Jump to content

medoug

Members
  • Posts

    351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by medoug

  1. The cache is hidden in a tree near the "abandoned structure". Unfortunately, the insides of this non-active church is not open to the general public for hiding/finding a cache within.
  2. Note that I had earlier sent the cacher in question this message hoping that they would change their "found it" log on their own: "Hi xxxxx, I see that you recently logged my “Ceres Pioneer Rock Church” cache with a “found it” log. Note that seeing the cache or being at the location does not constitute a find. According to the geocaching guidelines, “physical caches can be logged online as “Found” once the physical log has been signed.” Other acceptable types of on-line log entries are “did not find” or “write a note”. In the case of this cache, climbing the tree is a requirement. The cache listing includes several attributes, one of which is “requires tree climbing”. Geocachers need to consider the terrain and difficulty ratings and attributes when deciding whether to pursue a cache or not. Unfortunately, not all caches are meant to be found by all cachers. medoug." It was only after verifying that the cacher didn't even see the cache as he had claimed that I decided to delete his on-line log.
  3. The cacher in question has been caching for 3 years with 28 finds and 1 hide. He's been doing it long enough that he should know better, yet his experience in number of caches is fairly low. Newbie? No. Limited experience? Maybe.
  4. Yes, after revisiting the cache location, I am trying to "politely" call him a liar (if that is possible), because he did in fact lie. I knew that the cache is not visible from the ground in its intended hidding spot. My initial hesitation was because I thought that possibly the previous finder did not replace it in the correct spot. During my visit, I verified that the cache was in the correct hiding spot and was not visible from the ground. You can see the potential hiding spot from the ground, but not the cache container hidden in the spot. Perhaps I should have clarified that the wording of a repost would need to be changed. I also provided his original log as a reminder of what he had posted to help him understand along with my message why it did not constitute a "found it" status.
  5. I came to the difficult decision to delete the log in question. Here is a copy of the message sent to the "finder": Hi XXXXXX, Sorry, but I had to delete your "found it" log on my "Ceres Pioneer Rock Church" cache. I did so only after much consideration. The cache description clearly states that you need to sign the log. Also, the description shows "tree climbing" as one of the attributes. Climbing the tree and signing the log is an expected action for counting this cache as a "find". I also visited the cache and verified that it was highly unlikely that you actually saw the cache in its hiding spot from ground level. (It would be confusing to make other geocachers reading the logs to think that this is possible.) Unfortunately, visiting a cache location does not entitle geocachers to a "find". Signing the logbook is typical as proof that the actual cache container was found and retrieved in geocaching. I have included your log text below if you would like to resubmit your visit to the cache area as a "Did Not Find" or "Note" instead. "I saw it up there but I'm getting a little old for climbing. That being said, I didn't sign the log... Took pic of general area though. Nice roadside park to take a break at." My sincere apologies, medoug.
  6. Yes, it's an U.S. Route. On a piece of the longest road in the United States. It's the same a voting. If lots of people feel the same and react the same, it will show in the numbers. But I must agree, there will probably always be enough loggers to not discourage the hiders. The hider of this power trail usually puts out some really good hides and gets a lot of favorites awarded to them. Maybe they will notice the lack of favorite points on these Park'n'Grabs and get the message.
  7. The Lock & Locks are 1cup, 2cup, and 3cup sizes. In the early days of caching, these would have been smaller than the typical cache container. Unfortunately now days, these are usually larger than most caches due to proliferation of micros and nanos.
  8. For leap day (Feb. 29), a local cacher placed 29 caches each spaced about 0.2 miles apart along a 4-lane highway with 65 mph speed limit and considerable truck traffic. Each hide was rated as an easy park'n'go. At least there is a reasonable shoulder for pulling off onto. This is the only 4-lane highway in the entire county. Personally, I would never hide such a power trail because of the safety issue. I also don't plan to look for any of them because of the safety issue, plus I don't really want to encourage this type of hide. Likewise, each individual must weigh the enjoyment they might receive from these hunts versus the safety risk involved.
  9. Anybody ever try a product called "Poly Tarp Tape" made by BAC Industries, Inc for covering geocache containers? I bought some for mending some cracks in my vinyl motorcycle seat and it seems like it would be the ideal tape for geocache containers. It's made specifically to be use on plastic tarps which I believe is the same plastic as most plastic containers. It is flexible, conforms very good to irregular surfaces, and seems to stick really good. It actually sticks best if leaving it in the sun or applying heat after applying. It is waterproof and formulated for outdoor use. It comes in several colors (mostly plastic tarp colors) black, brown, green, blue, silver, white, and clear. (sorry no camo or realtree) The cost was about the same as colored/patterned duct tape. I bought a 2" wide by 35' roll. I've had it on my motorcycle seat for about a year now and it is holding really well considering it has to flex with the seat vinyl all the time. Even the corners aren't curling.
  10. Squeeze the sides of the large containers and listen for air. If you hear air, they really won't be watertight. Depending on how they are constructed, they might keep most water out if kept upright when hidden. Also, covering the latches with the tape will help the "living hinges" survive longer in the elements. UV exposure from sunlight can make the hinges fail much earlier than they normally would have from normal indoor use. The tape will help shield them from the UV light. That applies to the real Lock'n'Locks too. BTW... According to most container sellers, you actually bought a 24 piece set (12 containers and 12 lids). Typical marketing BS to make you think you're getting more than you really are. Good luck.
  11. Another way to make a birdhouse cache is to make a birdhouse designed to be hung from a tree. I've seen a few of these and all they require is hanging by a loop of wire or rope over a branch. No screwed in fasteners or strangling of branches required.
  12. In addition to raising the terrain rating by 1 star, I have also decided to raise the difficulty rating by 1 star as well. I mainly did this because the cache container isn't actually visible from the ground. You can see the likely hiding place from the ground, but you actually have to climb about 10 feet up in the tree to actually determine if the cache is really there. medoug.
  13. BTW... Still no response from the "finder". Also, to those that mentioned that I should offer to retrieve the cache with this cacher... It appears that the "finder" lives 125 miles away from the cache. Unless this is on one of his regularly traveled routes, or he wants to make a special caching trip to do this (doubtful at only 28 finds in 3 years), I don't think this will happen. I suspect he was just passing through this area when traveling for other reasons, and decided to stop for a couple caches along the way.
  14. OK, I'm not a good swimmer. If I saw a cache that required swimming, I shouldn't just log it as a find. Even if I saw it in clear water 12 feet down from a boat, I wouldn't claim it unless I actually acheived the dive, retrieved the cache, and signed the logbook. I once cached with someone who was deathly afraid of heights. She could not go any higher than standing on a chair. She said that she did not actively do caches that required any vertical climbing or involved any heights. I'm sure if she was with a group and signed the logbook if it was retrieved for her, but she would never attempt such a cache on her own. We need to realize our limitations when we cache, just like any other activity. If you can't do it, then you just can't do it, whether its due to fear, physical, or mental limitations; otherwise, I should be able to claim a "found it" on all those puzzle caches that I have not been able to figure out. Unfortunately, we're not entitled to succede in everything we attempt, or even worse, don't attempt.
  15. I saw a kid on the "athlete of the week" segment on our local news the other day who used a wheelchair. He was very big into wheelchair racing and basketball. He presently holds the school record of 36 consequetive pull-ups. After he broke the record, he strapped his wheelchair to his body and did another 10 pull-ups. Using a non-motorized wheelchair can result in very strong arm muscles. I have a feeling that he could have made it up this tree and had the cache signed like lickety-split!
  16. What I have done on the terrain rating was average the entire experience (wheelchair accessible to tree climbing) to give it a 2.5 rating. In hindsight, I now understand that I probably should have rated it based on its most difficult aspect. The guidelines suggest a rating of 4 for a cache requiring use of your hands to get to the cache. The 1/2 stars are for applying a slight decrease or increase to the rating based on other aspects. Sinc the rest of the terrain aspects are very easy (wheelchair accessible) and the tree is a particularly easy tree to climb (a little more difficult than a 12 foot ladder), I would lower the rating by 1/2 star down to 3.5 stars for terrain. I have now modified the terrain rating of this cache for future finders. As the original poster of this thread, there are a few other aspects to this situation which I didn't mention up to now. (Perhaps I should have revealed these earlier, but I didn't realize that this was going to become such a heated topic.): 1. Although the "finder" has only 28 finds, he has been a geocacher for about 3 years and has even placed a hide himself. As others have pointed out, he's not exactly a newbie. 2. When he states, "I'm getting a little old for climbing." it's not like he's a 70 or 80 year old man. Looking at a couple of his posted photos, I would estimate him to be around 55 to 60 years old. That's not a lot older than myself. Maybe its just me, but his statement sounds more like he's viewing tree climbing as a childish activity that he'd rather not do, not as a too-stenuous activity that he is not able to do. 3. I am seriously questioning whether the "finder" even "found (but didn't sign)" the cache at all. He wrote, "I saw it up there", yet the cache was not hidden in a spot that is visible from the ground. It is hidden about 12 feet up in a hollowed out portion of the tree. 4. Also, he wrote, "Took pic of general area though." I've had another situation where the "finders" did not sign the logbook but provided a photo of the general area (not the cache container) showing that they had visited the area. Thinking that they might have simply forgotten to sign the cache in their excitement, I asked them to give me a description of the container and its hiding place to verify their find. It ended up that they could not because they didn't actually find the cache, but felt that since they visited the site, they were entitled to count it as a find. medoug.
  17. I have two geocache hides hanging inside tubular fence post from the fence caps. In both cases, I did not glue or bolt anything to the cap. I have not modified the caps in any way so it does not fall under the category of defacement. Instead, I have constructed a frame made of stiff wire that pushes outward from the inside to keep it securely attached. The cache is then hanging from a small chain attached to this wire frame. One of them is in a 4" diameter tube post and uses a full size peanut butter jar as a container. Many cachers who find them remark in their logs that they've seen this type of cache before, but none so well constructed. I have worked very hard to not deface property when hiding my caches. BTW... I only put these on caps that are easily removable and do not require a rock to remove.
  18. On this cache, and most of my caches, I have this note included in the description: "Please sign the log, trade fairly, and return the cache to its original location and state of concealment for others to enjoy." Here is what I PMed the cacher in question: "Hi xxxxx, I see that you recently logged my “xxxxxxxx” cache with a “found it” log. Note that seeing the cache or being at the location does not constitute a find. According to the geocaching guidelines, “physical caches can be logged online as “Found” once the physical log has been signed.” Other acceptable types of on-line log entries are “did not find” or “write a note”. In the case of this cache, climbing the tree is a requirement. The cache listing includes several attributes, one of which is “requires tree climbing”. Geocachers need to consider the terrain and difficulty ratings and attributes when deciding whether to pursue a cache or not. Unfortunately, not all caches are meant to be found by all cachers. medoug." Thank you everyone for your suggestions on this issue. As you can see I have included many of them in my message.
  19. I recently received an on-line log for one of my caches stating the following: "I saw it up there but I'm getting a little old for climbing. That being said, I didn't sign the log... Took pic of general area though." Should I be a GeoCop and delete the "found it" log? I don't want to discourage the finder from future geocaching since they're fairly new and have only found 28 caches so far. The cache is hidden in a tree and requires climbing. The "requires tree climbing" attribute has been included. It is only rated a 2.5 for terrain because it isn't a difficult tree to climb and getting to the base of the tree is very easy (wheelchair accessible). Any advice/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, medoug.
  20. If you have an Aldis store near you, this is the BEST low-priced lock'n'lock knockoff container that I have found. You can get a 3 container set for just $4. See here: Aldi's Sealtites I've also used the Rubbermaid brand locking style container with very good results, but they cost about the same as official Lock'n'locks. See here: Rubbermaid Lock-Its medoug.
  21. Klipsch49er, Your justification above is only reasons why your caches needed to be maintained or archived. This can be an issue with any cache hidden by any cacher. I doesn't, however, justify the delay in maintaining or addressing issues with these caches in a timely manor. I really prefer to not be so blunt, but if you're away from home for that many months in a year, perhaps you shouldn't be hiding them there either. I'm sure your intentions are good, and I share your desire to create and share cool caches, but your life style may not be well adapted to hiding (and maintaining) caches. On the bright side, your travels allow you to find caches over a broader area than many of us will never find time to experience.
  22. Contact the park department. They might be fine with the idea. Then you would have permission.
  23. Sigh! I miss the good ole days of caching. I started caching in 2004. If I first found out about caching today, I might try a few and then abandon the game. The only 2 things keep me going: 1)knowing that there are a handful of "gem" caches still being placed, and 2)myself striving to be one of those "gem" placers. medoug.
  24. I'm glad that knowschad include the photos about poison ivy. It isn't uncommon for people to play Tarzan in the woods by swinging on large vines. Sometimes these vines end up being those from poison ivy and they end up with a bad case on their hands. In addition to the photos of the trillium and jack-in-the-pulpit showing examples of "leaves of three" which are not poison ivy, othere poison ivy lookalikes can be raspberries and small boxelder trees. Look for thorns on the plant. If present, it is raspberries, not poison ivy. Also look at the leaves on the nearby trees. If they match those growing low to the ground, there is a very good chance that they are immature boxelder trees, not poison ivy. Otherwise, naturalists find it very difficult to discern immature boxelder from poison ivy. Other "false positives" are often ticks. I've spoken with people who have visited their doctors to receive a full series of antibiotics after experiencing ticks from being in the woods. When I asked them to describe the ticks to me, it was quite obvious that they had encountered the common wood tick. Wood ticks do NOT transmit Lyme disease; only deer ticks do. Plus, even if they had been exposed to deer ticks, there was no evidence that they had actually been bitten or infected. In my opinion, it is just crazy to be treated for something that you "might" have been exposed to, especially when the treatment is antibiotics which can result in resistant variations of other serious diseases. If you do spend a lot of time in the woods, it is just as important to recognize the symptoms of Lyme disease as it is to identity the deer tick. Another danger not mentioned yet is hunting areas. If spending time doing geocaching or other activities in the woods, it is wise to also determine when hunting is in season and if the public woods is open to such hunting. Sometimes a cach listing will list in the description or attributes if hunting is allowed, but I have also seen caches which fail to include this information. One of the things I keep in my geocaching bag is a tightly folded, thin blaze orange vest which doesn't take much room. If I'm geocaching in an area and hear nearby gunfire, you can bet I'll be putting it on. I've found that most animals avoid people in the woods, but on a rare occassion such as a protective mother, rabid, or territorial animials there can be some unpleasant encounters. Although I don't have to worry about it where I live, it would be wise to avoid large carnivours such as bears, cougars, and wolves at all times. Do not touch or play with any baby animals as the mother of any species (no matter how docile) can become very agressive if they think that their young is being threatened. Also, any animial acting strangely and allowing you to approach closer than normal should also be avoided due to potential of rabies. Otherwise, about the only small animals that I avoid are skunks and badgers for obvious reasons. medoug.
×
×
  • Create New...