Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by woodsters

  1. Any virtual can be turned into a lame offset cache, or part of a lame multi cache, or yet another micro.

    Or the person could put some time and thought into it, and actually enhance the cache experience.

    To one an offset could be lame. To you, one should put an "X" amount of time into it. Both being subjective. Neither is better than the other.


    I remember people also saying that caches, espcecially unmaintained ones, shouldn't be removed or archived if they are still there and functioning. it's all subjective. Because someone else may want to place a cache there that will maintain it and make it a better cache than what is already there.


    What about a virtual and a physical one in the same place! As we've discussed over and over before about virts being completely seperate from actual physical containers with logs. Virts can be something else and not counted into the totals, or at least into a different total. Yes, like the benchmarks....


    I think that will be the only way to bring the twon on different sides of the fence on this subject, in agreement.


    Or better yet, require that every cache be physical. No ifs, ands or buts. Allow each current virtual owner a set amount of time to turn their virt in a physical cache. If they don't, then they get archived and open up the doors for others to make it happen, if it can be done. Then hey, if it can't, then make it an offset cache. Include a list of coordinates in the cache for the person to go and virtually check out. Make it a requirement of the offset cache with the proof and the owner can approve the "finds" or not. Even for those on NPS lands.

  2. Well, most people know my thoughts on this subject, assumely. To each their own. Some may say wow. Others may not. Just like any other cache. Physical or not. Placing a log of some sort there, would not add any more "wow" to it. Having a log is an easy way out, in my opinion. How many times do people go directly to the cache, sign the log and move on. Just like in other recent threads about people not trading, many people are going to go directly go to the log, sign and move on to the next 1/1 cache for another number. The owner at least attempted to make it where that you were there, read what the sculpture was about and show proof with photo. No different than any webcam caches placed all around. By supplying proof of your presence to the owner, then it's the same thign as what a physcial container and log would do, even the suggested micro. Some may not even sign the log, which is ok to some owners. Some owners may say at least describe to me what was there or nearby, to prove that they were there which is the same thing as a virtual. Once again, to each their own. some may like it, some may not. First come, first serve, right?

  3. Someone mentioned about putting a cache in their name. That sounds like a great idea. Stockpile it with a bunch of stuff for caching and give them the coordinates in a card as someone mentioned. Then all they gotta do is submit the cache and it will be a cache for the site as well. Make it a Christmas themed one.

  4. Sure, you could just easily say TNLNSL, but which log would you rather see?

    TNLNSL ..... and even if it is a *crappy micro* the log would not hold all what you wrote! If you want to know their experience, email them and ask them. Or read their online log which generally tends to be a litle more in depth.

  5. Sometimes we will leave something and sometimes we won't. Sometimes we will write something about the area or falling into the creek or something, but other times we won't. Whether a person does a TNLNSL all the time really shouldn't matter and I don't see how they are "robbing" other cachers. It would be the same as if they found it'b but didn't sign the log at all. Be happy that at least they are recording their finds. Some people won't sign the logbook, but will log a find online. That pisses of some cache owners and they will delete the find. I would much rather someone not take something if they aren't going to leave something. Then you have those who will leave subjective items, subjective to at least the guidelines. But there could be many reasons why people don't trade items. And each have their own reasons. The last cache I did, I signed the log simply "Found" and my name and date. Reason: because I was on my way to work and running late. I didn't leave anything either, because the container was jam packed full of stuff and what I had would not fit. And for it to fit, I would of nearly had to empty the container out. So there it was best to just note the find and make better log online. There are far more things to grieve about than someone not trading at all.

  6. I imagine it depends on the size of the cache you want to hide. My Hide of the Heron cache that I originally placed, is a micro and has been well received. It's in the woods, but not "in a tree"o to speak...


    I will say it depends on where you live. Because in New England, they have a lot of stone walls and that is a favorite hiding place to many. Here in North Carolina, i haven't seen too many stone walls, or at least not the magnitude of NE.


    Its not obvious to me. I'm not religious at all, yet I'm not offended by this material. I've found it in my caches and left it. I figure someone else may be interested.


    Some people are way to eager to be offended these days, but its your cache and if you are offended by this material by all means remove it.


    If you find it in somone else's cache, then just don't look at it and your mind won't be poisioned by it.

    I agree!

  8. I don't think people offering suggestions or discussing of how things might could be better could be referred as "trying to take over the site". Trust me, I am aprreciative of the site. I want it to prosper and I want the sport to prosper as well. But in many cases it is spinning it's wheels. Some of the things that they have in place are great, but many don't make sense because they contradict themselves somewhere else. Things are denied because of some vague guidelines. At least they are vague until a self imposed enforcement by some TPTB. The guidelines go into about maintainable distances and about if you cache regularly in such distances, but the fact is that "regularly" is not defined and can many something different between 2 people. Then you have someone who has no finds that can place a cache anywhere and there's no history of where they cache or how far away they cache. Who knows if it's near them? These types of things contradict themselves and spins the wheels.


    As far as a "yes man"....... :unsure:

  9. If the Constitution can be amended, then why not the 'guidelines'? On the other hand, let's not see the 'guidelines' turn into what legislation, supposedly based on the Constitution, has turned our legal system into.


    I also think the current 'guidelines' could be tightened up, explained better (especially to new cachers) and gathered together in ONE easier to find spot.


  10. I stated the one a month as an example. The idea behind the limit, whether it be monthly, yearly or whatever would work for several reasons. Just like on message boards when people post real quickly, they may run into a "flood control". That keeps people from flooding the forums. The same could work for listing caches. There are people, not all those that place caches or those who place a number of caches, but those that do place a number of them without any concern for fellow cachers. Doesn't really matter if they place 1 or 100, if they don't care, they just don't care. But I do think there needs to be something in place to at least educate newer folks on what a cache should be. Whether it's a limit or not allowed to place a cache without finding a certain amount or something else. Another issue is those that saturate areas with caches and others have no where to place them. Of course there may be other areas, but then you get inot the discussions of legal places to place them and then you have to worry about if it becomes too far away and becomes a vacation cache....lol Another thought would be perhaps that just like the 528 ft rule, that there be another distance further apart that a cache owner can not place a cache that close to a previous one of theirs. Lets say .5 mile. That way at least 3 or 4 other people can place a cache in between there somewhere. Just an idea. As I stated earlier, these are ideas to problems that some may experience or that some may see as becoming a problem. Imagine a poor soul in Nashville TN, that tries to place a cache somewhere down town. Unless caches get archived, there will be a waiting list on the spots to put one there for a long long time...lol

  11. BrianSnat, no I was saying they could list one a month. Not only have a day or two to hide them.


    As far as the whining, can we please stop whining about those that are whining? And while we are at it, lets please stop whining about those that are whining about others who are whining....oops. ;)


    As those have stated that certain problems are not necessarily widespread, well neither are other problems. For example, virts, 528 ft rule and etc., but they are there and in place. They help where there are problems, as this is why they are in place and it deters from the problem happening elsewhere. Different problems that come up in different areas have to be looked at seriously and dealt with. Just because it happens here doesn't mean it will happen there, and especially the opposite of that statement. Of course we would all love no more "rules' . Actually there are no rules, right? But the thing is, is that you can not get this many people together to do one common thing without setting things to keep it on track. The sport is not perfect and as it grows more and more, so does the aspect of it and it's guidelines. "Crappy caches" are nothing new. They have been around everywhere. Someone else mentioned about a person finding a certain number of caches first to get the experience and then place caches of there own. That's a great idea. That at would least cut down some it probably. i would have no problem with someone having 84 caches that were thought out ones and maintained. But then it all crosslinks into the properly maintaining issue and that crosslinks into other issues. I believe there has been quick reactions to certain problems that it was easier to say you can't do that, rather than thinking out how it affects other things realistically and in a common sense manner.

  12. What about a limit per time period as someone else mentioned? One a month? That at least gives time to research and work on the cache. Not saying that one would take all that time. But it would at least limit a bunch of crappy ones being placed at once or areas being overtaken by one person.Then by the time people were getting upwards in the numbers of hides, perhaps some of the older ones would of been archived or removed by then.


    Who knows what the answer is. Is there really one? Everyone is not going to be happy. Rules are needed. Especially when you try to get thousands of people together for one common goal.

  13. Bad caches and those that aren't maintained can be either the same thing or seperate issues. I do think that there is some consistency between owning a number of caches and "properly maintaining" them, which yet reallly has been defined. With the way the "guidelines" are written, there really is not much expectation on maintaining the cache except that you can respond and repair things in a timely manner, whatever that would truly be defined as. Just as BrainSnat can hide and maintain 84 caches, I would say that one could hide and maintain a cache that is a distance away. The truth of the matter is that no one can say one person who has many hides nearby can maintain any better than a person who hasa few hides a distance away and vice versa. And as stated before, every person is going to feel differently about a cache.


    Yes you can tell people to stop whining, as it really isn't going to make a difference. At least on those situations when those who are in charge don't want to deal with it or personally don't have a problem with it. But then on the issues that is important to them, then it makes not much difference to others. It's a vicious circle. It all depends if you are on the inside or outside of that circle. :unsure:

  14. Personally I don't think a rating system would be effective. Mainly because someone or somepeople would be rating in a vengeance of people they don't care for. And then again, those ratings would be subjective because people get different things from caches. One may be looking for an easy walk while another is looking for an adventure. Both would rate it differently.


    I'm more apt to put a limit on the amount one can list on the site. This goes along with the "can you maintain it" issue. Place a limit on that and then hat will be one more fator to worry about less. Of course it's not fool proof, because the person can easily make another account as someone already mentioned.


    Mopars idea is good about the queries, except that not everyone is a member to get the queries, and many people cache outside an area and just download the coordinates. Some will not know who it's by when going after them. Once again, no real way of avoiding any of this.

  15. Hey, if you think geo-litter, and Admin. created geo-litter in particular, are good things, then fine.

    I didn't read that someone stated that. The question in general is who is repsonsible for caches that are archived from the listing of the site? The owners are and not GC.com. Plain and simple. As someone else stated, yes there probably be some "advocation" as not to leave geolitter about. Isn't that a stance they have with the CITO projects?

  16. That's a whole different ballgame bassoon...lol

    It's all part of the same ballgame, Brian, and it is hardly a laughing matter.

    Well truly, yes it's all of the same ballgame in retrospect. But there are many more issues than just these that are included in that ballgame as well. I think this thread (issue) had to deal with who's responsible for removing "dead" caches that were once on the GC site. The answer is the owner. Saying GC has responsibility in it would be like saying if I hada website where I would list your campground if I approved of it and that I would be responsible for the actions of the campground. Not happening.

  17. I would just like every person who has repeated that mantra to explain to me why, if geocaching.com has no responsibility for the caches that have been approved by its reviewers, that those same reviewers so often take it upon themselves to archive caches they suspect of having a problem? Is that not clear enough indication that geocaching.com does, in fact, accept at least partial responsibility for the caches?


    In the case of caches abandoned by inactive owners, if geocaching.com does not accept at least partial responsibility for the caches it lists, shouldn't the reviewers wait until the geocaching community asks for such caches to be archived?

    That's a whole different ballgame bassoon...lol

  • Create New...