Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Being near the lake’s natural air conditioning during hot summer days is nice. How about considering Harrington Beach State park? kbraband’s “Lake by a Lake” cache is there, and we really liked that park. According to the DNR’s 2004 development map there are two shelters and a number of trails. The park is over 600 acres in size.
A little farther up the lake is Point Beach State Forest, also right on the lake, and it has even more trails and has two shelters. Point beach also has family camping if folks wanted to stay over night, as well as outdoor and indoor group camping.
quote:
Originally posted by The Lil Otter:
Miata.. I too.. felt as you do.. that my cache placements were under attack..
I’d hate to see what would happen with “HONEST LOGS” as suggested above.. how that could really tear apart the geo-community as a whole..
That’s why above I said while not being purposfully mean
And I know why some had/have created “sock puppets” to post a ‘nasty’ log because they’d really show their true colors if posting under their own handles..
Seems to me that if someone goes to the extent of hiding their identity, then they plan on being purposfully mean. By not hiding one’s identity when logging, one is much more likely to be civil and polite, while still being honest. Least I think so.
Hiding one’s identity when logging is uncalled for.
quote:
Originally posted by Cathunter:
More importantly, set the example! When you write a cache page for your own hide, make it descriptive enough so that each user can determine if it is something that they want to hunt. When posting a find, tell the cache owner what you really think.
I concurr with Cathunter’s suggestion. Especially the second part. If those of us that hunt a cache wrote more than just TNLN and actually gave a review of what we liked and didn’t like about the hunt/find, then the rest of us would have something to go on in deciding if we also wanted to hunt it.
Yes, this does require those that post logs to be judgemental, but we should be frank in our assessment (while not being purposfully mean). Sure, we’ll probably tick off the occasional cache owner that thinks their dumpster cache should win COTM, but the rest of us will appreciate the reviews, especially if we see a trend.
Unfortunatly, there are too few Wisconsin cachers reading this thread, and possibly even fewer agreeing with this idea to actually make much of a difference.
Many loggers eaither don’t want to take the time to write an informative log, or are too afraid of being objective enough to point out anything negative. But we can hope
quote:
Originally posted by WISearchers:
I never heard of Permethrin before. Sounds like some good but powerful stuff. Careful with the “cures” out there kiddies. Sometimes the cure is worse than the symptom or problem.
Its recommended for tick prevention by the CDC and has less side effects than DEET. If you don’t wish to use Permethrin, then you definatly don’t want to be using DEET. If those two solutions are of concern, then you might want to look at the all natural Buzz Off product (not to be confused with the Buzz Off line of Permethrin clothing mentioned below).
quote:
From CDC website –
Travelers should be advised that permethrin-containing repellents (e.g., Permanone or deltamethrin) are recommended for use on clothing, shoes, bed nets, and camping gear. Permethrin is highly effective as an insecticide and as a repellent. Permethrin-treated clothing repels and kills ticks, mosquitoes, and other arthropods and retains this effect after repeated laundering. There appears to be little potential for toxicity from permethrin-treated clothing. The insecticide should be reapplied after every five washings.
Has someone used this before?
yep, we’ve used it when venturing into tick country. We just never expected to find them so bad at Hartman Creek, and were not prepared.
Probably good to spray on your clothes, let dry, then put them on?
Those are indeed the instructions printed on the bottles.
You can get it at REI or Cabelas for example.
Note on Cabelas site the BUZZ OFF clothing line that has Permethrin built into the clothing.
[This message has been edited by CacheCows (edited 05-21-2004).]
Another good prevention is permethrin. You can buy it as a spray or liguid, and it is applied to your clothes (NOT to you). It will last a few weeks and survive a washing or two. It kills ticks on contact. They jump on your sleeve, pant leg etc., and they die.
Here is a good CDC article on tick prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/lyme/prevent.htm
BTW, there used to be a Lyme Disease vaccination called LYMErixâ„¢ that worked quite well, but due to low sales, it was withdrawn from the market.
[This message has been edited by CacheCows (edited 05-21-2004).]
I also noticed this. Our stats are still showing our pre-campout numbers.
Going way off topic now, I’m curious as to where and when the trend towards being non-judgemental rose. I don’t recall when individual judgement became politically incorrect.
I go to an art gallery, and while I don’t have a single atom of artistic ability in my body, I still personally judge each artwork I examine. And I feel free to do so, and to express my judgements to anyone who cares to listen. I like this work, I don’t like this other work.
And the person next to me may indeed have a totally different basis for their judgement, and come to opposing conclusions, but they still have the right to judge the artwork and express that judgement to anyone who cares to listen.
So while you may choose not to judge the quality of a cache, why do you feel that you are disqualified to judge it because it is not your place to do so?
I personally feel I have every right in the world to judge anything I wish. No one has to listen to me nor care about my judgements, but I don’t see where we all lost our inherent place to render judgements.
I judge movies I see, meals I eat, cars I drive, and caches I hunt.
Good morning all, glad to see the air’s been cleared on the lame vs. 1/1 issue
Slightly off topic, but as VCs have been raised a couple of times on this thread, I’d like to just toss out my opinion.
During the months I was one of the geocaching.com approvers, the topic of virtual caches came up so often that they were eventually suspended while Jeremy worked on spinning them off to another area of the web site.
In a nutshell, the overwhelming opinion, to which I concurr also, is that GEO – CACHING is about two things:
GEO – location, somewhere, someplace
CACHING – a cache, container, contents (at least a log book)It all got started with an ammobox out in the woods in Oregon. Without the container, all you have is the GEO.
So, we took the approach that if your purpose was to take someone to an interesting place or location, to show off your favorite spot, but not to place a cache at that spot for whatever reason, then you were submitting that spot to the wrong website.
There is already a website dedicated to the locating of interesting/beautiful/unique places by GPS. Its called http://www.waypoint.org so when a geocacher submitted a cache that had no physical cache, we reminded them that if they wished to show off a location byt not include a cache, then they should instead submit it to that site, and not gc.com
So, that’s my $0.02 worth on VCs.
Mrs. CacheCow this time.
As I was reading these threads I was getting more and more frustrated that those ‘on the soap box’ were ASSUMING lame caches meant level 1/1 caches. That is in NO WAY true. I think all those lamenting the number of lame caches will agree that the dificulty and terrain level have nothing to do with making a cache lame. There can be 5/5’s that are poor caches and 1/1’s that are great caches.The first ‘lame’ cache I can remember hitting was somewhere in Illinois. I think it’s name was simply ‘Geocache’. Anyway, no matter what it was rated, I found it lame because here was the caching experience:
1. You try to park near the coordinates – it’s in a Chicago suburb and you don’t want to park in someone’s driveway. No parking coordinates are given and no trails can be found
2. Finally park in front of an old rusted gate hoping it’s legal. No trail can be found, ahead is a wooded area over grown with weeds.
3. Fight through the weeds to enter the woods, which is actuall several garbage strewn over-grown lots. Dark and smelly in the middle of the day.
3. Get within 50 feet of the cache only to discover it is surrounded by briar bushes.
4. Find cache in the center of the briar bushes.Sounds like fun, huh?
I actually like level 1 and 2 caches. Those cachers who have known me for some time know my caching motto is “I hate brown lines” (as on topo maps). They have heard me mutter it many times on level 3 and 4 terrains. But, ALL caches, including 1/1’s should have a reason for being where they are – other than giving a hider one more ‘hide’ count.
Gee, and this isn’t even my pet peeve. Mine is mis-rated caches. Like at one campout where my daughter and I were looking for a cache rated 1/1 and I told her to stop climbing the bluff because 1/1 meant you could get to it by wheelchair. Well, the hider happened to be there watching a large group look for it and said “Oh, then it’s not a 1/1 like I said”. Sure enough it was about 8 feet up the bluff.
It’s very frustrating to think you’re going after an easy cache and then get a nasty surprise. Once I had a very sore (scraped up and bruised) and was only going after terrains of 1s and 2s so as not to injure it more. Boy was I surprised when a level 2 (supposedly able to ride a bike to) took you over a steep 40 foot bank to the lakes edge with no trails (we checked at least 100 feet in each direction). Yes, it’s my fault I still did it and hurt my leg more, but I hated to make my daughter turn back without finding it after getting all the way to it.
I am still seeing a trend in this thread’s responses that are focusing on defending 1/1 caches. So I will reiterate…
NO ONE IS BASHING 1/1 CACHES
1/1 CACHES DO NOT NEED DEFENDINGThe lamenting about lame caches are referring to caches that have little or no effort from the cache creator to put thought into the placement or design of the cache. It has nothing to do with the terrain or deifficulty level, but has everything to do with thought and effort.
1/1 caches are great and serve a needed purpose. We are NOT complaining about 1/1 caches, so please stop defending them like we are attacking them…
quote:
Tony said…
Do you remember what it was like to discover geocaching, do a few caches and then want to set up your own? I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it probably wasn’t worthy of Mensa. Nor was the area the scenic like the Grand Canyon.
Yep, we do indeed remember what it was like to discover geocaching, do a few caches, and then want to set up our own. And your limb broke…
Our first cache, Tales from the Crypt (you will have to log in to see it as its archived) had over a week in its design and layout, including three trips to the site taking waypoints and bearings for its design. The location was a hidden Civil War era cemetary far back in a woods.
On our second cache, we put 2 solid weeks into its design and placement, including over 100 miles on the car gathering background information and photographs to add to the story line (Ode to the Bearded Lady, it is also archived). The location was a view of the 1850 Tiffany railroad bridge, one of only two stone 5 arch railway bridges in the world.
Another of our early caches, Beulah Land had over a month in its design and creation, including research at museums and libraries and investments in reference books.
And during our first year or so of caching, our examples were the norm, not the exception. Almost every single cache we hunted during that period demonstrated the same level of effort in design and placement by its creator. We could give you scores of examples of caches created in 2001 and 2002 that had at least as much effort, if not more, than ours had. Today, these types of caches have become the exception, no longer the rule.
We contend that the thought, care, and effort that are put into a cache’s design and placement are totally unrelated to the cache’s terrain and/or difficulty rating. Your point that if you had only encountered 4/4 caches when you started geocaching is irrelavant to the topic at hand. We are discussing low quality, not ratings. Thought and effort can be put into both the selecting of ‘special’ locations and/or unique hides without having to in any manner escalate either the terrain or the difficulty ratings.
Those of us that are decrying our perceived lowering of the quality bar in the last year or so has nothing to do with ratings. We are not lamenting 1/1 caches, we are lamenting low quality. That has nothing to do with the ratings.
No one has ‘evolved’ beyond finding/placing 1/1 caches, there is a very strong need for 1/1 caches for young families and those with physical limitations.
We are however seeing a strong ‘devolving’ in the amount of effort cache hiders are putting into the design and placement of their caches.
We respect your right to defend those creating ‘quick’ caches. Some of us on the other hand feel that when one creates and lists a cache there is an inherent responsibility to value the investment in time and resources that geocachers make when they hunt those caches. And when we hunt a cache that obviously had little effort in its placement or design, we frankly feel that the cache’s owner wasted our time. And we feel we have a right to say so…
And in our case, we simply lost 90% of our first year enthusiasm and rarely cache anymore as its too difficult to weed out the quality from the rudimentary caches.
[This message has been edited by CacheCows (edited 05-19-2004).]
Don’t forget the third type of cache, the all to prevalent combination of #1 and #2: Simple hide, place is nothing special.
You could call this the “Look! I own a cache” cache. It was the rampant proliferation of this type of cache that dampened our spirits to where we rarely cache anymore as we found ourselves being ‘mediocred’ to death. It just got too hard to ferret out the kind of caches that used to be the rule, rather than the exception, two years ago.
We fell in love with the caches that took people days or even weeks to design, layout, and create. Take us to a beautiful place, or give us a hide that challenges us. But please, just don’t waste our time…
[This message has been edited by CacheCows (edited 05-18-2004).]
In all our years of camping, and three years of geocaching, we have never seen ticks like this. Eryn ended up (so far) finding 10 ticks on her, Arlene had 6, and I had 3. Due to my bum leg, we ended up staying at a nearby motel rather than camping, and Saturday night after the night caches, we were going back up to our room after a late swim and found one on the wall outside our room waiting for us!
I don’t think it was just that park, friends back home said they had problems with ticks after just spending an afternoon at a park outside Whitewater.
Done
quote:
Originally posted by Green Bay Paddlers:
Sometimes it’s hard to check the WGA “recent posts” page…
I’d be happy to check the code, but I’m sorry, I thought I knew this system pretty well, but I don’t know where this ‘recent posts’ page is located. How do you get to it?
-
AuthorPosts
