BassoonPilot

quote:Originally posted by exConn: Anyone else looking forward to shaking off the cold and heading towards Spring weather in our region? So you folks south of Jersey actually had the winter we didn't?

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: That would seem like a reasonable argument if just "Cow" was used. But, interestingly, "Mister Cow" takes more typing than Cachecow. Wouldn't the correct shortening of "Mister Cow" be "Bull?"

quote:Originally posted by King Pellinore: Although I like the idea of exclusivity, I have a hard enough time getting people to visit my caches without narrowing the scope further. It's true; in the area we live, placing a cache of level 3 or higher is practically a guarantee of exclusivity. Who needs MOCs?

quote:Originally posted by The Artful Dodger: When I was setting up my Splitrock Slendor multicache , I over-estimated when the sun would set and, as I made my way back from the multi-caches, it was as dark as black can be. Using my small torch, I stumbled back using the BackTrack feature of the GPS. The last section before my car was a rocky hill..... ...I fell down so badly that Humpty Dumpty would be laughing! Needless to say, I was cut and bleeding all over. Thankfully, I had a female companion with me that patched up my wounded pride Hey Artful, we notice you didn't say anything about your lady friend falling down or receiving injuries. Was that because she stopped and asked for directions?

quote:Originally posted by The Artful Dodger: When I was setting up my Splitrock Slendor multicache , I over-estimated when the sun would set and, as I made my way back from the multi-caches, it was as dark as black can be. Using my small torch, I stumbled back using the BackTrack feature of the GPS. The last section before my car was a rocky hill..... ...I fell down so badly that Humpty Dumpty would be laughing! Needless to say, I was cut and bleeding all over. Thankfully, I had a female companion with me that patched up my wounded pride Hey Artful, we notice you didn't say anything about your lady friend falling down or receiving injuries. Was that because she stopped and asked for directions?

I was shocked, shocked I tell ya, to see that Mopar has more posts than Jeremy OR Markwell. We have a new legend in the making . . . if he can keep up the pace! (But not Jeremy's other identity.)

I was shocked, shocked I tell ya, to see that Mopar has more posts than Jeremy OR Markwell. We have a new legend in the making . . . if he can keep up the pace! (But not Jeremy's other identity.)

quote:Originally posted by The Artful Dodger: I agree that getting to cache is most of the fun part of the cache seek! I think I will tackle Waterboy's http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=15551 on Saturday Oh, that's such a good hike; you'll love it. AND, there's another cache you can pick up along the way.

quote:Originally posted by RDVH: I believe that there is no thing as too close. A few people I know that would like to cache would rather hit as many as they could in one park no matter how close. We seem to be forgetting it's the thrill of the find. That reminds me . . . I've got to organize the Easter egg hunt for the kids this year. Thanks! I would think that a steady diet of closely spaced, unchallenging caches would become "old" rather quickly. Another long-time geocacher and I happened to meet at a cache recently and were discussing how we just walk right up to most of the caches being placed in our area . . . many of them involve no search at all, just a very short walk to an obvious location. And that's fine, I guess, if that's all most of the local geocachers want or expect. Personally, my favorite part of geocaching is getting TO the site; especially the challenges and obstacles the cache placer may have led us to . . . and of course the views and scenery. Even better when such an adventure ends with a tough find. You know, I can clearly recall every detail of the higher difficulty caches I've sought, but many, if not most, of the dash-and-grabs blur together after a while. Returning finally to the topic, one thing bothers me: Some people place caches very close to existing caches without having even bothered to look for the existing cache. I consider that disrespectful.

quote:Originally posted by texas-jacksons: . . . I don't mind paying a small membership due once a year for special features like email updates, newsletters and perhaps priority notifications of new caches, but I feel $30 is too high. The site is great and I hope to stay loyal to the roots of Geocaching. However, I believe that advertisers should be primary financial source. . . . Ack. I would think anything would be better than to be subjected to a bunch of banner or popup ads.

quote:Originally posted by texas-jacksons: . . . I don't mind paying a small membership due once a year for special features like email updates, newsletters and perhaps priority notifications of new caches, but I feel $30 is too high. The site is great and I hope to stay loyal to the roots of Geocaching. However, I believe that advertisers should be primary financial source. . . . Ack. I would think anything would be better than to be subjected to a bunch of banner or popup ads.

quote:Originally posted by GeoStars: . . . I've thought of placing a cache in a park that already has one. The place I'm thinking of would be a couple of miles from the other if one were following the trails. I think that would present no problem.

I'm betting on "bottle blondes," although when the Mrs and daughter cache with me, one is raven haired with an increasing number of hairs of a somewhat, umm, lighter color. The other has auburn hair, that during the summer may or may not feature (water soluble) pink, blue, green or purple streaks . . .

We took a game CD someone burnt at home. It's one of the few items we've kept, but six months after finding it, we haven't tried the games yet. We mostly trade Where's George bills, and the idea is not to keep them . . .

We took a game CD someone burnt at home. It's one of the few items we've kept, but six months after finding it, we haven't tried the games yet. We mostly trade Where's George bills, and the idea is not to keep them . . .

quote:Originally posted a really long time ago in a message far, far away by tslack2000:I would guess that there is a percentage of people who are "addicted" to Geocaching and would do what ever is necessary to keep playing, including paying a membership fee. And I bet that of the people who are "addicted", a large percent also participate and read the forums. I don't think this premise bears up under examination. Most of the "addicted" cache seekers with the highest numbers of finds seemed to have a relatively low presence in the (old) forums, while the "addicted" forum participants with the highest numbers of forum postings seemed to have, on whole, comparatively low find totals. There were of course exceptions, and none of this is intended as "judgment" of either group . . . each was deriving enjoyment from geocaching in their own way. But I agree with tslack that the most involved members of each group recognize the value this site offers, and will gladly purchase a subscription.

quote:Originally posted a really long time ago in a message far, far away by tslack2000:I would guess that there is a percentage of people who are "addicted" to Geocaching and would do what ever is necessary to keep playing, including paying a membership fee. And I bet that of the people who are "addicted", a large percent also participate and read the forums. I don't think this premise bears up under examination. Most of the "addicted" cache seekers with the highest numbers of finds seemed to have a relatively low presence in the (old) forums, while the "addicted" forum participants with the highest numbers of forum postings seemed to have, on whole, comparatively low find totals. There were of course exceptions, and none of this is intended as "judgment" of either group . . . each was deriving enjoyment from geocaching in their own way. But I agree with tslack that the most involved members of each group recognize the value this site offers, and will gladly purchase a subscription.

I'm sorry you injured yourself, and I'm not poking fun at your injury, but the line in your cache log where you wrote "I was stumbling in my visionless state when I suddenly spotted the correct location . . ." is truly one of the funniest things I've read in a long, long time. Thank you for that!

quote:Originally posted by Gwho: I noticed recently two caches that seemed IMHO too close. This http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=4578 was palced maybe a few hunderd yards from http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=15085. Although the park is sizable, the area suitable for hiking (and hiding a cache) is rather small. One trail perhaps 1/3 mile to 1/2 mile long at best. This didn't bother me per se, but i felt it was too close. I think you have those two caches reversed . . . Stayfloopy's cache has been in Van Saun Park for a very long time. I agree the second one is too close to Floopy's; there are other suitable places in other parts of the park. quote:Originally posted by Gwho:But then the topic got close to home. In Oct I hid http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=9077 in the remains of the estate of John Ringling. It is mere yards from an old bridge which leads to an incredibly beautiful vista overlooking the Hudson River. Then two weeks ago http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=15527 was hidden maybe 500 feet away. Bear in mind this park is 13 miles long. The other caches in the park are miles away. There is no lack of beautiful, scenic cache sights here. Although this person did throw a nod to me by calling it "A Walk to Harolds", it just seems like a lazy cache. It is amazing how much overlap there is among the several multicaches in this park . . . in fact, two of your multicaches overlap each other, and one of them overlaps an multicache already in existence when you placed yours. But that's understandable, because a couple of these areas have so much of interest. It has been interesting to see that to date, few cache seekers have combined hunts for the multicaches requiring long hikes. Of course, the two caches you are discussing don't require long hikes. "Walk to Harold's Home" is very close you your "Harold's Home" cache, but if the doubling-up of caches will entice a few more seekers to hike 3/4 of a mile in to the caches, and then just a little past them to the overlook with the awesome views, then that's a good thing, right? And maybe, just maybe, they will be so impressed with the views that they undertake one of the more challenging hikes in this great park. But I agree the newer cache could have been placed 1/2 way between the trailhead and your cache with similar result.