+Ike 13 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Im not sure about this. Small container lying on the ground with instructions on how to do the cache. The container was under another container but no log??? A log on a friends field puzzle cache. The cache page clearly states that it is a puzzle and that you must solve the puzzle to obtain the log. He obviously read the instruction sheet but decided that he could just log it as found without doing the rest. Link to comment
+crouchcrew Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I had a guy yesterday claim a find on one of my caches. (He has over 5,000 finds.) His friend is a trucker with a car GPSr. The guy walks him through the cache via a cell phone and Google earth and then they both log the cache. Link to comment
+Roman! Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Edited June 19, 2012 by Roman! Link to comment
+pig,dog,boyandgirl Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) First post here, this is how strongly I feel! This is sort of along the same lines. Caching yesterday(18/6/12) I found a cache and and in the log the was a cachers that had found it previously that had logged the 18th too, but above them there was a log dated 19th. Thinking that someone had just got their days muddled thought nothing of it untill today when they logged the find as the 19th. I know that there are no laws/rules about this, but we are currently on a continuous caching streak of over 340 days, homing in on a years worth of caching. In that time we have never predated caches to have a day off, logged ones we couldn't find or anything of the sort. In fact we have actively gone out of the way to do ones on different sides of the town, sometimes county just so noone could even accuse us of doing that sort of thing. But to blatently do it after 2 cachers have logged it the day before is scandalous! Where are the caching police when you need them? Moved over there. Thanks knowschad (eventhough you make me look like I can't use a search bar! ) Edited June 20, 2012 by pig,dog,boyandgirls Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 First post here, this is how strongly I feel! This is sort of along the same lines. Caching yesterday(18/6/12) I found a cache and and in the log the was a cachers that had found it previously that had logged the 18th too, but above them there was a log dated 19th. Thinking that someone had just got their days muddled thought nothing of it untill today when they logged the find as the 19th. I know that there are no laws/rules about this, but we are currently on a continuous caching streak of over 340 days, homing in on a years worth of caching. In that time we have never predated caches to have a day off, logged ones we couldn't find or anything of the sort. In fact we have actively gone out of the way to do ones on different sides of the town, sometimes county just so noone could even accuse us of doing that sort of thing. But to blatently do it after 2 cachers have logged it the day before is scandalous! Where are the caching police when you need them? The thread you want is over here (Streak Cheats). This thread is about claiming a find on caches that you did not find. Link to comment
+Jayloki Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 If geo.com would come up with an electronic key of some sort that you bring with you to each cache and scan the cache or get an unlock code or something to validate your visit, that would be nice. I have read waaaaaay to many logs saying they were there, they took pics, called the CO etc etc... You don't find the container and or logsheet and sign nothing, then its not a find. In the long run, their stats will be works of fiction. They are only fooling themselves. Link to comment
+LittleLady12 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 This thread is great to read through and makes me giggle. Here is my contribution which is a log for one of my all time favorite caches. Whenever you pull into the parking area and the GPS is pointing to the top, you know it is going to be a long, strenuous hike - not sure topo maps would have helped. The cliff isn't too bad - does help to be a little more youthful, but it is given 3 stars for terrain. Don't understand why this cacher thought they found it when they clearly admit the DNF, I guess it's because they hiked all the way to within 200 ft. Found it05/15/2012 I have been to pressey park many times, and had no idea this area existed. Didnt find the cache though, I got within 200 feet of it, saw a cliff decided I was to tired to climb down that. WIsh my GPS had topo maps Link to comment
+crouchcrew Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I had a guy yesterday claim a find on one of my caches. (He has over 5,000 finds.) His friend is a trucker with a car GPSr. The guy walks him through the cache via a cell phone and Google earth and then they both log the cache. This is what he said after I asked him to change his found log to a note. "I had asked someone at Groundspeak about that, and he said that as long as I was on the phone with my friend, walking him through the find, since he didn't have a GPS, computer, or even a smart phone to help him find it and my friend signed my name on the log, he thought it would be okay, but it was also up to the C/O as well." Link to comment
JASTA 11 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Found it 11/07/2011 I'm debating on whether "found it" is appropriate for this. We were able to find where it USED TO be but only the hook. The cache itself is gone. Whether I actually "found" this is up to (CO). Just let me know! Cool spot anyway! If you have to debate with yourself, the answer is probably 'DNF'. Link to comment
+Klatch Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 But I got a smiley! Found it 05/20/2012 No luck Link to comment
+bulcacher Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 This is a favorite cache of mine here in Istanbul (not really). It's been missing for over two years, but continually has people "finding" the spot. There has been no communication or maintenance from the CO. I finally went there the other day so I could officially request to have it archived. There are also other peculiarities about this cache. I think you would enjoy taking a look at it. It is currently disabled, waiting for CO intervention: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=398dea41-f76c-4f83-b6e3-2762ecd29cac Link to comment
+6NoisyHikers Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 This is a favorite cache of mine here in Istanbul (not really). It's been missing for over two years, but continually has people "finding" the spot. There has been no communication or maintenance from the CO. I finally went there the other day so I could officially request to have it archived. There are also other peculiarities about this cache. I think you would enjoy taking a look at it. It is currently disabled, waiting for CO intervention: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=398dea41-f76c-4f83-b6e3-2762ecd29cac Yep, must have been "smuggled" Link to comment
+bulcacher Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 This is a favorite cache of mine here in Istanbul (not really). It's been missing for over two years, but continually has people "finding" the spot. There has been no communication or maintenance from the CO. I finally went there the other day so I could officially request to have it archived. There are also other peculiarities about this cache. I think you would enjoy taking a look at it. It is currently disabled, waiting for CO intervention: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=398dea41-f76c-4f83-b6e3-2762ecd29cac Yep, must have been "smuggled" I thought that was funny, too. Link to comment
+Jayloki Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Found it 11/07/2011 I'm debating on whether "found it" is appropriate for this. We were able to find where it USED TO be but only the hook. The cache itself is gone. Whether I actually "found" this is up to (CO). Just let me know! Cool spot anyway! If you have to debate with yourself, the answer is probably 'DNF'. There is no " i was in the area, found the likely spot " in the pull down menu... its DNF or Found. Link to comment
+OZ2CPU Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Found it 06/15/2012 kun fundet med øjnene, den slags værktøj har jeg ikke TFTC ---- I translate : only found by eyes, this kind of tools I dont got TFTC Link to comment
+CanadianRockies Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Five-stage multi: Found it Found the first waypoint with XXXX, but although we looked for quite a while, we could not find the second waypoint this afternoon. Link to comment
+K13 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 3 successive logs on a cache in a near by town.... FINDER (with a jab at prior "finder") Member Found it 01/29/2012 Had to search for a few minutes but we came across this one within 20 ft. of zeroing out the cords. Definitely not just an empty bag. SL, TFTC. CONFIDENT FAILURE Premium Member [Caches Found] 3641 · [Challenges Completed] 6 Didn't find it 12/31/2011 If I can't find it more than likely its gone,CO needs to check this one out if they are still caching.. TRASH(TRACHE?) FINDER? Premium Member [Caches Found] 1909 · [Challenges Completed] 33 Found it Found it 12/17/2011 Pulled every piece of trash out from under deck. Found empty baggie. Pretty sure that was it. Posting as a find but I think this one needs maintenance. . Link to comment
+Klatch Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Found it 12/29/2010Part One Finder - Pretty little bridge. Still a few to get to complete. Thx for the hide. A year and a half later and still hasn't returned to do the other four parts. Link to comment
+Wadcutter Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) This is one of about 52 on a power trail. They are micros mostly hidden on the ground in a rural area so they are often lost. But that doesn't stop "finders". Need Maintenance Finder Premium Member 84 Found it 06/24/2012 TFTC Throwdown Finder Premium Member 4547 · 1 Found it 06/24/2012 out with Another 'Finder' doing the power trail today. grabbed the extra container from next cache in series and brought back here. no maintenance required now. thanks Cache Owner. Needs Maintenance Finder Premium Member 83 Needs Maintenance 06/24/2012 This cache is located at the next one "scar".....am marking for maintenance since we aren't sure which one goes where... Honest Cacher #1 Premium Member 4650 Didn't find it 06/16/2012 This was not an easy P&G for us. No luck here today Honest Cacher #2 but would have done a throwdown Premium Member 950 Didn't find it 06/16/2012 This was on our cache run list but couldnt come up with the find. We searched the van and didnt even have a replacement tube. Edited June 25, 2012 by Wadcutter Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Nice start in geocaching, phony found it and a throwdown on first try. Found it 06/24/2012 This is my first find. I found the hole however there was nothing in it, as mentioned by a previous geocacher. I placed a small pill container with some coins in the hole for the next person to find. Maybe they will bring a bigger container and a log book to provide a proper cache. Or maybe the owner can fix. Found it 02/20/2012 cache is not in square hole in rock cropping Edited June 25, 2012 by briansnat Link to comment
+newcarsmell Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 well I've done that only once when it wouldn't come out of its casing Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Looked high, low, & otherwise, but didn't find the cache. Someone probably needs to check this one out to see if it's missing. I came up from OKC for a couple campouts & some geocaching. We are camping in Winfield for a few days & doing a lot of caching while here. The weather has been great. TFTC Link to comment
+FunnyNose Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 NotThere [Caches Found] 11206 30 Jun 12 A whole lot of faking logging going on here. Guess I'll have to add it to the Found It = Didn't Find It Forum No log=DNF. Cute idea however. NewCacher [Caches Found] 16 Found it 05 Apr 12 Needs repair NewCacher IKnowItsNotThere [Caches Found] 192 22 Mar 12 Beautiful spot. Very creative cache! Used to ride right through here on my way to work everyday before I moved. Found cache but as others said no log or base. Will check back some day to sign. GoneButStillFound [Caches Found] 7323 21 Mar 12 Container and log were missing as everyone else says. INeedASmile [Caches Found] 3898 19 Mar 12 Found cache. No log. NothingThere [Caches Found] 74 18 Mar 12 Found the cache, but there is no longer anything in the base. ImGoingToLogItAsAFind [Caches Found] 444 13 Mar 12 Found the cache ok but the cache was damaged and there was no log to sign.I'm going to log as a find but I see other logs that support lack of log.Thanks much. NoLog [Caches Found] 7014 22 Feb 12 This is a pretty neat idea for a cache but is indeed in need of some TLC and a new log. Thanks for getting us out here even on a pretty windy morning we enjoyed the area. TFTC SL Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Nice start in geocaching, phony found it and a throwdown on first try. Found it 06/24/2012 This is my first find. I found the hole however there was nothing in it, as mentioned by a previous geocacher. I placed a small pill container with some coins in the hole for the next person to find. Maybe they will bring a bigger container and a log book to provide a proper cache. Or maybe the owner can fix. Almost didn't see your post, Snat. Thanks, because rarely does anyone believe me when I tell them the only ever throwdown I received at one of my caches. It was thrown down by a person on their first day of caching with 3 "finds" (one of them being my cache). This was at the height of the "find caches with the Nuvi off your windshield" craze back in 2008 or so (they said they used a Nuvi in their log). So it certainly does support the theory most throwdowner's really think they are doing a good deed for the Geocaching community, despite their number of finds. But lets not kid ourselves, the overwhelming majority of throwdowns are thrown down by the big numbers crowd. P.S. That first day of caching was their only day. Link to comment
+Wadcutter Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Instead of copying all the "finds" just go to this cache and read them. GC1XN5K. It's a D4.5/T1.5. The cache is a large magnetic bison tube about 30 ft up a highway light pole. A person can see it from a couple of hundred feet away. It's right in plain view. Several "seen it, can't reach it, didn't sign the log, but we're claiming a find." One even posted a Needs Archived because she couldn't reach it. Another one also recently posted a Needs Archived because he said it was not kid and family friendly. He later deleted his log when someone took issue with the Needs Archived posts. Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Instead of copying all the "finds" just go to this cache and read them. GC1XN5K. It's a D4.5/T1.5. The cache is a large magnetic bison tube about 30 ft up a highway light pole. A person can see it from a couple of hundred feet away. It's right in plain view. The owner of that cache needs to learn the difference between a difficulty and terrain rating. It should be a D 1.5 (or even a 1) and a T of 4.5. Link to comment
+Wadcutter Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 The owner of that cache needs to learn the difference between a difficulty and terrain rating. It should be a D 1.5 (or even a 1) and a T of 4.5. If you use the Geocaching Rating system it is properly rated with the higher difficulty and lower terrain. http://www.geocaching.com/hide/rate.aspx The cache owner has 1001 hides and over 10,000 finds so she's no novice. Some of her caches are pretty good ones. Some are park n grabs. Link to comment
+bulcacher Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Instead of copying all the "finds" just go to this cache and read them. GC1XN5K. It's a D4.5/T1.5. The cache is a large magnetic bison tube about 30 ft up a highway light pole. A person can see it from a couple of hundred feet away. It's right in plain view. Several "seen it, can't reach it, didn't sign the log, but we're claiming a find." One even posted a Needs Archived because she couldn't reach it. Another one also recently posted a Needs Archived because he said it was not kid and family friendly. He later deleted his log when someone took issue with the Needs Archived posts. That's funny. There's a similar one over in Germantown, TN, near Memphis. It's a key box holder on a light pole: GCX8XR. People have been logging it as found without actually signing anything. Fortunately, the CO kind of laid down the law after the last couple. He says he'll delete all logs from people who don't actually sign. Anyway...doesn't seem right to earn a 3/5 by looking up. Edited July 6, 2012 by bulcacher Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 The owner of that cache needs to learn the difference between a difficulty and terrain rating. It should be a D 1.5 (or even a 1) and a T of 4.5. If you use the Geocaching Rating system it is properly rated with the higher difficulty and lower terrain. http://www.geocaching.com/hide/rate.aspx The cache owner has 1001 hides and over 10,000 finds so she's no novice. Some of her caches are pretty good ones. Some are park n grabs. If, as the cache page states, "a person can see it from a hundred feet away" then the "Cache is in plain sight" box should have been checked, resulting in a low difficulty rating. For some caches, the Geocaching rating system doesn't always produce accurate results. Part of the problem when rating a cache like this is defining ground zero. If ground zero is at the bottom of a pole or tree the the terrain up to that point should be used. If ground zero is 30' up a pole or tree (where the container is physically located) then that should be taken into consideration as it would imply a "steep elevation change" and impact the terrain rating, not the difficulty rating. Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Instead of copying all the "finds" just go to this cache and read them. GC1XN5K. It's a D4.5/T1.5. The cache is a large magnetic bison tube about 30 ft up a highway light pole. A person can see it from a couple of hundred feet away. It's right in plain view. The owner of that cache needs to learn the difference between a difficulty and terrain rating. It should be a D 1.5 (or even a 1) and a T of 4.5. Well, I read the logs, even though we're not supposed to name caches. Almost everyone is using a tool, so I could go with Wadcutter's explanation. I think the "saw it, didn't sign it" logs are being exaggerated here. I can only find 5 admitted ones, and every single solitary one of them is by what we could consider "newbies" at the time of their log. Including the guy who logged it like that in 2009, and hasn't logged into Geocaching.com in over a year and a half now. I believe the highest find count on such a log is a little over 200. EDIT: Almost forgot about the person who posted an SBA because they could't reach it. Well, that's just kind of kooky there, no explanation from me. Edited July 6, 2012 by Mr.Yuck Link to comment
+Wadcutter Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) If, as the cache page states, "a person can see it from a hundred feet away" then the "Cache is in plain sight" box should have been checked, resulting in a low difficulty rating. For some caches, the Geocaching rating system doesn't always produce accurate results. Part of the problem when rating a cache like this is defining ground zero. If ground zero is at the bottom of a pole or tree the the terrain up to that point should be used. If ground zero is 30' up a pole or tree (where the container is physically located) then that should be taken into consideration as it would imply a "steep elevation change" and impact the terrain rating, not the difficulty rating. That's only your intrepretation. I disagree. Check these items: 1) Is an overnight stay likely? No, it's along the interstate. 2) What is the length of hike? None, you can park within feet of the pole. 3) What is the trail like? No trail, it's mowed by DOT, flat and level. 4) Is the path brushy or overgrown? No, See #3. 5) What is the terrain elevation like? Read the choices. Terrain is flat and level. Riding a bike doesn't apply. Can't climb it. 6) How easy is it to find the cache? Requires indepth preparation (4th difficult) or requires specialized equipmen (5th difficult). When you place a similar cache then you can rate it however you want. So while you think the CO should learn the difference between difficulty and terrain rating maybe it's you who should learn the difference. I completely understand how the CO rated it and agree with her rating. My last post on the topic since it is hi-jacking the thread. If you want to continue it then start a new thread. EDIT: Almost forgot about the person who posted an SBA because they could't reach it. Well, that's just kind of kooky there, no explanation from me. I agree. After she posted a SBA someone posted a note countering the SBA. Then another person posted a SBA because he didn't think the cache was kid and family friendly. Someone else posted another note explaining the difficulty rating may exclude some. The 2nd SBA then deleted his post. Edited July 6, 2012 by Wadcutter Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 If, as the cache page states, "a person can see it from a hundred feet away" then the "Cache is in plain sight" box should have been checked, resulting in a low difficulty rating. For some caches, the Geocaching rating system doesn't always produce accurate results. Part of the problem when rating a cache like this is defining ground zero. If ground zero is at the bottom of a pole or tree the the terrain up to that point should be used. If ground zero is 30' up a pole or tree (where the container is physically located) then that should be taken into consideration as it would imply a "steep elevation change" and impact the terrain rating, not the difficulty rating. That's only your intrepretation. I disagree. Check these items: 1) Is an overnight stay likely? No, it's along the interstate. 2) What is the length of hike? None, you can park within feet of the pole. 3) What is the trail like? No trail, it's mowed by DOT, flat and level. 4) Is the path brushy or overgrown? No, See #3. 5) What is the terrain elevation like? Read the choices. Terrain is flat and level. Riding a bike doesn't apply. Can't climb it. 6) How easy is it to find the cache? Requires indepth preparation (4th difficult) or requires specialized equipmen (5th difficult). I disagree with your interpretation of #5 and #6. The terrain may be flat and level up to the point you reach the pole or tree or whatever it's on. I'd argue that the last 30 feet from the ground to where the cache is actually located is still part of the terrain and should be considered when providing an overall terrain rating. I've done plenty of caches which had a fairly flat approach, then got much steeper close to the cache (but not vertical) and every one of them included the steep portion of the hike as part of the terrain. If you can see the cache from 100' away the in depth preparation or specialized equipment isn't needed to find the cache, but the navigate that last 30 feet to retrieve it. When you place a similar cache then you can rate it however you want. So while you think the CO should learn the difference between difficulty and terrain rating maybe it's you who should learn the difference. I completely understand how the CO rated it and agree with her rating. I have no intention of placing a similar cache so opinion will be remain based what I believe is a logical interpretation of a general definition of difficulty and terrain. Link to comment
+redsox_mark Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I disagree with your interpretation of #5 and #6. The terrain may be flat and level up to the point you reach the pole or tree or whatever it's on. I'd argue that the last 30 feet from the ground to where the cache is actually located is still part of the terrain and should be considered when providing an overall terrain rating. I've done plenty of caches which had a fairly flat approach, then got much steeper close to the cache (but not vertical) and every one of them included the steep portion of the hike as part of the terrain. I think the guidelines are unclear, and both interpretations are valid. As the bottom of the pole is at the posted coordinates, it is different than a mountain trail which is very steep near the end. Link to comment
+Vater_Araignee Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 I disagree with your interpretation of #5 and #6. The terrain may be flat and level up to the point you reach the pole or tree or whatever it's on. I'd argue that the last 30 feet from the ground to where the cache is actually located is still part of the terrain and should be considered when providing an overall terrain rating. I've done plenty of caches which had a fairly flat approach, then got much steeper close to the cache (but not vertical) and every one of them included the steep portion of the hike as part of the terrain. I think the guidelines are unclear, and both interpretations are valid. As the bottom of the pole is at the posted coordinates, it is different than a mountain trail which is very steep near the end. So what you are saying is that if I walk on a level paved path to the base of a 200' cliff and reach GZ then it warrants a t1 even tho technically the cache is still 200' away? See, the bottom of the pole is not where the cache is located and even tho GS does not allow for Z, the cache is still located at X,Y,Z. I would probably hit the floor LAMO at the person who claimed they visited GZ at GC1D6ZQ and never entered the water. Link to comment
+redsox_mark Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 So what you are saying is that if I walk on a level paved path to the base of a 200' cliff and reach GZ then it warrants a t1 even tho technically the cache is still 200' away? See, the bottom of the pole is not where the cache is located and even tho GS does not allow for Z, the cache is still located at X,Y,Z. I would probably hit the floor LAMO at the person who claimed they visited GZ at GC1D6ZQ and never entered the water. No, I'm just saying the guidelines are unclear as to what counts as terrain. The cliff is clearly part of the terrain. A pole is debatable. What about if everything is flat, but retrieving the cache requires hanging from your feet under a bridge or other difficult physical feat. So there is no "steep elevation change" - but it is similar to the pole in that it is physically difficult to access the cache. Link to comment
+Vater_Araignee Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 So what you are saying is that if I walk on a level paved path to the base of a 200' cliff and reach GZ then it warrants a t1 even tho technically the cache is still 200' away? See, the bottom of the pole is not where the cache is located and even tho GS does not allow for Z, the cache is still located at X,Y,Z. I would probably hit the floor LAMO at the person who claimed they visited GZ at GC1D6ZQ and never entered the water. No, I'm just saying the guidelines are unclear as to what counts as terrain. The cliff is clearly part of the terrain. A pole is debatable. What about if everything is flat, but retrieving the cache requires hanging from your feet under a bridge or other difficult physical feat. So there is no "steep elevation change" - but it is similar to the pole in that it is physically difficult to access the cache. Would a you be capable of using a 30' implement to reach the cache and replace it or would you need to get closer to it?The way I see it, you are going to have to climb something to get to that cache and that is part of the terrain. Even if you had to bring what you are climbing on. To debate the pole can lead to debating any man made item as being terrain and any vertical item like a tree. Lets say you have a paved path 10 miles long with 6" bricks lining it and a cache at the end of it but the cache is only a half mile from the start. Now that's debatable as a 1.5 or a 3. However, if you have to climb 30' into a tree at the end then both would be a 4. Link to comment
+Klatch Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Silly me, I thought the subject of this thread was "Found it = Didn't Find It". Link to comment
+briansnat Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Getting things back on track... Found it 07/08/2012 Second find of the day like this. The first one stumped me for a bit. Found while attending the vineyard event. TFTC Found it 07/08/2012 Found while at the event this afternoon. Found it 07/08/2012 you are so creative tftc Found it 07/08/2012 Found it (to be missing). Great hide technique. Thanks. Found it 07/08/2012 While at the event with my wife and her mother, we correctly identified the intended hiding spot for the missing cache. TFTC Found it 07/08/2012 found its hidden spot during event..TFTC Found it 07/08/2012 Found it's hiding spot during the event. TFTC Found it 07/08/2012 Found today at the event...Well sort of we found the location and it was MIA got permission to log TFTC View Log Found it 07/08/2012 We found it. Very similar to another hide that we have seen. TFTF. We enjoyed the event and company also. View Log Found it 07/08/2012 Thanks for the cool cache. Didn't find it 07/08/2012 No dice on this one. Cache is apparently MIA Found it 07/08/2012 Not a hard find:) Found it 07/08/2012 Found while at the event and enjoyed wine and cheese nearby too! Thanks! Cool container. Found it 07/08/2012 Thanks for the cache..found while at the event. Found it 07/08/2012 Found this nice cache while attending the event. Thanks so much! Edited July 9, 2012 by briansnat Link to comment
+frinklabs Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Found it 07/14/2012 The property owner came out to warn us the cache might no longer be there and also gave us a hint on what to look for. We replaced it in the area she told us it had previously been. Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Found it 05/14/2012 I found Stages 1 & 2 but not the final. Searched for 30 minutes. TFTmulti Hmm... It's a four-stage multi... Found it 06/24/2012 Found stage 1 and 2. Stage 1, container was exposed, so I rehid it better. Stage 2 was ok. But stage 3. Nothing. Is it there? CO needs to confirm. Thanks Same cache. Stage 3 is a toughie! But, you only found two of four stages. Half a smiley? Link to comment
+briansnat Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 For a cache 20 feet up in a tree Found it 07/14/2012 A little climbing ability? Unless you're Paul Bunyan or you brought your Indiana Jones whip, I see the necessity for a fair amount of climbing - certainly more than I was willing to undertake. Cache was spotted but we left the log unsigned. Found it 07/14/2012 You have got to be kidding! We located gz but, being of certain age, were unable to retrieve the cache or sign the log for reasons that will become obvious once you get there. I'm taking a smiley on this one anyway. I took a picture to prove I was there, but don't want to be a spoiler and post it. Link to comment
+cmhall9 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 From one of my hidden caches. Found it 03/24/2012Close as I'm going to get. Not going into someones yard lol FYI, the cache is not in anyone's yard. Link to comment
+fluoro Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 For a cache 20 feet up in a tree Found it 07/14/2012 A little climbing ability? Unless you're Paul Bunyan or you brought your Indiana Jones whip, I see the necessity for a fair amount of climbing - certainly more than I was willing to undertake. Cache was spotted but we left the log unsigned. Found it 07/14/2012 You have got to be kidding! We located gz but, being of certain age, were unable to retrieve the cache or sign the log for reasons that will become obvious once you get there. I'm taking a smiley on this one anyway. I took a picture to prove I was there, but don't want to be a spoiler and post it. "I'm taking a smiley" Srs bsns. Link to comment
+OZ2CPU Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Found it 07/20/2012 Vanskelig med så mange mugglere ute...... men vi fant den til slutt. Klarte derimot ikke å få tak i den så vi har ikke skrevet i loggen. TFTC! we just went to NORWAY OSLO, great trip anyway. one cache we had a terrible fight with, we found NOTHING at all.. then we see others log it as found like this.. it drives me MAD !! in their log they say : we did not manage to get it, nor to write in the log !!! WAKE UP CO, DELETE SUCH LOGS !! AND LINK TO THE GUIDELINES.. Link to comment
+Wadcutter Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Same cache. Stage 3 is a toughie! But, you only found two of four stages. Half a smiley? Maybe just a grin or a smirk, no smiley. Link to comment
+OZ2CPU Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Found it 07/23/2012 Wedged in well - A bit too difficult to retrieve for large fingers but found nonetheless. A fun cache - first in Oslo. We have pic evidence if necessary :-) -------------- nice all you need is to SEE a cache.. not open or sign it... some people are pushing it.. Link to comment
+UMainah Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I think I would have prefered a donation to what happens to also be my alma matter instead of a throw down. Cache was located in a university garden. Found it 12/20/2011Found container in one spot and swag in another...combined them...nice place! Found it 11/17/2011 Neat location - but there was actually no container or travel bug in this location. We did find a cool piece of swag in its place though! Found it 11/02/2011 The new cache container is "small"...not an ammo box. And wondering all those apples? Thanks Found it 10/01/2011 In lieu of a contribution to my Alma Mater, I replaced this cache. TFTC. Needs Archived 09/10/2011 No response from CO?? Didn't find it 08/28/2011 Not found, sorry... Needs Maintenance 07/05/2011 Due to construction this cache has been removed. Contacted owner and am waiting for reply to return cache and contents. Garden is still open just not as pristine at the moment. Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Found it 7/24/2012 I found the first one, there are small slips of paper inside with co-ordinates to next one. I could not find that one. Link to comment
JASTA 11 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Found it Found the hollowed out tree but no container. Link to comment
JASTA 11 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 This one was located near a spot where yard waste was being dumped: Didn't find it we found shingles but we think the cache may be buried under a great pile of branches that has been recently dumped at GZ. Found it No luck here today, I also believe this one got buried Link to comment
Recommended Posts