Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JL_HSTRE

  1. If you're interested in a specific state you can use the geocaching.com search. It will display the number of caches at the top of the results. Florida has a little under 40,000. It peaked before Hurricane Irma with about 44,000. A few states have/had more including I think California (before the endless wildfires at least) and Pennsylvania.
  2. I would love to see a Nano size added, but I recall this being requested when I started a decade ago. If it hasn't happened by now I don't see why it ever will.
  3. How so? There's a reason Groundspeak structures polls and souvenir events as they do. They've occasionally posted statistics to support it. You and I, with thousands of finds each, going to events, posting on the forum? We are the geocaching 1%.
  4. It would be an interesting statistic, but with limited usefulness. There are actually three categories: 1. Smartphone-only cachers 2. GPS cachers without smartphones 3. Cachers who have a GPS and a smartphone. The caching habits of those three types will be different. The smartphone-only cachers are mostly casual cachers who have a very low find count and only find Traditionals. Depending on the location, non-smartphone seekers might be willing to take a photo of the QR code, scan it at home, and return. Regardless, a smartphone is an example of a Tool Required. It's much more common than many of the other tools required by caches with that attribute.
  5. The exclusion list is to avoid people accidentally messing things up. Stopping deliberate shenanigans is like playing whack-a-mole.
  6. If the bell is on public display (if there is a sign about it then they probably expect occasional vistors) and a virtual stage (no hidden container to search for) then it's probably okay.
  7. A cache requiring a ladder should be T5. A cache with that rating nowhere near a body of water should be a pretty big hint that a ladder is required.
  8. This is a practice that never should have been allowed. Ditto the handful of events where the same event listing was recycled for years by repeatedly changing the date and updating the description rather than creating a new listing. (I think this was a Midwest thing?)
  9. IMO if you got explicit permission it should be noted on the cache page, regardless of whether the land manager requires including such text. Yes, you can inform the Reviewer in a Reviewer Note, but having that information publicly on the cache page reassures and informs seekers. Just a simple sentence at the end of the description suchas "Placed with permission of John Smith, Anytown Parks & Rec."
  10. I'm in agreement on the principle here, but I wonder how well that would work on the technical side of things. Currently it seems Souvenirs are triggered by new Found logs so they only need to be checked once. The problem is what happens when a log tied to a Souvenir is deleted, but other qualifying logs are legitimate. For example, a cacher goes to a new state, but the first cache logged is in error. The log is deleted which takes away the Souvenir, but Groundspeak's database needs to know to check all of the cacher's later logs to see if another cache still qualifies for the Souvenir(s).
  11. Bias is often real, but sometimes imagined. I would be curious to know how many people who get told "No" by a Reviewer immediately cry outrage. We certainly see it periodically here on the forums. I suppose it's hard to quantify statistically, especially since some of the issues get resolved and the cache published despite the CO outrage. I'm kind of amused that the OP was outraged at the perceived bias. Not bias against race, religion, political affiliation, or any of the usual suspects. Outrage that the Reviewer was seemingly biased against Pokemon.
  12. The big difference is apples and oranges are common names. You can't trademark them, though you can trademark your own proprietary brand or strain. In contrast, Pokemon and Pokemon go are copyrighted properties. Groundspeak is like a copyright brand. Geocaching could have been trademarked if things had gone a little differently.
  13. I'm pretty sure any proposal to reduce or relax the current proximity rules in any way for any reason is DOA.
  14. I would write a Note. It records my experience, including letting the CO and others know there was recent interest in the cache. Having not gotten close to GZ and your reason for that having no bearing on other seekers it is not a DNF. In contrast, if the trail was closed or blocked then I might post a DNF because the cache may be unreachable, at least temporarily. Usually I limit my DNFs to failed searches.
  15. I think it's actually one of the Mount Trashmores along I-95 or the Turnpike.
  16. Living in Florida I hate these August souvenirs. It is an especially hot and miserable summer this year. This one manages to cut both ways as I expect those in northern latitudes will find it daunting to complete the Jan and Feb souvenirs if we have a typical winter.
  17. IIRC, the requirement to sign an event log was dropped because some event hosts were making the signing of the event log deliberately difficult.
  18. No rule is effective, no matter how reasonable, just because a carrot you offer for compliance. There has to be a stick to punish those who don't comply. Some folks are motivated only by consequences. But that's never going to happen in geocaching except for the most egregious cases, like blatantly armchair logging. You could attempt to ostracize members of the community for their logging behavior, but in almost every area you will never get a meaningful number of people to support it unless the sketchy logger is openly a jerk. Most people wont unfriend someone for cheating on their spouse; how are you going to persuade them to unfriend someone for cheating at geocaching?
  19. I once ran out of Favorite points, but that was years ago. I still hand them out when i find a noteworthy cache. I've had times where I awarded them to several consecutive finds and other times when I found a bunch of caches in one day without giving any FPs because none was noteworthy. I don't think a cap on unspent FPs would help at all.
  20. What about those of us who hate math?
  21. I imagine a new Reviewer these days needs to be in a "goldilocks" zone. Someone who is an experienced finder and hider, but not a numbers hound. Not a source of any headaches for existing Reviewers. Known to their local geo-community, with a positive reputation. Actively campaigning to become a Reviewer is, to my understanding, a soft disqualification.
  22. How many of those were actually sold by the owner vs stolen from geocaches???
  23. I've seen some new cachers who really don't understand the online log text field and were simply writing the date or their username. I'm not sure if that's better or worse than the people whose longs consist of a single period/dot.
  24. When I first started out I had several places in a nearby park where I was eager to place caches. None of the locations had caches, but I was disappointed to find all were with 528 feet of existing caches. Not even all the same CO as this was a decade ago and the caches were placed when the more restrictive saturation guidelines still existed. I do miss something that used to happen but rarely does anymore: a new public land would open, the first cacher there would place a couple caches and several subsequent finders would add caches as well. It provided more natural cache growth with diversity in hide styles and containers. For something like a rail trail it's probably better for a single account to have most of the hides for maintenance purposes. Trying to tighten saturation guidelines would be difficult. For example, if you required hides to be 528 ft apart but also 1000 feet from other caches you own then power trail COs would simply use two accounts and alternate placements. I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle.
  25. Some people log all their vacation caches when they get home and don't bother trying to get the date accurate. Armchair loggers often deliberately target caches where the CO appears inactive and thus wont check their log in any way, and also non-physical caches where they have gotten a cheat sheet of answers so they can provide information if the CO follows up asking for the required info that should have been sent unprompted.
  • Create New...