Sherminator18
-
Posts
425 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sherminator18
-
-
And it hasn't actually been confirmed by the CO that it is indeed missing. There is probably a decent amount of snow in that area and it might just be buried.
-
If a cache has been archived and it turns out that the cache is still there and I go and end up finding it and signing the log. Why shouldn't I be able to log that I found it? Because I did. I've done this a few times actually.
-
Just released on The Geocaching Blog:
In 2017, geocachers around the globe will gather together during the weeks of April 22-30 and September 23– October 1 to pick up trash, remove invasive species, repair trails and more—plus earn a pretty sweet new souvenir.Souvenirs this year for CITO weeks.
https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2017/01/6-steps-to-organize-a-cache-in-trash-out-cito-event-2/
Nailed it.
Earth Day is on April 22, 2017, which is just a hair over 3 months from now. Since you can only submit Events/CITOs as far out as 3 months and assuming that there'll be another CITO week surrounding Earth Day in 2017, I expect we'll see an announcement about a souvenir for that (and potentially another in the fall) within the next week or two.
The relevant entries have been added to my site.
You're pretty good
-
Just released on The Geocaching Blog:
In 2017, geocachers around the globe will gather together during the weeks of April 22-30 and September 23– October 1 to pick up trash, remove invasive species, repair trails and more—plus earn a pretty sweet new souvenir.Souvenirs this year for CITO weeks.
https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2017/01/6-steps-to-organize-a-cache-in-trash-out-cito-event-2/
-
In listening to the newest episode of the Inside Geocache HQ podcast (https://www.geocaching.com/blog/podcast/episode-2/) it sounds like there are no souvenirs planned for the beginning of this year. It was also mentioned that they try to change it up every year, they don't want to just repeat souvenirs they've done in the past. So since they did Pi Day souvenirs in 2015, they won't be doing them again. Outside of attending Mega or Giga events and finding caches in new states or countries, new souvenirs don't come out every month. They usually only do 2-3 of these per year and they're usually random and announced a few weeks before the date(s) they can be earned
-
I also hate this. I wish there was a way to turn this off.
-
There has not been any announcements about any new date based souvenirs yet for this year. Based on past years I am under the impression that they will do these again: CITO souvenir(s) usually one in April and possibly another date (last year was September), International Geocaching Day in August, International Earthcache Day in October and I'm sure they will do some sort of promotion during the summer as they usually do, what dates or caches required is still unknown.
There are also souvenirs that you get for attending Mega events.
And they rarely announce those types of souvenirs months in advance.
As we get closer to the relevant dates, then there will be an announcement.
If the souvenir is for a mega-event, then the page for the event will state that, as far as I've ever seen.
B.
Yes
-
There has not been any announcements about any new date based souvenirs yet for this year. Based on past years I am under the impression that they will do these again: CITO souvenir(s) usually one in April and possibly another date (last year was September), International Geocaching Day in August, International Earthcache Day in October and I'm sure they will do some sort of promotion during the summer as they usually do, what dates or caches required is still unknown.
There are also souvenirs that you get for attending Mega events.
-
.png)
1
-
-
I just purchased some travel tags and activated them the other day. Today I tried to edit the Mission for the selected TB tag, but when i made some changes and then tried to select the "Submit Changes" button at the bottom of the page it doesn't do anything and does not save the changes. Was wondering if there was something I was doing wrong or if there was an issue with the website? New to this and this is my first TB activated. Thank you.
I just tested this on one of my coins, and it worked fine.
Once the "submit" button is clicked, the top of the page said the change went through as requested.
Which tag were you trying to edit? What was the edit?
B.
I activated Harry the Bigfoot, I activated it the other day and tried today to put a mission on for it since I didn't do it the other day. Not sure why it's not working.
I just looked at your Harry the Bigfoot trackable page and there is a mission listed there.
-
I had no idea that the Field Puzzle attribute wasn't available for letterbox hybrids.. Interesting
-
Everything looked find until this. If you don't own the axle, or have permission from the owner to paint, painting it pink would violate the following guideline:
Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property.
Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.
Maybe you could find a plastic rose, and attach the container to the stem of the rose, then stick it into a hole of the axle.
I fail to see how an abandoned rusty axle, which to my knowledge is not formed in nature and has no reason to be in that tree (which is also on public land, I checked) for any other purpose than as a Geocache, constitutes "damag[ing] or alter[ing]" property. Not to mention I found the cache while it was active and it clearly had a container attached to it, and upon returning to the tree, the container was now gone but the axle remained. This leads me to believe the CO's no longer wanted it. I am going to ask permission from them to re purpose it anyways, and unless it slipped their mind to reclaim an old car part which has been exposed to the elements for years to then use on their probably modern vehicle, I think it's safe to call it abandoned property. And on the off chance they do still want it for whatever reason, I'm sure they will tell me this when/if I decide to start the project.
Anyways my initial question was asked and answered, I've determined it is okay for me to put a new cache here and knowing the CO's as I do, I don't believe they will have any issue with me reusing a rusty old axle for my own purpose, which is to leave it in the exact same tree they left it in, and making it look pretty. I appreciate the concern though.
Since you would be painting it and it does not belong to you, then you would be altering someone else's property. Do you know if this axle even belonged to the CO of the previous cache that was there?
-
It's an "Event Cache," a formal cache type. You can meet up with other cachers any time you want, but event caches are for specific times at specific locations. You found the location and you found the group of people meeting at the designated time. You may have even signed a log book. Seems to me like you fulfilled all the requirements to log the event "Attended" and gain a smiley.
+1
-
Also, the only time I have seen this happen was while at GeoWoodstock. That is the only time I have seen a Munzee event held concurrently with a geocaching event.
-
But if nothing about the other event is mentioned on the gc.com listing is there really anything that can be done about it?
-
I don't understand your comment about it becoming a Munzee event when people take out their wallets to pay the host. I play Munzee and that makes absolutely no sense..
-
I recently attended my first caching event and I had a great time. I went back to the listing and made a note to thank the host and other cachers involved. Almost immediately I had several different users urging me to edit my log from a note to "Attended" to increase my cache count. My only issue is I didn't actually "find" anything, I just ate breakfast with fellow cachers. I replied to them all with this and they all gave me a somewhat confused response back. I just feel like my cache count will no longer be accurate if I log an event as nothing was actually found. Just curious if anyone else feels this way, surely I'm not the only one.
It is perfectly acceptable for you to log an Attended log for an event. After all, you did Attend. There is nothing to find at an event except the company of other geocachers. As someone said, that is why the log type for events is Attended and not Found.
-
It's whole mentality that who claims to be first to find on a cache has become more important than maintaining civility in between player.
In the case presented by the OP, no one playing the FTF game was being uncivil. You say this case reinforced your belief, but I'd say it only reinforced your prejudice.
So "telling me to shove it" is civil? As it turned out the Reviewer wasn't playing the FTF game, but just happened to be with a group that was the first to find the cache. The OP, however was playing the FTF game and criticized the Reviewer for not playing the FTF game the "right way" because they felt a Reviewer shouldn't have found the cache first.
Also - the OP was not going after FTF on this particular cache. In fact he hasn't even found it at all yet.
-
Why is reviewer anonymity even a valid concern? Do you, as an average cacher, publicly proclaim your own identity? I generally only identify myself in event settings...and I most certainly do NOT do so on the geocaching site or here in the forums. You have no business asking anyone, reviewer or not, who they are.
What I assumed was meant by "identity" was their "player account". I.e. that reviewer X and player Y are the same person.
For this the comment by Thebruce0 sums it up well
What I do think is usual these days is that reviewers generally will not announce what their player accounts are, but they generally won't go to extreme efforts to keep their reviewer identity unknown. Those who really want to know should have no problems finding out.
Though by meeting them or seeing them on facebook I know some reviewers real names... just like I know many cachers real names.
By "identity" I meant that knowing what personal geocaching username is associated with a particular reviewer name. Not their real life identity.
If a reviewers personal geocaching account name is known then situations like this can arise. The reviewer found the cache under his personal account. If no one had known that said personal account was actually a reviewer the argument never would have arisen.
**Edited to clarify that the reviewer has not claimed a FTF on the cache in question.
-
Until recently both reviewers in my area were anonymous. As the OP posted, the one reviewer recently revealed his true identity. So I thought that it was common for reviewers to remain anonymous. Maybe that is a regional thing. I don't know what reviewers are like in other areas. But in my area the other main reviewer is still anonymous.
Let's just put it this way: There's no mandate that reviewers remain anonymous. Some do choose to, obviously given localized circumstances and community, and by their own choice. Is it normal? Common? Usual? Who knows, doesn't really matter. But it does happen.
What I do think is usual these days is that reviewers generally will not announce what their player accounts are, but they generally won't go to extreme efforts to keep their reviewer identity unknown. Those who really want to know should have no problems finding out.
That's the way it seems to be now in my region. Earlier, some reviewers did prefer to remain anonymous (this was before the community grew to the point of more often enjoying larger events where reviewers were present and were interacted with positively by most everyone).
Nowadays, if it seems like someone has a problem with a reviewer, it'll happen indirectly via social media
Or forum posts started like this
I wonder (I don't really) how much this reviewer has been personally and needlessly contacted because of this turn of events.
As far as I'm aware there was no direct contact to the reviewer. The contact started by the OP posted a note on the cache page (for a cache he hasn't even found yet) about what he thinks is an issue, he never contact the reviewer directly.
-
Yes, it happens, that's not in dispute. There is no evidence that it is *usually* the case.
Well, that's not the statement you made is it
1. Reviewers don't usually tell anyone their real identity
2. Citation needed. Reviewers here don't appear to conceal their identities at all.
3. Some reviewers do hide their identities, they have in the past, to avoid antagonism directed at them personally.
Your statement #2 seems to be making a point that it doesn't happen, at least often, by extension that it doesn't happen around you. My point #3 was in support of #1 as being possible. It happens there, it happens in my experience - that doesn't mean it happens everywhere, but it certainly doesn't mean it happens nowhere. Does that make it "usual"? Well so far by these reports alone it seems to be 2 to 1, which I would personally define as 'usual'
But who knows. We'd have to poll the entire volunteer reviewer community to find out what actually is "usual" and how much that has changed over time, and differs by region (I would say this is a huge factor since some localized problem individuals can cause enormous headaches for their local reviewer team). As I said, it was more common here, but these days our reviewers have all been outed; at least, they don't make an excessive effort to keep their real identities separate from their reviewer id.
Is it "usual"? Who knows. But yes, it happens, and that's all I was saying, providing a "citation" for you of it happening in another region.
I'm sure there are even old threads talking about reviewer anonymity. But I'm pretty ambivalent about going to search for them.
I was curious to know how the original forum user ascertained that this is the usual way of things.
Let me clarify... Issues like this may be a reason why SOME reviewers remain anonymous.
Until recently both reviewers in my area were anonymous. As the OP posted, the one reviewer recently revealed his true identity. So I thought that it was common for reviewers to remain anonymous. Maybe that is a regional thing. I don't know what reviewers are like in other areas. But in my area the other main reviewer is still anonymous.
-
Yes, it happens, that's not in dispute. There is no evidence that it is *usually* the case.
Well, that's not the statement you made is it
1. Reviewers don't usually tell anyone their real identity
2. Citation needed. Reviewers here don't appear to conceal their identities at all.
3. Some reviewers do hide their identities, they have in the past, to avoid antagonism directed at them personally.
Your statement #2 seems to be making a point that it doesn't happen, at least often, by extension that it doesn't happen around you. My point #3 was in support of #1 as being possible. It happens there, it happens in my experience - that doesn't mean it happens everywhere, but it certainly doesn't mean it happens nowhere. Does that make it "usual"? Well so far by these reports alone it seems to be 2 to 1, which I would personally define as 'usual'
But who knows. We'd have to poll the entire volunteer reviewer community to find out what actually is "usual" and how much that has changed over time, and differs by region (I would say this is a huge factor since some localized problem individuals can cause enormous headaches for their local reviewer team). As I said, it was more common here, but these days our reviewers have all been outed; at least, they don't make an excessive effort to keep their real identities separate from their reviewer id.
Is it "usual"? Who knows. But yes, it happens, and that's all I was saying, providing a "citation" for you of it happening in another region.
I'm sure there are even old threads talking about reviewer anonymity. But I'm pretty ambivalent about going to search for them.
I was curious to know how the original forum user ascertained that this is the usual way of things.
I was under the impression that Reviewers don't generally tell people who they are. That was an assumption. I know that is not always the case. But I don't know what the true numbers are. And does anyone really know what percentage of all the reviewers have kept their identities secret? No.
-
People like this are probably a big reason why Reviewers don't usually tell anyone their real identity
-
I don't mind if a reviewer gets an FTF, even on day #1. What interests me is how reviewers can publish their own caches when the rest of us get scrutinized. Who reviews the reviewers?
Can you cite any caches owned and published by the same person?
AFAIK they don't review their own caches, regardless of the owner account being used.
Other Reviewers review cache submissions by Reviewers.
At least that's the way it works here.
But this is off-topic for this thread.
B.
That is not the case here with the reviewer in question. He has published his personal caches from his reviewer account. But I don't see a problem with that. He is a good person and I have no reason not to trust him. And I'm not sure why anyone else would have an issue like this with their reviewer.
-
As stated before, this cache was found by the reviewer with some of his other geocaching friends 2 days after publication and after others had already attempted to figure out the gadget cache. The solution to the gadget was not provided to the reviewer so he had no idea how it worked.
I think it is in very bad taste to bring up personal issues via a hateful note on the cache page (for which the OP isn't the CO) and on the forums. Also I don't think it was very kind what the Reviewer, under his personal account, said in response to the OP.
I don't think there is anything wrong with our reviewer getting the FTF on this gadget cache two days after publication with a group of friends.
This is not the place to complain about personal issues.
.png)
CITO Weeks 2017
in General geocaching topics
Posted
It was announced yesterday on the blog that the CITO weeks for 2017 will be April 22-30 and September 23– October 1.
https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2017/01/6-steps-to-organize-a-cache-in-trash-out-cito-event-2/