Jump to content

SidAndBob

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    784
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SidAndBob

  1. I was always under the impression that TB's didn't count as tradable items. That is, you can take or leave a TB without leaving or taking a corresponding tradable item. I was happy with that, but now I'm wondering if I was wrong all along. I now often see "Left TB, took flashing pumkin badge" or the like. Surely this will just end in a depleated cache as the next cacher will take the TB and leave nothing in it's place.
  2. I guess your experiences in the US are very different from ours in the UK. You all seem to be swamped with caches and by the sound of it, many are of poor quality. In my area (England / Wales border) there aren't that many caches, though the quality is generally very good and carpark micros don't exist. Infact, any micros are pretty unusual. It is an area steeped in rich history, beautiful scenic valleys and nearby mountains, but there are still many, many locations for quality hides. I guess I just find it frustrating when you're having to drive so far to go caching when there are potentially so many other good caches which could be available. The trading up idea sounds good, but we all have different ideas of what caching is about. Tradeable items are not important to me and I have rarely seen it happen. The "writing good log entries" comment is good, but that's the least any of us should do. Just writing "Found this one" or similar is a kick in the teeth, but that's a whole different thread. I do believe 'hiding is giving'. It takes a lot of time, local knowledge, effort and money to make a good hide. After all, if you were in a football team, you couldn't just play all your matches away because you didn't fancy hosting any home games. No one would play, we'd all be sitting at home, waiting for someone else to make the effort. Finally, I know you can't force cachers to hide caches with quality, but I hoped this may provoke some ideas on how to improve things in low cache density areas. P.S. Kit Fox's "seed caches" idea is interesting. I'm not sure it'll work, but it's out-of-the-box and more of what I'm looking for.
  3. Hi Keystone, I created this in the web site forum because I believe that a hide to find ratio should be enforced by the web site.
  4. I'd like to think that ALL Geocachers had a little more integrity than that, but you may be right. Everybody should have at least a couple of good caches in their repetoire. I know I couldn't wait to share some of the cool places I know and I get a great deal of satisfaction when others enjoy those place. Fortunately I have some great hiders in my area, but there's scope for loads more. I was forgeting the high saturation thing as it certainly isn't a problem in my neck of the woods. I was caching 40 miles from home yesterday and there were 10 caches within a 10 mile radius That's in a beautiful area too.
  5. After reading the 'Hiding a cache' thread it seemed just as important to me that all members have a responsibility to hide as well as find. I try to keep a 25:1 ratio, but I think at least a 100:1 ratio should be enforced. If hiding is giving and finding is taking, then surely it's not right to only take. Placing a cache might also help these "non-hiders" to appreciate the effort the rest of us spend when making a hide.
  6. I did a cache this w/e which really sucked. As a result of this thread I've just looked up the placer's profile and found they joined 2 days before placing, with 2 finds under their belt. Not too scientific, but it speaks volumes. I think it's good that any geocacher should want to hide caches, but maybe there should be a mechanism to vote out / archive very poor caches.
  7. If I was dropping the TB off I would have put a note in the log book explaining that I wouldn't be able to log the drop off for n days, or maybe even put a note in with the TB if it was in a bag. Then no-one would get their knickers in a twist.
  8. We are all running our queries each week (or day). Every time we do this 90something% of the data is identical, but every run extracts, zips up and emails all of the data. When we import it into GSAK (or similar) what's the first thing it does? Yes, it throws away all of that duplicate data. What a waste of resource. In practical terms one solution would be to run a full extract if a query has never been run before and then on subsequent runs only extract cache data where the cache has been updated since the last PQ run. You could have a timestamp column on the cache master row to indicate when the last update was made to the cache associated details. This method would assume no changes on a significant number of caches since your last run, which from my experience is true. BTW, my old scheduled PQ actually ran last night!.
  9. What about offering a suite of commonly used queries optimised for performance. Personally I'm only really interested in nearest caches I haven't done, not owned by me, not archived. If a lot of people used these queries would it improve performance? I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been suggested.
×
×
  • Create New...