Jump to content

STNolan

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by STNolan

  1. The surface is at approximately a 45 degree angle. No visible holes that I could determine. I'm thinking I may go back for a better look and see if I can determine a rough level of hardness on the Moh's scale based on the 'scratch' test. At the very least it's peaked my geological curiosities, even if it doesn't eventually become an EC site.
  2. 1) yes the nodules are almost perfectly aligned with the flow of the glacier. 2) The nodules do seem to be harder than the surrounding rock based on a Mohs hardness “scratch” test. I have another rock surface nearby (about 100’ away)
  3. While recently out scouting a possible new EC location I came across this interesting formation and some initial googling didn't turn anything up, so I'm turning to you all to see if any of you know anything about this? The exposed outcropping in the photo is in an area heavily influenced by glacial erosion. The average length of the darker sections of rock is about 12-15 cm long and the average width is about 1-2 cm wide. Each nodule sticks out from the surrounding rock by approximately 3-5 cm. There is a certain lustrous quality to the exposed nodules. They aren't shiny per-se but they aren't quite matte black either. Any thoughts? They vaguely remind me of "puddingstone" but I can't find a good match. Thanks for your feedback!
  4. I'll be hitting up BC this summer as well but focusing more on the Northern Section; doing the drive from Whitehorse, YT, through BC and down towards Dawson Creek via the 1 and 97. Any recommendations for must-sees in that area (not necessarily caching related as the wife 'tolerates' my caching habits). From there we'll hop through Alberta and Saskatchewan before entering the US in Montana.
  5. Alaska checking in here.... caches with food, markers, *anything remotely smelly* do not last between one finder and another. They just don't. They'll disappear, get destroyed etc.
  6. This is something I agree with wholeheartedly. I'm not sure of the general opinions here on the forum, so I may face some criticism here, but I purposely search out archived caches using the Project-GC live map. If I look through the logs and have a reasonable suspicion that it's still there I'll go out and grab it. I'll email the CO and give them 30 days to email me and tell me they want the log, or the container or the contents. If they don't... well let's just say nobody's come back several years later and told me they want it. Most recently I've done this with a multi-cache -> GC26C92 - The Juneau Totem Pole Safari I hate that we live in a litigious society that makes this an even questionable habit, but there you go.
  7. Would you mind sharing the coordinates with me? Depending on the location you might be able to do a watershed as well.
  8. I feel you on the “uniqueness” part. I love Earthcaches and they can definitely be a good way to bring people to some awesome places... but they don’t always work. I currently own 23 over a wide swath of US states and a few countries. Although in this location you might be able to do a pretty neat one on the rock type in conjunction with the neat weathering pattern you have going on.
  9. That seems a relatively inflammatory comment without any substance to it.
  10. I think for me it's about weighing competing demands. Do I want to place it somewhere that I couldn't place a physical cache because of a high muggle factor, or because physical caches aren't allowed (city center or perhaps a national park)? Somewhere closer or farther from home? Again, trying not to put the cart before the horse, but it's an interesting quandary to ponder.
  11. I went ahead and applied for this round. Not sure where or how I would place it if I manage to snag one, but I figure I have a year to worry about that if I do get selected. Either way, hopefully this roll-out goes smoother than the last!
  12. Almost time to move again, but for now I've got my home area decently saturated.
  13. I agree to a point. I live in a "middle ground" there's a finite amount of area one can get to where I currently live and there's about 7 or 8 cachers here who are keeping the game alive. Finding 100 caches may be a gargantuan task to require of a new player. I'd suggest something in the middle: A player must find 20 of the cache type they intend to hide prior to being able to hide a cache. (You must locate 20 Earthcaches prior to being able to place an earthcache etc) Furthermore, the amount of caches you can own should be limited by how many caches you've found. Finds >20 - 0 20 - 50 Finds - 1 50 - 100 Finds - 2 100 - 200 Finds - 3 200 - 300 Finds - 4 300 - 400 Finds - 5 More than 500 Finds - Unlimited This will allow people to "get their feet wet" in the hiding game without allowing them to hide 900 micros that they might abandon in 2 months. This is obviously not a fully fleshed out idea and the numbers might have to be tweaked based on cache density and the minimum number for each type might have to be altered (i.e. there are fewer WhereIGos in the world so a player might have to find 5 of those) but it's a rough outline.
  14. Ditto... glad I had cached the urban caches I wanted to do this morning at 0300 when there are no Muggles about!
  15. I concur, which is why I stated "Logically if a cache can't be found then it needs maintenance." Mind you I didn't say "if a cacher doesn't find a cache," I stated if a cache cannot be found... namely if it's not there. Which brings me back to my original point of it being a "catch 22." If a cache cannot be found because it's not there, then it needs maintenance. HOWEVER if you don't find a cache, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's not there. If A then B, not If B then A.
  16. Not as exciting as the rest of them in here, but this summer I've got a roadtrip from the Alaskan Panhandle to the East Coast planned. While I have Canada as a country already, I'm excited to grab caches in several new territories, including the Yukon, Alberta, Saskatchewan and (if I can convince my wife to let me make a 1.5 hour detour) the Northwest Territories!
  17. I'm not the world's most avid Earthcache hider, but I do own over 20 of them with three more currently in the works, so I think that qualifies me to address this question. I will admit that the fact that an earthcache requires comparatively little maintenance, can't be muggled, and can be placed anywhere are a HUGE bonus to ownership. That being said I've never seen them as a higher draw of favorite points. In fact you'll find that a large segment of the caching community actively avoids them as "not worth the hassle," to which I'll respond: To Each Their Own. I move around the country quite frequently, as such EarthCaches are one of the few cache types that I can reliably own. Earthcaches have gotten a lot stricter in recent years. In particular the policy regarding the "uniqueness" of the EC in a geographic area means that in the modern approval process, you wouldn't be able to see 8 ECs on obelisks unless each provided a different lesson. I would imagine (without studying Rome too closely) that a majority of caches you have issue with were published many years ago.
  18. Agreed mine was sporadic at best last night. Haven’t attampted again tonight yet.
  19. And again, I’m not saying that this is necessarily the appropriate course of action, I’m just quoting the published guidelines. I’ll be honest, if someone posted a NA on one of mine after they DNF’d it without giving me a chance to check on it, I’d be pretty miffed too.
  20. I've anecdotally noticed that if I try and use a hyperlink on the actual cache page (attempt to message, change coordinates, click on a cacher's name) that I get the error. If I approach from the main map screen I'm fine. Again purely anecdotal, but maybe it's something in the hyperlinking?
  21. I will acquiesce (before someone else points it out) that the guidelines are very contradictory in this section. Case in point: Within the same breath you are told to both log and don't log a Needs Archived if you don't find the cache.
  22. Oh I certainly have as well; I'm just providing what our reviewer says in context; and maybe playing a bit of Devil's Advocate as well. True the needs maintenance button doesn't say "it isn't there," but then again nor do the guidelines. The Guidelines actually state if "You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response." Then the appropriate log is not a Needs Maintenance but rather a NEEDS ARCHIVE. So by the book if you don't find the cache AND there is a long string of DNFs without any notes from the owner on the page, you should be filing a NA, not an NM. Do I think that's overboard? Sure do. Is it what's written in the guidelines? As of now, yes. I agree that this means it's a pretty good chance the cache is missing, but it's not a guarantee. As mentioned above I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here; but I've found cache containers presumed muggled/lost to the elements that the CO had missed. Thus there were two containers at GZ: the original and the CO"s authorized replacement. Should those cachers who DNF'd the cache before the CO put out an authorized replacements have logged a "needs maintenance?" The original cache was there! Or maybe instead they should've logged a "Needs Archived" as mentioned above.
  23. My best guess as someone who has no knowledge whatsoever and is taking a shot in the dark: the guideline authors and the software developers weren't on the same page. Logically if a cache can't be found then it needs maintenance; however on the flip side, if you didn't find it how can you know if it's really not there? It's a Groundspeak Catch 22.
  24. Below is what my reviewer posts on cache pages that have gone un-found for quite a while (multiple DNFs) and which have a red wrench , regardless if the maintenance attribute was added due to a physically observed issue (cracked container) or because the cache is presumed missing. (All added emphasis is my own) This seems to be in line with the guidelines above which the CO was quoting to @Deepdiggingmole. YMMV, but whether or not to use a "Needs Maintenance Log" seems to vary.
  25. Did the little hamsters that power the website decide they didn't want to run tonight? Not sure if it's a localized incident (all caches and users I get this error on are based in CT) or not.
×
×
  • Create New...