Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by justintim1999

  1. 7 minutes ago, dprovan said:

    This example is based on a limited resource: you're talking about one guy and one forklift. You have a choice to use him or not, make him better or not. Geocaching isn't like that. In geocaching, he doesn't break units, he just hides a cache that isn't as good as other people's. Nothing he's done has gotten in the way of you getting those trucks loaded: you can continue to hide as many high quality caches as you want regardless of whether he's trying to hide something flawed. Nothing he does is going to make you go out of business. He doesn't work for you.

    This example is based on real life experience.   The point is he's not ready to be a full time operator.  He need a little more seasoning.   No different in Geocaching.   I could have simply thrown him into the job.  Sink or swim.   That wouldn't have been fair to him, me, the company or the customer.    Sometimes people are willing and eager but not quite able.   


    Don't you think most people who really wanted to become cache owners would agree to wait 3 months?    Doesn't the simple fact you have to wait indicate that this is something special and they just don't give these opportunities away to just anyone?    


    • Upvote 1
  2. 38 minutes ago, niraD said:

    It seems perfectly relevant to me, since abandoned caches (especially the kind placed by "one weekend wonders") will become low-quality caches pretty quickly, and will provide a low-quality experience to those who search for them.


    • Upvote 1
  3. 30 minutes ago, niraD said:

    All about the find count? Where do you get that?

    Why else would you be in favor of allowing a brand new cacher the ability to hide a cache?    There are way more downsides to allowing this than there are positives.   The one positive is the potential for "more caches to find!".  If better cache maintenance is what everyone wants than isn't this just one piece of that puzzle?   at least make sure the person is going to stick around before you let them hide caches all over the place. 


    Personally Finding a broken, moldy caches doesn't faze me a bit.    I feel bad for the next cacher who was expecting better.   Don't get me wrong,  I'm hoping to find the cache in good shape but I'm experienced enough not to expect it. 


    I've always felt that cache ownership should be a honor and not a right.     A right is something you're entitled to.   A honor is something you've earned.    


    Man that last part is pretty heavy handed,  even for me.


    I promised myself I wouldn't do this.   When I decided to get back on the forums I said "self,  just make your point and move on.   Don't get involved with the inevitable back and forth.   When they ignore simple facts or present wild scenario's just laugh and turn the page."    It's hard.  It's so hard. 

    • Upvote 1
  4. 6 hours ago, Hynz said:

    It was already pointed out but I also want to state that for me this is so wrong on multiple levels.

    The physical entity holding the log is not "ultimately" what is discussed here and depending on the layout of the cache it can also be only a rather insignificant part of what I consider "The Cache" and if it's a good one or not.

    For me it is much more important what the purpose of the cache is and what the owner wants me to experience by going for the cache than to retrieve a pristine or maybe only damp logbook. If the "well maintained box" is the only good thing I have say about a cache then I wish I would have been more successful in ignoring it in the first place.


    Regarding the survey results and their presentation: let's say my expectations were not overly surpassed -_-

    Everything about the caching experience is subjective except the condition of the cache itself.     

  5. 3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

    Car vs. geocaching is a reasonable comparison, but instead of fixing brakes, the better analogy is washing your car. A bad cache is like a car wash where the guy missed a spot or maybe even forgot to wash a whole side. Yeah, he didn't do a great job, but you're not going to die, you're just going to try a different car wash, and that guy will go out of business. No big deal.

    I'll give you a real world analogy.   I hired a new employee about 6 months ago.  His primary job is to stitch boxes and he's quite good at it.   I promised him I'd teach him how to operate the forklift.   Over the past few months I've been doing just that.   Today was/is an extremely busy day loading and un-loading trucks.   He asked if he could hop on the forklift and help.   Although he can operate the forklift he's not yet experienced enough or fast enough.   Because of his inexperience he'd be (1) very slow.  (2) wind up breaking units that would need to be fixed and (3) asking a lot of questions which I really don't have time to answer.   He's a good kid and I hate to burst his bubble but I understand the value of experience.


    I understand we're talking about Geocaching here but the principles are basically the same.      Until he becomes more proficient and understands the job better,  I'll have to bring him along slowly and give him work I know he can handle.  The last thing I want to do is put him in a situation where he's over his head and becomes discouraged.    


    What if it was an employee that wasn't washing the cars correctly and as a result the owner went out of business.  I'm sure it would be a big deal to that guy. 



  6. 18 hours ago, coachstahly said:

    Really?  So a well maintained film can under a lamp post skirt or in a guardrail is a high quality geocache?

    Yes and If it's a particularly nice film can I'll give it a favorite point.    To me quality is subjective.   Good cache maintenance is more tangible.        

    • Upvote 1
  7. 11 hours ago, niraD said:

    Yes, there are costs to a 3-month waiting period for new cache owners. In addition to the cost of implementing and enforcing the new rule guideline, it might indeed discourage potentially great cache owners from hiding potentially great caches.


    The volunteer reviewers are the ones who can say how much of a problem the "one weekend wonders" really are, which will determine whether its worth adding a waiting period. And maybe a shorter waiting period would be better--less of a discouragement to potentially great cache owners, while still addressing the "one weekend wonders".

    So we're weighing the probability of a new cacher hiding a great cache with the probability of the same person leaving the game and their caches after 3 months.   The only way this makes any sense is if it's all about the find count.   "I need more new caches to find in my area and something like this would hamper that,  soooooo."   IMO this has nothing to do with "quality" caches.


    There's a reason why finding a Geocache is free and anyone can do it.   There's no commitment involved.   People can come and go as they please.

    Being a cache owner is very much different.  Any good cache owner out there can attest to that. 


    I'm pretty sure it would take much less time implementing and enforcing a 3 month rule than it dose dealing with the abandoned caches set out by newbies.     

    • Upvote 1
  8. 18 hours ago, niraD said:

    Sure. And I'd rather have a surgeon who has performed the procedure successfully hundreds of times.


    What does this have to do with geocaching?

    We always seem to have the same basic views on things.   It's when it gets down to the basic common sense of something we seem to but heads.   Someone who has Geocached, even for a short time, would have a better grasp of the idea of geocaching as opposed to someone basically new to the game.    That's a simple fact that applies to most things,  yet for some reason you don't think it applies here.    I'm not saying that someone with 100 finds would be a better cache owner than someone with 10.  What I am saying is the experience would increase the likelihood.    

    • Upvote 1
  9. 42 minutes ago, niraD said:

    No. Once again:

    If you had to choose would you rather have someone with experience fix the breaks on your car or someone who has no idea where the breaks are?     I'd rather have someone with some Geocaching experience hiding caches for the same reasons.  Why, because I've got a better chance of stopping once I leave the garage. :)

    • Upvote 1
  10. 3 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:


    There are may places where there are no caches within 25, 50 or more miles away.  What sort of formula would  work which would allow someone that has discovered the game, perhaps while traveling,  but has zero caches to find within 50 miles, to be able to hide a cache.    Places which have very few caches need fewer restrictions on being able to place more caches, not restrictions that make it all but impossible.

    I'm not trying to pick a small segment of the Geocaching community and apply these ideas to them.    This is more of a big picture thing.   If we're going to cite individual situations as a reason not to discuss the possibility of an idea then we're wasting our time here.    I can take every idea formulated on the forums and find a scenario that would shoot it down.  doesn't mean the idea isn't worth talking about.

    • Upvote 1
  11. 3 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    If all 100 are zip tied to trees, that's all they're going to have as the useful information needed to place a cache.  There's nothing there to delineate between it being a good hide or a bad hide.  That's the only hide they've seen.  That seems to run counter to your argument, if they're all the same.  Some well, some poorly - they're all the same so how can a new cacher determine if these are well hidden or poorly hidden?

    If I personally like a hide I give it a favorite point.   Other than that I judge a good hide versus a bad hide based on the condition of the cache,  which is what we're ultimately discussing here. 

    If they're happy zip tying a micro to a tree and they maintain it,  I'm happy.     How someone maintains their hide is much more important than what they hide.   

    14 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    Again, "propensity" for geocaching is a vague term.  Just because a new cacher found 100 1.5/1.5 micros on a power trail in one day doesn't mean they are A) going to stick with it or B.) be a good CO because they found some pre-determined number of caches.  All it means that on that particular day, they went and found 100 caches.  That doesn't tell GS or the community anything about what they might be like as a CO.

    I'm thinking more along the lines of a typical new cacher.   The idea probably wouldn't work with the specific example you give but I don't think that's how new cachers are normally introduced to Geocaching.   On the flip side  how about  the cacher who has just started playing and hides 20 caches only to realize a couple of months later that they either don't have the time to maintain all of them or geocaching just isn't their thing.    Propensity to me means they enjoy Geocaching and seem to want to stick around.


    17 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    They're equating the idea that a number of finds by a CO would improve the quality of the caches hidden by COs.  What that tells me is that the more finds someone has, the better they are as a CO because their quality will be better than someone else's with less finds.

    There are no guarantees either way.      I think having some sort of moratorium on new cachers being able to hide caches would help in many ways.  Besides what's the rush?   I think most people who are serious about Geocaching and possibly hiding a cache wouldn't bat an eye.    



  12. 2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

     In a cache rich area, that 100 could be one power trail with all micros, hidden in the exact same manner, in a single day.  How is that going to provide them with any sense of how this might be a good way to hide a cache or not?

    If an individual is finding mostly micros I'd assume they would wind up hiding micros either because that's all they've seen or the area they live in dictates it.  Micros can be hidden well or poorly so finding a 100 of them would give the potential cache owner some useful information.   

    5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    The problem with adjusting find totals, based on the area, is that there's no easy way for GS to do that.  Implementing something like that would be a royal PITA.


    I have limited computer knowledge but I would think it would be a simple thing to look at a 25 mile range around the new cachers location and come up with a formula that would work.


    8 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    If you're dead set on numbers of finds as a limiting factor as to when a CO can place a hide, I would suggest that it include as many of the cache types as possible, distributed based on percentages in some manner.  At least that way they'd get exposure to more than just 1.5/1.5 traditional micros in guard rails or LPCs.  70% traditional caches with the other 30 split amongst the other types.

    For some being able to find each type of cache in varying difficulties and terrains could be challenge.   To me It's not important what caches they find or hide but that  they demonstrate a propensity for Geocaching. 


    15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    Quality is a tricky thing to try to "legislate".  What one person finds as a quality cache is another person's "meh..." type of cache.

    I don't think this is about perceived "quality" as it is about dedication and commitment.        

  13. 12 minutes ago, coachstahly said:


    I'm going to ask the same of you.  


    Finds, especially those that are limited to the basic free app, aren't a good qualifier of whether or not a cacher would be a good owner.  If you're going to quantify it based on numbers, I'd be certain to include as many of the cache types found as possible.  At least this way they are exposed to a variety of cache types rather than all 1.5/1.5 traditional caches as the foundation of one of the requirements, if it comes to that.


    Other than that, this is such a subjective topic that there's really not anything that you can single out that will indicate that a new cacher might be a good CO.  Some will say that they take the time to write good logs, that they use the NM/NA logs appropriately, that they've been caching for a period of time that allows them to ascertain that they're ready to be a CO, that they've adopted previously owned caches and are doing a good job maintaining those, that they've found 100 caches, that they've been involved for a certain amount of time, and that they've.......


    It can go on and on but there's really no way to determine, without a doubt, that a new cacher would be a good CO.  Even those who do most of the things listed above aren't guaranteed to be good COs.  Even the tutorial suggested can be breezed over by hitting play and then leaving until it's over, if that's the only requirement needed to place a cache.  If it's a quiz, then that's a slightly different issue, but is passing a quiz a good indicator of how good a CO is going to be?  Just because you know what to do doesn't mean that they're actually going to do those things.  The ONLY way to ascertain the viability of a CO is to let them hide a cache and then see what happens.  






    Yikes.  I can see it now.  New cachers posting NM logs saying that they found the cache 10 feet away from the posted coordinates.  If it's canned, that means there's no way to be able to specify the distance those coordinates may be off.  With a few exceptions, I honestly believe that most cachers are attempting to provide the best coordinates possible for their caches.



    Sorry Coachstahly.   I was writing my response to NiraD when you posted this.   I think my response to Him/Her may answer your initial question. 

  14. 1 minute ago, niraD said:

    Honestly, I think the only way to find out whether someone will be a good owner is to let them hide a cache and see how many of the premium members who find it give it a Favorite point.

    Would an initial minimum number of caches a new cache owner could hide be something to look at?   


    I think the main issue is how (or can) GS limit the number of new hides by new cachers.   We already have mechanisms in place to deal with existing owners and caches which would work if everyone used them and used them correctly.   


    I realize that nothing is perfect and any attempt to read into an individuals motives or intentions is almost impossible especially when there's no history to go by.   Having said that wouldn't a certain find count provide some sense of how good or bad someone would be as a cache owner?


    For example.


    If an individual was required to find 100 caches before being able to hide one of their own wouldn't that indicate they have some level of staying power in the game and would be more likely to take cache ownership seriously?


    Wouldn't the experience of finding 100 caches give someone the sense of how caches are hidden (good and bad)


    I think the logs on those 100 caches would tell you something as well.   Do they enjoy the game.  Did they post a DNF or a NM?


    None of this is a precise indicator of how someone would be as a cache owner but wouldn't it provide some insight on what we could expect. 


    I do realize that some locations are not cache rich and finding 100 caches would be a monumental task but maybe, in those locations, the number could be adjusted. 


    Just something to think about.          



    • Helpful 1
  15. 13 hours ago, niraD said:

    Whatever characteristic(s) you're trying to identify in the new cache owners, the number of Finds they've logged is the wrong measure of that

    In your opinion what would be a good measure of the likelihood a new cacher would be a good owner?  

    • Upvote 1
  16. 6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:


    Just today I did a routine visit to one of my more remote caches (about an hour and a half of hiking with a couple of hundred metres elevation change). Everything was fine, as expected, including its pencil sharpener, but the pencil had gone missing (it's not one you've visited though). Luckily I always carry replacement pencils when I go out checking my caches.



    I must confess I have a separate bag full of all sorts of items I take when making a cache maintenance run.   In fact I have two bags as one of my series requires a whole different set of items and tools that would be needed to fix issues.   It took several trips back and forth from my caches to realize this would save me a lot of time.   It would save me even more time if I could remember to re-stock the bags. :mad:   For some strange reason pencils and pens I originally place in caches seem to last.   Maybe I should start putting three or for of them in each cache so people who've forgotten or lost theirs can take one. :)  

    • Upvote 1
  17. 1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

    It when the same person loses their pen EVERY time they go caching. I've come upon that.

    I agree.   There are situations where deleting a log or find is necessary.       


    I'm only suggesting it be done after careful consideration and not as a matter of course.   


     A note to those reading this that cache in the Massachusetts area.    If you don't have something to write with when you've found the log book  just look around.  There's a good chance you'll find one of the pen or pencils I've lost in the general area. :D

    • Funny 2
  18. 6 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:


    To prevent or at least reduce the possibility of vandalism, I don't think it's necessary to find a spot that takes a lot of effort to get to, though that certainly helps.   A spot where one can search for, and retrieve the cache away from the curious eyes of a muggle can be equally as effective.  

    Yup.  Sometimes you have to get creative in the way you hide it. 


    This may seem strange but I think I would take the vandalism as a personal challenge.   I'd keep the general location and devise a hide that would fool them.   As a cache owner I'd find this fun.  

  19. 19 hours ago, niraD said:

    Yeah, and more seriously, I think the analogy to geocachers having a pen works pretty well.


    If someone always shows up without a pen/stick, then they aren't really prepared to play the game.


    If something happens to your pen/stick, then it's okay to keep going without it until you can get another.

    The forest is Littered with pens and pencils I've lost over the years.  I have a habit of slipping them  under the edge of my hat which I can't seem to break. 


    The following is not a response to the OP's situation but only my thoughts on the subject of not having a pen.    


    I understand the importance of the guidelines and I agree we should all do our best and try and follow them.   I get a little worried when I hear of logs being summarily deleted if for no other reason then the guidelines say you should.   In some cases logs should be deleted.   Before I'd even consider taking that step I'd personally want to be sure it was justified and I wasn't deleting the log of a good cacher who really did just loose their pen.      Since I believe that people are inherently good,  it isn't hard to pull the wool over my eyes so I'm sure over the years a few cachers have gotten away with an undeserved smiley.  I'm equally sure some really did loose their pen and in those cases I'm glad I choose to bend guidelines a little.      

    • Upvote 1
  20. On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 4:04 PM, L0ne.R said:

    Log NMs if the cache is in need of attention. Wait a month and log an NA if there is no response from the owner. If the cache already has NMs, log an NA. Leave a note letting the reviewer know you would like to hide your own cache in the area.  Once the cache is archived hide your own cache in the area and set a great example. 

    Although the process can be a long one,  if your committed to hiding caches in the area this is the best way to proceed.      

  21. Most of my caches require a moderate walk or hike to get to thus I see very little in the way of vandalism.   If possible try finding a spot that will take a little effort to get to.   You can also get creative with the hide and the camo so only people who are actively looking for the cache will find it.    

    • Helpful 2
  22. 3 hours ago, niraD said:

    Well, technically, you can keep playing without a stick. And it happens sometimes, albeit briefly. When a player breaks a stick, they have to drop it. Then they play without a stick until they can get another stick from the bench, or until they end their shift.


    2 hours ago, on4bam said:

    Until they join the game without a stick EVERY time.

    Somewhere between these two quotes lies the answer

    • Upvote 1
  23. On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 12:05 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:


    I think you misread my post.   I was suggesting that caches should be hidden at least a quarter mile from the cache, and a minimum.   With the proliferation of park-n-grabs and large power trails there seems to be an assumption that geocaching is a game which involves driving from cache to cache.  Having coordinates for a place to park is nice, but it doesn't have to be close to where the cache is hidden.   Even when I've included recommended parking coordinates for a cache, which would result in a nice walk down a little known trail, some will still try to park as close as possible to GZ.

    I see what you're saying.   I enjoy caches that involve a good hike myself but I'll stop short of intimating that my brand of caching is the best and only way to do it.    That's why I laugh when I hear people complain about the way others cache.   If they're caching within the rules and they're having fun than what's the problem?    For me the only down side to the park-n-grab mentality is fewer more traditional hides being hidden for me to find.           

  24. 28 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:


    Personally, I think the game would be better if it was required that the nearest parking was at least a quarter mile from the cache.  

    I'm with you on this one.   The only real trouble I've ever had caching involved parking.   To me there's nothing more frustrating than driving around in circles looking for a safe, legal place to park.  Especially when the cache owner has already identified one but for some reason is unwilling to share it.     

  • Create New...