Goldenwattle
-
Posts
4210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Goldenwattle
-
-
1 hour ago, MNTA said:
Signing a log is not proof either as half the time they eventually go missing as well.
Only if a CO doesn't do regular checks and maintenance, or puts the cache in an unwise place. I regularly check my caches, and the log is rarely missing, but because I do regularly check the cache (how often depends where the cache is, etc), even if the log did go missing, I would still have photographs of most past logs. I put the latest photograph of the signatures in my maintenance log as a record. Then if the log goes missing this copy still exists.
An example. Checked after 11 months from the previous check. It's an eleven stage multi, and doesn't get found that often. It's been sitting in the weather (although somewhat protected by the overhead oak tree) for 8 years. It's the original log and as can be seen in the photographs of the log, still good.
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC61P7D_narrabundah-ramble
-
10 hours ago, shellbadger said:
I consulted my profile page, where Groundspeak lists links to all the trackables I have ever logged. I am a retired old man with time available, it took me about three weeks to put the data together. All but maybe three trackables were released long ago. Those in my possession now were retrieved recently and are already boxed and awaiting mailing to a friend in Scotland after the holidays. I do not collect or otherwise hang on to trackables.
"I have had 1,354 trackables belonging to someone else pass through my hands."
Sorry, I misunderstood.
-
Was this person 'collecting' other geocachers' trackables?
Will they be set free again?
-
7 hours ago, Karate Hiker said:
I see many suggestions here and have tried them all but none really solve my issue. When I am planning a trip I do not want to have to look in 2 or 3 different places to find caches in the area I might want to visit. I seems to me that it would be a simple thing have the ability to check a box on the cache page and have the Icon turn a different color.
That's as I suggested to you before, but seem to have dismissed. "2. Those I qualify for but haven't found yet, I copy the coordinates and add them as updating the coordinates as though it were a solved multi or puzzle cache. Then it shows up on the map as solved." To make it clearer,
changes to: 
. What is wrong with that? Stands out!
For those I have signed, but don't qualify for yet, I just keep a list in a document on the computer. Simple.
-
.png)
1
-
-
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
World Postcard Day? Are postcards even still a thing? I'm struggling to see how this relates to geocaching, except, um, LBHs maybe?
Very hard to find in some countries. Not common as they were once. I travelled to a few countries this year and was looking for postcards to send to some children, and they weren't always easy to find.
-
Thanks to this I learnt about this Locationless cache. Now logged. One was fun, but I hope we don't get many of them. Another game I haven't played for awhile ended up with many Locationless caches, which was a big reason I haven't played it for ages. A few very rare ones are fun, many killed the game for me.
Congratulations on your streak. Well done. Hard work to keep streaks going. 4.5 years impressive.
-
14 minutes ago, chase99g said:
If I were to buy a customized spring loaded stamp, ink pad and letters together, would that be okay to use?
Yes, if the ink is waterproof.
-
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:
I don't have a good feeling for what size stamp people want to use in LBHs, but in mine (published during the Iconic challenge in August) I used an A7 spiral-bound notepad (74x105 mm) which was the biggest I could fit inside the container which in turn was the biggest I could fit inside the hiding place. None of its five finders (all in August) used a stamp, they just signed with a pen.
Good
, it wasn't a narrow micro cache log for the letter box cache. I have come upon that, and my stamp is too big for that. As would be many people's.
-
2 hours ago, kunarion said:
I don't stamp log pages in lieu of signing (or as an added decoration when signing), everyone gets to enjoy my hideous penmanship instead.
I usually only use the stamp for letter box caches, when they actually have a log big enough for stamps (amazing how many so called letter box caches are not supplied with a log big enough and suitable for people's stamps), and is in good condition. I do sign as well. Most other cache logs only get my signature.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, kunarion said:
Is that a separate stamp pad, or a combined ink with spring-loaded stamper? Seems like you'd have better control of specific ink if it's a stamp pad.
Separate stamp pad. The original ink on the pad (yellowish orange, as my stamp is a sprig of wattle) might not maybe have been waterproof (not sure), but the bottle of ink to top up the stamp pad is waterproof, and it passed the test. Checked the test stamp again and it still has not bled
.
-
16 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:
If a log in one of my caches gets wet, then that's on me. I do not send threatening emails for faded signatures like you apparently do.
Stop making up what I do, it doesn't make you look good. I don't send "threatening emails" and never said I do, as you must know. What I wrote was, "It might even fade away completely. Then you will get an email asking where your signature is." No threats there; only a question from a CO who does regular maintenance and checks logs, and when I can't find a signature or stamp I ask about the signature. I am reasonable and will also accept other proof, such as a photograph or a good description. I give people a chance. I also accept I might just have missed someone's scrawl. I did once and when they pointed it out I apologized. Beginners with only a few finds I am now being very lenient with, saying they should have signed the log, but as they are new to the game I will accept their log this time, but please sign logs from now on. I don't want to chase away new players.
I personally have also received an email from a CO about a log I signed, asking where my signature was. I took it well; it wasn't a "threatening email" and I never considered it such. Gees, I appreciated that there are other COs out there who take their responsibilities seriously. I described the hide, the log, the surrounds; even the parking, and my log was accepted. A "threatening email"; gees you can't be real! (The log had become ratty and was falling apart, so not surprised my signature might have been missed. But good the CO was fixing this.)
-
1
-
.png)
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:
Please read the thread to familiarize yourself with the subject material.
I am familiar with it; the basic question being answered, "Does anyone have any good recommendations for log stamps?" Stamps don't come separate to ink. They are a pair. One does not work without the other. Maybe you should reread it.
My recommendation was on track with, (use might have been better as buy, but same meaning)
"If people use stamps, please get water proof ink, because if the log gets even damp, the stamp image will run, and it will be unreadable. It might even fade away completely. Then you will get an email asking where your signature is." -
11 hours ago, kunarion said:
"Waterproof ink" would be a good thing to do some tests on.
That got me thinking. Although the ink is marked Archival Ink, Acid Free, Permanent, Waterproof, I had actually never tested it.
So I made a stamp on paper, wiped moisture over it (spat on it) and it didn't smug. Ran tap water over it and it didn't smug. The paper has been wet for several minutes now and it hasn't bled yet. I bought the ink from a specialist stamp and ink shop. Ink, made in USA. Ranger brand.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:
Honestly, that has NEVER happened to me! I'm sure some of our stamps have faded or smeared over time,and in some cases the logsheets have been replaced so any earlier signatures are no longer there anyway
Blurry stamps make checking logs and cross checking the online log difficult. I react quickly to maintenance problems and regularly check the logs.
No one has ever needed to replace a log for me, as I do maintenance, and I would be very annoyed if they did replace a log rather than do a NM. So, your comment, "in some cases the logsheets have been replaced so any earlier signatures are no longer there anyway",is incorrect, for if any logs are replaced it's been by me and I have had a log to check.
-
18 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:
National Geographic Waterproof Inkjet paper will retain water-based inks quite well.
And you think the whole world knows where to buy this, if it's possible even to buy this, or have even heard of it. I would also need to test this myself before I believed this, as water soluble ink is, water soluble.
21 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:You mean that you have never had one of your logs get wet. Never...never...ever...
No, I have not threatened to delete logs from people whose signatures have faded or otherwise become unreadable. That is what we were talking about here.
No, I was asking what I wrote. "We" weren't talking about deleting logs with this question.
-
1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:
Not the finder's problem. The CO is responsible for providing a log that will retain signatures.
And using a container that will keep the log dry.
It happens. NO log paper will keep a water soluble stamp ink from running and even disappearing completely, if someone lets water in, which could be any finder and out of the COs control. The CO might then have no idea the log was stamped and just presume no signature. It's up to those who insist on using a stamp to use waterproof ink. I have taken that responsibility and bought waterproof ink for my stamp. No one should negate their responsibility to sign the log properly (in this case a stamp) to someone else. Waterproof stamp ink is available...and in many colours.
You mean that you have never had one of your logs get wet. Never...never...ever...
-
1
-
-
If people use stamps, please get water proof ink, because if the log gets even damp, the stamp image will run, and it will be unreadable. It might even fade away completely. Then you will get an email asking where your signature is.
-
6 hours ago, CCFwasG said:
If a cache really doesn't work properly, should it get NM? (ie OAR or whatever)
I would do a DNF. Explain you found the cache, but couldn't find the log, as the cache is too difficult to open.
-
58 minutes ago, niraD said:
The guidelines about buried caches now include the following explicit exception:
"The only exception is if a property owner gives explicit permission to create a hole to place the cache, which you must provide to the reviewer and state on the cache page. A cache cannot require the finder to dig to reach the cache. See the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki for details in your region."
Thanks, I Bookmarked the Australian regional one.
The one I mentioned with stomping about listening for the bell, was on public land and doubtful there was permission for it. Although to be realistic, where it was wasn't a problem (except for traffic making the spot too noisy), as from memory, there were no buildings anywhere remotely close. The ground was also bare sand, so there was limited damage that could be done. Archived now though. Likely still a buried cache.
-
4 hours ago, arisoft said:
I have a traditional D4 cache that occasionally gets comments that it is buried. A regular size cache is placed into a large hole in the bedrock and covered with thick fabric and on the top there is a small stone. Basically, it is like any cache with hint "under a stone", but the fabric makes it very difficult to notice, as you may see from the image above. The cache under the fabric is significantly larger than the pebble in the middle of the image. If you zoom in, you may see the edge of the fabric. To find the cache you must lift the pebble, which is fixed to the fabric camouflage and log the cache.
I am considering it spoiling, when someone falsely reveals that it is buried, even it is not buried, because it gives an extra hint where it is placed. I don't understand why someone could think that the cache is buried. Could you understand this?
The rules used to say caches can't be buried, or partly buried. Has this changed? Some old original caches are buried, but that likely happened before that rule. Some years ago I also came upon a buried cache by a hwy here in Australia. You had to stomp about until you heard a bell below. I never did hear that bell. The traffic on the hwy was too heavy. Not a sensible place beside a noisy road to put such a hide. I think it got archived.
-
1
-
-
That's a no-no for me; downloading an unknown program to my computer. So any cache that requires that is a no-no too. Unless I can get the final coordinates from a braver/foolhardy previous finder.
-
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
One less fake sprinkler head in the caching world would probably be a good thing too
.
After one experience with a sprinkler I sort of agree. In this case though, it was a real sprinkler I dismantled...oops
. There was a spring and because of that uncooperative curly springy wire it took AGES to put back together, but finally I managed, and fortunately the water didn't come on, or I would have run 🫨, dripping wet no doubt, and left it. The next finder tried the same sprinkler, and wrote they couldn't get it back together. The CO added in the description, it's not the sprinkler. So if your ever see a sprinkler shooting a straight lot of water, think, is there a cache somewhere there 
.
I never did find that cache.
-
.png)
2
-
-
43 minutes ago, arisoft said:
LOL
, not for me that one...
Actually I don't do that many puzzles.
-
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:
Indeeed, there are some multi-caches with errors in formulas. CO should fix those formulas instead of adding a checker.
I'm more worried about making a maths mistake, not that the formulas is wrong, as so far I have never found that for a multi.
I have though had the checker being wrong for a puzzle.
. What is wrong with that? Stands out!
.png)
, it wasn't a narrow micro cache log for the letter box cache. I have come upon that, and my stamp is too big for that. As would be many people's.
..png)
. There was a spring and because of that uncooperative curly springy wire it took AGES to put back together, but finally I managed, and fortunately the water didn't come on, or I would have run 🫨, dripping wet no doubt, and left it. The next finder tried the same sprinkler, and wrote they couldn't get it back together. The CO added in the description, it's not the sprinkler. So if your ever see a sprinkler shooting a straight lot of water, think, is there a cache somewhere there 
.
.png)
, not for me that one...
Country souvenir for adventure stage
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Yes, I saw a cache log the other day with a find logged for a cache in Australia with words something like, "I have never visited Australia, but I decided to log a cache there." If that was my cache as soon as I saw the email, I would delete it. No need to go out and check the log for that one. As it was still on the cache log after a few days (weeks?) it seems the CO of that cache is just leaving the armchair logger's log there.
Where it gets really annoying, is where the CO does nothing about these logs, and ruins others using that cache to fulfil a Challenge. I see that as selfish of both the logger and the CO. The CO for not making it fair for all geocachers. Examples;
1. Years ago I was trying to build up enough caches for a find caches not found for six months challenge. This multicache had not been found for a year, but someone mucked that up by logging a find for, as they wrote, "Found the first WP." The CO never deleted that, even after being contacted.
2. The second example could be logged, but it makes it unfair for those who really fulfilled the challenge, which was a VERY hard one. Find a cache is every Australian Territory in one calendar year. I qualified for that, but likely had to drive about 15,000kms to do it, and catch a ferry to Tasmania. You also naturally had to log the cache, which I did. Some people either never signed the log, or had only ever found caches in one Territory. The CO did nothing about either. If a CO makes a cache a challenge, that should check people do actually qualify. I suppose the warning there that the CO wouldn't be checking people qualified, is that this very hard challenge was only rated the (I don't really care) 1.5D/T.
Sadly you are correct, but I have found there is often a correlation between those who do check logs and take the appropriate action, and those who maintain their caches. The two go hand in hand.