MusicIsMedicine

Sent my info to Laval K-9: 19 November, 2023 Name received from Laval K-9: GeoCharmer81 Sent my gift: 13/12/2023 My gift arrived at destination: I received a gift:

Great idea! This is my first time participating, and first time hearing about this. I read about it in the BCGA newsletter. Sent my info to Laval K-9: 19 November, 2023 Name received from Laval K-9: Sent my gift: My gift arrived at destination: I received a gift:

Hey there. I just responded to the email you sent me about this. I'm curious about this cache and would love to see whatever pictures you have of it. From what I can tell it looks like you can't upload images directly to the forums. Maybe try uploading the pictures to your geocaching.com profile and then linking to them here? Or you could use something like yfrog.com.

For the record, the cache these guys left was a regular sized cache, larger than my original even. It had a logbook, pen, and some swag.

Ok, a few things: First someone asked about the logs still being there and if I had taken any action yet. I haven't done anything yet except for remove the replacement, and update my cache description a bit. My original thought was I would either delete the logs and email the loggers telling them why they were deleted or send them an email asking if they could change their finds to notes. I haven't contacted them yet. Too bad cache owners can't just edit the logs on their cache, but I imagine that would lead to even more problems. Looking at the logbook in the replacement cache, aside from the two cachers who placed the replacement, there was one other couple who logged a find in the new logbook. I'll probably email them to let them know that they didn't actually find my cache, but I'm not going to delete their logs. It's not their fault, and if they want to go back and find the original cache that's great. I'll leave it up to them. To me geocaching is about getting into the outdoors, going places I've never been before, and seeing interesting things. I'm not too concerned with the numbers or how my stats compare to others'. That said, I've never considered logging a cache I didn't find even though I did make it to ground zero and saw the view/landmark that the cache hider had intended finders to visit. Finally, I want to make it clear that I'm not upset about the replacement cache. My feeling is the cachers who placed it had the best intentions and were just trying to be helpful. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I've had cachers offer to help me out with maintenence and replacement of caches before and that's certianly welcomed. I've helped out with a couple caches myself. I just found the situation with this cache bizarre given that the original cache wasn't confirmed as missing before it was replaced, and there was nothing to indicate I, as the owner, had abandoned the cache. Apparently this sort of thing is more common than I expected. Thanks to others for sharing their stories.

But in this case maintenance or replacement wasn't neccesary.

LMAO @ ammo can/gladware comment.

That's exactly what I was thinking as I made the +2.5km trek back to my car.

I considered that, but haven't really decided yet what I'll do with their logs. I remember when I first started hiding my own caches. I accidently posted a find on one of my own caches instead of a note. It wasn't long before someone emailed me and told me that was against the "rules." lol

You can create a bookmarks list. http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/

Hello there. I just wanted to post a story about one of my caches to get some opinions and to find out if anyone has seen this before. I have a series of caches hidden in a popular "rails-to-trails" area. The caches were all meant to be easy finds, but the 4th one in the series has proven to be more difficult to find than I had intended. It was published in late August of 2007 and has only had 17 finds logged, with 14 DNFs logged. The few logs may be partly due to parts of the trail being closed for a long time for restoration, and partly due to heavy snowfall in the winter making it extremely difficult to access. Anyway, apparently this one is tough. lol The cache was found in September last year and not logged again until this year. One DNF in May and two in June. On 23 June a note was posted by an out-of-province cacher that said simply "Plan to replace this cache". I wasn't sure what exactly that meant. Was he telling me to replace it, or asking if I will replace it? I decided to ignore it for the time being and check on the cache the next chance I got. Later that same day I found out what his log meant. He posted a found it log saying that he and two other cachers had searched for 15-20 minutes, determined that the cache was not there, and placed their own cache as a replacement. Two of them logged found it logs for the cache that they placed. I visited the cache site 11 days later and found my cache still in its original hiding spot. I also found the replacement less than 5 metres away. I removed the "replacement", posted an owner maintainence log, and edited the cache description and hint a little to try to make it an easier find. Does anyone else find this completely bizarre? I know geocachers sometimes help each other out with maintanence and replacement of missing caches, but wouldn't you wait for confirmation that the cache is actually missing? Coincidently, I spent 15-20 minutes each searching for this guy's caches in the same area without success. I just assumed they were there and I didn't look in the right spots.

I've sent a reminder to someone before. I was already emailing them about something else, and just added a quick "oh, by the way" sort of note to the end of my message. She didn't seem to have a problem with it. Another time I sent a message to someone who had dropped a TB, but didn't log it. I picked it up about a month later, and sent them a message so they could log it before i made my log. They never responded, so I just "grabbed it". I also had someone email me about a trackable that I had logged about on the cache page, but had not yet logged on the trackable's page. I hadn't forgotten, just didn't get around to it yet, but didn't mind them sending a reminder just in case. As long as you're polite I don't think anyone's going to be reasonably upset that you sent them a reminder. Recently I visited a cache that was the reincarnation of an archived cache. (The cache had been moved to a new location) I noticed a TB in the cache that was still appearing in the inventory of the archived cache. I sent a note to the cache owner, and ended up giving him a crash course on logging TBs. Sometimes people just forget, sometimes they don't understand, and sometimes they don't know anything about trackables or that they're supposed to be logged.

My guess is they looked at the recent finds in your profile. I always find it disappointing to find TBs that appear in the inventory are not there. It's even worse when it's done intentionally! I'm glad this isn't very common. At least I haven't seen it in my area.

Yes I noticed the "code". Just not sure what the point was as it doesn't really contribute anything useful to the topic.

Um... Not sure if you were trying to be funny or what, but I was only asking him because he apparently reviews all the caches in my city, and it sounds like it's completely up to the reviewer as to what's allowed and what's not.

For the moving cache I've found the new location was logged as an additional waypoint. When you re-hide the cache you post the waypoint in your log, and the cache owner updates the "additional waypoint" in the cache description. So mtn-man, since you're the reviewer in my area, are there any circumstances where you would approve a moving cache? Maybe we can work something out? lol

But have they? Because if we read the guidelines they don't definitively say that moving caches will not be published. If the powers that be no longer allow moving caches to be published, then I accept that, it's their website and they can run it how they see fit. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just looking for some clarification. Maybe posting in the forums is not the right venue to get that clarification...

That's precisely why I started this topic.

Hey Mach2003. Sorry, I'm not sure I know what you mean. I've read the listing for a moving multi cache, but both parts moved. (GC4411) In your idea something would still be moving, so I'm guessing there would be issues in getting it published. Unless I'm misunderstanding you... Just for clarification, I have no idea what a slider cache is. Never heard of it until this thread, so it may be another name for what I'm thinking of, or may be something completely different. Here's a bookmark list of some caches that fit what I'm thinking of. http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...65-f7aa2c549617 I haven't looked at every one on the list, so they may not all be the same idea. The first travelling cache that I saw, and the one that gave us the idea, was GCA0D6. Hope that helps clarify what I'm referring to.

[edit] double post.

I'm not sure that your post addresses the ambiguity of the guideline's wording. If they will most definitely not be allowed then shouldn't the guidelines reflect that rather than the current "most likely will not"? Ah yes, that's something I haven't thought about, but I think it could easily be dealt with be stipulating that the cache must move to another park in the area. There are no restricted National parks in the area I have in mind, so that wouldn't be an issue. We were thinking of restricting it to a designated area, but probably much larger than a nature centre.

Hello there. I've just re-read through the guidelines for placing a cache and in particular the section regarding cache permanence. I noted that the guidelines state that travelling caches or temporary caches "most likely will not be published." To me that doesn't rule out the possibility all together. Is it purposely worded that way? What I'm wondering is if there are certain circumstances in which a travelling cache would be allowed to be published? Is this left up to the individual cache reviewer? I can understand GC.com's position with regards to caches expected to be around for some time, but I've been looking around the site and seen some travelling caches that have worked quite successfully for years. To me, simply marking the location after picking up the travelling cache seems to be an effective way of telling anyone else searching at the same time that the cache has already been moved. Plus from what I've observed of other travelling caches, multiple searchers at the same time seems to be quite rare and far between. Anyway, another cacher and I are curious if there is an outright ban on publishing new moving caches, or is there some leeway given depending on the circumstances?

I can't help you with the name of a store in Edmonton, but you can always buy them online. In fact, I think that's probably how most people get them.

Hello there. I'm hoping someone here can answer this question for me because I don't want to be breaking any rules. I just received 4 new TB dog tags in the mail. I wanted to make one of them a personal tag to track my mileage and log it into each cache I find. Am I allowed to log it into and out of caches I've already found or will this get me into trouble for virtual logging? I'm only planning to log it into caches I've actually found, but some of them are not recent, and not in the same province. I found my first cache on 1 November 2006. If this is a problem I'll just start tracking mileage from this point on, but really would like to keep track right from the beginning. TIA!