ooga booga

I bumped this thread back from the grave, so I'll guess I'll toss in my two cents here. 1. Is there a part of this that comes down to regional differences in what geocaching is all about? Perhaps. It clearly seems much more socially acceptable in central Europe to "armchair log" virtual caches than it is here in North America. As I said before, many of my dubious logs were from people with many hundreds of physical cache finds, members of local cache groups, etc. - they aren't just "keyboard warriors" racking up bogus logs. 2. That said, cachers need to respect the wishes of a cache owner. And for virtuals in North America, I would go so far as to say that includes assuming that "armchair logs" are not welcome unless explicitly stated otherwise. That also includes not arguing with the cache owner if your armchair log gets deleted because "it didn't specifically say you had to visit the cache". I went through and in one sweep deleted about a dozen recent logs on my virtual which I strongly suspected were bogus. Several of them actually tried to argue that since I didn't say "armchair logs" were forbidden, that they should be allowed to re-log the cache! One bogus logger even quoted back my confirmation email to their emailed answer (including my standard line "Thanks for visiting the cache!") as some sort of "proof". 3. The net result of this, as I see it, is this: That by people bending (if not outright breaking) gc.com's rules, they put at risk an already-dwindling number of virtual caches, either by getting them archived due to owner non-maintenance or by owners who archive them to avoid the hassle. I admit, when I had four or five upset emails in my inbox one morning from angry European cachers, wanting to know why I didn't like them Googling the answer to a cache in Kansas they'd never visited, the thought of archiving crossed my mind. 4. The bottom line is, it's basically selfish behavior. It's putting one's own quest for another smiley or a higher "found" number ahead of the wishes of a cache owner, the other cachers who actually trekked out somewhere to find the answer, and the spirit of geocaching itself. And it's a shame that it's so widespread among cachers who would probably never dream of logging a physical cache that they hadn't signed a logbook for.

I'm bumping this thread because I recently discovered I've become entangled in this scenario with one of my caches. I'm semiretired from caching, though I do my best to keep my caches going. The virtual in question is not the greatest in the world, but I've kept it going because it's over 5 years old and because it's not like there's going to be any more new virtuals coming along, so I see it as a bit of geocaching history. Anyway, I noticed I've been getting a lot of visitors from Europe lately, which is a little odd for a cache in Kansas. But since they all had the correct answer, I didn't give it too much thought. Today I finally realized something was awry when one of the cachers tried to claim the cache with the password for the certificate on the log page, which is not the same as the answer for the virtual itself. Upon investigating, I discovered that a lot of my recent visitors had found virtuals in 3 or 4 countries in one day (or one notable guy, who'd logged about 30 that stretched literally from Texas to Alaska), or found a physical cache in Europe the same day they'd found my virtual. I edited the cache page to state that from now on, only photographic proof will be acceptable. I added that logs I deemed suspicious were being deleted, but if the cachers in question could provide some sort of proof they'd actually been there (even just a description of the surrounding area) that I would be happy to let them re-log. The thing that amazes me is that several of the cachers in question have emailed me arguing that since they got the quiz answer correct, they should still be allowed to log the cache, even though it's clear they could not possibly have actually visited it in person. (The only ones I deleted were ones that provided almost no info in their logs/emails and had globe-trotting caching journeys.) A couple have even gone ahead and tried to re-log their "find"! The other thing that amazes me is that most of these are people with hundreds and hundreds of finds for actual, physical caches in their home country, are apparently members of local caching groups, etc. They seem to have no problem with traipsing through the woods to sign a logbook, so why do they consider it acceptable to fake a virtual cache halfway around the world? I realize that geocaching is what we individually make of it, but I'm pretty unimpressed with that sort of mentality.

A local geocacher hid a multicache recently...less than 48 hours after the cache was approved the parks department came by and obliterated the entire grove of trees the final cache was in. This led to one of my all-time favorite logs: January 13 by Battleskunk Please God, May I never find a team of men with chain saws at the end of a geocache again. A replacement is out and still going strong, but the original cache is archived here: Loose Triangulation

quote:Originally posted by Jeremy:Eh. Not really a big enough issue not to let them be logged in virtual caches. You can now drop them off in virtual caches. Please don't abuse the feature. Webcam and locationless caches, however, are off limits for dropping of travel bugs. Wow! Thanks for fixing this, Jeremy! I've had reason in the past to log a couple of bugs through virtual caches, so it's good to see that feature back...and I know there's a couple of geocachers in China who'll be pretty happy, too. I really appreciate that you're willing to listen to feedback like this.

First, let me preface this by saying that I'm really pleased with geocaching.com as a whole - this is a great site run by great people, and I'm happy that this hobby has such competent folks running the show at the web site. That said, what's up with not allowing travel bugs to be logged into virtuals any more? Did I miss the big public outcry about what a travesty it was that TBs were being logged into virtual caches? I think this is a bad idea for three reasons. 1. There are cachers out there who keep 'personal travel bugs' that they log into and out of every cache they visit. I don't do it myself, but I can see why people would: it's a nice way to keep a record of the caches you've visited and the miles you've accumulated in pursuit of this hobby. These people are now SOL as far as being able to keep an accurate log on their personal TBs, and frankly, if I was one of the people who'd been keeping a TB for a year or more I'd be pretty unhappy. 2. There are certain situations where it's just good to be able to log a travel bug into and out of a virtual cache. For instance, when you're handing off a bug to another cacher. 3. There's some places in the world where there ARE no physical caches to log a bug into. This is the reason behind my message, in fact. I got an email tonight from a cacher who visited a virtual cache of mine in Shanghai, a city with only virtual caches. The person wanted to log my cache there with a photo of them and a travel bug they brought, but since it's a virtual they can't. And since there are no physical caches in Shanghai, there's no way for them to ever log that this lucky travel bug went all the way to China and back! It stinks for them to have carried this bug all that way with nothing to show for it now, and it stinks for the TB owner who'll never have the logs to show that his/her bug went halfway around the world and back. I know there were a few TBs out there like Virtual Victor that kind of abused the system, but was it really such a pressing problem that needed such a draconian solution? After all, while it may not be possible to 'place' a bug into a virtual cache, it's certainly possible for them to still 'visit'...too bad there's no way to log that any more.

I once found a poorly-hidden letterbox about 75 feet away from a local geocache (the only letterbox in this entire area, as it turns out). I was a newbie at the time, and it took me a few minutes to realize that it was NOT, in fact, the cache! For what it's worth, it's a year later now, and I noticed on a recent visit that the letterbox has disappeared (presumably found by muggles) but the cache is still going strong.

Heh, I found this one looking for a geocache near a beach in Hong Kong:

Myotis 100 - Irish Wilderness is a multicache that requires a 20-mile hike and an overnight stay to complete. I'll go after it...some day...

quote:Originally posted by southdeltan:Aside from those in Alaska - I wonder which zipcode has the least caches within a 100 mile radius. I messed around for a little while and came up with 59219 (Dagman, MT) and 59211 (Antelope, MT), which have a total of 2 caches within 100 miles. (One of which is still waiting for a first-to-find!!) Eastern Montana is pretty much devoid of caches - I wonder if there's some spot out there that's not within 100mi of any of them.

Interesting timing for this thread. Two days ago I blew a tire on the highway en route to my last cache of the day, and to make matters worse I realized too late that I didn't have a jack for my spare. I guess it technically doesn't count since it didn't happen to me, but driving to a cache today we came across a car fully ablaze on the shoulder of the highway. Everybody was out, nobody was hurt, and the firefighters were on their way, so we continued on our way. It was just a burned-out metal shell by the time we came back the other direction.

quote:Originally posted by TEAM 360:I see it all the time, people writing coords on the back of STOP signs or National Forest signs with permanent marker... This is NOT intended to be a flame, but I've geocached in/around Phoenix several times (it's my hometown). And I've noticed that it seems like there are a minority of cachers there that, shall we say, play a little fast and loose with the line between geocaching and vandalism in their hides. Looking through my logs, I could easily name 6 or 7 multicaches in AZ that involve graffiti clues - and I've only looked for about 20 or so total. On the other hand (and again, this is not intended as a flame) I can't think of another multi I've found anywhere else that used the same technique. I know you guys have kind of gotten a black eye in the media there in the past - this certainly can't be helping any.

I'm fond of New Mexico's Lamest GeoCache with its theme of Total Lameness. Whatever you do, don't decrypt the hint by hand!

I think proximity to an urban area is also going to be even more of a factor than the difficulty/terrain rating. A 3/3 cache on a hill in the middle of town is, by virtue of its location, going to get a lot more visitors than a 2/2 that's 40 miles from anywhere.

Heh, it looks like he was trying a LITTLE too hard to be first finder on this cache. Can't wait to see his log on that - "woulda had the FTF, except I got lost and search and rescue had to come find me."

This cache in Phoenix is pushing 200, but I would still be amazed if it's the most visited physical cache in the world. (There's another cache a few miles away that's over 170.)

I feel like I've got caching schizophrenia looking at the top two states on my list: Missouri 161 Arizona 117 Kansas 55 China 21 (not a state, but hey) Oklahoma 15 Hong Kong 7 (ditto) Texas 7 New Mexico 4 Minnesota 3 California 1 Thailand 1 (ditto)

I really the like the improvements that have been added over the last few days. One minor bug (at least I think it's a bug) that I've noticed: the search page seems to be automatically going by the account for the "hidden by" field, as opposed to what the user inputted on the cache page. For instance, I placed an upcoming event cache and on the cache submission page listed the hider as "Mid-Missouri Geocachers", but on the search page it says it was hidden by ooga booga. I second the suggestion for slightly stronger color, and I also really like the idea of having graphic icons for the terrain/difficulty - it just seems like it's a lot easier to read those at a glance than something like (3/3.5).

I'll admit I haven't read through the whole thread, but the very first thing that popped into my head when I saw the new page was: color! Suppose the text color for unfound caches were like it is now, but ones you've found were green, ones you've hidden were blue, and unavailable ones were red. It would make it oh-so easy to see your status on each cache at a glance, instead of looking over to see if there's an X next to it or not. [on edit] I see George M above had the same idea as me, but with an even better implementation. I really think this would be a great idea.

Ack. So it is. Make it the 19th then, I guess.

So far I've heard from three people, and they all had conflicts for that weekend. I'm rescheduling it to July 12th - hopefully that'll work a little better and give people more time to plan.

I e-mailed a-pineapple, and he agreed with my thinking that the time has come to have some sort of a meeting to nail down the details of all this. He and spongy have been kind enough to organize both of the local get-togethers so far, so I offered to give them a break and do this one. I've posted a picnic event cache at: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=74282 (It's not been approved as of this message, but I'm sure it will be soon.) It's scheduled for June 28 at a location to be determined (probably Fairview Park in Columbia). There's been a lot of good conversation here, hopefully we can all keep the ball rolling and make this thing a reality.

Columbia Parks was actually a really bad example to cite in my post, because as I said one other time it's my understanding that they're aware of geocaching but haven't really done anything one way or another about it. [After I typed the above I tried to remember where I'd heard that, and I finally found it.] There was a Missourian article a few months ago where they talked to someone from the city: quote:Mike Griggs, parks services manager for the Columbia Parks and Recreation Department, said there is no current rule against geocaching in state parks. He has had people contact him about whether or not they can geocache in the parks. Right now, geocaching is allowed by the department as long as there is no evidence that geocaching is causing damage to the plant materials. (I assume they meant 'city parks' and not 'state parks'.) The article also has a rather negative quote from someone with MDC, but I have to say that it doesn't seem like it jibes with actual practice. The Missourian's source claims MDC scans the site and emails gc.com to have caches yanked, yet there's been local caches on conservation land for literally years...including one that's probably one of the oldest active caches in the state. As for MU, they certainly must be aware...Cagney's Foot Wash has been mentioned in the Missourian article, a Tribune article, and though I can't find it online, I think it was even mentioned in an article in the MU Alumni magazine! This is, of course, a lot different from formal approval. I think MU is going to be a hard sell for the official thumbs up. For one thing, there's going to be layers of red tape. For another, what benefit comes to them from caching? They don't really care about increased visitors or giving the public a better appreciation for the outdoors, which is two of the main selling points for the state parks and places like them. Like FullQuiver said, it would have to be presented in some way that suggests it's to MU's advantage to have geocaches, and that's going to be tricky.

I think a Mid-MO caching group is an idea whose time has come. When I first got involved in geocaching last year, there were only a handful of active folks in the area. But since then the number of geocachers (and the number of caches) around here has shot WAY up, which is a fantastic thing. I've been involved a little with the fine folks in the SLAGA group, since we're on the fringes of what they consider to be the 'area of interest' for St. Louis cachers, but I think there's the critical mass to support a more local caching group. #1,3, and 5 all sound great to me...the kind of thing a local organization would be perfect for. #4 concerns me a little. Yes, almost all of us are guilty of hiding caches without permission, and yes, permission probably should be sought, but I'm worried about how that would work. It's a little like the old "closing the barn door after the horse is out" analogy. For places that already have a number of caches out like, say, Columbia Parks, it could really rub them the wrong way if a caching group were to approach them and say, "hey, we'd like to get official permission for geocaches, and by the way we've already gone and hidden a number of them without any permission." Now granted, it's a trap we've created ourselves by failing to get permission in the first place. But it could lead to some cheesed-off cachers if the organization inadvertently ends up getting some caches archived that wouldn't have been otherwise. (Even though again, it would be their fault for not getting permission.) I guess what I'm trying to say is, there is definitely a need for something like #4 to happen around here, and having some sort of an umbrella organization to do it is probably the best way. But it's also something that's got loads of potential minefields.

I'll second Og's outfit. Perhaps it would be possible to set it up in this manner: Start ++++> Easy cache ++++> Advanced cache You could put the coords for the advanced cache in the easy cache, and those who are up to it could push on for the harder one. Then if they're successful, then you could allow them to log a second find on the same cache page. My guess, though, is that even if you go to the trouble of setting up two caches, the majority of people would probably do them both anyway...especially if they're that close together. I know I would, just out of curiousity.