shunra

Great idea. The next cracker barrel is a mere 415 miles from here, as the crow flies :-)

Hah! Finished Good Omens yesterday, and Cryptonomicon is next - I gave it to my wife for Christmas (without having read this thread before), but she's still reading the book she gave me

Thank you for your input, KA. Would you equally approve of - say - a cache in Brooklyn, saying: If you would, than that would be a statement about Geocaching policy that would surprise me. If you wouldn't, I'd appreciate to know the difference. I, for one, am personally offended by the statement in the cache description. Not by the term 'Bedouin', but that by the implication that they are thieves. Is it so difficult to ask the cache owner to comply with minimum ethical standards?

I got my first version on Wednesday just after 8 pm. I got nothing at all on Thursday. It's Friday morning, past 11 am now, still waiting. Wouldn't it be possible to add a box to the 'day' boxes saying 'today', which would be checked by default, whichever day it is? If someone wants a periodical reply (which doesn't seem to work in my case, as if it reads my mind that I don't want it to, although it should - weird!), they can change it themselves, and it would decrease the burden on the server by removing all unwanted default repetitions. Thanks! Will do!

The question is not whether 'Bedouin' itself is a racial slur. Of course it isn't. But stating that they, and particularly they, would steal caches, as opposed to other geomuggles, is a racist statement which I believe to be against the spirit, if not the explicit guidelines, of Geocaching. Being *very* familiar with the situation around my hometown, themain danger to caches would be Israeli authorities, who would explode every cache stumbled upon for fear of being a bomb. But that's not the issue either. The issueis that GC should not tolerate on its site a statement which claims that a specific ethnic group is more likely to plunder a cache than another. Period. I apologize if this is the wrong forum - I was deliberating between this anf general. I did not want to trigger a discussion, I merely wanted to know the position of the Admins about this matters.

I just noticed a cache near my former hometown, which had the following phrase in its description: I posted a 'This cache should be archived' log, with in it a request to change the text to 'geomuggles' or whatever, without ethnic specifications. A few hours later, there was actually a log from someone, who added insult to injury by claiming, among other things: Can one of the admins please comment on GC policies about this?

I'm still not getting it, though... 30 hours ago I placed my first pocket query and, not being able to specify that I wanted it one time only, I went for daily, and checked all the boxes. I got it after about half an hour, and then - nada. WHAT am I missing NOW? :-(

Hey, I'm the manager of a translation business, and also a translator myself. Moreover, Dutch is one of my languages. If anyone wants his cache page translated, drop me a line :-) To the point about the language of cache pages: I don't think there should be ANY rules about this, and the matter should be left to the discretion of the hider. Obviously, the more people read the page, the more visits a hider can expect. My two eurocents (that's more than $-cents :-)

See, that is exactly why I asked "For type you selected everything but locationless?"(to which you answered yes). To me, everything means all, however 'but' is the one not included . I tried to make the distinction between 'all the boxes' (which I did check), and 'the All box' (which I didn't check) :-)))

I was not looking for a good/bad debate about locationless , I was trying to figure exactly which boxes were checked. It sounds like you have both the 'all caches' as well as many others. Does anyone know if it matters if you select both 'all caches' and "Traditional, Multi, Virtual, Letterbox, etc"? Maybe try running a PQ the same way but checking only 'all caches' under type. Hi, I obviously didn't have the *All* box checked in addition to all the other boxes. And yes, Mofar's imput helped - I managed to see all 400 caches in Clayjar's program. I guess the enxt thing I need to do is go to WestMarine and buy that cable to connect to the PC - it wasn't included Oh, and I wasn't looking for an argument about Locationless either. I just don't think they belong in X nearest, because they're - well, everywhere. The coordinates they're listed under are bogus...

For type you selected everything but locationless? Did you happen to select anything in terrain/difficulty or placed during? Yes - I pretty much enjoy the diversity of all the cache styles, and I'm not picky. I may not "go for" some caches, but I won't ignore them when I'm next to them. As to locationless - Why would I want to have the coordinates of a locationless, which are meaningless anyway? And no - I left the terrain/difficulty settings as X=>1 on both counts, the defaults. And Mofar: My ever geekier son rebooted his linux box to Windows and is trying out Clayjar right now :-)

A small cache (film container, altoid tin, key holder, etc.) which contains only a log sheet and a pencil.

I found a new Garmin GPSr under the Christmas tree, and now I'm looking for Software. Is there anyone who could send me some CDs, of various types? If you'll enclose a wishlist of what you would like to GET, I'll be glad to send it to you as soon as I have it! So far, I have Delorme Topo 3.0, and the West Coast data CD. Thanks!

Great idea - I'll adopt ot for mine! And thanks for the code - I'm challenged in that respect, too...

More important than adding a field for something that can be wrotten in the description, it would be to make sure that the datum is really the datum of the cache, and not the datum of the parking space, as so often is the case.

OK, Thanks for explaining. I understand the delay due to the batch part. What I don't understand is why a query must perforce be recursive. Also, my query certainly wasn't too detailed. I asked for up to 400 active caches from my home of any category except found, owned and locationless caches, not farther than 200 miles from home, but within my home state. I got a mere 15 results (which are all very close to home, perhaps even the 15 very nearest ones - I could check that).

And further... I had asked for 400 waypoints. After half an hour, I am getting a file with 15... What am I doing wrong?

No!!!! Leave it as it is!

Merry Christmas you all! Under the Christmas tree I found a new GPS (yay!) and a "voucher" for upgrading my membership to Premium Membership. I immediately went to the site and signed up, and tried to play with the Pocket Queries. Having read so much about the queries in the past, I'm sort surprised that they result in periodic e-mail messages, which I'd be getting X times a week. What I had hoped to upload the material to my new GPS right away, and start playing with it. When will that message be sent, and why can't I get my answers immediately when I ask for them, and just this one time? Or am I seriously missing something? Thanks!

There's a Federal agency, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, who makes available what they call the NTAD, or National Transportation Atlas Database. It contains all of the Interstates and US highways and many major state roads. In fact, if I compare it to INDOT's official highway map, it's pretty much identical. The NTAD is freely usable, in a usable format (ArcView Shapefiles), and updated regularly. I have a copy here somewhere. I've never quite figured out how to extract exit information from it, but in case someone else wants to have a go at it, I thought I'd point out its existence. The exits are all in there as nodes, it's just figuring out which nodes are exits that has thus far eluded me. However, no list of Interstate exits will help me figure out which caches are within 10 miles of US 30 between Fort Wayne and Chicago. I think both things are necessary. [Edit: I previously said "public domain" but that's not the case.] What would be the datum of an exit, for these purposes? Another problem: Many exits cover an area of several acres, and some of them do not have exit or reentry possibilities in one of the two directions. For interstates and other 'dual carriage ways' with exits, searching by exit is an excellent idea, because it would *eliminate* the caches you can't get to otherwise, along the route from your query. I think this is a feature that should be added separately from a feature to searching along routes.

How can a locationless cache sit there among your 'Nearest 20 Unfound'? But yes, I would support that Ignore function. the caches I would want to ignore are not necessarily the challenging ones - quite the contrary - I put them on my watch list!, but some lame ones. At the moment, I'm also thinking of one particular cache (GCF304) which has never been found yet, which has been 'temporarily' disabled since April '03 without any indication on the site when it will be opened again, which isn't being archived, and which has a cache owner who doesn't respond to private messages. Instead of getting annoyed every time I see it, I'd much rather be positive, and just pretend it isn't there - which is probably true anyway.

I like that idea! Since we have a list of our caches in chronlogical order, it should be easy to make a travel map out of those.

If they would be told that Groundspeak hosts a half million pages (caches and benchmarks), that each of them has a frequently used link to their site, and that these links will be removed, and may be returned when their site returns the satellite images and/or payment of a proper fee, they'll probably be less contemptuous. Jeremy, this may make you a nice buck. Does this earn me a lifetime premium membership?

Why? Did you see something else?

Oh no! This is terrible. I used this all the time. Additionally, it looks like they eliminated the BIG MAP button. With both those features lost, it's definiteley time to switch to Mappoint, which has niver and larger maps anyway. The only disadvantqge of Mappoint is that it doesn't remember previously visited locations, which requires you to reenter them every time again. Very annoying when you're asking it for directions.