Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WalruZ

  1. Can you log someone multiple times? In this context it seems like the answer would be yes, you would log them every time you meet them. Or is it a log of everyone you've met, thus you log them once. I like the idea. You could have a list of people and put their avatars in the list. Considering it, i think there should be verification involved, like there is with adoption. Otherwise there will just be lists of codes passed around (on the honor system) and, well... With verification, you can say yes, I met you. Perhaps a bit of a pita, but personally I would like to be able to control who *says* they met me. (I still do wish for 1 found per cache, but I'll be quiet about it...)
  2. I started adding Waymarking to the mix a month or so ago and I've been very pleased with it. Here's my take.... You have to figure out how you want Waymarking to work for you. There aren't that many people doing it in my area, so I didn't have much to go on for norms. I've decided that placing a waymark is the act of describing something neat (or at least representative of it's category), so I take pictures and try to find a little information to use on the page - like this Monarch, this Historic Marker, or this National Wildlife Refuge Trailhead. They're not all winners, but that doesn't mean you can't try. I treat visiting waymarks as photo-virtuals. "take a picture of yourself at the site" is how I treat them all, pretty much, (unless I forget), regardless of less demanding visiting requirements. I've been visiting right along and liking it alot. Over 109 visit so far. (yes, you have stats but they're not visible to others, at least not easily.) I find that waymarks make more sense in an urban/suburban environment, and frankly, traditional geocaches less so. Trads wind up getting stuck in ugly little corners for no good reason. That doesn't happen with waymarks. Conversely, there's no really good way to waymark stuff out in the woods - trads are the weapon of choice out there, imo. My advice to people reading this is to just do a little Waymarking while your out caching. Add some waymarks for the neat things you know about locally. It's still quite quiet yet, so don't expect throngs visiting them or anything, but it's still fun. In response to the OP, you can still hide caches inside NPs if you take some extra steps - make them offset multis. "Hike down this trail, at these coordinates is a sign. How many letters in the 5th word?", etc, etc, yadda. Hide the physical cache somewhere outside the park. Easy, really, I just went and re-did my favorite of mine, Licau II, hidden in a NWR near SF bay.
  3. 1. no. not only are these not permanent caches, they are often 'found' as part of cache machines where attendees parade through a route of caches, all of which have been 'found' and are sitting about in the process of being signed as each attendee strolls up. They are BS, plain and simple. 2. no. Not that it matters. The only place for the record to be announced and recognized are these forums, and the 'record' has been soundly repudiated here. Not only were none of the logs signed, they admit to repeatedly "splitting up" in such a way that none of the participants actually found all of the caches. It's BS, plain and simple. 3. no. I think that anyone who is planning on finding a record number of caches in a 24 hour period should go seek psychiatric help.
  4. Well, I am sure that Jeremy has a lot of balls up in the air these days, but I hope he'll consider this request once more.
  5. Except, of course, that your 'find' count represents the total number of actual listed geocaches that you've found, and by logging events the way you do, you are misrepresenting yourself. Perhaps that doesn't matter to you, and you say you don't think it's wrong, but I still do. Yes. Of course, you are currently imposing your own rules on me, which is that it is Ok for people to misrepresent their 'find' counts as much as they like, Ie, cheat. I'll answer if I like, thanks. They've never addressed this problem because they consider it a slippery slope. There are loads of ways people can misrepresent their find counts, and Groundspeak does not want to be the 'find count police', because it's an impossible job. They would be constantly fielding specific objections about other geocachers from adults who should have better things to do with their time, far worse that what they're getting now. They would, in effect, become geocaching 'umpires', and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. However, I'm not asking for the formation of a 'find count police' squad. I'm not going to object to any existing find counts and ask that they be changed, the example in the OP aside. All I'm asking for is a programming change that would prevent multiple 'found' or 'attended' logs on a cache. I don't think it's too much to ask, and I hope that Jeremy will give it his due consideration. I hope he sees that this change does not start him down that slippery slope. Doing so mich disappoint some people, cramp some styles, pee them off. TPTB have seen fit to do that before (locationless, virtual, vacation), I see no reason why they can't go ahead and do it again.
  6. comon, you've GOT the artwork - a T-shirt would be easy, just check a few boxes on the store interface. Please? PleasePleasePleasePleasePleasePlease?
  7. I would like to point out that this shows something I believe, which is that the best thing to do with a 'problem' cache is to rework it. You should look at a cache hide as a fairly fluid thing that you change as circumstances change.
  8. You've got that one backwards. The people who say that numbers DON'T matter are the ones who also log caches and events multiple times. Then they say that they have high numbers (see my example in the OP - that person is very proud of her 'numbers'). The people who recognize that numbers DO matter are the ones who want them kept somewhat honest, or at least to have this reasonable limit enforced by the site - find a cache once, attend an event once. People who log an event multiple times and then misrepresent themselves hurt both themselves and the game itself, because they're cheating and lying, which is a bad thing. I'm very suprised at the number of people addressing this topic in the forums who don't seem to understand that.
  9. Perhaps this has been asked for before. Even so, I'll ask for it again. It can't be that hard to limit each user to one 'found' or 'attended' log per cache, and it's hardly unreasonable. That should not be "up to the cache owner". It would also be nice to disallow a cache owner the option of 'finding' their own cache. This user has been to 1156 events as of this post. This is just not acceptable. Please. Do something. edited to clairify log types.
  10. Well then, ask yourself this. If smiley's don't matter, why do people log things multiple times? I'll tell you. They log things multiple times, or things that were handed to them (rather than being found), or their own things (so lame), whose locations they already know - because they want the smiley. The arguments that "it's no big deal because smiley's don't matter", and "it's just a game anyway", yadda, are specious. Smiley counts are not just 'personal' or 'fun' - they are universally presented as accomplishments, denials aside. People who cheat at them do so because they want it to appear as if they have accomplished more than they actually have. Were that not so, they would not bother engaging in the behavior that is being complained about.
  11. Basically all you're doing is Waymarking some business, probably in a run-down strip mall. Not interested. Bad Idea. Hope this doesn't make it through peer review.
  12. There are already some (well, at least one) labryinths listed under mazes. What happens to them?
  13. Hey, I've done one like that before! That's actually a great idea, although I will say that the one I did had all sorts of maintaince problems. You may find yourself humping out there more than you'ld like. Since it has 17 stages you shouldn't have any problems just eliminating one or two of the problem stages. Make sure the final isn't too close to anything and you're golden. Since they're stickers you should be able to move them easily - just do that. Suggestion. Make two multis starting from either end of the walk, with two end caches in the middle. Suppose for argument that the walk is north/south, have one start point in the North, one in the South. Since you have 5 miles to work with, you can put the two physical caches in the middle, seperated by 0.1 mile. If you find some stickers fall in problematic places, just move 'em a bit. You won't get anywhere fighting with your reviewer. Trust me on that. The proximity rule is rarely bent because otherwise it would get bent all the time - certainly you can see how that sort of thing works. It sounds like you have lots of room to work with - go fix it instead of bitch'n. BTW, another thing that works is getting some tin and some metal stamps from the hardware store. You wind up with tags similar to those used by arborists. Quite durable, they can be slipped around a tree branch or fence post with wire and are very unlikely to be muggled. Weatherproof too.
  14. My suggestion would be to visit whichever virtuals you can and verify that the asked-for information is still available. In cases where it is not, put in an SBA. In cases where it is, keep it active even though the owner is not. Or, since you then know the required information, you could request adoption. Perhaps that'll fly. Physicals should be archived if they're missing or 'something'.
  15. Dude, 17 stages is too many for a multi. Take a deep breath and scale it back a bit.
  16. It doesn't look like pocketcache.org is taken....
  17. What utter twaddle. The only reason to log temporary caches or log event caches multiple times is to run up numbers, and the only reason to run up numbers is because the person doing the running up WANTS higher numbers, because the person doing the running up CARES ABOUT higher numbers. To imply that WE are the ones who only care about numbers is duplitious. What the people who object to these sorts of practices care about is HONEST numbers. The people participating in these sorts of smiley harvests either don't know what they're doing, or don't know what honest numbers are, or don't care about honesty. But they DO care about numbers, bucause that's why they do it.
  18. There's actually a very good reason to be concerned. What keeps the sport going for many people is the social aspects, meeting and knowing your area cachers. If some of them strut around saying "look what I did", when in fact they didn't really do squat, then it divides the community. if numbers padders don't plan to brag about what they've 'done', why do they do it? That's Waymarking. I've developed a new appreciation for it.
  19. I've found (of all things) a pair of Sphinxes that are about 200 feet from another pair of sphinxes. I submitted them once but they were rejected by the category owner as duplicates, even though they are not. I'm gonna try again... It can happen. Photos should be able to sort things out.
  20. I went to the cafepress store. mugs. pillows. mousepads. no T-SHIRT!!?? I am very disappointed. It's like you people don't really care.
  21. The only advice I'll give is to work at setting your bar a little high, or people will be adding waymarks to your category for any building that has a foundation, if you get my drift. Waymarkers won't automatically restrict themselves to significance - you're going to have to spell it out. Work on that and you'll be getting somewhere.
  22. fwiw, I think that just adding loc downloads would be enough for awhile. that would enable plotting on a (personal) map which would make me happy. even something as simple as checkboxes next to search results with a download checked items al .loc would do the trick. since .loc is already spec'd, there would be less work involved to do that.
  23. Frankly, I don't like the mcdonald's category, and I only tolerate it because it's sort of like the "yellow jeep" of Waymarking. I'm not going to vote for or vote up any retail categories. That's not the direction I think the site should be heading in.
  • Create New...