nonaeroterraqueous
-
Posts
1189 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nonaeroterraqueous
-
-
It seems to me like most of the people complaining are complaining because the gap fillers are bad caches. That's fine, but complain about bad caches. Good caches can be put in gaps, too, and the arguments presented here lead to the conclusion that a good cache in a gap is bad. I say that's hokum.
The argument is that if the reason for placing a cache is simply to fill in a gap, then the cache is probably bad, because the primary motivation for placing it is insufficient. Yes, a good cache can fill a gap, but that is not the argument made by the OP. The problem, according to this side of the argument, is that filling a gap for the sake of filling a gap is insufficient reason for placing a cache, as it does not, in itself, make for a good cache.
-
I recently got Maglite's latest high-powered LED flashlight. My wife hates it, because it's so bright. I like being able to illuminate coyotes pretty well at a good distance. They give me that deer-in-the-headlights look. Flocks of ducks take to flight. Frogs go silent. Raccoons run in fear. My wife brings a pair of sunglasses to use in the dead of night, just in case I turn it on. Best flashlight, ever.
-
NYPaddleCacher, you have my respect. That had to be the most eloquent post I've read all week.
-
If ignoring all caches isn't quitting, I don't know what is.
I don't know. I just came in from working on my next cache placement to be accused of quitting. I found that ironic. Yet, if you think I've been actively caching, then I would wonder what you'd think of me finding my first cache in 2014 as late as June. The truth is that I have been generally ignoring all caches, with a few finds here and there just to say I did, but these past couple of years have been my most enjoyable in terms of geocaching.
-
In fact, two of the three micros I hid this past weekend were micros.
-
I HAVE missed trackables (there are a lot of 'new' types, if it's not an obvious geocoin or dog tag TB I don't immediately recognise it -especially if I'm not looking for it!)
I have a few of those new types that I'm afraid to release. As hard as it is to get everyone to properly log the standard TB tag, I worry that they will not recognize the fancy new tags for what they are.
-
I have one like that. I tried for a few years at different times of day, different seasons, etc. to get a reading, and never got more than one satellite in my reception. One lucky day, I managed to get a solid reading, and I had enough time to double-check my coordinates before conditions changed. Then, I gave a detailed step-by-step description leading from the nearest place a person could reliably get a signal to the the cache, itself. Find rate is a little low, probably because it weeds out people who don't read the cache page, but people seem to like it, so far.
-
I can't believe you would talk about my wux like that.
-
So far, no content. Got lots of pablum, though.
-
Geocide score: 1.67
I don't care what you do = geocide?
Go knock yourself out on a power trail. I never said I was quitting. I just said I don't care anymore.
-
It seems silly to complain about too many caches, even if the the problem is that too many caches are generic. There are ways to increase the number of non-generic caches you search for and reduce the number of generic ones.
I'll give you credit for finding a way to say that without mentioning the supposed condition of my knickers, but the fact is that I'm not premium, and when I was I never had much use for the pocket query (though I'll grant you that the original poster is, in fact, premium). As far as I know, there's no way to filter out non-POI (point of interest) caches, no way to filter out power trails and no way to differentiate between clever micros and simple nanos. Also, regarding the problem of too many caches, when your isolated cache on a trail suddenly becomes just another cache in someone's power trail, there's no way to filter out the generic logs (which make me think, "dang, why did I waste time and money putting that thing out there?").
When it really comes down to it, I think I'm closer to ignoring all caches. It's much easier, and it lets me hike my favorite trails, drive straight to my destination without stopping repeatedly and spares me from an increased risk of snake bites and ticks. You're right. There's no such thing as too many geocaches. Have fun. I don't think I care anymore.
-
Hey, tozainamboku, that was a good post.
I took a look at the OP's area, which I do recommend to anyone replying to this thread. The micro saturation in that area is unusually high for the population density. That's normally the degree I find in big cities. If I had travel bugs with me in this area, I would be quite frustrated, trying to place them.
I don't have a problem,per se, with micros, especially when they're creatively hidden. I find that the opportunities for creative hiding are much greater with micros than with larger caches. However, like tozainamboku said, the typical micro is usually a cheap repurposed container in some random place. My biggest problem with the smaller cache sizes is the disparity in their frequency of occurance. Even in areas where the most common micros, thanks to the efforts of the local hiders, are generally creative, the overabundance of micros gets tiresome. Yes, the biggest caches do disappear more quickly than the micros, which is why it takes a conscious effort as a hider to decide on the most appropriate size for a given location.
Numbers cachers will ultimately overrun the cachers who aim for quality, as a hundred bad caches can be cranked out in the time it takes to come up with one really good cache. Micros will ultimately overrun the regulars, because they're so much easier to make, hide, maintain and stock. The people who are most likely to have their preferred type overrun are more likely to get frustrated as finders, because the others are happy at finding either type.
-
Don't assume an animal can't pull something up out of the trunk of a tree.
Sometimes one piece at a time, even. Though, that method usually results in a few pieces getting left behind.
-
Firstly, this is not the first time I have done my contest and it has nothing to do about find counts, it's like the guess the jellybeans in the jar.
That's exactly correct. You essentially said, "Hey, look at me! Can anyone guess what my find count will be?"
Most of us focused on the "Can anyone guess...," (even those of us who passionately hate the find count game).
One of us (not naming any names) focused on the "Hey, look at me!" and thought that you were a bit narcissistic in trying to draw so much attention to yourself. Ah, but so much has been written about the people most irritated by the appearance of narcissism. Nothing irritates an inflamed ego like another ego.
-
It sounds trite but "cache and let cache". It may take a little more work to sort through the dross but there remain noumourous caches out there for everyone to enjoy whatever there perspective is ...
Not for long.
The fact that some cachers chose to enjoy (and create) power trails fits within the hobby, and the fact that some cachers chose to enjoy (and create) point of interest caches also fits within the hobby as adjudcated by Groundspeak.The fact is that the two ways of playing do not work well together. It's easy to say "cache and let cache," but in practical terms it means nothing. POI caches do not interfere with power trails, because the trail can always be laid right on top of existing caches and assimilate them against their owners' wish. The POI cachers cannot pluck a wasted point of interest out of a power trail. If the trend continues, I'm just going to have to find a different way to try to find and share points of interest. I'm certainly not into this for the joy of finding soggy film canisters every tenth of a mile, and I question the sanity of those who think that the real joy of geocaching can be found in any of them.
-
Why these “high find count collectors” bother so many other collectors and non-collectors alike (especially if find counts have no value) is a mystery and is a constant source of discussion, debate, opinion, dismissiveness and sometimes angst in the forums.
Power trails, my man. Power trails. The emphasis on high count promotes power trails over the placement, and even on top of the placement, of point of interest (POI) caches. It hinders the single most interesting aspect of geocaching, the hobby of leading others to significant and interesting locations through geocache placement. The matter has been discussed quite comprehensively.
I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe.
Except that that road out in the middle of nowhere might actually pass right by some remarkable hidden points of interest. I recently visited a place called Maddalena Ranch, in the middle of the Sierra Valley. It has a long line of film cannisters blasting right past it. Few people know about the ranch, but it's open to the public, with a well maintained privy, nature trails, and educational signs. It's also the only place to access the Feather River for miles around without tresspassing, and they allow canoe access (though I'm still trying to figure out how that works). They've even got a canoe gate on the waterway to let the paddlers in and out. The person who placed the power trail likely thought this was just some aimless road out in the middle of nowhere, with nothing interesting on it. The geocachers who come by here will never find this discrete little place. The problem is that when people stop placing geocaches at interesting places and start placing them in places that they think have no points of interest, they act on ignorance, making decisions based on what they don't know. Just because you don't know of any hidden gem in the area doesn't mean that there isn't one, and placing caches where there doesn't seem to be anything interesting sometimes prevents a person who knows better from leading people to a point of interest.
Completely agree with you on this, although if the massive PT is really out in the middle of nowhere, there might not be any remarkable hidden points of interest. On the other hand, if there is, the PT (whether it's a large or smaller one) would effectively block the creation of a new cache at the remarkable hidden POI, and if there *was* a cache at that location that pre-dated the PT, many would just log it as if it was part of the PT.
The quintessential problem is the promotion of quantity over quality. The foolish argument that one person's interest in numbers is irrelevant to my disinterest in numbers is patently false. People who obsess with find counts place and promote those caches that, proverbially, plant a forest to hide a tree.
-
Another was, "The filters will ice up, which you can clear by blowing through it, and condensation will build up on your skin and inside the mask but that just proves it's doing the job."
- No, not really...
It sounds like it's about the same as the others. When I was first trying to come up with a true counter-current design, with check valves to prevent re-breathing, I realized I would have to work a moisture trap into the design, which was feasible, but who wants a bag of lung water hanging around their necks, really. The patent on one of these things suggests that the inhalation sucks the moisture back into the mask, thereby solving the condensation problem, but apparently that is another problem.
I keep thinking there has got to be a better solution to this problem, and I can't believe it hasn't been done yet.
-
-
I think it's odd that there is somewhat of an increasing emphasis on impressing others. Some people do it for fun, but it seems a large percentage feel a need to be recognized.
That's because it really is about the numbers...or, the number. That would be the number of billions of people on Earth, and what makes me significant. Some people strive to collect the most dollars. Some strive to collect the most Elvis memorabilia. Others strive to collect the most "found" points.
Yeah, you're right. It is odd. I don't know how impressed I'm expected to be, but I'm sure I'm not living up to that expectation. I cared about numbers until I reached a thousand finds. I only wanted to establish that I was no longer a newbie cacher, and that's all.
-
Tough crowd.
I do think people should know better than to drive in a farmer's field.I wasn't sure whether they were driving over the crops, or just driving on a dirt road plowed around the perimeter of the farm.
Man, I'm sure glad I didn't receive an email like that every time I made things difficult and took a ridiculous route on my way to the cache.
When you have a cache hidden, its totally obvious TO YOU how easy it is to find it or the paths to take to find it. However - people are visiting your cache are not familiar with the area and aren't familiar with the terrain. They view things differently than you do.Excellent point. It's really hard to know for sure how people will try to get to a cache. I had one just a few feet from a trail, and people were complaining about having to hike through poison oak to get it. I never did find the poison oak. If they just walked the shortest distance from the trail, like I did, then everything would have been fine, but I think I forgot to account for a sharp bend in the trail, or the fact that most people would be coming at it from the other end of the trail, where the nearest campground was.
-
Find counts do not matter to me. Statistics are completely useless to me. I'm only a basic member, anyway, so I can't even see them. I don't even know what a D/T grid is, unless it's something that comes from drinking too much. Please let me win this contest so that I can change my mind and give a rat's posterior alimentary orifice for a finder's count.
-
Cache owners should keep difficulty and terrain ratings as accurate as possible for the benefit of future finders.
Difficulty and terrain ratings are pieces of information to help cache finders know what to expect when they attempt to find a cache. They are not "credits."
+1
IM(not so)HO, I personally think geocaching is fun enough without having to collect achievements like so many Facebook games.
+2
+π
-
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, he who sacrifices liberty for security enjoys neither.
Groundspeak reserves the liberty to maintain a clean and classy site.
Forget about parents shielding their children from the sight of vulgarity. If Groundspeak doesn't feel like playing host to course cache names then so be it. Good for them. It's their site.
-
Geocaching > Your Account Details > Manage Your Preferences
I assume you changed the format in the drop-down box.
I also assume you clicked on the button at the very bottom of the page to submit the changes.
If you're still seeing the wrong date on a page, try hitting Control + F5 to force the computer to reload the page from scratch.
Also, keep in mind that the stats info on your page requires an upload of a pocket query to a third party. Until you get a new pocket query and resubmit it to that site you won't see any changes.
Otherwise, I'm out of ideas.
I do think people should know better than to drive in a farmer's field.
paying membership elitist?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Not necessarily the basic members who are complaining. I remember this one from a while back; sometimes even premium members shy away from apparent elitism:
Incidentally, I don't mind premium caches, despite having only a basic membership, myself. I'm much less concerned with being excluded from any group than I am with forced association, which scares me. That's the general trend, too. Exclusion for any reason is tending to become less socially acceptable.