Fish_fantasy
-
Posts
4 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Fish_fantasy
-
-
On 8/3/2017 at 4:47 PM, geocat_ said:
First, I just want to go on record saying I agree with fizzymagic. "Hard" can mean a lot of different things. Some puzzle caches in Cincinnati were eventually archived once reviewers determined that the CO likely made unsolvable puzzles full of gobblygook. Other hides are the "needle in a haystack" variety. I really don't enjoy those although I have found some rather difficult ones. Nothing clever about throwing a nano container in a thicket of brush and labeling it a 5D.
Despite my distaste for those kinds of hides, I would say that as long as there is actually a hide at the given coordinates (and I am sure some of these unfound hides might be completely bogus or use fuzzy coordinates), they make for some of the toughest hides. I have never seen this one, but it seems to be a really difficult needle in the haystack kind
That looks hard. I do agree that there must be some combination of terrain and difficulty, and with that being a T3, it has to be pretty tricky. I was just pointing out how some caches are so hard they almost can't be found.
On 7/31/2017 at 2:38 PM, Crow-T-Robot said:One cache I've had on my radar for the past few years is The Beast of Big Island My brother-in-law has a cabin nearby and I go up once a year for a weekend in the summer...but, just haven't been able to find the free time to even start on the cache.
That looks very hard as well, but more from a terrain aspect. There are definitely many different ways to interpret the word "hard".
-
Hi,
I noticed that a new cache named "Rhode Island" was just published on August 1 south of Madison.
Hopefully that is close enough for you. Good luck with your challenge!
-
GC53318 gets my vote.
RIIIGGHHHHTTTTT
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Sigh... I am usually a stickler about rules and hate when newbies like that just assume that what they do must be right. It seems to be an alarming trend lately.