Jump to content


+Charter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bloencustoms

  1. I prefer "regular" caches in muggle-free locations. The urban micros in high-traffic areas are my least favorite.
  2. My wife came back from the post office with a little box. I got my cache stickers, mini logbooks, zipper pull compasses, GPS lanyard and the little "earth" marbles. I'm pretty stoked about it. The marbles are really cool looking. The GPS lanyard is really sturdy, it's got to be the most robust lanyard I've ever had. The little compasses point north, and are really a neat trinket. If I get back into the swing of caching like I used to, I think they will make great trade items. The logbooks and stickers are just like I remember them.
  3. I do have the old US TOPO that Garmin had out for years. It's the low resolution maps. I bought the maps back when I was caching and had a 1st gen. Garmin vista. A couple of years ago I bought a 60csx for the larger, color screen and routing. I've been very pleased with it, use it regularly when hitting the trails on my ATV. I also like the cache icons it came with. I did check out that site you linked, and their maps are higher resolution, so I downloaded the ones for Utah. Thanks! On another note, I couldn't have picked a worse time to get interested again, because last night it snowed a foot, and it's still coming down. But, I spent a few hours last night backing up one of my computers onto a hard drive and gave it a complete format and re-install of windows. That will be my work computer, and I can use the little laptop for caching and internet. I remember back when I was into it big time, I had a little honda civic hatchback, and I had built a homemade laptop mount in there. I used the GPS in conjunction with Streets and Trips to get close. My Nuvi has eliminated the need for a big laptop in the car anymore.
  4. Wow! I'm seeing a lot of old screen names from back when! It's nice to know I'm remembered. I dug the Palm T/X out of storage and I'm messing around with the trial version of CacheMate. I wonder if there's a way to connect a 60csx to the pda directly?
  5. Here is what I use on my Palm m500: CacheMate Price: $10 USD (one time payment) Requirements: Palm OS® 3.0 or later Versions for other platforms are also available Thanks again!
  6. Well, I have neglected geocaching for a long time. This morning, on a whim, I logged in to see what's available to find in my area, and wound up ordering some cache ID stickers and some other stuff from the website. It's been about 5 years or so since I was really active as a cacher, and even then I was never a super cacher with hundreds or thousands of finds. But, I did enjoy the hobby a great deal. What really caused me to lose interest was my urban location. At the time, I lived in New Orleans. I had already found every cache I could within a reasonable distance of home. It got so the places to hide "real" (regular size) caches were very sparse. Then, micro caches started popping up all over the place. FWIW, I don't mind the micros too much, but I got tired of the strange looks from observers. I didn't like feeling as though I was doing something nefarious, and I didn't like having to wait for people to leave to conduct my searching. Finally, it was too much, and I stopped looking for caches. All the new ones being listed were caches hidden in high-traffic areas, as if the goal was to place a cache where the searchers will have the greatest chance of being observed. Well, life went on, and I moved to a different state with tons of public land and lots of places to hide a cache. A quick zip code search tells me there's a lot of caches to find as well. So, I might get back into it if I can get all the software sorted out again. I'll need to decide on a GPX utility and something to use with my old Palm device to view pages. I have some fun ides for a cache I never placed back in LA, because we ran out of spots that could conceal a real cache. When driving 1 mile can take 45 minutes due to traffic, placing caches far from home makes maintenance extremely difficult. Out here, there's soooooo much room, and plenty of places for caches. Once the snow melts in the spring, I think I might place a puzzle cache I've been planning for half a decade.
  7. Good luck in your search for an adopter for your cache. The adoption process is actually automated and does not require reviewer intervention. Link: Adoptions Wow, thanks for the link. It's been a while and I was not aware of this site function.
  8. Hello all! It's been a long time since I have been an active geocacher. Life happens, and life happened to me in many very big ways. In Your Honor, Bold Seekers GCH4P9 The above linked cache has been hanging around for several years, and still gets occasional visits. I have moved far from New Orleans, and just can't maintain the cache any longer. In truth, I haven't been able to visit in a long time. Since the cache is still being found (most recently, it was someone's first find), I would hate to archive it and deprive people of the experience. So, I'm looking for a New Orleans area cacher who would like to take over this cache. I'm considering putting out some new caches in my new state of residence, and I want to tie up all my loose ends back home. If you do want to adopt this cache, just point the reviewers to this forum post and they should be able to transfer ownership to your account. (I'm not sure how the process is handled anymore.) In any case, thank you for considering it. If nobody wants to adopt the cache, I'll probably archive it after a little time passes. I just can't maintain it from so far away.
  9. Well, I guess it can happen to everyone. I have become a bit of a lurker myself. Still, I pop in from time to time to see if there is anything new.
  10. Geolite, I'm not sure why you felt the need to email me concerning your cache hiding techniques, or your disposition towards ammo cans. Until today, I have never received any corresponance from you. Additionally, your profile indicates (as does your email) that you reside very far from any of my cache placements. I have not seen any logs on my caches that would indicate you have visited them. So, I am forced to wonder why you chose to email me. I do have an active cache that uses an ammo can as a container. I chose this container for its durability and weather resistance, which are important considering its placement. The cache's longevity is a testament to the wisdom of my container choice. If you have visited the cache, why did you not log it? As far as the whole container thing is concerned, I do enjoy the challenge that a camo'd container presents, but I "despise" hides that expose me to scrutiny by onlookers. I like to conduct my search in relative privacy. When caches in my area began to appear in more and more high traffic areas, I lost interest in searching for them. I still want to go find some "wilderness" caches, but that will have to wait for a vacation or something. So, if you are planning to visit my cache, you should be prepared to encounter a "despicable" ammo can. In fact, the cache page itself informs potential seekers of this very fact, so there should be no suprises. Have fun, and good luck on your next cache hunt.
  11. Rather than limit the number of caches a person can place, why not limit the number they can place within a certain amount of time? Before everyone gets bent out of shape, consider this; Good caches take time to research and prepare before they are placed. Bad caches take no preparation and can be placed quickly and easily. By limiting the frequency rather than the number of placements, you will give those hiders who put a lot of time into preparing a cache the opportunity to use locations that would otherwise be taken up by a quickie cache. How many cachers have planned a great cache at a great location, only to discover that one of the stages in their multi has been "usurped" by a quickie cache while they were putting the final touches on their masterpiece? I'll bet it happens pretty often. By limiting the frequency of placements, it will allow potential hiders more time to think about their next hide, and hopefully improve the end rsult. It also stops a frantic hider from tieing up all the "good spots" in a matter of days while some great potential caches lose great potential locations. Fire at will...
  12. I suppose I am less than a lurker at this point. I used to be fairly active in the forums, but I have only rarely popped in for a quick look around. This is my first post in a long time.
  13. My vote goes to the ammo box. They aren't prone to cracking in the cold, and hold up to moisture pretty well. Still, some might argue that the very best containers are hard to see to begin with.
  14. I had a cache last nearly a year without being muggled. After a well meaning cacher moved it because they thought the velcro I secured it with wasn't holding up, the next finder reported that the container was empty of logbook, pencil, and trades. Fortunately, I had just changed the log recently, and all but the last few entries are safe in my glove compartment.
  15. Cacher with the greatest number of encounters with law enforcement while at, or travelling to or from the cache.
  16. I don't think that geocaching has a significant impact on the environment compared to a host of other widely accepted outdoor pursuits.
  17. I've had a few online run-ins. I have no idea what those people are like in person, but I have developed a certain degree of respect for what they have to say in here, even if I don't always agree. There are a few such forum users who I have really enjoyed having a heated discussion with. I also believe that if I met them in person, it's quite likely we'd get along fine. Perhaps the reason people react so strongly to forum disagreements is because with the threat of physical confrontation removed, one feels more comfortable expressing their true opinions. In face to face meetings, we show a lot more restraint, and this possibly clouds the view into a person's personality that the forums lay bare. I think it's quite possible that you can learn more about a person by reading forum posts than you can in casual conversation (like at an event). We all share a common interest, and we differ in our ways of thinking about it. Forum posts, and cache logs are written for an (albiet limited) audience. E-mails are much more personal, and might cause some of the "clouding" that physical meetings do. Another aspect of the forums is that you really have no control over who participates in any of the discussions. In real life, if you disagree with someone, you can easily exclude them from your discussions and avoid conflict. I find that most of my friends agree on most topics, and we don't discuss the things we disagree about nearly as often. In the forums, if you want to talk to like minded people, you can, but you have to accept dissent as well. Finally, it seems that some forum users like to make a game of publicly belittling others. Thick skin or thin, everyone has a point of "enough". There's no sport in finding the fine balance wherein you get under someone's skin, but don't get moderated. I'm sure some will disagree, but then, I expected that. To answer the question, I don't know anyone who has quit because of an encounter with another cacher on the trail, or at an event. I suppose the pressure would be greater if they were someone from your hometown. You wouldn't want to run into them at another event, for instance. But it seems silly to quit doing something you enjoy just because you dislike someone else who also participates. It would be different if it was your job or something. I could see leaving if one of my co-workers was a supreme [insert epithet] all the time.
  18. I can sympathize with you. It happens quite often. Still, it might be unreasonable to expect that something will remain the way you want it to when you relinquish almost all control over it. The trouble is even if you can get the cacher to modify their log, it's still possible that some potential finder has already viewed the spoiler. The way I look at it, there's already a warning on every page that the logs can contain spoilers, so anyone who wishes to find the cache as it was intended by the hider has the option to ignore the logs until after they have found it. It's upsetting to see all your efforts undermined, but cachers who use spoilers are really only depriving themselves of the feeling of accomplishment you get from finding a really tough one. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that I'd rather not encounter spoilers in the logs. A few hard won clues deduced from the vague, cleverly crafted logs of other cachers are useful, and more tasteful than outright spoilers. They don't detract from the experience for me.
  19. Carleenp, I have to say that your opening post in this thread is one of the most thorough, insightful descriptions of the numbers debate I have ever read. To answer the question, "Is it ok to be about the numbers?", I'd have to say, yes. It's ok for those who really get into them. With so many different opinions about what constitutes a "find", it's difficult to have a true comparison. I believe it is for this reason that so many stats oriented people are pushing for a more definitive consistent definition of "find", and a more rigid structure for logging them. This would make the numbers more relevant than they now are. The thing I take issue with is the opposition to the "opt out" idea. Competitive cachers wish to compare their stats to the entire pool. They believe that the omission of any individual cacher's statistics will somehow render their stats less significant. (For instance, if you are ranked #15, but there is a cacher with a few more finds that isn't participating in stats, you aren't really #15.) If there were a more standardized system (like RK's proposed tournament rules), it would be possible to compare your numbers against those cachers who are following the same standard. This will make comparisons among members of this group much more significant. It also allows for an kind of "opt out" without actually abandoning stats entirely. Those who do not wish to play the numbers game can simply declare that they want no part of it, and by the new system, their finds would not qualify. They can continue to log caches in the manner they please, because they aren't part of the competition. I believe that we are all capable of deciding what standards we wish to hold ourselves to. One person might want to log an event multiple times, another person might believe that logging an event as a find at all isn't fair when comparing statistics. Either way, if you are concerned with stats and there's someone with a few more finds than you, it doesn't count if they aren't playing by the same set of rules. This means your claim to the #XX spot is valid, and indisputable. There really ought to be "Geoscoring" site to allow people to play the numbers game within a closed system. I personally am probably in line with most cachers as far as my log ethics. I log a DNF if I get out of the car and don't find it. I log one find on event caches that I didn't host. I log multis as a single find. And I don't call it a find unless I (or the group I'm caching with) leaves written proof in the cache that we visited it. If you're curious why I would be careful to do these things when I'm not really stats oriented, it's simple. I don't want there to be any dispute about a find, and possibly have my log deleted. Each one of them is a short snippet of personal history, and a reflection on my experience and mood at the time I visited the cache. If they're lost, it would be hard to go back and replace them verbatim.
  20. If you could pick only one of the guidelines to have every cacher follow exactly, every time, which would it be? There are many, and they all are there for a reason. Which of the guidelines that common sense, trial and error, and experience has proven sensible is the one that if followed every time would have the greatest positive impact on caching.
  21. This is a good question. It's come up before, and as usual, people come down on both sides of the debate. A few months ago, I found a multi that had logbooks included in each stage of the cache. It was almost the same as doing three separate caches, with a couple of exceptions that might make the difference. The most obvious thing is that although multis have several separate stages, they share a cache page. This means that there is only one description covering the entire series of stages. Another difference is that many multis have stages that would not be approve-able as stand alone caches. (Such as no logbook, coords stamped on metal tag, etc.) In the end, perhaps it would be best if there was a movement toward making multi's that did have approve-able stages into series caches. This would allow the cache owner to have an individual page with it's own hints, difficulty/terrain ratings, and description for each individual stage. And it gives cachers an opportunity to write separate logs about their experiences finding each stage. Perhaps the term "multiple stage cache" more aptly describes what we know as multi caches. For those multis without approve-able individual stages, logging more than one find is probably not going to go over well with the unofficial geocaching stats regulatory commission.
  22. There are so many threads on stats, fair play, logging etiquette, etc. I was sitting here pondering it all, and thinking about how while it would be hard to define an actual winner, one could say that whoever has the most finds, wins. It's a little more complicated than that, but the definition works for a lot of people. Then it occurred to me, to have a definite winner, you must also have one or more losers. So, does this mean that everyone but the top cacher is a loser? Of course not. But without someone to lose, how can anyone win?
  23. I understand the concept of finds, but disagree somewhat about the policing thing for a couple of reasons. I have never personally logged a find online that I didn't find in the field. (This means open the cache and leave written evidence of my presence, whether it be my username, or the name of a team I was caching with.) I have, however allowed cachers to log a find on caches that I own when they have turned up missing on a couple of occasions. On two such occasions, the cacher accompanied me to the cache sight and pointed out the exact location where the cache had been hidden. If it had been there when they searched, they would have signed the log then. I let them sign the log in the new container that I replaced. On another such occasion, I allowed a find on a cache that had turned up missing. The cacher emailed me to describe the remains of the velcro I had used to secure the cache, and it's position. This is another case where the cacher should not be penalized for my poor choice of placement. (Too many nosy muggles, cache easily discovered.) They did all the work to go get it, only to be denied at the very culmination of the search? Is this unfair? It might be, but no more unfair than going through three stages and over 20 miles round trip only to find that some muggle discovered the cache. In the case of the multi, if the individual stages were caches unto themselves, they would have had finds anyway. Finally, the game is supposed to be fun. It's no fun to be denied a find due to circumstances you can't control, and for no lack of effort on your part. In the end it's up to the individual cacher to decide whether they want to log it as found. While I wouldn't do so myself, I don't have a problem with other people doing it. But then, I'm not competing for anything.
  24. Iv'e seen universal cell phone mounts that might work, but because my Vista has buttons on the sides, it's not the right choice for me. I use a universal radar detector mount.
  25. Hamsters... That gives me an idea for a garnish for a martini recipe I'm working on.
  • Create New...