Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
CleverCloggs

As popular as before? Geocaching?

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

We don't have such old structures in Australia. Although there was a trig with a piled up rock base with a cache hidden in the bottom. People searching were ruining the rock structure, so the cache was removed and archived.

 

One of my caches is hidden in a stone retaining wall along the bank of a creek. It was likely built sometime in the last fifty years as part of flood mitigation works to protect the nearby tennis courts. Each of the sandstone blocks likely weighs more than a tonne so I doubt it will be disturbed by even the most overzealous cacher unless they have a good-sized excavator in their TOTT kit.

 

20200926_120954.jpg.4d64ce0b9e7662a380f6de5ad0b97a24.jpg

 

And yes, the cache is a steel box weighed down with big lead sinkers to stop it floating away in such floods.

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, RuideAlmeida said:

 

 

PS: You may need to travel a little...

Would be lovley to travel and get some really interesting finds...

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

One of my caches is hidden in a stone retaining wall along the bank of a creek. It was likely built sometime in the last fifty years as part of flood mitigation works to protect the nearby tennis courts. Each of the sandstone blocks likely weighs more than a tonne so I doubt it will be disturbed by even the most overzealous cacher unless they have a good-sized excavator in their TOTT kit.

 

20200926_120954.jpg.4d64ce0b9e7662a380f6de5ad0b97a24.jpg

 

And yes, the cache is a steel box weighed down with big lead sinkers to stop it floating away in such floods.

 

looks beautiful :) 

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, RetroRider1955 said:

Found a few caches myself..Also new to this...  hid one 5 days ago, just waiting on a review!  Most were broken aswell. 

waiting for 2 more to be published too...  6 days now.. strange how it takes so much time? 

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, CleverCloggs said:

waiting for 2 more to be published too...  6 days now.. strange how it takes so much time? 

Why do you think that's so strange? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Why do you think that's so strange? 

 The reason is, as no one has to physically look at the cache, I had assumed they check all info on the site itself ... which made things easier...  Maybe I am wrong.. maybe there are thousands of new caches with just a few reviewers that cannot get through the long list ... anyway  it is what it is...  I think encouraging new geocaches would be a cool thing, especially in remote areas...

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CleverCloggs said:

 

I was told a couple of days ago by the reviewer to remove it.. or change it, so I basically archived it.. easier that way. 

 

not heard anything since...! 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, CleverCloggs said:

 The reason is, as no one has to physically look at the cache, I had assumed they check all info on the site itself ... which made things easier...  Maybe I am wrong.. maybe there are thousands of new caches with just a few reviewers that cannot get through the long list ... anyway  it is what it is...  I think encouraging new geocaches would be a cool thing, especially in remote areas...

 

The reviewers are volunteers and have other real-world stuff to keep them busy too. Here we have one reviewer for the whole state (New South Wales, Australia) and he generally clears the pending queue twice a week, with a recent average of about 200 new caches a month. I imagine that while there are some that would be pretty straightforward that immediately tick all the boxes of the things they check, there would also be plenty of others that require more work. Non-traditional cache types have a lot more things for the reviewers to check, for example, particularly challenge caches.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The reviewers are volunteers and have other real-world stuff to keep them busy too. Here we have one reviewer for the whole state (New South Wales, Australia) and he generally clears the pending queue twice a week, with a recent average of about 200 new caches a month. I imagine that while there are some that would be pretty straightforward that immediately tick all the boxes of the things they check, there would also be plenty of others that require more work. Non-traditional cache types have a lot more things for the reviewers to check, for example, particularly challenge caches.

Thanks for the heads up.... 

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, CleverCloggs said:

Yes, the ones I didn't find I shall do a return.. But alas many of them are so old and maybe not even there in my area. Yesterday I was on the floor under a bench, looking for a micro, and I found it :) nice after having so many bad ones... 

 

Are you looking at the previous, most recent logs on some of those old caches?   They can often tell you if there is a possibility that the cache might be missing.  Unfortunately, they can sometimes be misleading if someone logs a "Found It" on a cache that  is actually missing.  Occasionally, you'll also see a cache with a recent DNF or more which might suggest is missing but it may just be hard to find.  I found one in Malaysia after a couple of DNFs and a local cacher told me that it was probably not there.  

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, CleverCloggs said:

I was told a couple of days ago by the reviewer to remove it.. or change it, so I basically archived it.. easier that way. 

 

not heard anything since...! 

 

If you properly archived the cache, there is nothing further for the reviewer, or you, to do (except to remove the physical container, if you have not already done so).  You won't hear anything, but it should show in your caches owned with a red line through it.  If they are merely unpublished, awaiting action from you or a reviewer, you can see them but we can't on your profile.   I'm only seeing two published caches for you, none archived. (And congrats on two published!

 

Personally, I would not archive an unpublished cache - I would use the GC code assigned and just rewrite the cache page - edit to give it a new name, location, description, etc (as the reviewer suggested, CHANGE IT) so that it meets the guidelines.  But that's my preference.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Are you looking at the previous, most recent logs on some of those old caches?   They can often tell you if there is a possibility that the cache might be missing.  Unfortunately, they can sometimes be misleading if someone logs a "Found It" on a cache that  is actually missing.  Occasionally, you'll also see a cache with a recent DNF or more which might suggest is missing but it may just be hard to find.  I found one in Malaysia after a couple of DNFs and a local cacher told me that it was probably not there.  

Yes I was having a look at all that I was going to visit...  

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

If you properly archived the cache, there is nothing further for the reviewer, or you, to do (except to remove the physical container, if you have not already done so).  You won't hear anything, but it should show in your caches owned with a red line through it.  If they are merely unpublished, awaiting action from you or a reviewer, you can see them but we can't on your profile.   I'm only seeing two published caches for you, none archived. (And congrats on two published!

 

Personally, I would not archive an unpublished cache - I would use the GC code assigned and just rewrite the cache page - edit to give it a new name, location, description, etc (as the reviewer suggested, CHANGE IT) so that it meets the guidelines.  But that's my preference.

Ah ok.. Thanks for the advice.. I have actually moved it to another area.... so hopefully it will be seen. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, CleverCloggs said:

waiting for 2 more to be published too...  6 days now.. strange how it takes so much time? 

 

You have nothing that's been pending initial review for six days.  Rather, you have one cache submitted TODAY which has not received an initial review.  It doesn't meet the Geocache Hiding Guidelines, so it may take some extra time for a Reviewer to explain the issue. (Everyone get ready for a discussion about hidden waypoints.)

 

You also have one cache submitted on 20 September and initially reviewed on 23 September.  The reviewer notes on that are rather a hot mess, so I'm not surprised that the Reviewer hasn't yet returned to untangle things.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Keystone said:

 

You have nothing that's been pending initial review for six days.  Rather, you have one cache submitted TODAY which has not received an initial review.  It doesn't meet the Geocache Hiding Guidelines, so it may take some extra time for a Reviewer to explain the issue. (Everyone get ready for a discussion about hidden waypoints.)

 

You also have one cache submitted on 20 September and initially reviewed on 23 September.  The reviewer notes on that are rather a hot mess, so I'm not surprised that the Reviewer hasn't yet returned to untangle things.

quite!  It was almost as if the wrong photo uploaded.. I did try to sort it by deleting only what he/she needed... BUT its such a good hiding place I don't want to give up just yet.... I have two live ones which will keep me busy... and two hidden... maybe I wont add any more now. Ill just have these... I'm the only one in my area bar one I have seen that have new ones out....  Thanks for the tip anyway.. Its good you can "stalk" our stuff here :P 

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 5

×
×
  • Create New...