Jump to content

Goldenwattle

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    3031
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Goldenwattle

  1. If several people say the coordinates are out and agree with any given ones, I would consider changing to those coordinates. I wouldn't necessarily do this though with only one comment.
  2. May I ask a question? How many people here have cached in remote or remote-ish areas? I wouldn't call this really remote; but it's remote-ish. This was a side road I took. I was headed for a (fairly remote) cache, and a walk to Aboriginal rock art. The highway is sealed. The next town is 93kms. This is the next town. And the next town after that over 200kms. When this is discussed I get the feeling that people have different ideas of 'remote'. This is the next town, likely the biggest town for a considerable distance. I can't comment further on that, as that's as far a I have driven. However I am guessing the next town of same or larger would be Broome, over 900kms away. It is my ambition to drive it. Follow Hwy 1 around Australia.
  3. I know there are not many caches in your area, but your area is not a remote area. I would log that NA on that cache.
  4. You need to judge each cache individually to decide whether to maintain it. When I travel to remote-ish places I pack some good cache containers and log paper (as well as trinkets) in case I feel they are needed. (Along with food for several days and plenty of water.) I have replaced a few caches. Some COs have then messaged to thank me. It might be the only cache for some distance; occasionally for a 100kms or more. Some caches have been there a long while. Some of the oldest are lasting well though, being ammunition tins. They might just benefit from a clean out of rubbish. I rarely replace caches in urban areas and in the countryside near urban areas, as they are not remote, unless I have an understanding with individual COs, that I can do maintenance if I find it needed. I do have that understanding with a few COs.
  5. I do a maintenance log after I check the cache and log. If nothing else, it shows other people you are maintaining your caches. I say what condition I found it in. If this is relevant, I thank the person who made a mention the cache needed attention, whether in their log note, or as a NM. Normally though, I check my caches frequently enough I don't get NM logs. I say what maintenance was done. I also note if the two logs match, and if I found any missing signatures. (Those people I send messages to. I give them a chance to provide proof of visit, before I consider deleting those logs.) How often I visit a cache can depend on the individual cache. If I happen to be passing I might check it, or if I get a suspicious log. I checked a cache this week, because I was suspicious of a log, but was pleasantly surprised to find my suspicions were wrong . Otherwise, at least every one to two years. Usually though, even then I find most caches are still good. It usually depends how well protected the cache is, the type of cache and how many visitors, how often the cache needs a visit.
  6. Yes, I found a TB once that would have fitted in a 35mm canister with the log. I think that was in 2012 (or thereabouts). Still looking for that next TB that will easily fit in one, with the log I made the mistake of releasing that TB into an ammunition can. That's the last I heard from it. I suspect being so small was its downfall, and it might have got accidentally pulled out with something else and lost.
  7. That's why I preferred the original (when I joined anyway) description that a 'small' could hold TBs and small trinkets. Obviously NOT all TBs. I once had a TB that was a largish toy road grader. I found it in a large ammunition box, and nothing smaller than a large ammunition box would fit it. There's also a doll TB in my TB Hotel and it's been there for months, because no-one appears to want such a large TB. It needs a regular sized cache. Coincidently, I am responsible for bringing that doll TB to Australia. I found it in Seattle in the USA and brought it here. Then I released it, and some time later found it again in another town. I released it again and some time later again found it, but in another town again. It's been 'haunting' me. This time I placed it in my TB Hotel and recently I placed a note on it begging someone to move it on. No one has yet.
  8. You are showing that without the log, which in many mintie tins I have found has filled all or most of the tin, leaving no, or very little room, if any room, for anything else. (Okay correction, able to hold, beside the log, TBs and small trinkets.) How many tags do you see without an attachment? Very few. I have a TB hotel and there are ten TBs in there at present and only one (a paper print of a TB) without an attached tag, and nine of the ten wouldn't fit in that mintie tin.
  9. The small sistema box looks bigger than that mintie tin and it should be obvious that mintie tin is not a small. It doesn't show there so much in your photograph, but mintie tins are also thinner than sistema boxes, and some minti tins are half as wide as that, but I have still found the half width ones rated a small. I remember the old description for a 'small' also said something like, "Big enough to hold TBs and some trinkets". When I started in geocaching, without knowing a single geocacher, that description made it clear to me what a 'small' was. It was, ""Big enough to hold TBs and some trinkets"" Best information I have seen for a small, and the easiest to understand. Shame that has been taken away.
  10. I like that, although it could be argued the old system of giving an actual example and images, might work better.
  11. I think my Garmin ETrex30 recognises Nano. A local game I find things in occasionally, has Nanos and I don't remember a problem. They tend to have more bigger sizes than this game. I have found large pill bottles listed a regulars (they aren't), and what is barely a regular, listed as large. Mintie tins listed as smalls, even the smaller version. Very common.
  12. Sorry, I am short of intelligence here, as I have no idea. Absolutely none. I would need to research this, and this can be tricky in the field.
  13. I was born in the 1950s. Nothing still comes to mind, but music has never been a big thing for me. Plus I was a teenager in a small, country town. Some would call it a village.
  14. Having a Nano size rating would be a HUGE improvement. (Another game I sometimes play has a Nano rating.) I blame nanos for why now many people rate regulars as large, smalls as regular and micros as smalls. It would GREATLY assist with accurate size rating. Not instantly, as many people will never correct their size ratings, as they don't now, even when several people have mentioned this to them, but over time the size rating should drift back to where they should be. I don't expect this to have any effect on those that could implement this, especially as now I suspect they would prefer ALs to take over, but PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE bring in a Nano rating .
  15. I think it's common sense here. A natural tree stump, part of the landscape is different to an introduced object. Same with a boulder or tree. If the rating is going to cause confusion and disappointment, it's better to explain that there will be no rooms for TBs, etc. Save people making a special trip to leave a TB.
  16. The micros with the examples of my caches are firmly part of the larger object. One became the train funnel and the other the rear of the spider, like a rear orifice, being cemented in. They have melded with the train and spider, so no longer can be described as in, under, etc. they are part of the objects.
  17. I have a large spider with a bison tube in its rear. Initially I was unsure what to rate it and rated it 'micro'. After getting a negative log about looking for a micro in a haystack type log, I rethought it and called it an 'other'. They were correct; listing it as micro when it's larger, and wasting their time with looking in every micro sized crack and hole, does make the hunt a needle in a haystack search. Since I corrected it to other, there have been no complaints. I too have been in that position, methodically searching every crack, every hole, under bark, under leaves, etc, etc, when I then find a cache larger than a small. It has taken FAR longer than it would have (possibly for a 1.5D) if the size had been rated more helpfully, as most of the places I had searched I wouldn't have bothered with. Very frustrating hunts those. Other.
  18. I'd use 'other' and likely say, the container is the size of a small, or regular (if it is shoebox/ammunition tin size), but has the internal space of a micro. Giving the internal size, reduces the disappointment and possibly annoyance * of someone arriving with a TB, etc and not being able to fit it, as they thought the container was big enough because of the rating. As I wrote for this cache of mine: GC55AQQ. It's a train engine (small sized) and the cache is the chimney; a bison tube, so internal space is micro. * I drove over 300kms (each way) to take a TB I brought to Australia from the UK to leave it in the exact requested suburb in Sydney. I visited small rated caches, and cache after cache were micro, not the rated small. After driving that far it annoyed me that (insert impolite word....) people couldn't be bothered to rate their caches correctly. I began to wonder if I would ever find a real small or larger cache. I did eventually, but I shouldn't have had to visit several wrongly 'small' rated MICRO caches trying to find one.
  19. Take a photograph of the archived log. Then look up finds on that day for previous finders and cross reference. You will find the cache that way.
  20. It was someone else's TB I tested this on, not mine. I logged a note on a cache in a place where the TB hadn't been before, so I could clearly see the line on the map. I gave an explanation to the cache CO this was a test and the entry would be deleted. I then checked the TB and the line to that cache was there on the TB map. Then I deleted the log on the cache and the TB visit remained on the cache and the map. Then I went to the logs on the TB and deleted the log of that visit. The line on the map and visit to that cache then disappeared.
  21. I just went and tested this. When I deleted the log of the visit off the TB, the visit disappears off the map and the next log had the expected distance from the previous visit. Maybe you didn't understand what I meant. I meant the log of the visit of the TB to the cache. (Not the cache visit log.) Well, yes the visit still remains for the TB, but then you delete the log on the TB. That was what I was referring to, the TB, not the cache. I never expected someone to delete their cache find, only the TB visit; ie. go to the TB logs and delete it there.
×
×
  • Create New...