Cache owners purposely giving bad coords

[+Shrektrician]

I've had trouble with certain cache owners who set caches with terrible coordinates. One cache will be dead on but the next cache will be pointing 30+ feet into somebody's backyard. I heard rumors that the cache owner was giving bad coords on purpose to give their caches some kind of sick challenge. When we set a traditional cache aren't we supposed to try to be as close as possible with the coords? Is it against any rules to purposely set a cache with bad coords?

[knowschad]

I've had trouble with certain cache owners who set caches with terrible coordinates. One cache will be dead on but the next cache will be pointing 30+ feet into somebody's backyard. I heard rumors that the cache owner was giving bad coords on purpose to give their caches some kind of sick challenge. When we set a traditional cache aren't we supposed to try to be as close as possible with the coords? Is it against any rules to purposely set a cache with bad coords?

 

No hard and fast rules, but the concept of deliberately posting "soft coords" to make a cache more difficult has been discussed here many times, and the consensus has always been that it is wrong. The guidelines do state (approximately) that you should post the most accurate coordinates possible.

[+Kyle98632]

We had a cacher in our area were we had the same issue. Turns out she didnt do an average of readings, just going off the first one. I wouldnt worry about rumors until you get some hard facts. There could be a few different reasons.

[knowschad]

We had a cacher in our area were we had the same issue. Turns out she didnt do an average of readings, just going off the first one. I wouldnt worry about rumors until you get some hard facts. There could be a few different reasons.

We had one here that bragged about it. He claimed that he deliberately placed his caches in areas that had a lot of signal bounce (the particular cache of his that I have in mind was one of the flattest, most open parks that I can think of) because it "made it more of a challenge".

[+Ecylram]

Knowshad summed it up well.

 

Sometimes bad coordinates are just mistakes, but there are some owners who do it to "increase the challenge". Bad coordinates are a poor man's way to make a challenging hide.

[+Unkle Fester]

Knowshad summed it up well.

 

Sometimes bad coordinates are just mistakes, but there are some owners who do it to "increase the challenge". Bad coordinates are a poor man's way to make a challenging hide.

+1

[+Kyle98632]

"He claimed that he deliberately placed his caches in areas that had a lot of signal bounce (the particular cache of his that I have in mind was one of the flattest, most open parks that I can think of"

 

While Im sure the hider certainly wasnt having problems if he likes to hide in areas with horrible gps recieption, gps bad spots do happen in the open. I was hiding a cache in a stream once with open sky around and when I would get within 30 feet or so, my accurancy would shoot up to 90-157 feet. I had to borrow two other GPS units before I got what turned out to be good cords.

[knowschad]

"He claimed that he deliberately placed his caches in areas that had a lot of signal bounce (the particular cache of his that I have in mind was one of the flattest, most open parks that I can think of"

 

While Im sure the hider certainly wasnt having problems if he likes to hide in areas with horrible gps recieption, gps bad spots do happen in the open. I was hiding a cache in a stream once with open sky around and when I would get within 30 feet or so, my accurancy would shoot up to 90-157 feet. I had to borrow two other GPS units before I got what turned out to be good cords.

 

I'm guessing that the stream was in a ravine or a valley, since that is where streams often flow. That situation can cause some very serious signal bounce. I was referring to a very flat, mostly treeless park. The cache owner was really simply making excuses for sloppy coordinate grabbing. There was nothing deliberate about it.

[+sidekeck]

There's a series of caches around here where the cache owner states:

 

"And all the coordinates were logged on my iphone, which gives an accuracy rating of 56'."

 

Clever hides, but coordinates have been hit or miss. Fortunately we have a helpful caching community.

[+Max and 99]

If I find a traditional cache with bad coords, I mention in my log the coordinates where I found the cache, in case that helps the next cachers. If the CO made an honest mistake, he'll take those logs mentioning bad coordinates into account, and hopefully update the cache page.

 

But if bad coordinates are posted on purpose, SHAME on the CO!

[+TerraViators]

We had a cacher in our area were we had the same issue. Turns out she didnt do an average of readings, just going off the first one. I wouldnt worry about rumors until you get some hard facts. There could be a few different reasons.

I never do an average and have never had an issue.

[+lamoracke]

well, some COs I have known intentionally placed the coordinates a few feet off so folks would not come from the "private property" side of a fence. Am not saying I would condone that or not do it a different way, but I know its been done for that too.

[+TerraViators]

Check out this bookmark. The cacher has found caches where coords were off over a mile.

[+G & C]

There was a new hider in our area that was purposely giving bad coords. Fully admitted it a note after a log told him his coords were off. Said he wanted it that way to make it more difficult.

 

My opinion is that it's a pretty lame way of making it more difficult to find your cache. Put out a quality hide, and you shouldn't have to give bad coords to make it a challenge.

[+Ecylram]

Check out this bookmark. The cacher has found caches where coords were off over a mile.

I found one where the coordinates were over 500' off. Several NM's were ignored and the Reviewer finally archived it.

[Mr.Yuck]

There was a new hider in our area that was purposely giving bad coords. Fully admitted it a note after a log told him his coords were off. Said he wanted it that way to make it more difficult.

 

My opinion is that it's a pretty lame way of making it more difficult to find your cache. Put out a quality hide, and you shouldn't have to give bad coords to make it a challenge.

 

We had a young girl last summer (not sure if she was a high-schooler or college-aged), that admitted doing it in a note to her cache page after complaints. Somehow, the local reviewer heard about it, and believe it or not, the reviewer did tell her to fix the coordinates to a correct waypoint posted by a finder.

 

We have another one of these people too, and on his last cache placement (around Christmas time 2010), he actually blatently admits to marking the coordinates off to make it more difficult in the body of his cache description. As a matter of fact, I'd say most of the cache description is dedicated to how he likes to make people "work" for the cache. This is a high school aged boy, and he's been given many a "pointer" in cache logs on his other caches, but nope, he's just going to keep doing what he wants to do. Screw 50 year old guys with 4,000 finds and 100 hides who've been Geocaching for 8 years.

 

So not that it means anything, but the only two people who have ever done this in my area are kids, and both came along within the last year. And they don't know each other, and live at least 20 miles apart.

[+geodarts]

Screw 50 year old guys with 4,000 finds and 100 hides who've been Geocaching for 8 years.

 

50 year old guys would know better than to admit to soft coordinates in a cache description.

Edited February 16, 2011 by mulvaney

[+the4dirtydogs]

Giving bads coords is just plain.............BAD. It seems to me that kids like to do this to make their caches harder to find. I've seen the landscape torn up because of these bad coords as well. When I find a cache like this I'll post the coords in my log. I take pride in marking my coords as close as I can get them for all of my caches. Haven't had aby problems yet.

[+StarBrand]

Particularly in urban neighborhoods, soft coords are just despicable. No excuse for them.

 

Altraditionalal caches should have the most accurate coords that we can reasonably deliver.

[knowschad]

We had a cacher in our area were we had the same issue. Turns out she didnt do an average of readings, just going off the first one. I wouldnt worry about rumors until you get some hard facts. There could be a few different reasons.

I never do an average and have never had an issue.

 

Garmin's engineers would seem to agree with you, despite having an automatic averaging feature built in to some of their units (I base this on a white paper that Garmin posted on their website a couple years back. I don't know if it is still there, or not.) Their feeling, as many here would agree with, is that unless you take your samples over a period of days and times of day, that you are simply averaging in noise, and that a simple snapshot reading is at least as accurate.

 

My own experience seems to vary. I have gotten very good readings both ways at different times, so I don't know which is generally best.

[+Viajero Perdido]

I was hiding a cache in a stream once with open sky around and when I would get within 30 feet or so, my accurancy would shoot up to 90-157 feet. I had to borrow two other GPS units before I got what turned out to be good cords.

It happens sometimes when the satellites line up all wrong. An hour earlier or an hour later, and you'd probably have great accuracy.

 

It happened to me once - I was trying to shoot coordinates for a hide, but the satellites were all, more or less, in a line across the sky. Bad geometry.

[+The Carson Cacherz]

i've come across soft co-ords because the cache was hidden somewhere they shouldn't have been

[+briansnat]

We had a cacher in our area were we had the same issue. Turns out she didnt do an average of readings, just going off the first one. I wouldnt worry about rumors until you get some hard facts. There could be a few different reasons.

I never do an average and have never had an issue.

 

I only average under poor reception conditions. Guess what, those tend to be my worst coordinates, because reception is poor. If reception is good I don't bother averaging.

[+Sorarse]

If I look at a cache and the description openly admits that the coordinates are off to make it more challenging, I just boycott the cache. If no one ever logged a find on such caches, perhaps it would deter the CO from doing it. After all, where's the fun of putting out a cache if no one is ever going to bother looking for it?

[GOF and Bacall]

If I look at a cache and the description openly admits that the coordinates are off to make it more challenging, I just boycott the cache. If no one ever logged a find on such caches, perhaps it would deter the CO from doing it. After all, where's the fun of putting out a cache if no one is ever going to bother looking for it?

 

Yup. That is what the ignore list is for.

[+Max and 99]

If I look at a cache and the description openly admits that the coordinates are off to make it more challenging, I just boycott the cache. If no one ever logged a find on such caches, perhaps it would deter the CO from doing it. After all, where's the fun of putting out a cache if no one is ever going to bother looking for it?

 

Yup. That is what the ignore list is for.

 

Ditto that. I'd add that cache to my ignore list as soon as I saw the listing.

[+dneuwir]

If a particular CO gets a reputation for "fuzzy coordinates" (especially if he's unrepentant and is intentionally bumping coords) then probably what'll happen is one or both of two things: 1) finders will begin posting "found this 30' west of posted coords" in their logs thus nullifying the CO's ill intent, or 2) any of the local area cachers will just stop hunting down that CO's hides.

 

We have a local cacher up here west of Portland Oregon who hid about 80 caches, and at some subsequent moment got annoyed at Groundspeak for whatever reason (I think it was a dispute over geocoin designs and rights), and became somewhere between geocaching-agnostic and geocaching-hostile. Whenever one of his logs fills up, and a logger comments on it, he'll post stuff like "if you can't just bring a log with you and replace it for me then maybe this cache doesn't deserve to be found" and he'll just archive it. As a result, there are numerous cachers who see that he's the CO on a cache in a list, and don't even seek it--they just move on to the next one as "it'll probably be soggy or have a full log."

 

In other words, these CO's aren't doing themselves any favors, and are certainly not perceived as "making the game any more interesting." If anything, they're just slowly alienating themselves from the GC community.

[+KBLAST]

We have an entire city near us that many cachers in Ohio have boycotted because of the reputation of the people there posting soft coordinates. I drive miles away to cache in areas all around the state, but I've avoided this area purposely due to MULTIPLE complaints from different people who normally aren't very fond of each other, but agree on this "fact". I enjoy looking for caches and having a challenge because the hide is interesting or challenging, not because the coords stink.

[AZcachemeister]

I enjoy a clever hide as much as anyone (well, maybe not quite as much if that is the only reason for the cache).

 

Listing deliberately incorrect numbers is plain deceitful.

 

I was hunting a FTF some time back when the owner showed up to 'see how things were going'. As we were searching, he revealed that the numbers were deliberately 30' off.

It was all I could do to not to walk over and punch him in the face.

[knowschad]

I enjoy a clever hide as much as anyone (well, maybe not quite as much if that is the only reason for the cache).

 

Listing deliberately incorrect numbers is plain deceitful.

 

I was hunting a FTF some time back when the owner showed up to 'see how things were going'. As we were searching, he revealed that the numbers were deliberately 30' off.

It was all I could do to not to walk over and punch him in the face.

 

"If three people call you an a**, put on a saddle. --Sicilian Proverb"

 

He needs a saddle.

[+jmw61]

Back in the day, when GPSr's weren't that precise you had to hunt more. Now when they are as precise as they are, I reckon you have to fudge to get the same hunt.

[+va griz]

In addition to difficulty and terrain, we need a rating for how accurate the coords are. So Someone who believes the way to make a hide challenging is to lie about its location might have a hide rated D1 T1 A3 for a lamp post cache on the other side of the parking lot from the coordinates. I'll stick to A1's. Mistakes are one thing, misdirection is another.

 

(I don't actually believe we will, or should, add another rating. Just making a point)

[+DanOCan]

If I look at a cache and the description openly admits that the coordinates are off to make it more challenging, I just boycott the cache. If no one ever logged a find on such caches, perhaps it would deter the CO from doing it. After all, where's the fun of putting out a cache if no one is ever going to bother looking for it?

 

Of course, since the CO seems to take pride in making his cache hard to find, maybe no one finding it plays right into his/her little game.

 

Ideally what I would like to do in situations like that would be to post something like "super quick find today" or some such nonsense just to get his/her goat. Of course, since that doesn't help the other seekers I would more likely post my own set of ccordinates in my log and see if he/she deletes it.

 

Intentionally bad coordinates rates up there with COs who use misleading or downright useless hints.

[+CluelessnLuV]

Particularly in urban neighborhoods, soft coords are just despicable. No excuse for them.

 

All traditionalal caches should have the most accurate coords that we can reasonably deliver.

Check this cache out. GC22N0E Riley's VRE Express. As per Geocaching.com (when you click on traditional cache icon) it does state: Traditional Cache This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location for the cache.

 

However, it seems like this CO was determined to place the cache here (looking at previous logs), but this one should be regarded as Puzzle Cache at the very least. Otherwise he's sending cachers who play by the rules (looking at the "traditional cache" part) fruitlessly searching through the briars, swamp and every thing that could be magnetic or sticks out within a close proximity to the train station.

Edited March 4, 2011 by CluelessnLuV

[+NeecesandNephews]

I have related the story of one particular micro, hidden in a local State Park, in a wooded area which would easily support the hiding of a city bus, and having a long string of DNF's.

I added it to my watch list after three different attempts at it, to see if anyone else was finding it.

The trigger-tripping post on the cache page, that earned it my very first "ignored" was a note by the owner.

Seems after the long string of DNF's he went to check on it. His note to the cache page read" after going to check on it, I could see tracks where everyone walked right past it. Its still there, keep looking."

Well duh. If everyone walked right past it, did it not occur to you that it could be YOU???? I cannot say if it was done on purpose, but somewhat aggravating none the less.

[knowschad]

Particularly in urban neighborhoods, soft coords are just despicable. No excuse for them.

 

All traditionalal caches should have the most accurate coords that we can reasonably deliver.

Check this cache out. GC22N0E Riley's VRE Express. As per Geocaching.com (when you click on traditional cache icon) it does state: Traditional Cache This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location for the cache.

 

However, it seems like this CO was determined to place the cache here (looking at previous logs), but this one should be regarded as Puzzle Cache at the very least. Otherwise he's sending cachers who play by the rules (looking at the "traditional cache" part) fruitlessly searching through the briars, swamp and every thing that could be magnetic or sticks out within a close proximity to the train station.

 

From the cache page: "IT'S ABOUT 300 FEET AWAY FROM THE POSTED COORDINATES."

 

I think I can guarantee you that was added after the reviewer published the cache. 300 feet? That would throw the proximity guidelines off not only for this cache, but for any others posted nearby. I would most definitely alert the reviewer about this one. That is just plain wrong for a traditional cache.

[+CluelessnLuV]

Thanks. Contacted the reviewer. Looking at the logs for this one seems like we weren't the only ones thrown off by the wrong cache type. Being this close to sensitive (railroad) area we hardly want cachers to look suspicious loitering for a long time looking for something that is not there.

[+Sol seaker]

300 feet???? That's just sick and wrong.

 

And also note that someone may place a cache some 300 feet from the actual location of this one, thinking it's really 300 feet farther away. That will screw things up even further.

 

I was going to talk about a cache I know about that is 30 feet off listed as a 5 difficulty. Now 30 feet sounds like nothing.

But this guy did it on purpose and has the coords on a stump that everyone spends hours searching, not bothering to look 30 feet away in the bushes where it's a very easy 2 hide.

A few people have posted in their logs that the cache is 30 feet off, so now it's a 2 difficulty hide where you get a 5 just for reading the logs.

 

I don't like it when people place "soft coords." That's not how this game is played. I just post accurate coords when I see that.

[+briansnat]

Particularly in urban neighborhoods, soft coords are just despicable. No excuse for them.

 

All traditionalal caches should have the most accurate coords that we can reasonably deliver.

Check this cache out. GC22N0E Riley's VRE Express. As per Geocaching.com (when you click on traditional cache icon) it does state: Traditional Cache This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location for the cache.

 

However, it seems like this CO was determined to place the cache here (looking at previous logs), but this one should be regarded as Puzzle Cache at the very least. Otherwise he's sending cachers who play by the rules (looking at the "traditional cache" part) fruitlessly searching through the briars, swamp and every thing that could be magnetic or sticks out within a close proximity to the train station.

 

From the cache page: "IT'S ABOUT 300 FEET AWAY FROM THE POSTED COORDINATES."

 

I think I can guarantee you that was added after the reviewer published the cache. 300 feet? That would throw the proximity guidelines off not only for this cache, but for any others posted nearby. I would most definitely alert the reviewer about this one. That is just plain wrong for a traditional cache.

 

Looks like the reviewer is on it already.

[+Mark+Karen]

There is a cache near where I live which states that you need to face 143 degrees and then walk for "159.9 metres" on order to get to the true cache location (I believe that's about 520 feet). However unlike the above at least the CO is precise about it.

 

This is a traditional cache, but should it not be a multi since the cache is not at the location and you have to do some work to find the location?

[+keehotee]

Particularly in urban neighborhoods, soft coords are just despicable. No excuse for them.

 

All traditionalal caches should have the most accurate coords that we can reasonably deliver.

Check this cache out. GC22N0E Riley's VRE Express. As per Geocaching.com (when you click on traditional cache icon) it does state: Traditional Cache This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location for the cache.

 

However, it seems like this CO was determined to place the cache here (looking at previous logs), but this one should be regarded as Puzzle Cache at the very least. Otherwise he's sending cachers who play by the rules (looking at the "traditional cache" part) fruitlessly searching through the briars, swamp and every thing that could be magnetic or sticks out within a close proximity to the train station.

 

From the cache page: "IT'S ABOUT 300 FEET AWAY FROM THE POSTED COORDINATES."

 

I think I can guarantee you that was added after the reviewer published the cache. 300 feet? That would throw the proximity guidelines off not only for this cache, but for any others posted nearby. I would most definitely alert the reviewer about this one. That is just plain wrong for a traditional cache.

 

Looks like the reviewer is on it already.

 

The cache page reads as though the cache IS at those co-ords - but 300 feet above ground level? If that's the case, then surely it is within guidelines?

[+niraD]

There is a cache near where I live which states that you need to face 143 degrees and then walk for "159.9 metres" on order to get to the true cache location (I believe that's about 520 feet). However unlike the above at least the CO is precise about it.

 

This is a traditional cache, but should it not be a multi since the cache is not at the location and you have to do some work to find the location?

Yeah, that sounds like an offset multi-cache. How old is it? Some of the oldest caches were listed at a time when a lot of creative variations were listed as traditional caches, even though they would be considered multi-caches or mystery/puzzle caches now.

[+briansnat]

Particularly in urban neighborhoods, soft coords are just despicable. No excuse for them.

 

All traditionalal caches should have the most accurate coords that we can reasonably deliver.

Check this cache out. GC22N0E Riley's VRE Express. As per Geocaching.com (when you click on traditional cache icon) it does state: Traditional Cache This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location for the cache.

 

However, it seems like this CO was determined to place the cache here (looking at previous logs), but this one should be regarded as Puzzle Cache at the very least. Otherwise he's sending cachers who play by the rules (looking at the "traditional cache" part) fruitlessly searching through the briars, swamp and every thing that could be magnetic or sticks out within a close proximity to the train station.

 

From the cache page: "IT'S ABOUT 300 FEET AWAY FROM THE POSTED COORDINATES."

 

I think I can guarantee you that was added after the reviewer published the cache. 300 feet? That would throw the proximity guidelines off not only for this cache, but for any others posted nearby. I would most definitely alert the reviewer about this one. That is just plain wrong for a traditional cache.

 

Looks like the reviewer is on it already.

 

The cache page reads as though the cache IS at those co-ords - but 300 feet above ground level? If that's the case, then surely it is within guidelines?

 

I would think not. I'm sure the coordinates are the same at the top floor as the are on the ground. And how many parking garages are 300 feet high?

[+GeoGeeBee]

Particularly in urban neighborhoods, soft coords are just despicable. No excuse for them.

 

All traditionalal caches should have the most accurate coords that we can reasonably deliver.

Check this cache out. GC22N0E Riley's VRE Express. As per Geocaching.com (when you click on traditional cache icon) it does state: Traditional Cache This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location for the cache.

 

However, it seems like this CO was determined to place the cache here (looking at previous logs), but this one should be regarded as Puzzle Cache at the very least. Otherwise he's sending cachers who play by the rules (looking at the "traditional cache" part) fruitlessly searching through the briars, swamp and every thing that could be magnetic or sticks out within a close proximity to the train station.

 

From the cache page: "IT'S ABOUT 300 FEET AWAY FROM THE POSTED COORDINATES."

 

I think I can guarantee you that was added after the reviewer published the cache. 300 feet? That would throw the proximity guidelines off not only for this cache, but for any others posted nearby. I would most definitely alert the reviewer about this one. That is just plain wrong for a traditional cache.

 

Looks like the reviewer is on it already.

 

The cache page reads as though the cache IS at those co-ords - but 300 feet above ground level? If that's the case, then surely it is within guidelines?

 

I would think not. I'm sure the coordinates are the same at the top floor as the are on the ground. And how many parking garages are 300 feet high?

And Google maps shows the cache location along a sidewalk leading to the parking garage.

[knowschad]

The cache page reads as though the cache IS at those co-ords - but 300 feet above ground level? If that's the case, then surely it is within guidelines?

I would think not. I'm sure the coordinates are the same at the top floor as the are on the ground. And how many parking garages are 300 feet high?

And Google maps shows the cache location along a sidewalk leading to the parking garage.

And Bing Birdseye view shows the parking ramp to be only four stories high.

[+StarBrand]

In that case - retrieval of the floating cache could be interesting.

[knowschad]

In that case - retrieval of the floating cache could be interesting.

A SKYHOOK!! Why didn't I think of that!!

[+JL_HSTRE]

Anyone who thinks you need to post soft coordinates is full of baloney. I know of at least 3 cachers in my area that post very difficult caches. They will give you good if not excellent coordinates and still draw plenty of DNFs and people who have to spend 30 minutes or more to get a find.

[+Sky King 36]

I hate to be a hardliner, I am usually not like that, but... Perhaps Groundspeak should publish an objective guideline... " When finders post corrected coordinates and the consensus of those coordinates are more than XX feet/metres from the published coord, the CO is expected to validate and correct the coordinates. If the coordinates are not corrected in a timely fashion, it is appropriate to flag the cache 'needs archived', and for a reviewer to disable the cache until corrected."

 

99% of the guidance from Groundspeak is vague and open to interpretation, and reviewers are given broad discretion to interpret guidelines. But on this, no such discretion exists, the coordinates for a cache must be accurate, it is a mandatory element of publication.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Sky King 36

[+E = Mc2]

I know of one CO who lists bad coordinates and then blames every other cacher who can't find her caches. After all, her family FTF's her caches with no problems!

 

Even more slimey: Dare to complain about her bad coords and she deletes your FIND logs.

 

That said, most cache owners want their caches to be found. Good coordinates and the flexibility to change them when everyone else gets some other coordinate should be a must for the moral cacher. I cache with an ancient Meridian which sometimes doesn't get the best reception. When I can't get repeatable numbers, I try to give a generous hint so others can find the cahce. The game is supposed to be fun, right?

Edited March 5, 2011 by E = Mc2