Boring log entries

April 30, 2003

I have been caching with my 4 yr son and I've been asking him what to write, we put everything from, "Cool rock" to "i gotta go poopy" that real life.

April 30, 2003

I agree. But it is even better with two kids that have melt downs over the cache contents[]

April 30, 2003

Well, when I write logs, I like to post a bunch of weird in-jokes and obscure references that are funny maybe to two people. I sometimes throw in the occasional non-sequitur when I really want to mattress the bifurcated onion talon. Sometimes I even include funny anecdotes that relate to the actual cache. Well, I think they're funny.

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

Have you had your house checked for Rae Dawn Chong?

1.7k · April 30, 2003

Skydiver:

I may publically write something nice, but that doesn't mean I won't criticize. If I truly don't like a cache, or if I feel a cache is dangerous or violates trespassing rules, I will e-mail the owner privately. I may also put a comment like "the location could have been better but we enjoyed ourselves nonetheless." I won't publically chew someone out on a cache placement. I had that done to me when we first started caching by someone who just had a bad day and didn't like that kind of cache yet felt compelled to get it anyway "for the numbers". I've never forgotten that sting. I've also seen others stop caching because of nasty comments others leveled at them publically. Their caches weren't lame but someone decided to make an issue of their caches nonetheless. Being nice doesn't always mean we give wholehearted approval to a cache. You can be nice and criticize at the same time.

That moss-covered bucket I hailed as a treasure,

For often at noon, when I returned from the field,

I found it the source of an exquisite pleasure.

Samuel Woodworth The Old Oaken Bucket

April 30, 2003

I have read before that some here don't like long logs and some do. If you like them long, then I suggest you make that comment on your cache page to encourage the practice. Many would gladly write when they know it would be appreatiated.

May 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:

I won't publically chew someone out on a cache placement. I had that done to me when we first started caching by someone who just had a bad day and didn't like that kind of cache yet felt compelled to get it anyway "for the numbers". I've never forgotten that sting. I've also seen others stop caching because of nasty comments others leveled at them publically. Their caches weren't lame but someone decided to make an issue of their caches nonetheless.

It is indeed sad when someone feels the need to tear down another's caches, simply because it's not the sort of hide the finder prefers.

There's room in this sport for all sorts of caches - 1/1s and 5/5s, urban and backcountry, clever hiding places and obvious piles of sticks, 'evil' puzzle caches and ones findable by a pre-schooler without a GPSr.

Unfortunately, there are those who forget this, and choose instead to spend their precious caching time being judgemental and negative about geocache styles they do not personally care for. They forget that their opinions are not held by everyone else in the area, and there are other geocachers who truly do like them.

Ron/yumitori

May 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by skydiver:

quote:
Originally posted by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:
I've always tried to write something nice about every cache no matter how lame. It just seems like good etiquette to me.

Although I totally understand how you're trying to be nice and polite with this practice, and that's and admirable quality, I disagree with the practice entirely.

Certainly, if you honestly liked the cache, then say so. Doing so will encourage that cache placer, and others, to place more like it, which you will probably like also.

Whether or not you should criticize a cache you don't like probably depends a lot on your personality as well as what you didn't like about it (i.e. did it break some rule like being on private property, or was it just not your cup of tea). That should entirely be decided on a case by case, cacher by cacher, basis.

However, actually complimenting a cache you don't like only encourages people to place more caches exactly like it, which are just more caches you're not going to like.

One of the most poorly placed caches I've ever been to has logs from people saying what a great place it is to put a cache. I honestly believe those are just people following the same rule you are, which is to say something nice about every cache, regardless of how lame it was. But the cache owners have used those logs a 'proof' that some people actually like that kind of cache.<SNIP>-

YES! This is exactly what I was thinking. I try to be polite, but I do not praise lame caches. It is hard to be brutally honest, but the more honest people are, the fewer lame caches there will be. The cache log is the only form of feedback cache owners get. If you lavish the same degree of praise on lame caches and good caches alike, you are doing all of us a disservice. Let's encourage quality over quantity.

Yumitori: There is a difference between an easy cache and a lame cache. I think we should be less praising of lame caches. I have found that the "lameness factor" is inversely proportional to the distance from the parking lot.

I agree that there are caches for everyone. What one person writes well about in a log entry, another will simply say "Nice cache, TNLN".

May 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:
Skydiver:

I may publically write something nice, but that doesn't mean I won't criticize. If I truly don't like a cache, or if I feel a cache is dangerous or violates trespassing rules, I will e-mail the owner privately. I may also put a comment like "the location could have been better but we enjoyed ourselves nonetheless." I won't publically chew someone out on a cache placement. I had that done to me when we first started caching by someone who just had a bad day and didn't like that kind of cache yet felt compelled to get it anyway "for the numbers". I've never forgotten that sting. I've also seen others stop caching because of nasty comments others leveled at them publically. Their caches weren't lame but someone decided to make an issue of their caches nonetheless. Being nice doesn't always mean we give wholehearted approval to a cache. You can be nice and criticize at the same time.

That moss-covered bucket I hailed as a treasure,

For often at noon, when I returned from the field,

I found it the source of an exquisite pleasure.

Samuel Woodworth The Old Oaken Bucket

I agree that it's possible to be nice and critical at the same time, and in many cases a private email is the best way to express the details of your concern.

What I was trying to say (maybe didn't come across correctly), is that entring an online log of 'Great cache! I had a lot of fun.' for a cache that you thought sucked and wasn't fun at all, isn't necessarily good. In that case, a simple 'found it, tnln' log get's your find counted without giving credit where credit isn't due, or giving OTHER geocachers (besides the owner) the wrong impression of what you honestly think qualifies as a 'Great cache!'

I know one local cacher who has resorted to leaving completely blank logs (well he had to put in a space character for it to take), on the grounds that... if you can't say anything nice...

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

May 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:
It is indeed sad when someone feels the need to tear down another's caches, simply because it's not the sort of hide the finder prefers.

There's room in this sport for all sorts of caches - 1/1s and 5/5s, urban and backcountry, clever hiding places and obvious piles of sticks, 'evil' puzzle caches and ones findable by a pre-schooler without a GPSr.

Unfortunately, there are those who forget this, and choose instead to spend their precious caching time being judgemental and negative about geocache styles they do not personally care for. They forget that their opinions are not held by everyone else in the area, and there _are_ other geocachers who truly do like them.

Ron/yumitori

You mean like this...

quote:
Unfortunately, I must disagree with Rye that this is one of the best caches in the area. While I certainly know that Skydiver put a great deal of time and effort into it, the result, for me, was a hunt filled only with frustration and dissatisfaction, accented by the difficulty involved in decyphering certain of the clues, whose 'correct' solutions required Bizarro answers. My efforts to finish it was motivated purely from a desire to get it off my cache pages.

blah blah blah

quote:
I felt I was in actual danger during the final hunt.

blah blah blah

quote:
I do appreciate challenging and difficult caches.

blah

quote:
But in my opinion there are upper limits to how much effort reaching a simple logbook should take.

The line at the end of this log to one of my caches is the one that to this day irks the h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of me, and raises my blood pressure each time I read it. The mere sugestion that extreemly difficult caches shouldn't exist purely because THIS finder thought it was too difficult blows my mind. As does the comment that he was 'motivated purely from a desire to get it off my cache pages.'

That log was the most unconstructive form of hypercriticism I've ever recieved in my entire life. However, I think there is a need for constructive criticism in all aspects of life. Take for instance, the next log to the same cache where the finder posted...

quote:
I wasn't a big fan of all the complex puzzling, but I did enjoy the hike.

Perfect! She got her point across to me, without being a complete jerk about it. If she felt that way, would I want her lying to me about how she liked the puzzles? NO! I want to hear people honest opinions about mine and other people caches, and I will certainly give my opinions about caches in my logs and in conversation when the subject comes up. But I try not to be a jerk about it, and expect others to do the same.

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

May 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by OUTSID4EVR:

Yumitori: There is a difference between an easy cache and a lame cache. I think we should be less praising of lame caches. I have found that the "lameness factor" is inversely proportional to the distance from the parking lot.

I agree that there are caches for everyone. What one person writes well about in a log entry, another will simply say "Nice cache, TNLN".

While I agree that lame caches do not need false praise, I'd disagree about the distance/coolness relationship. Some quite good caches are a very short distance from easy parking. I've also hiked some distance to nodescript containers in boring locations. It depends on the type of hide it is, and where it's placed.

I got into this discussion because there's been comments locally that we don't 'need' more easy caches. This, at the same time I'm seeing more and more new geocachers, and more families geocaching. Certainly Missoula is experiencing a caching boom, but we've hardly reached our limit. And when some of these folks say 'Great Cache!', they really seem to mean it.

Just because some of us have seen these ideas before doesn't mean that they aren't new and exciting to the less experienced cachers.

Ron/yumitori

May 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by skydiver:

You mean like this...

quote:
Unfortunately, I must disagree with Rye that this is one of the best caches in the area. While I certainly know that Skydiver put a great deal of time and effort into it, the result, for me, was a hunt filled only with frustration and dissatisfaction, accented by the difficulty involved in decyphering certain of the clues, whose 'correct' solutions required Bizarro answers. My efforts to finish it was motivated purely from a desire to get it off my cache pages.

blah blah blah

quote:
I felt I was in actual danger during the final hunt.

blah blah blah

quote:
I do appreciate challenging and difficult caches.

blah

quote:
But in my opinion there are upper limits to how much effort reaching a simple logbook should take.

The line at the end of this log to one of my caches is the one that to this day irks the h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of me, and raises my blood pressure each time I read it. The mere sugestion that extreemly difficult caches shouldn't exist purely because THIS finder thought it was too difficult blows my mind. As does the comment that he was 'motivated purely from a desire to get it off my cache pages.'

That log was the most unconstructive form of hypercriticism I've ever recieved in my entire life. However, I think there is a _need_ for _constructive_ criticism in all aspects of life. Take for instance, the next log to the same cache where the finder posted...

<snip>

I'm confused, Jon. Do you want honest criticism or not? I was honest about my experiences, and my reaction to the cache. I was feeling much more upset initially; what I posted was a relatively calm version. Since you won't move on, we can get into it here as well, I guess.

First, I do indeed believe that there is a rational limit to how difficult a cache should be. Should I find a mine shaft somewhere (don't want to be burying anything), and recreate Oak Island? Is a real risk of death or permanent injury of even careful, experienced and prepared cachers acceptable? Or shall we create caches with puzzles so obscure that it takes years of searching and researching the personal life of the cache hider before the first person stumbles across the intended interpretation, ala Masquerade? If a cache is hidden in the woods and no one ever finds it, is it still a geocache?

We haven't gotten there yet, but there seems a small segment of the geocaching population who would prefer we all head that way.

As to the specifics of your cache... (Incidentally, I like the 'blah, blah, blah' response to my feelings that I was in danger while searching for the cache) The chief difficulty I had with it was the lack of objective and unambiguous interpretations of the clues. Several of us commented that it required 'thinking like Skydiver', and you thought it was funny, but it wasn't actually a joke. In retrospect, it really was necessary to overlook logical evaluation of some of the clues and instead wander randomly through the area until we stumbled across certain of the 'waypoints', then try to figure out what you really meant the next step to be, since what you said wasn't what we needed to do.

I'm sorry that this has created a rift between us, but I tried to fairly evaluate my experiences. It's unfortunate that they were not those you intended, and I understand that you put a lot of effort into your cache designs. I simply feel that you missed the target on this one, and I said so.

Ron/yumitori

May 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:
First, I do indeed believe that there is a rational limit to how difficult a cache should be. Should I find a mine shaft somewhere (don't want to be burying anything), and recreate http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/OakIsland/? Is a real risk of death or permanent injury of even careful, experienced and prepared cachers acceptable? Or shall we create caches with puzzles so obscure that it takes years of searching and researching the personal life of the cache hider before the first person stumbles across the intended interpretation, ala http://www.armchair-treasure-hunt.com/media/masquerade2.htm?

As I've stated before, and repeatedly, yes! If you, or anyone else, really doesn't like to hunt that sort of cache, then don't friggen' do it. But don't waste your time, and effort, on the cache only to complain at the end that you were obligated to hunt it purely because it was on your cache page.

quote:
If a cache is hidden in the woods and no one ever finds it, is it still a geocache?

You tell me. Seems to me that you've expressed a desire to go hunt for a particular cache in the woods that, after nearly two years now, still hasn't been found. Are you going to go hunt that one too, just so that you can complain that it's too difficult?

quote:
The chief difficulty I had with it was the lack of objective and unambiguous interpretations of the clues. Several of us commented that it required 'thinking like Skydiver', and you thought it was funny, but it wasn't actually a joke. In retrospect, it really was necessary to overlook logical evaluation of some of the clues and instead wander randomly through the area until we stumbled across certain of the 'waypoints', then try to figure out what you really meant the next step to be, since what you _said_ wasn't what we needed to do.

Obviously, your reason for feeling the need to randomly wander was due to the fact that you overlooked logical evaluation. Every clue is extreemly descript and pointed to a very specific point on earth, if you really think logically about it. Unlike other caches with clues that only hint to a general vicinity where the hunter is required randomly wander that area and conduct a needle-in-a-haystack search for hours on end, even though they know they've solved the clue correctly and would like to move on.

quote:
I'm sorry that this has created a rift between us, but I tried to fairly evaluate my experiences.

No, that wasn't a 'fair evaluation'. Leonata's log was a fair, and appreciated, evaluation. Your log was a rant with intent to...

quote:
tear down another's caches, simply because it's not the sort of hide the finder prefers.

which can do nothing BUT create a rift.

quote:
I got into this discussion because there's been comments locally that we don't 'need' more easy caches. This, at the same time I'm seeing more and more new geocachers, and more families geocaching.

My first cache was a multi that required solving clues and doing research to find. I didn't even need ONE easy cache to get started, and I didn't need, or want, anyone to saturate the area with easy caches just because I was new and they felt I was incapable of anything interesting. And I happen to know a 7 year old that's been on some of the most challanging hikes in the area. So your argement that new cachers and families NEED to have only easy caches to hunt is completely bogus.

However, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be easy caches, or even that there shouldn't be more of them. My problem is simply that in the time it takes one person to put together a thoughfull, interesting cache hunt, (easy or difficult) another person can put out many, many thoughtless, boring caches. And with a trend like that, it's easy for an area to get saturated with thoughtless, boring caches, under the guise that new cachers and families NEED nothing but bag-n-tags.

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

9.5k · May 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Scooby, Shaggy & Daphne:

I keep waiting for someone to make the comment, "Are you writing a book or what?!?"

*Daphne* of Mysteries Inc.

When you do get asked, you could respond with...

When I do, can I quote your incredulity?

For me, my handwriting is bad bad bad. But recently, when I was caught in the open with the log book, I had pretended to write notes of the tree the cache was near, and wrote about getting caught out in the open with the log book!!! LOL

Cheers!

TL

May 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by skydiver:
As I've stated before, and repeatedly, yes! If you, or anyone else, really doesn't like to hunt that sort of cache, then don't friggen' do it. But don't waste your time, and effort, on the cache only to complain at the end that you were obligated to hunt it purely because it was on your cache page.

Um, wow. I really don't know what to think about a position that a significant chance of death, regardless of preparedness, is acceptable in a family sport.

I would have thought that there would be some level where even you would agree that the 'challenge' was just too bloody great, so we could discuss refining that line, but apparently not.

Too, just to clarify, I did not start out working on the cache in question simply to get it off my page. I did, however, finish for that reason. I quickly solved the first part (the portion you have said elsewhere you thought would be the most difficult part), and moved on to try and interpret the translated clues.

quote:
Obviously, your reason for feeling the need to randomly wander was due to the fact that you overlooked logical evaluation. Every clue is extreemly descript and pointed to a very specific point on earth, if you really think logically about it.

Um, no, they were not. To choose the most obvious example (while trying to not give anything away), you said 'seek the X of Y'. When we finally figured out what you were talking about, you meant to find the Y of X. Quite the opposite. Thus the reason I commented on 'Bizarro clues', a pop reference I expected you to understand.

At this point the hunt became much less than fun. But being as stubborn as you are, I was unwilling to give up. A failing, perhaps, but one I'm not unique in having.

quote:
No, that wasn't a 'fair evaluation'. Leonata's log was a fair, and appreciated, evaluation.

Jon, I was on the receiving end of quite lot of ranting about the cache. You got the sanitized version, after Peggy saw what happened to me when I stated my opinions. I presume that was not your intent, but it was the result.

quote:
Your log was a rant with intent to...

quote:

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

tear down another's caches, simply because it's not the sort of hide the finder prefers.

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

which can do nothing BUT create a rift.

<Sigh> As I've said, I enjoy puzzles, too. But in this particular instance I felt your homemade puzzle failed, and I said so for that reason, not to attack you.

My comment, which you quoted, was directed at statements you've made in recent weeks concerning other caches in the area, ones you don't like. Were you then trying to create a rift when you made them? I would expect not, but they were at least as likely to do so as my words were.

quote:
However, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be easy caches, or even that there shouldn't be more of them.

But that is exactly what you've said on our local forums.

quote:
My problem is simply that in the time it takes one person to put together a thoughfull, interesting cache hunt, (easy or difficult) another person can put out many, many thoughtless, boring caches. And with a trend like that, it's easy for an area to get saturated with thoughtless, boring caches, under the guise that new cachers and families NEED nothing but bag-n-tags.

Unfortunately, you are judging the actions of others only through your personal opinions. What you consider 'thoughtless and boring' was unlikely to have been intended as such. You are of course free to feel however you wish about the caches in the area, but your public complaints are themselves creating the same sort of rift you feel I am responsible for between you and I. Can you see that?

...

So, shall we continue to hijack this thread, or should we take it to e-mail now that we have both had our chances to publicly rant and respond (and rant again)?

Ron/yumitori

6.5k · May 6, 2003

quote:
So, shall we continue to hijack this thread, or should we take it to e-mail now that we have both had our chances to publicly rant and respond (and rant again)?

Oh no please don't take this private. This is too much funfor the rest of us to read.

These changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes;

Nothing remains quite the same.

Through all of the islands and all of the highlands,

If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

May 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:
Um, wow. I really don't know what to think about a position that a significant chance of death, regardless of preparedness, is acceptable in a family sport.

I would have thought that there would be some level where even you would agree that the 'challenge' was just too bloody great, so we could discuss refining that line, but apparently not.

ROFLMAO!

Oh, I see now. You want us to discuss where the line should be drawn on what is too difficult, and impose that limit on all other cachers. Of course, how could I be so dense. In that case, may I suggest that we submit this cache and this cache to the chopping block first, since I know that I would be at a very real and probable risk of death were I to attempt either one.

Seriously, though, I jump out of planes FOR FUN! You and I would never draw that line in the same place. Every single person on this planet, geocachers, skydivers, rock climbers, scuba divers, and little old ladies alike, are each individually responsible for knowing what their own personal limits, and stopping what their doing once they reach that limit. Nobody (including yourself) is high and mighty enough to impose any arbitrary universal limits on anyone else.

quote:
But that is exactly what you've said on our local forums.

For the last time, stop misquoting me and taking my statements out of context. It really doesn't help validate your arguments.

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

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

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

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

May 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by skydiver:

Seriously, though, I jump out of planes FOR FUN! You and I would never draw that line in the same place. Every single person on this planet, geocachers, skydivers, rock climbers, scuba divers, and little old ladies alike, are each individually responsible for knowing what their own _personal limits_, and stopping what their doing once they reach _that limit_. Nobody (including yourself) is high and mighty enough to impose any arbitrary universal limits on anyone else.

Sure there is. Jumping out of planes with a parachute is fun and challenging for those who are properly trained. I'd love to try it. But jumping out of the same plane without a parachute or other safety device is suicidal, and suicide is illegal, oddly enough. If the death rate for skydiving was some significant percentage of the total jumps, you'd see legal authorities acting pretty high and mighty to stop further deaths.

At what point does geocaching become suicidal, even for the highly trained?

quote:
But that is _exactly_ what you've said on our local forums.

For the last time, stop misquoting me and taking my statements out of context. It really doesn't help validate your arguments.

<Sigh> Here you go, from the MOOG mailing list (in its entirety so you cannot say I'm taking something out of context) -

quote:
Just wanna toss in my two cents here. I know these sentiments aren't shared by all, but there are some of us (me, at least) that would rather not see the Missoula area become saturated with easy 'bag-n-tag' caches. For me, geocaching is more about the hunt, than the find, and from my experiences, bag-n-tags are more about the quick effortless find, than the adventure of the hunt.
I'm not trying to discourage anybody, just pointing out that bag-n-tags are not a unanimous favorite.

Would you care to explain how this isn't going to discourage folks, especially when you later say, in the Northwest forum -

quote:
I don't hunt caches to log another find, I hunt caches to have fun and enjoy the hunt itself (and as long as I do, I don't care if I don't find the cache). But, for that to happen, the cache needs to be either in a spot that is interesting to go to (i.e. not outside the post office or on the edge of the shopping mall parking lot), or have an entertaining hike, walk, puzzle, or some other redeeming value to justify it's existance. Caches that don't have some redeeming value are just caches planted for the sake of boosting someones numbers, and I really have to wonder about the motivations of those who honestly LIKE such unremarkable bag-n-tags.

Curiously, out of several similar micros hidden in unremarkable places in Missoula (but many with interesting hiding places), you only mention a couple which happen to not be hidden by a friend of yours.

You repeatedly discourage certain types of caches, while claiming not to, by these tactics. What's it to you what the motivations of other geocachers are? Why bother even bringing it up?

I don't get it, Jon. We've had, I've thought, reasonable discussions via e-mail. Yet when we try to do so in public, anger and ego seems to get in the way. Any ideas why? Regardless, I'm done here. Respond again if you wish; I won't. I'd have taken this to e-mail already, but I don't have access here at work...

Ron/yumitori

May 6, 2003

Just for my clarification: I know others have found Skydiver's cache in question and did not feel in "eminent danger." When I brought this up locally, I was led to believe, perhaps mistakenly, that your danger was caused by local weather conditions. Is this the case?

-The Lone Stranger

"I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something." Charles Manson

May 7, 2003

Boring caches elicit boring log entries. Yesterday I went after two micros. They were right off the path and easy to get to. What more can one say other than found? Boredom in - Boredom out.

Vini, vidi, velcro

(I came, I saw, I stuck around)

May 7, 2003

Ok, so let me summarize what I've read so far.

A. You can't please everybody. (and some people are never pleased no matter what you do.)

B. Leaving decent log entries is a courtesy, but not a requirement. (Please note I said "a decent" log entry, not "a" log entry which is part of the sport)

C. Some people will, can't, won't, shouldn't, leave a log entry.

D. Some people need to understand that some people will, can't, won't, shouldn't leave a log entry.

E. Caches are like restaurants, the better the experience the better the tip(entry)

F. Geocachers will eventually refer to their refrigerators as their "Food Cache".

May 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Lone Stranger:
Just for my clarification: I know others have found Skydiver's cache in question and did not feel in "eminent danger." When I brought this up locally, I was led to believe, perhaps mistakenly, that your danger was caused by local weather conditions. Is this the case?

-The Lone Stranger

Yes, it was the weather. The conditions at the cache site were much different from those of the surrounding area. I brought most of my winter apparel, but neglected a couple things like gloves and earmuffs. After all, the day was warm and sunny and I could see the hiding place from some distance away, with there being no visible signs of problems.

The localized high winds that I couldn't see, and terrain much more treacherous than anticipated combined to make staying a severe risk, and retreat the way I had come impossible.

Jon initially thought I was criticizing him for the conditions, but I tried to explain on MOOG that I had included that paragraph as a warning to others who I knew were also working on the cache at the time, and would likely be fooled as I was. I don't know what Jon's reaction was to my clarification; he did not respond to it.

Incidently, when I returned with Peggy so she could finish the last step of actually finding the cache, the winds were just as strong. The intervening month had made conditions warmer and therefore bearable, but it still wasn't somewhere we chose to hang around.

Ron/yumitori

May 7, 2003

I have bagged all the local caches so I have to drive quite a ways to make a find. I usually plan a route that will take me to four or more caches. If I am trying to do a dozen caches in a day, I don't spend a lot of time writing in the log book.

2.9k · May 7, 2003

I have a hard time putting my thoughts on paper, but it is easier to type them, but I forget alot of detail when i get to a computer to log the info. I do like the caching experience though. My sister takes so long to write in the logbook, that I get very impatient sometimes.

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

My Old posts as Geoffrey

My Current Post as GOT GPS?

My Home Page about what is GPS

May 7, 2003

Well, to end the day on a good note (and hopefully prevent Missoula from looking like a bunch of cache-babies by usurping this thread), I will make the following observations:

Dangerous is not the same as difficult. I have not seen a cache yet in Missoula that is "too dangerous" so arguing this THEORETICAL point (on either side) is just silly and immature. Skydiver could not control weather conditions, and as any good hunter will tell you, when weather starts to get adverse, you hang your hat and go it another day.

Your warning of weather conditions doesn't go un-appreciated by those who need it and whether it was a "rant" or not is not a debate worth having here. The log was posted so people will make up their own minds.

As far as how "difficult" a cache should be, as long as it isn't intentionally placing lives at risk (within reason) then I think this is also a very subjective term. I, for one, have recently stopped hunting a particular cache simply because the style of hunting it involved was not enjoyable for me. I solved the riddles, but the actual cache location was too much of a mystery. I by no means blame the cache placer though, as others have found steps to the cache that I could not, so it is obviously "not" too difficult for them.

On a final note, I think the line on how a cache gets logged is a fine one. I have posted a find for a cache that had criticism of it's placement and hiding recently because I felt the method of concealment would encourage destruction to the surrounding area. I made a distinct point NOT to rant though, as this accomplishes very little. If a cacher gets home and is literally *angry* about a cache then perhaps they should have stopped hunting it before reaching that point. This is supposed to be a game after all.

Let's all play nice, hide some *good* caches, and use the logs to encourage the same from others. If a cache isn't your style, say so, but don't tear down the whole cache because it isn't your thing. If a cache is getting "Found it, didn't care for it" from *a lot* of people, chances are the cache placer will get the hint without needing the ramblings of one lone cache-cop in the area.

Cache on, my brothers, cache on.

-The Lone Stranger

"I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something."

-Charles Manson

May 9, 2003

Talk about shaking the tree to see what falls down. You hit a sore spot with many people didnt you.

the main thing that has to be considered here isnt why people write so lame or so atrticulate but why they do geocaching.

They geocache for themselves. Therefore they will do the cache how they feel they should.

Some cheat, some do it the hard way, some do lots in one day and some do only select few that they like the idea of.

It follows that they will all enter their logs in both the Cache and the online log differntly.

the differences make the hobby the least predictable and therefore the best aspect of geocacheing. Viva la difference.

when it comes down to it, if the entrys are bad then the only ones that can be blamed for it are all of us. We all make the hobby so we all take the blame. If we as individuals try to do it right then it will be right.

Lyn Pat and Nathan.

Boring log entries

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation