BCandMsKitty
-
Posts
1459 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BCandMsKitty
-
-
Anyone else still use their old handheld GPS?
Absolutely.
I only use the smartphone to navigate around the roads to caches, and to get more comments for caches we might be having trouble finding. Many times you can read between the lines in past logs to hep find a cache. (that is as long as everyone doesn't just log TFTC!)
When we get to actually look for a cache, the phone stays in a pocket where it belongs.
-
-
Imagine my surprise when I got a log on my new cache
GC73JG1: RIP Spin N' Slide
saying they were happy to get a souvenir from Nunavut Canada.
That's only some 5800 miles from where it actually is.
The coords are right, and the cache page says the cache is 12.3 miles from my home location!
Makes me want to rush out and log a find on my own cache to get the souvenir
I sent a note to the reviewer so it will probably get corrected soon, but this is a strange one.
-
WOW
What a long rant about how you feel you should get something for nothing!
-
.png)
1
-
-
This might not be a record for some, but it sure is for me!
Submitted cache @ 7:38
Cache published @ 7:44
I guess I won't complain over a 6 minute wait!
We sure have some great reviewers in this neck of the woods. (Southwestern Ontario, Canada)
-
It doesn't make much sense to me to adopt a cache which one hasn't found yet (how is one able to maintain it when one doesn't know the exact hide?), but in the reality, some cachers do adopt a cache before finding it for various reasons, and I think it's going to be a legitimate find as the adopter doesn't really know the hide while she or he is the owner of the listing. Did Groundspeak ever give it a thought on this?
Under the new logging policy, adopters will not be able to claim a smiley once the cache is transferred to them, They have to find the cache before the cache is transferred so they could claim a smiley. I think a warning message of some sort may help avoiding this situation. e.g., showing a message like "{adopter} hasn't found the cache yet. Are you sure to transfer the cache to {adopter}? Once the cache is transferred, {adopter} will not be able to claim a find."
So what new logging policy is that?
Is it something in the smartphone apps?
Or is it just something connected to adopted caches?
I just went to one of my caches and as a test logged a find o9n it. It went through as a normal find. (I deleted the log immediately)
So .. what's stopping you, under your adopting scenario, from just logging the find?
EDIT
Never mind ... I just went to the announcements threads and saw the changes.
-
Sorry for the flare up this has caused. I did not think it was the greatest idea, but I didn't realize it was in violation of rules. 95% of the caches I have personally discovered are a "half taped leaky pill bottle". This cache was not leaky and was hid deep under a tree root. As far as submission I have done nothing. I wanted to hear what the community had to say before I posted it. I am sorry again for the ignorance on my part. I will see if I can interest them in doing a good proper cache. I will try and find someone in the area who would be willing to remove the cache and properly dispose of it.
Don't beat yourself up too badly. This how we learn a lot of the finer points of geocaching.... By doing and sometimes making mistakes. Some here have said read the guidelines again, and have even put links to some of the pertinent areas. While I agree with all of that, there is a ton of stuff in those guidelines, and I know that I for one wasn't able to absorb all of it at once ... especially when I was new at the game.
Try your best and realize that you won't get it right all the time.
It's usually better if you can ask before you do, but in this case, it didn't work out that way. It's not the end of the world, although some of the people replying here seem to take it that way.
They need to try to think back to when they were first starting to hide. I'm sure none of us were as perfect with the guidelines as some seem to represent themselves as always being.
Take the advice given here and learn from it and keep on hiding quality caches.
-
The location is a good one, this will be my third cache. If you have seen my work I usually put a lot of thought into cache design. However not having an official cache I figured I would put some of the junk littering the park into good use. There is nothing different from it and any other cache other than I will not be able to maintenance it. I am not understanding the issue?
The issue is that temporary caches are not allowed except under some very special circumstances, and ...
One of the requirements for placing a cache is that you are able to maintain it.
If the reviewer knows that you don't live nearby, they will require you to provide a maintenance plan (such as another cacher living nearby) and even then it's sometimes hard to get a remote cache approved. And rightfully so.
What happens if you do submit it and it gets declined for any number of reasons ... (another cache too close, etc.). Will you go back and get this container, or will it just stay there with other trash in the park?
-
Nice cache. I had one similar and it lasted several years and got a lot of nice comments.
What would have made yours even better would have been to use some of the weathered wood from that pile by the trees to make it harder to spot.
Well done
-
Is it allowed in the rules that if you go to a Geocache location and are not having any luck finding it, can you take photos/video of the area for later review at home? These photos/videos would not be shared online or with others.
Of course you can take photos for your own use ...anytime you want!
Who in the world would try to tell you you can't ... or even know that you did?
Unless the area is some kind of government restricted area, and there wouldn't be a geocache there anyway!
-
Be nice to the good owners and write a thoughtful log about the experience of visiting their cache.
I get the feeling that you would write thoughtful logs.
Many beginners copycat what they see and write acronym-only logs, or cut n paste the same log to all the caches they searched that day.
+1
and log your DNFs
-
In my personal opinion as a reviewer and as a geocacher, all "action" logs should be undeleteable. (Enable, Disable, Needs Maintenance, Owner Maintenance, Needs Archived, and Update Coordinates log types.)
Absolutely!
Make it happen
-
I think what the problem is is not the length of time after one NM, but more about all those caches out there with multiple 'this cache is in need of attention' in the found logs, often multiple NM logs, and nothing gets done until eventually (months, sometimes years) the reviewer archives it.
If no one from the community posts an NA and, instead, the community waits for the reviewer to archive the cache unilaterally, then that tells me the community is fine with the cache being on the books for all that time. I have a hard time seeing that as a problem.
Does this mean the community is OK with the cache on the books, or could that just be another example of people being reluctant to post NM and NA? I see that as being the biggest problem with caches in need of attention "hanging around".
people need to get over thinking NA will mean the cache is automatically archived.
Many times it is the wake-up call some COs need. If the CO still doesn't respond then the cache will be gone, as it should be, under the present system.
I don't think we need some arbitrary time frame for the reviewers to have to worry about, but rather cachers just use the NM and NA properly.
-
I have a field puzzle multi cache that needs one AA battery to power an old CD player from a computer. You have to select the correct 2 terminals out of many possible ones to open the player tray that has the final coords on it.
I say on the cache page that a battery is needed, and indeed, the name "Batteries NOT Included" is a hint as well. I've yet to have any complaints that they haven't been warned.
If you can't get solar to work well enough, I'd suggest trying telling people in the cache page that they need a battery (or 2) to make the cache work. It works fine for me.
-
Around here (SW OH) the reviewers give a 30 day notice for most NM logs which are being unattended. Then they simply archive the hide.
NMs?
Or do you mean NAs?
In Ontario it's NAs. Once the cache gets an NA, the reviewer responds with a 30 day disable, then there's a 99% chance that that cache will end up archived by the reviewer.
Problem is, I think I'm the only one who posts NAs.
There are at least 2 of us!
Not many, but if warranted, I have been known to pull the trigger.I just wish people would log NMs, even. Time and again I've seen logs that would warrant NM but not posted as such. If people would get over the idea that they're going to offend the CO if they post either log, the caching world would be a better place.
-
Signed.
There's probably still lots of time for it to be implemented.
-
I've had a "LED Lenser P7" for several years and really like it.
They're not cheap, but I got mine on a deal which was a good price at the time and I would certainly buy again if I was in the market for another torch.
Yep.
This is a great flashlight.
And I just saw it Here on sale
-
The event clause I can understand.
The D/T clause leaves me a bit baffled to be honest, as does the idea that we need worry about upsetting grid fillers by making a change for good reason.
Maybe it's the opposite way around and the idea is to prevent people from having a cache published and then wildly altering the D/T in order to make their cache attractive to grid fillers and, in doing so, leave a cache with a D/T that doesn't reflect the facts.
I do wish that when such changes are made to the guidelines a little explanation of WHY was appended such that we could at least understand the reasoning behind them
Agreed, and I'll continue to make whatever D/T changes I might have to make (although it happens very rarely)without bothering a reviewer unless that area gets locked after publication ... If that were to happen might really impact caches being hidden.
So much unneeded control simply makes it less attractive to hide any caches at all!
Did you miss the bit in post #38 above where Keystone said this wasn't the intended policy and the wording is being adjusted?
Yup .... thought I read them all, but I missed that page
-
I have personally witnessed caches being trashed so I'm starting to see the point behind it. I have seen however film canisters made into PMO so I'm not sure I fully agree yet but I am starting to see why a lot do it. This is why I asked, because now I know. Thanks guys
It's not always just because the cache took a lot of effort to do. Even film canisters are a pain to maintain if they are constantly getting taken because of perceived people with apps not knowing enough about the game to even leave the container for the next searcher.
-
It used to be people had to make an investment of time, money, and research to find out about geocaching, and start. You had to spend a couple hundred dollars or more to buy a handheld GPS. If you had the equipment and the knowledge, you were likely already somewhat committed to the game.
Flash forward a dozen years or so, and now every 10 year old with a smart phone and no money can easily start. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. If I have a special cache, or difficult to maintain cache, I don't want people that have not invested the time researching the game going out and destroying my cache either accidentally or intentionally.
Every so often we'll have a cache bandit go through the area, and we believe it's usually a young kid based on the notes they leave when they destroy a cache. Making it premium makes it harder for them to find it with the free app, as kids aren't going to invest $30 to go destroy boxes in the woods.
I absolutely agree!
I have some caches that took a lot of work to make, and I select whether or not I make them PMO sometimes based on how difficult they are to get to. Easier, PMO. Farther away from urban areas, I'll usually leave them for everyone.
-
The event clause I can understand.
The D/T clause leaves me a bit baffled to be honest, as does the idea that we need worry about upsetting grid fillers by making a change for good reason.
Maybe it's the opposite way around and the idea is to prevent people from having a cache published and then wildly altering the D/T in order to make their cache attractive to grid fillers and, in doing so, leave a cache with a D/T that doesn't reflect the facts.
I do wish that when such changes are made to the guidelines a little explanation of WHY was appended such that we could at least understand the reasoning behind them
Agreed, and I'll continue to make whatever D/T changes I might have to make (although it happens very rarely)without bothering a reviewer unless that area gets locked after publication ... If that were to happen might really impact caches being hidden.
So much unneeded control simply makes it less attractive to hide any caches at all!
-
There was a post about this several months ago - thumbs down was the consensus.
What did you expect on this forum?
I think the idea about the hidden books is great. People who like to read can go find books without knowing which book they are going to find. BTW, around here there are a few "real public" libraries, as in a box fixed to a tree, where people can leave/retrieve book as they please. So hiding them and announcing the hide on a website looks like fun.
There's a game? called BookCrossing That's been around for quite a while. I put out several but have never gotten notified that anyone has seen the notification in the flyleaf, or if they haven they've never responded online. It's kinda like travel bugs that way.
-
This was prompted by a recent automated email from Groundspeak suggesting one of my caches might need maintenance after a DNF had been logged on it (which was redeemed a week later when the DNF'er found it). I started wondering how many of my own DNFs were due to a missing cache (as indicated by either a subsequent OM log replacing it or its ultimate archival) compared to how many where I was simply outwitted by the hide or the camo. These are the results from my 74 DNFs (not counting multiple DNFs on the same cache):
Still there: 49
Misplaced or missing: 21
Uncertain: 2
So in two thirds of my DNFs, the cache was still there and no owner maintenance has been required. Does this mean:
- I'm overzealous in logging DNF when perhaps WN might have been more prudent (I've been logging DNF when I've looked for the cache but couldn't sign the log FOR ANY REASON),
- I'm exceptionally poor at finding well-hidden caches, or
- DNF really is a poor indicator that a cache needs maintenance.
Thoughts anyone?
Really?
I'd ignore a message like that.
A DNF just means someone didn't find it. Nothing more.
If it's more than there are other log forms to use, like NM or NA.
- I'm overzealous in logging DNF when perhaps WN might have been more prudent (I've been logging DNF when I've looked for the cache but couldn't sign the log FOR ANY REASON),
-
My initials are JG. 'Grouchy' is not based on my personality, but rather is somewhat close to my real last name. It just sounded catchy to say "J Grouchy"...but I've sort of regretted using it since people tend to pre-judge me based on my nickname.
That's OK ... just give them some time .....
...... just kidding.
.png)
......
What Irks you most?
in General geocaching topics
Posted · Edited by BC & MsKitty
Real easy fix .... NA!