Jump to content

Sharks-N-Beans

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    1092
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sharks-N-Beans

  1. On a side note, when we made the trek to log a find on a local Jasmer, we realized that we had not found the current month and made a detour to be current. Thinking about it now, I don't think we would ever do the early note/find...OCD maybe.
  2. My guess is that some COs find these notes annoying and some do not. It's similar to the "took it to" log for travelers. Some tb owners like those and some hate them. You did mention that you did not read the entire description. Maybe that will be one of your key skims in the future. The knowledge books state: Not sure if don't assume means you will be successful having the notes reinstated.
  3. I think we have learned quite a bit by caching with just the compass on the Garmin. I've noticed my skills of getting out of bad situations when not caching are enhanced. There were two situations when we needed a map and didn't have one. The first was getting back to the car after finding a small series in a hilly wooded area in West Virginia. A trail map would have been great and saved some serious vertical mistakes. The second one was when we tried to get to the Ape cache in Sao Paulo. We didn't load the series of caches leading to the cache and never found the "unpaved road" leading to the Ape.
  4. Are you arguing that nearby finds is not a criterion to determine if a cache is remote enough to warrant leniency on documented maintenance? I thought we had agreeance that a check is in order for most caches except extreme cases. I meant that nearby finds (for caches within 5 miles) are not an argument to disable a cache on the sole basis of 1 DNF and the last find a longer time ago. I do not think that in this situation a check is in order for any such cache (of course there might exist cases where a single DNF can warrant a check). Whether a check can be done is a different issue. It also worries me that DNF logs I write in 2014 might have affects on the survival of caches in 2016 or 2017. When the lines of how the reviewers act, move constantly it is very hard to decide today how to act while not knowing the future. If I think that a check for a cache I visited might be in order (e.g. because I found the hideout shown on the spoiler picture empty) I write this in my DNF log. The majority of my DNF logs are just based on my failure to find a cache and often on the fact that I lose the motivation to search. I do not think that a cache check is any more in order if I happened to have visited a cache and happened to give up after 3 minutes than if no cacher visited the cache. I do not expect the poors owner of caches that for whichever reasons (be it location, length, required time, difficulty etc) gets few visits to set out and check them whenever a cacher like me shows up and logs a DNF due to not being motivated to spend a longer time with searching. The longer I think about this, the more I'm inclined to change my log behaviour too if a single DNF log can kill a cache or can cause the situation that the cache owners gets forced by a reviewer to go for a check. I do not want to be such a source of inconvenience. It also makes me wonder whether it made a difference to the reviewers if the DNF-er would add something like "I only searched for 3 minutes and then left. In my opinion, there is no need to check the cache. I guess the next visitor will be more successful. I tend to DNF caches that are right where they are supposed to be." Cezanne OK, I see the disconnect. You are focused on a DNF being the catalyst for archive. My point was that periodic owner maintenance (maybe just once a year) on the first cache would have prevented archive.
  5. That could well be, but is not really a criterion that should be used. I'm going to try to follow your thought. Are you arguing that nearby finds is not a criterion to determine if a cache is remote enough to warrant leniency on documented maintenance? I thought we had agreeance that a check is in order for most caches except extreme cases.
  6. In my opinion it depends on the cache. A cache that requires hours to reach should not be treated in the same way than an easily reachable cache. Most of those willing to go for such caches are not discouraged by the absence of finds for a long time or by a single DNF log (even less if it comes from someone they know to log DNfs frequently like e.g. myself). Such caches will always attract only a small audience and some will even find it more interesting and rewarding to go hunt for such a cache that long went unfound. cezanne, I agree that I would give some slack on certain caches, but not the first cache listed (only one I looked at). It's only a couple of km from a road and has been found on foot. My point was that maintenance checks are required and I would not grant this one the same lienency as say GC1EAM6 which does not have maintenance but at least an occasional check-in.
  7. Just my opinion, and I did not look at all of the linked caches other than the first one, if the CO had documented maintenance (confirmation)a few times over the years, this would not have been archived. The occasional maintenance is required. Why not document it to let everyone know it is still in play?
  8. If the reviewer didn't read the memo then how do you suppose the average cacher feels since we have no idea what is in these memos. I feel pretty average and am rather unconcerned with Groundspeak memos. On the other hand, I can see how some here would like to be in the know on issues that they will likely never encounter.
  9. This made me remember finding a cache with my son when he was about 13. Maybe I'm a bit hard on him, but he turned-out allright.
  10. Are you saying a grabber is a standard tool we all carry around with us? 'Cuz it's not. I say it is a standard tool as opposed to specialized. Whether we all carry one around...I doubt it. Now this is a picture of shark after descending from 60+ feet in a tree. See the light harness, pro-grade carabiners and rope? That's specialized.
  11. I think there needs to a compromise. If you e.g. need to do 20 very simple routine calculations, it still adds to the effort and increases the chances that someone makes a mistake. I neither would rate such a multi cache with 3* nor with 1* (even not if the hideout is in plain sight). Twenty stages is pretty extensive, but your example further convinces me that increasing D for quantity of stages is illogical. If a simple traditional is a D1 and a simple 2 stage should be D 1.5 just because it is a multi, then a 3 stage would be D2 and a 20 stage would be D 19.5. I would prefer to know that at each stage, I will be encountering something very simple (D1) and a comment regarding the number of stages. Edit to acknowledge my math error above, but the premise is the same with a 20 stage = D 10.5
  12. You apparently have multi caches with several physical containers in mind (such as your two caches). There I agree with you. However, in some European countries there is a large number of multi caches where all the stages before the final are virtual stages (question to answer). Sometimes there are 20 or even much more such virtual stages, all of which are however completely straightforward and where there is nothing to search, guess or whatever. I still think that trying to estimate the average time that is needed at these virtual stages is a reasonable approach for what to take into account for rating the difficulty of such multi caches apart from the difficulty which comes from searching for the final. In picture hunting caches the difficulty is mainly related in matching photos and reality - the difficulty hardly ever comes from finding the final container. There are many different kinds of multi caches. Those which are like yours, fit the idea of the Clayjar tool much better than multi caches with much more virtual elements. Cezanne I still think that if each stage is straightforward, increasing the D beyond the toughest stage gives the impression that it is too hard to complete. Where I disagree w/ the Clayjar approach is it ups the D for time. That can be handled w/ an attribute.
  13. These please, but no big deal if it doesn't happen: Chile 5 Antigua and Barbuda 5 Brazil 4 Guatemala 2
  14. Just an opinion on D ratings for multi's...Anything other than rating the cache based upon the most difficult stage defeats the intent of helping the finder anticipate whether they have the skill to get to the final.
  15. Brashell, Your post is a great example of the desired outcome of the intro app. The frustration depicted in this topic is driven by the unintended consequences of the app which are far more noticeable. No one ever comments 'hey that guy is a great geocacher and he started with the intro app'. Thanks for posting the other side of the story.
  16. And I understand that. I'm not saying that the response you received wasn't over the top. I was focused, somewhat off-topically, on the rating.
  17. Fifteen feet up a tree is not a T5 in many areas...T3.5 is actually about .5 high based upon my personal inability to grab most 3.5 climbs. I'm curious what is in the guidelines that brought you to the conclusion that tree climbs should be a T5.
  18. I find it much easier to glide across the rink than to walk around it. I would rate the walk around the rink a T1.
  19. A series of lookout towers could lend themselves to a multi or series where cachers bringing the right equipment (maybe laser pointer and binoculars) have an advantage for vertical while still utilizing coordinates to reach the next GZ.
  20. Have a fixed start and stop (maybe half hour) as the meet-up. Put in the description that the hike will begin thereafter. There is always a way, Cezanne. I would really enjoy the event as you describe. All too often, it is geocaching after the event. I really do not enjoy group geocaching. My brain struggles between talking and finding. I end up talking mostly and I think the others get annoyed.
  21. A good multi tops my list. My definition of good starts with location. A multi is uniquely capable of giving me multiple searching opportunities in a tight space. Some locations are just nice to visit and I would rather enjoy while also searching for creative hides.
  22. I just cannot accept that cachers who would have historically stayed for a extended period of time at an event are now just stopping in to say hello because they can. I do not believe they were historically required to stay for an extended period of time. I do not believe they participated in activities because they felt obligated. I do, however, believe that many cachers see events as "got my smiley" opportunities just like how they see caches. This is more a reflection of evolving caching culture than GS event crack-down.
  23. Having followed this thread, I now completely understand why GS feels compelled to step in and take a stand on event D rating.
  24. I would rate D1, but from the Help Center..."you alone are the best judge for rating your geocache".
×
×
  • Create New...