Jomarac5

No really, it is.

I would highly recommend the book GPS Made Easy by Lawrence Letham. It's very good.

Found a package of Viagra in a cache -- left it though as the wife tells me it's not needed in our house The kids asked what it was and were told it was for those who are less fortunate...

Please pardon me for not reading the updated logs closely enough.

There are weekly updates for promoting your cache. I don't think it's appropriate to list out a 5 month old cache in the forums for no apparent reason. Sorry, I just don't get the reason for this post.

Our middle daughter reads the logs out loud and then signs the log for us.

Pretty much what BreakTrack said... Sometimes the kids go through the cache and don't find anything of interest -- quite often it's the kids that say "Let's not take anything". If a cache is a bit on the lean side we'll often take nothing but leave something there to hopefully make the cache a bit better. We always sign the log book. For us it's often more about the trip there. Different strokes...

Team KFWB GPS has placed 88 caches as of todays date.

Coloured is correct. It appears that you've centred on an unfavourable method of spelling. If you are looking for an arguement about this, I suggest that you catalogue your favourite differences. Don't worry though, your honour is still intact. Get with the programme.

It doesn't matter much to me how far the cache is located off of the trail as long as it is placed well. I do however, appreciate a cache location off of the main trail if the area is well used. This allows us to look at the cache without worrying about non-cachers peeking in on us. A few days ago I was in a park that has a considerable amount of use -- the cache was hidden about 50 ft off of the trail behind a large stump -- a secluded spot that was perfect for avoiding passing park users while investigating the contents. I've also done a few caches where the cache was located within a few feet of busy trails -- this can be challenging just to retrieve and replace the cache without being seen (sometimes adding to the excitement!). If a cache is placed off of the trail, please make a point of treading lightly. I've found a number of caches by watching for footprints, kicked rocks, broken branches, etc, from previous cachers (I'm assuming that it was from cachers). I make it a point to cover my tracks well when I leave a cache that is off the beaten path -- a few thrown leaves or the scattering of some dirt, branches and sticks is often enough to make your access path invisible to others. My kids are also learning how to cover their tracks and now return to the trails walking backwards for the last 20 or so feet (when possible) and covering their tracks behind them. Basically, it's simply a matter of respect. When I was a kid, my father always told me to leave the wilderness the way that I found it -- to allow the next person that visits the spot to believe that they were the first there. Works for me -----

7 weeks of great fun. Really having a great time exploring new places and places that we've known about but never visited before geocaching.

In Canada you can purchase and track geocoins at www.geocoins.ca. They're gorgeous coins and a sought after find.

Smarten up kids, or you'll have to wait in the car. Enough already. Go find something.

is when a few people for whatever reason (selfishness, stupidity, insecurities, ego -- or lack thereof) ruin a good thing for everyone else. Want a good example of this? Read the latest in the Canada forum area. -----

quote:Originally posted by bcrockcrawler, xstitcher, & BMXer:Seems to me that Vancouver Island has now turned into one big school yard. The kid with the biggest and... You really don't get it do you? -----

Oops. Back button error.

Has anyone here heard the expression "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth?" Lighten up people. If you don't like a particular cache, or the methods used to place it, or ALL CAPS (for crying out loud) then don't play that particular cache. This is a good example of how a few people can put a damper on something really good. Did it cost you anything? No. Were you forced to find Team KFWB caches. No. Is it really a big problem to have Team KFWB caches show up in your weekly cache lists? No. I've only been geocaching for a few weeks and have been following the discussions regarding the Team KFWB caches and am surprised that they didn't shut this down before now. I am excited about what Team KFWB is up to. It is different. It is challenging. It is extremely generous. It is good for geocaching. It is fun. To think that Team KFWB is changing geocaching so that people will only hunt caches that have large sums of money or expensive items in them is ludicrous. Grow up. Really. I don't care what Team KFWB's motivation is -- it's fun. And now you've made it not fun for the people that it matters for the most -- Team KFWB. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THEIR CACHES IF YOU DON"T AGREE WITH THEM. And now you've made it so that those who do enjoy the challenges of Team KFWB caches can't do them anymore. Pretty selfish of you if you ask me. I hope everyone reads through each post in the Team KFWB GPS post by MarinerBC so that they can fully appreciate the ridiculous complaints and suggestions that you've posted. You desperately need to find something more constructive to do with your time. I'm glad that I don't live on the Island. I'd be very embarrased by all of this. In fact, even though I live in the Vancouver area, I am embarrased. Team KFWB, please don't stop placing your caches in BC -- we really do have a great deal to offer. I have been looking foward to doing your caches and am sad that a few have ruined it for you and the many that like the excitement that you've created. Keep up the good work Team KFWB -- there are many of us who do like what you've been doing. If there is anything that I can personally do to assist you in your pursuits, please let me know -- I'd be glad to help. Thanks so much for making it more interesting and please accept my apologies for those who don't know how to conduct themselves in a respectful manner. ----- [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on January 09, 2003 at 12:09 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by Cholo: Discrepancy is the better part of velure That's velour isn't it?

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: quote:Originally posted by Jomarac5:Over the past few days I've taken good look at virtual caches and have made a few observations: You're talking aboutLOCATIONLESS caches there. The scavanger hunt type. Virtuals are a little different. Thanks George. My error. Yes, there is indeed a difference. Please forgive my mistake. I moved my post here.

Over the past few days I've taken good look at locationless caches and have made a few observations: DIFFICULTY RATINGS: The Locationless caches that I looked at had difficulty ratings between 1 to 5 stars. How could a locationless cache that requires a picture of a happy face on the side of a barn rate a difficulty of 3.5? Standing on a country road and pushing your finger on a button can't be THAT hard. One cache had a difficulty of 5 -- although this HOT DOG might require some investigative effort to locate, I don't think it rates up there with the more difficult and aptly rated WATCHER'S POINT OF VIEW. Fortunately, only a couple that I saw rated Terrain more than 1 star. My suggestion: Difficulty ratings should to be ignored for the most part -- what's easy in one location could be impossible in another. Reading the description is a better way of determining how much effort is necessary in your part of the world. ---------- REQUIREMENTS: Why do the owners of locationless caches post requirements when a great deal of the time, it appears that they ignore their own conditions? I did however, see one cache owner who posted a message about people submitting for a find without fully meeting the requirements for the Remote AV8R cache. It sums it up pretty good. My suggestion: Cache qualifications are too lax. Owners need to disqualify those who don't meet the criteria. ---------- HONESTY AND FAIR PLAY: I've seen a few caches where the same cacher has logged more than one find. One cacher had logged the find four times with four different photo locations! In most cases this wouldn't matter much but in the case of most locationless caches, it may be denying some else to log a cache. The rules state clearly "one find per cacher, each find can be logged only once". There are many things that there are only a limited number of in any area, i.e., lighthouses. My suggestion: There needs to be a bit more honesty required on the part of the cacher. Read the requirements. Carefully. And don't log a find if you haven't completed all the requirements of the owner. If you don't agree with the owners requirements then don't play the cache. Bear in mind also that the cache owner can be easily overwhelmed by incomplete logs -- having to inform cachers that their log is denied takes considerable time and can be monotonous if every application is a waste of effort. If it becomes too consuming to maintain the cache the owner might archive the cache, or worse yet, stop posting them altogether. ---------- There have been recent comments in other discussions that some of the reviewers are expressing an aversion towards virtual and locationless caches. Take a look at it from their perspective; it's a bit of a grey area and for the time being it's going to be difficult for them to make decisions that are gong to make everyone happy. It's going to take time to produce a set of guidelines that satisfy each element of locationless caching but it will come (and perhaps locationless caches could be logged separately from physical caches). Be careful not to suggest locationless caches asking for the absurd -- it would be silly to populate the playing field with caches that are trying to locate every city that has the letter 'S' in it's name. Use some common sense when designing a virtual cache. It'll help the reviewers arduous task to be a lot easier. I also had a very positive observation... there's getting to be quite a photographic resource of interesting and specific (if not somewhat, oddball) items -- where else can you find pictures of Round Barns? Overall, I'm still convinced that locationless caches are fun and worthwhile to do. In fact, I think the possiblities for creating interesting, educational, and entertaining hunts is phenomenal. Incorporating the usefulness of the web as an investigative tool into a virtual has the potential of be very stimulating. Give Locationless caches a chance to evolve -- we're just scratching the surface of possiblities. ----- [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on January 07, 2003 at 12:20 PM.]

Realized that this post was a bit off topic in this discussion. I've moved it to the Locationless caches - Taking pics! discussion. Don't want to get Markwelled [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on January 07, 2003 at 09:34 AM.]

I'm pretty new to geocaching and logged my first Virtual last weekend. I've logged two more since then. I like virtual caches -- it makes you think about places that you already know. Since I started searching for them on the site I've made a list of items to watch for (found a virtual today while looking for a regular cache). Found out that you have to be quick though -- was planning to photograph one today but Pharmadude logged it last night Although I enjoy the Virtual caches, they are not the same as finding a physical cache. I think they should be logged separately (much like Travel Bugs). ---- [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on January 06, 2003 at 08:40 PM.]

We came across a beautiful park that we'd never been to while searching for DON'T GET WET last weekend. We only got to see a small part of the park but will be returning with camera in hand. The question is: After visiting a cache location how often do you return (for activities other than geocaching)?

Sure are a lot of people getting a bit testy around here

Really depends on how much time I've got for the day of searching. I've spent upwards of an hour but generally, a half hour is about it.