OldNickCov

I've adopted two, Both came through this board with no problems. Had there been a separate board I doubt I'd have seen them, as I'd not go and look there as often as I do here.

I'll happily describe it as evil, and will keep doing so every time I go to Birmingham until inspiration strikes.

...and half of the descriptions culturally specific to the USA. Can you explain Bison tubes, Decon kits, Nalgene jars, Rubbermaids, Gladware, and tell me what defines a Cookie tin please? Then there's a chance that quite a few more of us can usefully join your discussion.

Good luck - and don't get wet in the 'Netherworld'.

Count me in. 10pm in a pub sounds better.

What a fine idea - it might even help beat the regular bunch of late night FTF hounds I keepbumping into around here. ;-)

Unspeakable issues should be spoken about with the existing reviewers, not resolved by setting up an additional bureaucracy of minor locals five times the size. If you really believe our hobby is about to be banned, why not say so, instead of proposing a solution which may not be debated, to other problems which may not exist?

There is a standard, as well as standards for determining difficulty and terrain. It just happens that people are careless, and these are all things which it's very difficult for a reviewer to judge. If you find one wrong, you can always contact the person who set the cache, or post a comment when you log the cache.

How about organising a geocaching meet? I don't know how many geocachers there are in your part of Arkansas, but it may be an easier and safer-feeling way to meet up as a group, for a social event, rather than one-on-one. If you meet up with a group of people, and chat, you're more likely to find people with a similar approach to caching, before going out caching with them.

My 'official' reason I started was to learn how to use the GPSr I had bought for 'geotagging' photographs. I suspect I've probably now found more caches than I've geotagged photos. I've certainly spent more time geocaching. I enjoy the walks. I'm not a serious walker, I'm not particularly fit, I certainly don't g trekking across mountains these days, but I do enjoy the little mile or two walks with a reason that geocaching gives. I enjoy the puzzles, and the semi-competitive nature of the hobby. In the area I live there's a very active cache-setter, and a number of us who enjoy getting the FTFs. It's not a real contest, but the lighthearted approach is fun. The social side is good too. I tend to be a bit of a loner, but the two meets I've been to have been fun, with a new bunch of people for me.

I'd made almost exactly the same mistake - transposition in the decimal section of a location - on a cache I placed this weekend, except that it was in the additional waypoints section of a cache, on a waypoint that I'd selected the option not to display the co-ordinates, as there is a formula to solve in the notes field. It was picked up by the reviewer, as he checked where it plotted to on the map, and it didn't match the description I'd given. So - all kudos to Lactodorum for spotting the error before it made it into the wild. It's an easy mistake to make, and very hard for the person making it to spot.

The assumption made in premise 2 ensures that I come out in favour of the status quo.

Offer to adopt sent.

Since my previous posting in this thread, Hillhappy1, Moote, Vix92008, & Gorrd - some of them more than once. There seems to be a Coventry area STF club developing and having irregular but frequent night meetings in a variety of fields around here. I've still to meet Wisewol though - we keep missing by minutes.

The original reason I bought mine (apart from being a gadget lover) - geotagging. I take a lot of photos, and quite a few of them end up on Flickr, tagged with their lat & long. I was getting tired of noting OS grid references and later converting them using a spreadsheet.

Maps

Having looked at the cache logs I'd say give it a bit longer. I don't know these woods, or how dense the cover is, but the cache is getting found. I spent ages early on in caching making four visits (before finding it) to a cache in a much smaller wood close to my journey to and from work. This cache had a clue, which while accurate was virtually no help, unless you already knew were the cache was. You've already given information as to where the cache is in the general description which should confirm that the searcher is in the right sort of area - beyond that there's a danger that either the clue doesn't help, and is frustrating, or is so totally obvious that it takes away the fun of the search. (Oh, and it will become easier to find as the 'cacher's trail' gets more worn)

I'll admit that when I saw the latest batch published, it did strike me that there were a lot of caches appearing in a pretty small area, and while I wasn't as concerned as The Planner, it did seem to be over-egging the canal slightly. I then throught back, to a very nice little series of caches I did fairly recently just above Banbury, and what a lot of fun I'd had on a very pleasant walk. Oddly though, I still didn't feel quite as comfortable with this set. Reading this thread, I think I've put my finger on it. The Banbury run had an objective - clues in 1-6, giving the location of #7. They're far enough apart to be separate caches, rather than a multi, but had the charactersistics, and defined objective similar to a multi. This set is less focussed, having to 'right' order, and no opbjective, apart from having a walk and finding the caches. For me, that makes it a bit less interesting - I'd prefer the focus of the Banbury run, or the variety of aq trip around totally disconnected caches. It won't stop me going after them sometime though - probably with much planning with maps first, to split them down into smaller walks, so that at the end of the day my car isn't far away. Each to their own.

If she hasn't, I'd like to giv... No, people would take that answer the wrong way and I would be classed as a crude and sexist pig. Oink! Oink! ooops I mean Oss! I'm just visualising various cachers sticking pins in a map tracking her finds so far to try to guess where she'll find next!

From looking at the cache (from a continent and an ocean away) I'd say it's one where you'll not be able to crack it until you go on site, follow the instructions, and then have a think about what you see there. That probably means that books on solving codes (or ciphers, which are often what are actually used) won't be needed, but a bit of common sense, and a bit of lateral thinking at the site will be far more useful. Good luck.

I've managed to bump into three cachers while out caching, ignoring here the wonderful mob at the Marstons Meet. The first (Saddlesore1000 @ Brampton Valley Way #1), beat me to an FTF as we met, him leaving, me approaching, both hurrying, on a path, didn't acknowledge each other, and hurried past in opposite directions. The second, (Brynric @ Motorway Mayhem M42 J2 - Radford) we met in a motorway service area, both looking for the same cache, worked together and found it, and had a decent chat about caches he'd set, (some of my favourites btw.) and we'd each found. The third (katiegremlin @ Honiley Hunt) beat me to an FTF by the time it took me to turn my car and park it, and we had a very similar chat to the previous one. I work in a small office, of under 30 people (in a huge corporation). Just after lunch today, three desks away a group of three people were chatting, and I heard the word "travelbug". A bit of earwigging later, and I joined the conversation. Two more geo-cachers met, and one more possible convert to the hobby gained - so I've met as many in my own office as out in the world!

I'm fairly new to all this, but yes, I always put caches I've found (or failed to find) on a watch list. Equally, as soon as anyone else finds them, and logs a find dated after I was there, I delete them from the watchlist. It only takes a couple of seconds, and leaves me confident I didn't leave the cache bedly hidden. So far, I've one LTF, and one DNF where I though I had disturbed the cache from its location, into greenery down a river bank) where the next person who found it found it after a hard search, probably menaing I had knocked it out of place. I also occasionally go back through my find log, just out of interest to see how ofteninteresting caches have been found.