Jump to content

Goldenwattle

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    3084
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Goldenwattle

  1. I like that, although it could be argued the old system of giving an actual example and images, might work better.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 .
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Does look ridiculous. You could though delete the visit to that cache, or did you leave the TB in it? If you left the TB in it, after it's picked up, you could then delete that log.
  14. And hopefully they will be receptive. I remember one new cacher who placed over twenty new caches. They were nice caches; good sized small caches full of trinkets. Most of their coordinates were off twenty metres or so, so one cacher was politely giving the corrected coordinates. The newby got insulted and archived all their caches. I've also seen other new cachers who ignore all advice and get huffy and rude. Mind you, they tend not to last in the game. Those who politely take the advice have a better chance of staying in the game.
  15. Good advice. Also leaving geo-trails. Although I guess this example is only grass. Guess where the cache might be hidden . Muggles can follow geotrails too and then find the cache. More like this one perhaps. Follow the broken bits. I have seen far worse, But I haven't taken photographs of them.
  16. With busier locations, to assist with keeping the cache safe, I think they should be easy to find and extract caches, with very good hints. If people spend too much time looking for the cache, it draws attentions to what they are doing and the cache, and then muggles might look too. Some owners like to put caches in busy places as an extra difficulty. However not all searchers will care enough that they might be observed and very publicly begin searching, endangering the cache. Tricky to find caches should be reserved for places where people can search unnoticed.
  17. Without reading everything that's been written here, I would suggest a place not too far from where you live, so you can easily attend to any problems the cache might have. The first cache can be a learning curve to problems that you must attend to, so don't place it far from home. For instance, lots of beginners place nanos, without realising how quickly the log fills and how often then the CO must visit it to place a new log. (Please don't place a horrid nano ). Other problems; such as leaking cache containers. There must be a reasonable place near where you live that you can put a cache. A view, a picturesque garden on an alleyway between houses, outside an historic building, an old church, a building with interesting architecture, or just a cute little hidden 'gem'. For instance, I found this cute little area near where I live to place a cache. There are houses all along the left of the picture and a main multi-lane road to the right, but in between, this hidden 'gem'. Another place close to where I live; interesting public gardens built by local residents on public land for all to enjoy. Highlight what's interesting and local. I suspect the local government authorities added the seating, after the locals adopted and built the garden. Plants were donated from people's gardens. That makes something to write about in the Geocache Description.
  18. I was thinking of you, when I wrote, "I know some carry ladders, etc on their back"
  19. I think a lot of this needs 'tool', unless it's small like tweezers are aimed at people driving. I know some carry ladders, etc on their back , but that would discourage most people from walking or cycling there, or catching public transport. It's to get more people driving, which is a shame, as many people get little enough exercise now.
  20. That's very annoying, after taking a long walk to the cache to find that a second visit is needed, and you are a visitor and don't live in that town. I have had that experience, and I couldn't return. Doesn't leave one feeling happy or liking that CO.
  21. That depends on local rules. In some places people are not allowed on school grounds without permission.
  22. It's had less than 100 finds (66 finds) so it does appear a fault. Possibly others haven't given a favourite point either.
×
×
  • Create New...