Jump to content

Jeep_Dog

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    886
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jeep_Dog

  1. I like desert caches.

     

    Ok, ok. Nature as opposed to urban.

     

    I've found great ones in both places, and crappy ones in both places.

     

    All things being equal, I prefer being in nature. I'd rather climb a mountain and find one cache in 10 hours than find 30 in a city in the same period of time.

     

    Over the years, I have come to the realization that I like caches. Regardless of where they are placed. :D

  2. BUT what about all the cachers who have completed this the correct way, climbed the mountain and stopped to find the answers along the way???

     

    Your opinions are welcome.

     

    A re-post of something I posted a further up the page -

     

    If someone could remember details of the location from times past, I'd be impressed. I ask questions that cannot be found on a google search, so for someone to remember specific features would be impressive. To avoid an armchair phone-a-friend log (providing they don't have a photo), I'd reply with a "back up" question from the list I've got.

     

    Then, if everything was kosher, I'd let them log to their heart's desire...

  3. Seems to me the only literacy required is to read coordinates. Naturally, if one is creating a cache, the descirption page would require one typing in correct coordinates.

     

    Does anything else really matter?

  4. Unfortunately, Groundspeak has taken to bullying Earthcache owners who actually try to enforce these guidelines.

     

    How is that happening? Discussions over people who got their finds deleted or something?

     

    Yes, something like that. It does not seem "bullying" to me and are just trying to keep peace.

     

    Reportedly, some cache owners trying to ensure non-bogus "find logs" on caches have been told to allow logs. There's been a bit of a tussle about photo requirements, too.

     

    Admittedly, some interventions probably seem quite irritating, but probably not bullish.

     

    For insight, check out a thread starting about here....

  5. Is an earthcache just a virtual with a logging requirement?

     

    If that is what you seek, then that is what you will find. So, quite possibly that is all you will find - a lame excuse of a cache that violates two significant cache guidelines.

     

    If you seek to discover the world's geological features around you and to learn, then you may find that an earthcache is special place that people can visit to learn about a unique geoscience feature or aspect of our Earth.

     

    Earthcache sites explained.

  6. I don't agree with what? Your position that cache finders should sign the log or risk deletion?

     

    I agree completely with that position, it's just not helpful to the OP's situation.

     

    Ugh.

     

    1) The find as described in the first post OP's decision. That has not been debated (at least by me).

     

    2) OP asked for thoughts on a find. Clearly, if the log is signed, then clearly there is a find. If log is not signed, then back to #1 above since the find may be questionable.

     

    3) OP is justified if he/she/it decides not to allow a "find." Despite allegations of "mean," "sadistic," "lacking compassion," "does not like those with disabilities," and "trying to destroy the fun of others," since log is not signed, it is quite justified for a deletion as a "found it."

     

    In this way, I think it may be somewhat helpful. If you think not so much, so be it.

  7.  

    Regarding the post of mine that you quoted above, I was specifically stating my position in order to correct a misunderstanding that Vater_Araignee and I had. It turns out that we were in agreement.

     

    The irony thick through this thread is that it turns out that most of us were in agreement.

     

    Well, except for that scaly sarcastic chap, but that's a different matter altogether. :laughing:

  8. I've I'm watching you as you go to the cache, can you sign my name in the log as well?

     

    Kidding! Kidding! Sounds like a really interesting experiment. I'll try to catch it, but 6 a.m. - 9 a.m. Pacific is not a convenient time for me. Good luck with the test.

     

    Look, brother - why bother with the hassle of signing the log?!?! All you have to do is see the cache in order to submit a "found it" online!!! :laughing:

     

    Seriously, for the OP - sounds new and innovative. Will be interesting to see how it goes, and good luck with the test. May want to consider not revealing the cache hides, since there may be some cache owners who would not wish for their hides to be broadcasted for all.

     

    Have fun!

  9. I contend you are naive thinking that cache owners place the type of cache that THEY like to find. I contend that people who hide NIH caches don't really enjoy searching for them but, instead, are sadistic, taking joy in knowing that they are causing others to jump through their proverbial hoops.

     

     

    Why would you contend this? How do you even remotely know the likes, dislikes, and motives of others? The few trees which I have climbed have been placed by folks that seemed to have enjoyed tree hides that they logged. My experience in the field is not supported by your contention.

     

    What I have learned from this thread is that to fulfill this deep, burning sadism that you attribute to many cache owners, is that I have to hide the cache in a tree and make it invisible to ensure potential finders have to jump through my glorious hoops. :rolleyes:

     

    Naivete, sadism, narcissism - doesn't matter, they all stem from the same ego. And ego, my friends, is in no short supply around here. :laughing:

  10. Very good then...

     

    If I don't use my postal code to look up Caches than it's not a find?

    If I don't use the GPS to get there then it's not a find??

     

    and so on...That's just the basic overview of how the game works. If you use that as rules, then all the Name/Date logsheets are not finds.

     

    When have I ever inferred that the getting starting section or the guidelines are "rules?"

     

    Like everyone else in this activity, I merely use them as a rule of thumb (or wrist, if you prefer) to determine some consistency in this activity which we call "geocaching."

     

    My interpretation is as vailid as yours, and vice versa - and merely sharing "thoughts" as requested on how to apply some of the suggestions for managing caches that are provided on the listing service.

  11. You might note that this thread is from the position of the cache owner as to what he should do about online logs when the physical log isn't signed. As such, your advice doesn't really apply. In fact, the 'safe bet' is for the cache owner not to delete these logs as it would likely cause angst in his actual, real-world life.

     

    If I recall, the OP asked for "thoughts." As a cache owner, I gave him some. You don't agree, so you reply with recalcitrant remarks and generalizations such as "I would never argue against those cache owners who feel that the logs on their caches must be signed. However, there are those that believe that the same must be true regarding caches owned by other people. I am arguing against those posters."

     

    Yet, I've yet to see anyone holding an opposing view to you actually standing on a puritan pulpit and proclaiming anyone is heretic if other cache owners refuse to delete logs. So, hmmmmm. Personally, I've outlined where I draw the line, and then comment that I've personally let online finds without physical cache logs stand, and further reveal that I've yet to delete a log. Yet, in a clear case of a tree find, had I established a cache in a tree and expected the extra effort to sign the log, I would probably request the online find to be changed to a note.

     

    Frankly, I could care a less about what others do with their caches. If I sign a physical log, I expect to be able to log a "found it" online. That's about the extent of it.

  12.  

    The guideline in question forbids a cache owner from deleting a 'found' log if the log book is signed. As you so eloquently posted, once you have found the cache and signed the log, if you want, you may log your find online.

     

     

    ....and so, if the cacher has not signed the log, if they want they may delete the "found" log since they are not forbidden to do so.

     

    Safe bet - sign the log. You, the happy cacher, has not only found the cache, but also cornered the cache owner. :blink:

     

    If you want to spot birds, go to Audubon's website (audubon.org) and log away on bird finds.

  13.  

    I hope that COs that are going to be sticklers about signing the log no-ifs-ands-or-buts, put that information in their cache description.

     

    1. I seriously think that "Easy Steps to Geocaching" should be entitled "Subjective Steps Open to Debate for Geocaching." At least for the forum geocachers....

     

    2. Why should a "stickler" put that a find log online requires a logbook signature? The "easy" steps under getting started include "Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location." A cache owner has no obligation to restate the easy steps for each listing.

     

    3. Why should a cache owner annotate that a cache is not accessible by everyone? Any terrain rating above a 1 states this already!

     

    4. Mother Wolf - it has nothing to do with "control" over another person. It has to do with their choice, not mine. If someone approaches a physical cache and decides to not sign the log, then it is their choosing to not complete the cache within the easy steps outlined on the listing site. When they make this choice, then they are now outside the minimum requirements that a cache owner is required to allow for a "found it" log. That is fairly simple - they then embark into the realm of possibly being allowed to log a "found it" but they certainly are not entitled to that log.

     

    All this being said, before being added to any "ignore list" (oh, the horror!!! The HORROR!), I'd like to point out that I have, by exception, been fine with a finder leaving a "found it" online log without having signed the physical cache logbook. However, these are exceptions, and not an entitlement. In fact, I don't think I've ever deleted an online log - although if these forums are a trend out in the field (which is probably not the case), then it appears as if this 6 year trend may be coming to an end... :D

  14. When the ALR guideline were changed, simply to indicate that a cache owner could no longer delete a find log solely base on the failure to do an additional task, I figured that some people would read this as meaning that you had to sign the log the physical log in order to log a find online. This guideline does not say this; reading this way is a well known logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

     

     

    Ok, Harry Dolphin described all of this best. "Bizarre."

     

    From the Getting Started section of geocaching.com site:

     

    Easy Steps to Geocaching

     

    - Register for a free Basic Membership.

    - Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

    - Enter your postal code and click "search."

    - Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

    - Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

    - Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

    - Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

    - Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

     

    So, what logical fallacy would it be to interpret the above as online "find" = "sign physical cache log"??? So, what logical fallacy would it be to interpret the above as online "find" = "sign physical cache log"??? Logical fallacy of "applying the simple and obvious" perhaps?

  15. You do realize that your hand held device is a receiver and you need to have something to transmit for you to receive it. If no satellites then nothing is transmited so nothing can be recived to determine your location or cache location.

     

    Indeed. There's one on the space station with little issue of the needing reception.

     

    I'm getting a little disparaged now, I must confess. Garmin has confirmed that none of their products are built for the environmental conditions for Mars (I didn't state "Mars," however - just gave them the conditions and asked if any product would last very long - I didn't want them to think I was nuts, after all).

     

    Well, it seems there is none there. Guess I will have to get one established. I'm thinking a multi or perhaps mystery cache. Coordinates gets one to the launch site, then some math problem for location on the planet.

     

    I am a bit saddened that I don't get to log one once I arrive, however. My travels cause long dry spells in "find" stats....

  16. I forgot that some caches were designed to exclude people from "finding" it.

     

    My bad.

     

    Tell those cachers that their physical inability to reach the cache is no excuse. Deny them the find. Make no excuses. Let them know, in no uncertain terms that people who are unable to climb are not welcome at this cache.

     

    ~note substantial dose of sarcasm~

     

    The cache in question is a physical cache.

     

    There seems a plethora of opinion about climbing, and rating, and.... whatever else comes to mind of passionate posters in the forum. Yet, it seems to me to be a question of logging.

     

    Don't let the guidelines get in the way of opinions, however. Pesky guidelines.

     

    Owners are required to ensure "quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

     

    Far out.

     

    Another section of the guidelines, quite clearly entitled Logging of All Physical Caches outlines that "geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

     

    Hopefully, this is of assistance to the OP in making a decision, since in this case it seems quite obvious that the physical log had not been signed.

     

    ~note substantial dose of "just the facts"~

  17. I submitted a new Earthcache and received the following reply from the reviewer:

     

    "I am sorry to inform you that we cannot accept this EarthCache for publication.

    Many EarthCaches already exist to highlight watershed divides and we are no longer accepting new submissions in that category."

     

    My question is....is there a list somewhere of categories in which they are no longer accepting new submissions? I have looked on Earthcache.org and GC.com and cannot find it. I really don't want to waste the time going to a site, planning a cache, filling out the info to submit it and then find out that category is closed.

     

    Now, this is a completely different issue than a request for the guidelines link. As you know, this simply isn't in the guidelines. I've tried a time or two to find the "categories," but the only place to find them was on the old earthcache.org online (separate) submission form.

     

    I thought it unusual at the time, since some folks submitting may not have known about the different types. I vaguely remember a forum discussion along the lines of a recommendation of "don't worry about the selection of category, since the reviewer will assign the type based on what is submitted in the listing."

     

    Hmmm. I thought this unusual. Now, there's a number thresh-hold of listings against each category? Goodness.

     

    Well, earthcaching still is getting feet under it as a concept. There will be growing pains. Heck, in comparison to the geologic timescale, the time it takes is a mere blip. :smile:

  18. This question came up in our local forum and I realized that I don't have a clue about the current state of creating new EarthCaches, so where do cachers who want to hide a new cache find current guidelines for doing so?

     

    Short answer to your question: Earthcache guidelines.

     

    May want to gently remind them to read the guidelines before placing any geocache, earth or not. In the guidelines, the earthcache type instructs "The EarthCache submittal form and Guidelines may be found on the EarthCache.org site."

     

    Also, when submitting an earthcache, after "earthcache" is selected, other options for the online submittal become available. One of those differences is an addition to the block check of reading and understanding the guidelines prior to hitting the submission form - "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for submitting an EarthCache. " with a link, just like the agreement checks for read and understand guidelines for listing a cache and read and agree to the terms of use agreement have built-in links.

  19. If someone could remember details of the location from times past, I'd be impressed. I ask questions that cannot be found on a google search, so for someone to remember specific features would be impressive. To avoid an armchair phone-a-friend log (providing they don't have a photo), I'd reply with a "back up" question from the list I've got.

     

    Then, if everything was kosher, let them log away.

     

    Definitely would not put a time limit on the cache. If they met the requirements since it has been established, why would you limit the time? There's a period in my caching career where I didn't do online logs most of the time - some day I may go back and get them added. I can certainly understand if someone didn't "get around to it" for a few months.

     

    Anyhoo, I'm sitting here in Kuwait staring at the sand and memorizing it in the event someone in the future established an earthcache here.... :smile:

×
×
  • Create New...