TeamAO
-
Posts
543 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TeamAO
-
-
It might have something to do with your computer and not the site. I've had problems with viruses that change my information on sites. Maybe you should considered getting McAfee Virus Protection. Since I got it, no problems at all.
-
You can link things to your cache page using HTML. Which is in the FAQ at the top of the page on the Getting Started Forum.
-
I tried the GPS-less caching. It can be done, but it's hard. and limits you to traditional caches. So urban micros can be found this way although.
-
It's about what you want it to be about, for me it's definately the adventure.
-
Congrats! Finding the first is usually hard, atleast is was for me. Keep on caching!
-
The 11 year old in our group can do about 2 miles.
-
Hiding one of my first caches, we had to cross a stream, a dog will get thirsty after 6 miles of hiking uphill.
-
I met a "Phantom Cacher" on one of my finds, he said he doesn't log any finds, and didn't give me a user name and said not to bring him up in the online log of the cache.
That's a way to stick it to the number punchers I guess.
-
So another cache pops up in the same general area, it is still the same area
And with the trend these days the nicely stocked ammo box is likely to be replaced with a film canister with a damp slip of paper inside.
I hadn't thought about it that way, but I would much rather find a cache with little to no good trade items, than a micro in the woods.
Micros+Deep Woods=Bad Idea
-
I am the reviewer for your area.
Your cache was submitted on August 4th, Thursday. The instructions say to allow up to 72 hours for an initial response. You received an initial response less than 24 hours later, on August 5th, Friday. In my note to you, I asked you to provide the coordinates for all the stages of your multicache, and I noted that your clues were listed in decimal degree format rather than in decimal minute format.
I saw awhile ago that you had responded to my Friday note, and I saw in the forums that you were tinkering with the html for your cache page. I figured I'd give you some time to tidy your page up. It is my full intention to get back to your cache page later tonight or tomorrow. There are other caches in front of yours.
I would advise the OP to BE PATIENT. Multicaches and puzzles often take a bit longer.
Thanks Keystone! I'm just worried about it because it's my first and I thought I got abandoned after the reviewer note you wrote so quickly, I think I forgot that everything cannot be done so quickly. Sorry if you're offended, I'm just new to "placing caches". Thanks for the help.
Question Answered...Closing this thread.
-
All the caches I have placed have been approved in less than 24 hours.
However, that is going to vary depending on your location and how busy the approvers are.
Well, our local approver is pretty good with guidelines and rules (Keystone Approver), and he sent me a message to send him all the coordinates for all the caches in an email(mystery/unknown cache). I sent it twice and posted a reviewer note, because I'm leaving for a week tommorow morning and wanted to see it published. I understand he's busy, I just can't really find a "definite" amount of time it takes usually.
-
I placed a cache on Wednesday, and have been waiting for the cache to get approved. I haven't placed a cache before, but I wanted to know what is the "average" amount of time for caches to get approved. If it helps any, here is the "geocache" number that is in the queue, GCQ0VX.
Any comments are appreciated.
-
Approvers are usually busy, so getting a cache approved quickly is hard, but shouldn't bother you too much. The whole "bias" deal, you could just get the cache approved as a "park" cache, and then later change is to memorialize the loss, because I don't see any reason to not be able to place a cache here if it meets all the other guidelines.
-
Two things come to mind.
Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.
Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?
That's a good question about protecting the history of caching. I think the logs, both on line and in the original logbook records the history of a cache. You don't have to leave a seldom visited cache in place.
El Diablo
I don't want to get flamed for this metaphor, so if you feel the urge, resist.
Getting rid of some old caches that would be very worthwhile would be senseless. Archiving it because it is old, is like pushing elderly people out of society because they do not have as much production as younger people do. In Europe, they think that when an elder in the community dies, it is like a library burning down. Alot of knowledge and history fades. Don't archive a cache because it's old, archive it because it no longer, or possibly never has, been suffice to call itself a geocache. If it's an old Gatorade container from 2001 placed in a stump, where the cache has sustained substantial water damage, the log hasn't been replaced, "swag" value has depleted, then archiving it and waiting for a new cache to come along may be a good idea. We can't be selfish with our 528 foot circles and lay claim on them forever, but sometimes a cache is so good, the locals wouldn't want that cache archived for the world.
I'm not talking about archiving a cache because it's old. There are a lot of caches out there that are old and still viable.
My thought is that if the cache has been found by the majority of the locals, then it has lived it's life.
The very first cache I ever found is still in place, I even help maintain it. There are great seniments attached to that cache. It is owned by a very good friend. Now the question is, should it be archived to open up the area? Yes! As much as I would miss seeing the very first cache that I found archived, I think it should be. It gets less than a log every month or two.
El Diablo
Well, the Gatorade container with the waterlogged and...the whole "anti climatic" description was my first find. After getting so hyped into geocaching, finding that one really made me think I over anticipated it. And every cache since I liked, but my first find, I want that cache archived, to save others from the pain of seeing the cache.
Your log doesn't make it seem so painful
" July 4 by Team AlphaOmega (42 found)
Very nice hike yesterday in later day around 7PM. The primitive camping area was very pretty. A tip for any of you reading this, the GPS will point you downhill towards the lake to get there, instead stay uphill for the walk is much easier. Alot of bushwacking and the mosquitoes were swarming, but the hike was pretty and the coordinates were dead on. Everything is perfect inside, no water damage or anything. Thanks for the nice short hike."
Actually, the one you mentioned is Bedford's First Cache and is a very nice cache. That is the second cache I found, there was a cache I found just an hour earlier than that. For respect for the cacher I'm not going to bring up the name of the cache or the name of the cacher, but it was disappointing, nevertheless.
-
Two things come to mind.
Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.
Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?
That's a good question about protecting the history of caching. I think the logs, both on line and in the original logbook records the history of a cache. You don't have to leave a seldom visited cache in place.
El Diablo
I don't want to get flamed for this metaphor, so if you feel the urge, resist.
Getting rid of some old caches that would be very worthwhile would be senseless. Archiving it because it is old, is like pushing elderly people out of society because they do not have as much production as younger people do. In Europe, they think that when an elder in the community dies, it is like a library burning down. Alot of knowledge and history fades. Don't archive a cache because it's old, archive it because it no longer, or possibly never has, been suffice to call itself a geocache. If it's an old Gatorade container from 2001 placed in a stump, where the cache has sustained substantial water damage, the log hasn't been replaced, "swag" value has depleted, then archiving it and waiting for a new cache to come along may be a good idea. We can't be selfish with our 528 foot circles and lay claim on them forever, but sometimes a cache is so good, the locals wouldn't want that cache archived for the world.
I'm not talking about archiving a cache because it's old. There are a lot of caches out there that are old and still viable.
My thought is that if the cache has been found by the majority of the locals, then it has lived it's life.
The very first cache I ever found is still in place, I even help maintain it. There are great seniments attached to that cache. It is owned by a very good friend. Now the question is, should it be archived to open up the area? Yes! As much as I would miss seeing the very first cache that I found archived, I think it should be. It gets less than a log every month or two.
El Diablo
Well, the Gatorade container with the waterlogged and...the whole "anti climatic" description was my first find. After getting so hyped into geocaching, finding that one really made me think I over anticipated it. And every cache since I liked, but my first find, I want that cache archived, to save others from the pain of seeing the cache.
-
Two things come to mind.
Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.
Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?
I think the "cry for history" is more of less trying to keep the caches that are "near and dear" to our hearts and ones we have great experiences finding, unarchived, and out there for new cachers to have the same experience.
I completely agree about those caches that are near and dear, but they got archived didn't they? Follow me? Regardless of protecting those special caches, I'm still talking about the common ones.
That's absolutely correct.
But, in the respect, take this into respective. Cachers who keep a close eye on their caches and keep frequent maintenance on them seem to be the cachers who say, this cache has overwelcomed it's stay, and they archive it. And the cache may be a great cache, that is well taken care of and is a fun adventure for the whole family. And locals revisit on a regular basis they had so much fun on the adventure.
And the cachers who hide some, I'm sorry to say, "lame" caches, never perfrom maintenance on the cache, and usually are "anti-climatic" caches to find, seem never to be archived. No matter how destroyed, waterlogged, and stuffed with pokemon cards they are.
The irony.
-
Two things come to mind.
Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.
Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?
That's a good question about protecting the history of caching. I think the logs, both on line and in the original logbook records the history of a cache. You don't have to leave a seldom visited cache in place.
El Diablo
I don't want to get flamed for this metaphor, so if you feel the urge, resist.
Getting rid of some old caches that would be very worthwhile would be senseless. Archiving it because it is old, is like pushing elderly people out of society because they do not have as much production as younger people do. In Europe, they think that when an elder in the community dies, it is like a library burning down. Alot of knowledge and history fades. Don't archive a cache because it's old, archive it because it no longer, or possibly never has, been suffice to call itself a geocache. If it's an old Gatorade container from 2001 placed in a stump, where the cache has sustained substantial water damage, the log hasn't been replaced, "swag" value has depleted, then archiving it and waiting for a new cache to come along may be a good idea. We can't be selfish with our 528 foot circles and lay claim on them forever, but sometimes a cache is so good, the locals wouldn't want that cache archived for the world.
-
Two things come to mind.
Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.
Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?
I think the "cry for history" is more of less trying to keep the caches that are "near and dear" to our hearts and ones we have great experiences finding, unarchived, and out there for new cachers to have the same experience.
-
I've heard this idea before. I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still do.
If I archive my cache so someone can place another in the same place, how does that give anyone something new to do?
edit: This site has guidelines, darn it.
now THERE is some real logic - and I agree completely.
If there is a cache placed somewhere and it is removed so someone else can put there cache in the same place, where is the net gain? Sounds the same as the owner posting a note on the cache saying he has replaced the cache with a brand new container and new stuff in it.
cc\
This is a passion of mine, so please bear with me. Flame me if you want, but at least read what I say first.
You can move a cache 100 to 200 feet and it becomes a brand new hunt. If you change containers and methods of a hide, it becomes a brand new hunt.
I feel sorry for the newbies to the game. They want to hide a cache and they look around to put it in a nice spot, guess what? There's one already there. It's been there 3 years and maybe one a month or every other month someone logs it.
So they are left with very little alternatives. They have to hide lame caches. Let's face it. There are only so many good spots to place a cache. A the explosion rate of this sport, they are disapearing fast.
I'm trying to explain my thoughts, not sure I'm doing it right.
El Diablo
You said it perfectly. That's my situation right now, so I'm understanding everything you're saying completely.
-
I've heard this idea before. I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still do.
If I archive my cache so someone can place another in the same place, how does that give anyone something new to do?
edit: This site has guidelines, darn it.
now THERE is some real logic - and I agree completely.
If there is a cache placed somewhere and it is removed so someone else can put there cache in the same place, where is the net gain? Sounds the same as the owner posting a note on the cache saying he has replaced the cache with a brand new container and new stuff in it.
cc\
I am in the planning stage of many caches. One place that I would love to place a cache is within the 528 mark of this beautiful rock formation called honeycomb rocks. The cache in it's way is frequently trafficked, however. I don't think it should be archived, but maybe it could be moved.
Then the cacher could come out to find my new cache, and on their way back find the new location of the "old" cache. I'm a "newbie" here, so alot of the better spots are taken, but I think maybe the point to person who would fight for wanting the caches archived is that if a newer cacher could go out and hide a cache in the area, at another interesting point that you wouldn't have noticed at the "original" cache unless you nebbed around after the find, and the cacher would have a good time in the process. And they would get an email when someone found it, and hear their story, and get the satisfaction the "original hider" recieved. And maybe the satisfaction would cause the hider to go out and hide more interesting caches to get more good feedback.
-
Did any of the above sites still exist? Did they help? Was there any reason at all to bring this ancient thread back from the dead?
Right now I'm making my first hide. And I want to link a local cache that ties into the history of the place my cache is located so if the finder is interested they can grab that one too and have it "tie into the theme"...the sites have me doing a code that is
<A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=2837f474-b6de-4964-9889-642487800846">Darr Mine</A>
But when I place it in the listing, nothing comes up at all. I know someone here has a way to link to the site via HTML.
-
I tried using the codes for linking a word to a website, and the cache page must not be recognizing it, because nothing happens. I'm still working on the cache that's waiting to be approved's "visual". I'm lost in HTML.
-
With my lack of knowledge of pulley systems, and not liking to meticulously place caches that make me frustrated, I'd probably just hide it in the tree and make the cacher climb it to get it.
That just reminded me of a great overlook that you can only accomplish by climbing a tree. Maybe a cache placement? Wonder if it lays under the guidelines they must be accessible from the ground?
Thanks!
-
I actually found that cache. Great camping area it's at. I really reccommend it. There a leak in the cache and some water damage is there, so if you plan on going bring some sealant, I'm sure the owner would appreciate it because there's a big crack in the side, I think I mentioned it in my log, but the cacher probably got backed up on emails and didn't read the log.
Good cache never the less!
Who Got You Started?
in How do I...?
Posted
I accidently found a cache, and the rest it history.
Who? I guess God did.