justintim1999
-
Posts
2427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by justintim1999
-
-
False found logs can have a negative impact on the game and as a cache owner it is my responsibility to delete logs I believe are bogus, but I don't go out of my way to track these people down and expose them publicly. I think these people are such a small part of the game that their actions are largely insignificant. It's true, honesty and integrity are very important. I choose to invest my time on more important things than tracking down false loggers.
They have 40,000 finds and I have a lifetime of memories. The real tragedy here is the time wasted (on both sides) obsessing about something that really doesn't mean very much.
-
.png)
6
-
-
12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
The National Parks and Wildlife Service is a state government department. I very much doubt there was any sort of public forum when they banned all geocaches from their lands in 2002, it would've just been the stroke of a pen by a bureaucrat. Likewise in 2010 when they introduced their current policy allowing some placing of caches. I can't imagine any level of government here being overly swayed by public meetings as those are too easily tilted by the vocal minority.
Reading the OP I find it odd that the request was to move the cache out of the Nature Preserve. Why not ask that the cache be moved to a safer location? When I contacted them the first thing I'd have asked is would it be ok to move the cache to a safer location inside the preserve? If the answer was "No, we'd prefer they be removed completely from the area." That's exactly what I'd do. No more questions asked.
Here the Department of Conservation and Recreation have meetings that are open to the public. You can also sign up for e-mail notices regarding meetings and current projects as well as request public records. I have no idea how or why this decision was made. For the most part these are knowledgeable people who's sole purpose is to protect the land and it's wildlife. If they feel that geocaching is detrimental to that goal, I respect that and will comply with their wishes with a smile on my face.
I happen to believe that geocaching is a great way to re-connect people with nature and with any luck some of them will develop an interest in conservation. It's too bad that this particular institution doesn't share this view. The fact remains that the decision has been made. How we respond as cache owners will go a long way toward how others perceive Geocaching.
-
1 minute ago, Stakmaster said:
I don't necessarily hate them, but I do value them far less than any other cache. I could talk about them for a while but I guess I'll just sum it up.
-I remember almost none of the micros I have found. Meanwhile I could talk for hours about interesting small to medium caches I found and the memories I made searching for them.
-When looking for normal sized caches I generally expect the journey to be the majority of the fun, and the actual hunt to be somewhere between leisurely to moderate. When hunting for micros I know I will be scouring around for 10-20 minutes for something minuscule. Not a particularly fun prospect.
-Some people "micro-bomb" an area, placing tens of them all over an area in a wide radius. I have a fair few problems with this. Due to the proximity rule it cuts off large areas where larger, more deliberate caches could be placed. When one cacher drops 20 micros in an area, I feel 1/20th of the accomplishment in finding them, and it becomes a chore. No matter how much effort it may have taken to place them all, it appears lazy when that's all they hide and they're all over one area. Plus, finding nothing but micros over and over again gets boring!
-I feel excitement and happiness and anticipation when I find a normal sized geocache. I feel nothing when I find a microcache. "Well, there it is." You could probably analyze that further but generally speaking I just have no fun finding them anymore.
That's the problem. Cache owners usually don't take the time to make their micro hides memorable.
If your ever in New England look me up. I'll show you some micro hides that will blow your mind.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, noncentric said:
If you think it won't be messed with by muggles, then maybe a small birdhouse hung from a tree branch with a container inside the house to hold the logsheet. Be sure to cover the 'door' though, so birds do not try to make a home inside.
Yes. Sometimes making a creative container to hold the ordinary bison tube can be a really good idea. Not only will it be unique but a container inside a container will weather much better.
Let your imagination run wild.
-
56 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
In a "respectable manor"... very different picture being envisioned right now, one at which I wouldn't mind spending a weekend! =) Sorry, off topic, but had to say something, hehe.
My spelling is horrable
-
10 hours ago, Michaelcycle said:
I can assure you that no open meeting was held when the decision was taken by DEP to require the removal of hundreds of geocaches on public land in New Jersey.
I find that hard to believe but if so it doesn't really matter anyway. Public land doesn't mean the public can do whatever they want on it. In fact public land usually has more restrictions due to town and state liability. If the DEP manages the property and they've decided geocaching is no longer allowed, than that's that. You can accept it and leave on good terms or you can go kicking and screaming. Either way your going so why not do it in a respectable manor?
-
Just now, noncentric said:
And, unfortunately, this cache shows that just because a CO is active and responsive, that may not be such a great outcome either. This CO's response could've been more damaging to the hobby than no response at all, but hopefully no one from the National Parks saw the TD log that was posted before TPTB removed it.
Your right on the money. Sometimes we forget that we're guest in someone else's home.
-
2 hours ago, Michaelcycle said:
No, Harry. It is our property. They manage it for us, they do not own it. Whether they make good decisions about land use is open to discussion. All I ask is that public land managers get input from the parties concerned before making ill-informed decisions. There are managers that allow rock climbing in their jurisdictions while others forbid tree climbing. It is impossible to make everyone happy. Again, all I ask is for the opportunity to have input.
In this case that opportunity, if it existed, was thrown away by the CO.
Our town abides by the open meeting law. All meetings are posted and anyone is welcome to attend. It's at these meetings we discuss land conservation, management and possible activities in which the land can be used. We've had people disagree with some of the decisions we've made, people who have never attended a single meeting. Of course you get the few locals that were previously using the property to ride their ATV's and are now upset that they no longer can. That's understandable to a point. My response to them is always the same. "The citizens of the town voted, on a ballet, to purchase the land and protect it as open space for the use of everyone now and in the future. It was decided in an open meeting that ATV's would be prohibited. All voted in favor with no further discussion."
My point is I'm quite sure that any decision to prohibit geocaching on public land was held in a public forum. That would have been the time to voice an opposition. No one is going to stop a meeting and say "Hey, did anyone call justintim1999 and ask him what he thinks?" It's up to us to get involved in the process or live with the decisions others make.
-
9 hours ago, noncentric said:
Personally, I am shocked by what the OP put in their Temp Disable log. With that type of attitude, I'm not sure why the cache wasn't just Archived instead of Disabled. It certainly doesn't seem that the OP is open to working with their National Parks department, and it would not be surprising if the National Parks department decides not to work with any geocachers in the future based on the OP's comments.
Society certainly is doomed if people cannot be civil with each other. If someone is politely asked to move their cache from it's location, and then reacts as did the OP, then perhaps they are the ones that need to be wrapped in cotton wool?
When your cache is gone, then you'll need to "Archive" it, not just "Temporarily Disable" it.
It's sad that a cache owner would take that approach. Cache locations are not grandfathered. If ownership of the land changes so dose the permission. I'm sure in many cases a cache owner may not know that ownership has changed. When one becomes aware of the fact it's imperative that they reach out to the new land owners (managers) and re-obtain permission. Just another example of how cache ownership isn't a passive endeavor.
-
1
-
-
If this were my cache, and I was interested in trying to keep it, I'd try to contact them and start off the conversation with " Thanks for letting me know about the issue. I was wondering if there may be a safer place I could re-locate the cache within the nature preserve? I'ts such a beautiful place. If not I'll remove it as soon as possible. Either way thanks for allowing me the opportunity to bring people to this wonderful area over the last 8 years."
If you don't hear back within a week, remove it. I'd also send them an e-mail letting them know it was removed.
A land owners wish is the final word and It's always a good idea to part on good terms.
-
1
-
-
On 4/14/2018 at 4:30 PM, EmzyJanezy said:
The TB Hotel I would like to drop my trackables off at is reportedly thickly covered by stinging nettles.
Any advice on how best to do this?
Should I just literally go clothes head to toe in thick clothes including gloves?
Or should I bring a long stick to thrash the nettles about with (seems harsh)?
Or is there a better way?
Dumb question, probably, but there may be a special technique I'm missing!
Stinging Nettles are a very aggressive and invasive weed and probably should be removed anyway. Most states have a department of conservation website. There you can usually find a way to report invasive plants. Depending on exactly where the nettles are they may even remove them for you.
If your dead set on putting your TB in that cache and your sure it's buried in the Nettles, than cover up as much of your skin as you can.
-
54 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:
Back to a previous point about using larger more watertight containers, I have a new series that has been out what only a month. 2 ammo boxes on the route. 1 already gone missing which was clearly marked as a geocache and full of swag, unfortunately with three tbs in it too. You guys may be able to get away with it in america with all your space and freedom, we can't do anything quality in the UK.
Here in the UK I'll stick to my micros and test tubes. They may not be watertight but I get them for free.
As long as you are willing to replace them when needed than there's issue at all. Free is good but usually means more work. If I had ammo cans going missing left and right I too would be looking for a cheaper option.
Still with all my space and freedom (which I've earned buy the way) I still choose to hide micros in the woods. Go figure.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
You do realize they're advocating for a mandatory time period for cache maintenance, right? If maintenance isn't done within that time frame, the cache is disabled or archived by a reviewer. Who sets that time frame? What is that timeframe? Does it apply to all caches of all types equally? There's NO way a set mandatory time can meet the needs of every type of cache. You say so yourself, "The time frame for maintenance all depends on the particular situation and the level of communication with your reviewer. " and that second part only applies to caches that are currently disabled, not to caches that are active but have red wrenches. Those would automatically get disabled and/or archived under this suggestion. Does more automation and less human (reviewer, although it appears they might be dogs) interaction with regard to situations like this make the game better or worse? Are we to the point that we want mandated lengths of time to have maintenance performed? Won't that lead to more armchair OM logs and less NM logs so that cachers don't feel "...in fear of being responsible for the caches being ultimately removed..." under this suggestion?
It may seem like I'm anti-maintenance, but that's far from the truth. I maintain my caches to the best of my ability but I don't want mandated time periods and automatic disables or archives due solely to some arbitrary 14 day time limit that someone determined is long enough for any cache to be serviced. 30 days can still be an issue for some COs, based on health or other life events that get in the way.
Did you even read what I wrote or are you just on a rolling boil?
You obviously didn't read what they wrote. I read, CO's should respond to NM's and if they can't they should stay in contact with their reviewer until they can. Sound advice I wouldn't hesitate giving anyone.
Although there is obviously a time frame for preforming maintenance it's not strictly defined and is pretty much at the discretion of your reviewer. Reason # 112 for establishing a good/honest relationship with your reviewer right out of the gate.
Now all I did was echo their sentiments and added an example of how communicating with your reviewer can help in extending the time for getting maintenance completed.
Now I did throw on a little shine there at the end but who doesn't like a good complement from time to time?
What is there to argue about?
-
9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
Really? As you and I have both stated, if the CO can't handle it, archive it. It will possibly stop newer cachers from posting legitimate logs, but there's no way it will stop established cachers from doing so. A few logs from established cachers should provide all the means to either get the cache archived or to show newer cachers that you can post, within reason, things about the cache that the CO might not want mentioned.
If this is your argument, then that means they need to be concerned about posting NA logs when it's apparent it's on private property and permission has not been granted. They need to be concerned about filing a NM or NA log when the only thing that might have supported a cache has been removed so that the CO can archive it or move it. The cacher is NEVER responsible for archiving the cache, the CO is. While the actions of a logger can start the process to get a cache archived, the actions (or inaction) of the CO are responsible for a cache being archived and to say that a cacher is responsible for getting a cache archived flies in the face of how things are done here. Anyone who tells that cacher they were responsible for that cache being archived are doing a disservice to them and their community. The CO either did it themselves or the reviewer did it, end of story.
Really? You don't think that it was implied that the next person to complain about a wet cache could be responsible for having the entire series archived? If the next person posted a NM and the cache owner archived everything who's to blame? The right answer is the cache owner but don't you think that the last person that posted that NM would feel guilty? Especially if the were new to the game. And for what? Doing the right thing.
Established cachers can take care of them selves with a little grit and any semblance of a spine. New cachers are a different story. If I encountered a message like that when I first started I'd probably never log a NM again.
Unfortunately some cache owners don't realize when their in over there head and others loose sight of what this activity is all about. I wish more people would come to the realization that they've bitten off more than they can chew and voluntarily archive their own caches before letting things get out of hand. If they can't bring themselves to archive a couple of hundred caches for the sake of the game at least they can interact with other cachers in a civil manor.
-
2
-
-
On 4/10/2018 at 3:43 PM, garyo1954 said:
Okay along those lines, I'll go wayyyyyyyy out on the edge of the limb and let everybody with chain saw start cutting the tree down.
IMHO, there should be some, "When a NM is logged, CO visit is required (within this time frame) or it will be deleted/disabled/removed cutoff time frame. Any CO who can't make a visit should make contact with a reviewer to disable cache until maintenance is performed. There will be no exceptions."
That would clean up a lot of the abandoned waterlogged geo-garbage, with saturated logs, and rusting metal.
(I already hear the hum of the chainsaws.)Funny but that's exactly how it should work and usually dose.
For example I have a multi cache that's been disabled (voluntarily) since January. I've posted two reviewers notes letting MadMin (my reviewer) know that I haven't forgot about the cache. substantial snow fall can effect this cache and being from New England we get our share of snow. In this case I'm sure Madmin understands the challenges of winter maintenance and because I've kept her informed of my intentions she's allowed me the time I need to get it fixed.
The time frame for maintenance all depends on the particular situation and the level of communication with your reviewer.
You give me hope. For a new cacher you seem to understand the nuances of the game beautifully.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, coachstahly said:
You completely missed the point I was raising. I understand (and agree) about the maintenance comment (or lack thereof, technically). I'm not sure how many times I need to say that. I'm also in agreement with all of you that say this log shouldn't have been posted as it was written. My point is that I'm just as concerned about the OP's comments about the tone of the log. Rather than continuing to focus on the lack of maintenance implied by the log, the OP commented on the tone of the log, calling it abusive, rude, threatening, and embarrassing, and that was before the supposed CO got involved with the thread. I get the rude part, although I don't really find it offensive enough to call it abusive in any way, shape, or form. If you are "bothered" by the CO's log, you also should be bothered by the OP's comments about the tone of the log, as he was, in essence attacking the CO and calling him out for his abusive, rude, threatening, and embarrassing log, rather than focusing on the maintenance aspect of the log. The OP verbally castigated the alleged CO before the CO even got on here, 6 posts into the thread, and the CO took offense. He replied and was once again chastised for "...this sort of CO abuse."
The CO did eventually defend their position, but only after addressing (admittedly in a manner that was confrontational) the posts that called them abusive, threatening, rude, and embarrassing, multiple times. They even raise a valid point about log content. I'm not giving the alleged CO a free pass on their behavior (in the original log that started this, the comments within this thread, or their thoughts about maintenance), but I'm not willing to give the OP a free pass on their behavior either, yet it appears I'm the only one that feels this way, or at least has stepped in to comment about it.
While the first paragraph certainly shows a lack of propensity for maintenance, they also go on to state that they wouldn't not maintain, but that they would archive them if the situation continues. Am I the only one who gets the irony of many of you lambasting the CO for not doing maintenance and instead "threatening" to archive the series if the wet logs (and the subsequent wet log comments) continue? Isn't that EXACTLY what we as cachers want COs to do if they're not going to maintain their caches?
Threating to archive the series will stop others from posting perfectly legitimate logs in fear of being responsible for the caches being ultimately removed. Not only this cache but others this individual may own. What else can you call that but a threat? The tone of the actual words is enough for me to understand what's going one here. I didn't need the OP's interpretation of them to come to that conclusion.
To me:
It's abusive in it's intent.
It's rude in it's lack of consideration for others and the activity.
It's embarrassing to think that anyone in our sport could think they're so important they feel justified in taking such an approach.
I'm also willing to give most CO's a pass with things like this. Life can cause people to do and say all sorts of uncharacteristic things. This particular individual had a chance to explain their position when they decided to respond to this thread. They choose to continue to lash out rather than enlighten us. They questioned the OP's motive rather than addressing the issue.
Seems like they were more upset that it was brought to light than the fact that the accusations were untrue.
First I'd never write something like this to another cacher but If someone had an issue with something I did or said the first thing I'd want to do is clear the air. Make it right, regardless of whether or not I felt justified in my actions.
If there's foot prints in the snow and mail in the mailbox you can assume the mailman has been there. From what I've read I have a hard time believing that this is a one off situation.
I'm not suggesting that this forum be a platform to air out every personal issue we may or may not have with another cacher but situations like this do exist.
As usual I may be apologizing for my comments but I just can't let behavior like this go un challenged. I care too much for the game not to speak up.
-
6
-
-
Then I'm not sure what the CO is trying to prove here. Sounds to me like a good find.
Why did you block the CO in MC?
-
On 4/3/2018 at 10:29 PM, barefootguru said:
@Max and 99 I had no idea it was going to turn into an issue months later!
I was taking photos of my signatures for a while, but gave up as it's a burden to remember and then save them all. And first time I've both been accused of cheating and abused in 2000+ finds
I will certainly take photos of any further logs I find from CO.
To me a smiley isn't important enough for me to carry around a camera and take photos of every log I sign. My bag has enough stuff in it already.
On the first trip did you log a find without signing any physical log? If so maybe a note there would have saved you some trouble.
In this case I don't think I would have deleted your log without speaking to you about it first.
-
9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
I'm not arguing the maintenance responsibility aspect of this and am in full agreement that if that's the attitude the CO is going to take, then perhaps cache ownership shouldn't be something they aspire to. I'm arguing that the abusive, embarrassing, threatening, and rude comments are an overreaction to the actual comment made. If that's not the point, then why did the OP even bring those adjectives into play if the point was that this particular CO might have too many caches? Abusive is the one that particularly gets to me.
"Hi its been a long wet winter and these caches haven't been found for a long time. If the logbook is wet, it's not my fault and if the comments continue, I will archive the series."
The OP was just as bad, IMO, when the CO"s comments were called abusive, an embarrassment, and threatening (even though it was in regard to the cache rather than to a cacher). Don't you think that might be crossing the line just a little bit as well? Is there any reason to address a person or situation in that manner? Is this particular log abusive? Is it worth reporting this CO to TPTB because some read that the CO is NOT going to maintain their caches, but another possible reading shows that a cache that's been out longer than the minimum suggested time might get archived by the CO rather than maintained? Don't most of the cachers on here prefer that an unmaintained cache be removed from the field rather than limp along on life support provided by other cachers rather than the CO? Isn't that the actual point of the entire post, that cachers who might have too many caches to maintain should probably reduce or eliminate the caches they own? Yet here we are, three pages in and we're railing against a CO who has suggested that they'll do exactly what most of us want a CO to do if they're not going to maintain their caches.
Why? I assume the OP quoted the cache owner's own words. Now you can read those words and draw your own conclusions as I've already done. I think the context is clear. What I read was, It's not my fault the cache is wet although I haven't taken the time to check up on it in 8 months. If the "comments" continue, meaning people complaining about the wet cache, I'll archive the whole series. Instead of thanking the finder for the information about the condition of their cache they choose to write this. Why?
When given an opportunity to address the situation when made public on this forum, the first thing they decided to do was attack the OP instead of defending their position.
I have no idea what personal reasons the OP may have had for starting this thread but it's now there for comment. If it were a simple lack of judgement on the CO's part than admit that, learn from it and move on. If not, there's a bigger issue here.
-
2
-
-
37 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
That's great and nice and all, but abusive, threatening, embarrassing, and rude? Rude, yes, but not to the point of being offensive. I have no problem with the weather comment (he can't control the weather) and there's no way to know if the container was compromised by the last hider by not being securely fastened or not, so it may not have been his fault. I agree with the archive threat, but again, who cares. Go ahead and archive them if comments about a wet log cause you angst and make you archive the caches. His comments don't "bother" me that much, certainly not to point that they apparently bother the OP.
They bother me and I've been around a while. I can only imagine how comments like that can effect someone who may be new to the game.
I don't see any reason to address a person or the situation in that manor.
-
3
-
-
56 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:
Clipboard and tape measure. I take a lot of pictures so........crime scene tape?
Brilliant!!!! People will actually run away from the area. Unless it's my wife who's been know to follow ambulances.
This is probably the first time I'm glad my wife has no interest whatsoever in Geocaching.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, badlands said:
The correct orientation of the antenna can make a big difference as well. I use a Garmin 62s which gives a much more stable reading when held vertical.
Never thought of that. I have a Garmin Oregon 450 with no visible antenna.
-
Gps devices can be fickle. Sometimes you need to stop and let them settle for a minute or two. Other times it will continue to bounce and you'll have to rely on your Geo-sense to find the cache.
I'm not muggle friendly which means I'm not the most stealthiest person in the world and I tend to stick out like a sore thumb. Normally stay away from caches in high muggle areas. Believe it or not I've used a clipboard and some paper when looking for caches like these. It's amazing how people will notice the clip board and think I'm on some official business or something and not give me a second look.
-
1
-
-
On 4/8/2018 at 9:00 PM, The Magna Defender said:
[Text removed by moderator] This particular series has only been out a year, it got a flurry of finders when it was new and now its been sat there without finds for about 8 months. Of course the caches will be inevitably wet. This one guy was the first to turn up in ages. I never said I wouldn't maintain it, I said I would archive them if the situation continues. How am I supposed to know what state a cache is in if it hasn't been visited for 8 months??
The problem I have is that most cachers nowadays are so fixated on the state of the cache, they never ever say anything about the walk they've done, the wildlife theyve seen or the gorgeous views. They are just so fixated on the scrawl of dingy paper they write nothing else on their online log. As a CO I want to hear about their experiences and frankly that's gone out the window in recent years.
Before I proceed with this I would like to know what situation? The situation of the caches getting wet or the situation of people commenting on the fact?
.png)
Geocaching HONESTY
in General geocaching topics
Posted
If Mr./Miss/Ms. 40,000 finds would like to discuss my caching practices face to face that's fine. If they choose to do so indirectly, they're not worth my time. Anyone who's anyone in this activity knows who's who and what they're all about. If someone chooses to believe something with only one side of the story than so be it
Indifference is one of the benefits of not having an overwhelming need to be liked.