lostinjersey
-
Posts
575 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by lostinjersey
-
-
quote:
Originally posted by citrix_99301:I think this thread has started to deviate from its original context, which is the search for crash sites of highly classified surveillance aircraft like the A-12, SR-71 and U-2 back in the 1960's. Such stories are of certain interest to aviation/military history/Area 51 enthusiasts and are not intended as a morbid curiosity towards dead people. In fact, in most incidents involving test aircraft the CIA, Air Force and Lockheed pilots were able to eject from their aircraft and parachute to the ground safely. The thread in the unnusual forum was NOT intended to include civil aviation disasters or disrespect the families of airline crash victims.
For further reading on the topic, please visit Tom Mahood's search for A-12 #02928 at http://www.serve.com/mahood/a-12/index.htm or the Blackbird loss page at http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/srloss~1.htm.
Cordially,
Andre
Such crash sites are extremely interesting to a wide number of people. Do I want to visit the crash site of the 9/11 plane in Pennsylvania? NO. On the other hand, there was a jet that crashed in the woods of West Milford about 30 years ago, and ever since it was featured in Weird NJ, people have been wondering about it's location. I located it with the aid of WillyD, and created a cache in its vicinity. The response has been quite favorable.
There's another plane crash cache just over the NY border, which I recall had a very favorable response by those who went. I can't seem to locate it now, if someone knows the one I'm talking about, contact me.
I think commercial crash sites would be rather pointless as typically the NTSB takes back every tiny piece for examination, so would there be anything to even see? Shipwrecks, on the other hand, often remain for many many years.
I don't think theres anything wrong with virtuals or locationless caches which deal with death. graves, memorials, shipwrecks, plane wrecks, etc are all fair game because they remind you of your own mortality & to take life a little less serious & enjoy it more, something some people could probably use a little bit of, IMHO.
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
Thank you very much for finally establishing guidelines. Although I myself have submitted some locationless caches that weren't accepted (refused because they violate the rules above) I can honestly say it's a good thing you're doing it. I would like to propose one additional rule: a person can not use an already established cache to create a locationless cache, to count as a find, or subsequently create a virtual cache based on something they logged as a find on a locationless cache. For example, if I see a cache where the object is to locate a round house, & I've previously established a virtual cache with that type of house as the subject, or have logged onto that type cache as a visitor, it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a "find" on the locationless cache type.
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
To the best of my knowledge, almost anything can be submitted as a locationless cache. Jeremy has indicated he was considering establishing guidelines & I think they are sorely needed. I think most of them arw kinda cool, mainly because there is a bit of a competitive natyure in the fact that most are labeled as "No XYZ may be used more then once" Heavy metal is a perfect example. FInd a warship not in service. The Ling is less then a mile away, but someone else logged it in already, so now I'll have to do my homework to find another. Can this type of cache be abused? Sure it can. What I dislike is seeing similar caches approved, then seeing mine get rejected. It kinda sucks to go the trouble of creating something only to be denied. And rather rudely too, but I won't get into that. Bottom line: establishing guidelines will help reduce the types of caches that are the fodder for the Anti-LC camp, and keep it from getting too silly.
My proposals:
1) No more then 1 log per user per cache
2) Submitter of the cache must provide same documentation as they require of others (proving they themselves have found whatever it is we're supposed to find
3) Item must be unique or have some importance. Finding a school bus doesn't cut it.
I'm sure there should be more guidelines but I cant think of any. I only really care about #2 personall
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
Real caches hidden in an area far from where the owner lives is never a good ideas they can't maintain it. Locals, sure, I guess they could, but why would you? unless you've got a season pass, you're shelling 60 bucks just to verify it's condition. bah. i s'pose a good location can be found but with the public so close, security issues, plus they could move things or redecorate so odds are it wouldn't last. again, whats the point? virtuals can be used to illuminate hidden gems, and there are no issues. Course these could all be considered "commercial", but hey, I've found & hidden a few myself, so I must say it's kinda cool, even if it is....
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
Real caches hidden in an area far from where the owner lives is never a good ideas they can't maintain it. Locals, sure, I guess they could, but why would you? unless you've got a season pass, you're shelling 60 bucks just to verify it's condition. bah. i s'pose a good location can be found but with the public so close, security issues, plus they could move things or redecorate so odds are it wouldn't last. again, whats the point? virtuals can be used to illuminate hidden gems, and there are no issues. Course these could all be considered "commercial", but hey, I've found & hidden a few myself, so I must say it's kinda cool, even if it is....
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
quote:
Does anyone feel the same?TICKS. If I never EVER find a tick, hell if I never see a tick it'll be too soon. I recently established a virtual cache in
Liberty State Park from something that was written up in Weird NJ> The article clearly referenced ticks but it totally escaped me. I found one on me that night, after I had bathed, then on on my arm at work the next day and again IN car when I left work. I debated for a few days over the sensibility of placing a cache in an area so clearly infested. I saw two caches within the next few days that clearly warned of ticks, so I figured it must've been too inadvisable as long as a warning is posted. Thought that'd be the end of the ticks but noooooo.... Went and did a beach cleanup saturday at Sandy Hook. They warned us of ticks. ...sound of my wife's eye rolling up in her head.... so we checked carefully afterwards, no ticks. 4 hours later my wife finds one wandering on her forehead. Fricking ticks.
I HATE THEMWUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
Sicne there are a lot of geocachers in NJ who are fans of Weird NJ, I am curious who will be going to the 5/1/01 get together? I have always been interested in meeting fellow geocachers, & welcome the opportunity to meet them at the 2002 Tour first stop. Hope to see you there.
WED. MAY 1
8PM – MAY DAY BASH!
ADAM’S BEER GARDEN
123 Hibernia Ave. Rockaway
973-627-9617.
I'll be there with my black Weird NJ/Geocaching Bag. Hope to meet & greet you there!
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
Protesting the placement of christian literature isn't anti-chrisitian nor is it anti-religious. I think that the final quote was absolutely on target. "This is a fun game that can remain fun without politcal/religious/business complications." Commericial caches are prohibited but items placed in caches aren't governed. Ergo placing such items isn't against the rules, but seriously what is the need to bring such material into the game? Judging by the posts, they clearly can polarize individuals, so why bother?
I personally wouldn't mind seeing such material prohibited, because geocaching wasn't established as a way to communicate a message (whether it's who to vote for, buy my stuff or worship my god). I realize however that this would be nearly impossible to define, nor enforce, so it's not practical to do so. People should be sensible enough not to though.
I don't expect to have to turn away conversion attempts when I peruse the contents of the geocache.
[This message was edited by Gwho on April 27, 2002 at 04:47 PM.]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Skully & Mulder et al.:I think that when someone finds a cache, it would be nice to spend some time and tell a little story about the circumstances surrounding the find. The person/team that placed the cache put a decent amount of effort into putting the thing together and logging it. It would be nice if the finders spend some time on their logs.
For example, StayFloppy & Bassonpilot have found hundreds of caches but still take the time to log a unique story about their adventure. Both have found all my stashes and I really appriciate their input to my page.
I am tired of the logs that read "great spot, took nothing, left nothing."
are we talking on-line or in the cache?
If we're talking in cache, it's kinda nice to see the story, cause I'll sit & read them all (or at least a few), but on-line it's not that big a deal if you ask me. In the online I look for info regarding the cache or the area before I'm going, so stories aren't as important to me at that moment. Course that qualifies as info, so maybe you're right. I still wouldnt get in a wtwist though.
GWh
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
After all, not everyone wants to be tempted. I recently hid this lengthy multi-cache which is very long (6 mile hike) and I posted a somewhat brief walk-thru at the site because I didn't think it fair to have people wandering & not knowing which trail to take, etc. the 6 mile hike could be 10 if I hadn't. Well.... I didn't even think about it, but the microcaches along the way give the final cache coordinates yet I basically told people the basic whereabouts of the final cache. One enterprising fellow (who is rather a bit floopy)
went for a cache that coincidentally was placed quite close to the final cache. He figured this out from the logs, went for the other & then decided he would take a stab at it. despite the search area having a billion potential palces to be hidden, he found it. I encrypted his log (cause he stated the general vicinity of the find) and then removed the last paragraph of the walk-thru description. (I wrote up a 20 page walk thru which I freely make available for those who wish to seek it out because it takes them on a tour of some very interesting historical sites, and I tell them all about what it is they are seeing. If they want tor ead 20 pages of my book-report then I don't mind them knowing the basic whereabouts.)team gwho
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
After all, not everyone wants to be tempted. I recently hid this lengthy multi-cache which is very long (6 mile hike) and I posted a somewhat brief walk-thru at the site because I didn't think it fair to have people wandering & not knowing which trail to take, etc. the 6 mile hike could be 10 if I hadn't. Well.... I didn't even think about it, but the microcaches along the way give the final cache coordinates yet I basically told people the basic whereabouts of the final cache. One enterprising fellow (who is rather a bit floopy)
went for a cache that coincidentally was placed quite close to the final cache. He figured this out from the logs, went for the other & then decided he would take a stab at it. despite the search area having a billion potential palces to be hidden, he found it. I encrypted his log (cause he stated the general vicinity of the find) and then removed the last paragraph of the walk-thru description. (I wrote up a 20 page walk thru which I freely make available for those who wish to seek it out because it takes them on a tour of some very interesting historical sites, and I tell them all about what it is they are seeing. If they want tor ead 20 pages of my book-report then I don't mind them knowing the basic whereabouts.)team gwho
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
The answer I would give wasn't listed. I find I get a lot more pleasure out of hiding caches then seeking them. First off, I suck at the seeking part.
Second, finding a great spot isn't always easy, considering that you (well maybe not you but I at least) should try to find a spot that a) is a challenge (or is at least interesting and 
isn't too close to anyone else's cache.I just found out one of my favorite cache hides was piflered.
What made it so cool was that it rested inside a hollowed out tree on a piece of the tree that was loose from the tree husk (so to speak). I can't lay claim to the name, but it was refered to as the rube goldberg geocaching machine, because if you knocked the wooden piece the cache rolled out of the tree. One guy got so scared he jumped back. That is what I enjoy. Finding a good spot & sharing it with someone.I cache mainly because either a) it's real close and is therefore relatively easy,
its near where I'm hiding something or c) to keep my find total above my hide total. to let it go under would seem cheesy i think.I'm quite sure I am in the minority here, as most people enjoy the seeking. I am getting better the more I do, but I honestly don't have the time to spend 2 hrs seeking a level 4 difficulty cache, not would my wife & 3 yr old son wish to join me on such a trek.
Oh well... Team Gwho
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
The answer I would give wasn't listed. I find I get a lot more pleasure out of hiding caches then seeking them. First off, I suck at the seeking part.
Second, finding a great spot isn't always easy, considering that you (well maybe not you but I at least) should try to find a spot that a) is a challenge (or is at least interesting and 
isn't too close to anyone else's cache.I just found out one of my favorite cache hides was piflered.
What made it so cool was that it rested inside a hollowed out tree on a piece of the tree that was loose from the tree husk (so to speak). I can't lay claim to the name, but it was refered to as the rube goldberg geocaching machine, because if you knocked the wooden piece the cache rolled out of the tree. One guy got so scared he jumped back. That is what I enjoy. Finding a good spot & sharing it with someone.I cache mainly because either a) it's real close and is therefore relatively easy,
its near where I'm hiding something or c) to keep my find total above my hide total. to let it go under would seem cheesy i think.I'm quite sure I am in the minority here, as most people enjoy the seeking. I am getting better the more I do, but I honestly don't have the time to spend 2 hrs seeking a level 4 difficulty cache, not would my wife & 3 yr old son wish to join me on such a trek.
Oh well... Team Gwho
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
I just discovered my Borg Woods cache has been stolen
(theres evidence of a lot of drinking in the area, so i think I know what happened... the wind triggered the rube goldberg geocahing machine, and some idiot with a beer found it & walked off with it... sigh )any how I was wondering the same question, basically figured exactly what everyone else here was suggesting, so I know I ahd the right idea. Thanks for all the feedback this post has received. Course, i found a cool spot not 5 feet away from the original, hell I could probably leave the coordinates as they are....
Then again I probably will move it deeped into the woods & farther off the trail...
Team Gwho
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
I just discovered my Borg Woods cache has been stolen
(theres evidence of a lot of drinking in the area, so i think I know what happened... the wind triggered the rube goldberg geocahing machine, and some idiot with a beer found it & walked off with it... sigh )any how I was wondering the same question, basically figured exactly what everyone else here was suggesting, so I know I ahd the right idea. Thanks for all the feedback this post has received. Course, i found a cool spot not 5 feet away from the original, hell I could probably leave the coordinates as they are....
Then again I probably will move it deeped into the woods & farther off the trail...
Team Gwho
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
quote:
Originally posted by c.mathis:te:
Originally posted by martinp13:_ Because I prefer other than just plain "Tupperware at a lat/long" caches. I'm about to place one that uses hard puzzles to get from one cache leg to the next. I certainly don't consider it "for everyone" and I am stating that in the description._
I believe this thread is discussing the appropriateness of the contents of a cache, not how hard it is to find.
since it was previously stated that some would consider a difficult find (which would negaqte bringing children) as possibly fitting the catagory of adult, then this post wasnt that inapropriate IMHO. Course that wasn't what the topic poster was refering to, but that doesn't really matter...
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
quote:
Originally posted by c.mathis:te:
Originally posted by martinp13:_ Because I prefer other than just plain "Tupperware at a lat/long" caches. I'm about to place one that uses hard puzzles to get from one cache leg to the next. I certainly don't consider it "for everyone" and I am stating that in the description._
I believe this thread is discussing the appropriateness of the contents of a cache, not how hard it is to find.
since it was previously stated that some would consider a difficult find (which would negaqte bringing children) as possibly fitting the catagory of adult, then this post wasnt that inapropriate IMHO. Course that wasn't what the topic poster was refering to, but that doesn't really matter...
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
quote:
Originally posted by RDVH:This cache is not where it says according to easy gps seems the corrdinates bring you to South Jersey when the cache is located in west Milford North Jersey how did this get approved.
Shouldn't people give reasonable corridinates this is some 60 miles off. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=17143
Some new Geocachers will get confused and be driving 120 miles because of misgivings
Listing was indeed merely a typo. I appreciate it being brought to my attention. could've happened to anybody (the typo) luckily nobody went outta their way.
william
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:You know, I don't want to get into a flame war, but I tried to look through some of that guys other hidden caches and I just gave up. Every one of them is written in hacker. I thought that if just one was, that might be amusing... but _all_ of them? Geesh.
Jamie
(My first post. Isn't that sweet?)
I HATE that technogeek speak spelling of his. I actually have a lot of trouble reading his cache descriptions, ergo I havent sought them out. When Cache Ninja can speak english, I'll seek his caches. I asked him politely about this & he adamantly refused. No problem. Too bad that idea talked about in another folder about "IGNORE" buttons isn't in effect. maybe if he knew folks were ignoring his caches because of that technocrap writing style, he'd get the hint that it interferes with our enjoyment of the cache since I can't read any of it.
William
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
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.
Seems this person wants to claim the park as his only and thats very unsportsman like. The Parks belong to the people not just one person.
sigh. I wish people would read posts before knee-jerkr eacting to what they "think" is being said between the lines. I just knew someone would accuse me of claiming the park as mine. I clearly said that this park has many scenic places that are excellent for cache placement. I don't claim it to be mine, but I do feel as if this cache was a lazy act. "Oh he found a cool spot, let me hide something near the same cool spot rather then seeking a cool spot of my own."
I clearly asked what people thought. Was I wrong to be annoyed. I think the posts speak for themselves. PS apologies to stayfloopy. I got the caches bakcwards. StayFloopy's was there first, but my writeup made it sound like his was the 2nd cache there.
TeamGwho
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
This cache used to be located in the middle of the GWB. I sought it once (post 9/11) I didn't like the location as I felt very exposed & conspicuous. I know that the National Guard uses helicopters, so a guy fumbling around & hanging out for a proloinged time on the middle of a large bridge leading into manhatten, nah he won't seem suspicious. The cache was removed (presumably by the police), and is now replaced. I haven't sought it, don't intend to, but from the mapping software I use, it appears to be hid somehwere near the support section, almost as brilliantly bad as the first place. Someone is going to get arrested in this "arrest you & ask questions later" post 9/11 environment...
Team GWho
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
-
I noticed recently two caches that seemed IMHO too close. This cache was palced maybe a few hunderd yards from this one.. 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.
But then the topic got close to home. In Oct I hid
Harold's Home 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 this cache 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.
I am just wondering how close people feel is too close, what if anything they've done, or if I even have a right to be annoyed. Might it draw more visitors to my cache? Sure. Did he name it after mine? Yes. Couldn't he have found a spot not so close to mine? Sure. Should he have? That's what I don't know. Feedback please. I'm still new at this & not entirely sure what the "protocol" is for this situation...
TeamGwho
-
I hunted down Groundhog's Day Cache about 3 weeks ago, was bushwhacking when the bushes whacked back. Lost my grip on a rather elastic branch and it got me in the eye. Teared for the remainder of the day, but no further complications... till last week. Doctor informed that I scratched my cornea & if this goo doesn't fix it, I need laser surgery.
Certainly this isn't the worst injury a geocacher has suffered (although the resulting surgery puts me in what I hope is a very small minority) Got me wondering what other injuries people have sustained while caching...(not just hiking, but specifically caching)
TeamGwho
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!
isn't too close to anyone else's cache.
isn't too close to anyone else's cache.
Who's in favour of hiding all "found" counts?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Lets get one thing straight: finds do matter, it's only a matter of degrees. Some people do everything possible to get their hit count as high as possible, whether for status, ego, whatever. Others claim to not care but if that's the case then why bother logging the finds? If all we wanted was exercise, we could do that without spending money for equipment, trinket & gas. We ALL get some level of satisfaction from a successful find.
I think to totally seperate out from the count the cirtuals & the locationless caches does a diservice to those types. Will YOU seek a virtual or locationless knowing it won't give you a hit? Some virtuals are interesting enough to be worth the trip, but I bet a fair amount of folks will say "natch" and pass them by. I think that's even more so for locationless caches because you're not seeing something new, you're finding something preexisting that you previously knew about, so it's somewhat pointless without getting a hit.
I think it should be a complete total but with a breakdown. i.e in my case I would be 38/21/13/4. 38 total finds, 21 real, 13 virtual, 4 locationless. Simple, it tells the story, and it gives me credit for every find. Yeah, I've hit about as many real ones as virtuals/locationless ones, but thats me. I don't have the time to spend 6 hours on a 4/4 hike or to hit 10 in one day like some people, or travel distances to find something that's more then 10 miles away. I earned all 38 & they should all be represented. if anything, listing it that way is a motivator to seek more real caches to lower the disparity, especially since it's public. (if it bothers you, which it does for me marginally)
WUHOO TEAMGWHO!