Jump to content

MCL

Members
  • Posts

    476
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MCL

  1. I don't need rechargeable batteries in my torch...I always leave it at home! No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  2. quote:Originally posted by The Northumbrian: I dont think thats the sort of words to use on a forum like ours, what about the younger ones that view this forum, and newcomers to the hobby, a great example , Call me old fashioned if you like Well I had the word "flaming" in mind (count the asterisks if you like) Why, what did you think I meant? No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  3. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but, as supected by both Pid and the Pharisee, this cache is now gone and should be either replaced or archived. I went up there today to check it out and it ain't where it was a month ago, and no signs of remains in the locality. It was f*****g freezing, blowing a gale and snowing a blizzard. So yes I do actually want a ruddy medal No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  4. OK I looked at my map of caches done/hidden by me (the one from within my own stats page, with just red and green dots on it and there is a rogue cache showing up red near Leeds in Yorshire. Further painstaking investigation shows that this is probably 'Mission Impossible (UK)' that is being mistakenly shown as found, when in fact I have found 'Mission Impossible (Beds)' by Masher, down in Bedfordshire. Presumably you are only looking at a certain number of characters for detection/sorting processes, and the alphanumeric difference between the two is too far rightwards in the strings... No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  5. I definitely like the idea of this. The only bug I can see with it is if someone changes the rating of a cache after you have donme it. Would the score be recalculated each time it is used to compile a table or would it be the rating that stood on the day you logged the cache as a find? No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  6. quote:Originally posted by Tim & June:Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but that would be contrary to the guidelines which say that virtual caches can only be used where the location cannot support a traditional cache. Oh well it was just a thought. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  7. quote:Originally posted by Pharisee:May I risk the wrath of all and suggest that http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=18451 is a prime candidate for archiving. It appears to have gone missing. I only did this one a month or so ago, and it is high enough to avoid all but the most biblical of floods. I will try and get up there in the next couple of days if it will help. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  8. quote:Originally posted by el10t: With all due respect, this argument isn't really a very good one. Rich _mobilis in mobili_ Sorry about that. I was trying to think of reasons why the cache would be more prominent in my mind than Obelisk, and this is just one small reason. I did give other reasons as well.... No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  9. quote:Originally posted by Nia:MCL also logged 'Obelisk on the Prime meridian Line' as missing. This was then confirmed by 2 other cachers 2 months ago. Why isn't he making a huge fuss about that and complaining to the moderaters. as of this post it is still active? Well yes this is true, I did, but the slight difference here is that shortly after my posting a not-found, someone else went to check it too, so at least there was the feeling of 'something-being-done' about that particular one. Also, the trip and location wasn't 'wasted' since I was able to claim a find for that location under another cache (Meridian Markers) so I guess I didn't feel so frustrated by it. Another reason is that that one (obelisk) is not on my front page (its miles away) so doesn't show up on my radar screen every time I log on, whereas yours did and I wanted to be rid of it. Glad to see it (obelisk) is now archived though. quote:Originally MCL wrote several times asking us if he could claim a find for 'Lofty' I can not remember my answer, but I thik it was that it was up to him if he wanted to claim a find for a cache he said was not there. We feel it is Presumptuous to say that because you can not find a cache, it is not there. Actually I only wrote that in one email to you, and only as an afterthought as in What you might do in the meantime is suspend the cache, or put a note on the page, and if you were really kind you could allow me to claim a cache hit since I found the right location twice... :-) I only asked (a bit tongue-in-cheek I might add..) this because of the unique circumstances this cache was in, in that you had provided a photo of the actual tree, so there is no doubt whatever that the location had been found. It wasn't my fault that the cache wasn't there and on any other cache, there is always some doubt about whether the 'not-finder' was really in the right place, but with your excellent photograph, there could be no doubt. Why don't you temporarily convert the cache into a virtual cache? Everything required for that is in place. Anyone can go find that tree and then log a find. It has the advantage that (i) it doesn't require maintenance and (ii) it is friendly to the guys over on TMA who just love to jump up and down about plastic lunchboxes... The other reason for requesting a find in this particular case is that, what happens next? You say you are going to replace it, and if that is the case, then do I have to wait until you do and then go traipsing out into those woods again just to visit a tree I already know the exact location of, to bend down and move the exact same branch I have moved three times already, just to be able to turn a log into a find? If I have to do that then I will but it does seem a bit pointless in this case. I'm not suggesting this scenario applies in the case of any other cache, just this one. See what I mean? Oh and do you want your lid back? No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  10. quote:Originally posted by Dan Wilson:Why didnt you say you had the cache lid before!!!1 actually you probably did and I failed to spot it if so then yes the cache is gone thats just obvious, i would never have disagreed with you No I only found the lid yesterday (monday) afternoon... I have now posted a picture of the lid on the cache page, and also since nobody answered my question about it, claimed the lid as a find. Does anybody have any objections to that? I am open to debate. If the feeling is that I shouldn't claim a find without the log book, then I will 'unfind' it. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.... [This message was edited by MCL on January 27, 2003 at 11:54 PM.]
  11. I wanna know how you use a GPS for deerhunting. Are there some extra signals being broadcast from the satellites that we non-deerhunters don't know about? I've been looking through the menus on my GPS and I can't find the "Venison" option in any of them... No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  12. Tim and June said: quote:Well that's good that is. Drive all that way, get tree stuff down your necks, (June even found some in her bra when we went to bed ), fall over in this muddy boggy streamlet/drain. Get scared witless by an owl and so on and so on. Well I really can't be held responsible for the contents of your wife's bra! Look, what's the point of having good Admin if you can't send them off on a wild goose chase every once in a while... Actually, I suppose I could complain that *you* didn't find the lid yesterday and save *me* the bother today. Tsk...talk about unprofessional quote: Then you come on here and tell me it's gone. You couldn't do that yesterday could you. LOL. So sorry about that. I really should have mentioned it earlier.. Oh yes so I did: November, I think it was No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  13. quote:Originally posted by TreeBeard (Pid):Any chance of a foto of the cache lid MCL?? Some proof would be fantastic Absolutely. I'll get right onto it as soon as i get up tomorrow afternoon. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  14. Richard and Beth, thats fair enough. I can understand your actions, but as you say, now it is time to archive this cache permanently. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  15. I say we stick to sundays, as the traffic on the roads is substantially less, and yes the 6th is OK for me. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  16. quote:Originally posted by el10t:This is a good example of why people should post "not found" logs, one for each unsuccessful search in my opinion. All of what MCL has just said on this forum about multiple trips should appear in the cache logs. Otherwise, a casual look at the cache page shows a single not-found since the last set of founds, which doesn't look like a good reason for archiving. Well you may have a point there. In fact pretty much all of the above story is known to the cacvhe owners, (Team Nia) because I put the first part of it in one email to them, the middle bit of it in another email to them, and the final bit is on the cache page as a log, which again they get as owners of the cache. Since it is the cache owner who has the power of archiving, I saw no further reason to put all that blurb in front of everyone else's eyes on the Cache Page. I felt at the time (in November) that my existing log could stand, as it does explain that I had made more than one visit, and wasn't just basing my judgement on one trip. I fully understand why Team Nia can't now get to their cache, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, I think that in these cases, such a cache must be either adopted by a local cacher, or taken offline. I have a cache that is 60 miles away from my home. If at any time, I thought that I would not be able to respond to a request to check it within about three weeks, I would temporarily archive the thing until such time as I could sort it out. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  17. I now have the proof we all want that the cache was trashed. Please read my log on the page to hear the full story. I notice the cache has been unarchived again. Why and who by? How much more work do I have to do on this cache to prove to everyone it is an ex-cache? It is no more. It has ceased to be. It is gone, kaput, finito. It is not resting, it is not asleep, it is gone. Geddit? (apologies to the Monty Python fans out there...) Now will someone PLEASE get the sodding thing off my front page once and for all... PS Since I have actually found the lid, and the cache is trashed, can I claim the lid as a find? No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  18. ..Yeah I was implying that it was Jeremy's site and that he has ultimate control of it. If he wants to close it down tomorrow, he can, and their ain't anything we can do about it. If he wants to change the rules, he can. In fact he can do anything he wants on his site, and if he doesn't want to alter his rules for 10 weeks he doesn't have to. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  19. No problem Dan, what I meant was it is easy unless you insist on doing it at night.... (caching, I mean...) PS and what on earth are you doing up at 04:20 on a monday morning? My excuse is work...
  20. Since I am one of the chief characters in this story I can maybe throw some light on this particular cache, and the reasons I think it should be archived temporarily, until replaced. Way back in the late summer, when the trees were thick and green, I attempted this cache, and had huge difficulty with the whole site due to the dense forest. I had gone to the cache on the strength of it being a fairly easy cache rating, and was a bit disappointed to find it to be substantially harder than it's rating suggested. At that time I wrote an email to the owners (team Nia) pointing out that the pictures they took when they hid the cache were very different from the current situation, the pictures showing a nice, open wood with daylight and reasonable good GPS coverage (presumed from the pictures, judge for yourself)whereas i had needed a torch at lunchtime to find my way around inside the forest. At that time I said I would go back and have another look once the trees had shed some leaves. That email was not replied to. (Good reasons have since been explained to me by team Nia, I hasten to add, but nevretheless, at the time, consider what it seemed like from my end) So I waited for about 6 weeks, and then went back, now in October. Much better terrain, more like the pictures. Still failed to find the cache. Found a lot of remains of fires and burning of trees, but no cache. So I went back home and emailed Team Nia again, telling them I had not found their cache. At this point I actually put something on the cache page (a log, now removed). This time I got a reply, explaining the reason for no reply before (perfectly accepted) and saying that they had in fact moved away from the area so it was difficult to check the cache. With this in mind I decided to go again on November 7th, a couple of weeks later. Now, you may notice there is a photo on the webpage of the actual tree the cache is in. I printed this out and took it with me. Now, especially with the photo as a confirmation, it is really not hard to find the right tree. I had found it on the previous visit, but now I had confirmation in my hand. Here was a photo, and here was a tree. its really not difficult to match the two up. Yes folks, on that basis I am pretty dadgum sure that, unless this tree has an identical twin within 50ft, then this cache is gone. This is why I disagree with Dan when he says that the cache is hard to find, and even the Hornet had trouble....yes but you guys did it in the summer. When done in the winter with no leaves, this cache is piss-easy. You really should have no problem finding it (the tree, I mean...) On November 7th I decided to remove my original log, and post the cache as a no-find finally, having done pretty much all I could to make sure it wasn;'t just me. I then waited for others to attempt it, but no-one did. Team Nia couldn't get up here to check it, and no-one else attempted it, so I decidewd to take a few other people there to check with me. I have now had three other people go with me on separate occasions, and locate the tree (easily) but no cache in the bottom of it. Dan, its no use saying that it mght be there and you found it hard so its a hard one. It isn't. its easy and it ain't there. Given that situation the question then becomes, what do we do with it. For good reasons, Team Nia can't maintain the cache. Jeremy's suggestion was to have it adopted by a local cacher. That could easily be me, since I am just down the road from it...BUT I CAN'T FIND IT! So we have a situation where the cache is not maintained, and a local cacher of *some* experience (well I am approaching 50) has checked it out several times, and no-one else seems to want to attempt it. Bear in mind it was found three times in the two months prior to September 8th. Since then it has not been found by anyone. Thats almost 5 months. Jeremy says above that if the cache owner is not able/prepared to maintain it then it should be archived. And that is exactly what I was asking Team Nia for a couple of months ago. I wanted it temporarily archived until someone could check it out. Meanwhile it was sitting annoyingly on my front page and there was nothing I could do about it. I just wanted something done. A cache on my list should be able to be dealt with by me one way or another. Either I go and do it, and claim a find because its there, or I get it archived because it isn't. I'm a methodical chap who likes to work his list. There should be nothing on my list that I can't deal with. If a cache is missing but not archived, then I can't clear it, and thats bugs me and I think it is wrong. For my own peace of mind I will drive up there tomorrow and have another look, but I don't hold out much hope. I have found the exact tree. I have put my hand in the exact place! What more do you lot want? Blood? I would say, in conclusion, that if ever a question arises over a cache, and it is not found for over three months, and the owner can't or doesn't want to check it out, then it should be temporarily archived until such time as they do. Simple as that. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  21. I'm sure it's in hand Megalithic, just that our site is run by our american cousins and they have rather a busy life over there. UK-specific things can take a while to filter through the system, and we can't go kicking and screaming too loudly. Its actually *their* site not ours.... Give it time. No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  22. Ahem...I already do monitor and if necessary modify the rating of my caches according to the season. You mean no-one else does? No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  23. ..except could they be on someone else's doorstep for a change? Bucks is getting quite crowded surely? No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  24. ...I thought someone else said there was a problem with placing caches in the New Forest? No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
  25. Of course, I remember now. We covered this during first term at Hogwarts No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....
×
×
  • Create New...