Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wow, I love it when we get some real opinions and discussions 🙂
First Mr Grumpy – I didn’t say that the CO was stupid I said the statement re virtuals was stupid. This is a traditional cache NOT a virtual. Traditional caches need to be found and the log signed, the CO cannot make his own rules re logging the cache. Find the cache and it’s a Found, don’t and its a DNF. It was there to be found and I am mystified why you didn’t?
I too have enjoyed Wildebeest caches, but the truth is that for whatever reason, he has abandoned his caches and if it wasn’t for the statement re logging as virtuals I would fight to save them, but that statement makes them untenable.
I agree with Pumpkin Patrol who asked for it to be archived. He said too many cachers were logging it as found when clearly they hadn’t found it and I have to agree. It was a real cop out, spend 2 minutes looking and log it as Found 🙁
Now the truth: I visited Heltor Rock today and very quickly found the cache that has been found only ONCE since I found it over a year ago! It was exactly where I had left it then. The ONLY cacher to find it since February 2012 were Broyle Boxers on 2nd october 2012. Several who logged it during the last year admitted they hadn’t found it, but several didn’t admit it and just logged it anyway.
What else can I say but “It’s all about the numbers :(!”
In 90% of cases I agree, archived caches should go and a new one placed. However, I became interested in this as a very old cache suddenly turned up and was found. It is probably the oldest cache on Dartmoor and I would like to see it preserved. Several cachers have now logged it as found but I would like to see the owner unarchived it, which is allowed.
I notice that the cache on Heltor Rock has now been archived. I support this only because the CO had a stupid statement in the listing saying that if you couldn’t find it log it as a virtual, which several have! But, I bet that this cache is still there as it was really well hidden when I found it last year.
I spotted this in one of yesterday’s logs and couldn’t agree more 🙂
“I am going to log a DNF here. If I park up somewhere, with the hope or intent to find a cache, it means a Find or a DNF, not a Note, even if I’m not sure I’m in the right spot.”
Re stealing the abandoned caches – I did say that I didn’t agree with the Groundspeak view, but you can understand why they say it. It is up to each individual what action they want to take.
I have never removed a proper letterbox from the moor, that is, one with a stamp. What I have removed are saturated ice cream boxes that have clearly been abandoned. In my view these are only litter and should be removed. The National Park Rangers also take this view and will remove them.
However, this brings me back to something I have said many times before – the only thing that distinguishes our geocaches from litter is when they have been properly labelled as such, clearly indicating that they are recognised game pieces. Without a label they also are just litter.
I somewhat agree with you, but care is needed. Just because a cache has been archived with Groundspeak is does NOT mean it has been archived on other systems, such as Open Caching. Groundspeak also take the view (wrongly in my opinion) that an archived cache still belongs to the original cacher who placed the cache, so by removing it you are actually stealing it!
My view is to preserve archived caches so that they can continue to be logged by those who haven’t already found them. I see nothing wrong in this and it is allowed by Groundspeak – or at least they haven’t prevented you from doing so, which they could quite easily.
Maybe I should add a new section to this web site listing archived caches that are still available to be logged 😉
Once again this proves to be an emotive subject! I’m not certain that I agree with finderman’s original conclusion but it was an understandable view to take. However, he is absolutely right about the necessity to sign the log (assuming it is signable) before claiming a find. It is a fundamental requirement for taking part in geocaching and if you are not prepared to sign a log then maybe you should stick to munzees! Fortunately the sliding tackle from LB doesn’t seem to have deterred our new member and hopefully we will hear more of his views.
Hi Finderman – Welcome to the dartmoor.geocaching forums. Now I’ve moderated your first post you will be able to make further posts without awaiting moderation.
I guess you’ve had a wake up call regarding geocachers cheating. I’m afraid it’s all too common. Some consider that they are only cheating themselves, others that they are doing the whole game a mis-service and you will see both sides of that argument in this forum.
My personal conclusion is that the game is increasingly driven “by the numbers” and many will do anything to get up that ranking list. You may be interested in the forum http://www.dartmoorgeocaching.co.uk/forums/topic/its-all-about-the-numbers-but-is-it
I look forward to your future posts.
DaveWhen I started this topic it was to highlight that many cachers were very reluctant to log DNFs. It has evolved into a discussion about whether you need to sign the physical log and should these be checked. I don’t check my physical logs and don’t intend to (I’ve over 160 active caches) but I will not accept cachers replacing my caches with their own and logging that (unless agreed in advance when they are doing me a favour). If the cache is there I expect them to find it, if they can’t I expect a DNF. I have never deleted a found log but have asked several to change them, which they have.
The issue here are those special caches that are not only required to be found but also for the log to be accessed. Joy of Caching 24 is clearly one of those, finding the pipe is NOT finding the cache. It is the same with a cache 20 feet up a tree, I can see it from the ground but if I am not inclined to climb the tree then there is no way I should log a find. We recently spent a day with Andy Amberel, he said that he would not log a find unless he knew he was capable of retrieving the cache. So, no sending up the children or grandchildren for him!
It is natural that different cachers will have different views on this and that is fine. However, imho, logging a find when you have not even been able to retrieve the cache, let alone the log, is not ok.
Well here’s the proof 🙁 I’ve taken the liberty of “borrowing” TC’s photo of the logbook.
I know there are some out there who will say “it’s only a game” or “it’s up to each individual how they play it” but I don’t agree – it is a game, but it has rules and there is a word we all know that applies to those who don’t follow them. Also very disappointed to see that the UK’s leading cachers disregard them so blatantly.
I’m beginning to get the feeling that I’m getting more support on this sort of subject than I used to. Interesting that TC felt the need to take the photo and publish it. Good one TC 🙂
But it’s not just the walk. There are also 54 caches to be found! At an average of 10 minutes search for each cache that is another 9 hours. Minimum possible would be 5 mins per cache and that still equates to 4.5 hours. Another 2 minutes per cache to log and calculate the bonus information equates to another 2 hours. Not forgetting that the route neither starts nor finishes on a road but in the middle of the moor!
I think we should start a sponsored walk for muddypuddles. Let him name a charity of his choosing and I will be the first to put my name down for 50p per cache. I am sure he could get an enormous amount of support and maybe others would join him?
With regard to Beardown Man I went there recently but had not realised that my cache had been found nearby. It was getting very late and I didn’t have much time to get home, in fact I arrive back in the pitch black anyway. I knew the cache was not where it should have been and I had a quick look round and then placed another. If reb10 is correct, there are indeed 3 containers there, possibly two of mine and a much older one. I will need to return and investigate.
Another possibility is that some caches have not been logged with Groundspeak but with say Open Caching. In this case we may find a cache and assume that it is an old archived one, but is actually live on another system. I don’t think this is true of Beardown Man as I think the log had not been signed recently, at least not until it was mistaken for my cache.
What defines a cache? Surely it’s the cache number and nothing else. Clearly you can’t expect an original log book in a cache 10 years old and probably not the cache container. Caches also often get moved for one reason or another. In this particular case the cache had already gone missing which is why it was archived. However, it had actually been moved to a new location and was found and logged there long before I came across it. I couldn’t move it back to the original location as a new cache had been placed there and I couldn’t leave it where it was as it was exposed and in a very wet location. I have moved it away from the new cache so that if we could unarchive it, it would be in an acceptable location. When I found this cache it was smashed and saturated. However, the original label was still in place on the container which is how we identified it as a cache and not a letterbox. I have preserved this, but that was all that was left. Even with hindsight I don’t think I would have done anything differently.
The Dartmoor Forest series is an excellent series of caches, but few could achieve it on one walk, even taking 2 or 3 days. There are 54 caches in total and I was FTF on 16 of them including the bonus, but I did a total of 19 walks on 14 different days, my longest walk being 15 miles. In total I probably walked 80 to 100 miles, but unfortunately lost all my GPS tracks. The series was placed over a year ago but has still only been completed by 5 cachers! Probably not what dartymoor had in mind when he started this topic!
If we are talking about the same cache (which I would prefer was not named in this thread) I have moved it to a new location almost exactly 0.1 mile from the active cache, and I have noted the new location in my log. When I found it, it wasn’t at its original location, which of course is why it went missing and was archived.
Is your next example on the moor and if so, which cache are we referring to please?
I totally agree with your last point and this is why I have said several times in this forum that I consider that all caches should be labelled correctly, at least with a geocaching sticker. They are very cheap and in my opinion turn a piece of litter into a geocache! On Dartmoor it is even more important as the moor is littered with so-called letterboxes which are no more than a broken ice cream carton with a soggy notebook in. Several times caches have been logged as found when I know very well that they are really these ice cream cartons that have been found. Judy and I cleared about 9 of them from Hound Tor before I placed my cache there, but even then we missed one very close by!
No, it’s about a really good walk into the depths of remotest Dartmoor to find a superb series of caches! And I was FTF 🙂
Thanks Miss for reminding me of the great day I had out on the moor finding these caches and thanks to you both for placing them. I have no idea why others don’t want to share this amazing area of ours, we are privileged to live here and have Dartmoor as our personal playground 🙂 🙂 🙂I think that a major problem is that for so many cachers the PRIME driver is the “numbers”. No matter what they say about a nice walk, visiting beautiful countryside, seeing interesting things, the bottom line is “how many caches are there?” This is why trails are so popular and the more frequent the caches the more popular the trail.
Example 1: Smiths Hill – Dartmoor Photo Trail 2
This cache hasn’t been found since July 2011 and has only ever been found 8 times! It starts and finishes in a layby and is only about 2 miles long. It takes in one of the most beautiful stretches of the Cherry Brook which is hardly visited by anyone, but it is only ONE cache!Example 2: Dartmoor Red Herring Trail
This cache has only been found once in the last 14 months and has only ever been found 12 times. Again it starts and finishes in a layby and is about 3.5 miles long. It follows the O Brook which is one of my favourite streams on Dartmoor and the scenery is stunning. But it is DIFFICULT although you are rewarded by THREE caches!These trails should be ideal. They are NOT remote, they are sort of circular, they are between 2 and 4 miles long – BUT you only get a few “numbers” for your effort. When I placed these I wanted quality caches that were something different and I think I have achieved that – but I have to admit they are not popular.
In my experience archived caches fall into 3 categories:
- Where a cache owner has decided that he wishes to archive a cache and goes and collects it – therefore can’t be found again
- Where a cache owner loses interest and just archives it – it may be there, but probably has already gone missing or is in a bad state of maintenance – possible to find again
- Where a reviewer notices that a cache has not been maintained or when somebody else has logged a “needs archive” he will normally give 14 days notice and then archive it. It appears to be this sort that can often be found, because the reviewer is not going to go and retrieve it!
I have found several archived caches in the last 12 months or so. One of the Granite Trail caches had been archived, replaced by another CO and I found both caches within 30 or 40m and logged them both. The first one should never have been archived, but once again a reviewer archived it because he had no reply from the CO, but the cache was still there!
I suspect that there may be several other archived caches out there as I know at least one cache owner who suddenly archived several active caches and I always wondered if he bothered to retrieve them!
I am currently maintaining one very old archived cache and hope one day to get it unarchived, but that is not easy. If I do, it will probably be Dartmoor’s oldest cache, but of course in name only as neither the log book or cache are original.
I cannot believe that Miss, like me you have standards and I don’t see you & Hobo as belonging to the “if you can’t beat them, join them” brigade.
Maybe a word to the COs to ask the cachers to delete those “Founds” might be in order?
A couple of those have only found a handful of caches, but when you have found over 25,000 …… 🙁
Dartymoor, I’m not miffed at all, but do wish you would come and complete some of the trails that are there. Our ideal trails are clearly not the same, but as I said above “to each their own” and I think I have come over to find most of your caches 🙂
Most of the remote walkers don’t need trails because they make their own out of the caches that are available. They pick and mix and if they want a shorter or easier walk, especially starting from Holming Beam, there is a huge choice of caches and routes for them.
One of the problems of setting trails on the real open moor, is that there are very few paths. You won’t find paths on my trails, you walk in a straight line from cache to cache, if you can 😉 otherwise you have to dodge around the rivers and bogs etc. Another problem is the lack of hides. In huge parts of the moor there is just acres and acres of grass. No rocks and not even any gorse, and therefore very difficult to find a hide. For some of my remote caches I have wandered around for a long time trying to find any sort of hide and if you are going to place them every 200 or 300 yards, then almost impossible.
It seems that even the number 1 cachers in the UK are not too keen to log their DNFs as such 🙁 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=1471fc42-6330-4736-8249-8d8765a774f3
I think I’m now beginning to understand what you are saying. Basically the remote series are too difficult and too long and you want more finds in a full days walk than the 16 or 17 that my trails offer. You didn’t mention Heads of the Rivers Trek which has 17 caches in 11 miles, but this is probably more difficult than WotWS.
You did mention Ring of Laughter which is a very nice and popular trail but can hardly be described as “open moorland”. It only has 9 caches in 3.6 miles, so spaced at 0.4 mile apart, which I consider to be about the optimum spacing – but then power trails are not my favourite.
I think that you are probably raising some of the earlier questions “is it all about the numbers?” and “do we want power trails on Dartmoor?” both of which are very valid questions. My preference is to walk 6 miles into the moor for one new remote cache, rather than travel miles for a power trail or the new urban power trail which seems to be creating a stack of DNFs around Newton Abbott. But as some will quickly remind me “to each their own” which I do respect 🙂
I will normally go for quality over quantity and really enjoyed Dartmoor Strider’s new series near Bovey Tracey. We really enjoyed our morning there, so very many thanks to Kevin, Sue & family for those caches. I think that is the sort of series I would like to see more of – a great walk, some quality caches, great variety and not too closely spaced – an almost perfect series 🙂
Now I am mystified???
Dartymoor has asked this question but when I check my list of finds I discover that he hasn’t completed even one of my three trails! I don’t want to get too personal, but now I don’t understand this question at all.
Is Dartymoor asking for more open moor trails? At the very least he could answer his own question “Do moorland cachers/co’s not like open moorland caches?” And that would help me to decide whether I should place another series. Maybe the existing ones are too difficult? Maybe they are too long? Maybe they are too remote?
I have 3 sets of caches that should be considered as trails:
Walk on the Wild Side (16 caches in 13 miles – circular)
Lych Way (16 caches in 7.5 miles – not circular)
Heads of the River Trek (17 caches in 11 miles – circular)
However, as complete trails these have only been completed by a fairly small number of cachers, but a lot of the more accessible ones are much more popular.So why so few trails? The major reason is that there are few of us who are prepared to venture into the remotest parts of the moor to place caches AND TO MAINTAIN THEM and that is one of the biggest problems. You may get a great idea to place a series of remote caches and then some time later you are faced with maintaining them – and then it doesn’t seem such a good idea as when you placed them 🙁 if you genuinely love walking the moor, then maintenance should be as enjoyable as placing or finding. As I wrote recently – a cache is for life and not just for placing!
You ask “do moorland cachers not like open moorland caches?” It depends on your definition of moorland cachers. Genuine moorland cachers certainly do, but if you are including those whose idea of moorland is Roborough down, then clearly not. There seems to be a huge fear of real Dartmoor, for many who live within sight of it and they rarely venture there and that is obvious when you look at the names of the finders on the remote caches. Many of those who genuinely love Dartmoor, live miles away and get here as often as they can. Head of this list has to be ELDitton, but others include Amberel, Golden Haystack and many others I am sure.
I could go on forever on this subject and will return later to it when others have also had their chance!
A message from Groundspeak 🙂
Why to Log a DNF
You’ve looked. You really have. The geocache is not a container magnetized under the park bench. It’s not that funny looking rock, and of course it’s not under the lamp post cover. You’ve checked the previous logs and the hint. The geocache could be there, but you can’t seem to find it. You give up (for now). Geocaching doesn’t stop there though. Here’s what you do. You log a DNF on the geocache page. It’s “Did not find” and it means, “I care.”
When you log a DNF, you’re telling geocachers that the geocache may be more difficult to find than anticipated or may even be missing. You’re also letting the geocache owner know that they may need to double check that their geocache container can still be located at the posted coordinates.
If you’re a geocacher who logged any of the more than nine million DNF’s posted to Geocaching so far, thanks from the geocaching community. It’s a small way to help ensure the quality of geocaching. Plus, you can always go back and search again. Who knows, maybe this time you’ll catch a break and log a “Found it!”
Supplementary question: Recent UK governments have been very keen to apologise for events in history. We may hear another one in April, 2013. What is the significance of this date, who will the apology be to and for what infamous event?
No, watch this wonderful youtube clip and all will become obvious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umcEYz9LJm8
Yes, I’ve been playing around to try to get the editing box to work better. 512KB is very much more than adequate for a photo to be displayed on the web. Normally you need no more than 150KB – I was thinking of dropping the maximum to 256KB. This photo of Burrator and Sheepstor is only 107KB and gets displayed at full screen resolution.
Well, that’s a start, I will play a little more! I think this is available to everyone, but please don’t abuse it!
It would be very nice and maybe just what the site needs right now. The current upload section does work as there are many photos there, but there is no organisation of the photos and I’m afraid it got a bit out of hand.
I have just downloaded yet another plug-in which I am having a quick play with. It may be useful, it may not!
Thanks Simon, I turned off the Fancy Editor and it’s working ok now. Very strange that it wasn’t tested properly.
I’ve walked most of my life using OS maps and, like most others, considered them to be “the bible”. However, I’ve been using GPSs for many years (years before I discovered geocaching) and the thing that struck me immediately, was just how inaccurate OS maps are. There was no way of questioning their accuracy before, although you often had a feeling that they were wrong, but with a GPS you then knew they were wrong. I download all my tracks from my GPS onto Memory Map and am still surprised at the OS errors I find. Most notably is the completely inaccurate location of the crossing point of the Two Moors Ways with the B3212 and the positioning of the 2 car parks at Bennetts Cross – these are approx 200m wrong! Also the Cairn Circle and Cist at Skir Hill (near my cache) are nearly 200m out on the OS map, which completely threw me on my first walk there, prior to placing the cache. Also the crossing point of the Dartmoor Way and the bridleway running between Whiteworks and Sherberton is nearly 300m out! I don’t think these are due to “drift” but to really bad and lazy cartography. This is particularly noticeable with the newer green rights of way, which are often wildly wrong, whereas the original little, black, dotted lines are often totally accurate. However, I also really love OS maps and can spend hours pouring over them, so I can’t be too critical!
I know, I’m sorry about the formatting. This web site uses WordPress which consists of a core product and then tens of thousands (and I really don’t exaggerate) plug ins, which are written by contributors. The whole lot is free and I pay nothing, except to host the site. The area for writing replies used to be perfect, but one of the updates (which come frequently) seems to have changed this, and as you say, the box disappears off the screen. However, if you keep typing it will go back to the left hand margin ok.
Some of you may have noticed that I have been going in and tidying up the line breaks in your posts. This shouldn’t be necessary and I have no idea why things have changed and I apologise for that.
The Dartmoor OS map is a constant source of amusement to me and of amazement to our hotel guests who have not walked on Dartmoor before. I tell them that most of the footpaths shown on the map don’t exist and that most of the footpaths that do exist are not shown on the map! They also expect that where a bridleway crosses a river, there will be a bridge – how quaint! I have walked all over the UK and there is nowhere else like Dartmoor, which for me makes it magic.
Those of you who have completed my Walk on the Wild Side or Heads of the Rivers Trek series, will know that I completely ignore paths. My route normally consists of straight lines drawn on the OS map with a compass bearing – and then I walk it! I know that many people are not prepared to walk in that way, but it does wonders to improve your map and compass skills, especially if you don’t bother to look at your gps until you get close to a cache.
For those of you who need to see a path, the best source of information is Google Earth, which shows every little track that exists, although mapping it onto an OS map is far from easy. However, I do agree with MP that a source of accurate paths mapped onto an OS map would be useful.
I totally agree with shantz uk and cleverclogs and would love it if the site was used in the way described (and the way I hoped it would be used). Unfortunately, although the site has lots of registered users and continues to get lots of hits, very few actually want to contribute. Therefore I occasionally drop in the odd topic which I hope might provoke a bit of discussion. At least somebody has started a new topic apart from me 🙂
I think that last reply illustrates my point that ratings are inflated to attract visitors. I don’t believe that there is anywhere in England, possibly not the UK, where an overnight stay is required to find a cache, in which case a tent is certainly not required!
Of the replies so far, I do like the very first one from : “Terrain level indicates the degree of physical difficulty, effort and risk to access the log. Difficulty Level indicates how hard it is to find the cache (using a hint if supplied).” I think that sums it all up very nicely. It also endorses my view that a cache has to be rated using any hint or spoiler provided.
My proposed series will not have a 5/5 cache (I still find that extremely hard to justify on Dartmoor) but I do hope to have a 4.5/4.5, but I’m still struggling to envisage where that might be and what it might look like. Of course I have no little helpers to run up and down trees, so I will have to place it!
Many thanks for all your replies so far, please keep them coming.
It’s surprising that this cache keeps going, as Cosdon Hill is not my first choice for a nice little walk on the moor. In fact when I found this cache I wrote in my log “‘and although Cosdon looms large over you, the ascent is neither very steep nor as long as it looks.’ Well muddypuddles, I think I might disagree with this statement! I think this is a long and arduous climb up from the ford and the second time I have done it in the past few months.”
However, if I remember correctly, this cache is very close to a main path and wasn’t particularly well hidden, so possibly easily spotted by muggles. Adopting this huge and far flung series probably now seems a rather daunting task 😉
