Jump to content

Sagefox

+Charter Members
  • Posts

    2049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sagefox

  1. It has been hit and miss for me the since last evening. When the site dumps me I can't get back in at the login screen. When I hit "login" it just returns a blank login form. Same happens using the phone to log into the site. The phone ap is working for me. Edit: Olympia, Washington.
  2. I disagree. I like the old grandfathers and still search them out because they are collector's items now but the essence of "grandfathering" is that they will be phased out when they become needy. The idea is that they will eventually be gone unless continually maintained. Once the original benchmark was removed during demolition this virtual crossed that line. We have to let it go peacefully to virtual cache heaven.
  3. Thanks for taking action on this one. You've helped a young person in the right direction.
  4. Maybe they blocked you? Sounds like you are harassing them to me. How is sending one message harassing? If you just took it on your own to take action with this person that has logged 100 finds today from Ohio to California, then that would seem to me like harassment. This part sounds more like peer pressure to me. Someone logging obvioulsy bogus finds is clearly outside the norm for this game. Log a lot of them and you can earn yourself a banner headline in the forums. There could be many reasons that people do this and this one seems quite naive as noted above but scanning many of their find logs and seeing nothing but short gibberish entries leads me to believe that some sort of peer pressure was due. I think people should be questioned about this and reported if they continue. Yes, I didn't care too much for that either because they were young people. They did, though, leave themselves open when it went beyond a handful of local caches.
  5. It's o.k. Geocachers find AMPLE evidence that both halves of the population do their business behind trees and bushes. I've never smelled animal urine in the wild but walking down an innercity alley tells you what concentrated human peeing smells like.
  6. Pruning some low branches and shrubs in a dense, fast growing forest to access some information signs is hardly a statement on deforestation. The intent of the forest managers was to provide that information to the people walking the trails. Changing the multi to a traditional cache seems to defeat the purpose of getting people to each sign. Each situation needs to be assessed independently. There is no need here for us to tell someone they should not do this kind of trail maintenance. I would have no hesitation to do this work if my on-site assessment led me to believe it was appropriate. In Northern California there is a virtual cache that had a requirement that finders do some trail pruning to get to it. (This ALR is no longer enforceable and the cache owner never hassled anyone who did not do maintenance.) The idea was that the property managers did not have funds to maintain all their trails so we geocachers would help out. It was a fun project. For this cache I would consider contacting the property managers and volunteer to prune brush between the trail and the signs.
  7. It's been archived for about 22 months so I wouldn't be too worried about removing it. All their caches are archived and they have not been active for quite a while. You can go get it now or the next time you are close by. Send them another note saying you have it if you think that is necessary. If they simply forgot about it and want the container back you can arrange that with them later.
  8. ...this was pretty lame and mean spirited. ...but for me this crosses the line into "it's just a darn game". Mean spirited it is not. Odd, awkward, probably unnecessary, annoying to some, misunderstood by several... yes to all. But no harm has been done, anyone can relog the find. She is just trying to get the word out that there was a throwdown and some people were finding and signing it. This might actually be interesting to some locals and returning visitors. I would go back again if I could because it adds a bit of adventure and another chance to post an interesting log. If I could not get back I would just relog the find. If I was the throwdowner I would not have logged a find in the first place.
  9. I agree with the gc.com suggestions that the subsequent finders of the throwdown should not have their Find Its deleted. The cache owner does have to "smell the rat" and go to the site to confirm and fix the situation if necessary when they thing something is amiss. I am not a rabid disapprover of replacement caches but I can't bring myself to log one as found if I do the replacing. It doesn't seem right. Cache finds are not awards you get for good intentions or actions.
  10. Oh no! So many of us rely on your wonderful bookmark lists (and GSAK macro) for the cache machines. I was just looking for it to start planning, and discovered your note. You will be sorely missed and I hope someone takes up the mantle. Yes, indeed! The bookmark and macro were very much appreciated. We know it is a lot of work to do what you and Travis do each quarter year. And for your part we thank you many times over. Thanks Jim!
  11. You have some interesting suggestions in the remainder of that paragraph, but... ...trying to figure out if a TB has accomplished its goal has gotten very difficult because of scads of "visit" logs that people are doing. Wading through tens of pages just to see where a TB was actually dropped off is no fun. I just deleted 21 pages of "visit" logs on one of our active TBs. When I get through with that TB the only logs will be actual handling, drops, grabs, discovers and if a cacher wants to visit it to just a few caches then that will be o.k. I am no fan of multiple visits.
  12. Yep for us too! The Ice Age Floods Institute's annual field trip is that weekend in Missoula and we can't miss that. EDIT: See you all in Tacoma on January 7th.
  13. Thanks, again, for your input. Publishing geoaware has retired from reviewing ECs. Letters to geoawareHQ sent this evening.
  14. O.K. EC a: Description says EC subject "Columns" are made up of basalt rock overlaying a layer of sandstone. False. Site inspection and the CO's source documents say they are completely rhyolite ash. There is no sandstone in this area and the CO has mistaken a 1/8 inch layer of dark growth for a basalt layer. Basalt cannot weather to such a thin layer. Former inland sea has worn away the basalt and sandstone leaving pillars. False. The former inland sea was gone at least 35 million years prior to the formation of the entire region and the rock is rhyolite. [subject volcanic activities] are caused by either meteor or "LARGE" flood. False. The meteor theory was presented in the source document but it never gained traction through peer review. Two other potential causes that are always part of the discussion as a source of these [volcanic activities] were omitted. A simple google search would have discovered these. There is no evidence of a "LARGE" flood in this region and the EC page offers no explanation but does cite a source from a Creationist document. Sedimentary rocks formed at the earth's surface. False. Sedimentation happens at the surface but lithification to sandstone happens at great depths. Proof of visit/lessons questions cannot be answered correctly using the EC description. EC b: The area of the EC subject region is described as being ten times larger than it actually is (by adding nearly 50,000 square miles and over 500 miles distance) because the CO misinterpreted a map in the source document. Given that the area is well known by its name it should not be artificially expanded thereby confusing travelers. EC says the region had an ocean shoreline during formation of current features. As above, the former ocean was gone millions of years before the formation of anything visible today in the region. A large flooding event simultaneous with volcanic explosions is presented as a potential cause of the local geology. As above, there is no evidence of a large flood and the EC description offers no explanation or source references. Mainstream geologists do not describe flooding as a possible cause. I assume the Creationist reference in EC a is the source for this comment. I call this a "hint and run" comment and it should not be in an earthcache without further discussion and references. Two widely accepted and more logical alternative models of the cause of the local geology were not included due to lack of research. These two are always included when geologist discuss the possibilities. A main feature of this EC is a three-period development timeline of the region but does not clearly distinguish them in the text and later expects an answer regarding which period something happens. One lesson question expects a specific answer from the EC text but the source document gives a different reason. One lesson question cannot be answered with any certainty because ash layers were deposited in two of the three time periods. The EC text assumes white flakes found in local basalt are rhyolite ash that fell into the molten basalt (during the non-existent flood/volcanic activity) but the source document clearly says they are aluminum mineral concentrations contained within the original basalt eruption.
  15. I don't want to make this about the specific caches, just the process and I certainly don't want to have people be concerned about their own ECs. From reading your posts for quite a while I would expect no problems with your ECs. You care about your EC accuracy and the key words here are that you research your subjects. I have not seen many problems with ECs where I know something about the area or the processes. They almost always seem appropriate and bring up interesting points and typically don't have gross inaccuracies. The EC pages in question here made incorrect assumptions from limited research and the owner doesn't appear to care whether they are accurate or not. I've been through this with them on some of their other ECs.
  16. The lessons are indeed problematic but it is the geology that is fatally wrong on both of them and that should not happen. The initial reviewer would likely not have known that the descriptions are wrong because of the local nature of the geology. It was Geoaware who is no longer reviewing ECs. When I posted the NMs in May I sent a copy of the short version of my specific concerns to GeoawareHQ as is suggested on Geoaware's profile page. I would like to handle this with a GSA rep rather than bugging Groundspeak. I don't really want to bug anyone about this but I can't just ignore it when the geology is so wrong.
  17. I posted Needs Archived logs on two earthcaches on June 4th and second NA requests on July 4. There has been no response so I am wondering who looks into earchcache NAs. It seems that regular volunteer reviewers don't handle ECs. These NAs were preceded by Needs Maintenance logs around the first of May including specific notes in private mail to the cache owner and a geoaware member. In early March I sent pre-visit letters to the cache owner with specific concerns but there has been no contact and they apparently have no interest in finding out what the problems the caches might have.
  18. You and others have said this before but I still am curious how this has been an actual problem for you (and anyone else) much less it being the "biggest" quality issue of the game currently. I have found as many as three containers for a single cache, and I'm only in the hundreds of finds That's not a problem? I'm not sure just how multipule containers at one site are a problem for finders. This leaves me so baffled I'm not sure how to reply. Multiple containers at a single location are, in an of themselves, a problem. Still not the point I often try to make and the one people rarely respond to, including your two replys. To me it is the number of times something happens to a substantial number of searchers that makes it a problem. Finding multiple containers a few times over 600, 2000 or 10,000 finds is a yawner of a problem. I don't think I've had it happen more than 20 times over 14 years, if even that many. It is so below the radar... Reading about it 30 times in the forums makes it sound bad but is it, really?
  19. Maybe you feel this way because you keep your caches maintained. I don't think this feature is directed at people who keep their caches maintained. How many of these emails do you expect to receive? This problem has been around since the beginning of the game and way before power trails. Cache maintenance problems are common across the board. I doubt many, if any, poorly maintained non-power trail caches are due to the influence of power trails. The bulk of bad maintenance caches where I look at owner stats are from people who've probably never seen a power trail.
  20. You and others have said this before but I still am curious how this has been an actual problem for you (and anyone else) much less it being the "biggest" quality issue of the game currently. I have found as many as three containers for a single cache, and I'm only in the hundreds of finds That's not a problem? I'm not sure just how multipule containers at one site are a problem for finders. The problem should be fixed but in the mean time you got the find and a story to tell in your Found It log. Now if you are going to next say that some COs might delete your Found It because you didn't actually find the correct container then I will revert to the main point of my post that you have not responded to: How many times does this happen to cachers over the broader spectrum? What percentage of their total finds involve throw-downs that present an ACTUAL problem. Your one example is not one I can get worked up about because you actually found a cache. If you've had 30 of what I might call real problems, which is more than double what I was suggesting, then maybe I would perk up my ears and watch for a trend that might be developing. I just don't see those kinds of numbers (percentages) as likely for throw-downs. Problems take on a life of their own when shotgun blasted across the forums but unless they become a significant portion of a significant number of find counts then I don't see it as a real problem. The issue in this topic is a REAL one. The high number of caches with maintenance problems and one specific attempt by HQ to do something about it. Maybe there are many other things that could be done but why whack on any attempt to provide some help. The game has always been experimental. Give this experiment some time. EDIT: plurals problem.
  21. You and others have said this before but I still am curious how this has been an actual problem for you (and anyone else) much less it being the "biggest" quality issue of the game currently. This issue always seems to carry an emotional punch but until people start reporting that throw-downs involve more than a one or two percent of their total cache finds I won't feel much empathy for them. That would be 100 throw-downs per 5000 finds where the cache replacement presented an ACTUAL problem for the finder. I can't recall even 10 throw-down problems for my 8000 finds. And whenever I ask this question... silence. EDIT: To keep it on topic, though I don't have specific memories of ACTUAL throw-down problems I've had huuunndreeds of maintenance problems. I think the automated maintenance emails are a plus for this game.
  22. Cache maintenance. more specifically the lack of it, has always been a problem that people gripe about here (and for many good reasons). People seemed to want HQ to do something about it. This one feature has been added and the automated notice seems quite harmless to me and it doesn't involve volunteer reviewer or staff time. Everyone here who complains about this feature clearly will not have any problems with this feature because they keep their caches meticulously maintained - as in when was the last time someone here claimed that cache maintenance is not important or that they don't do maintenance when NM logs are posted to their caches? So no one here should see this "spam" email notice more than once or twice in a... year? decade? Fizzy suspects that these notices are relatively ineffective but Keystone has reported in another topic that the benefits are measurable. I don't see how this feature is worth much angst.
  23. Depending on time of year and other conditions about 50 to 90 for most folks and the fast movers maybe 100 to 120. We attended three of those four and were in the 50 to 80 range. CMs are more of a social day of power caching rather than personal one-day record setting events although that also happens for some people including me. (Edit: Pesky pronoun.)
  24. RP is no armchair cacher. He has been a very active cacher for over a decade. We've found many of his caches. 521 in a day can be and has been done by many cachers using "power trails" or other high-density cache areas.
  25. Of course, that only works for the first pick up of your trackable. After that they travel like any other trackable to PMO and non-PMO caches.
×
×
  • Create New...