Jump to content

narcissa

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    7386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by narcissa

  1. I don't place much value on other people's DNF logs unless they are geocachers I trust to be thorough. In most instances, I will look for myself.

     

    When I have a DNF, I typically keep an eye on the cache for a while and if I might log a "Needs Maintenance" if it keeps getting DNFs.

  2. It's totally okay to backlog. Owners appreciate knowing what's happening. I got a log on a long-archived cache the other day, and it was helpful that the log explained what she was doing so I know it's not bogus.

  3. On 12/05/2018 at 4:09 PM, badlands said:

     

    Respectfully disagree.

     

    If finding geocaches was the primary function, then I'd be a numbers hound, always looking for the next power trail.  Geocaching "to me" is about having fun, being out doors and interacting with other cachers.  If I actually find the cache, that's a bonus.

     

    Size is about a lot of things including external/internal volume.  When I place a cache, part of the size equation is how difficult it will be to find.  If the container is a tweener (clearly between sizes) and I expect it to be difficult to find, I'll use the smaller size.  If I'm looking to drop off a travel but then internal size is important.  If the internal/external dimensions are significantly different then not chosen or unknown can be used.

     

     

     

    Difficulty is reflected in its own rating.

  4. 22 hours ago, niraD said:

    If there's a large-size boulder with a micro-size blinker embedded into it somewhere, then finding the large-size boulder does me no good. I have to spot the micro-size blinker embedded into it before I even know that that is the cache. For the purposes of "finding geocaches", it's a micro.

     

    The boulder is camouflage and should not be incorporated into the size assessment.

    • Upvote 1
  5. On 11/05/2018 at 2:40 PM, Dreamer of Pictures said:

    Size is important to finders because proper specification of size helps limit the types and therefore numbers of hideouts to be examined.

     

    It would help TREMENDOUSLY if geocaching.com literally displayed a summary of the size specs in the page on which people select a size.

     

    I was curious and researched the size specs through the knowledge base many years ago.

     

    Nowadays, people who do not know any better use LARGE to mean "bigger than a 30 cal ammo box", SMALL to mean "smaller than an ammo box", and REGULAR to mean "any cache that is not virtual or puzzle or meeting or Wherigo". I have seen this all up and down the East Coast and in May 2018 in Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota.

     

    There remains an ambiguity in the geocaching.com size specs. Does the size indicate internal capacity or external volume? Some caches have minimal internal volume and are much bigger on the outside. For finding purposes, the external volume is key. For planning where to drop a trackable, the internal volume is key.

     

    Again, since the primary function of the game is finding geocaches, external volume should be the basis for size categorization.

  6. I don't see why this is alarming or why it can't be explained by the dramatic rise in popularity we all saw when app-based caching really took off.

    We are at a point now, in Canada and the US anyway, where the opportunity to attract new cachers through the app has been tapped. There was a surge, which included many people who didn't stick with the game.

    Until there is a new innovation that somehow taps into a different group of potential new cachers, we aren't going to see a surge like that again.

  7. 6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

    I think it's more significant if the number of finds are decreasing, rather then the number of hides.

    Around here, once the for-the-numbers geocachers finish up, there's not much in the way of finds.

    For example one of my traditional hides, walk in a nature area, D1/T2.5 got 40 finds in 2015 (it's first year of placement). 9 in 2016. 5 in 2017.

    Another similar traditional cache of ours, walk in the woods, D1.5/T2 got 57 finds in 2005 (first year), 51 finds in 2006, 29 finds in 2007, 37 finds in 2008.

    Hmmm. Maybe this is part of the problem.

    There are so many caches out there. But fewer people finding them. It's not so rewarding as a hider anymore. I know the few visits provide little incentive and today I got yet another log: 'Spent the day trying to find a bunch of multi/puzzles and yours was one of them, TFTC'. It just doesn't inspire or motivate me like it use to back in 2005.

    This analysis is flawed. You should compare similar new caches across time. Find frequency on individual caches naturally declines over time because people typically only find a cache once.

    • Upvote 3
  8. 2 hours ago, arisoft said:

    Area with many caches may not look interesting to place more caches for similar reasons when the powertrail draws attention. This does not have effect for new mystery caches as there is different game among them.

    An area with many caches shouldn't look interesting for cache placement... because it is already full of caches.

  9. 3 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

    That's normal for any town. You need rural roads in order to hide a trail effectively, otherwise you run into private property conflicts, plus the risk of interfering with traffic patterns. The only time I've seen power trails in town have been on bike and walking paths which are often surrounded by greenspace.

    So yeah, your comments about my area seem to contradict each other. I live in a large-ish city that is pretty cache saturated with caches. As I said before, that's going to inhibit cache placement even if the interest is there.

  10. 13 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

    I dunno, I still see a lot of roads in your area that are open for more power trails.

    If they were feasible for sustainable powertrail or other cache placements they would have gotten scooped up a few years ago when things were really hot. This area was very saturated with a highly active caching population and regular cache hiding events.

    I don't know where other users are located but in my area we don't see a lot of the roadside trails close to, or within, the city.

  11. 7 hours ago, arisoft said:

    I feel this different way. If I see a powertrail on some area, it makes the hole area uninteresting. This is some psychological phenomena. It is more satisfying to find the last cache from some area than the first one.

    How is this relevant to cache placement?

  12. On 03/11/2017 at 5:41 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

    Ooh!  I visited Niagara Falls in 1956!  Can I log it?  I'd ask my aunt if she had a picture of  me there, but she died in 1975...   :wacko:

    Since we are on the topic of ethics, is it ethical to make this kind of mean-spirited comment? Is this behaviour more ethical than logging a virtual geocache with the owner's permission?

  13. 24 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

    With the caveat that the owner still needs to follow guidelines and practice cache ownership within those guidelines.

    If the cache owner were to submit their virtual listing of Niagara Falls with the following description: "Anyone one can log a find. If you have ever visited this location at any time in your life, go ahead and log a find." The virtual would not be published. 

    Same goes for physical caches. If the owner decided that their missing cache can now be logged as found (essentially turn it into a Virtual cache) and stated so on their cache page, an alerted reviewer would disable/archive it. 

    Cache owners are always required to act according to the guidelines.

    This post is about virtual geocaches. No need to muddy the waters with more needless anxiety about hypothetical poor physical cache ownership.

×
×
  • Create New...