Jump to content

Traditional Bill

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Traditional Bill

  1. +1 Others will still head were they've always gone. Pretty-much eliminates non-numbers caching. Six feet up a tree and no cliffs? Many rope-use caches may go too... The elimination of climbing has been my main concern. According to the members of our caching club who are working with superintendents, we may be able to work something out in certain hunting areas where hunters are allowed to climb. This is just speculation, however, so there's no telling. I have my fingers crossed.
  2. Posted right here in the forum by a veteran. Justification: going along with the "community standards," & "two wrongs sometimes make a right." Yeah....that was a bit discerning to see. I was sure to add my two cents in that thread as well. A find is a fact and that cacher logged the find falsely regardless of how they try to justify it.
  3. This thread was recently bought to my attention at a local event this weekend and became the topic of discussion, as OReviewer is one of the two reviewers who publishes, disables and archives caches within our community. Mostly, I don't disagree with a lot of his actions however after reading through this thread, one particular situation came to mind. 4WF actually covered it more recently before I could respond. I understand disabling a notably easy cache with a low difficulty rating that has accumulated multiple DNFs from well respected finders. This cache, however, had absolutely no reason to be disabled. It was 3 DNF logs on a 5/5 cache. Of course a very difficult cache such as this one will accumulate DNF logs from time to time. I find that often with DNF logs on difficult caches, folks will see a DNF and not try as hard to find the cache because of the possibility that it might be missing. That's mainly due to the fact that the visitor before them couldn't find it. This is exactly the case with this cache. The CO had some unfortunate issues and was unable to communicate properly, but the important thing here is that he tried. Now obviously, the cache was there as you can see from my group's find logs post archival (picture included for proof). Now the cache is sitting there, ready to be found and in good shape but can't be searched for because it's no longer listed. So the point I'm making is that had this difficult cache not been disabled from the start, there wouldn't have been any headaches for the CO to deal with from the start. It's a shame that at the end of some conversations I had at this recent event, folks were discouraging DNF logs. I regularly post my DNFs and feel that it's pertinent to my caching history. I also regularly post needs maintenance and needs archive logs as I feel necessary. I don't think that anybody should be discouraged from doing so. I especially feel that cachers shouldn't feel discouraged about posting DNFs in fear that a difficult cache may be disabled and ultimately archived. Unfortunately, that's the general consensus among our community as of late. I encourage OReviewer to continue doing the work that he's doing as I have seen him clean up some abandoned listings that really needed to be archived. On another note, I also encourage him to use better judgement at times based on the difficulty, terrain, log history and remote locations of some of these hides that are not oft found. Edited for typos
  4. Sounds like a false find either way you try to justify it. Changing the drop down box from "find" to "needs archived" wouldn't have taken but an extra second.
  5. Got a listing number or two, Harry D.? The disabled listing _fool posted (I found another nearby at Pennington Farm) may be something different and could be an early clean out. Representatives of the Burlington county parks system have been going around and finding all of the geocaches in their parks and requesting the CO's archive or move them to coincide how they want the caches hidden. I can imagine that this will eventually end with the parks system just hiding their own caches. Nothing we can do about that. The moratorium is still active and the policy has NOT YET been finalized regardless of what is being archived or what is being said. There are final drafts of the policy going around certain forums, but like I said....These are drafts. Anything you see get archived as of now is either due to Burlington county parks system complaints, or pre-emptive strike from cachers who are not satisfied with the draft so far. Not that I blame them, either, but I'll be leaving my caches active until the policy is finalized and my permits are denied. T.B., I cannot find a BurlCo policy published anywhere (see my SJG thread) Have you found one? Nope....they sure are acting like they have one in place though. I'm aware that they removed some caches already and contacted at least two CO's that I know of. One ten year old cache was removed because it involves a tripping hazard? Either way, it looks like Burlington county is getting more proactive about inciting a policy more so than the state. According to information from the SJG forums, we have some representatives currently working with the Burlington county parks system on creating a policy. Let's hope it's not like the "drafts" of the not yet finalized stage policy. *edit for spelling
  6. Got a listing number or two, Harry D.? The disabled listing _fool posted (I found another nearby at Pennington Farm) may be something different and could be an early clean out. Representatives of the Burlington county parks system have been going around and finding all of the geocaches in their parks and requesting the CO's archive or move them to coincide how they want the caches hidden. I can imagine that this will eventually end with the parks system just hiding their own caches. Nothing we can do about that. The moratorium is still active and the policy has NOT YET been finalized regardless of what is being archived or what is being said. There are final drafts of the policy going around certain forums, but like I said....These are drafts. Anything you see get archived as of now is either due to Burlington county parks system complaints, or pre-emptive strike from cachers who are not satisfied with the draft so far. Not that I blame them, either, but I'll be leaving my caches active until the policy is finalized and my permits are denied.
  7. It wasn't a stand alone qualification for the challenge. I'm assuming the fact that most cachers will list the library hours on the cache page and that's likely the kicker. It's part of this challenge - GC53KHZ
  8. I love library caches as much as the next cacher but they're rare in this area. I don't think adding an attribute would make that any different, although it would certainly make them easier to find. There's a challenge not far from me and one of the qualifications is to have found ten caches within a library. It's exceptionally challenging for me as at the time I saw it, I had 4 library finds. Now I'm up to 9, but it's taken at least 7 months to track 'em down. Having an added attribute to these caches would've removed all of the fun (for me at least) from qualifying for that challenge. So while I don't abhor the idea, I don't think it's really necessary.
  9. This is a log I discovered on a cache I wanted to find in a town near where I live. I guess they're not familiar with the "ignore" option. Oh wait....you don't get a smiley for that.
  10. Here's a snip from one of my cache pages. - These two couldn't come up with the hide (it wasn't a difficult hide) and decided to call me after they called somebody for help and decided it was missing. I gave them my apologies and told them I'd disabled it and get there to replace it when I get the chance. One of them asked "We can log it, right?" To which I replied "Yes, feel free to log a NM and a DNF if you wish." Then the other (who didn't bother with the difficult puzzle and claimed a find on nothing) says "Well, we want to log it as found, that's okay right?" To which I replied "No, that's not okay. You didn't find anything. The cache isn't there." They both seemed offended that I wouldn't approve of their cheesy tactics, so I told them that if they felt they needed to log a false find, then to do what they feel they have to do. I refuse to approve it though and that if they say "logging with CO's permission" in their log, then I would delete it. I later got an email from one of them expressing thanks that I did not delete their false find as this cache is the last in their "10 mile radius". Less than ten miles and you can't come back to sign the log when the cache is actually there? Sometimes I just don't understand geocachers.
  11. I got a good LOL out of both of these examples, thanks for sharing!
  12. I agree with this. The description on crazypig88's cache very clearly states that the hide is a micro/bison tube as well as other information alluding to how the container is hidden. By the looks of it, it's very obvious that the other container located at GZ is not the intended hide. I would give em a chance to make it right first, with a message. If that is unsuccessful, I would take my own action by deleting the finds. Then again, my decision to cache by the guidelines hasn't exactly made me the most popular cacher in my local community.
  13. Since the OP prefers to have no opposition, I'll simply say that I disagree with him and I don't believe it's a cache finders job to maintain unmaintained caches. Have a nice day!
  14. That's funny. The same 'player' has been armchair logging in our area too: http://coord.info/GCR90W They get around! I guess the weather back home is much nicer so they don't want to waste their time actually visiting the north east. Why should they bother when they could just log difficult tree climbs and archived multis from home? Love it.
  15. I agree, and I think most on this thread agree these cases are different. Though some think that with "multiple cachers in a car" everyone must get out of the car and sign (or at least touch) the log. Others don't think this is necessary. I feel that so long as all participants are at GZ when the find is made and the log is signed that they are entitled to log a find. I don't, however, feel that you should be able to log a find on caches that you "leaped" over on a power trail. That's just cheesy.
  16. I thought this was a perfect example for this thread. I did a 5/5 tree climb recently and noticed the last to log a find was not on the log. Figured it was just newbie that didn't know any better. Wrong!
  17. Haha! I go Geocaching with my husband most of the time. We both look together and sometimes he finds the actual hide, and sometimes I do. I always sign the log for both of us (unless, of course, he's not with me while I'm Geocaching) b/c my handwriting is much neater. I'm also the one that carries the pouch of swag so I'm the one stuffing the cache with presents I think if you're in a group together and you're all at ground zero, that's okay. That's sort of what happens at geocaching parties, too. We all work together, but one person climbs the tree, etc and writes us all down. Actually, your tree climbing example will have some dissenters here. And even with some tree climbing cache owners. No dissenting here. I live by the "names in the log, claim a find" mantra (the exception of challenge caches) and I'm big into climbing and own quite a few "climb to" hides. There's nothing wrong with your buddy climbing a tree and bringing the log down. There's something very wrong with signing somebody in if they're sitting on their couch at home, but once again....names on the log, claim find. I always motivate others to climb, though.....I even give free lessons and have inspired some of the locals to buy their own gear....but some just won't do it for one reason or another and there's no problem with that. I will say this though...I have more respect for the cacher at the base of the tree then the cacher that leapfrogged. At least the cacher at the bottom of the tree has made the effort to arrive at GZ and sign in, despite not making the climb. You too will have dissenters, Bill. I don't know the percentages of such people out there, but I've been around here long enough to know there are plenty of them. I think I might have done this twice, but there were both very short climbs that anyone could have made. Like 10 feet up or so. We got quite a few into using rope by letting them tag along first. They're team members for the day, taking pics and helping with gear. - Frees me up a bit and worth every smiley. I'm sure there are plenty of dissenters. What I meant was that there will be no dissenting coming from me I understand where they would be coming from, however personally I can care less who physically made the climb. What matters (to me at least) is that somebody made the climb, and retrieved the cache. I do like having somebody along to roll up the throw line while I'm setting the rope. I still make em earn their smiley
  18. Haha! I go Geocaching with my husband most of the time. We both look together and sometimes he finds the actual hide, and sometimes I do. I always sign the log for both of us (unless, of course, he's not with me while I'm Geocaching) b/c my handwriting is much neater. I'm also the one that carries the pouch of swag so I'm the one stuffing the cache with presents I think if you're in a group together and you're all at ground zero, that's okay. That's sort of what happens at geocaching parties, too. We all work together, but one person climbs the tree, etc and writes us all down. Actually, your tree climbing example will have some dissenters here. And even with some tree climbing cache owners. No dissenting here. I live by the "names in the log, claim a find" mantra (the exception of challenge caches) and I'm big into climbing and own quite a few "climb to" hides. There's nothing wrong with your buddy climbing a tree and bringing the log down. There's something very wrong with signing somebody in if they're sitting on their couch at home, but once again....names on the log, claim find. I always motivate others to climb, though.....I even give free lessons and have inspired some of the locals to buy their own gear....but some just won't do it for one reason or another and there's no problem with that. I will say this though...I have more respect for the cacher at the base of the tree then the cacher that leapfrogged. At least the cacher at the bottom of the tree has made the effort to arrive at GZ and sign in, despite not making the climb.
  19. I'm big into extreme caches. 5/5 caches that involve any type of rope/rappel climb usually peak my interest. It's a shame that there's not more caches out there of the nature, but I understand why there are not. I'm not above logging a 1/1 cache, though. For me, most traditional caches are boring. The idea of going to the posted coordinates, finding a container and signing the log eventually became redundant for me and I began to expand my horizon. I mainly latched onto wherigos more than anything. I really enjoy the concept and I feel like a good Wherigo cartridge can make a cache much more fun. When I travel, that's the very first thing I look for wherever I'm going. Either way, I enjoy non-traditionals of all sorts.....not just Wherigo. I'm not above seeking a traditional cache though as they account for about 54% of my finds.
  20. Now that's my kind of leap frogging. Seriously though, regardless of what leapfrogging method you use, it still means that you log caches that you haven't physically found. If you do that on a trail with 100 caches, that means you'll legitimately find 50 caches and then log 50 false finds.
  21. Yeah I'd probably consider that spam. I agree with others that if this person used the proper outlets, it could've been a stimulating discussion. I'm a bit more interested by one particular thing in that spam email though - Can't say I ever met a tree lady while geocaching.
  22. As far as I know, you cannot find a list of archived caches. You may be able to do so on project-gc but not on geocaching.com. If you found/logged a cache that's now archived and liked the location enough to place a new cache, go through your finds and find those that are archived and voila.
  23. Why the triple secret permission? What's up? It's another topic entirely in which I haven't created a thread for. Long story short, there's lots of hoops to jump through as of late to put a cache up a tree in Jersey....unless of course it's in a WMA...That's allowed. Unfortunately, WMAs are managed by the state and the state hasn't permitted cache placements for almost a year now. So....No more fun with ropes in the garden state. For the most part, at least. Not trying to really make a public case of it. It sucks for the small amount of climbing cachers in our state, but it is what it is and at the end of the day, our reviewers are right. Just wish they'd uphold the same standards for powertrails and parking lots. SO....how about them fees to locate a geocache?
×
×
  • Create New...