myotis
-
Posts
1204 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by myotis
-
-
I also like MapSource better, but it will not download waypoints or create a waypoint for photos. So I download in BaseCamp, then export, then open in MapSource.
-
A little off topic but, A couple of years ago a friend and I did a cache in a city park. Looked perfectly safe to me. We got the cache no problem. I sat at a picnic table to figure out the next stop. Then we continued on. A couple of days latter I see the picnic table I sat at on the news. Less than 24 hours after I sat there, someone was murdered at the picnic table. I emailed the cops and told them we did not see anything supecious and that there was a cache in the tree about 15 feet from the picnic table. The cops missed the obvioulsy out of place bird house. It turned out some guy was mad at his ex wife and just found a random lady to take it out on. So while I would not want caches in unsafe places, even safe places can have bad things happen.
-
Yes
There are two types of maps on GPSfiledepot
1) Garmin Custom Maps (check the the colums there is one for them). They are basically a georefrenced picture. That is what the state park maps are
2) Vector maps (i.e., they are like topo 100K but just more detailed) -- This is your by far the best choice.
I would recomend you get either NE Topo or New England Topo and My Trails (I make it) which is a transparent trail map overlay. The topo maps do not have trails. So you would load the topo you choose and My Trails onto your GPS. If this does not give you what you need, then look at the Garmin Custom Maps
-
The last post is mistaken-ignore it. Here is a tuturial that will explain how to load the maps from MapSource: http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/tutorials/how-to-load-maps-on-my-garmin-gps-unit/
Here is a tutorial that answers your second question:
http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/tutorials/how-to-change-which-map-is-displayed-on-a-garmin-gps/
-
That is correct. But when you plug in your OR, its 100K maps will also show up in BaseCamp (as long as the 450T remains connected to your computer). So you will have two copies of the same map when you plug in your GPS
-
The reason is probably the gpx did not load properly the first time (This happens a lot). When this happens, the GPS will not try to load the gpx again as it thinks it is already loaded until you load a gpx with a different time/date stamp. If you are using GSAK, resend the gpx. If you are loading the PQ directly. Delete it. Boot up your GPS. Then load the gpx and reboot the GPS. That will fix it. If you have a tool that can change the date/time stamp of the file, change the time. That will also cause it to reload.
-
I think you need to clairfy a bit. The OR 450T has built in 100K topo maps, You say "I am using TOPO U.S. 2008 for Mac maps" which would be the same maps on your 450T. If you have purchased the 100K topos as a standalone, just insall the maps on your computer. If you plug in your GPS you will also be able to see the built in topos in BaseCamp, but you cannot print them and they are slower (you will have 2 copies of the same maps. Hindsight being 20/20 if you already ownned Garmin's 100K topos, you should have just got the non T model. You can also get much better maps for free at www.gpsfiledepot.com Most have MAC installers.
-
Well, according to this person, lame caches are going to be the death of geocaching. We still haven't been informed as to what exactly constitutes a "lame" cache, but we'll be sure to update you when that information is made public.
Your fixation on that particular cacher is quite strange (he's the only one who thinks there are too many lame caches?). I'd be inclined to agree with him, and wish there was a meaningful rating system to weed out lame caches. I define meaningful rating system as one that allows negative feedback to be left.
He is just a creepy stalker. He just cannot stand that I do not worship numbers. He thinks I am eveil because I would like to be able to filter out lame caches. I thnk most cachers can understand the difference between lame and easy, but some cannot seem to grasp concepts as simple as this.
-
Now if you wander up to a bench with a geocache (g.c.) that has three muggles sitting on it and go "excuse me, but I'd like to reach under you to grab a clandestinely hidden contact case that contains a small sheet of paper and nothing else" then that doesn't seem too stealthily. To that point, the muggles or others around them may go up to the cache and palm it without replacing it, thereby denying others the chance to find it while the owner has to go out and replace it. All this due to you not giving a &%#@ because you don't want to be sneaky.
I had someone do exactly that at one of my caches, (said so in his log). It was gone the next day. Replaced it and it was gone a week later. I figured, the heck with it. Because of this one impatient cacher, the rest don't get to learn about the new city park, tucked away in the foothills.
As far as the OP. I have seen plenty of listings that say, "difficulty raised because of muggles). I figure that if they are going to mis-rate their cache, at they are nice enough to admit it so I can make the adjustment mentally.
Sorry, but I do not follow your logic. Was that the only place in the new park you could hide a cache? If you would have hidden the cache in the new park where someone could hunt it without muggle issues, would not that have worked?
What I have noticed on numerous caches by playgrounds, where you feel like a peeping tom, or where there are muggle problems at the cache location, is there is almost always a nearby location where a cache could easily be hidden without any issue searching for it. I just do not understand why cache hiders place caches where you have to worry about someone calling the cops on you or if you get it others will see you and muggle the cache instead of choosing a nearby spot where the cache could be searched for with no issues.
-
The waypoints are stored on your OR as a gpx file. (If I remember correctly it is stored in \Garmin\gpx\ and will have waypoint in the file name.) I would try opening the GPX file in SA instead of transfering. You cannot even download waypoints from the OR 450 into MapSource. So I would be shocked if you could download waypoints into SA.
-
Hey, I have sat on my butt as a plane flew over thousands of caches! Can I log 'em online as found?
Sure as long as they are MOGA caches! You can log a "find" on really difficult MOGA caches without ever being within miles of the cache and log! If you thought the ET Trail was easy, the ET Trail is a 5 star compared to finding caches "MOGA" style!
-
Guys, myotis is trolling, plain and simple. He does this all the time on our local freelist and he does it here, too. I, for one, will not bite anymore.
I will call him out on a point of fact and then quietly leave this thread. He's mentioned numerous times how numbers are meaningless these days, but at least a couple times in local discussions he's made it a point to show his caching bravado, as it were, because he and another cacher found 140+ caches in a day.
For someone who hates "lame" caches and disagrees with the whole numbers thing, well...you get my point.
Guilty. Back before you could claim 100 finds for volunteering or claim 1,000 finds for moving caches from one spot to the other I did compete. But when things got so lame, I stopped as I was disgusted with how lame things were getting. It was fun when you were competing finding interesting and challenging caches. It was not fun competing by seeing who could lift the most lampposts. The 1st time I found more than 100 in a day was in 2004 - it was an almost impossible task back then. I felt embarrassed because I found them in Nashville which is like everywhere is now-full of lame simple caches. I never felt it was legitimate since finding them was much easier than other places. So I never liked telling people I had found over 100 in a day. If they asked me, I always felt obligated to also tell them that I found them in Nashville and how easy it was to find a cache there.
-
Coming on the forum to argue numbers are the only thing that matters seems rather unsportsmanlike to me. I bet you are one of those who argue using steriods are not unsportsmanlike. Claiming a record for most FTFs seems unsportsmanlike to me. That's like claiming the homerun record for hitting singles.
Okay, I know I said no more... but I think you are misunderstanding here, so I feel the need to clarify. No one is arguing about numbers on this thread, people are just talking about their own personal records for THEMSELVES for FTFs in one day. Yes, the OP asked if there was an official record for FTFs, and that was established pretty quickly that no, there isn't.
Fine, but what's the problem with other folks talking about their own personal records? No one here is claiming any records for the most FTFs.
This also has not one thing to do with steroids.
I think my friend, you need a donut. No there are not steroids in the donut.
No, you are the one misunderstanding. I was reesponding to the OP's question, "What is the record for FTF's in one day?" That is a loaded quesiton based on the assumption that numbers are everything. Since a FTF on a single cache can be hundreds of times harder than finding a FTF handed to you on a silver platter, how can there be a legitimate "record" for FTFs? If the OP had asked what is the most FTFs you have found in a day or even what is the "most" FTFs someone has found in a day, you would have a point. "Record" expresses a judgment that I think is plain wrong. That judgement is what I am disagreeing with.
-
Many times it is easier to use the draw tool and draw a new track than edit a track.
-
First off I never said anything about sportsmanship. Nymphnsatyr said you were acting un-sportsmanlike. I said you liked bashing people just like the MOGA thread. I don't know how you got all that confused in two short posts but whatever. So your point was pointless AGAIN.
Correct. Dirty Dogs never compared MOGA to anything having to do with sportsmanship.
I mentioned being unsportsmanlike, why? Because it seems like all you do is come on the forum to talk about how much BETTER everything was back in the day, and how LAME everyone else is, and how much better you and your caches, and the way you cache is. Well, the reality is, no one is better than anyone else, no matter how long they've been caching, or how far they can hike, or how they cache. As long as someone is following the guidelines, what business is it of yours? If someone cheats, who are they really cheating but themselves?
It's okay to debate, but to come on here and have every post be condescending and insulting is just not cool, and doesn't help anyone.
Anyhoo, this is my last post on THIS topic, I'm going to let the thread go back to folks talking about their FTF records.
Coming on the forum to argue numbers are the only thing that matters seems rather unsportsmanlike to me. I bet you are one of those who argue using steriods are not unsportsmanlike. Claiming a record for most FTFs seems unsportsmanlike to me. That's like claiming the homerun record for hitting singles.
-
We all know there aren't any offical "records" in Geocaching. You can have personal records and what's wrong with that. The OP was just trying to find out what was the most FTFs in a day. That's all. A real simply question and you turn it into some ordeal how you don't write FTF in your log and how you LET others have a chance. Seems to me you have issues with the OP. This whole game revolves around numbers if you haven't noticed that yet. The main reason we hunt FTFs is to find the cache the way the CO intended the cache to be and to show everyone how bada** the4dirtydogs are.J/k on the second part. So go ahead and keep bashing but you know it's getting old. And if someone wants to claim some silly record why not let them? There is absolutely no harm done to you, but then again you wouldn't have anything to post about.
Our record still stands at 135 FTFs in a day and we are sitting at 599 FTFs for our caching career.
There has always been numbers competition. However, back in the day numbers were a reasonable way to compete. Back in the day, cachers would not claim 100 finds for volunteering at an event. There were no power trails where you could rack up huge numbers by moving caches from one location to the next. While there were temporary event caches you had to actually find the cache and sign the log. Probably the lamest thing was the locationless caches-particularly the Yello Jeep one (which I never stooped to claiming a find on). But that is nothing compared to what it is like today. There are so many caches dedicated to making it simple to claim a find, you could rack up 10K finds in a month. Before geocaching was overrun by the numbers caches, I think it was fair and sportsman like to be competing over numbers. But I do not anymore. Back in the day, you had to have skill to claim a record. Nowadays, to claim a record you have to find lamer and lamer ways to claim the record. So my objection is to a contention that there is a legitimate record for the most FTFs in a day or most "finds" in a day or that numbers bear on the ability of the cacher. If someone wants to have fun rushing to be FTF, more power to them. I've got no problem with that.
I just don't get where your coming from man. It was a simple question from the OP. You make no sense at all. We are not talking about back in the day. It's 2011 and we are talking about the most FTFs in a day.
Of course you don't understand something as simple as there is no legitimate record for FTFs in 2011.
I bet you also think steriod users like Bonds belong in the hall of fame. Why should we live in the past when players did not use steriods?
-
We all know there aren't any offical "records" in Geocaching. You can have personal records and what's wrong with that. The OP was just trying to find out what was the most FTFs in a day. That's all. A real simply question and you turn it into some ordeal how you don't write FTF in your log and how you LET others have a chance. Seems to me you have issues with the OP. This whole game revolves around numbers if you haven't noticed that yet. The main reason we hunt FTFs is to find the cache the way the CO intended the cache to be and to show everyone how bada** the4dirtydogs are.J/k on the second part. So go ahead and keep bashing but you know it's getting old. And if someone wants to claim some silly record why not let them? There is absolutely no harm done to you, but then again you wouldn't have anything to post about.
Our record still stands at 135 FTFs in a day and we are sitting at 599 FTFs for our caching career.
There has always been numbers competition. However, back in the day numbers were a reasonable way to compete. Back in the day, cachers would not claim 100 finds for volunteering at an event. There were no power trails where you could rack up huge numbers by moving caches from one location to the next. While there were temporary event caches you had to actually find the cache and sign the log. Probably the lamest thing was the locationless caches-particularly the Yello Jeep one (which I never stooped to claiming a find on). But that is nothing compared to what it is like today. There are so many caches dedicated to making it simple to claim a find, you could rack up 10K finds in a month. Before geocaching was overrun by the numbers caches, I think it was fair and sportsman like to be competing over numbers. But I do not anymore. Back in the day, you had to have skill to claim a record. Nowadays, to claim a record you have to find lamer and lamer ways to claim the record. So my objection is to a contention that there is a legitimate record for the most FTFs in a day or most "finds" in a day or that numbers bear on the ability of the cacher. If someone wants to have fun rushing to be FTF, more power to them. I've got no problem with that.
-
I don't understand the disire to be FTF. I normally wait for those who think FTF is a big deal to go get the FTF before I go look. But sometimes I end up first anyway. I was FTF on 2 caches today but I did not mention it in my logs. I was FTF on another one about a week ago that was 5.5 miles from the parking lot, but I did not mention FTF in my log. The way things are nowadays numbers are a joke. So what's the big deal about being the first to lift a lamppost skirt? I remember you braging about all the FTFs you got on a couple of days. I also remember you saying how easy all the caches were. So you have high FTFs for a day, but does that mean you are a skilled cacher or that you just happened to be in the right place at the right time? Who could not have found all those FTFs if they just happened to be the first to look for them? Lets consider another cache we both logged as a find (your log does not indicate if you made the find or somone else in your group made the find): GC232V9 I think that was the last cache I mentioned FTF in my log. Before I found the cache, many very experienced cachers had spent many hours looking for this extremely well hidden cache-If I remember correctly there were at least 40 cacher hours spent looking for it before I found it. Your question makes it sound like you think high numbers of FTFs in a day is meaningful. I don't agree. Some think it is all about the numbers. I think it is about the hunt. What would you say was harder to do, find all the FTFs you found that day or FTF on GC232V9? Pure numbers do not take into account difficulity. So any "record" would be pretty silly.
I don't understand the desire of cachers, who don't play the FTF game, to bash others that do. Let them play the way they want to. If your too cool to play the game then stay home no need to post such negative things because you can find a cache that other couldn't and come here and BRAG about it. That's just silly. Just answer the guys question and move on. Sheeez
That's basically all I've seen out of myotis, they come on here and bash what they don't like, and brag about themselves. Not very sportsmanlike.
Yeah I kinda get that after the whole "MOGA" thing. On a side note I think we have crossed paths at Geowoodstock last year. I believe it was the ride on the wagon back to the cars. I don't know why I just thought of that. Nice to see you back in the forums again. I like reading your posts.
LOL at using "sportsmanlike" and MOGA together!!!!!!!!!! Claiming "finds" you did not find "MOGA" style is sportsmanlike????? If you want to see MOGA sportsmanship take a look at this cache: GC2PBF8 It is about 1/3 mile from the nearest parking through an invasive jungle. To get the cache you had to wade out into the lake to get it. Take a look at the pictures and video from the cachers who really found it. Then take a look at all the MOGA staff claiming the bogus "finds" with logs like "Attending MOGA TFTC" as payment for volunteering. Then look at all the people who found punches in the nice open woods miles away claiming the cache as a "find" as a reward for finding the punch. I am sure the real cachers who actually found the cache really appreciate this "sportsmanlike" conduct!
For some more FTF sportsmanship, check this cache out: GC1YWKN About 10 cachers were at a bar and they signed a logbook and then hid the cache. A local cacher who cares about FTF was there within minutes of it being published only to find 10 people already signed it. If that was not bad enough, they all lied in their logs and claimed while they live many miles away they all just happened to be there when the cache was published. When the real FTF complained, the cache owner deleted his find. While some involved admitted to me what they did when I was trying to get them to be honest and change their log since the FTF was so upset about it, none of them showed the sportsmanship of editing their log to be honest.
So what's your point. I think a lot of people thought the whole MOGA thing was LAME(me included). You coming here and BASHING them was LAME too. If thats the way they want to play then so be IT.
My point was your comparing MOGA to sportsman like was hilarious and quite a lame comparision.
-
I don't understand the disire to be FTF. I normally wait for those who think FTF is a big deal to go get the FTF before I go look. But sometimes I end up first anyway. I was FTF on 2 caches today but I did not mention it in my logs. I was FTF on another one about a week ago that was 5.5 miles from the parking lot, but I did not mention FTF in my log. The way things are nowadays numbers are a joke. So what's the big deal about being the first to lift a lamppost skirt? I remember you braging about all the FTFs you got on a couple of days. I also remember you saying how easy all the caches were. So you have high FTFs for a day, but does that mean you are a skilled cacher or that you just happened to be in the right place at the right time? Who could not have found all those FTFs if they just happened to be the first to look for them? Lets consider another cache we both logged as a find (your log does not indicate if you made the find or somone else in your group made the find): GC232V9 I think that was the last cache I mentioned FTF in my log. Before I found the cache, many very experienced cachers had spent many hours looking for this extremely well hidden cache-If I remember correctly there were at least 40 cacher hours spent looking for it before I found it. Your question makes it sound like you think high numbers of FTFs in a day is meaningful. I don't agree. Some think it is all about the numbers. I think it is about the hunt. What would you say was harder to do, find all the FTFs you found that day or FTF on GC232V9? Pure numbers do not take into account difficulity. So any "record" would be pretty silly.
I don't understand the desire of cachers, who don't play the FTF game, to bash others that do. Let them play the way they want to. If your too cool to play the game then stay home no need to post such negative things because you can find a cache that other couldn't and come here and BRAG about it. That's just silly. Just answer the guys question and move on. Sheeez
That's basically all I've seen out of myotis, they come on here and bash what they don't like, and brag about themselves. Not very sportsmanlike.
Yeah I kinda get that after the whole "MOGA" thing. On a side note I think we have crossed paths at Geowoodstock last year. I believe it was the ride on the wagon back to the cars. I don't know why I just thought of that. Nice to see you back in the forums again. I like reading your posts.
LOL at using "sportsmanlike" and MOGA together!!!!!!!!!! Claiming "finds" you did not find "MOGA" style is sportsmanlike????? If you want to see MOGA sportsmanship take a look at this cache: GC2PBF8 It is about 1/3 mile from the nearest parking through an invasive jungle. To get the cache you had to wade out into the lake to get it. Take a look at the pictures and video from the cachers who really found it. Then take a look at all the MOGA staff claiming the bogus "finds" with logs like "Attending MOGA TFTC" as payment for volunteering. Then look at all the people who found punches in the nice open woods miles away claiming the cache as a "find" as a reward for finding the punch. I am sure the real cachers who actually found the cache really appreciate this "sportsmanlike" conduct!
For some more FTF sportsmanship, check this cache out: GC1YWKN About 10 cachers were at a bar and they signed a logbook and then hid the cache. A local cacher who cares about FTF was there within minutes of it being published only to find 10 people already signed it. If that was not bad enough, they all lied in their logs and claimed while they live many miles away they all just happened to be there when the cache was published. When the real FTF complained, the cache owner deleted his find. While some involved admitted to me what they did when I was trying to get them to be honest and change their log since the FTF was so upset about it, none of them showed the sportsmanship of editing their log to be honest.
-
I don't understand the disire to be FTF. I normally wait for those who think FTF is a big deal to go get the FTF before I go look. But sometimes I end up first anyway. I was FTF on 2 caches today but I did not mention it in my logs. I was FTF on another one about a week ago that was 5.5 miles from the parking lot, but I did not mention FTF in my log. The way things are nowadays numbers are a joke. So what's the big deal about being the first to lift a lamppost skirt? I remember you braging about all the FTFs you got on a couple of days. I also remember you saying how easy all the caches were. So you have high FTFs for a day, but does that mean you are a skilled cacher or that you just happened to be in the right place at the right time? Who could not have found all those FTFs if they just happened to be the first to look for them? Lets consider another cache we both logged as a find (your log does not indicate if you made the find or somone else in your group made the find): GC232V9 I think that was the last cache I mentioned FTF in my log. Before I found the cache, many very experienced cachers had spent many hours looking for this extremely well hidden cache-If I remember correctly there were at least 40 cacher hours spent looking for it before I found it. Your question makes it sound like you think high numbers of FTFs in a day is meaningful. I don't agree. Some think it is all about the numbers. I think it is about the hunt. What would you say was harder to do, find all the FTFs you found that day or FTF on GC232V9? Pure numbers do not take into account difficulity. So any "record" would be pretty silly.
I don't understand the desire of cachers, who don't play the FTF game, to bash others that do. Let them play the way they want to. If your too cool to play the game then stay home no need to post such negative things because you can find a cache that other couldn't and come here and BRAG about it. That's just silly. Just answer the guys question and move on. Sheeez
I've got nothng against those who like to get FTF-I wait to give them a chance to get FTF. What I don't like is talk about "records" for the most FTFs in a day. Its just like those who did ET Trail and declared themselves world record holders because they can relay caches from one spot to the other faster than others. They act like it makes them a great cacher. But it does not. There are things other than numbers.
-
So I'm curious as to what people think about increasing a cache's difficulty rating based on muggle activity. I've seen LPC's difficulty listed in the 1.5, 2 and 2.5 range due to being in a higher muggle visited parking lot... I don't believe any LPC should ever be over a 1 difficulty even if the pole itself is growing out of a muggles head (well maybe then it could be necessary). According to the Geocaching.com Glossary "Difficulty relates to the mental challenge of finding a cache." If Google Maps places the magic dot over a Light Pole, it doesn't take any more mental capacity to wait out the muggle eating his happy meal next to GZ in order to find that mystical film canister under the hood. I didn't rack my brain scheduling out my visit the next day or later that night to avoid the muggles. And on that note if we don't up the difficulty when a cache is harder to find in the pitch black of night then the reverse should also true during the day with all the muggles. End of rant, let me know what you think.
I think it would bear more on the cache hider than the difficulity of the find. If there are muggle problems, it normally demostrates the cache hider did not use common sense to find a good place to hide a cache. Back in the day, we would find a nice place to search instead of tossing a cache anywhere it was possible to toss one.
One time I got frustrated with all the lampost caches-geez if you've seen one, you have seen them all. And any idiot can lift a lampost skrit. So I hid one in a lampost and put on the cache page that there was a decoy. So I had a container labeled "decoy" and hid the cache in the decoy.
-
I don't understand the disire to be FTF. I normally wait for those who think FTF is a big deal to go get the FTF before I go look. But sometimes I end up first anyway. I was FTF on 2 caches today but I did not mention it in my logs. I was FTF on another one about a week ago that was 5.5 miles from the parking lot, but I did not mention FTF in my log. The way things are nowadays numbers are a joke. So what's the big deal about being the first to lift a lamppost skirt? I remember you braging about all the FTFs you got on a couple of days. I also remember you saying how easy all the caches were. So you have high FTFs for a day, but does that mean you are a skilled cacher or that you just happened to be in the right place at the right time? Who could not have found all those FTFs if they just happened to be the first to look for them? Lets consider another cache we both logged as a find (your log does not indicate if you made the find or somone else in your group made the find): GC232V9 I think that was the last cache I mentioned FTF in my log. Before I found the cache, many very experienced cachers had spent many hours looking for this extremely well hidden cache-If I remember correctly there were at least 40 cacher hours spent looking for it before I found it. Your question makes it sound like you think high numbers of FTFs in a day is meaningful. I don't agree. Some think it is all about the numbers. I think it is about the hunt. What would you say was harder to do, find all the FTFs you found that day or FTF on GC232V9? Pure numbers do not take into account difficulity. So any "record" would be pretty silly.
-
Grasscatcher - where do I set / increase the 3000 track point limit on my Oregon 450?
If I could set this it would be simply great and make me even happier with my unit.
There is no limit. Either when the track is full or if you set it to daily or weekly, the track is archived.
-
Plug in your GPS and delete \garmin\gmapsupp.img
Difficulty Due to Muggle Activity
in General geocaching topics
Posted
You are not answering the question. I pass on caches all the time. Yesterday I headed for a cache in the heart of a University Campus to avoid muggles. There were muggles within 2 feet of the cache (which I could see) so I rode my bike on the campus and checked out the sculptures hoping they would leave. I gave up after 1/2 hour. I left a note they should make it into a multi to avoid the muggles and will likely come back to the cache. It was hidden on a tree sign. But the cache placer could have done what he did on another campus tree sign, made it a multi. You got info from the sign and then found the cache in a more remote area. My most recent encounters with playground caches I left but was not happy I wasted time and gas to travel to the cache. The first was hidden in a bush about 10 feet from a playground. The other was in a park that about 15 house had a clear view of. My GPS was pointing to a playground toy. I will not return to either of these. For both of these caches there were nearby spots where a cache could be easily hidden where you could search without worrying about someone calling the cops. The issue is why would someone hide a cache in places like these instead of showing respect for the cache hunters by taking the time to find a place where you can search without worrying about someone calling the cops on you?