares and Other Fun Stuff. If this list proves anything, it demonstrates that something like this can happen to just about any cache. The recepie for a cache becoming a bomb scare pretty much begins and ends with some unknowing person calling it suspicious. It therefore follows that no cache is immune because paranoia runs deep sometimes and law enforcement is going to error on the side of safety whenever a suspicious package is reported to them. This fact of caching life should be considered whenever hiding a cache.

If we ignore him, do you think maybe he'll let this thread go back on topic?

With all due respect (I was taught to respect old guys scratching their beards). It's a problem of perspective. You haven't been playing the game long enough to remember how geocaching used to be before the "Micro Spew Era".

I sure does, the cache was taken to another location. Just because the coordinates were not changed on the web site does has nothing to dio with it. Like I have said in some other threads If you do not like the guidlines and feel the restrict your style of play, use one of the other cache listing services. The problem is not that the cache was taken to another location. If I took a cache home to fix it up or show it to my brother, would that be a violation of the guidelines? Obviously not. It's not a "moving cache" or a "pocket cache" unless somebody is allowed to "find" it when it's not in its proper spot. If a cache is carried away by a flood, or kidnapped by muggles, and found at an alternate location does that make it a "moving" cache or a "pocket" cache subject to summary execution by TPTB if somebody is permitted to log it? I think not but I could be wrong. So the real issue is not whether or not the cache "moved". It's an issue of improper logging being sanctioned by the cache owner. This opens up a big can of worms. The guidelines say "The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements". I'm not sure what all of this means but it's pretty obvious to me that a great many caches could get nuked for a great variety of logging guidelines violations. If somebody checks my logbook and finds that somebody logged my cache online but not in the logbook, can they rat me out to the website and get my cache nuked? That's an extreme example but I'm throwing it out there for the sake of argument. The Great Geowoodstock Purge of 2006, has taught us that the penalty for sanctioning "pocket caching" is the immediate archival and locking of the offending cache. I really do have to wonder what's coming next! Except in the case of flagrant violations like those seen at Geowoodstock, it's going to be very difficult for the website to police logging violations. They will have to rely on geocachers tattling on each other. I don't think I like where this is going. I'm fine with the rules. I could live with more. I agree that my cache was in violation of the guidelines because I allowed a handful of people to log it at an alternate location 9 months ago. I reiterate that I was not involved in any of the stuff that happend at Geowoodstock but I'll admit that my violations were no less flagrant even though they were on a MUCH smaller scale. I just don't see the point of caches being dealt the death penalty. Wouldn't it make more sense for the website to insist that the "bogus" logs be removed before archiving the listing and/or locking it down? I'm still waiting for an explanation that makes sense in the context of the guidlines as I understand them.

My most recent cache placement is in an incredible location where I could have hid a big ammo can full of great swag. However, I know only three people are going to hike to that cache in a year's time . . . I have several ammo can caches out there, but the visitors to those, added all together, don't add up to the number of visitors to an Altoids tin at one of San Diego's Trolley Stations. I don't know what the answer is to that . . . Neither do I. I think that the future for caches like this is pretty bleak. I'm afraid that anyone who might hunt and hide caches like this isn't going to give geocaching a second look when they key in their zipcode and see that this is a game of hide and seek in parking lots. The numbers cachers won't touch it because it's too much work for one measly point in their game. As they brag their find count and speak the holy mantra "if you don't like them, don't hunt them" over and over and over again, they will steadfastly refuse to see how they are dragging the game down. Anyhow, for what it's worth, thanks for hiding that. I really enjoyed your webpage. I only wish that your cache wasn't 3000 miles away. If I'm lucky, I'll get to hunt it someday.

My first encounter with Micro Spew™ was on October 30, 2003. It was pointless roadside micro (film canister in a ziplock bag) hidden by the mother of all numbers cachers. It was so lame that it left a bad taste in my mouth. I encountered another close to my home a month later that was hidden by a disciple of the mother of all numbers cachers. It (a guardrail microscrap) was even worse. I quit hunting micros after that. I have found only three since. It's just not worth the effort to figure out which ones might be good. They usually aren't. They are not missed.