AustinMN
-
Posts
497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by AustinMN
-
-
I posted one just today: http://coord.info/GC2DTVF
Some work done at GZ, non-responsive owner hasn't logged on in almost two years (and has only logged one cache find) and several previous finds indicating a wet log. If I don't see a response or a find by the end of the month, I'll probably put in a 'Needs Archival' log. What's the point of waiting longer? The owner gets the emails. If he or she still cares he/she will respond or do something about it. If not, it'll just clear the area for others who actually still do care.
And, miracle of miracles, the owner just archived it!
I saw that...came through while I was on my way home. Weird. Wonder why none of the other NM and DNF and Note logs didn't get results, but this one did...
Hmmm
Because fixing a cache requires a visit to the site. Arciving it doesn't. (Ignoring that they should clean up the Geotrash.)
-
.png)
1
-
-
"Possibly misplaced" is a DNF, not a NM.
+1.
-
I once went 180 days without a find. Does that count?
-
No, I would not like at all to come home from a trip and find out that there were some neat caches where I was that I wasn't deemed worthy of looking for. Do you think maybe it would be an incentive to return to an area to find more caches? I don't think so. I think it would be a major turn off to the whole caching experience.
+1
-
There is a very broad term covering all kinds of things - Gadget Cache.
-
a couple were deleted by the COs who said "they're fine" but did nothing.
You don't know that the CO did nothing.
-
The last couple hikes I've been finding what must be deer kneecaps without the rest of the skeleton nearby. No idea why.
Those come from deer who don't make their loan payments.
"Oh deer... I herd you don't have the doe for me this week, eh? Well, by the time me and the boys finish with yooz, we will take every buck you have."
Those are the best puns I've seen all week.
Now, let's not start fawning over his jokes...
-
For me it's always abandoned homeless camps. Dirty old blankets occasionally accompanied by a makeshift mattress or couch cushions. Trash strewn about. Food wrappers and containers, sometimes clothing.
I have had to archive two caches because of this and I have another one that people complain about but every time I look it's like a beer can and some cardboard where people had a party.
Archival is the easy way out. I would have upped the ratings.
+1. Maybe put a "not kid friendly" attribute on it.
-
Could I hide a Geocache in a public mall. Not in a store or anything. I was just thinking like in the food court or under one of the benches or at one of the charging stations or on one of the payphones? Or would it be "against the rules"?
Can I ask: why would you want to bring me to a mall? Geocaches should bring you some place interesting or scenic or along a great hike or walk. Seems like these days only about 30% of the caches being hid meet this description.
30%? You must have some great caches in your area. Near me, it's more like 10%.
-
I enjoy seeing people innovate in this game, but I think in practice you'll find, in pretty short order, that people will employ brute force to open these caches.
+1. This is where I was going.
Some people in this hobby run on the stupid side. Even if you put a label on the cache stating "You have to pick the lock to open this cache," and put the same info in the description, and the same info in the title, and the same info in the hint, and applied the Special Tool Required attribute, you would get someone who would use alternate -- and destructive -- means.
Some will blame the previous cacher in their log, others will actually admit to "I couldn't figure out how to open it so I pried/smashed/cut/drilled it open and now it's damaged."
You would also get the occasional "I found the container, but I could not find the key, so I logged it anyway."
-
I know a cacher who posts selfies on all their Finds with them holding the logsheet as proof of the Find.
Just posting a selfie without a log sheet or landmark doesn't really prove a find.
I don't always upload my photos, but I do take lots of geocaching pictures. I do photograph all logs with my signature on them, and have used them to have my finds reinstated when a CO deleted it just to be mean.
I have done the opposite, photographing the log with my sig and privately sharing it with the CO in order for them to remove bogus logs. I've never done this unless either T or D (or both) was 4 or more.
-
Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.
The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.
Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.
It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.
You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.
If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.
Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.
I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.
So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.
Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.
Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.
That, of course, would be theft.
Geocaching.com is not the only cache listing service out there, and the cache itself belongs not to you, not to Groundspeak, not to anyone but the CO.
-
5. Additional logging requirements are not allowed.
Solution: No selfie caches.
-
Am I at wrong with that or this lady needs to read the rules of placing a new cache?
Both.
-
I obviously missed quite a bit here...but right now there are zero "finds" on the cache page, one "note" and one updated coordinates log. It's a grammatically-challenged description and the timeline is pretty confusing. Anyone want to explain this whole thing in plain English?
Based on the cache description, the fact that the reviewer published the listing after dark, and on claimed personal knowledge of the area, the OP assumed the CO was trying to find a victim for some crime. They (without looking for the cache) posted a Needs Archive and then proceeeded to call the local police about the alleged intended crime.
I think most of us feel that while the cache description is a little odd, some substance created an extreme overreaction on the part of the OP.
An important factor is that the CO has more hides than the OP has finds.
Someone (reviewer or OP)? Has removed the NA and at least one note from the log.
-
I'm going to suggest you find the forum for your region and ask there. They may point you to resources outside the forums.
I cache near Anoka County, Minnesota, USA. On the MNGCA's (Minnesota Geocaching Association) own forum, they have threads with resources for most of the larger counties, cities, and parks departments, detailing the rules and regs, and necessary contact info.
You won't find the MNGCA info on the Groundspeak forums, and so you might not find what you need here either.
-
My view is mixed. The reason is I see favorite points as having mixed purposes.
One purpose is to draw attention to caches that other people might want to make a priority to find. For this purpose, a Favorite Point on an archived cache is useless.
Another purpose is to thank / encourage / reward a Cache Owner who has done a good job of hiding a quality cache. For this purpose, a Favorite Point on an archived cache is still of value.
Because of those two opposing purposes, I have decided to redistribute favorite points for archived caches that have more than 10 favorite points. Why 10? I don't know. It is kind of arbitrary, but I think it's enough that anybody looking at the listing later knows "this was a really good cache." But if my FP is on an archived cache with 52 FP's, does it add anything significant? I don't think saying:
"This was a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really good cache,"
says anything more than:
"This was a , really , really , really good cache."
Edit to add: I only look for quality caches, so probably 25% of the caches I find deserve a FP, but only 10% of them can get one. Getting a few extra FP's to dole out is a good thing.
-
How would geocaching be different if...
...it had not originated in the US? Would we be hiding caches 100 m apart?
Maybe.
...Jeremy Irish had not founded Groundspeak?Somebody else would have. It's an obvious game.
...early geocachers had worked with National Parks from the beginning and thus NPS was not mostly off-limits to caching?Not very likely. Bureaucrats tend to be suspicious of anybody else's ideas. When the government gets big enough, the bureaucrats tend to hate other people's ideas.
-
Again, keep in mind there is no field puzzle attribute and it's a traditional. Even if there's a 'trick', the listing shouldn't imply that there's no actual cache there, which it does.
Why not? Where in the guidelines does it say that descriptions cannot be misleading, confusing, irrelevant, or missing altogether? I've seen plenty of cache descriptions that were more than a little bit cryptic, with the whole point being "ignore the description and go look for the cache."
As neat as the container may be, it should be a straight-forward find, and someone finding it shouldn't have to take along a container and log in order to 'find' it. The listing as it stands has problems.Because the listing says you might need to take along a container does not mean you do. Descriptions do not have to be accurate.
-
I didn't even bother to look because of all of the DNFs. Can the cache owner check on it or archive? I think I would have enjoyed the statue too, but I didn't have time if I didn't get a smiley. What a sad statement on my part.
I would never post anything more than a note on a cache I had not looked for.
-
Never saw a post like this EVER. GC6F514 Got a New cache alert and found this. Called 911 and they blew me off. Hope no-one chases it tonight. If you look at the owner's log they post every cache exactly 1/10 of a mile apart. this disturbs me. Just read the listing. It is disturbing.
If any of your assumptions were were correct, the reviewer would almost certainly not have published it. This CO has thousands of finds and hundreds of hides. Calm down, this is not a trap.
Your N/A post was really inappropriate.
I disagree. I think it is appropriate, but that's just because there is no container.
You don't know that. Just because the listing says there is no container does not mean there is no container.
Do you really think the reviewer would have approved the cache listing if he thought there was no container? Really???
-
Never saw a post like this EVER. GC6F514 Got a New cache alert and found this. Called 911 and they blew me off. Hope no-one chases it tonight. If you look at the owner's log they post every cache exactly 1/10 of a mile apart. this disturbs me. Just read the listing. It is disturbing.
If any of your assumptions were were correct, the reviewer would almost certainly not have published it. This CO has thousands of finds and hundreds of hides. Calm down, this is not a trap.
Your N/A post was really inappropriate.
-
All this is why I suggested to him that anything beyond simply finding the cache likely made it more of a 'mystery' type.
My comment to him was this:
Puzzle caches don't necessarily involve solving a puzzle to get coordinates. If accessing the log requires more than just finding the cache container, it would typically be classified as a puzzle by Groundspeak. Examples include solving a puzzle containing a log book (http://coord.info/GC440B4), opening a lock that is holding the cache container closed (http://coord.info/GC5VW71 or http://coord.info/GC5BTAC)...or just finding a special hiding place within the cache itself where the log sheet is contained. Traditional are intended to be straightforward: find the cache. Anyone looking for a mystery knows there may be something different about the cache, which is why it is often classified this way. Anyone looking for a traditional expects to only have to find the cache itself. I think if you'd explained to the reviewer in your Reviewer Note that the log was hidden, he probably would have wanted either to change the type or have this more explicitly spelled out in the description at the very least.While I understand the suggestion for a field puzzle attribute is probably closer to correct for this sort of thing, I think it's fair to say that more people read cache descriptions than actually look at attributes. Since this one is a straightforward find as far as how the cache container is hidden at the posted coordinates, making the type a mystery is much more likely to give folks a reason to read through the description. Either way, just rolling the log into a flashlight in the cache feels more like deception than any sort of puzzle. I'd be more impressed with some sort of hidden compartment or a puzzle box or combination lock for hiding the log.
I rarely look at attributes.
So? There are prople who don't read cache descriptions, don't look at D/Tratings, and...dare I say it...don't actually find caches.
-
It would be:
1. Commercial ($$$ to get there).
2. You'd have to interact with employees of a business.
3. landowners permission ??
So reading the guidelines the caches would never be published.
Measuring up coordinates and afterwards seekers navigating would be a challenge. Given the narrow angle to "see", let alone receive the earth orbiting satellites there's no way to get even approximate coordinates. And then there's "the dark side of the moon"
And yet there is an active hide on the ISS.
.png)
Enough with caches in poison ivy patches
in General geocaching topics
Posted
I'll bet he has fewer problems with muggles that way.