Gan Dalf
-
Posts
619 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Gan Dalf
-
-
Hey TAK,
Thanks for the update regarding Ione. We've been working on the challenge for a couple years and we're finally(!) closing in on completion with only 5 cities to go.
We wanted to make sure we're understanding the Ione change correctly. If we logged the Ione airport cache last month (i.e. prior to publication of the new cache) but we won't be able to finish our remaining five qualifiers before 8/31, do we have to go back to Ione for the new cache? Or is our Ione qualifier "locked in" because it was valid at the time we found it?
Thanks in advance for the answer and thanks for the challenge fun,
Ben & Jayme
Hi B&J,
glad you are having fun with the challenge. Coincidentally, the thought of this misunderstanding occurred to me as well while I was in the shower this morning.
The short answer is, you're good, no need to go back and find the newly placed cache in Ione (unless you want to).
The long answer is, that if you found the Ione airport cache anytime from the date that it became eligible for the challenge (around September 1st, 2011) until August 31st, 2013, that you can use that cache as the qualifying cache for Ione, no matter when you log the Challenge. From August 31st, 2013 on, the airport cache will no longer qualify for the challenge. Furthermore, before September 1st 2011, there was another cache in Ione that had to be used for the challenge, it has since been archived but before it was disabled, the airport cache did not qualify at that time either. You had to use the Caveman Cache inside the Ione city limits, as the qualifying Ione cache for the challenge.
Hope this clears things up. Let me know if it doesn't.
TAK
-
In case you missed it on the cache page:
To all watchers and those working on this challenge, as most of you know, there has not been a cache inside the city limits of Ione, WA for a long time even though that town has remained part of the challenge. After the original cache that was in Ione when the challenge published went missing several months later, I have allowed the cache at the Ione airport south of town as an alternative to finding a cache inside the city limits of Ione. That policy is about to end....
There was a new cache inside the city limits of Ione that published a few weeks ago. I have now personally found that cache and so will no longer be accepting the cache that is outside of the city limits as an alternate. To give those with with current pocket queries and unchangeable plans a chance to complete the challenge I will continue to accept the cache at the airport as an alternative until August 31, 2013. Any find made at the Ione airport after that date will not be accepted for the purposes of the challenge.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
TAK
-
Congrats to Fobesman for reaching #4000 at the Great Balls of Fire event last weekend!
Yes, congrats, way to go. Now just finish the Washington State Town & Cities Challenge. Dick & Arlene
HOORAH!Thanks All and I'm working on it Dick! Hope to make a significant dent in it this summer...
-
...even gravitational sources such as power lines and large rock formations are going to hinder some devices in obtaining accurate coords...
Unless you happen to be next to a black hole, I'm pretty sure gravity doesn't play that much a part in accuracy. Large rock masses may cause multipath or block line of sight to a satellite, and power lines may cause electromagnetic interference.
Point?
-
Almost is good enough in horseshoes, hand grenades and geocaching. You should try to obtain accurate coordinates, but there is no need to spend an undue amount of time fussing over them. I think most geocachers are OK with coords bring them to within 25-30 feet.
However purposefully posting soft coords to make the hunt more challenging is unacceptable and your caches might wind up on a lot of people's ignore lists if you make a habit of doing that. There are lots of ways to make your hides challenging and posting soft coords is the least imaginative way of doing it.
I'm sorry, in due defferance to Briansnat's status as a moderator and geocacher of the year time and time again, I disagree, 25-30 feet is not good enough. With todays devices and other tools at our disposal there i no reason for anything being off by more than 20 feet and less than 15 feet is the preferred target.
Granted, differences in devices, conditions on the day the cache was hidden, and overhead obstructions such as trees, tall bulidings and even gravitational sources such as power lines and large rock formations are going to hinder some devices in obtaining accurate coords but the CO's primary responsibility is to provide the most accurate coords possible, for any type of hide...
There is more than one group of people around where I cache that think they are clever in posting soft coords for micros in wooded areas with hints like "moss", "stump", or "typical NW hide" in areas where there are dozens if not hundreds of such locations within a 50 ft raidus of GZ and GPS accuracy at 20 feet or worse. The results are, that every piece of moss gets torn off what it is attached to and every rotting stump gets ripped apart while geocachers search for too small of caches 50 feet or more from where they actually should be looking. Post accurate coords, It's the right thing to do!
-
Due to a relocation and change in life's priorities most of my caches should be archived or adopted. Any thoughts or suggestions?
I sent you a note indicating I would like to adopt Vista. Looks like you're getting lots of interest...
-
reponded to wrong post, sorry
-
course in our area there are so many cachers who wont log their DNF logs, who truly knows!
some, not all
I would imagine for a caches like this that a greater percentage of those that don't find it *do* post their DNF logs than a less difficult and possibly muggled hide. Cachers seem to wear their DNFs as a badge of honor on extremely difficult hides.
-
Some alternatives:
erik88l-r - First Volunteer Cache Reviewer
Hydee - First person employed by the Groundspeak Founders; first geocacher to marry a Groundspeak founder
MissJenn - First volunteer cache reviewer to be hired on as a Lackey
JoGPS - Founder of GeoWoodstock
RobertLipe - Developer of GPS Babel, the engine that drives GSAK (among other things)
ClydeE - Developer of GSAK, the most popular third-party geocaching software
Lil Devil - Early Developer of third party apps and Greasemonkey scripts
Prime Suspect - Keeper of "GeoLex" geocaching glossary; leading developer of Greasemonkey scripts
Markwell and CYBret - Pioneers in non-Groundspeak help site/FAQ site development
ClayJar - Developer of automated terrain/difficulty rating system; founder of longest-running Geocaching Chat Channel
Nice alternatives! Thanks for the info!
I think GeoLobo's 3 founders could be combined into one and then his list combined with KeyStones. Ken Jennings and nano caches has to fit in their somewhere...
-
course in our area there are so many cachers who wont log their DNF logs, who truly knows!
some, not all
-
FM, you miss the point. I'm talking about discussing a cache, not posting a solution. Everyone could be privy to my conversation with other cachers at a coffee shop...if they wanted to listen. This situation is not unlike the forums: not everyone looks at the forums, and certainly not everyone looks at the forums for solutions to a puzzle.
I understood your point and I know what the guidlines say. What I was saying is that if you are talking about a cache in a coffee shop, not everyone there is going to be a geocacher that cares what you are talking about. And while it might be true that not everyone comes to the forums you can be sure that once word got out that the solution or even clues on how to solve a particular puzzle is available int he forums, that everyone that cared about finding that particular cache would come here for help in solving it. Not saying that is a bad thing or even wrong, just my opinion on what the result would be.
Also, it doesn't say anywhere that someone has to solve a puzzle to log a find. All they must do is sign the physical log. I've even stumbled upon a brand new mystery cache while out on a hike. And if I had other cachers along, they could have signed the log as well. There are, in fact, rules against "ALRs" on Geocaching.com hosted geocaches. This means, no one can place a requirement additional to simply logging a find in the logbook and online. This would include any requirement of completing a puzzle to be allowed to log a find. It's that simple.
That's the very point that lamorake is making above. It is a bit of Groundspeak having their cake and eating it too. On one hand, they say no ALR's. On the other hand, they say don't post puzzle spoilers, which takes us back to the OP...
-
it sounds like you are referring to my experience FM and since you brought it up, will expand on my experience since I had already posted on this thread and I want to get the facts straight of your example.
The reference I made was purely generic in nature so any supposition on your part is strictly your own.
The CO had the temerity to delete people's finds rudely because they were with me (and had not solved the puzzle beforehand on their own) and I mean rudely.
In the example you cite, it sounds to me like the temerity was yours in assuming that the CO was OK with you taking a large group of people with you when you went to find it after you solved it.. Did you think to write to him before hand and ask if he was OK with it? You know, something like, "Hey, I'm going caching with 20 people on Saturday and I thought I'd take them to your cache that I've solved but none of the others have. I promise to tell them how to solve it before we go look for it..."
As I said I don't have an issue with solution sharing and as you well know, there are many puzzles that I have found that I needed help in solving, that's not the issue. It's one thing to share a solution with one or two individuals and another thing completely to take a large group with you while out caching in an area. I mean you didn't HAVE to look for that cache that day did you, with all those people? You could have skipped it and gone about finding all of the others that you found that day and then gone back and found ithe puzzle later, right? Maybe with some of the same people that you took the first time and after they had solved the puzzle themselves.
However by the logic of that puzzle CO, no one can cache together as a group if not the entire group of cachers solved any planned puzzle collectively or individually beforehand. Its supposed to be a fun hobby.
Agreed, it's supposed to be fun for everyone however, including the CO that designed the puzzle in the first place, not just the people that go to find it when they never solved the puzzle. Can you imagine that maybe it's not much fun for the CO when a bunch of people find a cache that he intended to be a little more work than just being lead to the cache by someone else?
-
I don't see too much of a difference of discussing a tough "?" cache here in the GS forums, and discussing over coffee with some contemporaries.
The difference is that not everyone is privy to your conversation at a coffee shop with a couple of your puzzle solving friends however the forums are something that anyone ccould come to and read and once word got out that puzzle solutions were available int he forums, everyone would.
I don't have a problem sharing solutions with others interested in learning how to solve a partcular puzzle and by that I mean how to solve it, not the actual coordinates. What I don't like is when coordinates or locations are shared with someone that doesn't otherwise solve puzzles. I know of one case in particular where a cache owner archived one of his puzzles because someone that had the solution to it took a large group of people with them to go and get it. Several of them had never even looked at the cache page. If your going to go for a puzzle cache I think you should at least know how the puzzzle is solved.
As far as discussing puzzles in the forums go, I don't have a problem with that either, as long as the discussions are general in nature. Including things like, "have you tried cipher solving web site X?" or, "looked at this Base Number converter?" I think more specific discussions should be taken offline so that people aren't using the forums as a source for solutions to specific puzzles.
-
I publish lots of caches that I don't personally approve of (as in, "all puzzle caches").
Interesting. What is it about puzzle caches that you find undesirable?
Just a guess, but he spends a huge amount of time on his Reviewer duties, as well as attempting to herd the cats in the forums. Along with his other pursuits, I doubt he has an interest in spending his valuable free geo-time working on puzzles vs actually caching.
Lack of interest or no desire to do something is different than not approving of something. You can still approve of puzzle caches even if you don't like spending your time figuring them out. Personal dissaproval of "all puzzle caches" indicates a belief that they should not be allowed. I'm curious as to why, that's all...
-
I publish lots of caches that I don't personally approve of (as in, "all puzzle caches").
Interesting. What is it about puzzle caches that you find undesirable?
-
Does anybody have a "Log My Dog" tag?
Yes, K-Man is trackable. You must meet him in the wild in order to discover him...
-
My dog Kona is my number one caching companion. He has gone caching with me more than anybody else in my family or otherwise and he can tell when I am getting ready for a cache outing.
He loves to climb
Swim
Go for hikes in the winter with the family
or with me for special milestones
Basiclly anything to get out of the house and out in nature for a romp. He has gotten so he recognizes when we are getting close to a cache. When the Geepus beeps, his ears go up and he starts sniffing around in circles and if we ar ein the car, he will start to wimper and whine knowing that we will be stopping for a hunt. I can't imagine a better caching companion...
-
It's because puzzle caches are only appealing to a certain finite group of cachers and those cachers will be the most relentless and resourceful at solving any puzzle. Whether or not ANY puzzle subject would be known to the puzzle group in your area would be merely coincidental. The fact that it is a puzzle cache is the only thing that would matter to them.
And then there is the sharing part of it as well. Not necessarily the blatant sharing of the coords, although that happens too, but more along the lines of working together to solve a puzzle and sharing insights/ideas into how the puzzle might be solved. This usually resutls in a group of two or three cachers all finding the hide at the same time.
-
credit aganecies look at how much unsecurded credit a person has access to. The higher this number the lower the credit rating.
I think you're confusing debt with credit. If I'm carrying a lot of unsecured debt (I owe a lot of money) it would hurt my credit rating. But if I have a lot of available credit (not in debt, folks are willing to lend me money), it's exactly the opposite of what you're saying. And in that case, applying for a new credit card is a non-issue.
This is going OT but what JohnnyVegas said originally was actually correct and not your assumption. In fact one of the first thing that credit aganecies advise you to do is eliminate as many of the credit cards (unsecured debt) as you can in order to raise your credit limit, expecially if you are not carrying any debt on them.
The reasoning is simple. If you have 10 credit cards, all with no balance on them and all with a credit limit of say (for arguments sake) $5000, and you apply for a loan for a new car or a house, you are then free to turn around and take out $50K in debt while still owing the money on the loan you just took out making it much more likely that you will then default on the loan.
It is somewhat of a catch-22. You need good credit in order to take out a loan, you need a loan in order to secure good credit but if you have too much credit available at your disposal, that you got because you have a good credit rating, then your credit rating goes down.
With credit cards it's not that big of a deal, those are easy to get, even if your credit is not that great. When it becomes a problem is when you try to buy something bigger like a car, baot or home. Those loans actually want you to owe as little as possible to other people and to limit your ability to borrow more to ensure that the loans they've floated you are paid off.
-
One reason this is a conflict is because gc.com has no way to distinguish hider from current owner, much less to keep links to all historical owners. (I know of one cache which is on its fourth owner, although in that case all adopters found it before adopting it.) So you hide a cache, it's a good one and a lot of people like it, you move and have someone else adopt it. It no longer shows up in your profile -- if you let it be archived then it's still in your profile, but if you try to keep it going by adopting it out then you lose all links to it!
So one way logging a find is a way to keep a link from your record to a cache which you hid.
Edward
Not sure I understand this point... Couldn't you just watchlist it after you've adopted it out and then always have access to what is going on with it?
-
NA logs, notes to reviewers, letters to Groundspeak, are generally ignored or no action is taken. Here is another specific example. I know for a fact that all of those options have been used for this particular cache. Doesn't seem to matter, even though it is an obvious guideline violation and maybe even illegal placement...
As I am understanding it, the cache (GC31ZPT) can be accessed without parking on the side of the Interstate (you can legally park in the park-n-ride lot), which avoids the usual legality issue with Interstate caches (you cannot park on the side of an interstate highway except in an emergency). Of course, if there is signage or fencing at the PnR lot telling people not to enter the woods that is another matter of legality.
This is where the line between implicit vs. explicit permission exists. As B&L pointed out, the WSDOT does not have an explicit geocaching policy, not suprising however, most railrods do. You can't place a cache within 500 feet of any railway ROW and yet, since there is no policy, this cache is allowed to exist.
I agree that Rest Stop caches can complicate the ROW policy but this is a perfect example of why there are human reviewers for cache placements. Most people will agree that the majority of people will take the easy road out and so it is not a far cry to assume that a cache placed in the middle of the north and south bound lanes of an interstate will have people walking along the lanes to access the cache.
-
I mean local events, like a meet and greet, not big events like block party or geowoodstock.
Doesn't matter, small or large, the purpose of an event is to bring people together that share a common interest. As to how to start the converstion, you don't always need to. Sometimes it's useful just to stand in the midst of others having a conversation like you are a part of it and when someone says something that you have an opinion on or have experience with, just interject a comment. At that point others will engage you in the conversation.
All of this is of course what you would do in any social situation with a lot of people. Just be yourself and be friendly and if you want to be a part of something, butt in...
-
Fobes, I know this forum topic is not about GC31ZPT, the Wilderness of I-5,
Which is why you should have e-mailed me directly with the question. I refer you to the post #37 by B&L for why I think the way I do. I'm not going to discuss the issues with this particlar cache with you here. I'll leave it at that.
-
Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.
But I think the OP is syaing that is part of the problem. NA logs, notes to reviewers, letters to Groundspeak, are generally ignored or no action is taken. Here is another specific example. I know for a fact that all of those options have been used for this particular cache. Doesn't seem to matter, even though it is an obvious guidleine violation and maybe even illegal placement...
The issue I see is that obviously a CO is not going to place an attribute on their cache that says that it was placed in violation of the guidleines. So unless a cacher is allowed to place the new attribute on the cache, kinda like The Needs Maintanance Attribute then it is a moot point. I also doubt that Grounspeak would seriously consider giving cachers that ability.
But this isn't really a serious suggestion, right? I mean the OP was only posting this to make a point...
My post #18:
Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.
which we are finding doesn't always work.
This gives me an opportunity to say, once again, how fantastic the reviewers for Ontario are in being responsive to "NA" logs and concerns expressed by cachers.
I guess we're spoiled here. And lucky.
Thanks, Ontario Reviewers.
Yes... Note the time stamp. I was starting to write at the same time you were posting. Wasn't trying to pile on.
Corrected Coordinates in Google Maps
in Website
Posted · Edited by The-Analog-Kid
I apologize if this issue has been covered in another thread or explained elsewhere...
I have my map preferences set to google maps. When I view a cache page for which I have corrected the coordinates, the icon on the imbedded map on the cache page moves, no problem. However, when I click the View Larger Map Link, the icon reverts tot he original posted position.
Wasn't sure if this was a bug, a known issue (probably), is working as intended or can't be changed for some other unrelated issue with google maps...
I have checked this using both Chrome and IE and the same problem occurs using both browsers. don't us e firefow so no idea there...
Thanks
TAK