Jump to content

Gan Dalf

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    619
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gan Dalf

  1. I own a few acres landlocked along an Interstate, I was thinking of placing a cache on my land that you could access through parking along the interstate for a quick grab and go. I am new to caching and never actually made one of my own so do you think that this is a good idea? There is plenty room for a car to pull off and no signs stating that you cannot stop, also it is in a rural area.

     

    It's your property, do what you want. It's a good idea to say that the cache is on your own property in the description to relieve cachers looking for it from concerns about trespassing.

  2. I've had several encounters with officers while geocaching. All of them uneventful except for one time when the young whipper snapper was a bit "gung ho."

     

    A question for CR or any other officer. If someone is wrongly harassed or arrested, who apologizes to them?

     

    Uhhh... No one. Ever. From numerous accounts I've read through the years, the best you can do is just leave it behind you and hope that in the future you meet officers like Clan Riffster, and not Officer Shades (aka "I'M THE LAW - START WETTING YOURSELF IN FEAR NOW!!!").

     

    That was my point earlier -- even if someone is wrongly harassed/detained, there seems to never be any backlash against the officer/police department.

     

    They ARE the law, so who are you going to complain to?

    The ACLU :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

  3.  

    That's not the point, you said a picture of a log wouldn't give anything away, I gave you two examples in which they did. I noticed you conveniently ignored my nano log example... <_<

     

     

    Even though not directed at me, I think I can address it.

     

    A Nono would be a micro and listed as such.

     

    Something containing a 8x10 spiral notebook would be a regular or, the the very least, a very large "small" and listed as such.

     

    In either of these cases, a pic of the log would not impact any false perception of size. (never thought I would type that in THESE forums)

     

    I can't tell if you are being serious or not. :blink:

     

    When placing a cache you have the choice of selecting a size appropriate for the size of the container, listing th size as other or not selecting a size at all. Some have even been known to select a size not appropriate for the container size to throw people off. A size is not listed "as such" automatically and someone placing one is under no obligation to list one. I know several cache placers for which this is the norm rather than the exception.

     

    The discussion that you are referring to above is with regards to caches that have no size listed, not the ones that do. At least that has been what I have been talking about, perhaps that is part of the problem. Obviuosly a picture of a log where the size is listed is not going to be an issue if someone posts a picture of it.

  4.  

    That's not the point, you said a picture of a log wouldn't give anything away, I gave you two examples in which they did. I noticed you conveniently ignored my nano log example... <_<

    Ignored your nano log example? Lol. [removed for clarity].

     

    A picture of a log has never given a thing away. Basic reading skills, coupled with the location and the presence of an unknown cache size will direct me to what size the log is going to be.

     

    You really shouldn't speak in absolutes with words like "never" or always when there are over a million caches that you haven't even looked at the cache pages of...

     

    We're not talking about YOU and your ability to figure things out. We're talking about everyone else that comes after you. By posting a picture of the log on the cache page of a cache where the owner hasn't said what the size is or indicated it in the description is a spoiler and you shouldn't be doing it. Couldn't you just e-mail the owner with your proof? Why do you have to post it with your log?

  5. An 8x11 spiral notebook, listed as an unknown size, that has a log that in no way can be possibly signed?? Lol.

     

    Okie dokie, sure.

     

    That's not the point, you said a picture of a log wouldn't give anything away, I gave you two examples in which they did. I noticed you conveniently ignored my nano log example... <_<

     

    i] it IS still possible to chooseto not view pics.[/i]

    From the CO's perspective, it's not the ones who choose not to view a pic of a spoiler but the ones that do. Surely you're not suggesting that all subsequent searchers would never look at a picture on a cache page to help them find a cache they can't... :unsure:

     

    So, if you, the CO, has an 8x11 spiral-mushy-impossible-to-sign notebook, then I'm posting a pic of my attempted siggy, and you'll have to deal with it. Or delete it.

    But you won't doubt that I was at your cache.

    I would certainly delete the photo, at least when that option becomes available in the next site update... If I had such a cache, which I don't.

     

    But I do have non nano caches that are listed as size Not Chosen that people have posted what I considered to be spoiler pictures before. My solution was to write them a nice note asking them to remove the phtoto from their log, which they did. Not sure what I would have done if they hadn't but it's not something I was confronted with so Idon't have to worry about that.

  6. It's unneccessary to take a pic of each cache you find, just upload a pic of the log in question.

    Nobody will get up in arms over this. The log doesn't tell me any more of hint then the size listed does...

     

    What if the listed size is unknown?

     

    Taking a pic of the log still won't spoil anything.

     

    Sure it will. If the log is a 8x11 spiral note book you can guess pretty easily that the cache is not a nano. On the other hand if the log is a rolled up strip of 1/4 inch paper than it's not a stretch to assume that the cache IS a nano.

  7. It's unneccessary to take a pic of each cache you find, just upload a pic of the log in question.

    Nobody will get up in arms over this. The log doesn't tell me any more of hint then the size listed does...

     

    What if the listed size is unknown?

  8.  

    ...and this is more likely a line-of-business / political type issue where Geocaching.com is more interested in maintaining the atmosphere of the site in their specific way, much like we got "favourites" but didn't get "god I hate this" voting.

     

    I can't buy this. Ignoring someones cache is in no way the same as posting on someones cache page that their cache sucks. Ignoring caches already exists there was no analgous I hate this cache function before favorites were created. A CO does not KNOW when their cache is being ignored unless the person doing the ignoring tells them, so why would this be a political lets all be nice to one another issue?

     

    I think it more likely that since there is already a function in place that does the job, albeit a slow, cloodgie one, then it is not a current priority for Groundpspeak. There are other more important features that people have been clamoring for and so there focus is on that.

  9.  

    What if a cacher started putting out better caches, you would never even see them.

    Considering the sheer volume of caches being placed in your average geographic region, I'm betting that those "better" caches would never be missed. As an example of this principle, you need only look at my PQ results. My area is saturated by low D/T rated urban micros. Since these are about as much fun, for me, as watching paint dry, I exclude all micros, size not chosen and size unknowns from my PQs. Yet, there are still more caches being hidden than I can keep up with.

     

    While I agree almost verbatem with every other point you made, you lost me with this one. Knowing from experience exactly what the caches in lams geographic region are and regardless of your example, I'm having a hard time undestanding how over saturation of low D/T rated caches results in not missing better caches from someone that usually hides the same... :huh: Or am I missing something? Can you rephrase for clarity? :unsure:

  10. I don't download them every single day, just the days I decide to go caching.

     

    Well you did say daily, that implies everyday to me. i can understand downloading that many on days when you go geocaching though it does seem like a bit of overkill if the most you are going to find when you do is 5. i guess it does maximize your choices that way...

  11. how old is this kid? if hes as young as he sounds then you might just need to explain to him that hes stealing and its wrong.

     

    if not then hes just horribly immature and inconsiderate.

     

    all in all sounds like he needs a good talking to.

     

    He is in 6th grade. I have repeatedly talked about geocaching with all the kids (we have a group of kids that enjoy going out together once in a while), and mentioned that "we all need to release the TBs and geocoins as soon as possible" as they should be gone or moving within 2 weeks MAX. Every time we take him with us I casually mention how important it is to release them as soon as possible. I also talk about how I release mine locally because there are so few, and I do it so that many people can enjoy them and get them moving elsewhere...he nods and agrees, but never seems to do it. I also confiscate any that I can when we are all together so that ALL the kids can "discover" them, but I have posession so I can get them back out there. Even his parents have mentioned how he needs to be releasing them...yet they keep taking him back to the same caches and letting him retrieve new ones. So sadly...I am now raiding local caches and loving them to a town 55 miles away where I work.

     

    This is a kid in the 6th grade, an 11 or 12 year old? And his parents are the ones taking him to the same caches and allowing him to take them and then not making him drop them off later? Your issue is with his parents, not the kid himself.

     

    When you are with him, casually mentioning that he needs to release them right away, and he is nodding in agreement, he is doing so becasue you are an adult (I assume) and he is trying to please you. As soon as he leaves your presence, he is back in his 11 year old world and isn't thinking about what you told him when you were caching. Your words mean nothing to him becasue there is no consequernce for ignoring you. He's 11, most 11 year olds only think of themselves.

     

    My suggestion is that the next time you take this group of young people out, you tell him he can't come unless he brings whatever travel bugs he has in his possesion with him with the intention of releasing them and then doesn't go back to get them. Make sure his parents understand that is the condition of him coming with you. Do this every time you go out. Soon both he and his parents will get the picture and his parents will stop enabling his behavior.

     

    I expect this won't go on very long. He is only 11 after all. He'll soon get bored with the game and move on to the next best thing more than likely girls, that will keep him away from geocaching, and keep the trackables in your area safe for a long while...

  12.  

    The fact that I am trying to consider those near a power trail is implying am not just thinking about a local thing.

     

    I did not get that was what you were trying to consider, my bad for misunderstanding.

     

    Personally I find the idea of just simply pushing a single button and pretending like a cacher does not exist kinda mean. Maybe one has a beef with someone. Maybe someone does not like their caches. Maybe your friends do not like this person. Maybe whatever the reason. I just think that to be allowed to just simply hit one button and ignore a certain cacher for whatever reason is kinda mean and feels like high school to me. If such a button were to exist, its almost like Groundspeak is condoning someone ignoring a cacher. What if a cacher started putting out better caches, you would never even see them. If one wants to ignore someone's caches, obviously that is their business, but I wish they would have to go through the effort of ignoring the individual caches as they find them. That is my opinion and I do not expect you to agree with me.

     

    It’s difficult to sort out all these different points and respond to them so I won’t even try. The bottom line is that I was trying to figure out what your position was and why. Now that you’ve explained that I have a better understanding of where you are coming from; you don’t like it because it’s mean.

     

    Why would Groundspeak NOT condone ignoring a certain cacher? As dfx points out in another arm of this thread, they already do by providing the option at all. And in fact, beyond condoning it, I would think they would be advocates of it. Let’s face it, there is a lot of tension between certain cachers, I would think that they would want to provide cachers all of the opportunities they can to avoid (ignore) one another in an effort to relieve those tensions.

     

    Here’s the thing. Let’s just say I’ve found a dozen or so caches from the same person and all of those caches have been of the type that I don’t enjoy looking for. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is the way this person hides and that I’m not going to look for their caches anymore because invariably, I get angry whenever I do. But now the problem is that person has 120 hides almost all of which are the same micro in the woods or LPC in a parking lot type of hide. You’re saying that I should be forced to go through all 120 of that persons caches and ignore them individually, rather than have the ability to ignore them all, because you think it’s mean? You’re expectation is correct, I don’t agree with that.

     

    You seem to be mistaking how I feel about THEM for how I feel about their caches. And to that point, what’s better? For me to be Secretly mean and ignore all of the caches they’ve put out in one fell swoop, or to force me to go through one at a time and ignore their 100 or more caches thereby making me like them even less for being forced to do so? How would they even know anyway? I would not expect that the feature would come with a notification that all of their caches had just been ignored by a single user.

  13. personally I would not like the ignore all user function, but then again, am not by a huge power trail in my neck of the woods (thankfully).

     

    What is your objection to it, or are you just saying it's something you are not interested in? If that, then couldn't you just as easily not use the function?

     

    I understand the argument that if it's not something I'd use and therefor don't want Groundspeak wasting resources on it when there are other more urgent things I do want, but there seems to be a lot of interest in wanting it. Personally I can think of more than one or two cachers all of whose caches I'd like to ignore...

     

    If you do not care for a certain cacher, well, in most cases, its what, 10 or 12 ignore buttons on their caches, maybe less, maybe more. I was using the devil's advocate if you are not a fan of power trails, it would take a long long long time to go into 1000 caches and mark ignore on every one of them. However, since we do not have such huge power trails in our backyard Fobes, its moot for us.

     

    Since this is not a local forum and is read by people from all over the world what is moot for us is not necessarily moot for others. We are talking about what is applicable to everyone everywhere, not just you and I locally.

     

    Besides that, I disagree. The owners whose caches all of which I would like to ignore (and some of which I already have) are all prolific hiders, with more than 50 hides each and a couple with well over 100. The whole reason behind a ignore all by X cacher is because they are hiders who routinely hide bad caches, in crappy locations with bad coords or are intentionally “evil” and they hide a lot of them and seem to like getting DNF’s. That’s the whole point. It’s not the n00b who goes out and hides a few caches because they don’t know any better that we are talking about. It’s the prolific hiders whose caches we don’t enjoy and so we don’t want them to show up on our maps.

    And so, to rephrase my original question, do you have an objection to the idea of an Ignore all by X feature, or is it more that you don’t care because you would never use it? You’re initial posting seemed to say the former, did you actually mean the latter?

  14. Typically download between 2000-3000 daily, and the ones I sort of ignore account for around 400-500.

     

    Not to "drift" the thread any more but this is something that I find very bizarre. I once asked a similar question of another cacher before who did not give me an answer that gave me a better understand of why.

     

    My question is, why on Earth do you download 2000-3000 caches everyday? I know others like you that do the same thing and I just can't figure it out. You just don't cache enough for it to make sense to me. Caches don't change that much on a daily basis, especially if as for you, you've only got one month in two years where you've found even 50 caches, a few months with more than 40 and most of the time you are finding less than 20 per month...

     

    I live in a cache rich area, anywhere from 2-10 publish in my 25 mile notification radius every day. My closest unfound to home radius goes out 18 miles and contains about 750 caches. I'm an OCD cacher that likes to keep as big an area clear of unfound caches around my home as I can. I average more than 80 finds a month and routinely go over 100. I rarely download my 750 cache PQ more than twice a week. Sometimes, when I travel, or if I am going to an area outside my normal radius, I create another PQ and download those but those PQ's never contain more than 500 caches and sometimes they are more like 100. Why do you download thousands of caches everyday when you find so few, I really don't understand it...

     

    BTW this is in no way a judgement on why you do it or how you cache, it is just something that I find puzzling that I've noticed some cachers that seem to cache very little, do. You are not alone in this...

  15. I think it sucks that this individual has logged finds then removed the containers. I would be sending a personal message requesting the return of my property - very politely, of course - within 5 days.

    If it were an area they live in, and IF the cache was on private property, why couldn't they send an email asking the CO to remove the cache? They are policing other areas, it seems.

    A cache near us was archived as it was on private farmland - no permission. Had permission been sought, it would have been given. It was not removed, and I contacted our reviewer asking if he/she wanted me to do so. As the cache is deemed to be the property of the cache owner, I was asked to leave it and only if the reviewer got back to me was I to remove it. The CO's dealt with it, as is right and proper. Took them awhile, but they got it done. This is what RPace9 should have done....but they've only been caching for 24 hours...........

     

    while I agree with you and applaud that you wrote to the reviewer to find out what you should do, you are looking at the situation from the perspective of someone that enjoys geocaching, understands the people that do it and really wants it to continue to be a sport.

     

    If as the CO of Grin and Bear It assumes, the maggot really is a grumpy old man that has no use for geocaching, thinks those that do it are fools that trespass on other peoples private property to play an idiotic game, then you might not care what the right thing to do is. You might just go out and take care of the problem yourself. Even if that assumption is incorrect, my belief is that he doesn't really care what we think is right. He's threatening to go to the town council and get Geocaching banned there altogether. i think his intent is pretty clear...

  16. DFX & FobesMan: In this forum questions about missing features tend to be met with folks offering solutions and work arounds. But if you really want the conversation to stay strictly on the theme of "why won't the website do this for me?" the best bet would be to ask in the Geocaching Website forum.

     

    ---

    Edit: Oops. Asked and answered. I typed this before reading HighHeeled Dutchess pointer to the suggestion in that forum. We now return to our scheduled program of solutions, work arounds, and people complaining that they don't want to do that.

     

    and it seems to me that your questions are more for arguments sake instead of your actual curiosity. Come on, really, you knew what the answer was when you asked dfx in the first place right? You just asked to keep the argumeent going, didn't you? That's a rhetorical question, btw. I already know your answer will be started with "nah..." followed by an explanation of how you are jsut curious about how people think.

  17. I'm still curious about your earlier remark that GSAK "is a non-answer for many of us." Is it really the the case that you can't run it or some other client-side filtering program? Or just that you want GC.com to offer all of GSAK's capability online (and all other options are "not the point")?

     

    Perhaps somebody doesn't want to use GSAK or anything else. Perhaps they like browsing the map on the website and don't want to see somebody's caches there. What does it matter? The question wasn't "how can I do this?", the question was "why can't the website do this?"

     

    My thoughts exactly. There might be many reasons why I person can't, won't, doesn't know how to use third party programs for filtering caches and as dfx says (and I happen to be one of them) many people like to see their maps cache free.

     

    Part of being a Premium Member is using Features and also having the right to ask for Features that you would like to see implemented. Just because other tools exist doesn't mean that certain features shouldn't be asked for and implemented...

  18. personally I would not like the ignore all user function, but then again, am not by a huge power trail in my neck of the woods (thankfully).

     

    What is your objection to it, or are you just saying it's something you are not interested in? If that, then couldn't you just as easily not use the function?

     

    I understand the argument that if it's not something I'd use and therefor don't want Groundspeak wasting resources on it when there are other more urgent things I do want, but there seems to be a lot of interest in wanting it. Personally I can think of more than one or two cachers all of whose caches I'd like to ignore...

×
×
  • Create New...