Jump to content


+Charter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sagefox

  1. Thanks. I should have said I'm not interested in calling anyone out - just incidents only with no names. [snip] I lost the "non-traditional" cache part when replying but see now what your point was. I could comment on that but would rather keep this post shorter. This is not my experience for the Cache Machines nor from any talk with other cachers who both group and power trail cache. The statement is too generalized and is unfair to a lot of people, most people I believe, that don't have an anything goes attitude or caching practice. In the forums we constantly hear of a few examples, which typically are not substantiated, but it doesn't mean it is happening to any great extent out on the trails. Even with more examples of teams logging caches individually that they did not, in fact, visit it would be very difficult to know how widespread the practice is and what percentage of all power cachers do this. I don't know how anyone could know that.
  2. Yes, this is very common. It is fun to make up a name for the day or for that group whenever they cache together. It is easier to log with one name and it saves room on small log sheets. It's a camaraderie thing. I've read this here from time to time but I am skeptical about how often it actually happens out in the world. I feel certain this is not the common practice of for-the-day teams. This could be as you suggest but it more likely is that they had four cars worth of searchers on the ground at each cache site which typically makes for faster finds. If they were finding caches separately and then logging them as all found I wouldn't think they would advertise that fact. I am not convinced. The example is speculative and it would help if specific examples could be presented. You could search through the individual logs of some of the team members for that day and see if any of them spilled the beans about going off in different directions and then logging caches they didn't actually visit. It would be interesting to hear back from you on this.
  3. But that is not really what grandfathering is all about. The idea is to phase out the cache type through attrition. When site conditions, logging abuse and owner inattention compromise a webcam or virtual then it is time to put it down. Grandfathering was a gift and I appreciate it but it should not be abused and I support archiving these caches when they turn into junk.
  4. No thanks. While our goal is to eventually host a CITO, it just has not been feasible to do so in the 8 1/2 years we've been caching. It would be more than a little insulting to force me to host a CITO at this point before I'm allowed to publish another cache. Well, my post was more directed at new users, and a bit more germane to the topic, but I find it curious that you perceive volunteering your time to those agencies that take care of our public lands as an insult? I think what they mean is that it would completely infeasible to expect anyone to host an event prior to placing a cache.
  5. This is really it in a nut shell.
  6. ...Just ensures they die quicker. I think that is the idea. Not that they die off "quicker" but that they eventually go to archive heaven rather than be kept alive forever and I don't disagree with that concept. The gift from "grandfather" seems to get lost in these discussions. It has allowed everyone, new to the game or oldtimer, to get in on the virtual and webcam action while it lasts.
  7. I think much of the debate is about the fact that apparently the OP has NOT been maintaining it since he is only now trying to enforce the ALR. And... they weren't aware of the change that had happened years ago. It was a shock to find out and they posted the rant before doing some research. I understand that. I've been there too.
  8. No problem. NM and NA logs will take care of it if the cache remains in bad condition. The email notice simply gives the CO a heads up that Volunteer Reviewers might step in and sets up a chance that the work might get done before that action is needed. But, as your #2 observation points out, the Volunteer Reviewers already have plenty to do and there are far too many caches that warrant the email notice. It is not reasonable to expect volunteers to add this level of review to their exixting work load.
  9. ...but I think Pup Patrol's comment was intended to be neutral about the procedure... A rather harsh review and not exactly an accurate picture. I hesitate to answer for Pup Patrol, but I didn't take this comment as negative, merely a statement of fact... I might have read too much into PP's post. Sorry about that. That full post and a couple of other PP posts here come off, to me, as unnecessary complaints about a new proceedure instituted to help with cache maintenance issues that will not, in my opinion, have a "major" effect on anyone. PP seemed to be in a snit about not having advance notice of this proceedure. "How are we supposed to know about major changes like this?" "Caught one cache owner off guard." I don't see these as problems. If we keep our caches maintained we will never see the email and if we are a bit late getting to maintenance then we will get a gentle nudge that: It might seem major to someone who owns a lot of unmaintained caches if they get a batch of these reminders all at once but that would be a price paid for not responding to strings of dnfs or NMs. Something positive happend to improve the game and I just don't see why it should warrant complaints.
  10. This is a very nice addition to the game. How could anyone be unhappy about that? We will all learn, soon enough, that there is a new procedure. A rather harsh review and not exactly an accurate picture. [snip] It is nice when volunteer reviewers happen to take on an NM during a quite moment but it is not a high priority in my mind. They should be allowed to spend that time on their "other life".
  11. I think your interpretation is a bit too technical, actually. I appreciate the thought you put into it though. I don't think you will find many who agree with you. I am interested and quite surprised that some folks believe this. I never heard of this until this forum topic. I never would have thought of this interpretation and I've been at this game for almost 14 years.
  12. Pretty much sums it up. They work and doggone it, people like them.
  13. I know it doesn't sound right. It's the perception of a problem that seems to be the reason for all the flak. PTs are a different animal from regular geocaching and people seem happy to visit them and are more than willing to replace damaged or missing containers. I'm not intending to be a PT defender by any means. I just think the maintenance angle is not the same for a PT as for regular caching and probably not worth all this concern. I didn't care for the PT cache linked above where the CO requested that people replace missing caches but I have no problem with people wanting to do that. It seems that if you build a PT they will come... and they will replace.
  14. So you haven't heard this actually happens? I would not be surprised if some people did it this way but there sure are a lot of signatures in those containers on the ET and R66 trails. I think most people don't make the pilgrimage to the major power trails just to drive by and log them all without stopping and opening the containers. It seems it is more of a mutually beneficial activity and finders are fully willing partners. It is not like the CO's didn't or don't do any work. Can you imagine the effort that goes into collecting all those containers, preparing the logsheets, finding and recording the locations, filling out the submittal forms and then receiving all that email and sorting through it to make sure you don't miss important messages? The CO's did this so cachers could have a different kind of fun and the finders respond by keeping the containers viable.
  15. While we are on the subject of maintenance, here is a photo from outside Rachel, NV on the ET Highway: I think this shows some cache owner committment to the power-trail.
  16. Since this post got a lot of mileage I will add my bit: The percentage of power-trail cachers who slip down this slope past the second step is approximately...?? Is it more than 1%, 5%? It is popular to say this stuff here and to agree with it but does it happen at any kind of rate that could be really be considered alarming? That's what I would like to know before I get concerned. We drove the entire ET Highway a couple of years back and found a whopping 10 by car and 10 on foot after dark when we stayed overnight at The Little A'Le'Inn. It was a blast. I really wanted to swap containers during the walking part but I just didn't have a starter container with me. :DB)
  17. I've scanned this entire topic, rather too quickly I fear, but has anyone reported this guy's activity to HQ?
  18. I agree totally and practice this myself. I would add that I might not be willing to abandon my search for a cache simply because muggles are about. Please, cache owners, don't expect me to walk away because you chose to hide a cache in a high traffic area. I will do all I can to protect your cache but I will most likey not stop my search because you chose a vulnerable area. I have some tricks for stealthy searching and will use them but there are no guarantees that I won't be seen.
  19. I agree with the masses here. You found a geocache and you should get credit for that find. If you found a geocache and have it in your hand (unless your are within a few feet of others you were searching with and they have it in their hands) and have the container open then you have FOUND the cache. Signing the log is proof for others that you found it and people can be quite insistent that you sign the log - including me sometimes. But having it in hand and open is always a find in my book. It's a cache, you have it open in your hands, it's a find.
  20. Me too to all the above. Often I compare finders logs to the web page when I switch a full or wet log for a new one. Almost all the online loggers have signed the logs during our 13 year run. Often there are signatures of people who do not log online.
  21. We will, unfortunately, be missing both Everett and Quincy. We need to be in Sisters Oregon for a scheduled event in June and the changed date for Quincy ran into a train trip we already had tickets for. Bummer! We really like caching in the Quincy Basin.
  22. Then why do they sell cache maintenance kits? Why does gc.com encourage us to occasionally do maintenance of other people's caches? Let's say you are out in the Nevada desert on a 12-day camping trip, not power-trailing, a cache container is half shattered and the log is soaked from the current series of storms, it is a good cache site, the CO lives several hours away, people like this cache, you brought along a couple medium sized containers, you have a supply of logsheets and ziplocs, it is mid-week, mid-day and you just simply feel like doing a good deed for this cache? And... you've got miles to go and it is totally impractical to contact the cache owner. What good reason is there for me to just walk away from this situation when I feel like helping out? But just how often does this actually happen? We might read here about a few instances each month but I think that the forums amplify problems beyond what is actually happening out there. Out of the nearest 1000 caches to your home location how many currently have two containers because of this? How often per year does it happen there? I've seen it a handful of times in 7000 finds over 13 years. Maybe even 50 or 100 times which would be about 1% of our find count. Edited to shorten.
  23. Comments like yours are very common here but they always seem to be by people who care about their caches and you clearly care about yours. (I would love to search for them! It could be a good reason to renew our expired passports.) I don't see how replacing a broken or clearly missing container is an imposition to the cache owner. It doesn't cause them any extra work because they need to make a trip out there anyway. With a temporary container in place they can wait a little longer to make the trip and there may be some thankful finders in the mean time. This is not a malicious action we are talking about and not all who do this are simply after a throw-down find. For the most part it is people wanting to help the game. (We don't claim finds where we replace a missing container.) Edited to shorten.
  24. That depends. All the above answers are good ones and you can't go wrong following that advice. I wouldn't mind, though, offering different perspective. I could provide logical discussion that counters each point made here but will spare you from that for now. I see no reason to take a hard-line approach to all caches in need of maintenance. What is the rush to get a cache archived? Is it in a bad location, does it require trespassing, does it feel really yucky to be there searching? If you don't feel there is a need for it to be gone, if you feel it deserves to live, or if you just want to test what it feels like to do a good deed then, in the situation you describe, there is no absolutely no harm done by replacing it. If you fix it it will no longer be in need of maintenance = problem solved. If it gets bad again in the future then any of the good suggestions listed above can be put into play and the cache can ultimately be archived = problem solved. If the cache owner has dropped out of the game then you are not "enabling" bad behavior because they are gone. I would say that even if the CO is still in the game then replacing a cache that they clearly don't care about still causes no harm. As above, if the cache goes bad in the future it can be delt with which would likely result in archival which is not a bad thing. I doubt they really care whether their cache is fixed or archived. The geocaching guidelines suggest that we help out with cache maintenance. I cleanout moldy containers, remove soppy and mildewed junk, replace logs in new ziplocs, and even replace containers when we have them and feel the cache warrants continued life. Not once in 13 years of caching has anyone complained about our maintenance deeds and we've done a lot of it. I also don't hesitate to post Need Maintenance and Needs Archived logs when it seems like that is the right thing to do. I've posted many NM & NA logs over the years for container caches and I don't recall anyone legitimately complaining about that either. Sometimes a grumble can be posted by a CO that hates to be reminded that they have fallen down on the job of maintenance. The NA/AMs result in the cache getting either fixed or archived. Do what you feel is appropriate and if you decide to fix it my hat is off to you. And they haven't been active for six months. Seems a clear case that this cache owner won't care what you do. But we've also done maintenance/replacements for active owners with tens-of-thousands of finds. The key with working on other people's caches is to read the specific situation well. It is not always appropriate to do maintenance but, by far, most times it is o.k.
  25. If you do buy a gps look for one that loads geocaching webpages so you can have all the cache page information in one unit. These models are a major improvement to this game. I used to carry a gps and pda in one hand when we first started paperless caching. It was awkward but I did learn to fall and not drop either one! Now we just have one unit in hand. Much better. Smartphones are a viable alternative now with the paid app from gc.com. You can download pocket queries for offline use if you cache in areas with poor or no data coverage. I always prefer the gps unit to the phone especially when caching in the rain which I do fairly often. Used or refurbished might be the way you need to go. Check Amazon, Craigs List, & Ebay. The Garmin Map62 is a real workhorse for geocaching. We also have a Colorado 300 but it is awkward if you plan to use it for auto routing to geocaches (map guidance with turn-by-turn instructions). The Colorado graphics are outstanding, though. The Colorados should be very inexpensive now though I haven't looked for quite awhile. With the roll out of the Map64 the Map62s might be very affordable now too. I was not very pleased with the Oregon I tested in the field when they first came out. The screen was very hard to see in daylight. Maybe they fixed that problem with later models. If you are not familiar with auto routing it requires street maps loaded in the gps and for these older models you have to buy them separately at a significant cost. We have lifetime map updates for our Garmins because we use them for routing and locating businesses. Lifetime maps cost more upfront but we never pay update fees.
  • Create New...