Jump to content

MrCJDL

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MrCJDL

  1. Interesting responses, and kinda of what I thought to be honest... I too will do 'small' repairs/favours, such as drying out a damp cache or replacing a logbook... but I wouldn't go much further than that due to exactly what many of you have said: it would create lazy cache owners. I must admit that I've felt like flagging one or 2 as NA, but didn't as I felt bad about it - maybe the point that people are 'scared' to apply an NA log is valid ? But why ? Also, I do feel it's a shame that some caches at 'great spots' will no longer be there... but as has rightly been said, given that it's such as good spot - someone else who WILL maintain it can place a new cache. This makes me feel better :-)
  2. Hi all, Firstly, please excuse the rant... but it's constructive Secondly, I haven't been a cacher for all that long... but I've been doing it long enough to know how it works, what is 'right' and what is not. However, I am sure there area few flaws in my argument below, I look forward to debating them One of the things that irritates me (and many others, it seems) is poor cache maintenance. it seems to be that the 'Needs Maintenance' icon doesn't seem to have much of a point... many times it gets ignored, or sometimes it gets left there after maintenance has been performed by another cacher (E.g., log/pen replaced). Sometimes the only way to see if a cache is still there / in a half-decent condition is to read the previous logs. Regarding the 'needs maintenance' icon, at first if I saw this, it would put me off and I would pretty much overlook the cache (how many others do this)... but it then became clear to me that sometimes a) The C/O has left the NM icon there even though cache no longer needs maintained... or it was flagged as NM for a reason that is no longer valid, or has since been fixed by someone other than the C/O - in which case the icon can't be removed. So, now I don't just ignore NM caches... I read the logs carefully, and if it seems like all is well, I'll go for it. On the flip side of the coin, how often have you got there and found a waterlogged container, full of soggy and/or rusty(!!) junk ? I read a DNF log recently which said "Got to GZ and couldn't find it... searched for 30 mins" etc etc... the next was a found log which read "Found pieces of a lid with a Geocache sticker attached, no log..." etc etc. This had been flagged as needs maintenance for quite some time, but the C/O hadn't responded/acted - sure it could have been flagged as 'needs archived', except this could actually be an exceptional cache if someone would just maintain it ! Sometimes the C/O might be away for a while, sometimes they might have given up on the game, or maybe moved away and haven't had anyone adopt their cache... or maybe they just can't be bothered ? Who knows... but the amount of long-term NM caches, certainly around my location, is starting to get a bit ridiculous. Now, for the suggestion. We have a network of volunteer reviewers... how about we put together a network of volunteer maintainers and/or adopters ? At the moment, the needs maintenance logs get flagged to the C/O, surely there would be a way to also flag them to a volunteer maintainer, or have it added to a queue... this could be followed up on with the C/O after a week or so by a 'nearby' maintainer/adopter... and if there was no response the maintainer could go and do the maintenance - or if someone else has already done it, e.g. replaced log/pencil, they can remove the icon - they could also adopt the cache (even temporarily) if it is apparent that the C/O is MIA. Along with the clear benefits this would have to the game & the community, I can see only 2 drawbacks to this suggestion: a) Sure replacing logs / cache notes / pencils is cheap.... but containers ? How would these 'maintainers' be compensated, or given the 'volunteer' status, would that even be necessary ? This could encourage C/Os to not bother maintaining their cache, with the thought that someone else will do it for them if left long enough. It's this last point that bothers me, and I can't really think of any reasonable solutions to that - other than perhaps flagging it for archival after 2/3 'repairs'. Anyways, thanks for reading / listening / whatever - I look forward to reading your thoughts/comments ? Cheers, Chris.
  3. Interesting. Cache Found/logged 1 July 2011 It's a 'phone only' user... Out of interest, what exactly is wrong with that ? I, and countless others, use my phone as primary device (albeit I do use the website very regularly too)... indeed I don't have a GPSr - why spend the ££ on that when I have a device that functions perfectly well ? I read that as if it was said with a tone of distain ? Please, correct me if this was not the intention... but the suggestion that 'phone cachers' are in some way inferior bothers me. I also don't see how that bears any relevance whatsoever to this unfortunate incident. Chris.
  4. Admittedly, I didn't quite read the whole KB... but thanks. Although, with 14000+ posts and nearly 9 years service (happy 9th anniversary in a few days BTW :-) ) You guys prob know the KB off by heart Thanks again for the advice ! Chris.
  5. Hmmmm.... have you been to this page: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/ On the right had side, right at the top, is a rather large box of text that addresses the first-time hider. It clearly states the link to the Guidelines. It's right above the link to the cache submission form. And at the bottom of the page at http://www.geocaching.com/seek/ is the link to the Knowledge Books: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb Yup have read the guidelines from start to finish, and have looked at the KB - nowhere, that I have found, does it tell you how far it's acceptable to move an existing cache. Unless I'm blind ? The 528ft figure seems to come from the minimum separation distance in the saturation guidelines. No ? @Harry... Those are peeps ? Thanks for all of the replies, and I agree. Cache now archived, and new one will be submitted in a couple of days once I have changed the old cache label and replace the log. Regards, Chris.
  6. Ah... never thought of that... it's technically the same area (along a long distance footpath) but point taken that yes the terrain and GZ are indeed pretty different to the original. Thanks peeps
  7. Hi peeps, forum n00b here.... i tried searching, but it doesn't seem to be too intuitive, so here I am I've temporarily disabled one of my caches as I was checking on it the other day and found that the landowner has been doing some clearing and has taken away a lot of the undergrowth... so the cache was just lying out in the open (at least it was left there !!) – even if I was to stash it again, GZ will still be in plain sight. Anyways, the rest of the immediate area is either fenced in, or marshland... so I moved the cache to another similar location around a mile or so away but apparently this is 'too far' away from the original location. I've looked and looked but I cannot find any guidelines as to how far it can be moved. Does anyone know ? As suggested, I've sent a note to my local reviewer, but he/she hasn't been online in nearly a month... would I be better off contacting GS, or just archiving it and starting again ? New location is unmanaged moorland, so will be unlikely to ever be disturbed or need moved. Thanks, Chris.
×
×
  • Create New...