rapotek

Z sygnałem GPS w lesie zawsze były problemy i pewnie jeszcze będą. Błąd wskazań przekraczający 10 metrów to norma, czasami potrafi przekraczać 20 metrów, w dodatku nierzadko występuje sytuacja gdy obrócisz się w miejscu a GPS pokazuje, że jesteś kilka metrów dalej. Dlatego często trudno szuka się w lesie skrytek mikro bez dodatkowych podpowiedzi. Ja keszuję z telefonem, ale robiłem próby w trudnym terenie leśnym z pożyczonym Garminem i rozstrzał wskazań był porównywalny. Lepiej sprawują się profesjonalne urządzenia geodezyjne, ale za to się płaci i to nie jest opłata jednorazowa. W telefonie można skorzystać z aplikacji uśredniających wiele pomiarów, jest to bardzo zalecane przy zakładaniu skrytek, ale przydaje się również czasem przy szukaniu. Przykładowe, popularne aplikacje na androida to: Geocache Placer lub GPS Averaging, można znaleźć również inne. Do sprawdzenia aktualnego "stanu" sygnału GPS (widoczności satelitów np.) polecam GPS Status.

Many times I failed to find anything until I read latest logs or most informative and meaningful ones. And too often by reading logs I realized there was nothing to find.

This dropdown seems to be a PM-only feature.

Good reason to fix and improve it. You have a right not to use Message Center, but I prefer it more than emails, it helps me f.ex. keeping all conversations in one place, separated from email used for other purposes too.

Temporary workaround, works on Firefox 67.0.4 until you reload the page from server: show context menu on "New Message" => "Inspect element", select the '<div id="cpConvoPanel">' element in the inspector html code (few lines up from currently selected), edit "element" style (should be in panel on the right) and add "overflow-y: auto". But it is a bug definitely.

I did not count on understanding here, so I appreciate you on allowing me to feel free . A couple months ago I found accidentally a container. It was not signed and the logbook inside was a wet mush but the container was so characteristic one I figured out the owner and later the archived cache listed with GZ coordinates. Instead of adding a signed piece of paper and claim a find I contacted the owner and offered removing the container out of the field because it was a trash now. The owner replied that she take care of it personally but when I am there again I will check it and if it still is there I will renew the offer. This I can agree: read the logs to know what happened. But as for the "win-win": I would rather inform the CO that the problem is obsolete, wait for the cache to be available and then return to sign the logbook.

That's my point: officially (and for you) it is still fair game, for me personally it is not, but I do not expect everyone to follow me in this. If my PQ (I do not used any so far) or something else is outdated it is my fault and I do not blame a cache owner for this. Once again: I agree that a cache owner should remove an inactive cache container from the field to prevent anyone from logging finds, because the guidelines say so. By "assume" I mean not my understanding of guidelines but my conviction how I should act in accordance with the spirit of the game.

It looks like you do not understand me. As I wrote before: It is simple when there is no container. Less simple when there is no logbook, some would add a new one. What I mean is I know that I have a right to log an inactive cache if I put my signature in logbook, but I do not have to log a find, as well as in case of any active cache. If I decide not to log a find, most probably it would be because I respect the owner decision to deactivate the cache (there can be another reasons, too). "No log, no find" - yes, I agree. But this not imply to me "if you sign a logbook you have to log a find".

This statement was written from my "finder" point of view. As a cache owner I would not remove a found log on my inactive cache if there was a correct signature in logbook, because as some here has written already, that would be against the rules (or guidelines). As a cache finder if I know in advance a cache is inactive, I would neither seek for nor log it at all. If I did not know it was inactive when I found it I would not log a "found it" online or I would ask a cache owner for a permission. It is not a matter of "If they don't want it found, they need to remove it from the playing field", I simply assume a cache owner can decide when the cache is available and when it is not, because she/he is its OWNER. I am not so naive as to believe everyone would do it the same way, but I don't care as long as I can decide about logging my own finds in the system.

There is no rule (or guideline) preventing disabled or archived caches to be found and logged if the physical logbook has been properly signed. To be completely sure no one would claim a smile when the cache is not available, you should remove the container and logbook and keep checking every found logged online, even a few years later, comparing it with logbook signatures. In my early days I would log the cache regardless it was archived or disabled in the time of my signature writing. Now I would not log the found online or delete the found entry if the cache was not active then. People change sometimes. I assume that inactive cache is not meant to be found and it does not matter if an owner disabled it personally or it was done by system procedures.

If they were not allowed to search for advanced caches, they should not be able to see the listings. Outdoor searching is more difficult but not forbidden. The only caches not allowed to basic members are PMO ones and even these caches can be logged on-line. As you wrote, "They can still see what they're missing". BTW, knowing some basic members with over 8 thousands of finds, actively hiding caches and organising events, it partly amuses, partly irks me the equality sign between a basic member and an inexperienced cacher.

It looks like "other" should be one of the most popular sizes around me... but it is not. There are containers here hidden inside bigger coverings but no one has "other" size set. Most, including me, takes a container capacity as a cache size, but sometimes writes in a cache listing that the container is hidden inside something bigger. The only non-virtual caches sized "other" I remember were logbooks in plastic bags directly inside coverings, without any solid container. Anyway if size is to tell if a trackable or trade items can be found inside container, as some here insist, the "other" size does not help.

Slightly off topic, but I wonder, if finding a not genuine container is considered not legal by GS and its legitimization depends on a cache owner, why signing a not genuine logbook is considered legal? Furthermore, if "I could not find a container so I placed my own to claim a find" is bad, why "I could not sign a logbook, so I added my own to sign it and claim a find" is good and even encouraged? If ANY service unaccepted by a cache owner would be strictly forbidden from the start, the number of throwdowns would be the same?

Maybe you have this option selected?:

One NA placed instead of NM or DNF (by mistake or not) is one thing. Three NAs during more than year (not including even more NMs) without any reaction from cache owner or reviewer is another thing. As for a NA where NM or DNF should be - the single Owner Maintenance should close the case.

Is a reviewer allowable at all to leave a cache with 3 NAs without any action? As far as I know there are some rules/guidelines which have to be followed by reviewers, too.

Maybe I was lucky but I did not see any "armchair OM logs", while caches with no owner response for even a few Needs Maintenance logs are more common here, unfortunately. And a broken cache being "virtually" maintained is as bad for me as a cache in good state being archived by reviewer for no response from owner on Needs Maintenance logs.

If you are sure the cache is where it should be and the log should be simple DNF instead, just post Owner Maintenance saying that all is well. Is it really a problem?

Maybe you are right. I encountered these two phrases in some kind of a corporate talk and they were used interchangeably there.

But this is the same in my opinion: "maintain their caches promptly when needed" means primarily for me "when needs maintenance is posted to your cache, take care of it as soon as possible".

A basic member can see the listing of each non-premium cache listing published in the website, regardless of D/T settings. But as far as I know (I do not use the official app), caches with higher (i.e. more difficult) D/T settings are not available in the app.

The Polish saying comes to my mind now, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"... ? Why to sacrifice some quality caches that do not need maintenance when all is needed is to archive the bad ones without unnecessary extending their lifespan and to make a place for another, possibly better ones.

Maybe the highlighted bit should be something like "maintain their caches promptly when needed"?

As far as I remember current coordinates are closer to norther border of measured averages area coverage than to its centroid, but I do not have all averages available now, so I cannot verify it.

I have a cache in a forest where I measured averages for almost two months and differences between a lot of averages exceeded 15 meters. Finally I asked a coworker with professional land survey equipment to go there with me and get the most accurate coordinates. The result was accurate within 2 meters, where in an open area it should be accurate within 1 centimeter and even less, and I used it as a GZ. But there are no complaints about somebody not being able find the container in the field.