wandering4cache

Here is something I find a lot of people fail to do when in contact with poison ivy, oak or sumac. Besides washing the clothes you had on, you need to wash your sneakers & shoelaces to remove th oils. Wipe your hiking sticks. Technu works for all of this. Anything you had with you & might have spread oils too. ALSO, if you didn't shower after contact, you might have transferred oils to bed linens. Change the sheets. And so on & so on.......

Seems nearest unfound caches seem to be the multis, puzzles or paddle caches. But you know what, I don't mind. With the price of gas lately, our caching has returned to what first attracted us to geocaching in 2002. The adventure. So no chasing micros for a while for us. We've decided to kick it up a notch and work on puzzles, higher terrain / difficulty "Well Rounded Cacher / Fizzy Challenge" type stuff and Delorme grids while in the process. The find frequency will be more spread out but I'm sure they'll be more memorable & meaningful. Nothing wrong with that.

Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure not everyone knew that info was dynamic. I didn't at the time those types of caches were created. Still solvable, just differently now.

There are a type of puzzle cache here in MA / New England called "ground zero" caches. They required you entering the towns zipcode, and figuring out what coordinates were being used by gc.com as that zipcodes ground zero, then usually using the info in a calculation. Sometime in June 2008, what gc.com used to determine a towns "ground zero" changed, thus making the puzzles unsolvable UNLESS you knew an alternate method to finding the old methods results. So, to some, mainly ANYONE in our area who owns or solves such caches, it does matter. The problem is that everyone knew the easy zipcode search method which no longer gives the answers needed to find the caches. Here are some notes, I made from the June 2008 Ground Zero thread. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry3514243 NOTES: "Finding Ground Zero by "My Account", "update home coords", "zip code", no longer gets you the correct coords needed to find the cache. One way to get the same coords you used to from the above method is to: Put zip code in on home page, on results page, click google maps link, take coords from URL & convert them to correct datum. Another method that also works is: Go to "Set Up Notifications," "Create a New Notification," and "Look up Postal Code." This seems to be the easiest. It seems there are about 4 different answers for Ground Zero depending on what page you ask from. The above 2 give the correct answers to find the old caches. As a result, some owners have added geochecker to their pages, some haven't. Do yourself a favor & ask owner if you have right ones before heading out for nothing." Not really anything GC can do about it. Its more of a problem just for those solving the caches.

First, Ground Zero caches are just a type of puzzle cache that seems to mainly exist in MA / New England. Nothing to do with the problem, but you need zip code search to solve the puzzle. Next, it seems to be working in FireFox 2.0.0.16 now. It wasn't earlier. (I had FF3 at the beginning, but downgraded for now after too many glitches at first with new machine with Vista OS.) Still not working in IE 7.0.6001.18000 And just for giggles, not working in AOL 9.1 either. Windows Vista. Like I said, its just the zipcode search from home page. It does nothing. Returns to home page. Yet, the advanced search link does work & gets results I need. The zipcode search has been working right along as far as I know although I really don't use it that much either. I did try it a few times in the past week since site changes and it did work. Even worked when you were told to put in town & state, but now its back to zip code & not working.

Chief, you know why its not working? Because I want to work on Ground Zero caches. Although it still does nothing for me when I click on "go", I found that if I use the Advanced Search link next to it, I can get what I need. Hey, the heck with looking for caches in woods, its becoming more of a challenge to find how to use the website. I'm getting really good at work-arounds & switching browers for different functions. LOL!! What's your work-around find count? (Hey, just realized, you didn't go to Canada either?)

Anyone else? It just returns to home page. sigh..... Yes, I tried ALL my browsers.

There is a bit of a micro explosion in parts of our area too. Recently, I decided that with the price of gas, I wanted our finds to count for something more than just numbers. So instead of quantity, we'll be focusing on quality. We've decided to work on the MA Delorme Challenge, RI Delorme Challenge, and the Well Rounded New England Cacher Challenge. We've had a great year so far in terms of goals, MEMORIES or firsts for us without going crazy chasing micros.

The EASIEST method is to google the username. If its common name, google the name followed by the word geocaching. Heck, I even google GC#s of caches. No messing around website trying to find search. I use google for EVERYTHING.

I feel your pain. We bought a new computer about 3 weeks ago. So, we've been installing the latest & greatest versions of software we use. OMG! I swear I was beta testing everything I touched. And with so many new apps, it was impossible to figure out where the problems were. I honestly uninstalled some of the new versions & went back to older versions for now. I was having the same conversation with DH. (Both of us have computer backgrounds.) I asked him if anyone tests their work or do they just release it & wait for everyone else to tell them what's not working. Luckily, for me (I guess) I haven't had tons of time to play with the new GC look, so I can't beta test this site. I'm busy still working out issues with Outlook (among other things) since I can't figure out what went screwy moving over some data.

I just posted this log sending people to Flickr to view video from recent event & the hyperlink isn't working. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...07-c1306b45ff0a So I had to fake it out but posting the text for the link. Anything I can do to fix it, or is it due to gc.com upgrade from today?

I've only been able to see the home page so far, but it looks much cleaner than it was. The old home page was really confusing for new people to even figure out what geocaching was about.

I used to get that error. I downloaded the newest version of IE with all updates and the error went away.

I used to get that error. I downloaded the newest version of IE with all updates and the error went away.

Awesome! Now why didn't I think of that!

Who would I contact to find out if its possible for someone as Groundspeak to move multiple events photos from an incorrect log to a correct log? I screwed up. (I posted them on our 7/15 will attend log instead of on 7/20 attended log. Don't ask.) If its not possible or if too much work, I'll start deleting them & reposting them. DUH!!! http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

I discovered PicLens this week & never thought of using it here. I agree. That would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!!! YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with the OP. The old method worked perfectly for years. Someone thought to "improve it" and now we need work arounds. If things just worked right in the first place like they used to, we wouldn't need work arounds.

As an attendee, I also like the idea!! This way I don't have to have it on my watchlist & keep deleting "will attend" logs or "TB drops" from my email.

I'm REALLY surprised MA is denser in caches than CA. Racking up the numbers in CA for 2 wks was much easier than doing it in MA for 5 yrs. In CA, distance to drive to next cache was MUCH less than in MA. It was nice for vacation caching, but its not the type of caching I would want for home. There seemed to be more urban than rural caches. We traveled dirt roads that were just begging for caches! Just look at all the CA cachers with huge totals. We might have more caches per acre but it takes longer to walk to them out in the woods and look for them under snow, that's for sure. lol If you could figure out a way to see density by location that would be neat. Like density for roadside caches. Density for 1 mile from road caches. And so on. I guess I'm also surprised because years ago when I also used Buxley's site, I don't remember MA being near the top in density. Not when having to drive 20-30 miles between caches. lol

You don't belong to the Church of Geocaching? I do. Try to attend as often as possible.

I need a worship smiley here. I know that's the type of caches I WANT to or PREFER to look for.

On our recent 2 week trip to CA, it would have been nice to find a few more caches that were any size other than micro. We had carried many travel bugs from MA that had goals to be in certain cities. At one point, after 3 days in a part of CA & running out of time in the area, with a TB that really need to be dropped there & unable to find a cache yet that would hold the TB, I resorted to leaving the TB next to the cache only because it was surely on a trail that not just anyone would find & the cache area was well concealed. Luckily, the TB was picked up the next day. However, the area certainly could have handled a larger container than was there.

I remember that look.

2661.69 miles from home. GC111NH MR 001 136 in Stinson Beach, CA.