Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
@Ry and Ny wrote:
What’s a pocket cache?
A traveling cache–something you take with you to show other cachers and they log. i.e., it has no permanence (unless you take a permanent cache along to an event and then go re-hide it! 😯 )
Here’s a useful link that I had come across when we started out:
On the Left Side of the Road...@rogheff wrote:
It was clearly evident that some of the elected leadership of the WGA feels that the rules set forth by Groundspeak are clearly the best and only rules that should be followed by the WGA.
Sounds like an opportunity for someone to evangelize other sites to the BOD to make them a more “official” part of the WGA site.
For now, all the external caching site links relate to gc.com only. Stat and other posted information (including default user name options) point to gc.com caches/info.
Until Navicache, Terracache, Bob’s Big Bulletin Board o’ Caches, and any other site out there become a more official part of this site, it’s logical that people assume WGA and gc.com are connected at the hip.
On the Left Side of the Road...@rogheff wrote:
WHAT HAVE I JUST CREATED?!?!?!?
Answer: A cache published on a site that’s not linked to anywhere within the WGA site…”GC” means “gc.com” in above post…yes, I realize the WGA and gc.com are not the same thing.
On the Left Side of the Road...@Ry and Ny wrote:
FYI, I hope I’m not ruffling any feathers.
Not on my end…it is just more of the same ol’, same ol’ on this topic…We did multiple logging on the Navarino event last year because we took multiple trips out there over the course of the two weeks the temp caches were up. Caches were all far apart–we walked many miles–they had different themes and purposes, and we had something memorable to record about each of them. And sometimes we do go back and look at old logs.
Could we have made that one big “attended” log? I suppose we could have waited until we were done finding them all and then written something up. But it made more sense to log them after the days we found them and, yes, we did like the fact that we got additional “finds” for each log. And since we only care about how we feel about our stats, we’re quite comfortable keeping these logs out there.
In fact, we feel a lot better about claiming “finds” for each of these temp caches than we do for a whole bunch of unmemorable, lame, no-thought-whatsoever, toss-it-in-a-bush-from-a-moving-car caches we’ve also found.
On the Left Side of the Road...@Ry and Ny wrote:
The fact that there are no “rules” preventing it doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t have some self-actualized motivation in a civilized community to adhere to a certain modicum of the standards of the community as a whole rather than cover my ears and yell “lalalala!” at their disapproval as if the problem lies with everyone else’s opinion and not my own.
Here’s the critical difference, and it’s not just because I find jammers more comfortable than a Speedo…
When you wear Speedos to the local pool, everyone else has no choice but to look at you or avert their eyes in horror. There may be no rules prohibiting cutting in front of the line at a buffet, but it affects other people when you do. Other examples I could provide, but you get the point.
You are affecting NO ONE when you post multiple “finds” of an event. Additionally, and most important, the ONLY way people who complain about it even know is because THEY are taking the time to search profiles and logs and nitpick this thing to death. So they are making it their problem, all by themselves.
If gc doesn’t want multiple logs, it’s an easy matter to put an edit in the system to prevent it. If they don’t, you’re not hurting anyone in any way whatsoever by doing it.
It’s just a game…it’s just a game…it’s just a game…ad infinitum, ad nauseum…
On the Left Side of the Road...This whole issue is incredibly ridiculous.
Why the heck do we even get a “found” log for an event cache anyway? When we attend a meet and greet event, the only thing we find is our way to the bar, but it still ticks the ol’ counter up a notch.
Pointless, pointless, pointless. Did I mention pointless?
On the Left Side of the Road...@Jeremy wrote:
[What is prohibiting people from logging a regular cache multiple times? Nothing, other than the owner saying that they can’t (for most caches) and backing that up by deleting extra logs if they do occur. The same concept applies to events.
The cache owner or event organizer decides what goes… the WGA could decide to do this for its events, but it could not force this rule on other events held in the state. Therefore we are only talking about what the WGA should do at its events.
So to summarize then:
-gc.com is going to continue to allow mutliple logging of events; i.e., they’re not going to put in a system edit that says “you already logged this event.”
-gc.com has apparently stated (according to Ecorangers) that they don’t care either way.
-People can still put out temp cache events and allow multiple logging.
-Any WGA prohibition against multiple logging of temps wouldn’t really carry any weight because you could still do it on gc.com, unless the event owner is going to police it and delete logs.
-This is all being done because we’re worried about what other people who we don’t know are saying about the way we play a game.
Uhhhhh…yeah, makes perfect sense to me! 🙄
On the Left Side of the Road...To get back to, or to clarify, the original point of this post, are we talking about somehow prohibiting people from multi-logging events for each temp cache found? That would seem to require a gc.com change which is outside the control of WGA.
Or, are we talking about simply setting a precedent where WGA events do not condone multi-logging?
This whole issue is so incredibly pointless…Until someone finds a way to make a living off how many finds they log, who gives a crap?
On the Left Side of the Road...@rogheff wrote:
….or list it as a non-Groundspeak cache and avoid all this silliness.
Since the WGA site is only quick-linked to GC…and since all the help, info, and other stuff here relates to GC…does it really pay to keep pimping other sites out there that have nothing to do with GC?
I could hide a box in the woods and staple a note to a tree and call it a cache, but no one would find it that way either.
On the Left Side of the Road...@labrat_wr wrote:
Not to take away from the real concerns here but this is from the altasquest.com site regarding the McDonalds thing – It was an April Fool’s Day joke.
Ok, this is what I naturally assumed…YESTERDAY…when it was actually April 1…because it was so obviously far fetched.
It was still up today when I made the initial post…which makes it a bad joke.
On the Left Side of the Road...@Team Deejay wrote:
When I looked at the LB, there were no stamps, but a couple geocachers signed it instead of the real cache.
If there were no stamps, it is not a proper letterbox. Then again, a cacher may have taken the stamp assuming it was swag.
On the Left Side of the Road...@Frizz wrote:
is interesting that I found a number of letterboxes placed on and around the UWGB Coffrin trails, the same area where “dangerous and destructive” geocaches were forced out by University officials. One of the letterboxes actually referenced a geocache that has since been archived.
Yup…one of the advantages of LB’ing being more under the radar than geocaching…until McDonald’s!
What makes the UWGB boxes even more interesting is that these LBs were originally placed in the late 1990s by UWGB students as part of a class project, if I recall. Perhaps boxes were not as dangerous and destructive in the past.
Then again…one is hidden right in the rocks of the “unique” escarpment near where one of the now-archived geocaches was. Two are smack dab in the middle of arboretum fauna, requiring you to cut a geo-trail (or is it a letterboxing trail) to them…
On the Left Side of the Road...I think we have to remember that reviewers are humans and are applying standards that have substantial room for interpretation. We’ve been on the receiving end of several “no go” decisions where we could easily point to a half dozen other caches that are similar, but that’s just the way it goes. You fix it and move forward.
With that said…the “commercial cache” restriction is very unevenly applied. A friend of ours had a cache declined–outright–because it was a puzzle where the *answer* to the question was “Barbie.” Good grief! We’ve had to revise our description of a cache because we mentioned that “there’s an ice cream stand nearby” (no, we don’t own the stand).
However, GC will pimp various products, INCLUDING “whereigo” caches that require a GC purchase, and of course as mentioned TBs have to be bought in order to be logged.
So it’s a bit of, “we (gc) make the rules, so we don’t need to follow them.”
On the Left Side of the Road...Maybe the lesson is that there are good cemetery caches and lame cemetery caches, just as in all other areas of caching…
On the Left Side of the Road...@DGDK wrote:
I have to respectfully disagree with the OP on this topic. Had it not been for cemetery caches, I would have never known about the interesting story of Belle Boyd (See GCZ1NQ), or have been able to visit the only Revolutionary War soldier buried in Sauk County (see GCXPZ6), or learned about a fellow Wisconsin poet (see GCN26B).
I appreciate these caches, for not only do they provide a smiley, but they provide some insight on history as well.I do not disagree with you; in fact, I think your response gets to my original point. I looked at each of these three caches and all use the memorials/markers in a way that has to do with the history of the cemetery–i.e., for a purpose–and some of those markers are actually intended to be public tributes.
What I’m talking about is when it’s “Well, I need to get a number 50 in this cemetery somehow to make my puzzle work, so here’s a grave of Jimbob that will work just fine.” That’s what we run into more often than not.
On the Left Side of the Road... -
AuthorPosts
