cimawr

That's a Golden Retriver puppy, I do believe.

Oh yes - I forgot to mention how useful THAT function is! It's also in V7 (which, as mentioned, I got for $50), and it's been invaluable several times to locate gas stations, and to point me to a Post Office when I was out of town and needed to get something Express Mailed ASAP.

Also, they don't come pre-loaded on most GPS units because they take a substantial amount of memory space. Typically, you will either buy a map software package and load only the local maps you need onto the GPS unit, or buy memory cards which contain maps. Having enough memory pre-installed in a GPS unit to hold all maps for North America would most likely raise the cost astronomically. My inexpensive Garmin eTrex legend cost $60 used on eBay - it retails for something like $130. The Garmin detailed map software for all of North America costs about $180; I got a copy of the last version (more than adequate for my purposes) off of eBay for $50. Now, the Legend only has 8mg of memory, and tthat can only hold the detailed maps for about 1/4 of MD, and the bottom corners of PA and DE. That's all I need for caching, though; if I happen to travel elsewhere, I'll load those local maps instead. I use the maps mostly when searching for urban caches; they SAVE gas money by helping me when I get stuck just following the GPS arrow. Plus, they've proven handy as a back-up to my paper road atlas.

These probably won't work for the purposes of the thread, since they're both NEAR caches but don't show the containers... Where having dogs trained to hold a stay is useful (They're actually trained to pose for cameras, for that matter) And yes, that's a cache spot; Little Chapel on the Hill, in Rising Sun, Maryland. Below another cache spot:

Have you ever gone through a barb-wire fence? Same principle works when negotiating vines & briars; you step ON what's at waist-to-knee height or lower and hold it down, then duck UNDER what's at shoulder-to-waist height. And you don't do it at speed. Also, no offense, but unless the obstructions are over a marked trail, IMO it's not particularly good practice to be cutting them willy-nilly... when you step & duck, you don't do much damage to the foliage, and you leave much less of a trail. WRT the Thai guy who goes out in flip-flops and a T-shirt.... I lived in rural PA from age 6 to age 14, and I could do that, except that I didn't bother with shoes at all. I had a "secret fort" in the middle of a briar-patch that I used to go to barefoot and in shorts. Then again, I went barefoot from late March until well into October, unless I was in school, at church, or going shopping. And I hiked barefoot well into my 30's. Still do go barefoot whenever I can (witness my avatar photo ), but my days of hiking that way are past, alas.... I don't have the time to harden off my feet in the spring any longer.

Grabber tools are used by the elderly and handicapped (and occasionally the Just Plain Short) to reach items on upper shelves at grocery stores or in cupboards/storage at home.

For those who might be interested... the hider of the second cache (the micro) has updated his listing to make it clear that the cache is NOT on private property; he's also amended his coordinates. Plus, there's a note from another local cacher making it clear that this should be a daylight search. I believe those adjustments will prevent most potential issues.

So did you carry away and toss the entire packet, or did you scatter the seeds about? The only things I've removed from caches - as opposed to trading for- are: 1. items which are completely ruined by water or mold 2. items which are so large they are preventing the cache container from closing properly (I put them in the next cache I find of appropriate size) 3. dirty golf balls, when said dirty golf ball was clearly just grabbed up off the nearby ground 'cos there are dirty golf balls scattered all around the area. No need for them to clutter up the cache when anybody who wants or needs a dirty golf ball can pick up plenty on the way to or from the cache. WRT #2, I'm a bit baffled by people who insist on leaving a swag item when it's not going to fit in the container properly, or won't fit at all. Worst example I've seen is a cache I recently found; it's listed as a "regular" when it's really more of a "small". Someone had taken the big Ziploc that was supposed to provide water protection for the container to put their large trade item in; other finders had followed suit. So there was this big Ziploc bag full of filthy, sodden, ruined items, which didn't even fit properly in the hide spot - you could see it from 15 feet away, although fortunately on the side facing away from the trail - and the cache contents ALSO all wet and dirty because the container was no longer protected.

Well... what you're looking for will vary a LOT depending on the individual cache. The largest cache I've found is a huge ammo box, about 2 feet long, 18 inches wide, and 8 inches deep. The smallest is a tiny round metal box about the size of a pencil tip; maybe 1/4 inch high. A lot of urban caches are small magnetic containers such as key-hiders, or 35mm film canisters; a lot of woodland/park ones are tupperware-type containers, small/medium ammo boxes, or fishing tackle containers. The page for the individual cache should tell you what size the cache is - nano (really tiny, like my smallest one), micro (film canister, key holder, etc.), small (will hold small items), regular. Sometimes, it will even tell you what the container is. And some harder caches are tricky, and make you think - for example, one I've seen is a golf ball with a hole punched in one side just big enough to hold a small metal tube with a screw-on top; the log is rolled up and tucked into the tube. The ball was then half-buried where you won't see just walking up, but can if you search a bit. The tube side is down, so it looks like a lost ball that's been sitting around for awhile. Lost golf balls are very common in most large public areas around here, so people tend to just overlook them. Very sneaky! If you read the page for the individual cache before you go, it will ALSO give you difficulty ratings for finding the cache and for the terrain - that will give you some idea of how hard it should be both to get to the cache and to find it once you're there. Reading some of the logs on the page will help, too.

Well, since this has gotten bumped/restarted, I mought as well answer.... will preface by saying I'm a relative noob, having been at it for about 2 months, and at the 60-cache level. Level 1: "Adult treasure hunt? Neat!" That was day one, when my S.O. called me from the aisles of Walmart - where he was GPS-shopping after having found the website - and said "Hey, are you on the computer? Go to geocaching.com and check it out!". Level 2: "This is so cool!!" Also day one, and even more so about a week later when my S.O., his son, and I went out on a run of fairly easy urban caches. (Aside from S A M's "Post 15", which took him 3 tries, and I haven't gotten back to yet.) I went on eBay the next day and found myself an inexpensive Etrex. Level 3: "If I plan this right I can find ten caches today!" Hmm, well.... sort of. I tend to be more in the 2-5 range, since I've found that my preference is for caches in parks that require at least some walking or hiking, and/or I combine urban caches with necessary shopping trips, etc. Level 4: "Are you kids done playing with your Happy Meal toys?" As another poster said, I wouldn't do that to a cache. Besides, my S.O.'s kids (who have also gotten into caching) are young teens. Level 5: "I was FTF but there were too many muggles about so I TNLNSL" Have only tried for one FTF, and aborted the search relatively quickly (it's some sort of camo nano) because the hide spot was right next to somebody's back yard, and I couldn't tell where public property stopped and private started. It still hasn't been found, incidentally, and there are no other DNF logs. Level 6: "That looks like a great place to hide a cache!" Wouldn't call that a stage; that mindset hit after the first day of caching. However, I DID have the sense to refrain from starting to spew caches around, and to realize I should get more experience before trying any hides. (I do "own" a cache, but it's one that I adopted because it happens to be 3 miles from my S.O.'s house on trails where I routinely walk my dogs.) Level 7: "I'll be in the tupperware aisle if you need me." I don't seek out containers (and I don't think real Tupperware is sold in stores ), but I DID pick up some waterproof containers off of eBay that happened to pop up when I was looking for mapping software for my Garmin. Haven't used any of them yet, but I'll get around to it. Level 8: "No, I've got other uses for this PDA" or "I really do need a backup GPS." Nope. Although I am considering picking up a cheap used PDA for paperless caching. Level 9: "But a 4x4 with a three inch lift and electric winch is a practical vehicle." Nope, and it won't ever happen, since I need the vehicle I've got for my OTHER sport/addiction (NADAC dog agility). Level 10: "Unngh....bluhh...caches everywhere.....urng...must find....." Umm, well.... I've had days like that.

Well, it does sound like the execution left a bit to be desired, although the hider gets points in my book for NOT using the nearby lamp skirt. Yup. I did a bit more looking at the hider's profile, and it looks like s/he may have originally lived in the area and then moved away; also, it appears that the account was originally a conglomerate one. Which may explain why the profile page says "Kansas", but the account's 13 placed caches are : 7 in Massachusetts, 3 of which are archived 5 in Maryland - 2 archived, 1 disabled and on the way to archived, and one of the remaining two somewhat in need of maintenance. That one, which I've found, is a micro which was originally attached to a tree in a busy area of a park, and is now just lying on the ground under it - didn't realize until I looked up the profile that it belongs to this same account. The other's a TB hotel which, according to the logs, has been maintained by the finders, but has had a bunch of TBs go missing from it.... And cache #13 is in Kansas - a Wally World lampskirt micro.

I believe the laws in MD (at least this area of it) are similar, and I suspect that "prowling" is what would apply in the case of the museum cache, depending on the cop and the cacher. Incidentally, I, personally, am at a lot less risk of such things than many cachers, being a small 40-something female generally accompanied by well-behaved dogs, and not prone to getting belligerent with LEOs. IOW I'm fairly patently Not A Threat. Heh. Yep, that yellowish blur is a pooch - my lurcher, Morag - and the pinkish blur behind her is my legs, running. It's a picture taken at a summertime agility competition; the photographer was focusing on the dog coming out of the tunnel, not on me. (If you're interested in seeing it more clearly, it's also my profile picture. )

BINGO. Charming...

Hmm. Was it Just Plain Duct Tape, or Camo? Inquiring minds want to know. Good on the PO-leece! (That's not a typo, that's Baltimoronese for "cops". )

Purely out of curiosity, what about when the businesses are closed? Heh. I'm not "worked up" at all, just replying to posts as I go along, and SBell's posts are amusing me more than anything else. I suspect the cache probably *won't* get muggled, since it's in a fairly remote spot as far as where JQP goes, the fence is about 10', and the homeowners most affected would actually have to drive half a mile or more to get to it. Sounds weird, I know, but they're at the end of a dead end street; to get to the cache spot, they'd have to drive out to a side road, make a left turn, take the side road up to the main road, make another left turn, go along the main road, make a 3rd left turn onto the small side road back to the museum, then left turn into the museum and drive to the back corner of a LARGE parking lot. (IOW, they'd go in a large square.) Add that to the fact that what causes the problem is people searching where the cache ain't**, I don't think the cache is going anywhere unless and until someone is actually apprehended by the police AND spills the beans. **Again, at least half of the issue is caused because the posted coordinates are apparently inaccurate. I believe the cache is actually up at the tree line, possibly even on the outside of the trees, according to some coordinates I gleaned from reading all the way back through all of the logs (I'd brought them with me) after leaving the initial area. The police arrived at the point when I'd started to look there, and was out of sight of the houses. WRT protecting others from stupidity, you're spot-on. (Oh, and btw, it's "Sister" - although admittedly that may be hard to tell from my "avatar" picture since you can only see half of me. )

That's a good point, and I should have mentioned that the the FTF post (by an experienced cacher) says "may need some care soon". Post #3 says "Velcro isn't holding up very well, I had to prop it up with a rock". (It was an Altoids type tin, which, near as I can figure out, attached to some ground cover material with Velcro.) Post #11 (15 days after the cache was first posted) says it's wet. And there are repeated notes saying it's sitting on the ground because the glued-on Velcro has come loose, and/or that it's getting rusty.... then again, nobody ever posted an official "needs maintenance" log, either. It definitely would helped if the person who reported it missing had done it as a "Needs maintenance" or an SBA rather than just a note. However, given that the person supposedly caring for it lives a mile away, seems like if somebody was watching the logs, they'd have checked it at SOME point.... doesn't really matter all that much, other than it would be nice to free the site, or one near it, for another cache. (I will force myself to refrain from putting a micro in the lamp post skirt that's 40 feet from the original hide spot, especially since there's a Wally World lamp skirt hide 3/4 of a mile away. )

It's immaterial, since that's clearly not the case in this incidence - go back a few posts to the bit where I described both locations as being in "quiet suburban areas". Additionally, the museum has limited days/hours, and that corner of the parking lot is normally deserted. It's also immaterial given that regardless of the REASON the evergreens were planted, they do, in fact, make an effective privacy screen, and therefore - as (ad infinitum, ad nausuem) I have previously stated, the homeowners have no need for additional privacy fence under normal circumstances. And again, clearly the homeowner who called the police would disagree with you. I'm getting the distinct impression that you hold the belief that your right to geocache whereever and whenever you please should over-ride anyone else's rights or concerns. Not a very constructive attitude for the sport in general, IMO.

So, which part of <this is a condensed paraphrase> "the cache descriptions I'm referring don't allow cachers to make those decisions until they're on site" didn't you understand? How would you suggest anyone make those "better decisions" when the cache listings don't accurately reflect the potential for problems?

Actually, it's somewhat questionable as to whether cachers are really "allowed to be there". It's private property, I don't think the museum staff know the cache is there, and it's not an area of the museum grounds that any vistor to the museum has any reason to go to (the museum is indoors). Having said that, again, I wouldn't see any real issue with it if the cache were more of distance from the homes, or if the hider would amend his listing with more accurate coordinates (they're noted in the logs IF you read all the way back, but haven't been changed as far as what people download) and/or a note asking people to be aware of private property. The part I've bolded is precisely why this particular location is a problem IMO- the homeowners ARE screened from "casual observers" by the dense trees, which were clearly planted for that purpose. Under normal circumstances, there's no need for additional privacy fence. People going 20 feet *behind* the privacy screen afforded by the evergreens, onto the hill which overlooks the homes and/or right up to the property lines, aren't really in the category of "casual observers" any longer.

I neither said nor implied that I was "asking for" anything. Nor did I say or imply that I felt there should be any such written guideline.... although my concerns are pretty much covered by : "For all cache types please be sensible when choosing your location for cache placement. Please be aware of what may be a perceived to a non geocacher as dangerous or questionable behavior." At any rate, perhaps you should take note of the fact that I posted under "General Geocaching DISCUSSIONS"? Or that everyone else in the thread DISCUSSED the concerns I had (most of them at least partially agreeing) rather than going on the attack? Which is exactly what I did. (Which, again, you would know if you READ what I've already posted.) For me, personally, yes, the problem is solved for that individual cache. For other cachers who may search for it, the homeowners who aren't happy with their presence, and/or the sport as a whole, no. Which latter - the general, rather than the personal - is, as I've already clearly stated, my concern with that sort of placement. The point of discussing it in here is to get other people's opinions, to vent my feelings on the issue, and possibly to help others make better decisions when placing caches.

Doh!! Should have followed the link to the "Vacation Caches Guide" first, shouldn't I? Still, I wonder how the brother was supposed to maintain the cache when he apparently wasn't a cacher... he never did do any maintenance during the 18 months it was up, nor did anyone respond to the posts about it being missing.

Rather obviously, whoever called the police doesn't agree with you. It also seems obvious that you're more interested in picking a fight than anything else, so I'm about done with replying to you.

I've been trying to avoid return snarkiness to your snarky posts, but I have to ask - did you READ what I wrote, or did you just skim my posts and give knee-jerk reactions devoid of any real comprehension? READING my posts would have made it clear that A. I would most likely have skipped at least the first cache IF I had known up front where the coordinates would take me (it wasn't obvious even from the parking lot, as I've already said) B. that I did abort my search quickly once I realized where they had taken me and C. that even so, I found myself being scrutinized by cops as I left. READING my posts would also make it clear that I'm not so much concerned about my own personal experiences as I am about the possible negative impact to geocaching due to cache placement bothering homeowners, and the potential for other cachers being arrested or harassed by police.

Has to be "next to cache containers"? I fairly frequently take pictures of my dogs - who always cache with me - NEAR caches, but don't take pics WITH caches.

In this case, yes, they do. If you're ON THE PARKING LOT, you can't see into the yards - you can glimpse that there are homes back there, but not see into the yards. Please re-read my description of the location; you'll see that I said there are trees - I didn't specify, but they are thick evergreens - planted to screen the homes, and cachers are going behind that screen.