Jump to content


Photo

Isn't there a Minimum Requirement?


  • Please log in to reply
194 replies to this topic

#181 TexasWriter

TexasWriter

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 23 April 2013 - 07:34 AM

The fine print says that the offense doesn't apply if it's an FTF. At least that's what I choose to read. Lol


Deep Woods Off....my most commonly used cologne...

 

img.aspx?txt=View+my+profile&uid=90f8013


#182 log dawgs

log dawgs

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • LocationThe Woodlands, TX

Posted 23 April 2013 - 07:47 AM

Now that is not a cache I want to be found looking for.


Posted Image
Posted Image

#183 Mr Muddy Buddy

Mr Muddy Buddy

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,192 posts
  • LocationThe Middle of Nowhere, in the Great State of Confusion

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:46 PM

It's a real sign. 

 

http://codes.lp.find...6A/XII/D/300i-1

 


Posted Image

#184 HoustonControl

HoustonControl

    Charter Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,933 posts
  • LocationBaytown

Posted 24 April 2013 - 06:47 AM

Ha ha!  How many hides does this cacher own?

Unfortunately, he owns 406.  This one is at the Calcasieu Parish Unemployment Office in Lake Charles.  In his defense, the sign looks new (probably put up in response to all the folks poking around their electrical boxes).  I think I'm the first finder since the sign went up.  Luckily, I found the cache quickly and got out of there.

 

 

Oh, and Kenny wins the prize!

 

4c3fb5a1-3fb5-4019-b583-6c9f3f2c24d2.jpg


img.aspx?txt=What+in+the+Hell?&uid=1dd8c

#185 Thot

Thot

    Funtime Advisor

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,562 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:59 PM

In keeping with the theme of this thread I've run across a new standard.

Mr. Or Ms SliterFamily was unable to find this cache . He/she said there was no doubt it was missing and had photos to prove it. So, since they couldn't find it, apparently they felt they deserved to claim a find, then never bothered to post the "proof" it wasn't there, at least not before the next person found it. I'm glad I didn't make a trip downtown to check on it.

#186 Thot

Thot

    Funtime Advisor

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,562 posts

Posted 02 June 2013 - 04:58 PM

Okay, here's another of my bright ideas that someone is sure to come along and give a perfectly logical reason why it's a bad idea.

 

I suggest people not be able to get new caches approved while they have disabled caches that need repair. 


Edited by Thot, 02 June 2013 - 04:58 PM.

  • Baytown Bert likes this

#187 HoustonControl

HoustonControl

    Charter Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,933 posts
  • LocationBaytown

Posted 02 June 2013 - 05:33 PM

I know you get a "nag screen" that pops up if you try to list a new cache and you currently have one that is disabled or has a Needs Maintenance attribute. 

 

<Perfectly logical reason>:  I suppose you could have the situation where one disables a cache because there is construction in the area or some other reason that the GZ is currently inaccessible due to reasons beyond their control.

 

Frankly, I think you shouldn't be able to log cache finds if you have caches that are in need of attention!


Edited by HoustonControl, 02 June 2013 - 05:33 PM.

  • Baytown Bert likes this
img.aspx?txt=What+in+the+Hell?&uid=1dd8c

#188 cachestacker

cachestacker

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,043 posts
  • LocationClear Lake

Posted 02 June 2013 - 06:46 PM

Or maybe they're redoing a series.  :coolsmiley:

 

Here's my bright idea -- when a cache has multiple WPs and never seems to be in findable condition, and the owner has not checked in in over 2 years, no finds and only DNFs in over 2 years, the person that places a new cache wins and the old is archived immediately.  Period.  If you can't check in in 2 years you lose.

 

I'm not saying they have to get out there and cache.  But I think a 2 year window is sufficient to do that if they can't even go onto gc.com once in a while.  :veryangry:


Posted Image

#189 KeyResults

KeyResults

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
  • LocationTomball

Posted 02 June 2013 - 10:55 PM

Actually, my BFF and I have two currently disabled while heavy construction is underway preventing access. We have every intention of re-enabling as soon as the access is restored and danger passed.
Why am I all sweatty and late? Umm...

#190 Baytown Bert

Baytown Bert

    Short fat dude with good hygiene

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,359 posts
  • LocationBaytown, Texas

Posted 03 June 2013 - 03:19 AM

GC3V5D1 I disabled this one and posted a note telling folks the cache(s) is there, but construction at this exact road location will make it tricky. There are two containers here due to raccoon tampering. I've replaced it 4 times and one time, the container showed back up. LOL

TXGA SETX Representative


#191 Thot

Thot

    Funtime Advisor

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,562 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:20 AM

I'd thought about the construction problem (I've had that issue), but I wanted to leave something for folks to rag on.  If the disable log gives a reason beyond the person's control and which will soon correct it would be an exception. 

 

I currently have a cache disabled because I had three caches come up missing in the same area in the same week.  I've replaced the other two (one went from an ammo box to a micro).  One is a little more expensive to replace so I'm hoping the vandal will lose interest in it if I wait a while to replace it.


Edited by Thot, 03 June 2013 - 07:32 AM.


#192 KeyResults

KeyResults

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
  • LocationTomball

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:48 AM

I should mention that an occasional CO note is a helpful thing so people ( and PR) know you're still paying attention and checking GZ. I'm big on CO notes.
Why am I all sweatty and late? Umm...

#193 rozowski5

rozowski5

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:51 AM

I was reading this thread and started wondering about some caches my husband found last week.  He uses GeoBucket to find caches and found a bunch one night after work in Freeport. When he got home to log them on Geocaching.com it showed they were all disabled - and all by the same CO - Cobra98.

 

I contacted him to see what was up with these caches but they are all still out there and in great shape.  I haven't heard back from him yet.  We understand Geobucket is not the real database so there is a lag time for it to be updated and have had that happen before where we find caches that were archived but didn't know they were archived.  Since on these in specific he found them in good faith, signed log, and returned doesn't this count as a smiley? 



#194 Baytown Bert

Baytown Bert

    Short fat dude with good hygiene

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,359 posts
  • LocationBaytown, Texas

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:51 AM

If I remember correctly, you're big hearted too.

TXGA SETX Representative


#195 OHail

OHail

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • LocationMontgomery, AL

Posted 03 June 2013 - 09:26 AM

I was reading this thread and started wondering about some caches my husband found last week.  He uses GeoBucket to find caches and found a bunch one night after work in Freeport. When he got home to log them on Geocaching.com it showed they were all disabled - and all by the same CO - Cobra98.

 

I contacted him to see what was up with these caches but they are all still out there and in great shape.  I haven't heard back from him yet.  We understand Geobucket is not the real database so there is a lag time for it to be updated and have had that happen before where we find caches that were archived but didn't know they were archived.  Since on these in specific he found them in good faith, signed log, and returned doesn't this count as a smiley? 

Since your husband found the caches and signed the log, then he should log them online.  Could be the CO archived the caches to keep them out of PQs and off the phone apps and your husband found them before he could get out to pick them up.

 

There have been several times I've gone out, found a cache, to discover when I got home, it had been disabled or archived.  (By the way, that is two different things.  Disabled caches are generally considered temporarily unavailable for some reason such as maintenance and will still show up on the gc site map.  Archived caches are removed from play permanently and do not show up on the map.) 

 

For those which are archived, one will need the GC number or some other way to find the listing (field notes from a GPSr, going through the CO's profile, etc.).

 

I add something like "I was not aware this cache was archived until I got home to log it."  to whatever else I am writing in my online log so the CO and anyone else who is watching the cache listing know what happened. 


There is no adventure without risk.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users