Thanks Thanks:  2
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 151 to 181 of 181

Thread: Terracaching Sponsorship

  1. #151

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Then why have it?
    I'm really sorry everyone, I did say I would try not to comment again, but that post is such a misrepresentation of what I said that I just can't let it pass.

    Why did you extract just a few words out of my sentence and quote them completely out of their context? You don't have to look very far at all for the reason to have it - go back and read the remainder of that same sentence!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Just because a cache isn't visited often doesn't mean that no-one likes it. It may be a difficult puzzle, or a long walk, or in a remote location. There are many reasons why a cache might get few visits.
    I think you've quite neatly argued my point for me there! It's exactly why being able to rate caches before visiting them appears to me to be a useful feature. It's a fairly blunt tool, but it's better than no tool at all. If you like a difficult puzzle, or a long walk, or a remote location, but you haven't had an opportunity to visit yet, you can rate it high to let the owner know the reason is not just because you don't like the cache.

    And you missed off other possible reasons why a cache might not get many visits - it's right beside a very busy road, the area is full of rubbish or is frequented by drug addicts, it's in a dry stone wall, etc. A collective low vote lets the setter know it's not just a matter of being temporarily indisposed, or of a lack of opportunity, but that the cache is likely to remain unvisited.

    Rgds, Andy

  2. #152

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    I don't see how this makes a rating meaningless. The very fact that some people like micros and some don't show we are all different in what we would rate as good or bad.

    How could a guideline be applied to a rating system?
    Well, take an extreme example, as an illustration. A new cache appears and three cachers hurry off to it.
    One gives it top marks because he had fun with the excitement of the FTF race. As it was fun, nothing else matters.
    The second thinks that, even though it was a good hiding place and container, it was a micro and should be discouraged by definition. He wants swaps and trackables. So he gives it bottom marks.
    The third cacher is OK with micros, but insists that caching is all about getting a good walk out in the country, and a cache should give you a bit of an adventure. The micro is less than a hundred yards from the car: the type of thing that's ruining caching. Bottom marks.

    As there are no guidelines, all ratings are valid but based on different concepts of caching I don't see any value in them.

  3. #153
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    Well, take an extreme example, as an illustration. A new cache appears and three cachers hurry off to it.
    One gives it top marks because he had fun with the excitement of the FTF race. As it was fun, nothing else matters.
    The second thinks that, even though it was a good hiding place and container, it was a micro and should be discouraged by definition. He wants swaps and trackables. So he gives it bottom marks.
    The third cacher is OK with micros, but insists that caching is all about getting a good walk out in the country, and a cache should give you a bit of an adventure. The micro is less than a hundred yards from the car: the type of thing that's ruining caching. Bottom marks.

    As there are no guidelines, all ratings are valid but based on different concepts of caching I don't see any value in them.
    An interesting angle. What sort of guidelines would you suggest?

    Even in your example it appears to me that we now have a 'slightly' below average cache rating based on 1 liking it a lot and 2 finding fault.

  4. #154

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    The point is, the overall rating could have been anything. Below average based on these three, but another three cachers may have had even more different opinions on what "cache rating" is supposed to be.

    Perhaps the next person along actually hated it, but thought that it could be a good cache for someone just passing by who wanted a quick break so gave it high marks. Then the next one thought the same, but as it didn't suit them marked it low. Then the next one saw who created it, doesn't like that person's caches so marked it low without finding it.

    It would probably end up "average" after a lot of finds: so what does that tell me? Nothing, because I don't know what people were judging the cache on.

    I would have expected guidelines to let you know how to judge a cache. Whether it's strictly how much enjoyment you got out of it at the time, or whether you're supposed to judge if it's a "good cache" according to the TC definition (which is?). Or whether you should use your own personal definition; or whether you should judge that it's generally good, but not for you. Perhaps you should only mark it if you found it, or perhaps a DNF is sufficient. Should you mark all caches based on trying to encourage or discourage certain types, or is that bad form. And so on!

  5. #155
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    The point is, the overall rating could have been anything. Below average based on these three, but another three cachers may have had even more different opinions on what "cache rating" is supposed to be.

    Perhaps the next person along actually hated it, but thought that it could be a good cache for someone just passing by who wanted a quick break so gave it high marks. Then the next one thought the same, but as it didn't suit them marked it low. Then the next one saw who created it, doesn't like that person's caches so marked it low without finding it.

    It would probably end up "average" after a lot of finds: so what does that tell me? Nothing, because I don't know what people were judging the cache on.

    I would have expected guidelines to let you know how to judge a cache. Whether it's strictly how much enjoyment you got out of it at the time, or whether you're supposed to judge if it's a "good cache" according to the TC definition (which is?). Or whether you should use your own personal definition; or whether you should judge that it's generally good, but not for you. Perhaps you should only mark it if you found it, or perhaps a DNF is sufficient. Should you mark all caches based on trying to encourage or discourage certain types, or is that bad form. And so on!
    The ratings themselves are based on values from Should be Archived to Suberb with various levels of above or below average in between. I take those as a guide in that if the cache is average it gets that, if something about it was above or below then it gets something in that direction.

    I don't think anyone could ever claim that any rating system, with or without guidelines, is perfect. I would however comment that it does seem to work.

    The rating system also allows the system to select a recommended list of caches based on your ratings. How well that works is yet to be seen in the UK. Given the numbers here most of the recommedations for me are in the US.

    The experience from the US where there are A. more caches and B. this system ran alongside GC caches before the existance of TC, is that it does work well once the numbers are there.

    Kev

  6. #156

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    I admit I don't have any experience of Terracaching in action, so I suppose I can't take the discussion further without trying it out. I must admit I'm put off by the haughty "mission statement" though.

    I'm visiting the UK for a long weekend next month and should have a few Terracaches on the route (or so I thought at first), considering it starts in Birmingham and takes in Oxford, Milton Keynes, Reigate, the North Downs (on foot for three days), Reading, Swindon, Worcester and Stourport-on-Severn (and many places inbetween).

    I haven't registered for the site so all I can see is the map, and this appears to show the whole route completely cache-free for quite a distance each side (). I wasn't expecting thousands, but surely there are more than this?

    For geocaching purposes, I'll be seeking out bookmark lists in various areas to give some pointers. For the North Downs section it'll be a "caches along a route". For waymarking, I'll keep my eyes peeled. For Terracaching, it looks like I can just forget it .

  7. #157

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Another element of the rating system is that you can vote the difficulty and terrain as wrong after finding a terracache.

    Terrain is a description of the length of walk, the ground beneath your feet and elevation gained.

    Difficulty is the difficulty of the hide (not the puzzle) very clear definitions are provided to help you.

    An issue on GSP is that i can never let a cacher know thier caches dont appeal all i can do is ignore them, we then get the current monkey see monkey do way of setting caches.

    As and aside just why are these power trails allowed even though they are not allowed by GSP ?.

    A few pages ago someone said they would do a walk for loads of caches but not the same walk for a multi, what is the difference ? the stages provide the quoted thrill of the hunt.

    Can anyone say that a motorway mayhem is a great cache ? honestly ? and those who say diversion on a long journey what do you do if you have allready found it ? go sign the logbook again ?
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  8. #158

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I can't comment on Navicache (looked at it once in 2003, didn't like it )
    I'd have to concur that Navicache is the clunkiest of the 3 sites to use, it has not really been developed (eg. implementing the Google Maps API to provide global maps is a doddle but has not been done) however, what appeals to me about Navicache is syndication. Theoretically the caches that I've listed there are available for viewing on any other site that is in the syndication pool. In practice I don't think this has any effect due to a lack of competition in the UK.

    However, as I've stated before, the cache quality on Navicache is such that I'd be depriving myself by ignoring it!

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    you can register and start finding caches without any input from anyone else.
    On balance I think you're right. It's clearly a barrier to entry for you and it would be reasonable to deduce that it is a barrier to an unknown proportion of others too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    You have a dichotomy which only you can resolve (and aren't the first to have). Do you want to place caches which you enjoy placing but knowing that only a few cachers will find them; or do you want to place caches that you won't enjoy placing but lots of people will enjoy finding? Or somewhere inbetween (yes, I know that then makes it not a dichotomy ). Every cache owner must surely know that no matter what sort of cache they place there will always be people who won't want to look for it. It really is true that you can please some of the people some of the time. And it won't matter which site you list your cache on .
    Yes, spot on. It's a dichotomy! Ooh, I feel the need for a sock-puppet account coming on, so I can have multiple "brands". Rather like the difference between "Hello" magazine and "New Scientist"

    I'll have to ask the people who have been most complimentary about my caches if they would be prepared to venture beyond GC.com to find them. But then again, I think time is on my side - it's early days.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Maybe it does, and perhaps the reason why I don't like it is because I find caching to be its own reward. I (we) may have high numbers of finds but that's partly because we've been caching a long time and partly because we enjoy it so do a lot of it. I don't need a scoring system to tell me whether I'm having fun or not .
    Well, I'm not ashamed to admit I like to have a more competitive element to the game. When G:UK was in existence and I discovered just how badly rated my first hides were, I made a big effort to place more challenging caches and they got great ratings, but few people did them, hence the "dumbing down" of our (highly rated) multi-caches by augmenting them with rings, where the individual caches were (predictably) rated poorly. I guess that's a case of dichotomy in practice. I thought I could entice more people to attempt the multis by increasing the rewards, however, I don't think it has worked and I've effectively just created a much greater maintenance burden than existed before.

  9. #159

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    The cache you suggest "Say a little prayer" is 29 miles away and involves the joys of the M60.......

    This one https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cach...8-ed46c7b9c119 is only a couple of miles away, it is .8 of a mile from the road and took me roughly an hour from loading the GPS to logging it.

    If you want a challeng that will take you longer (possibly a lot longer) there is the superb "Whitespace" https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cach...d-26d1c74dabdc or if you would prefer a virtual there is Subarite's "Soldier's Lump" https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cach...a-0b575cab5111

    Quality caches and there are plenty more of them on the moors to find. I certainly don't need a rating system to work out what I like.

    Which would you find more tempting in my position?
    You lucky chap, living so close to Saddleworth moor and others. However, without a rating system, could you tell me 3 caches centred around GCP59X would be worth doing and 3 that would not be worth doing?

    In your position, like anyone else's, I don't think it's a case of either/or. I suspect many people when they take up caching can't believe how many times they have walked past caches. Similarly, when out caching, why pass on caches listed on other sites? Yet the majority of cachers do, frequently.

  10. #160
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    could you tell me 3 caches centred around GCP59X would be worth doing and 3 that would not be worth doing?
    I doubt that he can, because he has no idea what sort of cache you regard as "worth doing". If you ask me a similar question I will tell you three caches I enjoyed. And that's also all a rating system will tell you, except that you probably wouldn't be able tell that it was me who told you.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    Yet the majority of cachers do, frequently.
    I doubt that, too, as there are so few caches listed other than on Groundspeak that statistically the likelihood of passing one is very low.

  11. #161

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    But I think that there's no substitute for the views of previous finders.
    Which is why G:UK was so valuable and why the MCE rating on TC is so valuable.

    On TC you get to cast 1/10 of a vote on caches on the strengths of their listings alone. Surely this has less impact than "voting up" your friends' caches on G:UK, which I'm sure used to happen. I think it all evens out in the end.

  12. #162
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Can anyone say that a motorway mayhem is a great cache ?
    Probably not. But then, as you surely know, it isn't the intention of a MM to be a great cache. Its purpose is merely to provide a break from the motorway. Of course, as you say, one cache can only do that once, though the cache may highlight some useful features or facilities which can be used many times and which one wouldn't have known about were it not for the cache, which surely is one of the benefits of any cache.

    Not every cache can be a great cache. In order to have great caches there have to be average caches; and in order to have average caches there have to be poor caches. In other words, it's only the variety of caches available that makes the great ones. Otherwise all caches would be average.

  13. #163

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Gerrie View Post
    Exactly as Amberel said earlier - its not about numbers as such, its about the joy of the hunt!

    Finally, if I HAD to do a 20 mile multi (don't ask me why) it would get the lowest rating I could give it, regardless of how nice the walk was! And it would be equally lowly rated if I rated it before I found it!
    Dave, I'm tickled because you have very nearly just coined the slogan of Terracaching "For the love of the hunt".

    Your example of a 20 mile multi is valid. I have a multi cache that has a "worst case" scenario of 48km travelled and elevation gain of 11600 metres. I realise that very few people would contemplate such a challenge and D5/T5 doesn't really help define it. However, on Terracaching it becomes a "sleeping giant" if it is not found and would eventually attract the highest possible score in its area, which both defines the challenge and rewards the finder. It almost goes without saying that I enjoyed setting this cache and would love to seek similar placed by others.

  14. #164

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    .

    Im more interested in your opinion of the rating of difficulty and terrain and the ability of finders to re rate these based on thier experience of the cache.

    It is not just a percieved quality that can be rated on TC and in fact i go against the 8/10 scores id rather know how long a walk and what sort of terrain and what type of hide (cache wise) i will be seeking.

    All very hard on GSP death of power 5 hour walk 4 terrain.

    20 minute walk up very steep steps 4 terrain.

    cache 18 feet above your head 4 terrain

    cache up a steep muddy bank 4 terrain

    Got to find all the other alcheny caches first 5 terrain

    hardly consistent is it
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  15. #165

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I doubt that he can, because he has no idea what sort of cache you regard as "worth doing". If you ask me a similar question I will tell you three caches I enjoyed. And that's also all a rating system will tell you, except that you probably wouldn't be able tell that it was me who told you.

    I doubt that, too, as there are so few caches listed other than on Groundspeak that statistically the likelihood of passing one is very low.
    Actually, I was suggesting caches that he might regard as worthy and unworthy. I think our area happens to be one of the more challenging ones in which to "pan for gold" without the benefit of a ratings system. If "The Bracknell Ramble" still existed, would it stand out without the G:UK "Top 1%" logo on the listing, or would be lost amongst the many "unknown" caches here, let alone the many caches?

    Of course the ratings are anonymous on TC just as they were on G:UK however you don't need to "ask a local cacher" for help when visiting an area if you have ratings at your disposal.

    As for a cache that is passed frequently but never attempted, try https://www.navicache.com/cgi-bin/db...pl?CacheID=266 for size compared to its nearest GC neighbour!

  16. #166
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Im more interested in your opinion of the rating of difficulty and terrain and the ability of finders to re rate these based on thier experience of the cache.
    ...
    hardly consistent is it
    I'm very flattered that you're interested in my opinion - thank you .

    Yes, D/T is often rated inconsistently by cache owners (this is partly why I don't fully support HH's concept of cache owners rating their own caches). Cache owners set D/T on the basis of what they've found: an inexperienced cacher will often come up with an idea they think is innovative and so set D very highly to reflect the fact that they would find it difficult. Then experienced cachers come along, find the cache in seconds and wonder what the fuss was about. That works both ways too. I've found caches with low D or T that I've struggled with for one reason or another.

    I think the problem is threefold: firstly many cache owners clearly don't use clayjar's system even though there's a link to it on the cache submission page; secondly, clayjar's system is very out of date and doesn't reflect many of the features of today's caches; and lastly, the 9-point D/T scale doesn't provide sufficient granularity to handle the nuances.

    Many cachers will, on logging their find, suggest that D/T should be tweaked in one direction or the other. Sometimes cache owners will take such comments on board and adjust accordingly; sometimes, for whatever reason, they won't.

    So do I think that fiinders being able to set D/T ratings is a good idea? Well, I can't see why it wouldn't be, any more than I can see why it wouldn't be a good idea to have the corrected coords by finders (as already happens). I think there would need to be some thinking about the best way to implement it, but why not? That said, I wouldn't see it as a high priority and I can't see it being extensively used. I think that some changes to clayjar's system and a bit of publicity for it would iron out many of the anomalies.

  17. #167

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Can anyone say that a motorway mayhem is a great cache ? honestly ?
    I haven't done many, but the few I've found were all indeed "great". :socool:

    ...based on my criteria, anyway. Others would doubtless have disagreed.

  18. #168
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    I'm visiting the UK for a long weekend next month and should have a few Terracaches on the route (or so I thought at first), considering it starts in Birmingham and takes in Oxford, Milton Keynes, Reigate, the North Downs (on foot for three days), Reading, Swindon, Worcester and Stourport-on-Severn (and many places inbetween).

    I haven't registered for the site so all I can see is the map, and this appears to show the whole route completely cache-free for quite a distance each side (). I wasn't expecting thousands, but surely there are more than this?
    There are 138 currently. Of course we will only get to the thousands stage when people actually set some but it is creeping upwards in the right direction.

    I'm not sure of your exact route, or how far you are willing to go either side of the route, but there are a few around Bracknell which is fairly close to Reading. I guess that depends on the route taken.

    https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCCFS
    or
    https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCCHY althogh this one would probably need several visits.

    Slightly north of Bracknell is https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCC9D again this depends on your route, etc.

    There is also, in the area but the coords would need to be worked out first, https://www.terracaching.com/viewcache.cgi?C=TCCAQ

    Unfortunatly the caches in the UK are located in a limited number of locations as the cachers themselves are in isolated pockets. These pockets are becoming more numerous and with a greater number of locally placed caches in each.

    Had you been travelling through Devon for example you would have found well over a 3rd of all UK terracaches in the one county.

    Kev

  19. #169
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    As for a cache that is passed frequently but never attempted, try https://www.navicache.com/cgi-bin/db...pl?CacheID=266 for size compared to its nearest GC neighbour!
    Interesting, though one cache doesn't prove a theory . In any case, that cache - or at least its starting point - is a long way off any route that someone would take around the VW Groundspeak caches.

    And unless there are logs I can't see the cache has been there for seven years and the only logs are two from the owner? .

  20. #170

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    There are 138 currently. Of course we will only get to the thousands stage when people actually set some but it is creeping upwards in the right direction.

    I'm not sure of your exact route, or how far you are willing to go either side of the route, but there are a few around Bracknell which is fairly close to Reading. I guess that depends on the route taken.
    Thanks for the links: why don't they appear on the Google map? Anyway, I might just attempt to get to see the coordinates of one or two of them as they can't be too far from a feasible route.

  21. #171

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    Thanks for the links: why don't they appear on the Google map?
    a) you have to zoom in a long way, and
    b) there seems to be a bug in it .

    Rgds, Andy

  22. #172

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Thanks: you need to have an inkling of where to look before zooming in...

  23. #173

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Yes, D/T is often rated inconsistently by cache owners (this is partly why I don't fully support HH's concept of cache owners rating their own caches). ... Many cachers will, on logging their find, suggest that D/T should be tweaked in one direction or the other. Sometimes cache owners will take such comments on board and adjust accordingly; sometimes, for whatever reason, they won't.
    Setters can misrate a cache, but finders are fallible too - finding a cache frequently includes an element of chance. As a setter I would only very rarely rerate a cache based on a single comment, but I would seriously consider it if there were several saying the same thing.

    If there was a rating system, the average would likely be pretty realistic after several votes.

    Rgds, Andy

  24. #174
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Happy Humphrey View Post
    Thanks: you need to have an inkling of where to look before zooming in...
    Yep. The map isn't the best way of navigating the site, especially with a low cache desity, as there is definatly a bug in there somewhere.

    I tend to zoom to the rough area I'm travelling to, find any old cache in the middle somewhere, and then click on the nearest caches link for a list of what is within 100 miles. It'll do this for GC and NC caches as well by the way.

    I appreciate that this function may well not be avaialable to non members of the site as you only seem to have the map to go one but given that most UK caches don't have coords that you can see without being a member, the result from the map would be of little use anyway.

    Kev

  25. #175

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Interesting, though one cache doesn't prove a theory . In any case, that cache - or at least its starting point - is a long way off any route that someone would take around the VW Groundspeak caches.

    And unless there are logs I can't see the cache has been there for seven years and the only logs are two from the owner? .
    How many examples do you need for proof? There's another at the copper horse and a couple over at Dinton, not forgetting those in Swinley Forest, which just spring to mind without even needing to go to a web site to check.

    You can be sure that I'd have bagged a FTF on it if it were really up for grabs however this cache was previously GC1985, so it has not had visits since October 2001 but dates from August 2001.

  26. #176
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    How many examples do you need for proof? There's another at the copper horse and a couple over at Dinton, not forgetting those in Swinley Forest
    Would it be fair to say that there are unusual circumstances in this part of the country? We all know why those caches are on Navicache rather than Groundspeak, but what's the total number of GB caches on NC and where are they? That's what we need to know to be able to evaulate your statement that "the majority of cachers frequently pass on caches listed on other sites". I maintain that statistically that's very unlikely.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    so it has not had visits since October 2001 but dates from August 2001.
    So it really hasn't had any visits for seven years. I'd archive it and save myself the maintenance .

  27. #177

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S. E. Wales
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    ... We all know why those caches are on Navicache rather than Groundspeak...
    I don't. Which ones are they? Why?


  28. #178
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs Blorenge View Post
    I don't. Which ones are they? Why?
    Check the owner . It's just before my time but I think it's within yours. AIUI Robin moved all his caches to Navicache because he was banned from Groundspeak for infringing the "no commercialism" rule by placing copies of his GPS software in each of his caches.

  29. #179

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    The majority of new TCs placed in UK are now placed by locals and are physical caches.
    OK, all being well I will take tomorrow off and do one, probably your Iron Age Fort to start with . I have now set up my own systems to be listing site agnostic, so I can import, browse and log GS, TC and N caches in much the same way.

    I did my first Navicache (Penton Hook) on the way to work this afternoon. It was a multi, and I was greatly amused to find the final was only 30 metres from one of my caches.

    I was the first person to find this cache for nearly 5 years (April 2004) ! I had to extract it from undergrowth that had intertwined all round it and left it looking as if it was in a sort of basket! But it was in very reasonable condition, log just a tiny bit damp, that's all.

    Rgds, Andy

  30. #180

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    I was the first person to find this cache for nearly 5 years (April 2004) ! I had to extract it from undergrowth that had intertwined all round it and left it looking as if it was in a sort of basket! But it was in very reasonable condition, log just a tiny bit damp, that's all.

    Rgds, Andy
    Andy, Would you be kind enough to share what type of container the cache was? 5 years is a long time for a box to be sitting, and for the log to just be slightly damp! Also, are there any maintenance logs for the 5 year period?

    Cheers.
    I'm just going outside, and may be some time!

    www.jacobitecaching.co.uk

  31. #181

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobite View Post
    Andy, Would you be kind enough to share what type of container the cache was? 5 years is a long time for a box to be sitting, and for the log to just be slightly damp! Also, are there any maintenance logs for the 5 year period?
    Just a plastic lunchbox (albeit a large one), not one with snap locks and a separate seal, but just a push on lid that snaps on, the sort that I reckon normally doesn't work so well. It was a very large box for a plastic cache.

    No maintenance logs, this cache had no human contact for 5 years . It was at the base of a tree, under tree cover and with foliage grown all over and around it, but nothing else protecting it from the elements.

    And it was barely damp, just a trace, no mildew whatsoever.

    It suggests to me that dampness is more likely to be caused if the cache is opened in bad weather, or if the box is damaged or the lid isn't refitted properly.

    Rgds, Andy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •