Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
As an aside, the way letterboxing solves this is to specify the number of boxes per LB# and to allow you to record how many of those boxes you’ve found. Anyway, enabling gc to specify the number of caches per event (or “loggable caches per GC#) would seem to solve the problem, allowing number hunters to happily log away and for the purists to feel good that they are not bending the rules.
Of course, that would require an infrastructure change on gc’s part but if, as has been asserted here, they are planning to chnage the logging mechanism anyway to prevent multi-logging, would they consider making a change in the other direction instead?
On the Left Side of the Road...Ok, take a deep breath and say it with me:
Its….a…..GAME. Y’all ain’t hurtin’ no one no matter what way you play it as long as you leave nothing but footprints in your search and leave the caches in as good a shape or better than you found them in.
Honestly…
On the Left Side of the Road...Ok, I can resurrect this horse long enough to beat it to death again…
This whole “ethical” argument against multiple logs on temps (also see related “Rock Island Getaway” thread) makes no sense. This is just a game and, for that matter, there aren’t even any winners or losers. Maybe some people with high numbers feel like “winners” but we’ve certainly never met any fellow cachers who’ve lorded their high finds over our meager numbers. Unless you’re impacting someone else by multiple-logging, why should anyone care? (Don’t even try to tell me they’re hogging server space by multi-posting…)
And again, from a purely philosophical standpoint of playing the game, is this any different than multiple logs on multi-waypoint caches where individual stages wouldn’t meet the requirements for standalone placement?
And what about multiple logs allowed on single-stage caches? The virtuals and (now archived) locationless caches were famous for this, it seems. Here’s a dandy: GC3D2A. Or found logs allowed where the “rules” aren’t followed–allowing “visual” finds instead of signing the log; founds allowed by the owner when the container has cone missing…the nerve of some scofflaws.
We probably won’t multi-log any more events just because it seems rather pointless. Then again, we might. But, we probably won’t delete our existing multi-logs because, again, what’s the point? But to question the ethics of those who do or don’t is really quite a stretch.
Short version, as said by others before: it’s your game, play it how you want.
There. Let the flames begin…
On the Left Side of the Road...It’s all the fault of global warming. Isn’t it obvious?
On the Left Side of the Road...It’s a can of worms, Pandora’s box, and a few other cliche’s…
On a related note, what are thoughts on multis that “allow” you to log for each waypoint. Among the arguments against not logging multiple temp caches is the “too close together” argument–certainly applies to some multis where the owners encourage multiple logging.
On the Left Side of the Road...I had 4 or 5 found it logs this weekend on caches I had disabled for hunting season.
We too had four logs on caches where we indicated not to attempt during hunting season and that the trails were in fact closed to non-hunters. The point being that whether you just use the “attribute” feature, deactivate your cache, or put big flashing neon graphics on your cache page, there’s nothing that prevents people from using poor judgment.
On the Left Side of the Road...One alternative I’ve seen is to have a tree-climbing cache but allow people to “virtually” find the cache as long as they “see it.” Sort of an on your honor system. So that’s an option you could use if you were worried about it.
If I were to to it I would just make a tree climbing cache and state it in the listing so people were forewarned. You can work yourself into a pretzel trying to accomodate every possible type of cacher into every cache you place.
On the Left Side of the Road...I’m thankful I brought the GPSr to the Christmas tree farm this morning–came in quite handy to mark prospsective trees before making the final selection. Actually using the GPSr for marking points of navigation? What a novel concept.
We’re thankful that we live in a society of such freedom and abundance that we can have a whole sport devoted to hunting tupperware, and the infrastructure to make that work. Amazing when you think about it.
Most seriously, and most important, we’re thankful for the people on the front lines, in this country and around the world, who defend the freedom to pursue that which makes us happy, whether that pursuit be trivial or significant.
On the Left Side of the Road...I think that the “hunting” attribute is warning enough. It’s really up to the searcher to determine the degree of risk related to the attribute, time of year, and related circumstances; i.e., ticks are a problem at only certain times of the year, etc. True, you don’t get shot by a tick…
Interestingly, a cache that I did put a note on saying that the area was closed for hiking gun deer season just got found…
On the Left Side of the Road...With the original question being
what would you rather find a easy cache or one that take some real looking to find
it seems the common thread is make the cache WORTHWHILE to find.
On the Left Side of the Road...A difficult journey culminated by an easier, interesting/scenic find.
Yes! Hides that take us to out of the way places–that’s what we thought this game was all about when we got started. Friends took us to a few woods hides and we were hooked. We then began to tackle caches near our home and went to our first P&R and thought….what the heck is this? What’s the point? After time we came to realize the game has a little something for everyone and we in fact included a dead-ender in our Sunday Drive series, and we’ve found our share too. But we’ve also passed on several 1/1 micros even on caching days becuase it just didn’t pay to stop and particularly since kids get absolutely nothing out of signing a log in a matchstick holder.
Please–no micros in rock piles or bison tubes in the middle of pine trees! And if the challenge is the journey, make sure the cache can be (reasonably) easily found when you get there and that the cache type/container does justice to the setting.
On the Left Side of the Road...For us it is GC172T8 – “Pirate Pete’s Plunder.” This is one of those caches that started with a small concept but grew bigger with each “wouldn’t it be neat if” idea–in the hides themselves, in the waypoint and cache containers, shopping for and stocking the cache, and in the listing description. Ultimately it ended up being something that everyone was able to contribute to, that we had a lot of fun planning (and building), and that ideally we hope will be a cache that has a little something for everyone in it, and particularly for kids who like to open the Big Box at the end of the hunt.
The only downside–as a puzzle cache, it’s going to be shunned by a whole bevy of cachers! C’est la vie…
On the Left Side of the Road...Absolutely. I’m closing the cover on this can of worms lest more crawl out…
On the Left Side of the Road...@Team Deejay wrote:
If there is a geocache out there which you feel is violating the guideline, please let one of the reviewers know, so that we can investigate.
No! I wasn’t trying to fink on anyone here–I have no problem with any cache out there. My only point being that when we looked to place letterbox hybrids, the geocaching.com guidelines for letterboxes specifically stated (and still does) that letterboxes “must involve GPS use as an integral part of the hunt. A letterbox hybrid cannot be designed to be found using only clues.”
I had searched around on this on the main geocaching.com boards and learned that some placers had had their requests turned down because the GPS part was only for parking coordinates. (I suppose we could have asked a WI admin, but we decided just to make them coordinate hides rather than clue hides.)
Yet, at several night caches we’ve done, we left the GPSr in the car after getting to the parking spot. And you mentioned puzzle caches–at one puzzle cache, we could have left the GPSr at home.
So I guess the lesson is that we could place another letterbox (or a different type of cache, for that matter), listing only parking coordinates and using only clues–visual, written, or otherwise–to find the cache and it would be completely OK, at least for the WI reviewers.
It’s just confusing if one is trying to follow Da Rules.
On the Left Side of the Road...Here’s an example of what I mean: GCNV6N
One DNF since it was last found…but two “write notes” saying they didn’t find it now piling on…wouldn’t a DNF three months ago have been more helpful? Just happened to be on my watch list due to our challenges with it.
Anyway, I’m done soap-boxing for now. I suspect “to each his own” will be the final word on this.
On the Left Side of the Road... -
AuthorPosts
