GRANPA ALEX

The idea kinda causes me to withdraw or recoil . . . not that the site has no value and should not be remunerated for expenses but that it invites a consideration of the matter when it has not (I think) been so considered. Having seen the greed monster kill joyful concepts before, I am fearful it would do it again, inches at a time, perhaps. Then, maybe, just maybe, - that is not a bad thing as it might limit the participants in a game that is running rampant with so many new people hiding so many new caches in so many creative and numerous ways in so many places . . . yea, who needs that?

I like multi-caches that find a way to get smilies for each stage . . . as many stages as you like. THIS way, you can please those who have little time to complete a long multi-cache and those who have the time to do it all at once - you bring a happy caching experience to all who come AND to yourself as you read the logs. It sometimes becomes a community challenge & competition. Eventually, locals with little time can work their way through the stages and secure the final location as the reward for the multi-cache completion . . . THAT is fun, too!

It all sounds real nice and it would be the optimum situation if every cache was placed with permission, but that really is just a fantasy. The truth is, most caches are, really, placed sans permission . . . verified by public area landowners & security coming over to inquire of the seekers and being surprized/amused/perplexed. If they are placed in public access areas sans permission, how much more so back in the woods where no one sees the hider or the seeker? We need simply to be realistic. Try to place yourself in the position of the landowner, what would you like to see done; in the place of the seeker and what reaction/comfort level would be resulting; as a hider, how responsible is the placement. Surely, get permission everywhere that you, reasonably, can get permission. We are not an organization of RULES, we should let PRINCIPALS guide us in making sound judgements . . .

To me a DNF means I failed to sign the log . . . whatever resason, no matter - no log no find. I have seen them, couldn't reach them and could not sign = DNF. It happened tonight on the grandstand at a ball game . . . big-big fat lady was sitting right over the target & her even bigger boyfriend sat next to her = DNF and my life continued!

I have had several logs deleted lately . . . no explanation, no character displayed - I just move one to the next hunt. Unfortunately, the more people that join the game, the more likely we are to discover some that are unreasonable, unskilled in interpersonal relations or are simply, in a word, jerks. Keep the blood pressure down and the joy up - go get another one and pile your smilies! It ain't worth the discomfort to even address the issue.

I own two caches in the same park that I placed with some difficulty in keeping them apart the suggested distance . . . a reviewer then later approved a new cache placed between the two that is within the range of the two older caches. What is vital is that is is absolutely impossible for anyone seeking any one of the three to trip over one of the others . . . THIS is a good reason to say YES in approving the new cache or any other ones and a good decision on the part of the approver. Sometimes, the distance concept simply makes good sense, sometimes it does not . . . maybe that is a reason it is NOT a rule, but a reasonable consideration that should be treated liberally.

A bad cache to me is one on my next nearest page that I can not bag/find . . . some weird puzzle that is off-the-wall strange or a multi one that requires a boat for one stage and mountain climbing gear for the next - caches that I must pass but look at on every PQ - I just HATE them (but they are probably fine caches & I am gonna hide some myself . . heh-heh! )

My longest was the 11 mile loop trail in the Smoky Mountains National Forest at Floyd VA . . . five caches along the trail that were just out of the park on private property by permission - great hike & well done caches . . . one was the final of a multi that began out of the park. When I finished, I was finished!!!

Met a family of boxers at a cache site, a super location, old one room school house in the woods. Helped them find the box but did not find the cache until a year later . . . the box was still there & safe. As I learned when finding the cache a year later, they were some 40' apart but within range of the error on the GPSr, espccially when the unsuccessful area was expanded. I signed the box logbook, I always do - just for fun & to let the boxer know they are near a cache. No problems, just another story to tell. We certainly can co-exist, well, if respect is demonstrated.

As a local cacher (Raleigh area) I can tell you . . . you will have TOO MANY cache choices and TOO MANY areas to cache . . . no matter what your desire and flavor - there will be too many of those too. You can even leave the Raleigh area, if you feel crowded, go south 30 minutes and drop into a heaven of caches in Sanford/Lee County . . . the whole central NC area is busting with hides, good ones, challenging ones, puzzle ones, tc ones, mystery ones, multis, micros . . . it is all there for you. Come early & stay late! Great hotels, super people and there is the Horsegeeks' BBQ, too. This is NOT an event to miss, the planning is thorough and as well done as the chicken pork & beef spread out for your happy consumption. See ya'll in Raleigh, come ready to have fun and eat lots! You are warmly welcomed!!!

WOW!!!! You two were who I had in mind when I spoke of liberal hiders who have become extinct in the Charleston (Low Country) area . . . too bad for Chas. but hurray for Columbia, now that you have moved. Glad you are doing well and still active, great news!!! Also good news that you have the computer thing handled !!!! Am planning a Columbia run/visit soon, would be a real kick to find some new Brett & Citty hides - wish you well there in Columbia, keep it happy & fun! Maybe I will run into you, put a cache in your own front yard, like before, surely that will be easily approved. Too bad, too-too bad, it seems it is as I so sadly suspected, I guess . . . the SC reviewer has taken the joy out of hiding new caches and killed participation in growth of the game. Maybe a new reviewer should be considered, one who wants growth and prosperity that is measured by the fun and participation of the players should be considered, fresh ideas are always worth considering . . . but that is politics and certainly not my venue. I just hate that he has so hurt the game . . . it is a sad & poor situation that hurts people too.

Not wanting to start a some major issue or hurt anyone's feelings but I was just wondering, is there some effort or activity actually stifling new cache placements in SC (or just in the Low Country)? Reason for asking . . . when I go to my home in Charleston, I find I must increase the perimeter of my hunting to well & way outside of the city to find caches and then, most of them are older caches that I never got to because the city/peninsula was earlier so plentiful in new caches. Most recently, on my short visits, I have not been able to cache because the distance to/between unfound caches was prohibitive for the time I had to play. There just does not seem to be new caches being placed in urbia/suburbia to any appreciative degree, even by the ones who were earlier so very active and creative before in hiding fine caches. Just curious, are there some constrictive regulations that only our SC friends are being expected to meet that stifles their hiding activity or is there a general diminished interest or am I just in the dark & guessing incorrectly? I say this this, because, there seems to be no diminished activity anywhere else in the SE that I visit . . . only in SC. Of course, there must be a concern for hides in certain locales, for a while, after the earlier legislative turmoil, but have things now gone too far the the right, too conservative? Are demands placed upon hiders stifling their interest and killing the hiding activity? It is sadly peculiar and most unfortunate that the other site is now growing there in hides and activity from gc people, is it a precipitant of a controlling stifling issue on new gc placements?

Personally, I usually simply refuse to walk away from a hide - if someone cared enough to place it, I believe it deserves a good effort . . . but rock pile micro hunts, bush micro hunts and micros without hints in the dense woods (poorer signal) are becoming rather, well, a really tedious bore. It seems that the 'mindless' non-creative hides are no longer worth a great deal of time/effort, anymore. I love micros, in fact, I prefer them . . . but some are just a waste of the little time I have to spend playing the game.

Move topic if not approipriate here . . . My 60CS and 60CX often have the letters 'a' and 'e' missing in the GC# displayed on the GPSr. It has happened now on four 60-series units I have had. Now, it SOUNDs like a GPS situation until I add that it happens from three different computers (2 laps & one desk) and two different versions of GSAK. ANd it has happened on my friend's Legend CX, as well. Anyone got stuff that they can share on this . . . it does not stop the world but it is a bother!

I think that's what we're talking about. Effort does not equal a find, a find equals a find. If you placed the cache, you cannot truthfully claim to have found it since its location was never absent from you. The smiley is not a reward, it's merely a tally. Well, yea, it really IS a reward, of sorts. Besides, if the owner, and it is up to him, wants to delete my log after I have provided full disclosure in what I did for him (& others) . . . that will be fine. It is our game and our game say it is HIS (the owner's) cache allowing him to set the parameters of what logs are acceptable . . . some caches have really difficult logging procedures but, they are aceptable. In this case, the owners have found service of their cache worthy of a found log . . . they can do that!

Like wimseyguy, I have replaced a cache container/log when it was missing/wet/damaged, verified by limited targets and earlier DNF's and a call, if I can . . . it is simply a courtesy to cachers that follow me and to the owner. It, too, to me, is part of the game . . . service where you can and help others enjoy their hunts. Heck, I have a handy box of baggies with logs already folded in them, plus a bunch of odd containers to use. at the ready. I email the owner to let them know what I did and they, then, have the options to leave it, replace it, archive it or whatever. When I do this, I log a find on the cache for my efforts . . . the owners have the right to accept or reject my log - they have never rejected it and have been thankful. Beyond we two, IMO, it is no one elses business.

Am I right that the forums are on one site (Groundspeak) and the rest is on gc.com . . . the latter of which is often less responsive?

I want to enter a post to make it perfectly clear that my post named NO one in relating a story about one of my caches and I won't name anyone now. I will not use this media to hurt anyone or discolor their standing in our caching community. The object of my post was to address the OP topic regarding Deleting Logs and my opinion as to when it might be appropriate to do so. Yes, I certainly do not agree with someone who worked to get one of my caches deleted, but THAT was not the cache I was referring to in my comment, anyway . . . another one altogether. It was only a bison tube, not the end of the world . . . I have more bison tubes many more, I just love micros!!!!

Have you ever noticed that there are some people who are kinda 'invisible' in public places? Not the young handsome or pretty ones who are smartly dressed and attentive . . . but the 'bums' or , too often, the elderly who seem to amble listlessly? Just turned 61 and notice that I can now almost disappear in a public place, completely ignored - works for me. Could be a detective, if I was smart enough. Play to the advantage, grab the micro & go!

There genuinely are circumstances where a finder may try to spoil the caching experience for other seekers & the owner by making unkind (not cursing or vulgar) smearing comments in the logs. The owner can & should remove such selfish comments, but honor any re-logging that is friendly, even a TNLNSL is fine. I had a micro where a seeker, who disliked micros, used the entire tiny micro log for their personal negative entry and then went online and smeared the hide. I had to replace the log, of course, which should have held 30+ entries. I then went online and deleted the online smear log . . . the only time I have ever felt it was genuinely appropriate to do so in just over four years of reading several 1000's of logs. Literally scores of others have & still rate the same cache as fun and with many-many other favorable comments. And yes, some TNLNSL logs are there, as well, this is fine - I think a micro cache can have a micro log comment but a smear tactic on the part of one cacher deserved a deletion. Negative, rude or contrary personal opinion is fine, in it's place . . . such as the forums or in personal emails . . . but not destructively placed on a cache page or site log. There, a deletion may be appropriate.

IMO . . . any cache that is placed is a good cache! To ask/demand donation of anything in order to log a find is not gonna be acceptable, as caches published must be open to all seekers, even those who want to withhold . . . so, this demand of blood would not be an owner perogative on the cache page. You could very well note on the cache page that the option to donate blood will be on-site and friends are encouraged to participate, some might be happy to do so - not me, but some.

My first cache was placed by a cacher that was inactive BEFORE I started caching, four years ago. What is nice is the the cache is still active and very well maintained, an ammo can only recently refreshed again as before over the years. It is a tough hide/find, so it does not get a lot of traffic but the owner is on top of it!

Upon logging a cache find, I check the cache page . . . NO log is present. Noticed this when I wanted to edit a log, it was not there to edit! Checking my profile, the count increased on each find log . . . but the log is a no show on the cache page, weird. Will probably be there tomorrow but it is totally inconvenient when trying to correct errors today! Is this common . . . is it the site lagging in process of data . . . can it be ME - naw!

It seems, to me, that being reasonable should be the rule in following the guidelines . . . consider the purpose of the guideline and how it applies to the situation, rather than being rigid and unreasonable in application of a guideline as if it were some law. If the situation does not allow for one to inadvertantly locate the second cache while searching for the first one and does not lend to area saturation . . . why not approve it? After all, a reviewer is not a law enforcement officer but someone who volunteers at measurable personal sacrifice to maintain & improve the value of the game for everyone - approving caches in a reasonable manner would satisfy this consideration. Having contributed, it may be contrary now to remark that the forums are not the best place for this conversation as it would better be served directly between the reviewer and the cacher . . . now, the cackles are up and the difficulty of a considered/reasonable resolution is enhanced.

Roger on THAT . . . I have enough problems going out on caches I HAVE found and finding them again - some are my hides. Caches tend to migrate away from original hide spots . . . it is murder!