Accindental Cache

[aragorn05]

Prestonbond and I was walking to a cache, when he picked up a fake rock with the geocaching symbol on it. My GPS said the cache was 200 feet away but this was a cache. It had a log and everything. I thought it was a secret cache and was so thrilled. We went on to find the cache we were doing and went home. The secret cache was accually a teracache. It wasn't hidden good, but it was sure a thrill to find a SECRET cache!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

A Terracache hidden in an official Geocaching.com rock? how cool is that! They're even advertising for us!

 

 

[+The Leprechauns]

Your experience is one of the reasons why this listing site has a cache saturation rule, which says that geocaches need to be a minimum of 528 feet apart. It's confusing to be within the search radius of the cache you're looking for, and to find something else like a terracache or a letterbox. I peeked over a friend's shoulder at the terracaching site's forums and read some posts where the author *encouraged* placing terracaches really close to geocaches.

 

Now, accidental placements really close to something else are a fact of life; that's been the case with letterboxes for years. Just as you did, the proper thing to do is to leave the other gamepiece in place. But to see discussion where this sort of thing is encouraged.... well, that bugs me. Another reason why I haven't joined the other site. And with the five terracaches within 100 miles or so of my home having a *combined* roundtrip hiking distance of 335 feet, I don't plan on changing my mind any time soon. The advertising talks about unique, creative caches that break away from the "masses" here at Geocaching.com; the reality at least for me is a bunch of copycat caches and park and grabs.

[+briansnat]

I peeked over a friend's shoulder at the terracaching site's forums and read some posts where the author *encouraged* placing terracaches really close to geocaches

 

In NJ there is a new terracache about 60 feet from a long existing geocache. This is in a park of a couple thousand acres and there are only a few caches in it. I don't get the point.

Edited May 9, 2005 by briansnat

[TinyMoon & The Pumpkin King]

Okay, I give...what the heck is a TerraCache? Is this something other than Navicache and Buxley's Waypoints?!? Some people are always more than willing to make lame copies of a perfectly good original it seems...

[+Renegade Knight]

I peeked over a friend's shoulder at the terracaching site's forums and read some posts where the author *encouraged* placing terracaches really close to geocaches

 

In NJ there is a new terracache about 60 feet from a long existing geocache. This is in a park of a couple thousand acres and there are only a few caches in it. I don't get the point.

Maybe it's not the point but the location.

 

After having seen a lot of caches here get stolen I also got to watch new ones get placed. It's amazing how often cachers pick the same general location for a cache. You can end up with caches very close together. That's going to be an issue until all listing sites share cache for the purpose of eliminating placments like this.

 

I had a Geocaching.com cache placed within 6' of my Navicache cache. The Navicache came first. That was too close so I retired my cache and used the container to bring back a disabled GC.com cache. Meanwhile the GC.com cache was stolen.

 

If nothing else it's interesting caching here.

[aragorn05]

I didn't know about navicache! hmm... to many caching sites to keep up with! I think I will stick with geocaching! For some more info, I this teracache was a rebirth of a orginal geocache. There was a geocache callled canoe kayak in Chattonga and was a fake rock. This cache was archived awhile ago. This was called canoe kayak rebirth and was a copy of the orginal geocache.

[+Jamie Z]

read some posts where the author *encouraged* placing terracaches really close to geocaches.

You didn't say if this author was a reprentative of TC. If not, that comment can be taken with as much interest as much of the drivel posted in these forums.

 

I am not a member of TC. There is one TC near me--a webcam. So far I'm not interested in looking at the site more closely.

 

But to suggest that you wouldn't join in part because of a comment some random user made on the forums is a little too Ceipsish.

 

Jamie

Edited May 10, 2005 by Jamie Z

[+Spencersb]

a little too Ceipsish.

 

Jamie

Okay, I give up. Google, Yahoo, and Lycos all came up empty on "Ceipsish." The closest Dictionary.com got was Scepsis.

 

OT, I haven't explored TC much, but as long as GC.com won't do some things, whether they are right to do so or not, there will be other sites that will be willing to do so, some more "in GC's face" than others. Not saying TC is, just pointing out that most everyone stirs the pot, we just use different spoons.

[+Jamie Z]

Okay, I give up. Google, Yahoo, and Lycos all came up empty on "Ceipsish." The closest Dictionary.com got was Scepsis.

Wow! People read my drivel?

 

Representative Catherine C. Ceips.

 

Jamie

[+ClanDeYates]

I am so glad you posted that...

[JohnX]

a little too Ceipsish.

 

Jamie

Okay, I give up. Google, Yahoo, and Lycos all came up empty on "Ceipsish." The closest Dictionary.com got was Scepsis.

 

OT, I haven't explored TC much, but as long as GC.com won't do some things, whether they are right to do so or not, there will be other sites that will be willing to do so, some more "in GC's face" than others. Not saying TC is, just pointing out that most everyone stirs the pot, we just use different spoons.

I would bet the intended term is sheepish

 

From www.dictionary.com => "Embarrassed, as by consciousness of a fault: a sheepish grin.

[+The Leprechauns]

No, he definitely meant Ceipsish. I thought the term was funny as heck, and it ought to be added to the forum lexicon for use when appropriate.

 

I don't agree with its application in this particular case, but you gotta admit, it was a fine play on words.

[Jeremy]

Technically Ceips is pronounced like Skype. So the correct usage would be

 

"Oh, come on. For Ceips sake!"

[+briansnat]

Okay, I give up.  Google, Yahoo, and Lycos all came up empty on "Ceipsish."  The closest Dictionary.com got was Scepsis.

Wow! People read my drivel?

 

Representative Catherine C. Ceips.

 

Jamie

Wow, great word. I'm stealing it!

 

Here it is.

[+Jamie Z]

Technically Ceips is pronounced like Skype. So the correct usage would be

 

"Oh, come on. For Ceips sake!"

I've seen you use that before. Clever. You're a cunning linguist.

 

But Ceipsish is also pronounced like Skype. Well, like Skype with an -sish added to it.

 

Skype is great.

 

Ceips is not.

 

Jamie

[+Jamie Z]

I would bet the intended term is sheepish

 

From www.dictionary.com => "Embarrassed, as by consciousness of a fault: a sheepish grin.

As pointed out by other writers, that was not my intention at all. I was pointing out a decision made based on little or no knowledge of the topic.

 

Jamie

[+Adam_n_Michelle]

Your experience is one of the reasons why this listing site has a cache saturation rule, which says that geocaches need to be a minimum of 528 feet apart. It's confusing to be within the search radius of the cache you're looking for, and to find something else like a terracache or a letterbox. I peeked over a friend's shoulder at the terracaching site's forums and read some posts where the author *encouraged* placing terracaches really close to geocaches.

 

Now, accidental placements really close to something else are a fact of life; that's been the case with letterboxes for years. Just as you did, the proper thing to do is to leave the other gamepiece in place. But to see discussion where this sort of thing is encouraged.... well, that bugs me. Another reason why I haven't joined the other site. And with the five terracaches within 100 miles or so of my home having a *combined* roundtrip hiking distance of 335 feet, I don't plan on changing my mind any time soon. The advertising talks about unique, creative caches that break away from the "masses" here at Geocaching.com; the reality at least for me is a bunch of copycat caches and park and grabs.

Similar find today at the University of Wisconsin Green Bay. While searching for the third leg of a multi-cache, I found my first letter box cache. Emailed the person who had re-placed the box 3 weeks earlier, had no idea a geocache was nearby. Funny part is that the spot is obvious for a geocacher and the both are within a short distance of one another.

[+jake649]

The first time I ever went out I was wandering around the woods with my 5 yr old daughter in circles. The hint was "its behind Brian". We had thrown up the white flag and were leaving when we came on a tree that someone, probably Brian, had carved "Brian was here". The frustrating thing was that we had walked right past it on the way in, only I was looking in the other direction at someone's deer blind.

[+beopots]

I'll admit I was briefly intrigued by TC, but if they encourage that kind of disregard for this site and the people that work hard to create new caches, count me out. The intrigue began with the lure of less traffic, more discrete caches, but I guess members only caches can fill that void. As far as "unique, creative caches that break away from the 'masses," can't they just think of new ways to adapt/evolve caches on this site? This would eliminate the proximity problem. Plus, that's what most of us already try to do.... *sigh*

 

Everybody say BEO

[poikää & butterfly]

Not sure if this counts as a TC but my better caching half and I found a regular cache about a year and a half ago. In the log we were reading, the past entrys, we came across this entry.... coordinates Lat and Long, bring flashlights and hiking boots, signed The Green Hornet...

We copied them down and entered the coordinates on "lostoutdoors.com" and found them to be near a cache at a waterfalls we had not found yet..... Talk about an adventure! The search brought us to a cave in a large boulder and then some! We were the first and only finders so far! We have been watching this area for some time.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I'll admit I was briefly intrigued by TC, but if they encourage that kind of disregard for this site and the people that work hard to create new caches, count me out. The intrigue began with the lure of less traffic, more discrete caches, but I guess members only caches can fill that void. As far as "unique, creative caches that break away from the 'masses," can't they just think of new ways to adapt/evolve caches on this site? This would eliminate the proximity problem. Plus, that's what most of us already try to do.... *sigh*

 

Everybody say BEO

TC encourages disregard for other sites in the same manner as GC does...

 

John

[+Miragee]

I'll admit I was briefly intrigued by TC, but if they encourage that kind of disregard for this site and the people that work hard to create new caches, count me out. The intrigue began with the lure of less traffic, more discrete caches, but I guess members only caches can fill that void. As far as "unique, creative caches that break away from the 'masses," can't they just think of new ways to adapt/evolve caches on this site? This would eliminate the proximity problem. Plus, that's what most of us already try to do.... *sigh*

 

Everybody say BEO

TC encourages disregard for other sites in the same manner as GC does...

 

John

If I've never searched for caches on another listing site, how would I know if a cache I placed was near one of theirs?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I'll admit I was briefly intrigued by TC, but if they encourage that kind of disregard for this site and the people that work hard to create new caches, count me out. The intrigue began with the lure of less traffic, more discrete caches, but I guess members only caches can fill that void. As far as "unique, creative caches that break away from the 'masses," can't they just think of new ways to adapt/evolve caches on this site? This would eliminate the proximity problem. Plus, that's what most of us already try to do.... *sigh*

 

Everybody say BEO

TC encourages disregard for other sites in the same manner as GC does...

 

John

If I've never searched for caches on another listing site, how would I know if a cache I placed was near one of theirs?

 

I'm sorry you missed the sarcasm in my remark. It was meant to imply that TC does not condone nor allow the running down of other caching sites. Neither does GC.

 

The only way you will know if you have placed a GC cache near a TC cache is if you are a sponsored member of TerraCaching. While on the other hand, TC has a link to the nearest caches (TC cache, GC cache, & Navicache cache) so you can check by visiting a TerraCache page for a cache near the area you wish to place a cache.

 

Unfortunately a link to TC caches would not work if the person clicking on it is not a member of TC. If you would like to join for the purpose of being able to see nearby caches, so you don't place them to close together, we will gladly sponsor you.

 

Most TerraCachers are already GeoCachers (Including some mods & approvers).

 

John

[+treasure_hunter]

I wonder if Geocachers are reffered to as Muggles by terracachers?????????

[fzyo0001]

what is a terracahe? i cannot find it with google send me a link please

[+Runaround]

And to think people complain about the approvers around here. Try dealing with some of the unreasonable sponsors over at TC who value quantity of caches in their downline over anything else or the whole useless rating system. After about 5 months I gave up and quit. The elitism that TCers accuse GC.com of practicing is alive and well over there in a different version.

[ImpalaBob]

Koikeeper came across her first fake "hide-a-key" rock last Sunday. She moved it to look under a bigger rock. I read the log in the PDA "unique container" and bent over and picked up the moved rock ..... voilla ... cache container! I had already ordered a Groundspeak official fake rock .... and it arrived yesterday. I can't wait to put it out as it is even cooler than the hide-a-key rock! ImpalaBob

Edited August 17, 2005 by ImpalaBob