Jump to content

motnahp

Members
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by motnahp

  1. I have to agree strongly with Jellis on this subject a good example of photos going wrong can be see in the following cache GCYD9H Tooey's Adventure No 1 (the pictures give away the location of the cache). This is a 5/5 cache but if you read the logs first then that rating is much reduced. There is a warning on each cache page saying that the logs may contain spoilers but I think most cachers read the logs first before looking for the cache. The cache owner does have the right to remove spoilers from logs but in this case, and in many others, has not done so and, of course, people get upset when their log is removed.. It takes a lot of will power to refrain from glancing down the page after reading the clue! But they changed it so you can now delete the photos without deleting the logs. I did not know that the cache owner could selectively delete photos. Can you also edit logs? It has been my experience (limited) that cache owners rarely delete spoilers which I found very annoying. I don't read logs any more. I have come to the conclusion that Geocaching is a very personal thng and it is better just to ignore what other cachers do or claim. Enjoy the search. i suppose this means that the answer to the original question is, that you can put photos into your logs, but people should not look at them. Is it therfore worth the trouble?
  2. I have to agree strongly with Jellis on this subject a good example of photos going wrong can be see in the following cache GCYD9H Tooey's Adventure No 1 (the pictures give away the location of the cache). This is a 5/5 cache but if you read the logs first then that rating is much reduced. There is a warning on each cache page saying that the logs may contain spoilers but I think most cachers read the logs first before looking for the cache. The cache owner does have the right to remove spoilers from logs but in this case, and in many others, has not done so and, of course, people get upset when their log is removed.. It takes a lot of will power to refrain from glancing down the page after reading the clue!
  3. It says on the cache web page that the logs could contain spoilers and that implies, to me, that you should not read the logs if you wish to hunt for the cache as the cache owner intended. Whether someone has posted a false find or did not find is therefore irrevelant. My partner always reads all the logs before looking for a cache and because of this he will usually find the cache before me. A couple of caches come to mind, GC36ZF8 U2Zooropa (spoiler in the first log entry) and GCYD9H Tooey's Adventure No 1 (the pictures give away the location of the cache) I have went through a stage of not logging my finds but writing an e-mail to the cache owner which allows you to go into much more detail of your search. It is a pity that Groundspeak don't provide an option about who can view your logs.
  4. I have been watching this cache GC9D2E for a while now as it is an interesting type of cache but have been very disappointed to see it being passed around for people to sign and log it as found. I find it very sad that these people are claiming this 5/5 cache as a find. Surely this is not in the spirit of Geocaching.
  5. Actually, they don't operate either as a dictatorship or as a democracy, they act as a commercial company, which is what they are. In this country the directors of companies are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders, and it's quite likely to be the same in the States. Companies are not required to act in the best interests of their customers (i.e. us). In many cases they will, because the interests of customers and shareholders often overlap - a well run business usually wants most of its customers to be sufficiently happy so they continue being customers, so they contribute to the profitability of the company for the benefit of the shareholders who have invested their money in the company. This is not a cynical view, it is how the system is intended to work. Of the other sites, TerraCaching is also a commercial company, and also American. So is opencaching.com, on both counts - it is wholly owned by Garmin who use it to promote geocaching in order to sell more GPSrs. NaviCache is, as far as I know, non-profit making, but is also US based. opencaching.org.uk is both a UK based listing site, and is non profit making, indeed, it must be loss making for the chap who hosts the site. It is the nearest thing to what you appear to wish for, in that it is run by geocachers for the primary benefit of geocachers - there are no shareholders. It's the nearest thing to a democratic listing site you will find - there is a three man committee (of which I am one) with elections every year. If a user of the site raises any matter with us we try and resolve it for the maximum benefit of geocaching, not for the non-existent shareholders, and if any user sees things differently to us they are free to stand for election. BUT. Opencaching.org.uk lists a TINY number of caches compared to Groundspeak. While I am an enthusiastic proponent I still use Groundspeak extensively because I would soon run out of caches to find if I used only the minority sites. Rgds, Andy I like the idea of Opencaching and will certainly look into it in more detail. From the brief look I had at your website I notice that there are not many caches in Scotland.
  6. Could you explain this more fully? The link just seems to list the details of Groundspeak which seems reasonable. You say that they hold a virtual monopoly on listing everywhere. Do you think that is a good thing? Are you satisfied with Groundspeak's geocaching and if not what changes would you like to see. Actually I think Groundspeak asked those very questions a few months ago and I answered that I was quite happy with everything. I am now questioning my response a wee bit.
  7. That's not quite true. Groundspeak operate one website where geocaches are listed (geocaching.com), there are several other sites that also list geocaches (although they are all much smaller than geocaching.com), and there's nothing to stop anyone else creating another listing site if they wish. As Groundspeak own geocaching.com it's reasonable that they controll how geocaching.com is run, but they can't control how the game operates on other listing sites. As for running geocaching.com democratically, you wouldn't expect Barclays Bank to operate democratically so why should Groundspeak be any different? The choice is, if you don't like the way Groundspeak do it you can use one of the other listing sites instead (as many people in the past have done). I was not aware that there were other geocache listing sites. Can you be more specific? Is Barclays Bank into any sort of sport? I suppose RBS does support rugby but I don't think they have any say in how the game is played. Are there any other games/sports that are owned by a company? The problem is that if you don't like the way Groundspeak do things you can't change it. I suppose GAGB is the closest thing we have to a local "Geocaching Committee" but as someone said earlier in this discussion anything GAGB says does not apply to the Groundspeak game. What can you do about a poor quality cache? There is a cache in my area which is at a T junction on narrow roads. There is no parking close to the cache and at the cache site you can only get your car half way off the road. Unless you have an interest in T junctions there is no reason I can see for placing the cache at this spot except for a place to put a cache. I don't know what Groundspeak's opinion of such caches are. I suspect they just don't know about them, but even if they did know, would they do anything? These poor quality caches are being placed every day and I think if allowed to continue will bring down the standard of the game.
  8. I think Geocaching today is tending to get out of control. What started off as a new American game has snowballed into a world wide activity. I have not been caching very long so I am not sure of the set up so please feel free to correct anything I am about to say. It seems that the game is controlled by a company, Groundspeak, who act along the lines of a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Are there any elected members of the “Club” who can influence the way in which the came is played? The game started with someone placing a cache the object of which was to find it using a GPS receiver but it has developed into various sub games and that is where, I think, it is getting out of control. One of these sub games is scoring cache finds which may cause cache quality to lower. I share The Hornet's opinion that there are many poorly placed caches around today which surely needs some regulation. I must add that there are also some excellent caches around and the game of “hide and seek” has stood the test of time but seems to be in danger of becoming tainted by poor regulation.
  9. I think the most dangerous thing you can come across is another human being especially one that thinks you should not be there. Another thing which can be dangerous is looking for FTF caches (especially those placed by inexperienced cachers where the coord may be out)
  10. Unfortunately no-one can see the cache until it is published so can't comment on it. Sometimes it takes a while to get them published. Give it a week
  11. Hello, My user name is Motnahp and I am just writing this to see if I have been banned or not. Someone called Sandy banned me a few days ago for using an alias which I thik they called a sock puppet. My question is, "Can I post or not?"
  12. I really like your quote "Caching for the experience, not the numbers" I wish more cachers shared your ethics to which I also aspire. I tend not to read the logs of other cachers as many of them contain information which "spoil" the cache for me. However, my eye is sometimes drawn to a lot of DFNs which only increases my desire to find the cache. I will not go out deliberately to find an archived cache but if I know of one in the vicinity of a target cache then I will have a look for it. I didn't quote your other post where you adressed me, as the quotes were broken, and I didn't want to make a bigger mess. Which I probably would have. What a couple people are saying is it is against forum guidelines to post with a sock puppet. Under the name you're posting with, you have 0 finds and 0 hides, and have been a member for 2 months. And the only thing that made some of us suspicious there is we see the join date in the forums. Yes, you have to click to your profile to see the 0 finds and 0 hides. Is the account you don't log finds with a longer established account? Doesn't bother me in the least, but we see 0 find 0 hide sock puppet accounts posting or starting threads, oh, I don't know, at least once a week. Sorry, I did not understand the term “sock puppet”. Yes, I am using a different identity from my geocaching identities. It is not intended to deceive anyone but to protect me. When I first started caching I tried to log on to the forum and was asked to register. I registered with a completely different name from my caching name. I now have more than one caching name and I suppose I must have a couple of forum names although I am not sure if I can remember the password for the original name. This is really irrelevant to the topic on hand or any such topic but since, it seems to concern some people, I am happy to discuss it and have started a thread on this specific topic.
  13. This post has been prompted by some discussion in another topic. It would appear that some members are concerned that it is possible to have more than one identity when caching and writing to this forum. I am using a different identity from the one I use for caching. It seems to me that this is in keeping with the geocaching game (it is a game isn't it?) I would be happy to hear other member's views
  14. I really like your quote "Caching for the experience, not the numbers" I wish more cachers shared your ethics to which I also aspire. I tend not to read the logs of other cachers as many of them contain information which "spoil" the cache for me. However, my eye is sometimes drawn to a lot of DFNs which only increases my desire to find the cache. I will not go out deliberately to find an archived cache but if I know of one in the vicinity of a target cache then I will have a look for it.
  15. Toz, you didn't tell me you recruited your Brother into Geocaching. Fact is motnahp, Groundspeak has made it very clear that "armchair logging" is one of those very few rules. Their agin it. Edit: By the way Motnahp, when are you actually going to go out and find a Geocache? I love geocaching but I can't say the same about Groundspeak. Groundspeak has produced many rules and guidelines very few, if any, work. Take one of the basic rules that caches should not be buried. The vast majority of caches I have found have been buried to some extent. Some people may not be able to get out to find a cache. Are they to be deprived of taking part in this game especially where puzzle caches are concerned. I have a few caches suitable for people in wheelchairs but I doubt if they could actually retrieve the caches on their own. I can't really understand this agressive attitude towards armchair cachers. I certainly hold no animosity towards them. I don't understand the question about when I am going out to find a geocache. Perhaps you mean why do I not log my finds. That is really requires a new topic,
  16. I disagree. In my early days, I moved the co-ordinates of a cache a few metres based on the OS 1:25k map, assuming the Ordnance Survey would be more accurate than my £180 Garmin. When the first people went out to find it, the revised co-ords took them to the middle of a main road, but my original co-ords were perfect. It turns out that the maps are not always perfect and in some cases they even introduce deliberate errors. Do you disagree that you should not check your coords or my suggestions of maps? I have found Magic Map to be very accurate so far, and I think it is based on the Ordnance Survey. Are you sure you were using the correct datum? In this particular case of Lu Lu 3 the maps clearly show that the coords are on the wrong side of the river. If the owner had checked this they would have noticed that something was wrong. In many cases poor coords will not matter except as an inconvienence for the cacher but in some cases they will lead to dangerous situations. Do we just carry on as we are doing or do we try to learn something from this near miss.
  17. I don't see any problems with any of this. It is interesting that archived caches can still be found. Perhaps someone should go and remove them (are they considered litter?) Regarding armchair caching I do not have any problems with this. If someone wishes to armchair cache and they enjoy this then why should I or anyone else object?
  18. I have not set a cache like this but like the idea. The only problem with this is if one of the caches goes missing making the cache impossible which is frustrating for the cacher. I love the idea of cheating the "Number Hounds". Placing numerous clues also requires permission while taking clues from existing features does not. Another thing to note is that you can have any distance between waypoints 100yards to 100 miles and your waypoints can be next to existing caches which tends to cancel the permission requirement.
  19. Geocaching is a new game with very few rules. If someone wants to participate in armchair caching then I can't see any reason to interfere with their enjoyment. Many people play the game to try to find as many caches as possible and may be in competition with other cachers in this respect. There are some more twisted people who get their enjoyment from either taking coins or even the whole cache. To me caching is about finding a cache preferably one which requires a bit of effort to achieve. Caching can be anything you want it to be and what rules exist can easily be loopholed. If there are no rules then "cheating" can't exist.
  20. A lot of these problems with inaccurate coords could be solved if cachers would check their coords using programs like Magic Map wich is free and I use all the time to check where caches are located. Quo is another program which uses OS maps but is not free. Another thing which would help is that new cachers should not be allowed to place caches until they have found 100 caches.
  21. Depends on the cache type. A traditional cache must be at the published coordinates and these must be accurate. A mystery/puzzle or multi type can have the cache some distance away from the published coordinates provided there is an element of GPS usage to locate the cache i.e. following some photos or having a general rummage around would not be allowed. Could you point me in the direction where this is stated? As far as I was aware listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates and these apply to All Geocaches. Assuming that you are correct then, if this cache was a mystery cache, are you saying that the coords given are acceptable? The clue is spot on. What sort of distances are you talking about? There are obviously inaccuracies in all gps readings but to deliberately post inaccurate coords is surely not right.
  22. What do you mean by "Bogus Coords"? I have come across a couple of caches where the coords were deliberately about 25 meters out. You then have to work out where the cache is from the clue. In these cases the "Bogus Coords" did not involve any risks or danger to the cacher. This is a good way to make a cache more difficult to find but I don't think it is within the rules of Geocaching.
  23. The only person responsible for your safety whilst caching is YOU! If you look at a situation and assess it to be too dangerous then it is very simple, DON'T DO IT! While I would agree that you are responsible for your own safety I believe that the cache owner is responsible for providing accurate information. If someone was hurt or killed looking for a cache in which I had given the wrong information and it was likely that this caused their accident then I would feel responsible for the accident. Whether I would be legally guilty of anything I don't know but I would certainly feel guilty and that would remain with me for the rest of my life. Just because someone tells you that you are not responsible for something does not make it true. In this particular case the coords given by the owner lead you into a dangerous situation. Fortunately all those who found themselves in this situation managed to escape without incident. If any accident had occurred then I think Fluff would feel quite guilty and, I think, rightly so.
  24. I see your point that one is quite strange. It makes you wonder if it was done deliberately to annoy other cachers. I have noticed a few caches recently that seem to have a nasty side to them which is quite sad. I think Lu Lu 3 is probably just a beginner's mistake, but in that location, a mistake that could have been fatal. I don't suppose there is much you can do as beginners have to start somewhere but with the availability of the various mapping sites there is not much excuse for getting the coords wrong. It is very obvious that beginners are not checking their coords. Perhaps this should be made a requirement when submitting a new cache.
  25. The owner has now posted new coords and changed the difficulty rating from 1.5 : 1.5 to 3 : 2 which I think is more appropriate. This still leaves the strange favorites choice... Oh well, I will have another search next week.
×
×
  • Create New...