Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 42at42

  1. *yawn*

    do you people ever tire or this?

    Not really. You're new here, right? :)


    Hardly new, I don't generally take part in these long drawn out discussions. Just that this happens to be in my hood and our community is pretty tight. Not that we don't welcome newcomers, we welcome all new, valid hiders and finders with open arms.


    Sounds like a pretty poor welcome. When you set yourselves up to judge newcomers based on your preset criteria, you take a rather unwelcoming stance.


    It would seem that a cacher who's new to your area and does things a little differently than you're used to is apparently deemed unworthy of being welcomed. :rolleyes:


    How about y'all just play the game, and don't worry about whether someone fits exactly into your definition of a proper cacher. :huh:


    This is the problem with too small of a group who gets used to doing things their own way all the time -- it's easy to lose sight of how life comes in many different flavors.


    Well said!!


    Turns out it was a Valid Hider and a real hide. Wow there must be a bunch of embarrassed cachers in your area.


    Would it have killed the CO to update the page with a maintenance logs such as "since nobody has found it, I am raising the difficult to 3...or 4)?



    Now that the cache has been revealed, would you say it deserves a rating of 3 or 4. I would say 2.5 at the most. I initially thought it might be a three, but I don't think so.


    The CO claims that the coords were verified, but unless someone has logged a find using those coordinates, how do we know if the coordinates are really accurate


    The coords were proven to be right on the money.


    It does turn out that the difficulty was actually a 5. It took special equipment called archiving for someone to find the cache.

  3. But poorly rated caches have consequences and responsible CO's should listen to feedback and make adjustments as necessary. Obstinately sticking to a rating when the user experiences don't bear it out is foolhardy.


    What are the consequences? Being verbally attacked by geocachers who can't find the cache. Having your cache archived. Being called a sock puppet. I guess these are the consequences, because this is what happened.


    Sounds fair to me. The cache rating system was used, more than once. The CO used the rating system and used his best judgement.


    Until the cache is found, how can anyone say the cache should be rated differently? These cachers gave up too easy.


    The next time these cachers can't find a good hide, are they going to harass the CO into archiving his cache again.


    I guess my next DNF log should be followed by a NA log.

  4. I wanted to clarify my last post. It is in agreement if the hide was exactly as pictured, even though I strongly suspect that is was covered with more loose dirt and you would have had to use your fingers to move stuff around. That being said. Once I didn't see it in the obvious spots, and read all the drama, I would have put on my 5 star hunting hat and found it. All those cache hunters that didn't find it and went back repeatedly should have had the geosense to look harder and complain less. I mean, whats the difference of looking 50 feet off or more, which most of us have done, and not agreeing with the difficulty rating and having to look harder than you first thought you would. You just adjust and go on.

    For me, I will not do a 5-star hunt, which I consider a multi-hour process, on much lower rated caches. If I did that, I'd have a much lower find count. less hair, and only a few fewer DNF's.


    Some lower rated caches are more fun. Who cares about numbers, if the finds are quality finds.

  5. The following post is my opinion, and therefore not subject to being flamed, as it typically is:


    I think this cache has really gotten out of hand, especially with the last few posts. If the CO is going to belittle a fellow cacher on the log, what's the point? The good news is that the cache is archived. The bad news is that it's not permanent yet. And the worse news is that the CO is being a jerk.


    Again, in my own (extremely humble, because otherwise I'll get yelled at) opinion.


    I think the CO was forced into a corner. After so many attacks, most people would strike back. Especially when he did nothing wrong.


    Here is the note I was going to post, but posting is closed.


    I can't believe you archived it. I guess your skin can only be so thick. Now that I see where it is I ran the rating system helper. I would have given it a 3/2. The 3 because it is a difficult/tricky hide. I would give it a 2 only because it is not wheelchair accessible.


    It would have been a great hide and I would have kicked myself when I finally did find it.



    But I for one, support the idea of not allowing anyone to do hides until they have found 100 caches, and this is why. (well part of it anyway)


    I have to disagree with this. My first hides came within my first month of Geocaching. All but one is still active (a squirrel muggle kept on removing the cache) and that is after 16 months.


    I look at the hides and think they could be better but the logs all give me a positive reviews.


    I think it all depends on the cacher and the thought put into it.


    As far as the cache in question, if this is a true '1' terrain it must be wheelchair assessible. Therefore if the cache coords are at the wall pictured in the gallery, it might be a fake stone or something like that. It can't be on top of the wall or the terrain rating should be higher.


    If this is a legit cache, it would dirve me crazy.


    There is one cache around here that was published on the same night as an event. They had a huge group all looking for this cache. Everybody came up short. I spent the better part of 2 hours the morning after searching before I talked to the CO. He gave me a clue. It was a very clever find that would not have been found unless you fell on you a** and looked skyward. It was about 30 feet above a trail tie to the top of a very flexible tree. It was great.

  7. I had found another article on the original dedication...




    That one looks to be a multi layer laminated item... possibly acrylic or lexan covered... I don't think that was the photo referred to by 42 though. I read in the St Catherine paper website that it looks like city is going to spruce the site up... in 2011 including a new iron fence...


    Doug 7rxc


    That was great. Thanks for adding that photo and link.


    Here is the article from The Standard.



  8. It is quite ironic. This area was headlined in the paper with a picture of the plaque. You can see the chicken scratch on the top of the plaque. The author doesn't make note of this.


    I will go there will a variety of cleaning products and start with the mildest.


    The St. Catharines paper? Today? Got a link?


    No it is in the Q&A section, but here is a link to the article when the ceremony took place.




    OT, but my mother did actually write on my neice's coffin. She passed away rather young and it seemed appropriate to leave last messages with her. My Grandmother was a bit surprised but in the end decided it was okay.


    To continue OT, my Mom's cousin was saying he wants a plain unfinished coffin. All the visitors are invited to write a message. After visitation it will be clear coated and buried.


    I love the idea, we'll see if it happens. I hope it will be a long time before I find out. He is a really funny guy.


    Back on topic, I had nothing to clean it with, I know... Be Prepared. But I will get back there with some cleaning items.

  10. I ws out with our Scout Troup last night and we visited an old gravesite. The graves have moved but the site is marked with a historical plaque. The plaque contains information to finish a multi. When we got there one of the Scouts said "hey look, there something about a geocache here"


    I check out the plaque and sure enough there was the calculations for the puzzle written on the plaque. Icouldn't believe someone could be so rude.


    I emailed the last few finder and DNF's to see if the writing was there when they did the puzzle. All said no. I then posted a note to the cache.




    Some very rude, ignorant person, with no class whatsoever decided to deface the plaque and used a marker to do the math on the face of it.

    Would you write on a grave marker? Maybe you would prefer to write on someone's coffin. This is as bad as defacing a grave.


    Have a little class and go back to the plaque and clean it.


    It is totally disgraceful and really puts a black-eye on geocachers.


    I visited the site with a group of Boy Scouts. I was unable to explain why someone would do this.



    I will probably go back and clean it myself. Things like that disgust me.

  11. No. It is not spam. Spam involves sending e-mails to lots and lots of people. Posting a note on a cache page is not spam. It does seem, however, to violate the commercial guidelines. And is very tacky.


    From Dictionary.com



    [spam] Show IPA

    noun, verb, spammed, spam·ming.


    Trademark . a canned food product consisting esp. of pork formed into a solid block.



    ( lowercase ) a disruptive, esp. commercial message posted on a computer network or sent as e-mail.


  12. Well I am working on doing up an event page for this. Here is what I have so far.


    Stop by with (or without) the kids for a halloween treat!


    Stop by on Halloween any time from 1800h till 2030h.


    This is a great community to take the kids Trick-or-Treating. We are house number 56. When you stop by, mention "The Event". We will have an extra treat for the kids, and hot drinks for everyone (hot chocolate, coffee, and tea). Sign the logbook, and stay for a quick chat. If it is a cold night, this is a perfect chance to warm up!


    I will have print outs of a special cache for the event.


    Does this violate this guidline


    While a music concert, a garage sale, an organized sporting event, a ham radio field day or a town’s fireworks display might be of interest to a large percentage of geocachers, such events are not suitable for submission as event caches because the organizers and the primary attendees are not geocachers.


    Would all the other kids be considered the "primary attendees" even if they are not invited in for 'the extras'?

    OK, so back on topic...

    Anyone have an answer for me on this?


    I was at a flash mob event in which the meeting place was a very popular tourist attraction in Niagara Falls. By no means were the geocachers the primary attendees, hundreds of tourist flock to this place every day.


    With the number of kids some people get on Halloween, the geocaching community might be the primary attendees at your house.


    If you do go through with this, please post the GC# here.

  13. This had creepy written all over it (sorry).


    I am hoping that geo-parents don't hand their geo-kids the GPS and send them on their way. I would think the geo-parents will accompany their geo-kids right up to the 'event cache' or the front door of the coords given.


    If this is the way it goes, nothing creepy about it.

  14. But how long will you give this person?

    Which person?


    The event organizer laying out caches months in advance, that fit into a scavenger hunt?

    The developer of a 50 cache series that's an elaborate game of "Clue"?

    The guy who's trying to persuade a park system to allow geocaches, and is waiting for his meeting next month with the town council?

    The nice lady who hid a cache to celebrate her sister's 1000th find, and is just waiting on Sis to score the milestone?

    The poor soul who has waited 18 months since he filled out the application form for a permit from the State Forest under their geocaching policy? (True story)

    Or are you asking about someone else?


    Once I know which cache you are talking about, I can give you an answer.


    Once I know which cache I am talking about I will tell you, I may have an answer by then as to why it took more than six months to hide this cache.. But for now, this area is off limits to all but one cache hider.

  15. Hello,


    There will be a slight delay with reviewing your submission. Someone else has already created a "draft" cache page for a cache in the immediate vicinity. I have written to the other geocacher asking about their intentions for this spot. If they plan on proceeding with a hide here, their page will be given priority over yours because it has a lower GC Code.


    I will let you know once I hear back from the other cache owner.




    Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer


    But how long will you give this person?

  16. This is obscene. Unless the other CO is planning something really spectacular, a-la "Psycho Urban Series", it should not take more than a week to plant your cache and write up the description.

    Many geocachers take far longer than a week to set up their caches. The permission process for some land managers may take months. Event organizers begin hiding event-related caches months in advance of their event, often involving a puzzle or scavenger hunt requiring elaborate preparation. Those efforts can't be foiled by a roadside throwdown two weeks prior to the event.


    So, please avoid sweeping generalizations and dramatic labels like "obscene." It's only a game.


    I agree but should the reviewer not tell the person wanting to place a cache there the reason they can't ?


    Maybe say "hey... a person is working on this location and it may take awhile..."?


    And yes, It is just a game to us. But to Groundspeak and the people that represent Groundspeak it is a business.


    A little customer service is never a bad thing.


    I emailed again and I was told,


    "The spot is still being planned to be used. The cache is being worked on.





    I think holding a spot for six months is a little excessive.

  17. Ok, emails sent.




    Thanks for the pic reference... that worked for me. I sent a pic of my 'solution' attached to my email with comments... Hope I got it correct... a good average difficulty I'd say... suitable for most finders.

    Enough thought and work to make it interesting but not overwhelming... hope the hide is the same...

    Of course this assumes I got it correct...


    Doug 7rxc


    Your solution was perfect!




    Let us know when the cache is published so we can take a look at it.

  • Create New...