Jump to content

Trotter17

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Trotter17

  1. That's my thought, too. There's a pretty cool cache around me that is a huge ammo box in a nice wooded area. The CO even mentions that the nearby neighbors know about the cache and gives very specific parking coordinates. It's been around for years. I found it a few weeks ago and, while reading through the past logs, found this little gem: What a joke this is......NO PLACE TO PARK,,,,,,EVERYWHERE IS PRIVATE LAND......COVERED UP WITH POISON IVY AND STICKERS AND BRIARS.......UP AND DOWN GULLEYS AND STEEP HILLS......AND [CO] RATES IT A 1- 1 1/2...THIS IS MY FIRST AND LAST CACHE I WILL EVER ATTEMPT FROM THIS GUY. SL GOT LOST GOING BACK TO THE CAR....HITCHED HIKED.....THREW UP.....MOST MISERABLE CACHE EVER. The other 100+ logs since 2005 have been pretty positive. Sometimes someone is just having a bad day...
  2. "If you ain't first, you're last."- Ricky Bobby
  3. I'll agree with you in that the rules can be vague. I think that the rules of Geocaching are almost deceptively simple and yet they are fraught with personal preferences and unwritten rules. I think you've got some good suggestions here, although I do disagree with a few of them simply because of the logistics involved. This isn't me trying to be petty: I'm just trying to further the discussion. 1. The finder located the physical container or was on site to visit an earthcache or virtual. 2. The finder signed the log if it was possible to do so and, if not, documented evidence of the find. I agree with these but I think that #2 could be a bit problematic. Typically signing the log is considered the only way to truly make a find. Something needs to happen to verify that you've made a find and signing is what Groundspeak lists as the requirement. Maybe that's where your documented evidence of the find comes in, although I could see this being disputed as a legitimate find if it doesn't involve a log being signed. 3. The find was made without overwhelming assistance from others. I think this is problematic because it is so open to interpretation. If I'm caching with a friend and I spot the cache, does my friend get to count the find? What if I DNF a find and a CO gives me some guidance, plays hot/cold, or tells me the location to check on it. What if the cache has been placed out in the open by a muggle and I run across it while searching. Again, this rule just seems too subjective and problematic for the way people play the game. 4. The find was made by following any specific rules in the cache description. Again- what rules could someone make that would need to be followed? I could see this applying to a challenge cache but I couldn't see many other uses for this rule due to the banning of additional logging requirements. 5. The find was publicly available when claimed. I assume you're referencing finding a cache that hasn't been published yet, is not on Groundspeak (maybe archived or deactivated here but listed on another site), or currently archived/ deactivated? 6. The find was not a cache placed by the finder. This makes sense. Unless of a severe case of muggleitis you can't really find your own cache, can you? 7. The find was not previously discovered by the finder. Makes sense, again. If a cache container, location, or hiding style changes significantly, it should just be archived and relisted as a new cache. Commonly experienced issues (in no particular order): Sharing information – A find is not legitimate if the finder received so much help that the cache is no longer truly hidden (#3). For regular caches, this would mean being told or shown exactly where the cache is. For puzzle caches, this would mean being given the coordinates directly or being given so much help that there is no puzzle to solve. Seeking assistance is okay. But both the seeker and giver of information should make sure that there is something legitimately left for the finder to discover. Manipulating checking software – Some puzzle caches have coordinate checking programs, such as geochecker.com. Finders should not attempt to circumvent solving a puzzle by, for instance, trying a long list of possible coordinates until receiving the correct coordinates. This aspect is most closely related to point #4 above. The goal of puzzle caches is to solve the puzzle, not just to get to the coordinates as easily as possible. Once again, this seems too open to interpretation and impossible to track. I'm not in favor of couch logging for virtuals or TB's at all, but if someone finds the cache through whatever means and signs the log, I say give it to them. Signing for others / having others sign for you – It is not legitimate to sign another finder’s name or to have someone else sign a cache for you (#1, 2). Relatedly, if a cache is in a difficult location (e.g., in a tree or under water), it is not legitimate for someone else to bring you the cache for you to sign (#3, 4). Serving as a member of the ground crew on a 5/5 does not entitle you to claim a find. To summarize: If you are unable to retrieve and sign a cache in the way intended by the owner without overwhelming help from others, then you should not claim a find. I see what you're saying if the challenge is something physical but once again, if caching in a group or with a friend should everyone climb the tree individually? Does the first person put the cache back in the tree for the next person? If I\m signing a LPC while sitting in the car does everyone have to sign their own name or can I sign for someone else who is present and helped with the search? I'm not in favor of leapfrogging, but if I'm signing a standard nano I find it pretty common for one person to write other people's names. I also cache with a differently-abled friend and often have to provide some assistance. Are his finds invalid because I helped write his name on a piece of paper that was too small even though he came out, hiked the hike, and helped make the find and open the cache? Shared accounts – Sharing a geocaching account with others is likely to be problematic because of the high potential to violate one or more of the above principles. For example, if another person under your account claims a find when you aren’t there, you’re violating #1-3. Finders who are active should have separate accounts. Families with young children caching under the same account would be advised to create separate accounts if grown children decide to continue in the hobby separately. First to find (FTF) etiquette – FTF is a special honor and should be treated as such. Thus, FTFers should be particularly reluctant to request help from the cache owner, and similarly the cache owner should be reluctant to provide help (#3). Exceptions would include correcting errant coordinates or mistakes in a puzzle. Successful finds should be promptly logged to avoid providing undue hope to other eager finders. FTF is cool and all, but I don't see any reason to add in a "promptly logged" condition. I don't own a smart phone. I try to log my caches on the day I find them (typically without fail as I'm so excited) but a cache I find at 8am on a Saturday morning might not be logged until late that night. Logging – Found caches should be claimed for the actual date of the find (#7). It is not appropriate to continue a found streak by logging a find at a later date. Failing to find a cache should be accompanied by a DNF log on the cache. There’s no shame admitting you did not find the cache and doing so may alert others if the cache is actually missing. Agreed. DNF's are really helpful. Self smilies – You aren’t finding a cache if you already know where it is because you placed it (#6). Damaged or missing caches – If a cache has a log that cannot be signed, it is permissible to claim a find provided you document your find. Documenting could mean taking a picture of the cache. Better still would be to replace the ruined log with a fresh one. If a cache appears to be missing, it is not permissible to “throw down a replacement” unless there is additional evidence that the cache is missing. Such evidence may include several recent logged DNFs or difficulty ratings or other information in the description that would support your belief. In the end, the best strategy is to report a DNF and to request maintenance needed from the CO. I think changing logs should always be permitted (still let the owner know) since we're looking for containers outside. Stuff gets wet and damp, you know? Not so sure about any kind of throwdowns. They're just too problematic. I'm amazed that some folks get upset when you log a NM on their cache. Even if you're a good CO who maintains your stuff, caches break. I've heard a lot of bizarre rumors about NM logs from owners, so maybe Groundspeak needs to do some education on this. Virtual virtuals – Finders should have to visit the location of the virtual in order to claim a find (#1). Same for earthcaches. Amen.
  4. I hosted a CITO last August (so that helped) but we ended up having a decent turn out and collecting quite a few bags of trash. Just a few things that I noticed might help: * Add a fun activity in as well. We all picnicked together and shared deserts before CITOing. * Pick and area with some caches. Not only did we clean up lots of space at our nearby park but we also cleaned up areas leading to caches. This way some folks got to score caches and CITO. * Provide bags/ gloves/ and supplies. I let people know that I had plenty of latex gloves and our park ranger provided trash bags, garbage pickers, and the space to dump the refuse. * Talk to your local cachers through a forum or Facebook page. I actually planned many of the event details with my local group before submitting the event. That way I knew I had picked a date and time that worked for a number of local folks and could anticipate some attendance! Good luck!
  5. Regarding the challenge cache: If it's you're cache now and the logging requirement is something unusual like attending a breakfast that you can't guarantee will be held or not, just go ahead and archive the cache or change the challenge (if you can)while giving any watchers a warning. Otherwise, that cache is surely not going to get visited.
  6. Local geocaching groups around me not only have dedicated forums for the QR code game but they have dual, combined events. I've never played it and can't say that I'm dying to or anything(don't have a smart phone) but I'm seeing a lot of crossover between geocaching and the game that must not be mentioned (*Spooky Ghost Noises*). It seems like something that Groundspeak might want to relax about and openly address in some way rather than sticking their heads in the ground.
  7. We've had a pretty mild winter in the foothills of North Carolina so I've actually gotten out to do quite a bit of caching. I can definitely see where snow would inhibit caching greatly, though, but the colder weather makes things quite a bit easier. Less leaves on trees, fewer pests, and fewer muggles out and about.
  8. I found 28 caches today (new record) and overall was fairly impressed that I didn't find too much junky swag. I removed a lighter from a cache and a receipt for some donuts. Not too bad for finding a fair number of small and regular caches today.
  9. Just had an event pop up on my daily pq that is a 10 minute flash mob. There's a note that says people are getting together afterwards, but it states that it's not part of the event. Interesting.
  10. Two come to mind for me. One was in Georgia. My family was just driving through and stopping to grab a quick bite when I decided to pull up the app on my wife's phone. I found a cache only a couple hundred feet away (I didn't have a Georgia cache yet), plugged the coords in my Garmin, and walked....behind the building to a junky, trash filled empty lot. Fortunately it was a simple LPC but the entire theme of the cache was about how junky the area was and how it was representative of the nearby restaurants (on whose property this cache was not). The second was a micro in some woods near a park. The hint was stick. Only one person ever found it, a local cacher who stumbled on it by accident. Eventually the woods got bulldozed for a city park expansion. Still, coords seemed off, a micro in the woods, and the clue was stick.
  11. If I were doing a letterbox hybrid cache, I'd definitely want to utilize some letterbox styled clues. Maybe use the coordinates to get someone to the beginning of a trail or to a park entrance and then use more traditional environmental clues. Those are always fun to follow.
  12. Getting rid of virtual caches has probably been my biggest disappointment with the changes made since 2005. Waymarking just doesn't have the same appeal to me. With virtual caches there was still typically a challenge involved, whether that was actually finding the location, deciphering a puzzle, or obtaining some information. Sure, some were easy, but others could be rather tricky. I really miss them.
  13. One of the things I'm getting irked about is how many caches I'm finding that are right around no-trespassing or private property signs with no acknowledgment from the CO that this is their property or that permission has been given. Some are right next to the signs or on the edges while others (from what finders have implied) are simply right past no-trespassing signs. It just irks me and honestly, I just leave them be and move on. There was one I was looking for recently that took me down a long, beautiful, quite road with plenty of places to hide a nice sized cache. Of course, when GZ popped up, it was right near a blocked drive, a private drive, and a ton of no trespassing signs. Nothing on the page. Fairly new, as well, so not like someone just recently put that stuff up, I imagine.
  14. It seems to me that unless the finder feels that they can adequately express their thoughts in the CO's language, the best option is probably to write in the language they are most comfortable with. Why? Because then you are ensuring that the words and ideas on the log are as accurate as possible. If the CO or anyone else wants to read the log and can't, they have the option of running it through one or more auto translators. If you type something out in your native language and translate it, the only thing anyone will have to go off of is a roughly translated document that probably does not most accurately capture the thoughts of the author. If it is written in the finder's native language, however, it can be translated multiple times in different ways by whomever wants to read it or be read by others fluent in that language.
  15. I definitely don't think that having a more accurate GPS is going to hurt anything. If anything, I think I'd enjoy things more; I'm still having to navigate through terrain, find how to open the cache or discover how the cache is disguised, solve puzzles, discover new locations, and battle nature and the elements. Narrowing a search area just isn't going to be something that I see as a real negative.
  16. Thanks for the responses, everyone. Yes, this is typically a great co who just seems to have had two caches that have hit a snag just because of normal wear and tear. I felt that putting up the NM was the proper way to address the issue versus just ignoring it as one cache seems currently unloggable and neither of these were simple ducttape/ logbook fixes, but then I felt bad hearing that logging NM's could possibly hinder someone's hiding.
  17. Hello! I logged a needs maintenance on two caches recently: One where I found the broken lid of a container but not the container itself and another where a newly placed container was broken and not functioning how it was supposed to. The local co seems very good about maintaining there caches so I logged "NM" to let them know about these two problems (both were the same co). I got a response back that did ask for more detailed specifics about the issues but that also warned me against logging NM's because it prevents the co from placing more caches. Is this true? I'd never heard that it prevented that before.
  18. A few years ago my wife and I were walking along a pond at a nearby campus and we sat down on a small wall. I looked over at a part of the wall and said "I bet there's a geocache here!" Moved a stone or two and found one! I formally logged it a week or two ago!
  19. I'm of the opinion that ammo cans, Tupperware, film canisters, pill bottles, and all containers should be banned! Seriously, if it is large enough to hide a small poisonous scorpion in, it needs to go. If any of you were parents, you'd know the danger of small scorpions just waiting to jump out and sting your children. I think we need to start just using stickers or something. Maybe with a QR code on them....
  20. I've got a little daughter. She is eleven months old and makes excellent camouflage when geocaching! I also have three dogs, a plastic crown, an all black suit, a clipboard, hiking boots, a red wig, a Court of Owls mask from Batman, a 1980s boombox, and some psychic paper. Using these, I cache where I want, when I want!
  21. I tried using the search bar for a topic about this but didn't see one. If one already exists, please feel free to merge! OK, so I get the feeling that a good number of users here feel very strongly about cachers who simply use a cut and paste log or leave a simple TFTC. What makes a good log? I've been trying to leave better logs on the caches I find, but sometimes a cache is rather uninspiring and there just isn't much to log about. When the cache is a nice hike, placed in a fun, unique place, or in a lovely park, it's easy to write a bit. But sometimes, well...I mean, if I snap up a cache in a Burger King parking lot or under a stop sign, how much should I be expected to write? Any thoughts on what separates the good logs from the bad from you old pros?
  22. You mean like ...etc. Yeah, good point. I like the attributes but it seems that not everyone uses them nor do they always help you identify what type of cache experience to expect. It's a good start, though. The hiking ones are typically good indicators of the experience you can expect.
  23. I have big caching plans for this weekend! Heading to my first event friday night and on saturday I'm hitting up a number of caches at a local river greenway. Big weekend, indeed! Anyone else got anything cool coming up?
  24. From what some of you are saying, it almost makes me think that in addition to the regular categories (traditional, multi, etc.), maybe Groundspeak needs to create some new subcategories of caches so that folks could more easily filter through them. Personally, I don't feel the type of caches are much different than when I was doing some caching in Nashville back in 2005 (there were still rural hiking caches mixed in with plenty of p&gs) but the numbers seem to have significantly increased. It is tougher to select a number of solid hiking or park caches that I'm willing to drive a ways for and make a day of versus lots of p&g micros. Maybe the answer would be the ability to create a fairly simple system to subcategorize caches by using terms such as P&Gs, caches in parks, and caches that require hiking. It might not be perfect, but it might let folks cut out all caches they don't enjoy just a bit more easily.
×
×
  • Create New...