Jump to content

L0ne.R

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    7504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by L0ne.R

  1. I find I'm more irritated. Partly my own fault. I don't spend the hours required reading through every cache to choose the caches that I think will best suit my geocaching style. I tend to use the PQs, download caches for my intended target area and then drive to the location. Once there I check the GPS and GPXviewer file on my iPAQ for nearest caches and start reading the description. Dang, a micro in the woods. Forget it. So I drive to the next nearest cache. Dang a parking lot. Forget it. Drive on. A regular size cache in the forest. Sounds good but the last 2 entries say the container is in bad shape and the contents are wet. No owner maintenance. Forget it. Drive on. So I find myself driving for an hour (that's not counting the time it took to drive to the area) and maybe get one worthwhile cache, if I'm lucky 2. I now filter out micros (although I know I'm going to be missing out on a few great micros). But recently I've been noticed that some small caches really are micros - the containers are too small for trinkets or they are part of a series (I've learned I don't like series caches - I'm always forgetting to take down the number/letter/code) designed to collect letters or numbers and the containers are not really big enough for trinkets. So now I filter out micros and small caches, just to decrease the irritation.
  2. Wouldn't it be great if there was a specific "memorable cache note" option? Then it would be nice to filter out by number of "memorable cache" notes posted on a cache page.
  3. Yes, I agree. You've hit the nail on the head. The 60/40 ratio was do-able back when you only had 10 to find to get 4 good ones.
  4. That was the biggest issue for me. I felt somewhat duped. I filtered out for micros but ended up with "micros" on my PQ list. When I filter for micros it's because I don't want to find logbook-only caches that people put out because it's a quick, easy and cheap way to place caches. Technically they did use 'small' containers (approx 3"x3"x1"deep) but it was a "micro"-style cache. If there were some way to filter out "logbook-only" caches, that might help (but not a perfect solution either since some wouldn't use the attribute). The other issue (that has probably been bantered about the forums) is that a regular size cache could easily have been placed in this forest. There were 2 of the small micros placed at either end of this small forest which I'm pretty sure is all it can hold i.e. cache saturation, so now no one can hide a regular size cache there. Anyway, I suppose this is more of a vent then anything else. Since there's no easy answer to this pseudo-micro issue.
  5. But the owner doesn't want tradable items in the cache. Are you saying that if the owner lists it as small, then what they want does not outflank the guidelines? People can go ahead and add trinkets because the cache size guidelines say small caches "holds trade items as well as a logbook"?
  6. Should a small cache be listed as a micro if it's simply a microlog (just one line per person to add date and trailname), a pencil, and no trade items? Does the size of the container really matter if the cache is essentially a micro-style cache. If you use PQs to filter out for micros these end up on the list. Maybe we need a attribute for "micro-style" or "logbook-only" cache.
  7. I recently found a cache hidden in a hollow log in a bog - a wet location. The container was a lock n lock. One of the tabs had broken off thus not ensuring a tight seal. The contents were wet. I have used lock n locks for years and never had a tab come off so I thought this was odd. I turned the box over to check for the manufacturer's stamp - it was a dollarama knockoff.
  8. As I understand it from the guidelines, the only box type that must post the coordinates to the exact location is the "traditional" cache. From the guidelines: "The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache." Letterbox hybrids do not have to post the coordinates to the exact location. Although you do have to submit the final location coordinates (hidden, not posted publically) so that the reviewer can check that it meets guidelines and is far enough away from other caches. Is your reviewer insisting that you must post the coordinates of the exact location or just provide them for review? Regarding the stamp, if you use a commercial stamp, it would be nice if it matches your theme or location. A hand-carved stamp would make your box unique. And one that relates to the theme of your box or to the location would make it extra special.
  9. Yes. It seems a few placers didn't understand that the box needed to have a signature stamp. Looks like they thought that a "letterbox" requires that finders bring a stamp to stamp and sign the log book (I've seen this mistake too). I guess, at the time, some reviewers were also thinking that the sig stamp was optional. Wonder why these stampless boxes still maintain their "letterbox" status? When a box gets the wrong icon can it be revoked?
  10. The wording though seems to leave some interpretation for reviewers and hiders. The word "should" implies that the stamp could be considered optional. Anyway, it's not a big deal really. If all reviewers know that "should" really means "must" then that's good. But it would probably help to clarify things if a more clear term was used. There was a message posted recently that stated that "generally" a letterbox hybrid contained a stamp that stayed with the box. I was going to post that a LBH must contain a stamp but after re-reading the definition and seeing the word "should", I wondered if it was an absolute requirement.
  11. My understanding is that the most significant thing that defines a letterbox hybrid is the signature stamp in the box. But re-reading the LH definition (see below), it says: "They should contain a signature stamp that stays with the box". Why doesn't is say "They must contain a signature stamp that stays with the box". Would it be possible to have a box approved as a LBH where the hider specifically states in the clues that a stamp is not included? http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#letterbox Letterbox Hybrid Letterboxing is another form of treasure hunting that uses clues to direct hunters to a hidden container. Each letterbox contains a stamp which is the signature for that box. Most letterboxers have their own personal stamps and personal logbooks. They stamp the letterbox logbook with their personal stamp, and use the stamp contained in the letterbox to "sign" their personal logbook. Letterbox hybrids are a mixture of letterbox and geocache. They should contain a signature stamp that stays with the box, and they must conform to the guidelines for geocaches and therefore must contain a logbook and involve GPS use as an integral part of the hunt. A letterbox hybrid cannot be designed to be found using only clues. Whether or not the letterbox hybrid contains trade items is up to the owner. In most cases personal stamp and personal logbook are not necessary to be a seeker of a letterbox hybrid.
  12. Might be OK for the PnG type caches that get found by hundreds of cachers. Most other caches get very few finds. Assume that you have to have found the cache in order to rate it, the owner would see their caches rating go up or down and will probably know who just found their cache and could figure out how they rated it. If they don't like the rating they got they could retaliate by deleting the 'Found It' log or by given a low rating to that persons cache. The owner wouldn't see any ratings. The only thing he'd see is if people really liked the cache - then he'd get rewarded in the form of a gold crown (or whatever symbol gc.com wanted to use). Not getting a crown doesn't mean your cache is carpy, just that it's likely average cache, maybe even a good one but not a 'cream of the crop' cache. Reading the online logs could help people figure out if it's good, average or below average. If it's an average cache he just won't get a crown. 80-90% (depending on what the set-point is to get the gold crown) of caches would not get that crown. If you're going to be disappointed that you're not getting a crown and start deleting everyone's logs, that would be a rather odd and detrimental thing to do. One other way to deter retaliation, could be to set it up so that deleting an online log doesn't erase the vote. Hopefully, the opportunity to get a crown would spur a cache owner on to try to hide something that the average cache finder would consider 4/5 or 5/5. And more importantly it would make it easier for finders, especially those new to an area (perhaps on vacation) to focus in on the cream of the crop caches. Also, a crown doesn't mean that people aren't going to look for caches that don't have the award. I think most of us are addicted enough that we still want to look for as many geocaches as we can. But I for one do not have all the time in the world (especially when on vacation) to find them all, so I want to be able to get those that are highly recommended.
  13. Why? How? Who's model are you commenting on? How about a link? Atlas Quest's Blue Diamond system. It's been working well. According to your link, some people think it works great and others think its a 'flop'. No thanks. Those on the AQ site that think it's a flop, never liked the idea to begin with. Many of those same people don't like the idea of online logs/comments either and won't allow online logs. Would you say no thanks to the geocaching online logs because there are some vocal people in the letterboxing community that think its a bad idea?
  14. Why? How? Who's model are you commenting on? How about a link? Atlas Quest's Blue Diamond system. It's been working well.
  15. I would, especially local caches because I think it would be good for the geocaching community How would they know who rated their cache unfavorably? It would be an anonymous voting system. Quality of votes would be taken into consideration. Votes would be weighted. There would need to be an expected distribution of rankings. Ideally, your voting pattern will follow a traditional bell curve where few boxes would receive 1 and 5 votes, a moderate number of boxes would receive 2 and 4 votes, and a lot of boxes—perhaps as many as half of them—would receive a vote of 3. If everything you find is always a 5, for instance, that's a clue that you aren't putting much thought into your votes.
  16. I'm hoping for a ranking system where the caches that score 4/5 or 5/5 get a special GC award attached to their page. A "gold star" ranking system would be especially useful when travelling -- if there's 300 caches within 20 miles of your hotel it's a lot of work to go through all the logs to determine which ones you don't want to miss. Sure you could weed out all of the micros, but I've found a few micros that were clever, creative or were placed in a very scenic location. Sure you could choose caches that have a scenic attribute, but I've been to "scenic" locations which weren't really what I would consider scenic. Sure you could look at the gallery of photos but that'll take a long time to go through 300 caches looking through photos.
×
×
  • Create New...