Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wow – where to start!
Two main categories – traditional leather boots, still favoured by many or Gore-Tex or similar. Leather boots probably need more looking after to keep them waterproof, regular cleaning, waxing, etc and are heavier, but could last for many years. Gore-Tex are lighter, but still need cleaning and waterproofing and probably won’t last longer than a couple of years. I am currently wearing Scarpa Gore-Tex which I am very happy with.
Whatever you buy the most important thing is to buy them from somewhere who know about walking boots. Never buy off the internet or mail-order as you can’t try them on. When I bought my last pair I tried on every size from 9 to 11 as they all vary so much – which is why you can’t buy without trying. Kountry Kit in Tavistock are brilliant. They really know about boots and will take so much care helping you to decide. I must have spent nearly an hour trying them on! However, don’t buy cheap, a decent waterproof pair will cost at least £100.
Avoid GoOutdoors in Plymouth unless you want to be served by a sales assistant with no useful knowledge. They have lots of cheap boots but take a look at the reviews – most are dreadful and even if they claim to be waterproof they probably won’t be. Buy only Gore-Tex and not a cheap imitation.
However, there is another alternative. Judy and I have both bought Neoprene wellies! They are brilliant, especially on the moor. I’ve avoided walking in wellies all my life but I did most of the Remote series in these, easily walking 10 miles without problems. Mine are Muck Boots, Judy’s are Bogs and we are so happy with them. They have boot like soles and fit nicely at the ankles. But again they are not cheap. The recommended price is way over £100, but we paid about £70. You can probably get these on the internet as the fit is probably not so crucial, but we both tried our on first.
Hopes this helps!
A great answer mp, but you didn’t make any reference to OUTBREAK! which doesn’t have GeoCheck and which prompted the topic in the first place ❓
I’m sorry “a war between setters and finders” how did you infer that from what I wrote?
Of course caches are put out to be found but GeoCheck should be just that – to check your answer to the puzzle, not a means to get at the correct coordinates without solving the puzzle.
The original topic was prompted by a couple of very recent muddypuddles caches, the first he used GeoChecker the second he didn’t and I was wondering what prompted the different approach and how others thought about it.
I wasn’t intending to be negative. I am full of admiration for the site and have used in many, many times. My constructive suggestion would be to add a meaningful search engine to the site and not to worry too much about a flash presentation.
Upload your image to the cache listing using an upload image log.
Click on the image and copy the url of the image.
Edit the cache listing and use this url in the listing. You cannot refer to an image on your home drive because I cannot see your home drive and groundspeak couldn’t see it either!Either stuff is pure fiction, which is ok, or it needs to be attributed. This story was neither one or the other.
Neither do I and unfortunately Tim has not attributed it in any way.
He is not doing himself any favours with his site. Having read this item I then tried to find it on the site and couldn’t. It’s called The Ghost of Uncle Ab but is not listed in the index. Neither is it listed under the Ghosts & Ghouls section. I then tried the recent pages page in case it was new but it is not listed there although he does claim to have added 45 pages in 2014!!!! Eventually I found it in the main index under Ab’s Ghost.
As I commented before, the content of the site is excellent but it’s organisation, indexing and search facilities are not. Once a site gets this big it does need to be well organised and each pages should be dated to show when it was written and last updated.
It’s very easy to edit the cache listing but far more difficult to tell you how to do it 😥 !
The problem is that as soon as I included any html code, this page executes it instead of displaying it! If you include it as a comment then it doesn’t show at all!
So I have added some example code as a jpeg, but it really is very easy to do 😛 !
It’s all very easy to edit a cache listing to add a jpg. It only requires you to edit the html. It appears that you don’t even need to “own” the jpg but can link to any already available. The easiest way is to upload an image into the gallery and then reference it from the listing, that way it keeps everything together.
Add the code below to one of your listings:
😛 😛 😛
I have to agree 100% with dartymoor. The content of Legendary Dartmoor is excellent and it doesn’t need to have a flash presentation, although I would like a better search facility. I’m not certain that Tim is totally aware of what is on the site. I contacted him to give information on Fish Stone, but he already had some information there and didn’t seem to know it!
There is nothing flash about Wikipedia but the content is excellent and this has to be the main consideration.
I haven’t met Tim but I have exchanged emails with him on a couple of subjects. I don’t think he is too keen on geocaching, I seem to remember that he complained about the location of a cache once. I had hoped to meet him last year because a friend of his who was taking some photographs for his web site stayed here, but he didn’t have the time to get together.
You used to be able to link to Legendary Dartmoor in cache listings, but the reviewers stopped allowing this when he began to have adverts on his web site 🙁 , but there is nothing to stop you adding the link once the cache has been published 😎
Welcome to the forum GeoPausey,
If I answer your question you will not get a very objective answer as I have very strong views on this 👿
A throwdown is where someone cannot find a cache and without any prior permission from the cache owner, they decide to replace the cache with one of their own. This way they can log a find (on a cache THEY placed) instead of a DNF. This can only be described as cheating! Others may have a more forgiving view 😎
(I may move these replies to the Throwdown topic)I can understand that view point, but I consider it to be a very dangerous precedent. If one CO encourages it then it will spread to other caches (like mine) where the CO strongly disapproves.
Placing 1,779 caches is no excuse at all. Nobody should place more caches than they can maintain and I don’t think anybody should be allowed to place that many anyway. If every cache goes missing once a year that’s nearly 5 a day!!! Impossible to maintain.
The principles of geocaching are very clear, somebody places a cache for others to find. If you cannot find it, it’s a DNF – very, very simple. No ifs and buts – a DNF! Are cachers so desperate for every last smiley and so afraid to log a DNF 🙁
Inconvenient? I left one in one of your caches and another one very close to where you will need to go 😉
Many thanks to Steve (Plymbridge Runner) for the unexpected and very generous FTF prize I received this morning. I really did appreciate it, but the joy of completing this excellent and well constructed series was the best reward you could have and of course is still available to all those who follow. So if you haven’t participated already, then I cannot recommend this series highly enough 🙂
Dartymoor,
Many thanks for this post. The overwhelming reaction to the DDD series has been very positive and I have been enormously grateful to the very kind comments logged on the series. Yes, there have been a few negative comments (some from those I would have expected better) but generally they have been very good.
Have I changed my views? Yes and no! No, regarding those power trails with a micro dropped in a hedge row every 1/10 mile – absolutely not. But I never set out to place a series like that. When I see the opportunities for some very interesting roadside caches, it makes me so annoyed to see a 35mm film canister shoved in a hedge – why! Just lack of imagination.
I did about 10 visits to the DDD location to plan and place all the caches. Each location was carefully mapped to avoid each other and other caches. The locations were approved long before a single cache was placed. I wanted a wide variety of caches and hides but this is more difficult on the open moor than most would imagine. I also wanted a variety of difficulty. Anybody can make a cache difficult by placing a micro in a clitter field, but I wanted something different and am fairly happy with the result. I will change things in the future though. Difficult hides should not contain bonus information and which caches contain the bonus information should be available. The cacher can then make a better judgement of how much time to spend looking for a cache.
As I have already planned another series, I guess the answer to the question is Yes. But the new series will be about the same length as DDD, but with more caches. It will also be doable both clockwise and anticlockwise. However, the terrain will be more difficult.
A couple of things from the CO’s point of view. I really hate TFTC logs and even worse copy and paste logs. If a CO bothers to place a cache then please think of something unique to say about it. I have had some wonderful logs and this one came yesterday:
“The terrain rating gives an idea of what to expect here. Yes, you will need to climb over boulders to get to this one. I had a bit of an adventure here.
I searched for a while
I thought about giving up
I turned around and lo and behold the cache was staring at me
I do that thing where you punch your fist in the air and shout ‘yes’ (not that anyone is listening out here)
Elation turned to despair when I dropped the cache when retrieving it
At this point the angel and devil appear on my shoulders. Do I rescue it or do I DNF it?
Fortunately for Dartmoor Dave I mounted a daring cache-rescueSince the cache was in two feet of still water I took off one boot and rolled up the clothes on my left side. Hanging from the tree I managed to recover the cache, sign it and replace it incredibly carefully.
The moral of this story: bison containers don’t float but they are watertight!”
That really made my day AND I thanked them for it. That’s what geocaching is all about 🙂
Agreeing with the CO to maintain or replace a cache in advance is not the same as throwing down a cache because you cannot find it. If the practice of throwdowns stopped there would be no pressure on COs to accept a find. I agree that “bully boy tactics” (not my words) are a bit emotive but the point BB was making is perfectly valid.
I only used Cave Trolls Lair as an example as it was mentioned to me twice on the same day, but I am sure that many who had reached the cave and found the cache would be disappointed that others who had not, still claimed a find. It really does devalue their efforts.
As LB specifically mentioned the bishopflyer log I have read it again. My interpretation is that her note to the CO was not because of the throwdown, but because she had not actually gone to the cave, but waited below – but that’s a completely different discussion 🙂
Cachers who replace damaged caches and wet logs should not be confused with those who throw down caches. The former are genuinely helping the geocaching community (and I will always welcome this on any of my caches), the latter are helping nobody but themselves and are actually damaging the whole principle of geocaching. Find and sign the bloody log – nothing else is acceptable!
It looks as though this subject is being discussed by others as the Cave Trolls Lair cache (GCTDF6) was brought to my attention twice on Sunday by totally different cachers. First this very eloquent log was added to my Smallacombe Bottom cache and then a caller brought up the same subject.
Is geocaching really coming to this? Log a find at all costs! Please let us have a few more views posted here on this subject.
I’ve just had an email from Candleford apologising for my wasted journey but not really apologising for their throwdown. As I was replying to their email Brentorboxer’s post (above) popped into my inbox so I added a copy of that to my email and suggested that they now had a few more “finds” to change to DNFs 🙂
Throwdowns are worse than just cheating – not only do they inflate the number of finds, but they cause confusion to all following cachers who have no idea what is going on and force the CO to take unnecessary action to retrieve the throwdown 🙁
I’m not blaming the reviewers, they have little choice but to act when they receive a complaint – but why complain in the first place?
Also I understood that there were guidelines and there were rules. But the reviewers now seem to be strongly enforcing guidelines – as in my case. They should be able to interpret guidelines a little less rigidly than the rules.
clownpunchers, who did you receive this from?
Have you appealed to Groundspeak in the States or is this still within the UK reviewers?If you study the maps this is largely a series of sign posts! The vast majority of this route is on-road, the only real off-road sections are south-west of Okehampton and south of Tavistock and both of these sections already have geocaches. Geocaches on cycle paths are great if you are cycling but are very difficult if you are walking as it is normally impossible to do a decent circular walk – I still haven’t found all the Granite Trail caches. The other problem is that cycle tracks tend to attract micros and I think most of us find those less than appealing – but as usual “It’s all about the numbers”!
Just wonderful – I hope it’s terrain 5!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-24028902
I just have to place one like this!
With regards to the Jubilee cache, I found it all, but it was the original label which helped me identify it. However, it was leaking and the logbook saturated. It had already been moved, which is why it had gone missing. I tried to get the owner to unarchive the cache, but got no reply. I agree, you can argue that it is a different cache, but few caches are the original boxes and logs, often they go missing and are replaced and it is always allowed to move a cache. But I respect that argument.
The Heltor cache is completely different. I was the 3rd to ask for this to be archived and the ONLY reason I asked was that it was being logged without being found. This is clearly wrong for a traditional cache which has to be physically found. The owner hadn’t even logged on to the site for about a year and was clearly inactive. I would have adopted this cache but you can only do that with the owner’s agreement, it wasn’t an option with this cache.
Your last point is perfectly correct. This owner had 23 caches, 15 of which have “Needs Maintenance” against them. He was clearly inactive, wasn’t interested in maintaining his caches and it is right that a reviewer should archive those caches when asked to do so. Owners who are clearly active with an excellent maintenance record should be given longer. However, I would much rather see a change in the rules so that caches can be adopted WITHOUT the owners permission, if they are inactive. We are asked to remove the geolitter of archived caches but cannot take a cache over, as this would be stealing! What a crazy anomaly that is.
As far as I am aware this cache is still there, but I couldn’t make up my mind whether to include it in this forum or not. I stumbled upon this cache when I was creating my “Search the Dartmoor Archives” cache. There were logs to say it had been found recently but not in its original position. So I went to search for it and did indeed find the remains of the original cache in a dreadful state. It was broken and saturated but had the original label still inside. It couldn’t be left where it was as it was completely exposed, but this wasn’t its original location anyway. So I replaced the cache and moved it to a safer location. I tried several times to contact the owner, but he never replied. I recently looked for the cache but was very short of time and couldn’t find it although I believe it is still there.
I disagree with GoldenHaystack on this cache for the following reason:
No matter what the cache owner says it is cheating to log a cache as a virtual just because you cannot find it. This was a traditional cache and NOT a virtual and this statement should never have been allowed. I believe that I was the last person to physically find this cache since May 2011. The only reason I was one of 3 who asked for this cache to be archived was to stop this sort of cheating. I wrote in my Needs Archive log “I totally disagree with the ‘if you can’t find it, log it as a virtual’ idea and for that reason only I think it should be archived.” The reviewer obviously agreed with me as it was archived the next day. When I went to place my “Heltor Rock” cache I soon found the original cache and removed it – it had been there all the time, but I was the only one to find it in nearly 2 years and yet it had been logged as “found” many times during that period.
The basic principle of geocaching is, as we have said so many times, FIND the cache and SIGN the log. Then you can log a find.
Well the reviewer allowed it!
“Police ordered the closure when a pedestrian was arrested after being spotted behaving unusually, at about 16:00 BST.”
“Police said officers found a suspicious item, forcing the closures. Bomb disposal teams are at the scene assessing the situation, the force said.”
I went up to Sittaford Tor today and checked on a couple of the caches as I passed by. I couldn’t be bothered with the boxes under rocks ones but I did check No 8 the one by the hunt fence. I couldn’t find it 🙁 Somebody hadn’t bothered to replace it in the nice little hide I constructed for it but had stuffed it under the wire about 6 feet away, so I soon found it. But it emphasises Dartymoor’s comment above “Put the ruddy cache back where you found it! Not a foot away, not in another hole that you think suits it better. WHERE YOU FOUND IT!”
But worse – when I opened the cache it had only one log sheet plus scraps of paper that had been added. When I placed this cache it had at least 5 double sided log sheets – somebody had taken all but one of them :(. Some other cacher had kindly added the scraps of paper, but can you believe that a cacher would steal all the unused sheets!
I think maybe the problem with caches not being replaced where found is that sometimes there is a group of cachers, somebody finds it, it gets passed around to be signed and somebody else puts it back. Probably the finder has already moved on so the cacher replacing it probably had no idea where it really was, only a general idea. Some of my ones that are hooked onto brass hooks have been found on the floor, that really is not acceptable.
I don’t think that one was on my “to do” list for my forthcoming trip to Wales!
Jaughan, I’m relying on you to place some new caches for me please 😉
It is not possible for everybody to agree on an ideal density. I placed these caches approx every quarter mile. I couldn’t have put them closer as I had to alternate them with the ones on the other side of the river (and a few existing caches as well). IMO the most important thing is to generate and maintain interest in the series. This comes from a variety of terrain, of scenery, of cache type and of cache difficulty. I get very bored when all the caches are of the same type and are all too easy. On some series I just wish the end would come!
As for Patience, well I think we all lost it. I actually found over 50% of those I looked for and we really enjoyed the walk. This is a lovely area and would be excellent for a really good series. Isn’t this on the Sharpham Estate? If so, I wonder if the CO got permission for the caches?
Not to mention the 3 stones known as the Heathercombe Fishes! I afraid our reviewers are too keen in banning legitimate caches rather than watching out for caches such as this.
I’ve been told that the reviewers are now asking how a puzzle cache is solved before publishing it, has anybody had this experience?
MP, I agree with what you say but you are missing the point with regards to this cache – there is no puzzle to solve. You either know where this stone is or you don’t, or you ask somebody who does.
We haven’t been asked to archive any caches yet, but even if we do there will be no rush out there by me to remove mine. I cannot speak for the other owners but I know that no letterboxes will be removed so there is no logical reason to remove the caches. They could be listed on another site to keep them alive, but in any case you can still find archived caches and log them and they will count in your numbers.
These caches are called throwdowns and there are a couple of interesting links here:
http://www.cacheopedia.com/wiki/Throw-Down_Cache
http://support.groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427A couple of our local cachers tried this trick with some of my first caches and I refused to allow their finds. It is one of the reasons I am reluctant to have spoiler photos. With a spoiler photo you can be 99.9% certain that a cache has gone and therefore may be more inclined to throw a cache down, if you are not so sure you probably won’t.
It should only ever happen with the owners prior permission but some try to put pressure on an owner after they have done it to allow a find. They haven’t found it – they placed it!
As far as I am aware all land in the UK is owned by someone, so theoretically every cache needs land owners permission. If the reviewers insisted on this then it would kill geocaching.com as clearly almost no caches would get placed. Certainly roadsigns, crash barriers, town centre seats are all owned but permission is never requested.
As far as hedgerow caches are concerned, it’s not so much the placement of the caches that concerns me, but the actual caches themselves. But that raises the question once again of what is the difference between a geocache and litter. Many of the hedgerow caches really are only litter and it will be interesting to see the first prosecution of a cache owner by a local council. After all, they have prosecuted for cigarette ends etc, and we leave our contact details on our litter!
The worse cache of this type I have come across is one in Cornwall which was placed inside a TV set which had been fly-tipped over a hedge! What sort of example does this set and I can’t believe some of the logs which praised the placement.
