justintim1999
-
Posts
2427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by justintim1999
-
-
4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
(otherwise what's it got going for it?)
the only other thing I can think of is durability. I'd rather drop my $200.00 gps in the stream than my smart phone.
-
.png)
1
-
1
-
-
On 10/23/2018 at 2:37 PM, SaRothe said:
I can't help with the protocol thing about whether or not to "remind" someone that they didn't give you a favorite point but from my experience and something I have done myself, they may just be waiting until they get home? I don't always write up a full log or add a favorite point until I get home and can sit down and go through the caches for the day. If I'm trying to do a bunch of caches at a time I just log a found it and maybe add something about a FP and then when I get the chance after I get home I go back and edit the logs and add the favorite point.
Adding to this I've been in a position of being all out of favorite points so I'll let the cache owner know I intend on awarding a favorite point as soon as ones available.
-
47 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
Maybe you could borrow someone else's GPS for a while to get a feel for it and see if you like it better
Good point. I did exactly this when I hid my first cache and realized that my Garmin Nuvi wasn't quite accurate enough. After using it to hid that cache I fell in love with it and had to get one. I'm sure the accuracy of smart phones have come a long way but I'm not convinced that they are better than a stand alone.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, coachstahly said:
Seriously? Explain to me, then, why my cache got pinged. Other than the DNFs, what would contribute to a negative CHS?
I'd guess false positive? Let's scrap the whole project.
Are you still having this same problem?
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
Then why the reliance on DNFs as part of the CHS score?
Because multiple DNF can indicate that a cache is missing! I'm not even sure DNF's have a major impact on the CHS. They are taken into consideration and I believe they should be.
15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:I don't need an email telling me to go take a look.
I don't either but not everyone is as attune to our caches as we may be and that's what this is all about. We being experienced cache owners should be able to see past a few false positives to the real reason why a system like this is beneficial.
18 minutes ago, coachstahly said:When I started, the ratio of caches in my area that most likely needed maintenance was 1 in 10. It hasn't changed in the 8 years since I started.
And since you started the number of caches out in the world has increased what? 1000 fold. Your 1 in 10 is now 100 out of 1000.
-
I've always Geocached with a stand alone unit. To be honest I don't even own a smart phone (yes I'm that guy) so I couldn't compare caching between the two. I own a Garmin Oregon 450 which I paid $200.00 for years ago. I can tell you that it's rolled down a few hills and been dropped many times. It's still as reliable as the day I purchased it.
-
2
-
-
Just now, coachstahly said:30 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
What's clear is that multiple DNF's should be prompting the cache owner to take a look and take appropriate action.
Only if the CO believes there is an issue.
That's it. Just take a look and decide if action should be taken.
1 minute ago, coachstahly said:I'm disputing the fact that an automated program knows the status of a cache better than a CO does
If that was the case the e-mail wouldn't exist. The CHS would be disabling caches as it sees fit which we all know it can't do. That's why the e-mail exists because the cache owner knows the various aspects of the cache better than anyone and can determine if those DNF's really mean anything. The e-mail is just asking you to take a look.
5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:Since when is Groundspeak in the business of guaranteed finds, because that's basically what this system is pushing us toward.
I don't think so. I think the system is pushing better cache maintenance. No one can guarantee a find but we can increase the probability that if a cache is found it's in reasonable shape.
-
9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
Why should a DNF lower the score?
Because multiple ones can indicate a problem. I agree that DNF's are in a grey area. They could mean absolutely nothing or they could mean that the cache is missing. What's clear is that multiple DNF's should be prompting the cache owner to take a look and take appropriate action.
Multiple DNF's have always indicated a possible problem. This is nothing new. All the e-mail is asking is you take a look at it.
-
5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
I think the DNF log is intended to be used to indicate that one has not found the cache, and believe that is how most geocachers use it. I don't think that geocachers use the DNF log to suggest that a cache may need maintenance, yet that is how the CHS interprets it.
And rightfully so. If we define a DNF as reaching GZ and searching than three or four of these could mean the cache is indeed missing. I think receiving the e-mail in this situation says "There could be something wrong here. What do you think?" The e-mail is designed to elicit a response. Something that indicates your still active.
-
12 hours ago, dprovan said:
I think it's the exact opposite. After all, if logs were used as intended, they wouldn't have needed to invent the CHS to begin with. To some extent -- frankly, I think to a large extent -- the whole point of the CHS is to interpret how finders do now use logs because it isn't how they were intended to be used.
Then how can the CHS interpret a DNF from a cacher who never even reached GZ? I think the CHS takes that DNF at face value and assumes (rightfully so) that a search was preformed without finding the cache. Because of this DNF the cache has a lower health score than it should have which in turn makes it more vulnerable to be flagged.
Same can be said for someone posting a found log and indicating in the log that the cache has an issue. Because a Needs Maintenance log should have been posted this cache has a higher health score than it probably should. In turn it will take longer for this cache to be flagged when there's evidence that it needs owner attention now.
If there's no consistency in posting logs than it's garbage in garbage out.
-
4 hours ago, niraD said:
While I understand the reason, I think this is exactly backwards. The CHS should be fixed to work with the way people actually post logs. People should not be expected to change the way they post logs to satisfy the CHS.
I think the CHS was designed to work with how logs were intended to be used not how people have come to use them.
-
1
-
-
On 10/29/2018 at 5:52 PM, The A-Team said:
Sure, they can post as many as they want, but there will definitely be a point where it becomes excessive and unhelpful. For example, what if a CO checked on the cache hidden outside their work every time they went out for a smoke break and posted an OM every time? Do you really feel that it would be helpful to have a handful of OM logs posted every day? If you saw a cache listing with a dozen finds and 300 OM logs, you wouldn't think to yourself "that's excessive"?
The line at which it becomes excessive will vary depending on the cache. An OM in between every find log might make sense for a cache hidden on top of a mountain that's only found once every year or two. An OM in between every find log on a suburban cache that's found a dozen times a month would be getting borderline excessive. An OM in between every find log on GC189E5 would most certainly be excessive (and almost a full-time job!
).
I would think most owners wouldn't post an OML every day or every week and I wouldn't encourage that. After looking at the OP's caches I noticed that they have one that's almost a year old without a single one. To be honest that cache has nothing but finds on it so there's really no need to post one other than fulfilling the guideline to "visit your cache occasionally" which isn't a bad thing to do either. In fact one of their caches received one dnf and they ran right out there to check up on it and post a note that all was well. Do I think that running out to check on a cache after every dnf is a bad thing? If they're willing and able to do it I think it's great. Do I expect them to. No, but I wouldn't tell them not to.
IMO discouraging the use of OM:'s in any way is counter productive to what's trying to be accomplished here. If someone is predisposed to post one every day there's nothing you or I or anyone can say that will stop them from doing it. As usual something like that is extremely rare but it could happen so we better point out that negative in that right?
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, kunarion said:
Part of the work that goes into making a great cache, is designing it so that it doesn't require constant “maintenance”. If you're repairing or replacing it frequently, consider that there's a flaw in the design.
I had an Ammo box in a bad spot, in a small forested area between busy soccer fields. Go check on that, and yeah, it's been opened and dragged around. Sure, I can put it all back together, make OMs all the time. But it just wasn't a good placement, it was in a bad spot.
My first cache pretty much needed to be hooked onto a particular area of a decorative cyprus, or else it was either too easily dislodged by groundskeepers or much harder to find by cachers. I later hid such caches in a way that there's a defined hiding spot (often with velcro on magnets).
Some of mine are bison tubes, and they're generally the worst. But the one that's infrequently opened tends to be almost maintenance-free.
OTOH, if I hid a 1.5ml vial with a bottle cap glued to it, or a ziplock bag “slimjim” or whatever, I'd plan to simply swap the whole thing out on a regular basis. Either container will self-destruct in the elements, even with zero finds. I'd have log after log of “OM”. Maybe then I'd have to decide when I have “too many OMs” or if I need to delete them.
I'm having a problem with a bison tube. I have three other similar tubes out and for some reason this one seems to fail much more often than the others. I must have replaced the o-ring at least three times this year and it doesn't help. Problem is the container has to be a bison tube to work with the hide. A match stick container with a tube inside it would work well but I think the match stick container would be too big. Any ideas?
-
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:
- If they're logging more OMs than they get visits, that (to me) just means they're kinda OCD
Isn't this intimating that you shouldn't post too many OML's even if you say it's ok later in the sentence? I don't understand why anyone would even hint that there's any reason why an owner shouldn't post an OML any time they want to as long as they've actually checked up on the cache. I agree there's many reasons why you don't have to but no reason why an owner shouldn't, except a bunch of OML's on the cache page which seems to upset some people and again I don't understand why.
You can ignore me again if you like. I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm here to provide a different prospective on things and let others decide what makes sense to them.
-
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:
Has anyone ever seen an excessive amount of OMs? In 17 years I have never seen an example. I suppose daily might be excessive. Depending on why they are checking daily.
No but wouldn't that be nice?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:
I don't feel quite the same...
Will look at OMs vs. cache visits, not just by OMs alone.
- If they're logging more OMs than they get visits, that (to me) just means they're kinda OCD ... but it should be okay.
We've seen enough "nothing wrong with it" armchair OMs to see some might not have even bothered to check.
Why would you discourage anyone from posting as many OML's as they'd like to? If they enjoy the area and are into wanting to make sure their cache is always in good shape, why not let them?
We're not talking about armchair OML's here. This cacher, after checking out a few of their hides, looks to be a good, conscientious owner. I say check up on your cache as much as you'd like to and post an OML every time you do If you want. It's not going to hurt anything and sets a good example.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say. "You know, this cache is too well maintained."
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, niraD said:
It probably wouldn't really solve your problem. Centrifuge vials are designed to be single use. When used for geocaches, they don't stay watertight for very long.
I'm a big fan of a container within a container (especially when I have to change out wet logs every other month) . What could I put inside a bison tube that would both fit the container and fit a log? Maybe a smaller bison tube?
-
1 hour ago, kunarion said:
Do you mean the tiny medical centrifuge vials? I have about a thousand of those.
Could you send me a few or tell me where I can get them. I've got a cache (bison tube) that's always having a water issue. If I could fit this inside a bison tube I think it would solve my problem.
-
On 10/10/2018 at 5:42 AM, Sabina & Dogs said:
Wow thanks everyone - the emails have been going backwards and forwards with the lady saying she can't put anything but grid reference in her system and I have been trying lots of online conversions and getting miles away - you are all right - re Laughton woods and your description - so I know my co-ordinates are also right - thanks everyone, and thanks for the info re street map IceCOLD UK
Nice work. Now go get that permission and get that cache out.
-
Tension pins work well too. I've taken a dowel a size that fits into the cap. Cut it flush and glue it in. Drill a small hole in the dowel big enough to fit the tension pin. Glue it in and your good to go. You can find the dowels and tension pins at most big box stores.
-
16 hours ago, niraD said:
A cotter pin is a useful tool for rolling logs into tight scrolls so they fit better in micro/nano containers.
These work great.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
Because I'm a responsible cache owner and that's what I agreed to do when I signed up. Simple.
You'll notice that I set more Earthcaches these days because I find them more rewarding.
The last batch of trads I put down was mainly to get rid of some of the mass of cache containers that were cluttering up the cupboards at home.
I'm going to pull on the tooth a littler harder now. I know your a responsible cache owner but why do you hide caches if you think the majority of finders out there are deadbeats?
You don't need to answer that because even if you won't say it I know what the real answer is. How do I know? Because it's the same reason I do it. It's the same reason I think offering cache owners some sort of incentive to be good owners and put out fun caches is worth the risk of being somehow manipulated.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
Nope. Not the slightest bit evasive.
I've answered all of your questions to the best of my ability and knowledge.
That's where it ends though 'cos this is going nowhere. Square peg. Round hole.
One last question. This one is easy. If you think that the majority of people out there are somehow cheating, why do you hide caches and, from what I can see, take care of them meticulously? Why go through all that work just so the majority of cachers can pad their stats?
-
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
Wow - the degree to which you want to frame and then re-frame the questions / twist the stats to fit your agenda is astounding! And not for the first time I have to say.
This is why threads on here tend to drivel on in ever-decreasing circles until a reviewer shuts them down, out of tedium as much as anything else.
I haven't done a detailed survey of how many times each cacher has bent the rules - nor in which specific ways and nor did I make such claims.
If I had then your suggestion that I'm spending far too much time looking at the negative might actually have some real basis which, I strongly suspect, would elevate you to a state of rapturous bliss.
Your intensive forensics really aren't going to change anything.
It becomes necessary when one can't get a simple question answered. I guess the evasive nature of your responses is answer enough for me.
.png)
).
Excessive owner maintenence logs!
in General geocaching topics
Posted
No matter how you look at it it's 10%. I don't know when you started but 10% of 100,000 caches is a far cry from 10% of 6 million.