Less than ten finds... creating geocaches?

[+AddisonPascal]

11 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Odd thing to say when you  correct yourself by saying  it's "not recommended"...  

Yes, I am saying I should have found one before I hid one, but I did anyway. 

[+SeattleWayne]

3 hours ago, AddisonPascal said:

Yes, I am saying I should have found one before I hid one, but I did anyway. 

So, what's the exact number of finds one should have before they hide one? Less than ten but more than one? So like, five? 

[+RufusClupea]

11 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

People wanna rip on LPC but you know what? When those suckers are at the front by the doors? That cache ain't no joke, and I bet the lot of you just log a Found It! without even bothering to lift the skirt up. 

I've got admittedly mixed feelings.  The first few I found were LPCs, but the last one contained a hornets nest.  No activity or I would have forgone it; but there wasn't, so I didn't (forgo it).  Got stung, tripped over a curb, lost 6 sq. in. of skin (right down to meat) off my elbow, and sprained my wrist.  I think I'm done with LPCs.

[+cerberus1]

12 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

People wanna rip on LPC but you know what? When those suckers are at the front by the doors? That cache ain't no joke, and I bet the lot of you just log a Found It! without even bothering to lift the skirt up. 

Or, I'd bet a lot are like me, and simply don't bother, walking right by it.  

[+colleda]

5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Or, I'd bet a lot are like me, and simply don't bother, walking right by it.  

I don't get why poles have skirts. (OK, no jokes here about some European females).

[+BCandMsKitty]

2 hours ago, colleda said:

I don't get why poles have skirts. (OK, no jokes here about some European females).

covers and protects the mounting bolts, and sometimes wiring

[+colleda]

27 minutes ago, BC & MsKitty said:

covers and protects the mounting bolts, and sometimes wiring

To protect the bolts from what?

[+BCandMsKitty]

2 minutes ago, colleda said:

To protect the bolts from what?

weather ,..... geocachers, etc.

Edited August 13, 2017 by BC & MsKitty

[+colleda]

2 minutes ago, BC & MsKitty said:

weather ,..... geocachers

Ahh! cachers carrying.

 

 

 

 

(large wrenches)

[+BCandMsKitty]

1 minute ago, colleda said:

Ahh! cachers carrying.

Actually probably the main reason is esthetics

It looks rather crude when you see a lamp post with the mounting bolts exposed.

 

 

 

(large wrenches)

 

[+RufusClupea]

2 hours ago, colleda said:

To protect the bolts from what?

Corrosion, damage, unsightliness, what-have-you...

2 hours ago, BC & MsKitty said:

Actually probably the main reason is esthetics

Is esthetics more a/esthetically pleasing than aesthetics?

 

[+mvhayes1982]

On 8/12/2017 at 8:54 PM, BC & MsKitty said:

covers and protects the mounting bolts, and sometimes wiring

I'd be willing to bet (at least in the US), that they exist to protect PEOPLE from the bolts, not the bolts from anything. Trip and hit your head on a skirt, little bump. Trip and hit your head on an exposed mounting bolt -- possible serious medical attention, and a likely lawsuit against the owner of the exposed bolts. 

[+J Grouchy]

On 8/12/2017 at 9:21 PM, colleda said:

To protect the bolts from what?

Yeah...it's primarily to cover it because they tend to look kind of ugly, but also because exposure leads to build-up of corrosion and gunk.  

And a word of caution:  be careful if you do an image search for 'light pole skirt'.  

[+colleda]

14 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Yeah...it's primarily to cover it because they tend to look kind of ugly, but also because exposure leads to build-up of corrosion and gunk.  

And a word of caution:  be careful if you do an image search for 'light pole skirt'.  

We don't have skirts on here and I've yet to see any corrosion on the fasteners- they look heavily galvanised or zinced. Maybe we're not as litigious here but that can change.

Perhaps it's modesty to cover those exposed nuts?

GC5JFF5

 

[+J Grouchy]

It's metal.  Metal corrodes over time.  Not sure why it's even in dispute.  

[+SeattleWayne]

Without LPC skirts where would the geocaching game be today? 

[+hzoi]

1 hour ago, SeattleWayne said:

Without LPC skirts where would the geocaching game be today? 

Still headquartered in Seattle, but perhaps slightly improved.

[+mvhayes1982]

I wonder where the first LPC was ever placed. Who was it that thought --- "HEY! That's a great place to hide this single Geocache! No way this will be the target of all "the game has gone to heck" angst for the next decade!" 

[+hzoi]

4 minutes ago, mvhayes1982 said:

I wonder where the first LPC was ever placed. Who was it that thought --- "HEY! That's a great place to hide this single Geocache! No way this will be the target of all "the game has gone to heck" angst for the next decade!" 

As to the first part, possibly here.  You'd have to ask the CO for the rest. 

 

[+mvhayes1982]

7 minutes ago, hzoi said:

As to the first part, possibly here.  You'd have to ask the CO for the rest. 

 

The Low find count on those 2001 geocachers make me chuckle...

Also, I've had an epiphany... 

What if Dave Ulmer had to meet a 10 Find Minimum before he could have hidden the Original Stash??? 

[+Manville Possum]

I don't believe the casual geocacher with a low number of finds and a few hides is degrading the game any. I'm sure reviewers look a little closer before publishing new listings of unestablished players.

It's those OCD cache hiders and their soggy paper containers. 

[+mvhayes1982]

Just now, Manville Possum said:

I don't believe the casual geocacher with a low number of finds and a few hides is degrading the game any. I'm sure reviewers look a little closer before publishing new listings of unestablished players.

It's those OCD cache hiders and their soggy paper containers. 

Hard Agree. 

[+on4bam]

Just went through the updated caches for this week and see a cache archived after 6 days. CO has 12 finds. Published coordinates were wrong, CO tried to correct them but distance was to great (600m), cache was then found 3 times and then archived by reviewer as it was just a few meters from another cache.

Two other caches were hidden by CO with 32 finds both have "nano without logbook" in the listing. Both are now archived (after less than 2 weeks) but not before 5 people logged "found it", I bet they didn't sign the log .

Series place by cacher with 105 finds, archived after 6 weeks because the sisters of the abbey didn't appreciate all the "traffic" (no permission asked).

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

21 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

It's metal.  Metal corrodes over time.  Not sure why it's even in dispute.  

Lamp-posts simply don't have skirts here in Australia. This one is about 20 metres from a saltwater estuary so if corrosion was the reason it'd be a prime candidate, but no, its nuts are out in the open, same as all the others I've seen.

 

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, on4bam said:

Two other caches were hidden by CO with 32 finds both have "nano without logbook" in the listing. Both are now archived (after less than 2 weeks) but not before 5 people logged "found it", I bet they didn't sign the log .

I once encountered a "nano without logbook" type cache placed by an experienced geocacher. Basically, it was a keyword cache (which hadn't been allowed for years). When I pointed this out, he archived it and relisted it, replacing the keyword instructions with a log strip. He just wasn't familiar with Groundspeak's rules against keyword caches, or requiring a log of some sort.

 

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Lamp-posts simply don't have skirts here in Australia. This one is about 20 metres from a saltwater estuary so if corrosion was the reason it'd be a prime candidate, but no, its nuts are out in the open, same as all the others I've seen.

Gasp! Look at all that UNSIGHTLY HARDWARE! The horror! The horror! 

[+on4bam]

54 minutes ago, niraD said:

I once encountered a "nano without logbook" type cache placed by an experienced geocacher. Basically, it was a keyword cache (which hadn't been allowed for years). When I pointed this out, he archived it and relisted it, replacing the keyword instructions with a log strip. He just wasn't familiar with Groundspeak's rules against keyword caches, or requiring a log of some sort.

The newbie CO didn't even knew a logbook was required

 

[+cerberus1]

As to "less than ten finds"...

Recently in another forums here, a person with no hides himself is looking to help create a hide for another who isn't even a cacher yet. 

Sheesh...