New Player's Request

[+WrongWayRandall]

I am new to the game, but have encountered a lot of frustration recently and am on the verge of putting the GPS back in the canoe. In the last two days, I have repeatedly encountered caches that show up in my search for plain old traditional caches that are micro, on private property but described as being in a 'park', or listed as '1/1' caches but are so well hidden only an experienced player can find them.

 

I understand that there is a large learning curve and that I should not get frustrated but it would be a lot easier for new players if the cache creators would think like a new player when the pick the difficulty level of their cache. Now that I know it is essential to read every recent entry and print off the sheet for every cache before searching I suspect that I can avoid the mis-labeled micro caches, I think things might improve a bit, but my record for the last two days is 3/26, with one being a virtual. Many of these were micros masquerading as traditional sized caches (my fault for not checking), a few appear to really be missing in action (no ones fault), but even though some the cache owners were kind enough to give more detailed hints to the cache, I still couldn't find them; others I spent 30 minutes meticulously searching back and forth in a 20-30 foot grid around the area only to find nothing.

 

My requests are this:

 

1) Please, give some clue if you think someone who has just started out will have any need of a hint at all. Those who don't need them have the option not to use them, but those us that may need them don't have that option if there is no hint. Not all of us have found hundreds of caches but would still like to have some fun and stick around long enough to develop those skills and become part of the community.

 

2) Please, list the container type if your cache is not a traditional large container so that if someone does a pocket query for one type of cache it shows up as that type of cache and not as a traditional cache.

 

3) Please, try to think like someone who is new when you rate your cache difficulty. If you are hiding your cache 1/4 mile through the woods in a tree covered area with poor reception, please bump the difficulty accordingly so that those of us who have not perfected search skills can have some hope of spending the little free time we have searching for caches we will have some hope of finding.

 

4) Please, leave some idea if stealth is going to be required to get to the cache without arousing suspicion. I tried to find 7 caches today that were not easily approachable in the daylight without looking suspicious. 3 of these were on land that was clearly not public access.

 

I understand that caches need to be hidden well from non-geocachers, but I have found a number of 1/1 or 2/2 caches without difficulty that were well hidden but not to such an extent that more than 1-2 minutes of searching was needed to find them so I know that it can be done.

 

I really enjoy searching for geocaches and I would love to contribute to the community, but it is very frustrating to worry about getting questioned for trespassing or to spend 30 minutes getting to a site and another 30 minutes searching only to find when I return home that it was really a micro and not a large container as listed on the pocket query.

 

OK, the rant is over. For those of you have have endured the entire thing, I appreciate all the hard work everyone has done to make these caches; I just am very frustrated because so many caches in my area seem to be much harder to find than they should have been.

 

Thanks

 

- Randy

[+Les Nomades]

Wow Randy, take a good breath and relax a bit, this is not the place to pass your frustration First, it seems that there are some aspect of the game you don't seem to understand. First of all, a micro cache is a traditionnal cache if the coordinates brings you directly to the cache. The size of the cache doesn't change the type. You can see the size of the cache on the cache page or cache listings (graphic with red square) . The things that changes the type of the cache is the way to get to the cache. If you have a puzzle to solve to get the coordinates, it will be called a mystery cache. A cache with multiple waypoints will be called a multi cache. You should take time to read the information on Geocache.com regarding the type of cache. Often, micro cache are hidden under a tree branch but if your eyes don't come across it, you'll never see it. As for the difficulty, it doesn't depend if its in the woods or not and if its under heavy trees, the difficulty depends on the terrain. An easy walking flat terrain even if its under heavy tree cover will most likely be set as difficulty one unless you come across water, slops, hills, heavy brushwood or things like that. It also as nothing to do with poor reception. You can have good reception one day and poor the next day. Never the less, normaly a cacher completes a form and the difficulty is set by the questions and the choice of answer given to the cacher. Its not a case of " well, I think I'll give it a two " Take the time it takes and surf throught GC.com. Youll find a lot of answer to ease your frustration.

 

PS: if you expect to find caches under 1 or 2 minutes all the time, better forget Geocaching and try something else. Some cache I had to go back 5 times looking for about 15 to 20 minutes each time before I could put my hands on it. Read the logs carefuly before going on the cache. If every one before you found it and you don't you'r probably doing something wrong.

 

http://www.geocaching.com//about/cache_types.aspx

 

http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

Edited December 28, 2005 by Nomade

[+briansnat]

With experience you will know who rates their caches properly in your area and who doesn't. Then you can avoid the latter or at least be prepared for the worst when you head out.

 

As far as caches that are "clearly" no public access, don't be so sure about that. There is often a legal way in. If however you are certain its illegally on private property, don't be afraid to submit a "Needs Archived" log. Caches like those give the rest of us a bad name.

 

Its also fairly easy to tell by looking at a map which caches are in high traffic areas. There are several ways to deal with these. Ignore them, wait until a time when the area isn't too busy, try to be stealth, or just walk up to them and grab them and never mind who sees you. As more and more of these kinds of caches appear I find myself doing the latter.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Hi Randy, I'm glad you posted. I often try to make exactly the same points when I see cachers mis-rate the difficulty on their caches. 90% of cachers have fewer than 56 finds (or something like that, from an old thread - not currently searchable). Some hides are a 1 IF you've seen a lot of similar hides, and at least a 2 if you haven't! So rate for the novice. There are plenty of them. Also as Nomade said, micros ARE traditional, meaning coords published = cache location. They're just small. You should be looking for large containers at first.

[+saxdiva and mr. vibes]

Hey, Randy,

 

I'm pretty new, too, so I know your pain. The problem with easily-findable caches is that they get muggled, so it's necessary to hide well. My best recommendation is to find a more experienced cacher in your area and team up for a day. This game gets LOTS easier once you've found a few.

 

Hang in there,

Leanne

[+humanloofa]

I have over 50 hours spent trying to find a 2-2, and thats after I have gotten several hints from the owner. So don't get down just get out and have. I had a heck of a time when I first started going after the smaller one. My eight year old son was the one who showed me to look in a lamp post base on a cache I had been to twice times before. I,m searching a tree and he goes over and finds it. Also remember verry verry rarely will it be at groud zero get within fifteen feet and than use the force.

[+WrongWayRandall]

First, thanks to all for the replies. Second, sorry if my earlier post sounded a little harsh. It was meant as a legitimate concern by a new player who feels frustration from some apparent inconsistencies in the game.

 

I did misunderstand the cache types apparently. I had seen the term 'micro' and 'traditional' used in many cache descriptions and assumed that they were two separate types. Thanks for the link. I have a better handle on it now. I will use the pocket wizard to filter out the micros until I get a better handle on them.

 

As to ratings, for a new player (me), a cache that could take multiple visits of 30 minutes or more seems like it would qualify as a 4 or 5 for difficulty rather than a 1 or even 2. I can see terrain being a 1, but not difficulty. I suppose that I will have to read the logs to get a feel for 'my' rating and go from there. Based on the comments of others, it appears that there can be some user variance in the ratings, so thanks to all on that as well. I should be able to get a handle on that aspect.

 

As far as time goes, I don't expect to find every cache in under 5 minutes; that time was based on the amount of time it took me to find many of the 1/* non-multi caches that I have found to date. The time quote was just to show that a micro cache rated 1/2, with no clues, stuck in one specific tree in a forest with heavy canopy cover (signal strength never changes in there) would, at least to someone who is trying to learn something new, not seem intuitive. It would seem more like a 3 or 4 to me at any rate. Perhaps a 2 if there is a decent clue, but it better be a good one.

 

Just so that everyone knows where I am coming from, my experience to date is that most 1/* caches are ammo boxes or other large containers, in a forest/park somewhere with, say, up to a 30 minute hike, hidden under brush or leaves, and able to be be found with simple searching (moving branches or searching a 5-10 foot radius after triangulation). Sometimes a second or third pass is needed, but the total time is often short.

 

I will endeavor to persevere with the online help of others. I don't have the luxury of coordinating with others at this time as I often only have an hour or two to play at any given time and I never know when it will come. That's why I prefer to search for caches that are rated 1, or occasionally 2, on difficulty. Fortunately for me, there is at least one very kind player who has been able to help me via email with some of the more complicated '1/1' caches in my area so perhaps I can take advantage of their generosity again in the future.

 

The only concern I still have is that people who have been playing for some time may have lost the ability to see how a new player would see their cache, or perhaps not have concern for how new players would see it. Either way, some people appear to rate their cache based one their own experience rather than on a fixed scale, which causes frustration to those trying to learn.

 

Again, thanks to all for the help in understanding.

 

- Randy

[+Les Nomades]

As to ratings, for a new player (me), a cache that could take multiple visits of 30 minutes or more seems like it would qualify as a 4 or 5 for difficulty rather than a 1 or even 2.

Remember one thing Randy, it's not because it took someone 30 minutes that it should be rated higher, sometimes it's just because the person is not looking at the right place. One cache was placed in a rock wall with planty of openings. It was rated 1. I went 4 times without finding it. The 5th time, I went with my 26 year old daughter. She found it within 5 minutes. I just wasn't putting my hand in the right place. She did. When your on a cache, don't try to look where you think it should be. Try to see where you as a cacher would hide it. I know that to enjoy going for a cache, you have to take what ever time it takes. Beeing able to decide when it's time to stop searching. Edited December 28, 2005 by Nomade

[+Team Neos]

I understand how you are feeling. When I first started, I could spend 30 minutes looking for a cache rated a 1 for difficulty and not find it, only to go home and see that someone else had logged "Thanks for the quick find!" ...

 

By the time I had found about 50 caches it occurred to me that I was just being too hard on myself as a beginner. The ratings are for the average user, not the novice. I ignored that, and was frustrated with myself for not being able to find caches as easily as people who had been doing it for years!

 

The folks in my area do use the clayjar system ...

According to the clayjar system:

 

A 1 star hide is "Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching" and a 2 star hide is "Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting"

 

The rating system is very good, but it depends on the owner plugging in the right response. I had one that I put out that came out a 1/1.5 using clayjar. I thought it was a little tougher than that, and made it a 1.5/1.5--after getting lots more no-finds than finds, I upped it to a 2.5 I had completely underestimated how difficult an unusual shaped container might be to find.

 

I notice that your profile shows that you have several caches from 2003, and then a gap until recently. It's good that you are back to caching again.

[+Lil Devil]

Difficulty is all in the mind. I've found over 3,000 caches. I can often walk right up to a 3 or 4 star difficulty, but I'll spend 30 to 45 minutes looking for a 1/1. Once I find them I usually agree they were rated properly. I was just over-thinking it. Relax. Have fun. That's what it's all about

[+ZingerHead]

It's funny, but I went through a similar period when I started caching. The first few that I found were pretty easily located, then I tried some harder ones and found them easily too. The trouble came when I came up against one that I just couldn't find. 15, 30, 45 minutes pass and I'm starting to think all sorts of unkind thoughts about the hider. The frustration was making me half crazy, but I kept at it. A half hour later I find the thing, and suddenly the hider is a great guy again, the sun comes out, you get the idea. That's when I found out that one of the most rewarding aspects of this game is conquering a difficult hide. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a sucker for 1/1 roadside micros, but my most memorable cache took me 2 days and over 14 HOURS of searching to complete. If all I ever found was caches that I could locate in 5 minutes I'd have gotten bored and moved on a long time ago.

[+Les Nomades]

If all I ever found was caches that I could locate in 5 minutes I'd have gotten bored and moved on a long time ago.

I agree 100%

[+Jamie Z]

As for the difficulty, it doesn't depend if its in the woods or not and if its under heavy trees, the difficulty depends on the terrain. An easy walking flat terrain even if its under heavy tree cover will most likely be set as difficulty one unless you come across water, slops, hills, heavy brushwood or things like that. It also as nothing to do with poor reception.

Your terminology is incorrect.

 

The difficulty has nothing to do with terrain. That's what the "Terrain" rating is for.

 

The "Difficulty" is used to rate how much thought must go into finding the cache, either with a puzzle, or with a clever hide technique.

 

Difficulty can be affected by poor reception. If I hide a cache in a canyon (natural or urban) it makes it very hard to pinpoint ground zero. Thus, the difficulty rating should be increased to account for the large search area required.

 

Jamie

[+Team Cotati]

Randall, just run a Pocket Query and filter out micros and select type 2.0/2.0 or less. Set a realistic time limit for the search and stick to it. Just learn to shine on the caches that you can't find and if interested, try again at some later time. There are just too many caches out there to worry about the minority of poor placements. This ought to eliminate much of your frustration. "Cache on Garth."

Edited December 28, 2005 by Team Cotati

[+GeoJunkie]

One other thing that will help - don't be afraid of the dreaded DNF! (Did Not Find log). When I took a business trip to Mississippi (pre-Katrina), I had a couple caches that I searched and searched for and couldn't find. Within an hour of posting a DNF, I got a nice email from the cache owner offering to help. Through my DNF logs, I got in contact with two very experienced cachers in the area, and even got to meet one when he went out to a cache to meet me (I'd tried twice and missed it). He kind of did the warmer, colder bit until I found the cache, then he gave me his cell phone number, and I was able to NOT log a couple more DNFs with his help!

 

A DNF log or an email to the owner will sometimes find you some very helpful local folks.

[+tands]

With the majority of our finds being higher difficulty hides, the caches that we DNF most often are 1 or 2 rated hides. We always have to remember to look with our eyes, not our brains. And also, never ever think too much. When your GPS says you're 20 feet from the hide, put it on the ground. Look at it every now and then for reference, but ignore it for the most part.

 

Good Luck,

 

- T of TandS

Edited December 28, 2005 by tands

[+briansnat]

Remember one thing Randy, it's not because it took someone 30 minutes that it should be rated higher, sometimes it's just because the person is not looking at the right place. One cache was placed in a rock wall with planty of openings. It was rated 1. I went 4 times without finding it. The 5th time, I went with my 26 year old daughter. She found it within 5 minutes.

 

If it takes anyone 4 times its obviously misrated. The definition for a 1 star difficulty is "Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious." A cache in a rock wall with numerous places to hide it is not a 1 difficulty.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Remember one thing Randy, it's not because it took someone 30 minutes that it should be rated higher, sometimes it's just because the person is not looking at the right place. One cache was placed in a rock wall with planty of openings. It was rated 1. I went 4 times without finding it. The 5th time, I went with my 26 year old daughter. She found it within 5 minutes.

 

If it takes anyone 4 times its obviously misrated. The definition for a 1 star difficulty is "Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious." A cache in a rock wall with numerous places to hide it is not a 1 difficulty.

I agree with the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey

 

If there are only a couple of places a cache could be hidden, then it can be rated a "1" for difficulty. If there are lots of hidey-holes (especially a rock wall?!) then a 2 or 3 is more appropriate. I would much rather have a cache rated too high than too low.

[+Les Nomades]

Remember one thing Randy, it's not because it took someone 30 minutes that it should be rated higher, sometimes it's just because the person is not looking at the right place. One cache was placed in a rock wall with planty of openings. It was rated 1. I went 4 times without finding it. The 5th time, I went with my 26 year old daughter. She found it within 5 minutes.

 

If it takes anyone 4 times its obviously misrated. The definition for a 1 star difficulty is "Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious." A cache in a rock wall with numerous places to hide it is not a 1 difficulty.

Well, it didn't take my daughter 5 times but 5 minutes. It's me who wasn't looking right. This was one of my first cache wich explains the 4 visits and seeing where the cache was and looking at the Geocahing rating form, the rating was ok. But if the hidder had considered rating it for a novice like I was, yes maybe 1.5 would have been more appropiate. But now, is the difficulty rated for novice, average or experience cachers?

Edited December 28, 2005 by Nomade

[+Les Nomades]

As for the difficulty, it doesn't depend if its in the woods or not and if its under heavy trees, the difficulty depends on the terrain.  An easy walking flat terrain even if its under heavy tree cover will most likely be set as difficulty one unless you come across water, slops, hills, heavy brushwood or things like that.  It also as nothing to do with poor reception.

Your terminology is incorrect.

 

The difficulty has nothing to do with terrain. That's what the "Terrain" rating is for.

 

The "Difficulty" is used to rate how much thought must go into finding the cache, either with a puzzle, or with a clever hide technique.

 

Difficulty can be affected by poor reception. If I hide a cache in a canyon (natural or urban) it makes it very hard to pinpoint ground zero. Thus, the difficulty rating should be increased to account for the large search area required.

 

Jamie

Yeah, maybe I didn't use the right word, I was trying to explain how hard walking or getting to the cache sight but I'm sure he understood what I ment As for reception in the woods for rating difficulty, well I think it's a matter of opinion. Some cache are hidden in woods during winter time with no tree cover which makes the reception very good. Comes summer, reception will change. Which means I should change the rating when the season changes? Difficulty 1 in winter, 1.5 in spring, 2 in summer and back to 1,5 in autumn. What I usaly saw on a cache page is the hidder saying that there might be poor reception so you can expect that.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Nomade

[+WrongWayRandall]

If all I ever found was caches that I could locate in 5 minutes I'd have gotten bored and moved on a long time ago.

I agree 100%

This is my point exactly. Some people WANT to find the easy caches because they find the others too dificult. Not all of us have the experience you have and until we get it, we will not have any idea how to find these more complexly hidden caches. Once we get some experience actualy finding caches, then we will want to find more difficult challenges and start looking up more and more difficult hides.

 

The problem at hand is that people who have no empathy for new players create frustration by making up their own rating system instead of using the standard system that the game creator likely put a bit of effort into designing. If no one is going to use the standard system for rating, then why have it in the first place? If you don't like 1s, then don't hunt them, but at least allow those of us who are starting to have something to get a taste of the game with.

 

All I am asking is for a little common courtesy from the experienced players toward those of us who are new by sticking with the standards already in place. By using the rating system, everyone, new and experienced, will be able to find the caches that are at or near the level of difficulty they can handle. If you don't care to help the new players out, that's fine; that is every players perogitive, but at least do not intentionaly hinder us from having fun too...

 

- Randy

Edited December 28, 2005 by WrongWayRandall

[+Les Nomades]

The problem at hand is that people who have no empathy for new players create frustration by making up their own rating system

 

Sorry but I don't believe that cache owners would make their own rating because they have no amphaty for new players. I also got often frustrated for not finding a cache but once I found it, I realized that I was the one to blame for not finding it sooner, not the cache owner. The difficulty/terrain go from 1 to 5 only. What do the logs on the cache that made you unhappy say? Surely your not the only new player to visit these cache so it should reflect what people think of these cache. If there were 10 logs before you complaining about the cache I would understand. But if the large majority of the cachers found the cache easily well then the rating must be OK.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Nomade

[+Kai Team]

One thing that has helped me immeasurably when I was new was going paperless.

 

With a PDA and some software, you can have the cache descriptions with you at all times. Perfect for someone like you who only has a short time to look and those windows are unpredictable! There's nothing like being able to look at all the cache details (including past logs) in the field to ease the frustation.

 

A tutorial on paperless caching (one among many) can be found here.

[+Isonzo Karst]

The problem at hand is that people who have no empathy for new players create frustration by making up their own rating system instead of using the standard system that the game creator likely put a bit of effort into designing. If no one is going to use the standard system for rating, then why have it in the first place? If you don't like 1s, then don't hunt them, but at least allow those of us who are starting to have something to get a taste of the game with.

 

I surely see many misrated caches. Though I don't think the problem is lack of empathy, or not looking at the Clayjar rating system. I believe it's lack of imagination. I just recently DNFed a new hide which was rated 1/1. The rating was really terribly wrong, and contributed to the DNFs - this hide had 4 DNF's before anyone found it. By the time it was found, the cache owner had changed the difficulty rating from 1 to 3. It still isn't a "1" terrain (reachable from a wheelchair). The owner KNEW exactly where the hide was, and couldn't see that it's location wasn't obvious. It surely wasn't in plain sight! This is quite common, unfortunately. That failure of imagination. Not being able to walk into the area and see HOW MANY hiding places there might be for a cache within range of the coordinates. This often combined with a tremendous misunderstanding of the inherent lack of precision to the coordinate data.

 

As a novice, you still ought to stick with lower difficulty larger sized caches. It was a while before we logged our first DNF. But all our early hunts were for larger caches in the woods. They were conspicuous by their attendent piles of dead palmetto fronds or Spanish moss (Florida). In other parts of the world that would be UPR (unnatural pile of rocks) or UPS (unnatural pile of sticks).

Edited December 28, 2005 by Isonzo Karst

[+Overfloater]

Another thing to do is learn what some people use to hide a cache. There is a discussion somewhere on here that has pictures of caches that are being used. There also is a discussion about people hating micros or something like that and in that discussion a lot of people talk about locations where they have found things (lamp post skirts, behind pop machines, handrails, magnetic stuff, etc.). Helped me out a ton. Puts my brain in the hider's perspective and not the rookie seeker's perspective. One of my few finds was under a lamp post skirt. I crawled around on my hands and knees in the snow for 25 minutes until I sat down on the lamp post base almost in tears and the skirt shifted. When I read that discussion and heard lamp post skirts are old hat I laughed like crazy. It also bummed me out because now I won't crawl around on the ground in the snow around any handrails. It's way funner to find out the hard way I think. Seriously though, don't pay much attention to the difficulty. If you aren't looking in the right spot you aren't going to see it anyway no matter what the difficulty.

[+TotemLake]

Remember one thing Randy, it's not because it took someone 30 minutes that it should be rated higher, sometimes it's just because the person is not looking at the right place. One cache was placed in a rock wall with planty of openings. It was rated 1. I went 4 times without finding it. The 5th time, I went with my 26 year old daughter. She found it within 5 minutes.

 

If it takes anyone 4 times its obviously misrated. The definition for a 1 star difficulty is "Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious." A cache in a rock wall with numerous places to hide it is not a 1 difficulty.

Not quite true. I had a cache early in my finding career that took me 6 weeks of several visits. It was properly rated, but I over thought the hide and made it more difficult than it actually was. In my observations, this is a common mistake by most folks with less than 50 finds. Even those with lots of experience can overthink the hide and make it more difficult than it really is.

[+Pasha]

It's undeniable that ratings change based on experience. Among my first 50 finds was one of the "painted metal plate magnetically attached to power box" variety; it was rated 3/1. I searched for that thing 4 or 5 different times and spent at least 8-10 hours on it. I still wouldn't have found it without hints from a previous finder. Now that I've found it (and others like that) I just automatically know to look for that sort of thing. For myself I would rate that first one a 1/1 now, because it would be one of the first things I'd check. Same with lamp-post hides, the tops of fence posts, etc. You learn to look for Unnatural Piles of Rocks/Sticks/Leaves and bison tubes hung in branches. It just comes with experience.

[+tozainamboku]

I can sympathize with Randy. When I started out I posted this log for a difficult urban micro cache that I has trouble finding. Fortunately I got some encouragement from the cache owners - no real hints - and was eventually able to find this cache on my own. I view that cache as the one where I was no longer a newbie. There was a realization that there are many ways to hide a cache and that I was now thinking like a cacher - where would I hide the cache. Also I stopped being frustrated when I couldn't find a cache and I started logging all my DNFs. There is no shame in not finding a cache - even a 1/1.

[Clan Riffster]

Randy, I saw that you DNF'd my "Munchkin's Muggle Proof Cache", and I felt really bad for you. I'm thinking this one might be gone, cuz out of 23 logs, only one, (your's), was a DNF. As described, it's an ammo can hidden by a 10 year old. I rated it as a 2/2, which I think is fair, but I gotta tell you, if you couldn't find it in 10 minutes or so, it's probably been stolen. I won't be able to check it till Sunday. Did you happen to notice the item described in the hint? That was a dead giveaway.

 

I think Tands had the best advice; once you're within 20', your GPSr is just a paperweight. If I don't make a kwick find, I'll back off a bit, (about 30/40'), get a bearing/distance reading, then look for something in the estimated ground zero area that I can use as a reference point, (unusual branch, stump, beer can, etc). Then I'll approach from a different angle, and stop before I'm near ground zero, looking for another reference point. Repeat this trick a third time, and you'll have three points of reference that should be fairly close to each other. This becomes my "ground zero", and defines the starting point for my search. After thoroughly searching every concievable nook & cranny of my search area, I expand outward till I find it.

 

Another thing that helps a lot is to have a good walking stick. I can't tell you the number of caches I've found by poking around till I hear a distinctive "thunk".

 

Good luck & don't give up!

 

-Sean-

[Clan Riffster]

Hey Randy, just a heads up; We went out today to check on this one and found it right where we left it. The storms have knocked a tree down that significantly blocks the view of the cache, so it took us almost 30 minutes to find.

 

It's out there, Brother!