B+L
-
Posts
545 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by B+L
-
-
What this means is that everyone that found Lizzy's cache is already qualified to find and log a new county challenge cache.
Possibly. The way we read the guidelines, caches archived prior to the start date of a challenge could not be used.
We've never officially been working on Lizzy's challenge, but we have used it as sort of an vague goal setting device and usually think about it when we are travelling. Even so, we can be added to the list of people applauding Lizzy's efforts over the years. A challenge cache liker hers is a real challenge to maintain and we admire her for doing it.
-
My girlfriend and I found out last second that we both were able to take this week off (Mon-Fri). We live in Bellevue. Airfare everywhere was too expensive last-minute so we decided to rent a condo in Leavenworth, WA. We'll be there all week and plan to do some hiking/geocaching. Anyone have any recommended trails we should check out while we are in the area?
Colchuck Lake or Eightmile Lakes, and Wedge Mountain are all excellent hikes (the upper road to Wedge is pretty much high-clearance vehicle only). Big Beaver Hill and Sugarloaf are shorter hikes, but have a good payoffs. Alpine Lookout on Nason Ridge is almost guaranteed to have goats, but also plenty of bugs. Rock mountain via Snowy Creek is also a good one.
-
Bringing this back from the dead to show how 10 years changes things!!
Yeah, back then it wasn't possible to exhume threads that had been dead for ten years.
-
There is a shorter way but it's not for the faint of heart or the family Prius. You can park just below Wonkatania or Living on the Edge and bushwack your way straight up the hill, but again not for the faint of heart and the road is not for the family sedan.
Shorter is going to be much slower. Take the Mt. Margaret trail from the trailhead to the ridge top where there is a signed junction. Left goes to Mt. Margaret and Lake Lillian. Straight ahead to Margaret Lake. To the right is a fainter boot path along the ridge that goes towards the cache. Some people start bushwhacking when they get directly below the cache, but it's not saving them any time.
Bring plenty of water.
-
That is correct, my bad, a Forest Pass is required. Still, no signage even though other forest pass required sites do have signs. There is something wrong in not having signs at one of the most, if not the most, used sites requiring the pass.
That's why we usually check first. Signs are nice, but some people think disposing of them is a way to skip out on needing a pass.
I could see that happening and I've seen a few torn down. Though I don't think that is the case at Snow Lake Trailhead.
I also think that list is far from complete; for example, Mailbox TH is not on there, nor trailheads for Green Mt and Mt Bessemer, all which are just along the Snoqualmie Middle Fork road. All of these are signed too.
I'm fine with the list being incomplete as long as it does have all the places that do not have signs.
-
That is correct, my bad, a Forest Pass is required. Still, no signage even though other forest pass required sites do have signs. There is something wrong in not having signs at one of the most, if not the most, used sites requiring the pass.
That's why we usually check first. Signs are nice, but some people think disposing of them is a way to skip out on needing a pass.
-
Their site, their rules, their choice.
But not their game. Except it is. In a game where exceptions are the only rule, it is possible to have your cake and eat it too. Or perhaps more appropriately for this thread: wasch mich, aber mach mich nicht naß.
-
The trail is still open and Pilchuck is a really nice hike even if you can't go inside the lookout itself. Plus, Purgatory was spruced up recently. The Big Four ice caves not being melted out yet might be a bigger concern, if seeing the caves is a goal for the people making that trek.
-
Thank you Mr. Hoyle for expounding on the rules and what is acceptable. I care neither for your opinions on golf or on geocaching. If someone is having fun and they are not interfering with the play of others, it's good for me.
We all know the only thing you really care about is listening to yourself prattle on endlessly about knickers twisting. Unintentional irony seems to be a specialty in these forums. Carry on.
-
These are just many examples where they could be construed as technical violations but maybe not or maybe we don't care. Same as golf. I am hitting my ball and putting it into the hole or maybe taking the 4 foot gimme and recording the score. Not in a competition. Should I get flamed by fellow golfers for rule infractions?
Just some thoughts on how I think at times golf and geocaching could be the same.
Everything you describe, with the possible exceptions of PAF and taking turns would probably be acceptable to most people. A gimmee is generally considered to be a "can't miss" putt, but if you are playing in a group where everyone has agreed that anything within a club length, or four feet, or whatever is acceptable, then so be it. Just don't expect that everyone you might play with will always be agreeable to such a loose definition. And if you are marking your card according to what you are happy with rather than your actual score, you could have a credibility problem, especially if you brag about your alleged score in the clubhouse.
-
OK, but at some point the threshold between what they'd like to think they are doing, playing golf, and what they are actually doing, playing make-believe, is crossed.
Only from the point of view of someone looking at golf as a sport defined by its rules rather than a fun activity involving clubs, balls, and holes.
The fun activity involving clubs, balls and holes is fine for little kids. Like geocaching, golf is a really simple game and not all all difficult to play within the rules. But apparently it is more important to a lot of people to manage their frustrations than it is to actually play the game.
The important question is when it makes any difference to you if some other golfer does something you'd consider cheating. The only time I can think of is when you are measuring yourself against their score in some manner, and in those cases I can see you'd have a valid objection. I think this is the same consideration that can focus us on what's really important to make rules about in geocaching.
Because there is money riding on the game? No pun intended, but it is a safe bet that other people's scores do matter. If not, I wonder why golf bothers with scorecards and handicapping?
You are correct that many people could care less, but that's a big part of why terms like duffers and hackers are commonly used.
Really? I always thought those terms applied to someone that plays badly regardless of how closely they follow the rules. Although I suppose "real golfers" would typically prefer duffers and hackers not follow the rules, since they play so much slower when they do.
Duffers are just mediocre golfers, e.g. most golfers. Hackers is more of a derogatory term reserved for people who could care less.
-
OK, that's a fair point. I'm sorry I misrepresented you. What I should have said is that you act like no one accepts such things, when, in fact, many golfers could care less.
OK, but at some point the threshold between what they'd like to think they are doing, playing golf, and what they are actually doing, playing make-believe, is crossed. You are correct that many people could care less, but that's a big part of why terms like duffers and hackers are commonly used.
-
Minigolf is like what geocaching would be without a proximity rule. Maybe someone should start a site for Minicaching.
-
Wow, it's as if you've never played golf. You act as if every round of golf is high stakes, while, in fact, many people feel there are no stakes at all beyond the risk of personal frustration, something that's easily reduced by doing exactly what you're claiming no one does.
What's nonsense is twisting "usually not well received" and "considered poor form" into saying I'm claiming no one does something. Apparently you've never played golf with anyone who takes it seriously enough go beyond merely pretending they are playing golf. A foot wedge is a very useful tool for "reducing frustration", but using one is widely considered to be cheating by anyone who has any respect for the game, or themselves.
Only keeping accurate scores on holes one does well on? That's perfect. Why bother keeping an accurate score unless you like it? That sounds exactly like the logging practices of some geocachers.
-
It's not uncommon for golfers to do a little on course wagering, so it is not usually well received if one is caught deviating from the agreed upon format. Even when informal rules such as mulligans and gimmes are the norm, it is considered poor form to push the limits. Taking a gimme on a four foot putt is not going to make you any new friends. No matter how loosely the rules are followed, keeping an accurate scorecard is a basic expectation. When golfers start awarding themselves gimmees just for driving a cart on the fairway and "forgetting" strokes whenever it suites them, then golf and geocaching will have a lot more in common.
-
Come on fellas. This thread is for discussing strange things, not armchair quarterbacking what someone else did or did not do. Let's stick to the topic before we give our moderators croup.
-
Summit registers are being stolen across the Sierras. Like the missing I-90 corridor caches, so far no one has claimed responsibility and their motives remain unknown.
-
Then they point to Dave and say "Dave said", when in fact Dave never imagined a score and never defined "find".
Perhaps that's because the definition of "find" is blindingly obvious. There is no need to define something that is self-evident to everyone but those suffering from intractable obstreperousness. When Dave formalized the game in the first FAQ, he said this:
Even after the Great Asteroid Impact of year 4023 when mosteveryone died, your stash and its location could survive.
Archeologists of the year 16428 may find a disk with a list of
stash coordinates. Once decoded, the stash hunt is on again.
Lets just hope they do the right thing:
1. Take something from the stash
2. Leave something in the stash
3. Write about it in the logbook
Stashed in Perpetuity !
Here's what Dave thought of the way things turned out a only a year later:
What right do you geocacher's have to place a cache anywhere if youdon't have permission of the landowner?
I'll bet most caches have no permission.. that's irresponsible!
-
I once found a drug dealers kit stashed in a shrub line in neighborhood over in the Sammamish area. At first I thought it was the cache thinking 'wow, what a nice case,' and it was, black, about the size of a small ammo can, it looked a lot a mini version of those boxes that are used for music concerts with a couple of foldout shelves in it like a tackle box.
We once saw a very odd mannequin in a storefront window. It was in the form of a naked pregnant woman, colored light blue, covered from head to toe in red lipstick kisses and wearing a helmet. We thought that was about the oddest thing we'd ever seen until we cut through a nearby alley into a parking lot where we came upon a woman who appeared to be someone's white-haired Grandmother, complete with puff paint sweatshirt. It was a drizzly night and she was standing in the shelter of a large window air conditioner unit along with two men. She was proffering an open case, very similar to the one you are describing. When we appeared from around the corner, she hesitated and eyed us over her reading glasses for a moment until she decided we were harmless and then turned her attention back to the two men. We did not linger to find out what the deal was, so to speak.
A little while later, we were a few blocks away and saw a man pushing a bicycle and carrying several frying pans of various sizes. A car approached and he leaned the bicycle up against a telephone pole, set the pans down next to it and hopped into the car, which drove off leaving his stuff just sitting there. The driver of the car appeared to be the same woman we had just seen with the case. Nocturnal urban wildlife is often pretty strange.
-
A quote from back in the early days:
Have any of you thought about the fact that you are littering every time you leave a cache? This is a pretty disgusting "sport".
So then is building a fence in the woods litter?
How about an information kiosk?
How about an information sign?
A bench for a rest?
Is anything placed in the woods litter?
Then how about geocaches in the city?
Wiki:
Litter consists of waste products that have been disposed of improperly, without consent, in an inappropriate location. Litter can also be used as a verb. To litter means to throw (often man-made) objects onto the ground and leave them as opposed to disposing of them properly. While most litter is associated with containers, wrappers and paper product; dumped items may include furniture, appliances (white goods), old electronics (e-waste), abandoned vehicles or construction materials. These categories of waste often contain hazardous materials. The distinction between littering and illegal dumping is sometimes defined by volume [1] or the location of the disposed of waste.[2] Illegally dumped items containing hazardous waste can harm the environment and have a potentially negative impact on human health.
These are not waste products, we are not disposing them inappropriately, where appropriate we have gotten consent, and they are in appropriate locations.
That last is probably what they take issue with: whether the location is appropriate or not.
You can't see it, it's not being disposed of, but used as a game piece, it's not litter. We're still using it so it can't be litter.
They're removed when we're done with the game.
If they weren't removed when we are done, then it would be litter then, at that point.
You mis-attributed your quote. Shaddow did not write it. I did. I never said I thought geocaches were litter, I quoted someone who did. Unfortunately, they'd probably find your arguments to be mostly irrelevant and completely unpersuasive.
-
When your reviewer asks you to remove something from your listing because it violates a guideline, and you restore the deleted content post-publication, I think permanent archival sends a clear message.
It sends a clear message all right, but not necessarily the one that was intended.
-
I think we are beyond the stage of it being 'a rumor' that there is an active cache thief working the I90 corridor and taking mostly easy access trail related caches but also those along the length of some trails (GCD, Rattlesnake). If not motivated by anger or retaliation (right?) than it must be a do-gooder. I can't think of any other reason these specific caches would repeatedly go missing. Also extremely odd in my book that the individual(s) have not let their reasons be known (right?). I would expect it to be similar to the do-gooder along the HW2 corridor who she has voiced her reasons and demands very clearly; and thankfully her actions are focused one cache right now rather than going about it half random shotgun style.
There's no reason for them to say anything, unless they want the attention or they are trying to goad people. I can see how some people might think they have as much right to take caches as we do to place them. I'm actually surprised this kind of thing has not happened more frequently.
A quote from back in the early days:
Have any of you thought about the fact that you are littering every time you leave a cache? This is a pretty disgusting "sport".
-
And putting everybody who doesn't agree with you in some group with a derogatory title ("puritan", "control freak owner", etc.) is an even bigger indicator, and has gotten tiresome.
Mr. Namboku's use of such pejoratives apparently predates the forum guidelines and his name-calling has been grandfathered.
B+L's mangling of my name and trying to make this about some terms I use, instead of arguing the points is what is getting tiresome.
I'm not interested in arguing with you. I was merely commenting on The Jester's point. It is something of a mystery why you continue to be allowed to call people names. But do go ahead and use me as an excuse to keep it up. No one really expects anything different from you after all this time. TLDR; but I'm betting that you've failed to actually explain why you call people puritans and control freaks.
-
And putting everybody who doesn't agree with you in some group with a derogatory title ("puritan", "control freak owner", etc.) is an even bigger indicator, and has gotten tiresome.
Mr. Namboku's use of such pejoratives apparently predates the forum guidelines and his name-calling has been grandfathered.
Monte Cristo in Danger?
in Northwest
Posted
There is actually a consensus view of the meddlesome Mr. Lidar. Unfortunately, it can't be repeated here. Like most gadflies, he's fond of his hyperbole.