[Team Deejay]

I have to say no, but I have a rework on one of mine in the works. On the last maintenance visit, Julie and I both thought we could make the cache do a better job of highlighting its surroundings. (Do you hear the approach of another “field puzzle”?) Plus, we think the area can support a bigger container and we want to make the find easier (again, to better highlight the surroundings.)

[Team Deejay]

The closest is going to be the Baymont in Waterford. I’m not sure if they would allow the combination of Pets and Non-Smoking, but I imagine they would. There is also the Country Inn and Suites in Kenosha (near the interstate.) Or, you could just stay at my house and let the doggy sleep in the garage.

[Team Deejay]

Cheeto makes an interesting point. The issue is not really how many finds you have, but whether you are committed to maintain your caches after you place them. I would say that most caches placed by new cachers who do not go on to find 100 or so end up being archived for lack of maintenance. On the other hand, if you are committed to the game, placing caches after few finds usually works out. Unfortunately, there is no way to see the future, so there is no good way to determine whether a new hider will be around after a few months.

[Team Deejay]

Doesn’t matter to me, but deep snow is a bit of a pain to negotiate. I found myself last March swearing that if the deep snow would just go away, I would never complain about heat, bugs, rain, mud, water, snakes, bears, or any other of the minor nuisances that creep up during our geocaching runs. For me, the beauty of this game is that it is doable year round, so we get to experience all the seasons in the beautiful places around the country.

[Team Deejay]

@Team Deejay wrote:

I’m guessing this contest won’t hold much appeal to Wisconsin cachers unless they are planning a major trip to the South.

Uhhhh…..

[Team Deejay]

Since they haven’t posted any caches in Minnesota, Iowa, or Illinois, I’m guessing this contest won’t hold much appeal to Wisconsin cachers unless they are planning a major trip to the South.

[Team Deejay]

If you really want to do this, you can find the caches listed at: Bookmark List. If someone wants the coordinates for the mystery caches, I can get that for you as well, but those caches no longer meet the guidelines, so you should probably set them up as traditionals.

[Team Deejay]

In case anybody is looking for it, the “My Inventory” section is now at the very bottom of the “My Account” page. The beta testers were all carping about this, but so far, they haven’t moved it back to the top menu. Otherwise, I think they did a good job on this upgrade. To see some of the upgraded pages, take a look at “Getting Started”.

[Team Deejay]

@PCFrog wrote:

I’ve already put one or two local caches on ignore due to no trail head/parking coordinates. Finding a place to put the car and trespassing inadvertently should not be part of the caching experience.

Actually, I think you will find that most of the old timers would disagree here. Sometimes owners place caches where the biggest challenge is finding out how to access the location. After all, how many times have we bushwacked through thorns to a cache location, only to see a developed trail only 20 feet from the cache. All part of the game.

On the other hand, I did one over the weekend which had posted trailhead coordinates. Of course, it wasn’t the closest trailhead to the cache, involving a quarter mile walk down a road, but it did eventually lead to the cache. Pretty sneaky, eh?

[Team Deejay]

Just look at ANY of the cache pages. The bookmark link is on the right side of the page. They are all also listed on the “WGA Recommended” Bookmark list (also accessible from any of the caches listed here).

[Team Deejay]

I think I have to side with bnb here. I think the key here is that there are two different sorts of non-profits out there.

Type 1 – A non-profit organized primarily to raise donations for some particular purpose, charitable or otherwise. The church mentioned above is an example of this. They have a significant expense budget, paid staff, and a set of goals for various charitable aims.

Type 2 – A non-profit that doesn’t exist to raise money, but instead exists for educational, recreational, or other “non-financial” purposes. These organizations don’t seek to raise money, but exist for benefit of their members, whatever that benefit might be.

I think we fall pretty squarely into the second type. From what I’ve seen, we don’t even try to raise money, short of sticking out an donation box at events. So do we need a “perfect” logo? What is the organizational benefit? How many more members will “perfecting the logo” bring into the group? Is there anyone out there who doesn’t add the WGA logo to their caches because “it doesn’t look good enough”? I think most people who voted to update the logo were thinking of a rather simple process to improve our public image, not a major marketing project.

That said, I just want to express my confidence in the board to make the right decisions on what we finally end up with as a logo. I personally liked all of the submissions and appreciate the artistic efforts put forth by our members. I’m very impressed with the skills of our membership. Thanks to all of you for participating in the process to improve the logo.

[Team Deejay]

Speaking as someone who drives that way quite often, I would say that taking 294 instead of 94 is generally a better route when the Skyway is not an option, especially if you have an I-Pass. The catch is, of course, that the tolls are much higher. The big advantage of the 94/Skyway route is avoiding I-94 in Northern Indiana, which is often congested. Without that advantage, the probability of hitting horrible traffic on the 90/94 coming into Chicago is too much risk to save the tolls.

[Team Deejay]

@Jeremy wrote:

@Team Deejay wrote:

By doing the same fuzzy math on both of Cheesehead Dave’s submissions (exactly the same but a different color) had 86 votes and Jacey’s two submissions (exactly the same but a different color) had 84 votes.

Dave, I think you are getting confused by the fact that results for two separate referendums (first round and second round) are reported in the original post above. At no time did people have the ability to choose from two Cheesehead Dave logos or two Jacey logos. However there were some other “similar but different” logo designs to vote on in the first round. I’m sure this somewhat diluted votes for these folks, but it was their choice to submit multiple designs.

You’re right. Having both votes on the same post is a bit confusing.

[Team Deejay]

@stokstad wrote:

Thank you everyone these are great. The bookmark list is public so anyone can see it. Keep them coming. There has got to be some in south central WI too!

Nice job on your bookmark list. I would recommend that you change the name, however, from “Abandoned” to something like “Caches at Ruins”. The name “Abandoned” would cause some to think it is list of abandoned caches, and not look at it further. (Just a marketing hint!)

[Team Deejay]

@PCFrog wrote:

@Jeremy wrote:

41 votes (24%) – PCFrog (update of current logo)

17 votes (10%) – Existing WGA logo (keep current logo)

By doing FUZZY math these two, which are amlost the same, got 58 votes. 😆

By doing the same fuzzy math on both of Cheesehead Dave’s submissions (exactly the same but a different color) had 86 votes and Jacey’s two submissions (exactly the same but a different color) had 84 votes.

And I list myself as one who is VERY glad that the “corrected” result is the same as the real result. In the future, we might want to avoid referendums where two available choices are almost identical.

[Author]

Posts