Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by coachstahly

  1. Happened to me personally and I willingly gave the spot up. I don't know if it's done all the time, everywhere, by every reviewer but this applies to my area as well.
  2. You "can" use them (and many people do). The better question is "should" they be used. There are various beliefs about their use but almost all reach the same consensus, that they're not great containers and are prone to allowing water into the interior. Very rarely, if at all, has anyone come on here and stated that they're great containers. A few have mentioned some screw top containers for vitamins (I think that's what I recall they were) that work better, but those are different, despite being somewhat similar in use.
  3. In good conditions most GPS units will still have a +/- of 10 feet of error. Phones used to be much worse but they've gotten MUCH better. They're right around the same amount of error. In bad conditions or in areas where signal acquisition is obstructed (regardless of the device), the amount of error can be much higher.
  4. It's most likley been archived. If you have the GC code, you should be able to look it up on the site to verify that it's been archived.
  5. Isonzo Karst already mentioned it but I'm going to follow up a bit. It's not that they take "precedence"; it's that they fall within the guideline that prevents cache saturation - no physical cache can be placed within 528 feet (.10 miles) of another physical cache, owned by you or anyone else and visible or invisible to you or anyone else. This particular cache just happens to be a premium cache that prevents you from placing your cache where you wanted it to be. You would be denied if it were a basic cache that happened to be the physical final of - a puzzle cache, a Wherigo cache, an offset letterbox hybrid, or any physical stage/final of a multi cache. It's certainly frustrating but niraD provided you a link that should alleviate some of the issues you're encountering here.
  6. Not to my knowledge. They should be open to any and all atendees that wish to attend. However, it's possible that facilities may have a capacity limit due to Covid or size of the venue, so that might limit attendance to the first X number of cachers who file a Will Attend log. This obviously is a new possibility so I'm not sure how GS would handle that. Again, you're more than welcome to create an event for these things, even if it's for a specific targeted audience. The thing you can't do, as far as I understand, is limit attendees. I was asked to do an intro to geocaching presentation for two venues. I created an event for one of them and didn't for the other. I brought in a bunch of various sized containers and hid them around the area where my events took place. I wouldn't use someone else's cache as part of a demonstration, unless I had their permission.
  7. There are actually two different issues at play here. Bad coordinates don't necessarily lead to abandonment of a cache. I've found caches with bad coordinates that haven't been abandoned, I've found abandoned caches with good coordinates, and I've also found caches with bad coordinates that have been abandoned. One does not beget the other. And if they find 100 caches along the ET trail, do you believe that to be "proof" that they're now qualfied and experienced enough to be a responsible hider and maintainer of caches? This idea has been discussed multiple times here. Finding X number of caches does not help determine whether or not a CO will be a good maintainer of their caches, once placed. For the most part, that effort needed to maintain is either not in their nature or already inherent within them. The advent of the smart phone, and their relatively easy availability (now), helped eliminate one of the main things that helped promote longevity - the purchase of a GPS unit. Even the less expensive ones weren't really "cheap", which meant that it was a substantial enough investment that typically promoted a longer presence within geocaching (not always, but certainly more often than not). Smart phones have made geocaching, to some extent, a "disposable" activity that doesn't cost new cachers anything to join, nor to quit. That doesn't mean that I'm anti-phone caching. Far from it, as I use my phone for my regular caching and my GPS (and phone) for my vacation caching. It just seems to promote less cacher retention due to its nature. It also means that it's more accessible to many more people, due to its nature. I agree with you about this, but isn't that part of what the caching community is supposed to do? While it would be great if every CO took proper responsibility for maintaining/archiving/retrieving their caches, this has been going on since caching started in 2000. Some of those early cachers lasted just as long as some of these newer cachers and they abandoned their caches as well. It's always been incumbent upon cachers to file the appropriate NM and NA logs when a cache needs it. An abandoned cache should receive a bit of extra attention with NM/NA logs in order to get it off the listing site, both to open up the area for another cache (hopefully from a CO willing to maintain), as well as to get the container removed by a cacher (ideally who filed either of the logs that led to the archival) if the CO is no longer involved.
  8. While it's veered from the OP, most of the recent posts within this thread are about maintenance (weekly or otherwise) which really isn't the purview of a finder.
  9. Nope. Uncommon but it has been done. People who don't have the AL app can't do ALs. People who don't have a Wherigo player can't do Wherigos. People who don't have access to boats/kayaks can't do paddle caches. People who aren't SCUBA certified can't do scuba caches. People who don't have the physical ability to climb trees can't do tree climb caches. Cachers in wheelchairs can't do a large part of the caches listed on the site. Since when should a cache preclude "eliminating" someone from being able to do it? If we're truly going for the egalitarian "Everyone should be able to do it", then every cache that's not a 1 T cache, every cache that requires the use of some other app or program to complete, or every cache that requires specialized knowledge or equipment should be archived. I realize that's going a bit to the extreme and not going to happen but a large majority of caches eliminate some people from doing them (1.5 T or higher eliminates most wheelchair cachers). While it would certainly be nice if most everyone should be able to do it, it's not a requirement for a cache to be published. While I don't like the idea of using a "keyword" for a multi, there's nothing saying that they can't do it that way, unless a reviewer tells them otherwise. What are your "goals" when creating this cache? Is it to draw attention to the specific memorial? All 3 memorials? What type of plaques or dates/years or signage is there? Since you dislike multis due to not having the patience, I suggest a simple 2 stage multi that uses information from the memorial to direct you to the final location. Use an information sign, numbers on the memorial, count items ON the memorial. You can do a letter/number combination where A=1, B=2, C=3, etc...and specify which letters you want them to use. How many legs does the dog have showing in this sculpture? If the answer is 4, then the final coordinates are N 40 00.000 W 086 00.000 (close to my home degrees). If the answer is 3, then the final coordinates are N 40 01.000 W 086 01.000. How many letters are there in the title of the sculpture? Who is the artist? There are so many ways to get a cacher to examine the sculpture to arrive at an answer that will get them to the final. The most common type is probably a "find a number and insert into a formula" multi. N 40 AB.CDE W 086 FG.HIJ or some variation. You can make it as simple as needing only one number from the memorial (N 40 0A.123 W 086 00.123) to all of them (N AB CD.EFG W HIJ KL.MNO). You can make it as easy or as difficult as you'd like and you can do something like what has been mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Keep in mind, there are a variety of ways to create it and it's up to you as to how you'd like to do it, even if it is the use of a keyword for a geochecker that provides you with the final coordinates. I'd discourage that but if it's what you want, the only one that can stop you would be your local reviewer. If that's the route you go, I'd run it past your local reviewer first. If there's online information, then you could also create an unknown cache that uses information they can find online. The drawback to this is that there's a strong chance solvers won't actually visit the memorial, if that's your main motivation for creating this cache.
  10. I wasn't even contemplating this from a finder's perspective, only from a CO's perspective. And I'm not recommeding weekly checks unless certain specfiic situations arise - cache taken and you put out a replacement, not knowing if it's a one off discovery or someone knows it's there - or use of a crappy container (more on this later) that requires a weekly check to make sure things are ok with the cache (which I'd strongly urge against) - and the resumption of a more elongated CO check as things return to normal. Of course. See above. If it rarely disappears, then there's no need to continually visit. I was advocating for an increased frequency of checks after a disappearance and a subsequent replacement, in order to make sure that it's a one off rather than a site that's known/discovered and will result in its disappearance once again. Of course it can disappear at any time. I know only too well, having caches go MIA despite the fact that it's in a location that I believe very few muggles would willingly wander into. I don't know if this was specifically addressed to me or to a general audience but I certainly did NOT mean to imply that good cache maintenance means frequent checks. I hide my caches, using good containers and placing them in a manner that hopefully reduces the risk of accidental discovery/removal, so that I DON'T have to perform maintenance unless something comes up in finders' logs that leads me to believe there might be an issue. Here's where I disagree with you, to some extent. While I discourage the use of crappy containers, I realize that many COs use them for a variety of reasons. Let's use a coffee can (plastic Folgers) as an example. You appear to be saying that a weekly visit to the cache won't keep it in decent shape. I believe that a CO that comes with a towel to dry the interior (due to the inevitable moisture that will get in - arid environments excluded) and swag, a replacement log in case the one in there is too damp or wet to sign, new swag to replace any that has been ruined by moisture, and inspects the lid and container for animal gnawing, holes, or deterioration (and has a replacement ready in case) can keep a crappy container in decent shape. You could say the same thing about a pill bottle, a film container, or any other container that we may consider to be a crappy container. Anything that happens to it between checks would be rectified in the next check. There's no guarantee that the next finder will find it in good shape, as things certainly happen, but the odds go up quite a bit when compared with the CO of a crappy cache who doesn't frequently visit their cache. That being said, there's absolutely NO way I'd be interested in spending this much time performing maintenance and I'd also be impressed if there were a CO this concientious and devoted to a weekly visit that involves this much maintenance to a cache.
  11. You're under the assumption that it gets taken/moved regularly. I'm under the assumption that it might have the potential for issues, which is why a weekly check might be needed. If it truly is getting taken regularly, then yes, archive it as that spot is not good. However, if it gets taken/moved once or twice and then the issue seems to resolve itself, weekly checks are warranted and if those keep coming back all clear, then a gradual lengthening of time between checks becomes more realistic, keeping in mind that there has been a history of issues and that it just might come back again . Some COs are more than happy to throw money away to keep a location active. A crappy container would need weekly checks in order to keep the cache in decent shape.
  12. Every week??? Why? I agree. If you use a good container and it's hidden well enough to prevent non-cachers from discovering/taking it, then there's no need to visit it weekly. As others have mentioned, the logs (usually) should provide you with enough information to determine whether or not it needs a visit. However, if you know you've used a container that typically has issues or is placed in a manner that leads to frequent discovery/removal, then a weekly check is probably a good idea.
  13. Do you have a replacement available on the chance that this "container" might go MIA? You'd be surprised by the places that non-cachers go and "find" a cache that they remove. For more "unique" containers, I usually have 2 ready to go - 1 to put out and one replacement, should the first one go missing. If the second one ends up disappearing, I typically end up archiving the cache. I suggest leaving something similar in size and shape at the location you're considering while getting things ready to submit for publication. Why? Unless the OP is struggling with the actual "riddle" at the first stop, all a puzzle/unknown cache is is a traditional cache that requires the finder to do something first to be able to find the container. While I advocate that new hiders find caches before considering hiding them in order to get a better idea of the variety of containers and hide styles that are out there, at the root of geocaching, it's still just placing a container at a set of coordinates and then determining the manner in which you want finders to go find it. Also, it's my guess that there aren't a lot of multi-stop mystery caches out there for the OP to find. Multis, yes. Mysteries, yes. Multi mysteries, no. This, 1000 times over. If you've not cached the area, then there's a strong possibility that you might have some saturation issues, especially if it's an active caching area. The more caches in an area, the higher the chance that you'll run into issues like mentioned above. If I understand your cache correctly, it appears you're going to need 2 physical locations - the "clue" and the final, while the first stage will be a virtual stop. Does that sound about right?
  14. The ultimate goal of any game - solitaire, Scrabble, hide-and-go-seek, tennis, etc... - is to win, whatever that might entail. How do you "win" geocaching? Most fizzies? Most finds? Most DNFs? Hardest challenge? Easiest cache? TBH, I don't really care what it's called. I've called it both a game and a hobby/activity.
  15. As others have mentioned already, the easy terrain is also the terrain that limits the type of cache that can be hidden and still be able to "survive" without being taken. A micro bison tube hidden in the base/trunk folds of the only tree within 100 feet is going to last much longer than even a small, regular or large, that will stick out like a sore thumb to anyone walking in the easy terrain area. The issue with hiding large caches isn't that there isn't space for them. The issue is that they're larges and caches that big are difficult to find places to hide them where they won't get taken or destroyed. I had one large that I thought was "safe" due to the fact of it being out in a field with only one access point, away from parking, and away from established trails. It got taken twice, which is the limit for me (initial hide and one replacement) most of the time.
  16. It's still an Additional Logging Requirement, any way you slice it, limited or otherwise. They got out of that some time ago. The only one who can truly control the logs being submitted on an as needed and immediate basis is the CO. It may entail a bit more work but it's part of maintaining your cache. Yes, a reviewer can step in but they would have to wait until someone notifies them of the issue, unless you're asking them to keep an eye on the thousands of caches in their areas, which is an unrealistic expectation. I had someone file 3 finds of my caches but one of the logs seemed odd to me because they mentioned replacing a log, despite the fact that I have a vinyl log in there, due to the fact that it is going to get wet where it's placed, regardless of what I do. I checked on it and sure enough, their signature wasn't in there. Turns out a brand new cacher filed a DNF, left a baggie and some swag (despite this being a micro) that I didn't find (they left it under an upside down planter on a grave) when they mentioned they left something for the next seeker. I checked the other 2 and those were both signed. More work for me? Yes, but I know that, going into this. Is keeping "lost" caches alive that much of a thing? If more cachers filed their NM/NA logs, then this issue would, in part, resolve itself. You want abandoned caches that are either missing or in bad shape taken off the map? Then encourage more cachers to file NM logs and then subsequent NA logs after inaction by the CO. That will help curtail the issue you seem to find discouraging. Rather than waiting on the CHS or a reviewer to trigger the process, have your fellow cachers initiate the process. I have a bigger issue with throwdowns than I do with fake logs because I see more throwdowns than I do fake logs on caches that probably aren't there any longer.
  17. D/T combos, types of hides, and sizes of hides. I adopted 14 that were placed before I started hiding my own and 5 (plus a couple that have since been archived) more that were placed while I was hiding. 19 active adopted caches of the 87 I currently have active. Looks like I'm all over the place on my D/T grid and all over the place with type and size.
  18. They got rid of ALRs for a reason and you want them brought back? They also got rid of the requirement of an event having a log book. I'm not really sure why (I'm sure the reason was discussed here) but you'd want them to go back to the way it used to be, just like with the above ALR. While there are certainly those that "cheat", I have to wonder at the percentage of overall finds that we're talking about. Are we talking about 10% of the overall finds logged or is it some smaller percentage? Or larger? Is cheating some rampant issue that's permeating the activity everywhere or is it somewhat isolated by a pocket here or there? I don't see a high number in my area of false logs from our regular cachers but I do see some that come through from elsewhere that have a tendency to be logging incorrectly, either via a claimed find with no signature or a throwdown. The most effective way to combat this is to put the onus on COs and not on Groundspeak. That's the best solution, by far.
  19. Here's hoping you have better luck with IMM's caches (particularly puzzles) than I have. Which two Jasmer caches do you need? I'm assuming one is Turkey Run Stash.
  20. I'm curious to know how this one works. If you'd rather not share here, then feel free to send a private message. I'm always interested in learning about new ways to cache and I've never heard this before.
  21. While it's certainly NOT map related, I always make sure to edit the final coordinates once I've found it and then put it in a list (not public) for my personal perusal. That way, I can verify the final location, either for someone asking or for myself. I can also look at it to jog my memory on how it was actually solved.
  22. He had 5 in all and I was fortunate enough to find 4 of them (1 was archived before I started). Those are some fun and extremely frustrating caches. If you want some great puzzles, then look at the same CO's ? caches. I've only managed to solve a few of them.
  23. I'm not going to run out of caches to find but I'm running out of caches I want to find in my area. Like one or two others on here have stated, I'm almost 12 years in and my caching preferences have become much more selective as I tend to focus on non-traditional caches and higher D/T combo traditionals, most of which I've managed to significantly deplete in my area, unsolved puzzles notwithstanding. Most of the caches I prefer to try to find are now outside of a 25-30 mile radius from my home coordinates, 40-50 with some specific cache types. As to archiving my old ones so new ones could be hidden and found by others, I'm just not seeing many new caches being published in my area so I doubt anyone other than myself would put out a new cache or two in those locations. I would consider it but I'm running out of new ways to create interesting caches or unique stages that I'd want to incorporate into a new hide or two. I like my current hides (although I've had to archive a couple recently due to muggle activity) and the effort I put into them a bit too much to archive them in order to come up with something different.
  24. There really aren't that many cachers that visit the forums from Indiana. I used to be one of the regulars, took a break, and then just recently came back. Most chatter goes on in the multiple FB pages that serve the state (or smaller areas of the state).
  25. You're under the assumption that the container was an issue from the find before yours. What if they were the ones that improperly closed the container, which allowed the water to get inside? What if a critter found it and chewed a hole in it during that gap in time? What if a muggle found it and left it so that it would fill up with water? What if the container was dry when they found it? There are so many variables that can come into play between finds that I rarely fault the previous cacher for any issues I may come upon while out caching. There are some obvious exceptions and the logs generally support those exceptions (repeated notes of a wet log) but sometimes the find between mine and the previous one result in a change in the cache's status that wasn't previously an issue or one that wasn't an issue at the time because the environment wasn't right for that issue to appear. The fact that I also focus more on non-traditional caches means that there's usually a larger gap in time between finds, making it harder to pinpoint a specific time when something occurred that caused the deterioration of the container and the contents inside. Is the log wet because the container is no longer good or is it wet because the container was closed improperly (decon only snapped shut on 3 of the 4 corners, ammo can closed with something sticking out that ruins the integrity of the rubber gasket on the lid) or is it wet because the log was signed in the rain and stayed wet because the container is still doing its job?
  • Create New...