Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by infiniteMPG

  1. And not a bad policy, it's just I have some caches that would take an entire day of hiking or paddling to 'check' and if I spent a whole day checking one potential fake log and found out it was valid, I'd feel like I totally wasted a day. Not my idea of GC fun. I can understand as I have+200 hides and it would have to be something really out of line for me to check or even suspect. I can totally relate to that comment as my new camera cost a ton (and so did my new lens). I'll drag my old Z3 along, but the A-100 doesn't go on long hikes or any paddles Could you not do this INSTEAD of checking the log book and save yourself a trip when you suspect foul play????? LOL!!!! I think I still see a 'flaw' in the system. We run across many (and I mean MANY) log books that are signed all over the place, not in any chronological order, all over ands scribbled (and some blurred from getting wet) and sometimes a cacher replaces a wet one with a new one so history is gone. Nano logs are a scribble. And when we're caching I sign "infinitempg", when I hear wild hogs approaching thru the palmettos I sign "impg" and often that is a scribble across the page as I'd rather get the hide re-hidden quick then end up explaining my presence to a couple hundred pound tusked angry territorial boar. I would hate to think I spent the day tackling a massive 5/5 challenge but because I didn't sign the log book legibly or in the right spot that some owner is going to zap my find until I prove I was there. I think it works best if you think a log is fake, email the logger and request validation. If they give it, end of story. If they don't, either check, warn, delete or whatever you want. Since someone else could of signed the log, someone else could of added a sticker, this might be a better validation. And if someone else gave them the hide specifics then for all practical purposes the log is valid as they went thru as much work faking their log as a legitimate cacher did finding it.
  2. 28 pages???? Wow.... For all of the owners here who feel bogus logs are a "real" problem for geocaching, how would you intend on policing it? I can see when doing some periodic maintenance to check if you think it's a problem, but other then that, what would you do? Every time a log is entered, visit your cache to check it?????????? How do you determine if : 1 - A person signed someone else's name to a log sheet or pasted a GC sticker in the book for them and let them post a logged find on GC. Even if you checked the log sheet, their name/sticker would be there. 2 - A person posted a log entry for a nano cache where you can barely read anything for an entry on the sheet but they never visited it. 3 - A person entered a log entry for a cache that is many miles of hiking/biking/kayaking to access to check without visiting it. 4 - A person signed a log sheet and visited a cache but the log book is not structured so you can put the signatures in chronological order easily. Especially if they entered a valid sounding log. Sounds like 28 pages of trying to solve a problem that at it's worst would be less of an inconvienience to the game of geocaching then many other things. There are owners out there who never visit their cache even when there's a problem, you really think you're going to get them to compare logs against signatures???? Yeah.... right.....
  3. Actually I think that how you pick your words and how you present them has as much to do as the words themselves for getting their meaning across. Same as texting or emailing : u gona meet us dn @ bills or ru @ home rather then : Are you going to meet us down at Bill's or are you at home? If you don't know the preson who is reading your message you should keep it somewhat professional to get a decent response. If you're emailing your best friend and you both type like that, fine. If you're applying for a job and your cover letter and resume are typed like that, have fun flipping burgers. Also, when something is capitalized it's considered SHOUTING. And deleting their log before you even give them a chance to correct a possible mistake is not very diplomatic, either. Everyone can rule their domain of caches how they wish, but I believe it best to give cachers the benifit of a doubt before touching their log entry.
  4. I travelled from Florida back to my home state of North Carolina for a high school reunion and while there I placed a couple caches. The reviewer questioned it as it was 900 miles from my home coords. I explianed my parents live very nearby and I travel back there regularly and my nephew is right down the road and he's a hard core cacher who agreed to maintain my caches for me. No problem.... approved! And it's worked well as he just recently replaced one of my hides at a new location and we had to archive the old one and start a new one and on the new one it was approved quickly without question. The reviewers are flexible as long as you're honest, responsible and work with them.
  5. We are travelling to Lake Louisa State Park in Florida this weekend and the park is located in Clermont, Florida. The zip code according the the park website and everything else we found is 34714. When we try to search on geocaches, or do a pocket querey on zip code 34714 on the GC website we get an error message that the zip code is not found in the database. We managed to track down a geocache in the park (and the only one in that whole region of Florida... come on Clermont cachers!) and do the querey, but why is the zip code not found???
  6. Sounds like it's pretty impossible to physically sign a log book in a cache and have it be deemed a 'bogus' log. Bogus logs are on the website, not in the cache. I can see caching without a GPSr being more of a challenge but fun none the less. The main thing I can see you missing out on is multi-caches. Kind of tough to go find a stage, get new coords, run somewhere and plot them out, run back out and get the next stage... etc. And the one bonus you have is you don't have a GPSr who LIES to you like Mr. Garmin often does to me.... "Hey, the cache is right over here 15-feet.... yeah, right there.... WAIT.... I meant 28-feet back this other way.... yeah, right there.... NO WAIT... I mean 65-feet back this different way...." GRRRRRRR........ hehehehe
  7. If you look back thru the previous 20 pages on this thread (and I doubt you'd really want to do that) you'll find that was offerred as an alternative way to prevent this and it was agreed to be a good method EXCEPT the cache would be required to be turned into a mystery cache which is probably not going to sit well with some. Like minds
  8. Good point to bring this thread back to trying to formulate a solution - 1 - Somehow we have the opportunity to compare a signed log book/sheet to the online logs. 2 - We notice an online log that has no matching signed log <here's where the variations for each of us come in so I'll just post MHO> 3 - Email the person who created the online log entry diplomatically stating that the cache was being maintained, this discrepancy was found and maybe they entered the find for the wrong cache. 4 - If they don't reply back, maybe give them a second chance stating if they don't reply you are obligated to delete the log listing. No reply means delete the log but give them enough time as here in Florida, we have vacationing cachers (i.e. snowbirds) who cache here but don't enter logs for weeks. 5 - If they do reply back, then discuss what's going on. If they can validate the hide (describe the hide or the container or something) then let is sit. If they can't or your full-of-***-detector goes off, delete the log. If they b*tch... let'em... unless they give you more to validate it. Maybe I'm not much of a hard@ss with this as I like GC being fun for me and for other so I would give people the benifit of a doubt as I would hope someone would do the same for me. I have been to caches with log books where people skipped a couple pages, then others didn't, and logs were not in chronological order, or people signed where ever they could fit it and finding out who was after who would be impossible. Also nanos are hard to figure out anyone's log listing. And other log books have had pages come loose, got blurry from moisture, other issues that could cloud the determination if someone actually signed the log. Some people sign their whole caching name, others use just initials. Sometimes it's raining when we're signing so just a quick scribble before things get wet. Had people forget a pen and use a dirty stick to mark the log. So there are a lot of variables that could make it tough to make this determination even for valid finders.
  9. Only deleted one log in my whole GC career and threatened to delete one that the logger ended up editing... one was a well camoed cache and someone just flat out posted a complete description of the hide and how to find it (not a hint, just a flat out give-away and I didn't spend days building it for that) and they edited their log, and the other was someone blasting me mistakenly thinking my cache was not placed right (which had to be proven to them with a reviewer involved). Never deleted a fake log in my life nor had a reason to suspect a log was fake. I might look at them when doing mainetance now and if I see online a cache was found 20 times in the last month but the last signed log was 3 months ago or something out of line, I'll check it out. But I doubt I'd ever have a reason to visit a cache just for that sole purpose.
  10. Hmmmm, maybe a cache called B-BUSTER CACHE and then place a cache container no one can access the log inside. Then anyone who just signs the log and doesn't complain about not being able to get to the log is totally BUSTED!
  11. I don't think there's any time frame on that. Not sure of the location or the size, but I usually look at that as a challenge between me and the muggles and try to devise a camo job that allows the cache to exist but the muggles never find it
  12. Usually I pretend to talk on my cell phone (anyone with a cell phone as big as my Garmin these days needs to be dressed like Maxwell Smart talking into his shoe). Once was around a load of people pretending to talk into my cell phone when it rang... dang, didn't know it would still ring when opened! BUSTED! hehehehe The watch thing goes along with that, followed by looking up and down the roadway telling my pretend phone caller that I'll wait for them but not too long and then keep watching for them (while really looking for the cache). Checking under benchs is either tying shoes or dropping something and reaching for it. Pier caches require some knowledge of fishing as people fishing like yakking but don't really watch anything but their line if they're talking. And I am usually always with my camera when doing anything but urbans so that's just too easy to stop and take some nature shots. We have some caches we flat out call "muggle challenges", where people know they need their stealth skills honed to a tee, and they love 'em (I guess people who don't like that avoid them because we get funny and entertaining logs all the time). It's a hoot reading how people managed to make the finds. One is the run-of-the-mill magnetic holder on a metal sign outside an outdoor local icon eating joint. Someone commented about how the cache matched the color of the sign perfectly. I checked on the cache and the place recently painted the sign a different color and managed to paint the whole cache container, too.
  13. Great to hear storied like this. From one of the other treads here sounded like there was some pretty stiff opposition to GPSr-less caching but this all sounds positive (and in line with my views). I can see using any method other then GPSr would be tough to do a multi (except for 5 trips for a 5 stager). Also have a friend who's GPSr met an untimely end and he's thinking about an alternative method until he can afford a new one. To me that's more of a challenge then GPSing my way there so more power to 'em! And now that I think about it, we use Mapsource and plot out the caches so we can plot a hiking route before we head out so actually we only use out GPSr to get us closer then the maps anyway Higher res maps and the GPSr could stay in the car
  14. We have a Jeep Liberty and a 8-CYL 4X4 Quardrotrac II Jeep Grand Cherokee... almost always seen dirty, parked off the side of the road or at some state park, with two kayaks on top and two mountain bikes on the back.... and if either of those are not on board then we're usually no where to be found
  15. Goat entrails???? Hehehehehe.... funny. Everyone knows it's sheep entrails... The definition of GPS came up before, too. Everyone has the same assumption that GPS means a GPS receiver. But stating a "Global Positioning System" can be any system that allows you to determine a global position. Stars. Maps. Google Earth. A compass. Landmarks. A GPSr. And since the GPSr often (due to heavy tree cover, clouds, rain, etc) does not do much except get you close and you have to call on your geosenses to complete the find, does it matter much what gets you close? Oh yeah, Google Earth wouldn't be much help on a multi
  16. I was just forwarded a news article about geocaching GC News that was published recently in an Arkansas newspaper. The story was nice about families geocaching together but the one line that flashed me back to some comments in here was : It's possible to play the game without the help of a GPS unit by using online map services to locate the general area of the cache. For me personally, I wouldn't even think of geocaching without my GPSr, but I do understand people have different opinions on this subject. Just figured since this was published and advertised that geocaching can be done withOUT a GPSr, someone told them this (and I'd imagine it was a geocacher). Time to chime in
  17. Here in Florida just south of Tampa Bay we had Susan Fast missing and then body parts were found and identified as her behind a shopping plaza NEWS STORY. At the time this was going on someone reported a problem with a cache of mine so I jumped on my bike and rode to the spot. Everything was police tapped off and news crews everywhere. My cache is a camo job in some woods hidden inside an old cow bone I found. I figured not a good time to come walking out of the woods from behind police tape at a murder scene with a bone in my hand I disabled the cache for a while until everything calmed and it was okay. But we had another similar thing happen in North Port, just south of us. And a cache owner there went thru a similar thing. This stuff happens, we just need to do what we can to keep ourselves and other cachers out of harms way.
  18. I can totally see doing that. And after being in this thread, I will probably start looking myself But I think it would take something pretty glaring to make me make a run JUST to check a log. Guess if I had identified cachers guilty of that I would do it, too. I don't have that much familiararity with local cachers to tag anyone with that kind of label. Maybe we could form a local caching 'group' just so the local owners could discuss stuff like that. We have FGA but that's state wide. Hmmm, that almost sounded like something getting done to address the problem.... ACK!!! hehehehe
  19. I don't recall the guidelines stating it's an owner's responsibility to police the logs. I did see it state to delete logs that appear bogus or off topic but I would think that's at an owner's discretion. You and I are in similar situations with over 200 hides, how much time do you spend or are you willing to spend policing all the logs for your caches? What flags you to even check a log? We searched for a cache a few weeks ago that had not been found in several months and had a load of DNF's, just because we were in the area and we like the challenge. We found it but to someone looking at our log from a distrustful point of view, our find would look suspicious. This is a six mile hike. Should the owner hike six miles to validate we actually found it????? I think they should of checked after the DNF's but with the fake log issue I don't see them making the hike just to read the log sheet. I have even had people tell me that sometimes people enter a find of the same cache more then once and that hasn't caused problems. In fact we attempted a multi early in my caching career and didn't succeed. I accidently entered the "note" as a "find". Later when we actually finished it we entered a find. It wasn't until years later that a stat program flagged me that I had accidentally entered two finds for the same cache. I fixed it but it never caused a problem. In fact the cache ended up being voted #1 in west central Florida. I would imagine the odds of a plane crashing into anyone's home is pretty astronomical. I see the odds of a fake log causing a problem with a cache pretty high, too. Just as I wouldn't check all the flight paths in an area before picking where to buy a home to try to prevent a plane from ever crashing into my home, I don't see spending loads of time policing logs having much benifit, either. No one condones fake logs but it's up to the owner of each cache on how that want to handle it.
  20. As I see nothing more need to be done about someone faking a log entry other then handling it on a case by case basis when discovered. I would no more hike out to check for a bogus log then I would hike out to be sure the last cacher hid it back the way it was supposed to be. At some point you have to have some degree of trust. Be it a bogus log or a improperly re-hid cache, anything you became aware of, you deal with it. But I don't agree with spending a lot of time hunting for it. I am also learning to let a DNF age, I was spending too much time disabling a cache and checking on it at the first sign of a sincere sounding DNF. I am pretty level on the hiding playing field between urbans and wilderness and some paddle only's in there, too. Everyone has their own taste and I aim to pass along options for anyone. And as I often say, if you don't like hunting a particular type cache or don't agree with a cache type in particular area, then look for something else. There's a half million caches out there so hopefully people can find what they like.
  21. Maybe the topic should be what to do about bogus cachers rather then how to delete fake logs. But IMHO this would also include people who don't properly log trackable items or steal them from the caches (i.e expensive trackable geocoins like the new FGA coin I just had go missing and since it has my picture on it I wasn't real happy about that), people who don't conceal or cover caches when they're done (they just toss them to the side leaving them vulnerable to muggling), people who don't take the .5 seconds to close a container properly causing damage to it's contents, owners who have missing or damaged caches and don't maintain them even after being reported, people who emphatically state in their log that a cache is missing just because they didn't find it, people who enter logs less then 2 words (okay, okay, maybe not that one). To me that's more of a problem to GC then just fake logs. Oh yeah... need to add to that people who name their caches starting with a " or a * or things like that. Makes it sooooo much fun for us people with PDA's trying to look up a cache by name.... hehehe
  22. Until I started reading this thread I didn't even know it existed. I kind of assumed it did as not much in this world happens without someone bending or breaking the rules. I can see it as a GC policing issue to address bogus cachers but I still am not sure I see much risk of problems being caused to the regular honet cachers. Dang, too cloudy to see the Shuttle go up.... RATS!
  23. Sounds like an alternative game for cache owners since you were having fun in that.... but doesn't sound like something that should be expected of all cache owners
  24. And suppodely so are virtuals since it sounds like GC saw some inherint problems with them. But still a possibility, so using this as a basis for some action doesn't carry much weight. I guess my gray area here still makes me ask what problems happened due to these 6 fake logs (or 6 caches with fake logs)? Not sure how many cache owners would invest 5 hours in just deleting a fake log on the basis of principle. Some people might see that it's worth it but I think most would rather put that 5 hours into a couple more finds or some new camo job. I'm not saying anything at all is wrong with what was done, I just don't think many others would put that much effort into something unless something bad was or could happen from it.
  25. First time I get a form in the mail from geocaching to sign and notarize I'll re-think this 'game' If they want to delete someone because "they can" no one can stop them. If they want to shut down the whole operation because it's an odd numbered day and the vending machine was out of Diet Dr. Pepper again then that's their right.... Ain't freedom great! From the sound of these posts, the problem with fake logs seems to be one of virtuals so sounds like GC may seen 'issues' with virtuals to start with. In that aspect maybe virtuals should be dropped from this discussion.
  • Create New...