Search the Community

Commentary on the feature as implemented The friend list links to each friend's profile page, but there no useful information on the profile page in the app. I think that's the biggest problem with this. Suggested change would be to either vastly improve the in-app profile page for other players, or add a link to the profile page on the website. Alternative take on friends list A friend list on the app could act as a phone quickdial; that is, it seems like going through the friend list would be a fast way to start sending a message to a person I'm most likely to want to talk to. With that use case in mind, maybe friend list would work as part of the Messages page instead? That being said: I have real life contact info for almost everyone on my friends list, and I'm much more likely to use that. If I want help with a specific cache from someone for whom I have no other contact info, I would instead go to Activity --> (logs by) friends --> friend's profile --> send message Alternative take on friends feature in the app I believe the "main" intended use of the Friend feature is to have your friends' logs show up on your Dashboard's Activity feed. So implementing this Activity feed in the app seems like the logical place to start bringing the Friends feature to the app.

Even this, although a good rule of thumb, is not always the rule to follow. I found a cache a few weeks ago, nice big ammo can at the final of a Wherigo. It had visitors discover the TB's that were in it, but the TB's had been in there for nearly 2 years!!! I took all 4 of them, and didn't leave any; if it takes from April 2017 til January 2019 for someone to come along and grab them, I'd rather have it traveling with me for a month or two, taking photos, and gaining miles than just sitting in a cache for months on end, waiting for someone who can further its mission. Well, I claim that what you're saying you did was moving them, so I think you're following little-leggs rule. But I basically agree with you: the rule shouldn't talk about the absolute notion "soon", it should talk about whether you can move them sooner than they're likely to move if you leave them where they are. Clearly these four TBs were stuck, so almost anything would move them sooner than where they are. And I feel like, in general, that's true for any active cacher taking a TB from any given cache. The times I sometimes pause and leave some behind is when there are many TBs. In this day and age, it can take me a while to find 4 caches large enough to take a TB, so I'm more likely to leave a couple where they are under the theory that the next finder will be able to share the burden so all four TBs will move more quickly.

Here are your logs from last week: Nov 25 11:38:36 signal2 postfix/error[9786]: 0469C6C0779: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=0.1, delays=0.1/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta27.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Nov 25 12:27:42 signal2 postfix/error[2474]: 0469C6C0779: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=2946, delays=2946/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta35.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Nov 25 13:26:40 signal2 postfix/error[8597]: 0469C6C0779: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=6485, delays=6485/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx1.comcast.net[68.87.26.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Nov 25 15:27:01 signal2 postfix/error[17378]: 0469C6C0779: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=none, delay=13706, delays=13705/0/0/0, dsn=4.0.0, status=deferred (delivery temporarily suspended: host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 421 imta37.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast Try again later) Nov 25 19:25:22 signal2 postfix/smtp[7216]: 0469C6C0779: to=<REDACTED@comcast.net>, relay=mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147]:25, delay=28006, delays=27949/57/0.1/0, dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced (host mx2.comcast.net[76.96.40.147] refused to talk to me: 554 imta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net comcast 66.150.167.158 Comcast Blocked for spam. Please see http://postmaster.comcast.net/smtp-error-codes.php#BL000000) It appears that we were added to their blocklist sometime last Monday between 15:27 and 19:25 PST.

Okay looking for a little assistance on a new EC(s?) I'm building in Alaska. Southeast Alaska has a LOT of ECs on Glaciers (it's what we're famous for) however I notice most of them talk about the glacier formation, retreat, causes of shrinkage etc, but they don't talk about (or only mention in passing in the description) about the "left behind," geologic features: kettle ponds, glacial striations, erratics etc. NOW WAIT JUST A MINUTE I can hear you saying it already "Glacial Erratics are no longer an accepted form of ECs." What I'm proposing is incorporating these features into a "Track the Glacier" EC, where evidence is taken from several points around the park and analyzed to determine facts about the glacier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My queries 1) Is the fact that other Earth Caches mention some of this data in their descriptions going to limit my placement of the Earth Cache or will this violate the "unique geological feature" rule? A note on this, none of the logging tasks for the nearby ECs mention anything about the above mentioned features. 2) Would it be better to separate each feature into it's own EC or should it be fine to "lump them all in" as one? 3) If I do lump them all in as one, is it fine if the cache focuses on the scientific process of determining information about the glacier given the geologic evidence at hand or does it need to focus more directly on the evidence and not the analysis of the evidence? (Mainly I'm trying to gauge whether or not it would fall under "Tools used by geologists, such as index fossils, rocks, and historical geology sites." which is an accepted category, or if it would stray too far from the geologic roots.) Thank you in advance for your help! I'll keep you all posted as I move forward!

Wow! Lots of new caches. Yet you and your friends are complaining? That seems odd, particularly since there's every reason to think the established COs that are on the ball enough to put out caches when the trail is available are odds on favorites to have better caches and do better maintenance than your friends who only just recently got the bug and could well lose it as easily as they got it. Anyway, teach your friends that they can reach out to the owners and talk about them making some room on the trail. Just emphasize that if the CO makes room for them, that it would be really embarrassing to you, as their mentors, if the cache they hide on the trail don't compare favorably to the caches the CO pulled for them.

I'm planning a trip and would like todo a pocket querrie. Or what ever it is called. I can't do it. Geocahing does not respond to any of my Messages. Can anyone help me with it. I'm new to using a phone. I'm back to caching after some years. I got the premium membership yet wondering why I wasted the time .. Is there a class on this. Is there a place where I can talk to a person? Is there someone who can talk to me like a three year old without a phone.. I don't understand the lingo..of the phone.. pinch, blahhhh.. Isthere anyone near who can help me/ I'm going to quit due to no events...no where to learn no emails answered .. I'm aggravated as hell. I'mplanning a month in advance and I can't get anyone to show me the ropes.. I probalby won't even be able to find this page again. Been asking for a week and now have three weeks until schedule departure. Does anyone have the time , energy to help me.. I never knew I have to be an expert on the laptop and phone to play a game that is outdorors.. smh. I'll have to find something else.. I'm so tired of it.

For me, there are a few bad cacher types, on various degrees of bad. They have one thing in common: No regard for others. - Cache saboteurs. In the worst case, they damage the cache, intentionally or not. They break locks, pry boxes open, disassemble what should not be taken apart. Others leave it in a bad state that ruins the experience for others, not putting things back properly. - Throwdowns. Didn't solve the puzzle? Just put in a fake log! Didn't find the cache? Or couldn't reach it? Hang a petling at face hight and pretend it is the cache. - Copy-pasters. Looong boring logs about nothing (just to fake that author badge) and not a single word about the cache, on a special, unique cache with much work in it. Yes it is legal. Legal to be impolite. I don't mind a TFTC much, but getting piles and piles of these boring copy-paste logs on something I have worked hard on... it makes me considering quitting the hobby. Really. - People who can't communicate. People who misunderstand everything, takes offense when you try to help them, or don't respond. Can be both COs and finders. But now I'd better think about the good cachers. Cachers who have fun and let me know it. Cachers that are careful. Cachers that you can talk to.

I'm a Boy Scout GC Merit Badge Counselor as well. It was alluded to above, but one of the biggest headaches with teaching kids about caching EVEN if they all get it (watch out for the uninterested kid in the back) and buy into all the etiquette, respect for the CO's effort, time and money and the collegiate nature of the hobby (NOT "US (cachers) vs. THEM (hiders)", but rather a collaboration) is that they now know about something REALLY KOOL and they HAVE TO tell everyone about it! So, they talk about it and "C'mon; I'll show you!" And, it's gone; a nifty ammo can left at the mercy of uninterested, uninitiated kids with no perspective on the game. MAYBE, your Scout is left standing there shouting, "Hey, wait! You can't take that with you!" What a spot to put them in. What I've done, especially with younger Scouts is start with and keep pushing the concept that GeoCaching is like a club; a club that's an honor to be a part of, and you're being trusted with secrets that CANNOT be shared. As sacred as the Cub Scout Oath! Would you tell any of your friends where your family keeps the secret Hide-a-Key outside your house? This is the SAME THING! Play it up for all it's worth; you'll be exposing the time, money and effort of a lot of local people to the whims of little kids. ALSO, if you take them hunting, consider reaching out to a few local CO's and asking them if they mind if you take Cub Scouts to their hides. If the local Cub Pack went after mine, I might not be all that enthused.

Really good point. I will make sure to emphasize this when we talk with the scouts.

When I have taught kids that age geocaching, I've spent about half an hour explaining the basics of geocaching to them, with lots of hands on props. For example, I pass around containers of various sizes, I pass around examples of trackables, and I pass around examples of trade items. Then I take them out to practice geocaching. For a one-hour class, I will have set up a couple dozen hides in a small outdoor area near my classroom, and then I have the kids stay behind a line and raise their hands when they've spotted a hidden container. If I have more time for an actual geocaching hike, then I take them to a park or open space some distance away from home so we can find actual caches there. (The half-hour talk can happen at the trailhead right before the hike, or it can happen beforehand with a brief reminder of the rules before the hike.) I specifically DO NOT take them to find urban/suburban caches in the neighborhood. Even if I trust all my kids completely, I don't necessarily trust their friends and classmates who hear about hidden treasure in the neighborhood.

Since you're asking me, I'm going to say, no, you shouldn't log it because you didn't in any sense find it. You just happen to know the answer. Having said that, I would not care if you logged it, and, in fact, I'll freely admit that if it were me, I might very well talk myself into logging it, too. Who said I was asking you in particular? I was asking the forum. You can certainly answer, but don't pretend to be special. As for your answer, I would argue I DID in fact find it. If I happened across a container that ended up being a geocache...happened across it completely by accident, would you not argue it was reasonable to log a find? What if I was walking down the street and noticed a friend standing in the street and stopped to talk to him. Later at home I realized he'd been standing there getting his picture taken by a webcam and, by chance, I happened to be in the picture. Couldn't I also log that find on the webcam cache? What if I was out at a restaurant and spotted a friend and sat with him for a while talking...then found out it was an event. Would it not be reasonable to claim attendance at the event? I was at the location, saw the object mentioned in the cache page and only later realized it was a virtual cache. I'm not really trying to "talk myself into logging it". In fact, I have not yet. I've actually emailed the CO to present this, asking if he was okay with it. If not, I won't. It's not a big deal...but I honestly feel it's perfectly reasonable to claim a find.

Yes, I used the basic stuff to glue the paper down and do the initial seal over the top, then sealed it with spray-on acrylic outdoor furniture sealer. I think I ended up with two coats of Mod Podge and three coats of sealer. The sealer I used is Dulux Duramax which is supposed to be pretty good for wooden outdoor stuff. Assuming it doesn't get scratched on a sharp edge somewhere, breaking the seal and letting the water in. I've heard people suggesting nail varnish as being relatively robust, or mixing up some epoxy resin / UV resin but I don't have either available.. Totally agree. My preference is to make TB proxies in etched aluminium though my current method isn't working as well as I'd like (correction - the results are pretty good, it's the hours of prep and lead up work that I'm trying to streamline). I also tried simple letter and number steel punch on aluminium which is great for making a quick and easy proxy (about six minutes for this one) but I need to slow down and use some guides or something to help keep the lettering even. I'd also really like to make things by melting and recycling HDPE plastic but that's better for swag than TB's (mass produce the same thing over and over again once the mold is made). Due to my wife having lung issues I'm reluctant to do anything that will generate a lot of chemical fumes. Which also takes resin casting off the table. I'd prefer to, as you suggest, use water resistant / proof labels, but my main consideration is keeping costs down. If I can buy a standard TB for AUD$9 (average price to get one shipped here in northern Australia) and it's going to cost me $10 or more to make the proxy, then I may as well just send out the original TB. I have scrap aluminium and the punch set, so that method is almost free for me. I had some leftover sheet wood, sealer and paint from another project, so I wanted to use those up on something - hence this idea. The most expensive part of these was the mod podge, which I can use on other projects as well. On my math, these cost me just shy of $2 each to produce (plus the cost of the TB's, but I keep those at home and only send proxies out). It would have been less, but I had the first couple of attempts that didn't work out. Unless I factor in my time, then they would be horribly expensive and it would be cheaper to just go to a laser engraving place and get them to make some professional ones with their industrial laser. That would be pretty cool! But with this method, I still have a lot of material left over, so if I wanted to make another dozen it would almost be free (other than time and buying TB codes) and the cost of printing the designs onto paper. Plus I also take pleasure in making things and trying out new methods. Agreed, which is why I started my first post with an apology. It's my old sales training rearing it's ugly head - make the headline attention-grabbing, anger-inducing or have an error and people will talk about it. Very rude of me. Also agreed, but the average life expectancy of a TB around here is 3 - three months or three caches - then they disappear. If these are travelling long enough to start deteriorating from age or the elements then I'll be delightfully surprised. At which point I can either create a new one to re-release or post a replacement out to whoever has the old one. Overall I'm mostly happy with how these turned out and I'll be releasing them soon. I did make a deliberate mistake in that they don't have a hole to add a hitch hiker, because I figured if I left a hole through the wood with a ball chain, it would rub and cut open the seal - leading to water, swelling and destruction. I don't think I'll be making any more in this style anytime soon (maybe next year?) but I am looking for other options on how to make low-cost, durable proxies that can travel around. I got hold of some nice scrap 3mm (1/8in) aluminium which could make some nice GeoCoins, but I don't have the tooling to work with this size material yet.

Nope, but I know of several geocaching vloggers who are trading swag for money found in caches and donating the money they collect to St. Jude's Children's hospital as part of the Geocache Talk podcast's "Podcast of Hope" (St. Jude's fundraiser) this year. They're calling their effort "Coins for Kids".

Oh, and the lack of pagination is a fairly hilarious UI failure by the way. Talk about Unintended Consequences.

Any news on this matter? Talk to us!

I was trying to use the new search on my phone to look up my recently found caches. I gave it an honest try. I went in to do a couple simple searches. WOW it feels like 3 steps backwards from the old search! First and most importantly: Having only one parameter viewable at a time is extremely inefficient and results in a significant loss in functionality. Let's say I want to find the terrain rating of several caches I found a couple weeks ago. First I click on my link to All Geocache Finds. Now I scroll down (scroll, scroll, scroll) to find the cache from a couple weeks ago. But it's only showing the found date so now I have to click terrain. Click the 3 dots. Click terrain. Now I'm back up at the top again! Scroll, scroll, scroll back down. Finally found it! Now how about the difficulty? Sigh... Click the 3 dots. Click difficulty. Back at the top. Scroll, scroll, scroll. Now when did I find that cache again? Double sigh... A simple task that used to take me seconds now is a huge chore. Here's a sample screenshot that shows JUST terrain on my phone: Also, where's the GC code? How come the GC code is missing on the mobile version, but not on the desktop version? I do, however, like that in the mobile version it does not say "Traditional", "Mystery", etc next to the cache icon. Next, I was surprised that while some caches take up only 2 lines (for both the title and the cache owner), some caches take up a whopping 5 lines! There's also an additional line added to tell me the cache is PREMIUM (6 lines of text are wasted in the screenshot below to tell me the various caches are premium). Talk about inefficient! It doesn't look very good at all, either! On the old search page, the columns were long enough such that the title and cache owner would ALWAYS fit on 2 lines. Next, I think there's a bug: my found date just disappears after some point? And finally, something a little strange, but when I'm at the top of the page, some caches show as 3 lines. But when I scroll down and the title rows freeze to the top, suddenly some of the caches switch to being 4 lines. It almost makes me sad to see how inefficient and buggy this new system is compared to the old search. As a tool with the intended use to be searches of recently found and owned caches, I just don't think the functionality is there.

Well caveat: this is going to become a long post again, but as you somehow asked again. On the one hand, at least I understood a number of statements in this thread in the way that some cachers here think that socializing and hiking do not go well together or go less well together than for example eating and socializing. On the other hand, if hiking and socializing are a good combination for the target group and if indeed the worry that some cachers might use hiking events for caches is causing the ban of real hiking events, then that's a real shame that once again those who are sincere and follow the spirit get punished (and yes, I feel that way regardless of the existence of workarounds). A event that announces a picnic at the meeting point which lasts for 4 hours is a pure picnic event in my eyes. Even when a meeting point and time at a potential trailhead were given and most of the attendants were hiking to the picnic together (not the case in the example), I would classify this event as a hiking event as the distance to the event location does not seem to be that large (roughly one mile as I understood it - so one need 15 minutes to the cache location one way - hardly a hike in my opinion and not in relation to the 4 hours picnic). That is not relevant for my classification. If I drive to a ice skating pond where an event takes place by car it is still an ice skating event and not a car driving event. The organized option for socializing takes place during the picnic at the example event. If I wanted to have some socializing also during the hike I would have to contact some cachers by myself, apart from the fact that the walk is short. For me it's neither about smilies, nor about going for a hike alone or with some people I need to organize. A hiking event offers the same option for socializing than a meet and greet at a restaurant with the sole difference that the side activity is hiking and not eating. The example event not even suggests a route or a parking lot - so in this respect every normal hiking multi cache is to be preferred from my point of view. There I at least do not need to do the planning myself and if I want to organize someone who joins me, I can do that there too. A real hiking event is different in the sense that I do not need do all this planning and I do not need to try to convince others to join me. If I hike in to a picnic event that takes place for 4 hours, I would feel extremely ashamed to leave after a few minutes and would not have ended up with lots of possibilities for socializing. Those who prefer socializing while hiking to socializing while sitting or standing are not well served by the example event. There are certainly people who are good at socializing and do not need special requirements - they can even socialize nicely if they do not feel well in a setting. I can't. The example event would typically work out for me as follows: I walk alone to the picnic area or accompanied by a friend who might have talked me into attending the even and then would spend some time at the picnic without ending up with that much socializing. A picnic event that takes place for 4 hours and is reachable by a short walk (so not at least 1 hour one way) attracts a completely different audience than a real hiking event. In my area such an event have at least four times as many participants as a hiking event and it would already be hard for me to find and identify those at the event I'd like to talk to because there is something that connects me to them. In a smaller group I can talk longer with a person which fits my personality and communication style much better. At events with 100 or more participants I feel terribly lost. Somehow the typical expected behaviour is to spend some minutes to talk to A, then talk to B etc and never get end up with a consider as an interesting communication. It's mainly smalltalk.

I would hope that number of finds or "popularity" doesn't become a measure of cache quality. The ones that get the most finds are the urban P&G micros in tourist hotspots, whereas the ones that get the fewest finds tend to be the more challenging and, for me at least, rewarding ones. Sure, that's what we'd hope, but that wouldn't be the reality of the situation. Popularity can only mean quantity of activity -- given the measures we have, how else can it be determined? Favourite points are just as subjective, find count is only a measure of activity, there's no universal quality rating system. "Popular" right now means that the caches found the most tend to be the ones that most people enjoy (not that I agree with that in the slightest). 'Awesome' caches (which is also subjective) that get few visits will be drowned out by the quantity of caches that people BOTH place and find. What we should hope is that HQ realizes that quantity cannot be considered the sole indicator of popularity. The only other way really is by listening to buzz. What do people talk about the most? Or wish they could do the most? There's no metric for that. But that aspect tends to put everything on an even playing field. LPCs may be super populous, but how much buzz is there about LPCs? Consider that general sentiment with all the talk about bucket list caches, which by comparison are found only a fraction of the time and you can count on your fingers relatively speaking. I'd argue there's a whole lot more buzz and excitement about such caches despite being far fewer and rarely found by comparison. But again, there's no metric for that. So, the only measure of popularity is by what people place the most and find the most. Activity will determine what the landscape of geocaches will look like in the short and long term, varied somewhat by region and local community makeup. It's the promotional strategies of geocaching that can only help to retain that feel of what "quality geocaching" looks like (not just 'geocache quality'), by catering to the social buzz, the word on the street -- not merely statistical data.

Well, first of all, to answer your question, of course you log the find. Why wouldn't you? As to the outraged property owner, what did you do to make him mad and why couldn't you resolve it? Did you talk to him or just ignore him? It seems as if you were in the perfect position to resolve his problem, but that requires you immediately accept his position as valid and apologizing profusely on behalf of the geocaching community and trying to understand his position about where his property was and whether the cache is on it. It could just be on his property, or it could be you accessed it through his property even though there was another way to GZ. For all I know, you tried to do all that, and he was just irrationally belligerent, so I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong, but I think it's important to recognize that even irrationally belligerent is a valid response if the cache was -- or just you were -- really were on his property. As others have mentioned, naturally you'd post an NA in addition to your find unless you work out with the property owner that there really isn't a problem with the cache itself, and even in that case it sounds like the lease you need to post is an NM explaining what needs to be done so that this person's property rights are violated.

The old search is still there. They just have to change back the links, talk about an easy fix. Of course that would mean admitting they were wrong.

Sent my info to Laval K-9: 2.27.21Name received from Laval K-9: 3.6.21Sent my gift: 3.10.21My gift arrived at destination: 3.15.21I received a gift: 4.19.21 I had the surprise of a mission in my mailbox tonight! Thank you Semmels123! The Triceratops coin is impressive and the light up tag is cool! I totally noticed yours when I was doing the Geocache Talk "live coverage" of the Texas Counties Finishers Event. Thanks for all the Kansas and sweet treats too.

Compairing numbers as always - the more the better!? Who is the "better" hider? It is not about the numbers but about many other factors. I "only" have hidden 37 caches in 12 years (plus events which I don't count). My current goal is to hide one (in numbers: 1) cache per year so even less then before. My latest mystery cache took me more than 100 hours of creating and in this time I could have thrown out 100 simple traditionals. So please do not look for the pure numbers if you want to "judge" others. I don't want to compare my overall effort in cache hiding to someone with several 100 hides. And I know that there are great cache owners who created one cache that took them years to build - I don't want to compare with them either. It is not about the numbers but about if you (!) like the caches. And that's subjective, of course, so I don't want to talk about cache quality here (*). :-) Jochen (*) Mine are the best, of course! :-)

You might be a Social Butterfly if... You walk the walk and talk the talk—as in you like to go to events! You are fully immersed in the geocaching community and Event Caches are totally your thing. You love meeting all of your fellow geocachers and have a knack for helping newbies fall in love with the game! To earn the Social Butterfly souvenir, earn 70 points individually on your Friend League starting October 29 at noon UTC through December 3 at noon UTC. This month earn higher points for attending Event Caches! https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2018/10/you-might-be-a-social-butterfly-if/?newsletter=PM

And there's the difference. I don't agree with the highlighted statement. Again, we're asking different questions. I agree we're discussing our opinions. I don't pretend to be presenting the only correct answer. But I'm justifying my position, I'm not just pushing one answer. So, for example, please explain why the number you think is better is concrete and meaningful. I think we all agree that all registered geocachers isn't meaningful. I'm using the time period of the last month because it excludes people that have already quit, particularly the fly-by-night phone cachers that everyone loves to complain about. The complaint against that is it cuts out the ardent but occasional geocachers, which I don't deny is a valid concern, but I see absolutely no way to count them concretely. I've also explained why I think I'm interpreting the OP's question as more about boots on the ground and why it seems unlikely they're thinking about people that talk about geocaching without actually looking for geocaches. In other words, I'm discussing our opinions to flesh out what numbers we could actually count and what meaning they'd really have. The observation that we all have different opinions is as obvious as it is unhelpful. What I'd be more interested in are actual ways to count something that would produce a more interesting result, not just people complaining that I'm not including this or that group that they hold close to their hearts.

Each summer I usually host two ice cream socials but haven't hosted one since 2019. I've hosted 16 ice cream socials in the same location, a great homemade ice cream shop nearby. I also enjoy hosting GIFF events, I rent a movie theater out and people donate to help pay for it. I'm in NJ but I get attendees from NJ, NY, PA, and CT regularly. It's a lot of fun. Of my 102 geocache hides, 40 have been events. I've learned that "if you host it, they will come. And talk about geocaching."