MKFmly
-
Posts
271 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MKFmly
-
-
It's kind of interesting that a geocacher who couldn't be bothered to write more than "TFTC" was bothered enough by the deletion to start a forum topic about it. I think newer cachers just don't understand that cache owners find it hurtful.
It's also interesting (from the alternate perspective) that it would be nice if more caches "inspired" more than a "TFTC" log.
I enjoy well written logs as well as most cache owners, but if those type of logs don't come it's not necessarily the fault of the finder (Which is often the assumption in the forums). Just saying...
As a cache owner I don't find
"Wow what a beautiful location! Thank you so much for bringing me to such a serene part of Arkansas!"
or
"Easy find thank you for adding to my adventure today! This also closes another county in Arkansas for me"
much improved over TFTC...
(that's not to suggest say they don't write other better logs)
-
The question is, does the online "Found It" log date represent
A] The physical finding of the logsheet and signature
B] The completion of all requirements in order to post a "Found It" log online
Literally, it would be A. Conceptually, it would be B. Most people abide by B. But there's no explicit rule stating which is proper, only interpretation in light of special cases such as Challenge Caches, Earthcaches, and Virtuals (arguably Webcams too)
Unfortunately, there are many among us that need one rule for all cases, exceptions are anathema. You just have to be able to look at it from the other direction and appreciate certain caches may not have "additional requirements". In my world the online "found it" log would align with B] which works for all cases.
-
How does one interpret this "found it" log then?
B.
Pup, I think you misinterpreted my post, as it most definitely was not in support of [redacted]. (Almost ironically illustrating my true point...)
-
Just did it, UniQP's instructions worked fine.
-
.png)
1
-
-
I saw in the log for the puzzle cache he found that he said that there were no other signatures in the log that day for that cache. One other cacher found it that day (someone I know personally) that logged the cache before Pond Bird did. He is accusing this person of not actually finding the cache but claiming it to get the souvenir. Although it is ENTIRELY POSSIBLY that the person found the cache after Pond Bird but got around to logging it online first... GC6PNAP
If you scan these forums, an outsider would think that all cachers are liars, cheaters, thieves, power trail addicts, all about numbers, throwdowners, and all around "poor citizens".
That couldn't be further from the truth. We often discuss the 0.01% of the caches/cachers/owners as if it's the norm. Give people some credit and cut them some slack.
-
I got all 3 souvenirs this summer. I'm an official agent! I did not cheat I went out and found 3 caches, although I had to do some time-planning do to work.
What an odd thing to highlight...
-
It wasn't arbitrary. There were several reasons why it would draw attention and the action was in keeping with normal reviewer tasks.
I don't assume reviewers are perfect and on other issues I have my criticisms. The attitude in this thread seems to be that the reviewer cannot be reasoned with, and that the "30 day countdown" is an inevitable death for the cache. Experienced geocachers should know better.
Again, regardless of whether you believe the check up to be reasonable, ascribe benevolent motivations to reviewers (and often the opposite to cache owners), there is no documented reason for any reviewer to impose that maintenance visit in this instance.
Frankly, there are only one or two posters who are ascribing motivations and assuming negative attitudes toward reviewers (frankly on the pro visit side), while the rest of us discuss a fine technical issue.
-
Opinions vary but one truth is this.
A Power trail or a 1.5/1.5 geocache is many times more likely to be found instead of the 3.5/3.5 ammo can in the woods. Stats back that up. Those are what the geocaching community want as a majority.
If not for the "numbers", power trails and LPC wouldn't exist. Smart business strategy by Groundspeak to not allow you to hide your find count from others.
Please cite anything that supports your assertions. Strongly disagree, but that's for another thread.
-
One of the key misunderstandings here is this. The reviewer asked for a response in 30 days.
Nothing in my experience of geocaching indicates that a reviewer would archive the cache in 30 days if the owner chimes in with a plan. I have never ever seen a cache owner say "... but my cache is under 12 feet of snow and I can't get to it until May..." only to have the reviewer reply "Too bad, 30 days is up, sucker."
The 30 day countdown is only a problem if the owner doesn't respond at all, or doesn't respond with a reasonable plan for maintenance.
There is no reason at all for anyone to pretend that the reviewer wouldn't be willing to communicate with the cache owner, or that the reviewer wouldn't be willing to play ball if the cache owner had politely communicated the situation and his plan. Quite frankly, the lack of credit given to reviewers in this thread is really kind of appalling at this point.
The key misunderstanding is again, regardless of whether you believe the check up to be reasonable under the given circumstances and timelines, this was an arbitrary disabling of a cache with an imposed "maintenance" visit.
I am fairly certain that we all recognise and appreciate the thankless hours our volunteer reviewers put in doing a great job, however to assume they are perfect is a little optimistic and to characterise respectful discussion questioning one action with a potential wide ranging precedent as "kind of appalling" is ridiculous.
-
There are some subtleties to your question.
Firstly, in our area daylight is limited in the winter so even though you may not call it "night", caching after supper is indeed done in the dark often requiring assistance from portable light products. It comes with its own problems as terrain issues easily observed during the day cause problems or short off the trail bushwhacks can be difficult just searching for traditional caches.
Secondly, as mentioned there are caches specifically designed to be done in the dark, traditionally night caching uses reflective trail markers to lead you to a cache. From the start point, you scan the area to find the next tack/symbol then from there you scan again for the next stage, rinse and repeat until you reach the final. Ultraviolet markers and lasers have also been used. If your observant enough they can be done in daylight but they lose a lot of the "fun" factor.
Often (but not exclusively) the "night cache", "flashlight required" and "UV Light Required" attributes are set therefore you can filter for them.
As for issues with authorities/others no, wildlife yes (being stalked by a pack of coyotes can be unnerving).
A couple of references
http://www.cacheatnight.com/geocaching/
http://debaere.blogspot.ca/2013/12/night-caching-in-san-jose.html
We had a hoot doing this night cache quite awhile ago
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3J1G4_the-goblins-hoard
-
The reviewer said that since it's been so long without a find on both caches that I must check on their condition, hence the disabling.
My question - since when are one or two DNFs cause for alarm bells, especially when the DNFs are from beginners? In my opinion, the extended time period without any activity or DNFs should not matter.
Regardless of whether you believe the check up to be reasonable under the given circumstances, this was an arbitrary disabling of a cache with an imposed "maintenance" visit. To this point there has been no general or specific rule or guideline cited that imposes that requirement on any cache owner nor that devolves that responsibility to a reviewer. Certainly, reviewers have an obligation to act on documented cache maintenance issues (NMs, NAs, and long streaks of DNFs) but "disabling" on a hunch just doesn't seem right...
-
How does this contribute to this thread which is about using an iPhone. Many standalone GPS units have averaging too, but that doesn't help the OP in the least.
Oh the irony...
-
It must be tough to guess at the correct foot requirement when the caches are not directly adjacent to the road. How do people measure this? Is it simply your best guess based on experience?
In practical terms set a waypoint at each stage (or nearby cache) and then search for it, as you move away you will know how far away it is...
-
Scraped from site,
OUR CODE:Basically, we will not muggle any caches (PNG or caches with difficulty ratings of 1-2) set for beginners, military veterans or churches. Mostly for respect and to allow families and children to still enjoy the game/sport at the NOOB level.Our main goal is to get rid of the unwanted caches or “trash” as we call it and or caches that are in direct violation of geocaching standard rules such as located on private property, etc. As this is a public page here, we will let it be known we will muggle other caches at will with regards to our CODE so geocachers beware. At the same time, most of us all have some decency so if we geocache and feel like it was an excellent cache no worries! We could just leave yours alone as we do enjoy the sport/game as well as you guys. If you make enemies though, or take a geocache spot or aka become a GEO-HOG don’t be surprised if you get muggled! Also, to put into words here…
if your cache has been muggled, do not waste your time here as we do not and will not make known any identifiable methods for you to see who, when, where and why your cache was muggled. Reasoning…guess what? We don’t have to. Go try again with your tupperware and maybe move the location 😉
-
If Groundspeak is trying to make the database a bit better in response to ongoing complaints about it, these caches are just as deserving of scrutiny as any others.
lel, The disabling of an rarely visited viable cache (with no demonstrable problems) counts as cleaning up the database...
If database cleanup is truly a goal there are certainly more effective and widespread targets (more bang for the buck)... that may actually make a difference to the casual cacher.
-
Mean spirited it is not.
Odd, awkward, probably unnecessary, annoying to some, misunderstood by several... yes to all. But no harm has been done, anyone can relog the find. She is just trying to get the word out that there was a throwdown and some people were finding and signing it.
It depends on your goal as a cache owner: If your goal is to bring people somewhere new/cool/interesting, have an adventure, and write about it online, then the mission was accomplished by those that signed the throwdown in good faith and logged online. If the container was integral to that adventure then I see some justification. As a cache owner that's pretty much what you hope for and why DNF logs can be just as good as found it's. But why retroactively punish the (good faith) throwdown finders for the acts of the throwdowner?
If your goal as a cache owner is to have a pristine log book and online record then that was met to...I guess.
From a personal perspective, given this situation I would have preferred the opportunity (and likely pro-actively) to change my "found it" to a DNF or a note... If my log was deleted I likely would not relog out of respect as the CO seems interested in log integrity over cache adventures. YMMV
Discussions of this type often make me consider not logging online at all, but writing a short story can be fun and 90% of cache owners appreciate them.
-
There's also the safety aspect to consider. On a roundabout with pedestrian access across it, there's often a footpath or some other similar crossing point available on the roadside.
Where this is not the case, then any pedestrian takes a risk in crossing onto the roundabout. Now would the CO like to be held responsible if said pedestrian were to be injured in attempting to retrieve their 'trinket' just to gain a brownie point?
Personally, I'd rather play safe than sorry and if there is no valid path across a roundabout (and I don't consider worn-away grass as a valid designated path either), I wouldn't even consider placing a cache in that location, even if it was the only site in the locality where you get outstanding views of the local countryside etc.
Slightly off topic, but an attempt to clarify
Reasonable cacher safety is an important consideration:
People undertake geocaching at their own risk, cache owners are not held morally or legally responsible for "said pedestrians" retrieving their caches, otherwise there would not be geocaching or any caches...
Said pedestrian could easily be injured, whether there was a crosswalk or not, a cache or not, or they are going to the store rather than a cache ...
In this case it seems reasonable to restrict caches to roundabouts with pedestrian access.
-
Ten actions on trackables I've moved in the past today but not a drop amongst them.
What is the joy of continual dipping?
Well perhaps:
the visited caches were not suitable for drop off,
the TBs were left at home,
the TBs have a mission that the holder plans to help with in the future,
some TB owners like mileage, and
etc.
-
I would think that the majority of caches are somewhat accessable to the cache owners so in my mind there is no reason not to visit your cache at least once a year.
I don't know about you but if I did adopt a cache (which I have) I would want to visit the site, know exactly where is was and what shape it was in. In my case I also re-applied for premission and let the land owner/manager know who I was and how to contact me if need be. This last part may seem excessive but I have great respect for other people's property.
Adopting a cache sight unseen to me is like buying a car based on a verbal discription.
We get it, your a good conscientious cache owner, but your approach to adopting a cache is not at issue.
At issue is the arbitrary disabling of a cache...
Fundamentally, there is no indicated problem with the cache. If GS wishes to enstate a maximum period of inactivity before a standard owner checkup, that's fine. As it stands, there is no such clause. The cache should not have been disabled. -
One of the caches hadn't had any activity in eight years, and was recently adopted by a new owner. That's not "arbitrary."
So the forced maintenance visit criteria are documented somewhere?
-
Your exactly right. A cache that gets 3 visits a year and is a day or two hike dosn't need to be maintained as often or as quickly. One that gets 50 or 100 visits a year needs more attention.
My point is you need to be willing and able to make that two day hike if the need arises.
I think you should visit your caches at least once a year regardless. Right off the bat the "long distance hiking" cachers and the "set it and forget it" cachers are ready to burn me at the stake for even hinting at such an idea.
Sort of, but only do to your hardline "once a year regardless" perspective. They don't disagree with maintenance or the sentiment, they disagree with the schedule. The inherent purpose of a "needs maintenance" log is well, to say the cache needs maintenance. Yes, it is a reactive system but that is what Groundspeak created because anything else would not work.
Emphasis Mine. Occasional in many definitions means "occurring, appearing, or done infrequently and irregularly" and that's what many here advocate for...like when there is a potential problem identified through a found it, a DNF, or NM log... as you say "the need arises".You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.So back to the OP,
Again if there are no issues reported on the cache page what are the immediate maintenance requirements? Why is the reviewer arbitrarily imposing a maintenance visit?
-
The point here is whether or not accessibility is an excuse for not maintaining your caches in a timely manor. I don't care how cool or old or favorited a cache is, If you cant maintain it properly than than you shouldn't place it to begin with.
The point here is What does "maintain it properly and timely" mean?
There are some obvious personal opinions illustrated here and some room for discussion, however it is intuitively obvious that maintenance requirements differ between caches, cache containers, cache locations, number of visits, local environments, time of year...
Edit
So getting back to the OP, if there are no issues reported on the cache page what are the immediate maintenance requirements? Is not the purpose of a "needs maintenance log" to alert the owner that there may be an issue? Wherein the absence of which we can nominally assume everything is ok?
-
...
TOTALLY BOGUS. He has either hacked into your database or discovered the algorithm to identify the tracking ID of trackables.
snip
People like "Chup'a" will ruin geocaching if he is allowed to carry on.
Don't get too worried, there is no hacking or algorithm. It is likely a just a brute force script (or bot) that will try all possible combinations and "log" those that come up true. Someone can probably do it in GSAK in a matter of moments...
Report the user directly to GS...
-
It's only the "official" app that has the 1.5/1.5 limitation. Basic members can visit the website and see all non-PM caches no matter what the D/T rating. They are limited to 3 "full" downloads/24h via API but can get 3 D/T 5/5 non-traditional caches in a 3rd party app.
I have no idea why gc's own app is so crippled but at least there are alternatives
Isn't the app crippled because of "listening" to the "forum feedback"? It been long established in these forums that unvalidated new casual cachers destroy/remove caches, steal trackables, and leave lame logs ...
That what I thought, but if none of the third-party apps are too, what's the point?
For the record (before this goes any further) and just to clarify I was being a little sarcastic.
I don't believe or support that "statement"...Agreed, with the debatable "wisdom" of crippling your own app while others work unhindered...
.png)
How to get Gecache Details into a Garmin etrex vista HCx
in GPS technology and devices
Posted
I use EasyGPS to load caches on my Vista HCX. It doesn't support Linux natively but you may be able to get it to work running under a Windows virtual machine.