SeattleWayne
-
Posts
479 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SeattleWayne
-
-
People are going to do what they do. They still have to go through the publishing process if they use Geocaching.com to place their cache. Hopefully, seasoned cachers will come across their cache and call out any of the things they're doing wrong.
Assuming just because they have followers of a young age won't be following any of the rules is a little extreme, in my opinion.
-
According to this website, ( http://www.zinnware.com/HighAdv/Geocaching/most_caches_found.php) has the most finds with 147,128. He really has 173,233. So he's the true winner.
-
Without LPC skirts where would the geocaching game be today?
-
1 hour ago, Cachez said:
Oh yes, and in this case I had looked at the logs. Although there were a couple of DNFs here and there, I didn't see any reason to suspect that quite so many of them had disappeared. Though on some trails in rural areas, caches can go for quite a while between finds.
I did post NMs on all the ones where there was a problem which I assume was what alerted the CO to the issue. Ah well, onwards and upwards!
Good work.
-
8 hours ago, bd's said:
Is it just me or does this Mary Hyde thing seem pretty ridiculous? I haven't figured out why anyone would need a crew to meet the challenges, and the weekly challenges seem pretty random. Is there any purpose behind the challenge requirements? Does anybody have any insight into what this whole thing was about?
They've been promoting certain types of caches, and opening them up to non-premium members as well as opening up all terrain levels. Getting a "crew" together is promoting caching with your friends.
It's another summer promotion put on by Groundspeak. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.
-
1 hour ago, hzoi said:
Some of us have been at war for 16 years now. Doesn't look like it's dampened geocaching for most of the rest of the crowd.
I didn't know about Geocaching when I did my tour. I wish I had known. There are some cool caches in Iraq.
-
17 hours ago, Cachez said:
What has irked me this weekend is doing a six mile trail of 15 caches and finding five of them were either missing or in need of attention. I got to a point where I could do the last two and risk them being DNFs too or give up. I gave up. Posted all my logs and very shortly after, the CO disabled the lot saying they would be reworked. I'm possibly being slightly unreasonable about this but I was irked that they appeared to have let maintenance slide, but been jogged into action by my logs. It feels like I wasted the better part of a day looking for a bunch of caches which weren't there.
I realise that part of my irkedness is related to my own expectations - I have had a difficult time at work recently and was looking forward to a satisfying and isolated caching walk to clear my mind a bit.
If I have a pre-planned route I'm taking to find caches, I recommend looking at activity logs on them to ensure they've recently been found. Of course, caches can always come up missing at a moments notice but at least you have an idea that they're there and find-able. Sorry you had to go through that. I think the vast majority of us have been there but I'm happy to see someone posting some NM and DNFs to get the CO out to check on their caches.
-
6 hours ago, niraD said:
That sounds like the way I play pool at work. I scatter the balls around the table, then alternate between sinking solids and sinking stripes. Eventually, I sink all of one or the other, and then I sink the eight-ball. Yes, pool is a competitive game, but I don't play it in a competitive way.
And I don't geocache in a competitive way either.
If you weren't playing by yourself it would be a competition.
-
3 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:
Surely a competition requires at least two competitors, all of whom realise that there is a competition and who have agreed to take part in the competition.
Geocaching, in general, doesn't meet these criteria.
If someone decides to try and get more caches than I do this coming weekend, it isn't a competition unless I realise what they are doing and unless I agree to take part. Somebody's find count (or DNF count or find rate or average D/T rating) may be higher than someone else's. They may be proud of their achievements, but it isn't a competition unless the other guy is competing.
Why would someone secretly try to snag more caches then you this weekend without mentioning their intentions?
-
4 minutes ago, sholomar said:
About the only thing that really bothers me is if someone would leave something like a condom in a cache, which has made me consider making all of my caches premium member only.
Just a FYI: making your caches premium member only doesn't really stop this kind of behavior.
-
9 hours ago, geodarts said:
Or it has to do with Groundspeak. As Miss Jenn made clear in 2009, armchair logging is not part of this game. Either the owner will tire of deleting logs or Groundspeak will step in. And since people cannot adopt virtuals to transfer ownership to someone more willing to take on responsibility, armchair logging will lead to archival in any event.
I don't think Groundspeak is to blame for bogus Found It! logs. The COs are supposed to audit their logs, and delete any bogus Found it! logs. This is a case of CO's not maintaining their caches.
Some of these Virtual Caches literally have no logging requirements other than "If you want to post a picture of you and your GPS at GZ..." (some of them don't even have that) other than that it's basically on the cachers to exhibit their integrity and actually visit the location. So it opens the doors for cheating, and you really can't put that on Groundspeak's shoulders because how is anyone able to prove that the cacher really didn't visit the location?
Obviously "armchair" logging isn't part of the game and if you want Groundspeak to get involved then try to get them involved. But just because you think someone is logging fake finds, and you have no proof, what do you expect Groundspeak to do about it?
Instead, COs get frustrated with having to maintain a cache and just archive it. That works too, I guess.
-
Yes, it's a fun game. I recommend getting a small crew together to find them. It's a lot more fun with friends.
-
.png)
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, on4bam said:
Those were (really) old virtuals, some not easy to solve for a non-local. If the CO feels there's an unreasonable amount of work to clean up the listing I can't blame them for archiving. I blame the armchair loggers. As virtuals are getting rare it was a shame seeing them go. I did visit the locations though but since the listings were also locked I couldn't log them. So mising out on one of 3 million is not a big deal, missing out on a few "special ones" left (and after spending hours solving them) is a bigger deal especially when they are not allowed to be replaced.
BTW, for one of the virtuals I was able to log I got an e-mail from another cacher who asked me for the answers "as he would never visit the location himself". Ethics you say?
You know, I can totally see where you're coming from in this aspect so I apologize for coming off insensitive. I, too am trying to log finds on as many Virtual Caches as I can before they all start going away. So far I've found nine in Washington State, and I still have a handful left to go before I move on to Oregon, etc.
Regarding ethics, and Virtual Caches, here's a question for you: If you come across a Virtual Cache and see that the VCO has not logged in for a few years, and hasn't actively found a cache in several years as well, but on the cache page the VCO requires you to send an email with answers to be able to log the VC, would you call out the VCO inactivity in a NM log or would you just log your find, send email and move on?
Because we all know what happens when we start a NM...eventually the cache gets archived.
-
2 hours ago, Joshism said:
Time-based challenges were some of the most problematic in encouraging not only rushed behavior, but also outright faking of logs (intentionally logging on the wrong date, if not outright bogus finds).
You're joking, right?
-
5 hours ago, on4bam said:
Yes they do. When people armchair log caches and the CO's get fed up with this and archives their caches that impacts others. (I've written it before, preparing for a holiday down under I solved several virtuals months in advance only to find them archived a few weeks before we would have been able to log them. The reason: armchair loggers)
Except there are 3 million caches world wide. so if you miss out on some its not the end of the world.
Why would a CO get mad and archive his/her cache over bogus finds? It's the CO's job to audit their Found It! log and delete the logs that are fake.
-
3 hours ago, AddisonPascal said:
Yes, I am saying I should have found one before I hid one, but I did anyway.
So, what's the exact number of finds one should have before they hide one? Less than ten but more than one? So like, five?
-
On 3/4/2015 at 4:36 PM, steelerdrew79 said:
I know this is a old topic and beat into the ground a lot then resurrected and beat down again. you can do some research with one push of a button to see how long the person has been playing before you go to find their geocache. I myself only found nanos Altoids tins and LPCs for the first month. Then I made my first hide. A altoids tin on a pub. I was so proud of it. That was only 1 and a half years ago. It's still active and I get logs every few days. Then I stumbled on to a cacher named mr.and mrs. Smiths. That was the end of my altoids pub lpc Nano hides or finds. the people I started with are into 400 500 finds now and are content with the small log only hides and that's great. I have not passed the 200 mark because of the caches I choose. Now back to the mr.and mrS. Smiths they in my opinion where some of the best urban camo developers in there time. they specialized in in your face out in the open geocaches. I then knew what geocaching was all about.and have put out some quality hides one that has favorites from some big name cachers In my area. one popular one was put out in my first month and a half of playing. So my point is this. Be more selective of the caches you seek and u won't have to worry about bad hides. if u want to hide a cache before u ever find a single one more power to u I'll FTF it anywaY. Or I'll pass Cuz I can see ur profile.
People wanna rip on LPC but you know what? When those suckers are at the front by the doors? That cache ain't no joke, and I bet the lot of you just log a Found It! without even bothering to lift the skirt up.
-
6 hours ago, AddisonPascal said:
I know this thread is old but I have to say that I think new cachers should be able to hide before they find ten, actually I hid one before I found one! (Not recommended but it was a good one up a mountain)
You think it's recommended that it's okay for cachers to be able to hide a cache before their first ten but not a recommended idea for someone to hide a cache before they even find one?
-
Large flower pot outside somewhere with an arrangement of fake flowers/plants. The cache is under the flower arrangement inside the pot. Put it right near the entrance.
Best I could come up with.
-
1
-
-
Yeah, really. The nation is at war and you're worried about geocaching?
I guess if it doesn't affect you...
-
Stealing, lying and cheating is nothing new. This isn't a "generation" problem. This is a "human being" problem. Humans have always acted in this manner it's just there is more ways to capture the incident and the overgrowth of the human population has led to more of it.
People are always going to try to "cheat the system" and not have any moral high ground when it comes to it. The best approach is to not worry about them so much, and enjoy the game in front of you. If shady things happen on your watch of course, call it out but in the long run, there's no real need to stress about it let along make a thread on Geocaching.com about it.
-
- "You logged a ‘Webcam photo taken”. This log type did not count for the Friend League until August 3, 2017. If you logged a Webcam cache before that date, please delete and relog it to earn coins on the Friend League."
-
11 hours ago, jellis said:
Not sure if I said this. I have a lot of pet peeves.
Lately on caches over 40ft from posted coords, sometimes over 100ft. Why cachers don't look at the map to see if it is correct or have someone ( a friend) beta test it with a gps and smartphone. I know because I had cachers after me when I first started. I use a Garmin now and triple check and check a map before releasing it. .
Laziness.
-
13 hours ago, irisisleuk said:
Yeah, really love receiving those "Another find to fulfill the xxx-challenge of x caches within one day/week, thanks to all cache owners"- logs!
What's the difference between that and "TFTC!"?
.png)
Can we talk about this representation of misinformation?
in General geocaching topics
Posted · Edited by SeattleWayne
I never said it's right. I'm saying that you can't stop people from doing what they do.
There are plenty of seasoned geocachers that fail to follow simple guidelines as well.
Contact Groundspeak if you think it's doing damage to the game. It's not that I don't think it's a big issue, it's just that Geocaching has been around for almost 20 years, and I'm sure there were concerned cachers like yourself when the iPhones came out, and when Twitter came out and Facebook, and all these social media outlets that gave major exposure to the hobby. It pulled in an influx of people who saw a Youtube video or a Twitter tweet that maybe was depicting the game in the wrong light...but the game has survived. I'm sure whatever happens with these guys and there geocaching fort, in the end, everything will be alright.
If someone wants to build a geocaching fort, and hide a geocache in it, more power to them. It's a lot better than a rock wall cache.