[seldom|seen]

I think Marc put Deejay up to this in the first place. Look at all those cache replacements for Marc… talk about a great opportunity to have a couple of area cachers who know where most of your insane hides are go out and do maintenance on them all!

I suppose I have to parse my words a bit, Sagasu did do maintenance on one of mine as well. Although I do have to say that Dave is having to work harder to keep up…. 🙂

For all of the observers out there, Dave and I started out thinkin it would be kind of fun to see how well we could do initially and just wanted to get on the board. That’s when Zuma was way out ahead. Soon enough we were right up there and it became a bit of a competition between us. 🙂

You can see where it is going now. Who knows where it will be by months end with all those lonely caches out there still…

[seldom|seen]

Dan is not the only one left behind! 1300 in a year is incredible, tack onto that the one-a-day record with some of those finds happening at 5 minutes to midnight on the day of, the large number of puzzle solves to rack up laps on a few races, and the huge number of FTF’s for the year and there is no denying that Dave is hooked!

And now, he’s even putting out 5/5 puzzles, something I thought I’d never see from the guy who six months ago wanted nothing to do with them and said at one point, I think I’ll stop at 13 of my own caches, that’s enough. I knew that wouldn’t last!

So here’s to one of the most prolific and insatiable valley cachers around! Thanks for the rides, the hides, the memories and the anecdotes.

[seldom|seen]

Now 400, that’s a comfortable number! Much more comfortable than this 1200 stuff…

Thanks for the assists on our collaborations and I look forward to co-authoring some more caches in your neck of the woods.

You’ve got a nice pace going, now just don’t go getting any ideas from any distant relatives! Or, maybe you like getting more than a couple hours of sleep a night…

[seldom|seen]

Well old man, you limped you bleery way to another incredible milestone. I can’t even keep track anymore. 1200…. it’ll take me years to catch up! I hope you decide to Pace yourself a bit more for your second year in the sport, averaging 3 hours a night just cant be good for you in the long run.

Looking forward to many, many more adventures and unforgettable moments on the trail. May your caches be re-hid (well) and may your swag be traded even-steven…

[seldom|seen]

OK, I’ll admit, I’m probably a bit biased. Of the puzzles out there that I have placed which have nothing to do with location or history, the majority are not tough (right Marc?) and when you get to the final there is usually something more rewarding than a log sheet. A creative container or an interesting hide.

That’s not to say that all of them are easy. I have a few tough ones and the reward is in solving the puzzle. And those that have solved them have indeed wasted lots of time (right Dave? right Mike, right Carol?) So, I am guilty.

However, I try to keep things in perspective and balance the challenge and reward. A really tough puzzle will always have an Unregistered Geocoin in it for the FTF. With as many puzzles as I have out there, I’d be black-listed if they were just code-breakers to find film canisters.

I also feel like I have a little responsibility to lead by example. That’s why I try to do tributes and collaborations as well. For those that go the extra mile. I’m working on a new series with 9 area cachers, each will co-author one in the series because they have worked hard to solve mine and appreciate what I put into the sport.

[seldom|seen]

Good to see that so far no one has run across what might be a Meth lab in Wisconsin while geocaching. The danger is still there, however.

I am going to see if I can get information on found locations of Labs and compare that with placed caches (if I am able) to see if there were any close to existing caches.

I echo the sentiments about making any efforts to do anything but get the hell out of the area if you come across one. Forget marking. You’ll remember about where you were, close enough to report its general location. Let the authorities do the rest.

Keep the reports coming though. This information is valuable.

[seldom|seen]

@AstroD-Team wrote:

I want the enjoyment of finding a cache without having to waste time that I don’t even have to figure out some puzzle just to get coordinates.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but with this statement I feel the need to respond to the idea that figuring out a puzzle is a “waste of time”.

From my perspective, spending any time in the field looking for simple 35mm containers or ammo boxes filled with throw-away McD toys in an urban environment is a waste of time. I learn nothing, I see nothing, I gain nothing. I’ll admit, I have a small handful of these myself, but at least I try to make them entertaining.

For me its about opportunity. An opportunity to learn about a place, a thing, a person. It is sometimes not enough to take someone to a destination, sometimes you have to nudge them into reading about it as well, or they will opt to move on to the next cache without a full appreciation of what they are walking away from.

If driving around the state trying to log as many caches as you can to get your numbers up forces you to bypass some very fun, informative and rewarding puzzles that teach you a thing or two about the people and places you are seeing, isn’t a waste of gas and a huge waste of the potential of this sport to be more that finding tuperware containers with multi-billion dollar satellites, than I don’t know what is.

But, that’s just my opinion.

[seldom|seen]

Well, what are all of my co-owners compaining about then! Sorry to waste anybody’s time, I should have tested a few things here before posting the note.

[seldom|seen]

Here’s the dilemma. Say you are a co-owner of a cool cache that you were asked to be part of putting together and you know what it is and where it is.

If you log it, you look silly and logging the find makes you feel a bit like you are cheating, at least that’s how some will see it if they are particular about numbers.

If you ignore it with the Ignore It function, then you can’t put it on you watch list to see the logs which you don’t get to automatically see since you are not the official owner of the cache.

I think most cache co-owners want to read the logs and get notifications when a cache they co-own is found. That’s the point of co-owning a cache.

You only have 2 options in this case. Live with your co-owned caches coming up on your search queries by not logging them as found. Or. logging them as a Found It, even though you may have been the one that actually placed it!

It seems to me that there needs to be some additional feature that would allow co-owners to ignore listings yet monitor them. Sounds complicated.

[seldom|seen]

@Wis Kid wrote:

To those who like to “push the envelope” with creative puzzle caches and such:

Sure is nice to see some relaxation of certain restrictive controls on content instead of the other way around. Mind you, I am in 100% agreement with any guideline that protects cachers from exposing themselves to unwarranted garbage in the form of spam. I tend not to worry much about executable files as I am solely a mac guy and don’t have much to worry about (at least until recently I didn’t).

Anyway, just wanted to confirm the rules change, give kudos to the groundspeak community for being sensible and allowing us to take the responsibility on ourselves for what we link to our caches.

And lastly, I updated those in my “handful” of puzzle caches that fit the criteria and I was actually surprised to discover that it amounted to only 5% of my active caches… I would have thought more.

[seldom|seen]

I just want to say #(&$@) you! Translated, that means thanks!!!!

I know that my style and approach to the sport is often a little off center and that in my own puzzling way, I don’t put as much effort into finding as I do placing, but I can’t just sit around and let all those other great caches go undiscovered either!

I have made some great friends along the way and have had some fantastic adventures and only hope that I can keep surprising you guys with more “where in the #(&$@) did he come up with that idea” caches!

[seldom|seen]

@-cheeto- wrote:

I better start hiding some regular local one’s so you don’t have to solve any s|s puzzles…

-cheeto-

Easy cheesy…. if it weren’t for some of those s|s puzzles, Dave would have had to trek up to Rock Island a lot sooner to keep his streak alive. Keeping the streak alive… the double entendre on that one is just killing me!

It’s been a privilege, honor, and genuine pleasure to get to know you over the past 6 months as we have ventured out in the wee hours to cache and share stories in the field.

So many adventures shared with the memorable ones having nothing to do with the final finds. Just as Robert M. Pirsig said in “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, ‘It’s not the thing itself but the getting there that is the adventure’. I am not imagining that the “getting there” for you has been the thing and being part of that is something i will always cherish.

Now, for pete’s sake (not that Pete) take a break and put some time into some other things that also require a little Zen and a little maintenance. I have found in you a true compadré and I know, firsthand, the toll this sport can have on those who really get into it. You’ve set a high mark and one that you can be proud of old man, so take some shelter, grab your tackle, find your bait box and go play hooky from this madness for a few days, it will do you good!

[seldom|seen]

[seldom|seen]

well now, how am I supposed to know this was already covered with a title like “shhh, I not supposed to say anything…”

[seldom|seen]

@rogheff wrote:

I for one, will admit I am guilty of this offense. Cookie cutter geocaches get cookie cutter logs.

However….

Fascinating, unique and interesting geocaches get fascinating, unique and interesting logs.

I will simply echo this sentiment rather than digress on my personal feelings about the cookie cutter logs that I have gotten on some of my caches. Worse than cookie cutter logs are logs that come from a guided tour where the cachers come away with no DNF’s due in no small part to efforts of the “Tour Guide”

What is the point of logging a find on a 10-part multi without doing any of the 10 stages? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the sport and cheat the individual who has gone though all of the effort to put together an elaborate or memorable cache?

I try to make my caches fun, memorable, laughable, enjoyable and sometime aggravating, but in the end I know that you will at least come away “remembering” what you went through to get an s|s find. That is unless you were “clued in” by a tour guide.

The vast majority of the logs on my caches reflect the effort or experience of getting the find and most include the word “memorable”. If that’s the only thing you get out of an s|s cache, then I am content to know that you got more out of it than you would a 35mm canister on a guardrail. (Yeah, yeah, I know I have a couple of those, but at least the container is interesting!).

Respect the owner. If it looks like it took some time, expense, research and energy to put a cache together, then say as much in your log. That’s all that we can ask for.

[Author]

Posts