uktim
-
Posts
412 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by uktim
-
-
If we apply my 'Five Cs' of good cache hiding (Container, Contents, loCation, Cunning hide & Complete experience*)
You're more than welcome to apply your 'Five Cs' when hiding caches and choosing which ones to visit.
The rest of us may have other criteria that we use when caching
-
The "1 in 10" idea (or similar) has also been mooted many times (probably by Moote, amongst many others), but I appreciate that not everyone has been around these forums for years and they might think that it's a new and valid point. Getting into a general debates about cache quality will confuse the matter, when I was hoping to keep the answer a straightforward one ("don't do it!").
Sticking to a 1 in 10 regime and keeping the caches good quality might in theory be possible, but that's not the point. The point is that it's a poor motivation for cache hiding.
Motivation is a very personal thing, we're all motivated by different things. Some people are motivated by a drive to find as many caches as possible, others strive for FTFs and some like to hide and receive "good" logs.
We have no right to criticise someone elses motivations just because they don't "float our boat".
Find 10/hide 1 is a perfactly valid "motivation" and it will be of interest for some cache seekers. I'm already watching what appears to be a developing series, maybe even a power trail, with interest to see where the next caches are placed.
Good luck to them. I hope they find another 10 caches soon and place the next cache so that the interest is maintained
-
As for quality? Only one micro amongst my hides,
Are micros a sign of poor quality. The caches highlighted in this thread appear to be predominately micros sited alonga pleasant walk.
Are they good or poor quality caches?
I'd say good, our 6 year old daughter would probably disagree but is growing to understand that it is about much more than the size of the box.
-
I suspect you're being too harsh here. I spotted these when they were published and they look to have the makings of a nice series forming a pleasant circular walk.
Live and let live. We shouldn't expect everyone else to do it our way. If we don't like the look of a cache we don't have to visit it.
The series is not the concern here, it is the concept of placing one cache for every ten found ~ I just doubt the wisdom of the idea and was asking how others felt.
We don't bother doing a cache if we don't like the look of it, and don't see the point in clearing our local area of caches if they don't appeal to us. Perhaps that's why we have only
got 2300 finds in just over 7 years when some of our friends have double that in a couple of years!For me it's not an issue. As long as the caches are good a "one for every ten" policy is as good as any other IMO. Bear in mind that these guys have an even lower find rate than your own
-
A caching team fairly close to us has decided to place one cache for every ten they have found. Whilst I'm sure they feel they are doing a service and "paying back to the geocaching community", the idea fills me with horror!
These days it doesn't take long to clock up 100 finds - it can be easily done over a weekend. Many of our friends have 3000, 4000, 5000 finds. That would mean 100s of placements each - far too many to maintain properly in my opinion! If just a few decided to take on the idea, I feel that cache saturation would become ridiculous! It also opens up the liklihood that caches will be hastily placed without a great deal of research and thought, just to keep up the ratio.
What are your thoughts?
I suspect you're being too harsh here. I spotted these when they were published and they look to have the makings of a nice series forming a pleasant circular walk.
Live and let live. We shouldn't expect everyone else to do it our way. If we don't like the look of a cache we don't have to visit it.
-
Since everyone loves a good online rant, I decided to go ahead and start one
We were at an event for Friday the 13th with lots of the active local cachers in our area.
While out looking for a new cache that was placed for the event, we noticed that someone had totally disassembled a sprinker head, right near GZ (parking lot of a restaurant) and left it in pieces on the ground.
What the heck??
That was really annoying to see from someone who should have known better...and why, you ask, is it annoying??
Cause that kind of stupid crap is what will give geocaching a bad name and ruin the game if caches are banned because landowners are afraid of property distruction!!
It would have taken a few seconds to put the thing back together too.
RANT OVER.
Lol.
Any thoughts?
Did you see the person who did it?
If so why didn't you take it up with them in person?
If you didn't see who it was it's best not to make wild assumptions!
-
The eighteen(plus) miles is on rough terrain, some of it in the dark, of course... You're right. You could just stay at Ben Nevis and climb it three (or six, or eight?) times in 24 hours for a bigger physical challenge. I have to assume you've not done the 3PC uktim? Completing it - even in a lite-version, like I did - brings a fresh perspective. Fitness, and luck both play a part. A fair number of people who attempt it, even with good planning and in good condition, fail to complete it in 24 hours. Those who do - often raising money for charities along the way - get my respect
If you want to get involved in willy waving contests I haven't done the 3PC as you call it. I have however done a number of 50 plus mile single push challenges over rough terrain, 100 miles over 4 days self sufficient carrying all kit over 4 days and a significant number of single push 30 mile plus challenges. I've also used some of this to fundraise for charity.
I know the routes up each of the 3 peaks and I wouldn't describe any of them as rough terrain.
The trendily named 3 PC may have hold kudos in some circles but it's not hugely impressive IMO. I'm more likely to admire a good time on the Welsh 3000s which is solely about the walking and involves slightly more ascent over 24 plus miles much of it on less well trodden or maintained paths. Do it without outside support and you're doing even better.
To be frank I'd be even more impressed if people used their imagination and put together their own challenge anywhere else rather than treading this over publicisd trail with the issues it causes.
-
uktim, it's known as the Three Peak's Challenge because, even for a fit and healthy adult, finishing it under 24 hours is far from a forgone conclusion. Car trouble, traffic hold-ups, blisters, twisted ankles, lack of sleep, poor hydration, bad weather - there are many ways it can go wrong and leave it either unfinished or finished outside of the target time. Even if it all goes well, it's still around two vertical miles climbed up, two climbed down and about eighteen covered on the ground, depending on which routes are taken. It's not to be undertaken lightly and while it's not something you feel like doing, it does bring money into the areas. Mostly Ben Nevis/Fort William and Snowdonia as people are their the day before and after the attempt. Scafell Pike draws the short straw there, by being the one in the middle. Perhaps you don't have time to drink in the majesty of the hills in the same way a gentle fellwalker might, but you certainly come away with rich memories of the experience.
Apart from the car and transport issues there is nothing there that you can't do in one hit in a single area. I would view the same mileage and ascent in a single push as a far greater challenge, cut the driving out and you could target a far worthier and more physically demanding 24 hour challenge. As a personal challenge anyone is welcome to do it, but it's not worthy of the respect that many expect for it IMHO.
-
No one wants to comment on my comments other than Simply Paul ?
OK I'll bite
I fail to see the attraction. For a healthy fit adult this is no real physical challenge. It's just a peak bagging excercise which leaves you with little time to experience or contribute anything to the communities that surround the peaks.
-
The Groundspeak advice, whilst sensible, is too vague. You and I might know immediately that placing a cache in bushes on the edge of a children's playground is asking for trouble. But remember that many cachers are just out of school, or are old enough to remember the days when people might stop at the side of a playground to be entertained by the charming sight of kids playing, without anything malicious crossing their mind and without any parent being alarmed in the slightest.
The vast majority of people will still fall into one or other of these categories. Should the reviewers really be acting in such a hysterical manner? restricitng legitimate activities around schools and playgrounds will do nothing to alleviate the problems or peoples perceptions of it.
-
I can understand that - but you are selling brand new geocoins which have not got any previous owner's name attached to them. When one is bought by a "non geocachers" it doesn't make any difference because they've bought it presumably because they like the design and will have no particular interest in the fact that it's trackable in some game called geocaching. I think there are different considerations when someone buys a pre-owned geocoin which is still listed as belonging to another person, according to all appearances on geocaching.com. Rather like buying a second-hand car and not bothering to get the registration documents updated!
MrsB
I live in hope that none of my geocoins will start racking up parking tickets or points for speeding
-
It seems strange to me that people would pay up for a geocoin but then never completely take ownership of it. I wonder what happens later on if they get fed up with geocoins and decide to sell off their collection... It could make things a bit complicated.
MrsB
Is it really so strange? I'd estimate that roughly half of the geocoins we have sold have gone to people who don't cache. A good design will appeal to collectors every bit as much as it will appeal to cachers.
-
I agree with you, RSG. I can't understand why someone wouldn't want to "own" the geocoin(s) they've paid for and have physical possession of, even if tis just on the forums.
One of the three told me that they never sign up for anything in order to avoid getting spam. Hmmm, they have an eBay account, PayPal account, and email account. Hello ?!?!?!
I thought about adopting the coins to a dummy account but, then I thought of what the new owners might say/think/whatever if they saw me adopting their coins to someone else. Do I need to tell them ? What about the one who doesn't join anything ? They got pretty rude with me in emails, and I'm worried about getting negative feedback on eBay from them as tis already!
I think you probably need to be more relaxed about this. It's impossible to dictate what someone does with something after you sold it. It's not really a huge problem!
-
I must have explained that wrong.
There was the costs of travel to the island, but I was talking about the entrance fee of the island. I could not attend that event without paying that fee no matter if I grew wings. So the entrance fee. The entrance costs to access the location was approx £15 for a family. Which equates to an entrance fee onto a campsite.
Leaving a grey area of "reasonable fees" will only cause problems in the future.
Brownsea Island is a visitor attraction, a campsite is merely a place to stay. It's a plot to pitch a tent and a toilet/shower block. Do you want everyone to come to the toilet with you
-
So all that I am asking in essence is that it is clearly stated that it is possible to arrange a camping event at any campsite that charges a fee of, for instance, less than £20 for entrance to the site.
It will not, because £20 is not a reasonable charge for day visitors.
And yet, one reviewer did consider that amount to be a reasonable fee to charge people to attend the event at brownsea island.
How do we resolve this?
In the example of camping events a fee of this size would be a rare occasion. Yet an event at a national trust site would nearly always.
Events have been published that required people to spend that much. I'm happy that they do, I can choose whether or not to pay it. Why is camping under a different rule?
The event is the event, travel and accomodation choices are a seperate issue. Would you hold an event on the bus to the venue or in your hotel room?
-
And I still say that the whole "Event Cache" concept is flawed and needs revising. For "event" above, read "Event Cache". You can actually hold a geocaching event anywhere you like and place any restrictions on it; it's only that these are called "caches" that we have all this trouble.
I tend to agree. Entrance fees or the need for specialist equipment are fine and you can make up your mind whether the tick is worth the cost BUT I'd say it's clear that there should be no ALRs such as sleeping in a tent or taking part in activities.
Event organisers who seek to tag unecessary ALRs onto to basic requirement to sign the log are a large part of the problem IMO.
-
I'm assuming you missed bits of the thread while you read it Tim.
It's already been established that you can't compare other caches to events.
The requirements placed upon a camping event setter is that they hold the actual event in a location which is free for all to access. It has been stated by the reviewer that this needs to happen for a couple of hours. It was stated that this is a rule imposed by the powers that be.
This same rule is not imposed upon any other event and is not imposed in any other country and so far has not been quoted .
I would like to see camping organisers given the same freedom given to all other event setters to organise camping events wherever they want regardless of entrance fees and to be able to choose if they want to hold a satellite event for non campers or make it camping only.
A level fair equal playing field. Or do u think that's wrong and that they should continue to have an unlisted rule imposed on them?
I find it hard to reconcile what you are saying in this post with your question
"Should it not be possible to get people to take part in the event fully either by camping or by attending for a significant part of the day?"
I believe there is a major difference between an event in a museum which is an interesting attraction, or a short event in a pub where the beer is good and an event where someone is expected to stop overnight at the same venue as the organiser. Why do you need them to camp at one venue rather than visiting an event on another premises then being free to stop where they like or even drive home?
-
Who's trying to coerce anyone? They are the ones that are asking to come to a camping event.
If it's not about coercion why do you ask
"Is it too much to ask that someone be required to actually camp overnight to be allowed to log the event."
and
"Should it not be possible to get people to take part in the event fully either by camping or by attending for a significant part of the day?"
There's a huge difference between using a ferry as a form of transport to get to an event and someone trying to coerce you into stopping for longer than you want to.
If an event is to be regarded as loggable you should only need to get to the log, sign it and move on. How many caches require you to hang around the cache for a prolonged period in order to satisfy the needs of the owner? If the event is good many will choose to stop but if others choose to move on then that's their choice you obviously haven't ticked the right boxes to retain their interest. Why let it bother you?
-
"'Ere! I contributed £2.50 for this BBQ and all that's left is one burnt Tesco Value sausage! Who took the last slice of sirloin steak?"
Never mind the money you can't serve meat, that's discrimination if you're a vegan
-
or a contribution to cover costs of providing food for a BBQ - But it must be just to cover their costs, not to make a profit.
Thats a big can of worms you're opening
Are they allowed to insist that you eat from their BBQ and pay for it or can you log your attendance without eating
-
I'll say it again as there appears to have been some deliberate misinterpretation of the thread.
There are times that it's not possible to have non campers attend a camping event or any other type of event for that matter that involves paying money for mountain climbing gear, scuba gear, boat rides etc. It should be ok for those events to still be listed and those people who don't wish to pay don't have to log. Should it not be possible to get people to take part in the event fully either by camping or by attending for a significant part of the day? Yes they only fool themselves and if the event setter hasn't had to go out of their way to accomodate their refusal to take part then so be it, It's just why should the event planner be placed in the position of having to go to the extra work for those that don't wish to actually take part.
It's great that you enjoy camping but why do feel that you have to coerce other people to join you?
-
Maybe you could take a little walk and fix that. OSM relies on regular people to mark the trails.
Are you suggesting that I should use OS maps that I already own to follow footpaths so that I can upload GPS tracks in order to allow others to get mapping FOC. There appears to be a flaw in your reasoning
On a more serious note the tracks that I uploaded years ago have not been incorporated into the OSM mapping so WTH should I waste any more time or effort marking trails?
Well don't use OSM then!!
Bit selfish if you ask me...but each to his own
Look at it this way. If they'd used the stuff I had uploaded I might think it was worth the effort of uploading more.
-
Maybe you could take a little walk and fix that. OSM relies on regular people to mark the trails.
Are you suggesting that I should use OS maps that I already own to follow footpaths so that I can upload GPS tracks in order to allow others to get mapping FOC. There appears to be a flaw in your reasoning
On a more serious note the tracks that I uploaded years ago have not been incorporated into the OSM mapping so WTH should I waste any more time or effort marking trails?
-
Hi, in the UK openstreetmap has quite good coverage; you can see what is mapped in your area here: openstreetmap.org
These maps, for the UK, can be downloaded here: http://talkytoaster.info/ukmaps.htm
And for the rest of the world, they can be downloaded here: garmin.openstreetmap.nl
I admire your optimism but if you want to venture off the public road OSM is hugely inadequate in our neck of the woods.
One cache placed for every ten found
in United Kingdom and Ireland
Posted
I'm sure that you never included "everything else" in your original list