J.A.R.S.
-
Posts
314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by J.A.R.S.
-
-
Hmmm. Come to think of it, that happened to me too, years ago.
I'm thinking it most likely because I'm not PM anymore. I may need to go ahead and just resign. Maybe it will automatically give the leader role to an officer.
-
Yes I found that page. I can promote a member to officer status, but not to Leader. I think it might be because I'm no longer PM. I thought about resigning the Leader role, that's an option. But I don't know if that leaves the category without a leader. Can the person who stepped up to be a leader self-promote when the category is leader-less?
-
How do I transfer my leader role to someone else?
I no longer have a premium account and haven't for years. I'm also not geocaching or Waymarking much anymore. I'm leader of a group and have asked a member to take the role but can't see how I can promote him to leader, only to officer.
-
The second one I looked at was Foothills. The cache is owned by a CO deemed officially "inactive". They planted the cache in 2012 and stopped logging in 2 weeks later. Lots of found it logs going back to 2013 that say the cache is cracked and wet, and now there's apparently no container just a log in a baggie. Finders aren't logging NMs. Last NM was May 2013.
No complaints since 10/9/2013 when it was replaced by A-JerseyThing, so also not a counter example.
Is this what you consider proof of geojunk growing? I was assuming you were complaining because you actually find a lot broken caches in the field.
The cache was geojunk, just a baggie with a log. The proper procedure is to archive the ownerless broken cache, not to throw a cache down.
-
I have a way to impersonate user accounts on the site so I can look at reported issues like this.
I see your cartridge listed on your cartridge list page (Wherigo.rangerfox.com/account or kit.wherigofoundation.com/account, depending upon the URL you use to access Kit). It has six zones, all named "New Zone", that generally head in a southwesterly direction. You have two images currently associated with the cartridge. I haven't done anything to the server, nor have I nudged anything in the database. I have to be able to reproduce a problem before I can solve it effectively.
I tested this using both URLs for Kit. If it seems your cartridge disappeared, perhaps your browser cached the page? Try refreshing the page to see if that helps.
By the way, during work hours, I tend to check the forum before email. If it's a private issue that doesn't belong on the forum, though, please do feel free to email me. I don't want to discourage that.
Thanks Ranger Fox. Being a complete newbie at this I didn't realize that my cartridge would be on kit.wherigofoundation.com. When I got home I checked my Firefox history and went back to the page where the cartridge is, alive and well. The images are broken on my page (viewing it on my laptop), but maybe they work via iphone. Yes, you're correct there are 6 zones, I wasn't at home when I wrote my initial post so I just guessed.
. Just figured out that "New Zone" can be renamed. Doh. Thanks. I'll keep working on my first Wherigo. I'm liking the kit. A bit of a learning curve but not hard. I like that I can create it at home. Much easier then out in the field. I should hopefully be able to test it in the field tomorrow or Wednesday. -
Hi Ranger Fox. I sent you an email via your GC profile, but perhaps I should write here.
I have never created a Wherigo before. I'm using the wherigofoundation kit.
Yesterday afternoon I collected coordinates for 5 stages which I'm using for my cemetery Wherigo. Spent the evening creating the Wherigo via the website. The name is Farnham Cemetery. Saved as I was creating each stage. Everything looked good (except the images were broken). Today my unpublished cartridge is gone. Is there anyway you can restore the cartridge? Was there something I did to cause my cartridge to disappear?
-
When someone is FTF, but then they take an age to post their log online. Then I dash out, get to GZ, feel all excited that I'm going to be FTF; only to find the log is already signed.
What irks me? People who think they are entitled to be notified if they are not going to be FTF on a cache. Part of the FTF side game is not knowing if you are first and feeling the rush hit you when you find out you are. I cannot understand how such self-entitlement can motivate a person to think that they must be placated by an immediate FTF log, lest they actually be disappointed if they come in second.
So true!
I use various listing sites for my caching pleasures. I sign the log of caches I find, but don't make any online entries (just not my thing). I track all my finds and such in GSAK. I don't play the FTF part of the game, but I have found a few that had no other signatures in the log (normally posted on other sites). A few years ago, I found a cache listed on another site which at the time wasn't cross posted on GC.com. About a week later the CO published on this site, probably not more than 2 or 3 hours after it was published I received an email from the next to find upset that I didn't log it online in a timely manner! He said he wouldn't have bothered to run out and look for it if he had known I had already found it! He then proceeded to accused me of cheating (being with the CO when it was placed) as the date on my signature was the week prior! :/
I inadvertently did this on one of my hides. I initially listed my LB box on another site and once the local letterboxers found it I listed it on GC. The first GCer to find it, found a logbook that was about 1/4 full of letterboxers' signatures. I'm not a FTFer but I was sorry to dishearten this GCer. Now, I replace the logbook with a fresh one if I cross-post. I figure it's a fun side-game for some, I don't think it's detrimental to the pastime and it's not a problem for me to put in a new logbook. It would however irk me if someone got upset with me for not posting right away if I inadvertently became a FTFer at a cache. I usually post by the end of the day, when I get back to a computer.
-
If I understood correctly, the OP meant that those particular coordinates would be "retired" as well, and a new cache would not be allowed to be placed there for a couple of years at least, in order to allow the environment to rest and recover from all the traffic. But by removing that cache, it opens up a new plot of possible land maybe an acre or so away.
That is not the way I understood it. I believe the OP's assumption was that the area would be allowed "to rest" simply because that cache was gone, assuming that the new cache would be hidden in a significantly different spot (which, in my experience, is not neccessarily the case. Good areas for caches tend to attract cache hides to those areas)
That's been my experience. After archiving a 5 year old cache at a local architecturally significant structure in a scenic location, a new cache was posted about a week later. It is a better hide then I had placed and at the opposite side of the structure. I enjoyed the new find. Part of what I like about geocaching it the hide n seek aspect, it's fun, it's not about the numbers for me. Plus it was interesting to see that someone could find another good (actually better) hiding spot. It brought people back for another visit after 5 years - sometimes people need the excuse of a cache to re-visit a spot. And the hide gave them a different perspective of the structure. I'm all for limited cache placements, it doesn't feel fair not to share the fun of hiding with new geocachers. I'm thinking 3-5 years is a good time limit.
-
It has little to do with experience.
I agree with everything Brian said except that line. I believe personal, individual experience is the single greatest teacher any of us can have.
I'm not sure that's true. We once had a cache owner that had found 2 very good examples of geocaches (traditional forest hides, regular size good containers) before placing 4 of her own. The containers: one was a candy tin, another an airline zippered pouch, another a dollar store gladware type of container that was crammed into a stump and cracked within a couple of days of planting, the 4th a film canister. Placements were mostly urban. Problems arose immediately and were noted in the logs. The CO posted notes saying she was a busy student and would get to the caches when she wasn't so busy. After a few months with no maintenance visits, she posted that she was leaving the country. She never maintained her caches, never disabled her caches and never archived them. Yet her experience with 2 good cache finds did not reflect in her hides.
I was going to check the profile of the CO of the cache noted in the OP's message but since the cache was retracted it no longer exists. It would have been interesting to see what he found and compare them to what he planted.
Ook, my mistake. I re-read briansnat's and Cliff's messages. I'm actually agreeing with them - i.e. experience doesn't equal good cache placements. It has more to do with imagination and creativity of the CO.
-
It has little to do with experience.
I agree with everything Brian said except that line. I believe personal, individual experience is the single greatest teacher any of us can have.
I'm not sure that's true. We once had a cache owner that had found 2 very good examples of geocaches (traditional forest hides, regular size good containers) before placing 4 of her own. The containers: one was a candy tin, another an airline zippered pouch, another a dollar store gladware type of container that was crammed into a stump and cracked within a couple of days of planting, the 4th a film canister. Placements were mostly urban. Problems arose immediately and were noted in the logs. The CO posted notes saying she was a busy student and would get to the caches when she wasn't so busy. After a few months with no maintenance visits, she posted that she was leaving the country. She never maintained her caches, never disabled her caches and never archived them. Yet her experience with 2 good cache finds did not reflect in her hides.
I was going to check the profile of the CO of the cache noted in the OP's message but since the cache was retracted it no longer exists. It would have been interesting to see what he found and compare them to what he planted.
-
I've been burned by multis both as a finder and a planter.
As a planter I've had people find the first stage and log it as a find -- sure I can delete the find but I don't want to play the game that way.
As a finder I have been unable to complete many multis - problems with missing stages, head-scratching difficult stages, math equations that simply will not add up for me, washed out coords on slips of wet paper, stages that were so far apart (and no mention of the distances in the clues) that I chucked in the towel. Too many bad experiences have made me leary of multis.
But yes, I have had some great multi experiences -- I'm especially fond of multis that have stages that can't disappear and take me to interesting locations.
Wish there was a way to separate the chaff from the wheat.
-
Whether it took you 1 min or 10 hours...you placed that cache for people to find...and they did. You should just be happy that they took their time to go to your cache and not pass it up. And for a geocacher to take their time to go find my cache...that is the reward for me placing that cache....not requiring someone to write a story in log to gratify the cache owner.
To Each Their Own....
I suspect that if everyone left acronym logs (TNLNSLTFTC), those who spend 10 hours on a cache hide will probably archive their caches and quit planting. What's the point - no one seems to think they have any value except to increase find counts. Maybe it's the finders' way of saying it's a lousy cache. I've read over and over in the forums that TFTC and TNLNSL means the cache is ho-hum, boring, not worth the visit... if you can't say anything good, say TFTC. It's how people suggest you separate the wheat from the chaff, check the logs - if most of them are acronym logs then the cache is not good. Good caches get wordier logs. So TFTC has become a round-a-bout way of saying, "I didn't like your cache".
I know I would stop planting if 80% or more of the comments were TFTC - it's a lot of work (checking the cache whenever there's a DNF, checking all caches about once a season) and some financial investment (lock n lock boxes, fresh trinkets at least twice a year, new handmade logbook about once a year). It's those cachers that provide some feedback (good or bad), and those that leave stories of their adventures, that motivate me to hide and maintain caches.
I suspect that if acronym logs were the norm, then 1 minute cache hides would also become the norm -- less effort in the logs begets less investment in the hides.
-
I just downloaded it. This is pretty cool!! Thanks for sharing it.
I downloaded it about a couple of weeks ago but had some trouble. I can't remember for certain but I think the problem was with the GC hide and seek function. It wouldn't work for me after I downloaded the ratings software. But otherwise I really like the software. But I had to remove it because it was interfering with my use of the the GC website.
Maybe I'll try to download it again and see if I have the same problem. The browser I use is Firefox. Anyone else having any trouble after downloading?
-
I just downloaded it. This is pretty cool!! Thanks for sharing it.
I downloaded it about a couple of weeks ago but had some trouble. I can't remember for certain but I think the problem was with the GC hide and seek function. It wouldn't work for me after I downloaded the ratings software. But otherwise I really like the software. But I had to remove it because it was interfering with my use of the the GC website.
Maybe I'll try to download it again and see if I have the same problem. The browser I use is Firefox. Anyone else having any trouble after downloading?
-
None of them were cross-listed, and I've seen the descriptions for dozens more, and am not aware of any being cross-listed. But I see we did have a couple examples.
All of my letterbox hybrids are cross-listed, because it opens the letterboxes up to a wider audience. What I do most often is put a link in my Atlas Quest clue page to my GC.com clue page. Here's an example: http://www.atlasquest.com/showinfo.html?gBoxId=639
-
Has anyone ever came across this kinda thing?
Yes, 3 times. All of them used the term "geocache" on the container or logbook and all of them were too close to another published cache.
-
I have a 3 year old HP iPAQ, can I use GSAK?
YES! But only if you also have a PC.
I do. I'll have to read more about GSAK. Thanks.
-
I use GSAK to do this any time I go caching with someone else.
Tell me how!!!! That way my friend and I can hit a closer town on a cache run! We have picked a numbers area to stay away from unless we are caching together but we have found most of them now.
See the "Group caching" macro here
I have a 3 year old HP iPAQ, can I use GSAK?
-
Where's that dead horse so I can beat it again.
Why are you reading this thread if it bothers you?
-
Meaning what types of geocache containers are bad ideas in your particular environment?
Knock-off/dollar store lock & locks. The tabs break off. Use the real thing, it may cost more but will last years compared to a few months.
-
Having someone put a label on MY cache isn't an option I would like, someone gets scratched and they automatically rate it badly. Someone has a bad experience of some kind (at no fault to the cache or owner) and the rating is bad. Someone who is overly selective decides they don't like my cache...we could go on! It's already an option with the bookmarks and you can also get an idea of how well it's perceived through how many watch the cache.
If it's optional then you would opt out of having your caches rated. Me, I would definitely use an anonymous "golden frog" type of feature. Are you saying that because you don't want to be rated, no one should have the option?
-
NO THANKS!! What about someone in your area who doesn't like you? How about people who'd simply start rating caches they never even visited? It's very subjective and could be misleading.
Besides, there's already this option...the bookmark! If you like a cache, bookmark it as a favorite, if not, bookmark it as a least favorite. You can even leave why you liked/disliked it and whatever other note you want!
Bookmarks can't be filtered i.e. you can't use PQs. You can't even search for bookmarks in your area. Very few people use them. I use them, but they never get rated, so I doubt many people care about my bookmark lists.
Attributes are OK too but a cache with a scenic attribute doesn't automatically make it a great cache experience.
Cache size - a microcache doesn't automatically make it a bad cache experience.
I'm sure the GC web gurus can create a rating system that doesn't allow a person to rate a cache unless they visited the cache.
For those who don't want their caches rated, I'm sure that ratings could be optional and owners could opt out.
-
Would it be nice to have some sort of rating or review for caches. I'm talking about a simple way to evaluate a cache; if you liked a cache very much you would put 5 stars and if you didn't, you woud put 1. It would be anonymous and there could be categories too. I'm thinking of something like Tripadvisor but for caches. Maybe this already exist, but I'm making this suggestion because I still didn't find anything like this.
I agree. I'd like the ratings to remain anonymous and only those that get an average of 4/5 or 5/5 get a "golden frog" icon. I think it would encourage better hides and would be useful on trips/vacations when you have limited time and budget, you can filter for golden frogs and then maybe pick up a few others in the vicinity.
-
I've been in favor of the Amazon system. Some way for the system to return a list that says "others who enjoyed this cache also liked these caches. Perhaps a hidden rating system. Only returning results tailored to the user without comparing them to others. Say I rate cache X a four. The system comes back with "Other cachers who rated this cache a four also rated these caches three and up." No reason for anyone to see how I rate the caches...
Sounds interesting. Have people shot down this idea? I don't see how it would be a bad thing. Maybe it's too complicated for Groundspeak to adopt.
I'm in favour of some kind of hidden rating system that will help us sort for caches that most people consider a good cache. Right now I'm resorting to setting my PQs to only traditional, small, regular or large caches. But I'm sure I'm missing out on some good micros/multis/puzzles in interesting locations or maybe cleverly hidden or perhaps with a unique container. It's just so overwhelming to read through all those logs to see which caches are favourably reviewed. This is especially a concern when travelling, even travelling to nearby cities - there are 100s to sort through.
. Just figured out that "New Zone" can be renamed. Doh. Thanks. I'll keep working on my first Wherigo. I'm liking the kit. A bit of a learning curve but not hard. I like that I can create it at home. Much easier then out in the field. I should hopefully be able to test it in the field tomorrow or Wednesday.
Resign my Leader role?
in General Waymarking Topics
Posted
Thank you Alfouine. That did it.
I was afraid to click "Resign as Leader", not knowing if it was kick me off without further options.