Jump to content

Vater_Araignee

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    1736
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vater_Araignee

  1. How did you get the labeling on the rings? They look like stickers. If you look at the J & S on the fifth ring you can see the top of the S is overlapping the bottom of the J.
  2. Don't forget "easy to hide". If there wasn't any restriction like the WOW factor, I would fully expect the maps to be cluttered with innumerable poor virtuals in very short order. Remember, the proximity guideline doesn't apply to virtuals. They could be placed anywhere, no matter how saturated an area may already be. As you mentioned, there are many people these days that are willing to put minimal effort, time, and expense into placing a micro. What if they then didn't need to put any effort/time/expense into placing caches? Do you really believe that people wouldn't jump all over a cache type with no restrictions? They put no effort, expense, time, and quality in micros now, so what is the difference? If they get archived, they are left as litter! Other sites allow virtuals and don't seem to have the "problems" you describe. John Because other sites have less than 5% the amount of users.
  3. With their own count like benchmarks and a global setting to hide them. Then people who honestly like will have them. Numbers purists wont bunch their boxers. The individual who thinks that the phrase Virtual Cache is an oxymoron can keep them from cluttering lists and maps permanently. For those of you who only want them back for quick found it increments, I'm sorry I cant figure out a way to appease you also, but then again your numbers are supposedly so insignificantly small compared to the others as not to matter.
  4. This got me thinking. Baseball isn't always "highly disciplined" or even a "team sport" - I remember playing many a 'work up' game as a youth. No teams and only the individual's skill that got him to the plate. On the other side, geocaching isn't only a 'individual pursuit' either. It takes a team to do it - hider (CO), lister (GC.com), and seekers. Without all three, there wouldn't be much going on around here. The Tigers, Jays and Umpires are not one team. hider (CO) = Defense seekers = Offense lister (GC.com) = All other non team roles
  5. Q1: Do you read the hint and if so when? After 30 minutes if I haven't found it. Q2: Do you read the description and if so when? Before getting to GZ, when I'm being picky about what gets exported to my gpsr and that could be days before I actually go out. And about 5 minutes before I read the hint. Q3: Do you read the past logs and if so when? After 60 minutes if I haven't found it, if I remember to include them in the export.
  6. Almost agree, I think it is more like "teach them better." Once my daughter became old enough to go to the park by herself she became old enough to teach to hit sensitive spots, scream for help and attempt to jab neck and eyes with a pencil. A My First Ticonderoga to be exact. Now she is 13 and because of cracked ribs I wont spar with her till she learns not to hit daddy so hard.
  7. I didn't read every post so someone probably pointed this out but it is worth repeating. Many people with massive find counts have alternate accounts that they use for their hides.
  8. I disagree, and I'll tell you why. I think that the favourite point is an expression of approval for whatever reason. I feel that removing that symbolic expression also negates your statement. Is no statement the same as a blue ribbon? Not in my book. I think that history is as much a part of this game as the future and we explore other people's experience to learn about them. It would be nice to see that a person had caches in their past that were favourited by fellow cachers. If only as a part of their previous efforts, it still tells a story. You do disagree, and I'll tell you why. You do not differentiate a cache from a listing even tho a listing is not a cache. But that is your prerogative. I tend to have a more blunt view. Q: What is the point of a favorite point? A: The point of Favorites is to recommend great caching experiences to others. Now granted that explanation is found under favoriting events but the logic holds true to archived. Why recommended a great caching experience to others that they can not have? It is rather pointless pun intended.
  9. I would like to point out that awarding a favorite to a cache is awarding it to a cache but removing a favorite point from an archived listing is not removing it from a cache.... unless the CO left geolitter behind.
  10. ABAR ARRQRQ GB RNFL Ybbx yrsg Purpx guveq oenapu ba frpbaq gerr I wouldn't have looked at the hint if that was true. Ditto. Which left? Keeping it simple, there are 360 of them. And now we have a double directional quandary.
  11. That would be fun. 07-08-12 Michigan 26967 caches 0.27snip caches per square mile. 25478 ATAU %94.47snip 1489 PMOC %5.52snip Unfortunately I only have the boundary coords for 3 state parks and 1 national in Michigan.
  12. I saw a cache being hidden and took the opportunity to FTF it after the CO left. I also don't see a problem with giving someone the coords to test the cache, they are FTF. To me it doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment being FTF if you are the only other person besides the CO who has the coords. First, what exactly does FTF mean... First To Find, if you are first to find then your are first to find. Second, being first isn't an accomplishment unless other seekers are in active competition with you. You may have personal games you play with other seekers, but once broken down into what the game is, its only seeker Vs. CO.
  13. GPSRs should be free. High speed internet should be free in every home with a minimum dedicated 30mbsp bandwidth per computer. All parks should be free. All caches should be free. All COs should show up at their caches to point out exactly where it is at. All because 25¢ out of every $100 in taxes I pay goes to the national parks.
  14. Well, I'm not a stalker or anything, and many others do this, but when a poster's location comes into question, I usually look at their hides to see where they're from. But I can't do that in this case. So are you saying it's "out of towners" who place these garbage, pun intended, caches in your area? It's a long standing joke about placing caches ON dumpsters, but does that really happen? Nearby to them, I'm sure. And of course they have permission to put a cache out back of the plaza on private property near the dumpster, right? Yeah, sure they do. The very first cache I refused to log was a hide-a-key on the bottom of a dumpster.
  15. I saw a cache being hidden and took the opportunity to FTF it after the CO left. I also don't see a problem with giving someone the coords to test the cache, they are FTF.
  16. Why put caches at dumpsters? Well, because they are typically poorly thought out micros and ironically that is exactly where poorly thought out micros belong.
  17. Hell it would be nice to get a NM log before some self entitled cacher decides that because he DNFed it needs a SBA.
  18. Timber_Wolf could to log it. I would be in bad form, but it can be logged by the CO.
  19. No, I'm just saying the guidelines are unclear as to what counts as terrain. The cliff is clearly part of the terrain. A pole is debatable. What about if everything is flat, but retrieving the cache requires hanging from your feet under a bridge or other difficult physical feat. So there is no "steep elevation change" - but it is similar to the pole in that it is physically difficult to access the cache. Would a you be capable of using a 30' implement to reach the cache and replace it or would you need to get closer to it?The way I see it, you are going to have to climb something to get to that cache and that is part of the terrain. Even if you had to bring what you are climbing on. To debate the pole can lead to debating any man made item as being terrain and any vertical item like a tree. Lets say you have a paved path 10 miles long with 6" bricks lining it and a cache at the end of it but the cache is only a half mile from the start. Now that's debatable as a 1.5 or a 3. However, if you have to climb 30' into a tree at the end then both would be a 4.
  20. Vater_Araignee, Please explain. I fail to see the logic of why the heat would make you less likely to log caches online. As I'm sure you can tell from the post I don't log every cache anyway, but I also wont log wile in a bad mood and the longer it takes me to log a cache, the less likely I am to log it. This is the first time in my life I can remember the heat effecting my temperament like this, normally I love the heat and the hotter it got the better my mood would be.
  21. I think the guidelines are unclear, and both interpretations are valid. As the bottom of the pole is at the posted coordinates, it is different than a mountain trail which is very steep near the end. So what you are saying is that if I walk on a level paved path to the base of a 200' cliff and reach GZ then it warrants a t1 even tho technically the cache is still 200' away? See, the bottom of the pole is not where the cache is located and even tho GS does not allow for Z, the cache is still located at X,Y,Z. I would probably hit the floor LAMO at the person who claimed they visited GZ at GC1D6ZQ and never entered the water.
  22. 'Enjoyed by people with similar preferences' is good. Are you going to research all the finds of someone who favorited a cache to see if their preferences align with yours? I certainly don't have time for that. I don't have time for it either. Hence, my desire for a "system [that] can correlate my preferences with the preferences of others..." Preference correlation or a true rating system, either is better than the facebook goodie goodie knock off.
  23. You found the cache you signed the log, then claim it.
  24. I respectfully disagree. I think a negative rating could create animosity in an otherwise friendly community. Due to the inability to give something a negapoint, many are left knowing you can't judge cache by its favorites. I decided I wanted to see what the highest Favorited chache in Michigan was like, walked away with pinch more respect for how well hidden LPC's are. I should have read the description. I also walked away no longer proud to have a cache in the top 25 public traditional, and top 40 over all. The favpoints as a rating just doesn't work as a whole, some can force it to work for them selves but I am inclined to believe that they are more likely to refuse to admit a fail to them selves. Where I to do a rating system using the points it would be. (Default for every cache) Not rating. Options: Apply a positive point (subtracts from your total points to give out) Apply no point (it is not the same as not rating, it is actively claiming indifference or saying "This cache is so so.") Apply a negative point (subtracts from your total points to give out) So lets say you have 10 points to dole out and you rate 10 caches. 4 positive 4 negative 2 indifferent. You would have 2 points left over. Now people have more useful information. Lets say a cache received 5 positive points but 20 indifferent. I'll bet you would quickly infer that the positive voters where exuberant people and/or friends of the CO. A 5+/5/5- cache would yet again show a so so cache. This held true before favor points and it will till there is a rating system with enough people using it... The only way to make sure most of the caches you do are exemplary, is to learn who the exemplary CO's are.
×
×
  • Create New...