Jump to content

TFTC

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    847
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TFTC

  1. OK see you at 9AM. It is supposed to be 76 and sunny on Saturday in Jamul! Hmm, that looks kid-bike-rideable via Google Earth - can anyone who's been there let me know if that's the case?
  2. Here's a later one dated June 6, 2005 from that thread: No. No temporary caches. No special log type. No "count" find for caches found during an event. I don't know how much clearer I need to be.
  3. Here's one more - Markwell's "two hoots" reference post. It's clear this discussion has been going on for years! At least it's not going to slow us down from finding caches!
  4. If you mean this one, then he said it's "stupid" but he was not losing "sleep over it." Thanks that is how we generally play ! If you follow the rest of that thread (which you can do by clicking the little arrow next to the "quote"), Jeremy also said this: No. No temporary caches. No special log type. No "count" find for caches found during an event. I don't know how much clearer I need to be.
  5. Well, OBVIOUSLY, they wouldn't be able to find them at the next event! (running away very fast) It's a complex murky mess if you ask me. I see things logged as finds that I wouldn't count as well. At the end of the day you just have to ask yourself, "Can I live with what I logged?" The last event I went to there were a dozen or so temps that were virtuals, I logged exactly zero of them. At that event I found and logged what were to become permanent caches that were introduced at the event, and I think two of the event temps that had a log book. That's what I could live with that day; that's what was honestly found by me. Hehe, well, please don't mind me - I really don't care what other people do! I'm just enjoying the lively discussions going on!
  6. If you mean this one, then he said it's "stupid" but he was not losing "sleep over it." The point is irrelevant. Temp caches aren't allowed on the site. And as I indicated in countless threads in the past, I think logging attended twice for an event is stupid, and posting additional logs to "match" whatever "count" you determined your numbers should be is equally stupid. However I have no plans to be the point police and create complicated rules for determining what counts as a find. That is up to the cache listing owner to decide. However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site. But as I also said before, I don't lose sleep over it. I stand by my stance that there are no "points" for geocaching and no score to be kept. The site does not keep score but simply offers a history of your finds.
  7. Well, OBVIOUSLY, they wouldn't be able to find them at the next event! (running away very fast)
  8. From another thread last year: The point is irrelevant. Temp caches aren't allowed on the site. And as I indicated in countless threads in the past, I think logging attended twice for an event is stupid, and posting additional logs to "match" whatever "count" you determined your numbers should be is equally stupid. However I have no plans to be the point police and create complicated rules for determining what counts as a find. That is up to the cache listing owner to decide. However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site. But as I also said before, I don't lose sleep over it. I stand by my stance that there are no "points" for geocaching and no score to be kept. The site does not keep score but simply offers a history of your finds.
  9. Yup, "to each their own", as they say. Those cache descriptions don't explicitly say to log each waypoint, though -- if I had been the first one to try that series, I probably would have written notes until I found them all. As I said, people can (and will) do whatever the web site allows them to do.
  10. I think the issues are being well debated in this thread. I like the analogy of someone trying to log every waypoint in a multi-cache but even that analogy fails when you consider that the waypoints in a multi also have to go thru a review process. Unfortunately, I just don't think the practice will end as long as the web site allows it.
  11. I think it's important to note that geocaching.com DOES NOT PREVENT multiple finds on a cache, which they could easily do if they felt such a restriction was necessary. Is that buttered popcorn you have there? It looks good! Actually, I think it's some kind of deadly combination of coconut oil and yellow dye #5?
  12. I think it's important to note that geocaching.com DOES NOT PREVENT multiple finds on a cache, which they could easily do if they felt such a restriction was necessary.
  13. Unless you can take them out of the trunk to log them, I bet the last 500 will be really hard to find!
  14. Very nice!! About time! I agree those are very nice! However, still suffering from the inability to hide your finds, it seems On edit: I see they are "still workin' on it"
  15. We were thinking of going down Saturday afternoon (TFTC kids and friend) but not sure how kid-friendly a MTRP cache run would be. But there sure are a lot down there so we could probably pick off some of the low-hanging fruit!
  16. San Diego Cache Event Team (whoever ends up going out on a mission organized here)
  17. Lets go geocaching in Montana! ahh, I guess I should check to see if there are any there first! I will guess there are more in SD county (maybe city) than the state of Montana! Better yet, move to Bagdad. Iraqi citizens pay five cents per gallon. Those were the good old days:
  18. We need to talk to you about your CC&R violations - you realize that you are not supposed to have anything that resembles furniture in your back yard, don't you!!
  19. Check this out. (note: for comparison - the prices are 2 years old) ((here's a newer one)) Thanks! I feel much better about paying $3.35 yesterday. You could probably score all the caches in Venezuela for under a buck! (pssst, don't tell John & Jess - there are 3 FTF opportunities! )
  20. Check this out. (note: for comparison - the prices are 2 years old) ((here's a newer one))
  21. Not sure if this is related but, check it out.
  22. Try clearing the temporary internet files. Good suggestion! I was thinking the same thing might work.... Did that and the cookies. Still the same. Thanks my son will look at it after church. What browser/version are you using? Looking at the source of the home page, it appears your browser doesn't like links that start with "./" (for example, the stylesheet, the search buttons). If that's the case, this appears to be a design flaw with the site.
  23. minimalist 3 - GPSr, Treo 650 w/pen stylus
×
×
  • Create New...