Subterranean
-
Posts
233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Subterranean
-
-
There has become an expected response to forum users who say they don't like a particular type of cache: don't do 'em. I'm with the OP; I think selfie caches could be interesting. I'd log a few if they became a thing. I also wish virtuals were still allowed.
-
What on earth...?
What is "community cache placement"?
I was trying to take the absurdity of this whole situation even further. My dry sense of humor doesn't always translate well through text. Who woulda thought?
-
'TOTT note'... I get the sense of what you mean by it, but the acronym itself is unfamiliar to me.
Tools of the trade. Tricks of the trade? One of the two.
-
We need to establish some ground rules for community cache placement. For example, if I were to hide a tag that has an existing traditional cache's coordinates stamped on it, and write a note on the existing cache page stating that the coordinates should now be changed to the location of the tag that I just hid, can I claim FTF on this new multicache?
-
I agree, things change, but if a cache changes to the point that it is drastically different than when it was first placed, it might be better to archive the old listing and submit a new listing for approval. As for the relative terrain difficulty experienced by a 70 y/o vs. a 17 y/o, the d/t ratings are only meaningful if they are determined relative to other caches, not other cachers. Just like the clothes example, there are people for whom a particular shirt would feel like a circus tent, while others would describe the exact same shirt as feeling like a straight jacket. But an "XL" descriptor should be somewhat of a useable predictor when shopping for clothes, regardless. I think this concept would work perfectly for geocaches. I know not to expect a change to be made, I just find the topic interesting.
-
Perhaps the real question is, why are cache owners allowed to make changes to their already-published caches? In the example above, it seems the cache *hide* was likely changed significantly from when the OP found the cache. As was mentioned, it doesn't seem like this particular cache's terrain rating was updated to be more accurate; it seems the terrain rating was changed to reflect a change in the actual cache placement. In this case, wouldn't it be better to require the old cache and cache page be archived and the "new" cache be submitted for approval?
Maybe my assumptions are wrong, maybe the cache owner did get some feedback from finders who felt the terrain rating was off. I guess being able to change the d/t ratings does have value. But maybe any d/t rating change should be left up to the cache finders to vote on. You know how sometimes when shopping online for clothes, you'll see a rating of how people who bought the item feel the item fits? It is usually like, "62% feel this item runs small," or, "89% rate this item's fit as 'just right,'" or whatever. We have all found caches that had a d/t rating that definitely "runs small."
Maybe we could rate our found caches in a similar way, and if these ratings lead to an obvious trend, the d/t rating on the cache page could be updated automatically. -
Some of these are great ideas that make for great hides, others would not get listed because of guideline violations (number 10 would likely be considered a buried container, for example). It's great that you are focusing on creative hides! If your goal is to rack up favorite points, however, be sure to not only be creative with the hide; a well-written/designed cache page, a clever theme, a clever cache name, etc. all go a long way towards earning favorite points!
-
I love the name "RadioactiveToad," and absolutely love your profile pic drawing!! I wish gc.com displayed profile pics larger on profile pages. I also love that you are giving so much thought to your geocaching name and towards developing a unique, interesting, memorable "identity" in the geocaching universe. There was a time when the geocaching profile page did have a larger profile pic as well as other things to help users customize their profile page; maybe someday it'll become more like that again, as I'm personally not a fan of the changes.
-
I actually had no idea what geotours were, and when I first saw the "Milwaukee's Neighborhood's" Geotour, I assumed geotours were something entirely different. From what I have learned since, I think my initial comment was posted prematurely.
-
Oh! Thanks, Pup Patrol and Rock Chalk!
-
I had been inactive from geocaching for a while and have recently picked up interest in the hobby again. There have been many changes made to geocaching.com over the years, but one of the best ideas added to the site is geotours! I just clicked on a banner ad for a Milwaukee's Neighborhood's (sic) geotour. This was the first I had heard of geotours, but it looks like an awesome idea! There are only 2 geotours in Wisconsin; I wish this idea would catch on! How long have geotours been around? What could be done to make them more popular?
-
I picked that day for the found it because that is the day I figured out the questions. If not for the earthday cache thing it still would be unclaimed as a find. I otherwise wouldn't know what day to pick. The first day I was there, The second? I just logged it on that day.
This is a pretty unique situation; I don't blame you for logging it as "found" on the date on which you figured out the answers. But why did you return to the cache site multiple times? Was it because you needed more information to answer the questions? If this is the case, I guess the first visit, and each subsequent visit, to the site would technically be DNFs. The final visit to the site, when you got all the information needed, would be the date on which you "found" it.
-
I can see how people might log an EarthCache using the date that the questions were answered, if the brainwork was finished on a later date than when the location was visited...BUT, I disagree with this concept. Geocaching is about going to a physical location. EarthCaches are, of course, still geocaches; all EarthCaches have a physical location that you are expected to visit in order to best answer the questions. With that in mind, I think EarthCaches should be logged in a manner consistent with the logging practice for all other geocaches (including virtual caches): the date you got your butt out to the physical location is the date that you "found" the cache.
-
Sorry, I had no intention of derailing this thread.
-
Are you denying the existence of our one and only true lord and savior: Donald Trump?
(I can't decide if I'd rather argue religion or politics.)
-
I prefer to write the date as: "this twenty-seventh day of October in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen."
-
Hi all.
I haven't really participated in geocaching or these forums in a couple of years, but this weekend I was visiting a good friend. The two of us were sitting on his front porch when his wife and eleven-year-old daughter came through, the eleven-year-old loudly announcing that they were going "geocatching." I didn't correct her, but said, "Hey, I've done that!" I learned they'd just discovered this hobby and didn't yet have a GPS.
They were going to a nearby county park armed with only a cache page print-out, but the eleven-year-old was confident she was going to find the cache because the clue was obvious: in a hollow tree. The park they were headed to had a couple hundred acres of trees; I wasn't surprised when they returned home without the find.
She's an exceptionally bright home-schooled kid and she's excited about geocaching. It made me a bit envious, really. I once felt that way about caching, too; it WAS exciting. I promised her that the next time I visit, I'll bring my GPS, show her how to use it through a couple of hunts, and let her borrow it indefinitely. I'll admit, I'm beginning to get a bit excited about this hobby again myself.
Does anyone else refer to it as "geocatching"? To me, it makes perfect sense. You go out and "catch" a geocache (presumably pronounced "geocatch"). Sure, "geocaching" is how it's spelled, but many things these days are purposely misspelled, especially on the internet.
-
...yeah, nevermind!
-
You know I was kidding, right?...and register the site under a different name out of a different region of the nation. Yep. That's what I'd do.
-
Until Jeremy replies with a suitable explanation, I'm going to go on believing the conspiracy theory. (It's much more fun than boring ol' reality.)
-
What is a "tinky links"???? Looks like they have changed the wording a bit. I wonder if that is in response to this thread, yet there is still a lot of poor grammar and typos.
(the 'bold' is mine)
Yeah, good point. Come on, 'fes up, who are ya? (yeah, like that will work!)
Well, if I owned the "treasure map brokers" site, I'd come to the GC.com forums and start a thread that read something like ...oh, I don't know... maybe "The ad on my Groundspeak homepage caught my eye... etc., etc."
-
But what do you do when the muggle's name is Norm or Marvin????
Then you act really offended when they can't remember your name or where you know them from. -
I remember a thread some time ago on this topic where someone suggested using "norm" as a replacement for "muggle." This seemed brilliant to me... you could yell "norm" to someone you're caching with to warn them of approaching muggles, and the approaching muggles would simply think you're yelling your friend's name. Brilliant! (So why didn't it catch on?)
-
There are so many things about GC.com’s handling of virtual caches that I find so strange. Waymarking.com is NOT a suitable replacement for virtual caches; so essentially, virtual caches have been eliminated from the game altogether. Why? Is it because there needs to be a container and logbook in order for there to be a geocache? Many argue that this is the case, but I’d bet that many more would say that the spirit of geocaching is in the hike and in the adventure and in being taken to places they’ve never been before. To many people, virtual caching epitomizes what geocaching is (or should be) all about.
Another thing that is strange to me is that there was a “wow factor” requirement for approving virtual caches, but simply a “so you put a geocache there, didja?” requirement for approving traditional caches! I agree that the “wow factor” is subjective and makes it necessary to draw arbitrary lines as to what can and cannot be approved, but look at what geocaching has become today. To me, it is apparent that the “wow factor” requirement was a great idea and geocaching would be a better game today if it had been applied to regular caches, as well.
Please, bring back virtuals, “wow factor” rule and all, and immediately begin applying a similar “wow factor” rule for all geocaches! That'll be the day...
Maybe we could rate our found caches in a similar way, and if these ratings lead to an obvious trend, the d/t rating on the cache page could be updated automatically.
If there were no rules regarding location for hiding caches
in General geocaching topics
Posted
This place is very near my home and is a great spot for a hide... except for one little detail.