dino-irl
-
Posts
1500 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dino-irl
-
-
Is it a new piece or a recycled one? I was under the impression that CT was repeats of older pieces done for Countryfile and similar programmes?
-
We always look out for old caches while caching in a different area and would certainly do a 2 mile round walk for a cache set in 2001
We almost certainly wouldn't bother for a new cache...
I really don't understand the mentality of this. If the cache is worth doing then what difference does the date make?
-
'People watching the cache' can also include people who have the cache on a bookmark list
I don't use them myself but can't PMs also set up instant notifications for all log types, not just published ones?
-
The questions I am asking are for each of the below:
1) Found it
a, When you find a cache and sign the log.
b, Cache owner and people watching the cache?
Cache owner shouldn't find their own cache surely... too easy???
Part b is about who gets the notification email.
-
The questions I am asking are for each of the below:
a, When do you use it?
b, Who gets notified when you post?
When you write a log on a cache you have 5 options:
1) Found it
a, When you find a cache and sign the log.
b, Cache owner and people watching the cache?
2) Did not find it
a, When you looked but did not find the cache?
b, Cache owner and people watching the cache?
3) Write Note
a, ??? Dropping TB's in you forgot? When something prevents you from searching for a cache but you don't want to log a DNF
b, Cache owner and people watching the cache?
4) Needs Archived
a, When a cache is obviously abandoned/missing and the owner is inactive or not responding to Needs Maintenance or DNF logs. When a cache is in blatant breach of the guidelines (buried, private property, etc). When you encounter a landowner that gives you grief for being there and it's obvious that the cache doesn't have proper permissions.
b, Cache owner, people watching the cache, reviewer for that territory.
5) Needs Maintenance
a, Wet log, Damaged Cache Box anything else? Full logbook, cache probably missing, some reason why cache can't be retrieved from its hiding place.
b, Cache owner and people watching the cache.
-
At the end of the day, I still question why this rule has been introduced - surely there's a place for keeping some of Geocaching history alive even if extraordinary steps need to be taken to do so?
Then you should bring it up on the main forum where the discussion is more likely to get an audience and get noticed by GSP
-
If the location is so good why not just list a new cache at that location and give everyone a new smiley?
It's also the responsibility of the cache "owner" to maintain their own cache. Looking at the original CO's profile they haven't been caching since 2005
-
Minor disagreement with what I think you mean by that.Terrain is about getting to the cache, difficulty is about finding (and I suppose retrieving) the cacheFor me:
Difficulty is how hard it is to locate, assuming you don't know where it is.
Terrain is how hard it is to get to and retrieve, even if you already know where it is.
Rgds, Andy
It depends how you interpret the ratings system:
Difficulty rating:* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.
** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.
*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.
**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.
***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.
Terrain rating:
* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)
** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)
*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)
**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)
***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.
I think you can argue that a cache that is easy to get to and find but difficult to retrieve can be classed with a higher Difficulty or Terrain rating.
-
I have seen reviewers add notes to publish logs about the lack of attributes and the like in the past. If the reviewer had bounced it back; it would perhaps just make the CO write something on future cache pages which will surely improve the quality out there?
I guess one has to ask why Groundspeak 'employ' volunteers to review new cache submissions and not use a simple 'computerised' system for cache approval. If it was merely a case of 'Any cache that meets a set of pre-defined criteria automatically gets approved.', as you seem to be suggesting, then there would be no need for a human interface. A computer program could do that easily and so much faster.
I like to believe that it's because a human reviewer has the ability to apply some of that oh-so-rare 'common sense' to the cache approval system and see some of the grey shades, not just the black and white. I don't know the cache in question but if it really was as badly submitted as it appears then shouldn't the reviewer have 'bounced it back' even though, in black and white terms it met the approval requirements?
I've put both posts in one reply as you are basically saying the same thing and I have the same reply for both of you. How do you know the reviewer didn't bounce it back to the owner? If they did and the owner didn't want to add anything then the cache should be published. There is nothing anywhere that says you must write a description of the cache site.
-
That one should surely have been bounced back by the reviewer.
Why?
Caches are reviewed according to compliance with the guidelines so I'd be interested to see how it violates any of them in a way which is obvious at the review stage.
Because the cache type is wrong - seems more like a puzzle to me.
We have yet to see a link to the cache but if the cache is at the posted coordinates (or supposed to be there) then it's a traditional, not a puzzle.
-
That one should surely have been bounced back by the reviewer.
Why?
Caches are reviewed according to compliance with the guidelines so I'd be interested to see how it violates any of them in a way which is obvious at the review stage.
-
I have a pair of Columbia trail shoes with a Goretex liner and find them great. They're light, deal well even with very wet conditions and aren't too hot in the summer. Grip isn't 100% but I also have a pair of Salomon shoes that cost more, don't have Goretex and aren't any better grip wise.
Not sure if you can get them local but Columbia seems to be a popular brand as it's middle of the road for price.
-
It certainly sounds like the terrain is incorrect, you should be a little annoyed if that is the case.
Maybe you could have a go at doing a Diff/Terr rating using the Groundspeak recommended Clay Jar system
Terrain is about getting to the cache, difficulty is about finding (and I suppose retrieving) the cache:
* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)
*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)
**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)
***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.
According to that the cache is probably rated correctly for terrain but it's a very subjective system as I said in a post above.
-
The cache is described as "A pleasant walk around ... " and the terrain rating is 1.5, no suggestion that any physical activity, other than walking, was required.
What was the "difficulty" rating? It sounds like the terrain rating was fine and from your OP it was indeed a pleasant walk around but the difficulty rating may suggest different when it comes to finding/retrieving the cache?
It was D2/T1.5
D2 is probably correct as this is from the Clayjar rating system:
Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.I guess it's also very subjective too though
One thing is you'll never get a consensus on this so go with what makes you feel best. If you want to log the find the owner has given you that option but if you want the satisfaction of beating the cache placement go back better prepared, retrieve the cache and sign the log. At the end of the day there are no cast iron rules in this game, you're not in competition with anyone and you have the right to play how you wish.
-
The cache is described as "A pleasant walk around ... " and the terrain rating is 1.5, no suggestion that any physical activity, other than walking, was required.
What was the "difficulty" rating? It sounds like the terrain rating was fine and from your OP it was indeed a pleasant walk around but the difficulty rating may suggest different when it comes to finding/retrieving the cache?
-
I don't think I would have logged a find either but I'm so stubborn I would have gone back with something to allow me to get the cache out....chainsaw anyone?
-
Interesting. That price gets you 1500sqkm of mapping free by download with the software but the box below shows the whole of NI for £100. Pricey enough for a one off trip but probably a good long-term investment. Would be good to see a screenshot of one of the maps.
-
Anyone using Memory Map 1:50,000 for NI?
We hope to come over this year and will get it if it's as good as the UK versions. Looks a bargain at £25.00.
Cheers, H.
First I've been aware of it! Do you have a link?
I have a feeling it won't run on MM OS though and that you will need MM Navigator commonly known as MM Europe as it is OSNI and OSI over here not OSGB.
-
-
Another disadvantage (in my experience) is how inaccurate the iPhone is vs the BB or GPSr -- even in wide open, non-covered areas. We use both the iPhone and Blackberry apps. In my use, side-by-side, the Blackberry (9700 and 8900) always beats the iPhone. While the Blackberry shows its accuracy being 15-20m, it will always get me within range of a find, while the iPhone wants to to take me on a scenic tour nowhere near GZ.
However, the iPhone app is better at showing information such as TB inventory/information and instant logging, although I've recently started using the old [http://wap.geocaching.com] on the BB for logging, which is good too. Both apps are good; I just find the iPhone too inaccurate to be worth using -- enjoyably anyway
. I often find myself using the BB to find, then logging my finds or TB grabs on the iPhone.Have you tried Cacheberry?
-
This Knowledge Book article gives more detail too:
-
No, it's one I've never tried. What GPSr chips do they use, and is there a MemoryMap/CacheMate equivalent?Ever tried a Blackberry. I use the Storm and find it great for all 3Rgds, Andy
I've no idea what chip is in use but I find it very accurate, even for placing caches.
I run a program called Cacheberry which is excellent and improving all the time. It operates very similar to Cachemate. There is a mapping program out there called TrekBuddy which I've used but isn't just great but the developer of CB is planning to add support for OSM shortly. It does work with Google Maps though if you have a signal.
-
I do know why I bought it, and that was because I'm in perpetual pursuit of the perfect all in one phone/PDA/GPSr . I find it annoying that I have to carry more than one device, when there is no technical reason why a single device should not be able to do them all perfectly well.
I have no doubt that I shall continue my quest. What GPSr chip does Android use
.Rgds, Andy
Ever tried a Blackberry. I use the Storm and find it great for all 3
-
Personally, that appeals to me. As a noob I'm a little wary of multis ... I'd hate to DNF one element after finding some and have nothing to show for what I've found if that makes sense. A bonus cache awarded on finding the others - well that sounds ideal.
But what about the sense of satisfaction when you do complete all parts? To me one good multi can be more memorable than a host of cache n dashes. Saying that I like trads too
. I often find myself using the BB to find, then logging my finds or TB grabs on the iPhone.
.
paying to geocache !
in United Kingdom and Ireland
Posted
Charging to cover costs is allowed but it's hard to tell with that event as I only read/speak English