I agree, Michael. Two weeks is ridiculous and all the work you did was wasted. It is really frustrating to go after something in a cache and it isn't there. I've been surprised by how many logs I see in my cache's logs that are not posted online. How hard can it be, after all (especially for a traveller, that effects other people!) since the people had to log on to the geocaching website to get the coords in the first place! I picked up a traveller about three weeks ago here in Prescott, and since I knew I'd be going to Reno (today) for a week, I planned to put it up there to move it along. But I posted a note to that effect, to let everyone know I had it and it wouldn't be placed right away. peace, ~~trisha "Lightning" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Baja Fleg" To: Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:12 PM Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] What do you think of this idea? > Tell me about it. That locutus thing really got to me when I was in Austin. > Story goes I went searching for it on a multi-stage cache that I really > didn't have time to complete and did't know the area well enough to do but > spent a week of my three week business trip/geocaching trip figuring it out > just so I could get this travel thing and bring it back to Phoenix in > February. Well I finally solved this multi-stager only to find the stupid > thing was gone and had been gove for TWO WEEKS!!! The nice people who moved > it didn't log it on the geocaching.com website, they only put it in the log > book. Because I usually don't read all the logs in the log books I didn't > know that until I got a nasty email from them in response to the MIA post > that I put on the Locutus cache page. Now it looks like it made it to > Phoenix after all only to have the same thing happen. > These traveling caches and travel bugs with there own pages only work if the > people log them when they find them. If people wait and log them when they > feel like it then people like me (who lets people know what I think of them > when I get nasty emails) gets a little upset ;). If people find these > things they should respect the other cachers that might go looking for it > enough that they post that they have taken them or re-hid them ASAP, no > exceptions. > > Michael > Team TJ > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "Scott Nicol" > Reply-To: az-geocaching@listserv.snaptek.com > To: az-geocaching@listserv.snaptek.com > Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] What do you think of this idea? > Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:16:38 -0800 > > HHHMMM. > > I like it and I don't like it. I like the concept behind the moving cache. > Sounds like fun. What I dont like about it is the fact that several other > cachers could go looking for it before the last finder can get to a computer > to log the find. I have seen many caches around here that have had several > visits in one day. Usually, each time a find is had, it usually doesnt get > posted until later that day or even that night. I sometimes will get a cache > while driving across town or whatever and will not get to log it until I get > home. That could be several hours or all day. > > We went up to the Payson area last weekend and didnt log those finds until > nearly midnight that night. > > So, with that said.. I dont like it. I don't like the idea of going after a > cache and not finding it simply because it isn't there. > > There is a travel bug/cache here in PHX called Locutus of Borg. I guess, > from what I can tell, it is a travel bug that is displayed on geocaching.com > as a cache. Once the last cacher finds it, they log it and the coords of the > next cache it is placed in becomes the new coords and thus the new cache. (I > think this is how geocaching.com used to move travel bugs and now TB's have > their own pages). The reason I bring this cache up is because it is > currently not active. Yet, still shows up as a cache that is available for a > find (it is in papago park and is the present site of the Sign of the Past > cache). The last finder apparently didn't place the travel bug in another > cache. Either that, or they didnt post that they did place it in another > cache. Once placed elsewhere, that 'cache' location should archive. It hasnt > as of yet. > > The same thing could happen with this traveling cache. It could sit in > someone's hands for a while and not be logged. In the meantime, other > cachers are going looking for something that isn't there. > > It is kinda like the Wyle E operative TB's. You see it posted in a cache and > so you go to that cache hoping to get the TB. Unfortunately, someone already > got to it before you could. All is not lost though, there is still a cache > there to log into (unless you have already been to that cache, I guess). I > have not gone after a Wyle operative yet. I am waiting until one is placed > in a cache I havent found yet. I might then quickly go out and try and get > it and log another new find. I don't want to go back to a cache I have > already been to (unless it is right near my house). (I do think that the > Wyle A B C D Operatives are a cool idea for getting the clues for a cache!). > > Otherwise, the idea of the cache sounds like a fun new idea. Worth a try? I > guess so. Everything has to have a first try. The one good thing about this > traveling cache is that the same person can continually find it and thus log > another cache find! (however, is it possible someone could hide it and then > 'find' it again next and keep logging finds?!) Perhaps we can watch this > cache and see how it progresses. > > Scott > Team Ropingthewind > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com > > _______________________________________________ > Az-Geocaching mailing list > Az-Geocaching@listserv.snaptek.com > http://listserv.snaptek.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching >