Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 4wheelin_fool

  1. How were they lured out to the spot for no valid reason? As you've pointed out - they were guaranteed a smiley despite the fact that the basis of the cache itself wasn't even there If the basis of the cache is not there, why would there be any valid reason to visit? Getting a smiley ? If the cache needs to be archived, it never has anything to do with the person posting the NA, although many hurt people would like you to think so. Either people are logging something that doesn't exist, or the property is posted, or the CO has done something incorrectly. Here's what happens frequently. Someone posts an NA without finding the cache. The owner gets indignant and says that since they didn't find it, they don't have any basis to know if it needs to be archived or not. Then the cacher goes out, finds it, and posts another NA. Next, someone chastises them for claiming a find and trying to prevent others from doing the same. It's not rocket science, either it needs archived or not. The finder has nothing to do with it. Geez. You would think that posting these NAs are similar to the act of walking into a preschool a few weeks before Christmas and announcing that Santa was beheaded.
  2. Yes, I concede this is a valid point, but, on the other hand, the initial reaction to this example was entirely negative -- for example, I'm pretty sure the initial comment about the found/NA combination was negative about logging the find while agree with the call for archive -- so the case for archival is clear. I can't really fault -- let along call "lame" -- the cacher that saw both sides of the issue, although I admit I wouldn't have called for archival on a cache I'd just successfully logged. They did fulfill the requirements and may not have noticed beforehand that the target was missing. Being lured out to a spot for no valid reason is more than enough reason to both log it, and request it's archival. Yes, they are preventing others from making the same mistake.
  3. Don't have any idea why you would want a premium membership if you just joined today and haven't found anything yet. Perhaps if you found a few caches first, you might realize its benefits.
  4. Why? Geocachers do know the best places to hide a body.. Nothing a simple stun gun and rock can't handle. Dead bodies are easy to drag while in a bag.
  5. Probably not exactly like that. Probably someone wrote a program that does at least the repetitious part, maybe even the actual logging. Then they shared the program with their like-minded friends. Are they only doing the numeric codes? I suppose it's only a matter of time until they do the alphanumeric codes as well. Interesting. I took the tracking number from one of mine, typed in one number higher, and higher. The next five numbers (that are active) were logged by the Netherlander. Guess that's one way to do it. And imagine what fun he could have had by taking the TBs to visit all of the caches he found.
  6. Just got it. On the bolded,,, Tell the truth, you put that line in there yourself, didn't ya? Yeah. Just trying to lighten up things around here.
  7. So now there are *******s who sit around and repetitiously enter numbers into the TB system until they get a hit. Perhaps Groundspeak should update the system to include a wait time of a few minutes after someone puts in 3 incorrect numbers.
  8. The log sheet is metaphorical for a key, opening the doors of new experiences. The key holder symbolizes a lousy container.
  9. Just place the key holder in an ammo can and you won't need a bag.
  10. Yep! Both the rectangular and oval ones do not stay dry.
  11. A business owner who loses money due to an object placed on their property without any type of permission, has every right to demand that someone be held responsible for it. At least that's how I would react. Having an area open to public visits does not give anyone the legal right to leave objects behind as part of any online game. Someone should think before wrapping a cylinder up in duct tape and placing it in a public place.
  12. IANAL, but I think there is a "real legal reason", and I don't think it has much to do with whether geocache containers are abandoned property or personal property. The key is that they are not Groundspeak's property, and they are not Groundspeak's legal liability. Groundspeak is just a listing service, and does not own any of our geocaches, and does not want to own any of our geocaches. But again, IANAL. Which is why they should have no say about how you obtained the container. If the previous owner has a problem with you using their container that's on you. Why does grooundspeak give one iota how you obtained your container? Why should they allow themselves to be put in the middle of a dispute between two people? The CO could always return and throw a fit over someone stealing their property without their permission, especially if they committed geocide. This has happened a few times already as I recall. I have a container in the woods from the end of a multi that I archived in 2008. Eventually it will be relisted once I get around to it. Abandoned? No. If another cacher decides to claim it without sending an email, I wouldn't be too happy about it.
  13. Looks like the popo locked down the cache in post #2, and archived the invisible Japanese one in #8. Good job guys!
  14. No that's good form. Bad form is posting the answers to other peoples puzzles in the forums.
  15. I try to place the hides in interesting areas that I don't mind revisiting. I usually check all of the paddle tos in the early spring, and the others only if I suspect a problem. There's one that I drive by and verify that it's there without stopping the car, and another that I cannot find, although others keep finding it. My policy is that if I don't feel like visiting and doing maintenance out of my own disinterest, then it should be removed and archived.
  16. Wow. It appears to be someone who seemingly does not read or write too well, but yet looks down upon people with less finds.
  17. If a NA is logged for bounced emails, it is enough to archive a virt or webcam. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#grandfatheredtypes If you currently own a virtual or webcam cache, you must maintain the cache listing and logs, respond to inquiries from cachers, and must check the physical location periodically. Abandoned caches will likely be archived by Groundspeak. Grandfathered caches will not be unarchived. Yeah, it was just my opinion. I could probably quickly locate 50 virts with nonresponsive owners, but they don't need to go away anytime soon either.
  18. But in another thread, an unresponsive owner is enough to start the process. If the owner cannot be contacted, isn't it the same thing? With a DNF, yes.
  19. Completely agree I'll have to take your word for that, having never experienced it myself. It's not complete rubbish and under certain circumstances there's a good chance such expectations will be consistently met. I think it would be fairer to say that there are circumstances where expecting field logging is unrealistic, ambitious even. I'd point you to the logs of the tantrums, but that would likely trigger more. Field logging should always be thought of as a courtesy, not an expectation. Not everyone has a smartphone, or cell reception if they do have one. Id like to think this game is evolving, not devolving to the level of 10 year olds. Antics such a tearing off the top of a log sheet, or throwing a fit because someone didn't log it right away, makes me wonder.
  20. Expecting field logging is complete rubbish. There have been more than a few temper tantrums thrown when someone discovers they are 2nd to find on a cache that someone logged 2 hours ago. If you can't handle being second, then you shouldn't bother to look for it.
  21. The moderators are welcome to close this thread if they can agree that disabling lonely caches after only a single DNF is jumping the gun. Personally, I'd like to see the threshold at 3 DNFs, but can live with 2. Even with 3 DNFs there are some caches unnecessarily being archived. Remote hides are simply not being looked for anymore, not that people are silently looking for them.
  22. I don't think bounced emails is enough for a virtual or a webcam to go away. However if it is not there anymore, it's asinine to keep it active. There are plenty of examples (such as the one posted in Japan) of people who log things without finding anything. Obsessive compulsive logging seems to be a disease that only locking the listing can cure.
  23. I'm guessing this is the one you're referencing? My best guess as an outsider is this: This cache appears to be owned by a Girl Scout/Boy Scout troop This cache should have been rated a 5* for terrainhttp://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=327903 The cache owner has not responded to the notes that began right after the cache was published mentioning the edit to the T rating The Reviewer may have not read this listing completely and published it solely on the idea that the cache did not break any guidelines Cache owner's only other hide was found to be on private property. They did not respond to that NM log, or to the Reviewer when it was Archived. This makes a case to me that their other, newer hide will possibly see the same level of understanding and appreciation for the guidelines and required involvement of a cache owner But this is just me, and a good reason you can claim for why you personally wouldn't want me as your Reviewer. First of all, thanks for the report, Cascade reviewer. Don't want to quote all that text. Second of all, Cerberus1 (whom I know to be somewhat local to that cache) mentioned most of those things as well. That does sound like a crappy cache on a small lake with no public access. Perhaps the reviewer did take some of that stuff into account. I still don't like the road that's being traveled here though with the involuntarily disabling of some of the examples in this thread. The threshold for disabling appears to be slightly different in other areas. If you take a look at the oldest unfound caches for Ohio, for example, there are several that are currently disabled due to 2 DNFs. Although this is much better than 1 DNF, likely a few are still being unnecessarily archived. In this area, 3 DNFs at any time, could trigger an automated disablement, even if there was a find a few weeks ago. Since most of these are being turned into litter, I really wish they would have just a little more restraint.
  • Create New...