Jump to content

Mudfrog

+Charter Members
  • Posts

    4484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mudfrog

  1. I'm still interested in geocaching but can't bring myself to actually go for any of the caches around our area. There are plenty (I've let them stack up over the last few years) but none that are interesting to me. The archival rate has been greater than the published rate in the last couple of years around our area. I'm thinking, mainly because new "gung ho" cachers hide but then lose interest after a short time. Maintenance doesn't happen and the caches get archived by the reviewer.
  2. It's really all up to the individual. I used to keep replaced logbooks because they usually had entries that included nice little stories and/or details of the cache hunt. Unfortunately, those kinds of logs are few and far between these days so most go into the trash.
  3. Well, funny coincidence. Just got this log in today. His photo was of the cache so I accepted it!
  4. I'd rather see someone sign the logbook/logsheet than take a picture for proof. But a picture is not a deal breaker when it does happen to occur. Fortunately, seeing it done has been a rare occurrence over the many years I've been caching. I do agree that having a writing utensil is important. But even if a person doesn't have one for some reason, it's really not that hard to leave a mark showing he was there. I remember a couple of occasions when I lost my pen along the way (left it in a previous cache) and had to improvise. A stick dipped in mud works in a pinch. There was one time where I used a stick and a blade of grass to leave my green initials. I wouldn't do it but I believe I've even read replies on here where someone used their own blood to sign a log.
  5. I've never cared about souvenirs but I did want to help with trying to break the record. I believe I read about it in the newsletter email days before but as per usual, it didn't take me long to forget. Would have been nice if a reminder could have been sent out the day before or maybe even that morning. Edited to add: Ooooppps, just reread the newsletter and see that it did come in the day before. No excuse, I goofed up with the dates. Oh well,,,
  6. I have an older adopted cache located at a travel stop here in the USA that I'm trying to keep active. I've had to disable it twice because of a storm and then again when the travel stop was torn down and rebuilt. First disablement lasted right at 2 years and the second was 15 months. I tried to remember to post monthly notes but I would forget and ended up getting reminded by the reviewer to check the status of the cache several times. There was one point that I did have to explain to the reviewer, that my cache was not hampering anyone else from placing one since the whole area was closed. It worked out but yes, it did require a lot of cache update communication.
  7. Agree with almost all of the above! Personally though, I don't think a cache owner should ask people upfront to maintain his or her caches. I suppose there could be a unique situation where it's ok, but for the most part, the cache owner should perform his own maintenance.
  8. I've gotten a couple or three of these nudges come in from Groundspeak over the years but never had one that got me upset. Have never had one I'd consider a nastygram. For me, it all depends on the cache it comes in on as to whether I think I need to take action soon or put on the back burner. A difficult cache that I believe is probably still in place get's assigned to the latter category where, who knows, it might be found by the very next geocacher. To be honest, I'm very forgetful so these kinds of reminders are sometimes helpful.
  9. Glad your irk level is only a 4 as I have some old challenge caches that have no checkers on them. Personally, I feel there is too much hand holding going on in geocaching these days! For me, having to figure out whether I qualify for completion of a challenge cache is just another part of the challenge. Imo, the addition of a checker should be left up to the cache owner. Yes, I'd say this is my irk for the day.
  10. Yes, I know that a big part of this is because of the commercial guidelines. Imo, the multitude of guidelines that Groundspeak has implemented over the years has taken away a lot of the fun and creativity of our hobby. There were basically three guidelines back when I started in early 03 but clicking on the link you've given brings up tons of guidelines, pretty much rules, that cover just the hiding of a cache. Shouldn't matter if the cache is hidden on private, commercial, government, or a non-profits property if permission is obtained. Whether it be a venue we don't agree with, the requirement of a high fee, a cache's difficulty, etc,,, we all have the ability to ignore those that we don't like.
  11. Imo, a fee is a fee. Whether it be private or not for profit, they both cost us money. It should not matter as long as permission is given for the cache placement. There are a lot of caches placed that we sometimes have to put on our ignore list for one reason or another. Caches hidden in the top of trees, ones we feel are too dangerous, and ones that cost more to get than we want to spend are all examples.
  12. This is what we've always encountered. It's sometimes in the cache description but we see it mostly in cacher's logs. Sometimes a critter of some sort moves in close by after the cache is placed.
  13. It's not mine but there is, at least there used to be, a cache at street level between some tall buildings in Houston. The gpsr readings were all over the place causing us to have a heck of a time narrowing down that one's hiding spot!
  14. I've seen a couple or three come in that went something like this, Not necessarily from a new cacher but a good indication that it is.
  15. And this is one of the reasons I've lost interest in geocaching. Too many dad blasted guidelines that, imo, hamper the hobby. For me, a cache with limited accessibility would add a tiny bit of a challenge and make it a more enticing and memorable cache. It would be a cache that, like every other cache out there, could be ignored if someone thought it was too difficult for them to get. In this case, what would be better,,, having a cache with limited availability or having no cache at all?
  16. If you read the bolded part of Keystone's post that I quoted earlier, If I'm interpreting this correctly, then it sounds like the OP's caches were NOT all submitted at one time. Not complaining, just voicing an opinion. And yes, I do appreciate reviewers doing the work they do, especially with all the annoyances from us that they have to put up with.
  17. I've only ever seen one snake in a can cache around here, one that I used to have placed. The snake can itself was glued into a gallon size container that gave no clue that a spring loaded snake was ready to pounce. Needless to say, it garnered some entertaining logs. Ma: This is the 12th cache we found today. Didn't you say you needed to use the bathroom at about find number 10? Pa: Well, I did need to but opening that snake in a cache a few minutes ago took care of that.
  18. I'm glad that everything worked out and everyone is happy now. Not to stir things up again but I do have an opinion regarding something Keystone stated earlier. His idea of choosing to publish all at once is probably fine the majority of the time but I don't feel it's something a reviewer should assume is best and choose to do. There could certainly be times when a cache owner might purposely want his or her caches, even if they were part of a series, NOT published all at the same time. Again imo, caches should be published in the order they were submitted,, unless the cache owner requests something different. This of course, barring any questions or potential issues a submitted cache may have.
  19. I agree. From what the OP stated below, it's obvious that a "find" log was not in order. The rest of the family was not there when the virtual was discovered. The cache owner did the right thing deleting the false log. As far as the suspension, we don't have enough information to give a good opinion.
  20. This is just one of the reasons I dislike power trails and sometimes geoart. Geocaching dot com started off with three simple guidelines, 1. Take something from the cache 2. Leave something in the cache 3. Write about it in the logbook. It's bad enough the 3rd has gone with the wind but even worse that it sometimes doesn't manage to stay with the cache it was placed in. All this because some want to play a number's game that geocaching wasn't intended to be.
  21. I guess it could be useful in some instances but I really can't think of a time that I would have needed it. Entities like state parks sometimes have their own forms for a hider to fill out but not the other way around. For the most part, verbal permission from the head honcho of the property usually suffices. Didn't look at the pdf but I'm guessing there's a spot for the the person giving the permission to sign. I'm just wondering if that person would be more hesitant to give permission if they had to ink in their signature on a form presented to them from an individual?
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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%.
×
×
  • Create New...