Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
@CodeJunkie wrote:
I think the most important things to remember are to be considerate and respectful of others.
I agree.
Just because you think it’s okay to find a puzzle cache by any means necessary (which I voted makes you a cheater cheater pumkpin eater) does not mean that everyone thinks this way including the owner of the cache and others who may have legitimately solved the puzzle.
I sort of agree with some posts and emails I’ve read recently. There are plenty of traditional caches out there. If you don’t want to solve the puzzle, then by all means put it on the ignore list. You don’t have to find all the geocaches on the map. Really. You don’t. It won’t hurt. I promise!
I take pride in solving puzzle caches and enjoy learning from other creative geocachers that place fun, entertaining, and sometimes educational puzzle caches for me to find. I really want to continue to keep enjoying these for years to come and my way of trying to make sure that happens is to solve the puzzle caches I hunt for and make sure I log my experience appropriately. Also, I respect the owners of these caches and their wishes. I don’t rub it in their face that I can find their cache without solving the puzzle.
I would also like to add (a slightly off-topic comment) that a puzzle tour bus of 10+ people is a disrespectful idea. It makes me want to disable all my puzzle caches and not allow logs. I would urge anyone who decides this is a good idea, to respect the owners and others who may have solved the puzzle. Pretty please.
They’re not traditional caches. They are different. Just like an Earth Cache is not a traditional cache. You can’t log an Earth Cache without fulfilling certain requirements. Why is it okay to log a puzzle cache if you did not solve it (or at a bare minimum understand the puzzle and how it’s solved) The difficulty rating of a puzzle cache often includes the puzzle difficulty. They are a different kind of geocache than a traditional.
I don’t think it’s necessarily about “earning” your smiley as much as it is defining the cache type. A puzzle is not a traditional cache. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Please respect the category and those who choose to play the game differently than you do, especially the cache placers who make this past time fun for some of us.
Strangest thing I have seen in a cemetery was near my only cemetery cache, when I hid it there were Halloween decorations all over the cemetery. Seemed tacky more than anything. But like muddybottoms points out, I am sure they were placed there to celebrate someone who liked Halloween. They were skeletons, skulls, fake detached hand etc.
No animal parts in trees though…
Maybe the visitor was feeding neighborhood scavenger birds?
I see you did by year. Sorry.
I don’t see breakdown by cache type.
@huffinpuffin2 wrote:
| ??????????
Battle of the separators:
Yeah, how many have the | (pipe) symbol in the name?
Versus ‘-‘ (hyphen)?How many have the word “cache” in the name” ?
Micro?
Multi?
Park?
Birthday?
Hide?
Trail?
Dead End/Dead-end?
Fishing?
Sudoku?
Puzzle?
Evil Monkey?
Cheese?Placed counts by Year?
Placed counts by Month?
Placed counts by Day of the Week?Most placed/published in one day/date?
Most placed/published in one month?Percentage of caches with WGA banners? 😈
My apologies if you’ve done any of these already.
Congrats!!!
@Team Deejay wrote:
No way am I archiving an Illinois cache (although I did archive one just over the border by accident once.) You will notice that the Indiana cache was archived by the owner, not by a reviewer.
Chicken. 😆
The example I posted was archived by a reviewer from out of state. It is not the same example as the indiana cache labrat mentions.
Not sure if the one I read about was actually a “liar cache” or a “lying owner” I would guess the latter considering it was archived forcefully.
I would guess the example this thread is about sounds more like what marc implied.
I came to the conclusion that Garmin wants me to spend $100 to see street maps. Sad
About the only way to get a good street map from garmin without paying 100 bucks “extra” is to get a Nuvi 😉
Even the 500 dollar Oregon (base model) does not come with a street map. Same old basemap. They like selling maps too.
@benny7210 wrote:
Cheeto, you are correct. the method that I use does NOT give description or logs. All I get is the cache name and coords. Whice is all that I am looking for. I have paperless on my Oregon.
Ahh I see. I thought maybe the model you were using was different. Seems the same then.
FYI – Not all Nuvi’s can be downloaded to like this. Some actually require the Macro to make the caches custom POI’s first and then use the POI loader from Garmin to download. GSAK streamlines all of this inside the macro but I just thought I would mention.
It sounds like the Nuvi model benny is using works more “slick”.
It all depends on what the hardware/software on the model supports.
If you download to my Nuvi (255w) without the macro, you don’t get any of the cache description or logs, just the coords and a name. I ran into that at the cache bash last year and ended up pulling the file back off the unit, reading it into my own GSAK and running the macro to put the caches on as custom POI’s so I had the cache info.
@marc_54140 wrote:
Liar’s cache.
Then it should be archived.
There was another example of this recently discussed thoroughly on the gc.com forums. That example was archived by an out of state volunteer reviewer. Hey Wizkid, why don’t you take care of this one 😉
GC23KEE
And it’s on 2/21 not 2/27.
My afternoon is now booked for a family get together. Going to have to miss this one.
@marc_54140 wrote:
Why are YOU so bothered about cut and pastes?
1. Most cachers probably have no idea what effort you put into the cache.
2. Most cachers probably do not care what effort you put into the cache.
3. Most cachers do not know you, so your hurt feelings …….
4. Most cachers do not have anything to say …. but TFTC.
5. If you really are so concerned about cut and pastes, perhaps ……Considering you can’t finish any of your thoughts, I have no clue what you are…
@sandlanders wrote:
Another thing… If the log book in a cache has enough room, do you write a lengthy log there? We usually do. We also like to read what others have said, and when we do cache maintenance on our caches, we like to see what the finders have said in those log books, too.
In larger log books, I will typically add some little note about my visit like what the weather was like during my visit, what I took and left, and where I am from. Especially if it’s a cache that is not close to me. I really like reading past logs in log books when I visit caches as well. Partly to see who may have visited.
As for micro logs, we all know we squeeze in our names where we can! 😉
@zuma wrote:
And you are right, there is no rule that you have to post a decent log. But when folks do enjoy a cache, it is my view they have a debt to the person who placed the cache for that enjoyment, and the best way to pay that debt is by thanking them with an appropriate and interesting log.
While I am disappointed when I see a cut and paste on some of the caches I worked hard on, they usually don’t bother me all that much. There are plenty of people out there who write wonderful logs accounting their experiences to keep me reading my incoming log emails and enjoying that experience.
For me, I write meaningful logs accounting my experience because it helps me remember that experience later. I love reading my older cache logs.
Hopefully this new thread here will spark some of our newer members to think about their logging practices and how they want to log their experiences and how some owners out there do read their logs. Thanks Zuma.
-
AuthorPosts
