Rubbertoe

You know how I said I wish I could leave nicer stuff? Well, that is probably half because I want to be a nice guy and just put some nice stuff out there for the folks that would bother to seek my cache... but the other half of me would be doing it to watch the cache and see who lies, sneaks, and fights there way there to take one or all of the items. Kind of like a little experiment on human greed and honesty. I mean, think about it - if you hide five different caches around your home state, each with ten $10 bills in them... you think any of them would actually have to have 10 different finders before all the cash would be gone? That'd be a miracle. Deform My Head!

I just bought my wife a nice little digital camera from CompGeeks for $87 plus shipping. It is the Fuji Finepix A101. 1.3 Megapixels, 1280x960 resolution, AVI video mode - in a nice little compact package. The perfect "toss around" digital camera. To get the $87 price you have to enter some code at checkout... I think it is GEEKA101 - you can find that code and others at JumpOnDeals. I'd really encourage people to spend the extra 40 or 50 bucks to get a nice camera... you can get some good looking 4x6 prints from a 1.3 MP camera like this one. Link to A101 Camera Deform My Head! (edit: I don't work for them, and I'm not getting paid or any such nonsense. I'm just a happy customer.)

quote:Originally posted by Alan2:Here's a question I've kinda wondered about. How do you trade up from an $80 pair of binoculars? I mean, if you leave an expensive item, what do you expect the cacher who is coming to leave? - his wallet? You are right... leaving something expensive shouldn't mean that you expect someone to trade equally for it. I guess I never made that clear any time that I've broughten it up... but yes, when I left those better things in a cache, it was more like a nice prize for the first finder - with the rest of the stuff being left for the next people that came along. Hmm... next time I do that, I'm going to make it a little clearer on the description page that I'm not trying to pressure someone into trading even for the good item. Tnx for bringing that up. Deform My Head!

quote:Originally posted by -=Elwood=-:Is this deformed enough? Great googily moogily! I was wondering what you were talking about when I first saw the message... until the image loaded all the way and popped onto the screen. I nearly swallowed my tongue. Deform My Head!

checking something Deform My Head!

I'm not sure about your brand of GPS, but you can use a plain yellow eTrex (less than $100) with the USA PhotoMaps program found at http://jdmcox.com - it allows all kinds of upload and downloading of waypoints, tracks, routes, etc. I often use it when I'm tromping through the woods, so I can see where I went, and all the twists and turns I took. USA PhotoMaps is free, with a donation suggested but not required. Oh, and he'll beed a PC cable for the eTrex which will run about 15 bucks... I suggest eBay for getting the best deals on this stuff, used. The Toe Pages

Leatherman: That's impressive... it actually made a few hops before it was taken, which is amazing in itself. Now everyone gets to look at Martikay with a suspicious eye. (j/k - but it sucks to be him, imho) A182: *laugh* That sounds about right... hehe The Toe Pages

This can either be in a cache you've hidden, or one that you have just visited. If I had the cash, I'd be putting all sorts of nice stuff into my caches - but that isn't my reality. So far, the best thing I've put into a cache has either been the Garmin eTrex leather (like?) case that I put in one of my own caches, or perhaps the 4-in-1 PCMCIA(?) adapter card thing for CF, SmartMedia, MMC, and Memory Stick flash memory cards that I put in my latest cache - which hasn't yet had its first finder. Granted, the pc card will probably be borked by the cold weather by time someone finds it, but hey... (I hope I don't get markwelled.) The Toe Pages

quote:Originally posted by umc:I think umc had a good idea with the multi cache thing stated in his post above. He usually does have good ideas as you all know. You'd lose the lazy unmotivated bastards, such as myself, who can't find the energy to go after several caches while only getting credit for one. (No, I'm not competitive with others on the site... but I do like seeing my own find total rise. I feel like I'm actually accomplishing something. *laugh*) The Toe Pages

What harm would it do? Adding a couple more guidelines to the list, if the approvers are indeed enforcing them?

quote:Originally posted by leatherman:Come on. Step back and think. How many people even read the rules? How many people have never read the forums? With that type of attitude, why have any guidelines at all then? Saying that things shouldn't be added to the guidelines because people don't read them anyway is kinda silly, imho. quote:They have explained to us that the approval process is very dynamic. Sometimes they have to email each other back and forth for everyones take on the specifics of a cache, and still make a decision.I agree with you when the situation is "dynamic" as you put it. But he said all the approvers go with these rules: no caches will be approved if within 1/10 of a mile of another, and no caches within 150 feet of train tracks. There's nothing dynamic about those rules - and that's why I think it'd be a good idea to add them to the guidelines. Are you saying that adding those two things wouldn't be a good thing? quote:How could you waste their time complaining about this. Just comply with the simple elements of the cache hiding process.First off, we are in the forums... we aren't e-mailing anyone complaining about anything. If cache approvers spend their time reading and replying here, that is their own business. And since when is constructive critisism a bad thing? The suggestions that I've given are intended to help. I've suggested things that I believe might remove a bit of confusion about a situation. It is simple. If there are rules that the approvers always go by, I think it would be a good idea to have them added to the guidelines. You'll have a hard time telling me any different. Sure - there will be lots of gray areas... and I'm not asking that they all be addressed. But when they make rules that they all agree on, it would just make sense to let everyone know. "Just comply with the simple elements of the cache hiding process." If people do that now, they could still place a cache within 50 feet of another - or within 100 feet of railroad tracks, because they wouldn't know otherwise. The guideline changes that I am suggesting would only help people be able to do exactly what you are saying they should do. The Toe Pages

quote:Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:2- Make it a MOC and lose non-members and those who don't hunt MOC's out of principal. There are members that won't hunt MO caches on principle? What is their beef? I didn't realize that people would be bothered by MO caches. quote:Having said that, I guess it really boils down to how bad you want people to hunt your cache and how much risk you're willing to take with the cache contents. I've had a few caches stolen, and I believe it comes down to the caches being too easy. Easy to find, so they have lots of activity - and lots of activity leads to many more chances for someone to be seen with the cache. I think the best way of keeping your caches from getting looted is to make it difficult to get to. People that would steal a 1/1 cache probably wouldn't go on a mile long hike into a 3/3 deep woods cache in order to do the same to it. The Toe Pages

quote:Originally posted by 9Key:Have your folks ever had a tbug reach a goal? Not one of of mine had made it before it "dissapared". Squatting Guy made it up to Niagara Falls and had his picture taken, and now he is on his way back to Ohio. Granted, it wasn't a terribly long distance to travel - but still I consider myself pretty fortunate for him to have made it up there and gotten his pic taken. I don't think the idea of bugs is fading... the more people that join the site, the more people that might end up getting some bugs. I've got 4 right now, all are still in circulation - once a few of them vanish, I might get another batch of 4. The Toe Pages

quote:Originally posted by Tzan & Isbah:I picked up a bug a little while ago, and wanted to add comments. However since I was freezing my behind off, I rushed to drop it off and didn't think of writing the number down. Now, I was able to mark that I left the bug behind, but wasn't able to add any comments. How did you log the bug when you picked it up, if you didn't bother to get the tracking number? The Bug? One thing you could do is e-mail the bug owner and ask them for the tag number... I did that once for someone that was in a similar situation with one of my bugs. *LOL* [This message was edited by Rubbertoe on December 03, 2002 at 11:22 AM.]

What about that blinky leatherman icon? It takes everything I have to fight off the seizures when I read those posts. The Toe Pages Some people didn't like the geobanana... but so far I've gotten no complaints about the flag)

quote:Originally posted by freelens:Do you even have to be told that it's not a good idea these days to place a magnetic cache under a bridge or at a dam? Besides I think Eric's point wasn't that they don't have a venue for telling people about changes but that things change so fast that there isn't time to do it. I think we all need to remember that if the PTB decide that this site isn't fun anymore, your game is as good as over until someone else steps up. I think that SOME things can and should be included in the guidelines. Granted, not every common sense type guideline can be addressed... but when the approvers have agreed that no caches will be approved within .1 mile of another cahce, and no caches will be approved within 150 feet of railroad tracks - those things are cold hard facts, and should be made known in the guidelines. It would just create less hassle for everyone involved. If people read the guidelines before they place a cache, they'd know what they are definitely not allowed to do. This would keep at least a few people from submitting more caches for approval when they are obviously against the rules. I'm just saying - how are people supposed to know they can't place a cache within .1 mile of another, or withing 150 feet of railroad tracks if it doesn't say that in the guidelines? It just seems like a simple thing to ammend to the list if all the cache approvers are in agreement, that's all. The Toe Pages

... although we are all intimately familiar with Krispy Kreme donuts. Click me. Click me too.

quote:We won't approve one-time-caches. I'm sure Markwell can reference where this has been discussed. Well, I referenced the older thread where single-uses caches were approved, so yeah - I wouldn't mind seeing the thread where the guideline was changed on that one. (Perhaps I just missed it somewhere in that thread where the general tone turned against single-use caches. The final post before the thread was locked just seemed a bit vague.) quote:There are situations that may not be addressed in the guidelines that are nevertheless agreed upon by the approvers. We won't post events that are not geocaching events, we won't post caches within 150ft of RR tracks or within .1 mile of another, and so on, so please understand that not every situation can be found in that link.Perhaps those things that all of the approvers agree upon should be listed in those guidelines. If there is no doubt about those issues, they should probably be made known to potential cache hiders there in the guidelines rather than here in random forum postings. quote:We won't post caches without a log book or some other means of cache find verification.I've placed plenty of caches, but I've never gone back and checked the names in the written log book to verify them against the names of people that have logged it online. I understand the idea of the log book providing "proof" of some sort, but in practice I'd think it would be pretty hard to guarantee every cache is hidden with a log book. quote:It does say in the link above that caches have to be permanent. Would you not assume the same would hold true of physical caches?Well, I was only making my assumption based on another thread that I read, where you said something like "something has to be done with these, we just can't archive them" in regards to some single-use caches. The virtual/locationless caches specfically say that they must be semi-permanent to permanent... but the regular caches say nothing of the sort. One might conclude that since it was specifically stated in every form of cache except traditional caches, that the guideline might not specifically apply to traditional caches. I'm really not trying to stir anything up - I'm just trying to point out some things that might help situations like this in the future. quote:Here is what we propose as a solution to satisfy both those submitting caches and those who have to laboriously review, approve, and post them:We'll post seasonal caches under one of two conditions - either they stay on as a "normal" cache after the season ends, or they are "deactivated" (not archived) by the cache owner and then "reactivated" next Christmas (or Halloween, or whatever). Does that sound reasonable? How is that going to make a difference from what is done now? The caches will still have to go through the same process - and with option 1 you will have a lame-off season virtual, and with option 2 you will most likely have lots of seasonal caches that never get "re-activated" the next year. I'm not sure of a good solution, but this doesn't sound any less laborious than any other cache approval process. Again, I'm not trying to be a trouble maker... I'm making all these suggestions to show what "some geocachers" might think. Simple things could be added to the guidelines, if all approvers agree on it anyway. I mean, that would be like a cop pulling you over for sticking your arm out your window. COP: "Sorry, I'm gonna have to give you a ticket for that." GUY: "I didn't realize it was against the rules." COP: "Well, it isn't actually IN the rules, but all us cops agree you can't do it." GUY: "Oh... umm... okay..." That being said, I've never had any real complaints about the process, and I do appreciate the hassle that it must be for the approvers to do this stuff. (And please don't delete my Moonville Replacement Cache due to the lack of logbook. If it gets archived before me or some other kind-hearted geocacher can get a log book into it, I'll probably leave it there as a rotting pile of geotrash just for spite. ) j/k The Toe Pages

quote:Originally posted by Team Tecmage (R&T):We walk in and the guy behind the counter treated us to hot fresh glazed doughnuts! Good story... although, I'd be a bit suspicious about the free "glazed" donuts. I think I know too many people in the food industry that have told me scary things. "Marv! Some cockroaches just fell in to the glaze mix! What should I do?" "Just finish up that batch and we'll give em away to people so we can get rid of the evidence faster." "Alright then..." View The ToeCam

Descriptions in the cache and bug pages are regular ol' HTML codes, not the UBB codes as used here in the forums. Example: Click to view my bug. View The ToeCam

quote:Originally posted by MGGPS:This is getting out of hand we should be able to place caches on these public lands. The idea of contacting the park admin for "permission" is a no-brainer, if you have to ask permission you know the answer is probably going to be no. This subject has been beaten to death, but basically it comes down to this. If the parks in your area do not allow geocaching, then you are SOL. Your options are to either place a cache there anyway and risk it being confiscated, not place a cache there at all, or try to talk to the powers-that-be and figure out if some agreement can be reached. Complaining about it here in the forums won't do anything to help your cause... and the more people that place caches without asking, the more likely it is that park administrators will be annoyed by geocaching in general. If you wanna change these policies, take the time to talk to the folks about it - you can't know what will happen until you try. While I haven't asked to place any of my caches, the people in charge haven't been bothered to remove them or contact me about them - so until then, I guess I should consider myself lucky. But if the time comes when they say the caches must go, I'll just accept it since I didn't seek permission to place them in the first place. Yeah, that is my policy when it comes to asking... don't ask, don't tell - and if someone calls you on it, just suck it up and remove the cache without bellyaching about it. View The ToeCam

If the cache were damaged or in really sad shape, then I could see someone wanting to take over the whole cache, page, responsibility, etc... but if the cache is still self-maintaining and isn't causing any problems, I don't think it is a good idea for someone to take ownership of it. Granted, it is kind of a gray area with that person having placed only that cache, and since it was a long time ago... but still, I think transferring ownership of a cache should be the very last option. Right now, you could just be a sport and throw a new log book in the cache. View The ToeCam

quote:Originally posted by D & S:I had a travel bug and was helping it get some mileage by putting in my cache in Texas before travelling to Oklahoma. I logged it in in TX. and then placed it in a cache in OK. I neglected to get the number the second time. I had to go back to the cache and get the number. It was an inconvenience and I was cussing it at the time but it was my fault. Like GoldKey said earlier... the tracking number is only required when you "pick up" the bug - when you place it in another cache, all you have to do is make a log on that cache - and near the bottom of that page, select the bug from your "online inventory" so it will be "dropped" into that cache. You aren't expected to remember the tracking number once you've originally logged the bug. View The ToeCam

quote:Originally posted by Goat6500:Whoah! Since when do you have to have the Travel Bug tracking number to virtually pick it up? As far as I know, it has always been that way... I mean, how else would you be able to verify that you saw the bug or had it in your posession? The number is a TRACKING number. quote:I'd like to say this "new" TB procedure is a BAD idea.If you could, please enlighten me how the "old" way worked. I don't see how the process could protect fake logs if you didn't have to have the tag number to prove that you saw/had the bug. quote:I emailed the owner, but if I don't hear from them in a couple of days, I'll probably just forget about this bug and it's virtual trail will end.No, it won't just end... the next time it is logged it will look like it jumped from one cache to another, or to another user - virtually skipping any time it spent with you, but it won't just end. quote:We should go back to the old way of logging travel bugs. Who's with me?Okay - I haven't logged a bug in a while... correct me if I am wrong here: You find a bug, and in order to include it in your online inventory - you have to enter the tag number when you log it. This puts it in your inventory, and then when you leave it in another cache - you simply select it from a little pull down menu when you log that cache. Correct? If that is how it is, I don't really see how it could go back to the "old" way of apparently just being able to grab whatever bug you want at will, with no checks and balances. View The ToeCam

Mudfrog... you should tell the person that you want to take it to the forums for a vote. Jeremy always seem open to that suggestion. I mean, there is a whole forum area made just for that purpose. Perhaps it might provide some clarity for folks in a similar situation months or years from now.