Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 421 through 435 (of 1,047 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: PnG hiders alert #1958986

    Might have to wrap tape around it a few times to make it a bit bigger. I’ve seen those already.

    in reply to: How long before… #1958903

    Back on topic, what the op is trying to say – should the DOT’s ban on rest stop caches apply to road sign caches as well? Yeah I think so. Nuff said.

    Though Michigan’s DOT allows caches at their rest stops. So far, I’ve found every cache at a rest stop from Menominee to Marquette on US 41 and M-35. I gotta get the ones on US-2 from Escanaba to St. Ignace yet.

    Who knows when Michigan will follow Wisconsin’s lead?

    in reply to: Just got my 800th find #1958955

    Way to go, man. One of these days we need to hit the trails together. Looking forward to doing your new Pound caches.

    in reply to: Verfying a "Found It" #1958813

    BTW, CJ, I deleted your pm without reading. No offense meant. You play the “game” your way. I play my “hobby” my way.

    Now let’s move on as it looks like this topic is….

    in reply to: How long before… #1958865

    You are signing the log at a stop sign cache. Some drunk is all over the road and hits that same stop sign. Your family is making funeral arrangements for you.

    Yes, it can happen.

    Stop signs are DOT property, even if the land that they are on are public property. Which is the point Gotta Run is making.

    in reply to: Poison ivy #1958759

    How about stinging nettles. Those are fun – not.

    I’ve gotten my share of those.

    in reply to: How long before… #1958859

    Those new Stop Spot caches were also a good excuse for a certain multi-colored font user to rack up his FTF count. 🙄

    in reply to: How long before… #1958857

    The reviewers know that the WI DOT does not allow caching on their property. Yet, they still publish road sign caches. Even though most road signs are on public right of ways, the road sign itself is DOT property.

    Something to think about.

    in reply to: Verfying a "Found It" #1958794

    @Lacknothing wrote:

    I think a litttle more clarification is in order. I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I log my find on my GPSr and upload it to http://www.geocaching.com, the correct date is automatically posted in my field notes. So the reality is that even if I do not get to logging those finds online for awhile, they are still going to have the correct date because the date is automatically posted. The only way the date will change is if I physically change it.

    Not everyone has a GPS capable of doing that. While I can mark my finds on my GPS, I still have to enter the GC code manually to log it online. Many other older GPS’es don’t even have the capability to mark finds. I used to have to write down the GC code of every cache I visit when I first started caching with software on a pocket PC and a bluetooth GPS receiver.

    So many of you are right in that we cannot control how some chose to play the game. It is what it is as much as it may frustrate some of us. There will always be geocachers who do not “solve the puzzles”, or “fudge dates” to fill fill their grids, or even sign others names. I don’t completely understand that last one, I will admit.

    I’ll understand signing other people’s names if part of a group. It happens. I also know of a situation where one cacher forgot to bring tweezers to a nano cache and could not get the log out. Another cacher signed the log for her later on. And puzzle CO’s should expect the coordinates to be given away. Nothing they can do to control that. As for fudging dates to fill a grid, I really don’t care as a CO. If they want to cheat their way to the 365 day challenge cache, more power to them.

    However, in the several Survivor games that are happening in the state of Wisconsin, this does become more of an issue, because those who are administrating the Survivor games are trying to keep the game fair for all participants. This can be quite the challenge when geocachers decide to do some of the aforementioned things in an effort to stay in the game. It really does take the fun and fairness out of what should be a game created to bring a little more fun and camraderie to the sport of geocaching. This is disappointing.

    In this situation, to keep things fair, it might be necessary for the CO to verify finds as to not put any of the players at a disadvantage. If players want to play by different rules, that really does make it difficult to keep the game fair for all players.

    Remember, anyone can log these Survivor caches as finds. For those in the “Survivor Game”, though, there should be a higher standard and level of integrity in logging and playing the game.

    To me, geocaching is a hobby. It’s not a game. I don’t rush out for the FTF. I don’t fudge dates. I don’t find puzzle caches if the coordinates were handed to me. I know the location of one puzzle cache in Escanaba, but because I can’t solve the puzzle yet, I did not go out there to find it.

    At the same time, I’m not gonna fret too much if someone logs a find on one of my caches and I don’t think they physically found it. Last week, a cacher from upper Michigan said on one of my caches he found it but forgot his pen to sign the log. I looked at his profile and he logged his experiences with well written logs on his other caches so obviously I let it go. I don’t think I’ve ever deleted a log on any of my caches and the only time I’ll do so is if someone posts an obvious spoiler or someone from Germany logs my cache and a cache in San Diego on the same day which is obvious armchair logging. I’ve seen it happen to some local virtual caches.

    I have 9 caches, i think. I’m planning more. That’s not too much of a maintenance hassle for me. I just can imagine for someone with over 100 hides trying to verify the “found it” logs on his caches. Good luck with that.

    in reply to: Google and Geocaching #1958854

    Starting to get tired of these April Fool’s posts.

    in reply to: Verfying a "Found It" #1958792

    @CodeJunkie wrote:

    Issue: I asked a number of cachers to verify the container / location of the day based on when they claimed the find.

    CJ, this is nothing more than an ALR, at least IMO.

    Like T & B said, it’s only a game.

    in reply to: Verfying a "Found It" #1958784

    Ok. If the date on the site did not match the date on the log sheet, there is usually one reason for it. The cacher finally got around to doing late logs after a long vacation but was not sure of the date. If the difference is only a couple days, no biggie.

    Even if there ia a big difference, the main thing is this – he still found the cache. He still signed the physical log. So who cares what date he logs it online?

    As for signing other people’s names, I see them a lot in group caching outings. EVeryone finds it and one person signs it for them.

    in reply to: Verfying a "Found It" #1958781

    I’ve gotten logs 2-3 weeks after the “found it” date due to a number of reasons:

    1) Cacher is on vacation and finally logs his finds when he gets home.

    2) Cacher was part of a team and later makes his own account and goes back on his team’s account to check the log dates and record his own logs.

    Don’t jump to conclusions, CJ.

    in reply to: Poison ivy #1958749

    How does one identify poison ivy anyways?

    Edit: Or any other poison plants for that matter.

    in reply to: West Bend. The png capital of the world i think. #1958466

    Very well said, Matter23.

Viewing 15 posts - 421 through 435 (of 1,047 total)