paleolith

Hey Ed (we've talked before), I don't doubt it. If gc.com could link to topozone instead of terraserver, that would be great. Would the cost be worth the advertising to you? I have no idea. Thanks to the various reponses, even though they basically all say "don't waste your time trying to fix terraserver". Edward

Neat pics! Thanks for posting them. Fire is renewal; getting to see the early stages is rare. You mentioned extreme heat. Actually if any part of the plant remains above ground, however charred, then it wasn't a terribly hot fire. These fires were very fast moving and therefore not particularly hot. Plenty hot enough to kill animals, including humans, of course. But a really hot fire would reduce absolutely everything to white ash even with more moisture, and it didn't. My only surprise about the caches is how much you found -- another indication of fast moving fires. On the ammo boxes, was the rubber seal intact, or does it need replacing? I have several ammo boxes in fire-prone areas and have wondered whether the seal and contents would survive the next fire. Edward

OK, I take the lack of response to mean that this is probably a problem with a specific topo quad. How do I initiate a problem report, since there's no response here? I realize that it's likely to require a secondary report to Terraserver and waiting for them to fix it. Edward

Tell us not only what OS and browser, but also the exact versions, and whether you have installed all available updates. Also check that you have JavaScript enabled. I also find that once I've displayed a map with a few hundred caches, everything goes to hell. Even if I then zoom in to a map that has only a couple of caches, all actions take forever. Also, even if I exclude most cache types (say only display virtual and mystery), the JS code still displays the icons for all caches and then erases the unwanted ones, resulting in actually taking MORE time! But that does not appear to be the OP's problem. Edward

The new topo map option is GREAT. Only problem is ... a few caches are badly misplaced. I'm looking at some which are roughly 200m from where they show on the topos. This is too far even to be a matter of NAD27 vs WGS84. G9BD7 Mugu Peak is one example. It is on top of Mugu Peak, not 250' vertical down the slope where it's marked on the topo. Nearby caches GC99D2 and GCYV89 are displaced about the same horizontal distance, roughly 200m, in the same direction (approximately south). (I have found the first two, and the locaton of the third is clear from Google Maps and Google Earth.) GCGYY9 is also badly displaced, though possibly not as much -- but it is definitely up on Mugu Rock and not on the beach as shown. Perhaps 20 miles away, on a different topo quad, G2673 appears to be placed perfectly. In fact, I think the only problems I've seen are on the Point Mugu quad. GC157PB, just a few miles away, is fine -- but it's on a different quad, Triunfo Pass. So perhaps Terraserver is serving up bad location data for the Point Mugu quad? How would one track that down? I'm using Opera 9.21 under WinXP, but this looks like a data problem, not a rendering problem. Edward

Here's a proposal: When archiving a cache, an entry would be required giving the reason: not allowed, inappropriate, removed, orphaned, other. Of course the web page would explain more fully. All but not-allowed would show up in a search for archived caches. Perhaps not-allowed would show up with munged coordinates which only place it within, say, a mile. (While there are some valid arguments for allowing fully responsible people to search for not-allowed, the negatives in terms of displaying something thought to have been removed are larger.) When attempting to place a cache, a not-allowed archived would show up as close to the new cache if within 0.1 mile, just like an active cache. Reviewers would determine whether it is also a problem. While this is potentially an additional task for the reviewers, it would probably save them even more time by showing potential problems quickly and easily. "Inappropriate" would be for smaller scale problems, such as being on the wrong side of a wall, and so would not show up as proximate to a new cache. The "orphaned" category would aid in searching for geolitter. The "removed" category would be useful to those interested in former cache sites. I can't think of a reason for "other", but if it's not included, then someone will find a reason. Well, that was my idea for the day. Now I can go to sleep. Edward

One reason I don't use them much is that the icons are so cryptic. If I had an option to show the attributes as a text list, I might find them more useful. There are good uses and bad uses of icons, and this is a bad use. I just noticed that hovering over the icon now gives a clue, but that's still a pain. OTOH, I tend to spend some time investigating caches before I go out looking, so mostly I go beyond a simple attribute list anyway. I have tried to include them on the caches I've placed, but as mentioned above, since I don't have a dog I don't tend to be aware of whether dogs are allowed. Watching what people are doing doesn't help, since a lot of people bring dogs where they are not allowed. For some caches I tried looking up regulations on the web but could not find them. Someone who wants to take a dog caching should assume that the lack of dogs or no-dogs attribute means that the hider didn't know or didn't care. Edward

Obviously you've never used a PO box. If you send sig-required mail to a PO box, the box user receives a notice in the box, takes the notice to a PO employee at the counter, signs and receives mail. All in all, the PO box route is quite a bit safer. To get the notice, the recipient has to use the PO box key -- a physical security token. Then he/she has to sign at a PO counter where there are probably security cameras. OTOH, when delivering to a door, anyone can sign for it, no ID requested, unless you pay for "recipient only" signature, and there's no witness except the mail carrier. There are two reasons (that I know of) that you see "no PO boxes". One is from merchants who use a limited range of shippers which does not include the USPS. The other is in cases where the sender is concerned about identity, for example worried that a thief might intercept the communication, direct a payment to a PO box, and disappear into thin air. Neither applies in this case -- if you get email via gc.com from the logged-on user, that's good enough. Might not be good enough for $50,000 but it's good enough for $50. However, for those concerned about discrimination, note that the OP did also offer to send the prize by PayPal. Edward (who lived in a rural area for about 20 years)

DIStorm says I will log a DNF only after a thorough search. But even this is putting too fine a grain on it. What if I searched thoroughly, but I was tired and the light was failing? What if I searched thoroughly but hadn't brought the description with me? There's absolutely no way that you can "be reasonably sure the cache is missing" unless you've found it before or communicated with someone who has. I've read way too many DNF logs from experienced cachers that say "I'm pretty sure it's missing" followed the next day by a find. DNF logs per se don't discourage me. They just indicate to me that I should read the log entry. Heck, my first FTF had been DNF-ed half a dozen times by experienced cachers. That just whetted my appetite, but the text of the logs gave me ideas on where to look. (There was an error in the listing.) I have used "post a note". For example, there was a field I didn't want to walk across under the circumstances, and so didn't get within 100 yards of the cache. I posted a "didn't look for it" note. If I were doing it again, I might use a DNF. At that point it's a judgement call. I continue to agree with the others here: DNF logs provide useful information, and the only sufficiently simple criterion is "sought it and didn't find it". Edward

And I'll drive my car down the freeway throwing 35mm film canisters out the window every 0.1 miles... BRILLIANT!!! BRILLIANT!!! Just make sure you have good coords for where they land. Good coordinates? Why buck tradition? Edward

Your example is much better than mine -- thanks. I picked Half Dome mostly due to its iconic status. I don't think they forgot. They know very well from experience that repetition works. People remember things better which they hear more than once -- probably especially true of regulations, which almost all of us would rather tune out. Also, some people are likely to ask "what are the rules on geocaching" without first reviewing all the other rules. The NPS could tell people "get anal and read all the other regs first" or they could provide a summary of the points they feel are most likely to be issues. It seems to me they have chosen the more practical course. The document is very explicit in only addressing recreational use, and even explains that it does not attempt to cover all recreational uses. I haven't visited either, but neither looks to me like a physical cache container was placed on NPS property. Grand Canyon sounds like an equipment locker or shed in which the "cache developer" placed a log book. IOW, I interpret the statment "was originally constructed BY the NPS and is maintained BY the NPS" to mean not that the NPS placed a cache container but rather that an existing and continuing NPS structure was used to house the cache log. Good method, seems to me, when applicable, but not a precedent for a physical cache. Wolf Trap is a multi, and from reading the logs it appears that the final, physical cache is on the other side of the Dulles Freeway, not in the park. I've seen a few like this (such as one or two in the San Gorgonio Wilderness), and I imagine there are a lot more. Again, seems like a good method to me but not a precedent. Edward

Here's another example of why you should log DNFs, especially as a newbie. Look at September 2 on this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt= A newbie (slightly fewer finds than me, which I think is the definition) logged a DNF. Because I live a couple of blocks from the cache and have it on my watchlist, I dropped by and checked on it, finding it in good condition. I corresponded with the newbie, who came back and found the cache and enjoyed it and got contact with another cacher out of it too, and I enjoyed the correspondence too. Edward

Looking through a Lee Valley catalog recently, I noticed these Mini Containers: http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=...amp;cat=1,43326 They look very similar to the aluminum cylinders sold as geocache containers but at a fraction of the cost, about $1 each. Any experience with them? Probably not as good in some respect as the geocache containers, and the colors offered are not exactly camouflage. But if they are truly waterproof, it seems they would make good containers. I'll probably never hide a micro, so I'll have to let someone else be the judge ... Edward

I assume you refer to the fact that geocaching.com no longer allows virtual caches to be placed. However, the policy as quoted is carefully worded to avoid any tie to gc.com and to allow publication of caches on any public web site. Thus a virtual posted on Waymarking.com would be covered by this policy. And thus mentioning virtual caches is not a no-op. Edward

DNF logs can do various things: -- inform the cache owner of possible problems, including a missing cache -- inform the cache owner and future seekers that the cache is more difficult than expected -- inform everyone that people are interested in the cache -- give you a chance to tell your story of the day -- provide a record of who has sought the cache and why -- let people know that you are honest about your failed attempts, making it more likely that they will take you seriously when you say something is really wrong Some people get the impression that the only reason to log a DNF is the first item in the list. That just ain't so. Most cache owners do not equate DNF to "I think it's missing", and you should not make this mistake with the caches you hide. When I log a DNF, I try to include some information about my attempt. If it was late in the day and getting dark and I was tired and only looked for a couple of minutes, I say so. If conditions were great and I looked for half an hour but it was only the third cache I'd sought, I say so. If others have posted thoughts on a possible missing cache, I add to that if I can. Etc. Put my DNF in context and provide information ... either about the cache or about me. Edward

Almost all the misconceptions (Snoogans' word) I see are here in this forum, often backed by partial quoting of the NPS document which skews or even reverses its meaning. To me, the document is very positive to geocaching: it allows local superintendents to set their own policy and encourages them to allow geocaching as long as they meet the other goals set out for them. Cardinal Red quotes the sentence Park managers who wish to allow GPS activities will be most likely to find virtual caching an appropriate form of enjoyment. This is the only sentence in the document where I see a misconception, specifically the misconception that virtual caching is a general substitute for physical caching. Isonzo Karst says Pity it's so negative re geocaching. I don't see that at all. the assumption that caches are buried for instance. No, the document does not make any such assumption. The relevant sentence in the document is The notion of a 'treasure hunt' immediately sets off an alarm for NPS managers because it implies that the 'hunters' will be placing caches in unapproved areas, digging up park resources and damaging the park environment. This is simply explaining why NPS managers may react negatively to the idea. Since the document goes on to explain how managers can allow geocaching while also protecting the resources, this should be seen as addressing the fears rather than provoking fears. With these fears made explicit and open, we are able to show where the geocaching community is already addressing these issues, for example by the ban on burying caches. And it closes with a list of NPS management policies that can be used to prohibit caching. I see the list as a list of resources to help managers allow and manage caching. Note that the document provides names, phone numbers, and email addresses of several NPS personnel who can help managers with any issues which arise, and gives links to the most important geocaching web sites. briansnat says Odd how letterboxing and geocaching appear to be treated differently. While the wording varies, I don't read any intent to treat them differently. In fact, it appears to me that the authors in some cases write "letterbox" to mean any cache container. This actually makes sense. Geocachers often (perhaps almost always) use the word "cache" to mean a container or a place, but this is a very geocaching-jargon-laden usage. In ordinary English, a cache is a storage place. In the outdoors, it's usually a place where provisions are laid up for future use -- for example, backpackers in Death Valley and other desert areas establish water caches before starting a trek. So using the word "letterbox" actually conveys the concept to park managers better than does "cache" -- and perhaps we need to learn from this so that we know better how to approach park managers. (I also noticed the mention that letterboxes within peak registers might be appropriate; obviously there's no reason to treat geocaches any differently.) Jeep_Dog says Who in the heck mentioned "treasure hunt". Well, could have been lots of people. That term is very frequently used in popular descriptions. I agree that it can lead to misunderstandings. Those of us who grew up with treasure hunts -- a series of clues to follow to a final point -- understand the meanings. Possibly today that game has faded in popularity and the "pirate's treasure" meaning is more widely understood. If so, this is something to be taken up with the press and within the geocaching community. (I recently ran into someone who had the impression that geocaches contained money, and asked me how much I had made doing it. I didn't figure out where he got the idea, but perhaps it was from the "pirates' treasure" concept.) Mopar says Perhaps TPTB at Groundspeak should be the ones doing the contacting? Yes, and note that the document mentions that WASO (Washington Office) staff had been in contact with the geocaching.com web site management and found them very cooperative, and go on to say that "NPS staff should work with web site managers" etc. magellan315 quotes the passage from the document about adverse impacts, but omits a critical word: potential. The passage in question actually reads these activities have the potential to cause injuries [...]; cause serious adverse impacts to park resources [...]; and otherwise violate NPS regulations. Is there anyone here who honestly does not believe there is any such POTENTIAL? To me, this is a great passage to have in the document, because we can pull out the cache placement guidelines to show that geocaching.com and the geocaching community have rejected damaging variants. The guidelines might perhaps be expanded a little to make the applicability to this section even clearer, but the off-limit part is already pretty clear, especially the part about no caches in areas which are highly sensitive to extra traffic -- an example of which is cryptobiotic soil. So it is not true, as magellan315 says, that "The NPS ignores the fact that GC.com has guidelines to prevent this from happening". This is a document to educate and inform park managers, so it is appropriate to itemize POTENTIAL impacts. Managers are responsible for addressing impacts. Here are my own comments on the document: The statement discussed above about potential adverse impact is immediately followed by other park staff have provided information showing how GPS activities can be properly managed to offer significant recreational and educational value to visitors, including opportunities for a growing number of families to experience appropriate outdoor adventures in parks. Providing recreational and education opportunities is important to NPS managers! This document is telling them that (with proper limits), geocaching promotes their goals. The Service does not have a policy explicitly allowing or prohibiting any of these activities. Instead, park managers must make determinations on a case-by-case basis. So the park managers are being told explicitly to make a determination based on their park. Given the wide variety of parks, I for one would not find a blanket policy reasonable. I think that physical caches in Yosemite Valley would be a Bad Idea -- too much chance for resource damage. If the NPS made a blanket policy of allowing caches, within five minutes one would be published on top of Half Dome. So the direction is appropriate, and the document is giving the managers numerous reasons to allow geocaching. A couple of sentences later, the document notes the "authorized cache activities" in Acadia National Park. That's all. It doesn't say that the authorized cache activities consist of a single Earthcache. It actually leaves the impression that the Acadia cache program is far more extensive than it really is, and thus encourages managers to consider caches beyond the actual precedent. It is in our interest to establish ongoing and personal communication with the GPS user community, as we have with other park visitors. This statement, in section C, is just part of three paragraphs strongly encouraging outreach to and communication with geocachers (and other GPS users). if a posting that has not been previously approved by the park seems to have potential as an appropriate recreational or educational activity, park staff may advise the cache developer on steps to be taken to gain the park’s support for the activity. In other words, managers are encouraged NOT to take a hard line on caches placed without prior approval, but rather to treat them as an application to place a cache. Park managers should monitor park sponsored and approved GPS activities in the same way they would any other recreational or educational activity in the park. WOW!!! Park managers are EXPLICITLY directed to treat GPS activities on an equal footing with other activities! Hey, remember that NOTHING is unconditionally allowed in national parks. Many prohibit off-trail hiking. Not all allow horseback riding. Most prohibit bicycling on trails. Virtually all prohibit removal of natural materials with a fervor which makes me think I'd better scrape the mud off my boots before I leave. Etc. There's no reason to treat geocaching specially. On the contrary, what we want is to make geocaching mainstream. There's a list of steps to take in case unapproved caches are noted. Yeah, four of those steps deal with how to get it removed. But the first two steps are 1) check to see if another division or representative approved it, and 2) evaluate whether it's appropriate and if so work with the "cache developer" to "fine tune" it. Section E explicitly states that a superintendent has the authority to prohibit geocaching. But it also explicitly states that the superintendent has the authority to allow and manage geocaching. No longer need superintendents fear that allowing geocaches might get them overruled above and left with a mess of trying to remove existing caches. If they follow the procedures and make the decision to allow caches, they are on firm ground. And yes, there's a list of relevant policies -- a pretty short list in the world of government red tape. As mentioned above, I read this as help to park managers in determining what policies they need to follow with respect to geocaching -- and it's a pretty short, easy, familiar list to the park managers. Well, I've run off at the fingers for quite a while here. If there are any here who believe that geocaching should be totally unregulated and allowed everywhere in US national parks, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement, and you won't be happy with this document. Personally I think it's pretty good, and in the world of government it came out pretty fast -- six years is quick! And no, I'm not an NPS insider, never have been. Don't think I even know any NPS people except in their official capacities. I do read Thunderbear, self-described as the oldest alternative newsletter in the federal government, and always a great read: http://www.workingnet.com/thunderbear/. Edward

That's totally unacceptable. You should firmly request a total refund (including shipping costs, since it's the seller's error). If the seller refuses, you probably don't have any further mediation options on eBay since the cost is probably less than $25. At that point it's definitely worth leaving negative feedback. I don't recommend negative feedback lightly, but this seller has sold you a clearly defective product, and failure to rectify the situation means you need to warn future buyers. But send at least three emails first, remaining calm and clearly and firmly stating that the product is defective. That way you have the emails to back up your feedback. Edward

I say that you are to be commended for your effort to make the cache interesting, and that a bit of backtracking doesn't matter one little bit. I'd MUCH rather walk twice through an interesting area than once to get to a cache which was located "because there's space for a cache here". I do a lot of hiking. Sometimes I look for loop hikes. But the truth is that I never get bored on an out-and-back, because I see different things on the way back, when I'm looking in a different direction. Edward

The method which GeoBain described also works in Opera. What I want is a tool to allow me to search for TBs near a given point. I haven't found a way to do that, even with PQs. Best way I've found is to do a PQ around a point, import results into GSAK, look at (or sort by) the TB column. Edward

Another cache with a similar theme is The Chick. The cache actually contains a large bag of very cheap rings. I took one for my wife and a couple to move to other caches. Edward

I suppose this is the reward I get for responding to an earlier posting before reading the entire thread. Edward

I'd guess it's exactly the opposite. A few weeks ago I privately reported to a reviewer that a cache was in a forbidden zone. Actually I think my message stated the type of area and asked if this was allowed. At the reviewer's request, I located additional information, due to some ambiguity in readily available online maps, even though having visited the area I knew with absolute certainty the area classification. The reviewer was convinced, and archived the cache. (This was not an intentional violation, just a seriously clueless hider. The one finder reported that the cache didn't even contain a log book.) More recently, I submitted several hides to the same reviewer. They were approved almost instantaneously. I figure that I had shown my ability and willingness to do my homework regarding cache placement. I'm not saying the reviewer gave me special treatment, nor that I went into this with any intent other than to make a bad placement right. But I think that in the process I built a good reputation with the reviewer. Edward

An electrical box on a solid object can have live wires coming in only through the solid object and not visible from the outside. Perhaps this one was obvious in other ways, but in general "no visible wires" does not imply "no wires". Edward

Thanks! Edward

I bought a couple of Karma Geocoins. Their small icon isn't displaying -- I'm talking about the 16x16 pixel icon that displays in the inventory list on a cache page. For example, see my geocoin page your dogma peed on my karma and then click through to the cache it's in. Where the icon should be indicates a missing image. But doing image properties says the image is 1635 bytes -- but 0x0 pixels. Sounds to me like the image file is corrupted. So it needs to be fixed. Ah, now to the point. Whose responsibility is that? I can't find any pages discussing the mechanics of geocoins from the producer's point of view. From the user's point of view, these things just happen automagically. Do I contact the vendor who sold it to me? The manufacturer? Groundspeak??? The 32x32 icon seems to be OK. It shows for example on the list of my geocoins (is there any way to link directly to that?) and on the list of all geocoins. The 32x32 icon is 1855 bytes, only a few bytes larger than the 16x16 icon, which is much larger than most 16x16 icons, lending more credence to the belief that the .gif file for the small icon is corrupted. Edward