tomowens

The game has changed a lot in the 20 or so years that I have been playing. I hate to be one of those grumpy old geezers who pine for the Good Old Days, but I do have more fond memories of those days when I could research a cache on the website, copy the coordinates ( manually ) into my hand-held Magellan 3000 GPS, and take off with nothing more than bearing and distance information. The number of caches within 30 miles or so was about 5 at the time. To get beyond that we would plan an adventure for the day - choose a cache that may be a 75 mile trip or greater and armed with only bearing and distance information ( personal preference, maps make it too easy ) off we'd go. If the end result was a micro, it seemed kind of like a let down. But, I get it. If there were only a dozen caches within a hundred mile radius, the game would likely have died off quickly. These days we rarely play any more, but occasionally do when we have a few minutes of spare time in any location. Now it's a 10 minute thing instead of an adventure for the entire afternoon or whole day. Plus, I can now use a cell phone to check any area where I happen to be standing - no pre-planning necessary. I still avoid looking at the map or hints and like to seek with only the bearing / distance information. If it's a micro, so be it. For me, it's just not quite as much fun. - Raiders of the Lost Park

#'s 1, 4 and 2 for me. Probably in that order. I didn't see an entry for 'doesn't really care about the numbers'. You can add that one also. Most of our finds are not logged in the database, just in the log books.

I guess that makes me a newbie to some and an old-timer to others. Almost at eleven years.

The real question is whether or not the cache owners are signing the log books before claiming the find in the GS database. For me, it doesn't have any effect on how I play the game or how much I enjoy it.

I like caches that are large enough for some fun SWAG and include a log book with more than just signatures and dates. Extra points if the cache is alone in an area and not just a one-of-many in some readily accessible location.

If my only log is in the logbook, then the CO has to either bring an eraser or tear out the page to delete my log. I usually don't see much use in the on-line logs if everything is fine with the cache and there is nothing to bring to the attention of the CO. If you want to read my story, it's in the book.

One of the things that irks me is log books that are too small to write my Story of the Find in them. This means that there is nothing for me to read when I do find the cache. I enjoy reading what others have gone through to get the container, but I rarely, if ever read the on line description or logs. I accept the fact that this is my own fault.

This thinking comes from some back-packing trips I had taken through Canyonlands National Park 'way back when'. Often at the starting point there was a register or log book to sign in so the rangers could know if there was anyone in the area. People would write the most amusing stories as they were leaving. A big part of the fun of finding a cache for me is to sit and read through the log book to see what others had to say while they were there - just as we did at the beginning of those long backpack trips. Finding the book is a requirement for reading the story. It's just not available to anyone sitting at home. Needless to say, I don't care much for small caches where there is hardly room for initials on some small scrap of paper. Give me a notebook.

Compass all the way for me including driving from miles away. That, for me, makes figuring out how to get there a lot more fun. It also usually means a few extra miles or circling around a bit until I get close enough to park. I think of the map as 'cheating'.

I'm in the minority here. I think the on-line log should simply be a check box designating that I found it for my own records. The story of my find belongs in the log book, not on the web site. If the log book is too small to write in, no story.

To increase my find average from four per year to five.

I think someone should hide a cache named FTF or something like that. The cache should be filled with many single-signature log sheets so everyone who signs it can have a pristine log to sign. The cache page could state that everyone who signs is First. It may be first that day, first that hour, first that month, etc. but everyone is first.

I am more of a Cacher-Of-Opportunity than a Dedicated Cacher. Usually if I'm in an area with a few minutes to spare, I'll run a quick check with my phone to see if there are any caches nearby. If I simply walk by a listed cache and glance around for a minute or two without seeing the cache, I will not log the DNF because it's really more of a Did Not Really Look situation. I don't think that is helpful to anyone. If I give the search a good try and still come up empty, I'll log that fact with a DNF.

My first was a DNF on 09/29/2002. This is GC174D Mollie's Nipple Cache in Hurricane. Although I have been back there one time since then, I did not even look for the cache that time. It is still on my todo list though. This is also the location where we left my son's ashes four years later. Didn't find it 09/29/2002 This was to be my introduction to GeoCaching, but alas, we could not find the cache. My son, who had 'happened across' this cache during several of his hikes , was who told me of this pastime and suggested that we hike to this one. Although we did arrive at the proper location, we were unable to locate the cache. My son even pointed to the very spot where he had seen it previously. Is it M.I.A.? (I did find one of the items that was previously in the box stuffed into a small sage plant at the south end of the peak)

How about if a Basic Membership allowed anyone to view the cache pages and perform all of the current tasks that you can do now, but you need a Premium Membership to log your finds online?

We usually sign the logs as Raiders of the Lost Park, but have not created a username to match. On line logs go against the same username I'm posting with here. Not that TomOwens isn't awesome...

My son had happened upon GC174D one day while he was out hiking. Several months later he mentioned it to me when we were in the same area. We tried to find it again ( without coords or GPS ) and were unsuccessful. It was not until after I returned home from that trip that I looked into geocaching and set up my account here. My first ever log was a DNF on this cache. As a bittersweet side note, we returned to the location several years later to spread my son's ashes - the location was very special to him. We did not think to look for the cache on that trip. Some day I hope to find that one and to re-visit that very special place. -- Raiders of the Lost Park

I like SWAG even though I don't always trade. But there's a little piece of my mind that, when I find a film can or something like that, says "That's not a _real_ geocache". I find it more entertaining to look through the stuff and get a few extra chuckles about the things I find.

Two things come to mind: 1. I don't like it when I happen across the map before searching for GZ. Part of the fun for me is just following the heading and distance readings and trying to figure out how to get there. 2. I prefer caches with SWAG, especially when showing the game to new people. It becomes annoying to me when I need to filter out dozens of close-by film cans and the like while a geo-newbie is watching.

I don't care at all what the count of finds / DNFs is, but I like that there is a list kept at GC.com so I don't go searching for caches that I have already found.

There are some times when there just doesn't seem to be a good enough arrangement of the satellites for me to get a location. It's rare, but I have seen it happen before. When it does occur, it affects my phones and my dedicated GPSr's all the same. I can call up the 'satellite view' and typically will find that there are three or four to be found just above the horizon with several in the same basic direction. The number of satellites 35 degrees and up is very small. BTW: I noticed this effect on January 26th as well. It was in the morning, in Colorado. Later everything was OK again.

+1 I have thought and used the same rationale when finding a film can along the side of the highway. I guess I could say something like: "Parked the car on a perfectly average day, stepped out, and found the cache after a lengthy search that occupied almost 45 seconds! Imagine my surprise when I figured what the container was in its past life. Thank you so much for placing this cache in a location that no one would ever expect to visit for any reason other than to drive by on their way to somewhere else."

I take full responsibility for my caching experiences. My habits are my own fault, so I am to blame for any good or bad times that I have. I am a cacher of convenience. Rarely will I read a cache description before showing up near GZ. I am more likely to get to an area, find myself with some spare time, pull out my cell phone and get a short list of the nearest caches. I'll randomly pick one from the list and point my compass at it. I don't like to see the map, leaving getting there with nothing but distance / heading information as a big part of the adventure. If I don't like something about the cache, it's my own fault for the way I like to play the game.

SWMBO and I watched the movie last night. I thought it was mediocre. Not the worst movie I've streamed on NetFlix and not the best. I thought that Galaxie sure started following her GPSr way early in many of those scenes. It seemed she was way off when she first assumed the nose-to-the-GPS walking position. Overall we laughed a few times; especially at the Grandpa parts and Amazing Steve + Wyoming. I love you Wyoming.

I guess the $64 question is.... Was it an endangered scorpion? It was surely endangered while being stood upon.