Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SeattleWayne

  1. 21 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

    With a guideline such as this, it's protecting the lowest common denominator. A cache may still get published as an exception even if it appears to break a guideline. But if a cache doesn't break a guideline and it doesn't get published, it can be appealed. Essentially, the reviewer has complete leeway to follow the guidelines to a T, but they have the right to make an exception if they feel it's feasible in this case.

    However, defining "near" to explicitly explain the concern of ticket-restricted areas would be prudent, since that's no longer just a matter of distance (implied by 'near') but actually accessibility. Two very different things that fundamentally aren't regional/cultural.

    One can not break a guideline. A guideline is a basic rule of thumb or a suggestive direction. At best a recommendation. A guideline is not law. 

  2. 4 minutes ago, on4bam said:

    It would... "not in or near transportation centers". Now you see what the problem is with the wording of the guidelines? ;)


    No, because they are guidelines. That's the point I'm trying to make, on4bam. If Grand Central says, "Yes, come have a Geocaching event here" why would Groundspeak say no? Just because of their "wording"? 

  3. On 9/6/2017 at 2:55 PM, Gill & Tony said:

    My desire is for simple consise guidelines which say what they mean.

    If the guideline means "only in areas of transportation centres which are accessible to people without tickets" then that is what it should say.  If it says "not in or near transportation centres" then it should clarify what is meant by near.

    Guidelines are not black and white strict policy or law. Guidelines allow for some leniency and common sense. Does Groundspeak really need to spell it out for you and tell you not to hide a cache on the tarmac or in the belly of a 747? 


    "Please do not hide caches near or around railroad crossings."

    "Please do not hide caches 200 feet from a railroad crossing." 

    Both say the same thing. 

  4. 11 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

    That's not from the description of the cache but there are other remote caches which do describe what one might expect.  From the Erta Ale Volcano geocache in Ethiopia:

    "Erta Ale is a shield volcano, part of the East African rift system. In its vast summit caldera there are two pit craters. The smaller crater (140m dia and 60-90m deep) now has an active lava lake. Even now, after the end of the war, the Erta Ale range remains one of the most inaccessible places on earth. There are no roads and temperatures are extremely high. The tribe living there, the Afar people, are proud and strong warriors, often hostile to foreigners.

    Getting to Erta Ale is not easy - just to reach the volcano is a test of endurance. The volcano is situated at the bottom of the Danakil Depression, generally considered to be one of the most inhospitable regions on earth, a valley floor 130 m below sea level. The climatic conditions are terrible, with record temperatures 56°C in the shade, but with no shade to be found there."

    I flew over the general area a couple of years ago on a flight from Addis Ababa to Dubai and it's very, very remote.

    Looks like some cachers have decided to drop throw downs on this one to claim the find. 

  5. 5 hours ago, The A-Team said:

    Since I'm not a member of the Canadian military, I haven't made any plans to get to this cache.

    In case you hadn't noticed it in your research, Alert is effectively a Canadian military base (Alert and CFS Alert are pretty much the same thing) and it's my understanding that the general public can't just fly in. Your only other option is to access by boat from a distant location. Veeeery distant... :laughing:

    Yes, I have noticed. That's why I stated that logging a find on this one wasn't very promising. 

  6. 14 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

    Like most caches in the world, I haven't made plans to find it.  No finds since it was placed in 2015.  Relatively speaking that's not very long to some that have not yet been found.  For example:  Conch Shell Horn

    I've looked into the feasibility for that one.  Basically It would require  a flight to Porlamar (Margarita Island) which would likely involved several legs, and probably a layover in Caracas.  From there one would have to charter a boat for the 90km boat ride to Los Testigos.  I suppose that if a few people got together at least the boat charter portion of the trip might be affordable, but then there's this:

    "Porlamar was once regarded by many as the only "safe" anchorage on Isla Margarita. During the hurricane season there used to be as many as 100-150 boats here. However the number of visiting yachts has declined substantially over the last five years and now that Venezuela is in the middle of troubling times there are no foreign cruising boats visiting here

    There no longer exists a gathering place for yachties here, and many of the services available to cruisers in the past, have now gone out of business.

    Robberies from yachts do occur here and crew should be careful not to flash money around. Be sure to secure all items on deck and always lift and lock the dinghy and outboard at night."



    Now that is cool, and unfortunate that it's probably too dangerous to go after. :(

  7. 5 hours ago, Corp Of Discovery said:


    The one cache that doesn't have a favorite point had a 'Needs Maintenance' attribute from 1/6/13 to 8/25/17 due to a broken latch on the ammo can. To answer the obvious question as to why I never did maintenance: the next finder, just a couple of weeks after the NM was logged and someone I know from being local to them, didn't mention anything wrong with the container or contents. Out of the 7 times it was found since the NM was logged, 4 of them say everything is good with the contents. That indicated to me that there was really no need to visit the cache. On the other hand, I didn't feel 'right' just clearing the attribute if I didn't actually visit it. Catch 22. Until now. I figure from what I've seen that one cache may be why I didn't make the cut so I went ahead and cleared it out.


    Impressive stats, to say the least. 

    Obviously, you have more experience than I when it comes to hiding caches, and when to do maintenance and when not to. But I think I would've handled this differently. A broken latch isn't going to magically fix itself, and surely just because the next bunch of cachers roll through and say everything is a-okay with the cache, doesn't mean everything is a-okay with the cache. I'm just assuming here, but the reason cachers decided not to say anything about the broken latch is because someone had already logged a NM about it. So why would the next bunch of cachers come through and further pester you with more NM logs about a broken latch? I'm assuming (again) that the cachers think that you're aware of the issue and have made plans to do something about it. 

    Me, personally, I would've made a trip out to confirm or deny the problem with the cache, and if nothing is wrong, so be it. That's why I keep my caches within easy driving distance so I am not burdened with petty NM logs. I'm not saying your caches are far away, I'm just saying I'm not going to overreach myself with too many caches that are too far from home base. You left a NM on your cache for almost four years with no action. If I come across a cache that has problems, and a NM has already been logged, I will log it again. Not all cachers cache like that, though. A lot of cachers cache with their phones and probably don't know how, or care to, log a NM. Some old school cachers cache with their GPS and maybe write field notes on busted up caches, and have intentions to log a NM when they get home and forget. There are so many variables as to why no one besides that one cacher didn't log a NM. To each their own, I say and cache on! 

    That is all.  

    • Upvote 3
  8. 8 hours ago, Sanders_Sooners said:

    I know this thread is a couple years old.  Posting a couple more Little Free Library caches to the list:  


    Recommend Groundspeak adding a Little Free Library attribute to help search for them.

    Why? Aren't Little Free Library caches just traditionals? 

  9. 23 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

    You say it doesn't matter much but evidently there's something to it since you got in on the discussion. Just curious, would it bother you if Groundspeak came up with an attribute? If so, why?

    No, I would not be upset at all if Groundspeak came up with the attribute. If that's what the people want, I'm cool with it. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter to me because I'm going to try to find caches regardless of what attributes they have. 

  10. 21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    Now you're arguing semantics. That won't change. Powertrail is a term absolutely used in the geocaching community in reference to cache series that are not necessarily physically along a walking trail.


    But really where they're placed is irrelevant. The attribute most certainly would be used to identify "trails of caches" that anyone may consider a 'powertrail'. Would you police them to ensure that they are also physically along a walking trail?

    I'm not the one who wants a new attribute so it doesn't matter all that much to me. 

  11. 18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    Technically, not necessarily. Many powertrails are roadside series. Or clumped in a loop in a forest (though still a trail). Often it's not easy to make out which are just a series of closely knit caches for the sake of having a bunch of closely knit caches. "Powertrail" is more a term for that type of collection of hides, moreso than a literal "trail with a series of caches".

    Additionally, a powertrail may swallow other caches that were on a trail, but were not intended to be part of the powertrail. Many COs express frustration when that happens, because it reduces the "quality" of the intended experience to just-another-cache-in-the-series by people who don't realize.

    Yes technically, and necessarily. Why call it a power trail if it isn't on a trail? If it's not on a trail then it's not a power trail. 

  12. 11 hours ago, IslesPunkFan said:

    Am I personally not satisfied? Yes, but that was due to them just giving me prepared responses without answering any of my questions posed to them. I would have loved one. I am expressing frustration from within our community by the way it was dealt with. It rewarded someone that manipulates stats and begs for FPs. Personally, I think another round, this time giving them out due to merit would be nice.

    They are the ones that brought up a flawed algorithm to begin with. Probably would have been best for them to just say who they felt deserved it and that was it.


    I bet if you were one of the 4,000 that received a Virtual award you'd be saying the Algorithm was perfect, and the email Groundspeak sent out was magical and explained everything you needed/wanted to know. 

  13. 3 hours ago, irisisleuk said:

    It doesn't matter if the caches are good or not (by what standard/algorithm). What does matter is that cachers got upset, so upset that they disabled their caches although they put their heart and soul into the hobby. There was no need for making cachers that upset, if just the statement 1% was left out.

    If they would just have said: we picked randomly  (which is an algorithm as well by the way) 4000 cache owners all over the world who we think might make a nice virtual cache, because we want to thank the whole community for putting so much effort in making and maintaining caches. Then nobody would have been upset, disappointed maybe, but not upset thinking they are not appreciated by Groundspeak although the known statistics show they are cache owners with caches which are appreciated by other cachers.

    I seriously doubt Groundspeak purposely tried to upset people regarding the new Virtual Caches thing. I'm sure when this thing was to be rolled out, most already had some foresight that people were going to be mad that they didn't get a reward. It is what it is. 

    Complaining to HQ about it, disabling and archiving your own caches is childish. 

    • Upvote 3
  14. 6 hours ago, niraD said:

    What about the non-power trail caches in the area?

    And frankly, by the time you see them on the map, it's too late.

    Obviously power trails are on a trail. If you have to go beyond the trail to get other caches then those are not on the power trail. At the end of the day who cares. The point is to find caches. 

    I pre-plan my routes most of the time. So when I see a long string of caches I already know it's a PT. 

  15. 8 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

    BTW, I in no way mean to imply you didn't do it, RF.  I know you are a cacher of integrity.  I hope nobody took my comment that way.

    Nah. I actually appreciate the stat because eventually I'll be heading to the ET highway to hit the PTs there. 

  • Create New...