Forum: General Discussion
Topic: Navicaching in SF Bay Area
started by: apogee

Posted by apogee on April 28 2004,9:38 pm
I decided to hunt my first navicache-geocache, but ran into an unexpected problem.  None of the logs for the 3 navicaches listed within a 20-mile radius have been updated in 2-3 years.  A cache has a low probability of surviving that long without some attention, I would think.

What makes it even more surprising is that I'm not situated in some geocaching backwater.  I'm right in the heart of the SF Bay Area.  There are actually over 700 caches within a 20-mile radius.  Unfortunately, they're all registered with that other site.

Is this the situation one encounters everywhere, or are there Navicaching hot spots in other geographic regions?  I'm at a loss as to how to improve things locally.  Placing more caches won't help.  There are already several listed for the area with no first to find's after 3 years!  Perhaps these sleeping caches have multiple-listings.  Is there an easy way to determine that?

Posted by Scout on April 29 2004,7:03 am
Quote (apogee @ April 28 2004,10:38 pm)
Perhaps these sleeping caches have multiple-listings.  Is there an easy way to determine that?

Do a search on using the coordinates of the caches in question. See what turns up nearby.
Posted by PC Medic on April 29 2004,5:26 pm
This is odd as a quick search and I find 19 caches listed in the SF Bay area (20 mile range).
Posted by apogee on April 29 2004,8:53 pm
I guess it depends on where you center your search.  I'm in Redwood City, about mid-peninsula.  When I search for caches within 20 miles of my zipcode, I get
Code Sample

Miles Bearing Cache Name
13.3 225 'B' Is For Beachhead
17.2 323 Gee those are big letters!
19.4 080 Man on a Mission

The same criteria for GC's database net 35 pages with 20 caches/pp.

I decided to find out whether it's possible for a cache to hibernate for long periods of time.  'B' Is For Beachhead was only visited once according to its log.  dmg found it on October 14, 2001.  It doesn't appear to be associated with any GC caches.  I'll take a run over there tomorrow and see if the cache and its contents survived two and a half years in the wild (including two alkaline batteries! ???).

Posted by Scout on April 29 2004,9:16 pm
'B' is for Beachhead is one of Buxley's classic alphabetic caches. It's still cross-listed on, where it was most recently found on March 21, 2004.
Posted by apogee on April 29 2004,9:38 pm
You're right!  EasyGPS linked N00032 to GC318, and I lost the second waypoint.  I'll still try for it tomorrow and log the result here so any Navicachers who are interested can see that it's still active.
Posted by apogee on May 01 2004,1:16 pm
I hunted 'B' is for Beachhead yesterday, but I'm afraid I must report a DNF.  It's not that the cache is missing.  There is a good chance it's still around.  It's just that the physical surroundings proved too difficult.  Navicache's site description simply says Since this is a fairly well-traveled beach, the cache is hidden beneath some greenery. You won't be able to see it until you're standing directly over its hiding place.

Okay, but when I triangulated on the location, it led to the middle of a patch of high brush without any evident trails.  Trying to force my way through brambles and over loose footing wasn't my idea of fun.  Besides that, there was a $4 parking fee for this state beach.  There wasn't any attendant around - else I would have paid - but I noticed a highway patrol car circling the lot and wanted to make my stay as brief as possible.

I found more helpful information when I later read the encrypted clue, so I may return for another try.  Why was the site rated 1.5/1.5 with such a vague description?  It would be easier to find a quarter tossed over your shoulder into a thicket of rosebushes than to locate this hide in the middle of a debris field.

Posted by Scout on May 01 2004,3:00 pm
I suppose it's possible the immediate area is more overgrown now than when the cache was first placed three years ago. Or maybe the hider just didn't factor in that last little bit when calculating terrain or difficulty. Who knows. It sounds like a fabulous location anyway. Look at the silver lining rather than the dark cloud of a DNF and your day will be remembered better.
Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.