egami

I don't disagree. In fact, I generally agree that micros in the woods, by and large, are a bad idea...I just find it funny when subsequent posters were getting bent out of shape about people suggesting to avoid them. Like I said before...it's just a preference thing, and it's not my favorite cache type to find or the type I'll hide, but it's just something we gotta deal with. Too bad you didn't have better luck with your new friends along...no doubt that is discouraging...

It's feasible to "field filter" micros in the woods. I don't think any of us really missed the point. In fact, that's what I found intriguing about StarBrand's first or second reply...what we are suggesting is almost exactly what he described he does, yet he seems critical of the suggestion. You see on you GPSr it's a micro and you see there is densely wooded area....move to the next cache. I can relate to the frustration. I cache with very young kids. And, certainly new cachers might get a bad taste, but nonetheless a real taste of what to expect. We all can't have geocaching our own way...

I don't know which I'd consider more suspicious....someone I caught claiming to be a "geocacher" or someone meandering about after dark with a police scanner claiming they are a "geocacher".

No need to make a cache PMO for that reason. Random web searchers cant see any cache coordinates. If they create an account and log in they can see them. that is a bit more effort than 'random web searching" and makes them theoretically traceable by GC. That's what I meant...a random searcher can create an account and have instant access to standard cache locations.

I think in fairness to kwikstix response a couple things have to be considered... 1. He openly admitted that he is somewhat new to the concept of PMOC's and how they work. 2. His intention wasn't selfish, or thoughtless, in fact quite the opposite...he was doing what he thought was the right thing by thwarting efforts by people who were back-dooring, cheating the system by logging PMOC's when they weren't paying for the service. An honest, easy mistake to make until you understand that GC.com has deliberately allowed this loophole to remain open.

I am guessing maybe more likely the bond between the container and the velcro went bad. At any rate, we appreciate the effort to get this back to the owner. It's a fun hobby...if you get a GPS we'd love to have you as a fellow geocacher.

Wal-Mart corporate didn't respond to my inquiries about geocaching policies. I've seen comments on these forums both ways about a corporate policy being pro-cache or anti-cache and I've yet to see anyone post any actual link backing this assertion up on either side. If someone posted that information I'd like to see it.

With the proficiency, or lack thereof, that some cachers have you could make the case NO caches should be put in the woods for fear of scorched earth tactics.

I would venture to guess that people willing to use scorched earth tactics will do so regardless of container type or cache log notes.

Yeah, and it's my understanding the back door has been deliberately left unlocked as well...

I am not sure where you get a number of these items, but if you're interested in a "card" type I'd think any number of online sites that can do plastic business cards would be an option. I think you can get those now for well under a penny a piece depending on quantity.

See, that's interesting to me because I see little difference between the two scenarios. I guess, me personally, I just see PMOC's as primarily being a way to avoid random web searchers access to a cache in an area that you want to be extra-sensitive about making sure the cache doesn't get muggled. I wouldn't bother monitoring logs for membership, myself. Not sure what general thought behind them is though as a whole of the community. Not that your intent is wrong...I can see your logic behind the integrity of using the information.

I deliberately avoided that statement before, but since you've re-quoted in that context I'll ask the question. Filtering out does change it. It changed it for you. You are avoiding a cache that you personally don't like. If others like them then what's the point in being on some kind of mission to eradicate them serve? I am failing to see where this topic is anything more than a "personal preference" topic. We're all welcome to our opinions, but outside of personal preference I am not seeing the issue with them. We all have caches we like, or dislike, more than others. In fact, what's most interesting to me about you quoting that, StarBrand, is that one of your first replies on the subject seemed to indicate you do exactly what has been suggested and you are fine with it.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if these caches are "micros in the woods", "micros under lamp post skirts" or any other subset of micros...the crux of the issue remains the same. If you don't like <insert cache type here> then avoid them. The type of the cache really has no bearing on the validity of the point.

You could alleviate a small degree of that you know. That's not going to help him much... You can't claim a find on your own caches. I didn't say he could help himself. I am saying he can alleviate that statistical anomaly and he could host some caches that would encourage TB's. And, technically, you can claim a find on your own caches.

Me personally, I'd mark anything that was going to take about an hour or more of pure hiking to do regardless of difficulty or other factors and not including expected search time at GZ.

As the great prophet Dr. Egon Spengler once said: Don't cross the streams.

Because on your profile it breaks down your find count by type. Profile > Geocaches (tab)

On one hand, it sounds like it could be a neat idea... On the other hand, it sounds like an avenue for numbers hunters to get around the cache saturation dilemma.

You could alleviate a small degree of that you know. small jars, the ones used for urin samples If you think that makes a good TB cache, sure!

Well, these are nurses associated with our health insurance company...actually, the insurance company works through a local hospital, but at any rate...I have no idea if we have control over that or not. Thanks for the tip...I'll look and inquire about it.

Fasting blood tests should show your A1C level which is THE indicator to watch. Ask for the test if you are concerned. I am not concerned...it was just more out of curiosity. We get all of our results sent back to us...I have no idea if A1C levels are on there, but I am guessing so. We do that this time of year, so it just made me curious. I'll have to look and see.

I would hope that PMOC cache owners would be willing to make exceptions. My kids are 5,3 and 1 and I log their finds on a different account that isn't PM. I am sure there are a lot of us in that boat. Personally, if I made a PMOC I wouldn't care who logged it. If they can find it, obviously they have a way to get PM info. and I am not going to question how that happens.

Thanks for sharing Cpt. Black / CC...interesting. I probably don't get physicals often enough, but where we work we do an annual screening that includes blood work and was wondering if it would show up that way if a person were to have it.

You'd of thought the reviewer would've caught that being that they designate it right at the top of the listing. Maybe they edited that in later though...