Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Team OUTSID4EVR

  1. Guys...This is the exact problem the Maryland group had a year ago. I was a part of that group at its inception. The group started because of a park issue. It was largely one person setting things up and trying to gain support for the organization. There were constant squabbles between members of the group. We started with a "core group". The decision making structure was not put into place. After a month or so, two members had ironed things out with the state park people. The organization became more social, but seemed to have squabbles and misunderstanding among the core group. MAJELLIN and I left because a treasurer was appointed without discussion. There was just too much politics for us to handle. Now, from looking at their website, it seems that they have some new blood at the helm. The power struggles are certainly not public like they were a year ago. I see a more viable organization. HERE'S MY ADVICE TO THE NEW JERSEY FOLKS... 1. Don't have officers if you don't need them. Some people will take the lead in the organization. Things will get done, if they need to. 2. Keep it strictly social. If issues come up with land managers, you can reconsider your purpose. 3. No dues, etc... I would probably say no website too (in the short term). Just an informal group that meets for events. 4. Try to go to all parts of the state, even if your active members don't live there. You will pick up cachers along the way. 5. Don't represent yourselves as being bigger than you are. The Maryland group still has a small active membership. It's true that their events bring out other cachers, but the organization is rather small, considering the number of cachers in the area. There are many members counted on the website that are not living anywhere near Maryland (one joined from Estonia). 6. Try to have discussions in person, rather than on the forums. If there are problems, they can be solved easier, with fewer misunderstandings. 7. Don't air your dirty laundry in public. Feel free to contact me privately to elaborate more on the above message.
  2. quote:Originally posted by BloenCustoms:Is there no way to hide a micro at the coordinates? A simple film cannister would turn it into a physical cache, and still provide for verification via logbook. I'm not partial to micros myself, but the view you describe would be a real incentive to hunt the cache. There has been so much talk of diffuculty getting virtuals approved, I begin to wonder if there isn't a bit of a rebellion of virt placers going on. If there is any way to squeeze in a film cannister out there, I'd do it. You might get approved in a snap. If it didn't get approved like it is, chances are it never will unless you change it. I wonder how many caches that were initially denied approval were later approved with no changes? "I'm not moving my car 'till you get my food right!" I believe the area is NPS property. Physical caches would not be allowed. Brian has it right. It's a bad situation, but moving on is the best thing. I do wish that any cache that is not approved would be given a "second opinion".
  3. I also agree that flatlander's idea may be the best solution. You could also place a plaque with the coords and skip the container. .
  4. If the finder can't take the time, effort, etc... to replace a cache properly, I would certainly deny the find to him. We have some basic standards here that *should* be non-negotiable. I don't know the particulars of the cache of which you speak, but the finder should have realized before taking the cache that it might be difficult to return it. The only thing a cache owner can do is deny the find. There needs to be some way to discourage lazy cachers. ¢
  5. I think it's bad taste. But, you can't make a rule to ban everything that's in bad taste. I wish people would be a bit more mature. I deal with adolescent humor on a daily basis. I wish it would not creep into geocaching.
  6. Time...I don't think there is a standard time. I would probably wait a day or so, then e-mail the person approving your cache. They may e-mail you to seek clarification on something in the cache description.
  7. I have placed a copy of Team 360's 132 Visit Micro Logbook on my webpage, in its original form. It is a nice clean, simple layout. Thanks!
  8. Send me a copy. outsid4evr@comcast.net I can also place it on my geocaching page if you don't mind.
  9. In addition to what Brian said, I think they also do some quick map work online to make sure there are no "red flags" associated with the cache placement. (NPS property, near active railroads, placed on other restricted areas, like south lawn of White Ho use, etc...). There is an informative article on the Maryland Geocaching Society's page (www.mdgps.net) that gives hiders some practical information about the approval process. I wish geocaching.com would post similar in f ormation. It was written by a local approver, in consultation with other approvers. EDIT: spelling, etc...¢
  10. I see the log as a place where you can write about the journey to (and from) the cache. There are plenty of ways to write about the trip without giving anything away. In one of my cache descriptions , I made a specific request to leave specific details out of entries, unless I approve it. This may be one way to politely tell others that spoilers are not welcome.
  11. It should be one cache. This should not be about the numbers (1 vs. 11). Make it a single multi-cache. If this is the problem the (dis)approver has, then fix it and move on. I read the other thread. Seems to me that people who try to "push the envelope" and are shot down need to complain about something (discrimination). I'm glad the issue presented in this thread is relevant to geocaching.Ï
  12. quote:Originally posted by MissJenn:So, a question to the veterans of this hobby: in this general area, what are decon conatiners usually classified as? micro or regular? (I would guess micro ... but what have y'all found?) I would probably list a decon container as a regular cache, but it's a borderline case. If the hiding place would accomodate a larger container, I'd list it as regular. If the hiding place was so small that the decon box was a tight fit, I might list it as micro. The size of the container is a clue to the finder. A decon box carefully hidden in a small space will be harder to find than a decon box hidden in a more traditional location (tree stump)..
  13. The spring brings out the fair weather cachers and newbies who may not re-hide caches properly. (If you know me, this is a big pet peave of mine!) Also, leaf cover may be moved due to winter winds and snow, etc... So far, there have been no problems with my caches. I hope the trend continues.
  14. I always place specific instructions in the log so the cache can be replaced properly. The photo idea mentioned in this thread is a good one. I also try to choose a hiding method that can't be easily messed up. Bark and sticks aren't good camoflage IMHO for the reasons previously stated. As for newbies, we were all newbies at one time. The strange thing is that some newbies now learn slower than two years ago when I started. Cache owners can help educate new people by leaving information in the cache description. Most of mine are very clear on the point that I want the cache re-hidden so it is not exposed. "Concealed is good, exposed is bad!" I also avoid placing caches in highly traveled areas. The farther they are from geomuggles, the better for their survival.
  15. I would say it was a bad idea. Mopar said it best. Even if it is allowed, the GPS won't pinpoint it. See this cachefor details. We got to the general area easily, but were not sure where to dig. The hider had to place a supplimental navigation aid to help cachers find it. In the end, it was not re-buried carefully, and was taken.
  16. Obviously, I would be honored if you found "Play it Safe" for #100 , but I would like to throw another vote for Thousand Steps. I'm heading to North Jersey this Sunday to find the New York/New Jersey Multi-state Multi-cache. It has been used as a mile st one for many other cachers. The area is worth the trip.
  17. I would love to be able to weed out poor caches by using a search tool. I am all for any system that allows finders to rate caches on their opinion of the experience they had in finding it. If they're into the cache itself (contents), they can base their decision on that. If they like the journey to the cache, that could be the basis for the rating. It would be subjective, but could help to point me in the direction of good caches. I have been geocaching for two years now. In the beginning, I went after every cache that existed (and there were fewer of them). Now, there are more caches than could be found by any single user (except CCCooperAgency and BruceS) I try to be more selective. I don't want to spend my time looking for lame ones. The logs help, but they aren't enough.?¿ [This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on March 27, 2003 at 11:42 AM.]
  18. quote:Originally posted by SE7EN:Length of log doesn't denote quality of cache. Some of us are fairly curt with our logs. MIDDLE OF POST OMITTED That being said. I would be in favor of a well thought rating or recommendation system. It would be better than nothing. I agree that legnth does not imply quality. What I was saying (and I think Brian was too) is that lack of detail "Easy find, TNLN, thanks for the hunt" implies that the cache may not be a good one, considering the same cacher writes quite a bit more when logging good caches. I have been in favor of a star rating system for "fun factor", or a "favorite cache" listing. Perhaps you would be able to designate up to 10% of your finds as "favorite caches" My Bottom Line...There needs to be some clear way to recognize good caches and discourage trash in the briars. The finder's log can be one way to do this, but would it hurt to try something else??
  19. I read the logs before deciding to find a particular cache. I have been disappointed in many cases. It is clear that finders will post glowing, positive logs when the cache is really cool, but will not say it is lame, and a waste of gas and time. If pe ople would nicely comment on the lameness of caches, we may have fewer of them.° Like BrianSnat mentioned, I keep my entries short on caches that are lame (IMHO). After all, there isn't much to say about the search for garbage 30 feet from a trail in the middle of a briar patch! [This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on March 27, 2003 at 08:35 AM.]
  20. I use the members only feature to give hard-core (paying) cachers a chance to find the cache first. I fully support the membership concept and wish to provide a small reward to others that feel the same way. This is a wonderful website. If money is needed, we should (all?) chip in. Generally, I will change my caches to "public" after a short time. The audit feature should be available to all caches, or at the very least, we should be able to see who is watching our caches. I agree that quality is not guaranteed. My caches all degrade as time goes on. It's a fact of life, along with death and taxes. I am pleased that plundering is not a problem in my area.
  21. MAJELLIN AND I searched diligently for the cache. Our GPS led us to the correct area, but there were many potential hiding spots. We checked out the area thoroughly. More specific spoilers would help in this case. The hints are too vague. In fact, the first two hints are useless because the GPS will take you there. I'm going to wait for a checkup by the owner, or another geocacher. The multaflora rose (stickers) will start growing soon, making this quite an unpleasant area. I was hoping to find this cache before that happens. By the way, I grew up in Cockeysville. Nice area...
  22. You may want to add something about containers... Ammo cans are great for keeping contents dry and secure, but in more populated areas may raise red flags if seen by non-geocachers. Ammo cans should not be a problem in more remote areas. Use transparent containers when possible.
  23. MAJELLIN and I drove to West Milford on Saturday to attempt the multi. To our surprise, there is still plenty of snow and ice on the trails. We bailed out after we realized the slush would turn to hard ice on the return trip. This is definitely one we'll be back to find.
  24. I found three caches on Marion...Riverwalk, The Cave, and The Safe. If you're heading south on I-81, don't miss Marion!
  25. The cache in question smells commercial, but there are other reasons why it shouldn't be approved. It is too close to an existing cache, and it can be "found" on the internet. It seems a bit lame. (IMHO) As for commercial issues, I understand Sissy-N-CR's thinking, however once you allow one thing, it's a slippery slope towards a junky website! Geocaching.com has done a reasonably good job at keeping a quality set of caches. If you allow caches in Disney areas, something else will pop up. Eventually there will be "Bob's outdoor store". I am all for creativity in caches. (Look at mine...) BUT there is plenty of room to be creative without pushing the boundaries of an acceptable cache.
  • Create New...