BFG99
-
Posts
126 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BFG99
-
-
Yes, I know terrain is very subjective, so this is just my opinion.
Generally, with a T2 I would just expect some small ground obstacles (ravine or culvert, maybe a stream to cross, etc.) 2 is probably too low for this one, but 4 is only merited (again, in my opinion) if EVERYONE would need additional equipment to reach it. If a tall person could reach it without a ladder, or if you can hook it with a branch, then T2.5 or T3 is probably closer to right.
-
This is purely for curiosity's sake. Is there any way to search Groundspeak to determine what, and where, the oldest cache still in active play is? Could one use the GC (or, more properly, older G) codes to find out?
-
My biggest one so far: searching a large Christmas wreath on the side of a tree for the cache for 20 minutes, only to realize (when checking the Cache Size description) that the wreath itself was the cache.
How did that work? Like was the log and everything decorations on the wreath?
It's been a couple years, but if I remember correctly there was a small canister tied to the wreath that said "Merry Christmas" and held the log. I guess you could say the canister was the cache, not the wreath, but they were all one piece.
-
FYI after hearing back from the administrator who originally archived the cache in question, I have now deleted the second "Found It" log as several people requested here.
I have left a message with the original owner, who logged in fairly recently, and will give him a month to respond. If I don't hear back from him in that time then I will retrieve the cache and throw it out. The fact it is badly damaged and no one has signed the log in 2 years indicates it likely is not logged on any other sites. It is also in a public park which addresses a concern of ownership.
After reading through these posts (very good discussion BTW!), I too am of the opinion that CLEARLY ABANDONED caches should be removed and, if possible, repurposed. I say "clearly abandoned" because we don't want to remove caches that are still active on other sites if we can help it. But in this specific case, where the container is badly damaged and the logbook hasn't been signed in 2 years, it's safe to say it's truly abandoned.
-
My biggest one so far: searching a large Christmas wreath on the side of a tree for the cache for 20 minutes, only to realize (when checking the Cache Size description) that the wreath itself was the cache.
-
To answer the above post: it currently only has my signature once. I looked on the paper and could not find my 7/27/14 signature. It's possible that page was missing or damaged however as the log was only partially intact. Or it's possible I never signed it the first time though I cannot say why - maybe the paper was wet then and wouldn't accept a signature? Maybe I used a pen and it had faded like several of the ones from 2014 had? Who knows now. As mentioned, this second time the cache was badly damaged - and the log only had a Ziplock bag with a hole in it protecting it from the elements.
-
Wow, good discussion. I'm learning a lot here.
*grabs popcorn*
-
It's interesting how many different opinions there are on this. The majority clearly call it a DNF and I do too after discussing here and with the owner. But the fact a minority of owners would call it a find justifies having the discussion to start with.
Glad I asked as I have no intention of ever cheating or lying on this (what would be the point?)
-
Heh, good point! Still, I will delete in due time...
-
It's true that safety is subjective and based on a person's abilities, but in this particular case, when a near-miss injury occurred in the attempt, I think it's reasonable to ask the question.
Anyway I don't think we need to continue the discussion as I'm already convinced, as mentioned above, that it's up to the owner to make the call here. He decided it was a DNF and I changed the log accordingly, after confirming with this discussion. Furthermore I'll know when this occurs in the future it's also a DNF unless the owner says otherwise.
I will note though that some owners would have told me to log it as a find as is clear from the responses above. So it's clear there's at least some subjectivity here. It's certainly been a good and eye opening discussion!
-
People, I understand that. There is no need for the self-appointed Guardians of Good Form routine. As mentioned above, I have deleted duplicate logs in the past for this reason, and will do so again here when it makes sense to.
I haven't deleted the duplicate log on this one yet because I referenced both logs in my correspondence with the two other parties. And I didn't delete them yet because the first log, which was the next to last one before archival, and the current log provide good reference dates for the other parties. Thus I have a valid reason not to delete yet. I wasn't expecting to have to give that explanation so hope we can drop it now.
As soon as the matter is resolved I will delete the duplicate. It will be okay, really...the website isn't going to fall apart.
-
I did leave such a note if you look at the cache's page.
I'm going to remove the duplicate log after speaking with the owner or archiver so the point is moot anyway.
-
Being near them or driving past them is a pretty far cry from spotting them, attempting to reach them and injuring yourself (or nearly so) when reaching for them.
Would your opinion of how to log the cache be different if you spotted it and wasn't able to reach it, and you didn't sustain any injuries?
Yes, that's a clear DNF to me. No effort was made to get it and the person attempting wasn't adequately equipped. It only gets muddled for me when there's a safety issue involved, no clear indication additional equipment or preparation would be needed, and a serious attempt was made after visually locating it.
-
You have now logged this cache twice. While the website allows cachers to log a cache as 'found' multiple times, it's considered bad form to do so. Plenty of cachers revisit a cache when they're just passing by, or if they drop trackables, in which case a "Write Note" log would be the best log type to use if the cache is re-found.
Ordinarily I'd agree - I can and have deleted duplicate logs twice before for that reason - but this is an exceptional case. It seems prudent to speak with the owner or reviewer/archiver before I do so. I have left messages with both.
-
Being near them or driving past them is a pretty far cry from spotting them, attempting to reach them and injuring yourself (or nearly so) when reaching for them. I don't count caches just for being near them either, and I don't cheat - myself or anyone else. What would be the point? Plus I abhor dishonesty.
It's clear from the responses that different people do different things in this situation. Ultimately it makes sense that it's up to the owner's jurisprudence.
The difficulty was 2.5 and the terrain 3.5. Yes, that should have been a clue. And the cache's name includes a reference to a tree. That should have been a clue. But right before that one I'd found a 4 star difficulty that was at eye level, so it's at least somewhat subjective even if it's not supposed to be. And the description didn't indicate to me it would be 15 feet up.
And yes, I do always read the descriptions first, though the fact my GPS isn't Internet enabled and has little room for notes means I don't remember every detail on the dozen or so I search for on each excursion. Guess I'll need to start carrying a notepad for this and when the log is missing.
Anyway, I changed the log to a DNF as that seemed the consensus here.
-
Ahh, I didn't know about the coord.info URL. Thanks.
-
I could understand that being the case for a multi cache or high difficulty cache, but this was neither. Plus I've spoken with the owner on it.
Still, you raise a good point: at least on the trickier ones, till you open it up you don't know for sure.
-
Yeah, I noticed that too. I must have found it then too and failed to log it for some reason on my handheld. Can't say why; I pretty much always log on the handheld first, then go home and update the website. Strange.
-
Will do, thanks. Interestingly I couldn't get that cache to pull up in Search even with the GC code or coordinates, with disabled caches set to Display. But I was able to get to it via manual URL entry. I must have something set wrong in Search.
I'll let the owner know and see what they want done. Thanks.
-
Well, I didn't expect this to happen.
I use a Garmin eTrex Vista HCx that, for reasons I won't get into here, cannot connect to a computer or the Internet to download cache locations. So I enter them manually. Just about every time I go out, I review the intended targets to make sure they're still valid. But somehow I missed one today.
I tracked down, found and signed Sumac Attack, GC4FKET. I thought nothing was amiss till I came onto this site to log it...and couldn't find it. I'm guessing it was disabled some time ago and, sure enough, the last log before mine was 31 July 2014.
So, what should I do now? Can I count it as a find? If so how do I log it? Should I pick up the cache and discard it? I thought that disabling a cache included removing it...
-
To answer the question on how I knew it was the cache: it was right at the indicated coordinates and obviously was an artificial container hanging from a branch, so wasn't tough to see that had to be it
-
Heh, I definitely wouldn't want to kill the tree that's still alive
Anyway, I appreciate the community decision on this one. I honestly could see good arguments both ways so just wasn't sure.
-
Three of the 125 I've found so far lacked logs. I cannot say why but I checked for hidden compartments and they definitely were not there. I also notified the owners in each case.
Anyway, sounds like the consensus is that it'a up to the owner's discretion, and if the owner says it was a DNF, it was a DNF. Frankly I'd be inclined to agree even if I don't like it
. And the owner just offered to meet me there and retrieve it so I could sign it. I appreciated the offer but declined as I didn't want to waste his time.Thanks for weighing in.
-
Nope, I didn't. But as mentioned, what do you do for caches that lack logs? A strict reading of the rules would say no one can ever mark those "found". And we're certainly not supposed to injure ourselves doing this!
Edit: the other cacher raised a very good point that I hadn't considered. We don't want to encourage other cachers to say "found it" just because they saw it from the ground. That's certainly not my intention, especially since I did make an honest effort, but it could go that way
Anyway, I'm not trying to make excuses here and will respect what others decide. Frankly, due to the greater experience of the other cacher I'm thinking he's probably right. I'm inquiring just because I could see this happening again, and need to know what to call it.
Geocaching on the Moon?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
I like how it's "wheelchair accessible", but there are no campfires.