Jump to content

DubbleG

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DubbleG

  1. My opinion, for what its worth, is that the program is what you make of it. Is it a bit 'softer' than it was when I was a boy? Yes. Is it better to get the boys out into the outdoors instead of lying in front of the TV or Wii all day? Absolutely. My troop camps every month in a variety of places. A dozen of us are heading to the National Jamboree next year where we'll go whitewater rafting, rappelling on 1000' cliffs (yes, thousand), tackle zip lines over a mile long, and much more. The mission of scouting is to prepare our young men to make moral and ethical choices, promote citizenship, and personal fitness. I believe the program still does that and is one of the finest organizations for youth in the country. At 102 years old we must be doing something right to have survived so long. So please do yourself and your son a favor and check out your local packs. If you're not happy with what you see, check out a different one. If you're still not happy then contact me (DubbleG) and I'll try to help you find a good fit. But please don't pass up the opportunity.
  2. As another newbie I'd add the following: Remember that the fastest way to the cache is not always in a straight line. I did far too much bushwacking on my earliest easy terrain caches. Most of the time there is a path of some sort that may look like isn't going where you want it to but, eventually, gets you pretty close. If the CO marked it a 1star you can be reasonably sure they weren't diving through ticks and thorns so why should you? Terrain ratings are just a guideline. They can be off by a full rating or more because the CO didn't follow/agree with the guidelines, because weather has an impact on a particular day, or because the conditions around the cache vary significantly by season.
  3. I agree with that. The different units have better 'specialized' capabilities. For instance, I can navigate 'on road' with my Dakota 20 but it doesn't handle traffic, recognize major routes the same, have voice alerts for upcoming turns, always account for one-way streets, etc. My Nuvi does all that and more but is useless for caching. Different units have different capabilities when it comes to paperless caching. I use the Dakota 20 and it shows me the description, hints, and logs but no attributes or uploaded images. It allows me to make a very basic log entry in the field that I can upload that when I return home. Usually I prefer to leave myself some 'notes' and use that as the basis for writing a more complete log. I think that's more a function of what caches you've downloaded to the unit. You can generate a Pocket Query with hundreds of caches and dowload them but it isn't a 'live link' like you have on the web. You could have that using a smartphone but I don't know how well they compare to a dedicated GPSr as far as caching goes. Some models have built-in FM transmitters so you can hear their output via your car radio. That works pretty well for me in some areas but in others the transmitter on my NUVI simply isn't powerful enough. If your car has an audio jack you can get a cable to feed directly from the unit into your car - that's ideal. I think you can get two reasonable units that are dedicated to the different functions (i.e. car and caching) and probably be happier than a single high-end unit. Then again, I don't know if there are any high-end units that incorporate the best of both worlds. I've been using my NUVI (actually on my 2nd model now) for years and love it. I'm a relative newbie to geocaching so this is just my experience FWIW.
  4. I have the Dakota 20 and have to warn you that it is not the best for automotive use. It can get you there but doesn't always recognize things like one-way streets nor does it keep to main roads. That may be due to the maps I'm using (Open Street Map rather than CN), I really don't know. Just today I had it routing me through a bunch of residential streets to a parking lot that was close to the cache I was targeting. My Nuvi took me right to the parking lot of the business where the cache was located. In addition, the warning beeps for upcoming turns give you little to no time to react which requires you to keep an eye on the screen rather than the road. That said, when you've selected a geocache you can switch it to "navigate by road" w/o having to switch profiles. Hope that helps.
  5. My Mistakes: Using too much information in my original post. I should have kept the cache information out of it and tried to keep it as anonymous as I could have. Apologies to SteveSquirrel. Posting my original note on the cache in anger when my log had been deleted. No excuse for this - my bad but that's part of the price of being human. Failing to understand that finding the cache does not equate to a "found cache" in geocaching terms. I can't imagine anyone can argue that I actually located the cache but I will admit that I did not fulfill the "letter of the law" by actually retrieving and signing the log. Chalk this one up to my being a newbie. Expecting that an accurate terrain rating was available or at least some indication that the find wasn't going to involve much more than reaching up into the low branches of the tree. Doesn't matter how many times you post attributes/images, etc. Like it or not, if it isn't in the description or the logs then it doesn't exist for some devices so all this 'hindsight' is pointless. Relying upon the information available in my GPS instead of doing a bunch of 'research' into all past attempts at this cache. (Did anyone even consider how many others may have shown up, looked at the climb, and said "this is nuts" w/o logging it?) Guess that is just another newbie mistake. Assuming a uniform application of the rules as the CO views them rather than the "I'll grant exceptions to those I like" application that has been applied in this case. Is that whiny? You betcha. I do tend to whine when treated unfairly. Don't like it? Too bad - I can't please everyone either. Wasting more time on this topic. I can't fix most of these but I can certainly do something about the last. I will close by saying 'thanks' for the education to the group and 'get a life' to a couple of you who feel that personal attacks helped move this topic forward in any way. This will be my last reply on this topic. Thanks for the enlightening experience.
  6. First off, if they can see your warning note, then they CAN see the "extras". Therefore, it's redundant. For some reason you choose to only respond to portions of what I've been written and ignore anything that you don't have a valid response to. Let's try something else. Here is a quote from another poster who has stated what I've already said: Understand now? It is NOT redundant because the extras are not available to someone in the field using one of those devices.
  7. Been caching a while, have you? It is common for folks with experience to forget that things they find to be simple are actually much more complicated to folks w/o that experience. There are many new cachers, obviously I'm one, who need it spelled out clearly. Perfect scenario is mine - I have the cache downloaded to my paperless device and the only information I have available is the description and logs. No images, no attributes, and certainly nothing that indicates that a climb of 15' is involved. One could easily assume that it is in the low branches of the tree and you just need a 'boost' to get to it. I simply don't understand the objection to providing detailed information telling people to avoid it if they're not up to the CO's challenge. Its the way you went about it. Whining about it and posting negative and childish notes will not get you the results that you are expecting. Casting the first stone? You've never written something in anger? I've already apologized so get over it. And what results am I expecting?
  8. Been caching a while, have you? It is common for folks with experience to forget that things they find to be simple are actually much more complicated to folks w/o that experience. There are many new cachers, obviously I'm one, who need it spelled out clearly. Perfect scenario is mine - I have the cache downloaded to my paperless device and the only information I have available is the description and logs. No images, no attributes, and certainly nothing that indicates that a climb of 15' is involved. One could easily assume that it is in the low branches of the tree and you just need a 'boost' to get to it. I simply don't understand the objection to providing detailed information telling people to avoid it if they're not up to the CO's challenge. {Don't take this the wrong way. I am not trying to be snarky} Who's fault is that? I often do the same. With my PQ's and GSAK and so forth I might pop in on a cache I have not fully read on site, but that is my fault not the owners. The owner post a page on the site. If we the seekers don't read it, then we should not blame the owner for what we fail to notice. No 'snarkyness' taken. First, I'm not familiar with all the acronyms and I didn't see many used here in the glossary. Can you enlighten me on 'PQ', 'GSAK', 'OP'? Second, I've already admitted my initial note on the cache was written in anger, apologized for it, and edited it. I hardly think that telling folks they must be able to "act like a squirrel like the CO" can be offensive given his user name. If folks can't read the humor into that well, too bad. So can we get past that and focus on what is fundamentally wrong with me providing a "non-whiny" warning note so it is available to anyone w/o access to the 'extras' that are available online?
  9. Been caching a while, have you? It is common for folks with experience to forget that things they find to be simple are actually much more complicated to folks w/o that experience. There are many new cachers, obviously I'm one, who need it spelled out clearly. Perfect scenario is mine - I have the cache downloaded to my paperless device and the only information I have available is the description and logs. No images, no attributes, and certainly nothing that indicates that a climb of 15' is involved. One could easily assume that it is in the low branches of the tree and you just need a 'boost' to get to it. I simply don't understand the objection to providing detailed information telling people to avoid it if they're not up to the CO's challenge.
  10. Well, to me, your note makes you sound like a spoiled child. Looking at just the listing, it was obvious to me there is a tree involved. I have a cache that requires climbing a pretty imposing tree. Several finders got there and realized they didn't have the skills or the needed boost (or a child-monkey ). I have not received a single note or DNF as "whiney" as yours. Come on folks, give DubbleG a break. It's a learning experience. For some of us the first time we are confronted with a tree climbing cache it can be disappointing and irritating especially if it took us out of our way and we could have spent the time looking for a cache that's a better fit. Personally if I saw terrain 3 I might not read further until I got to ground zero. My iphone app doesn't provide much info on the first page - just the basics: title, gc#, coords, D/T, Size and Fav Votes. I have to open up all the other info - description, attributes, logs, etc. So I might just head over to the cache based on the D/T rating and the Fav Votes and read the rest at ground zero. Using GS's rating system tree climbing caches are a T4: Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.) Lesson learned. I'm sure DubbleG will be filtering out "tree climbing" and "difficult climb" attributes from now on. Thank you! I'm glad there is at least one person here who "gets it" as to why I was upset over this. Frankly, I still feel that I did find the cache (staring at it from 10 feet below is not the same as "where is it?") despite it not satisfying the "geocaching criteria" of the word.
  11. Like this? Its very easy to say that this is available when you're sitting in front of your computer. My GPSr doesn't show images, attributes, etc. All I have is the description and the logs which I try to avoid, if I can help it, because of the spoilers. Many of my outings are 'unplanned' - I just go if I find I have some time to kill. So, yes, I now know that this is a cache that I would have avoided but it certainly wasn't something I could easily tell at the time. And, no, I won't be removing the note since it makes it quite clear to others in my situation that this cache has certain requirements that are not readily apparent at first glance.
  12. Let's see. I drove to the site, tramped over a snow covered field, searched until I found the target tree, looked around for a while, and finally spotted the cache. The only thing I didn't do was climb up the icy branches. How do you define "No effort"? You're right - you didn't see the original log so have no business commenting. Actually, the CO was pretty clear in the above posts that he would have made an exception if I had started out emailing him the situation and being nice. It didn't seem necessary to 'ask permission' when I'd posted the cache was visible but unreachable due to the conditions. It also doesn't seem necessary to need an exception. Either he requires a signed log or he doesn't. This arbitrary application of the rules, based upon his feelings about the cacher, shouldn't come into play. At this point it doesn't matter. I'm now clear about the rules and will confine myself to other caches that aren't going to require me to risk my neck.
  13. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Either you require signing, as is your right, or you don’t. You’re making arbitrary exceptions based upon your feelings about the cacher and that simply isn’t fair. My log, which you apparently misinterpreted, was not written in anger. I didn’t get angry until you expressly pointed out that I was the only person you did that to. There certainly wasn’t anything there that was critical of you. I actually wrote that I wasn’t even sure if you were aware how far up the cache was with the thought that it might have been moved from where you’d intended it to be. It doesn’t matter at this point. That doesn't seem to be the general consensus. It seems pretty clear that you sign or you don't log it. But you seem to want to follow the "It is OK to log w/o signing if I like you rule" which is unreasonable. We'll have to agree to disagree about this. All I can say is that the terrain rater tool would have given this a '4' and there was at least one other person who left a note indicating they felt the same way. Again, it doesn't matter to me anymore but I hope future cachers will read the logs before heading out to find your cache so they can be a bit better informed about the reality of being able to log this one. 8 & 10 year olds are, generally, much better suited to tree climbing than most middle-aged men for which there may not be any such thing as a ‘basic tree climb’. Done. I'm happy to have learned from this experience and wish you well. I will, again, offer my apologies for my initial inappropriate note but do insist that my log was never intended to be critical.
  14. How do you know that cacher didn't climb? They may have climbed up and taken a close-up picture of the cache in its hiding spot. The CO may have taken such a photo as proof that they did indeed climb, but were unable to sign for whatever reason. BTW, do you plan on going back once the weather is nicer and making the attempt then? It sounds like the added difficulty at the moment is because of snow. You're stretching things a bit but I'll play along. I don't "know" that the previous cacher didn't climb and it doesn't matter. Logic says my log was deleted for 1 of 2 reasons: I didn't sign I didn't climb If it is due to not signing, as the CO said, then the previous cacher's log should also have deleted because they also didn't sign. According to the consensus on this thread the reasons don't matter. If it is because I refused to climb (not saying that it is) then it is not following the rules since the CO can't impose any requirement other than signing the log. To answer your question, no I don't plan to return to this one. It is too far to travel for something this trivial and my tree climbing days are long past. The snow was actually a blessing since I probably would have made a foolish attempt in better weather and ended up regretting it.
  15. You're quite correct that I did leave my note in anger and for that I apologize. (I've since toned it down to be more of a warning to others who, like me, don't see anything obvious in the description about having to risk their neck getting to the cache.) Unfortunately the terrain rating doesn't account for variables, such as weather, but even in perfect conditions this one is no '3'. As an aside, I don't see why my log was deleted when there is another that reads "Made the find but not the sign. Too many people around on a warm winter Saturday. I took a picture instead. Will send to the CO if requested. Thanks!" that you left intact. My frustration is that you are being inconsistent in how you apply the rules. Why is it OK for someone not to sign to avoid muggles but not OK to avoid a broken neck?
  16. The only requirement the CO can impose on a finder is that the log is signed. Someone else can do the climbing. Where are the guidelines for setting 'terrain'? I can't imagine that climbing a snow-covered tree is only a 3 but I'd like to see how they're defined before I ponder this any further. The "guidelines" can be found by looking at the "ClayJar" system for ratings. It is, unfortunately, often overlooked. Also, look to theHelp Center Knowledge Books. The fact that you have to climb a tree looks like it fits the "not recommended for small children" part of a 3* terrain. Difficulty could be 2-4, depending on the owner's interpretation of the difficulty to find the cache. Thanks for that info. Based upon everything that I read, and 'confirmed' by the rating calculator, this should have been rated a 4 (at least 3.5) given that the 'elevation' is basically straight up and hands are most definitely required to access the cache (snow or no snow).
  17. The only requirement the CO can impose on a finder is that the log is signed. Someone else can do the climbing. Where are the guidelines for setting 'terrain'? I can't imagine that climbing a snow-covered tree is only a 3 but I'd like to see how they're defined before I ponder this any further.
  18. I recently went seeking "Keara's Monkey Cache" and found it. The cache itself is located 15' in a tree and requires you to climb to retrieve it. It was clearly visible from the ground and I didn't want to risk injury by climbing onto snow-covered tree limbs to retrieve it. I logged this as 'found' but the CO deleted my log because I didn't climb the tree. Here is the email he sent me: I am emiling you to know I deleted your log for Keara's Monkey Cache. I really am not in the habit of (nor have I ever till now) deleting logs or finds, so I figured I owed you a small explination. This cache is different from any of my other caches. It is very much intended for the cache to be up in that tree, and for the person finding the cache to climb the tree and log it (according to Geocaching requirments of signing the log to have a sucessful find). I understand you were out on a snowy day. I definitely do not want you, or anyone else to attempt this cache in weather that they could hurt themselves on. Trust me, I almost fell out of the tree the second time I replaced the log on a rainy day. There have abeen a lot of people that have had to come back to this cache to do it the correct way, and I feel that climbing the tree is part of the experience of actually getting the cache, hence the terrain 3 rating. If the log were full, and I couldn't sign, would it be considered a valid find? Can a CO require you to take such risks? Was he right to delete my log? What are your thoughts? DubbleG
×
×
  • Create New...