Jump to content


+Charter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mudfrog

  1. I will hold back as well because I know others care about this. But I'm in the minority though and would not want anyone holding back on a cache placed in my honor. I don't see the point, it's not fun either, claiming ftf on a cache that I knew no one else was trying for.
  2. No wrong or right way, if you take care to do whichever correctly. For me, a DNF is in order anytime I'm not able to come up with a cache. My thinking is that the search has begun if I push "go to" on my gpsr and actually take off to go find a cache. But, I also feel it's necessary to state in my DNF, the reason I posted it. For instance, I started for the cache but got sick along the way and didn't make it to ground zero to finish the job. This keeps my stats correct and at the same time, doesn't mislead a future finder.
  3. One of the things that has always sent an irk my way is reading all the silly excuses made for why a CO's cache isn't taken care of. Granted, things can come up in a person's life that are much more important than their cache. But let's be realistic here, that's probably the case less than 1% of the time. COs that just don't care enough to take care of business make up the other 99%.
  4. To keep geocache owners in fine tune with their maintenance responsibilities, finders are encouraged to leave containers open, take up logbook space by writing big incoherent jibberish, replace the cache 50 feet from where they found it, and/or just remove any caches that they find.
  5. Not a big issue for sure. Imo though, the size of the container itself is what's more important. For example,, if a person sees a cache listed as regular, then they will probably assume that it will hold a travel bug or some swag that they might want to bring and leave behind. Not the end of the world if it doesn't work out but it could lead to some annoyance just the same. The way I look at it,, finders spotting your Wombat will know right away that it is, or at least holds the cache. I doubt any cacher would think to themselves, "that fake Wombat doesn't belong here but it can't be the cache because the cache is listed as a micro".
  6. Same experience I've had. Except for maybe a new hide, I can't remember ever finding one that wasn't wet inside. Seems kinda weird since they do pretty well when swimming with them.
  7. While there are a few places where plastic bags/pouches might work, I don't think we should go out of our way to suggest their use. It's hard enough to make good cache containers idiot proof. A person has little chance with these, especially if they're placed where weather occurs. You yourself might perform the much more needed maintenance on them but most owners won't and they'd end up being trash later on. Not sure what a slim bob is but it sounds like it might be classified as a micro. For that size, soda tube preforms are definitely the way to go. Genuine lock and lock containers work good for small containers. Harder to find these days, but metal ammocans are the way to go for regulars. While not 100% perfect, I've had really good luck using wally world mainstays 1/2 and 1 gallon plastic food containers with screw on lids.
  8. I've slowed my caching to a crawl because I choose not to find caches (usually throwdown junk) along roads. There have been several instances when law enforcement stopped to see what I was doing on various cache but all of them were positive with no issues. There were even a couple of times when the officer(s) helped look for the cache. As far as disguising to cache, not anything I've ever done. Well, I have held my phone up to my ear a few times when in real busy areas. Thing is, the more you try to be inconspicuous, the more conspicuous you end up being. I've found that on most caches, people pay little attention to you if you go about the search like you own the place.
  9. And while it's not required, maybe find a few more caches before attempting to hide. This might help to give a new person a feel for how things work and possibly some ideas on what it takes to make and place a better cache.
  10. In all cases? I thought the CHS was set up to also to let owners know that there may be other problems with the cache besides it just being missing.
  11. Questions,,, What is "soon"? Is it a few days, weeks, months? If the CO does nothing, is the cache automatically archived without involvement of a reviewer? I may be wrong but I don't think that's how the process works. I'm fairly certain a reviewer will get involved and if so, more options will avail themselves. The 2nd option to simply archive the cache goes against geocaching cache in, trash out etiquette that Groundspeak has always promoted. It's hard to believe it would be suggested to archive but not pick up what might be left of a cache.
  12. We know the CHS system isn't perfect so I have to ask, why would you feel embarrassed? I'm still not sure why some feel so threatened by this. While it's not 100% accurate, it can be a helpful tool for COs. As a responsible cache owner, I will look at the situation closely and take whatever action I feel is needed if and when a ping comes my way.
  13. Again, I normally would never consider logging an OM without first physically checking on and making repairs to my cache as necessary. My suggestion was only put forth for a situation like you described,,, receiving a CHS email on a cache that shows no indication of having a problem. I honestly doubt many COs have been put in this situation.
  14. Completely hidden? Guess it happens but I doubt it occurs enough to be an issue. There's usually always going to be something in the logs that give a hint an issue may exist. I'm normally against doing stuff like this, (putting my flame retardant suit on now), but if there was no evidence of a problem, then I'd log an OM stating that I believed the cache was good to go. I'd also make sure to watch it for any signs that I might have got it wrong.
  15. Nope, still no angst here. Sure, I realize Groundspeak is a business and that the CHS, in a round about way, is just one of the company's many attempts to make the business more profitable. Unlike you though, I don't feel the CHS is only about money. It does indeed help at times getting owners motivated to do what they agreed to do when they submitted their cache. The CHS is fairly benign and is not something that should cause anyone to panic. While it can be way off base at times, remedying it is usually fairly easy.
  16. I still can't see why all the angst against the CHS. It's here to help and consists of a form letter of sorts that can come to my mail box when there's a possibility of a problem with one of my caches. It's certainly not perfect but at the same time, is very easy to take care of with either physically checking on the cache,, or if I know there isn't a problem, simply logging an OM explaining that everything is fine. I'm taking it that some here are upset because they think it shines a negative light on their cache. Why be upset? The cache may actually be in need of some tlc, a normal occurrence with geocaches. If you know the cache is fine., then log with an explanation and put this behind you.
  17. A bit late, I somehow missed coming back to this thread. Yes, I do realize this. My reason for saying small is because of the jar's small opening. Its capacity might be ok but there is a limit on what items can be stuffed through the opening. Some might say that a 2 liter soda bottle qualifies but, imo, it would be misleading to classify it regular in size.
  18. There are better containers out there but peanut butter jars certainly aren't the worst. Depending on how and where they're hidden and how maintenance oriented its owner is,, they can make for a good cache. As far as size, the 18 oz size I have in the cupboard now (doesn't give liquid measurement) would definitely be labeled as small. Imo, a peanut butter jar weighing under 48 oz would fall into the small category. It would have to be one of those 4 lb plus peanut butter jars before I'd rate it as regular.
  19. We all have different thoughts on this. In response to the bolded part of your reply, mine is not to prop up a cache owned by a CO that is not going to maintain it. Unless an adoption can be arranged, a cache in this situation needs to be archived. As mentioned above, caches like these hinder our hobby.
  20. That light pole skirt must be bigger than most. An 8.5" by 6" container would NOT fit under any that I've ever looked under. Like Cerberus, I really don't care for these types of hides either. The first one was kind of cool but they got old pretty quick after that. Hate to sound so negative but being that this is in a park, might there be a more interesting place to hide a cache?
  21. I log a DNF if I didn't find the cache. I'm not worried at all if there are other DNFs and in fact, figure it helps get the CO motivated to check things out. A cache is not automatically archived when a CHS is triggered and it's easy to get things straightened out if it does happen. If a CO refuses to take any kind of action, then his or her cache needs to be archived.
  22. Had this one come into my head a couple of times when I was way out in the boonies.
  23. Babslover was both, a gungho geocacher and a Barbara Streisand fan and a half. She was really into geocaching and placed some creative and excellent caches. But for reasons unknown, she pretty much went cold turkey some several years back. Don't quote me on this but I think she just lost interest and moved on to something else.
  24. I definitely remember those days! I also remember having just an arrow to navigate by and all the wrong turns we made trying to follow it. Yes, improvements are a good thing but at the same time, some of the adventure/challenge/fun has gone by the wayside because of all improvements and hand-holding we have these days.
  25. With Groundspeak's blessing. As per usual, Groundspeak see's an opening to possibly gain a few numbers and jumps on it without thinking about the long term consequences of our hobby. I sometimes think the company is purposely trying to shoot itself in the foot.
  • Create New...