The Rat

Yes, hints that actually give misinformation is worse than no hint at all, especially if it is clear that the CO was not trying to be cute or present a double meaning. I recently spent 45 minutes looking for a Level 1 difficulty TB hotel where the hint said "six feet from concrete." I DNF'ed. Later I found out it was 6 inches from concrete. I had only looked at locations that were approximately six feet from concrete. I don't know if the CO doesn't know the difference between inches and feet or didn't know the word "within". I don't mind clever clues with double meanings, especially for puzzles where you are expecting to be required to think of possible meanings, but not for caches of this sort. I also think clues like "chin high" are fine. Sure it could be the chin of a short person or tall person, but at least you know you aren't looking at anything below three feet or above six five or so, and if you have any idea of the CO (e.g. male, female) you can probably narrow it down to a foot or so of height. I don't expect hints to be spoilers, but I hate it when they are labeled as spoilers and then don't give you enough information, or give you wrong information. I sometimes put a cache on my list for the day only because it is labeled as having a spoiler hint (e.g. I only have a half hour in a distant city before I need to get back to an event or flight, etc.) Then I get there and DNF because the "spoiler" is useless. If you're going to post a spoiler, make it a spoiler.

I'm pretty sure I was a charter member, but I'm not positive. Someone who became a member 2 months before me is, and I know I paid for a premium membership pretty quickly, but I don't know if it was within the first year they were offered. I stopped geocaching (i.e. finding caches, although I continued to maintain my hides) for an entire year in 2010 and my premium membership lapsed when I didn't pay the annual fee. When I cam back to it, I was just a premium member.

As the owner of 68 puzzle caches (37 still active) I would prefer people solve mine themselves so they get the full experience and the fun of the Aha! moment, but I have no problem with people getting hints from other previous solvers/finders. I will usually give hints on puzzles after a reasonable period of time has passed for the smart folks to get the "glory" of FTS or FTF, such as it is, but it can get to be a pain. Sometimes I say on the cache page I won't give hints, but I usually cave if you email me nicely. But I don't give spoilers, so if someone asks for a hint, they should only ask once and if they still don't get it, stop asking. It's irritating to keep spoon feeding someone who is pretty much useless at solving (Have you Googled the title? No. Anagrammed it? No. Looked up the definition in a dictionary? No. Counted the number of sentences - 15 just like the number of digits in coordinates? No)and who really just wants to be told the coordinates so they can get a find. What's the point of doing a puzzle cache if you don't want to work the puzzle? Are you that desperate for another find? So in those cases I stop responding and if they want to get the answer from someone else it's fine with me. I do want my caches to be found, but I'm more interested in giving people the fun of solving the puzzles. I have also made some very good geofriends by asking for (or giving) hints on puzzles I don't own, so I see this as a positive social aspect of geocaching. Somebody has to go first in making new friends and if you share an interest in both geocaching and puzzles, why not make the move.

I think the person who said illegal caches get favorite points is on point. There's a local challenge cache that requires you to find the 20 caches centered on your zip code with the most favorites. I had found about a third of the so I started on the rest. Then I realized that most of the points went to caches with unique camo. That's not bad in itself, but several of them were items that were, or looked exactly like, real life objects which were attached to private property (or public entity property not open to the public like utility district equipment), like padlocks, sprinkler heads, or light fixtures. The CO may say you don't have to destroy or harm anything to find the cache, but the problem is you do have to fiddle with or yank on various things that are NOT the cache to find it since you don't know which thing it is. One example on the list was a cache whose description intentionally sounded exactly like a sprinkler (e.g. round, where water flows, etc.) so I tested the sprinkler head at ground zero by unscrewing what I thought was the head, but accidentally unscrewed it at the base, which was three feet deep. When I lifted it and realized what I'd done, I tried to replace it, but dirt or rocks had gotten into the threads and it wouldn't screw back in. Some city worker was going to have to dig a large hole 3 feet deep in the middle of a nice flower planter in order to clean out the opening and replace the sprinkler head shaft. After I posted my DNF and detailed this little misadventure on the cache page the owner put a sentence in red on the cache description not to touch any of the sprinklers, but that was too little too late. Not only does this ruin my day when I find out I've done harm to someone's property, it makes geocachers in general be thought of as vandals or at least nuisances and causes more restrictions or hostility toward all of us. I stopped doing the challenge cache after experiencing a couple of these. What needs to happen if for people to stop giving favorite points to these well-intentioned but misguided CO's. It only encourages them.

Now I see there are four threads, the latest (reincarnated) is titled Geocaching in novels. To summarize, the thread names are: Geocaching Books Geocaching Fiction (Fictional) books which include geocaching Geocaching in Novels

You make good points. When I was employed by a local government agency (the transit district) I got some free swag from the PR department, e.g. pencils with the agency logo, rulers, etc., and would place those in caches, but I felt it was appropriate to the general environmental awareness orientation of geocachers, encouraging public transit use. I also had a series of themed unknown caches going on local government agencies, where you had to learn a bit about each one to answer some easy questions and they were useful for that. I did not do this for personal gain, but it was advertising of a sort. In fact, everything with a Groundspeak logo on it is advertising. They're a profit-making corporation like everyone else, but so far no one I know of has objected to that practice. I feel that as long as it is something that might be of interest, commercial or otherwise, to geocachers in particular, then it's okay. If it's just trying to secure business with no geocaching element, then it's tacky, although not a violation of any rule I know. Ordinary paper business cards to get soggy and crumpled and if they have nothing to do with geocaching, I think they are pointless at best, just trash. But the trading cards I mentioned on my books baseball trading cards, for that matter, which I have seen in caches as swag) are stronger and usually coated, and if placed in the bag with the log book, or a separate bag, typically stay in good shape. Mine at least pertain directly to geocaching.

In a remarkable case of life imitating art, a geocacher in an open space preserve near here found a skeleton, almost exactly the opening of my book Cached Out. See the links in my blog: Hiker Finds Human Skeleton As you can see, another geocacher has reported that the "hiker" is in fact a geocacher, although I haven't confirmed that.

There are actually three threads now. Here's the other one not mentioned above: Geocaching Fiction. The problem with combining them is that the other two are specifically for fiction books, while this one includes all books. Your favorite is non-fiction. I think the threads should stay separate, or the other two (Fictional) Books... and Geocaching Fiction could be combined, but not this one.

I find there's inconsistency on what is considered terrain and what is difficulty. For example, there are some urban caches that are drive-up and park, then climb a pole or tree. I consider that extra climbing step to be difficulty, not terrain. To me terrain refers to the surrounding ground (or water) -- the time and distance it takes to get there, the roughness, steepness. Climbing a telephone pole is a difficult task, but that's all it is -- a task. To me that's like picking a lock or spotting a cache well-hidden in camo. It requires a certain bravery perhaps, and some talent for it, but not much fitness or endurance. It should be difficulty. Others treat it as terrain and it's probably a case of tomato/tomahto. But I have seen one of those where it was rated a 4/4. They gave it high difficulty and high terrain. It really can't be both. The only thing hard about it was climbing the pole, and that can be either, but not both at the same time.

For those looking for the paperback version of my book Cached Out, I just uploaded an edited version. I fixed a few typos and changed the format slightly (slightly narrower margins, etc.) so that it is shorter in the number of pages, but the content is the same as before, and so is the price. You may get a message on Amazon that the book is not available - out of print. They just delete the old version then the new version has to go through an approval process. It should be back there in 24 hours or so. Just give it another try in a day or two.

What a sweetie you are. I am working on a sequel, although the geocaching content will be lighter. Don't expect anything for at least six months.

You are too kind.

Well, since I posted earlier, and now I've started reading The Racketeer, I might as well post a mini-review: I generally like Grisham, but I do have a major quibble with his ridiculous portrayal of FBI agents, since I used to be one. Grisham was a criminal defense attorney, so it isn't surprising he portrays FBI and all law enforcement in a bad light. That's okay, since it's fiction. I poke fun at them in my books, too, but at least I stay close to reality. These are not spoilers, since I'm near the beginning, but a couple of the stupid flaws in the early part of the book: 1) The FBI bursting in to a meeting to arrest a white collar defendant and pointing guns at him. White collar defendants are almost never arrested. Usually they have attorneys and the prosecutor makes a deal with that attorney for his client to surrender for photos and fingerprinting at a convenient time. 2) Same scenario - SWAT team conducting a white collar search (never happened in my 25 year career). You don't need SWAT to put papers in boxes. 3) After arrest the defendant tries to to talk to the FBI (they almost always clam up) and the FBI tells him to shut up (agents ALWAYS want the subject to talk at the time of arrest and are super nice, trying to encourage him to blather on). I could go on, but hey it's just a story so go with the flow. As I said, I usually enjoy Grisham works. I especially liked The King of Torts and The Litigators.

I hope you enjoy the book. I just started reading it. I generally like Grisham, but I do have a major quibble with his ridiculous portrayal of FBI agents, since I used to be one. Grisham was a criminal defense attorney, so it isn't surprising he portrays FBI and all law enforcement in a bad light. That's okay, since it's fiction. I poke fun at them in my books, too, but at least I stay close to reality. These are not spoilers, since I'm near the beginning, but a couple of the stupid flaws in the early part of the book: 1) The FBI bursting in to a meeting to arrest a white collar defendant and pointing guns at him. White collar defendants are almost never arrested. Usually they have attorneys and the prosecutor makes a deal with that attorney for his client to surrender for photos and fingerprinting at a convenient time. 2) Same scenario - SWAT team conducting a white collar search (never happened in my 25 year career). You don't need SWAT to put papers in boxes. 3) After arrest the defendant tries to to talk to the FBI (they almost always clam up) and the FBI tells him to shut up (agents ALWAYS want the subject to talk at the time of arrest and are super nice, trying to encourage him to blather on). I could go on, but hey it's just a story so go with the flow. As I said, I usually enjoy Grisham works. I especially liked The King of Torts and The Litigators.

No, you're right. There were more back then. I suspect that muggles taking the contents brought an end to them.

Agreed. But the cache was part of a year-long contest that a lot of people were participating in. The CO moved it eventually, but the points for that cache, given in order of find, became meaningless since people who were 10th or 15th to solve and find were listed as 4th or 5th and vice versa due to the multiple relocations, and it caused a lot of hard feelings about the whole contest thing, not to mention the impression left with the property manager about geocachers.

I agree with Mr. K's deletions, which I don't consider hypocritical. He made a mistake by putting a cache on private property (presumably without permission). Why compound that mistake by encouraging others to go on that same private property (presumably against the landowner's wishes) to sign something that isn't even the cache's log sheet? That might make sense except Mr. K then placed the same cache back there again and I again went there only to find that it was gone again. The property manager even came out wanting to know what was going on with people searching around his utility box. Mr. K then placed it on that private property a third time, although farther from the building. I was able to find it that time, but it disappeared once again and finally was moved to some other location. His concern wasn't to discourage people from going onto the private property against the owner's wishes. He seemed to want to encourage that. He just didn't give credit unless his log sheet was signed.

Was the lock actually securing the equipment or added as an addition to the chain? Yes, the padlock was actually securing the equipment; it was the only lock on the chain. The equipment was just a cheap folding traffic control sign, but it was right next to a large utility or traffic control box of some kind, and had a sturdy chain, so it looked like it belonged to the utility co. or city for redirecting traffic when the box or nearby wires or tree work were being worked on.

I got both kids home for Christmas and I got to watch them find their main gifts with my GPSr, one in the front yard, one in the back. It was hilarious watching them trying to figure out how to use it. I also got contacted by a couple of geocachers I didn't know who told me they got my book Cached Out for Christmas and were enjoying it. That made me feel good.

This is a long thread so I may be covering ground mentioned somewhere before, but what about caching in groups? I've been in many groups where there was a cacher who never found anything but signed every log that someone else found. This was her lifelong pattern. Of course, there have been many times I was with someone who found the cache and I signed the log. Many times it's caches I know I never would have found for one reason or another. Is that cheating? I doubt anyone would say so, even though really only one person in the group found the cache. Many caching activities are excellent group activities that several people can contribute to, e.g. one person solves the puzzle or finds stage 1, someone else finds another stage or the final, etc. Many caches are even designed to force or encourage group searching. I've been with many geocachers who don't bother to sign the log and many times other geocachers sign my name without even asking me, if I'm there. I claim those as finds even though I may not have actually found it or signed the log. If we only allowed the person who actually found the cache to log it, the whole social part of geocaching would be lost. I know one guy I'll call Mr. K who is a strict "you must sign the log to claim a find" type and who never lets anyone else sign his name. I remember on one expedition with a lot of geocachers seeking high-terrain/high difficulty caches I found one of the caches deep in a hole under a very large stump. My upper body was entirely in the hole and bent in a strange position facing down. I could tell it would be difficult, painful, and time-consuming to back out of there, sign it, then replace it and back out again so I handed the cache out. Everyone in the group signed it, including Mr. K, who later claimed the find with a log that said he could never have found it himself. Someone yelled at me asking if they should sign my name and I said yes since there was no way I could sign deep in that hole. I replaced the cache and backed out. So far, no problem in my mind. But then later Mr. K placed a cache on private property that was confiscated by the property manager. I was in a group that found the remaining concealment for the cache, which, ironically, was a piece of a log. We signed that and logged that we had found part of the cache, claiming a find. Mr. K disallowed the find because we had not signed THE log sheet that he had placed there, despite the fact our not finding was due to his illegal cache placement and the fact we found A log that was part of it anyway. So there's a lot of hypocrisy over this issue. Plenty of people log caches they haven't actually found and vice versa, and often there are valid reasons for it. The strict constructionists that I've know personally are pretty much all jerks, but I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule.

There have been book caches around here (the SF Bay Area) for over a decade. I haven't checked lately, though, and I'm not sure if the old ones I remember are still there since it's been years since I found them and the exact names escape me. They were usually themed, too, like Sci-fi, etc. as I recall. If you find a good one that's big enough, I hope you share my book Cached Out or one of the other geocaching-themed books out there.

The rat trap is in the same category with another recent find of mine: a padlock that was securing some construction equipment with a chain to a fence. There was no danger of poison, obviously, but it required pulling apart the lock, which, of course, had been modified. I posted what I thought to be a mildly worded, non-spoiler log to warn people that you could draw unwanted attention to yourself and create a bad impression of geocachers among the public from this one. The owner deleted my log without contacting me before or after the deletion, until I finally contacted him to ask why. His answer was that the cache had lots of favorites so I should log "consistently" if I wanted my find counted. Then 6 days after my find another geocacher got rousted by the police who thought he was stealing or vandalizing the property. It boggles my mind that so many cachers think these kinds of things are good ideas. The rat trap poses a danger to geocachers because they may encounter poison elsewhere if they get the idea that caches may be hidden in them, but to me the bigger problem on all these is that the general public and especially public entities find geocachers to be engaging in problem behavior and they ban geocaches from their parks, streets, etc. Of course a cacher who is yanking on padlocks everywhere he goes is liable to get arrested or confronted by an angry property owner, too.

<deleted>

My book Cached Out has had very healthy sales all of a sudden, and most of them, oddly, are paperbacks rather than the usual Kindle. Maybe it's not so odd. I think they may be Christmas gifts bought for geocachers or cipher/code/puzzle fans. If you're one of the gift book buyers, thank you, and for the local folks, if you'd like me to autograph the book I'd be happy to do it if you bring it to my house or if we're both at an event. Contact me offline through geocaching.com. I would have only posted this on the local forum (thegba.net) but that site is down and has been for over a week, so maybe some of the local (Bay Area) folks will notice this post here.

It is depressing to read of SgtSue's experiences. I live in Silicon Valley and this problem is not prevalent, but it does exist. I plead guilty to the white hair part, but I've done some 4.5 and 5 terrain caches in recent years. There are many Asian geocachers in this area, and younger folks, too, but I think this may be due to the mix of high-tech professionals around here. In my local high school district whites are the minority (about 47%, with Asians 44% or so, and the rest black or Hispanic). There are not many Hispanic or black geocachers, although the caching community here includes (and welcomes) them. In my novel, Cached Out two of the main characters (good guys) are minority (Chinese and Mexican-American), in part to reflect the diversity of this area, in part to counterbalance the fact that the drug growers in the hills (bad guys) are portrayed as Mexicans, but primarily to show that geocaching can appeal to everyone if they just learn about it and try it.