etarace

Ha! Thank you so much. My "note to Reviewer" on this event was "my dog has a bee costume and it is so cute." My dog is 100 lbs, which somehow makes it even more cute. Tiny dogs in costumes have been done. I am actually kind of shocked that I am getting more than like five people signing up as "will attend" on this! How thrilling!

I will be hosting an event mainly to help out people who want the "Socializer" badge. It's my first event so I am going a little overboard in preparation (decorations and little freebees and etc.) ... especially considering it's for a 15 minute event.

I agree completely with your first statement. The second part needs to be looked at though, since it is only a five point scale. It fairly contradicts your first statement. What if I go hide a cache in the same park, one mile further out than the existing one. The terrain remains the same, but it is a longer hike. I don't have any problem taking a 4 year old to the original cache - nice walk, nothing so steep they can't get up on their own. The second cache is now a 4 mile round trip hike. I wouldn't take small children. I would rate this a 3 - 3.5 ... but if the original cache is ALREADY a 3.5 in "reasonable" minds, and this new one is definitely in a different category, then it would have to be rated 4 or higher. Which isn't in line with the guidelines, or ClayJar. I'm not trying to be unreasonable, I'm just trying to be rational.

No. I use the listed guidelines, and check them against a ClayJar entry. Generally, that keeps it all pretty consistent. Again, I ran what you stated through ClayJar, and it came in 2/3 D/T. Doesn't sound like a 3.5T instead of a 3 is anything to worry about. Personally, I'm not a fan of "local ratings". This is a global game, and we were given guidelines and a great tool (designed by conversations on the forums, and developed by ClayJar for use) to help keep things more or less consistent across borders. As an example, some will visit Alaska and find a D2T2 cache that requires a slog and scramble up a steep hill for not more than a few hundred feet. Now, to me, if I have to scramble--or I imagine someone less fit than I having to scramble--I think it deserves more than a 2* T rating. But people argue in AK that this "is just how it is...we're used to this kind of thing, and flatlander tourists aren't..." I think that attitude is unkind, and generally sets a bad tone for how we should consider and treat other cachers...let alone other people. I like to leave it to the tool of the ClayJar page to guide my ratings; it takes the subjective nature of the ratings and smooths out the wrinkles better than someone who thinks "overrated" caches are from "babies who cry". Thanks for answering my question, even if still pointing out how much of a jerk I am. It was not at all the CO who was the baby by the way... he rated the cache according to local terms. I don't fault him for that. I lived in Alaska for ten years and still consider their attitude of "this is how (whatever) here, and you don't understand" to be rude and bizarre. I wasn't asking you to rate this particular cache by the way, and I said nothing about the difficulty rating. It just happened to be an recent example.

A few of you have called me out for being a jerk inside my head... and I am, but I'm sorry for exposing you to it. I won't edit it out, because that would be dishonest. I don't have a "beef" with my local community. I have issues with The Loud Minority making the rules and proclaiming what "everybody" wants - be it in geocaching, or elementary school recess, or whatever. The problem with rating my own caches accurately would be two-fold. First (most importantly) people have probably grown accustomed to Local Relative Terrain Ratings. If I place a cache and call it a 2.5 there might be some people who approach this cache thinking "sure, I can handle an unpaved 1/4 mile trail on level ground." Second the Loud Minority would rant, if I do anything other than thanking them for pointing out my error and changing it to Local Relative Terrain Rating, it makes them ...louder. (I've seen this on cache pages, it's not pretty.) And, as much as it has been established that I am a jerk, I really don't wish bad things for people, and I really don't want to get other people in a tizzy even if I did call them mean names in this thread. So, on topic, it seems that everyone does agree that terrain ratings are local. Do you personally follow the Local Relative Terrain Ratings on your caches or not?

I just looked at the pictures again. The second (new) number on the winter scene is WAY too obvious. That needs to go away. The winter scene was the first one I saw the number on in it's original version. I mainly focused on it because I was quite certain what number I was looking for there. With that second, new, way-too-obvious number it takes away from your puzzle.

Today I had the opportunity to search for (and find) a puzzle cache located along Catskill trails. I was delighted that this cache brought me to this park, because there are other caches there and I will go back to find them as well, YAY! Anyway, as I was walking to the cache, as a new-bee hider, I thought to myself "how would I rate this terrain?" The majority of the "path" is basically a one-lane truck road. There are some loose large stones in areas, but you could definitely drive down this road (if you could get a vehicle back there). The distance from the parking location and the cache is about 0.9 miles. I believe the elevation change is 900 feet. This is a fairly steady gain, there are not sheer cliffs or anything. The last little bit (less than 0.1 mile) is on a smaller path, though this is still accessible to an ATV - not a deer path, not "bushwhacking" the only possible issue is an overgrowth of ferns, likely due to this being a path less traveled. I decided I would call this terrain a 2 star. I know my grandmother and her youngest great-great-grandchild could go find this cache. Both of them would beat me to it, and neither of them would be winded. Then I thought how I am not quite as fit as a grandmother, and decided to call it 2.5 stars. But that would be my absolute maximum. I checked the description on my gps. It was rated as 3.5 stars for terrain. At first I was incredulous, then I said "it figures." This is definitely the rating that the regular (and/or louder) cachers in my area would give this terrain. I called them babies that cry and went on with my thoughts. I came back to this notion though. Is this the right way to rate terrain? Around here, if something is rated 1 star, I know for a fact it will be a wheelchair accessible park and grab. There will not be walking for more than 15 feet involved. I don't know why, but that's how the ranking goes 'round these parts. A P&G that isn't wheelchair accessible is a 1.5 star. If you have to transport your body without a car over a quarter of a mile, this will be rated a 2 star. This is even if the distance is entirely on a paved rail-trail that you can ride your amigo cart upon (in other words, one star). If you have to go in the woods, you're probably getting a 3, and if it is over a half mile to the cache or there is a perceptible incline or if you might get your tootsies wet, it will be a 3.5 star for terrain. I know that these ratings are not right. Certain cachers around here will write passive aggressive (up to and including aggressive) comments on cache pages if ratings do not fall within these local guidelines. I know that they are not in line with the Help Center. But..... I know what it means. I know what to expect from a # star terrain cache in this area. So, I can almost see both sides of this. I'm sure this little section of Upstate New York is not unique. Do other places have terrain ratings that are relative to the local notions? How do you feel about it? What do you do on your own cache listings?

Dang. I'm going to be in the general area (maybe 15 miles away) tomorrow. We could have had a FTF race. I don't really play the "race" game, although I'm pretty sure you were joking. I just think it's kind of cool to get a FTF. Chances are much higher for me getting the honor on a walk in the woods ranked as higher than two stars terrain. Of all my (three) FTF's the caches had been out for days. Not a lot of caches last days around here. (this reminds me.. I was going to start a new topic) Anyway.... NYPC, I highly recommend the cache. I hadn't been to the park before this, and will definitely be going back. The coords and hint on this cache are great. The hint had me hopping off the trail at just the right moment. Back on topic.... I am really glad you posted this on the forum, because I might not otherwise have searched for this cache (a puzzle almost 2 hours away?) I like that at least one of the numbers (waterfall in my opinion) is a little "too obvious" because this helps those of us who are not Puzzle Masters know what in the world we are looking for, hoping that the other photos follow a similar rule. It really was a great cache. My log will be up a bit later. I wanted to get a photo or two uploaded and watch a movie with my husband first.

The waterfall one is now a little "too" obvious. But now I can see the first one. It's good. I'm on my way to the cache right now.

The checker shows for me now, yay!

Bold added by me. You have 300 hunts. You state that "hunts" means that you looked for it at all. 300 hunts is not the same as 300 finds. It will never be reflected in your find count that way. You clearly remember caches you have found, and they were archived. Those that you have shared we can still see and see that you have a log. The fact that they are archived in no way changes your find count. If you find an old notebook (or whatever) listing a cache you found, you are still able to log it on archived caches by the way. You have absolutely nothing to "prove" to this community. I believe you did go on 300 (or more) hunts. I don't think a single one of us doubt that. Even if we did... so what? You have nothing to prove to weird antisocial digital strangers.

First: picture: can't see it at all (but can deduce the number) Second: had to save the picture then "zoom in" ... but even knowing where it is, I can't see it on the site. Third: I can see it Forth: I can see it Your geochecker seems completely broken (the icon and the link). So... I have a pretty good idea of where I am probably going tomorrow. Edit to add... I have a good idea of going IF the checker gets fixed. While I will drive that far for a cache, I won't drive that far for unconfirmed coordinates.

I can see the winter scene and the porcupine numbers. I might be able to see more if I stare at them. There is a broken picture under the porcupine picture on your page.

That's weird. I can see yours perfectly, larry. Now I wonder if mine looks "off" on other monitors.

Good observation. I didn't realize you could upload your field notes to the site without having them go to the cache page logs. I have never used field notes either. Yeah, it does seem like the simplest, most likely explanation does have something to do with marking "found" on the gps and the information being "lost" somewhere in-between that and the cache page. I find myself obsessing over this now.

I agree Nancycle. I would love to get to the bottom of this. As it stands, it seems as if the most logical answer is that the find count was on the now-broken gps. Her only very significantly long dry spell was 2009-2012. She noticed "quite some while ago" that the count had changed. When is quite some time ago? 2012? Five months ago? Also, when did the gps break, and does she still have it to see if the count is in the memory? Also, she did say "hunt" count. Is she counting the number of times she searched for anything (including DNF and notes?). I have one cache I looked for seven times before getting a smiley. My "hunt" count would probably be more than double my "find" count as well.

She says that she was not using her phone until recently. My thought was that possibly her count came from a similar situation with her (now broken) gps.

On the DNF there can be several interesting harmless "gosh people are unique creatures" type of answers. I won't even put a theory out for why he didn't log it before and DID now, but it may be a legitimate DNF that he had on paper and for whatever strange reason... logged it online (with the correct date) now. Email him maybe? It could be a fascinating answer. Or.... was he attempting to log a DNF from a few days ago, and put in DD/MM/YY format for the date and put 12/08 and the system wouldn't allow him to DNF in the future? So it reset to last December without him noticing? I say email and ask. Now I want to know. The NM's from ages past are strange and kind of rude.

Keystone was kind enough to peek behind the scenes... Thanks Keystone! and your logs on the mentioned caches never existed. When a cache is archived (even if somebody puts a new cache at the exact spot) your Found it! still exists on the old, archived cache. It still counts in your count. If somebody creates a new cache in the exact same place, they probably would use the same hint if it was a good one. When a cache is adopted, it keeps the same date upon which it was hidden, and you would still have your Found it! log on the same cache page, and it still counts in your finds count. You can still see archived caches, and all of the logs on them. My current theories: 1. You're just messing with us? 2. Your "found" logs for many of these caches existed only on your broken gps ... and you only thought you logged them online? 3. You were using some alternative gps stash seeking site that happens to have hides in similar locations? Lots of people take very long breaks from caching for various reasons. If they are able to still use their original sign in they still have all of their old stats.

Out of curiousity, how did you know that you hit 300? It sounds like you were keeping track using some other manner than looking at the find count on the web site. I thought this same thing. I also wonder when "a good long while" was, considering one of the example caches was hid in 2014. So... my guess is that you hit 300 but were counting your caches somewhere other than Groundspeak. Maybe on your gps? Maybe in a notebook? It is possible but I don't think likely that your Found it! got deleted. If this is the case, you can ask Groundspeak to check/reinstate your log. They can see (behind the scenes) any logs that were ever there on a cache page.

I've seen the slogan along with the cows. There used to be a chicken place in a plaza nearby that used it. The chicken place was NOT a Chick-Fil-A so I don't associate the saying with Chick-Fil-A. Did they come up with it? Or did they just see a sign that was being sold at Tractor Supply and take the slogan as their own? This message not sponsored by Tractor Supply. To me it is a popular culture "meme" that isn't necessarily associated with a business. Maybe that's because I have never been to a Chick-Fil-A and the closest one is 56 miles away, and has "Limited hours and/or accessibility - please call first" listed for that location.

That's what I always wonder about the caches which have different objects you obtain from Waypoint A, B, and use at C ... who are these amazing cachers who actually return the objects? Certainly all of us on the forums... but... the first person who neglects to replace the objects messes up a really cool cache for everyone. Strangely, many of the Most Amazing Cache Ever videos and/or photos I have seen (and agree are super amazing) have "items" and these caches are out for a while. For example GC1VZY8 with not a lot of maintenance needed while it was in play. It is now archived, here is a video of parts of it:

Thank you both so much for such quick and full response. I didn't so much want "control" as I didn't want to be a bother to my friendly neighborhood unpaid Reviewer. I didn't want the time as specific as 1:23am but more like "8-ish" on a certain day. That's great, I'll put the note in for my Reviewer when I go to list it. If it doesn't list right then, it won't be the end of the world, but it would be cool. Thanks!

I've ran into people that, who are not really good listeners and just interrupt. Humans are interesting creatures, at least you can give us that. If you're ever in my area, please look me up. I enjoy the company of interesting people. I will do that. Of course I will most likely be sweaty, have twigs in my hair, and a dog and husband in my Jeep. You seem like you'll be okay with that.

This story comes from the Civil War, but is quite related. Page 5 of this issue of Grave Happenings talks about groundhogs. There is a story like this one every year.