DerDiedler

Strange. Seemingly something with the quote function failed. I haven´t tempered that.

I have a feeling that the task lacks space for much creativity. You have 1000 posible combinations. Using 666 or so is not only uncreative, but also not verry secure. One way to figure a 3 digit combination is to use a randomiser. https://www.random.org/ Set minimum to 1 and maximum to 1000, klick generate. Done! Maybe it´s more creative to use the numerical value of anything related to the cache.

Added Russia and Canadaso far. But I wouldn´t get Diamond on high Altitude this year

I did that. When FP´s were implemented, I went throug all my founds and awarded the ones I liked best, spending all my Favos at once. And they still stand as my favorited caches till today. Ok, I have to admit, my GC-History was only 8 month old back then. But I gladly did it

Yes, there are some outstanding examples of long surviving TB´s out there. But it´s far easier to find sad examples. Like my TB54J55 which had the mission to travel from south Germany to south Scottland. Rughly 1300km as the crow flies. It was taken to Halifax, then to Swizerland, than back over the pond to Ottawa an there it vanished. After exactly 3 month and 18567,5 kilometers. Well traveld, but died far to young

That´s a good summary of the entire GC Trackable thing

For me it´s pointless to remove favorite points from archived caches. It´s like changing history. At the time I awarded the favo to a cache I did that for a reason. And that´s just part of my caching history and always will be. Even when a cache is replaced over time by a similar one, it´s not changing that the original one was a 1 out of 10 experiance. By taking favos back from archived caches and award them to new cache, one would also change the worthy of his Favopoints. Example: Given you have 1000 founds you can deploy 100 favos. 25% of all your founds have been archived over time. So you can take back 25 favos (when evenly distributed). You then spread this 25 favos over the remaining 750 caches you have found and wich are still in game. Thereby you have decresed the worthy of your award from 1 out of 10 to 1 out of 7,5. Not a verry important thing and out of perspective for pretty much every awarded CO. But still a fact.

But not anymore in 2019. At least BC Ferries don´t service inland passage during wintertime wich started in mid september. I wanted to sail from Prince Rupert to Port Hardy3 weeks ago, but the scedule for this time of the year is blank

400 Bucks and two days would do the trick There are pretty cheap flights from Seattle to Anchorage.

@GerandKat ich hätte eine Folgefrage, wenn du erlaubst: Nehme ich zurecht an, dass das auch für das überprüfen von Attributen gilt (mit Ausnahme des wheelchair accessible Attributes)?

Danke für die netten Worte, mir ist das schon klar. Meine Frage war ja auch an @Henne1312 gerichtet, da mir nicht bekannt wäre das dieses Thema "durch" ist oder je sein wird.

@MartyBartfast That sounds more reasonable. But still 43% don´t require a boat. At least all of them kind of justify to have this attribute.

Schön wärs Wo wurde das denn geklärt? Und warum wissen so viele CO´s das nicht bzw. warum werden immer noch (oder wurden bis neulich) Angelcaches mit absurd hohen T-Wertungen gepublished?

Can´t keep my fingers off this issue. I Did research. On Project GC I´ve collected 8 "boat required" caches. Running PQ`s filtering my finds for that thing. One I couldn´t find. That 7 results: 1.) Mystery about a Sailer. No water close to the cache. T2 2.) A cache at a industrial harbour, close to water but an easy walk. Almost drive in by car location. No way to log from a boat. T1,5 3.) Cache under a pedestrian bridge. Description say that one might use a rope to secure. No way to log by boat, far to high up ans unsailable waters. T4 4.) Placed on a jetty, acessible by foot for the public. T1,5 5.) Prototype Museum Hamburg. Easy clap by foot. They have some boats in the exhibition of course. T1,5 6.) Drive in location in vincinity of a lake. T1 7.) Virtual at the "Belagio" fontaine in Las Vegas. T1 So, one thing can be said for sure. The caches I did so far rarely required a boat. And all of them claiming to require a boat absolutley don´t require a boat (#8 pending).

I´ve just looked up my stats. I found not more than 8 caches with the boat required attribute. And the only one I can remember to have used a boat don´t even have that attribute set The one Kayak cache I refered to earlyer also don´t have that attribute set as well. So I really wonder what caches I have acomplished, cheating the boat requirement

@baer2006 I absolutely understand your points. I even agree. I just wanted to highlight that there is a whole lot gray in between black and white. I never ecouraged an owner to change the rating from T5 to T4,5 just because it was posible for me to do so. I just did it, when gray fades away into cristal clear (wich is still subjective of course). But no doubt, there are redicolous ratings out there. Overrated and underrated. And to get back on topic, false set attributes, often chosen by the owner just for fun or to "please" the community with rare attributes.

Ok, hier 2 aus meiner Homezone: GC84HKQ GC7NPC2 Zwar keine T5, allerdings halte ich T4,5 und D2,5/3 für kein bisschen richtiger.

Wirklich? Ist das so? Gibt es dazu Referenzen? Ich mein, würde mich freuen, sehr sogar. Nur habe ich das bisher leider anders erlebt.

Leider ist bei diesem Thema auch die Bewertungshilfe der deutschen Reviewer auf dem Holzweg. https://www.gc-reviewer.de/hilfe-tipps-und-tricks/schwierigkeits-gelaendewertung/ Klickt man bei der ersten Frage "ja" an, und das könnte man ja durchaus wenn ein Cache Lock Picking-, UV-Lampen-, Magnetstab-, QR-Code-, Morsetabellen-, .... erfordert, kommt direkt eine T5 Wertung dabei raus. Die Frage ist falsch, oder zumindest zu undifferenziert gestellt. Bei dem mehr oder weniger kopierten Clayjar tool werden wenigstens noch Beispiele für spezialized equpiment angegeben, die auf die Überwindung von Geländeschwierigkeiten hindeuten. http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

für mich auch Ich finde nicht das man darüber streiten kann. Die Realität straft mich aber Lügen Ich denke es sollte differenziert werden wozu die besondere Ausrüstung verwendet wird. Ob sie dazu verwendet wird den Cacher zu bewegen, oder den Cache. Also ob man ein Field Puzzle hat das besonderer Ausrüstung bedarf, oder ob das erreichen der Position von der aus der Cacher sucht (oder besser logt?) besonderer Ausrüstung bedarf. Guckt man stumpf auf "besondere Ausrüstung benötigt" wäre auch jeder Lock Picking-, UV-Lampen-, Magnetstab-, QR-Code-, Morsetabellen-, .......-Cache ein T5. Wenn der vom Owner vorgesehene Lösungsweg darin besteht, gemütlich zum Suchort zu spazieren um dann mit beiden Beinen auf festem Boden zu stehend mit einer wackeleigen Rute irgendwas aus dem Baum zu fummeln, dann gehört das für mich ins Land der Field Puzzles und die Schwierigkeiten die man dabei hat somit in die D-Wertung. Nicht in die T-Wertung.

Sehe ich auch so. Nur eben nicht T = 5

Agreed! But still. If one could walk the most part on a gravel road and then swim (or wad, water is just reaching up to the chest) 10 meters to the cache, does this justify a "boat required" attribute and T5 rating? I´ll answer by my self: Yes and no. The cache is part of a Kayak series and intented by the CO to be logged by Kayak. So there´s a yes. But some clever guts sneak up to the cache by foot and take a little swim, that feels clearly like a T4, there we have a no. Now that we did it in T4 manner, haven´t we proofed that it´s not T5? Since hey, surely no boat required I´m not saying this aint a justified T5. I take it gladly. But still, it does not feel like I´ve really earned a T5 there, no matter what the owner communicated through his rating. And that´s where you´re a little wrong. Lot´s of players want to "earn" ratings. Maybe not you, and thats just fine. But if there wasn´t a kind of competition out there, there wouldn´t be as much discussion about that issue. + There´s another species of cacher who don´t care about "earning" a rating as long they baged it in theyr´s statistics. A never ending controversy

Endless discussion. For me any Cache on the American continent (and others) is kinda T5, right? I once did a kayak T5 together with a friend. We walked the most there, just a few day's before Christmas. The we went swimming with a wet suit (would have been possible without as well). Still worth a T5?

Why are you looking for such examples? Just in case, I'd like to remind you that there are no precedence cases in geocaching.

Du beantwortest deine Frage zum Teil schon selbst. Falsche Listings wecken falsche Erwartungen. Wenn ein neuer T5 in der Home Zone gepublisht wird freut mich das sehr. Wenn sich dann heraus stellt das es eher ein falsch bewerteter T2 ist finde ich das ernüchternd. Auch falsch oder nicht gesetzte Attribute finde ich ärgerlich. T/D Wertung und Attribute helfen einem eben bei einer ersten Einschätzung was der Cache zu bieten hat. Und natürlich beim erstellen von PQ's. Letztes Jahr habe ich eine PQ für Tauchcaches erstellt und dabei nach den Attribut "scubba gear required" gefiltert. Bei 90% des Ergebnisses war das Attribut von irgendwelchen Scherzkeksen absolut ungerechtfertigt gesetzt. Nervt!