Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ragnemalm

  1. Let me bring this thread to life. Obviously unpublished caches will be archived after some time, and I can prevent it to make comments to keep it alive, but what is the rule for how long I can leave it without having it archived? In the past this has happened once, I think, and that came from Groundspeak and seemed automated, I think it was after six months. But I recently had a whole bunch of caches archived, and it seems the limit is now three months. I think it was much higher before. Is there an actual rule?
  2. I can see that it would be tempting to make a challenge with the goal "make more caches for me to find" (and I guess some old ones exist), but placing caches for fulfilling a challenge or souvenir would most certainly result in many boring, simple and unmaintained caches. It is not legal for challenges, and for the same reasons not included in souvenirs. Not all rules make sense but this one does. However, assuming that such challenges exist, can we see that the result has been bad?
  3. A T1 should never, ever be inaccessible from a wheechair. Have you told the COs? They are breaking the rules. Such violations should be reported to reviewers. Do these caches belong to the same CO? Maybe part of "DT bombs"? For the latter, the COs tend to put bad ratings on the caches just to fill the DT matrix. Don't accept it. For most of us COs, we make an effort to verify that a cache is wheelchair friendly before putting a T1 rating on it. What bothers me with ALCs is not that they exist but that they are made in collision course to Lab caches. Imagine if T1 and T5 were changed to be the same thing! Confusing, right? But now they make physical+temporary+potentially hard = virtual+permanent+easy. Makes sense? However, I see nothing in the ALC guidelines that require them to be wheelchair friendly. Unless I am missing something, you should run the same or even greater risk of finding an inaccessible ALC as a badly graded traditional. Right?
  4. One more thing... This forum states "Formerly the Lab Caches forum, this is a place to discuss playing Adventures. ". Is that implying that Lab Caches (not ALCs) are so dead and buried that they don't even have a forum any more?
  5. I guess this would fit pretty well into one of my birdhouse caches. However, there is a matter of security. We live in a time when we are getting more and more wary about unknown websites. Scanning an unknown QR that is not part of the cache, which sends my phone to an unknown website... Is that what we want to do? Wouldn't it be better to upload the photos to the cache in question, and project is given links to all participating caches? The best solution would then be that the project makes a script to "scrape" the images from the paricipating caches. Just some ideas.
  6. I am pretty sure this has nothing to do with the reviewer, since it is violating several rules from Groundspeak. Pokémon itself is a commercial trademark, Pokémon Go is a competing game, and Pokémon images may be copyrighted. Pretty clear IMHO. The caches you refer to are several years old, and by then Pokemon Go was very new and these conflicts may not have been put into reviewer guidelines yet. "Past publication of a similar geocache is not justification for publication of a new geocache." Furthermore, the rules state: No commercial content Cache pages perceived as commercial will not be published. Commercial content includes any of the following characteristics ... Name, links, or logos of the following Businesses Commercial products Competing games or cache listing services So it is all in the rules. Sorry, many fun ideas are blocked by this.
  7. I used iOS 6 for a long time with L4C. Unfortunately, I don't think that any application has been updated to conform with the new API and still supports iOS 6. Apple very much pushes developers to only support recent version, so as developer you have to fight to keep supporting the old versions, and to do that for a rapidly shrinking audience. I used to write games for the Mac, and I was extremely good at supporting old systems, both old OSes and old computers. That was a totally meaningless effort. Nobody cared. Same thing here, it is not worth the trouble as developer.
  8. Absolutely. I would log DNS or DNR (did not reach) as a Note. I only log DNF if I think I have reasons to believe that the cache is gone, after searching thoroughly.
  9. Yes, why not? And as long as it is a bonus, and not a requirement for completing the souvenir, nobody is excluded.
  10. I do (more than one) but I can't post it here without pointing out specific COs and reviewers, and I don't think that is OK.
  11. Time since last found and time since last maintenance are two different measures, both relevant. The last of the two, too. I wouldn't rule out any. I believe that the Project-GC number is about the last found. The whole concept about lonely caches is important and I really would love to see "lonely days" challenges be allowed again. That is just about the only challenge I would consider creating myself.
  12. Seriously? A souvenir about mountaneering that doesn't even give a bonus for high T? I see the point with the all-including style, but why not a bonus for high T (which then gives a bonus for climbing mountains - as well as other high T caches but that is hard to avoid). Or a bonus for high altitudes. Nothing mandatory, just a little bonus for being on the theme.
  13. I would never log DNF in any of these cases, on a cache that I can't search for or can't reach. These are all DNR's in my book, a "note" saying that I can't log it now for whatever reason, not that I couldn't find it. So in my area, you would get a message asking you to change the log type.
  14. I can't say I was miseld when I see caches being deactivated after just two DNFs. It seems to be the rules we have here. Even a DNF on a D3 will cause deactivation.
  15. I hope this isn't common because it totally ruins the FTF idea. When I place a cache together with a friend, my friend never try to FTF it, at least not without other people who are the real FTF hunters. Actually, we usually let quite some time pass before logging each other caches, if at all, especially if we are co-COs. Because it feels like cheating. However, FTF is not a formal thing. I have seen various variations on the concept. In one area, they decided that anything logged on the same day as the first find counted as FTF. And for some time, we had a series of events in our neighbor town, where each event ended with handing out GPX files to a bunch of new caches which were not yet released! This reserved all FTFs to the visitors of the event! This did cause some criticism by FTF hunters... Sometimes I wish there were rules about FTFs, but we need to make those between us.
  16. This is the problem: It says that it means "did not find" but in practice it is interpreted as "I think it is missing". So what it says does not stop it from meaning something else for users and reviewers. In my area, it is generally accepted that DNF means that I need to check that it is still there. Some caches have been archived after just two DNFs (first deactivated, of course). As a beginner, I logged DNF on a cache that I didn't dare searching for close to traffic, and got a complaint from the CO for this very reason: I had not searched enough to claim that it was gone! However, I do know that practices can vary by area, so maybe DNF is just that in your area. Not in mine.
  17. No, no, we upvote the 10% best and don't upvote the 90% that are quite that good... Downvoting is when we deliberately downvote obvious top caches.
  18. Sorry, this is not true! DNF means very clearly "I have searched well and believe it is gone". That is how it is interpreted by reviewers. If I get a DNF on one of my tree climbing caches from someone who didn't dare to climb, I will ask it to be changed to a note for that reason. I call that a "DNR" log - did not reach - and it must be a "note", not a "DNF", to avoid unnecessary trouble like having it deactivated until I can assure the reviewer that it is still there, or, for that matter, having other cachers skipping it because they think it is gone, due to the same interpretation. Many log types are strange. "Needs maintenance" means "This has serious problems and will be archived if the CO doesn't fix it soon". This has caused many fine caches to be archived just because the log book was a llittle damp. "Needs archived" means "a reviewer needs to have a look at this".
  19. Of course it is a downvote! It is a "not in the 10% top" downvote. On a cache that clearly isn't of that quality, it is expected, and rather a missing upvote. For a 5% top cache, it is clearly a downvote. You have 90% FPs on a particularly good cache. In comes the downvoters. 80%, or even 60%. Would that not be a downvote to you?
  20. Exactly, that what GS says, and that implies that they are a recommendation. And we all decide on why. A petling in a particularly nice spot is a perfectly good reason. FPs are sometimes given for reasons we may not agree to, but that's just the freedom we have. However, when I know that an FP is just "thanks for the FTF", I try to ignore it for evaluation purposes. I had one cache which had kind of a point. It got an FP for the FTF, none more. I scrapped it pretty quickly.
  21. The border between a gadget cache and a custom container is kind of floating. Custom containers can be fun and definitely are more fun to find than yet another petling. And you are not likely to place 100 of them at the same time, filling every possible spot.
  22. DNF: No need to log a DNF if you don't feel sure that it is gone. DNF on a cache that is just hard to find makes more harm than good. TBs: Of course you can log "visit". When you do, the owner sees that it is active, which makes the owner happy. Don't feel bad about that. I can't understand why someone would oppose to "visit" logs. They are there for a reason. Some TBs are hard to place. Take this for instance: https://coord.info/TB679VA I had that for a while. My intention was to place it in a "large" cache that I own, but it was too large! And it isn't the largest TB I have seen.
  23. You have a point in that even if an active cacher monitors the cache, that cacher can't delete a fake log. Everything else we can help with.
  24. I totally agree on that - most of the time. 1.5/1.5 petlings generally don't make it, and I often skip them becacuse they are not interesting. But it has happened that we found an FP-worthy 1.5/1.5. We found a short trail, 4-5 caches in a nice area including a tree climbing cache (yes, bring them on!), but the first was 1.5/1.5 so we just walked past it to get to the tree climbing cache. But they we noticed, it had something like 20 FPs! OK, let's give it a chance! And indeed, it was very nice, just easy. The CO quickly positioned himself as the best in the area, so we need to have some FPs saved before visinging any of his caches. That is an exception, though. Usually, 1.5/1.5 and thereabout are just a petling at face height or a film canister behind a sign. No FPs unless the location justifies it. I do "squirrel" some FPs, but I have too few since I am actively looking for good ones. I got the suggesting to take a power trail to get a bunch to spend, but no, I am not power trailing! Not my style. Thus, I always have too few.
  • Create New...