Amberel

Sorry to labour this, but I'm really trying to understand the advantages of using OS grid format. What you are saying is that specifically for your restricted pattern of caching it is not usually a disadvantage, but that is not the same as being an advantage. I already acknowledged the possibility of it tending to go better with OS maps, but that only applies if you actually read off the co-ordinates from the GPSr and plot them on your map with any frequency. I use OS maps, but I use them in conjunction with the maps on my GPSr - I can see exactly where I am on the paper map without having to use the co-ordinates. I enjoy long hikes in remote places, and always carry and use a paper map, but in 6 years or more caching I can't remember ever having to use the grid ref display to locate myself on it. It's not a major task to change the display format, but it is a bit fiddly and I would find it quite annoying to have to keep doing it several times a day for no advantage. Rgds, Andy

I use WGS84 lat long format for: Entering co-ords when I set a cache Entering solutions to multi-caches Entering parking waypoints into my SatNav Puzzle solutions Occasionally for entering cache location if I have a printout but the waypoint isn't on the device Can you say for what purposes you use the OS grid format? Rgds, Andy

If you load your ETrex using a PQ (or pretty any method other than manually) then the co-ordinates it uses will be the WGS84 lat/long (the files don't even contain the OS grid refs) and you will find no loss of accuracy - in this case the OS grid co-ordinates are being used merely for display purposes and any conversions are being performed in the GPSr. If you enter the co-ordinates manually and use OS grid refs printed on the cache page, the co-ordinates will be less accurate than using the WGS84 lat/long. Most conversion algorithms lose accuracy, typically up to about 1.5 metres, but the Groundspeak one is very odd in that there is an additional constant error of approx 6 metres. Whether you would notice this error or not depends on a great many factors. Maybe you don't do many multis, but few caching days go by without me doing at least one, and it would be a right royal pain if I has my GPSr set to OS grid refs. Unless the OP is only ever going to do trad caches, it really is a lot less hassle to use WGS84 lat/long. The only reason I can think of at present for wanting to use OS grid refs at all (other for an almost vanishingly small fraction of OS specific puzzles or multis) is if you are transcribing your position onto a paper map - if you are using a map on the GPSr you can just look at the screen to see where you are. I do normally carry paper maps but I don't need to use a grid ref display to see where I am. Rgds, Andy

Geocaching uses WGS84 degrees/minutes/decimal minutes as its primary co-ordinate system. When a cache is published the co-ordinates are entered in this format, and all other systems are derived from it with some loss of accuracy in the conversion. Additional waypoints are published in this format. With very few exceptions, if you do a multi or a puzzle you will need to calculate and enter co-ordinates in this format. Rgds, Andy

It's not a stupid question, but the answer can be as long and complicated as you want it to be :-) I'll try to keep it brief, but that means most of it will be simplified or left unsaid. When we give lat/long co-ordinates we are giving a position relative to a datum. There are a hundred or so commonly used datums, and any given position will have a different lat/long depending on which one is used. While you may think this sounds barmy, there are thoroughly sound historical and technical reasons for it. The Ordnance Survey Grid is based on the OSGB datum. The GPS system uses the WGS84 datum. The difference over most of the UK is 100-200 metres. How you deal with this depends on the make and model of GPS receiver you have - most if not all will allow you to select the datums, some may automatically select OSGB when you choose to display by OS grid ref, some might not. Please accept that for geocaching purposes, it is best if you set your GPSr to WGS84 datum and to display co-ordinates as lat/long in the degrees/minutes/decimal minutes format. It is probably not what you are used to, but it is pretty much completely universal in caching and if you don't do that you will be fighting the system the whole time. Incidentally, the OS grid refs used on the cache pages are calculated from the lat/long so the accuracy is less than the written resolution. Furthermore, they use a very poor conversion algorithm that imposes a fixed error of about 18 feet. Stick to WGS84 lat/long. Rgds, Andy

If you are on FB join Extreme Geocaching UK. We have a database which you can access without joining the FB group on http://www.geocache.co.uk/ukextreme/ukextreme.htm , but it really is better if you do join the group because discussion about the database should take place there. Rgds, Andy

I've said this before but it's worth repeating - the routing on the OSM maps is WORSE than useless, it is apalling, I have tried them extensively and if I didn't have the Garmin OS maps for routing I would use paper maps rather than the OSM ones. No, I haven't done any corrections to them, it would take me days of work to correct after every single journey. And that is assuming I knew what corrections to make - bear in mind that I'm not familiar with the areas where it has screwed up so I'm unlikely to be able to make valid corrections. I prefer just to not use them. £100 for the Garmin ones is MUCH better value than the free ones. Rgds, Andy

Just in case it is any help, I wrote a web page a few months ago for someone who was doing a county challenge, and you might find it useful: http://www.amberel.com/county.htm It depends on whether or not the counties I use are the same ones as you want to use - there is a link from that page to the list of counties. Also the accuracy near borders is constrained to the accuracy of the boundary polygons I obtained, though I do warn you if you are near a boundary. General warning - when I do server maintenance it is usually just after midnight, so there is a higher risk of not getting a connection at that time (but it rarely takes longer than 5 minutes). Rgds, Andy

Me too. On the other hand, a lot of the really big numbers are just film pots - while the number of my hides pales into insignificance compared to these figures, quite a few of them have taken hundreds of times longer to set than simply dropping a film pot. Then there is maintaining - some do, some don't. L E G E N D, for example, is a consortium, but the ones I have done appear not to be maintained at all (as of the time I did them). But I've heard poshrule is good on maintenance, and I think Flatcoat Walker and kevham1 are too. (Please excuse me if you are on the list but I haven't mentioned you, that does not imply you are bad at maintenance, simply that I don't know either way). Rgds, Andy

You don't say what sort of thing you like doing, nor do you say if by "serious geocaching" you mean high quality caches/locations or simply a large number of caches. If you like walking in lovely places, can I suggest Jagger's Clough in the Peak District is reasonably convenient from your location. I love Dartmoor, but it's a bit further away for you. Rgds, Andy

Really? Perhaps you haven't done many. My closest two (hidden by me, as it happens ): Church Micro 3112 "very very clever hide - good work! " "Awesome cache." "must have a favorite point for this". Church Micro 3197 "Brilliant cache!" " I really enjoyed finding it" "a great hide got to be a fav" "Another great hide" As we are on the subject of Church Micros that are not just 35mm film pots: Church Micro 2364 Today's log - "Fantastic just fantastic this rates up there with the very best caches I have found and I have found a few" (17,000) Rgds, Andy

I could do it from my offline database, but it takes 5 weeks to complete a cycle so is never completely up to date, and you would have to accept my version of "county" (which you can see on http://www.amberel.com/countylist.htm) Do you want me to do that? Rgds, Andy

If you want to log them it's up to you, that's fine, but it's not churlish to refrain from logging one you haven't solved. I did the same myself a few days ago, I did sign the log but won't be logging it online unless and until I can solve it myself - I don't regard that as churlish in any way whatsoever. Rgds, Andy

As Paul & Ros, and JoLuc, appear to be casting aspersions on Mario McTavish's integrity, I think I should point out that there are few cachers less likely to cheat themselves either deliberately or by self delusion. Rgds, Andy

Everyone has their own "rules", it doesn't really matter to anyone else what they are, as long as people understand there is no meaning whatsoever in comparing any statistics. For group finds I'm happy to log it if someone else finds it, provided I took part in the search, other than in the unusual event that I really believe I would NEVER have found it myself. But irrespective of who finds it, I have to personally either recover or replace the cache, or be completely certain that I could have done (e.g. no point in having to prove to myself I could reach down to a routine base of post cache). For puzzles I accept help, but to log it I should have made a "significant contribution" to the solution. Rgds, Andy

And I here it does it better than Wherigo does too. Well, the things a Wherigo can do, KAR doesn't really do significantly better, but there are several things it does do that a Wherigo can't do at all Rgds, Andy

It's happened to me, twice. Cachers with a high number of finds decided if they couldn't find it, it must not be there, "replaced" it with an inferior cache, causing confusion to subsequent finders and an extra maintenance trip for me to remove the duplicate. In one case the finder directly after the "throwdowner" found the original and replacement caches actually touching each other! Rgds, Andy

Sorry to see you've gone Steve - my regards to you both, Rgds, Andy

Same as the others, varies depending on location and circumstances. Might be a couple of hours, might be one second. Good rule of thumb is search for as long as you are enjoying it. Rgds, Andy

Check out GC43RAR King Arthur's Return. It uses location services in the browser to plot your position on a "game" map, and asks you questions based on where you are. My gut feeling is that about 50% of cachers have a smartphone, but the cache will have to be listed as "unknown" and this will greatly reduce the number of people who will look for it. Rgds, Andy

(No more than a) couple of miles. Rgds, Andy

Agreeed... The reviewers volunteered their serviced to Groundspeak and should only be answerable to them. The ban on placing caches on land that is managed or owned by the M.O.D. should only be put in place if and when someone from the M.O.D., who has the authority do do so, contacts either a reviewer directly or contacts Groundspeak and informs them of the ban. The fact that some nameless person, who may or may not have that authority, has told the someone in the G.A.G.B., who definitely have no authority to implement a ban, that caches are no longer permitted is totally irrelevant and should be ignored until such time as the above condition has been met. Actually, the person is not nameless (Richard E Brooks, Senior Environmental Advisor (Access and Recreation), Defence Infrastructure Organisation) and the GAGB have not imposed a ban (they can't as they don't list caches). Groundspeak (via the reviewers) have imposed the ban based on the information forwarded to them by GAGB. As I understand it, the MOD contacted GAGB and told them of the ban. GAGB tried to negotiate, but were not able to get them to change their mind. I do agree they should fight harder in situations like this - the MoD is not the same as a private landowner, it is "owned" by us. I respect that they have a job to do, but the job title of the contact (Access and Recreation) acknowledges they also have a responsibility to share, where practical, the vast tracts of land they use. The easy option for the MoD was to say "ban all caches" without even specifying where. However, we shouldn't let them get away with the easy option. In this case I do think we should be tougher, to not simply accept what they tell us but challenge them to justify it and be suffciently awkward that a blanket ban is no longer the easiest option for them. Most importantly we should require them to be explicit about which areas they would like banned. As I see it there are 2 risks they might be concerned about - that of packages being left near sensitive areas such as barracks, and that of searchers setting off unexploded munitions. The first could be dealt with by limited exclusion zones round such locations. The second could be dealt with by requiring caches not to be camouflaged as munitions - tupperware type containers should be OK because as far as I know there are no guns that fire tupperware rounds - bear in mind we are looking only at the additional risk caused by caching over other activities that are allowed. Rgds, Andy

I fully agree, and I do something practical about it, visit http://www.amberel.com/topcache.htm if interested. Who knows, if they are somewhere I get to, and they are good enough ... Rgds, Andy

Deleting a NA log achieves nothing whatsoever other than concealing who it was that initiated the procedure. Rgds, Andy

MartyBartfast, it is much too precipitate to archive all the caches based solely on this posting. It may be that the OP is Swinley Forest management or it may not. And LOTC is by no means the only cache owner in the Forest and by no means all the caches are poorly maintained. The very first thing we need to do is establish a dialogue with leafy369 to clarify their authority and, if they are Swinley Forest management, to see if there is anything that can be done that would permit the caches to remain. This is a very lovely area in which I have enjoyed many walks, and one which we would not want to lose from caching if there is anything we can do to save it. Rgds, Andy