Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by simpjkee

  1. Hello,


    I have an old yahoo email account that I have used for years. I finally decided to get rid of it in favor of a gmail account. I updated my email address on geocaching.com and I now get all my geocaching emails at my new gmail account. However, I continue to get my Waymarking emails at my old yahoo account. I log in to Waymarking.com and it shows my updated gmail account on my profile, but I continue to get Waymarking emails at my old yahoo account anyway. How do I switch my Waymarking email address to my new gmail account?




  2. On 10/21/2017 at 6:48 AM, thebruce0 said:

    I know if I find an old cache, and it's not in the best shape, but still quite findable and a great experience overall, I'm less likely to log a NM then if it were close to the city with an owner I know to be active. But it really does depend on the situation.  If I can't do a little good deed and clean it up a bit, and I think it really needs maintenance, especially if it has a recent history of repeated community upkeep, I'm more likely to consider the NM and let destiny take its course. It's a tough judgement call to make; sometimes yes, sometimes no.

    I love maintaining my caches. If any maintenance is needed, I want a NM logged. I hate the idea of someone trying to 'help' me by doing stuff to my caches. and all but one of my caches require a substantial hike to get to them.

    • Upvote 3
  3. 14 hours ago, fbingha said:

    All of my non mystery caches are PMO for two reasons. Non PMO means the cache will be visited by more newer members if the hide is within the city.

    1.  Newer members tend to have more problems finding the cache. As someone who tends to check up on caches after problems are reported, this makes more work for me.

    2. New members tend to spill too much info about the cache hide style in their logs, including selfie style pictures.

    So what's the problem?

  4. Listening to music is my #1 passion. I've named a lot of my caches after some of my favorite songs that seemed apropos to the cache location or the hide itself. For example, I had one placed by a really nice fountain so I called it Aqueous Transmission after the song by Incubus.

  5. On 10/4/2017 at 7:10 AM, Manville Possum said:

    To the OP. Is it a case where a new cache could not be recreated why the cache needs unarchived? I was once told 90 days was the limit by my reviewer.

    I'm not sure I understand your question.

    Basically, I've always been a responsible cache owner (I think thats why I got a new virtual). I've never had a reviewer disable of archive one of my caches. I've always maintained them when I owned them and if there was ever a time in which I wasn't willing to maintain it, I'd archive it. There are a couple of my caches that I'd like to unarchive and maintain, but I think placing a "Cache Name Version 2" or "Cache Name 2.0" is kinda cheesy. I'd much rather have the cache unarchived and continue on where I left off. These caches have been archived anywhere between 3 and 6 years or so.

  6. I'm trying really really hard to uncheck email notifications when I get a message through the message center. I go in to that menu option. I uncheck it. It says "saving" and then "saved". I go to a different page. I come back to that menu option and the checkbox has rechecked itself. How do I stop this madness? My email inbox is getting spammed like crazy even though I already get the notification through the app. HELP!!!



    Menu Options.jpg

  7. 19 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

    I have a cache that I placed 10 years ago along what is now a completed 8 me long rail trail.  At the time it was the only cache on the trail.  In the last year someone has created "a series" that pretty much saturates the trail from end to end.  Every one of those caches is a pill bottle hidden in the same manner.  Look at the map it would be pretty easy to ignore the series.  Unfortunately, there are a few interesting spots along that trail so anyone ignoring the series wouldn't see those spots and they would be ignoring my cache as well, or those that do choose to do the trail will most likely treat it like all the other caches on the trail.

    This post pretty much sums up my feeling about the modern game. I placed a cache or two back then that have been engulfed by many other caches. I used to want to tell those people who began placing caches along the trail after mine that they we encroaching on my trail and should go find their own. Now it's as if my cache is encroaching on their trail. I would be more than satisfied finding that one cache along that trail. I don't need a 'series'. I don't even really like the idea of stopping 528 feet while on a hike to stop and look for a geocache. "Then why do it?" you ask. Honestly I have no idea. I just can't walk within a couple feet of a geocache and not try to find it. It would be much nicer IMO if that 528 feet rule was widened to like 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet or more.

    • Upvote 2
  8. On 10/2/2017 at 7:09 AM, J Grouchy said:

    I have literally pulled up a light post skirt not ten feet from someone sitting in a car with the windows down and they didn't even turn their head.  I really just recommend putting away all the silly get-ups and just grab the cache. 

    I do this all the time. Quite simply, nobody cares. I'm not that interesting.

  9. 5 hours ago, dprovan said:

    Wow, it took a lot of work to track down the context for this very old quote to see that you basically agree with the original point, you're just complaining about this relatively minor nod to the possibility of rare exceptions to the very sound general rule. I don't really know what lnmountains was thinking about, but I have a few caches where someone else climbed the tree and signed the log for me or where I was in a big group and signed the log without getting closer than 50' from where the cache was actually hidden, and I think it would be reasonable to call those "a few caches that we were not personally at". For all I know, you never allow anything like that to happen when you claim a find, but it seems kinda odd to act as if it should never make any sense to anyone.

    I started reading this thread last night. got about 1/2 a page in so far. It appears as if Inmountains was suggesting he/she had logged finds on caches when they were well outside of being 50 feet from the cache.

    The part that offended me was that he/she included me in that group by not sticking to 'I' and 'me' statements and instead using a 'we' statement. ("we all....") I'm definitely not part of that group. Maybe he/she logs caches he/she was not at, but I have not and will not. I'd appreciate it if I was not lumped in to that group as if logging caches you are not personally at is some kind of generally accepted practice..

    • Upvote 2
  10. On 12/30/2016 at 7:40 PM, Inmountains said:

    And while we all have a few caches that we were not personally at, (I have a few),

    We who? I've never and will never log a find on a cache I was not personally at. Doing so makes no sense to me whatsoever.

    • Upvote 2
  11. 1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

    Yeah... I think 'rewards' is heading in the wrong direction. Bringing back virtuals wasn't primarily a "reward" for those who could place them - it was to bring back a much desired cache type/experience for the entire community. It so happened that had to choose a very very limited number of people to actually place them, so it came across as a sort of 'prize' for being an algorithmically 'good owner'.

    I don't think it's a good idea to start providing rewards, for the sake of rewarding peopole for activity that's a hobby you can enjoy or not. Good behaviour and etiquette is reward itself, to others who also enjoy the hobby.


    I think the question should be more like - what other grandfathered or historic idea would you like to see Groundspeak return on a limited or trial basis?  And then discussion about who should have the privilege of creating/maintaining/participating would spawn from that.

    Sounds like a good question. Do you want speculate on an answer?

  12. 6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

    Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

    I totally agree with that. I mean if you don't follow the posting guidelines in the forums they take away your right to post for a while. Seems only right they do that with cache ownership as well.

    • Upvote 1
  13. 3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

    I've seen very wordy cut n paste logs about how the team got together (sometimes listing each member of the team) at the parking lot where the host provided coffee then they were on there way to break their last record of xx number of caches and had a great day achieving a new all time record. Thanking the host for the coffee and all the cache owners for the smileys they accumulated. Word count 50-150. Then the note gets pasted to 55 other caches that day (and probably 1/3 of those caches were never seen by the "finder"). Hardly deserving of a reward. 

    What kind of rewards would you like to see?

  14. 1 hour ago, Michaelcycle said:

    I'm not sanguine about GS issuing rewards for log length but if it were a possibility and "copy and paste" becomes a concern project-gc has a "log similarity" score on their stats page that could be used to discount that tactic.

    Yeah the ability to create a formula to decide who is deserving of the reward is there.

  15. 6 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

    That will just lead to some people doing copy & paste logs with loads of meaningless drivel in order to try and gain the reward so ultimately it would be a bad thing.

    No it won't unless Groundspeak were to announce ahead of time that they were going to give a reward for this. If one day they just gave the reward no one would have know to boost their word count ahead of time.

  16. I'd like to see an additional option when building PQ's that works just like the "Are not on my ignore list" option, but that allows you to choose which of your lists you do not want in your PQ. I don't really like the ignore list, because I want all caches to show up on the website, but I have a "Presumed Missing" list and I don't want caches on that list to show up in my PQ's.

  17. Throwdown caching just baffles me. There is clearly a DNF log. Yet people do not find the cache and instead of logging it appropriately, they place their own and still log a find. That's just wrong to me. It helps no one and does nothing for the game. In the last month I've found one cache that had the real cache and a throwdown at GZ and I've been to two other geocaches that were throwdowns. When I get to a cache with a throwdown, I don't even know how to log it. Log a DNF and a NM? Remove the throwdown and log a DNF and a NM? Sign the log and log a find? I really don't know how to approach this situation. I really don't understand this phenomenon. It's a real dark spot on the game right now.

    • Upvote 3
  • Create New...