Jump to content

What's Your Favourite Cache-type?


The Blue Quasar
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I was reading the other Forum entry on Earthcache, and I got to thinking about how people vary on what they like. This a purely 'babble' post, so ignore at will.

 

Myself, I like MULTI-CACHES best of all. Around here, Multi's usually have a 'tour' feel to them, or allow you to visit several spots within one park. The other thing I really like is how they take longer to complete, and the find is usually exceptional.

 

I guess my least favourite (besides the obvious Locationless, which I don't count since they are not possible to create) would have to be Mystery Caches. I don't mind a puzzle, but I think Mystery caches are becoming too numerous without being defined properly. Whoa, that's almost a Puzzle statement. I mean many Mystery Caches could be made as Multi's.

 

If I was arrogant enough to actually list them, which I am :ph34r: , it would probably be like this.

 

1...Multi

2...Traditional

3...Virtual

4...EarthCache

5...Letterbox

6...WebCam

7...Mystery/Puzzle

 

Anyone have a cache type they prefer? One that they would rather not see so often?

 

Random thought, lack of coffee, or maybe just a time filler

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Link to comment

I'd just like to see people classify their caches properly (or have the approvers do it when they're approving a cache.)

 

I see Traditional caches that should be Puzzles (Mystery) caches. I see Traditional caches that should be Multi caches. I see Multi caches that should be Puzzle (Mystery) caches.

Edited by dogbreathcanada
Link to comment

Any cache type works for me as long as it takes you to an interesting location or, at the very least, provides a challenge of some kind.

 

Top of my list? A good multi or "collect the numbers" puzzle cache that takes you on a tour of an interesting area and shows you things that a casual visit would miss.

 

Cache types I hate? Driving into a Walmart parking lot with the GPSr pointing straight at a prominent lamp post :P , caches dumped for no apparent reason in a garbage strewn urban wasteland :blink: .

Link to comment

Well, since I can't be the Earthcache Master, I'm working hard at being the local Puzzle (Mystery) Cache Master :anicute: . I've solved most of the ones in this area from the comfort of my couch or computer screen but just don't have the time to go find them all. My order of preference is:

 

1. Mystery/Puzzle Cache

2. Earthcache

3. Traditional

4. Multi

 

I also agree that classifying them correctly would be nice as some traditionals are really mystery caches.

Link to comment

I like all caches equally although I enjoy the extra challenge of Puzzle Caches. I don't generally do virtuals but not because I have anything against them. For me, the enjoyment is in the hunt. Other aspects of the caches such as the hike, scenery, history, swag, numbers, etc are all secondary. I appreciate the efforts put into hiding every cache I find regardless of the cache type, where it is hidden or what is in the cache. In my world there is no such thing as a lame cache.

Link to comment

Well since my 'hidden' stats are 1 multi and 4 puzzlers (with another puzzler in development), I think it's obvious what I tend to enjoy. Those two types would be at the top of my list but generally I'm not picky...they're all fun. Multis are often great for a family event, whereas the puzzlers provide an added component, often involving computer work, which I usually enjoy.

Link to comment

In order of preference:

1) trad

2) locationless/virtual/earthcache

3) mystery/puzzle

4) multi

 

I don't like multis because I find that I question the answers that I come up with, and always end up retracing my steps. And because if I DNF, I don't know whether it's the coordinates or just my lack of searching skills.

 

BC Tripper :anicute:

Link to comment

No real preference, however, virtuals are not my cup of tea.

 

It all depends on the mood I'm in on the day or the time constraints I have in order to complete a cache.

 

I do appreciate the cache setters who give an estimated time / distance for the cache.

 

PS: My apology. Just noticed I'm in the Canadian Forum. I have relatives in BC, is that okay?

Edited by SenseiTSKC
Link to comment

well, to be quite straight forward on this:

 

I do like puzzle and mystery caches as well as multi-caches, so I can prepare them right at work :anicute:

but once I'm out there, I atleast don't want to have to leave with a DNF!

So for the actual hide, it should be hidden enough away from prying muggle eyes,

but still (almost) a mere "walk-to" for someone with a GPS.

 

I'm very much an advocate for having proper hints set up, so that one still can

make the grab after already havin wasted time and gas to get there in the first

place :-P

Edited by V-I-cacher
Link to comment

For me it's any type that requires a decent hike in a nice spot. A multi-cache series or a multi-stage cache all in one area would be my favourite. Basically if I have to strap on the Camelbak, hiking boots, staff, snacks, mosquito repellent, etc. then I'm at my happiest. Caches at Events are usually a lot of fun and I'm looking forward to the challenge of Canadian Benchmarks especially those that have not been visited for many years.

 

Cheers, Olar

Link to comment

I prefer multi caches or a good traditional. The key to a truly enjoyable cache is one where the car/truck must stay way, way ,way behind. A cache with a 5K hike/bike in and is very well hidden, would rate high with me. Bruce Almighty cache series is number one on my list of must do caches. I agree with others that have responded to this post, a micro in a parking lot is a waste of good batteries.

Link to comment
I agree with others that have responded to this post, a micro in a parking lot is a waste of good batteries.

I would have thought that would be the general attitude of most cachers but since hiding my YALPLC (Yet Another Lame Parking Lot Cache) series I'm finding otherwise. I originally hid the first few as a joke after the first couple lamp post micros appeared in Richmond. I was very surprised when those caches started getting hit more often than any of my other caches. The log entries have all been very positive and sometimes quite hilarious. It appears that there is a large silent segment of cachers that seem to quite enjoy parking lot micros. Go figure.

Link to comment
I would have thought that would be the general attitude of most cachers but since hiding my YALPLC (Yet Another Lame Parking Lot Cache) series I'm finding otherwise. I originally hid the first few as a joke after the first couple lamp post micros appeared in Richmond. I was very surprised when those caches started getting hit more often than any of my other caches. The log entries have all been very positive and sometimes quite hilarious. It appears that there is a large silent segment of cachers that seem to quite enjoy parking lot micros. Go figure.

Great point Gorak and interesting. Thats just another example of the fact that Geocaching has something for everyone. I would never plan a day of caching around parking lot micros however if I pulled into a Mall and saw one popup on my GPSr I wouldn't hesitate to try for it and probably would get a kick out of finding it.

 

Olar

Link to comment
I prefer multi caches or a good traditional. The key to a truly enjoyable cache is one where the car/truck must stay way, way ,way behind. A cache with a 5K hike/bike in and is very well hidden, would rate high with me. Bruce Almighty cache series is number one on my list of must do caches. I agree with others that have responded to this post, a micro in a parking lot is a waste of good batteries.

I agree. A multi that brings one along an entire hiking circuit is a preferable multi. I'm not usually too keen on driving multis, and it usually takes me weeks to complete those.

 

Some multis just aren't well designed though. I was on one, in a relatively nice park, but it kept making me backtrack down this one particular trail, three different times. Bad planning, in my opinion. The odd thing, this particular park had more than enough trails, that a nice circuit could have been set-up, bring the visitor all around the park without the unnecessary backtracking ... I felt like I was playing late-80s King's Quest on the PC.

Link to comment
I was very surprised when those caches started getting hit more often than any of my other caches.

Most of your other caches are kayak-only accessible, aren't they? Why would you be all that surprised?

 

About the only thing I like about parking lot caches is the stealth factor ... arriving at the right time, parking in the right spot, to get it ... an in-and-out military op. :rolleyes:

 

That, and if you just need to fulfill your caching fix, a nearby parking lot cache can ease the suffering for a short time.

Edited by dogbreathcanada
Link to comment

Parking Lot caches are pretty low on my list. The stealth aspect of the 'urban cache' must match the 'appeal of the location'. A beautiful city park is an appropriate spot for a 'sleathy micro' but some cachers will place a micro anywhere.

 

Every cache should be placed with the 'journey to / view at the cache' in mind IMHO.

 

I guess it comes down to this. If I have to ask myself "Why am I here?" then the cache is not a good placement. But I find I only end up thinking that for Urban Micros. I never complain about caches that are non-stealth no matter how poor they are. Very few of those spring to mind.

 

Maybe the problem is that most of the really good spots are gone, or people don't want to 'shadow cache' another existing cache.

 

As for Puzzle Caches, they are good. I just think that they are being placed too often compared to other cache types. And like everyone here said, I think quite often it is due to 'poor planning', just like Multi's that do the back-and-forth thing.

 

Good placement, good planning and good details including a relevant hint = a good cache

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Maybe the problem is that most of the really good spots are gone ...

I wouldn't say that ... take the North Shore of Vancouver ... lots of great spots up in the parks around here ... the problem is that most people are too fat or too lazy to climb mountains to place caches in great locations (and a great hike in the GVRD generally means some large elevation changes).

 

I've been moving away from placing urban caches (and have archived three of them), and been placing more in areas with great views and great strenuous hikes.

Link to comment
I was very surprised when those caches started getting hit more often than any of my other caches.

Most of your other caches are kayak-only accessible, aren't they? Why would you be all that surprised?

You would be wrong about that. :blink:

 

Most of my caches are readily accessible and it was those that I was referring to. icon_rolleyes.gif

Edited by Gorak
Link to comment

I try only to log traditional caches. The only virtuals I look for are the ones within my "closest" list -- now all found -- and the First Post series. The other types don't really interest me much. I need to know where the cache is located, because for me the fun part is looking up the location on a map and planning a route to get there.

 

Beyond that, my favorite caches are those that take a whole day, if possible. I like 4-5 terrain caches the best.

 

I hate the idea of driving to a cache. I'll bike or walk from some distance away just to make it more interesting. When I'm traveling I really enjoy caching on public transit as well.

 

I also find busy urban caches really uncomfortable. When I travel, I try to be selective about my caching because I hate feeling suspicious about what I am doing. The great thing is, our cities always have large green spaces, river valleys and so forth that give me lots of opportunities to cache in the city and not feel like a weirdo. :blink:

 

Regards,

Anthony

Link to comment
I hate the idea of driving to a cache. I'll bike or walk from some distance away just to make it more interesting.

Same here.

 

I have run into cachers who tend to drive their vehicles around to see how close they can get to a cache. I've been offered advice before on particular areas to limit my walking. That always amazes me. To each their own, of course, but I got into geocaching because I like walking and hiking.

 

I also find busy urban caches really uncomfortable. When I travel, I try to be selective about my caching because I hate feeling suspicious about what I am doing.

 

If an urban stealth cache is too out in the open (by the cache description and hint) and the area is busy, I'll just walk away and come back at a less busy time. I do this for two reasons: 1) because it draws attention to me, geocaching can be a suspicious looking activity, and 2) it protects the cache if as little attention as possible is drawn to it.

Link to comment
If an urban stealth cache is too out in the open (by the cache description and hint) and the area is busy, I'll just walk away and come back at a less busy time.

 

If I'm in this situation but I know exactly where the container is, I just declare it a successful find.

 

C-A

I think there's a word for that ... rhymes with Peter.

Link to comment
If an urban stealth cache is too out in the open (by the cache description and hint) and the area is busy, I'll just walk away and come back at a less busy time.

 

If I'm in this situation but I know exactly where the container is, I just declare it a successful find.

 

C-A

I think there's a word for that ... rhymes with Peter.

Gosh. What a talented poet? :D

Link to comment

I guess for me it's the traditional type that requires a decent hike into a nice spot. A multi-stage cache all in one area can be nice too. If I have to wear hiking boots, take a staff, water, mosquito repellent, etc. then I'm happy. I do appreciate the cache setters who give an estimated time/distance for the cache. The shorter the hike ones should be hardest to find, if I hike 5k or more I don't really want to spend an hour finding the cache. I got into geocaching because I like walking and hiking so the looking part is not really high for me.

Link to comment

Dogbreathcanada said...

 

I think there's a word for that ... rhymes with Peter.

 

Nonsense. If there's a danger you'll be spotted then this is the only way to do it. It saves the cache from muggles absconding therewith - for which the stasher will undoubtedly be grateful. When I spot the container I usually do a 360 degree muggle scan. Even then I usually walk some distance away to find a seat before I crack open the container. Good example was last Saturday (GCKKJR) when I wasn't expecting muggles yet they magically appeared when I was about to make the grab. Waited a few minutes and all was well.

 

Cheers!

C-A back in GTA

Link to comment
Dogbreathcanada said...

 

I think there's a word for that ... rhymes with Peter.

 

Nonsense. If there's a danger you'll be spotted then this is the only way to do it. It saves the cache from muggles absconding therewith - for which the stasher will undoubtedly be grateful. When I spot the container I usually do a 360 degree muggle scan. Even then I usually walk some distance away to find a seat before I crack open the container. Good example was last Saturday (GCKKJR) when I wasn't expecting muggles yet they magically appeared when I was about to make the grab. Waited a few minutes and all was well.

 

Cheers!

C-A back in GTA

If you had determined exactly where one of my caches was hidden but didn't actually sign the logbook I would probably delete your find. Stealth and patience, when required, are part of the process and challenge of finding and logging a cache. Merely locating the cache is not enough.

 

There was a local cache, now archived, that was hidden in near the top of an old tree that has obviously been used by a couple generations of kids for climbing and swinging. I could see the cache from the ground but when it came to my actually climbing the tree and retrieving the cache my better judgement took over and, cursing under my breath, I walked away. I did not log a find on that cache even though I knew exactly where it was and could even describe the cache container. In my books, it's not a find until you actually sign your name into the physical log book.

Link to comment

I agree that a cacher MUST sign the log to claim it as a successful find.

 

I have only once claimed a find that I did not sign the log, and that was because the container was completely empty despite being placed just three days earlier. And the only reason that I (actually WE) wouldn't come back was that the cache was hidden in the bushes right beside a Youth Day-Care Centre. We alerted the owner that the cache had been muggled, probably by the very kids we saw since it was full of Pokemon stuff originally, and that the location wasn't appropriate for caching.

 

I agree that one of the points of Urban Caching is the Stealth factor. Patience or proper time of day will allow for a safe find. And I too would delete any FOUND IT log that said "I didn't actually sign the logbook because of the people nearby" If I was able to hide the cache, anyone should be able to find it the same.

 

I think actually that it is a requirement that any logs that end up not be properly completed are supposed to be deleted. Found it...

 

From Geocaching.com Guidelines

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

So I would agree that unless the name is in the book, they didn't find it.

 

;) The Blue Quasar

Link to comment
I agree that a cacher MUST sign the log to claim it as a successful find.

There are some exceptions to this requirement though.

 

On organized Cache Machines, the general rule is this (an example from the recent BCM2 event):

If it's a micro cache, one "Bremerton Cache Machine II'' log entry should suffice for the group. We tend to fill up log books too quickly, and our stickers tend to make micro log books hard to re-stash. For normal-sized caches, or even large micros, everyone should sign in.
Not trying to derail the thread on the topic of Cache Machines... just using it as an example where signing the log isn't practical.
Link to comment

Only once did I ever break the rule - I found the cache - disguised as a log - but it was frozen and I couldn't get in. But I did very discretely initial the log. Figured that was close enough B).

 

I have however seen some pretty wild find claims that didn't get deleted. One of my favourites was a cache close to the road where you'd normally park to go look for it. The "finders" found roadworks in the vicinity, couldn't find a close spot to park, but claimed the find anyway.

 

OK maybe they intended to post a note and clicked on found by mistake. I've seen that happen a few times. Guess there are a quite a few cachers out there that don't get digital about number counting and if that's the way they want to play the game that's fine with me B) .

Link to comment
urban high-muggle area caches is stealth and/or timing.

 

I suppose, but I'm of the mind the chase is better than the cache. B)

 

If you had determined exactly where one of my caches was hidden but didn't actually sign the logbook I would probably delete your find.

 

If someone "finds" one of my caches but can't sign the log book for a good reason I see no problem. Case in point, someone logged a find on one of my caches after muggles had removed it. It was patently obvious they were in the right spot and I confirmed this.

 

I think actually that it is a requirement that any logs that end up not be properly completed are supposed to be deleted. Found it...

 

Easy, its only a hobby. B)

 

I agree that a cacher MUST sign the log to claim it as a successful find.

 

Then that makes all Virtual cache finds invalid. B)

 

The "finders" found roadworks in the vicinity, couldn't find a close spot to park, but claimed the find anyway.

 

Oh yes, I know of one very well known cacher who tried this and got caught. B)

 

Cheers!

C-A

Link to comment

I tend to side with Coupar Angus' reasoning on finds.

 

First, there is no rule that says you must sign a log book to claim it as a smiley on the web site. :)

 

The log type says "Found It" NOT "Signed It". You find the cache, whether you sign it or not, doesn't matter...the fact you "found it", gives you the right to get a smiley...unless it specifically says in the log that you MUST sign the log in order to claim it as a find. I can think of a cache I found a very long time ago where I found the cache sitting in the open, but it was just too dangerous to try and retrieve it with all the ice and snow on the ground...sorry, not worth risking my life...and I would have in that situation. I found it...I got the smiley. Owner didn't have a problem against it. B)

 

Another cache we found once that was filled with pee...definately didn't sign the log book on that one...but I found it, so I got the smiley. B)

 

The rule I play by for myself is that if I find any part of the cache (without a doubt that it was part of the cache) then it counts as a find and I get the oh so precious and coveted smiley...afterall having 1827 finds vs 1826 finds, means oh so much to me. B)

 

Also, more and more now I don't always sign the log book...sometimes others I go caching with will sign my name...but I didn't sign it, so I guess according to many of the comments here, I shouldn't be claiming it as a find. Also I guess according to many here, half my son's finds shouldn't count either, since half the time I don't sign his name on the logs, even though he found it with me. :D

 

What if someone else you are with finds the cache and hands it to you...hmmm, you didn't find it...the other person did...sorta cheapens it if I log that as a find for myself. Sure I signed the log book, but I didn't "find" it....sheesh. B)

 

I have also on a number of occasions allowed people to log a find just for being in the right area...I have even allowed someone to log a find just for solving the puzzle of one of my caches, even though they never visited it. It made them happy, and that to me is what geocaching is all about...making people happy and bringing smiles to their faces and enjoyment in their hearts. If someone asked me if they could log a smiley on one of my caches, I would say go right ahead. I see too many people out there acting like cache nazis. B)

 

Just because a few people say that you have to sign the log in order to get the smiley, doesn't mean we all play that way. We all play by our own criteria...some people don't even log online. B)

 

Anyways, the point of my post is...who cares...there are no rules...each of us plays it how we want to and we should not force our beliefs on how the game is played onto others. If you don't want to log a certain cache, then don't...if you do, then go ahead. B)

 

Ok, that didn't sound like me, but that is what I believe. Anyone that knows me, know that I am a really fair person. I always believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. B)

 

Now I can see someone start saying that these last several posts are off topic...who cares...conversations evolve and this topic is evolving. B)

 

As for my favourite cache types...well I don't really have a favourite, but I can say without hesitation that Webcam and Locationless caches are my least favourite and I don't particullarily like either. That being said, since Virtuals and Locationless caches are pretty much banned right now, i wonder why they don't ban web cam caches, since they are even less of a cache than virtuals and locationless. Even event caches are not really "caches" in the sense. B)

 

I always like a good virtual (can't say I ever did one that I didn't like) and as for other types, I like them all and each experience is different. Sometimes I want the long caches that take a good part of the day and other times I just feel the need for the quick driveby micro. In the end I just do whatever is in my path, regardless fo the cache type. B)

Link to comment
The rule I play by for myself is that if I find any part of the cache (without a doubt that it was part of the cache) then it counts as a find and I get the oh so precious and coveted smiley...afterall having 1827 finds vs 1826 finds, means oh so much to me. B)

It means enough to you that you're counting it as a find, versus not counting it as a find. B)

 

Some of your examples I can agree with, such as th cache filled with pee. Or here, a cache pirated cache. We have a certain pirate in the area who likes to leave a calling card. Instead of pointing out that the cache had been stolen publically, the accepted form is to claim the find, as if the cache were still there (so that you don't give the cache pirate the public attention s/he is seeking), and then send a note to the cache owner privately.

 

If your winter ice/snow find was so difficult to reach, perhaps you should have returned at a better time of the year. Not all caches are meant to be found year round. For instance, I have a few caches around here on mountaintops. In winter they would be covered by many metres of snow. I wouldn't let you claim a winter find unless you could prove you dug through all those metres of snow.

Link to comment
In winter they would be covered by many metres of snow. I wouldn't let you claim a winter find unless you could prove you dug through all those metres of snow.

If I dug through the snow and FOUND your cache, I would claim it as a find. If I dug through the same snow and DID NOT find your cache, I would NOT count it as a find. Pretty straight forward reasoning, eh?

Link to comment

I just did a wonderful cache tonight, "Algonquin Trail and Tower". Now that's what I call a CACHE! It took me just over two hours of solid work to do. Gorgeous views. And what a sense of accomplishment at the end.

A big difference from the ten parking lot caches I did in twenty minutes in Nashville earlier this year. (Why did the cache owners want to bring me there?)

- hamgran

Link to comment
If I dug through the snow and FOUND your cache, I would claim it as a find. If I dug through the same snow and DID NOT find your cache, I would NOT count it as a find.

 

I'm of the same mind. If I don't find the cache I don't log it as a find - I may not necessarily log it as a DNF though. But if I find it, whether I sign it or not, I log it. There are several caches I've had to make return trips to find. Here are some that come to mind in the last month:

 

GCJEZ9

GCNJQT

GCN387

GCN2EB

GCKT4X

 

I honestly don't see the point in returning only to sign the log - especially if the area is nothing special, which sadly so many caches are. I have better things to do and I suspect you do too.

 

Cheers!

Coupar-Angus

Link to comment

In an attempt to get this back on topic...

 

My favourite caches I have discovered lately are near water. It could be a lake or a stream but even a lame cache gets raised a notch if it's near water.

 

I love the "Tour of..." caches which I look for when going to a new town. They give me an idea of what the town/area is all about (history, industry etc.). We did a great one down in Ohio last year while waiting for the event to start and I was pleasantly surprised to learn about the background of the town. I've done a few in Ontario (Ingersol and Port Burwell come to mind) and they were good introductions to the town that showed me the highlights of the area.

 

I enjoy puzzles as long as math isn't involved. I prefer Multi's over Traditionals but often there's math involved in the multi so that's often a challenge.

 

After spending an afternoon in Florida doing 105 urban micro caches on a cache run I was so glad to get back to Canada to a good hike in the woods. No offence to the Floridians but I do enjoy our caches (despite the hills).

Link to comment
I just did a wonderful cache tonight, "Algonquin Trail and Tower". Now that's what I call a CACHE! It took me just over two hours of solid work to do. Gorgeous views. And what a sense of accomplishment at the end.

 

Amen! Back to my comment of the chase being better than the cache. :D

 

What I wouldn't mind seeing is a cache count that factors in the difficulty and terrain of the cache itself. A third thing to factor in would be how long it takes one to find. There's currently no provision for this in the cache listing but I'm sure it could be easily added.

 

Cheers!

Coupar-Angus

Link to comment

Yes, back on topic.

 

While I was looking for what TYPE of cache is your favourite, I mean "Type of Cache Classification" as in Traditional, or Virtual, or Mystery....

 

But like Res said, topics evolve.

 

I have already stated that I like the Multi best. I guess I should clarify.

 

I like a Multi that takes me on a tour of interesting locations. I don't care if it a tour of a town, or historical sites, or clever hides that challenge me as it prgresses. I just find that a multi has a bigger reward feeling for completing.

 

And like Coupar Angus suggests, a challenging Traditional that invloves a good hike is preferred.

 

I guess all I'm saying is that I appreciate the effort that some people put into LOCATION and EXPERIENCE. I shouldn't have to ask why there is a cache there, it should be obvious.

 

BQ

Link to comment

My favourite cache type depends on where I am

 

When I am in an urban environment I like the micros and virtuals. I did a bit of caching in cleveland a couple of weeks ago and had a great time downtown.

 

I enjoy the stealth required to find micros in cities and i love the fact they are there with hundreds of people around. Now in the wilderness I dont really care for micros. If there is one nearby I'll grab it.

 

In the wilderness I love multi stages, I have not done too many so far but I did like the tour d'Oakville caches and started to work on one in burlington.

Link to comment
In the wilderness I love multi stages, I have not done too many so far but I did like the tour d'Oakville caches and started to work on one in burlington.

That's gotta be the first time I have ever heard Wilderness and Oakville in the same sentence! :laughing:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...