TerraViators

Is it possible to log a find prior to your membership date??

PLease see post no. 5 of this thread. My quote is directly from Geoaware's post and it certainly looks like, under certain conditions, photos can be mandatory. Maybe not faces, but if the photo is related to the text and/or geology of the site, then the photo can be required! Using a GPSr to point to a feature of the earthcache that is delineated within the text is OK! Again, no faces, but using a GPSr to point to a feature of the EC is fine. Until someone tells me it is not right, without the above described photo(s) we will delete! Curious..is this clearly defined on the earthcache.org listing guidelines? It seems pretty clear that NO photo may be required as a logging requirement.

I have been following this thread - and others - about photograph requirements for a while now. I agree with geoaware and how he handles logs of his EC's. In a few cases I have received logs without the photo that was requested. However, my questions have been designed in such a way that the photo is probably a "nice to have" rather than a "must have". If the questions have been answered to my satisfaction then I am happy that the person had the geological experience that I intended them to have - with or without the photo. In fact, even if ALL the questions have not been answered correctly I will accept the log IF they have satisfied me that they were there. If I ask 5 questions then at least 3 of them will NOT be answered via Google - you will have to have been on site for the answer. Perhaps if we all design our questions carefully then we will not need to question whether or not the logger was armchairing or not. My 2c worth. I agree. Besides, IMO, I don't really care if the cache is "armchaired" or not. This is a game and you either have honor or you don't. If you feel you need to log a find without seeing the site, for whatever reason you may have, then it's not worth my questioning.

I am sure we are talking about two different things. You, I think are talking about the CO requiring a photo of something at the EC site, but without a cacher being in the photo, such as a rock formation at the site. I am talking about COs who puts a logging requirement of a photo of the cachers to prove they were there. Those can only be optional not a requirement. So stop fighting me because we are both in agreement I certainly wouldn't refer to public discourse as "fighting". If such discussions were so labeled, there wouldn't be much room for healthy differences of opinion. Guess what? The origin of required photos was with the first ECs.. This requirement began with the very first earthcaches! I cannot read what was in the mind of the developer of the first ECs, but never-the-less, the requirement was there! Since that beginning of ECs, I believe the photo requirement evolved to show the cachers were there! The remaining allowed photo has the same purpose only without the face of the cacher being shown. Otherwise, why have the photo requirement? The photo isn't just to dress-up an individuals found log! "Two different things"? I think not. Please excuse my retorts because frankly, I am tired of folks trying to rewrite the guidelines and the intent of Geoaware! A log may be deleted without compliance with a required photo. The purpose of the photo doesn't matter. What does matter is a photo (absent of faces) can be required if it relates to the text and/or the actual site. No one to my knowledge requires a photo as the only logging requirement, but if said photo isn't up loaded, the log can be deleted with or without quality answers being given to the 'educational' questions! I am only talking about a photo requirement with the cachers to prove they were there and that's all. I brought it up to GC about them because cachers are having their logs deleted because of it. One EC I noticed by a well known cacher who has a requirement that a photo be supplied of the cachers at the location(along with other requirements)or their log will be deleted. This is against Groundspeak and Earthcache.org guidelines. The CO knows it's violation but until someone reports it GC will not do anything. As mentioned in the email, they don't have the time to track down all the ones in violation and will only deal with them if the cache finder reports their log deletion if they choose not to supply a photo. which is not right. Photo requirements should be on of off, nothing in between. Some people don't have cameras and shouldn't be excluded because of it. However, you have to admit, earthcaches do discriminate against the blind. How can a blind person possible measure a distance, size, color, etc.?

Sounds great....if there were enough in the DFW area to showcase.

If he is on active duty, then he is not actually banned, right? Is this an actual punitive measure or really bad semantics? Also, what gets a user banned? Sounds ridiculous.

I have seen an earthcache listing that stated that the answers to the logging requirements could be obtained from the internet.

No geology background. I have a lib arts degree, but enjoy science.

After you've cached for a while, you become better. You are more observant and prepared for the different camo techniques and containers. You also begin to think outside the box on possible hiding spots. In the beginning, I was constantly fixated on one spot of just looking in a tree, rather than under the rocks and leaves at the base, etc. Magnetic nano's threw me off, at first, also. You will get better. Sometimes, you will see hides that you've seen before and instantly know where to search. It's all part of the fun. I've found fake sprinkler heads, magnetic card holders attached to the underside of rain gutters, tree logs with hidden cutouts, and so on. I still will have days where I might find 50% or less. Just recently, I DNF'd 4 easy hides on my lunch hour. I've found caches on the 4th trip to GZ. Hang in there, and just enjoy the hunt rather than the kill.

OxSling now has 877 earthcache finds.

We've only been involved since April. We live in Corinth, TX. So far, my two favorites have been a fake sprinkler heard and a hollowed out log.

It's really your philosophy on Finds vs. DNF's. Some are purists, some are very detailed and will log any activity regarding caches and some define a DNF in different ways. For me, a single trip to the cache merits a log of some kind.

that's only true if you place caches in a rectangular grid. if you place caches in a triangular grid, you can place more caches than that per square mile. (figuring out how many exactly is left as an exercise to the reader.) it applies to horizontal distance, which means you can't place a cache <.1 miles away horizontally from another cache even if it's >.1 mile up or down from that other cache. however, reviewers can make exceptions in single cases if you can show them that there is a significant obstacle between the two caches. Any math whizzes out there want to give us a true estimate based on the triangular grid placement?

I log something for every cache I seek. I know I have many more DNF's than Finds.

I was amusing myself with the numbers. The total area of the US is approximately 3,794,101 sq. miles. Caches are allowed every 1/10th of a mile. That's 100 caches every square mile. Theoretically, the number of caches that can be placed in the US caps at about 379,410,100. The total area of the planet is approximately 316,944,047 sq. miles. So, theoretically, the planet could contain about 31,694,404,676 caches. Of course, these numbers do not account for non-traditional caches. The accurate numbers are a bit higher. Also, does the 1/10 mile policy apply only to horizontal or both horizontal and vertical distances? Staggering, I know. I'm sure Alamogul will find them all.

Just curious. I've been waiting a few days to have it reviewed. I don't have any reviewer notes. Sorry if this is a re-thread.