Jump to content


Photo

Hiding a cache without finding one first


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#1 log dawgs

log dawgs

    Senior Member

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

Posted 29 June 2011 - 06:32 AM

I know there is a thread on this already, but I could not find it.  Lately on the north side we have had several caches being hidden by users with no finds.  One was on Carter Country property.  Not a real good idea.  Now the second is a typical area (park in The Woodlands) and they rate the terrain a little high 2.5.  I was just wondering other cachers thoughts on the matter.  I think a minimum to find before you can hide would be a great requirement.  I am not saying find 100 before you can hide, but it would help


Walk In The Park  GC2YY28
Straight Shooter  GC2YA8Z
Posted Image
Posted Image

#2 Baytown Bert

Baytown Bert

    Short fat dude with good hygiene

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • LocationBaytown, Texas

Posted 29 June 2011 - 07:08 AM

I'm dead set against it.  I wish geocaching.com would set a limit of sorts.  here's one that is very suspicious to me:

http://www.geocachin...aspx?wp=GC2YR6Z

TXGA SETX Representative


#3 ohl hockey guy

ohl hockey guy

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,152 posts
  • LocationFriendswood, TX

Posted 29 June 2011 - 07:18 AM

Just remember there are those with sock puppet accounts...
Posted ImagePosted Image

#4 Baytown Bert

Baytown Bert

    Short fat dude with good hygiene

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • LocationBaytown, Texas

Posted 29 June 2011 - 07:54 AM


Another reason to exclude this from being allowed in my book.

Just remember there are those with sock puppet accounts...


TXGA SETX Representative


#5 TheNorman

TheNorman

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 594 posts
  • LocationHuntsville, Texas

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:10 AM

I have the impression that some individuals change their geocaching identities.  I'm not entirely sure why one would do so since it certainly doesn't help with an increase in finds.  >:D

Having said that, it might be difficult to tell if someone who appears to have put out a cache without ever finding one themselves, had really never found one themselves.

I've seen the identity changes around Huntsville--but it could be that groups of students were geocaching together and not all of them had created identities at first.  Then when one or more stopped geocaching, those remaining needed their own IDs.

However, if it is truly the case that someone is putting out a cache without ever finding one (and I think it should be at least several), this shouldn't happen.

If someone is adopting a new ID just for the purposes of placing caches, I think the Prime Reviewer should ask for "some proof of ID"  :police:, or at least "proof of a dozen finds".

#6 cachestacker

cachestacker

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • LocationClear Lake

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:43 AM

If someone is adopting a new ID just for the purposes of placing caches, I think the Prime Reviewer should ask for "some proof of ID"  :police:, or at least "proof of a dozen finds".


Dear PR -- I found a bunch of caches with The Norman.  Taught me everything I know.  The caches were logged under The Norman --- I didn't have my own ID then.  I just have not loged 'em under my own ID.    ;)
Posted Image

#7 Betty Draper

Betty Draper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,401 posts

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:52 AM

Really? You do not think there are enough rules already? This really gets to me. Geocachers who feel a need to govern the activities of other cachers.

No rules!!! If the new cache violate an existing guideline that makes the cache unsafe talk with the owner or PR, but do not argue to have a blanket rule of you have to get x amount of finds before you can hide a cache. That is just silly.

#8 SockPuppet

SockPuppet

    Actor

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,811 posts

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:06 AM

Really? You do not think there are enough rules already? This really gets to me. Geocachers who feel a need to govern the activities of other cachers.

No rules!!! If the new cache violate an existing guideline that makes the cache unsafe talk with the owner or PR, but do not argue to have a blanket rule of you have to get x amount of finds before you can hide a cache. That is just silly.

I totally agree! There are enough caches out there to find without worrying about a few bad caches here and there. If I am unfamiliar with a cachers name I usually will look at the finds/hides stats and see when they joined. I will also do some aerial recon too. 

And what is the big deal about Sockpuppet accounts? :2funny:
Posted Image

#9 Baytown Bert

Baytown Bert

    Short fat dude with good hygiene

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • LocationBaytown, Texas

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:17 AM

"Dear PR -- I found a bunch of caches with The Norman.  Taught me everything I know.  The caches were logged under The Norman --- I didn't have my own ID then.  I just have not loged 'em under my own ID. "

Exactly.  Have all the accounts you want, but if you post a cache without any finds, at least be considerate enough to explain you are not a bogie.

TXGA SETX Representative


#10 cachestacker

cachestacker

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • LocationClear Lake

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:33 AM

I was using that more to show how easy it would be to lie...
Posted Image

#11 Baytown Bert

Baytown Bert

    Short fat dude with good hygiene

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • LocationBaytown, Texas

Posted 29 June 2011 - 10:03 AM

Well, it could work both ways, right?  For instance, someone could write that they have been on a team and collectively have 35 finds, but now want their own identity and hidden their first cache.

TXGA SETX Representative


#12 kianlo

kianlo

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 687 posts
  • LocationSugar Land

Posted 29 June 2011 - 10:07 AM

I've seen both ends of this spectrum.  Hides by cachers with few or no finds that are WAY off (142') and caches by cachers with similar stats that earned favorites because even though the coords were dead on, we barely spotted it because it was so well cammoed.  There are already enough rules to handle this IMO.  We can all look up the stats and decide, am I going for that one or not?

#13 log dawgs

log dawgs

    Senior Member

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

Posted 29 June 2011 - 11:51 AM

I agree there are enough rules, but sometimes there are rules that need to be placed.  To make you find a few before you hide one is not a real issue.  I have found hides by new cachers that are great, but you really need to get a feel for the game. 

I do always love to stir the hornets nest as I did with this thread.  At least we know there are opinions to both sides of the argument.

Of course here is the real reason why I posted it.  This was a log from one of the caches.

The difficulty level seemed a bit low as I found the cache approximately 180' from where my GPS was indicating GZ (closer coordinates are N30 10.631 W095 34.887). SL TNLN
Posted Image
Posted Image

#14 TheNorman

TheNorman

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 594 posts
  • LocationHuntsville, Texas

Posted 29 June 2011 - 12:04 PM

I really would rather have everyone be considerate of everyone else (I think that sums up a whole lot of things and would eliminate a whole lot of frustration and anger).

I had made my suggestion as a compromise position to the "no finds, no caches" stance.

As for piggy-backing on my finds--we log everything under my wife's name.  Prime reviewer will turn you down if you are going to rely on my impressive stats.  :2funny:

#15 Betty Draper

Betty Draper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,401 posts

Posted 29 June 2011 - 12:14 PM

Here is the assumption of the OP-- that a cache hidden under an account with no finds is hidden by a cacher who has not found a cache.

This is just a faulty assumption.

As for rules---I agree not to tell you how to hide, search, or log caches.
If you want my advice (and ask for it) on such matters, I will be happy to give you suggestions.
All I expect is the same from my fellow cachers and GroundSpeak.

#16 ohl hockey guy

ohl hockey guy

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,152 posts
  • LocationFriendswood, TX

Posted 29 June 2011 - 12:35 PM

The difficulty level seemed a bit low as I found the cache approximately 180' from where my GPS was indicating GZ (closer coordinates are N30 10.631 W095 34.887). SL TNLN

I would ask what type of GPS was being used. I have watched people say coords were way off even though it was just a difference in GPS or tree cover (ie. winter vs summer trees)
Posted ImagePosted Image

#17 SockPuppet

SockPuppet

    Actor

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,811 posts

Posted 29 June 2011 - 01:31 PM

It might be possible the datum on the GPS is not the correct or the coordinates are not wgs84 or maybe a typo. I remember when I first go my eTrex GPS I didn't read the manual and just entered coordinates and kept hitting the mark button to see where I was located. I ended up in Rosharon before I turned around and realized I was no longer in Sugar Land :D
Posted Image

#18 OneStepCloser

OneStepCloser

    TeamOSC

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,008 posts
  • LocationHouston and Chicago

Posted 29 June 2011 - 05:35 PM

Who cares?  Whether it's a sockpuppet, or an overly enthusiastic new person(s) jumping in head first, it's a CHOICE to hunt the cache. No one is being forced to find anything.

It's.

A.

Game.

And there've been a LOT of sockpuppet accounts out there with no finds...and for most experienced cachers, they can tell when it's a sockpuppet.

No more arbitrary rules.  O0

Posted Image

Lead By Example.

Hide Great Caches in Great Locations!

Just Say NO to Cut-n-Paste!

Friends don't let friends mark coords with iPhones. Be kind, use a GPSr.


#19 OneStepCloser

OneStepCloser

    TeamOSC

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,008 posts
  • LocationHouston and Chicago

Posted 29 June 2011 - 05:38 PM

Also, how would this affect someone living in a rural community?  Way out there in the sticks....they'd have to expend a lot of energy and resources to meet a minimum requirement just to have the privilege of hiding a cache.

Posted Image

Lead By Example.

Hide Great Caches in Great Locations!

Just Say NO to Cut-n-Paste!

Friends don't let friends mark coords with iPhones. Be kind, use a GPSr.


#20 log dawgs

log dawgs

    Senior Member

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

Posted 29 June 2011 - 06:58 PM

It was just a question.  Sorry for causing an issue here.  Now I will keep my big mouth shut. 
Posted Image
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users