| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dances With Beehives
Geocacher
Joined: 12 Sep 2003
Posts: 671
Location: Chaska
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Besides, I wouldn't assume that only a handful will find them. |
Sorry to say Rogheff, maybe less than a handful.
As an example, "Lizard Cache”, located in the Richard T. Anderson conservation area, (which you are familiar with) was posted to that site only, on September 18, 2005. In the 2.5 years since, it has had only two finders.
A few of us were into double posting for a while back then, in an attempt to get caches approved in a more timely manner. I think most of us quit the practice when Minnesota finally got it's own approver. Unless you know something I don’t, I wouldn’t count on many, (if any) visitors.
_________________
...formerly 'dachebo'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rogheff
Geocacher
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 18
Location: Kenosha/Nashwauk
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's my take on that 528' rule. I've had geocaches denied because they were 488' away from an existing cache. A harbor seperated the two. You really can't confuse the two.
I didn't mean to imply that 528' wasn't a good rule, and I wouldn't intentionally place caches every 50' because there's no rule against it. My point is that should i find a wonderful location 347' away from an existing geocache, I can simply place a Navicache or Terracache and go home happy.
As for the numbers of navicaches exiting in Minnesota at this partucular moment in time, I ask this simply question...how many caches were in Minnesota at the beginning of GC.com?
I completely understand the GC stats situation,. It clearly is about the numbers for a huge percentage of the caching community, and hey-that's fine.
Listen folks, I never meant to start this thread as a Navi vs Geo competition. I simply meant to let you know there's other options out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rogheff wrote: |
| how many caches were in Minnesota at the beginning of GC.com? |
Just so you know, Navicache started quite some time ago so it's not like it's a new service.
It just hasn't been updated at all in the 5 years I've been caching and geocaching.com is far more popular.
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northtrekker
Geocacher
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a suggestion..
If you do a search on Navicache under the 55746 zipcode, many caches
will come up that are no longer listed on geocaching.com. Reason being,
those caches no longer exist. They were "closed" on the geocaching.com
website but never closed on the navicache website. Just a suggestion to
cross reference any caches listed on navicache with the g.com site before
you go out searchin' and trekkin' through the snow. Geocaching.com is
the accurate listing (from what I can tell).
~nt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rogheff
Geocacher
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 18
Location: Kenosha/Nashwauk
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I also know of numerous cross caches that were archived on GC.com and remain soley as Navicaches - and are in place.
I know that Navicache and GC.com are roughly the same age and I understand all the preferences that people have for searching their caches.
Again - other options, that's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marsha and Silent Bob
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 6261
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rogheff wrote: |
| I know that Navicache and GC.com are roughly the same age and I understand all the preferences that people have for searching their caches. |
Cool, just wanted to be clear -- carry on 
_________________
Sad state of affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
User list
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
