Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rapotek

  1. I try to follow similar ethic for some time, but with some subtle differences. I log a geocache as found if: there is my signature/stamp in the physical logbook (no matter if I wrote it personally or someone else done that) AND I either personally took the container from its hiding place (or opened it there to get the logbook) or I put it back. This way if I am with a group when someone f. ex. climbs the tree, brings the container/logbook down for everyone to write their signatures or put all the signatures in the logbook up the tree and then put the container/logbook back, I do not claim this as a find. That is a general ethic I try to follow, but there is a variety of geocaches placed so I am open to adjust it against a particular geocache and circumstances if there is no other way to apply it strictly. Anyway I hope I cured myself from a newbie attitude that I have to find every geocache.
  2. I was not referring to the OP but to later opinions stating that the app by showing only a limited subset of caches available for a basic member discourages users who are not willing to "go outside the app" to the website. As for the trying without "officially sign up" - I do not know if the website (geocaching.com) allows it, did not try it. If the app allows it - in my opinion it should not. Why? Because, as someone above pointed out, there is something what makes a difference between the app and another mobile products made for entertainment: what you get in the end is not a kind of virtual prize introduced by the app creators but a real world geocache made (and hopefully maintained) by another user. There should be a kind of personal responsibility then, even a hard to verify one.
  3. I think there is one simple move which probably would turn the app a little bit from a "mobile game" like direction to a tool helpful for finding geocaches outdoor: remove the "register" functionality and leave only "log in". Instead redirect "register" to the website. In result each new user of the app would have to visit the website at least once and, maybe, find out there that geocaches are not limited to DT 2/2 and below only. But I doubt the app would be changed that way, because that could result in too many "use the easiest way only" potential users being discouraged from the start.
  4. It may be hard in cache-saturated areas where most of decent hiding spots for non-micro sized geocaches are already occupied.
  5. I'm trying to log a DNF every time I feel it will be justified, e.g. when I spent enough time searching for a cache and had a chance to sign a logbook in case of finding it or I will probably not be in GZ soon, but I do not consider it a matter of pride or shame, only an information describing my activities, which may be helpful for another geocachers. When I see a container but I cannot reach it, I either do not write anything (e.g. when there is a chance of being back and reach it another time) or there is a WN from me. The second case is most probably followed by adding a cache to "Ignored" list. Why a WN? Because I learned that people more often see a DNF entry than read its content and when I'm certain the container is there, a DNF would more probably cause unnecessary confusion than provide a helpful information. When there is an obstacle which I am unable to overcome while I am heading to GZ, I try to read the listing (and attributes) carefully once more to find out if it is covered by it. If so, I do not write anything about it because it was my own risk to try to find a cache so difficult and my complaints won't change anything. If not, I try to clarify this with a CO or, ultimately, write a NM. That's a "theory" or a general course of action, but when it comes down to it all depends on a particular cache and circumstances.
  6. Sadly, not only there and not only German tourists... I try to write a few words more than simple TFTC for each cache I find. It may be about the container and my searching for it, about the location, about the journey etc. IMO it is something I owe a CO for placing (and hopefully maintaining) a cache. But I don't understand a log that have a kind of gibberish as a content only to make it longer.
  7. It is good to see that the approach I mentioned is not a common and official one now
  8. Just a reminder: there were mentions in another threads some time ago about reviewers treating NM as not a legitimate one if you did not found the cache.
  9. Shouldn't it be in the 'What Irks you most' thread? As far as I know there is nothing written in guidelines what "constitutes" a valid DNF log ("look for a cache" is a broad term IMO), so even "armchair" kind of DNF - "I read the listing but I DNF it because I DNS at all" - could be treated as a legitimate one while being far from the "spirit" of this type of log . There is one thing to remember, though: a DNF is not for you only (look here), you have a 'Personal Cache Note' for it. While a DNF truly can be a part of your search history, it is worth to consider if the message it carries will be helpful for another geocachers or a CO. If not, maybe a 'Write Note' would be more relevant, or no log at all. But it all depends on the particular cache and the cause of log entry, I think.
  10. Thanks a lot. I am quite intrigued by the shapes above D4. The higher finds per DNF ratio suggests that only a small number of most experienced geocachers attempt to find these caches, but the decreasing days between finds number suggests otherwise. Looks like either the real DNFs on the highest difficulty caches are more frequently not logged or the difficulty is mostly overrated there.
  11. I wonder what this chart would look for traditional caches only, when there is no puzzle to solve, only a container to find.
  12. There is a fresh puzzle nearby, rated D1. Though I tried, still I am not able to solve it (and a list of puzzles solved by myself is only slightly shorter than my total finds, so I think I am not completely ignorant). The owner admits the cache difficulty is partly a joke and he wanted to point out that a solution does not need to be hidden somewhere deep in the internet or to require advanced knowledge. Although I myself had feedback about one of my puzzles that it was underrated in difficulty, I cannot agree with him. I suppose that even if the solution took me 9 minutes like it was in case of the first finder, I would still rate it above 1 regardless of the difficulty of finding the container itself.
  13. I saw many "clip on lid" plastic boxes, over 100 ml volume each, where logbook inside was put into a small plastic bag. Should they be listed as micros?
  14. I agree with @GerandKat, there are regional differences. In fact if I had listed your example as "other", I would probably get negative feedback here. As @sernikk wrote, it is the size of a container what matters here, not the size of the whole "item" to search, and I was surprised when I read in the forum about a different approach some time ago.
  15. Sometimes this can prevent you from placing a cache in more lonely areas, where more lonely often means more remote. While in case of some multi-caches and some puzzle caches without a checker included it could be true, currently checkers give the possibility to "battleship" the final locations already. In area more "crowded" with multi-caches and mysteries, the question "Is this location free?" answered with simple "Yes" or "No" without any further details is less informative in the subject of "brute-forcing" puzzle solution than the blind shot with a solution checker. Especially if it is limited with "no more than x checks in y minutes" as it is in case of solution checkers.
  16. W c:geo: wejdź w skrytkę, następnie przejdź do zakładki z punktami nawigacji (w lewo od 'Szczegóły'), wybierz 'Dodaj punkt nawigacji', w polu 'N/S (...)' lub 'E/W (...)' wybierz 'Współrzędne skrzynki', następnie pod tymi polami wpisz 'Kierunek w stopniach' i 'Odległość'. Zaakceptuj, możesz również np. ustawić jako współrzędne skrzynki w c:geo.
  17. NA to ostateczność. Natomiast wolałbym mieć NM za dużo niż za mało, drugi wariant generuje potencjalnie więcej kłopotów.
  18. I think that depends on the caches you own and where they are placed. By the way: it's not the source of my information, but an example - Geocaching Official Blog:
  19. From Help Center, Ownership after publication: When I was starting geocaching, I was told (or read somewhere, I don't remember now), that once a month is a reasonable period. Do you suggest that HQ recommends us OCD behaviors? I do not periodic checks by now, but I feel that I should to be a responsible cache owner and to AVOID problems being reported rather than having to respond to them.
  20. When my first caches have been published I checked them once a week or two on regular basis for almost a year (I had weekend walks with a stroller). But logged an OM only when I fixed something, a camo for example, while simple "checked and everything was alright" visits were a silent ones.
  21. Not in my language. Maybe a translation is precise but the full meaning with its subtleties differs. I am not fed up with a CO, I try to look at the cache only, not at its owner. And even in case of a bad hint there have to be other disappointing things as well in the whole cache to merit low marks from me. As I recall, so far I met with only one hint which I did not understand but in that case I assumed it's me who should know more. The hints far from being helpful are informing me f.ex. that this big thing visible over 50 meters from GZ is not what I am looking for. But I suppose you all have seen worse than this.
  22. Why? @arisoft wrote an opposite opinion before, or I did not understand the meaning: I rely on hints a lot, because I am not good at searching in the field and f.ex. looking for a micro in a deep forest with jumping GPS I am completely lost without any hint. But I know that a lot of geocachers finds searching without any hint more challenging and exciting, therefore I agree that all information necessary to find a cache should be given in an unencrypted listing part and a hint, if not empty, should contain additional information only, making the find easier but not vital to it. By the way, another geocaching service where I am having fun sometimes has it explicitly written in its guidelines. On the other hand when I see a hint being far from a "helpful" meaning, I feel disappointed and even quite disgusted.
  23. I agree, though I am not interested in challenges in general (maybe one or two some day). Maybe the challenge requirements change was forced from outside. But anyway, consider this: you placed a cache under the tree, it had a lot of finds but it was missing so frequently that you decided to place it high on the tree and a geocacher has to climb to put her/his signature in the logbook. Now, do you delete all previous "Found It " logs because they did not climb the tree? I don't think so.
  24. I was going to mention it earlier when you wrote about not being selfish but a helpful one with your throwdown. For me placing a new container when I did not found the original/existing one does not count as "Found it", because in fact i did not found it. Therefore placing a new container and logging it as a "found" means a "+1 to stats at all costs" for me. But I have a kind of personal code which is considered somewhat "weird" by some geocachers.
  25. To wynika z polityki GS, która zakłada, że użytkownik "zwykły" jest użytkownikiem początkującym, stąd nie powinny go interesować skrytki bardziej zaawansowane. Zdaje się, że w aplikacjach korzystających z API użytkownicy Basic (czyli zwykli, którzy nie płacą) mogą zobaczyć tylko skrytki o poziomie trudności i terenu maks. 1.5 i tylko typy tradycyjne lub spotkaniowe. W dodatku obowiązuje chyba limit zalogowanych znalezień do 3 skrytek dziennie, jednak tego już nie jestem pewien jak to dokładnie działa. Generalnie uważam, że jest to polityka niefajna, biorąc pod uwagę, że na stronach www użytkownik zwykły może zobaczyć dużo więcej, ale jej cel jest, niestety, zrozumiały. Tutaj jest coś na ten temat (po angielsku).
  • Create New...