Jump to content

Sagefox

+Charter Members
  • Posts

    2060
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sagefox

  1. Yes. Delete, delete, deltet, I say. I think the trackables were listed on two separate lists and during the mega-logging people didn't know they logged twice. Delete away!
  2. It depends. If it is a worthy cache site and I had an appropriate replacement container (which typically I don't carry with me) and a cache at that location did not compromise the natural setting then, yep, I might replace it. Perhaps even more so if the CO and maintainer have gone dark. It is not geolitter if I perform maintenance regardless if the owner is active, or not. As long as there is a viable container at the site it makes no difference who did the maintenance. Eventually the cache may need maintenance again and at that time someone else will either come to the rescue or start the NM-NA process. When no one is willing to keep it alive it will die its due death. It doesn't matter if that death is within 3 months or three years.
  3. We were on grandkid duty this weekend to give the parents some well deserved time off. We just move into their house and have fun with the kids. We did get a chance to visit a Washington State Park 100th anniversary cache and three others. The kids (ages 4 and 7) love geocaching. Here is a shot of Dead Man's Island from Kopachuck State Park including a crabby travelbug.
  4. I just did this a couple of weeks ago and plan on doing it again next week. The risk of these caches not being published is very low but even if the next one doesn't get published it is no big deal for me to jump on the bike and go retrieve it.
  5. Why would you want to do this? What purpose does it serve to "visit" a cache that you didn't find?
  6. I agree. Not all cache replacements are throwdowns. At least they didn't used to be. I replaced a lot of caches in the early years but never did it for the purpose of claiming a find. I just wanted to keep the cache active and often the CO was inactive or a non-maintainer. But that was back when there were not so many caches. I expect it is not necessary to replace caches anymore because there are always enough of them around. I also was not shy about posting NAs when appropriate. The throwdown concept actually started way back then too but it wasn't as prominent as it is now. In the big scheme of things replacing a container for a non-active or non-maintaining cacher simply for the purpose of keeping a cache active is not the great evil it is often made out to be. If it is a worthy cache locals will sometimes keep it active. If it is not then it will eventually get NMs and an NA. In any case, I suspect the non-throwdown cache replacement is not likely to reach epidemic proportions.
  7. I like finding a lot of caches sometimes but I tend to agree here. A rest stop cache is just another cache and it should not get any special attention. Yep. It's just another day in paradise. Have some fun.
  8. I feel your pain. It has happened to all of us that send out multiple trackables. It is especially frustrating when newbies latch onto a your trackable and then drop out of the game... and don't respond to requests to get the bug back into another cache, any cache. If you do write to them be sure to be very nice and non-accusatory. Good luck.
  9. This conversation is hurting my head. I will head on over to somewhere else now.
  10. Check out the Getting Started forum. That is a better place to search for answers and get help from others.
  11. TriciaG's link is to a Technology Tag with a QR code. It is not a geocoin but if this were a pop song the line might go something like this: "I'm a little bit Travel Bug, I'm a little bit Geocoin".
  12. I am curious as well. If one person gets to claim the find, then do the others come back at a later time and look for it again? Or do they put the cache on ignore so that it doesn't pop up on their radar every time they want to go caching in that area? Yes. My questions as well. That you limit your self to 20 caches in an outing and that you don't want to cache 10 hour days is fine. I am just curious why you would not log a cache as found that you were there when it was found and perhaps even had your hand on it.
  13. Lots of folks are using phones to cache with. I have been noticing a lot of duplicate Found It logs on caches over the past year. Out of curiosity and from my first experiences with logging by phone (which I seldom do) I took to writing to the double loggers and said I was conducting a study to see if they log by phone (which I am, informally). My premise is that they are hitting the Submit button more than once in areas of spotty coverage or if they don't happen to see the confirmation message. When the Submit button is pushed and there is not a strong enough "G" signal the phone holds that command and submits it later. Meanwhile the cacher hits the button again and the result is a double Found It. The email is light and non-accusatory and focuses on phone logging but does mention that the double log is the reason for my study. I leave it to them to decide what to do about the double log unless it is on one of our caches. Edit: Forgot to mention that around 50% respond and they all say they were logging with a smart phone.
  14. With all the speculation here about scanning and logging and concerns about problems that could develop I decided to scan the code in the photo at the top of this topic and see for myself. It did provide for instant virtual logging with any type of log. I posted a note but others are posting discovers and grabs. It seems to me that these logs are being allowed to demonstrate the potential of QR scanning. I'm wondering if the tag owners will have an option whether to allow instant logging or limit it to Discover logs only
  15. It is nice to hear your story. We had a house eight blocks from the B&B and I worked two blocks north of it for several years. Small world. Thanks.
  16. Sounds like what happens to a lot of caches no matter where they are hidden. Yes, and I recall having those same complaints prior to power trails including back in the early years. I know throwdowns have been discussed here for ages but I don't recall coming across more than a few during our entire time caching with the exception of some on a power trail earlier this year. Outside of power trails the idea may carry more weight than the reality. I hope so anyway.
  17. Exactly!!! We've visited the Mojave desert almost yearly since 1989. If you haven't been there yet I think you will really like the experience. That it is a power trail that gets you down there then I'm all for it and you are correct in thinking that the scenery will dominate your experience even if you are focused on cache finding. The desert is just too big to let you ignore it. We've driven by several of the Mojave desert power trails but have yet to actually do them. I think it would be fun. I've been doing power trails by bike and would love to do that along part of The National Trails Highway.
  18. If the five are all visiting the same cache at the same time even if most are in the car 20' away then, no, that's not cheating. The "5" was referring to is a hypothetical situation where five people visit five different caches at the same time and all log a find even though four did not visit it. That would allow someone to claim five finds on their individual accounts for each one they found. A majority of folks will certainly agree that is cheating. Keep in mind that the above example is not the same thing as family teams where members sometimes or even often find caches separately and then log them to their team account rather than to individual accounts. These team accounts are a record of the team accomplishment. At least one member of the team visited each cache logged.
  19. I remember when Moun10bike reached 1000 finds, the first one to do that. I sent him a note to ask if he would continue caching. Actually I said I wanted to know if there was "life after 1000 finds".
  20. He says: "Cut and paste reply posts will be deleted" on most, if not all of his caches. I particularly like the irony of his cut and past archive note on the CM caches. "due to recent lack of integrity by some cachers I am removing this cache. Hope this is not what geocaching is turning into"
  21. It is very difficult for people in this system-wide forum to help you find something from your local area. You could post a topic to your regional forum but I would not get my hopes up there either. If the tag or chain was not very secure to the wolf perhaps the tag simply fell off. In that event someone might bring the ohkomhakit back in an attempt to reunite it with the tag. EDIT: The most helpful place to post a note would be the TB Hotel cache page. That way if someone does come back with the wolf they might see the note or if they leave ohki in the cache someone else might contact you. Seeing how cute you little wolf is, though, I suspect you should prepare yourself in the event that someone loved it so much that they detached it and took it home with them for keeps. This is often a problem with cool looking hitchhikers. All the cool ones we sent out over the years went missing much sooner than the boring ones. Good luck. I will put this travelbug on my watchlist to follow its future adventures when you get it back in circulation.
  22. And that is a good thing. We've been talking at length about the problems associated with immediate grabbing of trackables before people have a chance to log them into the cache. An immediate Discover log should not cause any problems but if a grab were allowed from a QR scan there will be a whole lot more carping in the Trackable forums in our future. My new line now when I grab back a trackable from a Need-It-Now cacher is "Not so fast! The trackable was dropped off less than ___ hours ago and I want it logged into the cache I placed it in."
  23. I don't believe you will find a high percentage of forum posters that believe it is o.k. to have five cachers find five different caches at the same time and all log them as found. You will find lots of folks who say they don't like it but since it does not affect their game they don't care if others do it. In Group Caching (non-power trails) it is very rare that folks log caches the way you suggest. I have cached with many different groups and I've owned a lot of caches and I've read tons of cache logs for many years and I've only ever met one person who logs your way and that was nine years ago. When groups cache together the hunt typically ends when one of the group of those present finds the container and all log the find. You might want to consider the more common usage of the word cache. When supplies for hikers are cached and the group gets to the hiding spot one of them finds it and they ALL eat. Yes. And all three in your group can simply touch that cache and then all log it as found. After a while I'm sure you would find that it is not actually necessary to touch the cache as long as you are present when it is found, you can see it and you or someone in your group signs for you. If you think this cheating you might want to consider that probably 95% (Fizzy definition) of all folks caching in groups use this method. It is the way this game has always been played.
×
×
  • Create New...