Jump to content

Bifrost


Hammerman & Trixter

Recommended Posts

What secret information would the reviewer actually have. In all the caches I have published iribit has never asked where it was hidden or what was hidden or how it was hidden. He has only questioned whether it was inside a private building when the co-ords were off. The fact that he didn't find this particular cache (like everybody else) would tend to support that there is no secret info, other than the reviewer could delay publishing so they could find it before it was actually published.

 

The fact that one user posts a needs archiving tag shouldn't be the end of a cache. It is never the case when I do it. Surely, the next step is that a different reviewer will post a note, or something of the like, asking for clarification and then giving the CO an opportunity to respond to defend the placement.

Link to comment

I guess I just assumed that once you became a reviewer you couldn't cache in certain locations anymore due to insider knowledge.....

 

That is the most absurd thing I have ever read. Why on earth would someone became a volunteer reviewer if it then excluded them from caching in certain areas!

 

What is downright deceitful is having a reviewer who is privy to the exact location/method of concealment/final gz/puzzle solution turn up to try and claim an ftf. By your standards there would be nothing wrong with creating an account for my wife and having her go out and get the FTF on Bifrost.

Knowing the person in question as I do, I very much doubt that the aim was to claim FTF. I am sure it would be to 1) assure himself that the cache is actually there (and you'd have to be pretty naive if you dont think people are asking this question); and 2) that it complies with the guidelines.

Link to comment

Gee this is sad. I think that perhaps the reviewer in question here has taken things a little bit too far. I have done one of the archived caches and yes I suppose that the "object or property has been modified" slightly to accommodate the hide, but there is no way that you could say that the modification is "defacing or destoying" public or private property which is the main objective of the guideline. This was a seriously good cache I don't think it deserved this treatment.

 

Surely the intention of the guideline "Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property" was to ensure that serious and detramental damage was not done in order to hide a cache. If a modification has been done that hasn't defaced or destroyed property then I think sense should prevail and the cache should be allowed to stay.

 

I'm sure many would argue that rules are rules and in this case they are explicit, but I don't think that the strict application of them is going to make geocaching a better passtime.

Link to comment

Cachers and reviewers alike do not get to pick and choose which of the guidelines apply to a cache, as soon as you enter into a debate over the adherance of the guidelines for a cache you need to apply the entire set of guidelines including those sections pertaining to permission. No hider as far as I am aware has sought permission from council or government to place a cache on or in property within the boudaries of their respective jurisdiction as is required by the Groundspeak guidelines, other than national forrest which have a clear ruling on permission, method, type and placement.

 

As it stands, in accordance with the grounspeak guidelines no cache can be placed on council or government property without permission, this guideline applies as equally as the guideline relating to property damage. Reviewers have no choice but to adhere to an archive request that is placed on a cache that is subject to violation of the permissions guideline should the breach of the guidelines prove to be accurate, this is NOT subject to the personal opinions of a reviewer it is a clear fact of whether a cacher does or doesn't have permission to place a cache at a location. The above is not new, these are the Groundspeak guidelines that have always applied.

 

Obviously the onus is on the hider to obtain the permission, but should adherance to the guidelines ever come into question it would be up to the hider to reasonably prove permission was granted otherwise the cache MUST be archived to satisfy the guidelines and conditions placed by Groundspeak. If the geocaching community in general do not like the guidelines then either seek to get them changed or stop playing the game. Again I'll reitterate the application of the Groundspeak guidelines is NOT at the discretion of a reviewer, they are intended to be applied in every circumstance.

 

If at some point a regulatory body like a council grants or denies permission to place geocaches, with or without conditions, in or on property under their jurisdiction and the status and details of that permission is made known and proven to be accurate, to the review panel, then the reviewers have no choice but to allow or deny publishing caches that are placed within those areas specified, under the conditions specified if there are any.

 

Please note, this post covers and seeks to address BOTH situations with regards to permission, approval and denial, it is NOT aimed at destroying the game of geocaching as it applies to Groundspeak, but rather as a reminder and removal of the illusion of permission we seem to take for granted where there actually is none implied or otherwise.

Edited by Hammerman.
Link to comment

The Groundspeak guideline relating to permission is actually very clear.

 

For clarification here is the GS guidline relating to permission.

 

Obtain the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property. By submitting a geocache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.

 

In the case of public property, contact the agency or association that manages the land to obtain permission. The U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others, prohibit geocaching on lands they manage. Even if you are certain that geocaching is permitted on a particular public property, ensure that the management agency is aware of your intended placement and secure their permission before placing the cache.

If Groundspeak is contacted and informed that your cache has been placed inappropriately, your cache may be temporarily disabled or permanently archived.

Link to comment

This series of actions to bring geocaching into disrepute has been the result of a childish response by a caching team to one person’s ‘Needs Archive’ log on 4 of their caches...nothing more! At any point in time, the CO’s regarding these 4 caches could have chosen to follow the usual procedure of waiting for their local reviewer to contact them regarding this request to archive their caches, and work with the reviewer to work out possible solutions to maintain their cache...if in fact it came to that at all...but they didn’t.

 

Instead, they decided to throw a dummy spit, archive those 4 caches themselves without any discussion or intervention whatsoever with either the reviewer or the person that placed the NA log. Then they proceeded to archive the rest of their caches as well, all barring two at the time of writing, in an act of self pity, in what appears to be an attempt to highlight their perceived victimisation. If that wasn’t enough, they then decided to bring it to the attention of the wider geocaching community to gain public support, and then use this to alienate their local geocaching community by seeking out to archive surrounding caches in another childish selfish act of ruining this wonderful activity of ours.

 

Keep in mind, none of this has anything to do with...’Bifrost’, needing permission to place a cache, or any other lame excuse the CO’s would have you believe. All of this has resulted in a simple case of one caching team objecting to the opinion of another over the nature of the cache hide, in which any cacher has the right to do if they see a potential issue with a cache. It is then up to the reviewer of that particular state to decide what needs to be done. Archiving of a cache is not up to me or anyone else to decide except for the CO of the relevant cache and the reviewer. I am appalled at the criticism of our reviewers for their role in this fiasco, when not one of them has had a hand in anything to do with archiving of these caches! Yes the person who placed a NA log on these caches also happens to be a reviewer (and one of the most respected cachers in the country), but instead of making that log under his reviewer account, he chose to keep his integrity by writing it under his player account, and leaving it up to the reviewer of that state to decide what should be done, much like the rest of us would and should do! This also included writing a NA log on another cacher’s cache for that day, yet, I don’t see him or anyone else for that matter who has had a cache archived in the past act like a 2 year old and make it everyone else’s problem.

 

There are a number of people who have worked too hard to develop a good relationship with councils and other authorities, not only in NSW, but across Australia to have one selfish caching team try and screw it up!

Edited by Marcus Vitruvius
Link to comment

Having recently having had a cache knocked back by a reviewer I can appreciate Hammermans frustration. Mine wasn't so different from a number that I had found in the past so I was a little annoyed at the time. However I conceded that perhaps the reviewer had a point about the placement so I removed the cache.

It got me thinking about just how much the reviewers do to aid in the game, it's not just a quick tick and flick they look at location and appropriateness of cache and if it passes muster out it goes if it doesn't they just ask a question and re review. Personally I really appreciate the efforts of these volunteers.

Sad to see the archiving of what sound to be some pretty interesting caches but all CO's have the right to remove if they have concerns or get disillusioned a similar case happened down around Torquay in Vic on Mr Emus series.

As to Hammermans queries to his LGA "Bravo" I say it can only promote the sport if it ends up getting some press.

I hardly think that such a harmless globally accepted past time would be threatened by a small local council in Sydney. If they did say no to hides in that area what would they ban next.......Easter egg hunts in local parks... I don't think so

Best of luck Hammerman and thanks to all you volunteer reviewers too

Link to comment

From my POV the reviewer is picking and choosing which GS rules / local laws to apply at a whim, if for example, they're having a bad day or can't find some of your caches. Worse yet it seems this particular reviewer is hiding behind his real id and making NA demands knowing that cachers are also aware he is a reviewer and the threat that implies.

Link to comment

We, like many other teams have been watching Bifrost with great interest to see if and when someone finds it (as well as having a search ourselves). However, your recent actions Hammerman have made us think twice. What started out as quite an history making cache hunt has turned into a child's tantrum as the game is not going your way.

 

Now I understand the point you are trying to get across with your constant referal to Groundspeak's rules in regards to permission but why ruin the game for everyone else with this pettiness? I'm hoping that you receive a positive response from the council.

 

As to what Big Matt did, he has our support and continuing respect. It must be very hard as a reviewer to come across caches that do break the rules and not do something about it. I know if this was one of our caches we'd work with the local reviewer to see what we can do before just archiving everything in a childish hissy fit and giving up this great game.

 

Having not found any of your caches (and we were planning to try on Sunday) I can't comment on the tricky hides and the alteration to objects but if I were the keeper of the altered object and not a cacher I would consider it vandalism despite the fact that you may see it as maintaining an otherwise neglected object.

 

Some teams have lost our respect and others have gained it through this ongoing debate.

Link to comment

On GCA I was asked, what exactly was wrong with the 4 caches that prompted the reviewer posting with his normal account to log an NA request. I posted there and thought I add it here as well.

 

Shelter From The Storm

A timber park shelter. The cache was a small bison tube with a screw shaft and head attached, the screw head was identical to the other screws used in the beams under the roofline. The cache was placed in a missing screw hole that had been drilled out to the size of a small bison tube, the diameter of the bison tube and the screw head were an exact match.

 

Melaluka Park

A timber shelter where the cache was a small bison tube attached to a replica timber knot. It was placed at the very top of a timber upright where an existing knot was removed.

 

Thewellwashere

A small community centre bench seat made of timber slats screwed directly on a curved brick construstruction. One of the slats were removed drilled out to accomodate a very elaborate refastning mechanism that would allow the timber slat to continue functioning in its intended purpose, the cache was a bison tube localted in a hole in the underside centre of the slat.

Note that when the site was original investigated for a cache, we noticed some of the slats were already very loose so during the cache placement all loose slats were rescrewed with new longer stainless steel screws. We noticed that some more slats had come loose in subsequent searches by other cachers, these too were resecured using the longer stainless steel screws.

 

Take me Out to the Ball Game

One was in a sports field wooden shelter where some small holes were drilled and magnets were glued into the holes. a bison tube size hole was then drilled and a small metal plate fitted to the magnets to conceal the bison tube in the hole. This was done with permission from the sports field caretakers / organisers.

It is interesting to note that we have another cache in the same sports ground with even more modification with approval from the caretakers / organisers, that did not get a NA request.

 

All modifications were made with the continued orignial functions and structural integrity preserved.

 

Please note too that I had met this reviewer at GZ for Bifrost and the conversation we had did go into the topic of modifications. At that time the reviewer actually said he had no problem with caches in modified construction if the cacher had gone to the trouble of taking said item away modifying it and then bringing it back with respect to the craftmanship involved.

 

During the conversation I added that you'd also have to consider preserving the original functionality of whatever you were modifying, and he agreed.

 

Again from my POV it seems this reviewer in his capacity as just another cacher attempted and DNF'd and PAF'd his way through several of my caches on that day and got annoyed at the DNF's and PAF's, then decided to start logging NA requests. What else am I to assume within the context of our earlier conversation and the recent turn of events?

Link to comment

Don't feel let down by what they're doing! Keep at it! You guys are amazing hiders (from what I've heard) and although I've only found one of your caches it was amazing! I don't think the reviewers should be as concerned as they do with YOUR caches, in particularly. Quite a few caches that I have found have not been in the required things when it comes to hiding a cache.

 

Most caches in some way or another don't comply with all of the terms and conditions..

 

Hope things eventually turn out right!

Edited by slaytornator
Link to comment

I agree the rules (like pretty much everything in adult life) is ambiguous and open to personal interpretation. For what it's worth, and without knowing anything more about these 4 caches than what was posted above, at least 2 of them do seem contrary to how I interpret the published guidelines, being "Thewellwashere" and "Shelter From The Storm". The thing would stop me from placing a hide like that (well, apart from lacking the imagination and skill required) is I probably couldn't bring myself to make a permanent alteration of a physical object without the owners permission (I assume "Melaluka Park" could be 'undone' by replacing the original knot, and you had permission to make the changes in "Take me Out to the Ball Game").

Link to comment

I'll start off by introducing myself as the other half of the H&T team so you understand where I'm coming from.  Yes there are 2 of us, I state this as there is a lot of painting 2 people who have varying approaches with the same brush (This is fact and not up to a theoretical debate about team structure). To date I have not commented on anything apart from the original note on the going on's which were basically a list of events and my thoughts as I saw them.  This was posted due to the large number of questions we were receiving and done in public domain. (Although some of you may disagree and that is your right, the 4 posted NA's are also public in nature as they appear to all watchers as well as anyone looking to do the caches).  If you read back you will also note there are no personal attacks.

 

I would like to point out up-front that I have a fair amount of respect for the job of a reviewer, which is as we all know takes a fair amount of personal effort.  It should also be noted though, that once you become a reviewer irrespective of which name you use, you are no longer part of the crowd or can even be considered as that. Your status changes and your level of influence changes.  To think otherwise would be to deny reality.  It's a little like being promoted thought the ranks in any field,  like it or not you are different and your level for influence changes.

 

The 1st I knew of an issue being raised with any of our caches was though notification of a NA log placed on not 1 but 4 of our caches.  In the past if I have had an issue with something while searching I have always contacted the CO or spoken to them and explained my concerns. I have not initially put a public note on their caches, but that's my approach. Please note that we never heard of what the detailed concern is other than the posted guideline, and still haven't (now a moot point) only that our caches needed to be archived.  This was not from a regular cacher but was from a reviewer. Matt is not just another cacher. It's also an interesting to see some people posting about two way dialogue BUT expect the CO to commence dialogue and not the person making a claim.

 

As stated in the initial post I agree items were modified which breaches guidelines if interpreted Black and White.  I would have thought though, that the sentiment behind this is to ensure GZ and its surrounding environment were not damaged and no longer fit for purpose.  Pure black and white interpretation for a lot of things would get nasty quickly. Hammerman is his own way has attempted to point out that if one rule was to be enforced strictly so should the others.  This in effect became the heart of the matter and the emotive reason the other caches were  archived.  They would all fail one rule or another when interpreted with a black and white lense.  A semi extreme approach maybe, but there is nothing to stop an NA archive request on any of them.   

 

The number of posts on this subject goes to the passion people have for the game. It's no different for us, and to expect there be no reaction in receiving 4 NA logs in one hit by a reviewer, with all the effort that has gone into them is a little rich.  I'm sure most people are protective of their geohides.

 

It's been an interesting approach when you consider the number or geotrails, geocrop circles, damaged natural environments , damaged trees, modified fences, modified objects, partially buried, completely covered, No information, trampled garden beds etc etc I have encountered in my small caching number and I'm sure everyone has encountered.  Now I'm not saying we should archive them all as they breach something or another, it's just that there should be a uniform approach to them all.  If we go to one extreme or the other there would be little enjoyment in this activity.

 

Best Regards

The Trixter

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Well said Trixter. I liked the rational explanation and lack of emotion. I think the ball is now in the NSW reviewer's court...

Actually its not. The cache owner archived their caches.

 

The Needs Archived log would have or should have prompted a reviewer contacting the cache owner. The archiving by the cache owner would stop that. The cache owner has repeatedly picked up the bat and ball and threatened to go home yet we are still here. The reasons for the Need archiving log is valid and should have been discussed. That doesn't mean that the caches needed or would have been archived.

 

It seems it is only a few people including the cache owners that put a lot of store on who the team was that logged the need archiving.

 

The tangent the team has taken the discussion will not help themselves or anyone else. The discussion of the caches in question with the reviewer would have worked out whether there was going to be a "black and white" interpretation. The cache owner preempted a decision on their own perceptions which I believe were erroneous.

 

A tupperware container under a bush or rock is pretty much geocaching. If it doesn't do it for you then maybe this is not the place for you.

Link to comment

Aargh! Stupid me, yes BelKen, you're right. I blame the wine I had earlier... ;-)

 

The CO short-circuited the normal NA process by archiving their caches. Maybe it would be prudent to un-archive them and let the process run its course?

 

But sorry, I can't agree with your statement that "A tupperware container under a bush or rock is pretty much geocaching." Pushing boundaries and trying to improve the standard of caches I think is a good thing. Challenging and creative caches make my day - it's the boring ones that send me spare and turn me off.

Edited by Two_Drews
Link to comment

Well the "boring ones" are the ones that us newbies find exciting, particularly when you have young kids. Nobody makes you do them if they are 1.5. I get annoyed every time somebody logs a comment on one of my caches like that.

 

Based on the reply, at the ball game didn't need to be archived as it was done with the permission of the landowner. If the landowner gives permission to modify an object, it is their object, and Groundspeak cannot stop a landowner allowing GZ to be changed. Arguably, atthewell didn't need to be archived if you simply replaced a missing knot. It is a shame the NSW reviewer wasn't given the chance to consider them as he doesn't seem to have a problem with Bifrost and you have gone to a lot of work to put the caches together.

Link to comment

Aargh! Stupid me, yes BelKen, you're right. I blame the wine I had earlier... ;-)

 

The CO short-circuited the normal NA process by archiving their caches. Maybe it would be prudent to un-archive them and let the process run its course?

 

But sorry, I can't agree with your statement that "A tupperware container under a bush or rock is pretty much geocaching." Pushing boundaries and trying to improve the standard of caches I think is a good thing. Challenging and creative caches make my day - it's the boring ones that send me spare and turn me off.

The pushing of boundaries is always welcome. Just stay within some parameters. We have seen many innovative caches that required no drilling or other type work. All of our caches are ammo cans under bushes or rocks. We don't have many complaints.

 

The problem with this discussion is no-one is a winner. The cache owners are correct in many regards and if you want to take on the Grounspeak guidelines then the approach they are taking means you are pretty much assured the outcome they are chasing. I am sure if the list of the cache hiding techniques was published in the main forum here there would have been a avalanche of opinions and I would predict not many of them would have supported the cache owners. This discussion will be found sooner or later.

 

One Bifrost logs mentions the a frog being found and picked up. This is in fact a moveable cache listed within the last rwo months. As far as Groundspeak guidelines are concerned a moveable cache does not exist. Yet there it was.

Link to comment

I have this up on GCA but thought it appropriate to keep both communities informed

 

Hi, this is the Trixter part of what is the Ex- Hammerman & Trixter team. The team is effectively no longer as one member is no longer "active" user as such. Im in the process of looking to get some of the archived caches alive. Througt this process though I need to get clarification of what modification is acceptable by Groundspeak (these may only be applicable to GC caches but since thats where they are listed im asking them). To that end I have asked Groundspeak to clarify their stance. I have provided details on 2 of the ex H&T caches ie Shelter from the Storm and one that has the most modification ie thewellwashere. The details included what the hide was and how we made them. This should help clarify things a little. In additon, since we had some caches where permission was granted BUT something was modified, one of our reviewers is assisting me and looking into groundspeaks take on that as well. With a little luck we should have a little more clarity soon on when modification is acceptable.This has been for my own clarification of my own caches. Im happy to share both my request email and any response I receive with the reviewers if they want.This may assist for future cache development and help with clarity eg the prevoiusly posted notes about fence caps and holes behind reflectors.

Best of Regards and happy caching

The Trixter

Edited by The Trixter
Link to comment

Hi Guy,

 

Unfortunately as per the Groudspeak rules and after going through the process of trying to get permission from Blacktown council, they have responded with blanket no to placing a cache on any property they are in charge of as well as a blanket no to engaging in the activity of geocaching in the same areas / property. Yeah, you heard that right, they have said no to going out onto their properties to LOOK for caches too!! One of their issues is liability from an organised event scenario which they see geocaching as being.

 

Remember too that Blacktown council covers the entire Blacktown municipality and not just the suburb of Blacktown!!

 

I've forwarded their response and their contact details to the NSW reviewer for GS, but there is a bit of a light at the end of the tunnel, the council is willing to accept written requests for permission with regards to cache placement / use of their property similar to the Parks and Wildlife ruling (Note this is a distinction between placing / looking) on a cahce by cache, site by site basis. The downside is that there may be a small fee per application to cover the cost of maintaining the area's around GZ on the basis that more people at GZ means more wear on the environment. Yes, obviously if an area gets trashed the applicant will be liable for the damages.

Edited by Hammerman.
Link to comment

I've forwarded their response and their contact details to the NSW reviewer for GS.

 

This is contrary to the response Geocaching NSW received from Blacktown City Council. We'll be chasing this matter up further.

 

We are currently starting the process of building a positive relationship with NSW councils, such as with North Sydney Council and more recently with Blacktown City Council.

 

I'm would be interested, as would others, in seeing exactly what was sent by Hammerman/extremepc to the Council and a copy of their reply.

Edited by The Spindoctors
Link to comment

I've forwarded their response and their contact details to the NSW reviewer for GS.

 

This is contrary to the response Geocaching NSW received from Blacktown City Council. We'll be chasing this matter up further.

 

We are currently starting the process of building a positive relationship with NSW councils, such as with North Sydney Council and more recently with Blacktown City Council.

 

I'm would be interested, as would others, in seeing exactly what was sent by Hammerman/extremepc to the Council and a copy of their reply.

 

The spindoctors now have a copy of the email to and from the council along with the contact details for the correct council member to speak to contained within.

 

I'm copying a post I made on the GCA forums here out of completness.

 

Guys don't assume my motives here, I actually wish the organisers DO get permission!! I post here in the GCA forums out of respect to the memebers that do not visit the GC forums. My entire aim is to get clarification and adherance to the letter of the Groundspeak guidelines in making the permission request of my local council.

 

The reply I recieved from them is dated the 7/2/2012, the phone call I made to the contact listed on their reply was on the 8/2/2012. The listed contact is the Operations Coordinator Open Space for the Blacktown council, this is the guy where the buck stops with regards to our concerns. At the time of the phone call I made, I asked and was told that no one else had ever made a similar request of the Blacktown council.

 

If anyone has made contact with and is in negotionations with the council since my phone call on the 8/2/2012 then my absolute best wishes and good luck go out to you. After getting the reply and making the phone call, I forwarded the reply and gist of the phone call to the NSW reviewer for Goundspeak, I then sat and stewed for a week, deliberating on weather you guys wanted to know the outcome. I thought it would be best for everyone here and at GC.COM to know where things were at.

 

I mean seriously all I'm aiming to do is be able to have cache listings on GC.COM that arn't in jeopardy of being archived at any time because they're in violation of one rule or another, is that too much to ask for?

 

All corespondence I've had with the council with regards to caching has either been neutral as in just the facts or pro geocaching!!! I will freely admit that weeks ago I was absolutely enraged, however I have calmed somewhat since then. Again whoever is trying to sort out the permissions issue with any of the councils with regards to geocaching, I wish you the best of luck.

Edited by Hammerman.
Link to comment

I have just seen where Cachers are expecting a hint now that there are 200 DNF's. A lot of these are people who have been back more than once and there are still a lot of us who are looking forward to getting the chance to try just as all the previous Cachers have tried. I hope th CO leaves it as it is without any clues as there is a chance the required information is already provided in the hint.

Link to comment

I think the reason many of us who have searched for this cache many times would like to see a more dirct hint is we don't think it is going to be found otherwise. And we really would like to see it found, if for no other reason to confirm it is in fact findable.

 

If someone wants to have a go at looking without a hint, then don't look at the hint.

 

Actually my preference would be for confirmation of precise coordinates (by which i mean, within 50cm when plotted in google earth) even more than a direct hint.

Link to comment

Actually my preference would be for confirmation of precise coordinates (by which i mean, within 50cm when plotted in google earth) even more than a direct hint.

 

Where would you get such a GPS?, as far as I'm aware only the military have access to such equipment.

I refer you to the US GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM STANDARD POSITIONING SERVICE PERFORMANCE STANDARD 2008 to current, it clealrly states civilian GPS accuracy is no greater than 4m (up from 7m in 2001).

 

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

 

I can confirm, the cache is definately within the 4m range of accuracy from gz on Google Earth, as provided by civilian GPS standards.

Edited by Hammerman.
Link to comment

The 2 methods I am aware of to get coordinates as accurate as possible are

1) waypoint averaging, i.e take multiple readings over a period of time such that the errors cancel each other out - many modern GPSs will do this for you with a press of a button, and

2) find GZ in the close up view in google earth, and take the coordinates from that.

Link to comment

The 2 methods I am aware of to get coordinates as accurate as possible are

1) waypoint averaging, i.e take multiple readings over a period of time such that the errors cancel each other out - many modern GPSs will do this for you with a press of a button, and

2) find GZ in the close up view in google earth, and take the coordinates from that.

 

How about I go and paint a big arrow pointing at it, would that make you feel better or I could just go and sign it for the both of us as joint FTF. :)

Link to comment

The 2 methods I am aware of to get coordinates as accurate as possible are

1) waypoint averaging, i.e take multiple readings over a period of time such that the errors cancel each other out - many modern GPSs will do this for you with a press of a button, and

2) find GZ in the close up view in google earth, and take the coordinates from that.

 

How about I go and paint a big arrow pointing at it, would that make you feel better or I could just go and sign it for the both of us as joint FTF. :)

 

Rather than worrying about the accuracy of any gps, how about the image in google earth, it points to a certain spot based on the original coordinates entered. I believe this is a good guide to use. I think that what cachers are asking, is it where google earth shows GZ.then there can't be any ambiguity about GZ. You can see GZ, it is on the edge of the bridge, as it shows in google earth and geocaching.com. Pretty much every other cache I have found seems to be right on the spot that google earth shows, except for this one ( but this is not confirmed as it has not been found yet), this is what cahcers need confirming.

I see a few logs in the cache page that cachers are now asking not to give a clue ( now that it has reached 200 DNF), but the CO did promise a clue and did not come up with the goods. Is this fair?

Link to comment

The 2 methods I am aware of to get coordinates as accurate as possible are

1) waypoint averaging, i.e take multiple readings over a period of time such that the errors cancel each other out - many modern GPSs will do this for you with a press of a button, and

2) find GZ in the close up view in google earth, and take the coordinates from that.

 

How about I go and paint a big arrow pointing at it, would that make you feel better or I could just go and sign it for the both of us as joint FTF. :)

 

Rather than worrying about the accuracy of any gps, how about the image in google earth, it points to a certain spot based on the original coordinates entered. I believe this is a good guide to use. I think that what cachers are asking, is it where google earth shows GZ.then there can't be any ambiguity about GZ. You can see GZ, it is on the edge of the bridge, as it shows in google earth and geocaching.com. Pretty much every other cache I have found seems to be right on the spot that google earth shows, except for this one ( but this is not confirmed as it has not been found yet), this is what cahcers need confirming.

I see a few logs in the cache page that cachers are now asking not to give a clue ( now that it has reached 200 DNF), but the CO did promise a clue and did not come up with the goods. Is this fair?

 

I could name 20 within 2km of home that are not on the dot right under the GE position.

Link to comment

The Story of Bifrost the geocache

 

A little while back Hammerman, LesSue and I were all sitting in Hammerman’s garage and thinking about where to hide a new cache. We fired up Google maps and looked for some likely park type areas close to home, and found a nice little place with what seems to be a fountain. We all piled into our cars and headed to what is now the Bifrost GZ.

 

Having a scout around the place we noticed many great likely hiding spots, BUT what if I could hide something in plain sight, something everyone is likely to handle, something that was not a micro, but obviously something that blends in. Taking down some mental notes it was time to go home and figure out what to make.

 

Over the next few days there were many ideas as the location is rich in possibilities, but one idea kept coming back to me. So it was off to a local store(s) to buy the tools and the base camo to be use. Yes folks, the materials were NOT sourced from the site at all.

 

A week or so of on again off again effort saw the cache container come to life. My wife and kids were wondering what on earth I was up-to and that insanity had finally kicked in. I believe geo-crazy is some sort of medical term, along with me, there is a whole community of us out there :-).

 

With cache constructed and Hammerman along for support it was back to GZ for placement, this was not placed in the dead of the night. A few location readings were taken and we scurried off back to the cars.

 

At this point there are a few things to clarify:

 

a. GZ co-ordinates are never perfect as most people know, my GPS may not be calibrated the exact same way as yours. The GPS gods we all pray to do NOT have pin point accuracy. If they did, how much of a game would this really be?.

b. Once checked, the location was as good as most caches I have found.

c. The cache is not a micro.

d. Contrary to some rumours, the cache was not aged for months before it was placed (I got a chuckle out of that one).

e. We believed that we would get a few DNF’s for the tricky hide but and that would be it.

 

We got home, loaded the required information into the cache page and used the various online available calculators to rate the cache. We then included a brief note to the review of what the cache is.

 

The dice had been rolled and it was time to wait and see.

 

What came next was for lack of a better term …. a journey in human behaviour.

 

The DNF’s started to come in……and so did the emails (but ill get to that in a minute).

 

Myself, Hammerman, his wife and LesSue started to take turns in visiting GZ for a few reasons. Some of it was to check on GZ and make sure people were not being overzealous in their searching, the other was to meet and have a chat to cachers we have never met before.

 

With each week that passed the DNF count grew and….. we loved that the caching community we had only ever known by reading logs started to materialise into faces. We had long travelling visitors and local visitors alike looking for this thing. We even managed to convince some of the locals to take up the challenge and begin caching (maybe bifrost would be a bad starting point).

 

With each week that passed so did the infamy \ notoriety \ popularity of this cache increase. We loved talking to the community and being the “H&T” team at this point. It seemed that we would have what may be the record of DNF’s before a find.

 

With all the effort that had gone into looking, I decided it would be a good idea to provide a prize for the FTF team. I contact Carl from Geostuff, and let him know what we were up to and asked about purchasing a gift certificate. I purchased one ready for the lucky FTF. Carl then graciously doubled the prize.

 

With each week that passed the DNF count had grown and….and then some “interesting” things started to happen….. The DNF’s went up and so did the emails and notes. Most of the emails weren’t of the positive kind, without going into great detail they were something like:

 

• This can’t be a small. It has to be a micro.

• Your location is wrong.

• We want an EXACT location.

• Is it a virtual cache.

• Does the cache even exist?

 

With each week that passed the DNF count had grown and…. then things we didn’t expect to happen started……in the form of bribery….. This came in the form of physical goods and products, on moral grounds and on the grounds of friendship. (This is also the reason why I have not taken someone to the cache to prove it actually exists, I could only imagine what questioning they would get).

 

As time went on, some notes started to mention damage to the area, this seem to pique the interest of the reviewers and one ventured forth to inspect the area. The all ok was given, and Hammerman decided to put out a hint of sorts that went through what should not be “damaged”.

 

Over time, the ongoing barrage of questioning Bifrost’s validity, along with another event led to the disillusion of the H&T team and the eventual “break up” of the team structure.

 

To date I am still getting the back and forth of unhappy people all wanting something i.e. i want a hint, you said you would give a hint, Its unfair to give a hint, Give me a hint but no one else etc etc. It really does come down to you can’t please everyone all the time.

 

So far the journey has been an interesting one, the players are a little battered and to quote “we have seen the best of people and the worst of people”, H&T are included in both sides. We have made some geo-friends, we have lost some geo-friends through our journey.

 

As of today, the FTF is still up for grabs :-) and the count stands at more than 200 DNF’s before a find.

 

Happy Caching and may the GPS gods look to you in favour. :D

The Trixter.

Link to comment

I for one, have had a look for Bifrost, during my travels down to the recent Mega Event. I must have spent over an hour and a half at GZ, and came away empty handed. Am I disappointed, of course, do I want a hint- even though I wont get back down there in the future, no. Its obviously a tough cache. And if thats the case, then so be it.

 

But are the cache owners aware that the Bifrost container was revealed as found on stage at the Mega- actually the container itself was shown? Mr Coffee of the Coffee Clan revealed it. A large white plastic container about 30 x 10 x 10 cm, with BIFROST GEOCACHE emblazoned on it.

Link to comment

Bundy. Thanks for the heads up. I don't know what was presented at the mega but I can confirm it was not BIFROST as that is safe in its place .

I would be interested to know why Mr Coffee went down that path, but I also know of the bifrustration BIFROST has created. I can confirm that had nothing to do with the real BIFROST in north west Sydney.

 

Happy Hunting.

The Trixter

Link to comment

Having read Trixter's post on how Bifrost has come into being .. I'm going to have another crack at it this weekend, I think I know what I'm looking for and where .. but as per request from CO I ain't saying anything .. let's see if my hunch pays off :)

 

Looks like I might be wrong in where it's hidden however I've got another hunch :) (not saying though still out of respect to Trixter)

Link to comment

The cache has been found at last.....I found it today, May the 4th be with me, and it was. Thanks to Hammerman and The Trixter for such a well made cache. Over to all the other poor saps, who along with myself, have been haunted by this cache since early December '11. Wow! 245 dnfs without a find you guys are great hiders.

Link to comment

The cache has been found at last.....I found it today, May the 4th be with me, and it was. Thanks to Hammerman and The Trixter for such a well made cache. Over to all the other poor saps, who along with myself, have been haunted by this cache since early December '11. Wow! 245 dnfs without a find you guys are great hiders.

 

As I said to Rainbow Spirit in the logs and in private via the website, congratulations on the find :)

 

I was hoping when I was at Bifrost GZ there would be a few more cachers there I could "team up" with and see if they had any ideas as to where it's hidden, however reading the back story of the cache itself and their other "hides" I've got a few more ideas where it's hidden .. will return once again to put those theories to the test as my prior ones failed!.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...