Dj Storm

In the past I found: - [multiple instances] the cache with cracked lid, soggy logbook or other issues; signed log, did as much maintenance as I could, logged "Found it" and eventually NM - [two times] cache contents (including logbook) scattered around. Put everything back, signed log, logged "Found it" - cache muggled by bears, container in pieces, logbook out in the open with claw holes, and wet due to rain, laminated stash notes moldy. signed the logbook (as well as an additional piece of paper), put the pieces back, logged "Found it" + NM - only the logbook, no container or swag. Put the logbook in a ziploc, signed log, logged Found it + NM - only the cache lid with geocaching sticker, logged DNF + NM - stash note only, logged DNF + NM - [several times] only the plastic bag in the hiding place, logged DNF + NM - [many times] the empty hiding place, logged DNF + NM

If the owner is active, I post a NM confirming the cache is gone, and let him solve the situation one way or the other. If the owner is inactive, I post a NM confirming the cache is missing, I send an e-mail to the CO, I send another e-mail two weeks later and post the NA after another two weeks.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it looks like the "foster parent" abandoned the cache, or had no intention to provide continuous maintenance. If the cache has some historic importance and a cacher assumes the responsibility to maintain it, he should do a job at least as good as the guidelines require. The oldest cache in my country has been "unofficially adopted" by a cacher; here's a timeline of the maintenance visits: ----- 2007 September 26 - maintenance and unofficial adoption 2008 July 29 - log mentioning the logbook has only one page left 2008 August 15 - maintenance, adding of a new logbook 2009 August 21 - second DNF in a row (one of them a Did Not Search) 2009 September 11 - maintenance check 2010 August 18 - pre-event maintenance check 2010 August 27 - post-event maintenance check 2010 September 20 - DNF log, coming after a log mentioning possible muggle tampering 2010 September 25 - new maintenance visit (third in 5 weeks) ----- I consider this cache receives adequate maintenance, while the cache described by the OP does not.

What I have observed: - plastic bags don't keep the water out; they do the undesired job of keeping the water in pretty well. - given some time, the bags became fragile and develop holes; it might be because of UV, or because snails munch on them What I do, and I recommend everyone doing: choose your favorite container and submerge it in the bathtub for several seconds. Rotate it under the water. If bubbles are coming out, or water get in, don't use it for your cache. Out of the several food containers I tested, only the lock&locks passed the test.

If I understood correctly, there are: 20 themed caches (14 standard caches, and 6 caches + clue) 1 bonus cache (findable using the six clues), containing a cryptex 1 mystery cache (findable by solving the cryptex) It should be alright, as long as you follow the placement guidelines (minimum .1 miles/161 meters between caches, etc). What would I do: duplicate the 6 clues. Place each clue in two different caches, so if a cacher fails to find one cache with a clue, he can still find the bonus after finding the duplicate clue. This means having 12 caches with clues and 8 without. If the clues are of the type A=... , B=... , F=..., then I wouldn't duplicate them, but I would add two "checking clues" in two other caches, of the type A+B+C=... , D+E+F=... - so if a cacher misses a clue, he will be able to determine it and find the bonus cache. Both the bonus and the cryptex cache should be of type "unknown". I would go for a series like this (and especially for the bonus at the end). If I would be able to solve the riddle in the field, I would go for the cryptex cache as well.

I found my first cache on September 24, 2006; it is still active, and most likely it will remain active in the future, too. Out of my 269 finds, 12 were events, 5 earthcaches and 1 virtual, the rest (251 caches) had a physical container to be found. Out of these 251 caches, only 9 are archived (two of these were archived less than 10 days ago).

Let's see this from another perspective: a geocacher usually goes through these phases: 1 - he is about to stumble on the cache listing; 2 - he read the cache listing and knows what to expect; 3 - he's out in the field searching for the cache; 4 - he found the cache. In which of these phases the D/T rating is most useful? In the first phase, the D/T rating is useful if the geocacher uses filters or scans the listings using some automatic methods. If you list the D/T for the final (let's say D 2 T 1.5), avid hikers might ignore the listing, while park-and-grabbers will read further. In the second phase, the geocacher already read the listing. A hiker will go for this cache (if he didn't ignore the cache during the previous step). A geocacher who avoids walking long distances will probably ignore the cache at this point. In the third phase, the geocacher collected the necessary information and is looking for the final. Here, knowing the D/T of the final is useful. In the last phase, the D/T rating is useful only for fizzy challenges or other personal goals (if any). If I would place such a cache, it will be placed mostly for the enjoyment of hikers. I would rate the D/T to reflect the entire trip. By rating the cache only for the final will cause it to be missed by some of those who would hunt it. In the description I would say that the D/T rating is for the entire trip, and mention the D/T rating for the final only. I consider this approach the best, because: - cachers who seek caches with high terrain and/or difficulty rating will find the listing easier. Cachers who avoid such caches will filter it out (and will not waste time reading the listing for a cache they wouldn't hunt anyway). - once at the final location, the cacher (having read the listing) will know the D/T rating for the final and will be able to make informed decisions about where to search.

A friend of mine hid a geocache in/on a tree. When he did maintenance, found hat the tree was whitewashed and the cache was painted over.

So far the answers can be grouped into two categories: 1. Rate the cache difficulty/terrain for the final; 2. Rate the cache difficulty/terrain as the highest D/T of its components. I would rate it differently: 3. Rate the cache difficulty/terrain for the entire geo-trip. [Edit: Clan Riffster replied as I was typing, we share the same opinion.] For example: a less than 2 miles hike on some trails, with light overgrowth and some elevation changes gives a terrain rating of 2.5 to 3, according to Clayjar's rating system. That would probably be accurate for each component of the cache. However, to find the bonus cache, one has to hike over 10 miles, and an overnight stay is likely. Clayjar's rating system gives a terrain rating of 5 for this (4 if you don't stay overnight). I would probably rate it as a 4 or 4.5 for terrain. As for the difficulty, is it necessary to find all the caches in order to find the bonus, or its coordinates can be determined after finding, let's say 18 out of the 20 caches? If it's necessary to find all of them, then I would probably rate it 1.5-2 points higher than the most difficult component (including the final one). If it can be found with less than a perfect strike, then I would rate it equal to the most difficult component (or 0.5 points higher). If it can be found after finding half of the components, then I would rate it as the difficulty for the final cache (maybe 0.5 points higher than that).

I don't consider your mail too harsh. However, there are some points to be considered: - some people, no matter how sugar coated is your message, will consider it too harsh, and might become confrontational. I'm OK for debates, but I try to avoid debates with that kind of people. - some people will ignore the harshness, but will think it's not your business to tell them what to do. They might either disregard the message altogether, or they might become confrontational. I would have avoided using the word "request" in the beginning of your mail. It is difficult to determine beforehand what kind of person you're dealing with. If they belong to the above types, contacting them might do more harm than good. If they are an OK person, then contacting them will give them a nudge in the right direction. For those in between, you need to "sugar coat" your message. When I contact other persons, I initially send a polite but short message, telling them about one or two of my concerns. I postpone the details and the less important issues for future emails.

I did one exactly like that less than two weeks ago (my first multi-puzzle), and it was a blast! I solved the puzzle in the listing in a few minutes, and said "no way this is a 4.5 difficulty", but assumed it was difficult to locate the cache (it was listed as size unknown). Then I found the container (quite easily, as there was a hint), it was an average size micro, easily retrievable. But in the container, instead of the logbook there was a new puzzle and a new hint... the difficulty rating was correct!

An interesting idea: 1. Visit the ISS; 2. Place a cache in the Training Module on the ground, in Baikonur (with permission); 3. Publish the cache, giving its actual coordinates, but claiming it's on the ISS. List it as a mystery if necessary. Sure, the mystery around the cache will fall apart soon after the FTF is claimed and word about the trick gets out, but until then it will be a "magnet" for geocachers all over the world.

So far I like multi-day events: geocaching during the day, geo-activities in the evening, socializing and having fun during the night, nightcaching (if we have enough sober drivers), two hours of sleeping and start over!

Same here. At that time, there were 3 caches in a 100 mile radius, all of them quite inaccessible for me. I waited two years for the first cache less than 60 miles from home. Even today there are only 5 caches within 60 miles (excluding my caches). A quick grab for me meant leaving home early in the morning, finding the cache in the afternoon and getting back home before midnight. Frustrating was going to find two remote caches (within the 100 mile circle) that required two nights of camping, and DNF'ing both.

Here's something I posted 11 months ago: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4114897 I still have the same opinion I had last year. Regarding making a rule/guideline to bag all swag, I say no. Making a suggestion, that's OK. Leading by example is the way to go: place bagged swag, bag swag left by others, talk about this at events, show/give out baggies at events, and also raise awareness by posting in the forums.

I read a year or two ago a log by a geocacher that went to the top of a mountain, bushwhacked his way down the other side, and found a wallet. While going towards his car, he encountered a fence, a checkpoint in the fence and an armed guy who informed him he's in a military area used for firing tests. He gave the wallet to the police, then had to show the police where he found it (luckily he saved the waypoint). The wallet belonged to someone who disappeared more than 10 years before, and his remains were found near the waypoint - he has been murdered. Sorry, I can't find the thread or log, and don't remember the name of the geocacher. I think this is the closest real life geocaching got to solving a mysterious murder. As fiction, the one I read is posted at The Online Geocacher: http://onlinegeocacher.com/issue/real_time...8-6-08-11-08-24; it was a good reading (in my opinion), I read it end-to-end without a break!

You can place the "worst" multicache here: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39....mp;t=h&z=14 You see: in the center, Turkey SW corner, Iran NE corner, Armenia E, Azerbaijan With only four legs no more than 5 km (3 miles) apart, it will take a determined cacher lots of time and money to find it. The borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Armenia and Turkey are closed.

I was thinking about most countries in a day, and came off with this possible scenario: Start in SW Ukraine at midnight, Oct 31 2010. Find a cache. Cross the border to Romania, set your clock 1 hour back (gaining an hour). Find a cache. Cross the border to Hungary, set your clock 1 hour back (gaining an hour). Find a cache. Choose the countries you want to visit, probably going northwest: Slovakia, Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, France, Italy and back to France, Monaco and back to France, Andorra, Spain. Don't forget that daylight savings time kicks out, set your clock an hour back (gaining an hour). Too bad Concorde planes have been withdrawn, else with enough money you could have chartered one and fly to US/Canada (or start your journey in Japan then fly to Europe). This is just a draft, and not usable in this form. Some borders take time to pass, some roads are not suitable for fast transit (lack of freeways), some caches need to be placed specifically for this route, and I doubt a car can drive all that distance in 27 hours without going over the speed limit too much.

I read about a cache that could be done only at midnight (or for those too distracted, scared, etc, a second chance was given at 0:07 AM). Unfortunately, I cannot locate the listing. It was interesting, because there weren't reflective markings to be followed. It was based on a talking clock, that "spoke" the coordinates for the final. If someone knows which cache I'm talking about, please post a link; the listing was also artistically written, it's worth reading.

I carry ziplocs and place the logbook in a bag. If the container is wet, I dry it with a towel I carry. If the cache has some issues, and the owner posted a note asking a finder to perform maintenance until he'll be able to revisit, I do the maintenance (replace a wet logbook, or replace a broken container). If the owner is unwilling to perform maintenance (or at least interested enough to post a note on the cache page), then I don't replace anything. One thing is to ask for a little help, while expecting it is a completely different thing.

I'm in favor of keeping old caches going (first caches in a country/state/county, or GC+3 caches, more so GC+2 caches). However, when the owner is MIA, the interest of the community in keeping the cache alive is not enough; a geocacher must step forward and assume maintenance of the cache. When several people "look after" a cache, we'll end up with situations like this one, with the cache migrating between several hiding spots, and where nobody knows how many replacements are there in the field. Since 2007 I'm also the unofficial maintainer of a cache placed in 2001. I replaced the container, and the original logbook is on my bookshelf at home (it was full and I replaced it, then during the next maintenance visit I took it home in order to keep it from disappearing). Soon I will replace the container again with a more watertight one. The cache discussed in this thread disappeared several times. Had the owner been active, he would have replaced the cache and logbook, and the cache would still be the "historic" one even if all its parts were replaced. With the owner missing and the community replacing the cache, the situation is similar, with the difference that the maintainers don't know where the cache was originally hidden. The fact that nobody performs regular maintenance, and "patching" the cache is always another cacher's job, is a point against keeping the cache alive. As much as I love historic caches, I feel this one should be archived, unless someone assumes maintenance of it. The new unofficial maintainer should prepare a container similar to the original (9"x13"x4"). Ask the finders of the original hide where it was placed (CyBret was there twice, maybe he remembers something). Keep maintaining it, and keep improving it (protect against moisture and floods, and hide it from the muggles using the ATV track).

Longest multi I know about: 560 km, 28 stages, it takes 28 days to complete (hiking across the Alpes). GC1FPN1

This week-end I found a veritable-looking ring in a cache, during a 24km hike in the mountains. My first reaction was "someone wants to propose and hid the ring for his partner to find". I looked at it and concluded it's a cheap one - gold is usually marked as such, and this one was unmarked (and had a small manufacturing defect), and if the metal is not gold, the stones aren't diamonds either. Read the logs, it was placed by the previous finder 4 days before. Left it there, I couldn't determine its value and thought it was more expensive than anything I had in my caching bag.

Overthinking a placement is a good thing, especially when compared to underthinking one. I'm also not too fond of cachers that have caches ready to be deployed if they find a "cool spot". If you can't be bothered to return to the cool spot you found in order to place the cache, will you do maintenance in a timely fashion? I'm also overthinking my placements. My caches go through four phases: - research: finding the place for some other reason (on top of caching) to bring geocachers there. Can be a place where I was before or I just found, or a place I heard about (and the research is done using the net and Google Earth). - alpha phase: visiting (or revisiting) the area with the intention to find a suitable place for the cache. Deciding the size and type of cache (traditional, multi, puzzle) that I'll place. Usually I do research and alpha (or alpha and beta) during the same visit - exceptions are when I change my mind on the spot (for example I planned to hide a traditional, but decided to hide a multi instead). - beta phase: revisiting the area, and placing a "dummy cache" (or several). My dummy caches are intentionally not very watertight, contain a few trinkets, paper, and are not marked as geocaches. - publishable: one month or more after placing the beta(s) I return with the permanent container (watertight and marked as a geocache). If the beta container is wet or missing, the location wasn't good in the first place. If at least one beta survived, I place the permanent cache - if not, I either look for more hiding spots and place additional betas, or abandon the area altogether.

Some of my thoughts: - if a cache page reads (or hints) that the seeker has to go inside a business, or ask an employee for the cache, I won't seek that cache. - if a cache is placed outside the business, but is available only during business hours, I will assume that I'll have to interact with the employees, and won't seek that cache. - if a cache is placed outside the business and available 24/7, but the listing doesn't mention anything about permission, I might look for a few seconds while passing by, but most likely won't seek the cache. - if the cache page mentions permission, I might seek the cache (depending on how crowded the area is). If there's a sign (like the message "Geocachers welcome", or the geocaching sign), then I will feel more comfortable searching, and will spend more time and effort than usual. However, I won't visit the business (and if the cache contains advertisements for said business, I will avoid it).