Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JeePSer

  1. Go back a page, to the first one you land on when clicking Play - Hide a Geocache, and below the "Create a New Geocache" button is "Host a Geocaching Event". Thank you so much ... I knew I had to be missing something!
  2. I am trying to create an event cache and cannot figure it out. Here is the path I am taking. 1. Click Play 2. Select Hide a Geocache 3. Click Create New Geocache 4. Click Continue (I know the coordinates) 5. This is where I get stuck. The two default options are Traditional or Multi-cache. If I select "Show more geocache types" It extends to Mystery, Earth Cache, Letterbox Hybrid and Wherigo. What am I doing wrong? I've tried rebooting. Logging out and back in as well as different browsers.
  3. The Colorado has been sold. PN-20 is still available.
  4. Not sure about others but I got one in the mail today. I wasn't sure what the envelope from Groundspeak was as I had forgotten all about it until the other half of JeePSer remembered. There were two coins in the envelope. One micro and one regular. However the regular one doesn't seem to have a tracking code.
  5. The PN-40 has been sold. PN-20 and Colorado are still available.
  6. If you're interested in a used unit I just posted a Colorado for sale. Basically it is the same as the Oregon but doesn't have the touch screen, that said, the reason we are selling is because we got an Oregon
  7. 1.DeLorme Earthmate PN-20(used)with box and manuals, travel power kit (unused), cable and TOPO 7.0. Last used in April 2009. $75.00 plus shipping. 2.DeLorme Earthmate PN-40(used)with box, manuals, cable and TOPO 8.0. Last used December 2010. $100 plus shipping. 3.Garmin Colorado 400t(used)with manuals, cable and case. $150.00 plus shipping. 4.We also have unopened TOPO 9.0 maps. $50 plus shipping. 5.Spot communicator (which is for use with a PN-60w). $50 plus shipping. Please contact us through gc.com if interested or if you want more information/photos. (JeePSer)
  8. This is true. But would you bother making a trip to see the Sphinx if someone bulldozed it and someone else that made the trip and didn't want to have to go home without being able to say they saw it replaced it with an HO scale replica? I would contend that a throwdown micro does not a historic cache make nor justify keeping the listing active on gc.com.
  9. Although this in no way seems related to Mingo I did check out your links and would think that if there was no active webcam then there couldn't possibly be an active webcam cache. I like others hate to see webcam and virtual caches go since once they are all gone they are gone. But if the webcam is no longer there keeping the cache active makes about as much sense as keeping a virtual cache active even though the thing it was supposed to be bringing you to see no longer exists.
  10. This cache has become somewhat of a joke in my opinion. People continue to talk about the need to keep it going in their logs while they post finds on a cache that is temporarily disabled and according to the owners own note needs to be replaced. But does the owner make any effort to maintain the cache page and delete logs of those that clearly did not find the cache? Nope. Because it seems that having the oldest inactive active geocache is more important than expecting people to only log legitimate finds. I will say again that I think the powers that be have given far too much special consideration to this cache.
  11. It wasn't replaced by some good samaritian for the good of the geocaching community. It was replaced with a throwdown container by someone who didn't want to drive all the way out there an not get a smiley. As is usually the case they justified it by saying it was to benefit those who came after. I can see where someone might assume it is a cacher. However, I have seen no proof that anyone knows who or what it is that keeps filling in the hole. So at this point to say it is a cacher is certainly pure speculation. Again nothing but speculation. I think if the CO had of temporarily disabled it after it came up missing for the second time and the geocaching community could have refrained from leaving another container everytime somebody stopped and couldn't find the original (in the name of helping out the CO and the next finder of course)this might well be a non-issue now. My guess is if everyone could have left the area alone the person taking the containers might well have moved on to find something or someone else to annoy. But because the CO is determined to own the oldest active cache and a large portion of the geocaching community doesn't seem to have the ability to claim a DNF we now all suffer.
  12. Would it be fair to assume based on the COs latest post to the Mingo cache page that being the CO of the oldest active geocache is more important than actually having a container at the site? I understand that it has to be a pain in the butt that this cache keeps coming up missing and he keeps having to replace it. However you still have to maintain the cache and cache page. There are legitimate virtual caches that were archived because the CO was not responding to emails or maintaining the cache page so how would this be any different. I can't say that I understand the if the container goes missing and I haven't had a chance to replace it again but you drove by go ahead and log a find anyway attitude. If Hemlock had not temporarily disabled this cache the last two times it would have remained active with no container in place (that is if you don't count all the containers that everyone who visits when it is missing leaves). Oldest active geocache or not it is still the COs responsibility to temporarily disable it when the container goes missing and maintain the cache. People keep talking about the need for exceptions for this cache because it just so happens to be the current oldest active cache. Personally I think far too many exceptions have already been made. But as we all know that is just my opinion.
  13. I would prefer not be notified too, but if it is the only way for me to know that someone is dipping my TB then so be it. Also, I know that in the past people dropped and retrieved, but, it wasn't as common place because it wasn't as easy to do - I didn't like it when that was done either. I have put on TB pages that I don't want them dipped, but, people do not read the TB pages and because of the ability to do a mass visit on every cache they do not stop to remove my TBs from that mass visit. All I am asking for is the ability to request that my TBs not be included in 'visits' to caches where they may not have even been. If the visit option is turned off from these TBs it shouldn't impact the ability of the cacher who has it to still do a mass dip, but those marked as not dippable just would not be included in that - they would get the dropped off and retrieved options only. If this enhancement was put in place it shouldn't impact those of you who are against it in any way shape or form but it would allow those who would prefer that our TBs not be brought on tour the option to elect that. This enhancement could be made transparent for those who do mass visits, it simply wouldn't post visit logs to the TBs page.
  14. I would like the ability to turn off the option of 'visited' for travel bugs or coins I own. I really dislike this feature and it is seriously overused. I want my TBs picked up and then dropped off, I do not want to see 4 pages of caches they visited. The practice of dipping TBs and coins was a problem before but since the new visited 'feature' was implemented it has really become a headache. I just spent 30 minutes deleting 5 pages of visited logs from a TB. If Groundspeak refuses (again) to even consider this request, please at least make it easy to do a mass delete of logs for those of us who find this practice of visiting annoying. It would also be nice to be notified when a TB is being dipped so I don't have to visit all of my TB pages to spot that it is happening. Thank you.
  15. Wow! It took longer than I thought before someone logged it after it was disabled. And no sooner did that happen then the offers start rolling in to replace it even though (again) no assistance has been asked for.
  16. I have to agree. The problem with this in my opinion is that each time it has come up missing different geocachers have replaced it with whatever container they happened to have at hand so they could them claim a find. I understand the significance of wanting to find the oldest active geocache. But to place another container at Mingo or any other cache so you can get a smiley instead of logging a DNF (I would guess that if you replace containers to claim finds you don't log DNFs anyway) would seem to make a mockery of the history of the cache you are claiming to find and would bring into question the validity of your claimed achievements. It is up to the CO to replace or not replace. It would seem like a cooling off period would be a good idea so as to give the person that keeps filling in the hole a chance to move on to irritating some other person or group of people. Continuing to replace the container as quickly as possible every time it is gone seems like it has just compounded the problem. If geocachers would let the smoke clear on this cache it might be able to be replaced and remain for a long time. But if people continue to put the act of getting their smiley ahead of what is best for the geocaching community as a whole then maybe it would be better if Mingo was permanently archived.
  17. 9CachersAmongUs posted a note for Mingo (Disabled) (Traditional Cache) at 10/20/2011 Log Date: 10/20/2011 Thank you Team 360... If this one gets archived, the blood is on your hands... Seriously????
  18. Did the CO ask anyone else to replace it or tell someone who asked him to "Go Ahead"? If so then great. If not then should it be replaced by someone who went there knowing or not knowing the circumstances of why it was missing for the second time? I would think that the first plan of action would be to post a DNF and explain the circumstances of why it is thought to be missing and then give the CO time to respond. Just because it is the oldest active geocache (which is only because the oldest active one before it was archived and the oldest active one before that was archived and the oldest one before that...) and you may have driven hundreds of miles to get there shouldn't mean that you can claim a find on something that is stated in your log that you did not find resulting in you or someone after you putting out a new container so that everyone from that point on can claim a find on something they didn't. All that being said it is up to the CO to allow or delete logs as he or she sees fit.
  19. At the very least the cache should be temporarily diabled until the construction crew has moved down the road. It amazes me that there are people watching this cache who's reaction to the hiding spot being filled in for a second time is to hop in the car and go claim their find before it is too late. Not to mention that more than one person also thought the best first thing to do was to get there as fast as possible to drop off a replacement container. I call BS on the good intentions argument. I would bet that placing a new container to justify getting a smiley on an obviously missing cache far outweighed any thoughts of the greater good of the geocaching community. As they say, The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  20. I don't know the specifics but it seems to me that if a road crew worker was close enough to be accused of being the person that may have filled in the hiding spot then somebody didn't use much stealth if they watched the worker watching them. I understand that it is not always possible to pass up a cache and return later because a muggle is watching. I don't know what did or didn't happen but it is possible that this cache like many others is gone because someone was more concerned about getting their smiley than they were with being careful not to be seen retrieving the cache. Just my 2 cents.
  21. The whole point behind the challenges as I understand it is to give people reasons to get outside and do something. If people would rather spend their time going through old photos or just sit in front of the computer logging challenges it doesn't stop you from getting out and doing challenges. You create the challenge but the community owns it. You have the ability to flag a challenge as inappropriate. And with enough flags on a challenge it gets archived. You also have the ability to flag user logs on challenges. Not sure if a certain number for flags will get logs deleted though.
  22. I'm not sure why everyone gets upset because other people aren't playing the geocaching game by their rules. One of the best things about geocaching is that it is whatever you make of it. You think Challenges are stupid.....don't complete them. You think using old vacation pictures to complete challenges is acceptable.....dig out the old photo albums and go to town. You don't think certain challenges should be acceptable.....flag them so they get archived. If you want to sit in front of the computer marking a bunch of challenges you never did complete....enjoy. If you spend all your time worrying about how everyone else is geocaching they you take all the fun out of the activity. Get outside and enjoy geocaching your way.
  23. I think the CO's warnings on the cache pages should have been enough. Even when it was brought to everyone's attention that there were issues people continued to drive beside the road and into the desert and park on the road instead of pulling onto the shoulder. I think that if everyone had paid attention to the previous warnings this trail might still be in action. But since some people were more concerned with making things easy for themselves than using commonsense I guess we will never know.
  24. Didn't mean to be the cause of any attempted thread hijack. Just trying to say that the only reason that the state agencies in Nevada got involved is due to irresponsible behavior by some of the people that cached the area.
  25. I would have to say that I'm not surprised. Half of the JeePSer geocaching team was out there recently and saw first hand people driving in the desert beside the highway, people parking in the middle of the lane on the highway while they jumped out to retrieve caches and paper logs that people had placed on the ground next to containers because they didn't want to take the time to open or swap out the container. I for one do not blame NDOT. This series being archived is completely the fault of bad geocachers. Thank you to all those who took every shortcut possible to try and complete the series in one day or be the fastest to finish it. Those are the people that the businesses can blame for lost revenue. I hate to be the first one to say it but I hope this causes Groundspeak to review their retraction of the no power trails policy.
  • Create New...