sdarken

People can still put pictures and words on their profiles in addition to stats. It's not an either-or situation. I dont care about other people's stats and they dont care about mine but we all have a choice about how we want to portray ourselves. I'm not playing the numbers game but I still find some of those stats interesting and I keep them on my profile as it's a convenient place to save them. I'm sure lots of people would appreciate it if that was easier to generate stats. Currently it's a multi-step operation and that situation excludes many people who might like to see what their own stats look like. Whether those stats end up in people'e public profiles should, of course, remain a personal decision.

There are times when a negative log is justified. Sure, it would be possible to privately email every negative comment but the logs serve 2 functions :- information for the owner and information for those that might be deciding if it's a cache they want to fine. In addition a negative log can be used for education (to point out inappropriate hide locations, poor choices of container etc) for both hiders and seekers. If all negative comments had to be emailed privately then many comments would never be made and cache owners may not learn that there are things that can be done to improve their future hides. Unlike some people I dont regard all caches as gifts that I should be grateful for. (I wouldn't be grateful if someone wrapped their garbage and gave it to me as a Christmas present either). A little education goes a long way. Anyone that's stayed with this game for a while has learned a lot over time. I'm not sure that I've seen anything in logs that I'd consider bullying. If that was the case the cache owner would probably be within their rights to delete the log or report the person to Groundspeak.

Like several aspects of geocaching, there are probably regional norms. Around here it's normal for people to log finds on caches when they have been present when the cache was hidden. In those cases, the normal process is to wait for at least 3 other finders to log a find first so as not to upset anybody that cares about FTF / STF / TTF stats. It's not really a numbers issue. More to do with having a sea of smilies on the geocaching maps and not having unfound caches appearing in lists and queries. When I go caching with a group I log finds on caches that other people physically find before me. I dont see a great deal of difference between that and logging a find on a cache that I see being placed. In neither case do I actually find anything.

I'm in favor of a basic rating system. I wouldn't find one very useful for my own local area where I have the time to read about each cache and decide if it's something I would find interesting however when I travel to a new area, I don't have time to trawl through hundreds of caches and thousands of logs. A rating system would give me the ability to focus on a few interesting caches. GCVote has been mentioned a few times. Take a look at this screenshot showing GCVotes on caches around Berlin, Germany where GCVote is used quite frequently. In the GCVote system: 5 stars = great 4 stars = good 3 stars = average 2 stars = not good 1 star = poor What you find is that people don't generally rate caches below 3 (and if they do you'll probably find it's a real stinker). Typically, average caches end up with 3 stars. On this screen shot, the multi called "Jolle Sein Milljöh (Spandauer Vorstadt Berlin)" has a 5 star rating after 19 votes. That's all the information that I need to take a closer look. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a cache I'll visit. I would still need to read the description and logs to understand why it gets a high ranking but it's a quick way to identify a good cache from lots of average caches.

The only way to get that information would be to take a chair and a notepad and sit by your cache and make a note of the number of people that visit. I'd suggest taking some food and pillow. It going to take some time.

Someone was passing this one around the other day. World's Dumbest Sign (Credit to Bkip for this one)

The oldest unfound in the world along with Date Placed. Not sure why the Kougarok cache that was mentioned doesn't appear on this list. 21-Jun-01 Geocache by turco (GCD30) Bolivia 23-Jun-01 4.5lb Walleye by Jamie Matear (GCDFB) Ontario 10-Jul-01 Conch Shell Horn by Jeffrey Courrier (GC105E) Venezuela 28-Jul-01 Nikolay-Kam by Nikolay-Kam (GC14C3) Russia 12-Aug-01 Mount Temple by MCpl. Paul Franklin, MCpl. J. Pawsey (GC1607) Alberta

In case you're interested, there appear to be about 40 something traveling caches remaining. Here is one: GCCFC9 Check the bookmark lists on the right side of the page for the rest of them.

For a traditional cache with the most finds ever, the answer is probably Original Stash cache in Oregon: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8c-86dd8b7313ab

From the OPs cache description: I'd say there is a little too much focus on the monetary value of the cache contents. As much as it disagrees with my own personal geocaching preferences, I think the OP would be better off placing micros that dont need to be stocked with any swag (or stag). As a cache owner I accept that refreshing the contents of my caches occasionaly is part of my cache maintenance responsibilities. I dont see the deterioration of swag as a sign that humanity is doomed

To the OP:- I think it's interesting that most of your post equates popular caches with being the most found ones. I'm guessing that most people will describe favorite caches that are rarely found due to a difficult/clever puzzle or hide or perhaps a cache that takes people to a remote location. These kinds of favorites cache provide an interesting experience of one kind or another. The numbers game that lots of high-find-count cachers play is something quite different and results in lots of finds on easily accessible caches. So, in my mind, favorite caches are rarely going to be the most commonly found caches. Anyway, to your question, I have a favorites bookmark list that has a random assortment of favorites but here's the cache location comes to mind as being amongst my very favorite: "Welcome to the Dance" - GCNJMX. It's probably 10 or 15 miles from San Francisco but it has the feel of a very very remote northern location.

Caches are allowed in most/many state parks in California. The rules were recently updated. Caches should be next to trails and not close to streams/waterways. Here's a link to the general info page: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25665 Here's a list of state parks that do allow geocaches: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25745

This cache was placed in 2001 and first found in March this year though it may not have actually existed for a while: Oh So Blue http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt= Here's the oldest unfound cache that I know about: Geocache - GCD30 (Placed June 2001) http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...09-c475f4e2e02e

What I want to know is how they know so much about me? It's just like all those spammers who somehow know I need Viagra and male enlargement devices.

One of the more useful things I learned on the forum is that you should absolutely be honest with law enforcement authorities. Once the officer understands that you're a geek and not a drug dealer they will happily leave you alone. Making up any kind of story is just going to cause problems. In all other situations I think you just need to use your best judgement and err on the side of caution to protect the cache.

Not sure if this was a serious question but I used one of those the other day for the first time on a backpacking trip. The one I was using almost certainly wasn't waterproof and they are pretty expensive to buy. Much more expensive than an ammo can.

There's a virtual on top of Half Dome in Yosemite. Semidome Loft, Yeah! It requires a steep 17 mile round trip hike and tough, near vertical cable section at the end: It's a rewarding hike and the views from the top are pretty cool: "The Visor"

Part of my signature item collection:

I dont think there's anything wrong with your idea. At least finding the ammo can itself will be easy. After that it's only going to take a little effort to find a nano amongst the other stuff in the can. I'd rather do you cache any day than go looking for a fake rock in field of rocks or a small container hidden in ivy or a nano attached to a bridge. At least with your idea, the search area is limited to something I can hold in my lap. Put the cache somewhere with a nice view and no muggles and I'd happily take the time to find the log while I enjoy the view. I'd be surprised if you could make that a difficulty 4 though.

If your intention is that these 6 or 7 stages be done in one visit then it's probably a true multi. Each stage only needs the coordinates to the next stage. If this is more of a series of locations that are not physically located near each other then 5 or 6 traditionals (each containing a code for a mystery-type final cache) might be a better choice. A 6 stage multi will get very few visitors compared to 6/7 traditionals.

It sounds as though the OP needs to start being more selective about the types of caches he/she enjoys and to start focusing on those. Initially I liked caching because it was a thrill to find things that nobody else knew were hidden around them. After the first couple of hundred caches that thrill started to fade for me. I imagine this is true for many people :- some sooner than others. The things that kept me playing were: - focusing on the numbers (which has also since lots its appeal) and finding every cache in my area - meeting new friends and doing group caching - discovering the joys for hiking caches In the end, caching is supposed to be a fun game. If it's not fun any more then it's probably time to find ways to bring back the excitement or maybe it's time to take up knitting instead.

What about a rule that none of the people in the group may have found any of the caches before? Here's the most legitimate record attempt I've heard of 315 by a group of Danish cachers The group set a pretty reasonable set of conditions for themselves.

Pt. Cavallo ( GC7AED ) LtVoSF* Beach ( GCC63B )

Geocaching goes against the principle of "leave no trace" since that's exactly what hiders are doing :- leaving something traces of their visit behind. I prefer the modified approach of "Leave no visible trace". That should apply to hiders and seekers.

In this particular situation things might have gone better if the cache wasn't a container covered in camo tape. A lot of non-geocachers will see camouflage tape/coloring and make incorrect assumptions. Though it's not always appropriate, a clear container is going to be blown up a lot less often.