Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Yep… all depends on the mood. Amy and I like striking out after a hard cache once in awhile. However, there are times where attire and timing don’t allow for the more difficult caches.
For example, we head down to Chicago a lot. Some days we’re ready for a trek out into a dense forest preserve. Other times, it’s nice to find a nice micro out on the lakefront near Grant Park.
I went back and read my post again and was concerned people may take it the wrong way. There is nothing wrong with numbers. Nothing at all. Those who have found hundreds of caches have dedicated a lot of time and energy to the hobby. I wish we had more of both to spend caching!
I guess I’m just saying that this “Waymarking” isn’t as bad as some may have made it out to be. We’ll wait and see how it comes about.
My thinking is that “find totals” really don’t mean a whole lot anymore. How many parking lot caches (easy) equals one Navarino Bob(hard)? There are a lot of traditional geocaches out there with less difficulty than some of these “Waymarks.”
We know many cachers with over 1,000 finds that have been involved in the hobby for a short amount of time. Amy and I started caching in January of 2003…and we haven’t even hit 150 yet!
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s all relative. If Groundspeak were to count these Waymarks as “finds” that would be fine with us. A location is a location, whether there be a logbook or not…
It looks pretty cool. Sounds like it is a lot of responsibility to be a “category owner.” However, I hate to see the death of virtual caches.
I’m pretty sure that’s one my next hobbies to get into. Good to know that there are people around to answer questions…
I’ve seen some people tier their hints.
For example:
1) Not on the ground…
2) Inside of something…
3) Inside the knot of the large oak next to the creek.
That helps those who just want a simple hint -or- the family of five who have invested an hour into this cache already and they are getting eaten alive by mosquitos.
We had to decode this one in the midst of rain, mosquitos and partial mudslide…
Just think of what the Grand Old Duke of York said, “when you’re up you’re up, and when you’re down you’re down, but when you’re only half way up you’re neither up nor down.”
Yep. I was a little frustrated as my pencil kept poking through the wet cache page while decoding it…
[This message has been edited by Green Bay Paddlers (edited 08-12-2005).]
LOL – Yep.. definitely meant 256K of RAM. And I double-checked my museum in the basement – my original modem was 1200 baud…
I still remember the day we upgraded to CGA graphics. Ah… that was huge.
And to think that I was profoundly jealous of my friend down the streat who had a PC jr. Boy – I really thought that was the future of computing! LOL
Used to log onto a variety of bulletin boards on my 2400 baud modem back in the mid-80’s… Then I upgraded to a 4800 baud modem and got prodigy. Yep – that was living…
Of course – I also had my 8088 processor with monochrome graphics, 256 MB RAM and two low density 5 1/4″ disk drives. What was a hard drive? No such thing…
LOL – Where would we be today without Al Gore?!
States’ rights! John Calhoun would be so proud of the WGA. I agree with Greyhounder – there has to be some way around this.
Buy the Tie – I had a feeling there was a reason that regular cache pages for event caches was not going to be able to work. I wasn’t unable to discern whether or not it was just the aesthetics of multiple “event” entries that was upsetting to people or that people were simply logging so many caches in one day?
Having done a lot of caching in Chicago, there are Forest Preserves down there that are saturated with caches. Not only do they look crowded on the map but many of them are multi-stage caches were the cache owners allow folks to log each stage as a find. It would seem to me that this is much the same thing as our WGA events in regards to the amount of caches in a given amount of area.
Again – just trying to add logic to the debate/vote that the WGA board will eventually have to make. You’re not going to be able to make everyone happy in the end. However, I believe folks can have a certain amount of optimism about how your decision/vote will eventually be received based on the civility of the posts in this forum. This is a “hot button” issue. Part of the reason we’ve started posting in the forums again this year is largely due to the courtesies being displayed on this thread. It’s good to be back…
[This message has been edited by Green Bay Paddlers (edited 08-08-2005).]
One question is this… Would it be prohibitively difficult to spread out the job of creating an actual cache page for each temp cache?
If there were 50 caches placed, 5 WGA members could each create 10 cache pages. After the event is held the WGA could simply “archive” the caches?
– OR –
What about creating one multi-cache cache page encompassing all of the caches placed for that event? In other words – a 50-part multi-cache. People can log on and log each portion and then the WGA can archive the multi-cache page after the event is over?
Again – just ideas. This might quell the resistance by those that don’t care for the idea of multiple “Event cache” logs by team members. One find for each physical cache!
Thanks Mama Fishcacher – it’s good to hear from you too. We’re starting to work our way back into things.
Amy and I have attended one WGA event. It was incredibly well run and the temp cache hides were better than the majority of the “regular” ones we have found out in the wild.
Our humble opinion is that each temp cache should be worth a log (find) entry. If geocaching.com decides to eliminate that option, then so be it. It wouldn’t be the first time we disagreed with “corporate headquarters.” We still disagree with G.COM about their stance on virtual caches. As the woods get inundated with soaked Tupperware containers, we would love to see more “environmentally-friendly” virtual caches allowed – especially in the urban areas.
The WGA should do what they want to do. Amy and I haven’t really been in this for the numbers anyway. We could care less. It’s more for the hobby. However, we know folks that really get into the number of logs and want each cache to be an entry. They deserve the right to do so…
Just our two cents worth. Best to everyone!
Jeff & Amy
Green Bay Paddlers.[This message has been edited by Green Bay Paddlers (edited 08-04-2005).]
-
AuthorPosts
