Sissy-n-CR

How are you supposed to be figuring your placed caches? CR

"Walk in the Park" in the title.

Add to fact that an approver had to be manning the ship at the particular time--and be aware of it--for the present system to work. With an automated system, the approver simply selects "approve immediately" or sets a time for it to go online. An email is shot to the owner notifying him of approval and time cache comes online. The work load would be decreased on the approver if there was such a system. Question is, is there enough of a call for this to warrant the work to implement? CR

Sorry, as described I'd only give it a 2 max. Consider, you're at the cache site. You're letting your GPS settle and using your eys to scope out possible hiding spots. Geopiles stand out like a sore thumb. The way you've put bark on the end would make it stand out like a sore thumb, too. Never fear, though. There was a very good suggestion above of placing it on it's side and covering the ends with debris. Find a downed, broken, and rotting pine of similar size, put it down next it, and that would be a strong 3+. (As long as the container is sturdy and doesn't make an odd sound when thumping it.) Another avenue is to chainsaw a thin piece of log and attach it to the bottom. If you could find a well-worn end of a log, that would be better because it's already weathered. Even better than that is find a broken piece of log to attach to the end. Then, the top of your "stump" would be much more natural and could bump it to a 3 or 3.5 and even "stump" a few people. Ubjrire, whfg nobhg nal guvat lbh qb pna rnfvyl or qrsrngrq ol n uhagvat grpuavdhr pnyyrq "jvttyr vg." Znal snxr bowrpgf ner znfdhrenqvat nf bowrpgf gung ner svezyl cynagrq. Snxr fcevaxyre urnqf, fghzcf, naq zber pna rnfvyl or sbhaq vs lbh jvttyr gur bowrpg. Vg'f orfg gb pbcl na bowrpg gung vf fhccbfrq gb or ybbfr. It's a good attempt. With a few adjustments is would work very well. Heck, it would work very well now if you hide the ends. Also, consider this. You don't always need to fool cachers. We are a wily bunch. I, personally, get excited over hides that are in plain sight. The higher the traffic the better. People walking past the cache and never knowing what it really is. You place this a few feet off a trail in an appropriate area and I'd say no one would know but a cacher. Hope this helps. CR

I don't know why my logs keep disappearing off these caches! Oh well, here it is again. Found it. Cache in good shape. Third for the day. Took spider, left carabiner. Thanks for the cache! CR

Well, there is no way that any one stat can be made meaningful. Even your favorite of caches per day is meaningless if you get down to it. What about the people who cache like fiend only a couple of days a month because of their schedule versus the retired folks that cache at a much more leisurely rate? The retired couple can gather many more hides than the hardcore, though infrequent, cacher. That's what is meant by "it's not about the numbers." No one stat can tell it all. What about caches-per-day-of-caching? That would be the average number of caches one hits on a day of caching. But that doesn't take into account the difficulty of the caches sought. Caches per day, consecutive days caching, consecutive finds, consecutive DNFs, LTF, all are stats that tell only part of the story. I think numbers are fun. But the numbers don't tell how good of a cacher you are. It can't. It only gives a feel of a cacher's activities. CR

What if finds finds are higher than caches within 100 miles? I get 109.57% It might make it easier to figure using only the available caches within the 100 miles. Using total available and available unfound, then we've found 43.8% of the available caches within a 100 mile radius. CR

That seems like quite a departure for you, judging from your comments to me on other threads. So, lets not rule out "online only" logging either, eh? Opps, poor choice of words on my part. By "on-site" I meant "on the ground," "in the wild," or basically "at the cache site." I didn't intend to mean "on-site" as "online." Sorry for the confusion. I doubt anyone could change my mind on some kind of verification process that is checked at the cache. While I'm no accountant, IMHO logging should be "double entry." A cacher says, "I've visited these caches." A cache log will say, "I've been visited by these cachers." I find it quite impressive when a cacher shows up at a meet and throws down a thick log and can point to every cache they've ever found. Just like when we're on-site and flip through the logbook seeing how many people have found it. Again, sorry for the confusion. While I can change my mind on some things, I stand firm on verification. CR

Yes, it would. Just like when there are too many muggles around and you can see the cache, but just can't retrieve and replace it without compromising it. I know what you're talking about. We've traded in the rain with my poncho covering both of us as Sissy signed and traded. It's all about protecting the cache, but you have to show you've been there. See, my rules are simple. I will allow a calling card of sorts if they mention it was raining. I had tought of doing that myself. The card would have to mention it is a log entry and is there only because of extenuating circumstances. It would be laminated and if it's raining, we just crack the container and slip it in. If the cache owner doesn't allow the find because we didn't sign the log, we'd understand. CR

Please! That's not what I was saying at all. CR

I'm not sure what you mean, but we did a few locationlesses in the beginning. We've since stopped. We generally skip virts when we're out, but will do them if they are easy and if it is something possibly interesting. In other words, we don't go out of our way for virts. As for how many caches in our area. From the gerenal Summerville, SC area just outside Charleston, there are 124 caches. 17 of which we own. Only 17 of which we haven't found. We generally keep our bookmarked nearest cache page at 40 miles, but I've increased mine to 42 to get in an insolated cache that requires a boat. That gives me 8 caches. One has been offline for a long time. Four require a boat. Three just popped up in the last couple of days. While our main goal is to just get out and have fun, a lesser goal is to clear the nearest 50 miles. However, a new cacher to the area is making it hard though. He's experienced, but from a different area. He blew into a nearby area one day and within a few weeks has something like 26 caches, most of which are multis. A few of these are within the 50 mile radius of our home, so it's hard to keep it relatively clear. We're waiting for him to slow down a bit before we go in and clear it out. Right now our focus is on the harder caches. The easy ones, while they have their place, for us are cheap. We are now looking at 4 terrain and above caches, but there are only 2 left within 100 miles that don't require a boat. We did a few over the Christmas break and had an absolute blast. Another thing we look at are caches that have never been found or have not been found in a long time. That's another challenge we like. I'm eyeing a cache that was placed in November of '02 and has yet to be found! So I guess, to answer your query, cache density in our home area has very little to do with our attitude towards certain cache types. I figure it's the number of caches we've experienced that influences it most. Well, that is, beyond our nature tendencies, anyway. CR

While I was playing around I came across an odd problem. I made a search for only 1.5/1.5 caches and now I can't edit the PQ page. I can run the search and it even comes through in the mail. I just can't edit the page. I keep getting an error: Thought you might want to know. CR

Please don't give others the impression that not signing the log, when a log is available, is acceptible in order to claim the find online. I'd hate to argue with someone that logged a find but said they didn't sign the log because it's okay to not sign it. In my book and on my caches, you don't sign the log, you can't claim the find. If I ever come across a situation where someone says they couldn't sign the log because for whatever reason, I'll go out and verify the problem. I'll then correct it, note their visit for them, and allow the find. As many of you already know, I'm a firm believer in logbook verification. However, let's not lock ourselves into a paper logbook. I can see audio and photo logs, too. We should leave the on-site logging to whatever we can think up. CR

1- I'd probably go for making the &f=1 default and then having to manualy delete the &f=1 to see them all. That is, is changing the webpage is problem. This change would be painless. I figure most people are looking for caches they haven't found. 2- Yes, please! 3- I agree on this one, as well. However, Parsa, the last I checked you can still upload those files to you profile gallery and do like what you're looking to do. Not as elegant as the cache page as after a while you'll have a bunch of stuff to try to figure out what goes where. Hope this helps! CR

Now I'm having more problems. It seems as though some of the options gets "stuck." For instance THIS query seems to be stuck on limiting the query to South Carolina. I change it, leave, and then come back, it's back to South Carolina again. CR

I wouldn't mind a stats page. However, it's going to be the same people over and over much like the top 10 TBs were the same one's over and over. Once you get to a point, it doesn't really matter. Besides, are people who like the more challenging caches less of a cacher than the "mad dashers?" I'd be much more interested in a regional page. A place where you can watch those who count--your fellow, local cachers. Even with that said, I'd much rather have a page that lists who has found your caches in a grid. I've seen it on a personal page that I can't find right now and I really liked it! It could list caches across the top and cachers down the side. It gives you a very interesting view of how well your caches are doing. Another thing I'd like to see is a "demographic" display of caches found. It's a grid of difficulty across the top and terrain down the side. The grid is filled in with colors that corrospond to the precentage of a person's found caches in that position. Obviously, the higher precentages will be torwards the 1/1 corner, but it would give a more accurate reflaction of the cacher's activities. Stats are good. I just doubt the raw find count is any indication of activity. CR

BUG? Everytime I try to put in a distance of more that 150 miles and then come back to the query it is set to 500 miles. As long as I'm getting the nearest [max_caches] counting from nearest to furthest, I don't mind. Just wanted to point that out. CR

I forgot: I really like being able to turn the queries on and off on the main page. CR

The new query page is a major step up! I really do like it. A couple of suggestions to throw out: - USA in the country list so only one query for all locationlesses. I don't do them anymore, but still it would be nice. - Still don't see a way to get only those caches that have been updated and/or logged (not just found) in the last 7 days. I can only get the ones that have been updated or found. In other words, it's missing the ever important DNF and other logs. On a side note and I'm sure you've already thought of it, but I'm going to throw it out to see if I get a response. Would presenting "canned" GPS files lower server load? I mean, run your own set of queries everyday and break them into states or regions and let client programs handle the rest. You could probably reduce server load considerably. They would still need to download, but would eliminate multiple queries of just about the same thing. Just a thought. Kudos on the new PQ page. CR

While I agree with many of the above posts about reading the cache description I have to disagree with some blasé attitudes. It's got to the point where I don't pay very close attention to types or rating because folks don't use them properly. Caches typed as a traditionals actually requires extrordinary mentals skills to decypher a code first and one star terrains that involve animal trails and steep elevation changes are but a couple of examples. It's my feeling if you have a cache that has special restrictions you feel you must put on the cache, then don't make it a traditional! This protects everyone involved; you, the finder, and the landowner. All it takes is making it a simple offset; "Go to the coordinates and spy the massive oak tree. Go there." It makes it a multi, makes the finder read the cache page, and isn't so hard that people can't figure it out. In my utopia, traditionals would have no restrictions. You load the GPS and go. One last point on the improperly typed caches. The "type" is part of the discription no less than the ratings, size, coordinates, or even the cache description itself. IMHO, wrong types are on par with misdirection in the cache description or a "regular" sized cache in a film can. I really do wish people would be more vigilante with typing the cache properly. CR

I ended up having to sacriface one of my low numbered queries and getting a new one. Gave up 13xxx and replaced it with 44xxx. Now, I'm at the back of line... CR

Same here. Got some queries set up that I move around. Had it set up for all 2D/3T around Atlanta and got that on Wednesday. Changed it to ALL caches around Marietta. Haven't got one since. This is supposed to be a quick trip. Wanted some quickies to do. Now, I'm stuck with only 2D/3T and higher! What I don't get is the fact I have two setup to give me the caches in my caching area--one set for Friday and one set for Saturday. I got both of those, but none the rest. What gives? CR

Tack "&f=1" to the end of the URL and all of the caches you have found and the ones you own will not be listed. CR

Try this... See if you can go you your REPORT A CACHE page for these caches. They should be: http://www.geocaching.com/hide/report.aspx?id=74518 and http://www.geocaching.com/hide/report.aspx?id=36734 If you can get to them, try deselecting "Check if you only want Premium and Charter Members to view this cache." That might at least get you into your caches. Not the solution you are looking for, but... Hope that helps! CR

I don't want to sound like a smartass, but did you enter your subscription code in the top dialog on THIS page? If you did, try it again. Let us know if that worked. CR