River Deep Mountain High - Game Thread

fehrgo · Post by **fehrgo** » 05 May 07 11:47 am

Poor, poor David! I hope you at least enjoyed the climb!

fehrgo · Post by **fehrgo** » 05 May 07 12:32 pm

For #26, Queens land (GC8E) is so old it has no rating. How would that one be scored?

Post by **caughtatwork** » 05 May 07 1:05 pm

fehrgo wrote:For #26, Queens land (GC8E) is so old it has no rating. How would that one be scored?

That's a damn good question and one that I don't have an easy answer for.

From the description it's no longer a big bucket, so it's a small or regular. The walk to the cache is around 600-700m. In google earth and google maps there is a track only some 200m to the east of the cache, but I can't see the approach due to the tree cover. The terrain seems relatively flat albeit with a slight rise as you approach it's not a huge change in elevation. I presume that as it's in the bush the tree cover will not help you and your GPSr.

This cache http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... ?wp=GCYKN1 is relatively close to Queens Land and is marked a 1.5 / 2.

From this rating system http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/ I get a 2/2.5 or a 2/3 based on what I can see.

For the purpose of the game, we'll accept this as a 2/3. That way everyone who seeks the cache will have the same ratings applied.

Cached · Post by **Cached** » 05 May 07 3:32 pm

I've posted C@W's rating to the cache page, to alleviate confusion.

McPhan · Post by **McPhan** » 05 May 07 4:38 pm

I was just about to log Requirement 1 thinking that I had met the requirements. Now re-reading them I may have missed.

For the multi I was going to use you need to collect information from 12 seperate locations to be able to find the final GZ. Now that I've completed it I need to ask - is this eligible under requirement 1?

Cached · Post by **Cached** » 05 May 07 4:40 pm

Which cache? Or submit and then we'll look at it. If you've already found it, you might as well submit and we'll go from there.

McPhan · Post by **McPhan** » 05 May 07 4:42 pm

Ooops sorry. Lost French Tourist GCMKC3.

atlmum · Post by **atlmum** » 05 May 07 5:33 pm

clarification please, # 30 unloved cache. We out today and found GCMMN5. Looking in the log book another geocacher as found the cache in April 2007 but has not logged his find an Geocaching.com or Ceocaching.com.au is this still class as an unloved cache as there is on log entered?

McPhan · Post by **McPhan** » 05 May 07 6:34 pm

Cached wrote:Which cache? Or submit and then we'll look at it. If you've already found it, you might as well submit and we'll go from there.

If you say so.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 05 May 07 8:24 pm

atlmum wrote:clarification please, # 30 unloved cache. We out today and found GCMMN5. Looking in the log book another geocacher as found the cache in April 2007 but has not logged his find an Geocaching.com or Ceocaching.com.au is this still class as an unloved cache as there is on log entered?

An unloved cache is a cache that no-one loves enough to log online. The online logs are the only thing we have to determine whether someone loves a cache, so if you get your log in today, you will be logging an unloved cache and your claim will stand.

Bronze · Post by **Bronze** » 05 May 07 8:27 pm

atlmum wrote:clarification please, # 30 unloved cache. We out today and found GCMMN5. Looking in the log book another geocacher as found the cache in April 2007 but has not logged his find an Geocaching.com or Ceocaching.com.au is this still class as an unloved cache as there is on log entered?

Wasn't me.

president & 1st lady · Post by **president & 1st lady** » 05 May 07 8:48 pm

Bronze wrote:
atlmum wrote:clarification please, # 30 unloved cache. We out today and found GCMMN5. Looking in the log book another geocacher as found the cache in April 2007 but has not logged his find an Geocaching.com or Ceocaching.com.au is this still class as an unloved cache as there is on log entered?
Wasn't me.

You know, you were the first person who came to mind.

1st lady
Luv ya Bronze dude!

Facitman · Post by **Facitman** » 06 May 07 8:29 pm

Good Evening All

The Administrators would just like to draw everyone's attention to a particular rule of River Deep to Mountain High....

Caches for the game must be published before 00:00:01 1 May 2007 Australian Eastern Standard Time (AEST) unless the requirement clearly states an exception.

This is publish date not hidden date

There are a few juicy caches that were hidden before 1st May but published on the 1st May which are ineligible under this rule.

We wouldn't want you expending effort on caches that you won't be able to claim.

Peter

THENANKS · Post by **THENANKS** » 06 May 07 8:54 pm

Hi all RDMH administrators, I am now wondering if I am only able to log 19 caches because my other one was logged, approved and unapproved (and had my face rubbed in the fact that it was not eligible from

Fehrgo

). I am currently building the bridge to get over it but could you please clear up that question. Cheers Mr Nanks

Post by **caughtatwork** » 06 May 07 9:02 pm

THENANKS wrote:Hi all RDMH administrators, I am now wondering if I am only able to log 19 caches because my other one was logged, approved and unapproved (and had my face rubbed in the fact that it was not eligible from Fehrgo ). I am currently building the bridge to get over it but could you please clear up that question. Cheers Mr Nanks

You will still be able to claim 20 caches.
A claim which is disallowed is removed from the game completely, so you still have 20 slots to claim.

And if I were you I'd punch Fergho in the nuts

There have been 4 or 5 claims against caches which were hidden before the game started but not published until 1st May or later, so you're not alone. One player has had 75% of their claims disallowed under this rule.

The rule is quite clear and there is no way around it.