Jump to content

justintim1999

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    2416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by justintim1999

  1. Make sure to get permission. Always think of safety & about the impact your cache will have on the area. All of my hides are on conservation land so I'm very careful how and where I hide caches. It's very important in these situations to hide your cache in an environmentally responsible way. It's equally important to think about the impact cachers will have on the area while searching. By getting permission and establishing a relation ship with the property owners I was able to gain information about sensitive areas and habitats I wouldn't have known about and avoid those areas altogether. Believe me this attention to detail will go a long way in developing your reputation as a good cache owner and will make getting permission in other like areas much easier. As for the hide itself. For me there are three criteria for a good hide. Location - Find a spot that people are going to enjoy getting to. Presentation - Hide the cache in a way that's unique and interesting. Camouflage - Disguise your container or use a container that's unusual. If you can incorporate one or two of these in your cache hide It will be a good one. Good luck.
  2. I was able to adopt two caches along the same trail. The process was easy and it turned out to be well worth a couple of emails and a few clicks of my mouse. For me it was good timing. I was looking to place a series of caches in that area and the previous cache owners were thinking of archiving.
  3. Sound strategy. I really hope it all works out for you
  4. Comments like this one. Conversing with you on this forum is purely voluntary so I'm responsible for taking any abuse thrown my way. Now If it was my job to deal with you and these comments I'm sure I'd have built up a little resentment over time. Now I don't hold grudges and regardless of what I may think of someone, I would always be fair. That's me though. I'm not saying this is the case but it did cross my mind.
  5. The rung of the latter doesn't matter to me. My inquiry's the same.
  6. Don't start trying to read into things. It's just seems to me you've had more troubles like this than anyone I've encountered and I don't understand why unless........
  7. Sorry Team Microdot I didn't see your clarification on the door and the ownership of the establishment. Thanks to all the kind and understanding people here I think I get it now. If that's all to the story the archival doesn't make sense to me either. I'm going to throw it out there because I'm sure others are thinking it. Maybe it has nothing to do with the cache itself. Maybe it's something between you and your reviewer. If I'm wrong than I apologize but when I re-read everything it's the first think that jumped to my mind.
  8. Easy buddy. No need to be nasty. I just don't think like you do.
  9. I agree but as a cache owner I wouldn't want to be sending families to the parking log of a gentlemen's club either. If I understand this correctly the store changed hands? If so what was it when the cache was published? You not asking someone to turn their head and walk past something that could be potentially offensive to parents and their children. Your requiring them to stare in the window. Big difference.
  10. Ok, Ok. I'll stop and put you out of your misery.
  11. I didn't realize you were following it in the first place. Thanks for the update. I'm sure your not the first.
  12. It makes sense that's how it would work but I wouldn't be surprised if it took two finds to cancel out a DNF.
  13. My question is why not? The definition of a FIND is pretty cut and dry although some have found ways to circumvent that as well. Why wouldn't we want to define DNFs? Wouldn't that make the use of them easier and the significance of them clearer? What other factors can't be communicated through a NOTE or NM? I'm asking for your insite here because I really can't think of one. It's this interpretation of the log that's the issue. To me it's implied that a DNF means an unsuccessful search at GZ but obviously others don't see it that way. I get this one but I still think a NOTE would serve the same purpose. I agree a DNF would get more attention but I've been lead to believe that everyone reads information contained in the logs so if that's true a NOTE should suffice. Maybe even a NM could be used if attention is what your after. Maybe a new "Needs Reviewer Attention" log would be the perfect solution to this problem. I personally wouldn't post a DNF in this situation because I wasn't able to search GZ and there are other log options available that would work. Regardless of what side of the fence your on this is always good advice, with any log.
  14. To me these are the two options. Posting a DNF without an actual search tells me nothing. In fact, as you noted above, that DNF not only negatively effects the CHS but it can negatively effect the cache owner as well, prompting them to unnecessarily check up on their cache. It could also cause other potential cachers to pass it by. In many of these cases a NOTE would do none of that. If you wanted to tell the world you reached the parking lot and decided to go for ice cream instead of hunting down the cache, why not say all that in a NOTE? With all the possible negative ramifications, why use a DNF in that situation when you have another, in my opinion, better option?
  15. That DNF represents my experience. I reached GZ and searched. I wouldn't change that log later if I did return and FOUND it. If a cache had 5 DNFs on it and I actually searched and couldn't find it I'd post a DNF even though I know that my DNF could be the one that triggers the e-mail or reviewer action. My responsibility to everyone involved is to post an accurate log that describes my experience and let the reviewers decide if any action is necessary. My argument is the context in which some choose to use DNFs. The CHS aside it makes no sense to me to post a DNF on a cache you never actually searched for. To me a DNF indicates a search was conducted without success. That DNF could mean many things and as much as some don't want to admit it, one of them is the cache is actually missing. I have no idea what percentage of DNFs are posted on missing caches. I do know that the people with that information decided to include that possibility into the CHS. All that being said I feel it's my responsibility to have made an honest effort to have searched before I post one. To me that's reaching GZ and trying to find it.
  16. I can't accept that. Those that are set in their ways may never change but those who are new to the activity may see some sense in what I'm saying and be willing to make that change or at least think about what logs they post before they post them.
  17. I'm defiantly not demanding anything and if I am it's not been very effective. Let me clear this up once and for all. I'm not advocating we change the way we use DNFs BECAUSE of the CHS. I'm suggesting we consider changing it because I believe it's a better use of the log. GS isn't asking anyone to change. I am. The way some prefer to use DNFs can unnecessarily effect the CHS and cache owners in a negative way. The caching from your car is one example. I prefer to think about the effects of my log before I post it to make sure it's sending the intended information. I think the log itself should convey some basic information and the words that accompany the log should expand on that. In other words I don't think you should have to read the log to understand what transpired in the posting of that DNF.
  18. Then we're on the same page except for the effect that DNF, regardless of what's written in the log, has on the CHS.
  19. Have I ever said it was? In fact I happen to think GS is the Good guy in all this. I just think we could try to make an effort to work with them and the CHS. The fact that you had to included "within reason" tells me you get it. I happen to think that the way some use DNFs are unreasonable. Have I ever said it was? Where have you been? I'm one of the biggest supporters of the CHS and I know you know that soooooo what's this all about?
  20. That's fine. I've explained why logging a DNF in situations where an individual didn't reach GZ and actually search can be detrimental to a cache owner and the CHS. I haven't heard any reasons how logging one without meeting those requirements are beneficial or help in any way other than ones own interests. When I was a new cache owner I needlessly ran out to check up on caches with every DNF posted. I realized later that wasn't necessary but when your a new cache owner you want to make sure your cache is in good shape so people can enjoy finding it and your hyper sensitive to any potential issues. Now I wish I could say I've mellowed in that regard but for the most part I still over react to every NM and DNF logged on one of my caches. For me it's all about improving Geocaching as a whole and I believe that making a few personal changes could help accomplish that. Some simply don't want to change the way they do things even if the change is as simple as something like this. I guess it's that attitude that boggles my mind and pushes me to continue this debate. It's like I've always said. Don't do something because someone told you to. Do it because it makes sense.
  21. If I have to explain why you shouldn't use a dnf to log a cache when you never even got out of your car to look for it, it's hopeless. Yet that's what some still do.
  22. It was just an example. I think it would be common sense to log the Find on the second encounter because that adds new information to the cache page. I wouldn't log the second DNF because it adds nothing new. It would only be re-enforcing the fact that I still couldn't' find the cache and there's no need to negatively impact the CHS by doing that. No. I'm advocating that certain conditions be met to log a DNF. No. It's allowing the DNF to be judged based on an actual search and not as a place holder for caches that you'll like to attempt another day. The premise is simple. That DNF means someone reached GZ and searched. That's all. Everyone else, including the CHS, can decide exactly what that DNF means in relation to the cache and it's other logs knowing that someone actually tried to find it and didn't. That DNF would actually carry some weight knowing it meet those basic requirements. I have no idea what your trying to say here. I have basic requirements that need to be meet before I use any log. Because of that I've never changed a log in my life. This philosophy has proven itself over time and has nothing to do with the CHS. The fact that I don't arbitrarily post DNFs combined with the way the CHS handles them is in my mind conformation I'm doing something right.
×
×
  • Create New...