Jump to content

etarace

Members
  • Posts

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by etarace

  1. From the 7 Souvenirs of August FAQ If there are little digital stickers that you can only see if you use the website or upgrade to the Pro app, then the Muggles With Apps become Geocaching Pros Or some other conspiracy about Groundspeak being a business and doing something to generate income, but worded all conspiracy-y.
  2. I'm the new number one cacher again This title is generally confined to my household since the only other ones who have found any caches have been my dog and my husband. I have always been with them when they find caches, and neither of them have accounts. My dog is the new number two cacher again.
  3. I wanted to include this as a Waymark. As you can see on the plaque, human remains were found at the location. But, I don't know if it can technically be called a "cemetery" since there are not markers (just the plaque on the rock). I'm not sure what they did with the remains, though there is a lush garden nearby. In other words, I don't know if the remains remain at that location. Do you have a suggestion for a Category for this interesting location?
  4. Thank you all so much for your advice, the Waymark is approved now yay! I hope my post didn't seem to imply that you personally couldn't be contacted (you do identify yourself, as I quoted). I am just ignorant of how to contact an individual on Groundspeak without seeing them post something on a forum or cache. I appreciate your reviewing and suggestions. This website http://gohistoric.com/places/335341 lists a link to the official nomination form, but it isn't scanned yet. The location of the Lock is adjacent to Chenango Valley State Park, which is all within Broome County. Lots of Chenango-s to not be in Chenango County, but there you go. If you go on Google maps and search "Broome County NY" the location is obviously well within the borders that show. The County thing is all very weird. The location is in the Hamlet of Chenango Forks. Chenango Forks is both in the Town of Barker and the Town of Chenango. The Town of Barker and the Town of Chenango are both located in the County of Broome, neither are within the County of Chenango. The Borders and Village/Hamlet/Town/County designations really do not make any sense in New York. Another thing that makes no sense to me is the dates: Periods of significance: 1875-1899, 1850-1874, 1825-1849 Construction began in 1834, it opened in 1837, it closed in 1878. These numbers confuse me. Maybe they refer to the whole Chenango Canal? But that seems a bit silly on the listing for this specific lock. In fact, the Location of "Chenango County" would make sense referring to the Canal as well. The Canal would primarily fall in Chenango County because that is the county that contains the longest stretch of the Canal. What a lot of work to try to list a cool place. But I'll have more. There are lots of cool places in this area that surprisingly are not listed on Waymarking.
  5. I have an interesting place near me, and was surprised it did not have a Waymark (or two or four) listed for it. Coords are N 42° 14.468 W 075° 50.360 it is Chenango Canal Prism and Lock 107 and I have submitted it under U.S. National Register of Historic Places. It is on the register, was listed 2010. First off, I want to say Thank You to my reviewer. I appreciate the suggestions to get it approved. Unfortunately, since this is my first time I don't really understand the suggestions. I can not reply to the rejection email as it comes from a noreply email address. So, I come here. This is the email: Addressing the issues: 1. Easy, thank you for giving me the answer you want. 2. The county is correctly listed on my submission as Broome County. The coordinates fall within Broome County. I would really prefer not to change this to Chenango when I know that is incorrect. 3. Uhhhmmm..... I guess I'll just copy that, even though I don't get the dates at all. 4. How should I re-do my title? Would "Chenango Canal Prism and Lock 107 - Chenango Forks, NY" be appropriate? Part 2 I initially attempted to list this as a Lock (since it is). But the submission page required elevations or some such thing. This is an abandoned lock, the submission page even allows for abandoned and remnants. I don't know these measurements and wasn't able to find them. Can this be listed as a Lock? Part 3 Should I list it as a canal?
  6. Here's my creepy muggle story: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=0918cfb7-6509-43da-bfc5-729d8c2ba3ff Not really vicious, but definitely an uncomfortable feeling.
  7. I found two geocaches today. One I did not get because it was on the edge of a bridge and cars were going by and I was a scared little ninny. Also I found a waymark location of an old Lock which is pretty cool. I took my dog for a walk up and down the old canal.
  8. So.... if the coin is set as "collectible" your only options are "discover" or "post note"? Because I've never seen that as the only options before, but I've never seen a "collectible" in the wild before either.
  9. You can take those, tap out most of the left over snuff, and you've got yourself a new cache container! (please don't really do this)
  10. Yes, I think finding a new husband tomorrow is a great idea. One who likes geocaching. Good one! Actually, he is reluctant to begin, though always enjoys himself after he grudgingly agrees to go with me.
  11. I see a lot of new people commenting about TB Hotels. I wonder if they all realize something... you are not required to find a TB hotel in order to place a travel bug. TB hotels are just traditional caches. They happen to be regular-to-large size to be big enough to hold TB's. They are typically at or near Rest Areas, Airports, Bus or Train Stations in hopes that travelers can travel further. Personally, I don't think I would ever use a TB hotel for placing a TB. I put TB's out in the woods, a nice hike away. It may sit for a longer time, but with less activity there is less chance of it vanishing. Now... if a TB Hotel were a puzzle-box cache that required cachers to properly answer every question in a short quiz on travel bug etiquette in order for the box to open ... then that could have its own icon. And then maybe not so many TB's would vanish.
  12. No, I do not try for them. I have two first finds, both of them had been posted a few days prior, which doesn't seem like a big deal... but in my area caches are snatched within a couple hours. I agree that long-unfound FTF would be very cool to get.
  13. 10k+ finds Other cachers have also mention that it is just a lid, no container, no log. So... how did they sign it? What might they have taken? Where would they have left something? What do you mean you replaced it?
  14. Thus thread has helped me out of all problem. I may print it out and carry it in my pocket always. I like to play geocaching game. Today my husband is off work and sick. He is reluctant to play geocache game always, so I did not bother him because he is sick. Tomorrow I will do it, hopefully I will find one. Then I will come home and log about my find online on the internet webpage. I want to find a big cache, not a one on a metal rail that is in the place a truck will slide into me on the bad road. You have fun playing geocache game.
  15. Have you ever had a cache owner delete your found it log on a cache you "found" but couldn't be bothered to sign the log? A CO could rightfully do so and there isn't anything you could do about it. Yesterday I found a micro tucked into a whole in a post that was just big enough to hold it. My attempts to use my fingers and small sticks only pushed it deeper into the hole. I didn't have a tool to retrieve it but I did find it and even took a picture of it. However since I was not able to get it out of the post ans sign the log I was unsure if I should log it as a find. I was thinking about writing a found it log and explaining why I didn't sign it with the picture I took. However the location of the cache is so close to my home that I could go back to it with a small wire and and multi tool to dig it out and sign it. I've decided that because it's so close to me I will hold off. Now on the other hand, if this happened to me and it was in a location I am not going to be able to return to I think I would log it as found and post the picture. I guess after that it's up to the CO to decide what to do with it. I found a 5-gallon bucket in a hollow tree with a sheet of bark/wood that perfectly covered the hole. I couldn't open the bucket. I was one of the first finders, and it was a stiff, new bucket. I have girly hands. I put a Slice-O-Matic (clean, in original package) into the hollow tree. There was plenty of room for it and the cache and still everything was wonderfully hidden. I returned three more times before I finally OPENED THE BUCKET. I wrote notes a couple times on the cache page, but I never logged it as " Found It!" until I had opened the bucket and signed the log.
  16. I guess it depends on the area. Here, all serious cachers are PMs. The ones that aren't are typically spouses or family members who cache with PMs. Some didn't realize basic members could log my caches so I had to explain to them how to do it. I have no problem with these people logging my caches through the backdoor method. I agree. You've definitely had first hand bad experiences with the inexperienced.
  17. Premium Membership doesn't necessarily mean "serious" cacher. Just making it a Multi would seriously decrease visits. I like what narcissa said about it: In my area there are some Premium Members who are the culprits in getting "help" on puzzles, trashing nature, and trading down (and then write a cut-and-paste log about it). In my lowly Basic opinion, making it PMO doesn't solve any of these problems, it only gives fewer people an opportunity to have a lovely hike and an interesting find. In my area PMO just sort of reeks of snobbery, and the hide/container/swag/hike are of no better quality than other caches. I did go to a few that were designed to be PMO, were turned Basic for a short time in order to allow "members of the group who are not PM to log" and then switched back. I wasn't a member of the group, but I snagged the opportunity to go find them while they were basic. So I have seen some, my opinion isn't simply sour grapes. In other areas there is a huge infestation of unregistered phone users to contend with. I can understand wanting to avoid that.
  18. For the same reason I ask whether it's the same cache, I have no problem logging a second find even though some of the components of the original cache, such as the container and the hide, are the same. To be honest, I don't hesitate to log caches a second time when someone recreates a previously archived cache without changing anything at all. This is the other side of the same coin: I accept that the CO has declared it a different cache even though it's identical. It's up to him. (Not that I want anyone to kill caches just to replant them, but the cases I'm thinking of, the originals were naturally archived, then recreated at a later time in the course of hiding new caches. Often the recreations are by a different CO.) That's true. Not just ridiculous, but suspicious of being done for the obnoxious reason of allowing multiple finds on the same cache. I wouldn't have any problem with it if it happened in the normal course of events, though, although it's hard to imagine a natural case where the better solution wouldn't be to unarchive a previous version. If a new bridge or trailhead or some permanent structure is placed which makes the terrain much "easier" than it could have ever possibly have been, then I think I agree with what you are saying. If the point of the cache was to be a T4 hike, and now you can access it as if it were an evening constitutional, then yes... I think as a CO I would archive that cache. If it is still a beautiful location and a clever hide, I might create a new cache, new listing. In the case of seasonal changes or county workers or any temporary issue, no I would not archive. I wouldn't even change the terrain rating because these are temporary fluctuations which are accounted for in the original rating. Everyone says how they are "not perfect" but that is by design I believe. The lack of precision accounts for seasonal variation in difficulty.
  19. If they were coming from the pub, then that is an understandable rating.
  20. Terrain 5 doesn't necessarily mean that it's on water. It can mean many things. My quoted text in bold goes together. I know a Terrain 5 doesn't mean it is on water (there's mountain ones and outerspace ones and spelunking ones). However a T5 "on water" means it is off limits to me (usually, unless I make plans otherwise) considering I do not have a kayak. You don't always need a kayak to get a T5 on-water cache: If it is summer in Upstate New York and the cache is placed on a small island and I do not have super-powers to cause large bodies of water to take on solid form then a Terrain 5 cache will generally mean I need to use a kayak.
  21. Terrain 5 doesn't necessarily mean that it's on water. It can mean many things. My quoted text in bold goes together. I know a Terrain 5 doesn't mean it is on water (there's mountain ones and outerspace ones and spelunking ones). However a T5 "on water" means it is off limits to me (usually, unless I make plans otherwise) considering I do not have a kayak.
  22. That sounds interesting. GC code? I wanted to look at it to see how you'd actually verify something like that? Meanwhile, I wonder if there's a good reason that Found It log entries don't embed the D/T rating as it was when the log was created. I think this was requested awhile back but I gave up grappling with the nerfed forum search feature. Ten years and two historical floods later, there are some river-side caches in my area that are definitely different terrain than they had been when they were originally placed. It is good that owners are allowed to change this, because the earth does change. I kind of like the idea of embedding your D/T with your log, or at least making it a permanent log "9/15/2011 D/T rating changed from xxxx to xxxy due to cataclysmic natural events." If two floods wipe out not only the cache, but the whole area surrounding it wouldn't it make more sense to create a new listing? It didn't wipe out the cache, it significantly changed the surrounding terrain. It happened in 2006 and 2011.
  23. If you didn't have fun finding it then note that in your log. If you had fun then what is the issue? My issues is I looked for it at all because it was a 4.5 T (not for a side game, but because I have no kayak). The cache owner made it a 5 based on whining from the loud minority in my area. Most of them have not even gone to find it. I had a ton of fun, one of my most favorite caches yet (I wrote that in my log, which is very long and probably boring). I enjoy a difficult/long/challenging hike. I have no qualms about attempting one, and look for them. I assume there are others who do the same. I don't have a kayak. If something is a T5 (on water) I am not going to look for it. I assume there are others who do the same. The "issue" is that by making this a 5 there are people who may not ever even try it - when it is a fun hike.
  24. That sounds interesting. GC code? I wanted to look at it to see how you'd actually verify something like that? Meanwhile, I wonder if there's a good reason that Found It log entries don't embed the D/T rating as it was when the log was created. I think this was requested awhile back but I gave up grappling with the nerfed forum search feature. Ten years and two historical floods later, there are some river-side caches in my area that are definitely different terrain than they had been when they were originally placed. It is good that owners are allowed to change this, because the earth does change. I kind of like the idea of embedding your D/T with your log, or at least making it a permanent log "9/15/2011 D/T rating changed from xxxx to xxxy due to cataclysmic natural events."
  25. I started out thinking that it was the Cache Owner's business but this thread is convincing me that I really should stick my nose in and request that they change it back to 4.5T Had it been listed as a 5T on the day I first saw it, I would not have considered it for my "daily walk with the dog". People are probably missing out on this cache because they won't try it since they don't have a kayak. That's sad. I'm on the side of "truth in ratings" .. I wouldn't want something called a 1.5 if you can indeed get there by wheelchair. I also don't want something rated as 2 and I go there with a VBS class only to lose two of them in the volcano.
×
×
  • Create New...