GO Geiger+Premium Members
Posts posted by GO Geiger
Erie, Niagara, and Wyoming Counties had 35-40 publish since publishing resumed. About 2 dozen are within 20 miles of home.
We all have masks with us when on the trail, have a designated cache handler for each entire outting, wear gloves and/or use hand sanitizer after each cache, use hand wipes once back to the car and don't touch our faces. We have sadly not gone on group cache outtings in over 2 months. Given the latest CDC guidance this is probably overkill, but better safe than sorry.
The thing about NY state is that it's a big state: there's NYC and then there's the rest of the state. We're closer to Cleveland and Pittsburgh than we are to NYC. (But a regional approach based on proximity to NYC would cause no caches in NE PA to be published.)
That's why I was surprised to see this applied at the entire state level - I never said I was surprised that caches in some areas weren't being published or that I disagreed with the decision. But I suppose the line needs to be drawn somewhere and "state" as a unit is a pretty good one.
6 hours ago, ecanderson said:
What's odd is that Colorado is red. We hope to be partially released from limbo on the 26th of this month, and caches have been published as recently as 3/24/20.
All along we've been allowed outdoor exercise (incl hiking & etc) provided we keep a proper distance from anyone we might run across along the way. Per the Gov's order, such outdoor activity is considered 'essential' as is travel to anything 'essential'. That's a good bit less restrictive than some states, but we got a month of reviewer lock down for publication.
Same for NY - wear masks if you can't stay away from non-household members. In Erie County outdoor exercise is encouraged as it is essential. Driving to essential activities is also permitted. Granted that our governor has declared nonessential stuff to be closed until mid May, so we're still not out of the woods.
I was still surprised to see cache publication suspended for our entire state.
Last week (during his daily press conference) someone asked our County Executive if it was permissible to drive to county parks to get exercise. The response was a resounding "Of course! Just stay away from large groups of people." In Western NY it doesn't get more conclusive than that.
He then rattled off a list of a dozen remote (by distance) parks he would recommend visiting, all requiring a 20 mile or more drive.
Most parks in this region have been fairly empty, at least when we've been there.
We have cached, too, but only one of us has ever touched the cache while wearing gloves and immediately using hand sanitizer. Copious amounts of hand sanitizer. And wipes.
6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:
Yeah... I'd guess it was meant to draw you to it. A marketing thing again.
I did have a brief thought of some recent issues on some trails because of it though ...
I prefer to be alone, but will cache with someone if the terrain's 5 (when we can get someone off their can).
I cache to relax, and I feel I don't get much of that if someone's gonna chat the entire way, or find that they aren't skilled enough that I'm now sorta responsible for their safety too.
While I enjoy the occasional group outing (3+ people), and look forward to going caching with a family member or caching friend one-on-one (much better conversations, I find), I find that (when safety's not an issue) I enjoy the solitude of the snowy woods (actually being able to hear the snow flakes hit the ground) or a cemetery in autumn. Sometimes I need to get away from things and caching with a friend or two takes my mind off of whatever's been bugging me. Other times, I just need the alone time.
Spent Saturday with a friend (and fellow-cacher) on a semi-local lake (65 miles from home). Just after finding our 22nd water cache, the winds picked up, the rain came down, and we were a mile from the put-in point. It made for an interesting afternoon. (The waves were only 1-2', but from down low in a kayak they seemed much bigger!) We both survived to tell the tale.
21 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
Obviously a phone geocacher
Nope - never used a phone for caching (well, teamed up to do some Wherigo's and used someone else's phone, so I've been in a group where a phone was used).
The CO in question is known in the area for going after FTFs, enjoying hikes in the woods, and creating some awesome multi's. (And some of the most awesome logs I've ever read. Occasionally a touch of sarcasm.) There are 3 of his multis that instantly come to mind: one that used a different method of hiding coords at each stage, one that involved 7 (or more) creek crossings, and one fairly long one that showed off some parts of a local county park I had never seen before. (No idea if he uses a phone for caching, though.)
In the same county park as the last cache I mentioned above is a Monty Python and the Holy Grail themed cache - I logged that one from the viewpoint of King Arthur.
11 hours ago, colleda said:12 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:
Facebook's Like button is insane...
Fixed it for you.
This! I am so tired of everyone needing everyone else's approval. "Like" this. "Upvote" that! That whole mentality has spread way too far - there are even business-focused collaboration apps with this system in place.
I write logs for several reasons: to show appreciation to the effort of the cache owner, to relate my experience for future seekers, and to help me remember various cache hunts. And a few because I'm apparently a frustrated novelist.
(Yes, we give out favorite points to worthy caches. Yes, I'll probably upvote the previous post - making me part of the problem, I guess. And, yes, I expect this post may get some upvotes. (including, I expect, a few sarcastic upvotes) *sigh*)
If you like someone's log, send them an e-mail or add a Write Note log to the cache page (of course, these forums are about the extent of our involvement in social media, so I
may beam hopelessly out of touch). [Before anyone else tries to "fix that for me" ]
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
I don't think I have ever written just "TFTC".
There was a cache around here a few years ago that (sarcastically) encouraged people to "save the photons" by not writing long logs - not even "TFTC." So, I did the next best thing - I added a picture of a 1000 word log I wrote. Because a picture is worth a thousand words. (But that begs the question - is a thousand words worth a picture?)
14 hours ago, arisoft said:
I am not getting your wrong. I just found that your both mystery caches are hidden in the posted coordinates so you have nothing to lose in this game.
The truth is that the current system is already abused using saturation checks. It depends on the person whether they are happy or frustrated when their cache plans hit a hidden waypoint.
I was at an event somewhere a while back (MWGB? GW? not sure) and was at a reviewer panel and someone asked about saturation checks and how they could be abused. The response was that if someone was obviously "battleshipping" (repeatedly asking for coordinate checks in an attempt to pin down where another cache was), that the reviewer in question had been known to allow publication of a cache within the 528' buffer zone around another cache. (To throw off the person trying to find the puzzle or multi via coordinate checks with the reviewer.)
They stressed that this was extremely rare.
I can understand why an extension of the "clues" theme wasn't used for level 4, as it would have diluted the already sparse (for some) distribution of the other clues.
However, having something that was "in theme" with the rest of the promotion would have been cool. So you've found the detective, found the evidence, and found the jewels... now you have to return them to the vault... At this point, there's no need for the "clues" idea. And most cache attributes are easily modified (unless GS locked all cache page attributes for the length of the promotion).
Here's a couple of ideas I came up with:
- Find caches published before the event whose initial letters spell out the word "VAULT" or "TEAGUE-ULMER MUSEUM," with all caches having their names locked for the duration of the promotion. (This is problematic for people who live in areas where all the caches are named "Bob's Cache 1," "Bob's Cache 2," etc.)
- A "secret" property called "distance" could have been added to each cache. This value could be randomly generated so it is different for each user. After finding each cache in level 4, this running total could have been updated until the player had covered the distance required to return the jewels. (OK - you could say that each cache you find in level 4 is 1/35 of the distance required to return the jewels, I guess. Much less interesting, imo.) If you make this distance proportional to the number of (unfound?) caches in the user's home area, people in cache-sparse regions would need comparatively few caches to complete level 4. (But then someone from, say, Seattle vacationing in a rural "middle of nowhere" would feel penalized, since they would be expected to find a lot of caches in a cache sparse area.)
- Have the combination for the vault be gained by finding random caches. This wouldn't be something you'd be able to search for, really, it would just have been "awarded" for finding some random cache.
Just some thoughts.
2 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:
All the clues are virtual. There's no physical cache necessary to hide them.
Yes, you will be able to use the geocaching website to search for caches that have the clues you need.
I understand that the clues are virtual - I was asking whether virtual caches would "contain" clues.
I also understand that the website will allow you to search for the clues - I was curious as to when we'd be able to use the website to perform that search (i.e. can we start planning caching trips tomorrow and know what caches to target, or must we wait until Thursday to plan the trip - I know that we cannot actually accrue clues to our account until after July 11th).
Here's something that hasn't been addressed (to my knowledge, anyway): Will only physical caches and events have clues? I realize it is implied that only physical caches have clues (how can something be "inside of" a virtual cache), yet clues will be "contained" by events. (Sorry if this appears pedantic, but I genuinely am curious.)
Also, when will the geocaching.com search for clues be enabled so those of us who choose not to own or use smartphones can participate?
16 hours ago, niraD said:
Even when I've been in groups where we didn't use an impromptu team name to sign all the logs, we have had different people signing the logs of different caches. So in one cache, all the names appear in one order, written with one person's handwriting, and in another cache, all the names appear in a different order, written in another person's handwriting. This is just a normal part of group caching.
In my case, even caching solo, I can use multiple different writing implements throughout a long day of caching (I just grab whatever pen comes to hand before jumping out of the car or, if I have the forethought to have a pocket full of pens, it's whichever one comes to hand). But, also, my handwriting is such that no two signatures look quite the same - then add in the difference between trying to sign a wet film canister log while balancing on a tree branch vs. signing while sitting on a park bench. (I'm really starting to wish I wasn't so cheap and would splurge on a stamp, now.)
16 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
A few of things that I notice. In order to play the game (or at least be able to search for clues) one must upgrade the official app. That assumes that one *uses* the official app for geocaching (sorry GPSr users, and those that prefer partner apps). It's not clear if posting a found it log (attended, webcam photo taken?) through the web site will claim a clue or if that only can be
I looks to me that, in order to acquire all of the souvenirs, at least 15 caches will need to be found (one for each clue type). Once again, a souvenir promotion has been created which caters to those that have the luxury of living in a cache dense environment (with an active community placing new caches during the promotion period) while those living in caches sparse areas (including entire countries: 60 countries in the world have fewer than 15 caches in the entire country) will essentially be left out and those are places which could *use* more promotion.
Did I miss something? I didn't see anything that said that you *must* use an app to participate. I see where it says only the official app (of all the apps out there) will be upgraded to allow searching for clues, but also that the search map on GC.com can be used to search for clues.
From the FAQ:
Yes! Mystery at the Museum is available on both the iOS and Android Geocaching® apps as well as Geocaching.com. Beginning on July 11 at noon UTC, visit your profile and click on Mystery at the Museum to see your progress in the Geocaching® app, or visit your Dashboard on Geocaching.com.
You can filter for geocaches that have the clues you need by using the search filters in the Geocaching® app or on Geocaching.com or by clicking the “Search for clues” button on the Mystery at the Museum page.
I understand that GPSrs won't show the clues with the cache listings (almost certainly), but that's a simple matter of printing out a list indicating which caches have which clues. (75% of my day-long caching trips involve a printed list of caches that sits on the front seat of the car next to me. Adding a column for "clue type" to my spreadsheet for a month shouldn't be too bad. Or we may just decide to go with a "we get what we get" strategy and see how well we do by ignoring the clues when searching.)
I suppose you could search for clues on your phone on GC.COM, then use a different app to locate the cache and log it and still get the clue. (Speculation; Don't have a smart phone, never used a geocaching app, but don't see why it wouldn't work, in principle.)
I definitely agree about the issue of countries (or other large geographic areas) that have low cache density or have been cached-out. Fortunately, we live about 40 minutes away from the largely untapped Rochester, NY area, so that won't be too much of an issue for us.
Part of me thinks this promotion is going to be fun (the part that grew up on Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot), but part of me thinks this is going to be extremely confusing for a lot of people.
For example, logging order is apparently going to be very important, so if you are level 2 and log a few level 3 clues along the way to finishing level 2, you'd have to log all of level 2 first in order to get credit for level 3. This wasn't a problem with Hidden Creatures, as all caches were created equal for purposes of earning souvenirs.
Around here (Western NY - pretty much as far west as you can go in NY without being in Canada) I'd say that the average age is somewhere between 40 and 60. I can only think of a handful of cachers I've met that are younger than 40, but I know several that are in their 70's. (Long cold winters make for a hardy group of individuals not afraid to look for a micro in the woods under 3' of snow... and that's in May!)
I can only think of a few newer cachers I've met at local events - most that go to events have been in the game as long as we have (2011) or longer. Of course, it is entirely probable that the younger cachers don't go to events.
We use Garmin 650s and have never seen this issue... but we normally load the same PQ every week or so anyway. (BTW, I usually just copy over the GPX file directly using Windows Explorer without deleting the previous files on the device and have never had a problem.)
Hmm... We go to Canada probably once or twice a year, usually via Lewiston/Queenston and we generally are asked for place of birth/citizenship, length of stay, and purpose of stay. Even when staying for a few days we've never been asked about specific hotel details or financial status. Maybe we're just lucky.
Hmm.. How strange, yet how fortunate - we were planning on a family trip to Olympic NP and Mt. Rainier next year, anyway. Looks like it might be in August instead of July, now.
Well... it could be argued that if the person finding the cache didn't know it was a throwdown, then the log should be allowed to stand. The argument would be something like "in good faith, I found an object resembling the cache at the posted coordinates. It was hidden in such a way as to match the hint. In all likelihood, this is the cache and I can sign the log and go on my merry way."
On the other hand, if it is obvious that what you found is not the original container (as @IceColdUK illustrated), that's a different matter. (But still probably not worth deleting the log in my opinion - the intent of the cache is to get people to that location, right? Not micro-manage which piece of paper they sign?)
10 hours ago, CanUSeeIT said:
The lack of this feature made the Labcaches useless at the ASP Geobash this past weekend. It was frustrating to lose this traditional aspect of the weekend. I understand the desire to prevent "cheating", but this change only served to disappoint the people who were trying to play the game properly.
I was wondering the other day (after I had heard reports of what was described to me as near-universal problems with the labs at ASP) if this isn't going to be an issue for some of the more "traditional" cache-event venues. Places out "in nature" where cell phone coverage may be spotty, places like ASP or Letchworth in NYS, for example. (I know Letchworth isn't a mega, but there are plenty of places there that would seem to be wonderful for some type of lab cache experience. It was voted the USA's #1 state park a few years ago, after all.)
Right - I agree with you on the technical aspects - that's why I said "All things being equal and server hits not being considered." If it were totally free to do so (from a hardware and processing time perspective), I'd love to see the search updated whenever I changed the view. But, server load and processing time are not negligible for something like this, so (not for the first time) what I'd like to see and what it is possible to see are two distinctly different result sets. (Although having a reasonable trigger distance for auto-refreshes is an interesting idea, so long as it couldn't be abused to re-query every time the view was panned 6 feet. But then we'd have the attendant problem of "what does reasonable distance" mean? *sigh* This is why I'm glad I'm not a UI developer.)
My most recent use-case: I was looking for a series of caches beginning with "CCG". The initial search showed a small area. I zoomed out, but the search results didn't auto-update. Fine, I refreshed the search, then saw I wasn't looking in quite the right area. I panned the map, then refreshed the search again. It took a few iterations to get the view and results that I wanted.
In the series I was interested in, there were only 23 caches.
Those extra button clicks were an annoyance. Not the end of the world, either, but still an annoyance.
Now, the server hit might not have been huge from my search I don't really know). However, searching for all caches containing the letter 'A' would have been a different story. So my idea of constantly re-querying obviously isn't workable (even if I'd prefer the results to always pertain to the area I'm viewing.)
A don't know what the right answer is, but it seems pretty clear that a one-size-fits-all approach isn't working.
Release Notes (Website: Upcoming retirement of old profile page)
in Geocaching HQ communications
On a pc monitor there is a lot of wasted space to both sides of many pages because it is sized for a phone and does not adjust to the size of a computer monitor.
For example the souvenir list only goes 3 wide but is extremely long rather than going 6 or 7 wide based on the amount of space on the screen that it is being shown on. We have about 225 souvenirs. With them spaced out and 3 columns and so much space between rows it makes the page very long. This is true of a lot of pages not just the souvenir page. I was just using the souvenir page as an example