Spraginator

I heard of one in the Caribbean that was under the drivers seat of a for hire horse and buggy. You had to say the code word to get the driver to give you the cache. Sorry, don't have a link or GC#

Or maybe x free caches a year. Like 25 or 50

I wonder if we could have it be free for a year, then pay after that. So people could try it out first. Although that will probably just mean people will create new accounts...

Alright, you seem to have some large misinterpretations about the current state of social network websites in general. Let me explain: IM and PM messages refers to Instant Messages (such as a guestbook on your profile) and Private Messages (a prive messaging service, also on your profile). This means that you do not have to send e-mails, with your own adress, through geocaching.com, to another e-mail adress, so that the person you PM'ed have to go to his mail, log in, find the message there, and repeat this ordeal to reply. This means you can simply browse to his profile, and contact him there. Without the use of e-mail whatsoever. It's not reinventing the wheel, my friend. "Why have another IM system?" Well, for starters, to connect with other players on a common ground: Geocaching.com. Secondly, to avoid using external sources or third-party software that requires another registration, another installation, and another piece of platform to work with. Tell me this: Why would you prefer to have many different accounts on many different sites, for a purpose that would be easier to forfill if they were simply integrated into this one platform? viscus, You are not understanding what dfx is saying! They are saying that they do not want yet another inbox to check. By having messages go to your email, you are guaranteed to get them even if you havn't logged into geocaching.com. I know I can go months not logging in because life gets in the way. But if someone wants to ask me a question about a cache, if it goes to my email, I'll see it there. I think you'll find/are finding that you are vastly outnumbered here. We do not want this to be a social networking site. The features on the site that are somewhat like some social networking sites are there out of necessity.

I'm personally hoping geocaching doesn't get any more popular than it already is. That's why I'm not particularly fond of the smart phone apps put out by Groundspeak. I think too many people geocaching will ruin the novelness of it and lead to issues and problems.

I'm curious to know what everybodysfavorite cache is. More specifically, what made it your favorite? Terrain? View? The hide? The container? Feel free to post pictures, GC numbers, descriptions of the cache, etc. Please be sensitive with spoilers. For example, if you're going to put a picture of a container that is part of the hide, don't post the name or GC number.

You want actual testing? Well, here you go. I had some time to do some "actual testing" while waiting for my ride yesterday, Oregon 450 (running latest beta firmware) vs. HTC Desire Z (not the one that was "proven" to be accurate to 12 inches, heh, but close enough). The test consisted of me having picked a random, well recognizable spot on the sidewalk, approaching this spot from different directions and simultaneously marking a waypoint on both devices. Single shot readings, no averaging, and both devices were given a few seconds at the designated spot to settle down before the waypoint was marked. Then I walked away a few meters and repeated. Everything was done under open sky. Both devices were turned on (or had the GPS enabled) initially at roughly the same time, a few minutes before I started the test. The Oregon showed an accuracy of 3 meters for most of the test, and the HTC showed an accuracy of 2.0 meters. I marked 10 waypoints total and the coordinates are listed below. Since I don't know the actual coordinates of the designated spot, I used the mean location from each device and the variation from that mean is given below for each waypoint in meters, plus the mean variation at the end. Oregon: +------------------------------+------+ | N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2116' | 3.12 | | N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2127' | 1.77 | | N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2133' | 0.68 | | N 43 21.0253' W 079 50.2130' | 2.25 | | N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2141' | 0.59 | | N 43 21.0240' W 079 50.2146' | 1.16 | | N 43 21.0241' W 079 50.2151' | 1.85 | | N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2143' | 0.72 | | N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2143' | 0.72 | | N 43 21.0239' W 079 50.2146' | 1.19 | +------------------------------+------+ | N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2138' | 1.41 | <- MEAN +------------------------------+------+ HTC: +------------------------------+------+ | N 43 21.0228' W 079 50.2126' | 2.96 | | N 43 21.0244' W 079 50.2146' | 1.52 | | N 43 21.0237' W 079 50.2164' | 2.63 | | N 43 21.0234' W 079 50.2164' | 2.65 | | N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2170' | 3.59 | | N 43 21.0234' W 079 50.2122' | 3.06 | | N 43 21.0242' W 079 50.2134' | 1.78 | | N 43 21.0246' W 079 50.2134' | 2.33 | | N 43 21.0226' W 079 50.2152' | 2.18 | | N 43 21.0228' W 079 50.2134' | 2.06 | +------------------------------+------+ | N 43 21.0236' W 079 50.2145' | 2.48 | <- MEAN +------------------------------+------+ So while the results from the phone aren't disastrous, it shows that it's not more accurate than the GPS. even though it claims that it is (going by the shown "accuracy"), and it also shows that the accuracy given by the phone is pretty much a joke. I also expect that the difference would be much more significant under tree cover. You seem to have mistaken consistency for accuracy. Just because a device give consistent numbers doesn't mean they're right! This applies to both devices!

Using phones for caching, and especially placing caches, just leads to degradation of our hobby. Phone cachers course are usually 60-150 feet off! Where I can pinpoint to 8 feet with my garmin 62s. Also, you dont have to buy Garmina maps. I have mine loaded with free maps that are better than Garmins!

Well, As far as I know, there's no 62cx. What GPS do you have. Maybe you're referring to the 60cx? In that case, NO, all you can see is cache names. If you're referring to the 62 series (62, 62s, 62st), then yes, you can see descriptions, hints, etc.

Oh, but it was broken! only being able to view 500 caches on a map! ridiculous! I could hardly view my whole city on one map! When the Beta maps are out of beta, they will serve the caching community much better!

This just in! A lame cache has been officially defined as an LPC! We all know there are way too many of those.

I agree with W7WT if you're willing to take 2 devices with you. It's probably a good idea to have a cell phone with you anyway... The GPSMAP 60Csx is a great device that is very accurate and you can pick one up for ~$200 now.

Well, it seems no one has really answered your question... Here's my 2 cents: Definitely go with a "real" GPS.I personally think Garmin is the way to go, but there are differing opinions on that one. I use a GPSMAP62s. You will find it has most of the features of your iPhone. The one thing it doesn't have (and actually, no GPSr i know of does) is the ability to download caches on the fly. PQs are great for that though. If you plan ahead a little, you can download the 1000 caches closest to your house and do caches on a route for road trips. It's running between $350 (wal-mart) and $400 (REI). Despite the increased cost, I recommend REI. If you find you don't like it, after any amount of time, they will give you a full refund. No matter how beat up it is. If you're not looking to spend that much money, The GPSMAP60Csx has been the gold standard in GPSr for a while. It's been out about 5 years. I get the feeling this one may not be for you since it doesn't support paperless caching. The other unit I would suggest you could look into is an Oregon 450 series. This is a touchscreen GPSr. It is paperless. I used to have the (very similar) Oregon 550t (the 450 is actually newer). I personally did not like the Oregon, but I know some people that love their Oregons. Some pros and cons about the oregon: Pros: Logging in the field is much easier with the touchscreen Cons: Screen can be hard to see and touchscreen buttons can be finiky. IN SUMMARY: I recommend the GPSMAP 62s. But the oregon 450 could be a fine choice to depending on your preferences. Now, to convince you to buy from REI, i will tell a story. I had a GPSMAP 60Csx for about 2 years. It had a rubber power button. This rubber ripped, so I couldn't use it. For a while I turned the GPS on and off with a paperclip. Eventually, that didn't work anymore. I took it back to REI, they refunded the entire purchase price, which I applied to a Oregon 550t. I cached with the 550t for about 8 months. Never really liked it. I went into REI to look at the GPSMAP 62s, which basically replaced the 60Csx. The salesman asked what units I had owned in the past. I told him that i had the 550t and wasn't thrilled with it. I had not planned on returning it b/c I figured REI had already given me 2 units for the price of 1. The salesman practically begged me to return the 550t and get a GPSMAP 62s. I was hesitant because I thought I was ripping the company off. But I did it. And the GPSMAP was $100 less than the 550t! so I got a GPS I like a lot better and $100 bucks back! Whatever you choose, you can't go wrong buying from REI!

Thanks for your responses. I was more looking along the lines of "traditional, puzzle, muti, etc".

What is your favorite geocache type and why?

That website seems to up to date for you now...are you sure you wern't looking at somone else?

I think you're being unreasonable. It should really only be your call if they found it while you were the owner. And if you had a problem with their log, you should have let them know right away! Geocaching is what you make of it. some people interpret it differently. By deleting the logs, you are doing nothing to help you/your cache and you are only hurting them. I think that what you did is a pretty low blow and you had no right to do it.

I don't think you understand. If you are asking people to add "the answer" to the coordinates, it should be a puzzle cache. If the coordinates in the listing are exactly the coordinates of the first stage, then it can be listed as a multi. Ok I did misunderstand you I will list it as a puzzle cache then. Thanks for the clarification. Make sure to make it clear in the description that it is also a multi, so people know they will be looking more after they find the first stage.

I don't think you understand. If you are asking people to add "the answer" to the coordinates, it should be a puzzle cache. If the coordinates in the listing are exactly the coordinates of the first stage, then it can be listed as a multi.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense, although I've read the book, you may want to get an opinion of someone who hasn't read the book. The only thing is, normally, people don't say "multiply by 0.001". Usually, it seems to be accepted that 43 12.100 +23 = 43 12.123. But it is good that you are being specific. So I would say it's easier to understand then most puzzle caches of this type. On another note, If I were you, I would consider not publishing or editing this cache. Usually, the people who like to do puzzle caches like a little challenge. This presents no significant challenge, as the number can be found in one quick Google search. And the people who are interested in caches like this usually filter puzzle caches out of there PQs.

Do you know the name of that cache or the number?

Does anyone know of any caches that are located in caves? Are they allowed?

You should find more than 92 caches before you upgrade to a more expensive GPS

I'm pretty new to geocacing. At first I could just walk to most the caches I was doing, but now I've done all the caches within a 2 mile radius of my house and I have to drive or ride my bike to the caches. So i can imagine that it can be pretty easy to get to a point where you've done all the caches in a 5, 10 even 20 mile radius. So what about you, how far is the closest cache to your home that you have not found?

I live in a suburb of Detroit. It seems caches are almost always found within an hour of being published.