M 5
-
Posts
697 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by M 5
-
-
3 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:
I'm lost here, M 5 writes, "made up rule by some reviewers", while directly quoting the language (GeocachingHQ's language) of the rule? ....area cachers who qualify....
OK.......? Now show me where it in the guidelines it says the number of cachers that have to prequalify. I saw that line. It makes no sense with the rest of the guidelines
-
.png)
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Nomex said:
Just a clarification, the concept was not prohibited. The CO was unable to find enough local cachers that had already completed it (e.g. local = the entire State)
The rules don't say that ANY local cachers have to have completed it, except for the CO themselves. This made up rule by some reviewers is one of my many issues with the new version of challenge caches. In the sections I copied and pasted below. One section says "attainable" and the other says "obtainable" Nowhere does it say that they have to have already completed it.
- A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify.
- AND ALSO
-
2.14. Challenge cache subjectivity
Challenge caches are sometimes difficult to review for publication due to the subjectivity involved. Meaning, one person’s opinion can differ from another’s, which can cause issues in the review process. One of the major goals of the 2016 guideline update for challenge caches was to reduce some of that subjectivity. However, we can’t completely remove subjectivity from the process. For example:
“A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify.”
This guideline aims to ensure that a challenge cache is obtainable by a reasonable number of players. If only a few people can find and log a challenge cache, then it’s almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren’t permitted on the website.) The “reasonable number” of cachers must reside in the area where your cache is placed.
-
I haven't reread a bunch of old threads on the subject, but I think the main reason, or speculated reason, for not allowing adoption of the old Virtual caches was that Groundspeak was just allowing them a slow death. Now that Groundspeak has decided to allow some new virtual caches, it might be possible to revisit the subject on adopting them. If Groundspeak is going to back new virts, it seems that this could make some old ones better. I know of several active virts that could be archived with the same reason given for many other virtuals being archived. I'm well aware that probably most CO's will never respond, but I've had three offered to me without asking, so I have no doubt that there are a significant amount that could be "saved" and made stronger with an active owner.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:
You are clearly wrong. They would not have given the CO the ability to mark them missing otherwise.
Nobody is asking for "special trips". Nobody is asking you to "play the trackable side game". Nobody is asking you to care one tiny little bit. Nobody is asking you to verify anything.
Mark them missing and let the people who log them take care of keeping it in play. If it's actually there, the next person who finds it will automatically re-activate it when they log it. If it's NOT there, people who are expecting to find it there will know before they try that it's not in the cache after all because you've done your job and cleared it from YOUR CACHE PAGE. How stinkin' hard is that?
In my eyes. You are CLEARLY wrong. You say nobody is asking you to verify anything. Then how the heck will your cache page be accurate???? You say that if its actually there, the next person with automatically re-activate. For one, that isn't necessarily true at all and two, now the crowd that is beating the "keep your cache accurate" drum (not sure if your one of them, not going to reread all this thread, but they are on here), can say your cache isn't accurate since you marked a TB missing that wasn't. There is no logic in the "They would not have given the CO the ability to mark them missing otherwise" statement either. Just because you have the ability, doesn't make it mandatory or even right. Just an option. I've marked plenty of TB's missing, and I will continue to do so after what I consider a long enough time not logged. (everyones opinion will vary on that length as well). I will not worry about it or make a special trip to check. It's a side game that if you choose to participate in, you are going to have to deal with the flaws and disappointments associated with it. Just like all the other side games in geocaching.
-
2
-
-
Not CO's job to mark trackables missing. TB owner and whoever took it are responsible. I have and will occasionally mark them missing, if I check on the cache. I will not make a special trip just to check on trackables. As a matter of fact, I have had TB owners upset when I marked them missing and they turned up later. Some TB owners feel that if a TB is marked missing, it deters tardy TB loggers from fixing their tardiness.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Rock Chalk said:
To refresh, here is the explanation provided when the challenge cache moratorium ended:
"Time-limited challenges are not permitted. For example, “Find 500 caches in a month” or “Find 10 different icons in a day.” The aim here is at least two-fold. First, these challenges encouraged people to hurry to find caches in a short time period. That’s something a majority of survey respondents said they didn’t like about challenge caches. And it’s not something we wish to encourage. Second, we’ve seen a lot of people creating Events and/or CITOs only to add an icon to the area for “Busy Day” challenges. That’s not at all the spirit for which those activities are intended."
Nothing has changed since the end of the moratorium that would cause us to reconsider that guideline.
And yet Groundspeak is endorsing time based challenges for souvenir's as stated earlier in this thread. I agree that this is one of the worst rules. Just prior to the moratorium, I was working on a series of what I called "weekend" and "one" day challenges depending on difficulty. I had just completed and "X" and an "H" on my grid in one day (although, I was going to make them 2-day challenges), with, coincidently enough, the help of "rock chalks" duck island caches and was preparing to make several challenges. Any horizontal line one day challenge, any vertical line one day challenge, as well as the "x" and "large H" two-day or weekend challenge.
Now days Groundspeak wants everyone to just fall into qualifying for challenges, instead of them being their namesake of a "challenge" Recently our new local reviewer advised cachers that at least 5 people had to pre-qualify for a challenge before approving it. Ridiculous. I liked doing them myself and then "challenging" others complete it as well. Part of the fun with time challenges for me and many others I know, is that you have to do a bit a research and find an area that will work, with backups, possible emails with the CO or locals prior to the fun of actually accomplishing something you set out to do. Not just check your personal amassed stats and see if you already qualify.
-
2
-
-
I looked at the Mega Event to pass along some info at our areas monthly meeting, and it still says you will only get an icon for the mega and a souvenir and states that the cache cannot be reactivated. I'm assuming that the event organizers just haven't updated the cache page since the announcement???
-
Ive got one cache that has been visited by a local cacher 997 times (just looked) I have visited it 54 times, which I thought was a lot. It does contain instructions to a fairly neat card trick that can be used to amaze or more likely annoy your friends. So, I suspect he either is using it as a bookmark to get on the site, or really really really likes the card trick and can't remember it. Which coincidently, is the reason for most of my revisits to my own cache page.
-
A plan that works pretty well, particularly with the oily surfaced plastics of many cache containers, is to use a combination of mechanical attachment (tape, hardware, etc.) and a flexible adhesive to grip and seal.
Some of the places that sell magnets have versions already pre-drilled and countersunk. I have had some of the rare earth magnets crack when I tried to drill through them.
Does this method also require drilling a hole in the container? I would be concerned about that.
You just have to use a rubber washer to re-waterproof it. Done it a few times with no issues
-
My local group set up a teaching trail several years ago. The first cache on the trail might have some helpful information for you GC250JF
We had a local surveyor mark a point we had permission to place a post. Cachers are supposed to check their device at the post to see accuracy. I've noticed that if mine is off a certain direction/distance from the post on a particular day, that it is fairly consistent throughout the day of geocaching. Which tells me that it may be time of year/satelite positioning
-
I think 10% is a good place to divide between having favorite caches and liking all caches, but if you don't think that's right, where would you draw the line. If you got 1 favorite for 8 finds, would that be enough? 1 for 5? 1 for 2? I don't know where, but at some point, you'll start saying "That's ridiculous: favorite points no longer have any meaning." And for me, that line is 1 in 10. I only use 1 in 20, but I don't think it's ridiculous for you to get 1 in 10 if you find caches you like more often than I do. Any more than 1 in 10, and you're not really telling me which caches are the best, you're just telling me that you like to cache.
Maybe i wasnt very clear in my opening post. I was using a little shorthand while using my phone. Not suggesting a change in the 1/10 ratio. Hope my above post clears that up.
-
Come up with some alternate ways to acquire favorite points. Not a widespread problem, but i know quite a few people run out of them. I am frequently out. I need a dozen now. Possibly for attending CITO s or 1 for every 5 received on owned caches. Sure there are other ideas.
Go through your favorite list and remove the favs from archived caches.
If you want to remember which of those archived caches you enjoyed enough to give them an FP, create a bookmark list for them.
Or, this is more time consuming - go through some old active FP'd caches and see if the owner stopped taking care of that cache and it's no longer a cache you'd recommend. Remove your FP.
Or, and I hate to say this because it encourages the numbers game - do a roadside power trail and get about 100 finds in a day for 10 new FP points.
Kudos for giving out FPs instead of wasting them. I too run out of them especially when I do a run of mostly swag-size forest, park or cemetery caches.
Those ideas woild give me back a few faves, but it wont really solve my problem. Ive always self weeded out caches and handed out faves on a perhaps looser scale than some, but i doubt loose by much. I may not have worded it clearly based on some responses here. I think the 10 per find fits most cachers fairly well, im just looking for a small tweak to help those in my position. I wont do powertrails and I like to hide somewhat unique caches. So i have received about 140 fp to hand out thru caching, but received over 800 on the caches ive hid/adopted. I was proposing to also get favorite points for some ratio of what your owned caches receive. I just picked 1/5, but I personally wouldnt be against 1/10 or 1/7 or even 1/3. Hope thats clearer.
-
Come up with some alternate ways to acquire favorite points. Not a widespread problem, but i know quite a few people run out of them. I am frequently out. I need a dozen now. Possibly for attending CITO s or 1 for every 5 received on owned caches. Sure there are other ideas.
-
Today I adopted 13 historic geocaches placed in Alberta, Canada in either 2002 or 2003 by Shadow Dog - with the original CO's permission. Although Shadow Dog was last active in 2005, I was able to find her contact information and send her an email. She was very excited to hear from me and was very eager to transfer ownership of her old geocaches to me!
The geocaches themselves are hidden in the backcountry of the Canadian Rockies. One of them in particular, GC5A79, is North America's (possibly the world's?) second lonliest geocache behind the famous "4.5lb Walleye" cache in Ontario, according to Project GC. While several are very lonely caches, many are not and have been enjoyed by backcountry travellers for the last 15 years.
I look forward to visiting all of the old Shadow Dog geocache sites this summer and maintaining them for hopefully the NEXT 15 years, at least! I'm very happy that I could do my part to help these pieces of Geocaching history avoid the archival bin!
PS - here's a link showing the 13 caches, if you're interested: http://i.imgur.com/xUHR2Ng.png
Screen shot? not interested, too much work to look them up. Now a link to a publicly shared bookmark would have been cool.
Wasn't very hard to click on his username, click on geocaches, geocaches owned and then repopulate by date placed. Took about 5 seconds. Looks like some nice caches. I was able to do the same thing in my area, contacted an inactive user (who then contacted a friend that had some old ones in the area) and adopted a couple, and got some more adopted by others, that I knew had a connection to certain old caches. They were even willing to adopt some virtuals to me, but Groundspeak doesn't allow it for some reason. Looks like you'll have fun hunting down your own caches.
-
I'm trying to add a .gif to a cache description. Is that supported. I have never tried, even in the old html format. I uploaded a .gif to my unpublished cache page and it isn't animated in the gallery.
Thanks for any help/info
-
Hello Honey. I'm on my way home, only about 15 miles away. Shouldn't be longer than 3 or 4 hours.
-
.png)
2
-
-
Another that i've noticed on some caches I've found
http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=1e65b1f6-c32f-4167-bcb5-076b50e0c54f
There are some caching maniacs out there
-
Was Johnny Rango's (sp) post on here moderated, or self deleted?
-
I also doubt the validity that they make the job MUCH more difficult for reviewers. Most are pretty straight forward. I'm sure there are some that they have to put some more work into, but I'd bet most reviewers would take a couple of challenge caches, instead of a 100 country road micro hides.
Challenge caches are the 2011-2015 version of the issues with reviewing virtual caches in 2001-2005. They've blossomed into quite a time drain both for reviewers and for the Appeals group at Geocaching HQ. You only see the ones that pass muster, and only after any listing guideline issues are already resolved. Challenge caches, on average, take more reviewer time than any other listing type.
In contrast, a string of 100 country road micro hides tend to have copy and paste cache descriptions and few unique issues -- maybe a proximity issue here and there, or questions about private property. But generally, they are very fast reviews. There are no subjective factors, like proving that a challenge can be accomplished/is of interest to a reasonable number of local geocachers. There is no wow factor test for country road micro hides. If there were, I wouldn't publish very many of them.
Feel free, however, to continue doubting the validity of that claim. You're entitled to your opinion. Since you don't see what reviewers see, I can understand why you'd think that way. People thought the same thing about virtual caches.
I based that statement in part from Groundspeaks own claim that, challenge caches account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions. Add to this percentage of the challenge caches submitted that are difficult to review, and it is a small percentage. Which is why I stated that I doubt it makes it MUCH more difficult. Some, yes. As a reviewer, I would feel uncomfortable publishing the 100 country road micros, based on the majority of the ones I've encounered where many are on landowners fences/posts, nearest pulloff that are in driveways or the Logical parking is the side of the road, which turns the grass into a dirt pull-off.
-
I still fail to understand the difference between ALR caches (illegal) and challenge caches (legal). To me, both are Additional Logging Requirements. I'm sure reviewers would love to see them go the way of Virtuals, as would I. They perpetuate lousy hides, they perpetuate competition. They make the job MUCH more difficult for the reviewers.
But I know that I am in the minority, and that they aren't going away anytime soon. Sadly. Just give me a geocache, not some silly trick that you want me to perform before I get to log your cache.
I generally agree with most of your posts, but this is a MAJOR exception. ALR were getting very silly (wear a dress, moustache, birthday suit, etc....), while challenge caches can get complicated and there are a few wild ones. They are a small percentage of a small percentage of caches. I prefer to look at them the same as ALL caches. I do the ones that interest me. I also view them as goal oriented caches and achieving a goal. Geocaching has devolved into such a parking lot/png/powertrail game and now reviewers seem to be archiving a lot of old lonely caches that have nothing wrong with them, challenge caches are one of the few remaining interests I have in this hobby. How do they perpetuate lousy hides? Thats the CO, not the cache type. I haven't seen many/any that perpetuate competition. There may be a few, but not that I've seen, and besides I'm not on the side that sees competition as bad anyway. Some of the most fun I have geocaching is having good natured competition with my friends. I also doubt the validity that they make the job MUCH more difficult for reviewers. Most are pretty straight forward. I'm sure there are some that they have to put some more work into, but I'd bet most reviewers would take a couple of challenge caches, instead of a 100 country road micro hides. ALRs did have a bunch of silly tricks, the challenge caches I attempt, pique my interest for some reason. I search and plan to complete them and most are some of the most fun I have geocaching. I just completed a trip with 2 friends that we completed/invented numerous challenges and it revitalized me for the game. I was just getting ready to make challenge caches that I completed to give others a chance to have that same rush. I guess I can't now. I'm getting very close to finding a new hobby as this one just keeps devolving.
-
I've had logs deleted for pointing out wrong information. "The hint is wrong" and "coordinates 20 feet off" were both considered spoilers by one CO because the wrong info was intentional and I wasn't supposed to give it away.
The cache owner was wrong for that, and you were right. Deliberately "soft" coordinates are not allowed. The guidelines state that the coordinates are to be as accurate as possible.
I agree with no intentional soft coords, but I also get annoyed with the finders that repeatedly state the coords are off by 20 feet or less. I guess they think their gps is the gold standard. 20 feet is fine by me.
-
I know of 2 2002 caches around the same lake, only a few miles outside of a decent size town that have original logbooks. One is actually pretty close to parking, just off a trail and the other is only .2 from parking. The real interesting thing is looking back about 2007 or 2008 (i forget) in both books, it went from a sentence or 2 with most entries to name and date only. After revisiting them several times with new to the area cachers, and enjoying reading back thru the logbooks, I decided to bring that style back with my own personal logging on caches that can support the logging space
-
SWEET! I've got one on there. Although it is one I adopted, so not really mine. Still cool to see though
-
Try looking at the gallery images, but be warned. It is a dead give-a-way. Plus, it seems to be broken? or wet? Not sure if it is in place or not.
.png)
.png)
Historical murders
in General geocaching topics
Posted · Edited by M 5
Added gc number
GC8C0Y9
Belle Starr's gravesite. A pretty neat location and the only grave there, with a nice poem carved into the stone. It is considered an unsolved murder