Loveland Area Caches Gone

General Information About Geocaching

Re: Loveland Area Caches Gone

Postby Bon Echo » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:29 pm

Not going to add too much to the above discussion except to comment on the benchmark cache type. It's not the same as waymarking, IMO it will be better. Two reasons:
1) every benchmark that can be listed will be listed exactly as it is - a benchmark. Not a US benchmark, not a Canadian benchmark, etc. It will be just benchmark. Do you know that there are US benchmarks on Canadian soil and vice-versa?
2) I will be able to load the listed benchmarks into my favorite geocaching app or handheld GPS and will see them along side all other geocaches. Don;t need to mess around with "GPX lite" files and trying to convert them using third-party software.
Bon Echo
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:39 pm

Re: Loveland Area Caches Gone

Postby TermiteHunter » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:58 am

That was highly interesting.

Just a few comments:
1) There was more than just the archival of caches involved in the departure event that made it clear this was something else.
2) I welcome the introduction of a more encompassing Bench Mark cache type
3) Few will be tempted to become members of OCNA if there are none to few caches nearby meaning there need to be caches listed whether found or not in order to give a new member something to start with, provide continued caching opportunities and encourage additional placement.
4) Unfound or rarely found caches are an enticing target for many cachers.
5) Unfound or not recently found caches are not an indication that they are abandoned
6) Yes, A CO should occasionally verify that "progress" or nature has not claimed the cache but then so too should cachers attempt to find these possibly lost caches and post logs accordingly to alert the listing service and CO's so that appropriate action can be taken.
7) Personal playground? More of a self imposed obligation.
8) OCNA is it's own site and not a dumping ground for rejected caches and cachers. We take on some different cache types as well as new ideas on what caching is or can be with a different and often more accepting view. Because we may accept a cache that would be declined on another site goes not mean that we are just taking the others trash but rather an indication that we are indeed our own site that is not held to another's arbitrary "rules"
User avatar
TermiteHunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: Loveland Area Caches Gone

Postby KnowsOpie » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:06 pm

TermiteHunter wrote:8) OCNA is it's own site and not a dumping ground for rejected caches and cachers. We take on some different cache types as well as new ideas on what caching is or can be with a different and often more accepting view. Because we may accept a cache that would be declined on another site goes not mean that we are just taking the others trash but rather an indication that we are indeed our own site that is not held to another's arbitrary "rules"


And the newest traditional cache OU0A2F just published here is 360 feet from an existing cache published on GC.com by a new member that just joined this site.

I'm telling you as a customer that uses this service this is too common here, and we all know that listing was first rejected by Groundspeak and ended up here.

One person banned from the GC forums listed caches here just a few days later.

I joined OCNA in 2010 because I thought it was a great listing service and really had potential.
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Loveland Area Caches Gone

Postby KnowsOpie » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:38 pm

Bon Echo wrote:Not going to add too much to the above discussion except to comment on the benchmark cache type. It's not the same as waymarking, IMO it will be better.


Hopefully we can have a thread to discuss the new Benchmark cache types. Better than Waymarking? I don't think so, but I'm interested in seeing how they will work on OCNA. ;)
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Loveland Area Caches Gone

Postby TermiteHunter » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:04 pm

Manville Possum Hunters wrote:
TermiteHunter wrote:8) OCNA is it's own site and not a dumping ground for rejected caches and cachers. We take on some different cache types as well as new ideas on what caching is or can be with a different and often more accepting view. Because we may accept a cache that would be declined on another site goes not mean that we are just taking the others trash but rather an indication that we are indeed our own site that is not held to another's arbitrary "rules"


And the newest traditional cache OU0A2F just published here is 360 feet from an existing cache published on GC.com by a new member that just joined this site.

I'm telling you as a customer that uses this service this is too common here, and we all know that listing was first rejected by Groundspeak and ended up here.
.



First you assume this was a rejected cache from GC simply based on the distance to another GC cache. Could be but there is plenty of room to move this type of cache for GC approval if that is what they wanted. Yes they are a new member to OCNA but I looked for them on GC too and didn't find a matching name. A near match also had no finds or hides. I also looked at the nearest caches and found no log for a similar name. Most cachers maintain some similarity if not an exact match to their GC name when joining another site.

So what if it was rejected by GC? Does that make it automatically a bad, unacceptable, poor quality cache? What makes that .1 mile distance so magical?
If you didn't know GC existed this cache would be fine.
I have placed a fair share of OCNA caches in a densely GC populated park. They are placed well within the .1 mile distance from each other and the other GC caches. They were never submitted to or rejected by GC.

Consider this as well, we routinely check to see how close an OCNA cache is to a known GC cache (and TC and Navicache when the function worked) so as not to encroach too closely or cause confusion. GC has never and will likely never do the same for one of our existing caches.
We had a cache locally here listed on OCNA that was in a park at the end of a 15-20' foot bridge.
A few months later the CO begins to get logs that don't quite match and we find that GC has published one on the other end of the bridge.
You would have never considered that the GC cache had been a rejected OCNA cache which it would have been had it been submitted to us.
User avatar
TermiteHunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: Loveland Area Caches Gone

Postby KnowsOpie » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:46 pm

I'm just a member here, not a site admin or moderator like most of you here in this thread. I used to look at OCNA as a business, and I offered several different cache types here for their customers. When OCNA became what I see as a dump site, and maintaince free traditional caches with photo logging requirements were allowed I archived most of my listings here.

I have recently added one web cam cache to OCNA because there are other OCNA listings in the area.

I would not even be posting here in your forums if I still did not have interests in this site, and Saberfan7 was out of line with their post about me and that effects how I feel about OCNA because they are a site moderator. I'm not a team member here anymore, I'm just a customer that has interest in using your listing service.

I don't think that OCNA would reject a listing for any reason, but I do see a problem with pissing off potential customers and long standing members here.
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Loveland Area Caches Gone

Postby TermiteHunter » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:25 pm

I'll agree with you that Saberfan7 went too far. I wouldn't like it if it were me on the receiving end though he is expressing a view I have heard among "just regular member" s about the event in person,

Some do come here after rejection of a cache elsewhere, what's wrong with that?
If a cache is rejected on one site it doesn't mean that all sites would or should reject it.
Each site is their own and it is their decision.

I don't think that OCNA would reject a listing for any reason,
WRONG. I know you don't see them now but there are several in the "pending" list that were declined simply due to proximity to other caches listed elsewhere and possible confusion. Since you were last looking at them there are a few (but then we don't get that many anyway as you know) that were flat out rejected and not over how close they are to other caches.

What is the objection to a "photo only" cache. It proves you were there better than an un-checked signature log and some locations would not permit a traditional cache. If it is a "traditional" then there is a container and a log to sign. Again this is an alternative cache on an alternative site with different rules.

Granted THEY are the big players here in Geocaching but they are not the only game in town. We are our own site with our own policies. They don't even think of checking their listings against us but we check ours against theirs as a result of their dominance. You want us to be our own site yet seem to hold us to accommodating their policies and if a dissatisfied "customer" of theirs explores our site they are relegated to being rejects of the other.

You had some great caches listed here. I challenge you to bring them back and wait for finds after doing all you can to encourage finds of those caches rather than pulling them after an extended period of disuse. Cachers seeking alternative sites have few options and fewer opportunities once they find us if there are no caches to find near them. Provide them with that opportunity. Caching in general seems to be on the decline (to me anyway) but if they are looking around for an alternative, the lack of caches from any alternative site limits any chance of them giving any of them a try (us or any other).

I have a majority of the OCNA caches in Charlotte. They sit idle MUCH of the time but occasionally I get a log on one or several from someone that is first trying out the site. Usually this occurs when I introduce myself to a new cacher directly or am involved in a local contest that utilizes all caching sites. Do I need to check on my caches? Sure, when opportunity or a question arises just as I do with my others. I want them to be available if and when someone decides to give them a try.

You found my Futuro Spaceship at the Carolina coast. Things have changed at the site dramatically since I listed it including the addition of a GC traditional cache placement. At last look I could not confirm you were there. A photo is required since this is a virtual. None was included at the time of logging. Now it comes down to the discretion of the CO. What am I to do? delete the find? wait for a photo and check back? compare your log date to that of the other guys?
My choice, huh?
Your log is still there isn't it?
The CO has a part to play in this too. A photo verifies the find of something unique with no container (on this site)
I'm not asking for a deletion. I don't want one but I would like a photo if for no other reason than for my own personal comparison of the current status of the newly painted and re-situated Futuro.

Stick around, don't abandon OCNA
List caches here for future finders regardless of when they start to look
Offer suggestions
Don't bash the site for not being GC
Use it for what it is, a site with alternative options
Allow OCNA to be OCNA without comparison to others

You have a view of geocaching. It may not always correspond to what we or any other site does, that does not mean they are entirely wrong nor are you.
Accept it and play along with the parts you like on each.
It's just a game
User avatar
TermiteHunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: Loveland Area Caches Gone

Postby KnowsOpie » Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:35 am

TermiteHunter wrote:You found my Futuro Spaceship at the Carolina coast. Things have changed at the site dramatically since I listed it including the addition of a GC traditional cache placement. At last look I could not confirm you were there. A photo is required since this is a virtual. None was included at the time of logging. Now it comes down to the discretion of the CO. What am I to do? delete the find? wait for a photo and check back? compare your log date to that of the other guys?
My choice, huh?
Your log is still there isn't it?
The CO has a part to play in this too. A photo verifies the find of something unique with no container (on this site)
I'm not asking for a deletion. I don't want one but I would like a photo if for no other reason than for my own personal comparison of the current status of the newly painted and re-situated Futuro.


I really would have liked to upload my visit photo of your virtual there on OBX, and believe me I have tried. Am I really the only person that has a problem resizing images to upload to this site? I did manage to resize and upload one for my web cam.

That is the reason I did not request photo proof with my web cam there at Hatteras Lighthouse and instead used the code phrase option. I recall that during your review you questioned my coordinates near the parking area, but if you go back now and look you can see where I got my logging code information.

No, I'm not done with OCNA and I did not quit as a team member or cache reviewer. I was told by Mr. Yuck that I had quit because that is what he assumed when I archived my listings here. Many of those had been active more than three years, not no stinking two weeks.

If I were in Charolette, I would look for your OCNA listings because I know that you are an active member here, and I totally agree with you that if we don't place and maintain our listings here there is nothing to offer new members except a listing service to hide a geocache. I would like to find a few, not just list them here.
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Loveland Area Caches Gone

Postby Mr.Yuck » Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:57 am

Manville Possum Hunters wrote:
TermiteHunter wrote:8) OCNA is it's own site and not a dumping ground for rejected caches and cachers. We take on some different cache types as well as new ideas on what caching is or can be with a different and often more accepting view. Because we may accept a cache that would be declined on another site goes not mean that we are just taking the others trash but rather an indication that we are indeed our own site that is not held to another's arbitrary "rules"


And the newest traditional cache OU0A2F just published here is 360 feet from an existing cache published on GC.com by a new member that just joined this site.

I'm telling you as a customer that uses this service this is too common here, and we all know that listing was first rejected by Groundspeak and ended up here.

One person banned from the GC forums listed caches here just a few days later.

I joined OCNA in 2010 because I thought it was a great listing service and really had potential.


You must mean knowschad out of Minnesota. I can explain that. He was the 4th person (that we know of) given a lifetime ban by Mr. Hotshot. Yeah, knowschad is just such an evil entity. :D

The story goes, I belong to a private, invitation only forum for people who were sick of The Great One, AKA Keystone, and the Groundspeak forums. No, it's not just the evil banees, and it was started around 2011 (I was banned in 2015). It's not just for Geocaching, and as a matter of fact, Geocaching is just one little sub forum. So anywho, I was pretty damn excited when we found our new web hosting company, Kickassd, and they successfully transferred the site over. A little known fact is that I had just tried getting the site transferred over to a different web hosting company, and they failed miserably. A site transfer was never gonna happen, plus they charged me 50 bucks (I got it refunded). So I started an "OpenCaching is now Kickassd" thread over there. People congratulated me, and had a bunch of questions. Next thing you know, knowschad and three other people decided to list a bunch of caches here. I will not name the other three, because you never know if The Great One or Mr. Hotshot is watching. :o
ImageImage
User avatar
Mr.Yuck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2029
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:09 pm
Location: Buffalo, N.Y.

Re: Loveland Area Caches Gone

Postby Mr.Yuck » Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:15 pm

Manville Possum Hunters wrote:
TermiteHunter wrote:You found my Futuro Spaceship at the Carolina coast. Things have changed at the site dramatically since I listed it including the addition of a GC traditional cache placement. At last look I could not confirm you were there. A photo is required since this is a virtual. None was included at the time of logging. Now it comes down to the discretion of the CO. What am I to do? delete the find? wait for a photo and check back? compare your log date to that of the other guys?
My choice, huh?
Your log is still there isn't it?
The CO has a part to play in this too. A photo verifies the find of something unique with no container (on this site)
I'm not asking for a deletion. I don't want one but I would like a photo if for no other reason than for my own personal comparison of the current status of the newly painted and re-situated Futuro.


I really would have liked to upload my visit photo of your virtual there on OBX, and believe me I have tried. Am I really the only person that has a problem resizing images to upload to this site? I did manage to resize and upload one for my web cam.

That is the reason I did not request photo proof with my web cam there at Hatteras Lighthouse and instead used the code phrase option. I recall that during your review you questioned my coordinates near the parking area, but if you go back now and look you can see where I got my logging code information.

No, I'm not done with OCNA and I did not quit as a team member or cache reviewer. I was told by Mr. Yuck that I had quit because that is what he assumed when I archived my listings here. Many of those had been active more than three years, not no stinking two weeks.

If I were in Charolette, I would look for your OCNA listings because I know that you are an active member here, and I totally agree with you that if we don't place and maintain our listings here there is nothing to offer new members except a listing service to hide a geocache. I would like to find a few, not just list them here.


Three years, two weeks, who's counting? Just kidding. Injecting some humor into the situation. By the way, I **will** still try to recover that post. Out of town yesterday, but I am actually off work today.

It is true I (we) assumed you quit after the archivals. But what really made us think you were done forever was the acceptance of all caches in the que that were well known to all admins to not be ready. One example I know for sure was a webcam in Ontario that went down like the day the guy submitted it, and remained down for several months. It is now published, by the way. That was a pretty vindictive "screw you guys" act. And all in the context of all your arguing in our private forums that "we will accept anything".
ImageImage
User avatar
Mr.Yuck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2029
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:09 pm
Location: Buffalo, N.Y.

PreviousNext

Return to Geocaching

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron