Jump to content

Too Many Caches


jochta

Recommended Posts

Thread promoted from bottom of Power Trail thread.

 

We've had a few threads in here recently saying how marvellous it is that there have been so many new caches but is this good news? This was my reply to something said on the PT thread...

 

QUOTE (The Spokes @ Apr 27 2005, 03:22 PM)

I said it once before and I will say it again. I think that the buzz will go out of caching when there is a cache under every rock and log.

 

I agree with this sentiment (although a bit OT). I predict that geocaching will 'implode' at some point in the future. There will be either be a high profile case of damage/injury/something else which will get into the tabloids "Geocaching killed X" or the sheer number of caches/cachers will debase the whole game.

 

Four hundred new caches in the last month (or something)? Are we only feeding the FTFers? I've set two new ones in the last month and apart from a quick FTF haven't been busy at all.

 

I can spot others that have been hidden in the last few months in this area (Oxon, Berks, Bucks) that have had a brief flurry of activity and then nothing (or very little).

 

A quick stat check on geocacheuk shows 1069 caches that haven't been found for over a month - maybe there will have to be a cull at some point

 

Let's enjoy it while it lasts....

Link to comment

Not too sure about the self implosion, but otherwise totally agree with jochta.

I have already started archieving / culling some of mine.

Spoiling the ship for a halfpennies worth of tar springs to mind.

It is also like the Berkshire's cache event title. Critical Mass. I think we may have gone past that point and its now fueling itself to rapidly.

This subject should be seriously debated.

Edited by 2202
Link to comment

Having started in this game when there were only 37 in the country and the nearest 100 miles away, the present situation is somewhat different for me.

 

But I do not agree that lots of caches is a bad thing. If a cache is not visited for some time after the locals have all seen it, does not mean that its value has passed, as there will be occasional visitors to the area who will be glad it is there - always supposing that the location is worth visiting.

 

I fear that the real danger is a proliferation of poorly placed caches in uninteresting spots sometime placed by newcomers anxious to make their mark without the experience to do it well. I am not knocking newbies here, as there have been some excellent caches placed by people with only a few finds behind them - but sadly I can think of others which went against all the rules of common sense let alone the guidlines which themselves have been based on hard won experience. These latter are the ones which could lead the whole game into disrepute.

Link to comment
I have already started archieving / culling some of mine.

I hope that doesn't include the Chiltern Hundreds ones: we've got those on the list for this weekend or next. :lol:

 

There's certainly been an explosion of new caches in recent weeks. I do appreciate having caches to search for, but I too wonder how good this is for the sport. Do we really want so many caches?

 

Is the proximity rule the problem? Isn't 0.1 miles (hang on: click, click, 161 metres) ridculously close? Wouldn't 5km or even 10km be better, and thus encourage caches being placed in the best locations within each square rather than just under the nearest tree/log/bench/whatever? (I realise this isn't a UK-specific thing, but there's no harm having a chat about it.)

Link to comment
(I realise this isn't a UK-specific thing, but there's no harm having a chat about it.)

No harm at all :D I've archived some of my own caches (well not mine - my "mate's" :lol: ) which I felt had served their purpose but have replaced them with new ones. Hopefully I've learned over the years what is a good and what is not such a good spot.

 

Wouldn't 5km or even 10km be better, and thus encourage caches being placed in the best locations within each square rather than just under the nearest tree/log/bench/whatever?

An interesting idea but unfortunately we don't have the detailed knowledge to be able to identify good and bad spots except at a superficial level. I'm certainly interested in seeing how this discussion pans out.

Link to comment

There can't be one answer to this question, except, maybe, "Yes...and No".

 

There could be, and maybe are, too many caches in some areas already. There are other areas in which it would be cool to have more (any) caches.

 

Overcrowding of caches could lead to bad press and upset land managers, and be bad for geocaching in the long run, and so should be avoided if possible. This is certainly true in my area, and is the reason that as more geocachers place caches in my local environs, I will be archiving some of my caches to keep the density at a low enough level to prohibit geocaching from being perceived as a problem in our forests.

 

My assumption is that as geocaching's popularity continues to grow, the cache density in any given area will reach an equilibrium suitable for that area maintained by a combination of local cachers, local orgs, and reviewers. No universal formula of cache density would make sense for all of the wondrous places we hide our treasures, be they deep in forest, or affixed to lightpost.

 

Just my thoughts on a damp Thursday morning,

 

nfa-jamie

Link to comment

I've only been around for a year and I'm not hugely busy compared with some, but I do have this conscious thought when I'm doing caches - "Why have these people brought me here?" Sometimes I know the answer, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I wish they hadn't.

 

The first category is what caching is all about. The last one, well, maybe there should be a way of clearing the decks occasionally.

Edited by Kitty Hawk
Link to comment

Has the time come to perhaps put a time limit or 'cache by' date on the cache?

Maybe, when a cache is approved... sorry... reviewed and made 'live' it should be for a limited period... say 12 months. After that time has expired, the onus would be on the cache owner to make a case for re-submission and get the cache re-activated for a further 12 moths. If the case can't be made to the reviewers satisfaction or if no such re-submission is made, then the cache is archived. An automatic reminder e-mail could be sent out at 10 or 11 months, I'm sure. If this goes unanswered, our approvers could ask the nearest active cacher to retrieve the cache and dispose of it in an approved manner. This may also help to get rid of caches placed by people no longer active in the game.

 

Just a thought.... something else to stir into the cauldron :lol:

Edited by Pharisee
Link to comment
we don't have the detailed knowledge to be able to identify good and bad spots

I wasn't suggesting that you and Ecks should do that, but rather the cache placer.

 

I do understand that any higher value for the proximity rule is going to run into difficulties sometimes (though FTFS would be the rule as now). I just think that 161m is too low.

 

It's 0.3 miles from our house to the end of the lane. Maybe we should go and plant 4 micros... :lol:

Link to comment

Now that is a good idea from Pharisee as it would deal with one of the things that was at the back of my mind - poor maintenance - and yet would allow the "good" caches to remain provided their owners thought them worth confirming.

But would it make too much extra work for our reviewers or could it be automated?

 

And I do agree that 0.1 mile is too little and half a mile would be more sense.

Edited by John Stead
Link to comment
Has the time come to perhaps put a time limit or 'cache by' date on the cache?

Maybe, when a cache is approved... sorry... reviewed and made 'live' it should be for a limited period... say 12 months. After that time has expired, the onus would be on the cache owner to make a case for re-submission and get the cache re-activated for a further 12 moths. If the case can't be made to the reviewers satisfaction or if no such re-submission is made, then the cache is archived. An automatic reminder e-mail could be sent out at 10 or 11 months, I'm sure. If this goes unanswered, our approvers could ask the nearest active cacher to retrieve the cache and dispose of it in an approved manner. This may also help to get rid of caches placed by people no longer active in the game.

 

Just a thought.... something else to stir into the cauldron :lol:

I think this is a good idea. Would help get rid of any dead wood (no pun intended :D).

 

It should also include 'is permission for the cache to be present still valid?' This would cover areas becoming protected or changing ownership. Also ensure people are thinking about permission for placing and would renew really old caches permissions.

 

It could be a simple auto form with a few tick boxes with an option to archive.

 

Nice one.

Link to comment
If this goes unanswered, our approvers could ask the nearest active cacher to retrieve the cache and dispose of it in an approved manner. This may also help to get rid of caches placed by people no longer active in the game.

An excellent idea. There are far too many active caches with inactive owners, but it also addresses the problem of Geotrash. Just because a cache is archived on the website it doesn't mean it has been removed. I wonder just how many archived caches could still be found?

Link to comment

Pharisee

I agree with that proposal.

If this goes unanswered, our approvers could ask the nearest active cacher to retrieve the cache and dispose of it in an approved manner. This may also help to get rid of caches placed by people no longer active in the game.
Link to comment

I am guilty of archiving a cache that is/was still placed. I went to look for it but could not find it. Yet another cacher said that it is still there?

It must be a good hiding spot if even the owner can't find it. :D

 

As for the older caches. Us that have done them, should remember. As new people enter the game they could be the ones that will go for these.

 

Does that make sense? :lol:

Link to comment
Has the time come to perhaps put a time limit or 'cache by' date on the cache?

 

Wouldn't it be better to flag inactive caches.

 

A cache that is being logged is self maintaining and presumably a good/interesting cache.

 

If a cache were to become inactive after say 6 months, the FTF crowd could then start being the FTA (First To Archive) crowd and tidying up U/S caches into the bargain.

 

This would maintain the good caches and filter out the not so good.

Edited by Nebias
Link to comment

A cache that is being logged is self maintaining and presumably a good/interesting cache.

 

 

Not necessarily.

 

Lots of people will find a cache because they like to find all the caches in a given area, for example, and not necessarily because it's a "good/interesting" cache!

Link to comment

As usual, Pharisee's contribution makes sense, the argument doesn't have to be all powerful and conclusive, probably an indication that the owner is still happy with the cache, happy to maintain it and it's condition is still OK and reconfirm that it's not in a delicate area.

 

I don't think amount of use would be a good criteria as a 5/5 may only get a few visits a year.

 

The cache could also have it's 'annual renewal date' in the description so that people who are making plans can decide to bag it now or later.

Link to comment

this topic has given me a lot to think about

i am fairly new to caching and i certainly was one of those who wanted to do my own cache as soon as possible but after reading this topic i will not be doing one for a while

i also hope that this dosnt become to saturated and hopefully something can be sorted so that it dosnt

Link to comment
What about figuring out where the more "cache-heavy" areas are, so that people with caches in these areas could be contacted anually and asked to review the status/relevance of their cache?

I don't think that cache density matters, nor frequency of being found - the main thing is that they are ALL owned by active cachers, are ALL maintained as and when required, and are ALL reviewed if that process is implemented. Picking on areas with loads of caches doesn't seem fair and probably won't solve many problems as these also tend to be the areas with more active cachers and those who already adopt abandoned caches.

 

Another thought - a cache owned by an active cacher but not maintained because it is miles and miles from their home is just as bad as one not maintained because it is owned by someone who has given up caching. Perhaps a 50 miles from home limit unless exceptional circumstances (second home, working away during the week, frequent visits to relatives etc) should also be considered during an annual review to weed out the remaining "holiday" caches that don't get looked after.

Link to comment
Maybe, when a cache is approved... sorry... reviewed and made 'live' it should be for a limited period... say 12 months. After that time has expired, the onus would be on the cache owner to make a case for re-submission and get the cache re-activated for a further 12 moths. If the case can't be made to the reviewers satisfaction or if no such re-submission is made, then the cache is archived. An automatic reminder e-mail could be sent out at 10 or 11 months, I'm sure. If this goes unanswered, our approvers could ask the nearest active cacher to retrieve the cache and dispose of it in an approved manner. This may also help to get rid of caches placed by people no longer active in the game.

 

We think it is an idea worthy of consideration .

Link to comment
this topic has given me a lot to think about

i am fairly new to caching and i certainly was one of those who wanted to do my own cache as soon as possible but after reading this topic i will not be doing one for a while

i also hope that this dosnt become to saturated and hopefully something can be sorted so that it dosnt

I would say, still place the cache, just check the guidelines on the GAGB website and GC.com. It's fun, don't miss out on this part of the hobby just becuase some people are chatting.

 

;)

Link to comment

Another variation would be wondering when & how it could be suggested that an owner recycles a once popular cache that has now had 99% of the finds it will ever get...

Not really relevant to me as a not particularly active newbie in a reasonably cache rich area - I've got enough excellent caches within 15 or so miles on my first couple of pages to keep me going for ages. I presume though that those with hundreds of finds are driving for miles to get to fresh caches which is probably why any new cache here (Cheshire) seems to get 3/4 of its finds in a scrum in the dark in the first 2 hours after it is approved ;)

Rather than just packing more caches into an area, current owners could be prompted to turn their old and now seldom visited cache into a new multi or add some tricky micro stages or a challenging puzzle in a slightly different part of the already approved area or just a different traditional. You'd then get logs saying "Thanks for bringing me back to this lovely nearby area that I was last in 2 years ago.." and get a new find for the number chasers, new FTF etc without their driving past 50 caches that have been long done by most active locals.

You might wind up those who have nearly cleared their county or whatever but gain a flow of local caches for those who have long cleared a fifty mile radius without people resorting to putting a micro on their nearest bit of waste ground. Classics or popular/active ones would obviously stay and active owners could presumably opt to leave them alone - but they may want to enjoy placing and sharing a new cache without the hassle they had of getting the permission to use that site originally for one that is long done...

Link to comment
If a cache were to become inactive after say 6 months, the FTF crowd could then start being the FTA (First To Archive) crowd and tidying up U/S caches into the bargain.

 

This would maintain the good caches and filter out the not so good.

I disagree, strongly.

 

My 'Cancer' cache (GCH967) had no finders (other than a maintenance visit) from January the 31st 2004 to January the 26th 2005.

 

Neverthelss, it's a well thought of cache which has been enjoyed this year by a finder who said on April the 17th

"Made the common mistake as following the GPS on the direct route. Then judging my distances wrong. This resulted in me doing a lot of unnecessary climbing.

 

However it was a good trip. Amazingly I drive past this location very often and have only gotten round to stopping now.

 

Very good hide and also a nice spot for supervised younguns to climb."

 

and by another who said:

Well worth the trip!

 

Under a rule which would terminate or condemn caches after 6 months, this cache would have been dismissed.

 

{Edited to add that:}

There are also several interesting looking cachepages of caches in Shetland which have not been visited at all for more than six months and several more which have not been found since they were placed last year.

 

It would be a loss if they were to be deleted just because of a low turnover of visitors.

Edited by The Forester
Link to comment
Under a rule which would terminate or condemn caches after 6 months, this cache would have been dismissed.

Not so as I see it. Pharisee's suggestion included the provision that the owner could renew after 12 months.

A rarely visited cache which the owner thought worthwhile could be renewed indefinitely. I too have a cache visited only once or twice a year. It is 2000 ft up in a fairly remote area and I would certainly keep it going.

Link to comment

Sort of relevant........

 

......I last checker the review queue quite late last night and it was empty, this morning there were 7 trads and 2 multis to review. That's 9 caches submitted overnight and mid-week. I think Lactod mailed me to say that he had had to review 40 odd the other Sunday morning :laughing:

 

It's a lorra, lorra caches being laid out there!

Link to comment
It also compliments the 'cache in, trash out concept'.

So, 'cache out, trash in' - not sure I'd be 100% behind that one :laughing::laughing:<_<

 

But to add to the growing list of people seconding Pharisee's idea, it makes sense to me. No-one's enjoyment is curtailed, and with Geocaching now 5 years old (on May 3rd I believe!), it addresses a problem that can only get worse as time goes on.

Link to comment

Of course we could start a new game which has started elswhere in response to this issue

"Dust Offs" basically a set of caches are listed that have not been found for a while and the first to find one wins.

Yes agree we have done some new caches by new cachers lately that have nothing to recommend them. I hope that as bookmark lists become more popular we will be able to sort more wheat from chaff (see ours in the link in the signature line)

Link to comment

A cache that is being logged is self maintaining and presumably a good/interesting cache.

 

 

Not necessarily.

 

Lots of people will find a cache because they like to find all the caches in a given area, for example, and not necessarily because it's a "good/interesting" cache!

 

If people are happy finding it, then surely it's doing it's job.

If people are happy finding it, then surely it's doing it's job.

Link to comment
If a cache were to become inactive after say 6 months, the FTF crowd could then start being the FTA (First To Archive) crowd and tidying up U/S caches into the bargain.

 

This would maintain the good caches and filter out the not so good.

I disagree, strongly.

 

My 'Cancer' cache (GCH967) had no finders (other than a maintenance visit) from January the 31st 2004 to January the 26th 2005.

 

If it's had a maintenance visit, it still active.

 

I myself probably wouldn't try a cache that was inactive for more than 6 months.

Link to comment

I don't see the need for any of this, as long as the approvers are prepared to be tough on orphans (!).

 

I've seen caches with 5 DNFs, dating back 6 months ago or more, and no action from the approvers. On the other hand, when I suspended one of my caches a couple of months back because - on a regular inspection - I found a piece was missing, I had a note from an approver within a week saying "hey, this cache hasn't had a visitor since September, please fix it quickly or I'll archive it".

 

I thought that was a bit "keen" - there were no DNFs on it, and it requires you to visit two other caches to log it, involving 100km or so of travel, so I knew there wasn't a huge queue of unlogged DNFs either - but at least it means the approvers are keeping tabs on quality. And by fixing the problem within a few more days, I hope I've established myself as a serious maintainer.

 

Can one of the approvers maybe tell us: what types of logs or incidents are brought automatically to your attention ? 1 or 2 or 3 DNFs in a row, temporary suspension, "needs archived", etc ?

Edited by sTeamTraen
Link to comment

As thread starter, it's good to see a lively discussion on what I think is an important issue.

 

I think Pharisee's idea is excellent and should seriously be considered by TPTB - the sport will have to have some form of regulation as it moves out from its infancy I feel.

 

One point I made in my original post was the large number of new caches being placed, it'd be interesting to see what people think about this. Here are a couple of lead in questions to get the discussion flowing!!

 

Some of the new caches are getting a brief flurry of activity (sometimes just a FTF) and then nothing. I think there has been a slight change in behaviour recently, previously caches would get a few quick finds and then the activity would tail off a bit, now it seems to stop dead. Is this a result of too many new caches to go for?

 

Are we guilty of littering the countryside with hundreds of new caches when there are hundreds of older quality ones to do?

 

Are we just feeding the FTFers?

Link to comment
Some of the new caches are getting a brief flurry of activity (sometimes just a FTF) and then nothing. I think there has been a slight change in behaviour recently, previously caches would get a few quick finds and then the activity would tail off a bit, now it seems to stop dead. Is this a result of too many new caches to go for?

Round here, the harder caches get a flurry of activity when they appear, as the local cachers rush to keep the area round their home coords clear. Then it sometimes goes quiet.

 

One hard, night-time only puzzle cache got 10 visits logged in the first week, but it was just a group who got together: one or two solved the puzzle, the others tagged along. All fair and legitimate, of course, but if you set a hard puzzle, to be followed by a couple of hours' work at night, you won't have traffic jams.

 

But I think that fairly simple caches, advertised as such, with an interesting story or walk or view, ought to attract steady traffic. What was said in the "Hypocrisy" thread a couple of weeks back is very valid - if you're setting out for an area for a day's general caching, or even for some other activity with caching attached, you probably won't want to gamble that amount of time going for a single hard cache.

 

I live in a touristy area, and the number of visitors to my caches is more or less in inverse proportion to some exponent of their perceived complexity.

Link to comment

Hang on a mo. Although I still maintain that too many caches takes the buzz out of the game, I strongly disagree that culling is the way to go.

The number of caches will increase no matter what. Its inevitable. Some of the older caches are still the best to find as they have been there for a long time. The buzz is stronger with an older cache as its been there for a while and can be in a better location than some of the newer ones.

GPS prices are set to fall dramatically in the near future. That will bring even more into the game. I have just bought a GPS Bluetooth unit for £60.Next year what will the price be? £30 or £20 how many new cachers will it bring into the game.

No I think we are stuck with it. The growth in the next few years will be incredible. I think that someone wanting to place a cache in five years time will have a hard job to find somewhere to put it in the more densely populated areas in this small island, we call England.

The stats will be interesting on last years new caches to this years. Anyone know.?

Link to comment
The stats will be interesting on last years new caches to this years. Anyone know.?

What stats do you want? (Tell me what you want to prove, and I'll provide the numbers! :laughing: )

 

CacheTools shows the growth in caches to be increasing nearly exponentially.

 

Quick summary of new caches placed and total logs:

YEAR       NEW      LOGS
----       ---      ----
2000         3        10 
2001       269      1544
2002      1199     15869
2003      1677     46867
2004      2844    107921
2005      1536     59891  (cf   846    27401   for the 1st 4 months of 2004)

Link to comment
Due to the ever increasing numbers of caches being set, we can only set a maximum of 30 each.

I think the main cause of the explosion of new caches is simply linked to the explosion of new cachers, and not to individual cachers setting lots of caches.

 

If we set a maximum of 30, as you suggest, it would only affect 18 cachers (1.1% of cache owners) and would require the removal of about 239 caches (3.8% of the total).

 

Most likely, such a rule would result in large series of caches being turned into multicaches. A nice side effect, IMHO, but it's mean even less impact on the total number of tupperware boxes out there.

Link to comment
The stats will be interesting on last years new caches to this years. Anyone know.?

What stats do you want? (Tell me what you want to prove, and I'll provide the numbers! :laughing: )

 

CacheTools shows the growth in caches to be increasing nearly exponentially.

 

Quick summary of new caches placed and total logs:

YEAR       NEW      LOGS
----       ---      ----
2000         3        10 
2001       269      1544
2002      1199     15869
2003      1677     46867
2004      2844    107921
2005      1536     59891  (cf   846    27401   for the 1st 4 months of 2004)

And as a graph (averaged per month, assuming four for 2005).

 

 

growth.gif

Link to comment
Due to the ever increasing numbers of caches being set, we can only set a maximum of 30 each.

And I'd have to archive 42. [:laughing:]

 

By coincidence, I archived my first non-event cache yesterday, in Oxford. It'd been muggled/lost once and I went back to replace it again. At the location I decided it no longer 'came up to my standards' so I binned it, so to speak.

 

If a cache can be properly maintained, and is in an acceptable location, why shouldn't it remain for as long as the setter wishes? They've provided it for the enjoyment of others and one of the conditions of caching is that caches are relatively permanent. A one year shelf life might be a solution to the issue of overcrowding, but I can think of others. Like reviewers having the power to refuse to list a cache unless it appears demonstrably different for an existing cache in the same area.

 

I happen to live in an area well served by caches but I don't think we've reached saturation point, by any means. 0.1 miles apart makes sense to me. I also have no problem with two very different caches in close proximity to each other. What I object to are caches of no obvious 'value' beyond they're another 'number' and being ticked off my list. A dull area needs an interesting cache. An interesting area can survive an easy to find micro. A dull area with a dull, easy to find cache is as bad as caching gets in my eyes (unless we talk about shockingly bad co-ords, utterly pointless or just plain wrong clues, dangerous locations and the like).

 

I maintain numbers are not the issue, quality is the issue!

 

SP

Link to comment

There are too many "why here caches". Maybe a rating system will be needed. All those "why here", "poor cache" caches could be put on a yellow card. If not improved then red carded. I'm not a very active cacher so the quality of cache is far more important to me, and more importantly, to my kids. Just finding another box in a hedge in a field doesn't inspire them to go out again next weekend. I've previously set two caches. I was hoping to set one for every ten finds. One cache was trashed and the other removed until permission is sought. Even as a virtual I still get a few visitors with more than favourable comments about the location and the journey to the location.

I quite like the idea of the moderators being allowed to remove caches if they think the quality level, by visitor logs, isn't up to scratch. This would also resolve the quality issue at the same time.

Link to comment
There are too many "why here caches". Maybe a rating system will be needed. All those "why here", "poor cache" caches could be put on a yellow card. If not improved then red carded. I'm not a very active cacher so the quality of cache is far more important to me, and more importantly, to my kids. Just finding another box in a hedge in a field doesn't inspire them to go out again next weekend. I've previously set two caches. I was hoping to set one for every ten finds. One cache was trashed and the other removed until permission is sought. Even as a virtual I still get a few visitors with more than favourable comments about the location and the journey to the location.

I quite like the idea of the moderators being allowed to remove caches if they think the quality level, by visitor logs, isn't up to scratch. This would also resolve the quality issue at the same time.

Ratings are in the piepline. It will be like rock climbs where all are considered worthy however you can award star ratings so the more than worthy will rise to the top.

I am hoping for great things with the bookmark lists. Haggis Hunters are proving quite a good read for me at the moment.

Anyone interested in shropshire should have a look at ours.

Link to comment
Slightly surprised by those figures Teasel (imagined that their would be a higher percentage)

How do the figures turn out when its 25 or 20 caches each?

Personally, I agree with Simply Paul's post above. But if it were decided that a limit on the number of caches an individual could place was necessary, this graph shows the effect on the current cache population for all realistic values of the maximum...

removals.gif

...or shown as a percentage...

removalspct.gif

So, for example, if you wanted to remove 20% of the country's caches, you'd need a limit of 11 caches per person, which would affect about 120 people!

Link to comment
Is this a result of too many new caches to go for?

 

Are we guilty of littering the countryside with hundreds of new caches when there are hundreds of older quality ones to do?

 

Are we just feeding the FTFers?

Yes, yes, no (I think it's new cachers wanting, quite rightly, to place their own cache - stats on this would be interesting - Ian?).

 

OK, Berkshire and the surroundings are quite a cache-rich area, but there are 880 active caches withi 50km of my house. I think that's too many, not least because we've only found 420 of them :laughing:

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...
×
×
  • Create New...