kpanko
-
Posts
240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kpanko
-
-
The Google map seems to confirm what you are saying.
Edit: Oops, I wanted the map to show both the cache location, and the church location at the same time, but the link I used is not showing the cache location. So, that is this map where Mound Ave and Mound Rd come together.
-
Technology keeps advancing. Things keep getting smaller. Expect femtocaches coming in Q1 of 2012.
-
I wouldn't trust an unknown CD in my computer, but I am curious if they are safe to play in your car?
Depends how sensitive your ears are.
-
-
In my area, it is definitely the case that the change in the guidelines really had an effect on the hiding practice.
Could you explain what change it was, and what the effect was?
I think I understand that the effect was that there are now fewer multi-stage caches, and there are more series of single stage caches along trails instead. But I do not understand why this would be due to the guidelines changing. Were series prohibited in the past?
but those who hide 20 single caches along a hiking trail in order to attract more visitors, would decide to hide a single multi cache instead if the guidelines were different and they have no other option.Those visitors would no longer be attracted if that was the case. I heard somewhere that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
-
I've never gotten a FTF but you just gave me a great idea. I'm going to log a false, "found it" so none of the FTFer's go for it, then I'm going to go for FTF.
Hmm. That might work sometimes, but I think it would not help all that much.
There are some roadside caches that can be found within about 20 minutes of being published, so you might be caught in the lie by someone who runs right out.
I saw one recently that went four days before being found because it requires walking in the woods for about 30 minutes, and it was published on Tuesday and was found on Saturday by someone who was headed that way anyway. FTF seems to be about the immediate race, so after a few days, it's no longer hot.
I know when I see a published cache, if I can't get there in the next 30 minutes, I just forget about it. I assume someone else will get there first.
If I get beat there, I'll probably see the paper log long before the online log is posted. So it doesn't bother me that it takes some time for the FTF person to log it.
Usually I don't go for the FTF, unless I already happen to be in the right area or whatever. It's not worth it to me to go put my shoes on.
-
I'm still not seeing the big deal. 100 people enjoyed some caches that were apparently placed in a scenic area. It is likely that a 20-stage multi would not have been similarly enjoyed.
Earlier this year, I found the final stage of a 14 stage cache which took me three visits to the area. It also included several field puzzles. I would say what makes that different than 14 separate traditionals is that finding the final stage provides a bigger sense of accomplishment. With a multi-stage, you must find each stage, in the order given. If one is missing or too hard to find, that's the end of the trip for that day. With a series, you can just move on to the next closest one and try again there.
Therefore, reaching the end is an accomplishment, representing a big time commitment. I congratulate those who complete the challenge.
My preference after that experience, is to avoid these long multi stage adventures, unless I am feeling like I want to spend the entire day working on one cache, which is a rare thing. On those rare days, it's nice to have that option, but usually I want to search for something that I can log as either found or not found. It's just not as fun to go home early and log "found stage 5 but got stuck on stage 6, will hopefully try again in a few weeks."
-
. . . I was raised to speak out for things I believe in . . .
Education of what our Geocaching expectations and common moires are is important.
I believe in proper spelling, therefore I am speaking out about the spelling of "mores."
-
So, each time somebody goes in to correct a spelling mistake, I'm going to get an email?
That is a fair concern.
Wiki systems like Wikipedia have this same problem, and they solved it by adding a check-box on the edit screen that says "Minor change? (No notifications will be sent.)" If the user is only going to correct a spelling mistake, they can check the box. Of course, this depends on the user knowing that they should do that.
It's probably better to err on the side of too many notifications than not enough. It's always a tricky balance, and it's impossible to please everybody.
-
lobby Groundspeak to email log updates to cache owners
Bam!
-
I think that a log edited in a timely fashion, i.e that same day, would be at or near the top of the listing so you would not need to troll through 400 logs looking for it....right?
Actually, the e-mail already includes a clickable link that brings up that log in the web browser. No need to scroll through anything at all.
Like this: http://coord.info/GL5JGV41
The trouble is that nothing happens to let anybody know when, or if, a log has been edited.
-
I think we can all agree GC to turn into a similar wasteland.
No.
-
-
"Geocaching is an outdoor activity in which global positioning devices are put in containers and hidden around the world for participants to find."
I wish that were true!
-
Maybe you have not needed to reference the journals - because the mere act of creating them re-enforced and solidified the memories.
Maybe writing nice online logs will do the same??
Sounds good to me.
-
Must be much more often than 'sometimes' --- because it is often portrayed as the norm.
The norm? I thought it was "when the container is frozen closed" or "the log book has melted and therefore cannot be signed." That is not the norm.
Yes, you cannot really say that the decision of the CO is the only thing that matters. I have heard about virtual caches that were being logged by all kinds of random people who had clearly never been to the site, and these caches were archived and locked. I suppose this happened because the CO "decided" to not care. The site admins had to step in and do something to stop the armchair logging.
If a CO wanted to get a bigger number next to his name, he could "hide" a cache, then "find" it a few hundred times. The system would not prevent it, but most of us can agree that would be cheating, pointless, and lame.
-
I think that you are using a non-standard definition of 'found'.
Maybe we need to agree that we are not actually finding geocaches, but rather finding log books or sheets.
Finding the cache container might not be good enough, for example when the container is brightly colored but 30 feet up in a tree. Or when the container is locked because a puzzle must be solved to open it. Or when the container is a decoy with a note inside that says "keep looking!"
Let's call it geologging. Then everybody will understand that we are actually looking for log books.
Or that we are loggers. I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay . . .
-
Is there an official FTF score sheet somewhere like the find count?
No.
-
Yeah, the announcement is here: http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1050915-api-for-3rd-party-applications?ref=title
From the feedback page:
A Update: We are currently in the process of testing the API with approximately 20 developers, including many of the applications and services requested in the feedback comments below. Ideally, these API enabled applications will be available for launch within the next 30-45 days. -
I don't understand how they can feel good about these "finds". Just my thoughts.
oh by the way, combing the logs for hints almost sounds like cheating to me.
. . . We play by our own rules.
Looks like you do understand, actually.
They feel good about getting help on the phone, because they just do.
Not every find has to be an incredible accomplishment.
P.S. Sometimes I play video games while reading a walk-through guide. I have more fun that way.
-
The new smilies look horrendous, and aren't nearly as "readable", if that makes any sense. If I'm not wearing my glasses, they just look like messy smears.
Agreed about being less readable. They have less contrast between the background and foreground. At the large size they look good, but the small size is harder to tell what it is.
Large:
Small:
Old:
-
Groundspeak has begun working with select third-party application developers to introduce the new Geocaching.com Public API. The closed Beta phase of API development begins in early 2011 and is expected to quickly progress into release candidate status later in the year. Check back for updates soon!
-
The old smileys are not old enough! I demand text based smileys!
:-)
:-(
You crazy kids with your color graphics screens . . .
-
Either way, found or not found, we want to hear from you.
Often, a cache goes missing -- we need to know if you didn't find it! If I can't find it, you would want to know that too. So share early and often.
Massive multi or many "normal" caches?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
If this multi has 10 stages, it might take a few tries to find them, so it is possible that when you change the combination, someone will have already found a couple of stages and wrote down the numbers. Then they will find the end and not get it open. Then they have to do the previous stages all over again. That would be a downer.
My preference would be that you do not lock it, and do not put log books in every stage. If cheaters want to cheat, I would let them. It's not worth my effort to prevent it, and I do not want to get in fights over what is acceptable. Do you think it's worth it?
On the positive side, if you are going out to check on it regularly, then the stages will probably be there when someone goes out to find them, which is awesome. Nothing less fun than finding 4 stages and going home early because the next one was missing.