Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ragnemalm

  1. On 6/8/2021 at 4:59 AM, mraudrey said:

    If you want to find geocaches worthy of favorite points, look for caches hidden by COs who have a high favorite point to hide ratio. The best CO I know of around where I live is WarNinjas with almost 8 points per hide.

    Doesn't the % FPs say more? 8 FPs on a hide with 200 finds is not as convincing as 8 FPs on a cache with 10 finds.

  2. On 7/14/2021 at 11:59 PM, brodiebunch said:

    A favorite point here is the equivalent to the heart on Instagram or a like on Facebook-meaningless in the scheme of life.

    Not the way I see it. An FP is a recommendation, to other cachers to try the cache, and, also important, to tell the CO that the cache is good and therefore worth maintaining and keeping. No FP = downvote, uninteresting, don't bother keeping it. TFTC and copy-paste logs are also downvotes as I see it because yes, a good log counts, but not numerically.


    So I tend to archive caches with no or few FPs. It is the only measure I have on whether a cache is worthwhile or not.

  3. On 7/14/2021 at 2:31 PM, coachstahly said:

    They got rid of ALRs for a reason and you want them brought back?


    They also got rid of the requirement of an event having a log book.  I'm not really sure why (I'm sure the reason was discussed here) but you'd want them to go back to the way it used to be, just like with the above ALR.


    While there are certainly those that "cheat", I have to wonder at the percentage of overall finds that we're talking about.  Are we talking about 10% of the overall finds logged or is it some smaller percentage?  Or larger?  Is cheating some rampant issue that's permeating the activity everywhere or is it somewhat isolated by a pocket here or there?  I don't see a high number in my area of false logs from our regular cachers but I do see some that come through from elsewhere that have a tendency to be logging incorrectly, either via a claimed find with no signature or a throwdown.


    The most effective way to combat this is to put the onus on COs and not on Groundspeak.  That's the best solution, by far.

    For caches: Taking a photo of the log book, a very specific requirement for specific situations, is not the same thing as bringing back arbitrary ALRs.


    For events: Like I said, I see absoluetly no reason why the event log book should not be signed. Bad rule, fix it!


    Putting the responsability on the CO does not work. Once a CO quits, cheaters can log all the COs lost caches as much as they please. The CO won't care.


    There are cheaters, and one big problem they make is that they keep lost caches alive.

    • Upvote 2
    • Funny 1
  4. On 7/14/2021 at 2:51 PM, coachstahly said:

    D/T combos, types of hides, and sizes of hides.


    I adopted 14 that were placed before I started hiding my own and 5 (plus a couple that have since been archived) more that were placed while I was hiding.  19 active adopted caches of the 87 I currently have active. Looks like I'm all over the place on my D/T grid and all over the place with type and size.

    Interesting distribution, which fits well in that you clearly prefer to make caches with a mental challenge, right? "Sweet spot" around D3T2 instead of my D2T3. Sound good, different because we have a different preference and that is a good thing.

  5. We have talked about cheating elsewhere, but how about possible ways to prevent it? Maybe with help from Groundspeak.


    Logging caches that are lost. Nobody can prove you did not find it! But how about putting some burden of proof on the finder? If you log an archived cache, or a cache with three or more recent DNF, how about demanding a photo as proof? The same goes for logging an archived cache.


    Logging an event you did not attend. This one is easy: Demand everybody to sign the log book. And don't give that "what if the EO did not attend". If the EO was not there it is equivalent to a CO not placing a cache when publishing it.


    Any other cases? Other possible improvements/solutions?


    Let us not complain about the existence of cheaters, let us consider solutions.

    • Funny 4
  6. 1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:


    Mine also peaks at 2/3, although I haven't hidden anywhere near as many as you:


    The three T5s are water access caches, there being lots of nice waterways for kayaking here. The one and only 1.5/1.5 was my very first cache (GC4CAXV) and the 1/1 was an event.


    As you can see, neither of us are into creating difficult puzzles.

    Nice! It looks like we share the idea of the "sweet spot" in the middle.


    My first was also a 1.5/1.5. It is the natural place to start, but I left it pretty soon.


    My D1T5 was a tree climbing cache where you needed gear, but it was visible from 100 meters! I was kind of proud of that. That is a D1!


    Several of my 4.5's and one T5 are over water. 4.5's are easy enough to swim.

  7. I think an interesting related question is the distribution of the placed caches, and why.

    I have placed 240, 79 archived. But what I find important is where my peak is: D2T3, with most caches around that, with a considerable number at T3.5 and T4.

    Why? Because that is what I consider the "sweet spot", caches that are not super easy but not too hard, managable for most people but a bit challenging. I don't care much for the highest D, nor T5, and it is pretty obvius that I don't make many 1.5/1.5's.

    This is my take on making caches. Many multis, often free climbing in trees. It is what I feel I want to do. But we are all different so how about you?

    Skärmavbild 2021-07-14 kl. 09.06.14.png

  8. I must share a related experience.

    I logged a Wherigo a few years ago. At one stage, it pointed straight into someone's garden (I think it was a summerhouse)! After walking about for a bit outside, my locaction was finally identified as outside but inside the zone, but it was clearly too close to the garden.

    I informed the CO who got angry with me for "whining" and told me to go and log PTs instead. Not OK! I was trying to help him to avoid conflicts and he took offense instead of showing any interest in fixing the problem.

    The privacy of people near our caching activities must have priority.

    • Upvote 3
    • Helpful 3
  9. 8 hours ago, Lostboy1966 said:

    That descriptive has always stuck in my craw a bit, to be honest. I'm all for the 'we all are free to play the game our own way' mantra. My mantra happens to be putting a lot of effort into (hopefully) fun container builds. So yes, sometimes my only reason for placing a hide IS for the geocache. I have not had many complaints so far.

    I think gadget caches would be the perfect exception from that statement. It is much more relevant for cache bombs, filling an entire area with petlings.

  10. On 7/9/2021 at 4:39 PM, TeamRabbitRun said:

    Opt-out or Opt-in?

    Opt-in feels fair, but it would need to be opt-in, because a CO making a CO will make as little settings as possible, while a CO building a gadget cache has spent more time and can take the extra time to uncheck a checkbox.


    But let us consider when this is at all relevant. Most caches are archived when not maintained, and the CO all to seldom takes care of the remains. It stays in the forest as litter. So it is mainly things like 2001-2002 caches that we want to adopt, and they are not under any new adoption rules. So would an "set up for adoption as needed" option actually solve anything?


    So maybe we should stop trying to solve the wrong problem. Now, how about the cache bombs? Is there any reasonable way to avoid to have COs with a thousand petlings filling every possible space? Or is it desirable to have as many (simple) caches as possible around? Is that what the hobby is about?

  11. On 7/5/2021 at 9:46 AM, Gill & Tony said:

    How about "For any cache listed after 1 Jan 2022 the owner must agree to our new Archive or Adopt policy.  This new policy says that if a reviewer is about to archive the cache due to a non-responsive owner, the reviewer can solicit adoption requests from interested parties and transfer ownership instead of archiving the cache."


    This could not be made retrospective, but owners of caches listed earlier can voluntarily agree to the policy.


    Maybe cachers could register their interest in adopting caches within a given distance of their home location so the reviewer has a pool to choose from.


    It could work and be legal.


    I think this is a good idea, especially if COs can opt-out.


    The example of having an expensive gadget cache force-gifted away is valid, but it is a wider problem than that. Having a simple space-filler petling archived by a reviewer or force-adopted is nothing, little is lost so that could happen quickly. Caches with much work put into them should deserve a little more slack. The actual value is higher. They should not be archived as easily and quickly. However, it is hard for reviewers to know whether that is the case. They have D/T, attributes, description and the FP rating, but all of these can be high for other reasons than a hard-work, valuable construction.


    So how can we tell reviewers that a cache is a gadget cache?

    • Funny 2
  12. On 6/3/2021 at 1:47 AM, yorkmapper said:

    Someone has created too many caches and therefore has denied opportunities for others to participate in geocaching.  A brand new rail trail just opened up in our area.  Friends of mine live along the trail and have just gotten the geocache bug.  They wanted to hide their first one on the trail near their house but there is no room now.  To be clear, the trail is new and someone just puked a ton of hides all along the trail.
    This is wrong.  The reviewers should not have allowed this.


    Hiding guidelines on the official Geocache site:

    "Pick a unique location and get accurate coordinates

    A quality cache brings the community to an interesting location."


    Please rectify this poor management.

    As far as I can see, the only way to reduce "cache bombs", filling up the entire neighborhood with park-and-grabs, would be to limit the number of caches one CO can have. Even then, some COs would just register several accounts to get around the problem, but I guess most COs would take the hint and not take every free position available.


    We all know the citation "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." But few care about that.

    • Upvote 2
  13. AFAIK HQ can do nothing, or little. They are responsible for what goes online, but the caches are our responsibility.


    We have had some cases of cache sabouteurs. One was in my home area, a kid who started stealing all caches (at least the asy ones). The solution was to make all caches premium and then the problem disappeared.


    Another case was a TB hotel, which was repeatedly sabotaged and quite a few TBs were lost. (My guess is that they are in the nearby bushes somewhere.) The solution was to move it and make it a bit harder to spot.


    A third case was a unique cache I made, and put in what I thought was a discrete place where nobody goes. First version, rather primitive, might look like trash. Muggled. OK, so I made a new, in a neat hand-made box. Content gone, box found smashed. Hopeless case, archived and made a new one in a tougher place, but not as unique any more. Felt so-so, but at least the saboteur didn't find anything more to destroy.


    Generally, the trick is to give the sabouteur nothing to sabotage for some time. Deactivate all caches and take them in. Here is one case where HQ could possibly help: To allow these caches to be inactive for extensive time, preferrably several months, so you don't have to archive and re-submit every single cache. Can HQ accept that?

    • Funny 1
    • Surprised 1
  14. On 4/27/2020 at 12:33 AM, WearyTraveler said:

    I saw a FB post the other day about a bison about 15’ in a tree!  Thru the thread, they’re saying that there are lots there and that they carry a telescoping pole.  My goodness - think about it - 15’ up in a tree.  

    15', that's feet, right? 4.5 meters. That's nothing! Or at least not much.


    To me, high caches are not "grr" but "wow!" (if they are not too hard). My latest cache is 10 meters up in a tree, and you can not use a pole, you must climb it. But you are not expected to use a ladder, no, it is ment for free climbing (I am not talking about T5's). Wonderful tree. I like free climbing caches a lot, with no need for ladders and rods. I am no great climber and not young, so I can't climb anything, but like those medium tough climbs.


    I see many advantages:

    • I find tree climbing to be fun and challenging.
    • It is a good exercise. Otherwise, the hobby will only train my legs.
    • The risk for muggling goes down a lot! (Tends to happen only if the tree gets cut down, unless it is popular with children of course.)
    • Tree climbing and mounting climbing caches are the ones that my children enjoy.

    But I strongly believe that they should only be logged by people who enjoy climbing. Those caches are a very small minority of caches so they should not pose a problem, they don't fill large areas. Most caches in my area are 1.5/1.5 or similar, simple caches at face height.


    It does happen that a CO has a strong tendency for a cache type that you don't like, be it hard mysteries, long Wherigo's, tree climbing, pole fishing... Then you just make some yourself of the kind you like and contribute to the variety.


    Sorry if I said this before but I felt it is relevant for the thread.

  15. 3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

    The challenge cache I enjoyed the most was one that took me a year to complete (it required 24 finds with a D/T rating of 2/4), and there's another I've had half an eye on ever since it was published in 2015 but I'm still not even half way towards qualifying. It requires 40 finds each having the cliffs/falling rocks, scenic view and difficult climb attributes as well as being terrain 4 or higher, and for me it's almost the epitome of challenges. Sometimes the best things are those that take the longest time to achieve and where it's more about the journey than the destination.

    Only one year. :)


    The kinds that bother me are things like "full calendar" challenges and similar, not least with not so common types like multis. They take forever to fulfill and feel more like show-offs from the most experienced cachers than "challenges". Anyway, that was not what the thread was about, just a reason why I have trouble logging many new caches.

  16. On 4/16/2021 at 2:46 AM, barefootjeff said:

    So I'm wondering how many other long-term players have found themselves in a similar position of depleting their local supply of caches and how their involvement in the game has changed to accommodate that.

    The problem you are describing is one of the reasons that I suggest that revisiting caches should be a thing.


    In my area, most caches that I havn't logged are either trivial and uninteresting (1.5/1.5 petling behind a sign), challenges that would take 2-3 years or more to complete (why are these even allowed?) or impossible mysteries. So in order to keep the hobby alive (especially now when we can't travel) I have been revisiting, with my own rules for what counts. And all caches either feel like new or are so good that they are worth revisiting anyway. Not to mention that good locations are always worth it.


    So yes, I have found myself in your position and found a way to deal with it. But it is not an official thing.



    • Funny 1
    • Helpful 1
  17. On 6/29/2021 at 12:29 AM, barefootjeff said:


    I'd hope the heading on the cache page would be enough to convey that it's a multi and that it's not going to be an easy walk:




    The trouble is the "click GO and follow the arrow" app-only cachers not only don't look at the cache page, they don't read the description on the app as it's hidden away as something to only be read if you get stuck. But even then, this is what awaits seekers at the listed coordinates:




    The card says "the bushranger awaits you in the cave at the top of the hill" and gives the coordinates for that cave, so I'd have thought it pretty obvious there was more to do in order to claim a find.


    This was the "find" log I got:


    It was the sprained ankle that gave it away, as there was no way she could have climbed that hill if she'd sprained her ankle just getting to Wanda, but I still had to go up there and check just to make sure there was no signature in the logbook. She was a PM newbie who'd never visited the website and this was her first cache, so I wasn't about to just delete her log without at least trying to offer a bit of explanation and encouragement, so this is the message I sent her:



    She never responded and eventually I deleted her log. She did go on to find another 11 caches, though, all easy traditionals, before giving the game away mid-year and letting her premium membership lapse.


    Sadly this is becoming all too common a story, especially with all the newbies now starting off with premium membership before they even attempt their first cache, but if we're at the point where non-traditional caches need to have detailed explanations about cache types, terrain ratings and attributes written into the description, well, maybe I should just step back from being a CO.

    I had the same thing recenly from a beginner who thought finding the start of two of my multis would count. I politely wrote back and explained the rules. No reply. Deleted.


    The same beginner has two suspicious finds on two T5s that are likely to be gone. Anyone TFTC log on a T4+ or D4+ is suspicious, and even more so after those two proven fakes.

  18. Fake logs keep broken caches alive, not least caches that are lost and/or unmaintained, where the faker can log safely.


    Fake logs routinely downvote great caches, both in FPs and in words. They increase the ratio of unappreciative logs, which makes it less encouraging to build advanced custom caches. Yes, you always get a number of TFTCs, but fakers make it worse.


    Fake logs create extra work for the CO to check, double-check that there is no log, contacting the cheater to as politely removethe log, and then monitor the result until it feels right to remove it. Some would remove immediately, of course, but doing that too quickly can cause conflicts.


    Fake logs take up space in the history and the COs mailbox.


    Therefore, yes I do care about them. They do hurt the hobby.

    • Upvote 5
  19. Just scanning a QR code to get coordinates is simple and fairly common. We have a whole series of QR caches here, with various twists, with things like recoded images that you have to process in some way to make is valid to scan. There are many variations of the concept once you leave the simple "scan QR to get final".

    At least that is what it looks like here. QR codes are fairly common.

  20. On 5/27/2021 at 12:58 PM, BOTOCH said:

    Bad cachers to me are COs that ignore NM requests and let caches go months or years with DNFs, as far as finders go then people that log a find that truly didn't find it, just recently saw one where the cache was gone but after a few DNFs someone said they found it with a quick log, nothing else and turns out the CO said it wasn't there...LOL.  That's a bad cacher.

    Definitely. "DNF cheating" is the worst kind, they indicate that the cache is still there, that everything is fine. A non-caring CO is causing this, but is not helped by ordinary-looking logs.


    Another kind is the kind who see a desperate need for maintenance and ignore it. We once found a T5 on the ground. Recent finders logged TFTC. Yes, we alerted the CO.

    • Upvote 2
  • Create New...