Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by niraD

  1. How long do you think that would last? Owners of current numbers trails are putting nonsense attributes (like "Scuba gear required") in all the caches of their numbers trails. If there were a more appropriate attribute, then most of them would put it in their caches instead. The same is true of any other attribute (with the lone exception of "Wheelchair accessible", which must be T1).
  2. Relatively speaking, yes. Most geocachers don't worry about their "grid" at all. Maybe they enjoy poking hornets' nests? Maybe someone had a brain fart? Or, just to play devil's advocate, Groundspeak could get rid of this exception to the basic guideline that physical geocaches "can be logged online as 'Found' after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook." After all, they got rid of other ALRs years ago.
  3. Fundamentally, difficulty and terrain ratings are communication tools, a way for the CO to communicate the general nature of the geocaching experience to potential seekers. They are not prizes that finders earn. Yeah, I get that some geocachers keep track of such statistics and actually seek out caches with certain difficulty-terrain combinations. But if Groundspeak starts making the difficulty-terrain rating "stick" to the log entry, what else? Do they make the attributes "stick" because there are challenges based on attributes? Do they make the cache size "stick" because there are challenges based on cache sizes? How about the cache name, the "placed by" field, the state/province, the county, etc.? I think a better approach would be for the handful of people who care about such things to keep track of them on their own.
  4. Oh for sure, but that's not enough to make discussion threads like this moot. Absolutely. If we were discussing what a CO can or cannot change, that would be easy. The CO can change whatever he/she wants, except for things Groundspeak won't let a CO change (e.g., the cache type), changes that violate the guidelines (e.g., agendas or commercial content), or or changes that violate the TOU (e.g., IP violations or other illegal content). But if we're discussing what a CO should or should not change, that's a judgement call. We can argue until we're blue in the face, and people will disagree. And ultimately, the CO will still be the only one who gets to make that judgement call.
  5. If only cache listings had an owner, who was assigned the responsibility for deciding such things.
  6. The resolution described in the last section of the Help Center article Check for minimum distance seems perfectly reasonable to me.
  7. They may have done the ET highway and similar numbers trails, but that alone isn't how anyone gets a find count above 100k. There just aren't enough numbers trails out there. If you hit 100k, then most of that has to be regular caches. Lots and lots and lots of regular caches. And a find count above 100k also requires a lot of travel, because you would quickly deplete even the most heavily saturated local area at that rate. Sounds about right. I've never gone geocaching with him (or with anyone else with a find count above 100k), but I know people who have gone geocaching with him. They said that it was very hard to keep up with him. He moves quickly. He finds caches quickly. He signs quickly. And then he's moving quickly to the next cache. He doesn't go geocaching every day, but when he does go geocaching, he finds a LOT of caches.
  8. Maybe this forum really needs a "Tongue in cheek" response...
  9. One of the elevated caches I've found suggested that the cache could be done either way, and that he was torn between rating it T5 for those who climbed to the cache or rating it D5 for those who used tools to retrieve the cache while standing firmly on the almost-wheelchair-accessible ground below (T1.5). IIRC, he compromised and rated it around 3/3 as an average of 5/1 and 1/5.
  10. FWIW, I've seen elevated caches with low terrain ratings and high difficulty ratings (and possibly the "Special tool required" attribute) because the CO expected seekers to stay safely on the ground, and to retrieve (and replace) the cache using some technique other than climbing to it.
  11. This forum really needs a "Sad" response...
  12. I've gone geocaching with people who wanted to sign every log personally. That was fine. Once everyone had spotted the hide (or given up), the last person retrieved the cache, signed for everyone (either writing everyone's names, or writing a team name to save space on the log sheet), handed the log to the person who wanted to sign himself, retrieved the log, and replaced the cache. Then we continued our hike. Playing this way (sometimes called "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk style") is slower than declaring victory for everyone once anyone in the group spots the hide (sometimes called "Three Musketeers style"). So what? The point isn't to increment your find count. The point is to have fun searching for geocaches.
  13. "Armchair logging by any other name would stink as sour." What's the difference? Either way, you weren't with the group that found the cache.
  14. That might be Groundspeak's intent. Or perhaps they figure that current users with special characters in their names are used to the bugs and glitches those special characters cause, but they don't want to deal with complaints from new users who choose names with special characters. Or perhaps something else. After all, I am not a lackey, and I don't even play one on TV.
  15. Usernames with special characters are grandfathered. You can't create a new username with those kind of characters. In theory, the code for the geocaching.com website could support such usernames perfectly. In practice, such usernames cause problems, and can no longer be created.
  16. I wouldn't list a field puzzle as a traditional cache. Doing so almost guarantees that it will be discovered by geocachers who just want to find the container, sign the log, and move on. Not all of them will react well when they discover that a field puzzle is required to open the container or access the log, even if the cache is located at the posted coordinates.
  17. And under ideal conditions, a consumer GPS device will be accurate to about 3m (10ft). The precision provided by W3W is fine for geocaching, given the accuracy consumer GPS devices provide..
  18. Then the CO should "serve the first piece of cake" to the honoree by providing the cache info to the honoree before everyone else. I've found a series like this, where the CO said that the honoree had already found the caches, but that STF (second to find) was available.
  19. Exactly. What the OP proposes is really a cache with an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR), which hasn't been allowed for years.
  20. A common recommendation for beginners is to stick with small size, regular size, and large size caches. Until you're more experienced, avoid micro size caches, some of which are smaller than most beginners can imagine (sometimes called "nanos"). Save those for later, after you have some experience. Also, stick with caches that have a difficulty rating of no more than 2 stars . Save the more difficult ones for later. You may also want to choose caches with easy terrain ratings. (The difficulty rating tells you how hard it is to find the cache once you get there. The terrain rating tells you how hard it is to get there.) And it is often best to start with traditional caches, which will be at the published coordinates. Multi-caches or mystery/puzzle caches or other cache types can require more work just to figure out where the container is located. However, some "easy" caches have low difficulty ratings because they're in the "usual spots". Experienced geocachers will know to search the "usual spots" right away, but new geocachers will have to learn about the "usual spots" before those caches will be easy for them to find. Under ideal conditions, a consumer GPSr will be accurate to about 3m (10ft). That applies both to your device, and to the cache owner’s device, so you may find the container 5-6m (16-20ft) from ground zero under ideal conditions. Under less than ideal conditions, both GPSr readings can be much less accurate. Once you get within that distance of ground zero, put your device away and look around for places where a container could be hidden. Where would you hide something? Do you notice anything unusual? Is anything too new, too old, too organized (e.g., UPS: an Unnatural Pile of Sticks/Stones), too symmetrical, not quite the right color or shape, etc.? Don’t look only on the ground; the cache may be knee-level, waist-level, eye-level, or overhead. How might the container be secured in place? With magnets? With a hook? With string? With fishing line? With something else? Does anything move when you touch it? (Be careful when touching things though.) Go ahead and read the cache's additional hints (if provided), and read the past logs and look at any photos in the cache's image gallery. They may help you understand what you're looking for, and how/where it may be hidden. It may also help to look at some of the cache containers available online. For example, check out the cache containers sold by Groundspeak. Also, take a look at the Pictures - Cool Cache Containers (CCC's) thread in the forums, and check out some geocaching videos on YouTube. See also: How to hone your Geo-Senses (blog post)
  21. Ah, thanks. I was doing it backwards: [https://coord.info/GCZXNA](Happy Birthday!) does not work [Happy Birthday!](https://coord.info/GCZXNA) does work
  22. Here's another example of the "friendly email" pressuring a CO to archive a cache that was perfectly fine. When is Groundspeak going to edit the text of the "friendly email" to avoid pressuring COs to archive caches that don't need to be archived?
  23. Maybe. Maybe not. You can give it a try, but you may need to post a new listing. From the Help Center article Archive or unarchive a geocache:
  24. I'll add a weatherproof log sheet or make other minor repairs as a favor to the CO, but I won't do anything major, and if I didn't fix the root problem (e.g., the leaking container that caused the log to get soaked), then I still post a NM log. And I certainly won't leave a throwdown as you described. For reference, see the Help Center article Respond to "throwdowns".
  25. Courtesy of Google Translate: In theory, you could use the Markdown formatting described in the Help Center article Format cache and trackable logs. In practice, Groundspeak seems to have broken this feature. I just tried to create a link in a log and it doesn't work right now.
  • Create New...