SeattleWayne
-
Posts
479 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SeattleWayne
-
-
On 11/26/2017 at 6:26 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:
I'm not asking for long, detailed, and creative logs. There are some geocachers that think just posting four letters as a log is sufficient. I think those that find a geocache should at least make an effort to describe their experience in the log. Not posting a long, detailed and creative log won't sink my boat, but it does make it less enjoyable for me, which is a metaphor for "starting to sink your boat". I'm not going to give up the game because of one TFTC log, but thankless geocachers are just one small hole in the boat.
I will post a nice log on meaningful caches. Like Earthcaches or Virtuals that took some time getting to. But these guardrail, lamppost, bison tubes in a tree...yeah. "Thanks for the cache" or "found it" it is all I'm putting.
If people want creative, long winded logs, less cheaply hidden caches should be the priority.
"I woke up this morning feeling kind of groggy. I think I slept wrong or something. My neck hurt on one side but after my shower I felt better. The coffee was on and I could smell the corporate aroma of that Starbucks blend. Yum, I thought as I searched around on the GC.com game board. Hmm. Where will I go to cache today? Oh look. A new cache has been posted and the title is "Just another Guardrail Cache". Perfect. This seems worth my time.
I set out in my geomobile, and as I approached GZ I wondered where this hidden gem was. I parked, put my flashers on so I wouldn't get side swiped by a local and began my search. Within minutes I found it! Wow! I came all this way...and there it was! Neatly tucked under the metal piece with a bolt and a guide wire. I signed the log, crammed the soaked ball of mush (log) back into the plastic bag, folded it like, sixty times and shoved it back into the -hide-a-key-magnetic container. Boy, this thing needs some maintenance! Thanks for the cache!"
or..."TFTC".
-
.png)
1
-
-
On 1/24/2018 at 3:39 PM, geocat_ said:
Thanks everyone. I do the "look at the map" thing too but just wondered if there was any sort of list. Basically, I am asking because this is going to be a busy year for me...getting married, buying a new house, moving....so my caching will be more limited. I would like to get 1000 or more caches this year as I have every year since I started caching, but I was looking for a way to get a bunch late in the year if necessary.
Block out a week for travel late in the summer/early fall and hit the E.T highway. You'll get your numbers up there for sure.
-
1
-
-
On 1/22/2018 at 6:31 AM, thebruce0 said:
What about including reasons for archival? Reviewer archival logs vs owner archival logs could be an interesting metric to incorporate in the archival stats.
This. If there's any information that needs to be paid attention to and dissected, it's this. Why are people archiving their caches?
-
On 1/20/2018 at 7:03 AM, hal-an-tow said:
They are dispassionate facts, like them or not !
It's not that I like them or don't like them. I just don't think they matter much because, as most hobbies go, interest among the hobby fluctuates. Just look at sporting event attendance for major sports teams throughout the years.
It's up to GC.com to keep people interested and attract new members. I think they do a fine job.
-
On 1/20/2018 at 4:08 PM, themagician said:
I live in a vacation area so I see more caches all the time. Visitors hiding caches all over theplace. Unfortunately most are just Bison Tubes hung in a tree. NO thought in how they place the cache or where they place it. To me , its NOT about searching for a green tube inside a pine tree. Its being taken to an area thats new to me. Finding a medium size cache thats hidden in a special way, something new and interesting. I havent cached for a few years because I got tired of the same old thing....
That's unfortunate that GC.com would allow vacationers to place a cache knowing full well their maintenance plan might be that of hoping other cachers take care of it.
I vacation all over the world. I couldn't imagine hiding a cache in Bermuda knowing full well it might be 4-5 years before I return. But then again. Maybe these are vacationers who frequent their favorite vacation spot 3-4 times a year. Who knows.
-
16 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
Probably not much except encourage finders to log NMs and NAs, and have reviewers to do sweeps.
At least, we can do our part by not making excuses for the 90% of cache owners that do nothing and let reviewers finally archive their caches.Which, from what I've read on these forums, cachers receive backlash from COs for posting a NM/NA on their cache. Of all the NM/NA I've posted, I've only received one email from one CO saying, I could've just emailed them instead of posting a NM.
-
These stats go hand in hand, and I think for the most part are subjective. Despite all the cache categories being in the red, means very little (to me). I still have an abundance of caches to be found in my area and new caches are popping up just about weekly in my emails; two or three at a time sometimes. Some areas haven't seen a new cache for a few months where other areas have constant growth.
Geoaching is a hobby among all else. Some people like to find them during certain times of the year and others like to cache year round. And since it's a hobby, some folks try it while other people have been caching for years. Maybe off and on, little by little, they find a few caches a month and stop for a while. The patterns from those who cache are all of different varieties.
There are areas on the map that are absolutely saturated with caches, and have little to no room for more. There are places on the map that are wide open with little or zero interest from anyone to place any. I see one specific stat, "Active Cachers in and from the United States": Last Month 61169 as opposed to 2016 67065. That's a difference of 5,896 cachers who what, didn't find a cache? Deleted their account?
The Caches Hidden portion, as you pointed out " lots of red" could be a multitude of reasons as to why cache placement is down. One reason could very well be that people have lost interest, as people do with hobbies. Or that the areas of the world are so saturated with easy Park n' Grabs, Light Post caches and Guardrails that there simply isn't room for anything else. My stats page on my profile surely represents that cache placements are, for the most part, easy grabs. I do not discriminate when it comes to going after caches.
-
10 minutes ago, niraD said:
It's the "how to" that matters when comparing the "strict rule" standard to whatever the standard is now.
Of course the "how to" matters but you can't get there until you've changed the minds of the ones who don't think it's important for CO to go get their stuff.
-
On 1/17/2018 at 10:55 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:
It was Harry Dolphin that mentioned throwdowns. I'm not exactly sure what the official GS policy is on throwdowns, for caches with names other than Mingo. Personally, I think that a CO that allows other caches to drop a throwdown if they can't find the cache isn't maintaining their caches. I suspect that most reviewers wouldn't consider a blanket permission to throw down a replacement if the cache can't be found to be a valid maintenance plan.
Oh, gotcha.
I've briefly skimmed the thrown down policy, and the phrase they used was "not encouraged" if I remember correctly.
-
It'll be interesting to see what summer promotion they come out with this year.
-
There's a handful of Virtuals in my area that have COs that are inactive. Yet those caches seem to stay.
-
20 minutes ago, niraD said:
Let's assume that your assumption is correct, and that most archived caches are containers that have been abandoned by unresponsive cache owners.
Just how do you expect Groundspeak (or the geocaching community, or anyone) to hold these unresponsive cache owners to a standard to go clean up their abandoned caches?
I'm not on this thread to discuss the "how to". I'm on this thread discussing with Rebore why it shouldn't be just a casual "pick up your trash after your done with it" policy. I've already stated somewhere in this thread that GS doesn't have the resources to hold every single CO accountable, and I'm fully aware of that fact. And because of that, the policy should be relaxed and just in passing, "oh, and btw. When you're done with your cache try to pick it up, and if you don't get to it, no big deal. Happy caching!"?
-
27 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
As I said before, sometimes caches are archived because they're believed to be missing, which makes it a tad difficult for the CO to go out and collect it, even if the container is still out there, somewhere. And the one I found that had been archived by its CO ten years earlier because he thought it was missing, wasn't rotten junk, it was in pristine condition and he was grateful to get it back.
Then there's my one where the original container is buried by fallen rock. Should I be banned from placing further hides when I eventually archive that one, because I didn't dig it out?
Who said anything about banning cachers from hiding future caches because they didn't clean up old containers after archival? Not me. Of course there's going to be special circumstances that happen where a CO can not retrieve their old containers. I had a similar issue where a wind storm brought down many trees on top of my cache and I was unable to get it back. But not every single cacher is in a special circumstance where they can not get their container back. Like I said, in my experience, most COs are just too lazy to go get it after it's been archived.
-
13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
In 2016 I logged 106 NAs.
3 were fixed by the owners (1 was logged as OM but the problem continued and more recent NMs have been ignored).
11 were archived by the owners -- of those all were reported as missing.
92 were archived by a reviewer.
I see I'm not the only one who's proactive on the game board.
-
11 minutes ago, Rebore said:
I was talking about archived caches, not geotrashes. Not all archived caches are rotten and worthless junk, as you seem to assume.
In my experience, of the 121 caches that I've posted a NA on due to CO inactivity, 76 have been archived by a Reviewer. So, in my assumptions, I am correct.
On 1/18/2018 at 11:56 AM, Rebore said:If you mean the owner, yes. It's fine that owners are encouraged to clean up after they're done with the cache, but it's ridiculous to interpret that as a strict rule.
This was the original point I was arguing with you on. Not only should GC.com encourage but clean up of caches left behind should be a strict rule. How anyone would shrug it off that they left their cache behind for someone else to clean up is beyond me. Rotten, broken down caches or even pristine, in great condition caches, either of them left behind for someone else to clean up shouldn't be allowed.
Why do you think it's ridiculous that people should be held to a standard to go clean up their cache after use?
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, dprovan said:
This implies that I don't understand what your point was, so it sounds like you're not interested in making it any clearer. But, to be honest, I don't really care what you point is since you seem to be motivated by nothing more than making sure everyone else is having fun right.
If hunting archived caches is your thing, then go for it. It's not something I'm into. And I've already stated in this thread that I don't think removing coords on archived caches solely to stop those who enjoy hunting archived caches should be a thing.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Rebore said:
I named two reasons in the post you quoted. Groundspek also can't enforce it, because, again, the cache is property of the owner. The only thing they could do is banning the owner from their site because of violating said guideline (not rule).
If someone abandons their cache to rot in the forest, who's property is it really? Next you're going to tell me the cache owner pops back up after a year and demands that their .99 cent sandwich box is return to them. I've read countless forum posts of cachers picking up archived, junked out caches and contacting the CO letting them know, "hey, I have your cache..." for them to turn around and say, "Keep it" if they're lucky to get a response at all.
-
12 minutes ago, TyroneShoelaces said:
If your stats are true, that is a LOT of trash being left out there.
Do you have an issue with somebody like me, searching for a cache after it is archived, removing the geolitter, and logging a find for my work? If coordinates were removed as was being argued for in this thread, I wouldn't be able to do this.
I'm not in favor of the coordinates being locked out so cachers can't find archived caches just for that reason alone. It's fine one way or another, honestly. I'm not interested in finding archived caches. If you're one to help clean up the mess left behind by inactive/uncaring cache owners, I, for one, really appreciate your efforts.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, GPS-Hermit said:
I agree that an archived cache should be up for adoption and have not heard a good reason for not doing so!
The cache owner is the only one who can adopt out their cache.
-
21 hours ago, Rebore said:
.
If you mean the owner, yes. It's fine that owners are encouraged to clean up after they're done with the cache, but it's ridiculous to interpret that as a strict rule.
Why shouldn't it be a strict rule? There are so many people who get into geocaching for a few months then get bored after placing a cache, and it's just left out there. Since I started geocaching in 2015, I've requested that 121 caches be archived (most for lack of maintenance/inactive COs) and out of those 121, 76 have been archived by a reviewer. And out of those 76 caches archived, I can almost guarantee the CO did not go and clean up their mess. The majority of those CO were either 1)inactive 2) moved out of the area or 3) decided it's not their problem anymore. Yeah, GC.com really doesn't have the resources to police up every archived cache to make sure it's properly disposed of so they hope the COs will maintain their cache and put it in the trash or whatever once they're done.
-
1
-
-
On 1/17/2018 at 7:31 PM, dprovan said:
I'm not sure what your point is. Couldn't you say the same thing about normal caches?
No.
-
6 hours ago, TyroneShoelaces said:
Interesting views in this thread. I have been watching it with interest because this past year I started actively looking for archived geocaches as somebody here put it, a "sidegame". One archived cache that I found even had a travel bug inside that was sitting there for 4.5 years! I was pleased to get that one moving again.
This is about the only benefit to this "sidegame" other than seeing if one can find the cache or not.
-
22 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
Just a guess, but a history of placing power trails without any sort of maintenance might be a justification for denying the cache owner the right to create new caches.
You had also mentioned throw downs so I wasn't exactly sure.
-
On 1/13/2018 at 4:12 PM, Harry Dolphin said:
And, sometimes, I just wonder... Went looking for some P&Gs recently. Bitter cold wind chill. Two by the same CO were obviously throwdowns. Did not match the photos from three years ago, One had a frozen log. CO has three finds from a few years back. And 103 owned caches. 74 of which have been archived, A power trail that had been hidden, and archived twice. Hidden and archived. Now a fourth power trail in the same place! I had considered going for it, but now I doubt that I would want to try it. What gives here??? Why is this permitted? A few other caches archived and rehidden.
What exactly are you saying shouldn't be permitted?
.png)
Introducing Virtual Rewards 2.0!
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Not at all. Why?