Ragnemalm
-
Posts
317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ragnemalm
-
-
On 6/12/2020 at 6:04 AM, cerberus1 said:
We received notice in March 2017 that double logging was going to go bye-bye, and it was finalized in May.
Removing double loggging is a logical move, because the second visit should not count as a find but as a revisit. However, revisiting after several years is often more exciting that you may expect.
-
On 6/14/2020 at 8:02 AM, SwineFlew said:
The problem with geocaching, once you clean out an area, the game is over for most people. I live next door to a pokemon point and I been seeing the same people daily since day one!!
And that is exactly the point. If "revisiting" was a thing, it would extend the game's longevity for many people. Just being able to make a log by revisiting caches once after over 2 years is a mild extension in comparison.
-
.png)
1
-
-
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
They can be personal records, bookmarks, rewards, recommendations to others - it's all up to you do with as you please. Some people are more uptight than others about what they think they should mean and may bug you if you don't do it their way. Ah geocaching
If I let them mean whatever I feel like without thinking about what they mean for others, that is just inconsiderate.
-
2
-
.png)
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, niraD said:
The LBH caches I've found have been like that. The GPS coordinates requirement for geocaches is fulfilled by getting you to the starting location (a specific place, not just a parking lot or trailhead). Then the letterbox-style clues have taken me to the final.
So you mean that the idea is to make part of the search letterbox-style? I can understand that, but I never saw one like that.
-
I must add this: This is partially a reaction to the discussion on revisiting caches, that I wished that to be a log type. These two issues stand out clearly against each other.
Letterboxes, if they are merely copies of almost any kind of cache type, adds this to the hobby:
- It gives you a cache type that lets you boost number of cache per day stats plus one more stat to collect for Project GC badges.
- It confuses beginners.
- It puts unnecessay stamps into the caches, which are just litter in the forest and extra costs.
Revisit logs gives
- One more log type to collect for Project GC badges. This was stated as a problem in the other thread. (But it isn't for letterboxes?)
- It gives the hobby more longevity without longer and longer car trips, making it more likely that people won't quit when caches in the area dries up.
- It means more visits for the cache, making it abandoned for less time, making it less likey to be forgotten by the CO, and makes it more likely that a maintainance need is discovered early.
- It is great for exercise because you can start taking a whole bunch of caches by foot or by bike.
- It is often interesting to see how the cache changes in 2-3 years or more.
- It may cause visits to archived caches, making it more likely that they are properly taken in since more people know that it is still there. (Better than just forgotten litter.)
- If it was a premium log type, it may cause people to stay premium. Groundspeak may like that.
Some comparison. The main drawback with "revisit" and advantage with letterboxes is of course that letterboxes are implemented and revisits are not.
-
4 hours ago, coachstahly said:
You supplied the answer to most of your questions in the title. It's a hybrid, not an actual letterbox.
But then we have the word "hybrid". What is a hybrid of two kinds? One kind with a picture of the other slapped on the side? A boat-car hybrid, will it go on both land or water, or is it a car with a non-working life jacket in the trunk?
ANY cache can be a stat stuffer so I'm not sure why you're singling out LBHs for special consideration, other than they're a different type of cache.
All other cache types are cache types, they have some unique feature that affects how you log them. The type carries some information and demands it to follow the rules for that particular type. If a letterbox hybrid is not a letterbox at all, then it has no point. To me it means that it should be both.
If every cache were a traditional, it's unlikely I'd still be caching. I like the variety and am glad we have it.
Varitey is good, but if letterboxes are just like the others, just poorly documented and confusing, where is the variety? If the logging of them actually gives a different experience than others, that's variety. An unused stamp in the corner of the box is not variety.
As to "regulation", since it's a hybrid, as long as a stamp is included and there's some GPS use involved, there's not much more to regulate for reviewers.
The reviewers don't know if there is a stamp in it, and nobody cares. It is just an unnecessary feature to ask about. Speaking of GPS use, a lot of caches can be found without GPS. In many cases, you just have to look on a map. A difference here is that a letterbox probably should demand that it should be possible - but not as convenient - to solve without!
While I enjoy some LBHs more than other kinds, I'm not in favor of limiting the options of hiders and finders. Are you trying to say that you want your preferred version of a LBH to be the ONLY type of LBH allowed?
Limits the options? In what way are options limited by demanding that the type is an actual type and not just a copy of another? If you want to make a multi, make a multi! I am saying that there should be a point with the type. If it is a letterbox hybrid, that means to me that it can be logged as geocache or letterbox. And that limits how it can be done.
If someone can figure out another way to do that properly except projections, be my guest, but "letterbox hybrid" means to me geocache and letterbox, not a geocache with a meaningless extra.
-
I just ran into objections in an FB thread on letterboxes. I claim that letterboxes are best (or only) made as projections, because that is the only way I can think of that makes it solvable both with and without GPS, that is solvable as cache as well as letterbox.
Yes, I know that letterbox hybrids can be made as any kind of cache, multi, trad, mystery, but I don't see why.
If it is a trad, then you probably need a GPS to pinpoint the location. Same with multi and typical mysteries. But if it a projection, then you start at a relatively obvious location, take a bearing with a compass and estimate number of steps - or you do it the geocaching way to calculate the exact position and use the GPS. Perfect!
If that is the case, then it is a true hybrid. If not, is it anything but an extra cache type to boost various stats in Project GC with a stamp in it with no purpose? And with the serious drawback that it is confusing to beginners and by being an "anything" type gives poor guidance to the rest of us?
How about stricter demands on these?
-
.png)
1
-
-
On 6/15/2020 at 7:51 PM, L0ne.R said:
I agree on your points:
- No indication it is a cache.
- Looks like another piece of trash among trash at ground zero.
- Tossed into the bushes with appartently little consideration for location or hide, when there is a better location nearby.
- 20-30m away from posted coordinates.
I found one of these recently. Just a paper in a box, not very well hidden. It turned out to be a mystery final.
But I find that rather common, mystery finals that are anonymous, and the log can be just a piece of paper with no markings. I can understand why, if you can't tell what mystery final you found then you need to solve it to be sure. Big risk to be tossed as trash though so I would advise something to identify it as a cache.
-
Since FPs are IMHO primarily recommendations for good caches and not rewards, I think it is fair to move an FP from anarchived one to an active one. If the CO is clearly inactive it can not be taken as offensive, and if you move an FP from an archived to an active by the same CO, that Co will most likely not mind. I know that I would prefer that; recommend my active ones, not the archived ones. Losing a point given to some other CO, that hurts a bit but if that cache is a good one, I better accept it.
I have at some time removed an FP from a CO because that CO was openly not interested in FPs, but I think that was wrong; The recommendation is just as valid whatever the CO thinks.
So I say it is perfectly OK, but I would just primarly do it to inactive COs or move to another cache by the same CO. Then I stay safe from being percieved as being rude.
-
2
-
-
On 5/25/2020 at 11:43 PM, kunarion said:
Looks interesting. Pieces of pine cones glued to... something? Bison tubes?
In my experience it is hard to make them stick well enough. We have one out in a nearby forest but it keeps losing parts.
I suppose you fix it with larger parts and more glue, but I think I will stick to 3D printed ones... but not the one at Thingiverse. It has some serious design flaws. We have our own that doesn't lead water into the container.
-
On 5/27/2020 at 2:26 AM, TmdAndGG said:
I just don't get why "revisited" has to be a log type. Can't you just revisit it and not log it? How is this any different? Why does everything always have to be a stat on geocaching.com*? Why am I asking so many questions?
* But seriously, why? There are some people who have found plenty of geocaches, just don't log them online because they don't need to see a +1 to find a geocache...
Why does "found it" need to be a log type? Why not just go out and sign the caches? Why does that have to be a stat?
I want to follow my progress, that is why. I want to be able to look at the map and see what I haven't revisited, just like I did when I logged them the first time. I want the "not yet revisited" to show so I can plan my next trip.
-
On 11/27/2019 at 5:22 PM, thebruce0 said:
The thing with this is that if it becomes a trackable stat, then it will becomes about the numbers and its use will shift towards numbers and competition. Guaranteed. Trackable stats are stats to track. Someone will make a challenge. Someone will display their stat proudly. Someone will complain about illegitimate stats.
If it exists, and its primary purpose is to be helpful, then it can't be statistically tracked.
Is this a problem? The whole hobby has problems with competitive behaviours, PTs and other caches that exist only for bringing your numbers up. Cache series that give the whole D/T matrix for some cache type. It has little to do with the suggestion to revisit caches.
Should "revisit" be a cache type, it surely would count to your statistics, but it would also benefit good caches, which PTs don't.
-
On 5/4/2020 at 3:26 PM, bflentje said:
I thought of a way for you to solve your problem.. just log a DNF on every first visit. Then the next time you visit log a Found It if you found it. ;-)
Haha! Yes, I saw that was a joke. Why not log NM when we're at it?
But to on4bam, there we have the problem with text communication. You can't hear the tone of the voice.
-
1
-
-
On 5/10/2020 at 6:04 AM, Ageleni said:
Here's how I see it. A huge part of the fun of geocaching is the search. Some are easy, but some are REALLY worth the smilie. If it were possible to let some time go by and then go back and log them all again, where would the fun be? You'd never have that same white-hot bolt of joy upon finding it--whether that be by lifting the lamp skirt, or moving the rock after a 10-mile hike. It would just be something you've done already and are doing again because it is easier to get a +1 that way than to go out and find new caches.
Have you tried it? I am revisiting on a daily basis, and 9 out of 10 caches feel like a brand new one. It was several years since the previous visit, the place has changed, my memory of how it was hidden has faded. I don't revisit something I logged months ago, but rather something I logged 5 years ago.
It is just like when it was new. Some are trivial, they were trivial back then too. I also re-solve mysteries and field puzzles. Several years after, they also feel like new.
And that is not because my memory is bad. It is usually considered pretty good. Of course I remember the very special ones, but even they are not exactly the same 5 years later.
-
On 4/28/2020 at 9:10 PM, cerberus1 said:
Maybe that's instead of completely dismantling them, as some we've found.
Why gadgets are the least favorite of those I'll find.
The last I was to but not "found", people were saying in logs they had "knowledge of electricity, and had another tool" to work the 6v battery-supplied container.
- Turns out they were just using a screwdriver to remove a side panel ... The "knowledge of electricity" all hogwash.
True. Sometimes I feel that screwdrivers should be illegal when geocaching. I have had my share of that. One of my cache stages for a mega event was disassembled by someone with a screwdriver, more or less the first visitor! And by doing so, that visitor destroyed parts of the construction. I had to make a temporary reassembly for the rest of the evening with a few hundred more visits. And that is not the only one that has had that kind of treatment. One was clearly cut by violent treatment with pliers.
You have to expect everything.
-
1
-
-
On 4/8/2020 at 6:57 PM, coachstahly said:
Although it's not always worked, I have labeled some pieces in my caches as not to be taken as they are part of a game within a game for a bonus cache. I have done so on the cache page as well as included a piece of laminated paper enclosed with the log but even that hasn't stopped people from trying to take pieces that are needed. Even the container labeled "DO NOT TAKE" doesn't prevent people from mentioning the great trade items inside the cache.
I even had the pen marked clearly with a "do not take" notice, but still was stolen after a while. Not to mention people logging on the paper that says "this not the log, look some more" or placing a fake log together with that notice.
You have to expect everything. Gadget caches not reset properly (wiythout noticing CO), people logging online without writing in the logbook, and definitely people trying your cache ignoring all instructions - including an instruction to put pieces back. People are different and they will misunderstand.
-
1
-
-
There are IMHO only three significantly different mysteries, 4 if I count those that are not allowed any more:
1) A puzzle to solve at home, go oout and find some simple micro to log it. Most time is spent at your desk.
2) Field puzzles. These are sometimes indistinguishable from multis, but generally speaking I would expect a field puzzle with some first stage to find the field puzzle part.
3) Challenges.
4) The now disallowed "go somewhere in this neighborhood and try to find the place that I vaguely hinted about". Disallowed since the GPS usage is vague or even nonexistant.
(1) is the most common kind.
(2) are rare, most should be mutis and I wish Groundspeak would make that a rule so they don't get lost among all the ordinary mysteries. OTOH, if I will make more mysteries, I will probably make these since ordinary mysteries are so impopular, judging from the FPs. Does it need some kind of "marker" to distinuish them from ordinary mysteries? I wouldn't mind but like I said they are rare.
(3) are already pretty easy to spot from their names.
(4) are increasingly rare. At least in my area they are so few that they just don't matter.
Marking mysteries after what kind of puzzle they are is not reasonable, and I feel that it may serve as an extra hint that the CO might not want.
-
This is one example of highly beneficial challenges. There are several others. There are minor issues with late logs etc but that is not much of an issue. If your challenge was fulfilled when you log it, OK. You might get some log deleted by a CO since you made some mistake (like logging on a fake logbook put outside a gadget cache or logging a tree climbing cache because you saw it - very common), but who cares? Those problems apply to other challenges as well.
While these beneficial challenges are not allowed, there are plenty of harmful ones. Maybe "full calendar of X" are the worst. So you are trying to get a full calendar of mysterys? Now, I am close to a final of a solved mystery. Oh no, today is not an empty "mystery calendar date" so you don't log it. Or you are not sure, can't waste it in case you are wrong. (Wasn't challenges that make you cache less not allowed? But these are!)
Not to mention that this is a problem that hangs over you for several years!
-
I have started re-visiting caches on a regular basis. One per day! I can't do that with finding new ones (little left within biking distance except for impossible mysteries) and I have too many hides myself so I can't make more, but I need a reason for exercise.
The result is 100% positive. I have re-solved a mystery. It was just like a new one, possibly a bit harder since things change. I have also found several traditionals. Several of them had changed so much that it totally felt like a new find.
The numbers have little to do with this, it helps me to keep caching fun and interesting, it helps me to get out and get some exercise. (Fortunately, we are not "locked in" here, going outdoors are just fine, just keep distance.)
It may never become a log type, but I find it totally beneficial and fun for me. It puts new life into the hobby.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Keystone said:
Challenge caches need to be dependent on YOUR achievements, not on the behavior of others - in this case, the fact that other geocachers have not found the cache for X period of time.
Imagine your disappointment if you visit a "lonely" cache and you see a signature in the logbook from a week earlier, from a traveler who hasn't gotten home yet to log their find. When they do, you are no longer eligible for the lonely cache.
Geocaching HQ does not want to encourage such scenarios, nor to referee the inevitable disputes.
This is not a problem. You just go for the next of the dozens of lonely caches. There are plenty of them. You just might to find two more instead of one more. It is an expected possibility.
The achievement is to find the lonely cache. The fact that nobody has found it in a long time is a problem in itself and such a challenge helps, a lot.
Dependency of others? We are always dependent on others. Caches are replaced badly by others. Caches are dropped and lost by others. Caches are even stolen, mugglers are also others. They are also maintained by others - something that is highly encouraged if someone finds the cache once in a while. When the last three visits to a cache was the CO maintaining it, isn't it obvious that the visits by CO will be farther and farther apart.
I insist that lonely days challenges are beneficial for the hobby (unlike many of the allowed challenges).
-
2
-
1
-
-
There is one kind of challenge that I really wish was allowed: The "lonely days" challenges. We took on one of these a few years ago and it was the best challenge we ever fulfilled.
The point is to log a certain number of "lonely days" in one week, caches that have not been logged online in a long time. Such a challenge encourages visits to caches that are a bit out of the way, and are rarely visited otherwise. The number should be tuned to fit the activity and cache density in the area.
There is a whole lot more to say about challenges, but that is the kind I am missing the most.
Groundspeak, maybe a "lonely days" souvenir? Of course, if it only works for a short time, everybody is doing it at once, it will only be one brief spike and then the lonely caches are lonely again, so a challenge is more effective, or a souvenir that lasts for a long time.
The lonely caches are often, ironically, the best (often in beautiful out-of-the-way locations) so they really need some help.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, frostengel said:
I prefer five (or less) cachers per year happily finding my caches to 100 (or more) cachers finding it, "plus 1", next one and forgotten.
If you want a puzzle cache that gives fun to those trying it: do something else. (This one is the hardest but way.)
We are very much on the same track here. I want FPs, FPs is my measure of an enjoyable cache. However, for our cache to make it to the 10% best, there have to be the 90% below, so I guess some quantity caches are kind of wanted. But what I want for those are simply the less worked caches in nice places, not big areas packed with puzzle mysteries. I want to get out, not sit and work on uninteresting digital jigsaws or cryptos for hours and hours. For higher D, I prefer managable field puzzles.
I will keep working on figuring out that "something else". But they are hardest, so I won't fill entire areas with 100-cache-bombs with them. No, one at a time.
-
5 hours ago, frostengel said:
My suggestion would be otherwise: do not do that. A mystery cache with any exisiting symbol code is very easy to create, may be really hard to solve and is quite boring in fact. It's just "find the right cipher" (easy to find or hard to find) and you are done. Creativity - zero. And the solvers won't like it too much either.
I totally agree, but "quick to make and time consuming but easy to solve" are surprisingly popular (although not in FPs). Existing chiphers off a specific web page (impossible without the page, trivial with it but tedious), jigsaw puzzles... you make one in minutes. Thus, there are entirely too many of them.
I prefer something more original. I can't make dozens of them, one at a time, but hopefully they are more memorable.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, van der Decken said:
I've put out a couple of unpainted PLA prints and had no trouble with them. One (a cryptex) has already survived 3 winters and is still in excellent shape.
Good. It sounds like my painted PLA cache may work at least some time. However, it is located in a sunny place to it is as challenging it gets for PLA.
.png)
.png)
.png)
Release notes (Website: Upload image to cache & trackable description; hosted images going forward) - September 15, 2020
in Geocaching HQ communications
Posted
Does any of the approved sites allow images to be available without recoding them? If the image data itself is unchanged, that would help a lot. You may need to kill the EXIF infomation for privacy reasons, but do you need to ruin the raw image data? Mysteries sometimes rely on information i the lowest bits. Why do you need to change them?
Maybe transcoding to lossless JPEG would help a bit? I am not sure how far, though.