Ragnemalm
-
Posts
317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ragnemalm
-
-
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?
-
.png)
2
-
-
Since I like tree climbing caches, this suits me just fine, especially when I am placing a cache.. higher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qETFkVmXvs
-
5 hours ago, lee737 said:
+1 And we should post NMs on these old things - if the cache looks like a piece of trash, it should be maintained or removed.
On a 2009 cache, yes. On a 2002 cache, no, then we may helping the CO, who may not be active, to maintain it. We don't have to but since old caches is a thing in the hobby, they have a special value.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
.png)
2
-
-
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?
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
On 6/28/2021 at 4:52 PM, Goldenwattle said:
When those challenge caches were allowed, I have had false logs ruin it for me. The owner didn't remove the non-finds, even when pointed out, so annoying to more then one cacher.
These "lonely days" challenges are absolutely great and should be allowed! But it would help them if COs checke on suspicous fakes.
-
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.
-
5
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
2
-
-
On 6/3/2021 at 1:40 AM, DARKSIDEDAN said:
Lovely area of the world that should have more Lab Caches
That comment brings us back to what I said. You mean ALC's, right? There certainly is room for confusion.
-
On 5/27/2021 at 5:22 PM, kunarion said:
I see an ALC here and there, separated by miles
Separated by miles? They are everywhere! The closest ones here have starts 200 meters apart, and these two are 300-400 meters from the planned Mega!
BTW, "separated by miles" doesn't sound very far apart. Add a bunch of stages to that.
-
About five years, and five visits. A very hard multi (D4T5) with multiple stages with one that was particularly hard.
But there are several mysteries that I have visited from time to time and never solved. Say, 8-9 years since first try. But they are not finished yet and probably never will be.
-
On 5/25/2021 at 6:20 PM, niraD said:
Most of the group caching that I have done has used the "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" method, so everyone has a chance to spot the hide before it is spoiled by someone revealing it. Often, the only person to touch the cache is the last person to spot it. That person retrieves the cache, signs the log and then passes the log around (or just signs for everyone), and replaces the cache.
Everyone is participating, even if only one of us actually touches the container.
Actually, the case when touching the cache has a point is for high T, like swimming, boating, climbing etc. Unless we need to keep the time short, we insist on touching the cache even if the log is already signed. No "logging from ground/shore" if I can avoid it.
Groups that don't do this are easily spotted. At most one log actually notes the design of the cache. The others log "one of the ones we logged today", clearly not knowing or caring about the point of the cache.
But at least they didn't damage it.
-
1
-
-
Reviewers sure deserve our gratitude! They do a terrific job! In our area, Toa Norik is known as the super efficient reviewer that often review a cache within minutes! (No, not always and we do ni no way expect it, we know it is a bonus.)
But when do we see the "thank a CO" day?
-
1
-
-
On 5/7/2021 at 9:33 PM, TeamRabbitRun said:
-
Mind-Reading Puzzle
- A head, with floating question marks
This is called a mystery/unknown.
Most non-field mysteries would qualify. Like all these "easy" mysteries at D2 or even lower that are easy when you know what the CO was thinking and otherwise impossible. We have plenty of these.
-
Mind-Reading Puzzle
-
On 5/9/2021 at 1:57 PM, Isonzo Karst said:
I've played with some more, and exchanged email with a long time member Basic.
There are some losses with this last update.
- Basic Members cannot see finds of other users. They can see hides, but not finds.
- There's no search page that returns a list of 20 caches, where a Basic member can download loc files 20 at time. I wonder how much use this was getting? any?
- And the filter for "that i haven't found" is gone. Basic member can search for caches from a number of places on the site with a few different parameters, but all such searches go to Search, and none filter out finds. They do indicate found status.
Can't see finds? Sure you can. Where do you mean?
But the search options as well as map options are limited, no "havn't found". That's not nice.
-
1
-
Ask for permission, and get it, including instructions on what kind of cache is welcome. In the ideal case, the cache should be a welcome addition in some way.
Make it clear in the description that you have permission, and maybe even state a contact person (or where to ask) if anyone want to be sure. They cachers will count as guests.
No permission, then no cache.
-
1
-
-
FYI, these are two nice LAB caches, fun physical temporary caches. Or rather, IMHO, from now on "event activities". (From FAD 2019 in Sundsvall, Sweden.)
Not very similar to ALC, right? So I think they will need to be renamed from now on.
-
ALC = permanent, virtual, usually very easy. Go to somewhere and count windows. (Yes it can be something more interesting but it was already there, like other virtuals.)
Lab cache = physical, temporary, usually pretty hard.
Can it get more confusing?
My best bet is to replace lab caches with "event activities" and log them with a TB. I just have to get some TB codes.
-
12 minutes ago, kunarion said:
If event Lab caches cannot be logged, wouldn't people prefer the ALCs, based on your premise?
If they take the ALCs anyway, since both count as ALCs...?
But if they are not lumped together with ALCs but something else, then I think they would benefit even without logs. They would be part of the event. But a new log type or attribute on a physical final would solve the problem.
.png)
.png)
Most non-field mysteries would qualify. Like all these "easy" mysteries at D2 or even lower that are easy when you know what the CO was thinking and otherwise impossible. We have plenty of these.
Too Many Caches = denied opportunities for others to participate
in General geocaching topics
Posted
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?