Jump to content

Goldenwattle

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    3084
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Goldenwattle

  1. I was thrilled there were Premium only caches when I first discovered them. I didn't know they existed when I started and found most of the near member caches. Then when I had found about 180 caches (the same time I bought a GPS; up to then I have been caching with printouts. No phone either.) I joined. And what a present I got; more caches near where I lived. Thrilling. I very much appreciated that I had not found all the caches, so yes, I am in favour of Premium member only caches. Earn them.
  2. I found my first 180 caches without a phone or GPS. Took printouts (on waste paper) and checked the ground, etc for clues to follow when I reached the area. It also taught me to stand back and look for likely places.
  3. This would be one reason trackables disappear too.
  4. That's like the ones I have found. I swam out to one (it was tethered to a post in a lake), but it was very difficult trying to tread water, as the current tried to drag me away while I signed the log. I dropped the cache and down it went. Luckily I didn't drop the log. I swam back to shore with the log and returned a few days later with a replacement cache. Good idea, caches in the water, but problematic.
  5. One high 'find' Australian cacher immediately sprang to mind when I read that. I don't think they have ever written anything about a cache; just another generic log. I have also failed to see their name on the log.
  6. I've had wrong coordinates which led me to the wrong house. Embarrassing! I don't know how the CO could get the coordinates so wrong. A quick check on Google maps before they published would have prevented this. However, sometimes having a cache at home might allow for more creative caches. The best TB hotel I ever saw was at the COs house. Individual rooms for the TBs with wallpaper, fireplaces and the like. Just a plastic box shoved in the front yard. Nah .
  7. Many things already mentioned. I mentioned wrong ratings in a previous log. Other things: Arm chair loggers. I'm not sure which is more annoying. Them, or the COs who will not remove their logs. Micro (and worse those devil things, nanos), in a place (say in the middle of a forest) where a regular cache (or at least a small) cache would fit. Multicaches with unclearly worded WP instructions that could be interpreted in more than one way, and the CO who never corrects this, even when people say in their logs the WP instruction was unclear. Do some people ever read the logs of their caches? COs who will not correct mistakes when pointed out by multiple finders, such as wrong ratings, but also wrong cache size and out coordinates.
  8. I find that many people don't have the confidence to log the first DNF. No logs for ages and I log a DNF, then suddenly a string of DNFs will follow mine. This has happened several times. Be brave, be the first to log that DNF!
  9. The best way to tackle the problem of wrongly rated difficulty and terrain, is to allow finders to rate this, again, but back to the suggestion of a minimum number of cache finds before you can give a score. Only allow loggers with a minimum number of finds to rate the cache and this be averaged out. Otherwise the beginners who couldn't find the small sized cache in the road guard rail, the mintie tin stuck to the back of a sign, the rock keyholder in full view, would say this is real hard and rate it a 5.
  10. Logs such as "TFTC" - "Found" - "good" - ":)" Pity they can't be deleted!
  11. After all the comments here about lack of maintenance and the like on caches, I would like to share a 'nice' 'response to placing a NM log. This CO's cache has lots of DNFs, there is no response from the CO for many months. If they were sick or something and couldn't maintain their cache they should have Disabled the cache until they could get to it, but no response. Then finally after 2 NMs and 1NA and 9 months of nothing from the CO they place a CO maintenance log with the not reassuring words of, " I'm pretty sure this is still in place." Just "pretty sure" not sure? Does that sound like they actually checked to you? Look, maybe they had a genuine crisis in their life, but surely they could still have Disabled the cache. As it looked like this had just been done to cancel the NMs and NA logs, but not bother checking, I placed another NM log. Then the reviewer came in and Disabled the cache. The CO then placed another CO maintenance log, with the charming words, " Golden wattle don't be an arsehole, you think I don't check my caches? So over lazy people looking for this THREE STAR cache as if it was a one star. There was also a good reason for my comment which I told the reviewer. Cache now has a new log. It was exactly where it should be" I'm not sure I'm the "arsehole" here, but others can decide. Some COs don't like NM logs. PS. I thought it was a crappy place for a cache, but that's a personal comment. Hidden among large, thick grass plants (some time ago, but which probably had sharp leaves which can cut) on a busy path.
  12. Yes, that annoys me too, but there is little that can be done about that, unless there is a rating for nano added. I think this is where much of the confusion comes from. If nanos are micro, anything bigger must be a small . Add a nano size rating and I think a lot of this problem will go away, in time. No need for anything more complicated than that. Then nanos could be filtered out and ignored.
  13. Being able to choose to find some caches and ignore others is something that you can do now. Being able to filter out caches you can do now; either within the program or by yourself. If you don't like power trails don't do them, if you don't like micros, don't do them, if you don't like serious hikes to get to caches on mountain tops, don't do them. However this being able to filter out caches would be considered a very limiting idea in many places in the world, because not everyone lives in cache crowded USA. Go away from urban areas in many places in the world there are few caches (in fact is some parts of the world there are few urban caches too), so why would people living there want to filter out caches? There are few enough as there are. And over time many of these areas are likely to have less caches, because no geocacher lives there and many of these caches likely were placed before rules about having to live nearby existed. They exist still only because travellers service them. The grey nomads in Australia for instance, passing regularly by in their caravans. But people who are 'spoiled' by the numbers of caches they have are suggesting these caches shouldn't be serviced and these caches should be archived and there should be no caches for people to find in these more remote area, because, gees there are principles are stake here and principles are more important than people's enjoyment. And this doesn't effect them, because there are plenty of caches where they live. COs having to service caches once a year is bullying, or get some baddy mark against them. (I do service my caches.) Some caches need servicing more than that; some will NEVER need servicing, as has been pointed out by others here. But this being pointed out doesn't seem to be sinking in to some people. If this feature comes in I will just make an owner maintenance log for caches that don't need servicing and not bother to make an unnecessary trip (It will reduce my enjoyment of the game being bullied to do this, but I can guarantee I won't be alone doing this.) This rule will make owner maintenance logs unreliable. I have also read suggestions for caches to be checked within a few days (or perhaps two weeks) of a needs maintenance logs being made. This would be nice, but is often impracticable. The CO might be on holidays for instance and mightn't be back for a month or longer. (Not all places in the world only have the US two weeks holiday). Let COs enjoy their holiday without being badgered that if they don't fix that cache it will be archived. Besides, not all needs maintenance logs are real. The last one I received wasn't. The geocacher (a beginner) logged a DNF and then a need maintenance log, because 'they' couldn't find it. The cache was still there when I checked. Bad luck you say. But then with the suggestions being made here, this would be a bad mark against me as a CO, because one of my caches got a NM, only because a beginner was unable to find it. Many of the suggestions here are going to make geocaching less attractive for many people. Perhaps the game would be better with less playing it; more like the old days, but would HQ want that?
  14. They found GZ too. But I suspect you understood that.
  15. He didn't ask, but I was pleased to offer that he log.
  16. Well said, but I'm afraid that some will continue to believe there is no way to play this game, but 'their' way. Some people don't agree with flexibility, even though it is not harming the game and nothing is being abused. But hey, didn't I write "I am finished with this" discussion? Out of here.
  17. To me it is no different. I am finished with this. I think this discussion has got silly, which is why I asked equally silly questions, but at least I attempted to answer those put to me, and not just dismiss them as unrelated, or a separate discussion.
  18. Do you log caches, when you are out with other geocachers and you were not the one to find it? Do you log puzzle caches, when someone else solved it, but you happened to be with them when it was found, whether you are the one who found that or not, because you couldn't have found it without solving the puzzle? If you don't log it until you have solved it yourself, is it then fair to return and log it, if the other person found the cache and showed you where it was, as technically, you didn't find the cache?
  19. Depends on the owner. A few do, yes, but I have given permission to log the cache, and I DO maintenance. It was a long multicache and the person had found all the waypoints, which can take hours. They deserved to log it. I replaced that cache once I was informed it had fallen from the tree and been mown. (In a sense they found the cache, but scattered about in small pieces. I think they cleaned it up. But no log.) That cache had been there less than a year, so the idea being pushed by some (I think it's a silly idea, even though I do maintain my caches) I would not have discovered this for some months, if not informed by the finder. We will continue to disagree on this, and we can both choose what we are happy with.
  20. In Australia, we don't have mobile coverage over the whole country, so 000 (our emergency number, doesn't work in a lot of places). I do understand that if there is another company that has towers in the area where my company doesn't, I can dial 000 in an emergency. It's just that in a lot of places away from urban areas, there is no coverage by any company. The emergency I was thinking of - okay, not a 'real' emergency - but I carried a cheap mobile phone for Telstra, which has the broadest coverage, (I would use them all the time if they weren't so expensive) to make quick 'necessary' phone calls, such as booking accommodation, or for others to ring me. I only had limited prepaid calls on it, so I didn't use it except when absolutely necessary. If people in more remote areas want a phone, they use a satellite phone. The phone I have can't beat my Garmin, which with good batteries will go several days. It also has maps. It will fit in my pocket, while my phone won't. I have also dropped the GPS on rocks several times (gulp) and it still works. I doubt my phone would have survived.
  21. I would not have logged that cache either, without permission of the owner. I don't log caches just because I can't find them. Only when the owner says I can, and I was sure I actually found GZ and the cache is definitely missing. Usually after the owner has checked the cache is missing too.
  22. Similar to where I live. No problems with DNFs here either, so I also don't know what is meant by "politics between finders and hiders" .
  23. Thank you, but I play it to a high standard. My caches are looked after, unlike most people I actually CHECK the logs and take appropriate action, I take it seriously to look after TBs and place them in good caches (don't always get that right, but I try to), I supply the TB owners regular photographs of where their TBs have visited; I don't just log them in and out of caches with nothing more, like most people; I even try to take the TB (if possible) to the TB's owners desired destination, and have managed this on a number of occasions. I attend events. Personally I think the 'forced' checking of caches once a year is a silly idea. That's what Needs Maintenance' is for. It's a good idea if people want geocaching to be less popular and to have less caches. I do, by the way, check most of my caches at least once a year.
×
×
  • Create New...