Jump to content

I was deleted


jkhrd
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I went on a cache 1/16 GCC297 a multi virtual. After finding all 4 locs we were unable to name the trees that appeared to be our goal. they were not native to our city and we had not way of find there names. After 3 1/2 hrs of driving around in heavey traffic I felt I would log the find and also explain our dilemma to the cache owner. After this was done I recieved a e-mail saying sorry but I'm deleting your find because you didnt complete the cache. I felt I was geocaching not taking a course in tree naming and still dont know what elese we could have done. Any comments please--- JKHRD

Link to comment

Take a couple photos of the trees, go to a library or your local Tree Depot, and figure it out icon_smile.gif Now that you know where they are at, it'll cut out having to do all that hoofing the second time.

 

Its unfortunate, and I'm sorry to hear that you had to drive around so much, but the requirement to name the trees must surely have been in the cache description... so, unless they were really common, or you are some sort of Tree Scientist, your odds of knowing the name would seem to be slim... icon_frown.gif

 

-----

you can hear what the fish is doing...

Link to comment

I agree with the above posters, the cache hider makes the rules, if you didn't satisfy them to his liking, then it's his right to delete the find. I do think that the cache in question seems awfully vague.

quote:
These are a few of my favorite things...you know the song.

 

These favorite things are all on private commercial property. However, they can be bagged easily from nearby public parking spots. There are three other things to find at 1)32 14 319, 110 51 375; 2)32 16 011, 110 50 475 and 3) 32 16 543, 110 56 614. E-mail me with their common names to get credit for this cache.


Given the 50-100ft error thats possible with a waypoint, the 4 favorite things the cache hider wants emailed could be almost anything. Now, if the 4 things are all from the song (which would be my guess looking at the page from 1500 miles away), then you were just plain wrong, because I don't remember any trees in the song.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

I can see both sides of this. There's a fine line between a challenging cache and one that's tedious. That's what I have been seeking, ways to make my caches fun and challenging without being simply difficult. I steer away from caches that require homework, emails to the owner to log, math, or other monotonous derivatives. I skip over caches like that; I simply can’t be bothered. Looking at the cache in question, I would never have wasted my time on it. The cache page is somewhat ambiguous about what exactly you’re supposed to email to the owner. The clue definitely is a strong hint though.

 

If I created a cache where you had to find some obscure knowledge to determine the final cache coordinates, I could make it practically impossible for anyone to find. I.e.: “Smoe, which is the reciprocal of the square root of sigma, is used in aircraft performance computations to compensate for differences in temperature and pressure altitude from ICAO standard day. To determine the cache coordinates, add the smoe correction for 18 degrees C and PA of 1250’ to the latitude and longitude.” Any Flight Engineer and most pilots could figure it out. Doubtful anybody else would log my cache though.

 

These types of caches usually have a provision to allow the find if the cacher is unable to determine all the requirements. That being said, the cache owner is the cache owner and they can set whatever requirement they like. I want people to find my caches and I want to read that they had a fun and challenging time doing so. To each his own.

 

Consider it a learning experience and avoid one like it in the future.

Link to comment

If you take photos of trees, make sure to take a close-up of the leaf as well. Makes Plant ID easier.

 

It very may well be trees. Some that I don't think are native to Arizona that fit with the song are (just off the top of my head):

Raindrops on roses - Golden RAIN tree

Snow-flakes that stay on my nose and eye-lashes - SNOWdrift crabapple

crisp apple strudel- APPLE

Silver white winters - Silver Maple

 

...if you do go back and take photos, I might be able to help with ID-ing them.

 

I walk the Maze of Moments, but everywhere I turn to, begins a new beginning, but never finds a finish... -Enya, Anywhere Is

 

[This message was edited by Squirrel Nut on January 17, 2003 at 09:18 AM.]

Link to comment

I agree with World Traveler.... not sure how this got approved. My additional observation is how the cache satisfied the requirement that placement of a physical cache is impossible. So long as we're on a "tree multicache," why can't there be a physical geocache located at a final stage, perhaps in a wooded area, arboretum, etc., or at the very least, hidden inside a hollow tree? Clues picked up from the four unusual tree sites, perhaps using the names of the trees, could lead you to the fifth physical cache.

 

If it were my cache, I would set it up that way, so as to comply with the current rules for virtuals. I also think it would be more fun and less tedious. One of my existing multi's, and three others in the planning stages, use virtuals as intermediate waypoints because they are low-maintenance and bring the finder to interesting places.

 

If obscure knowledge like tree names were required, I would probably drop a hint about bringing a tree identification book.

 

All that being said, it's still the owner's cache. If he wants to be vague in his clues and rigid in complying with the requirements, that's his choice. The consequences will be reflected in the logs, such as the one you left.

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

If there's no accounting for stupidity, then why do I need to file a tax return?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The Leprechauns:

I agree with World Traveler.... not sure how this got approved. My additional observation is how the cache satisfied the requirement that placement of a physical cache is impossible. So long as we're on a "tree multicache," why can't there be a physical geocache located at a final stage, perhaps in a wooded area, arboretum, etc., or at the very least, hidden inside a hollow tree? Clues picked up from the four unusual tree sites, perhaps using the names of the trees, could lead you to the fifth physical cache.

 

If it were my cache, I would set it up that way, so as to comply with the current rules for virtuals. I also think it would be more fun and less tedious. One of my existing multi's, and three others in the planning stages, use virtuals as intermediate waypoints because they are low-maintenance and bring the finder to interesting places.

 

If obscure knowledge like tree names were required, I would probably drop a hint about bringing a tree identification book.

 

All that being said, it's still the owner's cache. If he wants to be vague in his clues and rigid in complying with the requirements, that's his choice. The consequences will be reflected in the logs, such as the one you left.

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

If there's no accounting for stupidity, then why do I need to file a tax return?


I think this goes to show, that even though its been claimed otherwise in recent threads (here, here, and here), the guidelines for posting caches are a bit arbitrary and many are not listed in full on the guidelines page. Guidelines say no car caches, but someone approved a police car cache. Admins state in the forums that a virtual will only be approved if its impossible to hid a micro-cache AND it's coffee book worthy, yet the cache above is approved. We aren't talking old grandfathered caches here, these are only a few weeks old. I think we the hiders need a complete set of guidelines to follow, prominently displayed on the website. The admins need to follow those guidelines when approving caches, not their personal likes or dislikes for a certain type of cache. I know the cache approvers often have a huge amount of caches to review every day, but if they are overworked, then it's time to add more. I'm sure plenty of experienced cachers here would be happy to give a little extra back to the site by reviewing local caches.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

 

[This message was edited by Mopar on January 17, 2003 at 11:16 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

I'm sure plenty of experienced cachers here would be happy to give a little extra back to the site by reviewing local caches.


 

Completely off-topic for the thread, for which I apologize in advance, but I think if I were reviewing caches, I'd want to be reviewing non-local caches. Otherwise, the "note to approvers" might spoil the surprise if I decided to hunt it.

 

warm.gif

Link to comment

As a cacher who has lots of virtuals out there, I really believe this is a lame one.

 

If you went out with unclear goals and fought the traffic with those @#$%% SNOWBIRDS you should be given credit just for the attempt.

 

On many of my virtuals I let them slide if they make an honest attempt at the answers, I can tell that they have been there. Only 1 of them has a 100% requirement and the reason for that one is you need all the answers to assist you with the other cache that is linked to it. If you get 70% you still get credit, but you can't claim the other one unless you get 100% on the first.

 

The owner should give you credit then make the cache a little more interesting. That town is just full of palm trees, and there is a canyon outside of Tucson that has some trees that are very rare. Or you could be looking for and Iron Wood tree. Or a ???

 

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

Link to comment

On the other hand, if a cache is under water in the middle of a lake and requires a boat and I don't have a boat, can I claim a find by driving all the way to the lake and standing on the shore? Can I claim a find if I stand in front of a web cam but I don't know someone to take the picture? Would I try a multi cache on a long bike trail if I didn't have a bike? Not every cache if good for everybody. There are several that I know I will be skipping because I am not interested in them or not able to complete. The one with the tree identification sounds like one I might have passed on.

 

Shoebox.

Link to comment

I don't think it's being anal at all. If those were the requirments for the cache, and you didn't complete them then it's a no find.

 

It's says find the common name if these things. After the first one you could have figured out what was going on.

 

As for being a virtual or not. Maybe they're in a park that doesn't allow caches.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

It was a requirement of the cache, so he's within his rights to delete your log. A 2.5 difficulty rating means that it's more involved than a run of the mill virtual.


 

Yup, the cache description is a little vague, but that's entirely the cache owners right to be that way, and if you don't complete the requirements to log it, then tough cookies.

I just recently completed a multicache that required me to determine the names of two trees and a bird. Did a ton of research before I even left the house, and brought along a bunch of reference material with me just in case. Loved it!

 

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

Link to comment

I've talked to my wife about this in the past regarding other caches, and she agrees...

 

It's a no-find. The cache owner wrote a description - yes, it was quite vague, but you knew it was vague before you out started searching this cache. The cache owner said: Tell me what these common items are." You didn't - so you don't get the find.

 

In this cache the finder has to name trees... and that's hard for someone not familiar with them. It would be darned hard for me too. I can't tell an oak from an elm! (Seriously - I am pathetic when it comes to identifying plants...)

 

That's not good news for tree-idiots like me, but the reward (the find log on the web page) is only for those who finish the cache - "do or not do - there is no try" icon_smile.gif

 

Seriously, I am having no sympathy here. My wife and I are sitting in a tiny motel room (she is still asleep) in a small town in the Central Valley of California, because last week a stupid math error of mine caused me to mis-compute the location of a cache we want to find, and we really want to find this one. We tromped through the mud for a long time last Sunday because of my mistake. I don't feel I deserve the find until I find - no matter how much effort I put into the non-find.

 

Further, and I guess I am ranting now, I disagree with reactions along the line of "Oh - those are stupid kinds of caches anyway; how did this get approved, etc...". Okay - puzzle caches, or other types, may not be the cup of tea of many, fair enough - but I worry when we (I am not immune to this at times - I admit it) in the U.S.. tend to respond to failure-to-achieve by trying to comfort those who fail by stating/implying the goal that was not achieved really is not important anyway, or is a stupid goal to begin with, or was unnecessarily hard. Think hard before 'knocking' a goal in response to a failure to achieve a goal.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marky:

I enjoy challenging puzzle caches. As long as the cache is rated correctly, then I see no problem with it. You get to choose which caches you attempt. Cache on! icon_smile.gif

 

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"


Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

I think we the hiders need a complete set of guidelines to follow, prominently displayed on the website. The admins need to follow those guidelines when approving caches, not their personal likes or dislikes for a certain type of cache. I know the cache approvers often have a huge amount of caches to review every day, but if they are overworked, then it's time to add more. I'm sure plenty of experienced cachers here would be happy to give a little extra back to the site by reviewing local caches.

 


 

I agree, and I disagree, and I agree, and then I disagree again.

 

First, I agree that the 'guidelines' need to be tightened up so that there's a more definitive set of criteria. But I disagree that approval of caches should be based on some inflexible application of a set of rules - I'd prefer to believe that the volunteer admins do try hard to exercise their best judgement, and I think that's better than blind adherence to any set of rules we might come up with.

 

And I agree that admins ought to follow the consensus guidelines rather than their own personal preferences. But, while it's not disagreeing with anything written above, I'll point out that, at some level, it's always going to boil down to a personal judgement on the part of the reviewer, so there are limits to this. That's just the way it is, and while we might not like it, short of just allowing ALL caches that are submitted (a very bad idea) there's no way around it.

 

And, I'll point out that there are two complaints - (a) lack of consistency in applying rules and (:P problems caused by too much work spread across too few volunteers - and you can either have consistency, or you can add volunteers. Virtually everyone who is currently champing at the bit to be an admin is doing so because they have a personal agenda - they disagree with the current loose 'guidelines' and if they were admins, they'd do things differently.

 

So adding more volunteers will make things worse, not better.

 

The way to get better consistency is to (a) have a more clearly defined set of guidelines, and take steps to make sure it's enforced. If a particular volunteer admin keeps approving virtual caches that don't meet the guidelines, then perhaps they should be 'unvolunteered'. Maybe approval should be done on a multi-admin basis, where it takes more than one admin to get a cache approved - perhaps one local and one non-local admin.

 

-Paul

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

Perhaps you could bring something positive out of this. Post a "did not find" post on this cache and explain that other caches "must" be able to identify the trees to get credit and will be rejected if they can't. You can save other cachers the waste of time that you encountered and perhaps this would make the cache owner reconsider the requirements or clarify the description.

 

Shoebox.

Link to comment

I too agree with TeamJiffy...if you did not complete the goal then you should not be able to log the cache as found.

 

Instead of bringing this to public forum right away I would have personally e-mailed the cache owner and discussed with them what exactly they were looking for and then I would have attempted it again. But that is just my opinion.

 

Heck as much publicity this cache has gotten I wouldn't mind driving down to AZ just to figure out what all the fuss is about. icon_razz.gif

 

P.S.

Instead of going to the cache page and making rude notes about bad html and how the virtual is "lame" perhaps you should help the cache owner out and offer friendly advice. It NEVER ceases to amaze me just how far out of their way someone will go to be rude! icon_mad.gif

 

With my GPS in hand, and upon my trusty steed (er, truck) I scout the land in search of the mystical Geocache!

Link to comment

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=49815

 

You know what? I think it was pretty lame to go and call a cache you've never been to lame.

 

There was nothing wrong with the cache in the first place. If I cried everytime I couldn't find a cache, or complete the puzzle my eyes would be so read that I'd be offered a Visine endorsment.

 

Way to ruin a cache.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Shoebox:

Perhaps you could bring something positive out of this. Post a "did not find" post on this cache and explain that other caches "must" be able to identify the trees to get credit and will be rejected if they can't. You can save other cachers the waste of time that you encountered and perhaps this would make the cache owner reconsider the requirements or clarify the description.

 

Shoebox.


If you bring up the cache GCC297 you'll see I did just that. The cache has been put on hold by the owner because of all the confussion, altho another cacher could not ID the trees and it appears he got credit for the find. JKHRD
Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:

I don't think it's being anal at all. If those were the requirments for the cache, and you didn't complete them then it's a no find.

 

It's says find the common name if these things. After the first one you could have figured out what was going on.

 

As for being a virtual or not. Maybe they're in a park that doesn't allow caches.

 

george

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.


George, Not to beat a dead horse but why waste a cachers time with a cache almost imposible to solve. I felt there would be no cache I couldnt do thats why we took this one on, with first time cachers no less who by the way didnt feel there was much fun in this and most likely will not go again. Let me give you the answer for 2 of the legs. The ever popular Jacaranda Tree and the less popular Olve, thats right the Olve. I asume you have seen another cacher has done the cache with the same results, except it looks as though he was credited for the find. PS I got the names of the trees from the cache owner JKHRD
Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jkhrd:

George, Not to beat a dead horse but why waste a cachers time with a cache almost imposible to solve.


 

I guess these caches are a waste of time....

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=26935

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=39828

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=24907

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=27121

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=30256

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=43187

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=39663

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=36891

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=41187

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=44444

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=47954

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=36050

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=45179

 

And these are just a few caches that I know about. I guess they should all be archived because they are "almost impossible" for you and are a waste of time.

 

Ever consider that you're not the only geocacher around and that different people find different types of caches fun. Maybe the approvers should run them all by you first.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

Do us a favor and not comment on things you don't understand.

 

"Jacaranda Tree" (Trina Hamlin)

 

Your love to me is illusive as the color of a Jacaranda tree

bright bold and brilliant yet I can't find the words to describe it, name it

nor tame it

running wild and free

you color everything I can see

my crazy Jacaranda tree

 

how high will we go

only Jacaranda knows

so deep in me are the roots of your tree

can't shake it, break it, won't let nobody take it

my pretty Jacaranda tree

 

all of those days I spent in your shade

never quite seeing your beauty

standing beside I finally opened my eyes

to your technicolor dream come true

 

all of those days I spent in your shade

never quite seeing your beauty

standing beside I finally opened my eyes

to your technicolor dream come true

 

your love to me is still illusive as the color of a jacaranda tree

but I love it, love you, love what it makes you to me

love it, love you, love what it makes you to me

love it, love you, love what it makes you to me

my pretty Jacaranda tree

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by nincehelser:

Can't give credit to a guy who whines because the cache is just too hard for him.

 

George


whines may be a stronger word then I would have choosen, I was looking for advice which I have gotten alot of, Anyway I have changed my mind about the cache after reading some of the caches that you have brought to my attention, Gcc297 may have been rated lower then what I would have given it but so be it. The answers were obtainable therefore someone could answer the puzzle with more reaserch then I cared to give. In the end I'm looking for a good day of mindless fun which I have had 79 times b/4. I do not mean to make Geocaching my life just a past time Therefore I will be more carefull of my choices in the furture. With this said I now go on with my life and leave GCC297 behind. JKHRD
Link to comment

Wait a minute!

 

There was nothing in the cache description that indicated you needed a degree in Botany to solve this cache. The difficult caches listed above (I only looked at the first two) let you know up front what is required to post a find. This cache didn't. "Give me the common names for these items" gives no indication of the knowledge required to claim a find. I think that is unfair.

 

The owner should also have an alternate way to claim a find, either photos, or alternate description.

 

What next? If I put a 2.5 rating on a regular cache (increased difficulty), and put a note in the cache to the effect that "to log this cache you must also answer this question regarding quantum physics -- " would that be fair? I went to the cache site, I found the cache, but I don't know the answer to the question, so I can't log a find?

 

Jkhrd, I understand your point.

 

geospotter

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:

There was nothing in the cache description that indicated you needed a degree in Botany to solve this cache. The difficult caches listed above (I only looked at the first two) let you know _up front_ what is required to post a find. This cache didn't. "Give me the common names for these items" gives no indication of the knowledge required to claim a find. I think that is unfair.


 

Is there a rule that a cache can't require more than one trip, or additional post-footwork research?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:

Nope. No rule. But that doesn't change my point.


 

Should every virtual cache have "alternate" means of logging a find, or just this one?

 

If I have a virtual, for example, which takes you to N 51° 31.417 W 000° 09.517 (221b baker street, london, england) and asks you to name the person most associated with this residence, would that be fair? Would such a cache also need an "alternate" means of logging? Not everyone knows the answer, it might require additional research after having reached the destination.

 

If the cache were a physical cache, nothing other than finding the cache should be required to log it. This isn't a physical cache, its a virtual, and your example doesn't apply for that reason.

Link to comment

I am all for making hunters jump through hoops to find a cache. I do not think it is fair to make them jump through hoops after they have indeed found the cache.

 

The point of virtual-verification is to indicate to the owner that you actually used your GPS to find a specific location and visted that location.

 

geospotter

 

PS -- I could easily name three people associated with that address (more if I thought about it). Would you accept only "that" one? (Are those the real coords?)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:

PS -- I could easily name three people associated with that address (more if I thought about it). Would you accept only "that" one? (Are those the real coords?)


 

Yup, those are the real coords, and if I had placed such a cache, I'd accept any of "those" people icon_wink.gif but, that'd be up to the cache owner, and maybe some people would only want the *most famous* of the possible names... subjective, yes, but I don't think its outside the allowed.

 

FYI, I think the tree cache sucks, and should at the least have led up to an actual cache (grove of trees isn't unique nor coffeetable book material...), but I'm not decided on the issue of possible post-footwork research required.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:

 

What next? If I put a 2.5 rating on a regular cache (increased difficulty), and put a note in the cache to the effect that "to log this cache you must also answer this question regarding quantum physics -- " would that be fair? I went to the cache site, I found the cache, but I don't know the answer to the question, so I can't log a find?

 

Jkhrd, I understand your point.

 

geospotter


 

The POINT is, there is no regular cache to find. It's a virtual, not a box. What you had to FIND was the NAME of these things. After the FIRST thing you say to yourself.

 

"Hmmm... I don't know anything about trees. I should skip this one." And you walk away.

 

or

 

"Hmmm.. I don't know anything about trees, I need to do some more research before I get deeper into this."

 

But going to 3 or 4 other sites after you already failed at the first one THEN complaining that since you went to 3 or 4 sites you should get the find is lame.

 

Hell, look at THIS cache.. I told people nothing!

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=33282

 

I didn't tell them what the container was or even what the answer to the question was. People figured it out.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

What if you tresspassed on the land, cut down all of the trees and mailed them to the cache-owner....would that count??

 

I bascially agree with the people who said that the cache-placer makes the rules for completing the cache. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:

 

What next? If I put a 2.5 rating on a regular cache (increased difficulty), and put a note in the cache to the effect that "to log this cache you must also answer this question regarding quantum physics -- " would that be fair? I went to the cache site, I found the cache, but I don't know the answer to the question, so I can't log a find?

 

Jkhrd, I understand your point.

 

geospotter


 

The POINT is, there is no regular cache to find. It's a virtual, not a box. What you had to FIND was the NAME of these things. After the FIRST thing you say to yourself.

 

"Hmmm... I don't know anything about trees. I should skip this one." And you walk away.

 

or

 

"Hmmm.. I don't know anything about trees, I need to do some more research before I get deeper into this."

 

But going to 3 or 4 other sites after you already failed at the first one THEN complaining that since you went to 3 or 4 sites you should get the find is lame.

 

Hell, look at THIS cache.. I told people nothing!

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=33282

 

I didn't tell them what the container was or even what the answer to the question was. People figured it out.

 

george

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.


 

George I am facing the same problem... I can Sympathize ... My cache was wrong because a cacher almost got himself arrested at 4:30AM.

 

Ruddock Rendezvous

 

I posted several warnings on the cache except that stupidity will be punished. So lets appoint a committee to approve caches. A Committee made up of the fifty most avid experienced cachers with the most finds... the elites!! no cache is approved unless it is a unanimous decision under Florida voting rules.

 

Fair winds, Capn Skully

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

 

Should every virtual cache have "alternate" means of logging a find, or just this one?

 

If I have a virtual, for example, which takes you to N 51° 31.417 W 000° 09.517 (221b baker street, london, england) and asks you to name the person most associated with this residence, would that be fair? Would such a cache also need an "alternate" means of logging? Not everyone knows the answer, it might require additional research after having reached the destination.

 

If the cache were a physical cache, nothing other than finding the cache should be required to log it. This isn't a physical cache, its a virtual, and your example doesn't apply for that reason.


 

You'd have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out the answer to that question!

 

Cache you later,

Planet

 

"To err is human, to forgive....$5.00"

Link to comment

...and anybody reading the cache should read the description...

 

If the description were intentionallty deceptive it's one thing. (cache is easy find for children located next to a parking lot, and you find that you have to jump across lava flows 100 miles from the nearest parking lot to arrive at the ice-cold lake, and dive 500 feet to get the cache).

 

But incompleteness of description? Sorry - if you pursue a vague cache, so be it.

 

Frustration over a long distance? My wife and I just completed an overnight + 2/3rds of a cache day in the central valley, and we missed a couple of the caches, one that was unpleasant to search for (coordinates took us to an outside bathroom next to garbage cans for a fast food restaurant) and even one that took a lot of agility on my wife's part to even get close to, but do we complain? No!

 

The RISK of FAILURE to find makes the game interesting - including the risk to mis-understand the cacher's intentions in the description - if we found every Geocache, right away, it would quickly become boring.

 

We've actually found the vast majority we've searched for, and the one's we missed the first time are the ones we appreciate the *most*.

 

-Joel

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...