Jump to content

Legochugglers

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    499
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Legochugglers

  1. Maybe he went out to move the cache and is stuck in the central reservation?
  2. Strange, I wouldn't say it was that narrow, quite wide considering it's just a footpath. Also, considering the signs warning of pedestrian crossings, it just shows how visible people in the central reserve would be to approaching motorists. It isn't 'just a footpath' though. It's also the central reservation of a dual carriageway. The fact that cachers looking for a cache in the central reservation are so visible actually adds to the danger by being the distraction to the motorists. It would appear that it does not have permission from the correct authority (I assume the Highways agency) to be there so the cache should not be there. The reviewer has suggested that the cache can be placed away from the carriageway which will still allow any visitors to the cache to walk over to the central reservation of their own volition if this is the experience they wish to achieve. As I said...A footpath, which has double thickness barriers either side, providing a refuge within the central reserve. Remember, the footpath was there first, that is why it is still there. You've totally lost me saying "The fact that cachers looking for a cache in the central reservation are so visible actually adds to the danger". It is obvious that those people who want this cache archived cannot form a coherent arguement between them. You obviously want pedestrians to be visible, but not visible. This is a pedestrian refuge, which means it is where pedestrians are allowed / supposed to be, and motorists are warned of their possible presence. No need to get snippy. I will try and explain my point a little more coherently. In my opinion it is not a great idea to cross any dual carriageway. However, as has been quite rightly pointed out earlier in the thread, the footpath no doubt came first and in most conditions people who find it necessary to take this path will do so safely at their own risk. Pedestrians occasionally completing this manouvre will create a risk that a motorist may be distracted but I accept that the chance of an incident occuring is low enough to be acceptable. Now, if we then introduce a cache into the central reservation we then create an increase in the level of footflow and add an extra dimension of activity right next to the overtaking lane of the carriageway. We now have people probably with a GPS in their hands, leaning round the barrier, possibly kneeling and searching for something. In my opinion this creates an additional distraction to motorists travelling at high speed which I do not feel is acceptable. It is the fact that they are so visible doing something unusual which causes the additional and increased distraction. Now if we then have cachers who then search for the cache in poor visibility, poor weather or even at night then this increases the problem for motorists even further. Yes, some cachers have done the cache in the dark with torches however it would appear they may have deleted their log and re-posted another one to defer any controversy. I apologise if my opinion is contrary to others but we are all different. I actually pray that you are right and at no time in the future any RTA is caused by cachers in the middle of any dual carriageway. I do not blame reviewers for not wanting to take this risk (no matter how small) and I feel Deceangis earlier post excellently sums up this view. (PS - Don't forget... it doesn't have permission and you seem to be side stepping that issue)
  3. Strange, I wouldn't say it was that narrow, quite wide considering it's just a footpath. Also, considering the signs warning of pedestrian crossings, it just shows how visible people in the central reserve would be to approaching motorists. It isn't 'just a footpath' though. It's also the central reservation of a dual carriageway. The fact that cachers looking for a cache in the central reservation are so visible actually adds to the danger by being the distraction to the motorists. It would appear that it does not have permission from the correct authority (I assume the Highways agency) to be there so the cache should not be there. The reviewer has suggested that the cache can be placed away from the carriageway which will still allow any visitors to the cache to walk over to the central reservation of their own volition if this is the experience they wish to achieve.
  4. Very interesting and very scary. Anybody who followed the thread regading the death of a German Geocacher last year will no doubt cringe at this cache. It would appear that other Western European countries have a completely different ethos when setting some caches and permission for placement just doesn't come into it. Whilst I don't condone this sort of extreme caching at least it would appear that the only people they are putting in danger are themselves. My concern with the cache in this thread is that it may affect innocent motorists.
  5. I think many people feel the cache is not safe and would never consider doing it. The point is that they would prefer that nobody else does it because it only takes one occasion where a driver is distracted and the consequences could be disasterous and seriously affect the integrity of geocaching. PS - did you get permission from the Highways agency for your cache?
  6. This is a very useful angle. Look how narrow the central median is. Look how close the traffic is to people in this area. See how distracting it could be for a motorist to see someone searching for something in this area.
  7. No... They just need to be banned from jumping from bridges on to roads. Or sectioned!
  8. Obviously a big shame but unfortunately quite a common occurence in life when any sort of partnership breaks down and property is involved. I guess putting it in perspective we are only talking about some low value cache containers (assuming they weren't diamond encrusted). In my opinion the remaining members of your group should simply take the higher ground and replace the containers and move on. (I am making an assumption that this is feasible).
  9. In my opinion the scenarios analysed in this thread all come down to honesty (especially with oneself). The challenge of a puzzle, multi, difficult/sneaky hide is a personal matter and the feeling of accomplishment can be measured by the enjoyment/satisfaction of meeting that challenge. I would be very disapointed with myself if I just logged a find based on somebody elses work. Having said that, I have no problem with a cacher using their own initiative to find out other solutions to finding the location of a cache. I have sometimes gone out on a cache hunt with nothing but a hunch about the final location of a cache and find it quite rewarding to find a cache this way. I see some puzzle caches as a complex clue to a cache location. If I can find the cache without the clue then so be it. If this is too easy to achieve then the puzzle setter has not done a good enough job! Of course there are some reverse exceptions where I might actually do the walk/challenge simply for the enjoyment even though I have already guessed where the cache will be hidden.
  10. I have a feeling that the cache will be either archived or in a slightly different place away from the carriageway by Christmas Day. I assume you will still walk out to the central reservation anyway because it is interesting. I hope your experience lives up to expectations.
  11. I can't think of anything less interesting than the central reservation of a dual carriageway!...and you're spending Xmas day there...Really?
  12. I think the reviewer has done absolutely the right thing. The cache placement is a disaster waiting to happen. The cache listing seems to boast about the setting of this challenge. In my opinion challenging cachers to cross a busy dual carriageway (right of way or not) has no point whatsoever. In the vrey unlikely event I would ever consider searching for this cache I can't believe I would come away from it with any sense of achievement or pride. To make matters worse it doesn't even seem like a very interesting bit of central reservation! Everyone says it stinks and is covered in Rubbish. Are you really proud of this cache?
  13. If he was logged on to his computer you should have engaged him in conversation and directed him to Geocaching.com. You could then have shown him the cache in question and the information on-line.You could then have got him to allow you to log your find on his computer, set up an account for him and then you could have helped him log his first ever find. Jobs a good 'un.
  14. Thats nice but how come I always get 10 time muddier than that! PS - also nice to see who the nominated driver is at the end.
  15. Maybe. But that doesn't mean everyone will be competing. And then again, there's competition and then there's COMPETITION. Some people take Scrabble very seriously. They use chess clocks, have detailed challenge rules, track everyone's overall standing from week to week, etc., etc., etc. Many other people play Scrabble in a much more casual way. The Scrabble players I know don't use a clock, never challenge each other, ask questions during play (e.g., "Is 'weird' spelled IE or EI?" or "What were those Q words that don't need U?"), don't keep track of who won, and may not even finish the game. But they play every week, and look forward to their game of Scrabble. Most of the geocachers I know personally are much more like the second group of Scrabble players than the first one. Great analogy, and it fits my experience, as well. I never at any point stated everyone is competing but we agree some are. I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership. If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems. Some are proud of their own numbers and just like to keep count!. Some are proud of the caching challenges they have achieved. Only a very small minority are actually in any sort of external competition other than within their own personal enjoyment. I don't think we can agree that 'if the find count was eliminated' because that is never going to happen and as nobody is really interested in it happening it is really just another one of your pointless assumptions. As it is never going to happen your 'next question' is completely irrelevent because no premium memberships will be lost and GS will not be drowned in financial problems as your pointless hypothetical scenario suggests. Never is a long time and it already happened once. In fact it kinda happened twice when the introduced challenges which messed with people stats. Thank you, your examples clearly confirms and supports my point.
  16. Maybe. But that doesn't mean everyone will be competing. And then again, there's competition and then there's COMPETITION. Some people take Scrabble very seriously. They use chess clocks, have detailed challenge rules, track everyone's overall standing from week to week, etc., etc., etc. Many other people play Scrabble in a much more casual way. The Scrabble players I know don't use a clock, never challenge each other, ask questions during play (e.g., "Is 'weird' spelled IE or EI?" or "What were those Q words that don't need U?"), don't keep track of who won, and may not even finish the game. But they play every week, and look forward to their game of Scrabble. Most of the geocachers I know personally are much more like the second group of Scrabble players than the first one. Great analogy, and it fits my experience, as well. I never at any point stated everyone is competing but we agree some are. I think we can agree that if find count was eliminated some people would not renew their premium membership. If we can agree on those points then the next question is how many, my opinion is that enough to cause Groundspeak significant financial problems. Some are proud of their own numbers and just like to keep count!. Some are proud of the caching challenges they have achieved. Only a very small minority are actually in any sort of external competition other than within their own personal enjoyment. I don't think we can agree that 'if the find count was eliminated' because that is never going to happen and as nobody is really interested in it happening it is really just another one of your pointless assumptions. As it is never going to happen your 'next question' is completely irrelevent because no premium memberships will be lost and GS will not be drowned in financial problems as your pointless hypothetical scenario suggests.
  17. I would gain no satisfaction from recording a FTF if I was with the CO when the cache was placed however as there are no rules surrounding this it does not surprise me that this practice would occur. It may be that the CO has a dislike of FTF hounds and encourages friends to join them to scupper a FTFers plans.
  18. Some members choose to pay a premium membership of $30 to become Premium Members which allow a number of additional features. One of these features allows them to mark caches they set so they can just be searched for by other Premium Members only. The actual cache is often no different to any other cache and it is simply the cache owners preference to set it up this way. Some feel that setting the cache up for premium members only helps in preventing the cache from getting so easily muggled.
  19. Seems like the forums have been overrun with a propensity to ask for parts of the game to be banned recently??. Always with very spurious reasons given for the removal. Could it be some sort of muggle infiltration plotting the downfall of geocaching.
  20. This subject often frustrates me but I don’t think ‘all’ newbies are to blame in fact I think most newbies have enhanced the game and it is wrong to dismiss caching over the last 2/3 years as a degeneration. There are some great trails and a massive amount of quality caches that have been introduced recently and great credit must be given for innovation and placement. Unfortunately with quantity comes an increase in the regularity for ‘poor’ caches although I appreciate that the definition of a ‘poor’ cache will be a never ending debate and will be extremely subjective from one person to the next. My question is, what can be done about it: I visited a new cache a few days ago. It was a micro in the corner of an urban car park. There was no reason for it to be there. There was nothing of interest in the listing and nothing of interest in the corner of the car park. Whyyyy… I cried out inwardly. I could think of 20 places off the top of my head within a mile that would be 10 times more interesting. I just can’t understand the thought process that goes through some CO’s minds when they have gone through a reasonable amount of work to place a cache. However, did I say as much in my log? Of course I didn’t. Did any of the other seasoned cachers that found it say anything in their log. No, of course they didn’t. Did the reviewer say anything when he published i?, of course not and I wouldn’t expect them too. It must be down to caching education. Unless somebody who feels strongly about it has the time, effort and ability to devise a method of educating prospective CO’s (old and new) in the art of placing new caches I am sure the regularity of these types of caches will increase. We also need to look in the mirror and maybe become more honest in our logs. I would also like Groundspeak to introduce an extra line of education before a cache is published. A mandatory 2 minute info slide/video specifically targeting the quality of a site/placement/area etc. I know this will be ignored on some occasions but it may just help make some CO’s think again.
  21. So it's okay if I log all your caches and you don't mind? I will deal with it if I see a reason to do it. I am more likely to let it stand. I got more important things to worry about. Why would you let a load of false logs stand??
  22. 'Vandalize' seems a harsh description. The three or four times I have made a stick quill and a mud ink to make sure the log was recorded it was probably smaller and neater than my normal signature.
  23. Looking through the logs this owner has never maintained this cache since he planted it in May 2005. The original container was a coffee can tin - not a good choice. Google maps shows that it's in the bushes in front of a school, an inappropriate spot and a reason to post an NA according to the guidelines http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=134 . Planted May 2005. About 6 months after listing the cache, logs report water damage and rust. Dec 2006 a NM was posted because cache was "almost a total loss". Then about every 3rd log reports that the cache is a 'rust bucket'. Oct 2007 WES (not the cache owner) replaced the open coffee can with a new container and contents. Summer 2009 many logs about a wet log. 2010 complaints about wet log. 2010-2011 scattered comments about the cache needing maintenance and the log being damp or wet. Finally in April 2012 (7 years after planting the cache) the CO posts a note saying s/he will replace the log ASAP. April 2012 was the last time the CO visited the gc site. He does not replace the log. Oct 2012 someone reports that the lid is missing. Nov 2012 DBW reports lid missing and wet log and replaces the container, adds swag and puts the log in a new baggie. I would not perpetuate an abandoned cache and especially not one that was inappropriately placed in front of a school. I would post an NM, put the cache on my watch list and after about 3 weeks I would post an NA. +1 regarding the conclusion here. If a cache is in really bad condition with a seemingly inactive owner I'm afraid it is the only way to deal with the cache. I try to follow this scenario as much as possible especially in my local area. I hope if ever I decide not to play the game anymore that I will have the decency to archive my caches and collect them in.
×
×
  • Create New...