justintim1999
-
Posts
2427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by justintim1999
-
-
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?
-
.png)
1
-
-
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.
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. 
-
1
-
-
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.
-
.png)
2
-
-
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 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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
2
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
it's just if it was the reviewer that had an issue with the cache, why wouldn't they archive it themselves? Why involve a lackey in another country? It seems more likely someone in HQ has gotten wind of an issue of an EC involving lingerie and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Hopefully it can all be resolved through the appeal process with everyone on the same page.
Could be something as simple as that.
-
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
Which reinforces my view which is to wait for the appeals process to take its course and to engage in open and honest dialogue with Groundspeak in a bid to achieve the best outcome for all concerned which, in my view, is to get the Earthcache unarchived.
Sound strategy. I really hope it all works out for you
-
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:
I'm not. That's why I asked you why you think that way.
I assume that there's some degree of logical deduction behind your musings rather than nothing more than dramatic conspiracy theory?
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.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
It was archived by a head office lackey, not a reviewer.
The rung of the latter doesn't matter to me. My inquiry's the same.
-
9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
Is there anything in particular that makes you think that?
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........
-
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:
Just noticed this one - thanks for the pointer
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.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:
Here's the silliness of one of the positions expressed in this thread.
A person wants to declare a new unilateral change to the meaning of the "DNF" log type because GS is (may be) using it in a manner that's substantially different than it's original intended and stated purpose.
This change in usage was made without alerting the two million users currently applying the function.
Continued use of the original method and intent may result in what many people with 'skin' in the 'cache-ownership' game might consider undue pressure to take unneccesary trips into the field, many of which could be difficult, for no good reason.
There's no way to communicate the new intent because GS doesn't want to publicize the new methods lest they be 'gamed', and should that change, there's absolutely no way in the world to change the behavior patterns of millions of players.
Just ain't gonna happen.
So, the rational thing to do in my opinion is for GS to change the CHS 'DNF' trigger, IF in fact there actually is one.
It appears as though they're taking concrete action on how they 'wish' people would use the DNF Log Type, and that's just foolish. No insult intended.
None taken.
-
13 minutes ago, dprovan said:
It's so typical of today's society that we can discuss this, in detail, over and over for weeks on end, and you still have learned nothing about the other side of the argument and think everyone that disagrees with you is just "set in their ways".
It's also quite normal for someone like you to give up trying to convince grownups through logical discussion and, instead, decide to capture the next generation before they hear the other side of the argument and can make up their own minds.
Easy buddy. No need to be nasty.
I just don't think like you do.
-
On 11/9/2018 at 4:31 PM, The A-Team said:
Just to be clear, your EarthCache requires finders to look in the window of the "secretive" store to inspect the floor? I can see why some could interpret that as less family friendly than other examples here like being outside in the parking lot.
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.
On 11/9/2018 at 3:52 PM, Team Microdot said:The store which seems to be an issue now is owned by an American designer,
If I understand this correctly the store changed hands? If so what was it when the cache was published?
On 11/9/2018 at 3:52 PM, Team Microdot said:Does this mean that now any geocache which causes a person to walk past a shop selling women's underwear is at risk of being archived?
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
Oh G**! I'm still getting emails about it! ?
Ok, Ok. I'll stop and put you out of your misery.
-
23 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
This is the first topic I have ever unfollowed.
I didn't realize you were following it in the first place. Thanks for the update. I'm sure your not the first.
-
31 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
I don't think so. I believe Keystone said a find after a DNF cancels out previous DNFs.
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.
.png)
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. 
.png)
Cache Quality Survey results
in General geocaching topics
Posted
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.