Jump to content

4wheelin_fool

Members
  • Posts

    6054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 4wheelin_fool

  1. It's a 1/1 if it's wheelchair accessible and indoors, despite how cold it is and the amount of snow is on the ground. If it's outside perhaps its a 1/2, depending on the terrain. On the other hand a CITO conceivably might have a difficulty rating of 2, but I doubt it. Any event with a high difficulty rating should not be published. I mean, c'mon. You arrive at the restaurant, they ignore you and serve cold food while sneering? If it's a 5 does that mean you are likely to be kicked out?
  2. Maybe. Maybe not. I've found caches where much of the challenge and much of the purpose of the cache was for seekers to find a safe and legal route to the cache. Parking or trailhead waypoints could be considered spoilers for caches like that. In the earliest days of geocaching, that was considered part of the challenge. This is why there are a number of older cache pages with an entire paragraph in the hint field describing where to park and which trail to use. Sometime later difficulty was considered to describe the search at GZ, not getting there. Since that is the current use, I cannot imagine any event that should be listed with a difficulty higher than 1. Assigning different levels just because you can is silly.
  3. Events should all be assigned a difficulty of 1. If you can drive to it and roll a wheelchair in then the terrain is a 1 also. Of course the terrain should increase if it's outdoors and a hike or a boat is necessary, but a 1 difficulty should be the standard. I can appreciate reviewers taking the time to correct false D/T ratings, but that doesn't mean that they are correct either. Heard a story about a cache that was forced to be listed as a 5/5 due to a UV light being special equipment. Really?
  4. +1 Not too certain about what could be conceived as "lame" about the log. Seems rather honest, straightforward and bland. Not something I could imagine anyone getting stirred up over.
  5. I would think that they would follow the example set by permit systems in other state parks rather than make it so strict. I am not aware of any which have caused any problems, or any type of impact. If there was a problem, I'm sure an archival would be no problem.
  6. In these situations geocaches very frequently get archived so someone else can hide something there. There is absolutely nothing...about it, unless of course the cache is in fine shape. I'm rather offended at your extreme reaction to it, and over the top colorful language. If you are really living in fear of someone placing an NA on your disabled cache, then fix the dang thing.
  7. If you mother's gravely ill and you want her house, you should put her in a home. No, wait, that can't be right. Oh, yeah, I remember now: you might make the very serious decision of putting your mother in a home, but it would be the height of assholery to do it because you want her house. Let's not start equating caches to loved-ones...you're overstating the importance of it all. In the end it's just a hidden box with a slip of paper inside. If it's damaged and not being maintained, it's not even fair to compare it to one's bed-ridden mother being sent to a nursing home. Would you say leaving a throwdown is akin to having an impostor move in so one can cash one's dead mother's Social Security checks? dprovan's analogy is probably the most extreme, off base, erratic one that can be imagined. So someone else's cache is equivalent to one's mother? If someone has a disabled cache that they are not maintaining for an extended period of time, an NA is certainly justified if another person wants to hide something there. Either @#$% or get off the pot. True, but I guess my problem was imagining anyone being emotionally invested in the geocache to think that it should be archived. I'm sensing a definite pattern here, and it sounds like dprovan is emotionally invested in NA logs. Posting a NA because the owner is not maintaining something, and you want to place something there should not make someone feel guilty, and it's a perfectly valid reason. The original cache owner certainly has precedence, but that's limited to their ability to maintain something in a timely fashion. So someone wants to hide something, and the existing cache has been disabled for 5 months. Perhaps they should feel like an evil person and visit a psychiatrist about hating their mother? I'd rather see valid reasons for these NA logs, rather than complaining it has been long disabled just for the sake of complaining. If I have something disabled for many moons, I'm not going to start calling someone an ***hole because they want the spot. I'd rather the honest communication, than the simmering hate and silence.
  8. People are comfortable and familiar in their own neighborhood, and likely will not notice how sketchy it is. I don't think anyone should feel reluctant to mention how sketchy an area is, as others will welcome the warning. If they think there might be a backlash, they should post the log without the mention after a few others have posted, and just edit it afterwards. The CO will likely never notice.
  9. Yes, I did. I made the point strongly because I think it's important: neither the OP nor anyone else should get the impression that after the question "How do I put a cache near a disabled cache?" and the answer "You don't until it's archived?" that a reasonable follow up discussion is about how to get that cache archived. I'm hoping the OP didn't get the impression that wanting to plant a cache is a good reason to try to get another cache archived. So much for that plan... That's another thread "Why so much negativity towards a NA". If someone does want to hide a cache, and a disabled cache is blocking it for several months, they certainly should post an NA. I don't know why this is frowned upon, but if the reason is container maintenance and it hasn't been done, then archive it and let's get another one out there. The real problem is that people will post NAs because the length of time the cache is disabled will annoy them, but yet they don't have any plans to hide anything. If they do want to hide something, is it wrong? No.
  10. Do you have any data for the state as a whole during that time frame? Just the raw numbers, not how many players are also placing. It would be an interesting comparison. It seems to be a trend. Here is another thread on it: 2014 Cache Placing Slump
  11. How? That's newspeak. It would be crimethink otherwise.
  12. True, but I guess my problem was imagining anyone being emotionally invested in the geocache to think that it should be archived. It certainly doesn't take an emotional investment to post an NA, or to have an opinion that it probably should be archived. See here. A single pair of cachers post 2 DNFs and add an NA on. Usually it takes a string of DNFs before a Needs Maintenance, and then the NA might appear after that is not addressed after a few months. However the reviewer obliges them, and seemingly without any emotional investment either.
  13. Here my finds are less, as well as the favorites when compared to here. Any other differences?
  14. While you have a good point in general, this specific case is just an abandoned fast food joint on a corner, not someone's yard. It's impossible for me to imagine anyone being emotionally invested in the property to the point of thinking someone going 15' into it without disturbing anything is being disrespectful. It seems quite likely more people walk through the parking lot just to cut the corner than go there to geocache. So for both reasons, I claim there's no danger here of giving geocaching a bad name. The only real danger is that someone will insist on prosecuting someone for purely legal reasons, and even that seems unlikely. And likewise, it's impossible for me to imagine anyone being emotionally invested in the geocache to the point of thinking that it shouldn't be archived. A 12 year old parking lot micro with 0 favorites isn't something worth losing sleep over. Likely there is some scrap metal nearby that some crackhead would love to grab, and a continual presence of people entering the area, acting sketchy, and wasting the time of the police is not something that the game should be about. A cop sees someone at night and says "oh that's one of those game players", and the next week the owner reports that all of the aluminum wiring and copper piping has been ripped out. A geocache which brings a parade of people to lurk around an abandoned building is plainly inappropriate, whether its legal or not. Wait until the metal scrappers get caught using the game and the free app as an alibi, and that hits the news.
  15. It's seems possible that the geocache was placed there for the intent to give an excuse to be somewhere that most people shouldn't be. Since entrance to the building was only a few feet away, an innocent geocache could gauge whether or not lingering people in the area would be noticed or questioned. The next step would be to go inside and if asked, explain the game and use the game piece, the logsheet, as well as the app, to show that plenty of others have done the same thing, albeit innocently. But then you blurt out what possibly happened (as a joke) and what most people wouldnt mention in the logs, and the CO thinks OH, $&@#!!! and archives it and blames you. Overreaction very well could be him protecting something that he doesn't want to be mentioned. I can't see someone having too much pride over a location like that.
  16. It would have been clearer if I'd said, "IF someone used the stairs." I had no idea that the stairs didn't work. I think people are mainly unconcerned. Despite the new signs, it's not as if anyone's going to get hurt or arrested for going to GZ, so most people, like me, are probably willing to let it continue just to see what happens. Once there's a problem, then we can talk about archiving it. To be honest, I don't think there's any significant legal difference between its placement now behind a scary sign and its original placement on private property without permission. Its plainly disrespectful for one person to intentionally disobey private property signs. That disrespect increases quite a bit when there is an open invitation for the public to intentionally disobey private property signs. When someone senses disrespect they tend to pay it back. Not sure if you really want that. There plenty of hides by great people out there, and when someone's general impression of geocachers is that of disrespectful people, they just may take it out on the others. In the end, following your advice jeopardizes the hard work that the others have done. Kinda reminds me of the deer that sits at the side of the road staring at traffic, while apathetically crossing in front of it.
  17. We found pretty much the same thing, only the women's underwear was hanging from trees. The first pair made it appear that it was removed for some reason, but then there was more, and more... A few dozen bras and panties hanging from trees, not all in one spot but spread over a good distance and not on the trail.
  18. This isn't even debatable. It has changed, and people who have joined in 2009 and after haven't noticed it too much and don't want to believe it. Yes, the original game is still there to be found, but if you hide something deep in the woods less people will go out to look for it, despite the growth. More people will log it with 3 words or less, which was very rare before 2005, and it will be more likely to get muggled or left out in the open. The change is obvious.
  19. People who act in the manor I described don't make newer cachers feel welcome, either. I get it, some want a pencil, paper, and a GPS. But just b/c there's an easier way of doing things doesn't make it any less exciting. I think if I'd have read some of the posts I'd read today when I first started caching, I probably would have cried and quit b/c some people seem to come off as bullies. When I pick a few caches out to find, I get excited no matter what they are. Yes, I prefer the larger caches, but I don't mind the small, annoying ones either. I got up from my computer and I got away from burning almost 0 calories to going out and having a small workout. Maybe I don't do it often enough to get burned of the same thing over and over again. Ponder this. If you think that you're being called out as an elitist jerk and that makes you feel bad, imagine how saying new players and new ways of caching are terrible and ruining the game are making the newbies feel. *Sigh* Seeing this kind of stuff is why I seldom visit message boards in general anymore. PS - I give up on the cool fonts. You are all boring (And really, let me spell it out - that would be a sarcastic joke...smh, you never can tell anymore.) EDIT - Grammar error. At one time I enjoyed reading the logbook inside the cache. That experience has gone. Online logs were supposed to be the subsitute but that is disappearing quickly as well. Now what you can expect are logs mostly 3 words or less and with the cache eventually being left out in the open. Yes, mostly new people are doing it, but they really can't be blamed as they are only following what they see. The intro app doesn't have any guidance and it doesn't verify email addresses, so the product is rather predictable. Here is a good example of the demise of a nice hide. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCN395_its-not-even-an-island?guid=77e02585-691e-4eae-91ce-c62db8329d49 Compare the logs from 2005 to today. The change is evident. It's like returning to a very nice neighborhood and finding many of the houses boarded up and properties abandoned. Then saying "what happened?", results in someone calling you an elitist who should deal with it. The adoptive CO joined when geocaching was much different and has hidden plenty of nice caches, but it appears that they have lost interest. Why? I don't know, but I have a good idea. Several other 3 word finders will fill their place and gift all of the local parking lots with pill bottles. Again, I'm not blaming them as they are only following what they see. Yes everyone can play their own way, but to pretend that nobody is affected is being misled. If you examine the logs of new versus old, you may find there is a difference.
  20. One thing that doesn't change is that there are plenty of people that lose interest. Many perhaps get tired of finding caches that need maintenance and decide that it isn't fun anymore. Then they lose interest and abandon their own hides.. Others may not like the direction the game is going, and calling them elitist jerks is not going to bring them back.
  21. I wonder about what's different in your area, because I've never found a rusted ammo can like how you're describing. I suppose if a person put out an ammo can without sanding and painting it, the container could get rusty, but I've found a few of those and they're still openable. Too bad, because I think they're the best sort of container. They are lousy near the ocean or in acidic rain areas. I hid a brand new one, painted as well, as a paddle to in a marshland, but never got around to creating the intended puzzle for it. The following spring I went out to check on it and it was rusted shut. I managed to break it while trying to open it up. Another one under water (fresh water) lasted close to 3 years before getting plenty of rust holes. Hm, I've found ammo cans along the west coast and in the Seattle area, with no problem. Maybe all the rain washes the salt away. It could be. Here is an acid rain map.
  22. I've heard about a GPS that disappeared from an event while left on a table for a short time, which is not something that would have occurred in the past in a tightly knit group. Coins routinely go missing, as well as ammo cans. I has a few new cachers get rather upset because they wanted to me to award them with a find for arriving at GZ and discovering that a few kids took the cache home with them. Then there are the app users who don't have email addresses and often leave the cache out in the open. Don't really think that it's improving, but at least Groundspeak is making money.
  23. I wonder about what's different in your area, because I've never found a rusted ammo can like how you're describing. I suppose if a person put out an ammo can without sanding and painting it, the container could get rusty, but I've found a few of those and they're still openable. Too bad, because I think they're the best sort of container. They are lousy near the ocean or in acidic rain areas. I hid a brand new one, painted as well, as a paddle to in a marshland, but never got around to creating the intended puzzle for it. The following spring I went out to check on it and it was rusted shut. I managed to break it while trying to open it up. Another one under water (fresh water) lasted close to 3 years before getting plenty of rust holes.
  24. If it was a contact problem it would likely be noticeable from a visual inspection. Although there is a repair video available, I suggest sending it to Garmin and they will send back a refurbished one with updated software for $99.
  25. List containers that notoriously fail. There appears to be a continuous issue with geocachers making mistakes in believing their containers are durable, even after finding wet ones of the same type. Altoid tins and film cans might be great in Arizona or Texas, but in wetter climates probably not. Plastic Ziplock containers tend to be brittle and crack. Lock n locks are great, except for narrow sandwich containers of any brand. These are about 1 inch deep and 5 inches wide. What tends to happens is that they get stuffed with oversize objects and the seal fails. Hide one without a plastic bag, then someone will add one, and close the lid on it. What else is lousy ?
×
×
  • Create New...