Jump to content


+Charter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sbell111

  1. My biggest embarrassment was hiking along a trail to a cache in a local park and I run into a family and the kids proudly announce to me that they are Geocaching and they just found their VERY first cache. I think to myself "Awesome, must be a nice easy find." and them I promptly DNF it. Ego = bruised. I even convinced myself that they must have misunderstood the game and taken it with them. That is until I see more logs come in after mine and they're all finds too. I just missed it. Couple years later I finally went back and found it. Don't discount a family's ability to find a cache. I doubt that anyone can perform a more thorough search than a group of motivated children. They will check literally everywhere and not be hampered by our preconceptions.
  2. Sounds like you are suggesting that Groundspeak implement this idea for caches listed on their site. A really bad idea, doomed to fail, for a number of reasons. You can log a "found it" online without even seeing the cache, so a whole code thing would be a waste of time and effort. I imagine that the OP's idea is to try to stop people from logging caches that they didn't even see.
  3. What if the reason for archival is that the cache owner didn't want it listed on this site any longer. What if it is listed somewhere else? What if it isn't? Do we not take the position that a cache is the personal property of the cache owner? I believe that removing an archived cache is certainly appropriate in some situations. However, I would not make a sweeping statement that all archived caches must be removed.
  4. One thing is that the Apps don't require you to 1. read a description, 2. read recent logs, and/or 3. change the fact that the cache is still there to be found. The risk of a throwdown is increased at any "desirable" cache site--be it the ET highway, or an "oldest cache in 'X'" cache. People who want a cache for a specific or sentimental reason will more often than not be the person to place a throwdown, or even visit a cache during closed hours or when disabled at a request of owner or land manager. So, the only reason this cache lives on is for the sentimentality of the "old" cache. This whole cache's "age and tenure is a trump card to archival" really chaps my hide. If a cache is creating undue attention or unwanted traffic, it should be moved or archived. Let the flame war commence. This isn't an app issue as the app will not pull a disabled cache into a search. The referenced problem is one of old school cachers who are working from PQ data.
  5. If I were in charge for a day, I'd kill off challenge caches.
  6. This is a community driven game, but the developers work for a company. That company has to make decisions that are in it's best interest, not just roll with the whims of the loudest members of the community.
  7. I think that that's his point and the best reason why ignore lists shouldn't be made public.
  8. <Snipped as I need coffee to prevent unnecessary snarkiness.>
  9. I bet that more caches have been placed and found using etrexes than any other device family. Their performance is fine.
  10. Just out of curiosity. Which percentage of challenge cache owners do you think will use this lock option? I believe that the majority will use it and this raises the question whether investing a lot of work in implementing this system makes sense. Cezanne I suspect that that option is a non-starter as it doesn't resolve the primary problem with these caches.
  11. Can you be more specific? Hearing other's objections helps me come up with more feature requests for them to ignore. Jeremy put the bulk of it better than I could. The only thing that I would add is the lameness factor. Everything that was bad about virts applies to challenge caches.
  12. I don't believe that merely giving them their own type will fix whats broken about them.
  13. I don't see a full log as much of a maintenance issue. If you want to replace them, go ahead. Leave the old log in the cache. If there isn't room for it and the cache owner doesn't respond to you, toss the old log in the trash. If you find caches that have a broken container and are soaked, post a NM. A new log isn't going to resolve the need for owner maintenance.
  14. Whether posting a photo to substantiate a find is acceptable or not is completely up to the cache owner.
  15. Have you tried to do it from iTunes?
  16. I second TDM's suggestion. A good idea for you is to figure out how to make the items that you want to sell. That way, you save money on the front end and increase your profits.
  17. I've never seen that feature and it sure would be useful to us as we still have some older itouches roaming around our house that the kids use. Hopefully, it's not a feature that requires a later iOS than those devices have. How did you try to reinstall the app? Did you just search for the geocaching app and try to install it just like you did the first time or did you go to the appstore's previous download page? I think that in iOS 4 that is accessed by going to the update page and clicking 'purchased'. This should bring up all apps that have been previously downloaded.
  18. Yeah, because the rules guidelines for geocaching have never changed since the beginning. And the rules for other activities (like football, or basketball, or hockey, or chess) have never changed since the beginning either. Actually they have, rules in sports are always changing as the times chane. Sports and games don't have guidelines. Sarcasm can be hard to spot sometimes. niraD's point is that just as the rules of those various sports have developed over the years, so has our game's guidelines. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the guidelines deal with issues related to listing a cache online and managing that online listing and have basically no bearing on searching for caches, but whatever.
  19. I only have two nits with what you did. First, you state that the owner removed the cache temporarily. Is it possible that the cache was removed because there was temporarily a problem with the cache being at that location? Perhaps a seasonal ban or a permission issue? Second, I'm not sure that I would have put a TB in the replacement cache. If the cache was temporarily removed because of muggle activity in the area, the TB could have been lost.
  20. "I also agree that the "challenge cache" is an abused form of the former ALR, or "additional logging requirements." It makes very little sense to restrict a cache find in this way, especially since a geocacher can accomplish many of the tasks on the opposite side of the world but could never find this particular cache. This needs to be dealt with ..."
  21. That statement worked until his company basically sanctioned the leaderboard mentality. There are prizes (icons, souvenirs, etc.). Anyone remember the discussion about the people falsely logging towards the end of August just to get those coveted souvenirs? Don't see how a souvenir is any more of a "prize" that having a trackable icon, or a find in general, or an icon found. Its just a souvenir on someone's profile. Hardly a cash prize or fame and fortune. Just a pixel. To you and I, it is just a pixel. To those who covet them, it is reason to falsely log caches in order to get them. I didn't even mention the sanctioning of power trails to fuel the numbers games. Groundspeak is promotes statistics. I personally do not see a find log as a score. But you haven't been watching if you think others don't and Groundspeak has been complicit with promoting it. The mere fact that some people compete doesn't change Jeremy's point or position.
  22. Not really. The referenced sentence from the guidelines is simple and doesn't allow any loopholes. If someone complains that his online log was inappropriately deleted, then the issue is resolved with one question, "Was the logbook signed?" I believe that your confusion is that you misunderstand what the guidelines are. This misunderstanding is common and is caused by people calling them guidelines instead of their actual name, in my opinion. The document is actually called the 'Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines. They are requirements made of cache owners, not cache finders. As such, Section three of the document gives cache owners guidance on how to handle logging issues. Respecting this fact, a read of the quoted text leaves no wiggle room. The cache owner can require no actions of the finder beyond signing the physical logbook. What that guideline doesn't address is how should online logs be handled when the logbook isn't signed, for whatever reason. This isn't addressed in the guidelines because decisions on those issues are left completely up to the cache owner. No, it doesn't. Allowing a cache owner to arbitrate whether a find is a find if the logbook wasn't signed while allowing TPTB to deal with caches that are inappropriately converted to virts ensures that the anarchy that you fear cannot happen. In fact, you yourself ensure that the game won't turn into virtual only' by maintaining control of your own caching, both as a cache seeker and a cache hider. Certainly, the mere fact that virtuals exist does not require you to log them as found or allow people to log your physical caches as found if they do not sign the logbook.
  23. Not always. As mentioned above, there were multi stage virtuals originally listed as multis. They really meant that they've been that way for so long, that its probably not worth doing anything about it. Its pretty clear that multis can be virts, but traditionals are never virts. I found a virtual multi in my part of town. The only thing less fun than a virtual is a virtual multicache. Really? The thing that would have converted that unfun waste of time to a fun cache is a film can with a strip of paper in it?
  24. Any cache owner is free to accept photo logs.
  25. It's pretty sad that people don't understand these simple rules to the point that they actually believe that a traditional cache may not be logged as a find unless the physical log was signed. In fact, the arbiter of whether a cache was 'found' in this instance is the cache owner. While the caches in question do not abide by the guidelines and may be archived due to this issue, it doesn't change the fact that the finds are valid if the cache owner believes they are.
  • Create New...