Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
joemanzh

TB - took it to

Recommended Posts

Dear geocachers, I have a question. You often see in TB logs that there will be "took it to" logs from the same user from cache to cache. Endless. Other users will be unable to get this TB and place it really to another location. Furthermore the map is messed up. In my opinion this should be disabled by geocaching.com. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post

Dear geocachers, I have a question. You often see in TB logs that there will be "took it to" logs from the same user from cache to cache. Endless. Other users will be unable to get this TB and place it really to another location. Furthermore the map is messed up. In my opinion this should be disabled by geocaching.com. What do you think?

 

It shouldn't be disabled but somehow restricted.

 

I took a few TBs with me on holiday Belgium and "took" them to two caches (New Zealand North- and South Island) adding a nice distance (40000Km). We'll try to drop them on our next cache outing in Belgium.

Logging "took it to" on each and every cache visited is something most TO's don't appreciate and yet many cachers seem to do it.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not a fan of people overusing the visit feature, but I don't see that as a reason to disable it, and I don't find your points against it convincing. Those visit do, in fact, represent the TB being taken to another location. I'm not sure why you say the map is messed up since it's accurately representing where the TB has been. (Well, I'm ignoring the very distinct possibility that the TB was sitting at home during all those visits because it doesn't really make any difference to your argument.)

 

You and I think the main thing for TBs to do is make distinct trips and travel with various people, but others think the best thing is for a TB to see as many caches as possible even if it means just one person taking it to many caches in a small area. Put something in your TB's description to make your preference clear, but then be appreciative of the people taking care of your TB even if they don't notice what you've said.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I don't understand why people get so worked up about the 'visit' feature. Just be happy the darn thing is moving, which is more than you can say for 99% of trackables these days. I wouldn't object to a log filter that can show just the 'dropped' and 'retreived' logs, though.

Share this post


Link to post

I am moving this thread from the Geocaching Topics forum to the Travel Bug forum.

 

Or maybe I am just taking it to that forum?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Dear geocachers, I have a question. You often see in TB logs that there will be "took it to" logs from the same user from cache to cache. Endless. Other users will be unable to get this TB and place it really to another location. Furthermore the map is messed up. In my opinion this should be disabled by geocaching.com. What do you think?

IIRC, "Visited" was a replacement for many who held other's property hostage used other's trackables for numerous dropped/retrieved, sometimes for months anyway, and just made that odd (to me) behavior easier to do.

Not sure why Groundspeak thought that was important enough to change...

 

We've seen a few who do this.

I don't believe the many trackables they "visited" would fit in their pockets, and they've no pack...

That doesn't show that they're "moving" trackables at all, but simply typing in codes, and could well have lost/misplaced 'em some time ago. :)

Share this post


Link to post

If visited logs are disabled, or if they are made unreliable (e.g., by restricting them so that sometimes they work and sometimes they don't), then people will just go back to dropping and retrieving the trackables. That's what people did before visited logs were supported.

Share this post


Link to post

If visited logs are disabled, or if they are made unreliable (e.g., by restricting them so that sometimes they work and sometimes they don't), then people will just go back to dropping and retrieving the trackables. That's what people did before visited logs were supported.

Yes they would or just forget they have them and they disappear as most do. Also a visit logs the mileage to those micro caches that can't hold a TB

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I don't understand why people get so worked up about the 'visit' feature. Just be happy the darn thing is moving, which is more than you can say for 99% of trackables these days. I wouldn't object to a log filter that can show just the 'dropped' and 'retreived' logs, though.

 

+1 - I like to see our TBs moving, I would like to see the TB page fixed up, trying to find out where your TB has been can be pretty tiring, some of ours have had 65 pages of visit logs between drop offs.....

 

I make it a point now to post a visit log for each trackable we hold maybe once per caching day or weekend, to help out with mileage and not clutter up the map/log screen too much.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I don't understand why people get so worked up about the 'visit' feature. Just be happy the darn thing is moving, which is more than you can say for 99% of trackables these days. I wouldn't object to a log filter that can show just the 'dropped' and 'retreived' logs, though.

 

+1 - I like to see our TBs moving, I would like to see the TB page fixed up, trying to find out where your TB has been can be pretty tiring, some of ours have had 65 pages of visit logs between drop offs.....

 

I make it a point now to post a visit log for each trackable we hold maybe once per caching day or weekend, to help out with mileage and not clutter up the map/log screen too much.

I like to see where trackables have been by looking at their map. We take trackables with us as we cache but usually only log a visit on the cache furthest from home, not every cache we visit. Some we will hang on to if we will be going somewhere related to there objective. We have a circumnavigation (of Australia) cruise coming up in February and I think the TB owners will like seeing their TBs moving around Australia from port to port. Hopefully with some pictures as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Dear geocachers, I have a question. You often see in TB logs that there will be "took it to" logs from the same user from cache to cache. Endless. Other users will be unable to get this TB and place it really to another location. Furthermore the map is messed up. In my opinion this should be disabled by geocaching.com. What do you think?

IIRC, "Visited" was a replacement for many who held other's property hostage used other's trackables for numerous dropped/retrieved, sometimes for months anyway, and just made that odd (to me) behavior easier to do.

Not sure why Groundspeak thought that was important enough to change...

 

We've seen a few who do this.

I don't believe the many trackables they "visited" would fit in their pockets, and they've no pack...

That doesn't show that they're "moving" trackables at all, but simply typing in codes, and could well have lost/misplaced 'em some time ago. :)

 

They're not even typing in codes. If they had to do that much work for each "visit" there probably would be a lot fewer visits. All that's necessary is to click "All visited."

Share this post


Link to post

I put "Do NOT 'visit' me to caches! Visit logs will be deleted." on my TB page. Not that people read TB pages. Then I delete the visits!

Share this post


Link to post

I put "Do NOT 'visit' me to caches! Visit logs will be deleted." on my TB page. Not that people read TB pages. Then I delete the visits!

 

I rarely use "took to" but I would be very annoyed if someone deleted one of these very few logs chosen for special reasons.

Assume e.g. that I took along your Blue Dolphin TB and then realized at a cache with a proper name that the TB does not fit into the cache or that the cache is not safe. I then would issue a took it to log and write a few words about that I could not leave the TB and will continue to search for a new suitable cache. If such a log got deleted just because others misuse the feature, it would further decrease my motivation to move along trackables and I certainly then would drop off your trackable just somewhere regardless of whether it fits to your mission or whether I regard the cache as suitable for trackables.

Edited by cezanne
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

If visited logs are disabled, or if they are made unreliable (e.g., by restricting them so that sometimes they work and sometimes they don't), then people will just go back to dropping and retrieving the trackables. That's what people did before visited logs were supported.

 

Yes and no. Yes, someone who specifically wants that trackable to visit that cache will do that.

 

But the creation of the "visit" log makes this easy, and almost encourages you to do it. When you log a cache, you see that list of trackables, and it is easy to say "all visited", so many do. And they can combine this with using tools for bulk logging. You can easily visit a trackable to all 1000 caches on a powertrail. Few, if any, cachers would drop and then retrieve the trackable from those 1000 caches without visited logs.

 

I'm not against the visit feature; only making the point that "old style" visits were MUCH fewer than "new style".

 

Personally I don't mind the feature. If someone visits my TB on every cache they find, I don't mind. If they hold on to my TB for months I don't like that.. but I'd rather see months of visit logs than nothing. At least it tells me this person is caching, so hopefully they will eventually drop it. But it does create pages and pages of log entries.

 

"Visits" are useful if you have a "personal trackable" you want to visit every cache you visit. Again, easier than dropping it and retrieving it.

Share this post


Link to post

I never realized that this practice was not appreciated by TB owners. Isn't the goal of a Travel Bug is to have it travel? I found a couple that were in an endless loop in my home area, and that was not their goal. So, I decided to take them to Alaska, but the trip was a couple of months away. So, I had them visit other caches so the owners would know they were still active and not lost.

I guess it's human nature to complain about something.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I never realized that this practice was not appreciated by TB owners. Isn't the goal of a Travel Bug is to have it travel? I found a couple that were in an endless loop in my home area, and that was not their goal. So, I decided to take them to Alaska, but the trip was a couple of months away. So, I had them visit other caches so the owners would know they were still active and not lost.

I guess it's human nature to complain about something.

 

There's a huge difference between visiting every cache in the xx (insert big city of your choice) area, over a period of 6 months or more, accumulating 14 pages of "visit" logs on the one hand and visiting a few caches (say one a day or one per state while traveling). The first I do not do, and do not appreciate; the second is what I do, and what I appreciate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't like it either. It seems pointless. I specifically put on the trackable page that I don't want people doing that. Of course, my trackables also vanish almost as fast as I release them, so it's a bit N/A for me. I don't put them out anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

I never realized that this practice was not appreciated by TB owners. Isn't the goal of a Travel Bug is to have it travel? I found a couple that were in an endless loop in my home area, and that was not their goal. So, I decided to take them to Alaska, but the trip was a couple of months away. So, I had them visit other caches so the owners would know they were still active and not lost.

I guess it's human nature to complain about something.

 

If the TB page does not specifically say to keep it and to make any “Took It To” logs at all, or at least you haven't communicated with the Owner about your plan, it is best to place it into a cache container and log the Drop. Without delay, and in a way that you would appreciate if it were your TB. If there is any deviation from that plan, or if there is any chance of misunderstanding, even if you lost it, even if you've stolen it, regardless, be sure the TO knows exactly what the deal is.

 

If you let owners know it's still active and not lost by posting empty robotic "took it to" logs, you aren't letting the owner know anything except that you never placed it into a cache. The 2nd or 3rd finder then lets the owner know it's still active and not lost. One cacher making a list of blank logs means the Taker is messing with the TB Owner and calling it a favor.

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

I never realized that this practice was not appreciated by TB owners. Isn't the goal of a Travel Bug is to have it travel? I found a couple that were in an endless loop in my home area, and that was not their goal. So, I decided to take them to Alaska, but the trip was a couple of months away. So, I had them visit other caches so the owners would know they were still active and not lost.

I guess it's human nature to complain about something.

 

Fortunately, TB owners are not notified of all visits. That was quashed the first day it was available, when someone logged several thousand TB visits. So, no the TB owner does not know when you do that.

Yes. The TB's objective is to travel cache to cache. But that's for another cacher to pick it up and move it to another cache. Not to visit every cache the cacher finds, DNFs, or writes a note for, for months on end.

The 'View past Trackables' page becomes so badly cluttered that is not worth looking at.

Just looked at one of my caches. A micro with 54 visits. 234 Trackable visits. Over half from one family that DNFed tha cache. What porpoise does this serve?!?

Share this post


Link to post

The current situation would be alleviated by just allowing TO's to filter the logs on their trackable page, ie hide the visit-logs. I wouldn't even mind if an email was sent for visit-logs, I would personally have it filed into an unobtrusive email folder I could check occasionally, a but like the thousands of notification emails that come in each week.....

Share this post


Link to post
Fortunately, TB owners are not notified of all visits. That was quashed the first day it was available, when someone logged several thousand TB visits. So, no the TB owner does not know when you do that.

Some Visits in moderation may be appreciated, so again, Takers must be sure the Owner knows what's going on. One of mine was taken from the US to Europe, visited a cache, then was dropped near the starting cache. I didn't know it even happened until reviewing the logs a few months later. The visit caused no notification, the log had no story, no photo, just the robotic blank "Took It To", (which is the preferred log of Takers). Multi-Visit Takers just plain don't get it, no matter how many ways it's explained. That is, one is in no way doing the TB Owner a favor by not doing the favor.

 

The TB's objective is to travel cache to cache. But that's for another cacher to pick it up and move it to another cache. Not to visit every cache the cacher finds, DNFs, or writes a note for, for months on end.

+1

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get notified of all the places my TB goes to but I would like to. I live in Ma and knew my TB made it to Tx but never saw that it had also been to Ok. I am one who likes to know all the caches my TB has been to.

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't the goal of a Travel Bug is to have it travel?

 

Yes but the point is for it to be dropped off in a reasonable amount of time so someone else can move it. To see the chain of human interaction involved in the moving, what different people will do with it and what they will write about it. My trackable goals never included seeing someone else's overly detailed caching route.

 

I guess it's human nature to complain about something.

I guess that is true especially when standing in the 97 degree heat in the Mojave desert deciding whether to grab a bug to help its goal or take it somewhere it hasn't been (real visit: left in a cache) and then having to page through 50 to several hundred visit logs. Or standing anywhere at any temperature... anytime.

 

Mojave heat or comfort of the home computer, 80 pages of "took it to"s is never my idea of fun.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Mojave heat or comfort of the home computer, 80 pages of "took it to"s is never my idea of fun.

 

That's annoying regardless of whether those logs come from one cacher or from different ones (each of them posting only one such log or

a discover log). What is needed (and would be so easy to implement) is a filter which trackable logs one wants to see (in the optimal manner, the system would

record the preferred choice of the user too and would use that as default).

Share this post


Link to post

...What is needed (and would be so easy to implement) is a filter which trackable logs one wants to see

Yes. And perhaps a bulk-delete feature where we could get rid of all the Visit logs in one move. (I'm dreaming, of course, but as Debbie Harry said, "Dreamin' is free".)

 

Actually, I don't really mind deleting them one at a time until the infestation is completely cleared off the pages.

Share this post


Link to post

If I have held onto a bug for a while, I'll make sure to visit it to a couple choice caches before I let it go. I'd like the TB to get some credit for riding along to caches in my bag. (And selfishly, I'd like the TB owner to get the impression that I didn't just stash their trackable in a sock drawer for a month.) Auto visits are annoying, but like many things in geocaching, I don't let it bother me anymore. (Mostly because I'll take 80 pages of visit logs over having a TB vanish out of the first cache I put it in, as has happened many a time.)

 

...when standing in the 97 degree heat in the Mojave desert deciding whether to grab a bug to help its goal or take it somewhere it hasn't been (real visit: left in a cache) and then having to page through 50 to several hundred visit logs. Or standing anywhere at any temperature... anytime.

 

Mojave heat or comfort of the home computer, 80 pages of "took it to"s is never my idea of fun.

Not a perfect solution, but if you load the TB map screen, it shows all of the logs on one page. Scrolling down that is a lot easier than wading through 80 separate pages of visit logs.

Share this post


Link to post

If I have held onto a bug for a while, I'll make sure to visit it to a couple... ...I'd like the TB owner to get the impression that I didn't just stash their trackable in a sock drawer for a month.

Thanks for your reply. I am always testing my spout-offs against the real-world of geocaching.

 

My travel bugs have a request that they be visited to only a few caches per handler. Your method fits right in with my request. No one has ever done that for me but maybe it will catch on - I think it is a good idea.

 

Mojave heat or comfort of the home computer, 80 pages of "took it to"s is never my idea of fun.

Not a perfect solution, but if you load the TB map screen, it shows all of the logs on one page. Scrolling down that is a lot easier than wading through 80 separate pages of visit logs.

I didn't know that so thanks for that tip. It will make it much easier at home... not so much out in the field with a phone which is where I would really like to know before making a grab.

 

But back in the hotel room or campground after the grab this will help. Now I might move more trackables - I've choked it down quite a bit because of the excessive visits.

Edited by Team Sagefox

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for your reply.

I'm from the government, and I'm here to help. :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

I'm relatively new to caching (450 finds) and have recently released a few trackables. I was excited to get some notifications that my trackables were moving, then when I went to see where the trackable was and where it had been I found pages and pages of "Took it to" or "Visited" logs, but only 3 or 4 actual "dropped" or "retrieved" logs...

 

Because of the way the GS interface works for logging a find its a one-click automatic action to log ALL the trackables in your possession as having "visited" every cache find you log, whether you are actually carrying the trackable to the cache or not.

 

I love to see my trackables moving, but to me, fake visits because of a one-click feature of the cache find logging tool is NOT "moving", I would like to see only logs of my trackables actually moving, from place to place, and from cacher to cacher, and it seems like the "Visited" entries make that almost impossible the way it is currently implemented.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm relatively new to caching (450 finds) and have recently released a few trackables. I was excited to get some notifications that my trackables were moving, then when I went to see where the trackable was and where it had been I found pages and pages of "Took it to" or "Visited" logs, but only 3 or 4 actual "dropped" or "retrieved" logs...

 

Because of the way the GS interface works for logging a find its a one-click automatic action to log ALL the trackables in your possession as having "visited" every cache find you log, whether you are actually carrying the trackable to the cache or not.

 

I love to see my trackables moving, but to me, fake visits because of a one-click feature of the cache find logging tool is NOT "moving", I would like to see only logs of my trackables actually moving, from place to place, and from cacher to cacher, and it seems like the "Visited" entries make that almost impossible the way it is currently implemented.

There's a bunch in another thread who believe Visited "took it to" logs are fine, and instead, Discover logs are the problem. :)

Different strokes...

 

- But I agree, without pictures, there's no evidence they even have that trackable any longer, simply the code in their inventory.

I don't believe all apps have that automatic trackable logging though, just some.

 

I kinda liked the trackable logs when responsible folks dropped/retrieved from a couple caches, letting the CO know they still had it without sending emails, until they'd find a nice cache to leave it.

This "visited" thing, not so much...

Share this post


Link to post

I'm relatively new to caching (450 finds) and have recently released a few trackables. I was excited to get some notifications that my trackables were moving, then when I went to see where the trackable was and where it had been I found pages and pages of "Took it to" or "Visited" logs, but only 3 or 4 actual "dropped" or "retrieved" logs...

 

Because of the way the GS interface works for logging a find its a one-click automatic action to log ALL the trackables in your possession as having "visited" every cache find you log, whether you are actually carrying the trackable to the cache or not.

 

I love to see my trackables moving, but to me, fake visits because of a one-click feature of the cache find logging tool is NOT "moving", I would like to see only logs of my trackables actually moving, from place to place, and from cacher to cacher, and it seems like the "Visited" entries make that almost impossible the way it is currently implemented.

There's a bunch in another thread who believe Visited "took it to" logs are fine, and instead, Discover logs are the problem. :)

Different strokes...

 

- But I agree, without pictures, there's no evidence they even have that trackable any longer, simply the code in their inventory.

I don't believe all apps have that automatic trackable logging though, just some.

 

I kinda liked the trackable logs when responsible folks dropped/retrieved from a couple caches, letting the CO know they still had it without sending emails, until they'd find a nice cache to leave it.

This "visited" thing, not so much...

 

I only want to see logs where my TB has actually moved from one cache to another and from one cacher to another.. "Discovered" logs are ok to me, since that indicates that a person really saw my TB in a cache... "Visited" or "Took it to" logs are of no interest to me, since who knows whether the TB was really taken to that cache or it was just a button click.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a bunch in another thread who believe Visited "took it to" logs are fine, and instead, Discover logs are the problem. :)

Different strokes...

Wellll.... I'm not sure I've seen many claims here that took-it-to to is fine. Some people have pointed out they can be used well, but most people in the forums are complaining about the mindless ones, just like Matt98030.

 

- But I agree, without pictures, there's no evidence they even have that trackable any longer, simply the code in their inventory.

Yeah, I agree this is the bottom line. If you have nothing to add to a took-it-to, either by editing the visit log or by adding a picture, then don't bother. If you just leave a blank took-it-to, the TO is going to assume it's just an automated visit that says absolutely nothing about where the TB actually is.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm relatively new to caching (450 finds) and have recently released a few trackables. I was excited to get some notifications that my trackables were moving, then when I went to see where the trackable was and where it had been I found pages and pages of "Took it to" or "Visited" logs, but only 3 or 4 actual "dropped" or "retrieved" logs...

 

Because of the way the GS interface works for logging a find its a one-click automatic action to log ALL the trackables in your possession as having "visited" every cache find you log, whether you are actually carrying the trackable to the cache or not.

 

I love to see my trackables moving, but to me, fake visits because of a one-click feature of the cache find logging tool is NOT "moving", I would like to see only logs of my trackables actually moving, from place to place, and from cacher to cacher, and it seems like the "Visited" entries make that almost impossible the way it is currently implemented.

There's a bunch in another thread who believe Visited "took it to" logs are fine, and instead, Discover logs are the problem. :)

Different strokes...

And then there are others that think it's too cumbersome to have to log each TB one-at-a-time in the official app and want the app to make Visit logs easier and even automatic.

:drama:

Share this post


Link to post

I never realized that this practice was not appreciated by TB owners. Isn't the goal of a Travel Bug is to have it travel? I found a couple that were in an endless loop in my home area, and that was not their goal. So, I decided to take them to Alaska, but the trip was a couple of months away. So, I had them visit other caches so the owners would know they were still active and not lost.

I guess it's human nature to complain about something.

 

I don't understand it either. As a TB owner, I strongly prefer for people to log all the visits/dips they can on my trackables.

Share this post


Link to post

I never realized that this practice was not appreciated by TB owners. Isn't the goal of a Travel Bug is to have it travel? I found a couple that were in an endless loop in my home area, and that was not their goal. So, I decided to take them to Alaska, but the trip was a couple of months away. So, I had them visit other caches so the owners would know they were still active and not lost.

I guess it's human nature to complain about something.

 

I don't understand it either. As a TB owner, I strongly prefer for people to log all the visits/dips they can on my trackables.

I'm very much against mindless visits (and also discoveries) of TBs because what I like (especially as an owner but also as a holder of a foreign TB) is being able to follow the history of a trackable which completely gets lost when visits are the predominant logs.

I'm interested why you prefer that your TBs are getting lots of empty visits.

Would you really be a happy owner looking at the map of this TB (you must be patient opening this link :ph34r:)

http://www.geocaching.com/track/map_gm.aspx?ID=3031224

I admit this is an extreme case and I should better ask the TB owner which so far I haven't done. But I had some "interesting" discussions which the current holder of the TB.

Share this post


Link to post

I never realized that this practice was not appreciated by TB owners. Isn't the goal of a Travel Bug is to have it travel? I found a couple that were in an endless loop in my home area, and that was not their goal. So, I decided to take them to Alaska, but the trip was a couple of months away. So, I had them visit other caches so the owners would know they were still active and not lost.

I guess it's human nature to complain about something.

 

I don't understand it either. As a TB owner, I strongly prefer for people to log all the visits/dips they can on my trackables.

The tipping point for me is when someone both holds onto a TB for months and months and logs it into every single cache they visit.

 

If someone had a TB of ours for two weeks, during which they found 20 caches and visited our TB to each one, I would have no problem.

 

If someone had a TB of ours for two years, during which they found 10,000 caches and visited our TB to each one, I would not be OK with that.

 

Would you see yourself anywhere on the spectrum between these two points? Or would you be OK beyond, say, someone never lets your TB go and visits it into 100,000 caches?

Share this post


Link to post

I never realized that this practice was not appreciated by TB owners. Isn't the goal of a Travel Bug is to have it travel? I found a couple that were in an endless loop in my home area, and that was not their goal. So, I decided to take them to Alaska, but the trip was a couple of months away. So, I had them visit other caches so the owners would know they were still active and not lost.

I guess it's human nature to complain about something.

 

I don't understand it either. As a TB owner, I strongly prefer for people to log all the visits/dips they can on my trackables.

The tipping point for me is when someone both holds onto a TB for months and months and logs it into every single cache they visit.

 

If someone had a TB of ours for two weeks, during which they found 20 caches and visited our TB to each one, I would have no problem.

 

If someone had a TB of ours for two years, during which they found 10,000 caches and visited our TB to each one, I would not be OK with that.

 

Would you see yourself anywhere on the spectrum between these two points? Or would you be OK beyond, say, someone never lets your TB go and visits it into 100,000 caches?

 

Of course I don't want someone to keep my TB forever, but I'd prefer for someone to keep it for a few months in order to drop in a safe cache rather than dropping it in a risky one (where it's likely to get muggled or otherwise go missing) at the official two week limit. For me, the visits show that it's being cared for and they mean extra kilometers and sometimes interesting places.

 

Most of the caches I find are too small for TB drops anyway, and I feel that it's more responsible for me to leave someone else's trackable in a safe-looking caches rather than the first large enough one I find. The visits seem to fill in the history between suitable caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I never realized that this practice was not appreciated by TB owners. Isn't the goal of a Travel Bug is to have it travel? I found a couple that were in an endless loop in my home area, and that was not their goal. So, I decided to take them to Alaska, but the trip was a couple of months away. So, I had them visit other caches so the owners would know they were still active and not lost.

I guess it's human nature to complain about something.

 

I don't understand it either. As a TB owner, I strongly prefer for people to log all the visits/dips they can on my trackables.

I'm very much against mindless visits (and also discoveries) of TBs because what I like (especially as an owner but also as a holder of a foreign TB) is being able to follow the history of a trackable which completely gets lost when visits are the predominant logs.

I'm interested why you prefer that your TBs are getting lots of empty visits.

Would you really be a happy owner looking at the map of this TB (you must be patient opening this link :ph34r:)

http://www.geocaching.com/track/map_gm.aspx?ID=3031224

I admit this is an extreme case and I should better ask the TB owner which so far I haven't done. But I had some "interesting" discussions which the current holder of the TB.

 

I see what you mean about "patient opening this link", but I'd be pleased for one of my TBs to still be "live" after 5 years with 188000+ km on it.

Share this post


Link to post

Whoops, I guess I've been guilty of this, mostly out of enthusiasm.

 

How do people feel about someone taking a TB to multiple caches and logging those visits with a picture of the location and/or a few words about that place? Is that just as annoying, or is that something you as TB owner would be happy to see? I can think of example where I've seen others do this and where I've done it myself, thinking it was appropriate because it seemed in keeping with the TB's goal.

 

I guess the best one can do as a TB owner is make one's intentions clear on the TB page, recognize that you can't control other people's actions, and hope for the best.

Share this post


Link to post

How do people feel about someone taking a TB to multiple caches and logging those visits with a picture of the location and/or a few words about that place? Is that just as annoying, or is that something you as TB owner would be happy to see?

I think that plan is safe. I have never seen someone in the Forums complain that someone is posting stories and photos at each cache, and if they did complain, I'd try to talk them down from that ledge :anicute:. It almost doesn't seem "lost" if the logs are by an actual human.

 

But since the problem seems to be that takers keep a TB for months and log it through dozens or hundreds of caches, reconsider keeping the TB. Unless the TB's mission is about that, the default is that you place it into a cache and log the drop.

Share this post


Link to post

Remember when the geocache maps would show one icon as a cluster of caches when you zoomed out to a certain point? I wish we could do that with the TB maps. I'd also like to see that for the logs too. I used to like to follow the travels of TB's through both the maps and the logs. Now it's just depressing. There is nothing interesting about wading through the hundreds of micros a CACHER has found within three miles of his home. This is not about the TB at all.

If you could opt to collapse all the "took it to" logs by one cacher within a certain distance, that would make it easier.

Any change would have to come from this direction, since I'm sure the vast majority of people doing the mindless visiting never read the forums, and probably don't even read the cache pages to see what their clutter looks like.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to be able to hide all 'took it to' logs when viewing the TB page. It would also be nice to be able to refuse 'took it to' logs for caches within x miles of the last log.....

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...