ReadyOrNot
-
Posts
2229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ReadyOrNot
-
-
I still think, after all these years, that it's ironic that the people that claim to be the ones that don't care about find counts are the ones that talk about them the most. People that say they don't care about find counts are often the ones shouting the loudest about how numbers don't mean anything and/or numbers should be hidden.
I'm going bald, and I truthfully don't care about my (lack of) hair. If I met someone that wore a toupee that claimed it was because they wanted to keep others from looking down at their low hair count, would I think they didn't care about being bald or that they cared more about their hair than I care about mine?
If you wear a toupee, you are giving others the impression that you have hair, when you do not. Remember the Seinfeld episode when George gets the toupee? Many people were harmed by George's misrepresentation of hair count.
Wearing a toupee is lying and many of the SS soldiers in Nazi Germany wore toupee's. Case Closed!
-
-
So... it could be interpreted two ways, and you automatically assumed it was the derogatory one?
Without reading the post it is impossible to know whether it is meant in a derogatory way or not.Cache/hides being stolen/removed by hispanic muggles....
When the word stealing is used... how could it not be derogatory?
Yes, with further reading it brings up a good idea of marking caches in dual languages. I'm all for it.I only believe the title could have better worded. Simple.
How's this:
PC enough for yah?Cache/hides being stolen/removed by hispanic muggles who speak Spanish and not English....Yes, much better. Gracias.
I agree, it's important to change the language to reflect the 0.001% of the population in that area who speak spanish, do not know english and are not hispanic.. Good call.
-
when will this be addressed? how maytimes does the new blood have to bring up the GPX filtering of micros' nanos..as well as well as the selection issue as the OP brought up? Kill two birds with one stone. AND GIVE MICRO'S AND NANO'S A NEW DIFFERENT ICON!!!!!!!
Hopefully never... Giving them their own category will only encourage people to use them more (in my opinion).
-
Using natural holes would be forbidden according to what I've been reading in this thread, because someone might come to the conclusion that its ok to dig a hole, even though the guidelines say that you can't...
You are not reading this thread correctly.
If you place a cache into an existing hole, why wouldn't a cacher assume that you dug the hole? According to what everyone is saying, dumb cacher will see the hole and assume they can do the same thing.... And it's your fault, even though you may have gotten permission or, in the case of the example, used an existing hole.
Personally, if I have a good cache idea that involves "digging", I would go ahead and use my common sense... It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than deal with asking permission from a reviewer and getting an explicit denial..
Let's remember that these are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Geocaching.com is simply a listing service - they don't run the game.
Your question was answered in this thread above. Just because someone sees a "buried" cache, doesn't mean they can place one themselves. They are required to read the Placement Guidelines before placing a cache. ***Doesn't mean they will, but we can't correct stupidity here.***
That's exactly my point.. But people keep using it as an excuse. If I get permission or its on my own property, I should be able to dig a hole. The fact that someone can't read the guidelines is not my problem. My point to Briansnat is that nowhere in the guidelines does it speak to this "Monkey see, monkey do" excuse and pleasing land managers.
-
It depends on where the cache is placed. If it's in a public area, then it's not really commercial. I think the commercial clause in the guidelines relates to putting commercial information in the cache listing. I know in our area, you can put the cache at or nearby a commercial establishment, but you cannot name the establishment.
The question for me really comes down to whether the listing is an advertisement for the establishment or an advertisement for the cache. It cannot be the first.
-
Using natural holes would be forbidden according to what I've been reading in this thread, because someone might come to the conclusion that its ok to dig a hole, even though the guidelines say that you can't...
You are not reading this thread correctly.
If you place a cache into an existing hole, why wouldn't a cacher assume that you dug the hole? According to what everyone is saying, dumb cacher will see the hole and assume they can do the same thing.... And it's your fault, even though you may have gotten permission or, in the case of the example, used an existing hole.
Personally, if I have a good cache idea that involves "digging", I would go ahead and use my common sense... It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than deal with asking permission from a reviewer and getting an explicit denial..
Let's remember that these are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Geocaching.com is simply a listing service - they don't run the game.
-
We are planning a trip to one of our local parks and found a listing ( GCH3BH ) which is listed as a religiously themed cache. I read that this does not meet guidelines.
What's funny is a couple of the 5 caches that you have found are "Hole in the wall" caches. These caches are placed outside of hole-in-the-wall type eating establishments. Is that not a solicitation/agenda? Yet you went ahead and found and logged those caches...
Seems to me this is more about your dislike for a certain religion than about the guidelines...
-
briansnat has already given the correct and only answer to this question.
As a reviewer, even if the cache is buried with an exposed lid, per the example ReadyOrNot gives above me, that's an archived cache, not a published cache. If I were to find this cache while out geocaching, it's an archived cache. ...
I agree with BS's summary of the burial rule. I also think reviewers shouldn't be in the business of second guessing approved caches. Archiving them willy nilly is an abuse of power. My first thought was that this cache exaclty as described could be placed in any of hundreds of spots that abount in my area and work as intended without lifting a single spoonful of soil. Only when they clarified they thought that meant digging did it become clear that while they can place it 100% in compliance with the guidelines they were pondering the digging part.
Of course natural holes are common here. Maybe they aren't so common in your area.
Using natural holes would be forbidden according to what I've been reading in this thread, because someone might come to the conclusion that its ok to dig a hole, even though the guidelines say that you can't...
Using that logic, we should immediately archive all grandfathered caches that aren't in step with current guidelines, because someone may think that its ok after visiting a grandfathered cache.
-
What if the cache is not on managed land? If the intent is to keep land managers happy, then that should be reflected in the guideline. One could argue that there is a big difference between a hole in a public, managed park, versus an unmanaged, undeveloped, wooded area.
If you could absolutely guarantee that none of the finders were newbies who then took the idea home with them for use hiding their own cache, then yes.
But the chances are you couldn't guarantee that.
I agree with you that the intention of the guideline is to keep Land Managers happy. All of them. Not just those relevant to this particular hide.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but when someone submits a cache for approval, are they not required to read and accept the cache placement guidelines?
First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache.
What I can guarantee to you is that it is the responsibility of the person placing a cache to read and abide by the guidelines. Bottom line, it's not my responsibility to guarantee anything to you regarding what a newbie does (or a seasoned veteran for that matter) after visiting one of my caches and I believe the guidelines back up my assertion pretty clearly...
-
briansnat has already given the correct and only answer to this question.
Since you apparently have the power to end discussion and make the determination as to what is the only correct answer possible for this question, why don't you go ahead and close this topic. If you don't have that power, then why don't you stop acting like you do...
-
So ask yourself, "Does this cache violate the intent of the guideline?"... I would say no.
Actually I would say yes it does violate the intent of the guidelines. The "shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object" line is in there to allow for things like caches buried under leaves, etc.
In a forest with a thick, healty O horizon layer you can easily excavate a good sized hole using just your fingers, and though that does not volate the 'shovel, trowel or pointy object" clause it still violates the intent of the guideline.
The point of the guideline is to keep us in the good graces of land managers. Digging holes, regardless whether you use a shovel, pick, trowel, your fingers or a jet of water from a power washer can jeopardize that.
What if the cache is not on managed land? If the intent is to keep land managers happy, then that should be reflected in the guideline. One could argue that there is a big difference between a hole in a public, managed park, versus an unmanaged, undeveloped, wooded area.
-
"Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate."
I would say that you are "ok" as long as you do not use a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object to dig the hole. One other option is to find an existing hole.
There's a cache in our area that has a benchmark attached to a foot long cylinder. The benchmark is attached to a screw-top screwed on to the cylinder (similar to those containers that tennis balls come in. Everything except the top was buried in the ground, encased in a block of cement. The cache was extracted by unscrewing the "benchmark"... Was that against the guidelines? Just like with real law, its important to look at the "intent" of the law/guideline. What is the intent of this guideline? Obviously we don't want people digging up property looking for caches. Can you imagine what an area would look like if a cache was buried?
So ask yourself, "Does this cache violate the intent of the guideline?"... I would say no.
-
It looks like the cache is close to the high school, but not necessarily on the property... Did you bother asking the cache owner before posting your nasty gram on the cache page and then posting to the forums?
You are making a lot of assumptions and all seemingly without even talking to the owner of the cache. They could very well have permission and the submission was approved by a reviewer. Who are you to act as judge, jury and executioner?
I recommend that you remove your note on the cache page and contact the owner directly before flying off the handle.
-
FTF is "First to Find" and it means exactly what it says.. The first person to find the cache. Now, "FIND" is the operative word here. If you were involved in the placement of the cache, then you very well can't "FIND" the cache.
If a non-geocacher stumbles across the cache prior to it being published and writes something in the log book, are they not "FTF"? They found it... They were first... Maybe the concept is just too complicated...
-
This is a subject that's pretty much right on topic because the most common question in this section of the forum is "Help, which GPS should I buy?" Many of the folks asking that question will be basing their final selection on our tech support experiences with various manufacturers as well as the technical goodies contained in the devices.
...ken...
Well I sincerely hope no one buys a Magellan instead of a Garmin due to this thread!
It's funny. If you look around on this forum you don't see anyone complaining about Magellan as much as Garmin.
Is it because Garmin isn't as good as Magellan? Hmmm?
It's the same reason everyone in the world complains about the United States... We happen to be the greatest, free-est country in the world, but it's always easier to pick on the successful, big guy....
-
The most fascinating part of this thread is that it is 2 years old and noone from Groundspeak has even commented. For being ex-military, I'm really surprised at Jeremy's inability to communicate effectively with his customers.
Here we are at .net 2.0 and we're still waiting for a lot of the functionality that was suppose to be included. The problem is not whether we as customers can choose to ignore other cachers, its why we are being ignored from TPTB.
My 2c
-
I like seeing the look on my daughters face when she finds the cache and opens it up for the "treasure".
My kids actually prefer getting a hamburger and fries with their "treasure"
-
Hi!
Where's the "Rewards" feature that was promised last fall? Do you still have it on your list or was it removed for some reason?
-
Creating a graphic of nothing is far more effort than writing "TFTH". I'm still looking for the hidden message in the graphic
What's the difficult level of the puzzle? -
I like it...
The more tools available to categorize a cache, the better. The people tossing containers in bushes along the side of the highway are probably the ones that wont be using attributes, so I don't see lack of use as a problem.
Provided the database and programming was done in an expandable, re-usable way, I would think adding additional attributes would not be a very difficult feat.
Not the fix to the worlds problems, but certainly a good step in the right direction. Wait a second.. KBI is the op? Ummm.. Maybe this isn't such a good idea after all
-
Suggestion: On found it logs, allow for "No comments". There could be a checkbox below the comments box, ie: [ ] No comment to leave - which would blank out and disable the comment textbox.
Would you suggest the same thing for DNF logs? If not, why not?
The DNF log type relays information just by the fact that its a DNF log. I would say that the option should only be available for "Found It" logs, not the other log types. If someone is taking the time to log a "Needs Maintenance", they are going to take the time to explain why they are logging it. Same goes for the DNF log type.
I actually like the idea of an option to "Hide" the log, but I don't think that option alone would solve the "Found #5 of 25,000" problem. The cache machine loggers take the path of least resistance. If they are going to write "TFTH", why click the extra button to hide it?
I think a combination of "Hide" and "No comments" would make for a great solution.
-
TPTB have already stated that they are releasing a "Rewards" system. I haven't heard much about it lately, but i'm guess users would be able to give rewards to caches and then you'd be able to search for caches based on the rewards..
Sounds cool to me.. Not sure why we haven't seen it yet though.
-
I'm sorry, but this is a stupid suggestion.
There are no stupid suggestions, only stupid people...
Much of the fun of going out and finding a cache, is writing up a story about the hunt.
For me at least.
me too! And as a cache owner, reading about the hunt is one of the best parts of caching
Copy and paste is bad enough, powercachers don't even remember all those caches, they've found that day.
Ahh, the crux of the issue... What's worse, "TFTH" x 50 by a bunch of cachers on a cache machine OR [sweet silence]....
It's like putting out a guest book for people to sign at a wedding and having a bunch of wedding crashers come through and sign their names in the book... "THANKS FOR THE FOOD! Wedding #23 of #75"...
Honestly, I'd rather not see the mess...
Hide the find counts.
in Website
Posted
I was being funny.. Sheeesh. I've been away for a while and that seemed like a nice place to jump back in