Jump to content

New England n00b

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    2721
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by New England n00b

  1. Please point out the rule or guideline that you think prohibits TB prisons. I think Hula might be referring to something like this (from the TB Faq page): My take is that TBs are meant to travel (hence the "Travel" part of "Travel Bug") and that these prisons are basically preventing them from travelling. This is contrary to the intent TBs in general. Not defending TB Hotels (Prisons) by any stretch here... but by this logic shouldn't we disable any cache that a TB sits in for an extended period of time? If it is a requirement that is keeping the TB there, then YES, the cache should be canned. Otherwise, is just a low traffic cache or cachers haven't been interested in moving the TB. That is far different from a cache owner laying down stupid rules.
  2. One nice feature for you, premium or regular member: When you create a find log, a red check mark is placed next to caches you've found when you do a search by zip code, city or whatever. Caches appear 20 to a page in that list. If you've found say 15 of those, you can easily identify which caches you haven't visited so you can plan your outings.
  3. Mom caching? I prefer Hamster caching - they fit in the container better.
  4. Isn't there another thread about debating the ALR as a whole? Can we keep this one about solutions to make everyone happy?
  5. They are red for me. I liked them when they were tie-dyed better, though.
  6. I would also recommend avoiding the opening day, and perhaps the opening weekend, if they do not fall on the same period. The sheer quantity of people and the excitement of opening day can be a bit much.
  7. Oh yea, the massive personal attacks and namecalling on us in this thread when 2 people mentioned the name of a celebrity bad hunter who shot someone in the face because he happened to be a republican sure proved your point. yep. No mindless following going on at all. How about taking this portion of the 'discussion' to off topic?
  8. You can buy blaze orange 'safety vests' at big-box stores. These are basically very thin nylon vests that go over whatever you are wearing. This lets you adjust your regular clothing to the temperature and still be very visible in the woods. For a hat (which I also recommend), you'll prolly hafta buy a blaze hat, either a baseball style or a warmer one if you wish. I would be more worried about deer season (when longer range firearms are in use). Bow hunters have to be 'fairly close' to make their hit. EDIT: Ack, too slow for teh hamster loving Irish midget. EDITEDIT: To add to what Lep said, you can get Official NH State hunting booklets anywhere that sells hunting licenses - free of charge (last I knew they were free).
  9. Something more family friendly: (supposed to be a Toga)
  10. Even if it was real, I don't have a problem with this. A little odd, perhaps, but it isn't like it is unsanitary - you aren't (hopefully) sticking your fingers in it. []
  11. No. Additional Logging Requirements is not sanctioned by Groundspeak. Suggestions would be fine but forcing someone to do a little dance for a "find" is, IMO, silly. If you found it you found it. If we had a "completed a task" log type it would make more sense. This is the solution I was thinking of in the other thread - a different kind of smiley (like this one I made in (moderate) jest: ). Having a second 'super log' find type would allow those of us just trying to keep track of where we've been by having a plain old smiley. I would like to give my "vote", such as it is, to implementing this idea. Thanks for all the work and putting-up-with, PTB.
  12. Eh, it doesn't matter anyway - there aren't maps for my area, according to the map download summary page. That stinks, but oh well. Would've been fun to try and get it to work. In any case, I don't like giving out information for something silly like that. If it is free-ware, then they should just make it a simple download. They don't need to know my occupation, phone number and all teh other junk. But that's another topic altogether.
  13. Is there somewhere you can download the VM without having to give your life story?
  14. My last post on the issue, as my mind is set, and so is the oppositions. Your first paragraph is not correct in the context of geocaching.com. Signing the log is integral. If it weren't, there would be no logbook. Your second paragraph overlooks (as everyone seems wont to do) that the tools provided by geocaching.com are for keeping track of where one has been. As Jeremy has said, it isn't about the numbers. It is about going out to see new areas, interesting places. The find log creates the red check mark on the cache browsing page to let you know you've found/been to that place. Cache owners deleting that unfairly (that is, outside of abuse guidelines) interferes with people trying to keep track using the system that geocaching.com has provided. End of story. While my 'found number' is interesting, sort of, it is not why I use the system in the first place. Why even HAVE a system for keeping track if people are going to abuse finders? Your third paragraph is wrong. Special requirements have nothing to do with finding the cache. Puzzle caches, you need to solve the clues. There is a system in place for this, and puzzle caches are listed accordingly. Multicaches require visiting multiple waypoints - don't hit all the waypoints, you may likely not find the cache at all. These have a gc.com system in place as well. There is no system where the finder can opt out and just use geocaching.com to simply KEEP TRACK, when hiders go and delete logs because finders don't fulfill arbitrary 'requirements'. I'm all for the addition of implementing a system that allows users to just use the system as intended, and also allow the SuperHappyFunTime heroes to have their fun. As to your last point... When they -ASK-, that's one thing. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. When they DEMAND and threaten, YEAH IT IS WRONG. And with that last bit, you all can continue to try and convince each other of your position. I will continue to use the system correctly, and make a pubic bookmark should anyone follow through with interfering with the system that I use. No one in here is going to change their minds, so until a motion is put on place to adjust the system to work as the base version and the 'expanded' version, there is little point is discussing this further.
  15. Hey! The reason I deleted one of your DNFs was because you logged the same DNF twice! I felt that it was appropriate to delete one of them, since logging the same DNF multiple times in order to artificially inflate your DNF count could be considered to be cheating.
  16. Neither are event caches. Should they go too? Why? They are part of the current system that gc.com has made. Special logging requirements are a 'work-around' implemented by the users. So if I think puzzle caches are stupid, should they be eliminated also? You think ALRs are stupid. Fine. Why not leave it at that? There's no reason to clamp down on other people's fun just to 'clean up the menu' in in order to satisfy your tender tastes. If the mere existence of ALR caches drives you to demand their removal ... be careful what you ask for. Someone else may follow your precedent and succeed in the removal of all micros. Or all one-stars. Or who knows, maybe pumpkin- or badger-themed caches will be the next group scheduled for extermination. You never know what's going to offend somebody -- God forbid anyone should be expected to simply avoid caches they don't like. Now you've gone off topic. Who's been deleting logs out of spite? When did that come up? For the first section, see my comment above. Secondly, I am not calling for teh removal of them. I don't mind if there is a second class of WhoopeeI'mSpecial Find log. Just don't delete a plain log. This would require a bit of work to implement, but it would keep this mess under control. Plain loggers would get the basic functionality out gc.com, and happy special people could say they are 'x' number of super-smilies happier than other users. No unnecessary log deletion required. For the second, deleting a log because of something stupid, when the finder did find the cache and signed the log, is a spiteful "I'll show YOU!" type of act.
  17. If you hunt a wear-panties-on-your-head cache; one which indicates a logging requirement, clearly stated in the description, dictating visual documentation of yourself wearing panties on your head; then you knowingly choose to log the find without complying with the cache the way the owner designed it -- then who's being pathetic? The cache owner who deletes the log when wearing panties on ones head has nothing to do with finding the cache and signing the logbook. And who said you HAD to hunt the panty cache in the first place? In your hypothetical example it's you who has chosen to hunt the panty cache, yet actively refused to comply with the requirement. Who's fault is that? Why would you hunt and log such a cache if you knew you weren't going to finish it? Sounds pretty pointless to me. But I did finish it, this hypothetical cache. I found the cache and signed the log. I went to the place where someone put a cache to see the sights. This is what caching is about for me. I use the red check mark to note that I have visited the cache, the way gc.com is supposed to work. Doing something stupid does not change the fact that I was there. I'm sure you feel everyone must have the cache page memorized verbatim in order to find a cache, but not everyone does, or is even able... for example being out and about and having the GPS in hand with waypoints, but not every single cache page on hand while they are on the road. That's right, lets kick them for not being in the cool group! That'll show him to cache the way we say they should cache! DELETE LOG DELETE LOG DELETE LOG! Wheee. I'm cool. Discussing core functionality and original intent is a very weak argument. Look at it this way: The core of the functionality of the Global Positioning System is to provide a precision navigation system to the United States Military. It is intended to keep track of where soldiers are. For them. Not you. The US government has decided (for now, anyway) to make those signals available to the general public. By using the GPS system to locate hidden containers of trinkets you are messing with the core of the functionality of the system as it was intended. Therefore, if the owner of an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache is wrong to delete your smiley after you thumb your nose at his cache theme, then aren't we are all wrong for using gummint satellites to play this game in the first place? The owner of an ALR cache is merely trying to think outside the box in order to provide you with a variety of entertainment. Those who dislike ALR caches are free to avoid ALR caches, just like those who dislike puzzle caches are free to avoid puzzle caches, and those who dislike watercraft-required caches are free to avoid watercraft-required caches. No need to whine about ALRs. Just avoid them, and move on to something you do like. Speaking of weak arguments. It's okay to delete logs of caches that have been physically found and signed because... the government now lets us use GPS signals? What? You completely missed the point. Vinny & Sue Team didn't seem to have any trouble understanding it. Wanna try again? No, I think I understood you quite well.
  18. Why do we 'all' have to love what you love to find inside a cache? It's my opinion, and I shared it.
  19. Nice generalization, but no. Multis and puzzle caches are part of the system, and virtuals are part of the system at Waymarking. Special logging requirements are NOT the same thing. Your first two bullet points are useless to me, as I don't care about -your- numbers or where -you- have been. Fluff as much as you want on your numbers, leave me out of it. The third bullet point would exclude valid reasons for deleting a log (profanity and junk of that sort). Your 'jab' at the argument for being able log a find because the logbook is signed misses the mark. I don't expect every cache owner to check the logbook. But to delete a log without even checking because of a non-critical logging requirement is not right. Maybe the puritans should stay, and the panty-logging caches should leave. Virtuals left, why not stupid requirements? That would be consistent, and leave the functionality of geocaching.com they way it needs to be to meet the needs of the users just trying to simply keep track. Since that ain't gonna happen: I'm all for the addition of a second find type (the panty-smiley or whatever you want to use). Let the rest of use the geocaching system the it was designed (by using a plain smiley). Those who want to play by the logging requirement rules get to log a 'special' smiley. Everyone would get to keep the functionality they need/want - regular users get to keep track using the system as it was built, special logging user would get to brag that they got 'X' amount of panty-smilies, and special logging cache owners would get to brag about how many people had panty-smiley fun at their cache. This 'extra smiley' would be enabled by the cache hider at the creation of the cache page, so it isn't default on every cache. With the way everyone is icon crazy, I think it'd be a better system than what is around now - people deleting logs out of spite.
  20. I had some Dummy () delete one of my DNF logs on one of his caches, but it was probably because it made ME look like a fool, not him. I'd ask the cache owner why they deleted them. Maybe they got confused and thought that they were duplicates or something innocent like that, or clicked too many time. I've never deleted a log, so I don't know what kind of mis-clicking could occur. Just be polite and ask what's up. Could very well be an innocent mistake.
  21. Well sure they have a choice. Find 99 caches or else!
  22. If you hunt a wear-panties-on-your-head cache; one which indicates a logging requirement, clearly stated in the description, dictating visual documentation of yourself wearing panties on your head; then you knowingly choose to log the find without complying with the cache the way the owner designed it -- then who's being pathetic? The cache owner who deletes the log when wearing panties on ones head has nothing to do with finding the cache and signing the logbook. Discussing core functionality and original intent is a very weak argument. Look at it this way: The core of the functionality of the Global Positioning System is to provide a precision navigation system to the United States Military. It is intended to keep track of where soldiers are. For them. Not you. The US government has decided (for now, anyway) to make those signals available to the general public. By using the GPS system to locate hidden containers of trinkets you are messing with the core of the functionality of the system as it was intended. Therefore, if the owner of an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache is wrong to delete your smiley after you thumb your nose at his cache theme, then aren't we are all wrong for using gummint satellites to play this game in the first place? The owner of an ALR cache is merely trying to think outside the box in order to provide you with a variety of entertainment. Those who dislike ALR caches are free to avoid ALR caches, just like those who dislike puzzle caches are free to avoid puzzle caches, and those who dislike watercraft-required caches are free to avoid watercraft-required caches. No need to whine about ALRs. Just avoid them, and move on to something you do like. Speaking of weak arguments. It's okay to delete logs of caches that have been physically found and signed because... the government now lets us use GPS signals? What?
  23. Having a public bookmark list of "caches who delete finds that have signed logbooks" is no more a threat than someone saying they are going to delete a find (even with a signed logbook) because there is some requirement that has nothing to do with the ability to get your hands on the physical cache. Actually, it is more of a threat: Do it my way or else! And as far as functionality, a "note" does not make any reference (such as a red checkmark) on the cache list pages when you are browsing for unfound caches. Nice try, tough. A note does NOT perform the same function. Let me say that if I happen to know what the panty-rule is, and I am capable of doing it, and it doesn't make me do something I do not want to do (for WHATEVER reason), I may well do it. But to make it a requirement is what I object to.
  24. I'm going to give my own opinion about this. When I go out geocaching, more often than not it is to go visit an area that I have not seen before, or sections of trails in parks I have not visited yet. The cache gives me extra incentive, and more importantly, KNOWLEDGE that there is something more or less cool to see at point 'X'. When I log it online, it is not to see how many numbers I can get, but rather to put a red check mark next to the cache I have visited, so I can keep track of where I have been. If someone deletes a find log because I didn't 'find' it a certain way (despite FINDING and SIGNING the logbook), they are interfering with the manner in which I choose to keep track of where I have been. Could I make a spreadsheet? Yeah Could I make a database? Yeah Could I even keep a paper logbook? Yep Why don't I? Because I like the tools gc.com has provided to do that task, and I see no reason to duplicate that. I prefer to go online and see what is what. To have someone remove the red checkmark because I didn't take a picture of myself wearing panties on my head (or something else that is stupid), is pathetic. I've been there, I found the cache, I signed the log. By deleting it, you are messing up the core of the functionality of gc.com. It is intended to keep track of where I have been. For me. Not for you. Maybe there should be another type of find smiley? Something like this: Until them, if a cache hider is going to be petty because I don't do it a certain way, then I can see me making a new public bookmark list.
  25. Do you threaten to delete the log if they don't comply? Asking is different from requiring. EDIT: Missed the link. So you do threaten. Nice way to 'have fun'.
×
×
  • Create New...