Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Goldenwattle

  1. 20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

    I got an email a few weeks ago advising that I'd been selected for another credit. I'm still not sure what to do with it, as the three ideas I've had so far have all had some drawbacks.

    It's not the right to publish an AL I would want, but when I can travel again (I'm a carer; when that is ended), I would love to have a Virtual cache (or many) to publish in places around Australia, without any caches. Much better than ALs, as they don't rely on there being a mobile connection, or the company you have on your phone, matching the local one.

  2. 7 hours ago, fi67 said:


    That's all true, but it has nothing to do with those barefoot paths.


    Barefoot paths are not about walking barefoot, that would be too simple (and weird or boring or both). They are about many different sensations for your feet. Dozens of different surfaces, that do exist in nature as well, but usually not so close together. Every few meters or so they change the surface. Sand, large pebbles, wood, small stones, clay, wood chips and so on. This also means they are not so easy to maintain.

    :D We would get that as children, as we ran around the neighbourhood bare footed. Concrete, lawn (bindis :wacko:), bitumen, gravel, long grass, creek bed, leaf litter, boulders, etc.

  3. I don't see what's so special about barefoot paths. I grew up much of the time bare foot. Bare feet is common in much of the world, especially for children. If someone wants to go bare footed, just take off you shoes and go for a walk.

    As for a trail, put caches along a sealed path, then people are less likely to walk on a thorn.

    • Upvote 1
  4. On 10/8/2021 at 10:02 AM, Harry Dolphin said:


    Yes.  That was the most favorited of the series.  Not for someone with acrophobia.  

    02 dolphin.jpg

    That has guard rails, like a bridge. In fact it looks fun, giving a good view. Or am I not seeing what the problem is?  Is  it underneath and climbing over the railing is necessary?


    I once had to walk along a narrow ledge, outside of a bridge, holding on, with no guard rails, to get a cache.

  5. 13 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

    I like that suggestion!

    We found one micro by a new geocacher 11.7 mi from the posted coordinates (FTF).

    The cache owner was very nice but kept insisting the map was correct when I begged her to please look at the map!! Since she insisted the map view was correct we drove there anyways and of course it's private property with no trespassing. We gave up and went caching in the area. Just before it turned dark we happened to pass a historical marker with the exact same name as the geocache and suspected it was nearby. We did locate it and sent the cache owner the correct coordinates. So frustrating. I never could understand why the CO insisted the map on the cache page showed the correct location. 



    It's called pride and low self worth and seeing assistance as a personal attack on them. The more intelligent and adaptable will likely take advice. I'm guessing they might last in the game longer too, having better interaction with others.

  6. 33 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

    Only one of those ten was by a newbie, someone who joined in late 2020, and yes, his initial hide had some coordinate problems but they accepted the offered help and the cache is now good and doing well with 27 finds to date

    I'm pleased they took advice, but I've known some beginners who don't take advice. A beginner with five finds, telling me they know better than me and they are right (their coordinates were way off) and I am wrong. After about three months they were never heard from again, and their cache was archived, because people couldn't find it.


    A beginner who placed very nice caches full of trinkets. Kids would have loved them. However, almost all of the 20 to 30 caches they placed had coordinates out by 12 plus metres. Another, more experienced cacher politely and helpfully gave them the correct coordinates in his logs. The beginner took umbrage, and archived the lot. Likely they left the caches as litter too.


    Two caches placed by a beginner with no finds. Both coordinates out, and the one I could find, had a container that was very unsuitable. Archived after a short time. One was never found by anyone. I searched. Goodness knows how far out its coordinates were.


    Another beginner with coordinates out 400 metres. They disagreed with me about that.


    Even if there was no limit needed on finds, perhaps a limit of one cache published and say no more allowed for three months for the beginner cacher. There should always be allowed exceptions.

    • Upvote 2
  7. 8 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

    No improvement is easy with Groundspeak so forget about it.


    If they want to help hiders they could start by reducing the ridiculous amount of email we are getting from just hiding a cache...

    What sort of email? I have hardly ever gotten any emails. The only ones I remember, was one I placed too close to someone's property and I needed to correct the coordinates, and another I had to prove was really 1T. It was and I answered satisfactorily. I wish more people had to prove that too. My other caches were published without any comments.

  8. 10 minutes ago, maccamob said:

    I edited my log, resubmitted, and the souvenir appeared.

    Thanks. Did the same. That worked.

    The only interest I have in these souvenirs, is that I have found and logged a challenge cache, that I don't qualify for, until I have 200 souvenirs.

    I hid this souvenir, along with all the others, except country/state and the like. They are my only interest in souvenirs, besides that challenge cache. I have no wish to display souvenirs such as this one.

  9. 22 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    While it would certainly be nice if most everyone should be able to do it, it's not a requirement for a cache to be published.

    Well if the CO doesn't want some people to be able to do the multi, and international travellers who likely don't have data, go for it. It will reduce the finds. It might depend on how many others can find it. If it's in an area it with hardly any cachers for instance, after the first local people find it, it might sit here unfound for a long time, but so be it.


  10. 1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:


    I've seen the opposite. A T5 cache at an event I attended a few years back has the Special Tool Required and Climbing Gear Required attributes, with it made clear that one should bring a ladder with you, but this cacher was having none of that, he just leapt up into the rafters, retrieved the cache, signed the log and swung himself back down.




    There will always be someone who manages to do it otherwise. This is a sink hole. There were people abseiling on my side (not in the photograph), and there's a cache part way down that wall. I think it's meant to be done with ropes, but the abseil instructor told me he saw someone free climb to the cache. He expressed amazement at that.



  11. 48 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

    If in doubt you could always ask the CO. Or post a maintenance log.


    This particular case, whether a cache that's high up but can be retrieved and returned with a tool without moving from the ground should have a high T rating, can legitimately be interpreted both ways. Your interpretation doesn't match the HQs, but that's beside the point as far as I care. The people who take it upon themselves to enforce HQs interpretation by attaching other people's high T caches up in trees so they can't be fished down are equally in the wrong.

    The 1T I couldn't reach, and I'm not disabled. I doubt a tall person could have either. I believe that's one thing a reviewer can come in on; wrongly rated handicap caches.

    Ask the CO. How? I don't know them necessarily, and by the time they answer I could be many kms away.

    I try hard to rate my caches correctly, listening and taking note of comments in logs. I would like the same respect from other; that they also try to get their rating correct. Not say, another example I came upon, had a 1.5T cache up a tree. I trusted their rating; that's why I made an effort to get there. One 1T cache I drove about 30kms one way to get that cache. Then I discovered it was across sand (the wheelchair would be bogged), then over boulders and up a small cliff. Putting this bluntly, caches like this, if I can get my hands on them (they can be beyond me, an able bodied person; that cliff one was) stuff them, I am placing the cache to match the rating, especially handicapped 1T ones. I often take someone out in a wheelchair, and I have come upon a cache they would be unable to reach, and despite telling the CO they have not fixed the problem. This is cruel, expecting a handicapped person to drive (in the cliff example) 60kms round trip to get to what they expect to be able to reach, but then be disappointed (and I imagine they will be - have some empathy to them).

    • Upvote 1
  12. 5 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

    "Return the logbook and cache to their original location"

    You mean where the last finder left it, not the CO? Cache creep is a thing. How do you know that the CO didn't place their cache carefully to match the rating, but someone else moved it and gave it the wrong rating by doing so.? Also, a 1T should not be up in the rafters of a building. You expect those in a wheelchair to reach that. After they have parked their car, heaved themselves from their car into their chair, and made their way to GZ, and then to find the cache way above their head, where they can't possibly reach it. You are mean to think it should be left there, wherever the CO meant this cache to be. If they wanted it in the rafters they shouldn't rate it 1T, and disappoint a wheelchair occupant. That's just evil!

    Normally I am very careful to return caches carefully where I found them, but when a magnetic cache is high up on a post, rated T1.5, way beyond reach without a chair or ladder, that's not 1.5T. That's not in a 1.5T position, so must be cache creep, unless you think that the CO purposely was mis-rating their cache. I like to think that the CO was not that nasty, and it's cache creep. If it's meant to be beyond reach for most people, don't confuse the issue by rating it 1.5T.



    • Upvote 1
  13. 8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:


    I don't see a problem with this. Since there's no objective measure that covers every variation of "FTF", if it's clarified under what condition it's claimed, and it's true, then who's to say it's wrong? This is the same as say finding a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle, vs being the first to solve it AND find it but not the first to sign.  There are two "truths" here: "First to Find the cache and sign it", and "First to solve the puzzle and Find the cache".  It only gets confusing when both people want to fly the banner strictly of "FTF".  Both finders could put the cache in an FTF bookmark list, and no one would care, really, if it's clear of the context of the finds.


    I've found a few puzzle caches without solving the puzzle (or in the "intended" manner). I'd have no issue if someone else solved the puzzle properly and found it but signed in under me. They completed the entire cache the intended way - good for them! I was still first to sign the logsheet, but I couldn't take away their first to do it all as intended. 

    I too have found puzzle caches without solving them myself. I have been out caching with others and someone else in my group of regular caching friends had solved it. I also log the find. Or on more than one occasion I have stumbled upon a cache. I once put my hand in a metal sculpture investigating a possible hide and placed my hand on a cache finding the space already occupied, by a puzzle cache. I never solved that one, but signed it. Another time I was returning through bushland from a DNF :(, when I spotted a cache lying out in the open :):antenna:, next to a stump. Another puzzle cache for me to sign without solving. In that case I did the CO a favour, by rescuing their cache and returning it to the safety of the stump. I also had started a multicache and after finding WP1 I walked past an area and thought that would make a good hide, so checked it out, and there was GZ for this multi, and that saved needing to do the other 5(?). A couple of us, another time, looking for a cache hide, found a likely place already occupied, by the bonus cache for a string of traditional caches with hints for the bonus. We logged it, explained how we found it and then said, now we we have to find the other caches, and we did. Just found them in an unusual order. I have found caches, just by looking in suitable hides on the off chance.


    I would be loath to log a cache though as FTF that I hadn't solved the puzzle for. I would hesitate to log my find, until someone logged the FTF.

  14. 7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:


    Well, you can also stand on the ground and use a very very long pole. What's evil is if it's too high, and it's attached, thus you need to leave the ground. All of these are factors to consider in the T and/or attribute settings.

    I have on more than one occasion (for a T1.5, and even for a T1) knocked down the cache and then left it at a height to match the rating. When I did this for a T1 cache, the next finder wrote that they agreed with what I had done. T1 up in the rafters of a building :o:blink:.

    For a magnetised attached cache on a post, I would return it to where I could reach. I might write something like, that this had suffered cache creep and was found higher than its T rating. Now returned to a place to match its rating. That's very likely to be true, as any finder could have put it up higher than the CO meant it to be.

    With my caches, I try very hard to get the ratings correct, and will adjust this following sensible comments by finders. Pig headed not to.

  15. 38 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

    As there are no rules on this, on a multicache of about 9,000km driving, I was the first to actually drive it, visiting all the WPs. However, someone sat at their computer and made phone calls to people, and using Google maps worked this all out and then took the short drive to GZ and logged it, beating me to log it. I suspect the CO would have been annoyed with this, especially as the logger wrote something like, "More later...", and never came back to write more (another cacher made a following note, about this needing updating too) but there was nothing the CO could do about this. Anyway, ages later, I decided that FTF really should have been mine, because I actually drove the 9,000kms and visited the WPs, so I went in and wrote, '[FTF] who undertook the drive and actually visited the WPs.'

    Yep, I expect criticism for this, telling me I shouldn't claim FTF on this. But it's staying.

    Yep, I knew I'd be criticised when an armchair person beat me. Still FTF the Wps, and first to drive the 9,000kms and do it as the CO planned it to be done.

  16. As there are no rules on this, on a multicache of about 9,000km driving, I was the first to actually drive it, visiting all the WPs. However, someone sat at their computer and made phone calls to people, and using Google maps worked this all out and then took the short drive to GZ and logged it, beating me to log it. I suspect the CO would have been annoyed with this, especially as the logger wrote something like, "More later...", and never came back to write more (another cacher made a following note, about this needing updating too) but there was nothing the CO could do about this. Anyway, ages later, I decided that FTF really should have been mine, because I actually drove the 9,000kms and visited the WPs, so I went in and wrote, '[FTF] who undertook the drive and actually visited the WPs.'

    Yep, I expect criticism for this, telling me I shouldn't claim FTF on this. But it's staying.

    • Upvote 1
    • Funny 2
  17. 14 minutes ago, colleda said:

    I've made a mental note to include Menindee. Have driven from Robinvale VIC to Lake Mungo then overnighted at Darnick then Darnick to Ivanhoe, mud all the way. We were in a Subaru Touring wagon towing a camper trailer. Took 8 hours to drive 80 klm (60 miles) Darnick/Ivanhoe. Fuel consumption was 3klm per litre, about 7.5 mpg.

    I can see two caches at Menindee. They're a long way from anywhere.



    The find counts seem a little odd. One has 43 in 9 years while the other has 189 finds in 8 years. The older one would be on a road less travelled I guess.

    I have found one of those caches.The one with most finds.  It's just off the sealed road from Broken Hill. The other is on the road to Wilcannia, which I think was closed when I was there, and besides I was travelling with my elderly mother, and I couldn't go everywhere. I 'cleaned' up most caches in Broken hill. There's lots to find in Menindee with another 'brand'.

    I also have a Subaru; an XV in my case. It's big enough for me to sleep in the back on a single mattress.

  18. 40 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

    I don't recall ever encountering a magnetic hide on a post that couldn't be reached while standing on the ground

    I have. I think that sometimes a tall person places a cache and thinks that's easy to reach, when many people can't reach it. Then rates it 1.5T and the next person needs a ladder, or to climb the post :bad:.

    • Upvote 1
  19. On 10/4/2021 at 10:57 AM, colleda said:

    I'm hoping to do a road trip to Broken Hill once we reopen for intrastate travel. Roughly 1200klm (750 miles) direct without leaving the state.

    I managed a Broken Hill trip last November. I am a carer for my mother, and I took my mother on a final trip. (She did end up for a night in a country hospital.) It was 44C (according to my car temperature readout) one day, but only one day, in Broken Hill. My mother had to stay inside the air-conditioned motel room that day, but I took a short trip out geocaching. With the strong, hot wind, it was like stepping into a fan-forced oven when I stepped from my car. Next day, it dropped to 28 degrees.

    I drove Ivanhoe to Menindee, along the 200kms of dirt road; only later learning the road was closed. There was a short stretch of mud, but I got through and I only have an AWD, not a 4WD, so wasn't sure why it was closed. Road workers were there making a new road to bypass the muddy stretch, but that wasn't open yet. Yes, a rough road, but it wasn't impassable.


    Ivanhoe to Menindee; not the worst stretch though.              Pamamaroo Lake near Menidee.                          The road from Menindee to the Lakes, freshly graded, so good.

    509872347_IvanhoetoMenindeeRd2.thumb.jpg.8314edad5d9edfc60dee42aba45ca3fd.jpg  1255493507_PamamarooLake6.thumb.jpg.c14b3cc23a34969de509a6f74cc7983e.jpg  1886794764_Menindeearearoad2.thumb.jpg.f4729297df01a85f59cd3db4c15b834b.jpg


    Menindee is worth a visit, especially now with the lakes full. Only one lake, Pamamaroo Lake, was full when I visited. I would take a drive back there myself now, except that I'm still a carer, and we are in lockdown.


    Hot, dusty, day near Broken Hill...and a cache :antenna:.




  20. On 10/4/2021 at 10:22 AM, barefootjeff said:

    Not quite in the same league as Bundy's road trips

    Neither are my trips :shocked:. That's why I wrote "How many people here have cached in remote or remote-ish areas? I wouldn't call this really remote; but it's remote-ish.", rather than just remote :laughing:. I would love to do trips like Bundyrumandcoke's, but as I usually travel alone and only have an AWD rather than a 4WD, that limits me where I can travel. The best I am likely to do by myself, is Highway 1, one day.

  • Create New...