Bambi&Thumper

Hmmm.... Now, don't get me wrong, I really LOVE these coins, but I prefered the poinsettias. To be honest, being a Brit, I'm not fussed about sugar canes, but what I really prefered was the shape and symmetry of the previous version. Maybe you could do half of the six with poinettias and half with canes, or maybe put the canes somewhere else? Whatever, we're in for at least two sets! Bambi.

Ahhh. My situation is slightly different. Because I have internet at work, and only use the internet at home in the evenings really, I can dial into work for the cost of an evening local call. Haven't found any broadband provider who can do it cheeper, by a country mile, so we stick with this and accept that it is slow, but when we've sorted ourselves out with PQs and gone semi-paperless, we will only need internet for logging anyhow. Thanks for the advice though HH To be honest, what REALLY slows the page download down is people who upload photos for every log, since the new version of the page with the pop-up photo-links means you load the pictures at the same time as the page. However, since we are one of the worst offenders, we can't really complain! B.

I actually prefer the idea that caches that have a problem and the owner can't be contacted should be flagged with an adoption tag such that it appears on the search results list. The cache can then be adopted with the guidance/assistance of the reviewers, but the adoption procedure forces a "needs maintainance" attribute so that the new owner has to pay it a visit. This visit can either be an archive visit (with the option of replacement with a new cache) or just a normal maintainance visit. I saw in another thread that someone said "I adopted these caches and would hate to see them archived", presumably out of respect/responsibility to the original setter. Personally, I feel that with the arrival of a more automated system, we would also need to encourage an attitude of "if it's a good cache keep it/replace it, but if it's a lousy cache remove it and archive". I appreciate that this would generate more work for our esteemed reviewers, but personally I'd put the environment above publishing new caches so if it means fewer caches listed and/or a slower turn around, so be it. B. <The deer trots off into a lovely wooded glad, pauses to rethink, swiftly dons her fire suite, finds a bit of concrete jungle and ducks behind a large convenient boulder...>

If you reduce the size to something like a thumbnail it is seen, depends on the picture you want to use I suppose. I used them all the time when I was on dial up, (i've only been on broadband for a year). I never found it a problem. Sorry HH, they slow it down for us too B.

Huh? me? Err... can't generate those myself but.... /me runs off to GC:UK Most found UK 'cache' is YOSM - everyone shocked? no? As is well known the most found 'real' cache is Last Delivery Outside London, you have to go to number fifteen in the list for Stonehenge Those and the rest of the caches found more that 100 times (582 in total) can be found here. Thanks! I knew you wouldn't let us down!!! Congratulations on being the least congratulated cachers on the forum. B.

Very true, but people who think about stuff like this will probably (hopefully) archive thier caches, especially since the reason they are leaving is probably political/moral and they want to take "their contribution" somewhere else. The people we are targetting here are the "one-cache-wonders" who find a dozen, place one and then give up. There seems to be a flaw with this concept in that; If the owner can not be contacted and the cache is archived by the reviewer, then the physical cache still remains in the landscape, and as such is litter or trash, something which I thought geocaching was opposed to and certainly breaks GAGB guidelines i.e. no responsible contact etc. My point exactly! This is all very well, but there are a couple of points. Yes, there are some good souls who will go and collect, but since (I think) you can't log archived caches you don't get credit for finding them on the site, which doesn't exactly encourage people to participate. Remember the "Dust-off" project - what happened to that? Secondly, many people don't want to complicate things by feeling obliged to go and hunt caches that are unpleasant to find. Also, you have to spot that the cache has been archived in the first place. Fact is, many people won't think about this and it wouldn't be a priority if they did. I agree, but what about the rubbish that is left behind? Maybe, instead of well meaning people like you (and us) doing cache maintainance on dying caches like this, we need to collect them and report that we have done this and offer to post the bits to the owner. The problem with this is that it's impossible to tell whether a cacher is active and people will get offended if you go round and collect their caches and post them to them, hmmm, maybe there is a new game here, post-caching! Seriously, I don't see a solution, except to encourage reviewers to force adoption where possible. Unfortunately, if the issue of abandoned caches becomes a problem, it will not encourage landowners, especially the larger ones, to be sympathetic to our hobby. B.

I agree with this statement. I think we have gone way to far on adoptions. It should be reserved for those special or historic caches. Otherwise... archive it, let someone else put a new one in and then we can all go find it. I agree with this ideal too; we don't want to encourage bad caches to hang around longer than their natural lifetime. What bothers me more though, is that as CrazyL200 says, caches are archived with no consideration for the cache-litter that is left behind. By adopting, someone else becomes responsible for the cache and can then archive/replace at their leisure. B.

When did this happen? This strikes me as a really bad idea, because what will happen is that more caches will get abandoned and become litter. When a cache is adopted, the owner has the right to archive it and then create another in the same location or nearby, will hopefully remove the old one, but if a cache is just archived for an absent owner, no-one is likely to go and clear up the rubbish. Increased rubbish like this will increase the amount of negative publicity our hobby gets which is a bad thing. I think GC.com has a duty to the environment to consider the consequences of this action and come up with a better idea, like a structured adoption system. (See this thread for my thoughts on the subject elsewhere; any support comments etc greatly appreciated). B.

Thanks - We like you too!! B.

240 is a lot of finds! Anybody know which cache has the most finds in the UK? Is this one of the really old caches, or is it a MM one? <Looks over shoulder for Rutson to come steaming in with some interesting stats...> Problem is though, IMHO lots of caches get a lot of visitors because they are easy drive-bys not because they are "quality caches". So, although considering "placers" rather than "finders" is a great idea, I'm not so sure that you would really be congratulating people for "the right caches". B. PS No one has EVER congratulated us for anything on the forum - maybe it's just 'cos nobody likes us

Well, we've done a few caches caches round that area and it all depends on what sort of caches you like. Do a search for DL8 4xx and drop us a line if there are any you fancy the look of and we'll give you an indication of what it's like. Just for the record though, starters for ten include: Addlebrough by Greenmantle (GCPBRZ) - If you like a bit of a walk and don't mind quite a steep climb In View of Penhill by country2steppers (GCTEME) and Wensleydale View by Greenmantle (GCG0HK) - If you like drive bys and views (one is really close the other a bit under half a mile away with a walk round a quarry and a spectacular view) Aysgarth Falls by The Northumbrian (GC388A) - But go on a week day rather than a sunny Saturday unless you like the challenge of dodging the muggles Druids' Temple (N. Yorks) by Uncle Bulgaria & Rufus (GCA1C5) - If you like a gentle stroll with something of interest on the way The Monkey House (N. Yorks) by Uncle Bulgaria (GCA1C7) - A nice easy virtual, but very strange Mill Gill by Apothecary (GCKB3Q) - Nice walk (distance depends on where you park), but lovely spot Fremington Edge ( Yorkshire dales ) by Postie (GCGWPX) - We loved this one, but because we are cowards we walked up the easy way! Oxnop Scar by Greenmantle (GCG0HX) - 'Nother drive by These are not the only good caches in the area, but are the ones we've done that we enjoyed, but that's all coloured by what you like and conditions (like who's with you and the weather!). Most of the caches round there that we've done have been highly enjoyable, if you like the description, you almost certainly won't be disappointed. Bambi.

It's true, Virtuals are very subjective and not all of them are historical, but I'm guessing that many people (most?) would accept more stringent rules to bring them back. With an educational element and a third party to assess the quality (or maybe several third parties, a historical scociety was only a suggestion, you could also include science and art societies for example), they could work again and add a valuable element to caching in the same way that Earth Caches do. I appreciate that in doing this perhaps people will think this detracts from WMing, but that is a different game and the logging requirements are different. My perception is that WMing is much less regimented, and more free-flowing game (perhaps another reason why Earth Caches fit in to GC.com), but some people prefer to have some boundaries (perhaps that's my Britishness coming out ). You and me both! B.

Definitely, but markandlynn said: So I came up with an alternative suggestion. Not that I could see when I wondered over there, but that was a few hours ago... B.

robert, We have done a little bit of WMing, and like you, I think locationless type caches are handled better on WM.com. At the moment we find the site hard to negociate, but that's just teething difficulties; more fundamentally we just don't find that it's something that really inspires us. Don't get me wrong, unlike some others, we've never had a problem with the setting up of WM.com, we just objected to the "virtuals are broken, lets move them" attitude, as that detracted from GC.com and the game we love. We always liked the variety that Virtuals, Webcams and Earth caches brought to caching; Sure, some are virtuals lame, but so are some trads/puzzles/multis etc. and you learn to spot them by reading the notes. I now feel that virtuals could be "fixed" by getting some historical type organisations to carry out the same function as the GSA do for Earth caches. Given this solution, I see no reason why WM can't exist as it is now (and containing Earth WMs) while caching goes on much as before. That way, you satisfy both caching and WMing worlds. I'm sure that there is a very valid reason and I think it's probably funding related somehow. However, I hope that Earth Caches won't be shunted back as soon as that reason (whatever it is) goes away, as that just messes everyone about. Meanwhile, we are already working on a new Earth Cache and hope to place it as soon as possible, so we are looking forward to a formal announcement about this matter. B.

Just trying to point out that you couldn't do this before someone tried! B.

Can't relog TBs in any case, as it would screw up the distances and leave them in the wrong place (supposing you'd kept the codes of course...) Bambi.

Wouldn't it make more sense if this "expiry" was tied into access to the site? I mean, wouldn't it be better if regular PQs expired if someone hadn't accessed the site for a month, on the grounds that if they hadn't visited then they haven't logged/done a cache, so they don't need regular updates? Just a thought... B. <The deer wonders off to see if there's a thread about this on the website forum...>

I really like this description, and perhaps it explains why we aren't that fussed about WM - We don't get that excited about being the first to do something (in 250+ caches only 6 FTF) and don't get much pleasure out of "claiming somewhere". The explanation we had as the difference between normal and locationless caches was that one is "forward lookup" (get the coords and go find something) and the other is "reverse lookup" (go find something and post the coords). I think I like your explanation more though as it reflects the "emotion" better and explains completely our general feeling that it's not for us. I still don't understand why we can't have ECs, virtuals and Web Cams listed on both sites. If WM is going to be such a success, then we should be able to fix ECs and virtuals and return them to GC.com and then allow WM to grow organically and have it's own entity, while GC does the same. Some places could appear on both, possibly even with different requirements, but this is only like some caches that I've heard of that are listed on the letterboxing site as well as on GC.com (or benchmarks that are listed on one, two or more sites). That way, the two sports would be truly independent. You could still have a universal "Groundspeak Profile" listing all finds/hides/WMs/whatever else they decide to do, but within that you would have two (or more) entirely separate games. B.

For those who don't know which pub you guys drink at, how does one go about doing this? B.

As cachers, we are thrilled that ECs will be returning to GC.com and really look forward to placing some. From our perspective, we'd prefer it if Virts could return too and I feel that if making them more educational is the answer, I'd be happy to have them back in a new form with more stringent requirements. To be honest, I don't see why a third party assessing the quality of caches wasn't proposed as a solution when Virts were originally deemed to be "broken". I can see how Earth Caches/Virts etc fit into WM and understand how WM is still in development and therefore has few users, has little functionality and is a long way from being "user-friendly". I'm not moaning, these things take time, but as Tozainamboku says, there is still work to do before people are enthusiastic. As for the prediction that the GSA will be able to reach more people through WM than through caching, that remains to be seen; judging by the number of people here in the UK who are agressively uninterested, I have my doubts, but am happy to wait until I'm proved wrong. B.

Perhaps the reason behind the original fact that Virtuals were "broken" but Earth Caches weren't is that there was an independent body considering the validity of each cache. Maybe if a historical society were as involved in the placement of Virtuals as the Geological Society of America are with Earth Caches, it would solve the problem? Or maybe we need a new cache type for historical caches... Just a thought... Bambi.

England, Wales and Scotland are all actually countries not states. The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is a nation and not a country, but that is not relevant here. I saw the badges the other day and thought about this since we have found three Earth caches. However, I suspect that the states/countries are those listed on GC.com, so since England, Wales and Scotland are all the same "Country" (United Kingdom) I'm guessing it wouldn't count. If I'm wrong though, please let me know... B.

Exactly! I just think it's much neater. I don't mind when a series has a different icon for each (especially if they all come together in the list like the puzzle coins), what I object to is a change of heart halfway through the series because you loose the feel of the series. Maybe I'm alone and/or just fussy, but that's the way I feel. Any other voters? B.

I know, but unless I've got it very wrong, you can release more coins under the OLD category. Like making more, say, mountainbike or bikedog coins, in fact, I think it was done with the second run of Hoxie Scout coins. The first two Seven Summit coins have the same category, I'm just saying, I'd prefer the rest to be the same category as well. B.

Actually. that wasn't quite what I meant. What I meant was I'd prefer it if it fell in the same category as the other two, so that all three would appear together on the stats page and have the same icon etc... That's my vote anyhow! B.