Help
tangerineman, on Apr 9 2008, 04:37 PM, said:
Holy caches, Batman.....check out the density of caches near this one...amazing.
Yep, no micros up there.
Tequila: 81 Proof Discussion of GC11PZW
#51
Posted 09 April 2008 - 07:34 PM
Yep, no micros up there.
#52
Posted 09 April 2008 - 07:34 PM
This has got me to update a couple of my caches to properly rate them. Of note to many people might be this one http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bc-437a3e43d8b8
which is now properly rated at 4/1.5
which is now properly rated at 4/1.5
#53
Posted 10 April 2008 - 02:25 AM
eelow&beelow, on Apr 9 2008, 07:34 PM, said:
This has got me to update a couple of my caches to properly rate them. Of note to many people might be this one http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bc-437a3e43d8b8
which is now properly rated at 4/1.5
which is now properly rated at 4/1.5
What was the previous rating?
Rule 4 specifically excludes changing the rating of an existing cache.
#54
Posted 10 April 2008 - 02:58 AM
Tequila, on Apr 10 2008, 03:25 AM, said:
eelow&beelow, on Apr 9 2008, 07:34 PM, said:
This has got me to update a couple of my caches to properly rate them. Of note to many people might be this one http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bc-437a3e43d8b8
which is now properly rated at 4/1.5
which is now properly rated at 4/1.5
What was the previous rating?
Rule 4 specifically excludes changing the rating of an existing cache.
It was a 4.5/3
#55
Posted 10 April 2008 - 04:21 AM
PLease do NOT start changing the ratings on your caches!!! This is just a game. If you made it a specific rating when you placed it, you must have had a reason. Leave it that way. Anything else is unfair to previous finders.
I have already received an email from someone who planned to find that cache this weekend because they needed the previous rating combo.
AGAIN. This is just a game.
I have already received an email from someone who planned to find that cache this weekend because they needed the previous rating combo.
AGAIN. This is just a game.
#56
Posted 10 April 2008 - 04:52 AM
I thought you said you "really dont care" and that you wouldn't be policing these things.. 
ya, thats what i thought
ya, thats what i thought
#57
Posted 10 April 2008 - 07:57 AM
Tequila, on Apr 10 2008, 06:21 AM, said:
I have already received an email from someone who planned to find that cache this weekend because they needed the previous rating combo.
But it was rated wrong, which breaks your other rule...
#58
Posted 10 April 2008 - 09:41 AM
Thanks Tequila for getting this one up and running. It should give a lot of cachers a new goal to strive for and finishing it will be an accomplishment no matter how long it takes.
As far as ratings go, how often have you turned a low rated cache into a higher rating because of your approach to GZ or because of the time of year that you decided to tackle the cache. A Difficulty 1.0 could be 5.0 if there is 3 feet of snow covering the area and it is hidden on the ground so why don't we get off the high horse about ratings and use the posted ratings as a guideline since we have nothing better.
Anyone up for going for the 5/5 can contact me as it looks like one that should not be done alone or just with the dog as company, which is how I usually cache.
Sorry for the rant but continuing on about ratings being a problem where there is none in this case ticked me off as I was reading through the thread.
Start a new thread on the subject if you want to discuss that topic.
As far as ratings go, how often have you turned a low rated cache into a higher rating because of your approach to GZ or because of the time of year that you decided to tackle the cache. A Difficulty 1.0 could be 5.0 if there is 3 feet of snow covering the area and it is hidden on the ground so why don't we get off the high horse about ratings and use the posted ratings as a guideline since we have nothing better.
Anyone up for going for the 5/5 can contact me as it looks like one that should not be done alone or just with the dog as company, which is how I usually cache.
Sorry for the rant but continuing on about ratings being a problem where there is none in this case ticked me off as I was reading through the thread.
Start a new thread on the subject if you want to discuss that topic.
#60
Posted 10 April 2008 - 03:44 PM
Got my count wrong last night, I have 26 to go, not 22 as I thought.
But I knocked 2 off my list today (2.5/4.5 and 4/3.5) both on the way home from work. It also made me do a cache that was on my closest to home list that I had been ignoring. I have 2 more planned for Sat., both puzzles that I finally sat down and figured out!
I love this idea for a cache, it will occupy my mind and body for most of the summer for sure!
24 to go........
But I knocked 2 off my list today (2.5/4.5 and 4/3.5) both on the way home from work. It also made me do a cache that was on my closest to home list that I had been ignoring. I have 2 more planned for Sat., both puzzles that I finally sat down and figured out!
I love this idea for a cache, it will occupy my mind and body for most of the summer for sure!
24 to go........
#61
Posted 11 April 2008 - 02:54 PM
Tequila, on Apr 8 2008, 04:47 PM, said:
So how close is everybody? I need 11.
I need 81
Tequila has brought something intended to be fun and challenging to Ontario that he saw elsewhere and I think that is commendable. It also was very enjoyable working with Tequila on this and he is right that reviewers would rather work with players to make their plans publishable instead of the alternative of not getting the cache listed. We are here to publish caches not find ways to decline them. If anyone has ideas that push the envelop or are outside the box then they should also discuss them with their local reviewer. We like seeing fun stuff too!
#62
Posted 13 April 2008 - 03:36 AM
Tequila, on Apr 10 2008, 04:21 AM, said:
PLease do NOT start changing the ratings on your caches!!! This is just a game. If you made it a specific rating when you placed it, you must have had a reason. Leave it that way. Anything else is unfair to previous finders.
I have already received an email from someone who planned to find that cache this weekend because they needed the previous rating combo.
AGAIN. This is just a game.
I have already received an email from someone who planned to find that cache this weekend because they needed the previous rating combo.
AGAIN. This is just a game.
Let me first state that I think this is a cool idea for a cache.. however..
As was stated, it was rated incorrectly. The previous version was a much tougher terrain rating but the latest version isn't near as difficult. So before you go accusing me of anything, I am simply updating my caches if they are incorrect and not to screw anyone up or cheat for anyone. it is only "unfair to previous finders" if I were to leave the way it was. it is now properly rated and if someone has a problem with that, then wouldn't they be cheating by wanting me to change it back? I thought I would do everyone a favour and change anything that was rated improperly now before things got in to swing.
Are you saying that because you have this cache now, cache owners aren't allowed to change their ratings to make them proper? If so, then I will add a simple note to my caches that state they are not valid for the 81 proof as I don't wish them to be included.
Your cache doesn't now make the rules for everyone elses caches.
This post has been edited by eelow&beelow: 13 April 2008 - 03:37 AM
#63
Posted 13 April 2008 - 06:51 AM
eelow&beelow, on Apr 13 2008, 03:36 AM, said:
Tequila, on Apr 10 2008, 04:21 AM, said:
PLease do NOT start changing the ratings on your caches!!! This is just a game. If you made it a specific rating when you placed it, you must have had a reason. Leave it that way. Anything else is unfair to previous finders.
I have already received an email from someone who planned to find that cache this weekend because they needed the previous rating combo.
AGAIN. This is just a game.
I have already received an email from someone who planned to find that cache this weekend because they needed the previous rating combo.
AGAIN. This is just a game.
Let me first state that I think this is a cool idea for a cache.. however..
As was stated, it was rated incorrectly. The previous version was a much tougher terrain rating but the latest version isn't near as difficult. So before you go accusing me of anything, I am simply updating my caches if they are incorrect and not to screw anyone up or cheat for anyone. it is only "unfair to previous finders" if I were to leave the way it was. it is now properly rated and if someone has a problem with that, then wouldn't they be cheating by wanting me to change it back? I thought I would do everyone a favour and change anything that was rated improperly now before things got in to swing.
Are you saying that because you have this cache now, cache owners aren't allowed to change their ratings to make them proper? If so, then I will add a simple note to my caches that state they are not valid for the 81 proof as I don't wish them to be included.
Your cache doesn't now make the rules for everyone elses caches.
...let the games begin...
! manually reviewed all 1800+ of my logs and find that I have 1 CITO and 20 D/T combinations to find.
Well done Chuck generating much more interest and discussion then visits!!
#64
Posted 13 April 2008 - 02:47 PM
eelow&beelow, on Apr 13 2008, 03:36 AM, said:
The previous version was a much tougher terrain rating but the latest version isn't near as difficult.
Your cache doesn't now make the rules for everyone elses caches.
Your cache doesn't now make the rules for everyone elses caches.
So what happens to the cachers who found your cache when it was more difficult and presumeably rated correctly? They now did the work to get the old rating but show the new lesser rating.
I don't make the rules for everyone caches. I simply stated that changing ratings for existing caches voids them for my cache. I think I do have that right. If you want to remove your caches from eligibility for Tequila: 81 Proof, that is your call.
#65
Posted 13 April 2008 - 06:30 PM
What I want is you to realize that I simply "fixed" my cache rating before people really started to rate their caches. I basically copied over my cache from another archived cache and didn't really change the terrain rating to reflect it when I did. So I simply corrected the mistake. If people thought it was a 3 terrain before I changed it they would probably tell you indeed it wasn't really.
I was simply changing it to the proper rating. If you want to void that cache for your requirements now that I have properly rated it, please go ahead. I don't see why since I am not changing to for anyone's benefit, I am not changing to circumvent the rules and I am not changing it to make it void.. I am simply, once again, changing it to the proper rating. Everyone who found this cache since it was put out has found it at the rating it currently sits at. The previous rating for terrain was mistakenly put in from a previous cache and is now corrected.
Man, I thought I was actually doing a favour to you and everyone else by correcting at the outset.
The other thing is that people change their terrains all the time based on winter and summer. It will be very hard to know and keep track if people use those for the list and it changes during the seasons.
I wonder if people should take a snapshot of the cache page with the rating and their log at the time for any caches that might change due to weather. Also, sometimes people are forced to change the location of a cache for whatever reason. Once it changes, the difficulty or terrain sometimes changes too.
Just some possible scenarios that you might encounter.
Hope I have made my objective clear though.
I was simply changing it to the proper rating. If you want to void that cache for your requirements now that I have properly rated it, please go ahead. I don't see why since I am not changing to for anyone's benefit, I am not changing to circumvent the rules and I am not changing it to make it void.. I am simply, once again, changing it to the proper rating. Everyone who found this cache since it was put out has found it at the rating it currently sits at. The previous rating for terrain was mistakenly put in from a previous cache and is now corrected.
Man, I thought I was actually doing a favour to you and everyone else by correcting at the outset.
The other thing is that people change their terrains all the time based on winter and summer. It will be very hard to know and keep track if people use those for the list and it changes during the seasons.
I wonder if people should take a snapshot of the cache page with the rating and their log at the time for any caches that might change due to weather. Also, sometimes people are forced to change the location of a cache for whatever reason. Once it changes, the difficulty or terrain sometimes changes too.
Just some possible scenarios that you might encounter.
Hope I have made my objective clear though.
#66
Posted 14 April 2008 - 04:20 AM
I have been asked if there is a requirement that all the 81 caches must be in Ontario.
The answer: NO. The caches can be anywhere in the world.
Obviously this adds some great dynamics to the challenge:
- FTF with only Ontario Caches
- FTF with only Canadian Caches
etc. etc.
The answer: NO. The caches can be anywhere in the world.
Obviously this adds some great dynamics to the challenge:
- FTF with only Ontario Caches
- FTF with only Canadian Caches
etc. etc.
#67
Posted 14 April 2008 - 08:36 AM
Hey Tequila, it is with deep regret that I inform you that I will not be able to complete Tequila 81 Proof. As a non-premium member it would be too difficult a task to track my D/T ratings if certain individuals choose to make page changes (based on weather of all things - insanity!!).
I salute your efforts in providing the geocaching community a truly unique challenge against the flow of lame caches/lame micros.
Cheers,
Barnie
I salute your efforts in providing the geocaching community a truly unique challenge against the flow of lame caches/lame micros.
Cheers,
Barnie
#68
Posted 14 April 2008 - 09:07 AM
I have all the caches in Ontario in my GSAK database as of the publish date of 81 Proof.
So don't worry about the 'insanity'. They can change the ratings all they want and it won't affect things.
You do have to build a bookmark and label each one with the rating that cache had. Beyond that, I don't think you need to do anything else at this point.
So don't worry about the 'insanity'. They can change the ratings all they want and it won't affect things.
You do have to build a bookmark and label each one with the rating that cache had. Beyond that, I don't think you need to do anything else at this point.
#69
Posted 14 April 2008 - 09:38 AM
Well, I need a CITO event, along with 26 D/T combinations, 23 of which have a 4.5 or 5 as one of the ratings. Big surprise there.
Just to provide a little more fodder for the 5/5 discussion, I look at the difficulty rating as being a combination of "how difficult is it to determine the actual coordinates", and "how difficult is it to find the cache once I get there". The distinction that I am making is that determining the actual coordinates doesn't just have to be solving a puzzle. For example, if I set up an unknown cache that requires finding a number of 1/1 micros in order to determine the coordinates, that doesn't seem too difficult. However, if you needed to find 400 of them, possibly spread over a very large area, I think that qualifies as being very difficult. I also believe that it would be difficult if it only required finding ten micros, if each one was rated 1/5.
I'm not looking for any concensus in my own personal thinking, but I'm merely suggesting that defining difficulty is not as straightforward as some have suggested. Having said that, I plan on completing a series this summer that will ultimately lead to giving me my 5/3.5 find ... and I WILL be able to sleep just fine at night.
Just to provide a little more fodder for the 5/5 discussion, I look at the difficulty rating as being a combination of "how difficult is it to determine the actual coordinates", and "how difficult is it to find the cache once I get there". The distinction that I am making is that determining the actual coordinates doesn't just have to be solving a puzzle. For example, if I set up an unknown cache that requires finding a number of 1/1 micros in order to determine the coordinates, that doesn't seem too difficult. However, if you needed to find 400 of them, possibly spread over a very large area, I think that qualifies as being very difficult. I also believe that it would be difficult if it only required finding ten micros, if each one was rated 1/5.
I'm not looking for any concensus in my own personal thinking, but I'm merely suggesting that defining difficulty is not as straightforward as some have suggested. Having said that, I plan on completing a series this summer that will ultimately lead to giving me my 5/3.5 find ... and I WILL be able to sleep just fine at night.
#70
Posted 15 April 2008 - 07:57 AM
AdventureRat, on Apr 14 2008, 09:38 AM, said:
Well, I need a CITO event, along with 26 D/T combinations, 23 of which have a 4.5 or 5 as one of the ratings. ...I plan on completing a series this summer that will ultimately lead to giving me my 5/3.5 find ... .
Ambitious! There is a CITO on Sunday this weekend in Barrie if you are interested.
I have 12 combinations remaining, and although I will be attempting to GET those caches, I seriously doubt i will be able to complete it anytime this year. They all seem to be far away and quite abstract...
I'm have the solution for a 5/3.5 that I am sitting on.. but again.. distance..
#71
Posted 15 April 2008 - 11:30 AM
According to one of the published rules, the cacher needs to have finds of caches placed before April 8th. So it appears that anyone needing a CITO would have to participate in one that was published before April 8th AND not yet held. Correct?
If correct, this one requirement may eliminate a lot of potential finders if they do not attend the upcoming Brampton or Barrie CITO events (assuming they were published before April 8th).
Tequila's legacy might be the oldest "not found" cache in Ontario
Will anyone be able to log this one?
If correct, this one requirement may eliminate a lot of potential finders if they do not attend the upcoming Brampton or Barrie CITO events (assuming they were published before April 8th).
Tequila's legacy might be the oldest "not found" cache in Ontario
Will anyone be able to log this one?
#72
Posted 15 April 2008 - 11:44 AM
Barnie's Band of Gold, on Apr 15 2008, 11:30 AM, said:
According to one of the published rules, the cacher needs to have finds of caches placed before April 8th. So it appears that anyone needing a CITO would have to participate in one that was published before April 8th AND not yet held. Correct?
I believe the cache page states that events and CITO's are exempt from that rule.
#73
Posted 15 April 2008 - 12:18 PM
Rule 3 allows you to log attends on Events and CITO held after the publish date. There is a restriction on the D/T for the Event/CITO but that shouldn't be a problem if the CITO isn't on top of Everest.
#74
Posted 16 April 2008 - 07:05 AM
******* First To Find Prize Pack *******
Courtesy of Landsharkz
I am thrilled to announced that Helen from Landsharkz has come forward, as promised, with a great FTF prize pack that includes:
- 2007 Gold Limited Edition British Columbia Geocoin, unactivated. This version of the coin was never available for sale. It is a beautiful coin feature Northwest Native sculpture and a cougar.
- Canadian Geocacher Cap
- Canadian Geocacher Lapel Pin
- Canada Micro Puck geocoin
- Canadian Geocacher lanyard
- Two "Official Canadian Geocache" decals for your next cache
A big THANK YOU to Helen and Landsharkz for their generosity.
I will keep this package and award it to the first confirmed FTF. Given its "Canadian" theme, I am going to limit this prize pack to the first Canadian to find the cache.
Tequila
Courtesy of Landsharkz
I am thrilled to announced that Helen from Landsharkz has come forward, as promised, with a great FTF prize pack that includes:
- 2007 Gold Limited Edition British Columbia Geocoin, unactivated. This version of the coin was never available for sale. It is a beautiful coin feature Northwest Native sculpture and a cougar.
- Canadian Geocacher Cap
- Canadian Geocacher Lapel Pin
- Canada Micro Puck geocoin
- Canadian Geocacher lanyard
- Two "Official Canadian Geocache" decals for your next cache
A big THANK YOU to Helen and Landsharkz for their generosity.
I will keep this package and award it to the first confirmed FTF. Given its "Canadian" theme, I am going to limit this prize pack to the first Canadian to find the cache.
Tequila
This post has been edited by Tequila: 16 April 2008 - 07:06 AM
#75
Posted 25 April 2008 - 08:53 AM
As is their perogative, the cache owner for GCX84E,
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&Submit6=Go
changes the rating from time to time depending on the season.
For the purposes of this Tequila:81 Proof cache, I have it 'officially' listed it as a 1.5/4.5 regardless of when it is found. If you chose to use this cache as your 1.5/4.5 please make a note in your bookmark.
If you have found more than one 1.5/4.5, please use another one as your find.
Thanks.
Hopefully there won't be too many of these cases.
I have a complete snapshot of Ontario as of the publish date of my cache and will use it for dispute resolution.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&Submit6=Go
changes the rating from time to time depending on the season.
For the purposes of this Tequila:81 Proof cache, I have it 'officially' listed it as a 1.5/4.5 regardless of when it is found. If you chose to use this cache as your 1.5/4.5 please make a note in your bookmark.
If you have found more than one 1.5/4.5, please use another one as your find.
Thanks.
Hopefully there won't be too many of these cases.
I have a complete snapshot of Ontario as of the publish date of my cache and will use it for dispute resolution.
#76
Posted 16 May 2008 - 07:41 AM
Tequila, on Apr 25 2008, 08:53 AM, said:
As is their perogative, the cache owner for GCX84E,
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&Submit6=Go
changes the rating from time to time depending on the season.
For the purposes of this Tequila:81 Proof cache, I have it 'officially' listed it as a 1.5/4.5 regardless of when it is found. If you chose to use this cache as your 1.5/4.5 please make a note in your bookmark.
If you have found more than one 1.5/4.5, please use another one as your find.
Thanks.
Hopefully there won't be too many of these cases.
I have a complete snapshot of Ontario as of the publish date of my cache and will use it for dispute resolution.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&Submit6=Go
changes the rating from time to time depending on the season.
For the purposes of this Tequila:81 Proof cache, I have it 'officially' listed it as a 1.5/4.5 regardless of when it is found. If you chose to use this cache as your 1.5/4.5 please make a note in your bookmark.
If you have found more than one 1.5/4.5, please use another one as your find.
Thanks.
Hopefully there won't be too many of these cases.
I have a complete snapshot of Ontario as of the publish date of my cache and will use it for dispute resolution.
Hello from Illinois, USA
A friend send me the Cache listing and I've been exploring the possabilities around here. With only ~800 finds, I have 50% of them. I plan to do some serious searches for the rest, and then make a trip to visit our Northern neighbor. Maybe a year or two from now.
For those discussing a 5/5 rating, check out GCQW0B
First solve the 16-digit Sudoko in elvish runes, then translate to english to get the coordinates. then use cliff climbing gear to get to cache.
Best of luck to all of you
#77
Posted 19 May 2008 - 05:59 PM
I'm off to Geowoodstock in California tomorrow, maybe I can clear a few off my list.
Binrat
Binrat
#78
Posted 08 June 2008 - 02:59 PM
Based on the audit log, it would appear that a select few cachers are aggressively working on this cache. One cacher has visited the site 50 times. 
#80
Posted 10 June 2008 - 07:45 AM
Tequila, on Jun 8 2008, 02:59 PM, said:
Based on the audit log, it would appear that a select few cachers are aggressively working on this cache. One cacher has visited the site 50 times. 
I know of 3 people aggressively searching for it, I am passively searching
.. but ahead of them!
This post has been edited by Juicepig: 10 June 2008 - 07:45 AM
#81
Posted 10 June 2008 - 08:05 AM
I've knocked off 1 cache on the list since the cache was published...here's what I got left including the closest to home of each one that I need...there's atleast 4 on the list that I know I'll never get...oh well.
#82
Posted 13 June 2008 - 09:33 AM
I know 3 people actively racking up the points, and about 5 that admit to passivley trying to reach the goal. I know who my money is on for the winner though!
#83
Posted 15 June 2008 - 08:55 AM
I am down to 11 but I can't find my own cache. So the pressure is off.
One cacher has less than 5 to do.
One cacher has less than 5 to do.
#84
Posted 15 June 2008 - 10:48 AM
res2100, on Jun 10 2008, 08:05 AM, said:
I've knocked off 1 cache on the list since the cache was published...here's what I got left including the closest to home of each one that I need...there's atleast 4 on the list that I know I'll never get...oh well.
I hate to tell you Ralph, but "Tour de Matchedash - Badlands" was published after April 8th, so you can't use it. Try "Fishy View" (GC15TZE) for your 4.5/5.
#85
Posted 21 June 2008 - 02:56 PM
Red90, on Apr 9 2008, 04:43 PM, said:
<snip>A "difficulty" 5 should have many DNFs. The only "nice" way to set one up is to make a very hard puzzle then put the cache at a hard to get to location.
How do you get DNF's when nobody has visited for so long?
I have a 4.5/5 that has been found once since it was placed. I have e-mails that say people have figured it out, but only one has made the attempt up til now, or at least nobody has posted a DNF.
Fishy View
#86
Posted 22 June 2008 - 05:32 PM
Team Magic, on Jun 21 2008, 02:56 PM, said:
you will notice 2 contenders visited you this weekend!
#87
Posted 22 June 2008 - 06:45 PM
Juicepig, on Jun 22 2008, 09:32 PM, said:
Team Magic, on Jun 21 2008, 02:56 PM, said:
you will notice 2 contenders visited you this weekend!
Yup! Both contacted me beforehand, and since I knew about this 81 challenge, was quite happy to help out without compromising the integrity of the cache.
BTW, I was also quite impressed with the caliber of both cachers search skills.
#88
Posted 23 June 2008 - 07:07 AM
Team Magic, on Jun 21 2008, 04:56 PM, said:
Red90, on Apr 9 2008, 04:43 PM, said:
<snip>A "difficulty" 5 should have many DNFs. The only "nice" way to set one up is to make a very hard puzzle then put the cache at a hard to get to location.
How do you get DNF's when nobody has visited for so long?
I have a 4.5/5 that has been found once since it was placed. I have e-mails that say people have figured it out, but only one has made the attempt up til now, or at least nobody has posted a DNF.
Fishy View
I stated a "difficulty" of 5, NOT a "terrain" of 5. They are completely separate things. People need to stop mixing them up.
#89
Posted 23 June 2008 - 03:21 PM
Red90, on Jun 23 2008, 11:07 AM, said:
I stated a "difficulty" of 5, NOT a "terrain" of 5. They are completely separate things. People need to stop mixing them up.
My mistake for assuming that my post could be understood by the masses.
#90
Posted 26 June 2008 - 11:47 AM
Tequila, on Apr 9 2008, 07:21 AM, said:
I have enough faith in humankind to go with the assumption that the cache owner made a best effort to put an appropriate rating on his/her cache and if it is wrong, then it was an honest mistake.
Comment and request about the "All finds (except the Event and CITO Events) must be on caches that were published BEFORE this cache (to avoid "dummy caches" being listed just to meet the requirements)" rule.
I am not actively pursuing the completion of this cache as I still have 31 combinations to go. But I would like to one day complete this cache as I really like the concept. But I believe this rule will prevent me from actually ever completing this cache.
For example, if I plan on finishing this cache 3 years from now by just randomly finding caches the way I have been doing up to now then I will surely be disqualified. There will surely be hundreds, if not thousands of new caches placed over the next three years while caches placed before April 08, 2008 will be disappearing due to muggles, archiving, etc, making this cache eventually impossible to complete.
I guess my request would be to remove this rule after say 5 of the actively pursuing cachers have completed the cache, or after the hype for this cache dies down a bit, or after 1 year,etc.
Most cachers I have met on the trails or at events wouldn't ever consider coordinating a fake cache to meet the requirements. And why fake a cache when you can just as easily write a fake "found it" log on a cache somewhere on the other side of the world just to meet the requirements.
I really think this rule penalizes honest cachers that want to be able to reach this milestone over time, and contradicts a previous comment that I totally agree with. (“I have enough faith in humankind to go with the assumption that the cache owner made a best effort to put an appropriate rating on his/her cache”)
#91
Posted 26 June 2008 - 12:46 PM
<CynicMode>
Have you considered that this cache may have been placed without any interest that it be found?
What a legacy to the owner to have a cache with possibly the longest time duration from "placed" to "found" - all the while being just a few kilometers from a million people. Of course a much larger legacy for the FTF!
</CynicMode>
This cache is indeed a huge challenge and certainly set up to address a very small minority of cachers. I don't think it will ever have the volume of visitors that most would expect from a placement but that makes it even more unique. In years to come we will measure cachers not be their numbers but by the completion of Tequila 81 Proof.
Have you considered that this cache may have been placed without any interest that it be found?
What a legacy to the owner to have a cache with possibly the longest time duration from "placed" to "found" - all the while being just a few kilometers from a million people. Of course a much larger legacy for the FTF!
</CynicMode>
This cache is indeed a huge challenge and certainly set up to address a very small minority of cachers. I don't think it will ever have the volume of visitors that most would expect from a placement but that makes it even more unique. In years to come we will measure cachers not be their numbers but by the completion of Tequila 81 Proof.
#92
Posted 26 June 2008 - 01:25 PM
Changing the rules adds a level of complexity to the cache. "Did you find it before or after he made the rules easier????" Kinda like using steroids to break Hank Aaron's home run record. I would have to put asterisks on peoples logs. 
Seriously, I am not sure archiving is that big of a problem. I have been caching for 7 years and only 16% of my finds have been archived, including events. And I suspect a lot of the archives are drive up micros that frequently don't have as long of a life expectancy.
So I don't think people will have trouble finding enough caches to complete the 81. And there is no requirement to find them all in Ontario. So the whole world awaits you.
On a really positive note, I have received all sorts fo compliments on this cache. My favourite is "Thanks for introducing me to the water again. I haven't really canoed or kayaked since I was a kid!" THAT is why I created this cache. To get cachers out going after hard to find caches. And it is definitely working.
As for my friend BBoG's comments, I am not interested in having a ton of people find this cache or any of my caches. For the most part, the people I want to find a cache of mine, will find it.....eventually. None of my caches, with the exception of GO Mount Joy, have many visitors. I consider it a compliment that my caches get bypassed when pack hunters come to town and find 2 dozen caches in an evening.
So I hope everyone understands that this cache is out there as a badge of honour for those who care about that sort of thing. And the ignore button is there for those that don't. Which probably includes me. I still need 11 and most of them are distant and require water navigation.
Tequila
Seriously, I am not sure archiving is that big of a problem. I have been caching for 7 years and only 16% of my finds have been archived, including events. And I suspect a lot of the archives are drive up micros that frequently don't have as long of a life expectancy.
So I don't think people will have trouble finding enough caches to complete the 81. And there is no requirement to find them all in Ontario. So the whole world awaits you.
On a really positive note, I have received all sorts fo compliments on this cache. My favourite is "Thanks for introducing me to the water again. I haven't really canoed or kayaked since I was a kid!" THAT is why I created this cache. To get cachers out going after hard to find caches. And it is definitely working.
As for my friend BBoG's comments, I am not interested in having a ton of people find this cache or any of my caches. For the most part, the people I want to find a cache of mine, will find it.....eventually. None of my caches, with the exception of GO Mount Joy, have many visitors. I consider it a compliment that my caches get bypassed when pack hunters come to town and find 2 dozen caches in an evening.
So I hope everyone understands that this cache is out there as a badge of honour for those who care about that sort of thing. And the ignore button is there for those that don't. Which probably includes me. I still need 11 and most of them are distant and require water navigation.
Tequila
#93
Posted 27 June 2008 - 01:14 PM
Tequila, on Jun 26 2008, 01:25 PM, said:
Seriously, I am not sure archiving is that big of a problem. I have been caching for 7 years and only 16% of my finds have been archived, including events. And I suspect a lot of the archives are drive up micros that frequently don't have as long of a life expectancy.
that just means that the cache will get harder and harder to find with time - Last person to find it should get all the praise, not the FTF.. you hear that PyschoCyco? You'll get none from me.. You should just stop trying!
#94
Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:20 AM
Juicepig, on Jun 27 2008, 01:14 PM, said:
that just means that the cache will get harder and harder to find with time - Last person to find it should get all the praise, not the FTF.. you hear that PyschoCyco? You'll get none from me.. You should just stop trying!
Do we have a bit of a competition going on here??
I noticed the 4.5/4.5 cache that pyschocyclist found last week and was interested in doing it since I'm often in that area. I then realized I didn't need the 4.5/4.5 but will be hitting this cache on one of my next couple visits to that area.
Keep up the difficulty Tequila - I want this cache to mean something when I do find it (perhaps several YEARS from now).
#95
Posted 03 July 2008 - 03:57 PM
Barnie's Band of Gold, on Jul 3 2008, 09:20 AM, said:
Do we have a bit of a competition going on here??
i dont have the capacity at the moment to get those last few stragglers... and yet... uhg.. frustration
#97
Posted 06 July 2008 - 01:31 PM
I'm planning a CITO event for a section of Erindale Park in Mississauga for the morning of July 12. I doubt that I'm the only person here who is regretting not going to that last CITO! Stay tuned for the listing to be published!
#98
Posted 06 July 2008 - 02:07 PM
psychocyclist, on Jul 6 2008, 01:31 PM, said:
I'm planning a CITO event for a section of Erindale Park in Mississauga for the morning of July 12. I doubt that I'm the only person here who is regretting not going to that last CITO! Stay tuned for the listing to be published!
you might have trouble getting an event cache published without 2 weeks notice...
That will give me some time to catch up.. kinda frustrating that everytime I get to a straggler cache my name is already in the log book...
This post has been edited by Juicepig: 06 July 2008 - 02:09 PM
#99
Posted 06 July 2008 - 02:56 PM
That is hilarious.
Pity you two are currently fighting for second place.
Pity you two are currently fighting for second place.
#100
Posted 06 July 2008 - 03:13 PM
Tequila, on Jul 6 2008, 02:56 PM, said:
That is hilarious.
Pity you two are currently fighting for second place.
Pity you two are currently fighting for second place.
I just want to dedicate my find to psychocyclist, and have it be the first thing he sees when he gets the logbook
