Jump to content

PCFrog

Members
  • Posts

    263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by PCFrog

  1. On 6/25/2018 at 6:12 PM, MAS83 said:

     

     

    But then again, if a bad owner can bypass that rule by simply disabling the cache that needs maintenance, nothing is gained by that rule.

    By CO disabling it is  a sign that the CO personally recognizes the caches needs to be taken care of compared to a Reviewer having to take action. Second, it also now identifies the cache in a manner that in PQs that the cache is not viable.

    • Upvote 2
  2. 10 minutes ago, dprovan said:

    ... higher standard ...

    This is not a higher standard, please read the Guidelines. It is the standard.

     

    "Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com."

     

    • Upvote 1
    • Helpful 1
  3. 16 minutes ago, niraD said:

    Not all maintenance issues are significant enough to warrant disabling the cache.

     

    When the custom camouflage of one of my caches started failing, I left the NM attribute in place as a reminder. But it took me well over 2 weeks to source the supplies and construct a replacement container. In the meantime, the cache was fine, and those who found it just replaced it with the ruined section of camouflage facing the ground.

    :-/ Really....

     

    I guess the easy approach would be if a NM was placed on the cache the CO log would amount to something like..."I took a look at my cache and only noticed that the camouflage was coming off from the outside. The cache, the contents, and log are fine. Thanks for the NM report and I will address the  camouflage issue." now NM can be removed. 

     

    A little thought behind how to handle issues can go a long way. 

     

    Please keep in mind my suggestion is to make sure CO are held accountable for the caches they place. If a CO is diligent at responding to NM and other issues then the CO will never have an issue. The past decade of exceptions and considerations is what led up to this point. A HUGE majority of the issues I see in the forums comes down to CO not being held to higher standard and expected to care for the caches they placed. Whats wrong with expecting the Cache Owner Responsibilities (https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#ownerresponsibility) being upheld?  It flat out says"

    o keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

    • Visit the geocache regularly.
    • Fix reported problems (such as replace full or wet logbook, replace broken or missing container).
    • Make sure the location is appropriate and change it if necessary.
    • Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived.

    Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com."

    • Upvote 2
  4. 15 hours ago, MAS83 said:

     

    It is rules like this that would do more damage than good. Imagine you are making an event, busy planning 10+ caches, almost ready to create the listings, then someone posts a NM on one of your old caches. You go out there and realize something is broken, and at home you realize the spare part is not available until after the event. Tough luck, you have to cancel the event now, because you can't create the caches for it no more.

     

    If a CO can not take care of the cache in two weeks nothing stops the CO from disabling the cache itself until they can look after it.  This does not involve a reviewer having to do the work the CO, which the CO should be doing in first place. These issues are only brought up mainly from a lack of CO responsibility.

    • Upvote 1
  5. While many good responses I'm only going to address the question of 

    • What steps can Geocaching HQ take to improve geocache quality?

    I know and seen quite a few programs, steps taken, ect that have supposedly been implemented (meaning I can not personally confirm nor personally see the effect from) by HQ but feel that they are either not being followed through with or missing the mark. While I have a recent post about too many small and micros caches I think that HQ might not be taking a more aggressive/harder stance that is needed (in my opinion). I truly would like to see where cache owners who have ANY caches that have need maintenance on a cache for over two weeks automatically be prevented from placing new caches. Granted the CO could just post a log saying they maintained the cache but if the next one or two logs by cachers say need maintenance then the CO should be banned from placing caches until offending caches are archived. Yes... I feel that if a CO is caught not maintaining the cache when a CO said that a  cache was maintained the cache  should automatically be shut down. This all comes back to old topics (do a search they are out there) of some CO placing way to many caches to a point they can't maintain them. Once again, supposedly things have been implemented to curb this but I still see CO in my area with huge number of hides and many with "Needs Maintenance" on them.

     

    • Upvote 2
  6. On 6/11/2018 at 7:14 PM, TheLimeCat said:

    The bigger problem for me has been those caches that seem to have been placed with no special thought as to their construction or location. I'll grant you, they're typically micros, but I think that's more because they don't require as much maintenance from the cache owner. They aren't inherently bad, they've just become the unfortunate tool of the guardrail power trail cacher. I don't understand the motivation for placing one of these. The train of thought must go something like "Gee, this sure is a wonderful busy intersection! I'd better commemorate it by cramming a pill bottle in the nearest hole and never coming back!"

    While I'm not a power cache placer by far, I have always however put A LOT of thought and planing behind each cache placement. I've always approached each placement with the thought of what is the largest size cache that I can place and still not have it discovered by the random muggle. 

    On 6/11/2018 at 5:24 PM, geodarts said:

     Some places are appropriate for micros, some for ammo boxes.  

    Very correct, while a micro in the woods might be placed as a cleaver hide, which is understandable when there is a reason behind it. Unfortunately most seem to be placed there only because it a simple cache to place. 

    On 6/11/2018 at 3:50 PM, kunarion said:

    Based on my own caches, and those I've found, Micros tend to need more maintenance than bigger boxes. Micros have full or soaked logs, broken or lost parts, or they're misplaced or dropped (not put back as hidden or now lost among leaves). Micros are less forgiving of the lack of maintenance than even a small L&L. It's so much extra work keeping a Micro viable, I've upgraded several of mine to "Small" boxes. They still require attention, but don't lose an O-ring on every find. B)

     

     

    Sadly at one geocaching meeting a fellow cacher said they keep a small assortment of micros and small caches in their bag. They said when they come across a cache that has a DNF before them and they can't find it they just replace the cache where they think it should have been. I could only think personally if one person is doing it them MANY have to be doing it as well.

     

     

    • Upvote 3
  7. On 6/10/2018 at 8:58 AM, BK-Hunters said:

     

    Congratulations on the safe return of your TB. 

     

    How was it returned? Did you pick it up yourself or was it mailed back to you.

     

    So far we have eight returned TBs/Geocoins that were mailed back to us.  The remaining have a new mission to return to Canada. Hopefully more will return home.

    It was placed in a cache in a city next to me.  About an hour drive from the house.

  8. When my kids were young, age 7ish, I started geocaching with my kids and they and I included loved it. They truly loved the hike and the mystery of finding a cache to be rewarded with a variety of caches filled with all sorts of swag. Fast forward 13 years and I find that when we cache that a huge shift has occurred over the years. I recently ran a PQ of everything in my zip code and broke down the numbers as shown below. I wonder how this sport is supposed to attract new families if the majority of caches are small or micros. 78% of the caches are not able to hold swag. Location is not a determination of size like it was back 13 years ago. You could almost guarantee that if it was in the woods it would be regular or large size. The small and micro caches were mainly found in populated areas in. I thought this might be something that was localized to my area until I went to Geowoodstock 2018.  The PQ resulted in 76% of the caches being small or micros. I was admittedly disappointed to see small and micros in the woods when it would be easy to hide regular or large caches. Before some of you get on me about how some people…..  I can accept that there will be small and micros in the woods but when they become the majority I feel that it takes away part of the essence of the geocaching. How are kids supposed to be attracted to geocaching by looking for 35mm or smaller container in woods only to sign a little tiny piece of paper? I know my kids would not have spent 13 years of searching for caches if it started out like the caches we find today. 

     

    My area

    micro     48.74551971%

    small      30.28673835%

    reg         11.55913978%

    large      0.358422939%

    All other 9.050179211%

    • Upvote 3
  9. This is what I posted the other day.

     

    This means basically only 7.5% of what I released is still able to be called active. Most of those are recent as well & only two that were released along time ago are still making their rounds.

     

    One from 2009 - http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=1517584

     

    One from 2005 - http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?id=220077

     

     

    Of the 53 TBs I have released since 2006 only 7 can be still considered in circulation. Has Groundspeak ever release the stats on how many TBs are marked missing?

  10. Would anyone know if the Montana 650t file system, once connected to the computer, is accessible (operates, set up like) the Oregon 550t. For example, I can connect the Oregon 550t via USB to the computer and just drop a GPX file right into the GPX folder on the Garmin unit. I don't have to utilize any software to transfer the files or upload POI or anything of that sort. In addition when loading caches back to geocaching.com there is a simple txt file that logs the cache finds. I really like this ability with the Oregon 550t and want to know if the Montana 650t will work in the same manner.

  11. The Garmin website does not list the Colorado 400t as a platform for the

    City Navigator North America product. Since this product works on the Colorado's predecessors Vista and 60csx, and its successor Oregon, I hope and assume that this is an error/omission on the Garmin site. Can someone confirm this before I purchase a product that I actually will not be able to use?

    Ken Z

    Boulder

     

    I just received my City Navigator North America NT 2010 DVD. On the package it lists "Oregon series" as one of the platforms with which it works.

     

    Unfortunately I got an error trying to unlock mine and I've had to send a note to Support....

     

    Having an issue as well with the 2010 DVD.

  12. My dad, who is not to tech savvy, wants to get a GPS unit for his car that is also portable. Since I have looked at very few of these I was wanting an opinion from the group which item they think will meet the following criteria.

     

    Easy to learn

    Easy to carry and put in the car

    Auto routing

    Allows user to enter Long & Lat manually

    Can show the user the Long & Lat of their location

    Runs on regular batteries – Meaning does not take some special lithium battery you have to keep charged

     

    Possible extras that would be a bonus:

    Some type of SD or MC slot

    Auto routing - with audio

     

    Please give your input and little explanation of the unit your suggesting.

     

    Thanks…

  13. Not sure if this is the problem or not but this is what I found out.

     

    I tried doing a new route and all and I still got the same dang error.

     

    To get to the point I tried several things and bang the below worked.

     

    After uploading the KML but before saving the route I changed the name from the default file name to a new one. After doing that it seemed to work just fine. So, if anyone else out there is having same problem try it see if this is possibly it.

×
×
  • Create New...