Jump to content

edexter

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by edexter

  1. Well, if it comes down to "who is responsible" for archiving the cache, that would be the CO. The NM and NA logs are helpful "negative feedback" designed to alert the CO there is a problem. The reviewer only gets involved when there is a lack of "positive feedback" from the CO. They end up archiving the cache when the CO fails to do anything. The reviewer isn't an impartial arbitrator: he/she is an enforcer of the rules (in effect the rule is" "cache must be maintained and present to be listed" If not, they remove it from the listing service. If the CO wants it listed, they fix or replace it.
  2. Well, the string of dnfs continued unabated, the CO did not log any maintenance at all during a four year period and the Reviewer eventually archived the caches for their refusal to document that the cache was actually present, so close enough for horseshoes...
  3. The only thing worse than "cut and paste" logs are "cut and paste" cache descriptions. If you can't find anything unique to say about your own placement it's all you should get in response. On the other hand, a well designed cache deserves some verbal recognition. I had a buddy whose typical log was "found while in the area". I'd say, "so, just once, why not find one while not in the area?" Even "I enjoyed the hike to your cache", gives a little back to the CO. Praise what you like. edexter
  4. Here's a follow up two years on of what happens when you post an NM or NA log based on 265 caches: 70 were repaired (26%) 190 were archived (72%) three are currently "disabled by reviewer" and two are currently "disabled by CO). Oh yeah, and a couple were deleted by the COs who said "they're fine" but did nothing. So the "one quarter get fixed" holds up pretty well. Most are archived by the reviewer as the COis no longer in the game. Oddly enough. some COs will delete the NA log when they archive the cache which I suppose is accurate... edexter
  5. Update for new caches placed so far in 2016. The area is a 50 mile radius from Plymouth, so it includes the Cape (but not the Islands), SE Mass and the RI borderlands including Providence and Pawtucket. As of 5/12/16 there are 261 new caches. I've divided the caches into two broad groups based on distance from parking. See Bookmark listings for Curbside Pickup 2016 and Off Road Caches 2016. The criteria is simple: An off road cache requires a minimum of a quarter mile round trip to reach it. Anything further than 200 yards from parking is included as an Off Road Cache and at the moment there are 61 caches making the list (23%). Of the 201 Curbside caches (77% of those placed). Of those 201 caches, I can see the following on Google Earth: 113 (56%) are directly on or above pavement (mostly guardrails and LPC in parking lots), an additional 50 (25%) are within 50 feet of pavement and of the remaining 38, 34 are between 20 and 100 yards from parking with 4 between 100 and 200 yards off. Almost all have a t1.5 rating, though the great majority would get a t1.0 if run through the scale: "area is paved, flat and (appears) wheelchair accessible and requires less than a half mile walk...) Heck, I did the math: the 163 closest caches require less than a half mile walk combined... edexter
  6. "Any good tips for finding the types of caches talked about in this thread? I've been using the aforementioned "early aughts" to target really old caches, as well as using FP's and FP%'s (with a grain of salt). And only a couple of challenge caches (like State Park series or waterfalls in the state) are really destination-inspiring. I'd love to find some great themed bookmark lists, but don't know of any way to reliably search for them" Those are all good ways to "narrow the field". I haven't had much luck with Bookmarked lists as few do them and even fewer update them (lists of "kayak caches" being an exception) but here are some others I've tried. 1, You can use GSAK to review a pocket query for an area you are interested in and set up the split screen view so that the map page is visible. As you click down the cache list the map view shows you where the cache is located. I "user check" the ones that look interesting for closer examination. 2, Once you find a good cache, see what else that CO has put out. Sometimes you hit gold. This technique is especially useful when caching far from home. 3, At your next "Meet & Greet" ask folks "what's the best cache you've done lately" and see what they say. Chat up the folks who mention a cache that interests you. 4, Check out the "Favorites" list for the COs of the caches you Favorited. 5, Check out Terracaching.com which focuses on the hunt, not the smilie, and has a statistics page so confusing it is easy to ignore ;-) 6, Check out benchmarks: they run the gamut from easy to next to impossible but there nothing like finding a granite marker in the swamp that's been there for 150 years and was last "recovered" in 1910. Enjoy those wide open spaces: I'm hemmed in on three sides and have frequent long drives West... edexter
  7. The self-description of a P&G series in my area is: "The purpose of the series was just having another cache to find, no scenic views, no cool container to find, and a hide that shouldn't be all that much of a challenge"...Well, as the former President said, "mission accomplished!" edexter
  8. I did find this link http://project-gc.co...stics/TopFavPct useful in identifying quality caches in my area. It's limited to caches with 10 or more favorite points which means it won't identify the good caches until they've been out there for a while, but if you are using it outside your immediate area, that won't matter much as they'll all be new to you anyway. Thanks for the posting. edexter
  9. Here's an update from the first week in April 2016. The final tally for 2015 was 49 new caches, compared to 37 in 2014 and 138 per year for the previous six years (2008-2013). So far in 2016 there are 10 new caches, 6 of them placed by cacher, none by the old guard. There are now 743 caches on the cape, compared to 768 at the end of the 2015 and 861 at the end of 2016. edexter
  10. Replying to noncentric: Of the 50 or so caches, A few had a preexisting NM log, no response from the CO but several more finds before my arrival. Typically there were repeated references to a wet log, occasionally someone else would replace it, then it would get wet again. This was especially true for decon can hides, three quarters of which I found with water inside them and a wet log inside a zip-lock. GCGECV is a typical example. Container was a 35mm film canister. I found it on 3/11/16 with a broken top and a wet log and posted a NM log. When I logged it on line and reviewed the history I noticed there was a previous NM log more than a year earlier (1/11/15) with four finds since. The CO disabled the cache on 3/14/16 but has yet to replace or archive it. edexter
  11. I would agree with the timelines mentioned above: wait a month to post an NA, less if the CO is inactive. COs get emailed a copy of all logs posted and can choose to respond or ignore immediately. Typically if a CO doesn't respond to an NM within a week, they aren't going to, so a month is certainly enough time to wait for a response that takes 15 seconds to type and send. As a side note, if it takes an NA log and a Reviewer disablement to motivate a CO to repair their cache, you can expect their other caches will have the same level of care...Adopting out a cache you don't want to maintain is an easy but seldom used option. edexter
  12. I recently returned from caching in Florida where my experience was that about one cache in four had a wet log or torn zip-lock. I didn't keep track but I repaired about 50 caches (small or larger) and posted NM logs on a dozen others where I couldn't fix the damage or didn't have supplies (I don't carry nano or bison tube logs). Here's what I noticed: Two COs thanked me for fixing their cache, two others said thanks for the NM heads up. The great majority of COs did not respond or acknowledge the help. Nearly all of the caches had previous logs indicating the log was wet or unsignable, or that the cache was damaged, or both. Repairs were attempted by only two other finders prior to my search, though lots of caches I found in good shape had been repaired by the CO or previous finders. My rather obvious conclusion is that many COs expect others to repair their caches and that most cachers won't do it. Seems odd to me. (If I'm at the cache, the repair is easy to do, and it saves the CO a trip, so why not help out? On the other hand, why bother if the CO doesn't care?) After noticing this, I feel more inclined to post an NM log than to do a repair, and then to follow up with a NA log when the NM log is ignored by the CO (as most are). To put this is in perspective, three quarters of all caches that I have posted an NM or NA log have ended up being archived, most by the Reviewer with no response from the CO. My records show that 178 caches were archived after an NM or NA log I posted while only 65 (27%) were repaired... edexter
  13. My latest NM log adventure happened after I posted a NM for a multicache I dnf'd as both stages were missing and reading the logs showed that had been the case for over a year despite a half dozen finds (of something) being logged . After waiting four months with no response from the CO I posted a NA log with the following results: First, another cacher suggested I was "being too hasty" calling for the cache to be delisted. Second the Reviewer immediately disabled it, Third, four days later the CO confirmed both stages were gone and reworked the cache as a single stage hide. NA logs, when warranted, often get a response when NM logs are ignored because the reviewer does what the CO could have easily done: disable the cache until it can be repaired. It's easy enough to email a cacher and get details on what they found on site, even easier to indicate you'll check on it soon. If you can't get there for a while, just say so in a note.
  14. Here's an update in the SE Mass RI region for 2016 year to date: For caches that list their actual location: 97 of the 111 new caches (87%) have been placed within sight of your car. Of those, 57 (51%) plot on or above pavement on Google Earth, 83 (75%) are within 50 feet of pavement and the remaining 14 (one already archived) are within 20 to 200 yards from parking. Of the 14 caches that are in the woods about four appear to be hikes of more than a quarter mile. Not much doubt that the hiking aspect of the game is dying out. edexter
  15. I've been caching in Florida for a while, and power trails and geo-art abound. Taking it one step further, the fake coordinates are now linked to fake puzzles: while listed as a "?" cache, to get the coordinates you answer a true false question of a two choice "multiple choice" question with everything linked to an answer key geo-checker. As always the shapes have nothing to do with the actual cache layout which follows the road. As an added insult they are rated as t2.5 and somethings higher though they are all 50 foot or less P&Gs to identical cache containers. I have no interest in doing any of these map doodles but in order to place an individual cache anywhere in the area you need to solve all the fake puzzles beforehand or else risk violating the "too close" rule. I think it's time to "suspend" the power trail drawings before the entire map is tattooed. edexter
  16. Depends on the Earthcache. The ones I found in the western national parks tended to be P&Gs. (Drive to a sign, get info, email the answers). An Earthcache at a splendid natural location is fine by me. It looks like the National Mall already has enough virtuals and Earthcaches though. I would recommend the Space Museum instead. My point is simply that geocaching was once an activity that involved walking in the woods to find a hidden object and a GPSr was needed because the locations did not have addresses. The majority of hides placed in the past two years do not need a GPSr to be found as they are within 50 feet of a parking spot...
  17. The answer to "What cache type was eliminated that reduced the number of hiking caches?" is: Virtuals Virtual caches are by definition all hike and no hide. They tended to be "placed" in areas of natural beauty and were allowed in National Parks and other properties where physical caches are banned. edexter
  18. Geocaching is a simple game where the object is to find a hidden cache. It originally involved physical exercise as part of the game as the caches were placed in areas that required a hike to reach but has gradually become "all hide and no seek". Most caches can now be found within a few minutes and provide no exercise at all. This is a real change in the game though it affects only those cachers interested in exercise, off road navigation, and being in a natural environment. The more these parts of the game coincide with your interests, the more noticeable the change is and apparently vice versa. A month or two of the year, my caching area switches from Massachusetts and RI to the Cocoa Beach area of Florida. The change in the game was more evident to me when I first visited the area, as it has been going on longer here, and my impression was that many of the caches were roadside micros. Based on the results of my survey of my home area, I decided to quantify the caches available here using a similar methodology: namely counting the new caches placed, using google maps to determine the distance from the nearest paved parking spots and recording the number and percentage of caches in the following groups. 1, Caches placed on or directly above pavement 2, Caches placed within 50 feet of pavement 3, Caches placed between 50 and 200 feet of pavement. 4, Caches placed within 200 feet and 200 yards of pavement, and 5, those further off. Those caches in the first three groups are largely within sight of your car and I consider them to be Park&Grabs. The fourth group require a less than one quarter mile round trip and typically can be found in 15 minutes or less while the fifth group provides more exercise time than driving time. Rather than using the entire year, I did a sample survey, using all the new caches placed in January and February of 2015 placed within a 30 mile radius of my location in Cocoa Beach using GSAK to locate the caches and Google Earth to determine their location. Here's what I found. Percentages rounded. 1, On or above Pavement: 25 caches (24%) 2, 1 to 50 feet from pavement: 44 caches (42%) 3, 51 to 200 feet from pavement: 19 caches (18%) 4, 200 feet to 200 yards from pavement: 8 (8%) 5, more than 200 yards off pavement: 6 (6%) So to summarize: 83% of the new caches placed were P&Gs which you can find without losing sight of your car. Only 6% of the caches provide much exercise. To make matters worse from my perspective, I placed 3 of the 6 exercise caches so looks like there are about 20 new hiking caches nearby. I foresee long drives to the West in my future... edexter
  19. So here is the 2015 summary for the 50 mile radius from my home. Total number of caches placed where you can tell distance from parking: 521 Caches placed on or above pavement: 133 (26%) Caches placed off pavement but within 50 feet of it: 113 (22%) Caches placed more than 50 feet from pavement and less than 150 feet: 76 (15%) These 332 caches can be found while you can still see your car. They represent 62% of all caches placed and approximately 80% of all caches logged. 7% of the caches have 3 or more favorite points, fewer than half have any (184 caches with 0 favorite points.) This is the caching experience for the great majority of cachers. There were 72 additional caches placed between 75 and 200 yards from parking. There were also 115 caches placed where a hike of more than 200 yards was required (22%) and only 29 (6%) of these required a round trip of more than half a mile. Of the 29 hiking caches, 10 or 34% had three or more favorite points and 25 or 86% had at least one. They were found about 300 times in all compared to roughly 6500 finds for the Park & Grabs (150 feet or less from pavement). The nature of the game has gradually changed from a hike in the woods to a drive to a parking lot, guardrail or sidewalk and the trend accelerated markedly in 2015. And so far in 2016, there are 8 new caches: 7 on pavement and the 8th is 20 feet from the parking lot... edexter
  20. "A respectful question: Why do you care that so many non-hiking caches are placed in 2015 vs 2005? Geocaching has exploded in popularity, and granted many more non-hiking caches are placed vs hiking caches, but using the analogy "An incoming tide raises all boats" there are plenty of new hiking caches being instantiated (sic)." And a respectful answer. The explosion in popularity is not like a rising tide that raises all boats. The tide, so to speak, only goes 50 feet inland. There are many more roadside caches but only a handful further in the woods. If you cache with any regularity, in a few years you have found all of the woods caches within say a one hour drive radius of home and you must go further afield. The caches available to you consist only of old caches you have not found, plus new caches placed, minus old caches archived. In my area, while there were 500 new caches placed only 30 or so involve a hike of even a half mile round trip. So an explosion of P&Gs, while fewer caches to be found in the woods. The game has changed to "all hide, no hike" in large part. As the game has become more popular, the P&G has become the norm and this changes the game in ways that clearly effect my enjoyment of it. This is what passes for an exciting time geocaching now (this is a direct quote from the description of GC68TAD:) one cache in particular, GC638W1 Two Towns, One Cache (HERE) resulted in a night none of us will ever forget. Scooter4273 was in the driver's seat, he pulled up to the cache and was so excited to run out to grab the CC. Failing to realize he had not put the vehicle in park. Being a typical Bearded Beast hide, BornFromJets and I waited in the car. We were casually talking until I felt a little off. "Are we moving?" I asked calmly. BornFromJets replied, "Oh $#!%, we are!" he counter steered and put the car in neutral until Scooter4273 could jump in the driver's seat again. So, three people drive to GZ, one gets out of the car while the other two sit and chat, while the car rolls forward. All three claim a find and a passenger awards a favorite point. edexter
  21. dprovan: I thought you missed most of what I was saying about "All Hide, No Seek" by systematically disagreeing point by point, until you got to "most of them consider their geocaching hobby more important than hiking, so they no longer consider hiking an essential activity" which is the point of my lament. You don't seem to get that eliminating cache types that promote hiking has an effect, or that numbers effect behavior, which seems clear to me, but ok. It's hard to see San Francisco from New England, but the math is pretty universal: When anyone starts caching in an area, say a 40 mile radius from home, there are a fixed number of interesting hikes out there. No matter how many there are, as you do them and others are archived, unless new interesting hikes are added at a faster pace than you can find them, the total number of available caches decreases for you. This is true for everyone, everywhere. In my area, roughly 500 new caches were placed this year, 80% of them no further than 200 yards from the road, most much closer. I'll bet it's the same for your area. If you are "someone who does not consider hiking an essential part of geocaching" and you average less than a cache a day, it's complete abundance. Otherwise, it's a long drive to find new cache hikes. As I said, I'm looking for a little help in finding the "good stuff" further from home as the drives get longer... edexter
  22. When I first started caching, a popular short hand explanation of the game was "It's like electronic hide and seek. Somebody hides a box in the woods, publishes the location, and you go try to find it." Pretty good shorthand description I thought. Ok, so I've been trying to understand why it seems like each year the number of new P&Gs increases and the number of interesting hiking caches decreases. I understand that caring about the numbers game (one point for a P&G micro, one point for an 8 stage cross country multi) is a big reason but that has been the deal from the start so it doesn't explain the change. (Non-Puzzle GeoArt and bike trail power trails with a cache every .1m are more recent number driven creations, but they have always been possible.) Today it finally hit me between the eyes: changes in the rules of what is allowed as a cache are skewed in one direction only. If you think of the "hide and seek" aspect of a traditional cache on "time spent" percentage basis, a parking lot guardrail hide is 100% hide, 0% seek: You plug in the coords for the cache in your auto GPS, drive to the obvious location, and look for the hide. For a traditional cache with a one mile round trip walk, the time spent ratio is probably more like 25% hide, 75% seek (maybe a 5 minutes search and a 15 minute walk). For long multis, the ratio might be skewed even more towards getting there than find the hide timewise. Geocaching has eliminated (or shifted to "Waymarks") Virtuals, Locationless, and Challenge caches and frozen the benchmark listings. Let's see where they fit: Virtuals are No Hide, All Seek, the polar opposite of a P&G. They were common in National Parks and other outdoor areas which forbid physical caches. Locationless Caches required you to find a specific thing anywhere that was more or less in plain view: again No Hide, All Seek. Challenge caches and Benchmarks ran the gamut but were clearly more about getting there than finding something. Meanwhile the game encouraged the use of micros, nanos and "unknowns" all of which are typically used in P&G hides. Puzzle caches which conceal the actual coordinates, are typically single stage hides, and are heavily time weighted on finding the hide (in this case the coordinates) before the outdoor game even begins. Field puzzle caches are relatively rare. When you look at the direction of change it all points away from spending time on a walk in the woods and towards finding a small object hidden very close to where you auto GPS takes you. It is what it is, so...but I know there is a small minority of cachers whose interests are similar. If this is you, I'd be happy to get bookmark lists or something similar of the "good stuff" that are More Hike Than Hide anywhere in Eastern Mass and Rhode Island. Thanks, edexter
  23. Logging an NA, especially after a month or so of no response to an NM, makes sense. About 3% of caches are missing at any given moment. The only way to get a missing cache "off the books" is for somebody to archive it. When the CO is unresponsive, only The Reviewer can do that and in my area only a NA gets The Reviewers attention. When you post an NA log the CO has five responses they can make with little effort: continue to ignore it, post an OM log or note saying "it's fine" or "I'll fix it soon", disable the cache so folks know it's unlikely to be there, archive it, or delete your log. Some respond with a combination of two or more. If you are specific enough in the reason you are posting the log you might get action sooner rather than later. For instance, one of the recent NA logs I posted noted the cache had not been found in 11 months, there were 7 consecutive dnfs, and the CO hadn't responded to 2 NM logs. The CO almost immediately deleted my log and disabled the cache saying they'd get to it soon and The Reviewer put it on their "watch list". So a good outcome. An abandoned cache would get no response and eventually get archived.
  24. The main reason for posting a "needs maintenance" log is to alert the CO that the cache is missing or needs attention. It also lets people know the cache may be missing or damaged. The main reason not to post one is that it is more likely to be ignored than acted on. About half the NM logs I post never get a response. Many of the responses I do get are positive in the sense that the cache gets fixed, though some COs tell you to bug off, post a note saying "it's fine" or just delete the log. After a month or two if there has been no response from the CO I post a NA log. The main reason to do this is to alert The Reviewer that there is a problem with the cache that the CO is ignoring. (Since it takes just a few seconds for a CO to post a note or "temporarily disable" the cache, ignoring a NM log for a couple of months is a choice) The most likely result from posting a NA log is that the missing/damaged cache will be archived by The Reviewer with no response from the CO after a couple of months. The next most likely response is the cache will be fixed, and 5-10% of COs will make fun of you for posting a log in the first place. Of those, some will delete your log as well. Occasionally some one will say "thanks for the head's up", but that's rare. I typically only post an NM log when I'm sure there is a problem. Three quarters of the caches I've posted NM logs are archived over the next two to ten months, usually by the reviewer. 25% are fixed or eventually checked on and reported as ok: about half in response to a NM log, about half after a NA log. Maybe 10-20% are repaired by someone other than the CO for various reasons. Aside from letting a CO know that their cache likely has an issue, the main benefit is to save other folks from the frustration of searching for a missing cache (at any given time 3% of caches are missing). The CO's response, or lack of it, tells you a lot about their cache maintenance style, and something about their personality. Folks who take umbrage or are dismissive of an NM log when no one has found their cache in a year or more are telling you something about their view of their role in the game.
  25. I maintain a series of "A List" caches in my local area. To make the A list a caches needs to have at least 5 favorite points and be favorited by at least 25% of the eligible finders (premium members). You can't but notice the inverse relationship between quality and popularity. A List Cape Cod A List: SE Mass Marshfield to Wareham A List Central SE Mass: Paddles & Puzzles edexter
×
×
  • Create New...