Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Your PQ # 50 (Iowa01) was generated as PQ # 16. Click on the name of # 16 generated PQ and it should download immediately. Hans
  3. Really odd. I have a group of PQs that I run periodically. I select 10 to run and they complete, generate an email, and show completed on the site. But no file is generated for several of them. These are PQs that I have run a large number of times. I tried to download using GSAK, or through the page, but several just didn't generate. I have never seen this before, and now it has occurred for two days in a row...
  4. I agree. The database needs a good ratio of new caches. In some areas the cache owner culture is--hide lots and don't worry about maintenance, and community prop-up. After about a year these types of caches are often in rough shape. This may be off-putting to people trying the game. New caches tend to be in good shape (admittedly some are in rough shape from day one). It looks like GCHQ is hoping to increase the number of caches that are more appealing. If current hiders won't maintain their caches, encourage them to archive them for some much needed refreshening turnover. I'm in favour but not by encouraging FPs. With regards to "Last Found" caches, I don't think GCHQ is saying archive them. Instead I read it as 'check your lonely caches'. Caches that rarely get found are great, as long as they are there and in reasonably good shape. Many haven't-been-found-in-a-long-time caches aren't so difficult to get to. They are often not found much because all the locals have found them, they are more than 500m from the road, they have gone missing and no one wants to log a DNF.
  5. Sent my info to Laval K-9: November 15th, 2020Name received from Laval K-9: November 28th, 2020Sent my gift: December 2nd, 2020My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift: Sent my info to Laval K-9: November 15th, 2020Name received from Laval K-9: November 28th, 2020Sent my gift: December 2nd, 2020My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift: Sent my info to Laval K-9: November 15th, 2020Name received from Laval K-9: November 28th, 2020Sent my gift: December 2nd, 2020My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift: Sent my info to Laval K-9: November 15th, 2020Name received from Laval K-9: November 28th, 2020Sent my gift: December 2nd, 2020My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift: Sent my info to Laval K-9: November 15th, 2020Name received from Laval K-9: November 28th, 2020Sent my gift: December 2nd 2020My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift:
  6. Today
  7. Sent my info to Laval K-9: 16.11.2020 Name received from Laval K-9: 28.11.2020 Sent my gift: 02.12.2020 My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift:
  8. Yep, agreed. This virus probably isn't helping too much either. The "catch-22" I see is the desire for new caches that urban cachers can head to vs. the areas that would allow it at this time. Luckily we're still seeing new caches published each week, even with this virus going on, but mostly in large parks and wooded areas. Our Reviewers have been really good about safety and this virus. Guess one of the few times that safety is a consideration in this hobby. We usually see an influx of new cachers after Christmas, why we put Hallmark ornaments in reg/large woods hides. Leaving the house a short time for fresh air is supposed to be a good thing too, so maybe a bunch more will experience a benefit to woods trails.
  9. Wow, Déjà vue! Same answer I gave you last time you brought this up still applies. Six torx screws and a single push in connector. 5 minutes is all it will require to be replaced in the field by even the most mechanically inept. Batteries are already available from multiple sources online. Replace it when it starts to show signs of failure, or carry the spare and a mini torx driver with you if you are so worried about it failing in the field.... Mineral2, why do you continue to propagate this false hysteria?
  10. There are shops that specialize in replacing phone batteries. If they can crack the nut open (looking at you Apple), they can jam* in a replacement battery of approximately the right size. If anything, Garmins should be easier to open than a typical phone. (* I opened a camping lantern to find a soft lithium battery pack inside. The corners were folded back, and the whole thing had a jammed-in look. Until then I never knew batteries could be bent/folded/stuffed like that.)
  11. I see the post as Groundspeak simply looking to cause a bump in new hides, nothing more, nothing less. Whether or not one archives their mountaintop cache, that's not going to have any material effect on their coffers. The urban hides must surely be what drives the majority of new registrations. They know they already have the sort like us, we continue to pay each year, but we've been at this a long time now and our numbers dwindle. It could be said that our numbers dwindle as a direct result of the type of caching that Groundspeak continues to promote. It's a catch-22, keep the hiker happy vs bringing in more and more and more urban families. The people are in the cities, that's where the money is. Geocaching Groundspeak style is a very odd business model. It relies entirely on volunteers to set the product that it sells the tools to locate and track. Perhaps the continuing decline reaches the point where Groundspeak has to incentivize hiders to place caches. Recognition beyond just favorite points: rewards, special privileges, shiny geocoins, tags, etc. Why should paid Lackeys get all the tags and names on a coin when it is the Reviewers and the Hiders that make the company product? Groundspeak needs to get really creative in ways to encourage hiders to be better and be reliable. I will continue to hide caches in my area because the only way I can foster the game is to hide worthwhile caches. I will not archive any caches because Groundspeak suggests that I do. I make the decision based on muggle history / cost to replace / effort to check up on / balance of having too many active caches.
  12. Okay... so the way to create more finds for locals that won't travel are to re-create the same caches that aren't good locations to start with.
  13. That'll only work in places totally saturated with caches where new hides are mostly blocked by existing ones, in which case there should be thousands of caches for newcomers to find before they've cleaned out their area. Anywhere else and existing caches aren't blocking new caches. In my local area there are now far less caches than when I started in 2013. A lot of the urban hides have been archived by natural attrition, usually because the cache got muggled, and that just becomes another empty hole on the map. On the left are all the caches I've found within 5km of home over those nearly eight years and on the right is what's currently there. A lot of the bushland ones in the green parts of the map are still there, but they're the ones that get few finds which we're told ought to be archived. Encouraging owners to archive more of their hides will just kill off the game even faster here.
  14. Please... Of course there were new caches weekly, the hobby was just starting. The reason why benchmarking was created was because there were so few caches in the beginning. Sheesh... The few caches that are still here (from the heyday...) folks travel, even taking vacation to get to them.
  15. This! I have new cachers telling me it isn't worth the cost once you cleaned out an area. I do see from GS point of view of telling people to archive their caches so it free up the area for new hides. New hides means more finds for local cachers that don't want to drive out of their way. Old timers were telling me there was dozens of new caches weekly during the heyday of geocaching. What happens? Pretty simple, too many caches that are hogging the location that most local cachers found years ago. Most new caches go missing because they aren't good locations to start with. I see new cachers placing hide in area where it will disappear within a few months.
  16. That's not what concerns me with a built-in or even replaceable lithium-ion battery. In 4 years, when the battery won't hold a good charge, will Garmin still be selling replacement batteries? Or for the devices with a built-in battery, will I have to replace my GPS? I don't see these devices as phones or computers. They're tools that can still work independently of technological advances. In 10 years, will Garmin still be selling replacement batteries? Because in 10 years, I know I can still buy a pack of AA batteries - alkaline or NiMH rechargeable. It's bad enough that my phone lasts maybe 5 years before I'm "forced" to replace it. I don't think a GPS, which is originally designed to be an offline device, should be quite that disposable.
  17. Hi! I’m interested and would like to offer $150 Venmo. Thank you!
  18. GS knows this hobby is dying and they want people to archived caches so people can place new ones. Most new cachers give up once they cleaned out their area.
  19. Yikes! Still an issue. Having the problem on the latest version of Safari.
  20. Presumably the assumption is that a CO has a relatively fixed number of caches, so what GS is thinking is that you'll try harder with another cache. After all, the first point in the paragraph is that you should put out a cache with the characteristics of your caches that had favorite points. I see the second point as a supporting comment, suggesting a way to "make room" in your maintenance schedule for a new cache that's better. I don't like the idea that cache quality can be so bad as to make a cache's value negative, but there are so many other factors pushing in that direction, both from GS and from the community at large, that I think this one phrase is a negligible contribution. After all, it's merely suggesting favorite points as a point of reference. It's nothing like CHS and reviewer driven archival, the very foundation of which is that geocachers must be prevented from running into "bad caches". Those things are *actually* reducing the cache pool, not merely suggesting in an offhand way that a CO might do so.
  21. Ha ha, I probably would have given that one an FP too if I'd had one to spare at the time. More for the way it was set up than the thing itself, as it was a nice surprise that made me chuckle when I saw it.
  22. Sent my info to Laval K-9: 18 November 2020Name received from Laval K-9: 28 November 2020Sent my gift: December 2, 2020My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift: The package is going all the way over the big ocean to the USA 🇺🇸 Hope it will arrive before X-mas. Happy Holidays to all of you Geogreetzzz, Inge-de-mol
  23. I know - I don't get the fascination with FP's on those! We have one ourself even - a rubber snake with a bison - it got a lot more than others of ours that I think are much better....
  24. I'm not concerned about my own caches, it's others in the community who might take the blog to heart and start reducing the already small cache pool here that I see as bad for the game. Maybe mass archivals are a good thing in places with caches packed as tightly as the saturation rule allows, but there are a lot of places in the world where that's not the case and every archival is a loss to the community. Even worse is the criterion they're suggesting for archivals - insufficient FPs or insufficient finds - because I don't think either of these is a sign of a poor cache. The caches that really are in need of archiving, those with cracked containers, mouldy logs and ignored NMs, in general won't be owned by COs who read the blog or take suggestions like these to heart.
  25. I don't understand why everyone is acting so offended by Groundspeak; the blog said that "maybe it’s time to consider" archiving the caches. So you consider each cache. Hey, this one has no favorites, but I really love it because it takes people to this wonderful destination. So don't archive it! Easy peasy. When I look at each cache of mine I consider whether it, in the translated words of Marie Kando, "sparks joy". If it doesn't, I consider archiving it. If it does, I don't consider archiving it.
  26. If the CO who placed the T4.5 cache I did for my 1000th find archived it and created a new one at or near the same location, I'd pass on it. Likewise the T4.5 down the south coast I did a few weeks ago. For me, most of the enjoyment I get from these sorts of caches is from the journey, going somewhere new and experiencing unexpected things. Putting a different box at GZ and writing up a new cache page doesn't make it a new experience. Yet it's caches like these that make up the bulk of the lonely caches, around here at least, the ones that take a lot of time and effort to get to. Those cachers who just want a quick smiley won't be any more likely to attempt the new cache as they were the old one.
  27. Actually, I do think this is a good idea. But I worry that they've come at it from the wrong direction. We'll get more caches with little thought or care -- attach a bison to a dollar store toy, toss it roadside and forget about it - get lots of FPs. Personally, I think they could encourage cache turnover by writing a blog about how voluntary turnover helps the game stay interesting. In addition, they should strongly encourage retrieval of caches that are voluntarily archived (ask COs to post a note before archival that they've retrieved the cache container). They could also encourage reviewers to do more sweeps and remove the abandoned cache listings that fill the database.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...