Northeast Ohio Cachers With "Extra Finds"

[+MKFmly]

Did the code that was painted on a bridge support appear to be painted by Groundpeak, or by someone else?

... or was it a pre-existing indicator (or graffiti?) and the cache owner cleverly re-purposed it?

[JASTA 11]

The melodrama was saying that you had to scroll through 4000 logs to find the reviewer. That's absurd, patently untrue, and frankly--melodramatic. As I said--click on the link to the logbook, click on the link to the last page, scroll to the end and there it is. No computer locking up, no problem--simple, takes 10 seconds.

 

Originally I had tried scrolling, and my laptop froze up. I guess its patently true. Haven't tried your method yet, but I will.

 

Your previous post wasn't disputed, but restating it was frankly, unnecessary.

 

Back to the topic...

[+Dame Deco]

Ah--you don't understand how the log book works. Well--now you do. It is patently untrue that scrolling is necessary. Look in there--you can find friends' logs instantly, too. Pretty cool how it works. Happy caching--

[JASTA 11]

Ah--you don't understand how the log book works. Well--now you do. It is patently untrue that scrolling is necessary. Look in there--you can find friends' logs instantly, too. Pretty cool how it works. Happy caching--

 

And happy caching to you as well.

 

But while you're here, what is your take on the subject at hand?

[+Dame Deco]

I've posted multiple times in the thread already. I did it a few time when I started because that's what I was "taught" even though it felt strange--but I thought it was accepted practice. When I found out it was local only, I stopped doing it, but didn't delete any old logs because it would have messed up my milestones. And a lot of the ones I did log multiple times were actually decent hides that took some time and some hiking even though they were temps. I have friends who do it at the same events I log only once, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's part of the culture of caching around here, it harms no one, so I ignore it.

[GrandPotentate]

The melodrama was saying that you had to scroll through 4000 logs to find the reviewer. That's absurd, patently untrue, and frankly--melodramatic.

 

Umm, 4,614 attended logs, 10 notes, 35 will attendes, and 3 anouncements. Nothing melodramatic there, in fact, they understated the amount. I scrolled through them all, but used the pgdn key.

[+Dame Deco]

Sure--but the point was simply that you don't have to scroll. That was the melodramatic part--but I was wrong. The poster wasn't being melodramatatic, he just didn't know how to use the log book, and now he does.

[+Glenn]

I agree.

 

Did the code that was painted on a bridge support appear to be painted by Groundpeak, or by someone else? This is the exact reason that codeword caches area bad idea.

 

I found this photo where you can see the code applied (I don't know if it was paint but it looked something like paint) to the column over this guys left shoulder. It's the bright yellow markings.

 

[+Glenn]

Did the code that was painted on a bridge support appear to be painted by Groundpeak, or by someone else?

... or was it a pre-existing indicator (or graffiti?) and the cache owner cleverly re-purposed it?

The codes used for the lab caches where similar to TB codes. In fact you couldn't log any of the lab cache at the block party without first putting in the code. Although I've seen some of strangest graffiti in Seattle that I've seen anywhere I seriously doubt that this was pre-existing.

[+cerberus1]

Could it possibly be vinyl decals that peel off?

[+Ambrosia]

I agree.

 

Did the code that was painted on a bridge support appear to be painted by Groundpeak, or by someone else? This is the exact reason that codeword caches area bad idea.

 

I found this photo where you can see the code applied (I don't know if it was paint but it looked something like paint) to the column over this guys left shoulder. It's the bright yellow markings.

 

 

I was told that these were temporary spray, they wash off easily with just water.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I agree.

 

Did the code that was painted on a bridge support appear to be painted by Groundpeak, or by someone else? This is the exact reason that codeword caches area bad idea.

 

I found this photo where you can see the code applied (I don't know if it was paint but it looked something like paint) to the column over this guys left shoulder. It's the bright yellow markings.

 

 

I was told that these were temporary spray, they wash off easily with just water.

 

So that's what they used for a cache in Seattle?

 

 

[+Ambrosia]

I agree.

 

Did the code that was painted on a bridge support appear to be painted by Groundpeak, or by someone else? This is the exact reason that codeword caches area bad idea.

 

I found this photo where you can see the code applied (I don't know if it was paint but it looked something like paint) to the column over this guys left shoulder. It's the bright yellow markings.

 

 

I was told that these were temporary spray, they wash off easily with just water.

 

So that's what they used for a cache in Seattle?

They were intending to have temporary containers with a codeword inside, but for whatever reason, it didn't work out. I believe that they did have temporary containers for the pub lab caches, but I didn't do any of them.

[+Glenn]

I was told that these were temporary spray, they wash off easily with just water.

 

So that's what they used for a cache in Seattle?

They were intending to have temporary containers with a codeword inside, but for whatever reason, it didn't work out. I believe that they did have temporary containers for the pub lab caches, but I didn't do any of them.

 

After seeing what looked like spray paint and that it was placed within' feet of another geocache I didn't feel inspired to find the other Lab Caches.

 

The Lab Cache didn't take to a place that was unique. There was already a cache there that did that. The fact that it looked like spray paint was a big turn off and a really poor idea. It could be easily misinterpreted as real paint (which I apparently did). It's bad enough when we get called out because a geocacher has disassembled and damaged a real sprinkler head or a cache is called in as a potential bomb. I don't want us to be known for graffiti too.

[+cheech gang]

[+baack40]

I was concerned about the 7 ununique caches prior that I couldn't figure out what they were but now have a whole lot more.

Here ya go:

http://project-gc.com/Profile/findbadlogs/?profile_name=baack40&submit=Filter

GC4JG3C

GC2H8AG

GC3KQQG

GC164JA

GC212TT

GC17XVC

GC1Y785

Ok I got the other duplicate logs removed but one of them. Now is there an easy way to delete the dup logs on the Temp cache one? Without havig to scroll through the log list everytime? Not sure its forth the effort to do it.

 

I do appreciate letting me know where my other duplicates. I keep learning ins and outs all the time by coming to the forums and I sure appreciate that.

[+baack40]

I was concerned about the 7 ununique caches prior that I couldn't figure out what they were but now have a whole lot more.

Here ya go:

http://project-gc.com/Profile/findbadlogs/?profile_name=baack40&submit=Filter

GC4JG3C

GC2H8AG

GC3KQQG

GC164JA

GC212TT

GC17XVC

GC1Y785

Ok I got the other duplicate logs removed but one of them. Now is there an easy way to delete the dup logs on the Temp cache one? Without havig to scroll through the log list everytime? Not sure its forth the effort to do it.

 

I do appreciate letting me know where my other duplicates. I keep learning ins and outs all the time by coming to the forums and I sure appreciate that.

Duhhhh never mind I read a previous post and found out how to do that. Never knew that was there. Have always scrolled down the list. Another shortcut learned. Thanks everyone.

[4wheelin_fool]

I was told that these were temporary spray, they wash off easily with just water.

 

So that's what they used for a cache in Seattle?

They were intending to have temporary containers with a codeword inside, but for whatever reason, it didn't work out. I believe that they did have temporary containers for the pub lab caches, but I didn't do any of them.

 

After seeing what looked like spray paint and that it was placed within' feet of another geocache I didn't feel inspired to find the other Lab Caches.

 

The Lab Cache didn't take to a place that was unique. There was already a cache there that did that. The fact that it looked like spray paint was a big turn off and a really poor idea. It could be easily misinterpreted as real paint (which I apparently did). It's bad enough when we get called out because a geocacher has disassembled and damaged a real sprinkler head or a cache is called in as a potential bomb. I don't want us to be known for graffiti too.

 

So they made it appear that the bridge support was spray painted, and did it on top of another cache nearby? I don't see how this is could be remotely considered a find at all. The cheesy logging practices of Ohio events seems more valid, as in finding actual containers.

 

It also sets a very bad precedence, and completely unnecessary since there was a cache there already.

[+baack40]

Nope. No drama, mellow or otherwise.

 

But, how's this for a stat page:

 

(From one of the merry virtual temporary event loggers)

 

 

That's 744 duplicate finds. Of course at 80 or so 'attended's per event, that's only about nine to ten events I suppose.

 

Well, I feel pretty cheesy for doing this one event now. LOL I started looking around and found this.

 

has found 37266 caches (35433 distinct) since 04/01/2006. Almost 2000 difference. Now I don't feel so bad. LOL But those are his statistics and don't affect me so on to something more constructive like placing more caches today. (5 of them to be exact)

[+Glenn]

So they made it appear that the bridge support was spray painted, and did it on top of another cache nearby? I don't see how this is could be remotely considered a find at all. The cheesy logging practices of Ohio events seems more valid, as in finding actual containers.

 

It also sets a very bad precedence, and completely unnecessary since there was a cache there already.

 

Keep in mind that lab caches are experimental. They are meant to test an idea and not set a precedence. IIRC, all of the lab caches received a lot of visits and got good reactions from the visitors, including me. However, after seeing that lab cache I know that don't care for the appearance of permanent or semi-permanent markings. After testing this concept I hope that Groundspeak feels the same way.

 

I also didn't care for the close proximity to an existing cache. Looking back I would have preferred at least a slightly different location. Maybe of the view from up on the bridge? Although once I was under the bridge it didn't take a cache to make me want to what the view looked like from up above. I'm not as opposed to this style of code based cache being near a physical cache because I'd rather see something like this than seeing someone being bullied in to archiving a cache that they don't want to archive.

 

Let me connect the dots for those who think this topic is veering wildly off course. These lab caches appeared to a test for a way to implement temporary caches for events. So that caches attending events, like those in NE Ohio, can log some other cache type that is a sub set of event caches instead of hundreds of attended logs on the same event.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Let me connect the dots for those who think this topic is veering wildly off course. These lab caches appeared to a test for a way to implement temporary caches for events. So that caches attending events, like those in NE Ohio, can log some other cache type that is a sub set of event caches instead of hundreds of attended logs on the same event.

 

I agree, it was brought up that lab caches could replace temporary caches at events. Both in the small remaining Geographical area in the U.S. where people still go to town logging the event as attended 80-125 times in many cases, or in other cases all over the world. Although the lab caches are obviously only being tested for Mega events right now.