paleolith
-
Posts
964 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by paleolith
-
-
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.Obviously they can drop Vitruals.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.Sorry man, I'm moving the goats.Edward
-
And yet, there are 2 caches that were published that are likely in a forbidden area. One of the caches flat out states its in an area that has a policy of forbidding geocaches. I am about to put out several of my own caches and Im a bit chicken of reporting these 2 caches out of concern my future postings will be scrutinized all the more.
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".The electric box cache (no longer in place) was on an old telephone pole in a park. It was obvious it was the cache, since there were no cables going into or out of the box.Edward
-
Thanks!I have fixed the issue.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
-
I just noticed this evening that when I click a link to a bookmark list, it displays the first page but the links at the bottom are wrong. For example, if the list requires two pages, the navigation shows links for pages 1 and 2 and says I'm currently on page 3, which does not exist.
Edward
-
While it's not the same as a direct search, I've found the pages for many archived caches via patient searching. Locate an old cache in an area. Look at the people who found it. Their find lists will link to all their finds, even archived ones. Also, sometimes people mention old caches in log entries, sometimes just the GC# and sometimes an actual link -- even the GC# is enough because if you search by the number you can see the page.
You *can* bookmark archived listings. Perhaps someone could take on the task of creating a public bookmark list of particularly instructive old caches.
I agree that reading these old logs is valuable. There's a state park near me with currently no caches. I know of at least two (maybe more, I forget) which were there at one time. The logs tell me that the problems were bad placements, bad containers, and no maintenance. Should I decide to place a cache there, I know that these are the problems I have to avoid. In another case, a cache in a Nature Conservancy preserve was archived at the request of preserve staff "due to cachers not observing preserve rules" -- they originally had no objection to the placement, just to later events. I don't know the details but I think I know the person who posted the archive request and will ask her someday. I don't think the answer will surprise me, but the knowledge might help me guide people away from these problems.
Edward
-
A few months ago, when I was still a single-digit babe in the woods, I found my first multi. Took about three minutes to find the first part. Didn't even know how to set a waypoint in my GPSr, so I wandered around until I made the numbers match the location of the second part ... when I went to log it online, I found that the day before, a five-figure cacher had logged that the first part was missing but companion cacher had found it before and knew where part 2 was so they went and signed the log and logged a find. (Not quoting verbatim because I figure it's too easy to identify a five-figure cacher.)
Cacher is known to be a good sport and is well liked and later logged "have I found too many caches?"
Cache owner, who had immediately disabled it in response to the backhanded "find", thanked me.
Edward
-
I agree.. what's the problem with this log?
I gather that some people treat a DNF log as meaning "I think this cache is missing".
When I log a DNF (and I do usually log them), I try to give some indication of why, which has included I didn't bring the description, it was late and the light was bad and I was tired, it was the third cache I had ever tried to find, the obvious spot contained nothing and past logs said the same. I figure this tells the owner I was interested (many caches I look for are seldom seen) but also makes it clear whether I think there's a problem.
Edward
-
Is there a way to set up a PQ to return all hides by a particular user? It seems so obvious but I don't see a way to do it. The regular "hide and seek" page allows finding by username (though for a long username you have to get the error and arrive at a page which allows longer usernames). But doing it that way I have to download 20 at a time and only in .loc format.
In the case I'm interested in, I can get around it by downloading all caches hidden in a particular radius since May 1, 2007, and then using GSAK to delete the ones I'm not interested in. But this is certainly messier than just a username condition in the PQ would be. And if the time period or geographic region were larger, this workaround wouldn't work.
Edward
-
I have found myself standing on top of a cache and my eXplorist 210 says I'm 350' away.
I've learned to turn it off and back on if I don't find the cache immediately. This often changes the reported position by 20' to 100'.
In the case noted above, I cycled it and it said I was only 100' away. Plowed into the bushes and zeroed on an unlikely spot. Cycled again and it pointed me 100' in yet another direction. Put it in my pocket, walked back to the obvious location, spent five minutes looking around and found the cache there.
I'm wondering if this is common experience with all units, or only with the 210, or only with mine.
My guess is that it's a software issue. I know enough about the math required to know that the solution to the GPS equations could settle into a local minimum which is away from the best solution and have trouble breaking out of it. This is tricky business. (Think of trying to find the lowest spot in a nearly flat valley by always going downhill. A puddle isn't always the lowest spot.) Some GPSrs might have better solftware for solving the equations. However, this is definitely only a guess.
Edward
-
Duh! Thanks!
(With only one bookmark list, I hadn't had much reason to look at that page yet.)
Edward
-
Sorry if I'm being dense, but how? I have a bookmark list with a couple of dozen caches in it, yet when I go to the pocket query page, I can't find any way to search by bookmark list. The word "bookmark" does not appear on the PQ builder page ... at least not for me. ;-)If you want individually selected caches in a PQ, you need to add them to a bookmark list. You can then generate a PQ from the list.Edward
-
A few months ago I was hiking with a few friends. One of them, a retired guy, gives introductions to outdoor actitivies to kids. When we ran into a nest of ticks and started flicking them off, he pulled out some tape and a plastic bag, and proceeded to collect as many as he could. Seems that demonstrating the dangers is part of the orientation, and the kids consider the tick show to be the high point.One of my kids and I counted ticks for a few months a couple of years back and had a 'tick counter' going on the profile pageCouple of years ago I came back from a long hike, took a bath, and starting having a stomach ache. Couldn't figure it out, just an ache deep in the middle of my belly. Tried the usual things -- eat something, drink something, rest a while. It was about an hour before I looked closely enough at my belly button to see that a tick had crawled in and attached itself right at the bottom! Didn't have a hook or tweezers, and getting it out of that spot was a real mess. Outies, you never had it better. Makes sense when I think about what the navel is, that the nerve connections would be abnormal there and that the sensation would be totally different from a tick bite anywhere else -- it really was not localized.
Edward
-
Thanks. Any better way to search for hostels than just scanning a list? Keyword search apparently doesn't allow multiple keywords and doesn't allow keyword search to be combined with any other kind of search (unless I'm missing something). And a pocket query doesn't include keyword search. So I can't find any reasonable way to search for the location and key word (like hostel or hotel). Just do a pocket query for everything in the area and then search the results later?
Edward
-
I just brought several TBs cross-country and want to drop them in caches where they have a good chance of continuing to move. Any suggestions for locating the best drops? I have also posted in the website forum on ideas for searching for the most active caches in my area, but this question is more from the point of view of what's best for the TBs.
Edward
-
Can anyone suggest the best way of finding the most/more active caches in an area?
Reason: I have several travel bugs I brought from another state, and I want to drop them in caches where they have a good chance of moving along.
Obviously I can get a list of appropriate caches in the area and then go through them one by one to look at activity, but that will take a lot of time. I could search for caches found in the past 7 days, but that would miss a lot of fairly active caches.
Certainly I'm also interested in suggestions on other approaches to placing TBs well, but that's more a topic for the TB forum and this was a search question. And links to other discussions -- I searched but didn't find anything, possibly didn't think of good keywords.
Edward
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.
what do you use for containers?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
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