Jump to content

papu66

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by papu66

  1. I think just the opposite. IMO webcams should not be created just for geocache. That's actually kind of creepy, setting up your own cam just to spy on fellow cachers. Also, like many others I don't see a problem if the webcam is under someone else's control than CO. Many mysteries rely on internet links or information that become inaccessible, pictures go missing or someone removes that vital clue from wikipedia. Eventually, someone notices, the CO disables the cache and fixes the link or the cache goes bye-bye. The usual way.
  2. I don't like hints for the fact that they put the difficulty into two levels. It may be d4 if you don't read hint, d2 if you do. Ideally, hints would be unnecessary and the information therein should be conveyed in cache description or attributes. A lot of the hints that we see are put there after publication and are therefore result of failure in design (of the mystery or hide). I think it's the other way around. If the coordinates are in the hint, then its low D. If they are not even there, then it's a very difficult puzzle.
  3. Obvious as in D1 + regular size container + hint "hollow tree stub". Suspiciously empty cable binder. Pieces of log book and swag lying on the ground. Of course you can never be sure that the cache isn't ridiculously misplaced. Counterpoint: I once found a cache ( GC15YAE) with the above attributes that was archived 7 years before after a couple DNFs (maybe deleted later). How they failed to find it is beyond belief, but at least they didn't toss in a throwdown. Instead, NA.
  4. Dammit, that site don't register foreign DNF or I would be pretty high up with my 672 DNF-logs. I'm also bit annoyed that if I fail to find any caches, that apparently doesn't count as "caching day" at GCcom.
  5. I have mixed attitude toward throwdowns. I'm ok with cachers replacing broken or obviously missing containers making as little change as possible to the original. But throwing in a petling just because you can't log DNF just sucks. Not only is your find void, so is everybody else's that find your substitute. I can remember 4-5 cases where I have found two cache containers. I tend to stop searching after I have found one, so you'd think duplicate caches must be way more common than this. Who knows how many other times I have logged a throwdown. Interestingly, in those instances the second cache was sometimes placed by the CO who presumably couldn't find his own cache or assumed it's missing because of a couple of DNFs.
  6. The second strangest thing I found (or rather observed) was a few years ago. I wasn't precisely caching at that day, just visiting a local cache as I do from time to time to train the geodog. It was by the sea and standing next to the cache I noticed something floating, submerged. I stepped to the shore and saw a huge naval mine slowly going past with the tidal current. Then it was gone. It was eerie thing to see in the mist of the morning, like watching some WWII movie. I wish I had my camera because even I find it hard to believe what I saw.
  7. First I was shown geocaching, must have been around 2004/5, by a guy at work . He showed some caches at the computer screen and told he's going to get one on the way home. On hindsight, I wish he had told me more so I might have picked up the hobby, but at the time I was more annoyed he was doing this on work time. I was abroad at the time so by the time I got home, I had forgotten all about it. I found my first cache around 2007. It was a third stage of a multi/mystery under rock.Obviously, I thought it was an old grenade stolen from nearby garrison and didn't touch it. I copied the word CACHE written on the "shell" and googled it at home. Then I went back and opened it. Now, if this had been the final with the cache note and log book I might have started then and there, but instead there was just obscure instructions to the final that were useless unless you had found the previous stages. So it took ten years until I was shown properly how caching works. I made my first finds with a bona fide cacher with a gps unit and all the works. I had nothing except the map memorized in my head. I got a good lesson, though. The only thing I can complain is that I was specifically told to use as many acronyms as possible in my logs and preferably just KK (finnish equivalent of TFTC) to make it as compact as possible. That's a pity, because those first finds were most memorable, while now it's not that exciting anymore that I would have the enthusiasm to write proper logs for each cache.
  8. That is of course subjective matter and depends on the area. My view is that virtual should be placed only if having a physical cache is impossible. They are handy here because this area is well saturated. They seem to be popular because easy place and demand minimal effort from both finders and CO. But this is besides the point. The relevant question is, whether there's enough webcam caches in NSW?
  9. What you say here apply to old caches in general. Many EC and virtuals don't have active owners and you can just write any krappe in you answer or gimp your thumb on some old photo. No one cares. Lots of mysteries have been archived because URLs have become unavailable. It happens and it's not the fault of the CO or the cache type. I've done 2 webcam caches. Both were easy and great experiences. Just needed a special tool (laptop) with me and that's it. I would gladly do more. I don't care about virtuals and ECs and honestly only do those because of challenges (or if they are really old). For me, rarity is not the reason. It's because they offer some variety to caching. The second WC also filled the last hole in my "hidden date" calendar so that was an extra attraction. So my vote : more webcams please and I think we have enough virtuals already.
  10. No shame in that. It would be silly to assume exactly 10 % of your finds are worthy of FP. It's just a number they draw out of the hat. Any cacher that has some principle to award FPs either has lots in stock or is always running out of points. I'm not fan of the FP system and also find it misleading sometimes. Of course, there's correlation between quality and fp score, but I think the caches a like tend to have a few but not too many FPs. My main (and possibly only) reason for not awarding Fp to cache I like is forgetting or "not thinking about it".
  11. Weathered? From all that sunshine in CA, I guess. The oldest cache around here is from 9/2000. I read somewhere they have to change the box every four years or so. It's a plastic box under pile of rocks so I assume it gets shattered from time to time.
  12. I know, but if there's 24 stages close by, people would brute force find them to get those badges ad leap ahead in the multi.
  13. Two things come to mind. First, making a single multi with 24 physical points may cause some tension if there is shortage of hiding spots in the area. Second, If the multi needs to be available on the day of publication, I wonder if you could just make it extremely hard (but technically possible). For example, if each stage had a combination lock to open and the code is revealed at midnight (and coordinates to next stage inside), then this might be okay. As I see it, you maybe don't even need 24 locks, as you can just use the old ones which you remove as the days progress.
  14. Fair enough, but in this case I'm not sure if the log book even had the GC-code. What if prior to publication the CO decides to put in a fresh new logbook? Or changes the location by a few meters? Did I find the cache then or just a plastic box used to make the cache later? I know sometimes caches are found in CO's hands at meets etc. That's a bit sleazy but in the end score these are just few isolated finds among thousands so no big deal. As far as the FTF game is concerned, I would draw the line at publication since the insider knowledge is hard to prove. Better to have a straightforward rule. I myself have a few boxes hidden with just a logbook inside. No GC-codes obviously because the cache descriptions haven't been written yet. If by miracle someone finds any of those, I'll of course have to accept the log. However, If my mother should log FTFBP, I will delete.
  15. I found a cache about 6 months before it got published. It was about 155 meters from a neighboring stash with hidden coordinates, so publication may have been held back by saturation rule. Fortunately, I was not even the first to sign the log, so didn't have to ponder whether I'm entitled to ftf or not. In my book, it wasn't a cache until it was published so the first one after publication is welcome to log ftf. I just logged a find later as a curiosity.
  16. My most common reply would be "I signed something but not sure if it was a log" or else I would just lie. The OP may have too rosy image of the state of geocaches in general.
  17. I was about to reply to this thread, but noticed that my view of the value of fp system is perfectly summarized here. My favorites are in no way recommendations to others and I usually don't see any need to mention in my log when I give a fp. Like many others here, I would consider it bad form to remove fp even if cache is archived. Well, at least when you have plenty to spare. I get it that if you desperately want to award one and are short, then I would understand. I checked my favorite list and roughly 5-10 % are currently archived. Two were already archived when found.
  18. This would be interesting, but I don't know how to do this efficiently. In practice, the number of challenge caches and the like is not very large, but they get lots of traffic. Just for reference, the 3800 mystery/unknown type caches published here in the past 24 months include 70 caches with the word "challenge" in title 120 caches with the word "bonus" 350 jigidi (or other) puzzles (according to private lists) I'm not going to discuss what makes a good and proper mystery, but the indication is that people are willing to invest time in doing mysteries and increase their stats if it does not involve too much thinking.
  19. I looked into cache number and log number stats in my country, lets see if I can attach the graphics... I don't see a drop in interest if measured by log counts or number of published caches. Currently, about 55 percent of new caches are traditionals, 20 percent mysteries, 4 percent multies and most of the remaining 21 percent are events. The log count for mysteries has in fact increased in the last two years while total logs have stabilized at around 2.6 million /year. In short, the 55 % share of tradis get 75 % from the total logs while the 20 % share of mysteries get about 15 % of the total logs. That's very good -- I consider myself something of a mystery enthusiast but even so only 20 percent of my logs are for mysteries. Interest has shifted toward easier mysteries. Jigsaw puzzles, mystery trails and geoart are a recent trend in the past couple of years, so that may explain the increase in log count of mysteries. Reading old logs it seems that the solution to the mystery is not that important to cachers anymore. In the old times, people used to share more of their thought on the mystery part and were very apologetic if they logged a find without solving. Now, the mystery part rarely gets mentioned in more recent logs. The data is from project-gc stats "logs/hides per date". The years run from 22 oct to 21 oct. Usual geocaching color coding green=tardi, blue=mystery, orange=multi and yellow for the remaining 10 types.
  20. If it's urban area, I use app like GCC to calculate a projection. If it's in the woods I prefer just to use the navigator. So, if the descriptions says "go 550 meters in direction 65 degrees", I just add 180 degrees and walk to point where my navigator says 550 meters and direction 245 degrees to the bogus/waypoint. I find it more fun that way.
  21. When she was living in another town, she wanted to find good places to walk the dog. I suggested to sign up and look at geocaching map for large cache concentrations. She thought that was good advice and found a couple caches every now and then. After coming home, she sometimes joins me for a cache or two, chiefly on holidays and travels. I would give her 6 for participation. Lowered points for always pointing out what a dumb game this is ( when I'm "overdoing it")
  22. Yup, Kippers (GC6A) apparently went missing for 5 years and was archived between 2002-2006. Current cache is still going strong but may be a throwdown. on4bam may mean another oldie GC103 which was recently archived.
  23. If you are first to find, log your find online as soon as you can. If you found the cache before approval (FBA) and don't intend to claim FTF, withhold your "found it" log until someone logs the cache "found it" online. This way the cache remains in play and in the correct found/not found status for those interested in the ftf-hunt. You may have right to claim (or count) FTF even if you are not the first name in the physical or online log book. It is clearer when you type "FTF" on the first line. This is for people to see, not so much for statistics, which is more or less unofficial.
  24. Personally, I just google geocaching + cache name and/or GCcode. If I open cache description with my phone, it opens on c:geo by default. Then I just save the cache offline and it shows on the map.
×
×
  • Create New...