Jump to content

WearyTraveler

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WearyTraveler

  1. That’s all well and good. However, on the “proof that a catcher came in contact,” there’s a (Probably several) Facebook group where users post pictures of trackables, along with their codes / numbers. People are “discovering” trackables without ever touching them.
  2. I saw a FB post the other day about a bison about 15’ in a tree! Thru the thread, they’re saying that there are lots there and that they carry a telescoping pole. My goodness - think about it - 15’ up in a tree.
  3. We don’t normally travel anymore. But with the virus, we’re staying home more. We have tickets to a play this weekend but will likely cancel. We’re in our 60s as is most of the attendees for these plays, so we’re being safe than sorry. We’ll see how things play out in the next month. To me, that’s when we’ll know which way the numbers are headed.
  4. So if a team of 10 is out there gaggling a cache, after the first one to see it screams "there it is - WE found it!" Then everyone runs over and there are 10 FTFs... come on... I know, I'm anal... I take the term "first to find" literally while some take it to mean "I was in the group too!"
  5. I have a standard boilerplate log that I use for finds. But if it's something more than a cache n dash, I try to add a small sentence or two about that specific cache.
  6. I'll stir it up again... I was looking at a cache log. Two FTFs. So, two catchers are looking and they both claim FTF? Come on. There's an FTF and a STF. Whoever spotted it first was the first to find. The second set of eyes are just a smiley.
  7. I back.... I've been pretty inactive about caching lately. But, I just returned from Texas for a visit with my daughter. While there she wanted to cache so we loaded up the phones and headed out. I still have the same irks as always. We found several replacement caches. While some may consider dropping a replacement cache a good thing, it's only a "good" thing if you're certain that the original is gone (I know - let's start the CO responsibilities arguement again). Line in particular irked me. A simple 1.5/1.5 near a cemetery. Listed as a "small" in the description and the hint pointing to a bush / tree. It wasn't till after we tromped around for a while that we checked the hint. Then another period of tromping. Then reading a bunch of old posts in which one had new coords by someone that replaced it with a film canister. The new one was over 50yds away and outside the cemetery.
  8. I was unaware that many virtual cache solutions were in waymarks. I guess I just go to the location and find the answers. Who'd have guessed. While reading about arm chair virtual caching etc... I don't think that that's a reason or a detriment to having virtuals. We've got cachers that carry a bag of throwdowns that have thousands of "finds," amazingly haven't "not found" a cache in years, and have left a string of micros in place of the originals. I personally like the going after virtuals and wish they'd be reinstated (not just a one time "reward"). Maybe with more stringent approval requirements. And what's wrong with the arm chair solution? The "Finder" would have learned something from the Internet search, wouldn't they? And that's one of the cool things about caching - you learn something new and cool.
  9. To be fair, the cache is only about 50m from the road (assuming that is publicly accessible), and there's a pull off area where you could park and probably get a bit closer, and it's hardly a mountain, just a few metres up a scree slope. Of course I haven't been there and so not as well placed as the OP to grade it, but just looking at the maps and satellite images it might be a T2-3 but doesn't look any harder than that. And the slope/rocks/etc have no bearing on the D rating. True - but I was speaking in generalities- d/t should reflect reality. I look at d/t as well as reading description and logs (so I'm not usually fooled). Others may not - and head out in business attire and loafers only to be rudely surprised.
  10. I drove to Cumberland today. 40 miles! Did a PQ of caches along the route. DNF'd them all!!!
  11. Something that you may consider, maybe the CO wants this listing available to all members including basic members that use the app. Hence the 1.5 D/T rating. Just a thought. +1 A friend of mine places caches that are easy for him to get to. Most would consider even the trails to them a 2. He'd like all players to be able to play. He's one of the few who still place in awesome, unique, in the woods locations, so I'm not telling him... For me, lying about ratings does more harm than the possibility of unintentionally excluding a small handful of non-paying geocachers. I don't the no that rating a d4 as a d1 is a good thing, regardless of allowing non pm mambers the ability to see it. With all the discussion on the other threads about "what constitutes a search" and "the search contains the journey" that would be inconsiderate to the cachers that may drive a couple of hours with the intent of a short trek. They get to the parking lot and look up the mountain and throw curses at the CO. Rate it what it deserves. True - we should all read prior logs before setting out (a whole other set of forum threads!) but not everyone does. I know that I try to read the description and previous logs while sitting at home, but I'm not everybody...
  12. Here goes. Yessssss! Thanks. There went!
  13. I tried to hold an event near an airport - wasn't approved as there's a restriction of certain locations due to terrorism etc... not sure if that was just the local reviewer or a GS wide restriction.
  14. Same. Very first event I attended as a newcomer, with a friend who was a also a newcomer, a conveyor belt of people simply handing the cache to each other and setting off to the next - we were stunned that anybody could see this as an enjoyable experience We opted to completely ignore the collection of caches surrounding the event and leave them so that we could come back and find them ourselves, for real. Granted...I'm probably in the minority here when I say that I'd prefer being out all by my lonesome any day of the week and that caching with someone else just doesn't appeal to me at all. Not to say I never would, just that it is a totally different experience even when my wife and/or kids are along (when I can actually convince them to go along with me). Me being the responsible adult, that often means I have to pass up certain caches that have a degree of risk involved where I could potentially get stuck somewhere...or injured...or even killed...without anyone knowing my location. So basically my statement about 30+ people actually probably could also be stated as 3+ people, because I really just want to do this stuff on my own. I'm not antisocial...I'm just not in this to be social. There's a difference. I agree about the large group caching. I just can't see it as enjoyable with 30 people tromping around the woods... However, I like to go with 1 or 2 buddies. It's enjoyable to have company. Sometimes it feels good to be out by myself (with geopup) too. But I'd never feel comfortable with a platoon of cachers.
  15. Create a list and run a PQ off of it. Then you'll get a weekly reminder of all the caches on your "I need to go check these caches" list...
  16. This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't. These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing. I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one. Exactly - if I get to GZ and there are too many muggles around for me to search, or a bunch shows up in the middle of my search, that's not a dnf. If there's a hobo sleeping on the hide (I've run into this), that's not a dnf. Those are WNs - with an explanation in the log. That's why searchers should read the logs before attempting the cache, not just look for the dnf frownies...
  17. This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't. These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing. I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one. Exactly - if I get to GZ and there are too many muggles around for me to search, or a bunch shows up in the middle of my search, that's not a dnf. If there's a hobo sleeping on the hide (I've run into this), that's not a dnf. Those are WNs - with an explanation in the log. That's why searchers should read the logs before attempting the cache, not just look for the dnf frownies...
  18. This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't. These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing. I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one. I'm not sure but wasn't multiple dnfs always intended to be used as a potential heads up that a cache could be missing? More of a context thing, I would posit... If 5 cachers with few finds go out on a cache run and miss your cache, you'll get 5 dnfs, all on the same day ( heck - if the 5 split up and only 1 searches for yours, you're still going to get 5 dnfs). In his case, 5 dnfs wouldn't merit a nod from a CO. Hopefully the nag mail / health score wouldn't get triggered Now if you get a string of DNFs from experienced cachers, then maybe the CO should take a look.
  19. Just to be clear, what you are saying is that if my DNF log says "had to quit looking due to muggles," and that triggers a nag email, the cache owner should find a different hobby if she exercises her own discretion and doesn't check on the cache? no thats not what im sayin, please read my post again. I did read it again and what you are advocating is that cache owners should check on the cache regardless of the context contained in the DNFs. When I write a DNF, I don't usually write it with the intention of forcing someone to check on a cache. Therefore, in accordance with the new system, my protocol for logging is wrong, so I am changing it and won't be using DNFs because they're redundant. Context was a crucial aspect of my DNFs. If context is being stripped away, my DNFs have no meaning. Come on... that's nowhere near what he said... what he said was "If you are not going to maintain your caches you shouldn't place them in the first place and find a different hobby." And that's a correct statement - if you're not going to maintain your caches, perhaps being a CO isn't for you. I still log dnfs regardless of the new logging / score / what have you... they'll either help cachers and COs, or they won't. But they'll know that I tried and couldn't find it...
  20. You keep saying "it doesn't" but it did, just a single DNF generated an email to me telling me to visit the cache, disable it until I could or archive it. Maybe it's been tweaked since then, maybe it now needs two, three or whatever number of DNFs to fire it off, but as long as the system keeps insisting that some number of DNFs mean there's a problem with the cache, a well-intentioned DNF about storms, muggles or no phone reception could just be the one that sets it off. And on top of that we now have a Help Centre article telling people if they see a cache with several DNFs to log an NA! Jeff - could there have been comething in the dnf log that would have triggered the email to you as the CO? Like the dreaded "mold" thread... I find it hard to understand / believe that a single dnf would trigger a "go check it" email. I'm not saying it didn't - I'm just having trouble seeing how it happened. I've had a couple of dnfs on my caches but haven't had the GS email... I still plan to log caches that I didn't find as dnfs. I watch them and eventually they're found or archived. But I've yet to see a dnf'd cache immediately get NMd or NAd...
  21. If it's a Traditional cache, who reads the description? Agreed. We don't know of anyone who's been in this hobby more than a year or so who reads descriptions of a traditional, unless it's D/T are higher than 3. I actually read the descriptions - only been in the game a few years though... True - some cachers rarely read the descriptions - just dl the coords and go for it. However, many do so after logging a dnf. And many (?) cachers looking at recent logs might skip a cache if there's a recent dnf. So noting that it was there (certified by a CO check) on a certain date might help them choose to search for that one. Either way - the gist of the OP was about how to note that he, as CO, was checking. Updating the description alleviates log clog...
  22. Another option would be to edit the description - something like "checked June 25 2017 - log and cache in good condition" That would alleviate any log clutter - and the CO would only have to change one line in the description.
  23. On a similar note - how long should cachers keep logging finds after the container is missing? Container has been missing for a while - swag on the ground - I NMd it a month or so ago - getting finds logged for months now with just finding swag at GZ..
  24. Except if the last five logs were OMs, that's all someone will get in their PQ. About half my hides have had more than one visit from me since the last find; one of them has a partly submerged physical waypoint that needs the slime cleaned off every couple of months but it's only had one find since last September, another nearby that I usually check on at the same time hasn't had any finds since last August. With very little caching activity around here now (the last new cache published was in February) that's only going to become more problematic. Good point. If you don't want to clog up the logs, just change the date on the OM every time you check the cache. That way the OM will only show the most recent and leave 4 found / dnf logs for the PQ...
×
×
  • Create New...