Bloencustoms

I might not be all that hard to combine paintball with geocaching, Some paintball fields do event games that last all day, Some have done them that go for 24 hours. You could have caches of paintballs hidden on the field, like an ammo dump and the teams would have to find clues to the coordinates to find them. Buy the way, if you approach a paintball field, they may not like the combat term, some of them do not like the name PaintballGUN, They tend to call them Paintball Markers. Sounds like a fun idea, It's been a couple years sence I have played. Maybe I should have one of my Markers converted to full auto from semi auto HHHMMMM I had tossed around the idea months ago, and even got the OK from a local field to place some caches there. Still, I couldn't figure out how to get around the possible "commercial" aspect of it. You do have to pay to play on their field. Still, I like the idea of caching paintballs around the field, and having teams of players begin the game with limited amounts of paint. They would have to find the caches using their GPS in order to have enough paint to continue playing. It could probably be worked into a scenario game fairly easily, but I doubt it would fly as a permanent cache.

I will probably tire of the forums long before I tire of caching. It's hard to say exactly when it will happen, if it ever does. I have enjoyed many hobbies, and would have sworn I would be participating in them for the rest of my life. But things change. If caching reached a point of stagnation somehow, my interest might slip a little.

ROFL! It would probably look like this...

I have attended 3 events, one which I "hosted". At the two I "found" some of the cachers cooked for everyone, and we all pitched in to pay for the food. The one I listed was held in a grill pub, and people just ordered if they were hungry. (We were a lot thirstier, apparently.) Food is a very important part of event caches here in Louisiana. We take pride in our culinary heritage, and the fare is usually a regional tradition. (Boiled crawfish, gumbo, jambalaya, and roast pig have all been discussed or served for instance.) Any outdoor picnic or BBQ type food will please most people.

I think the concept could be fun if some of the aforementioned things are taken into consideration. I would have to see all the details before I could say whether I would want to compete for money caching. The most important thig is that the cache remain active after the contest, so people can enjoy it after the race for the prize.

I think a step in the other direction would work far better if the ultimate goal is to put an end to disappointment over junk in caches. Throw out the idea of trading fairly. Openly endorse the practice of leaving items of lesser value for really nice or expensive stuff. At first, this might seem like heresy, but when you look a little deeper, you will see that it makes perfect sense. As it stands, there are many generous, fair, conscientious cachers who leave nice items in caches. They do this knowing full well that these items will eventually get traded down. There are also people who treat caches like their own personal garage sale, and make ridiculously unfair trades. This will never change. By completely abandoning any expectations of other people, we can avoid being let down when they don't do as we hoped. The generous people who trade fairly will continue to do so, because that's the kind of people they are. Consider it a blessing when one of these cachers visits your area. But don't get upset when you find a cache full of junk. After all, what did you really expect to happen when you leave a container of neat baubles and trinkets out in the woods, and publish it's location? Asking for people to trade up all the time is almost the same as just putting a piggy bank out in the woods with the words "please put some money in me" emblazoned on the side. Eventually, someone will actually take money out of it. I like to put neat stuff in the caches I place (when they are full size and have the room). I don't expect them to stay full of valuables, so I don't get upset when they get traded down. It's going to happen. That doesn't mean I can't have a laugh when someone makes a ridiculously stingy trade.

I am in no way suggesting that routine maintenance visits are a waste of time. Still, with the points raised about false find logs leading to cachers wasting time on missing caches, I thought it might be interesting to explore the opposite side of the coin. On a recent trip to MS for some caching with friends, we were unable to find two micros. We logged them as DNF's (of course) and that was that. The owner of the caches checked on their status after seeing our DNF logs, and as it turns out, the caches were indeed there, just very well hidden. A few days ago, a visiting cacher DNF one of our caches. It was the third such log on that cache, so we went out to check on it and sure enough, it was still there. When is it better not to log a DNF? The first instinct is to log one no matter how long you search. However, when you consider that cache owners are using DNF logs to gauge when to do maintenance, it becomes more complicated. I would hat to cause someone to waste time checking on a cache just because I didn't look hard enough, or spend more time searching. I also don't want to deprive them of information they can use to maintain their cache. Perhaps it would be best when logging DNF's to explain how long and intense your search was. I usually DNF because nearby muggles make me feel uncomfortable. While it's true that I looked and didn't find it, it's also true that the cache is likely to be intact. There's a difference between "did not find it", and "stopped searching". Many people will say "just post a note", but then you will have the other camp complaining that you looked and DNF, so that's a DNF.

I like it. The calendar is a nice feature, as is the expiration date for your membership. That will make it easier to remeber. The "member features" link shows you some tantalizing upcoming features. I particularly like the instant email notifications for new caches. Great job!

In an email to another cacher on a related topic, I used the race analogy. It really demonstrates why I (and perhaps others) wish to opt out of stats. Who ever heard of a race where the participants started at different dates and times, and each ran courses of differing difficulty and terrain? How would you know who the winner is? Stats are just that, Interesting statistics. The problem is when you try to use them to determine something about the person they represent. If one cacher has 200 finds, and another has 100 finds, you might draw some rapid conclusions about the ability and experience of the cachers based upon this number. This would be erroneous. What the stats really say is that cacher #1 has 200 finds and has found them over the course of 3 years. He uses a Garmin legend, and a laptop. He gets pocket queries, and uses Watcher to take the caches into the field with him. He drives a jeep grand Cherokee, and has enough expendable income to pay for all the gas while caching. He is semi-retired, and has 80 hours of free time each week, 35 of which he uses to go caching. He lives in an area that has 327 caches within 100 miles of his home, and 75% of those caches are single stage caches. Of the single stage caches, 63% are less than 2.5 stars in difficulty and terrain. He has an old wound in his right leg, which makes walking long distances painful at times. Write your own description of the resources and individual situation of the thousands of people who could be cacher #2. The stats mean diddly squat when you really get into it. They are not even remotely accurate for determining an individual cacher's skill or ability. Or even experience when you consider that multis are like finding more than one cache at times. It is for this reason, (the inherently misleading numbers, and the flawed conclusions that can be drawn from them) that I would choose to opt out of stats.

Basically, my intention in posting this thread is to hash out which means of verification would be universally accepted by cachers everywhere in the event signing the logbook is impossible, for whatever reason. The photograph does give positive proof, but could give away details about how the cache is hidden. In another recent thread, Renegade Knight mentioned a possible set of "tournament rules" or a code of conduct for competitive caching. While any of the means mentioned above and combined with the cache owner's permission would not violate the basic caching guidelines, it might be worth considering which alternate means of verification could be used when caching competitively. I'm sure most owners (myself included) wouldn't take issue with any of the above mentioned methods of verification, but having a list of prefferred alternatives somewhere could be helpful when cachers encounter unsignable logs. For instance, if the logbook is missing leave a new or temporary one. If that isn't an available option (you're four miles out with no notebook in your pack) leave any scrap of paper with your signature, etc. No pen or paper? Leave item you can describe in detail to the cache owner, or describe details of the container's contents (because you must open it to truly find it). These are just some thoughts.

Yep. I suppose the only way those fossils will ever become known is if cachers post their coordinates. We all know that only cachers know how to put anything on the internet, or even use GPS receivers. There's just no way anyone would steal those fossils if it weren't for the scourge of cachers descending upon them and publishing their coordinates. So what is geocaching? Veiled theft? I'm telling everyone I know to avoid buying any NG topo maps, software, or products of any kind. If you're going to paint caching with a biased brush, be fair and have a positive caching article in the same issue.

So, you've just hiked in to the cache, open it up, and the logbook is full, wet, missing, or unsignable for any reason. What are some acceptable means for leaving your "signature" or proof that you retrieved and opened the cache container? Many cachers already use letterboxing stamps, and other means to sign the log, but what if there just isn't a useable piece of paper in the cache? You did find and open it. That should count as a find. You have no control over the condition of the cache. I hardly think most cache owners would object if you used a burnt twig to write when no pen can be had, or left a signed business card if the logbook was full or missing. So, what are some of the the methods for verification that you as cache owners would accept instead of a signature in the logbook. Finally, should any or all of these methods be accepted even if the logbook is available?

I think, (could be wrong) that an azimuth is the numer of degrees from a given line. To use a compass, you simply hold it in front of you, align the north arrow on the dial with the needle, and read your heading on the direction of travel line. To point yourself on a certain heading, rotate the dial until the direction of travel line reads the correct heading, and turn your body untill the needle lines up with the north arrow. To find your bearing to a distant object, point the direction of travel line at the object, and rotate the dial untill the north arrow lines up with the needle, then read the bearing on the direction of travel line. Your heading (direction of travel) can remain constant while your bearing (degrees to waypoint) changes. The only way for these to remain the same is if you are travelling in a beeline to the waypoint. You can demonstrate this fact by standing facing north. Take a bearing on an object to your side, and walk north a few feet. When you take another bearing, it will have changed. If you repeat the experiment but walk directly toward the object instead of north, your bearing will not change. As for the azimuth, better ask one of the many cachers with engineering backgrounds.

RK, It's my understanding that the guidelines already established are sufficient... if people follow them. The situations you mentioned, like physical find verification in the form of a signature in a logbook, are already addressed by those guidelines. I think what you really want is not so much a set of tournament rules, as a way to hold cachers accountable for their actions. It will be difficult to use the honor system (like we presently do) because people's individual honor varies greatly. If people can opt not to play by the tourney rules, how is that any different than simply opting out of stats? I guess what I'm trying to say is, in order to have a fair competition, you will have to make sure people play fairly. There must be some system in place to do so for true competition to take place. Geocaching as a whole is too dynamic for fair competition. Imagine a world with only ten caches. One person finds them all. One of the caches gets archived. Another person finds the remaining nine. A new cache is posted and they both find the new cache. Assuming there in a neck and neck dead heat for the top, there is no way for the second cacher to ever win, because he can't go back in time to find that archived cache. However, tournaments held on set courses of caches held within a certain time frame would be manageable. This would make the competition work. A (relatively) small number of caches... say 50 could be monitored by judges over the course of a day, cachers could line up at a starting point, and conduct the competition like a race. The first cacher to find all of the caches, or to find the most caches in the time allotted would win the competition. The judges would be there to ensure that cachers didn't cheat by observing the search efforts of their cachers. You might have to make some rule that once a cacher enters a certain radius of the cache, say 100 feet, they have "claim" to the search area for ten minutes. If they haven't found it by that time, they are rotated in the back of the line of cachers waiting for the opportunity to look for that cache. Unless some super intricate system that takes each cacher's individual advantages (density, speed of their vehicle, free time, income, date they started, difficulty/terrain etc.) could be devised, statistics for total number of finds will continue to be a poor judge of a person's actual ability to find caches. Because of this fact, I think stats mean very little. I would rather not have my stats compared with those of others because they are not a reflection of my ability to find caches. In the end, it would be great if you could develop some kind of tournament rules and hold tournaments on closed courses. Then the stats would begin to be a real reflection of the competitor's abilities. You could even have time trials. The possibilities are limitless for closed course competitions.

I couldn't say either way. As a cache owner, I never felt the need to post the contents of physical logs online. I suppose I always looked at reading it as a privilege earned by actually visiting the cache site. Still, the cache does belong to the owner. But do the contents of the cache belong to the owner as well? At first glance, the obvious answer is yes. But when you consider TB's it gets more complicated. What would you do if someone (hypothetically, and extremely unlikely) copyrighted their physical logs? I think it's fine if you make a note of your intention to publish the contents in the cache description. That way, there will be something to fall back on in the event someone takes issue with their physical log being posted online. RK, you have come up with some great topics lately. I haven't felt the desire to post this much in weeks.

OK, so just how would these rules be enforced? Disqualification? If the rules are there to force competition, and cachers choose to find caches without logging them how would you even know about it? Would you pull their membership from the website because they don't follow the "tournament rules"? What about the people who just want to go see if they can find that box in the woods and don't give two shakes if they find another thousand, or even another one? I propose a new idea. Geocaching: We all know the definition. Geologging: The act of competitively logging finds of geocaches under a set of (probably unenforceable) tournament rules, wholly independent from the original recreational activity known as geocaching. This competitive sport's ultimate goal is to have the highest number of found caches. Anyone who breaks the rules would be disqualified. Each cache will have a 24 hour referee rotated in 8 hour shifts who simultaneously verifies the cacher's presence at the site, and monitors the cache page for the subsequent online log. Doesn't sound reasonable. And most sports (while they have lifetime statistics for players) also have tangible beginnings and ends to the individual tournaments. You can win one tournament, and lose another. How could you "win" geocaching? The only way a set of competitive rules could be applied is if a definable caching "tournament" could be arranged. Time limits would have to be imposed, cachers would have to be limited to a specific pool of caches so that no one cacher will have easier caches to find than another. It can be done, and might be loads of fun. But it would be folly to try to impose competition upon the whole of the caching community. If it ever comes to that, I forfeit in advance.

Geckoee, you raise a valid point. Many of the votes might have been cast before the discussion had progressed as far as it has. I wonder if those who logged on briefly and voted would want to change their mind given the turn the discussion has taken. Additionally, it seems that viewing the poll wihtout first voting makes you ineligible to vote at a later time. I wonder if the system is set up that way to prevent bandwagoning? At any rate, the staff at Groundspeak has put together a very nice website for us to enjoy. It is also very cool of Jeremy to poll users before making a decision to improve the site. Whatever the outcome, it's comforting to know that our opinions are considered when making these decisions.

Well, caching has introduced me to several great people. I have a few close friends that I would not have met if I had never discovered caching. In addition, in the short year or so since I have been caching, I have gone from complete computer illiteracy to assembling my own PC. I had to use computers to access cache pages, and my interest in them continues to grow. If it weren't for caching, I'd still be completely computer illiterate. Hydrocaches were enough reason for me to go out and buy a kayak. I plan to use it more this coming summer. Who knows what future benefits caching will hold?

I think most of the forum has me on ignore or something. post at 3:17? hello, am I posting in the same forum as everyone else? Oops. I noticed your post after I had posted that. It looks as if collectively we have developed upon a sound concept. Just goes to show you that cachers think alike.

Forced competition is the equivalent of calling any old motorist a loser/cheater because they choose not to race you at the stoplight. It's human nature to want to compete. Many of us choose not to. If the top ten cachers opted out, how would that diminish the claim to superiority of the new top ten? If a man wins an olympic foot race, you could say he is the fastest man in the world. No one would dispute this claim. There might be one, or ten, or twenty people throughout the world who could run the same distance faster, but because they aren't competing, it does not diminish his claim. Forced stats is the equivalent of the olympic judges forcing every person in the world to race each other before deciding upon a winner. Even in the olympics there are factors which can disqualify people from competition. (Drug use, etc.) There are factors that make some people better able to find caches than others (free time, flexible hours, money for gas, cache density, etc). Yet we don't disqualify retirees because they have more time to cache. Let those who wish to compete do so, and those who wish to abstain do so as well. I don't plan on having the most finds in my city, state, country, or world. But if you want to know how I feel about the caches I have found, see my sig line.

I'd like to take credit for coming up with the idea, but MissJenn clearly germinated the concept. I like BrianSnat's idea about a ratio of cachers who trashed out on the page as well. It would provide a quick reference to see the positive impact a cache is having on it's surroundings. If the total weight of trash removed were also displayed on the page along with the ratio of CITO activity, all kinds of fun, beneficial contests could ensue. Recognition for the cache that saw the most trash removed each week in a given state could be added to the weekly cache notifications. (CITO events would be at an advantage.) There could be a "hall of fame" for caches that have seen the most CITO activity. This type of beneficial competition will help bring local caching groups closer together, and give them incentive to compete for the title of "cleanest caching state". Not that individuals who practice CITO shouldn't be recognized for their efforts, but I believe that by associating the activity with the location, it places the credit on the presence of the cache in an area rather than the presence of the cachers. This might make the small bit of difference that sways a land manager toward a favorable caching policy. After a year or so of real data has accumulated, it would be nice to have to approach land managers with positive proof that caches do indeed benefit the areas in which they are placed. Another benfit of having the information directly associated with the page is that new cachers and curious people who might not have discovered the forums yet (read land managers) will immediately become aware of this aspect of the sport... it's all over every cache page.

I'd have to go with happiness as well. If it takes a few billion $$$, ten or twenty exotic sports cars, and ten or twenty exotic dancers in the passenger seats to make that happen, so be it.

Actually, this gives rise to an idea. Why not associate the CITO tag (trash bag, garbage can, whatever) with the cache page itself, rather than the individual logs. Each time a cacher clicks the checkbox, (once per log) the cache page gets another CITO icon. Because the icons wouldn't be associated with individual logs, the compulsion to cheat would be lessened significantly and the information would be much more useful to those wishing to demonstrate to land managers how much CITO activity is occurring at a given cache site. This would also encourage cache placers to maintain their cache sites. Perhaps caches getting a certain number of CITO tags, say twenty, would achieve some sort of "CITO gold status". This would serve to encourage CITO, and prevent the possible misguided interpretation of statistics when applied to individual logs.

Once you leave a cache out in the world and publicly advertise it's coordinates, you invite anyone with a GPS receiver to go find it. You have absolutely no control over what happens next. They can opt to log in at the cache, online, both, or neither. Would you require that caches listed on multiple sites be logged online multiple times? I rather enjoy reading the physical logs of the rare accidental finder. The only way to force online logs is to require registration with a listing service in order to view cache pages. Is that the direction we need to be headed in? You could make all of your caches multis, and require an online log to the first stage before emailing coords to the subsequent stage(s).

I'll go ahead and raise the questions that will come eventually. How much trash must you clean up to qualify for a CITO log? Will the amount of CITO a person does (when made into a statistic) be used to judge their character against that of other cachers? Will any of us feel guilty for trashing out less than others? Should we? I'm all for trashing out when I see something out of place, (like candy wrappers and soda bottles in the wilderness) but I'm not going to spend an afternoon working on a completely dumped upon cache site that needs a twenty man crew, two weeks, and a bulldozer to make a noticeable difference. In areas where the trash accumulates faster than it can be cleaned up by the efforts of individuals, it does nothing more than discourage the people who despite their best efforts, can't make a difference. So once again, should one person feel guilty for doing less CITO than another, and will the proposed log type create a problem in that respect? I'll hold off voting as well. I think people who CITO should be recognized for their efforts, but I'm not sure yet if this is the best way to do so.