russellvt

The 'perception' has nothing to do with whether a cache meets the guidelines. Except, in this case, the perception was that the cache didn't meet guidelines and was therefore archived...

Around these parts phone books are stuffed in leaky plastic bags and "delivered" into driveways. More often than not they're a soggy mess by that time I've found it. What's to say that the cache owner didn't provide the phone book him/herself? No offense... but did you even bother to read the thread, much less the post immediately prior to your's (from the cache owner)? Again, as the point has been made several times, even if the cache owner provided their own materials, it's the perception of a concerned cacher or any unsuspecting outsider who might use the phone booth and finds the "vandalized" phone book... it just doesn't reflect well on the sport of geocaching if someone decides to connect seemingly "sanctioned vandalism" to the activity, be it true or not...

Ummm... isn't that the old "cache rating" for this cache? (or am I missing something?)

Well, I haven't really noticed anyone saying quite that... It's not nearly that cut and dry by any means. (as you also said, there are some pretty disappointing long hike caches, and there are some great PnGs, too) I know (like others have kinda said), that I think that I'd have a tendency to think better of a cache where a long or rewarding hike was involved and I succeeded in making the "tough/beautiful hike." And yeah, I must say that I've seen caches of all four of the above categories on both sites... though there's a lot fewer PnGs on TC (at least that's been my experience thus far). Then again, there are a lot fewer caches altogether!

With all due respect... Anyone else nearly die laughing in the dripping irony of this statement? Anyway, I think both sites have their own spaces/draws along with their own sets of issues or annoyances. As others have said or insinuated, I think the more dedicated (?) cachers simply try to look beyond the squabbles and enjoy hunting both types of caches (along with possibly even a few other sites). Yeah, there are some improvements I'd love to see over on TC -- and I remember seeing a few growing pains here, too (even within the last year or so). But, myself, I'll continue to use both sites with the hopes that the respective communities grow. But I still find trying to argue that there's no will or superiority complex (in either direction), but casting one off as useless or overly simplistic or whatever is kinda funny...

There is no "need" for photos on a traditional cache (for example). But it is a great feature and I know that there are plenty of cachers that would "want" a comment section. It's a great option in your opinion. And though I'm sure there are people who would like that feature, this thread has also proven there are people who don't want a comment section. In the same vain and by the same logic (?), I'm sure there are plenty of options already on the site that certain people would say "there's no need for" or that people "don't want." It doesn't mean they shouldn't be there or they're not useful or "nice" to/for others, though.

I'll also point out the (non?) obvious... if the feature is/was added, there's no mandate you'd have to use it, either.

I always wonder why people think that. Cachers are just people from the general population -- there is no "better breed" litmus test to be one. There are all kinds of people in the world, and there are all kinds of cachers -- good, bad, and in-between. As someone else also said, I think this can best be summed up (particularly WRT YouTube vs. GC) as "teenagers." For the most part, I'd also agree that the general population here seems to be a much more mature and easy-to-know sort of group, to me. I'd not make that same assessment at some many of the "social networks" that flood the net as we all know, though... and, again, I think there's a general demographic difference between here and those aforementioned sites (well, in the sense of overall maturity/friendliness level, at least). It might just be a perception thing or what-not, but... that's the way I feel.

As much a contradiction (to my other posts) this might sound, I pretty much agree with the above post almost perfectly... my only contention (if you could call it that) is that I probably couldn't care less if people comment on my photos... though I'll admit that it's also kinda fun, especially with personal friends. I tend to use pictures document my own journeys and such, and they're often fun to look back on as memories... and, I don't really care if someone wants to comment on my pictures or what-not, so I put them on flickr to share with my non-caching friends, a bunch more strangers, as well as to be able to include them in any logs, other websites, or whatever.. But it boils down to it that I pretty much take and post my pictures for me. Edit: grammar

Ya know... Technically you're now asking for two features... the ability to comment and the ability to select if it's enabled or not... that's an extra database column in the user database, for sure! I agree... it'd be a cool feature. But, I'd much prefer cache ratings, first... which, I'm sure, will also require the ability to turn that display on or off on a per-cache basis or open up a whole new can of worms about ignore lists (ie. making it difficult for people to "attack" the rating of cachers they don't like -- at least without sock puppets), and probably a few other issues as well...

Generally, I'll look to see if the username asking for sponsorship "looks" like it's someone on GC (ie. profiles are reasonably close), and if they're active, before I offer sponsorship... the theory being that established folks can sponsor their local buddies without much fuss. As you also kinda pointed out... it's not like people aren't given a chance to come play, but their aforementioned sponsors may also "dump" them at some point, too.

I think you hit it there, too... but there's always the WP site that GC points at, too, for those. Personally, I don't mind virtual caches persay (at least ones that have "verifiable means" to prove someone's been to a given location), but the "locationless" caches can often bug me... personally, I tend to poorly rate (or recommend archival) for any locationless cache that lists a mobile type of object such as an automobile (I know, there goes that subjectivity again).

Normal ebb and flow, I'd figure... but I can't imagine even that really impacting GC's overall membership that highly. Myself, I don't see why people can't do both... Well, in the TC case, seems the majority of the caches have gone to the "locationless" variety... which, to me, can be kinda silly -- particularly, the mobile variety (like the guys that'll post something like a particular make of automobile). But, given that GC is still the leader, my experience has been that people tend to look at both sites if caching in a particular area... so, new TC caches aren't generally placed on top of GC caches (at least in this area). About the closest I've seen is a few dozen yards... close enough to be convenient, but not close enough to generally be confused (at least in areas of good reception) And TC has a natural attrition, I think, with the cache rating system... as the more caches start to fall in to "poor" category in their area.

Not to hijack this thread or anything in some weird direction, but I was struck with the wonderment of "how" you'd ever come to the knowledge of such a habit... *ponder*

Thanks for the link! Very useful! Also like TotemLake's setup. Thanks guys! (though I'm not the OP, this is surely a useful thread (to me))

Well, appears as though your profile now has one cache find listed. Congrats! (and from the sounds of it, you intend to stay with it and find more! help that travel bug along on its mission!) So I underestimated this, and I can't find a single other geocache. It was one thing when I was told to ind a stone wall at the coordinates and follow it 18 paces, but its another when the coordinates lead me directly to the cache in the middle of the woods. I'm gonna return the TB back to where I found her, and gonna wait until I find a nice affordable GPS unit on eBay. Yeah, it can be pretty tough without a GPS... hence why you were pointed at a pretty specific "type" of cache... large container, 1.0 or 1.5 difficulty max, in an area you think you might know somewhat well. Of course, if you want opinions on GPS purchase, there are those forums here, too... mine still sells for about $US300, but you can surely get one cheaper than that, I'm sure (some for less than $US100, for sure). Anyway, hopefully soon you'll be up and running!

*laugh* That sounds like a serious contradiction, there... as-if you'd be mad for Groundspeak "catching" you willfully trying to skirt the terms of use or something (unless I'm not understanding that one quite right). I know there are other knock-off sites that have a bit looser terms (I'll refrain from mentioning which ones, here) but I think it's in everyone's best interest that the #1 site for this sport (ie. GC), we always attempt to stay far away from anything remotely resembling a conflict with the guidelines (since most of them really are setup in a means that's in the best interest for the longevity of the sport, in my opinion). Personally, were one of my placed caches archived, I'd at least attempt to take it as a learning experience and try to not repeat the error.

You have a good point, but I don't think people wouldn't want to go back and forth between sites. Also, some people are not registered with Flickr and they most likely will not register just to comment. Thanks for the input. Well, flickr has the added benefit of piggy-backing on folks Yahoo IDs and that's part of the reason I had initially started using it... and figured by now most people on the planet are registered with them, Google, or MS... the later two just don't (or didn't) have anything I thought was that usable, at the time. But yeah... going back and forth is slightly cumbersome, but it's less cumbersome (to me) than uploading pictures one-at-a-time through a web interface, such as the one here, in my opinion -- and that's pretty much the reason that I now just use flickr these days (bulk editing/uploading/management)... then again, I tend to take way too many pictures, too (in the theory that I might get a good one once in a while!)... *laugh* As you say... all a matter of personal preference... Edit: grammar and clarification

A belt clip, or a lanyard should do the trick. I love my trekking poles, and wouldn't give them up when I go hiking. I'm currently only using one hiking pole, and my GPS (Garmin 60CSx) is equipped with a lanyard (they have several kinds -- I'm sure you could probably find them elsewhere, too). My only real (ie. biggest) problem with it is that my GPS tends to swing from side to side a bit when I'm underway (it's also a little "small" for me, but I also have a rather thick neck). I also picked up a bag made by GPS Outfitters, which works really well strung over my shoulder and around my chest (it also has a rain pouch). It's nice, too, since I can shove a couple pens in the side pockets and the GPS still works while inside the bag... though that pocket's large enough that it tend to catch pretty much "anything" I have in my hands, such as my cell phone or a travel bug or three (until it gets back to the MULE pack, at least). The belt clip's a bit big to be useful, though, IMO. I must also admit that I originally found and purchased the bag at a local sporting goods store, though, and didn't buy it online. I'd also be interested in what other techniques/items people use in trying to manage all the junk we invariably seem to find ourselves out on the trails with...

Aha! That was the term I was looking for earlier... an anti-jamming mechanism. Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised, myself, if something similar were currently in-use out there. ;-) I had a military unit that could take a chip replacement to account for the variable timings they once placed in the GPS systems... guess they probably have similar in current military-grade GPS' these days, well.

Seems the "temporarily disabled" icon in maps is now a little tougher to discern than it used to be... or am I just imagining it? It'd be great to have them stand out a bit more, in my opinion... or at least make them more obvious to my sadly aging eyes. *laugh*

Me, I've just started using flickr. It's free, after all, and supports a lot of cool stuff... of course, it also means that you have to inline your photos (or similar) rather than using GC's cool little pop-up feature. Guess it's a bit of a trade off, though.

As J-Way pointed out, the major difference between the two sites is that TC's more policed by the community... both with your cache reviewers being the same people that sponsored you to the site (in-theory, other local TC'ers) and with each cache having a MCE rating that's voted on by your peers (ie. MCE: Measure of Cache Excellence). This makes it plausible to help weed out "common" caches and helps discourage "just plain old hides" (or, as you might say, hides for the sake of a hide). I've yet to find a LPC over there, for example... of course, these points can also affect your sponsor, so it pretty much encourages people to archive low rated caches fairly quickly. Sadly (for me), most of the caches tend to be more of the "locationless" type, and the numbers of traditional caches are pretty low, overall (I only have a half dozen or so within 100 miles of home, for example). And has also been pointed out... the site's been pretty slow, but that's supposed to be fixed in "TC 2.0" (which has been vaporware for at least a year or two, now). Groundspeak does a much better job of responding to the community and rolling updates in to the site... but both sites, as has been pointed out, have their own place. Hope that helps...

That's a cool rock covering. What sort of material is it made out of, do you know? I seem to remember it being stucco'd or something a bit lighter than that... I seem to remember it being chicken wire'd over the top of a plywood frame or similar, but I might just be delusional here (it's been a while since I've claimed that cache, admittedly). Ah yes, that's it! Thanks for linking me back to that one... now I can add it in to my bookmark lists, where it belongs (last time I saw it was before I had bucked up for my membership).

The problem here is the perception that the cache owner may have defaced the box in-order to make the hide... all it's going to take is a few people defacing someone else's property (or the appearance or perception there-of) to start causing more legal ruckus for this sport we all enjoy. Therefore, as responsible cachers, we should strive to always act in/with the best integrity for our hides so-as to not possibly cause some level of ire in non-participants... this would include, I think, refraining from hides in any area where someone might wrongly assume we had damaged an area to make our hide(s), or that the effect of cachers coming to the area to claim the find might adversely impact the area. Hence, we have the regulations. Also, I beg to differ on the idea that the phone company would place a phone book simply for others to use it as scratch paper or to tear out sheets at whim... that's hardly the intent. It's really placed there for the convenience of everyone, not just as scratch paper. Unfortunately, I agree that our culture has sadly become such that many people seem to no longer think that such defacement(s) would be out-of-line. Just because it has been known to occur doesn't mean that we should knowingly contribute to it.