Jump to content

150 New Caches published

moparots

By moparots
in General geocaching topics

Followers 1

Recommended Posts

moparots

+moparots

Posted
Posted

Wow, someone called "MicroManiacs" just had published 150 new caches .... Microinvasion 1 through 150. All in or around Brandon, Fl. (just SouthEast of Tampa) Its a nightmare for those who dont like micros :D

Sounds like a TON of work... :drama: The FTF hounds will be out in force tonight, in a howling feeding frenzy. :)

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

Wow, someone called "MicroManiacs"

 

i.e. a sock puppet account.

 

 

just had published 150 new caches .... Microinvasion 1 through 150. All in or around Brandon, Fl. (just SouthEast of Tampa) Its a nightmare for those who dont like micros :D

Sounds like a TON of work... :drama: The FTF hounds will be out in force tonight, in a howling feeding frenzy. :)

 

From one of the 150 cache pages: "The Micro Invasion is on like Donkey Kong!! If you don't like micros as much as we do, you might think this is more like a neverending nightmare (especially if these were all in range of your alert area!!).....then again, there's no requirement to go find these geocaches at all"

 

No, but if they were in my "alert range", I'd have 150 emails in my inbox, and would have to go to 150 individual cache pages to ignore them. :) Well, to each his own. Have fun you suburban Tampa people.

Link to comment
Chrysalides

+Chrysalides

Posted
Posted

Someone here once published 35 (actually, I counted 37, but let's not quibble) micros on his birthday. It was 4 years before I began geocaching, and by the time I started, there's only one survivor.

 

The only thing to be concerned about is whether they can be maintained properly. As for the micro haters, well, that's what filtering is for.

Link to comment
fegan

+fegan

Posted
Posted

How many caches will it take before the reviewers use the power trail guideline and ask for some to be made into multis?

They would/should have done that BEFORE they were published...it's a little late for that now.

 

I haven't looked yet...is it a power trail? Or are they spready all over the city?

Link to comment
Lil Devil

+Lil Devil

Posted
Posted
How many caches will it take before the reviewers use the power trail guideline and ask for some to be made into multis?

What power trail guideline? I can find no mention of power trails in the current guidelines.

 

Obviously you didn't actually read the guidelines before you hid your latest caches :drama:

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted
How many caches will it take before the reviewers use the power trail guideline and ask for some to be made into multis?

What power trail guideline? I can find no mention of power trails in the current guidelines.

 

 

The reviewer types around here sure like to seem to point that out a lot lately. Does that mean Power Trails are OK now? They sure seem to be popular with the "power cacher" types. And you'd be hard pressed to find one of them that isn't a happy as a pig in mud card-carrying premium member for life. :drama:

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted (edited)

I dont know the EXACT definition of "Power Trail", but these are hidden all over the city.

 

Well according to the absolute ruler of the State of New York, the entire Adirondacks is a power trail. Or was. :drama:

 

But seriously, that HUGE area was deemed "saturated". Which is why I'm sure the term "power trail" is falling out of favor around here.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment
Vater_Araignee

+Vater_Araignee

Posted
Posted

That's awesome. At least they're not Nanos.

 

Who says?

 

Because none of them are listed as an unknown size? :drama:

How many micro lovers hide a nano, still technically considered a micro as other but hide larger micros as micro? Cheers & jeers to those that do.

Most of what I have seen is people will list a micro of any size as other in an attempt to reduce the chances their cache will be filtered out.

 

I'm glad I don't live down there.

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted

Wow, someone called "MicroManiacs" just had published 150 new caches .... Microinvasion 1 through 150. All in or around Brandon, Fl. (just SouthEast of Tampa) Its a nightmare for those who dont like micros :drama:

It shouldn't be any more of a nightmare for microhaters as it was before. All they have to do is exclude micros from their PQs and it's like they don't even exist.
Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted
That's awesome. At least they're not Nanos.
Who says?
Because none of them are listed as an unknown size? :)
Nanos are micros, not 'unknown'.

 

I agree. However, some nano owners dont' and insist on listing them as "unknown".

 

It's only us small number of Geocachers who hang out in the forums who know this information. Everyone else is automatically conditioned to list them as unknown. :drama:

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
That's awesome. At least they're not Nanos.
Who says?
Because none of them are listed as an unknown size? :)
Nanos are micros, not 'unknown'.

 

I agree. However, some nano owners dont' and insist on listing them as "unknown".

 

It's only us small number of Geocachers who hang out in the forums who know this information. Everyone else is automatically conditioned to list them as unknown. :drama:

I disagree. While it is true that some people think that 'unknown' is the correct size for nanos, anyone who has actually read the guidelines understands that they are actually 'micro'. I believe that most cache owners have read the guidelines.
Link to comment
Castle Mischief

+Castle Mischief

Posted
Posted

I disagree. While it is true that some people think that 'unknown' is the correct size for nanos, anyone who has actually read the guidelines understands that they are actually 'micro'. I believe that most cache owners have read the guidelines.

 

For reasons I don't understand, some COs think that "unknown*" is the correct size to list any container that they want to increase the "mysteriousness" on. It seems in my finds that these are usually micros but are sometimes regular and small.

 

 

 

 

*Also known as "Not Chosen" or "Not Listed". Interchangeable with "Other".

Link to comment
Snoogans

+Snoogans

Posted
Posted (edited)

Good on Micromaniacs for contributing 150 new choices for local cachers to hunt. :)

 

I may shut off my notifications. I know of a cacher or two around here that would jump at the chance to copycat this kind of thing.

 

And it would be just awful for you to have a bunch more choices of caches to hunt? :drama:

 

You earned a gift horse. :D

 

e0febc68-e3f4-494c-b911-bce624ec22fd.jpg

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
Skippermark

Skippermark

Posted
Posted
While it is true that some people think that 'unknown' is the correct size for nanos, anyone who has actually read the guidelines understands that they are actually 'micro'.

Around here some call them micros and some call them unknowns. Not sure why when the micro size covers nanos quite nicely. Maybe we should see if Groundspeak can add nano as a new cache size. :lol:

 

For reasons I don't understand, some COs think that "unknown*" is the correct size to list any container that they want to increase the "mysteriousness" on. It seems in my finds that these are usually micros but are sometimes regular and small.

Agreed. I can count the number of regulars and larges that I've found on one hand that were listed as unknowns. All the rest have been micros.

Link to comment
Castle Mischief

+Castle Mischief

Posted
Posted

...some nano owners don't and insist on listing them as "unknown".

That's why I filter out "unknown" as well as "micro". Can't think of an "unknown" that I found that wasn't a nano.

 

I filter them out because I just don't want to look for caches that haven't been defined by size category. Somebody else may think this is silly, but it just has that feeling of "I didn't care enough to click the right button". Kind of mirrors my feelings for cache descriptions with multiple spelling and capitalization errors. No effort in the listing? Then I won't spend the effort in the hunting - ignore.

 

One that recently popped up in my new cache notifications had the size as Not Chosen but then told plainly in the description that it was a micro. Why do that?

 

 

(For those playing along at home, Not Chosen = Unknown = Not Listed.)

Link to comment
Castle Mischief

+Castle Mischief

Posted
Posted

To get this thread back on track...

 

Looks like there are still plenty of FTF oppertunities!

 

I don't see a problem with hiding 150 at once. for the people that like/want to hunt micros it's incredible. If you don't want to hunt them then... why would you care?

 

Honestly, although I generally filter them out, I would probably run a sepparate PQ just to find some of these. Might be kind of cool to see who you ran into trying to get a FTF.

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted

I am guessing, though, that if they hid 150 micros, odds are the containers are free film cannisters (or maybe the preferred test strip containers). That would be a lot of money in commercial containers like bison tubes!

Did the pictures of the film cans in the cache description give it away?
Link to comment
agentmancuso

+agentmancuso

Posted
Posted

I filter them out because I just don't want to look for caches that haven't been defined by size category. Somebody else may think this is silly, but it just has that feeling of "I didn't care enough to click the right button". Kind of mirrors my feelings for cache descriptions with multiple spelling and capitalization errors. No effort in the listing? Then I won't spend the effort in the hunting - ignore.

 

There's a lot of sense in that.

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

I am guessing, though, that if they hid 150 micros, odds are the containers are free film cannisters (or maybe the preferred test strip containers). That would be a lot of money in commercial containers like bison tubes!

Did the pictures of the film cans in the cache description give it away?

 

 

Hmmmm... no. Maybe that explains why my DNF count is so high?

Link to comment
PastorJon

PastorJon

Posted
Posted

 

Around here some call them micros and some call them unknowns. Not sure why when the micro size covers nanos quite nicely. Maybe we should see if Groundspeak can add nano as a new cache size. :lol:

 

 

That's a great idea! We should start a suggestions thread about that!!!

Link to comment
Clan Riffster

Clan Riffster

Posted
Posted

Got Tedium?

 

It seems the people of Brandon Florida have been the victims of a plague. Someone infected the region with 150 micros, which appear to be those oh so leaky film cans, judging from the picture on the copy/paste cache page. They created a sock puppet account just for the hides, which makes me wonder if they are hiding their identity in shame, or if this is just a cheesy way for them to increase their find count. Pass the penicillin! If you should be so unfortunate as to find yourself handling one of these, please use proper hand washing techniques to avoid spreading the virus. Let us all bow our heads in prayer for those poor souls who live in the region where the plague started.

;):P:P:P:P:P

 

Just wait until I do my ammo can invasion...

:D:anibad::P:lol::D:lol::P:)

Link to comment
Snoogans

+Snoogans

Posted
Posted (edited)

It seems the people of Brandon Florida have been the victims of a plague. Someone infected the region with 150 micros, which appear to be those oh so leaky film cans, judging from the picture on the copy/paste cache page. They created a sock puppet account just for the hides, which makes me wonder if they are hiding their identity in shame, or if this is just a cheesy way for them to increase their find count. Pass the penicillin! If you should be so unfortunate as to find yourself handling one of these, please use proper hand washing techniques to avoid spreading the virus. Let us all bow our heads in prayer for those poor souls who live in the region where the plague started.

 

What? :P Did you forget your scapegoat? :P

 

Just blame it all on ME. Snoogans aka The single worst proliferator of micros in geocaching history and quite possibly the guy who killed Santa. :P;):lol:

 

No doubt the hider(s) of these choices of smiley have previously found an O.D.S. cache(s) or maybe even attended the O.D.S. launch event. (lotsa Fla. cachers at the launch during GW4) :P

 

According to yumi-what's-his-face, folks in his local cachin' continuum couldn't hide a decent cache after participating in my project. :):anibad::lol::D:P:D

 

dead-santa-1.jpg

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted (edited)
Around here some call them micros and some call them unknowns. Not sure why when the micro size covers nanos quite nicely. Maybe we should see if Groundspeak can add nano as a new cache size. :lol:
That's a great idea! We should start a suggestions thread about that!!!
A better solution would be to simply change the form to not allow 'other' or 'not listed' to be selected for any cache with a physical container. This would be in alignment with the guidelines which state:
Cache Sizes

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.

 

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)

Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L – holds trade items as well as a logbook)

Regular (plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox)

Large (5 gallon/20 L bucket or larger)

As you can see, the guidelines do not allow for the 'other' or 'not listed' option for these caches. The form should not, either.

 

Someone infected the region with 150 micros, which appear to be those oh so leaky film cans, judging from the picture on the copy/paste cache page. They created a sock puppet account just for the hides, which makes me wonder if they are hiding their identity in shame, or if this is just a cheesy way for them to increase their find count.

 

<The bulk of the useless drama has been snipped from this post. Sadly, it was impossible to remove it all.>

  • Film cans can be perfectly adequate containers, depending on the cache location, even in Florida.
  • Regarding the 'sock puppet' account, perhaps they hid them as a team. Perhaps most everyone in the area knows who the hiders are and were in on the joke.
  • Perhaps they just didn't want to be the recipient of your drama.
  • Who cares if this results in the increase of anyone's find count? Are you that concerned with numbers that you care about the counts of some unknown cacher who doesn't even live in your local area?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
GOF and Bacall

GOF and Bacall

Posted
Posted

I could not care less how many crappy micros get tossed out the window. They just get filtered with the rest of the trash. Too bad about the handful of well thought out micros placed in interesting places. I'll just have to depend on word of mouth to hear about those.

 

The part that would annoy me is the sudden appearance of 150 emails in my in box. I feel sorry for those who get the notice on their phones, it could easily wreck your day. "Yeah, sorry boss. I was having an issue with my phone today."

Link to comment
Clan Riffster

Clan Riffster

Posted
Posted
Just blame it all on ME.

Sir, I feel I have been quite diligent in blaming any and all negative aspects of geocaching on you. Did BillyBobNosePicker mess up his PQ, accidentally adding micros? It's all Snoog's fault. Did he spend way too much time pawing through Wally World shrubbery? Again, blame the Snoogster. Break a nail on an ammo can? Yup! It's all on you! If you feel I've been remiss in my "Blame Snoogans For Everything" campaign, I hope you'll accept my humblest apologies, along with my sincere promise to try harder. As proof of my commitment, may I offer my T.D.S. (Clan Riffster) cache? If that doesn't lay the blame for all things icky in the world squarely on your shoulders, I don't know what will. ;):)

Link to comment
Snoogans

+Snoogans

Posted
Posted
Just blame it all on ME.

Sir, I feel I have been quite diligent in blaming any and all negative aspects of geocaching on you. Did BillyBobNosePicker mess up his PQ, accidentally adding micros? It's all Snoog's fault. Did he spend way too much time pawing through Wally World shrubbery? Again, blame the Snoogster. Break a nail on an ammo can? Yup! It's all on you! If you feel I've been remiss in my "Blame Snoogans For Everything" campaign, I hope you'll accept my humblest apologies, along with my sincere promise to try harder. As proof of my commitment, may I offer my T.D.S. (Clan Riffster) cache? If that doesn't lay the blame for all things icky in the world squarely on your shoulders, I don't know what will. :lol::P

 

:)B):oB):)B)

 

Of course you know that this means WAR! :anibad::laughing:;)

Link to comment
Clan Riffster

Clan Riffster

Posted
Posted
Of course you know that this means WAR!

<wimpers quietly as he scurries into a dark corner...> ;)

 

Film cans can be perfectly adequate containers, depending on the cache location, even in Florida.

I agree wholeheartedly. If you keep them in a kitchen drawer, they are awesome. :)

Whatever.

No, it's true! Kodak did a study many, many moons ago, and found that black and grey film cans, in kitchen drawers, in environment controlled dwellings, do a pretty darn good job at protecting film for brief periods of time. Look it up! It's true even here in sunny Florida. Heck, you could probably fashion an experiment yourself that demonstrates this. Buy two rolls of identical 35mm film. Stick them in a kitchen drawer. Take one out after an hour or so and shoot the roll with your favorite camera. Take the second out after a week or so and shoot it through the same camera, at the same subjects. Compare the two sets.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...