yumitori

True, but there's a link on every cache page to all nearby caches, that I haven't found . Log the first , then as others have already suggested use the back button and then select the next cache you'd like to log. Works great as long as all of your finds are near one another. For those days when you've been caching along a route and you moved off the first page of the nearest ones, I go to the next along the route, again "select all nearby caches, that I haven't found" and continue.

My God!! He's coming through Missoula! Hide the women and sheep!! Oh, wait. I'm meeting him for lunch. Nevermind....

Personally, I think it's the same bloody game, just with different tools. And we do ourselves, both cachers and boxers, a disservice by pretending that we are the only ones on the 'One True Path' and the other guys are second-rate. I both cache and box, and grow tired of hearing the squabbling. I really look forward to the rumored launch of the Groundspeak letterboxing site. It should be ... interesting, to say the least.

Given your oft-stated ineptitude with puzzles, this is a pretty funny suggestion. Ron/yumitori, who leaves all of the puzzles for his wife to do. Really...

You might also try explaining why this is a worthwhile project and deserving of support. You can no doubt find someone to volunteer, but I suspect you'd like a cacher who will pick a good spot and keep the container up and running long-term. That will be easier if the advantages of participating is made more clear. After reading through portions of the thread on the subject, at times it has sounded like some of the folks have adopted a 'dadgum the torpedoes, full speed ahead' attitude, which doesn't make the idea too palatable currently.

Okay, so that's one. <shrug> Since you know not to trust this cacher on this subject, it's easy enough ignore or otherwise filter out their caches if they aren't what you are interested in. Do we really need to redesign the current system because of a couple of people like this?

I'm confused, but maybe I've missed it in somewhere in the discussion. If you find a cache with the scuba attribute that does not actually actually require scuba, why not just write the owner?

Okay, reading your responses and looking at your profile, many of your questions could probably be more easily answered by reading the guidelines thoroughly, reading the FAQs in detail, and finding more caches. I don't want to suggest you shouldn't go ahead with your plans, but the more information you have before setting them up the better and more popular they will be in the end. You can do anything you want with caches on your own property if you only make the information available through your own channels, but if you want them listed on someone else's site, you need to be follow their listing guidelines. That goes for any of the one available out there. Since geocaching.com is by far the most popular and well visited one, presumably you want to take advantage of the already existing audience for your caches. So working with your local reviewer and Groundspeak makes sense. I see that the one cache you have logged a find on was in Delaware. We can help put you in touch with them. Is that where your property is located?

Hmmm. Misha The Geocaching Cat is having her feelings hurt. She likes dogs. (Well, the well-behaved ones, at least...) I really need to get to work translating her logs and posting them on-line. (She loves typing them, but her spelling's atrocious.)

While the area around Yellowstone is indeed spectacular, it's not exactly in eastern Wyoming. I'm afraid that's not somewhere I've cached, so I cannot be of help either.

Most GPSrs are set for Degrees Minutes.decimal-minutes (DD* MM.mmm') The answer you got seems to be in Degrees Minutes Seconds.decimal-seconds (DD* MM' SS.sss") To convert, divide the seconds by 60. This gives N 41* 35.346' W 90* 21.769' Assuming that the website and your GPSr are set to the same datum, those coordinates should get you where you want to go.

Finding horse-friendly caches depends a great deal on your area. Here in western Montana most caches outside the cities and towns are on forest land open to equestrians. Perhaps your local riding clubs can point you towards areas with appropriate trails.

The Wisconsin / Idaho border? No wonder it doesn't get many finds; that's a hard area to reach.... But I agree. If the cache is otherwise fine, there's no reason at all to archive it just because there have not been many finds. There's one in our area that was hidden near the end of the normal caching season in 2004, and no one found it before the snows flew or any time last year either. The drive is fairly substantial as well, which no doubt contributed. We were quite busy ourselves and planned to make our journey this summer, but now I see that just as the snows are receding once more the owner archived it. We could still visit the location, but given the number of caches still out there I doubt we will. It's really too bad we've missed out on this one, for no other reason than no one has visited it yet. What harm would there had been in leaving it be?

Yep, very nice coins. We have extras for trading now.

Speaking of extreme... I regularly see the impact in areas where individuals believe they have the 'right' to go anywhere and everywhere they wish regardless of restrictions, just because they are on public lands. Your 'little trail in the woods' is very often one of dozens of braided, rutted tracks eroding into gullies. Some areas can handle impact, some cannot. It's the job of land managers to determine how much and what sorts of use is appropriate, and we as the public employ them to use their education and training to do so. Given the choice between your 'it's own land, anything goes' attitude and regulations that ensure that my recreational experience in 10 or 20 years will be the same or even better than it is today, the choice is obvious.

The Tallest is a letterbox hybrid that can be found with a GPSr using the information on geocaching.com, or with clues using the information on its page on letterboxing.org.

One of the interesting things about caching is that what's lame in one place is new and original in another. Light pole box caches are horribly overdone in many locations, but raved about as the best idea since sliced bread when they are the first one in the area. Lameness truly is in the eye of the beholder sometimes.

I locked an ammo can in a manner similar to the way briansnat did. In my case the cache is a travel bug hotel, so I felt it important to protect the contents as well as the container itself. We've already had one such container in the area discovered and damaged, the bugs stolen or destroyed. I'd like to avoid a repeat of that.

You mean despite the repeated violations of the terms of use in your posts? If you object to the subject matter so deeply, read other threads. There is no need to deliberately try and derail the discussion.

When I submit a cache I always have to check the boxes that say I have read and understand the guidelines. I assume you did so as well. So the restriction on vacation caches should not have come as a surprise. But I don't see any indication in the notes you posted that you addressed this issue up-front. When the reviewer questioned your ability to maintain the submission, you stated you are in the state frequently. But I did the same thing I imagine the Artemis did, I looked at your finds in the area. Unless I missed something, you went caching in Arizona for a day over two months ago, and then prior to that went caching for another day two months earlier still. That doesn't particularly support your statements. You haven't demonstrated your ability to maintain a cache in Arizona, as the guidelines require. Perhaps you are perfectly capable of doing so, but how the heck is the reviewer supposed to determine that given the information at hand? Given the number of cachers in Arizona, surely you can find someone who lives near the location of your cache and will be willing to help out.

That's for the same cache BTW. Glad the guy with the experience is setting a good example. To be fair, I have occasionally neglected to change the log to a No Find when I'm in the middle of logging numerous finds and I don't always catch my mistake immediately though I do try to remember to double-check.

A beautiful area to cache in, and wonderful people who hide some very memorable containers. Coins ordered!

I have not seen clear, unambigous 'middle ground' guidelines regarding virtuals, only folks wanting the bar lowered just far enough so that their submission could be listed. Could you point me the posts with ones that would meet my request for a widely accepted alternative proposal? That should be easy, given that there were so many of them...

I've been thinking about this, and it seems to me that the answer lies in the community. See, if folks who think this whole 'swap lists of coin numbers without ever seeing the coin' make it know politely that they think the whole thing is silly, maybe the folks doing it will get the message. But all the legislation in the world ain't gonna stop it if people think it's cool to do so. Make it uncool.

And yet other charter members disagree with that opinion. So now what? When geocaching.com tried to list virtuals that were 'scaling Mt. Everest' good while rejecting ones that were 'finding a McDonald's' lame, there was nothing but complaints. No one could agree as to what was 'good enough', and there were weekly, no, daily threads on 'Why isn't my virtual cache good enough?' So now you have a place where folks can list almost anything. The current complaints about the noise to signal ratio was what the folks running Groundspeak were trying to prevent with the 'Wow' guideline, and people hated that. Now that there's a site where you can set your own level of 'Wow' people still aren't happy. Leaving aside the issue of lame waymarks, the other concern that seems to come up regularly is that they have their own stats, and are not listed on geocaching.com. So can someone tell me, in detail, just what sort of 'virtual cache' guidelines would be acceptable to the vast majority of Groundspeak customers, charter members or not? No? I didn't think so.