paleolith
-
Posts
964 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by paleolith
-
-
Posting such photos is frequently done, so I would assume that cachers who took pictures of themselves are willing to have them posted. (You may find a lot of photos with no face visible.) I would not hesitate to log a note and attach the photos. If someone objects, say sorry and take it down. I would not try to identify individuals, but if anyone steps up to identify themselves, I would add the caption.
Edward
-
Welcome to the forums!
You've gotten some good advice on quality containers. You might consider using a matchsafe (aka waterproof matchbox) as the container and gluing the cap on as described. This won't push into the ground quite as easily as a preform, but it's a lot easier to find. I think you can get the bright orange ones at Wal-Mart even; the olive drab are harder to find but easy to order and often don't need any additional camouflage.
Technically pushing something into the ground is counter to guidelines. I doubt anyone would raise an objection to the centrifuge tubes, but with a preform or matchsafe you would want to make sure to avoid sensitive areas.
Edward
-
I really like the FTF-coin idea. Good moneymaker for GS! I don't think you described exactly what dipping a FTF-coin does. I assume it gives you a FTF status on the cache. Sort of like buying indulgences from priests. Very medieval. Can I double-dip my FTF-coin to steal the FTF from someone who only single-dipped! Double dipping is so fashionable nowadays. Uh ... where's the nearest Baskin Robbins?
You could add another special case, the FTF-insider. That's for a FTF between submission and publication, with no direct contact from the hider. We'll see who REALLY sees those submissions.
And FTF-stealing! For those of us who never outgrew Go Fish.
I'll add a really super idea: First To Hide! We could have FTH for each city block, for each surveyed section and quarter-section, for each county ... well, county FTHs are mostly taken already. FTH a full fizzy in one state, FTH a half fizzy in one county. FTH each size of cache in a given state park that's at least a mile from the nearest cache of the same size. FTH any D/T combo that's ten miles from the nearest cache with the same D/T. Come on folks, think up some other possibilities for FTH!
Edward
-
I haven't checked your numbers because it looks perfectly reasonable to me. When a set of data has a long tail, as here, the mean is often a great deal different from the median. That's why, for example, the median is usually used for economic indicators rather than the mean.
Edward
-
I don't see how just a count is going to provide what you're looking for. Total number of logs is going up (per my impression), so total blank logs could go up while the percentage went down. Not saying that's happening, just that percentage of blank logs would be a lot more meaningful.
Edward
-
OK, I'll admit, I haven't read every post in this thread. OTOH, I'm only going to mention things that are still a problem. Like the huge font being used in this text box I'm typing in right now ...
I have a large HTML table in this description. Suddenly there's a lot of extra space between lines. It's already a very long description and it does not need any more white space. I have not looked at the output HTML to figure out what gc.com did.
More generally, the admonition that "white space is good" is usually misplaced. It applies to print media. Because of the horridly low resolution of computer monitors compared with print, and the small size (information capacity) of most monitors compared with a newspaper page, the rules change. Yes, some white space is still good, but gc.com has taken the currently fashionable route of using print guidelines. Until we have 300dpi monitors the size of a double newspaper sheet, these rules don't apply.
That same cache description is being rendered in a very small font. My HTML description does nothing to the font size. I don't see this on most descriptions, and I haven't tried to figure out what broke this one.
Still, I see a continuing move to the currently fashionable smaller fonts. Wake up, Groundspeak, and notice that a lot of your most loyal users are over 60! Our eyes don't handle that small stuff as well as they used to. Include a lot of people over 60 in your testing!
Speaking to other users who don't like the high contrast: many of us over 60 much prefer the higher contrast. It's normal for your eyes to have decreased contrast sensitivity as you age. So those who think it's too bright, turn down the brightness on your monitor. If GS makes the background less bright, it's a lot harder for those of us who need the contrast to compensate.
As for catering to the execrable IE: remember that we on the forums are a highly self-selected bunch and not in any way representative of the vast majority of gc.com users. I don't like the fact that a majority of computer users still use Internet Exploder, but it's a fact. Of course we are all upset when our own oxen are gored, but those of us with a better understanding of the issues should not say oh, cast the less techno-literate to the winds. This also applies to the width issue: those posting here mostly know how to adjust the browser tab/window width, but the majority of users leave it the way it comes. This means that a liquid layout yields unreadably long lines. Yeah, it's frustrating, but GS can't change IE or do very much to change IE users, so consider whether their actions may be best on average even though some are hurt.
Edward
-
Silica gel won't help unless you go replace it monthly. Once it's saturated, it doesn't do any good. It works better for lowering the relative humidity and will be very little help if someone opens the cache in a pouring rain.
I've seen totally waterproof containers wet inside because someone left hand cleaner or bubble stuff inside. Never leave any kind of liquid in a cache, no matter how well sealed. OK, I'll make one exception: towelettes sealed in foil packets (for cleaning, insect repellent, etc), since the quantity of liquid is very small.
The keys to a good container are a compressed seal and good material.
Ammo cans have a latch latch mechanism that compresses the seal. A screw top with a gasket works because screwing the lid on compresses the gasket; for example bison tubes, matchsafes, and preforms. Food-grade PETE jars (eg peanut butter jars) and some water bottles (eg Nalgene) seem to do well also, even though the gasket is mediocre in food jars and water bottles don't have a separate gasket. Lock-n-locks have a gasket of a different material from the body, and the locking mechanism compresses it.
"No plastic in the desert": it's better to know the materials rather than making a blanket statement, since "plastic" covers such a wide variety of materials. Learn what the codes mean, though recognize that some of the most radiation-resistant plastics aren't coded. Polyethylene (both HDPE and LDPE) breaks down quickly in sunlight, and unfortunately for cachers there's a lot of polyethylene lying around begging to be used -- Tupperware is LDPE. Polypropylene (PP) is in theory resistant to radiation damage but results vary: lock-n-locks do well in many environments (but check the material if you are getting a knock-off), but the quality of the PP seems to vary, and thin pieces degrade rapidly. (The cheap almost-disposable refrigerator containers are usually PP, and last about five minutes in sunlight. However, cosmetic jars are often PP and resist radiation very well, though they vary in water-tightness.)
PET/PETE, used in soda bottles, food-grade jars, and the like, resists radiation well. However, thin containers (thickness of soda bottles) are very susceptible to warping from heat -- the material may be OK yet the container is destroyed. Thicker containers, like PB jars and preforms, will handle sunlight well. However, the lid is usually a different material and unmarked, so you have to watch out for the case where the main container lasts but the lid doesn't. And there's nothing more waterlogged than a leak-proof container with a leaky lid.
ABS and polycarbonate (which are not labeled) are both very strong and highly resistant to radiation, and so make excellent containers when they have a good seal also. Matchsafes are made of ABS, as are various other containers you can buy intended for permanent use. Polycarbonate is harder to find as a container, though I've heard one person say he had found some. Acrylic (often known by the brand name Plexiglass) is fairly radiation-resistant though less so than ABS or polycarbonate (acrylic is often used for unbreakable windows, but sometimes yellows). I don't know of any containers available made from acrylic, but they should be good if you can find them.
And ... what was the question?
Edward
-
it doesn't look like it's done with any ill intent. Quite the opposite
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You have to evaluate the outcome. If the outcome is detrimental, you try to reverse the action. This does not mean passing judgment on the original actor. We all make mistakes. Well, accept fur me.
And yes, harassment of already-stressed wildlife species is a detrimental outcome.
I'd say that since the reviewer has participated in the cache modification, leave it alone but watch it. I suspect that some cachers will not read the description and will harass the wildlife anyway. At that point it will be appropriate to post another NA or to email the reviewer asking for another review.
Edward
-
The one point not already mentioned is that lower GC numbers have priority. At least that's what the reviewer notes have said when I've been involved in a similar situation: something like "someone else has submitted a cache within 528' of your unpublished cache, and yours has a lower GC#, are you making active progress toward publishing yours?". (I wasn't, and relinquished the space, and apologized to my friend who had actually place a cache and had been delayed by my unpublished one.)
Because of this possible delay, it's advised that if you set up a cache and decide not to place it, that you move the coordinates to some location where it won't conflict with other caches, like out in the ocean or into a US national park. OTOH, if you want to force the reviewer to look at your cache before publishing a nearby one, you might leave it where it is. I've done that with one where the reviewer said it was too close to an electrical substation, so I left the unpublished listing as a check against someone trying to sneak one in.
Edward
-
Fizzy challenge seekers can always take screen shots if they want to prove the ratings at the time they found the cache. (I don't know what fizzy specs actually say about changing ratings, and I don't care.)
But most unusual combinations are mis-rated even when it's not done intentionally. This is particularly true of high-terrain caches, where the hider did not totally understand that the difficulty rating is supposed to be completely independent of the terrain rating. This is not surprising -- it's a bit hard to wrap one's mind around the fact that a 50cal ammo can to be found at the end of a 10-mile hike with 4000' of elevation gain is probably a "difficulty 1".
Edward
-
Yeah, if it's trash, I remove it. (As already discussed, I'm careful to distinguish true trash from things I'm just not interested in, especially since the latter category includes nearly all swag in caches.)
I think that keeping trash out of caches will do more to encourage other cachers to keep up the swag quality than any number of exhortations.
Those intent on adding swag to improve the quality should keep in mind the part about trading, not just contributing. I've seen far more overstuffed caches than empty ones. Lots of cachers like to bring gifts for the cache but don't really want to take anything. The result is that if I have to carry out some swag to keep a cache from being overstuffed, it's likely that only the best stuff ever makes it to another cache. Things that I would normally leave, end up thrown out because there's simply no place to put them. Don't add to this problem by contributing swag without taking any.
Edward
-
Clearly a lot of regional variation. The places I've been, I've never heard of any methods besides 1 and 5, and it's usually 5 (one person signs for all). In fact, larger groups often come up with a group sig rather than signing for each individual.
Edward
-
How about acrylic?
I don't think I've ever seen an acrylic cache container and don't know where you would find one. Look at the resin ID codes on the bottom of containers and learn the types of plastic. Most plastic containers used for caches are PETE, LDPE, or PP. PVC is good but uncommon for caches. Occasionally you'll find ABS or polycarbonate, which do not have standard codes.
a note on the PB jars. Nice size and all if they get clean enough, but with some dark tape (camo duck tape!!!)I have noticed that they want to warp. The two I found so far have both done it to the point of compromising a water tight seal. My area does get pretty hot in the late summer and I suspect some direct light to be the ultimate culprit but it's something to keep in mind.Plastic peanut butter jars are PETE, which holds up well in direct sunlight. The warping is from the heat rather than from the radiation. The lid is probably HDPE (lids are seldom coded), which in general doesn't hold up well to sunlight, but I haven't seen any with problems.
More generally, LDPE degrades quickly in sunlight and HDPE also degrades in sunlight but perhaps not as quickly. The other plastics mentioned tend to hold up pretty well. (Whether the containers keep water out is a different matter but is mostly unrelated to the type of material.)
My second cache I built out of a dark plastic pill bottleMost pill bottles are better than a sieve at keeping water out, but not much. Test your containers underwater for at least an hour with tissue inside; if the tissue is even damp, then the cache will be full of water after a few rains. The Containers Explained section of the guidelines now has a brief description of this test.
Edward
-
I think the state listed determines what reviewer queue the submission goes in, but otherwise has little to do with the review process. I once submitted a cache in California but neglected to change the default state from my home state of Florida. I got an amused note from the Florida reviewer saying he had moved it to the California reviewer's queue and that he recognized the terrain in my photos because he used to live in Riverside. But there's a lot more difference between Florida vs California terrain than there is between Iowa vs Oklahoma terrain, and I had an extensive description with several photos. Something that's just across a state line, with nothing in the description to hit you in the head about the state line, I think there's no reason the reviewer would notice it.
Edward
-
Filled one with water, sealed it, and tried to get it to leak and nothing came out, so it seems like the seal holds just fine.
Not a good test. Put some tissue paper inside, seal it, and arrange to hold it under water for a couple of hours. For a small container this could involve a pot and a brick; larger ones perhaps bathtub and a couple of bricks. Take it out, dry it off, open it. If the tissue is wet, or even a tiny bit damp, the container will not keep water out in the wild.
Also, check the material -- it should be stamped on the bottom. Brand lock-n-locks are polypropylene (PP, or 5), which resists sunlight quite well. Cheaper ones may be LDPE (low density polyethylene), like Tupperware, and won't hold up in the sun.
Edward
-
Goes to show that people really like the swag-side of geocaching since some feel compelled to leave something.
Trouble is, there are more who feel compelled to leave something than who want to take something. For all the bellyaching that goes on here about swag deterioration, I have far more often seen overstuffed caches than empty caches. I've probably seen more overstuffed ammo cans than film cans, but that's because I've found a lot more ammo cans.
Now, much of that overstuffed swag has been there for years, so when I carry out the excess, it often goes straight into the trash.
But I figure as long as some people want to bring gifts to bestow upon the cache, I'll just help them by carrying out some of those gifts.
For my part, I don't care for trading, but I carry some tiny but interesting trinkets that I can leave when it's appropriate.
Edward
-
There are two parts to a challenge cache, fulfilling the challenge and finding the actual cache. It is quite possible for someone to who has fulfilled the challenge to be unable to find the actual cache. Because you hid it you know where it is and have a significant advantage over others.
In cases where finding the final really is a significant part of the entire challenge, I'll agree with you. In the cases of challenge caches whose pages I've read (and I'm sure you've read a lot more than I have), this has not been the case. Despite one DNF on one of my challenges, I think finding the final is a very small part of the total effort. And no one has commented on my finding my own challenge cache, certainly not anyone who has also found it or made significant progress toward meeting the requirements.
If you log them it hurts nobody. Go for it. But to justify it because you fulfilled the challenge is disingenuous. If you hide a puzzle cache you've obviously solved the puzzle, which is the hard part. Do you log a find on those?Creating a puzzle is seldom the same thing as solving it. When you create a puzzle, you know the answer, but you didn't solve it. (If I had set up challenges whose requirements I had already met, I probably would not have logged finds on them. In fact, in both cases a lot of other cachers had a large head start on me.)
Creating a cache can take a lot of effort to do well. This applies to traditional caches as well as the more complex types, including puzzles and challenges. The time to create a cache includes the time to set up a puzzle or challenge. I have not used the time spent setting up or maintaining a cache (including the puzzle or challenge) as a reason to log a find.
If you were to figure out a way to set up a puzzle cache where even you did not know initially how to solve the puzzle, and solving the puzzle were a great deal more difficult than finding the physical cache, that would be an ... interesting ... situation.
But I'm not aware of such a case and have trouble even imagining such a case. I don't recall anything in the guidelines requiring a puzzle to be solvable, but the parallel with challenge caches is the requirement to show that the challenge is doable. Mathematically speaking, it's possible to pose a problem which one knows is solvable but which one does not know how to solve. In real-world terms (well, in geocaching), I don't think this is practical. Heck, it would be difficult to assign a difficulty rating to such a puzzle.So I don't think it's the same thing at all.
OTOH, if anyone logs a find on their own cache, I don't care. I'm aware of one cache on which the owner has logged several finds -- each time he goes back to check on it. Hey, he's checking on it! (Or was at the time; he may be gone now.) Good enough for me -- and better than I see with a lot of caches. So despite the amount I've written here, I see the issue as a tempest in a teapot.
Edward
-
It was not addressed because challenge caches DO require the actual coords to be posted, with the exception of DeLorme Challenges. Since pretty much every state already has a DeLorme, that means all other new challenges require the coords be posted. So the guidelines are correct.
DeLorme challenges are allowed a stronger exception: they are allowed to use the "mail owner for coords after you qualify" method. There are challenge caches where the final itself is a puzzle, offset, or multi. In these cases, the actual cache coordinates are not posted, just as they are not posted for ordinary puzzles or multis. There is no indication that this was supposed to change.
Edward
-
Overall I think the reorganization is a big improvement, though perhaps they should add an explanation of "p-word". It's now a lot easier to get an overview/summary and drill down. No more one-big-long-page. Studies show that breaking it up makes it more accessible -- this is not just our hypotheses.
MissJenn: there are a number of ways of shielding email feedback from spambots and still having it on wab pages. I use the Hivelogic method -- it's so simple that even a one-person web site can use it without undue burden. There are stronger methods which would require a few hours of work. Your posted reason on this does not hold water. I hope that you will take another look at this.
I raised a support issue fairly recently about challenge cache stuff being split between guidelines and KB. The reorg handles this, and my issue was closed. Unfortunately I had also pointed out that challenge caches were (incorrectly I believe) described as requiring the actual coordinates to be posted, and this was not addressed.
However, that's just part of a larger issue. How should I now provide feedback on specific pages, for non-controversial issues? There's no feedback link on the KB pages. Posting for discussion here does not necessarily get GS attention -- that's why feedback is now separate. If I open a new support ticket for each page for which I want to suggest clarifications, that looks like a mess to me. But if I open one ticket for a lot of suggestions, then it will probably be closed when some of them are implemented, just as the ticket I mentioned above was closed when 1 of 2 points was handled.
And yes, I'm talking about clarifications, corrections, minor stuff -- not policy changes. Whether (mentioned above) the final of a challenge can be a multi (currently excluded but I believe not intentionally). Repeated misspelling of an important word on the "containers" page. Things like that.
Edward
-
I seldom had problems with reception under trees in southern California. I have lots of problems with reception under trees in Florida. If you don't like that problem, cache somewhere without trees.
Edward
-
I searched for one cache on school grounds. It was placed by a teacher. Three gray-haired guys were looking for it on Saturday afternoon, with no students or personnel anywhere around. The cache site was about ten feet from the curb where there was public parking, but was right at the school entrance. I was not comfortable. The cache is no longer there, not because of the location but because it was poorly placed and did not survive.
I placed a cache that's less than 100' from the nearest border of school grounds. I supported my case with photos showing that the school is not visible from the cache site, that the entrances to the school are up the hill and around the corner, that even the play areas are mostly not visible, and that a road and a deep ditch separate the school from the cache. I think it's fine.
Edward
-
Now that the guidelines have been reorganized into a set of KB pages (and done very well I'll add), is there a supported way of commenting on just one page? The only ways I see are 1) start a new feedback topic, which isn't linked from the page in question, 2) discuss it here, which GS doesn't officially read, or 3) email contact. What's best?
That left column with the feedback link isn't present on KB pages.
Note that I'm not talking about anything controversial, just clarifications, container recommendations, and the like.
Edward
-
I would be loath to make it too easy to search for high-favorite caches. A logrolling effect could result. Or rather an increased logrolling effect. I expect already that highly rated caches will get more attention, more finds, more favorites, thus more attention, etc. I'm not saying favorites are a bad thing (I've used most of my votes). Just saying that it may not be a good idea to magnify the effect. Make sure people go out and find new favorites.
For those who like to hear bragging, I have a cache with 25 finds and 11 favorites. But I don't need it showing up on searches. The people who would be interested in it have already heard of it.
Edward
-
Can't a cache be maintained by visitors?
Can it be? Yes. Will it be? No. You will understand this when you have more experience. Ask again when you've found a couple of hundred.
People who think this might work tend to have little experience with the level of work needed to maintain a cache even locally, or with the general level of willingness of cachers to maintain even their own hides.
Edward
But I'm not aware of such a case and have trouble even imagining such a case. I don't recall anything in the guidelines requiring a puzzle to be solvable, but the parallel with challenge caches is the requirement to show that the challenge is doable. Mathematically speaking, it's possible to pose a problem which one knows is solvable but which one does not know how to solve. In real-world terms (well, in geocaching), I don't think this is practical. Heck, it would be difficult to assign a difficulty rating to such a puzzle.
To rename or not to rename
in General geocaching topics
Posted
As already mentioned, unless there's a reason that people have to do it in a particular order, most are likely not to look at the numbers anyway. I strongly recommend adding a descriptive distinguishing name to the number, as I see two of the caches in your series have as I write this. (Possibly you are in the middle of making changes.) If people want to talk about the caches, the numbers will only be confusing. Give them names.
I maintain several caches originally placed by Tallahassee Parks and Recreation. Three were originally named Optimist Park I, Optimist Park II, and Optimist Park III. When originally placed, the log books in II and III got switched, and it took a while to straighten that out. Even now, I can't remember which is which by number. I got the owner of record to change the names so that they are now Optimist Park I - Clubhouse, Optimist Park II - Woods, and Optimist Park III - Greenway. Or something like that ... I might have II and III swapped.
Which reminds me that I need to be working on a replacement container for ... which one is it? Clubhouse.
Edward