+Wadders Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 i came acroos the complete list of locationless caches the other day, and now im damned if i can find them, any ideas? They need to have their own link or something. Waaders Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 That's the challenge. You go find the item and post where you found it. Quote Link to comment
+wigglesworth Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 Is this the link you require - all locationless caches categorised! http://members.aol.com/GeocacherBB/locationless.html Peter Quote Link to comment
+MarcB Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 Urrgg, I hate locationless! If I wanted to play I Spy I'd have brought one of those books! MarcB Quote Link to comment
+DomHeknows Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 lol - I did buy those books - AND i got some certificates from chief wiggum erm - chief I Spy to say so. Locationless caches aren't too bad - you just don't have to take them too seriously. Its a nice way to ensure you take even more notice of your surroundings and the countryside when out caching...or driving...or working..... Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 lol - I did buy those books - AND i got some certificates from chief wiggum erm - chief I Spy to say so. Did you also get the different colour feathers for your 'I-Spy' headress ?? Quote Link to comment
+MarcB Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 Expanding on my point of hating them I see 'em as a quick and lazy way to crank up your found count. Originally I thought they were an excellent idea but I just realised I'd be cheating myself. My 2 pence anyhoo! MarcB (on 93 found!) Quote Link to comment
+Brenin Tegeingl Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 Expanding on my point of hating them I see 'em as a quick and lazy way to crank up your found count. Originally I thought they were an excellent idea but I just realised I'd be cheating myself. My 2 pence anyhoo! MarcB (on 93 found!) Sorry to disagree about them being a lazy way of getting no's Marc. Most of the locational caches I've done have involved me doing a search on the net to find them, and gaining information that I would never have bothered with otherwise. 4 of them involved 80 mile round trips on two occasions to get the co-ords and photos. I've got a line on another 4, but they will involve a round trip of about 150 miles as they are in the centre of my birth town, but they are on hold as the kids now come caching with me. And as you know the rule is one location one person! One took a couple of hours sanding, decorating, varnishing a container, so that I could claim a find on it, once again not a lazy way of adding to my no's. There are "Lame" locational caches out there, just like there are "Lame" Traditional caches, its up to the finder to sort out the ones that really interest him (or her)! A long Winded Post by Dave Quote Link to comment
+MarcB Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=69889 Latest news from Jeremey on the subject... MarcB Quote Link to comment
+choccymandm Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 hmmm, i'm suprised no-one else has mentioned this but from the main geocaching.com/seek page, just below the country box is a link which says ... or all locationless caches my vote is to bring 'em back! Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 While I agree that a lot of ‘Locationless’ caches are quite easy and some can be ‘found’ without leaving your armchair, I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand. There are some that take a considerable amount of effort. Take ‘GC5379 “Timing” is Everything’ for instance…. This one took a considerable amount of planning, time and effort to find a location that I had access to at a time that I could access it. Having arrived at the location (under a hedge at the side of a track up to a farm) I had just a 1 SECOND time frame in which to get an acceptable photograph of the GPSr display. It was a hot June afternoon; the sweat was trickling into my eyes as I peered through the viewfinder and watched the seconds ticking down on the GPSIII. The lat & long display was flicking about on the last digit and I could hear a tractor coming down the access road. The correct time showed and fortunately the lat/long was also correct at the instant I released the shutter. I then had about 15 seconds to get out of the way of the approaching tractor. All in all that ‘find’ was much harder work and a lot more stressful than walking 200 yards up a footpath to find Tupperware box!!! Quote Link to comment
+Haggis Hunter Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 I too think that locationless are not lame. I have had to work hard or travel a long distance to get some of my locationless. I also try and find out information about it, so that I can post it with my log. That itself can take some time. As for the one's that I have came across by accident, such as the Beauty of Waterfalls I justify these as a find, as when I came across them I knew that they where a cache. Also remember that it isn't a numbers game for everyone, and the person that made up that particular cache is likely to be interested in the different types and locations of the subject of that cache. Also one last point to MarcB, when you say 93 found, is that the numbers of Locationless?? Quote Link to comment
+Lost in Space Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 All in all that ‘find’ was much harder work and a lot more stressful than walking 200 yards up a footpath to find Tupperware box!!! Ha! When was the last time you placed a cache within a 200yd walking distance???? Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 All in all that ‘find’ was much harder work and a lot more stressful than walking 200 yards up a footpath to find Tupperware box!!! Ha! When was the last time you placed a cache within a 200yd walking distance???? Errmmmm......... Would you accept "Not recently" ?????? Quote Link to comment
groovy chick Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 i really don't see the point in a cache without a designated position! groovy chick Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.