ke6n

Oh, please. My "nastiness" comes only as response to those who blindly tout Waymarking as the "end all" answer to virtuals and locationless. As many have pointed out, it's not the same game. The site layout sucks. It's not "familiar". As such, it's too much bother.

Posts like this don't help the cause in the least. In fact, they hurt it. Ahh, but you see, you have a falacy in your response. You actually imply that there is a cause. According to you and everybody else who thinks they know, there is no cause as they will never be OK'd again. You regularly go on to point out how "Waymarking" has all that and more. Phbt.

I agree with the OP 100%. But why bother? You see, geocaching is all about finding a plastic tupperware filled with broken McCrap. Apparently the object of the game, since the original geocache was a container (buried or not), is to find a physical container. Any variation on that is blasphemy. The minions will tell you so! It doesn't matter that you have a wonderful or interesting location that won't support a physical cache that you'd like to share (and still retain "ownership" of the listing.) No McCrap, no geocache! No McCrap and it can't be listed on this site. Oh, OK... micros with no room for trade still get through but there are plenty of McCrap collectors and dispursers who complain about those and how they'd like for them to be banned, also. But again I ask... Why bother? You'll be shot down for bringing it up.

I'm resorting to "geo-ridesharing"... It works out well, though, as the ones who do it all like to geocache together anyway.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

OK, where do I log my "virtual find?" Oh, and by the way, I've always done base-2 as right -> left, smallest on the right to larger on the left, FWIW.

So be proactive, log a Needs Archived on these. I expect the Reviewers will deal with it. Not exactly a cache placement issue, but close enough that I would think that they can find a rule to fit the situation. Any one cache is not as important as the relationship with landowners... if it tells folks how to avoid the access fee and entrance permit it hurts all geocachers. Wow. So here's something from the other end of the scale for a little balance. This state park is fairly close to where I live and I'd like to see some more geocaches up that way. There are some, now, however. But my point is to look at the use fee schedule on their web page. $6 for cars, $5 for cars with seniors, FREE for pedestrian and bicycle users. They have a big parking area just for folks who want to avoid the day use fee and walk in. (Oh, it's right by the building with the wireless access...) CA State Park that advertises how to gain free access.

Lucky you. I popped out $3.30 at the CHEAP place for a tank that cost me $73.00 I'm pretty sure the OP didn't want to argue about prices, though. I'll bet the OP could pony up $6 or $9 and buy a money order and send THAT in without having to get permission from his parents and try out the PM privileges... Probably pick off a good number of PMO caches in that amount of time, too, if that is what he really wanted to do. Since he has been caching a while, it could be time to try out the big league.

It's 10"x15" at the base and 10" high. Oooh, bigun! What happens if some muggle stumbles across it and claims they found evidence of Mrs. Bigfoot?! Seriously, though, that looks like it would be a fun find.

OK, in spite of all the "justification" for PMO caches, the OP has a point. Can you remember back to the first geocache you found? Were you a paying member at that time? I would venture a guess that most geocachers found a cache or two first before they coughed up money to join the site and take advantages of premium services. If there were only PMO caches around, do you think you'd have coughed up the money first to try it out? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. My theory is that being able to find a cache without having to pay the money up front will net more new premium members for Groundspeak than the ridiculous idea of requiring people to pay money up front in order to find a cache, which is what those who hide PMO caches think they are doing; helping Groundspeak out by requiring such payment up front. Anyway, that's my theory. I was a non-paying member for many years. I discovered that I liked the idea of the premium features - paperless geocaching and the pocket queries. I will never hide a PMO cache, myself. I understand some of the reasons why some people hide a PMO cache, but the idea that they are helping Groundspeak out by not allowing new people to try out geocaching on their PMO caches is simply shortsighted. Ken

More like a double E. OK, I was doing my best without something to reference in the photo.

What is that, about a C-cup?

When I started geocaching I had that "secret agent" feeling because just about everything I was going to find was urban. It was fun, but I think I worried too much about "being discovered." Since that time, I have found that if I go about what I am doing with no real cares or worries, I attract less attention. I find that furtively looking around will more often attract attention than just doing what you're there to do. On the rare occasions that I have been busted by a muggle, I have made an on the spot decision about how I will respond to their questions. If they look like they're "OK", I've told them about the game and asked if they've heard of it before. Some answer "yes", some say "no but that sounds cool. Tell me more!" Depending on the situation, it's a great way to be an ambassador to our game and educate interested people on how to go about getting involved. Of the fairly few caches I've done where I've had a conversation with a muggle about the game, none have gone missing directly after my visit. (Yes, I've checked because I wanted to make sure that my openness about the game didn't backfire.) Just recently I was searching around the back of a parking lot near a dumpster area and no doubt looking suspicious. I noticed a police officer parked behind an adjacent business writing a report and occasionally glancing up at me. I eventually made the find (didn't know what a "nalgene" bottle was before this, now I do) and took it over to the hood of my vehicle and emptied it out and signed the log. I glanced over at the officer and caught his eye watching me. Anyway, I went ahead and signed the log and put it back together then took the cache and walked over to the officer. When I was just about at his car, he got out and greeted me. Being completely open, I asked him if he had heard of geocaching and he indicated that he had. In fact, his brother down in Southern California does it quite a bit. (Don't remember his geocaching name.) I asked if he had ever done it before and he said "no". Then I offered him an opportunity to sign the log of his first geocache. He declined but I got a big smile out of him. I asked him if he wondered what I was doing over there and he said "well, I wondered a little, but you didn't seem to be doing anything wrong." We had a bit more of a chat and wished each other well. I rehid the cache, he finished his report and we parted ways. Good exchange, I think.

I honestly can't remember how I first heard about it.

Yeah. Automatic background music is a bad idea. It was a bad idea in the old days when the web was young but the people just had to do it because they could. Now, it's simply pathetic. (yep, even on Myspace.)

Nice, entertaining read. Um, did you look by the rock that looks like a log? The petrified wood?

Listen to her show and you'll wanna break more than that.... Hey, she's great! Dealing with the slime she gets on that show must be something else. But to keep it somewhat on topic, I like the idea of the big trade requirements where there is no way it will fit in the micro. Ha.

The idea is good. Personally, I would prefer not just a clone, but if possible a different kind of hide at the same location. Sure, some people have moved on and some have recently arrived. There are still a lot of people who have been there all along. For them, it might be kind of boring to visit an exact clone. For the new people, they have nothing to compare it to, so why not hide a new style or make some part of it different?

It has certainly changed over the years. More caches, less options (locationless, virtual, traveling, mandatory log, etc.) Some of it is good, some is bad. Certainly the swag factor has diminished. Since there is so much broken McCrap in geocaches these days, I've gotten to not even bothering doing anything but signing the log. I mean there is a LOT of opportunity to trade up, but I know the chain would be broken, so what is the use? I'm not going to treat each geocache like a charity case. I don't have that kind of money, so... I sign the log. To sum up, it has changed, not necessarly for the worse or better, but it has changed.

As of when I posted this reply, it looks like you're running 66% or thereabouts for your logging suggestion. I wonder if it will hold up? Ken (Oh, edited to say that I usually don't bother writing down that I "TNLNSL"... I just do it.)

Um, hey... Where'd the OP go? ...that's what I thought.

Some people might be more concerned about skeletons in their closets... But yes, I've found skeletons near cache sites. Pretty much just about any time I head out to take a hike somewhere I find the remains of some poor creature.

I didn't apologize. In addition to what Keystone said, I would suggest you research the forums on "I accept your apology" to understand why I posted that. Obviously, you don't get it. I'd sure like to think that there is some other explanation rather than just being flippant. For those of us "not in the know", it sounds very disrespectful and I would caution against such usage on the assumption that everyone knows what it is about. Perhaps you could provide a link or two for those of us who don't spend so much of our lives in the forums.

English major. Right? Ha. Those don't come up very often in computer science, I'll tell ya...

Yes I don't know why the folks who want to bring back virts don't do this. Makes perfect sense to me. I like virts and encourage this practice! And, this way, nobody judges your virt for 'wow' or any other factor! I like virts and encourage their adoption in case current owners are thinking about archiving. And yes, this is a good way to incorporate something that would otherwise be something one might want to have for a virtual cache into something that is acceptable to be listed.