BassoonPilot

quote:Originally posted by rusty: The only thing that will die is Geocaching. I am willing to pay to support the website but I will not pay to cache. Contrary to your ubiquitous statement I have found all but a couple caches within 50 miles of home and have been very active until now. Well, I'm baffled as to what was "ubiquitous" about my statement, but I believe yours was an egregious exaggeration. But ultimately, time will tell if you're right. I plan on keeping my subscription current and continuing to geocache. I see we began geocaching for much the same reason, and regardless of whether you decide to subscribe, I hope you too will continue to enjoy geocaching.

quote:Originally posted by bunkerdave: I guess I don't really care if they give me the required information or not. When I post a virtual, it is for the benefit of the seeker, not my own pleasure. If folks want to go around logging virtuals on the website without actually going there, then that is their "thing." What's the purpose of asking questions then? I have one virtual that involves a series of questions. I've never taken away a "find," even if some of the answers were wrong . . . but if I received nonsense answers or none at all, I would contact the individual and follow "item #2" from the poll.

quote:Originally posted by bunkerdave: I guess I don't really care if they give me the required information or not. When I post a virtual, it is for the benefit of the seeker, not my own pleasure. If folks want to go around logging virtuals on the website without actually going there, then that is their "thing." What's the purpose of asking questions then? I have one virtual that involves a series of questions. I've never taken away a "find," even if some of the answers were wrong . . . but if I received nonsense answers or none at all, I would contact the individual and follow "item #2" from the poll.

quote:Originally posted by Renegade Knight: Why is this such an issue? While I would not seek to hide one close to another, if I had the perfect spot picked out and someone posts one close... I'm not going to change my mind. . . . Still if you don't want to walk 60 ft, go home. Come back another day. I see the nearest cache to the one you've placed is 8 3/4 miles. When someone places a cache of significantly lower quality than yours 75 feet away, I'd be interested in hearing if you still feel the same. It really does cheapen the experience. I also feel it's not dissimilar to freeloading . . . someone takes the time and effort to find a really good site, and then someone else comes along and just dumps another cache there. How much thought or effort was required to do that? Incidentally, this has not happened to any of my caches, but I have visited caches where this has occurred many times. (Sounds sort of like those old "I'm not a real doctor, but I play one on TV" commercials.)

quote:Originally posted by Mopar: coughStayfloopycough quote:Originally posted by stayfloopy: Actually, I've been trying to get away from that. For the past few weekends, I have ventured out much further to DC, VA, MD, DE. I'm planning to go to other states in the coming weeks. But geez guys, if you're going to leave that cache down in Cape May unfound for so long, I can't help being the first finder. I think this is true; two weeks ago, Floopy was picking up virgin caches at 2:30 a.m. on his way south. Now he doesn't. But it appears to me there is a zone of untapped caching territory near the most northern exit of the GSP. Maybe we should all head up that way and place level 4 microcaches so that Floops can stay home one weekend.

quote:Originally posted by Mopar: coughStayfloopycough quote:Originally posted by stayfloopy: Actually, I've been trying to get away from that. For the past few weekends, I have ventured out much further to DC, VA, MD, DE. I'm planning to go to other states in the coming weeks. But geez guys, if you're going to leave that cache down in Cape May unfound for so long, I can't help being the first finder. I think this is true; two weeks ago, Floopy was picking up virgin caches at 2:30 a.m. on his way south. Now he doesn't. But it appears to me there is a zone of untapped caching territory near the most northern exit of the GSP. Maybe we should all head up that way and place level 4 microcaches so that Floops can stay home one weekend.

ENOUGH ALREADY !!! The horse was dead long ago; why continue to beat it? I have serious doubts these whiners and complainers have even begun to tap the regular caches in their respective areas.

quote:Originally posted by macro: BassoonPilot...you never cease to amaze me. Don't be amazed . . . the description said it was in a crevasse, while the coordinates would have placed it between lanes of a nearby highway, so since I was familiar with the crevasse from previous hikes, the longitude was immaterial. From the description, I could also tell it was north of one well-known landmark and south of another a couple of hundred yards away, so I just worked my way north from the first landmark. Long before I did that search, I had been impressed by the NY geocacher (I believe it was Lucien) who found one over two miles off by the same method . . . his log read something like "your coordinates appear to be somebody's driveway or the library next door, but I thought you meant (such-and-such)park. That's where I found it."

quote:Originally posted by macro: BassoonPilot...you never cease to amaze me. Don't be amazed . . . the description said it was in a crevasse, while the coordinates would have placed it between lanes of a nearby highway, so since I was familiar with the crevasse from previous hikes, the longitude was immaterial. From the description, I could also tell it was north of one well-known landmark and south of another a couple of hundred yards away, so I just worked my way north from the first landmark. Long before I did that search, I had been impressed by the NY geocacher (I believe it was Lucien) who found one over two miles off by the same method . . . his log read something like "your coordinates appear to be somebody's driveway or the library next door, but I thought you meant (such-and-such)park. That's where I found it."

I wonder whatever became of Berkely Breathed?(writes the guy who notices the similarities of the characters "Rob" and "Satch" in "Get Fuzzy" to "Steve Dallas" and "Opus" from "Bloom County.")

quote:Originally posted by ED634: ITS A FREE WORLD It's not, you know . . . we are very extremely fortunate to live in a part of it that is.

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: How do you find a cache over 300 ft away? And what kept you looking when you were over 300 ft away? Persistence, my friend. Or maybe it was stubbornness. Probably a bit of stupidity thrown into the mix, as well. At the time I did that one, there weren't even any clues. I found another one that was approximately 900 feet off. I was familiar with the area, and when I plotted the coordinates on a map prior to leaving home it was obvious that the coordinates were useless, so I just went and searched the area I thought it should be in, and found it.

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: As long as they tell me it's a micro and give me an idea of what size cache I'm looking for, I'll go for it. As has been pointed out in many threads throughout the forums, the only information the cache owner is obligated to provide is some kind of coordinates.

quote:Originally posted by macro: In my neck of the woods a 35mm Film Canister is no longer considered small...they are even smaller! I know of at least one microcache that is approximately 1/4" X 1 1/2" X 1"...hidden in a wooded area among several fallen trees! So..at what size will you stop searching? Is Minute the one you're referring to? It doesn't state the size of the item one is looking for. As I stated in the earlier thread, I'll stop at film canisters . . . but from now on I'll save the tiny (1/4" x 1") cylindrical tubes the erasers for my Cross pencil come in, and make ultra-microcaches to place in areas having the worst GPS reception. [This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 10, 2002 at 01:04 AM.]

I voted for "over 90 feet," but the actual distance was over 300 feet.

I voted "forget it" because I already notice a proliferation of "trash caches" placed in uninteresting areas with apparently little forethought. I feel your plan would encourage more of this.

I voted "forget it" because I already notice a proliferation of "trash caches" placed in uninteresting areas with apparently little forethought. I feel your plan would encourage more of this.

quote:Originally posted by bunkerdave:This fall, we had in Utah a cacher who posted a cache which required finders to go out and purchase the poster's album (cacher was a musician) in order to "complete" the cache. This was an obvious violation. I personally asked Jeremy to remove it, which he did. I don't understand how this was approved for release in the first place. Have the standards ever been published?

I see where this is going; the reasoning behind the new "1 hr edit" rule is clear: Jeremy is indeed the terrible capitalist a few have suggested in the forums, and he has a secret plan "to take over the world." (Just like he plans every night, Pinky.) In the plan, posting/downloading geocaches will remain "free," but a paypal account will be required in order to post to the forums. A modest fee will automatically be charged to our accounts per misspelling posted . . .

I see where this is going; the reasoning behind the new "1 hr edit" rule is clear: Jeremy is indeed the terrible capitalist a few have suggested in the forums, and he has a secret plan "to take over the world." (Just like he plans every night, Pinky.) In the plan, posting/downloading geocaches will remain "free," but a paypal account will be required in order to post to the forums. A modest fee will automatically be charged to our accounts per misspelling posted . . .

Hmmm . . . I have over 60 "first finds." I have been second or third to find a cache considerably more times. Guess there's someone worse than me in the area. Maybe I should start a thread and complain about the cache I was 27th to find.

Hmmm . . . I have over 60 "first finds." I have been second or third to find a cache considerably more times. Guess there's someone worse than me in the area. Maybe I should start a thread and complain about the cache I was 27th to find.

quote:Originally posted by macro: Microcaches..love'm or hate'm? I can never find them first time out... probably because I am always in a rush or being watched.... but what is your take on tiny caches? How small is too small? A film canister hidden right under the nose of the general public in a public spot, in view but not quite reachable without some sort of device = lots of fun. A film canister exceptionally well-hidden in an area of poor GPS reception, where the seeker will be highly conspicuous = not fun. My two favorite film canister caches were "No Commercial Vehicles" on Long Island, NY, and "The Teddy Roosevelt" in NJ. Two very different approaches; both were great fun. My least favorite was a film canister hidden within a stone wall of a historical ruin. A small stone had been removed, the canister placed, and the stone replaced so that no one could tell. That type of placement will certainly cause damage to or destruction of the historical site. (In this case, the cache owner wisely moved the canister to a non-sensitive location.) So to answer the question directly, I think a film canister is the smallest I would look for; at my advancing age, I probably wouldn't be able to see anything smaller without changing glasses. [This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 09, 2002 at 03:01 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by macro: Microcaches..love'm or hate'm? I can never find them first time out... probably because I am always in a rush or being watched.... but what is your take on tiny caches? How small is too small? A film canister hidden right under the nose of the general public in a public spot, in view but not quite reachable without some sort of device = lots of fun. A film canister exceptionally well-hidden in an area of poor GPS reception, where the seeker will be highly conspicuous = not fun. My two favorite film canister caches were "No Commercial Vehicles" on Long Island, NY, and "The Teddy Roosevelt" in NJ. Two very different approaches; both were great fun. My least favorite was a film canister hidden within a stone wall of a historical ruin. A small stone had been removed, the canister placed, and the stone replaced so that no one could tell. That type of placement will certainly cause damage to or destruction of the historical site. (In this case, the cache owner wisely moved the canister to a non-sensitive location.) So to answer the question directly, I think a film canister is the smallest I would look for; at my advancing age, I probably wouldn't be able to see anything smaller without changing glasses. [This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 09, 2002 at 03:01 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by JeepNAz: Frankly Ive heard (read) about all I care to about Pay to Play or Charter Members or MoCaches or...AdInfinitum IM GONNA GO FIND A CACHE! So, what did ya find?