Jump to content

mertat

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    270
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mertat

  1. Good list. Personally, I'd put #4 as #1, but that's just my opinion.
  2. Well, if you put your cursor on it, it says "Create new content". If you hit the drop down button, it gives the options: Status and Topic
  3. -Yeah, I was out on a hiking trail doing some geocaches when a dog ran up to me - didn't jump on me and I didn't try to pet it. When the owner showed up he said, "I'm glad he didn't bite you." !!! Why would you NOT have a dog that bites on a leash?
  4. Or if you have the GC code, you can enter it directly into the "Search the millions of geocaches worldwide" box
  5. Okay, I've been reading this thread but hadn't been able to see the new search until today so this has probably already been covered but I don’t honestly remember. I was doing a search of all caches by a particular cacher. On the current/old system there are 27 caches, 4 of which are currently disabled and I get a list of all of them. When I do a search using the new system, I get shown 2 caches. What gives?
  6. Except all they'd have to do is appeal to GS to have their legitimate log reinstated.
  7. It is at an adult toy shop..... Um, you might want to check your facts. It actually seems to be at Bair's Powersports.
  8. I completely agree with this - thanks for posting it.
  9. I thought I’d reply to this since I’ve been caching for a while (since 11-2004) but haven’t found massive amounts of caches and don’t tend to do a lot of caches in one day. However, I did a Heritage Trail series a few years back with a couple of friends – here’s one of the caches. There was an event where the cache coordinates were handed out and then we all set out to find the 30 caches in the series. My friends and I completed the challenge that day and got our coins – the caches were great, btw – you could tell a lot of thought and effort had gone into making and placing them. It was a lot of fun although I did start to get just a little cranky by the end of the day. I’ve never found 30 caches in one day before or since but was glad I did it. I think you’ll have fun. Just take your time and don’t take it too seriously.
  10. At one point I kept up a bookmark list of Haunted Caches. Unfortunately, I let it lapse so a lot of those caches have been archived. However, there are still a few that are active and if you look those up you might find other bookmarks that are more up to date.
  11. This is too funny - love it (both The Jester's and Keystone's posts)!
  12. I find your accusation of my perceived entitlement unacceptable. It's nothing more than a manifestation of your sour view on caching today. And your wrong. Cache owners do have a debt. A debt that was born the second they chose to hit that submit button. I've repaid my debt by placing caches of my own and maintaining them. First, I do not have a "sour view" of geocaching. I enjoy caching a great deal; I have steadily cached for a long time now and I have no idea where people get the idea that I don't like what it has become or that I am resistant to change. My problem is not with caching; rather it is with whiners in the forums proposing new rules to make cache ownership more onerous in an ineffective attempt to solve minimally-important problems. I've been in these forums for about 15 years now. The one constant is that there is always a group of people here proposing new rules in order to force everybody else to cache in the way they want. We've had people against power trails, people against cut-and-paste logs, people against challenge caches, people trying to get placement guidelines turned into hard-and-fast rules, etc. etc. etc. The latest iteration seems to be people who are so outraged at a cache that is not in perfect condition that they demand new rules for cache owners to guarantee them a perfect, pristine cache container. My opinion is not that caching is going downhill, but rather that you are whining about a problem that is not very important. Your complete lack of gratitude for those who have placed caches for you to find is irritating, but hardly unprecedented; your willingness to punish those to who you should be grateful, however, is something I will do my best to resist. It's not acceptable for HQ to think that the majority of cachers out there are whiny, entitled little dictators who want new rules placed on cache hiders; thus, there is a need to speak out against the noisy few in the forums. Well said. And, thank you.
  13. Certainly not your post. I'm just perplexed by the whole exercise of trying to govern the maintenance of caches, with or without computer guided missives and regulation, through the forum. Totally understand your point then and agree.
  14. Indeed and that's the key issue. What Team Microdot has in mind would involve that the system automatically blocks cachers from being allowed to adopt caches (including all cache owners who do not yet own a cache). I would not want to have such a system not even if there existed a way to appeal against such bans where someone human would have a look at the situation and unblock the user in certain cases. As soon as I saw this subject I knew I'd find posts like this. This really is a slippery slope to go down, beginning with the classic line: There oughta be a law! When you create a law, rule, statute, condition, etc. there must be a processes, so this becomes: There oughta be a law and more work for people to do to enforce it and handle appeals. Meanwhile, back at the kindhearted and most revered volunteer reviewer's desk there's this thought rattling around: Oh, geez. And up at the lily pad a committee fails to coalesce, largely because they are thinking the same thought. They'd rather be having fun and promoting fun. And out in the field, where the great masses of geocachers roam from dawn to dusk (and beyond) they are mostly of a single mind on the whole topic: Nope. At least, that's the way I see the whole ball of ambergris. Um, I'm not really sure which is the "post like this" you're referring to - mine or cezanne's. Personally, I don't see any need for more regulation on the adoption process. I was simply pointing out a technical error in thebruce0's post.
  15. Uhh... to the best of my knowledge (from dicussions here) cache owners are not flagged as maintenance shirkers. Geocaches are flagged (do we even know this?) and their owners are emailed. That's a point to clarify because the system does not suddenly label a person as a potentially negligent owner. A reviewer may (incorrectly) interpret the communication with the owner as evidence that they are a 'shirker', but no the Health Score mechanism does not set this flag. And on that note, I think the HS system ca be used to provide an advisory about a cache owner for the reviewer to take into consideration when an adoption is requested, but the reviewer - as usual - has to make the final call. IF there's some stat with a CO about 'flagged' caches, or how many communications are made, then it could be informative, but not definitive. A reviewer may be able to see some type of average cache health score across their owned caches, but again, I would be against any sort of absolute minimum to qualify a person for adoption. It's faaar too subjective with unknown factors. Just a point of clarification - I don't believe a reviewer is currently involved in the adoption process. It is strictly between cachers.
  16. Sorry. I thought it was clear. I simply wanted to give cachers a view of a different kind of event. The event page has interesting logs and photos of the activities in the snow on the islands during last saturday's event PAul Not to worry - I thought it was clear, too. I live in the southeast US and we don't get weather that cold. I loved looking at the pictures - I particularly liked the heron nests! A friend of mine and I have been talking about going somewhere cold enough to try snow shoeing - maybe one day! Thanks for sharing!
  17. Geocaching HQ is in the middle of a comprehensive update to the Help Center, to make it more... well... helpful. It's a great project! Obviously this article was updated. Sometimes wording changes produce unintended results. Several Reviewers, myself included, read this forum thread today and dashed off to ask HQ if we'd missed a Memo. That's why no Reviewer has posted to the thread until now, as we were equally surprised. After discussions with HQ today, I am pleased to confirm that no policy change was intended by this update. Reviewers and Lackeys are now working on a revised version of the article, which will be posted to the Help Center within a week or so. Most of the Help Center updates are being made with direct reviewer input on the proposed text. Somehow, this advice about major changes to a cache listing slipped into the Help Center. Sorry for the confusion! Finally, I'd like to thank barefootjeff for starting this thread. Your question will lead to clearer guidance in the near future. I was hoping a reviewer would stop by and clarify. Thanks, Keystone!
  18. This is lame because I suspect those that already have the icon are voting for the museum and those that don't have the icon are voting for reactivation. I have the icon and I voted to have it unarchived. And I don't have the icon and I voted to keep it at Groundspeak HQ and leave it archived.
  19. Just a note - you actually logged a find on this on 7/27/2014.
  20. Agreed. I can't imagine adopting a cache if I had not previously found it. If I haven't found the cache myself how would I know if it's a cache worth adopting. Well, I've actually done that - adopt a cache I hadn't previously found. It was one of two that I adopted in an area I'd already placed a cache. One I'd found, the other I'd DNFed. So after I adopted it I went back out to search. I figured if I couldn't find it, I'd put another cache out in the area I thought it should be. Well, I hunted and hunted and couldn't find it so I started looking for a good spot to hide one near the coordinates. Found a great spot - and the cache! I updated the coordinates slightly and left the cache as it was. I never did log that one as found, though.
×
×
  • Create New...