Jump to content

medoug

Members
  • Posts

    351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by medoug

  1. Looks like a great cache! ...but, it looks gray to me in all of the photos, so it doesn't quite match. I like the intent of the name though. medoug.
  2. In the spirit of improving the quality of caches, not just the shear hide numbers, I'd like to hear from other hiders how you stack up as a cache hider using the new favorites system. (If you think your cache hides are on average better than most, this is a chance to brag a little too.) Please give your geocaching name, number of favorites votes awarded to number of hides, calculated favorites to hides ratio, date of record, and general hiding area. Below is an example showing the numbers for myself, my brother, and those of an infamously prolific lame-cache hider in the area: Entry format: caching name favs:hides calculated ratio date entered hiding area Here's my entry: medoug 27:22 1.23 1/16/11 NE IA, NW IL, SW WI Here's my brother's entry: Timber Hawk 15:7 2.14 1/16/11 NE IA, SW WI Here's the prolific lame-cache hider's entry: not disclosed 22:608 0.04 1/16/11 not disclosed I have include the date of record because as more cachers record their favorites, the ratio is bound to go up. Feel free to update your numbers and dates in your post as time goes by. Even if you don't post your number here, it might be a good time to consider how you stack up as a quality cache hider. (I'd suggest setting a personal improvement goal, but as mentioned, these numbers will naturally go up as cachers add their favorites votes.) There's several things you can do to improve your favorites to hides ratio. You can put out more "cool" caches; you can improve the quality or uniqueness of the cache hides you already have in place; or, if necessary, consider archiving caches that you believe aren't of interest in your caching community. I would recommend the two former options over the latter one. medoug.
  3. I'm not sure how you're planning to make this work. First of all, you can only favorite caches that you have logged as found. Secondly, you're only allowed one vote per cache, so you can sell votes for any caches you have already voted as one of your own favorites.
  4. I agree with most of the suggestions already given. I have just a few things to add.... As mentioned, use bleach on any container that had contained food. Make sure to especially get it on the rim and lid where critters seem to like to chew most. An UNUSED specimen jar makes a very good smaller container. Most nurses can get you some of these. I also would highly recommend an Igloo brand water jug with a screw-on lid. ONLY Igloo brand has a silicone seal that makes them water-tight. The pour spout should be glued/screwed down as it will have no practical use as a geocaching container. I've had one of these weighted down with cement that routinely gets submerged in flood waters for the last few years. The insides has always stayed dry until our last flood. (I'm pretty sure the previous cacher didn't screw the lid down fully. All screw top lid containers can be subject to this human failure.) Because it also has double walls filled with foam insulation, you can remove the outer wall and foam to make it smaller on the outside, or you can replace the foam with cement (don't use sand if it can freeze)to help it not float away. You can buy these new for about $7.00 or sometimes used for $1 or $2 at garage sales, Goodwill, or Salvation Army. If you buy one used, make sure it still has its silicone seal. medoug.
  5. baloo&bd, I think that's a bad idea. The reason we're granted 1 favorite vote for every 10 finds is because they want cachers to identify their top 10% most favorite caches. By sharing your points with your friends, they will be voting for their top 20% or maybe 50% most favorite caches. This will be result in including some mediocre caches into the numbers. If many people did this, both you and others would probably be more disappointed in some of the higher ranked caches that we find. I believe that the new favorites system is meant to improve the geocaching experience. Please don't do this. medoug.
  6. teamajk, Great idea! I just sent you a message about a clever puzzle cache that I think you should put on your blog. medoug.
  7. I agree that parking coordinates should be included when needed. Also, the start of a trailhead should also be included. (Sometimes these are the same place.) One of the problems I have seen is when people don't use these coordinates when given to them. By now you would think that cachers would understand that the best way to a cache isn't always a straight line in the direction of the arrow shown on their GPSr units. I've received logs on some of my hidden caches where they complain that the terrain rating wasn't appropriate for the difficult climb; yet, if you continue reading the log, it is clear that they did not start where the description and additional coordinates have instructed. Sometimes they even mention how much easier it was to return to their vehicle using the nice trail that they "found" near the cache. You might say, "tough for them, if they can't follow instructions", but this can also result in trespassing and habitat destruction in unwanted areas. I once had a ranger, who knew about the placement of one of my caches, complain because people were taking the deer trail to find the cache instead of the designated walking trail. I let her know that I specifically mentioned the trailhead and gave coordinates in my description, but unfortunately there will always be people who will not follow instructions. Incidences like these definitely cause a black eye to our sport. On another cache, I have purposefully given the parking location about 1 block from the cache hiding spot despite a dead-end alley going very near the cache. I did this for a few reasons: First, the designated parking location makes for easy parking without venturing down a series of dead ends and one-way streets; second, the 1-block walk takes you past some very interesting landmarks and across a very cool walking bridge; third, parking near the cache results in blocking the alley that people along the alley need to use to get access to their backyard garages and personal parking places. When I read the logs left for this cache, it is usually quite apparent whether they have parked where designated or pull up next to the cache on the alley. Those that walk the 1 block to the cache have a more pleasant experience to report. Those that park in the alley missed out on half of the experience. medoug.
  8. Let's hope that the forum moderators are reading them and passing them onto geocaching.com for consideration as they fine-tune this new rating system.
  9. I've been waiting for some type of rating system since I started caching about 6 years ago. Thank you, alas! I just wanted to make a few comments: 1) The original poster wanted to be able to assign more than 1 favorite vote to a cache. This essentially would make it become a cache rating system, rather than a cache recommendation system. I don't know all of the reasoning that geocaching.com used to select the current system, but apparently they chose the "1 vote for 1 cache" approach. Perhaps it is to avoid retaliation scoring by those that have their caches rated poorly or maybe to limit artificial high scoring for your friend's caches. 2) I've found about 200 geocaches. I looked at my list of finds and fairly quickly came up with 21 caches that I enjoyed finding and would recommend as being significantly better than typical. So, at least in my case, I think the 1 favorite vote for each 10 finds is about right. If the 1 favorite vote to number of finds was changed to a larger number of finds, my fewer favorite votes would be assigned to a smaller number of caches that others had already voted as favorites. This would result in only a small handfull of great caches having a very high number of favorite votes. I feel the current ratio of 1 vote for 10 finds will allow the distribution of favorites to be spread out more which would result in a more complete ranking system which will include "good" and "very good" caches as well as the "great caches. I would, however, suggest that the name for these votes be changed to "recommend", instead of "favorite" since I think it would more closely represent a 10% (1 in 10) preference. The term "favorite" would seem to represent more like a 1% (1 in 100) preference for most people. 3) I really like the idea that someone mentioned about also including the percentage of favorites, in addition to the number. This would make a more equal playing field for the new caches that haven't benefitted from a lot of finds yet. I would suggest that the number of favorite votes remain as well. This would help the numbers for older proven caches which people with a lot of finds (>1000) probably don't remember and which have been found by people who have left the game and won't be assigning favorites. Having both metrics allow cachers to pick from whichever they prefer. 4) I'm glad that a provision to remove favorite votes was included. As people start using the favorites numbers to select which caches to look for, they are destined to find more caches that they like. Being able to remove previous votes from past caches will free up their votes to assign to these newly found caches. This will keep their votes associated with the top 10% of all of their finds as the system intends. I believe that the new "favorites" system will greatly improve my attitude toward caching. I've been discouraged lately with a lot of "lame" finds. I recently moved to a new area with hundreds of caches. Since my goal isn't to find ALL the caches in the area, this will greatly help me decide which quality caches to seek. medoug.
  10. I hope you didn't move it from an area with emerald ash borer to an area without. Most campgrounds won't even let you bring in firewood from another area because of this concern.
  11. Check out this cool cache container. An example of the internal container used is shown on the left. It has a hook on its head. Here it is in its natural habitat (hiding place): Hope you like. medoug.
  12. Where did you get that information? I have never heard that, nor did I find any in some internet research. Sandblasting is the only thing I could come up with for etching granite. Notice that I used the word "believe" in my statement. It looks like I confused stone etching with stone engraving. Acids are used to etch images onto stone using a drawing stencil. See here or here for more details. If the acid is applied long enough and refreshed often enough, it is conceivable (but not necessarily practical) to create a hole in a rock using acid. medoug.
  13. If you could create the right shaped holes in the rock, you could maybe fill them with water and then freeze it. The expansion of freezing water can result in incredible forces. (I've seen thick-walled steel balls broken by filling with water and then submerging in liquid nitrogen.) This is the main reason cracks in concrete and other rocks usually form in nature. Water that gets into the rock cracks the rock as it goes through repeated freeze and thaw cycles. The trick would be to get the right shaped hole. A plain straight hole would probably result in the water/ice simply expanding out of the hole as it freezes. I believe it would need to be an inverted conical shaped hole to break out pieces of the rock without causing the rock to completely split open. Getting this "right-shaped" hole into the rock would be the real problem with this approach. medoug.
  14. As a chemist, I would caution anyone about playing with HF. This is very nasty stuff. You don't need a huge burn from HF to die. A 5" x 5" burn from 70% HF is considered life threatening and need immediate medical treatment. This is not something you want to play with. In my employment, we use 100% (anhydrous) HF. Lethal dose to a human is roughly a tablespoon full. We wear full rubber suits, gloves that go to my elbows and a space helmet plugged into a breathing air system. HF is not worth the hassle/risk to make a geocache. The concentration must not be that high in the off-the-shelf grade rust remover for it to be allowed for consumer sale. The bottle does say to use gloves and that chemical burns can be more deceiving than they appear, but nothing to the level of the protection you mentioned. Better safe than sorry. Best to not attempt the acid solution. medoug.
  15. It was Hydrofluoric acid, not Hydrochloric acid. Hydrochloric acid would give off chorine gas fumes which are poisonous.
  16. I found this on the internet: "Warning: There is one acid that will severely etch, pit and dull a polished granite surface. This acid is known as Hydrofluoric acid (HF) and is found in many rust removers. If you have experienced etching on granite surfaces, and you are using such a product, you may want to check the label and see if it contains Hydrofluoric acid. If it does, the granite may need to be repaired." I know the information is for granite, but I also found out that gneiss is the same material, but not compacted quite as much (slightly more porous). Other information said that the quartz in granite will be unaffected by acid, but the feldspar which holds the quartz crystals together will dissolve and turn to clay. You might find that the concentration in the rust remover is too week. If so, you might need to go to a chemical supply store to get the concentration required for your needs. I also have no idea how long it would take or how much acid would be required to get the job done. medoug. P.S. I just looked. I have "Whink" brand rust stain remover and the label says that it contains Hydrofluoric acid. If I remember it cost about $4 for a fairly small bottle.
  17. Eating away the rock with an acid might be the most effective way. I believe that's what a lot of monument engravers use. I'm not sure what type of acid would be most effective, but I know that you can buy muratic acid at most hardware/home supply stores. It is usually used to clean or etch cement, but I don't know how it'd do on gneiss. If the area you want to remove on the rock is convex rounded, you will need to dam around the area with some type of non-reactive putty or clay to get the acid to pool in the desired area to get started until it starts to become concaved. You could be looking at a long time, but at least you'd avoid the physical labor. medoug.
  18. Yes, I understand that the site isn't GPS oriented. I also agree that everyone has their own idea of what is interesting. What I was just trying to say is that the Atlas Obscura site seems to contain places that "most" people would find interesting and does not include places that "most" people do not find interesting. I'm hoping the Atlas Obscura website will have an emphasis on quality more than quantity. Based on most of the entries there so far, I'd say they're suceeding. It'll be interesting to watch how their database (and categories) grows. medoug.
  19. This is a good article about the fairly new website: Article on AtlasObscura.com This is what Waymarking "could have been". Instead of telling people where every McDonald's and Walmart are in the world, this site promises to list only locations that will interest people (much like the old virtual geocaches were). So far I think they only have about 270 locations listed, but this could grow substantially with user input. The few locations they do have seem to be quite interesting. You could spend days just reading about and looking at the photos of these interesting places. Actually being able to visit these curiousities would be the ultimate adventure. Can you imagine the stories you'd be able to tell the grandkids, or your co-workers at the watercooler about the places you've been! I'm sure many of the future user input listing won't be as spectacular, but there's enough weird things in this world to keep things interesting. medoug.
  20. I like doing both, but lately I've been pretty disappointed with most of my finds. One day while geocaching with my brother and his family, we both agreed that we were getting kind of bored with our caching finds lately. It was then that he made the revelation that "if other cachers were to hide caches like the ones we have hidden, we wouldn't be bored". You know, he was right. It seems like most of the new caches we had been finding were placed simply because a cache could be placed there. There was really nothing interesting, unique, or particularly scenic about the location or the hide. (These are all attributes that we look for when we hide a geocache.) I really long for more caches that take you to a place that you would never have found if it weren't for a fellow geocacher sharing it with us. medoug.
  21. So does this campus cache fit into this "common sense" criteria? WMD: Weapon of Medieval Destruction BTW... I don't have explicit permission from the college for this cache placement, but was involved with the group responsible for the WMD's construction and know that they would allow and support its placement. medoug.
  22. I too enjoy hiding and finding caches with historical or education information. But, I do understand that many cachers do not. As a result, on one of my historical caches, I included the following note in the first paragraph of the description: "I apologize about the long description, but this was originally intended to be 3 separate virtual caches. (To skip the details and work the cache only, you can jump directly to the 4 headings marked by *** below.)" I then put 3 asterisks immediately in front of the information required to only make the find. To see how I incorporated this feature, here is the cache: Well, Well, Well: 3 Artesians Hopefully, this setup has kept both types of cachers happy. medoug.
  23. This giant frozen waterfall was at stage 2 of "Wy Not Wyalusing?" GC18DC. See my brother and a friend near the base. This is a reminder to not let your faucet drip all winter. medoug.
  24. Remember, everyone, that the 528 feet is a "guideline", NOT a "rule". The final decision to allow or disallow placement of a cache based on proximity to another cache is made by the cache reviewer. Earlier this year, someone placed an Earthcache about 300 feet from one of my existing geocaches. I suspect that the reviewer allowed the Earthcache because there was no chance of the two caches being confused with one another. This could very likely be one of those cases since it is very unlikely that someone would be likely to confuse a parking garage cache with a library cache, especially if you explain in the cache description what the seekers will be looking for. The decision is at the discretion of the reviewer. Ask the reviewer for permission and explain the situation. You might be surprised at how cooperative the reviewer may be. medoug.
  25. I'm going to avoid piling on this topic, but please explain how this is idiotic? They found a cache that clearly leaked and replaced it lid-down so, hopefully, it would leak less. It actually reminds me that the best way to hide a film can (the innies, not the outies) is to leave it lid-down. The container had a style similar to the "outie"-style film can with a lid that had a lip that overhung the container lip. That is why this was idiotic. Turning the container up-side-down made the lid lip act like a tiny funnel letting in more water when it rained instead of acting like a shingle to shed the water when it is right-side-up. I did maintenance on a container this week that had a hole chewed through the lid by a critter. I found it on its side with the hole at the bottom. In this unique situation, the previous cacher did the right thing to help keep its contents dry. BTW, I found the container in a different hiding spot more than 10 feet away. Hopefully moving it back to the original hiding spot will help deter the critter. medoug.
×
×
  • Create New...