Jump to content

NeecesandNephews

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    899
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NeecesandNephews

  1. With your permission Riff, I am going to use this from now on whenever I log a DNF. "I phlurbled when I should have twillis'd."
  2. It seems to me that the main thing people don't understand about this guideline is the meaning of "buried". Yes, I'm serious. Yes, this is very true. People use their own definition of "buried" and decide their cache is not buried. Examples: Nancy I agree with you. But what people seem to be overlooking is the Guidelines address half these "justifications".: I. Placement Guidelines 1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines 3. Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely. People seem to be leaving the rest of that sentence off. And I never thought this Guideline nor this discussion pertained to any cache that was in place before the Guideline took effect. I believe if GS did not have a logical reason for "adding, modifying, clarifying, ect." this Guideline... it would not read that way today. It does not matter what people think is ok, or people think is catastrophic. GS makes the rules. I do not agree with all of them... but hey, it's their sandbox.
  3. And the award for "OLDEST THREAD RESURRECTED" so far this year goes to.....
  4. The guidelines are concerned about things buried "in the ground", not about geocaches "buried" in an urn of ashes, or under an Unnatural Pile of Sticks/Stones, or in a large container full of dozens of film canisters. But one of the cemeteries around here has a specific policy about items being left at the graves. Most families leave more typical items like flowers or photos or mementos, but at least one has left a geocache using a hide-a-key fake rock. My comment wasn't really meant to be serious. I don't think it was going to be a problem anyway. The FTF would have probably just dumped you on the ground lookin' for the swag, and replaced you with a broken McToy and a leaky container of bubble liquid.
  5. geocat, your friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, geocat, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge. Yes, geocat, there are lab caches! They exist as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no lab caches. It would be as dreary as if there were no geocats. There would be no geocaching faith then, no bison tubes, no ammo cans to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which geocaching fills the world would be extinguished. Not believe in lab caches! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch all the websites on February 3rd to catch lab caches, but even if they did not see any, what would that prove? Nobody sees lab caches, but that is no sign that there is none. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world. You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, geocat, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. No lab caches! Thank God! they live, and they live forever. A thousand years from now, geocat, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, they will continue to make glad the heart of geocaching. Ok... that was profound. And entertaining. Are you trying to get a job with GS coming to the forums regularly and sprinkling happy dust on the posters?? Thanks for the laugh!!! (although some part of me... deep inside... really wants to say.. "Dude... it's puff puff pass man."
  6. Where is the "Like" button? I'll wager Reviewers could come up with a most entertaining thread. Que the "guidelines creep" posts.
  7. I hate to point out the obvious, but when you filled out the submission form for your cache, you were required to list the final coordinates for the puzzle. The Reviewer already has the final coordinates so doesn't need to know how you arrive at them so they can "cheat". They need to know how you arrived at them to verify it is solvable by someone who does NOT have the final coordinates.
  8. You have mentioned that several times in previous posts. I would like to hear from a Reviewer (any Reviewer) that this is the case. This is not to be misinterpreted as me questioning what you posted. I would just like to hear it from one of them personally. edit spelling
  9. We've got an event coming up. The cache will be published Saturday. There'll be an easy button for people inside the cache (a recycled ammo can from a recently archived cache) so they can take their photo with it. You have a cache big enough for people to get inside?? Sorry, couldn't resist!! The last link you posted is really cool!!! Well done!!
  10. Why yes his imagination is still far off. Why, because the kinds of damage that he thought caches (in particular buried caches) cause has not happened. Land managers are rightly concerned with the idea of people digging arbitrarily in their parks. I think the number one concern may be experience with metal detectors in the hands of amateur archeologists and collectors. The big issue is people digging up and looting artifacts that are buried under park lands. These artifacts are not there for the taking, and the park managers see protecting these resources as an important part of the their job. After that, I suspect that land manager are concerned with buried cables, pipelines, and irrigation systems. Damage to these systems because of someone digging can be costly for the park (or for the pipeline owners). And I don't doubt that land managers are concerned with the aesthetics of the park landscape getting covered by hundreds of man made holes. While animals may dig dens or nests in the ground, the human made holes are not natural and parks (especially National Parks) are tasked with protecting the natural beauty of the area. Yet what happens. Most (maybe even all) buried caches are not in areas where there is concern with these three issues. In addition, burying caches requires a small hole and generally shallow. Even if there are artifacts or buried utilities, the chances of these being disturbed by a buried cache is small. Finally, the saturation guidelines already limits the number of holes that could be made in any ares. The guideline no doubt limits them even more, though I suspect that even with a less strict guideline, the number of buried caches would still be a small fraction of what gets hidden. Buried caches with reasonable limitations would not cause land managers to start banning caches. Most of the caches that get reported would likely be allowed under such less restrictive guidelines. Caches, even when buried, just don't cause the same threats that land managers imagine. Toz, I appreciate what your are saying, and the point you are trying to put forth. I even appreciate the length you go to (word count) to explain your point clearly. The problem I see is, as you mentioned "guideline creep", that there is also "violation creep". Look at the number of caches placed under the current "overly restrictive" guidelines, that fail to meet the standard set by those guidelines. You state " I suspect ... the number of buried caches would still be a small fraction of what gets hidden." I disagree. Case in point- Power Trails. Back when it was generally "understood" you did not place caches every 528 ft just because you could, you did not see very many of them. When it became more accepted, and became a "more mainstream, acceptable, and even a sub-genre" if you will, of the game, they are now proliferating everywhere. Even in less populated rural areas such as the one I live in. If a "certain manner" of buried caches was allowed, would it not be logical to assume a proliferation of buried caches would ensue?? I can imagine a combination of buried caches and a power trail, with the "creative" name of " The Underground Railroad", or some such idea. Then there is the inevitable "violation creep" that would accompany it. The guideline creep you refer to might be in response to the violation creep I refer to. GS may have the attitude that" they are just not getting the point, we need to tighten up the wording so our intention is clear." I understand what you are trying to say, I just don't think it is plausible. ETA- That underground power trail would be great in the form of geo-art in the shape of a steam locomotive!! OR!!! buried in the fill alongside a railroad track!!! Wait... that wouldn't work because of another one of those "overly restrictive" guidelines. Darn.
  11. Odd how their jurisdiction seems to extend worldwide. Unexpected for a sleepy little Oklahoma town. I'll have a word with them the next time I check on our cache in Cache. (For the record, yes, I did in fact place this cache just so I could keep making this joke.) Tell them we are tired of "the Man" trying to keep us down.
  12. I dunno. I think the description of events Moun10Bike gave us is a textbook definition of mischaracterization and jerking knees. At least it sure seems that way to me. 1 ) FuzzyBear hides a cache which was not buried. 2 ) A land manager pulls the cache. 3 ) Said land manager told TPTB in DC that the caches were buried. (In other words, they mischaracterized the hide technique) 4 ) TPTB decrees a nation wide ban based on this land manager's lie. (Rather than find out what really happened, and decide based on facts) That's not to say I don't fully support the 'no buried caches' guideline. But in this case, Toz nailed it. Riff your number 4 should probably read "4) TPTB decrees a nation wide ban based on this land manager's perception that caches can be buried." I still can't see where this was an unwarranted reaction. eta: It never fails to amuse me that no matter what the "rule", "guideline", or "restriction", there are always those who believe it is somehow unfair, overbearing, or stifles their creativity. A world (even a game one) without rules is chaos. Wouldn't that be lovely??
  13. Toz I fail to see where you believe land managers have "mis-characterized" our hobby, and the resulting Guidelines are simply a pointless (no pun intended) knee-jerk reaction. As you said... "the Forums are full of threads like this one, which highlights that caches are buried anyhow." That kind of goes to the point. It doesn't matter if it's a "mis-characterized" notion, a "misconception" or whatever label you wish to place on it. The fact is, as long as this Guideline is not STRICTLY enforced, those land managers have every reason to rest in their beliefs about our hobby. And threads like this, with example after example presented, only serve to reinforce their positions. It's not the Guideline itself that has not "done anything to change land managers misconceptions", it is the fact that it is constantly ignored, caches continue to be buried,and those who wish to change that are vilified for their actions in this very Forum. I support the OP in the action she took.
  14. I CERTAINLY hope it DOES NOT. The story of the adventure told by the finder is a big part of my reason for placing a cache. If all I get is a notice that someone entered the correct code for one of the caches I placed, I will quickly find another game to play. I feel the majority of non-power trail cache owners would agree. But K... you'll get to fill out a survey and everything afterwards!!!
  15. Yeah, you know, this weird thing happens when soil gets saturated by rain...it turns into this semi-fluid stuff called "mud". Also, maybe once a year, for some reason all the leaves just suddenly fall right off the trees and dontcha know they just lay there and decompose. It's really this crazy phenomenon that maybe only happens over here. Wild stuff. Now it is entirely possible that the ammo box in the previous posts was placed on the ground... the boards leaned up against the sides to conceal it... and a flat rock placed on top to keep the boards in place... and over time blowing soil just naturally covered it. at least that seems to be what people are trying so hard to convince us happens.
  16. Jayme thank you for responding, and for even coming to the Forums to get some feedback. I have often wondered if anyone from HQ ever came in here to see how the pulse was beating. I still feel like you are asking only for "positive" feedback on this new idea. I hope the Admins and Developers can recognize the difference between a "negative" experience one might have with a new feature, and the resulting "negative" post, ...and someone just trying to break down the process. "Negative" feedback can be constructive to the process. Thanks for participating in this thread!!!
  17. Pardon me for speaking frankly, but that (to me) reads "if you don't have happy, positive comments, we tend to ignore them". Not exactly a sound business principle.
  18. 26 Yup, 26 whole caches. 7 of which have NM tags, and 1 is currently disabled.
  19. The reason to contact a Reviewer, in my opinion, would be so that Reviewer can assess the situation and decide to disable temporarily, or archive the cache. People don't always (usually?) read the logs before hunting, and I am not sure if the new free app that's causing such an uproar even allows you to view the logs. As long as the cache is still in place and findable, this is not an issue, but it sounds like that will not be the case shortly. I would attempt to save the container is it faces certain destruction, but I would also make every effort to return it to the CO.
  20. There is already a system in place for getting rid of "crappy" caches. It is called "N.A.". If the cache is truly "crappy" and the CO refuses to do maintenance, just log the NA, and move on. The system will handle the rest. Now if by "crappy" you mean "did not live up to my expectations", you have a problem only YOU can solve. PQ's can weed them out. You can refuse to log them at all "if" and "when" you find them. OR... and I like this one the best... YOU can put out as many "quality" caches as you possibly can, thereby blocking the proximity of your entire neighborhood from "crappy" caches!! Don't be surprised though... if someone eventually comes along and thinks YOUR cache is "crappy".
  21. Perhaps a bit off topic and repetitive, but this goes to the direction the posts and the apparent conversation is going. I was introduced to the hobby by AntelopeHunter and his wife. They were looking for a cache a young boy scout had placed behind our property, in the alley, under a light pole. I approached them to inquire what they were doing, as there had been a regular occurrence of people appearing at our side fence seemingly looking for something. They explained the game to me. As time went by, more people showed up. Turns out the coordinates were "soft" and my own GPS led me to the front-facing fence of our side yard. The "clue" on the cache page read "under the light". I attempted to contact the owner and have the cords improved to no avail. We had a string of landscape lights along our front fence that were subsequently destroyed by cachers determined to get the smiley. I requested the cache be archived and it was. Promptly. Did those cachers have a "right to be there?? Yes. UNTIL they entered the boundaries of my property. The cache was on "public" property only in the sense that it was an alleyway for utility maintenance, and garbage pickup, owned by the HOA. After that... the "permission" issue was looked on in a new light by me. I think more consideration should be given to cache placement consequences, whether they are poor cords during placement, poor cords by hunters, or just the simple act of expanding the search radius of a cache you have not found in the "apparent" location. It DOES spill over into the private sector. This is just one example in which I have personal experience. Good thing is... the couple I "muggled" introduced me to the game.
  22. Best case scenario, since the original cache owner archived, was for someone to put out DECENT caches rather than a nano. Archives and new caches placed doesn't always lead to new crappy caches. I totally agree. And I am not "downing" the parking lot nano. (I did go and log the smiley) I wish the original had been maintained is all. And I wasn't trying to insult Deco. It's just different where I am. We are somewhat rural, and the "outsiders" coming to our little town to enjoy the few caches here is something I would like to see continue. I was friends with some cachers who never mentioned the game to me, long before I started participating. Some strangers from Nebraska introduced me to the game totally by accident.
  23. Spoken like a true numbers grinder Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook. I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely. Hah hah! Your response makes me laugh! I'm not a numbers grinder, I'm a lover of multi caches, and there aren't enough multi caches around. And I'm not talking about archiving caches with history like The Spot in New York, I'm talking about archiving good caches that have lived long enough. Everyone in the area has found them, only newbies and visitors can find them, and they don't get found often. Archive them and put out a new amazing multi cache. I'd like to cache more within 10 miles of my home with my dog on average days with time for a walk--but there's nothing new that close to me. Just so you know, I've found lots of historic caches with the old logs--Arikaree and Yellow River Stash, both of which have the logs stolen since I found them. But I was thrilled to find the original logs in a lot of 2000-2001 caches (The Spot and others), and I was thrilled every time. Check out my log for this cache, I'm near the top--- http://coord.info/GCGJYE I saved the old log in that one, and was glad to. Why not look at my profile and my cache statistics before automatically labeling me as someone you disapprove of just because I have an opinion different than yours. That said--Mingo was much less than a thrill about a month ago. It's been stolen a bunch of times, nothing original was left, and frankly it was just another cache along the route because of that. Let old, abandoned, unmaintained caches be archived, they've had their day in the sun, time for some new caches. Mingo has in effect been adopted by the caching community--the owner does nothing--but because of that, it's really nothing special. It might as well be a new cache--and really, that's what it is. Oh absolutely not a "numbers grinder". And this statement does not seem selfish at all. Never mind that I have not found them, you have, so they can be archived now. Nec/Neph: Not everyone can find every cache. I've missed out on a lot that have been archived before I could find them, but I just shrug--that's life. Are you saying that every cache must remain active until you find it? I'd recommend something be archived if it was abandoned even if I wanted it and hadn't found it. Caches aren't meant to be permanent--long term, a few years, sure. But permanent--no. I'm probably a numbers grinder to some, but not to others--I suppose my average is somewhere in the middle. When I travel across the country in my car, I stop for all the EarthCaches, multi caches, puzzles, virtuals, and Letterboxes that I can. I like a ton of variety, I love all kinds of caches, not just the traditional caches. As for the charge of being selfish--I've put out some really good caches and 10 EarthCaches. I participate by putting them out as well as finding them. All your hides might be by sock puppet accounts, I suppose. Am I saying every cache should remain active until I find it?? No. That is ludicrous, and hyperbole. When I said "I" haven't found it I was generalizing meaning anyone other than yourself, not just me personally. I am not trying to be contentious in any way. I am offering a different perspective than you have, for your consideration. Please show me the same courtesy you ask for ,and do not "disapprove" of that. Caches aren't meant to be permanent?? That's a new perspective. At least one I am not familiar with. And criticizing me for not having any hides?? Wow... that's quite the double standard you practice, when you just asked someone not to judge. I guess you meant not judge you. In an attempt to avoid argument let me give you as couple examples of "my perspective". A PQ of caches within 10 minutes of my home (by your desire) shows the newest cache to have been placed 05/05/2012. I have found it. No one is placing new caches in my area. Am I ok in wanting some of these older caches to be archived, since, applying your logic, they " have lived long enough"? If so, when can I expect new ones to be placed?? If I place them, can I log them as "Found" to pad my numbers, and again, if so, what fun is there in that for me?? If not, how long must I wait to enjoy a new find within 10 minutes of my home? What assures me once a cache has been archived, a new one will appear? Nothing. Perhaps in your area this is not an issue. (different perspective) Next example: This cache GCYZ3A was archived by a player who quit the game, without offering adoption. This "newer" cache GC38E2B is now blocking three parks, one of which held the first cache. Which one (number grinder not withstanding) would you prefer to find?? One was a cache to bring visitors to a Veterans Memorial, and a wind turbine display, the other is a nano bringing people to the parking lot of a Mexican food restaurant. I would much rather have seen the original adopted and maintained, than trade it for a parking lot nano. I have smileys from both. All I am trying to say is... every cache should have the opportunity to be found by cachers other than yourself, and judging a cache's "useful" lifespan by that measure is not fair. If this offends you... I don't know what to tell you. edited to remove nonworking links.
  24. Spoken like a true numbers grinder Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook. I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely. Hah hah! Your response makes me laugh! I'm not a numbers grinder, I'm a lover of multi caches, and there aren't enough multi caches around. And I'm not talking about archiving caches with history like The Spot in New York, I'm talking about archiving good caches that have lived long enough. Everyone in the area has found them, only newbies and visitors can find them, and they don't get found often. Archive them and put out a new amazing multi cache. I'd like to cache more within 10 miles of my home with my dog on average days with time for a walk--but there's nothing new that close to me. Just so you know, I've found lots of historic caches with the old logs--Arikaree and Yellow River Stash, both of which have the logs stolen since I found them. But I was thrilled to find the original logs in a lot of 2000-2001 caches (The Spot and others), and I was thrilled every time. Check out my log for this cache, I'm near the top--- http://coord.info/GCGJYE I saved the old log in that one, and was glad to. Why not look at my profile and my cache statistics before automatically labeling me as someone you disapprove of just because I have an opinion different than yours. That said--Mingo was much less than a thrill about a month ago. It's been stolen a bunch of times, nothing original was left, and frankly it was just another cache along the route because of that. Let old, abandoned, unmaintained caches be archived, they've had their day in the sun, time for some new caches. Mingo has in effect been adopted by the caching community--the owner does nothing--but because of that, it's really nothing special. It might as well be a new cache--and really, that's what it is. Oh absolutely not a "numbers grinder". And this statement does not seem selfish at all. Never mind that I have not found them, you have, so they can be archived now.
  25. I have often wondered if something like that was feasible. There are several caches near me on the "endangered list" so to speak, with owners that appear to be long gone. It's a shame to see them archived, as one or two are very good locations, and have been there for a while. The only way it would work, it seems, is by voluntary participation on the part of owners. Some owners did not intend to abandon their caches, but many times life situations come up that prevent them from closing out the game. I have also seen owners appear after a long absence and perform the necessary maintenance ect. and keep their listing alive. A place to list those caches an owner would like to adopt out would be nice. There may be some that get listed that cachers do not feel are "worthy" , and may not get adopted though, as the value of a placement is very subjective. I think it would generate "some" interest, but do not see GS including it in this site. Maybe you could start something??
×
×
  • Create New...