Traditional Bill
-
Posts
411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Traditional Bill
-
-
It seems like there's an underlying issue within the OP's community on this topic given all of the facts presented. I will say though, this sort of thing happens all the time. I held a space event for the sole purpose of the launch. Not long after mine published, a fellow cacher in the community got a space event of his own published about twenty miles or so away. The listing didn't violate any guidelines, but it was pretty clear that he was using the launch to get cachers to follow him and find his caches that don't get found often.
This happens so frequently that I don't really remember the last time I attended an event that didn't involve an organized cache hunt afterwards.
Another thing to mention.....power trail kickoff events. It's obvious people are holding these events with the intent of cachers completing a power trail.....if organized cache hunts are not permissible as an event, than why are power trail kickoff events approved? I recently went to an event like this to tag along with some good friends and have some laughs.....it was literally called "Wizard Trail Event". The whole purpose of the event was to get the coords to the caches, get gps'rs loaded and find caches. Now how is that not an organized cache hunt?
I understand why all of the guidelines are in place, but sometimes they just downright confuse me.
-
The short answer to OP's question....yes, as far as geocaching guidelines are concerned, the general consensus is to sign the log and then claim a find.
I generally let it slide if it's not one of the "main offenders". Sometimes it's simply not worth the trouble, as some people take log deletions very seriously. Sometimes it can result in retaliation and other unwanted strife.
When I check on a cache and find "sandbag" logs, I'll normally post a note on my page with a picture of the log and mention that there were more finds claimed than signatures. That leaves it up to the community that's viewing your cache to judge that perso, as opposed to making somebody mad by taking something away from them.
-
Must've been a Garmin chirp
-
Most of us feel that "bulk placements", (your term), is not healthy for the game, t the train i
If the "bulk placements" weren't healthy for the game why are there so many?
- Greed. Gobbling up a trail, area, roadside to claim it as their own
- Notoriety. Good or bad it's cool to have a PT that gets mentioned in the forums, on blogs, at events
- Just to have one. A lot of COs like to have one of everything in their repertory of hides - an EarthCache, a Letterbox, a PT, etc.
- They see geocaching as a competitive game - it's mostly and perhaps only, about the smiley count
I don't think these reasons are healthy. A bulk submission form would not be healthy for the game. If you read the comments in this thread, most of them list a lot of unhealthy reasons that PTs are not good for the game. What about PTs is healthy for the game, that couldn't be accomplished with a multi, or fewer cache placements with a variety of well-maintained, quality hides and containers?
I 100% agree with this. I also agree with everything Don J has mentioned.
I'm curious....what on earth is the point of splattering a trail with the same hide, same description and same name other than for the sake of numbers?
There was recently a trail put out in my area of 20+ caches. It's called the "no dumping" trail. Can you guess where each cache was hidden? Every one within thirty feet of an illegally dumped heap of trash. When another cacher asked the CO why on earth they would put a cache here, let alone a trail.....she responded that "nobody else was placing caches in this area and I've been wanting to do a power trail for people in the area to boost their numbers". The lazily, slapped together, cookie cutter cache pages go on to recommend "CITOing" the area and mentions that the area needed caches.
So....how is that healthy for our game? I know not every PT is that way, but she got the notion to do this from examples that were set. So somewhere along the line she got the idea that it would be okay to put something like that out so long as numbers were involved and cachers could pick up a quick twenty-something smilies.
-
GS could buy the powertrail.com domain and outsource all powertrails to there.
Would tidy up the map a bit more.What a fantastic idea! My map would look so much better without all of the PTs in the area.
-
I hope they never provide a bulk placement form.
In some areas we are overrun with PTs. Easy bulk submission will encourage more and more PTs. More and more COs will take up miles and miles of trails with the same-old-same-old experience every .1 miles. Dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of cheap leaky containers that barely, if at all, get maintained by the CO(s). Individual caches that were planted on the trail first and or are within one mile of the PT get swallowed up and get swamped with the usual PT cut-and-paste log thanking the PT owner(s) for the find. Then, since it would be easy peasy to submit 1000s of PT caches, the competition will begin to see who can plant the most PTs. One, or a group of cachers could take up a whole city/state/province/territory with their record breaking PT. I shudder at the thought of what might happen.
If they did, they should introduce it simultaneously with a PT attribute or separate PT cache type...and only allow the bulk submit with caches of that type or with that attribute.
I really hope none of this ever happens. It's scary to think about. I'm going to have nightmares of lame powertrails now :-\
-
I don't think there's a powertrail submission option yet, but with the amount of "numbers" trails (I.e. - walk five hundred feet and find the exact same hide you just found five minutes ago) popping up, I won't be surprised if TPTB eventually float that idea around.
In any case, there's no way to "bulk submit" your trail as far as I know. Do yourself a favor though, and contact your local reviewer if you haven't already done so before submitting that many caches. It seems that a lot of reviewers generally like to know about these things ahead of time instead of just seeing 35+ listings pop up in their queue.
-
C:geo is the only app I've ever used aside from my GPS and even though it can be buggy at times, I've overall enjoyed the many additional features that it offers as opposed to the official app. Not to mention, I like the user interface a bit more as well. The add image to log feature is relatively new still and I also find it to be pretty buggy. I can't say I've ever had the same issue as the OP, but I have noticed that sometimes I'll post a picture with my log and it may show up sideways.
Something OP may want to try is immediately refreshing the cache page within the app, then view the picture from the app and see what happens. If not, then I'd suggest contacting the app developer and making them aware of the bug so they can take care of it. It could be that the feature is just not compatible with your device. Luckily, c:geo has an "open in browser" option right from the menu button on your device while viewing the cache page within the app. Until the bug is worked out, I'd use that as your best option to upload your photos instead of uploading through the app.
-
This one here is a real gem - GC3DYYT
It's an entire work van decked out for geocaching. Easily the biggest and one of the coolest caches I've ever found. There's usually a stuffed body in the driver's seat and they decorate it for whatever time of year it is. Most certainly worth checking out.
-
Farrtom, like Keystone said, it's a complicated process done by a small group to review an earthcache. I've created three earthcaches and each one was a different time frame when it came to reviewing. I'm sure it also depends on what's in the queue at the time you submit.
My first earthcache was published only two days after submission with the two subsequent ones taking one to two weeks. Keep up the good work though and continue to create earthcaches! You're on your way to being an earthcache master!
-
This has actually happened to me recently - GC4CN0N
While normally I'm quick to delete logs by cachers who are bogus loggers....I'm not sure if I can justify this one.
I disabled the cache when it was dnf'd as the photos indicated the area was undergoing some changes by the city and the cache itself may be missing. Well, the same day I disabled it, I received the log posted with the date 7/01/2013 in my email. I then referred to the gallery on the page, as I know somebody had posted a picture of that time period of the log in the past. When I looked at the picture, sure enough....that one plus a couple of others were not there. Unless they sign on a different sheet of the log book....but I don't see why they would've.
Anyway, here's my conundrum. When I went to see if the cache was missing, it indeed was. So, I have no physical evidence of this apparent "backlogged" arm chair find. I did however, find it interesting that they waited until it was disabled to backlog it.
Here's the other problem....The other two cachers who don't appear on the log in the picture posted.....they're good friends of mine. I'm sure they completed the cartridge (it's a Wherigo), as they were having issues with the unlock code and finally got it to work. If they were having trouble finding the cache, they would have called me for sure.
I have yet to say anything to either of the three loggers in question, but without the physical log anymore and only a picture, what am I to do?
Let it go. If they unlocked the cartridge, they completed the Wherigo portion of the cache, which is usually the point of Wherigo caches. I know a puritan would scream "YOU MUST SIGN THE LOG!" but eh, whatever. Most Wherigo's that I've done had a container only because it was required in order to be listed on this website. After completing the cartridge, the container itself has been just another traditional cache. I would tend to believe them...I mean, who would complete and unlock the Wherigo portion but not look for the final cache?
Plus, you have no "proof" that they didn't find the cache portion. To me, it wouldn't be worth any bad feelings between friends over something so trivial.
I did speak with my friends afterwards about it. They were able to describe the hide in vivid detail so indeed they did find the cache. The other group that logged it recently though from months ago....I don't know about them. They found over two hundred caches that day across new jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, plus a Wherigo that takes almost two hours? I don't think so.
-
Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.
If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.
I've seen many containers pushed/pounded into the soil (some a few feet). I've also seen the dog leash anchors used with a chain or cable to deter theft or the elements from removing a container. Screwing an anchor into the soil isn't the same as digging a hole. I'm not saying that makes it right, but I think there is some interpretation to the "thou does not bury" rule.
So what you're saying is that since others have gone against the guidelines and broken the rules, it should be okay for you as well?
Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property.Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.
I don't really see a random slab of cement poured into a small pile in the woods much different than placing a geocaching container or small boulder there. None of which actually damages or modifies what is originally in the area. I would feel a little funny having it anchored as I mentioned as a permanent fixture though.
So....a glob of cement doesn't destroy the grass you pour it on? Let's be realistic, when the cache eventually runs it's course, are you going to physically go out there with tools and remove the cement you laid on the woods? Not a good idea at all.
Something I've seen done quite a few times is chaining the ammo can to a large tree. Also, if your ammo can is continuously getting muggled, perhaps your location is not remote enough, or you're not hiding the cache well enough. I recently found a cache that had not been found in two years. It was a puzzle (not even a difficult one) and it was a mile and a half hike out in the woods. The ammo can was attached to a large chain that was locked around a tree. Everything was in perfect condition and I'm sure the owner wasn't worried one bit about the cache going missing even though it has been two years since it had been found.
The guidelines are there for a reason, perhaps you should pitch your idea to your local reviewer and I'm sure they will tell you the same thing about your "stake the ground and lay cement" idea.
-
This has actually happened to me recently - GC4CN0N
While normally I'm quick to delete logs by cachers who are bogus loggers....I'm not sure if I can justify this one.
I disabled the cache when it was dnf'd as the photos indicated the area was undergoing some changes by the city and the cache itself may be missing. Well, the same day I disabled it, I received the log posted with the date 7/01/2013 in my email. I then referred to the gallery on the page, as I know somebody had posted a picture of that time period of the log in the past. When I looked at the picture, sure enough....that one plus a couple of others were not there. Unless they sign on a different sheet of the log book....but I don't see why they would've.
Anyway, here's my conundrum. When I went to see if the cache was missing, it indeed was. So, I have no physical evidence of this apparent "backlogged" arm chair find. I did however, find it interesting that they waited until it was disabled to backlog it.
Here's the other problem....The other two cachers who don't appear on the log in the picture posted.....they're good friends of mine. I'm sure they completed the cartridge (it's a Wherigo), as they were having issues with the unlock code and finally got it to work. If they were having trouble finding the cache, they would have called me for sure.
I have yet to say anything to either of the three loggers in question, but without the physical log anymore and only a picture, what am I to do?
-
I have an explorist gc myself and use it frequently, however, I've never seen it turn a 9 into a 3. That's new to me.
What I can help you with is your multi waypoint issue. When you pull up the cache in your GPS, press the menu button. Scroll towards the bottom until you see an option for "view child waypoints". Child waypoints are any additional waypoints added to the page by the CO and made available on the page, while the parent waypoint is the actual posted coordinates.
Once you click "view child waypoints" you should be able to navigate to either one of them independently. As far as your other issue goes, I'm not sure how to remedy that. You may want to inquire with Magellan customer support and see what they say.
-
You may want to try checking out your local geocaching group website to see if they have a forum. Hunterdon county, sounds like you're in NJ. I am as well, but I'm in south NJ. Here's the three biggest groups in Jersey -
Www.sj geocaching.org
Www.centraljerseygeocaching.net
Www.nnjc.org
-
The example in the video posted above is an absolute disgrace to geocaching. I couldn't possibly understand why somebody would want to use a piece of trash as a cache. That's not a cache at all. Thankfully this is against the guidelines.
-
Well put Cezanne. It's unfortunate that a portion of the community feels that challenges are "silly and pointless". I fear the Groundspeak is heading in the same direction too, as the challenge guidelines get more restrictive as time goes on. I understand that some challenges are just unattainable and that the stars may have aligned just right for the CO that put that one out to qualify, and those types of challenges should not be published. But challenges like this....I do not see any issue with why it would not be permitted. I had a blast qualifying for the challenge before I placed the cache. I also saw that there's at least 3 challenges of this nature in New York (USA) and every time I've been to New York, I've still managed to make a find on a cache that hasn't been found in 6 months or more. So the numbers of lonely caches in the Mid-Atlantic USA region are plentiful and I'm assuming that's why there's so many of these types of challenges here. I suppose to a reviewer who is not familiar with this type of challenge, or challenges in general, there could be reason for that particular reviewer to have the opinion that this one does. So I can see it from each point of view. Maybe this reviewer should've made more of an effort to look in the area at cachers who already qualify and the amount of caches in that area that could be used to qualify for the challenge before denying publication.
Either way though, I'm still hoping Jayme H. will respond to my question which is - Are these types of challenges not allowed anymore, or are they area/reviewer specific?
-
The only way this could be dealt with is to make Challenges their own cache type.
Or call challenge caches an ALR and do away with the silliness completely.
By creating the separate cache type, they could be filtered out. Silliness done.
Meanwhile, the new cache type would enhance the ability to locate them for those that don't believe that they are silly.
Win win.
+1
-
The Challenge Geocache Guideline that was referred to in this appeal was:
- "A challenge geocache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge geocache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable."
Based on the fact that that in order to complete the challenge, geocachers would have to "compete" to find the oldest unfound caches. Once they have been found, they no longer help geocachers qualify for this challenge. This means that only a few "select" geocachers would be able to log this challenge as found - that wouldn't be a reasonable enough number of finds to justify publication of this cache.
- "A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers."
I'm a little confused. Are challenges of this nature not accepted anymore? If so, as of when? My "loneliest cache challenge" - GC4GC8H was published 7/16/2013 with no objection at all from my local reviewer....and trust me....he's a stickler when it comes to challenge caches (not that it's a bad thing).
I understand that some challenges of this nature are based on the availability of the kinds of caches the challenge requires as per the area, however, "lonely" caches are created everyday. I suppose I could see how this could be categorized as a competition, but the intent of the challenge is to inspire cachers to visit caches that are seldom found for a number of reasons.
Anyway, I'm not objecting to the reviewer's decision to deny npg the publication of a challenge of this nature, as I'm not familiar with the area in any way whatsoever. I am however, curious if this is flat out just not accepted for publication anymore, or if it's just dependent on the area/reviewer.
- "A challenge geocache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge geocache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable."
-
Hello everyone.
While out caching yesterday, I stumbled across a GeoCoin that I snagged from a cache. Unfortunately, when I loaded the GeoCoin's page I discovered that the person who had it last didn't bother logging that they dropped it off in a cache, so the coin is still registering as being "in the hands" of the person who last had it. As a result, when I try to log that I now have the trackable, the only option I have for logging it is that I retrieved it from the other cacher and NOT from the cache itself.
For the benefit of the coin owner, I want to make sure it's logged properly as A) being present in the cache from which I grabbed it, and
logged that I retrieved it from the cache rather than the "hands" of the previous cacher. How can I do this?I suggest that you go ahead and "retrieve from hands of" whichever cacher did not properly log the coin. If it's a mileage concern on the trackable, you can simply drop the trackable into the cache you had found it in by logging a note and dropping that particular trackable. If you plan to move that trackable, then after "dropping" it, simply "retrieve" the trackable again and all will be right with the world :-)
-
I don't believe there's any distance limitation on an earthcache. There's an earthcache in my area that plays out like more of a challenge cache than anything. It requires you to visit about 20 some locations all over the state of New Jersey.
-
Has anyone else had trouble completing the online form for recognition for their nextEarthcache master level?
I didn't have any trouble with the submission forms before, but I've just qualified for Platinum Level, and I can't get the submission form to cooperate. For starers, it only provides inputs for three (3) caches. Then it gives me error messages, not just for the three I input, but also for all the other required codes that I don't see inputs for.
I should disclose that I'm working on an iPad. Would this problem disappear if I use a we page designed for desktop or laptop instead of an iPad app?
Yeah, I originally tried to fill out my platinum submission from my android tablet and had the exact same issue. When I did it from my laptop.....smooth as butter.
-
I read on here about wet logs. Well COs can't know they are wet until someone says so. So what irks me is why cachers don't help out by carrying spare logsheets.
Cachers who use containers that are not suitable for the outdoors and then complain that other cachers don't replace their wet logs for them. That's what irks me.
It's not a cache finder's responsibility to maintain your cache for you. Their job is simply to find your cache, sign the log and replace as found. It's a courtesy if they replace the log for you, yes, but ultimately it's the cache owner's responsibility per cache maintenance guidelines.
-
Posting spoilers to puzzles without the owners consent, leading to archival- GC4B3NA. If you cannot solve it, then ignore it. Believing you are entitled to disrespect the person who created it, out of lazyness or arrogance is a bad idea.
Thanks Fool.. A lot of time and money went into our puzzle's creation only to have it spoiled in a few days. So it was archived. We figured out who submitted it to the "spoiler" and she was confronted.. She got nervous and squealed on another "famous" cacher in the area then produced his list of coordinates to local puzzles. She then disappeared from the scene for 3-4 months.. Unfortunately, she's back once again thinking that it's been forgotten. Her reputation will always precede her.
So fool, we can't agree with you more.
Unfortunately, there's a whole group of people who treat puzzles like this. The only effort they put in is in finding the cache because they got the coordinates from a list of the area's puzzles. It's really discouraging for those who enjoy solving and creating puzzles.
My notion is that if you can't/don't want to solve puzzles, either ask for help in solving or stick to traditionals.
Would tidy up the map a bit more.
logged that I retrieved it from the cache rather than the "hands" of the previous cacher. How can I do this?
Status:Not Validated Member
in General geocaching topics
Posted
It's nice to see the system at work. :-D