Jump to content


+Charter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sagefox

  1. Good news! Smokey was found having been blown across the grasslands some distance. He was back in place by the time we got there. Oops. I know I should remember what I read in these pre-event notes. Sorry about that.
  2. We missed you. Almost emailed you Friday night to commiserate but decided not to pester you. We did stop by the Alien cache on the way home and had a great time. We are now Chance the dog's best friends for life and we bought $125.00 of cool stuff that barely fit into the Honda. Actually, I suspect that Chance forgot all about us about 15 minutes later when he met his next best friends for life. The owner is a very nice fellow and we had a couple of chats with him during the hour we were there poking around all the cool stuff. What a great cache stop.
  3. How timely - I'll stop for this one en route to the Spokane Valley Cache Machine. Thanks! Us too, but on the way home.
  4. Why do you hate travel bugs? ( :lol:) Looks like you and your family are having fun with this game and I loved your log and adventure at the chimney rock cache and I am curious too... So after holding this travel bug for 4 1/2 years you want to put it into a cache that isn't likely to be found for a long time, perhaps years? Did I misunderstand something here?
  5. The final version will be announced here - keep watching. Typically it comes out early in the week before the event. This is so the work of those people assisting with the status of marginal caches can be incorporated into the final route. It is worth the wait.
  6. I don't think it is a very big issue whether NYPC logged a find or deleted that log because I believe his logs of this type are most likely less than 1% of his total finds and that really should make it NOT worth arguing about. I also don't understand why anyone would WANT to log a find on a cache they didn't find. It seemed cool at first to offer a find to someone in certain cases but now it seems so odd to me that I ever considered doing that. It was here in the forums many years ago that someone pointed out that an online find is not a reward for good effort. It simply shows that a cache was found and a physical log was signed (traditional container caches). A smiley logged in place of a DNF seems like a rather empty award especially if it were used to turn a state or country red on a stat map. Yes, yes, that's been said many times over many years but it is a community game we play here and the community has some thoughts on this subject that will get voiced and need to be discussed. A past find-count leading cacher who eventually quit the game once logged seven finds instead of one DNF on a cache in protest of the hide conditions. That it was done while in the race to stay in first lessened the integrity of the protest for me and I thought it was rather lame that they never deleted those finds after the point was made.
  7. Given your Log-o-cide comment below I am suspicious of the laughing emoticon here. It is not clear that this comment truly is in jest. The section referenced: "If you digitally log a geocache without meeting these requirements (also known as couch logging), your log can be deleted by either the geocache owner or Geocaching HQ without notice." It says nothing of GS policing physical logs but it does clearly say that virtual logs might be deleted by HQ if it comes to their attention. I bring this up because I was surprised by your interpretation of another rule a few posts earlier... You've got me curious. It seems that you have read into this that physical caches can be logged online without signing the physical log. If that was ever the case then I think descriptions of the instances where you could log online without signing a physical log would have followed that statement. I don't recall reading anything like that. You don't sign physical logs? So much so that you feel you can no longer log online? I think there are many instances where a log cannot be signed but a Found It should be posted but I would anticipate this would typically makeup less than 1% of any account's find total. Maybe a tad more for low-find accounts. Edit: typos.
  8. Not the very beginning. More like about a year and a half into the game I'd say. I recall that we joined immediately when the announcement came out. March of 2002 sounds about right.
  9. Apparently, from what I am learning in this forum recently, there is nothing wrong with any kind of log posted to a trackable's page. Most visit logs, I'm sure, are well intentioned and since most people probably don't ever read the traveler's history it is, by default, a harmless activity. But when I have to sift through pages and pages of visit logs that many trackables get in order to see where the bug made "real visits" or to see if it met its goal it get very annoying very fast. A few of what I call fake visits by several cachers spread throughout pages of real visits doesn't get in the way but dozens of visits by one person followed by dozens of visits by the next handler is a big turn off. By then I stop caring what the goal is and just drop it anywhere which might be 700 miles the wrong direction during our travels.
  10. Yes! A "real" visit where the trackable stays in the cache and the cacher moves on without it. Oh yes!! A refreshing but oh so logical point of view. I suspect that most visiting trackables are actually in a bag in the car or sitting on a desk at home rather than being at the visited cache. And mutter unmentionable words at your profile on the computer screen.
  11. Oh, I've deleted a lot of visit logs and I know the owner gets a notice for each one. The trackable game has changed and perfectly nice folks are now piling on visit and trackable-fest discovered logs and hopelessly cluttering the pages. What I want to know is if it is possible to "retire" one or more of my travelers that are not in my possession in a way that prevents visit, discovered, grabbed and placed logs. Would my moving it to my inventory or other action I can do accomplish this? If it can only be done by Groundspeak staff then I don't want to do it. They have important things to do with their time and this is a low, low priority.
  12. I adopted out some of our trackables around 2004, or so, but that caused us to lose that bit of history on our profile page. I want it to be known (to whomever might ever wander into that corner of our profile) that we were in the game. As for retiring trackables I was wondering if transferring them to our collection would lockout any or all logs from being posted to the tb page. I've never quite understood the collection feature.
  13. All this is "real" geocaching including the icons earned by actually geocaching. This is "fake" geocaching. When you say "it is left up to the trackable owners to delete logs" that implies there is something fishy about this activity. We all know it is essentially not right, not what was intended and that we can now get away with if the trackab le owners don't object. You say the game is not the same as "back in the day" but that does not have to become the justification for virtual logging of trackables. Yes they are nice and they truly love what they are doing. They also loved virtual logging of Virtual Caches that they never visited and when that was discouraged by HQ they switched to virtual logging of trackables. HQ does not have the resources to curb this bogus logging therefore it is, by default, becoming unbogus I guess you could say.
  14. (Que the screaming goat!) I had a feeling it was a bad idea to check in with this forum tonight. Makes sense? In a parallel universe maybe. Hey, that's it - the fake discovers and fake visits ARE in a parallel universe. Now that perspective should help me "get over it". The trackable game as we once knew and loved it is not really dead as I suspected, there are simply two separate games going on. I think I will be alright now as long as it is legal for me to delete unnecessary visit logs and I can come here to rant once in a while.
  15. That is a good example and it reminds me of a similar situation back before the smartphone era. We were walking in a park that had a great four part multi and the first stage had some Morse code to decipher necessitating a trip back home. Later during that walk we came upon one of several benches and sat down for a bit. I vaguely remembered there was something about a bench and that got me to thinking... a short walk around a few trees produced the final container completely covered with moss but in an intuitive location. Actually, I found a letterbox first that was 12" from the cache and the cache owner didn't even know about it. Since it was in our town I eventually visited all the stages. Another example is when group caching for the day occasionally one member has worked out a puzzle but we are all there for the final. The point of all this being that sometimes mulits and puzzles are found without doing the intermediate steps. Where I would not feel comfortable is if someone emailed me final coordinates of a puzzle or multi for me to go after on my own. I'm sure, though, that there can be circumstances where even this would be acceptable but, for me, not as a regular practice.
  16. There is no need to feel any quilt whatsoever because it is just how that one happened for you. The more caching you do the more these occasional incidents will happen. Having the container in hand and signing the log is always a find.
  17. I never would have guessed. I can understand why Groundspeak would not want to get involved with trackable logging. I am glad, actually, that they don't waste their time with it. O.K. then, if that is the case I guess we are firmly in the new era of trackable handling and its gone to a place I can't follow. I used to like reading the logs and seeing where the trackables ACTUALLY went and who handled them. Pawing through pages of bogus Discover and and fake Visit logs is pretty much no fun at all. I stopped handling trackables about a year ago because of the Visit log mess. I did not know virtual Discover logs were allowed and had not paid attention to them until I rescued this travel bug from a remote cache and then noticed the virt logs happening while it was in my possession. This travel bug is only all about bogus Discovers and pages of took-it-tos so it feels like I didn't rescue it from anything.
  18. I found a travel bug that had been in a Washington State cache for over three months and during that time the Discover logs have been piling on, most apparently from European cachers. 18 discovered logs since it was placed in the Washington cache and an additional while the trackable was being brought to the states. Clearly this is a case of bogus logging but it seems like the trackable owner has encouraged this activity. The apparent bogus logs started suddenly in April 2014. Does Groundspeak want these situations reported? Do they lock down trackables where the owner does not delete or encourages bogus logs? I wrote this to several of the discoverers: What I have received so far is:
  19. I have the macro installed and it appears to let me choose any GSAK database but just in case, I renamed my CM database to "default". I choose the default, run the macro and I get: Error in Macro at line: 16 FileRead File=$srcfile Error=> [File=] parameter is missing (Note: no spaces allowed either side the =) (error number: 631)
  20. Yep. And the owner of that program is dedicated, full time, to maintaining and updating it. It's a fair price and well worth it.
  21. I have always thought that reviewers should not be bothered with private mail unless there is something controversial that needs behind the scenes action. When it is obvious in the logs that the cache has major problems or is missing and the owner has not responded, typically for several months, the the risk is very low that anyone will jump down a throat. As I mentioned earlier, with rare exceptions no one, owner or local, ever comments when I post NAs for caches out of my area that I haven't visited and the cache usually gets archived because I read the conditions correctly. I find these NA situations when I am searching for individual caches to find before a trip.
  22. Hummmmm... By my calculations your six minutes of freefall at 120 mph would put you approximately 48360 feet below the surface of the ground unless, perhaps, the ground were to stop your freefall quite suddenly. Now if you were to do a 180 mph head-down dive you could get much deeper!
  23. I don't think NA posts are for local cachers only. Sometimes a cache is so insignificant in location or hide type that the locals don't bother with it. It can be tricky to post NAs without having been to the site. I have done it a few times over the years but only after carefully reading the DNFs or NMs. Those caches were always archived by a reviewer no fanfare or chatter from locals. I do this only when I have a good strong hunch that NA is needed. Your second example might qualify but I would probably not NA the first one without first driving by which you might be doing in the future. Probably not without an NA. Sometimes they do respond without NA but I suspect that is because they came across it on their own or someone told them about it. There are a lot of junk caches out there where owners have left the game or are not responsive and local cachers don't post NAs. Getting them archived from a distance, when appropriate, does not hurt our game. I have posted a lot of NAs over the years when travel-caching and I don't recall any cache owner ever complaining. They either fix the problem (seldom) or they never say a word and the cache gets archived. (Exception: a cluster of earthcaches (4) in my stomping grounds with gross errors and the CO ignored my comments for two years. CO did not make any changes after civil private mail and NM logs and only made corrections (3) or archived (1) after I posted NAs. He referred to the NM and NA logs as bullying and thought that someone who has never listed an earthcache should not have the right to post NM and NA logs. Earthcache owners are not in an exclusive club and have a responsibility to publish accurate information.) Anyway... I see no rush for you to post NAs especially since you will be traveling to that area and can verify the conditions. But on the on the other hand if your hunches are strong and the posted logs make it clear the caches are missing than it could not hurt to post NAs. Just remember though, you don't want to be jerking the volunteer reviewers around if there is a viable cache at the site. The DNFs could be because people saw one DNF and only did lazy searches after that.
  • Create New...