Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dprovan

  1. That's the way it is here, too. Except for tribute caches. For tribute caches, they defer to the honoree.
  2. No one's required to wait. They just wait. Or they call the honoree and offer to accompany them. When you say "required", you're overthinking it. And the sword cuts both ways. Others don't rush out for the FTF, true, but if the honoree isn't on the ball and snoozes, he can still lose. It's just a game among friends.
  3. Meh. I didn't find the feature to be important, so I just turned off the option that suppressed found ALs.
  4. It's fine with me if they want to run out and fix a cache that isn't broken.
  5. If you saw the two DNFs and were thinking of replacing it, you should have talked to the CO *before* you left home. In the case you describe, just DNF and move on. And, by the way, you didn't find the cache one way or another, so it's not reasonable to claim the find of your unauthorized replacement even if you left one.
  6. My rule is to skip posting logs that are redundant. So in your case, if nothing has changed from one visit to the next, I wouldn't bother with a redundant OM. As you've already concluded, if you actually have to do something, it wouldn't be redundant. Also, if anyone couldn't find it since your last visit, that's another time to show you've confirmed it's still there.
  7. While I can see your point -- I don't agree with it, but I understand it -- do COs really get the "false indicator" and then run out to fix the cache? Or do they use the false indicator to read the logs more carefully and discover what, if anything, needs to be fixed? Just by the way, it's a little disconcerting that "many COs" don't bother to read the logs people post to their caches. That implies I should stop wasting my time writing decent logs, whether I found the cache or not.
  8. Wow, thanks for pointing this out. I never would have realized this had anything to do with flipping a simple, unambiguous switch even though, now that you mention it, I've had a few times in the last week were I couldn't find an adventure that I thought should be there.
  9. The cache coordinates need to be accurate. There's no rule against using an inaccurate coordinate system as long as, in the end, the seeker ends up with accurate coordinates. Not that's relevant here: w3w is accurate to thousandths of minutes, just like geocache coordinates.
  10. That assumption, that geocaching while black is fundamentally different do to external forces, is what's being questioned. Do people react to black geocachers differently than other geocachers, or do black geocachers perceive the same adversity differently than other geocachers? Is it really off topic to say, "Yeah, that happens to me, too," or is that just shouting down a view that's not to be considered?
  11. I have a hard time understanding why you'd think they're at all similar. The camo is intended to thwart my attempts to find it, so if it succeeds, I Did Not Find it. The terrain is an obstacle that might prevent me from looking for it. If I cannot deal with the terrain, I did not even look for it. I see that before I saw this, the discussion has proceeded onto a discussion of terrain vs. difficulty, but I think that's a red herring. A field puzzle might have a high difficulty, and if I cannot solve it, I'll often log a note instead of a DNF. That example's more fuzzy than terrain, but I don't the there's a conceptual difference.
  12. I think it's obvious how it could be used well. I'm pretty sure I gave some hypothetical examples in this thread. But I think you're insisting on an actual adventure to prove it can be done? But to me, the main point here is that there's no reason whatsoever for the AL creator to take "seemingly awkward driving" into account. That's your priority, but there's no reason for it for the ALO to consider it a priority. Even in your examples, the problem tends to be that you were driving left to right but the AL was laid out right to left, so you wouldn't even be able to complain if you'd happened to approach the AL from the "correct" direction.
  13. Perhaps you're missing the point that we *are* talking about the same thing. But you'd never be able to see that.
  14. I consider both of those examples matters of personal taste or perhaps local standards, but for me, when I'm blocked by a known terrain issues such as a tree climb, I normally post a note, but if I'm blocked by an issue that the CO didn't tell me about such as dense brush above the terrain rating, I'll tend to file a DNF. When I encounter unexpected dense brush, I consider two possibilities: either the brush is something that's grown up since the CO planted the cache in which case my DNF is somewhat akin to not finding a cache because it's buried under a ton of fallen leaves, or there's a route to the cache appropriate to the terrain rating that I Did Not Find. How close I got to the cache has very little to do with it. I could be standing at GZ and still be facing either of those issues. I don't really think it makes that much difference since, after all, I'm going to explain in the text of the log, anyway. If my DNF is misinterpreted by something or someone that doesn't take my explanation into account, then that something is broken or that someone is making a mistake. When a cache is disabled and then archived because of my "couldn't get to GZ" DNF, then it's both: the CHS flagged it and then the reviewer did not properly provide the human oversight that proponents of the CHS assure us make CHS failures not a problem.
  15. Just friends commiserating by discussing their similar experiences.
  16. So this was a mistake, right? Obviously the reviewer didn't look at the log or he would have seen that the health score was wrong. Kunarion wasn't a bad cacher for posting his perfectly legitimate DNF that implied nothing about the cache being in trouble. This cache was brought up to make the implication is that Kunarion caused the cache to be archived, but your timeline makes it clear that problem was elsewhere.
  17. Surely we can all recognize this as either an error or something going on behind the scenes. I've never seen anything like it, so I don't think is an example of standard practice. Is it?
  18. Have you actually seen a problem? I haven't. The problem with easy terrain isn't that it's covered by micros. The problem with easy terrain is that lots and lots of people go to easy terrain, so it's much more likely that large caches will be muggled in easy terrain. But, on the other hand, I've never seen any CO that wanted to try to hide a large cache in easy terrain couldn't find a spot for it. Worst case, if someone finds a perfect, unique place for a large cache that's blocked by an existing micro, they can make the case to the micro's owner to get the area opened up for that special cache.
  19. I have to admit, I missed those examples, but I think our disagreement comes from talking about two different things. I'm thinking of an anomaly, a individual find that is wrong. It could be someone that really wanted to log that cache, or it could be someone that's accidentally logs the wrong cache, or who knows what. You seem to be talking about a log filed by someone that is intentionally and continually lying about finding caches. Yes, I can see how that would be upsetting, particularly if I found out his goal was to deceive seekers such as myself, but I'd be upset about the liar, not the individual false find log.
  20. Here's how I feel about them: Not lonely. I consider the container being what's lonely, so the timer resets if the cache is replaced. So you're saying the 2015 log was not an actual find of that cache? I'd use it if I thought the case I was presenting was solid, but I wouldn't argue if the CO rejects it. Ooooh! Lonely, for sure. To me, the administrative status of the cache is entirely irrelevant.
  21. I'm going to ignore the Garmin specific question for a moment and first go back to my DeLorme days, where I got a PN-60 that came with a year's subscription to "maps", which turned out to mainly imagery. I happily used it for a year, but I never for a second considered paying for it after that. I'd kinda realized it wasn't all that important since I rarely had a problem when I found myself off image, but the bigger argument was that I had already downloaded everything for my area, so it was only when I was traveling that I didn't already have what I needed. But this might have been mainly a DeLorme problem: these were in the days when DeLorme was ignoring the GPSr market, so they never put out fresh maps. Even the stock maps they sent out with the units were the same maps they sent out with the first PN-40s a decade earlier. As to Garmin, I was led to believe that my 66st came with lifetime BirdsEye, so I don't have to worry about the cost, but it never connects to the Birdseye server anymore, so maybe not. Even when it worked, it was very frustrating and often useless, so I stopped even trying to use it a year or two ago. I don't really miss it, but, again, that's mainly because I have imagery for most of the places I end up caching. And, to be honest, sometimes when I'm out of imagery, I'm not sure the unit isn't easier to use with just the normal maps, so sometimes I consider disabling the imagery I have downloaded. But I don't, and generally I have to admit the imagery tends to be more useful than I give it credit for. I don't do much remote stuff, but I do understand your logic and look at imagery at home for that reason. But I rarely find that works on my little 66st screen. As often as it's led me to a trail, it's led me to something that looks like a trail but ends up being an impassible creek bed or some such. Besides, do they release new images so frequently that you can see this year's trails? I'm impressed.
  22. The obvious answer is that it's up to the CO of the challenge cache. But unless they're pretty clear about it -- and I've never seen that -- I'd assume it's just find logs. I wouldn't expect a problem, but, worst case, I'd be ready to try to talk the CO into accepting my finds if he initially rejects them. (I don't think I've actually run into enough caches in this state to cause me a problem in achieving a clear success at the challenge. What keeps happening to me is that I far exceed the requirement by the time I get around to signing the challenge cache log even when there's an initial period where I have to work towards that goal. Once I started looking for unfound caches, I couldn't stop myself.) My reaction to your question is that this is a good reason not to call them "lonely" precisely because it opens up this ambiguity: a CO's or previous finder's visit means they're not lonely, right? "Unfound" is more accurate, but not as cute. I think "unloved" works here: someone that can't find a friend might be called "unloved" even though their parents love them. The first few challenges I saw of this type used the terms "recovered" and "neglected", but those have fallen out of favor. I always liked those terms better, but I don't think they're any better at making it obvious CO visits don't count. Indeed, "neglected" kinda implies even more strongly than "lonely" that the CO hasn't visited.
  23. I'm not sure who you think is taking offense, but you've hit the nail on the head with the last part of this sentence: you haven't had a problem. That's exactly what we're saying: there's no problem here, you're just imagining that there could be a problem, and you're proposing a solution to that non-existent problem that we can see would cause a huge *real* problem which we've been trying to explain to you. I'm not offended. I just think you're wrong.
  24. No, *I'm* sorry. DNF means "didn't find". The fact that reviewers -- well, actually the automated scoring system the reviewers use -- misinterpret DNF doesn't change what it means to not find something. Has this really happened to you? DNFs are fairly common in my area when a climb isn't attempted. If reviewers aren't reading the logs saying "DNF because I did not climb" and deactivating the cache anyway, I suggest that's the problem, not the people that couldn't find the cache for whatever reason posted a log saying they couldn't find the cache. And anyone that skips a tree climb because of DNFs they didn't look at probably isn't ready for a tree climb, anyway.
  • Create New...