Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by wayfarer222

  1. Being in the midst of the worst PI I've ever had that I received while geocaching, a warning is sufficient in your description. I know what the stuff looks like. If I plunge in (which I did), it's my hard cheese. And I have to say it was worth it. :P



  2. On the contrary this shows that the system works--and it works well. Three Rivers did their job. They maintained their park limit. The hider did his job to register them. The reviewer did his job to make sure that the geocaching guidelines were followed. At that point, it's up to the geocaching community as a whole to police themselves, which is exactly what happened. The reviewer acted appropriately. The hider acted appropriately.


    On a personal note, rather than being "traumatized," I enjoyed the caches. I'm a finder, not a hider. The last few, "Beacon Deacon" and "Cuttleflage" were exceptional. And I do say all the conservation stuff from experience as a former DNR employee, former USFS employee, former USFWS employee and NPS volunteer. Getting tied up in their bureaucracy is something you don't want. If their rules are violated, it's a knee jerk reaction.


    I do apologize publicly, AbraCadaver, that you were hurt.

  3. wayfarer222- next time you accuse someone of violating the rules, make sure a rule has been violated first.


    Funny, that's not what the reviewer said.


    This was the last cache of the day for me as the sky began to rumble and the rain started to fall in earnest. This cache is in violation of Three Rivers Parks' geocaching regulations.
    Re: GC152BK
  4. I'd say yes you are wrong to feel cheated. If you were so set on placing a cache in one of those parks you should have done it before the other cacher did. Also there are plenty of other parks out there.


    Might want to read the whole thread before you reply.


    Problem is that the caches for the most part are in violation of the park guidelines. ...When I said cheated it wasn't so much me hiding caches (I like the find better), but the opportunity to see a variety of caches by a variety of hiders.


    Considering the poor placement of some of the caches, the problem will probably resolve itself in time.

  5. We had an encounter with a park cop--all to get a FTF. Gez. It was nearing sunset. We parked on the road near the trail. We headed down the asphalt trail only to turn around and see a police SUV headed down the trail toward us. We had apparently parked where we weren't allowed. Maybe because we didn't look like kids up to no good, he gave us a pass and told us to enjoy our walk. We encountered him again as we crossed the street to try and get the other FTF. The geo-husband asked if we should move and he said we were all right. Got one FTF. It was getting too dark to nab the second one--but it was worth it!

  6. If your initial post had mentioned these problems with the caches, placed with disregard for Park Guidelines, I think the responses would have been different . . .


    You're right. I should have. When I said cheated it wasn't so much me hiding caches (I like the find better), but the opportunity to see a variety of caches by a variety of hiders. There are a few new cachers that have placed some nice finds in the area and maybe might have made it out to these closed parks. A few veterans with some great hides have placed a couple in these parks too and it would be fun to see more of them.


    There's a rail to trail here that has caches placed all along it by several different cachers. It's been a lot of fun finding these caches. You have no idea what to expect when you're coming up against new hiders.

  7. So you're upset because the park is over-saturated because you wanted the chance to be the one to over-saturate it?


    :) Not necessary. I'm just asking a simple question.


    Back to topic. Problem is that the caches for the most part are in violation of the park guidelines. The local society has had to work with the parks to get them opened up to 20 caches for each park. This is regardless of the size of the park. The caches for the most part are located well over the 25 foot off trail guideline. Already, well-defined trails are being formed through wetlands and other sensitive areas--and these were all just placed in the last 2 weeks, 14 in one park and 18 in another. So, there is a risk that the park(s) will pull the caches because of environmental damage--and close the parks to all geocaching. In addition, they are not clearly marked as geocaches which the park clearly states they must be. The caches are good, but not great. They are not winter-friendly by any means. One I found the day it was placed was full of water.


    I think it's great someone wants to place a lot of caches. Some of us enjoy the finding more than the hiding or the hiding more than the finding, as it were. However, these caches are placed in concentration in small portions of the park, excluding other interesting areas. Some are placed in obvious floodplains. Some are placed in high muggle traffic areas when other less active parts of the park have no caches. I think if you cached these areas you might understand.



  8. Now don't get me wrong; I like it when there are opportunities to get a number of caches in one park. It makes for a fun day out to be sure. Recently though, two local parks have basically been closed off to anyone else wanting to place a cache because another cacher saturated the park to its limit of caches per park by placing over 14+ caches in each of these two parks. The placed caches are good, but now no one else can place any in these parks until one is archived or there is a change in park policy. Am I wrong to feel a bit cheated out of an opportunity to place a cache in these parks that are now off limits?



  9. My geo-husband was wondering about this. We've been hitting caches that seem obviously to be placed in dead tree trunks. I'll usually poke a stick in them to see if anything is there. Has anyone encountered a live creature in any of these obvious but occupied beacons? None for us, but his fear has me spooked.



  10. I posted a maintenance log for a cache before logging the fine. It looked like I was then credited twice for the same find. I deleted the maintenance log, but it's still showing one extra find that I don't actually have. How can I correct this?



  11. This is a bit annoying. I'm still getting email notifications for caches that I've longed taken off my watch list and no notifications for the ones that are on my watch list.



  12. We came across our first obviously muggled cache. Just found the cache info sheet, you know the one that says leave this alone :) and a sig item. I logged it as "request it be archived." Is that right? We did "find" it, though not intact. Have to say finding a muggled cache made me more angry than logging a DNF.



  13. Is it possible to change ownership of a travel bug once it's been activated and placed? Recently, I found a cache that was part of an elementary school project for the kids to study geography. I thought it might be fun for them if I placed the key that I retrieved from their cache on a travel bug and put it on a mission to move around as much as possible. Thought the kids might get a kick out of it. Well, once I've placed it, I thought I might turn over the ownership to their teacher. Is that possible? I haven't contacted anyone with the cache yet. It's a surprise. Shhh-hhhh.



  • Create New...