as77

Well, vague is perhaps not the best word for it but that question is indeed almost impossible to answer, I cannot blame Jeremy for that. The question is too general, too broad. I mean, there's a long legal document with many points and details. You cannot just ask "what was your intention with all this". I would suggest you pick out a specific detail and ask about that. E.g. "what was your intention regarding whether premium members should be allowed to share their PQs with other premium members". That's one well-defined question Jeremy can answer (like he indeed did). I believe if you ask clear-cut, specific questions like this (without forcing him to go back and try to retrace some old question somewhere in the thread) you can get some meaningful answers from him. Especially if you ask questions that can be answered with yes or no because he doesn't seem to like writing long essays.

GrizzlyJohn, maybe it's my mistake but it's not clear to me either what the question was that you expect Jeremy to answer. Your post at the link you gave doesn't contain a question either. This doesn't make things easier. Instead of vaguely referring to "the question", why don't you just clearly spell it out again?

Actually I believe I said that I don't speak to legal issues, and you have the right to find a lawyer who can offer you a legal opinion on the matter. Since (I guess) the Terms were written up based on your instructions, I believe they must reflect your intentions (if they don't, you can have them modified). I believe that most people who ask a question about the Terms want to know the actual intents behind the document rather than a strictly legal interpretation of the text. Now probably you are the best person to tell us about your intentions (but of course you can choose not to).

www.maporama.com provides global street-level coverage. It would be nice if something could be worked out with them.

My point was just that we should keep paranoia within reasonable limits. Opening an unknown container can never be 100% safe. If one starts thinking along the lines of "in this post-9/11 world, etc." then there is no stopping. Any container that was not prepared and packed by yourself or was opened previously by someone other than yourself will be considered unsafe. Let's not extend airport security guidelines to the entire world.

Isn't there a typo here? I believe that number must be at least an order of magnitude larger or even more. It might be the number of premium members but the number of registered users of gc.com must be over 150,000.

Well, if you are paranoid about it, you will not open the transparent container either. What if there is a biological or chemical agent hidden in the logbook, for example? It is only safe to open a transparent cache if you are wearing a gas mask and a biochemical suit. Actually, if protection from terrorists is the issue then we might say that by blowing up caches, the bomb squads do the stupidest thing they can do. If there is a biological or chemical agent in the box, it will get released and spread around.

Hmmm... is that a fact?

Why not move the discussion here? The other thread is about the Indiana case. The article: Toy figures really get a lot of action The cache page: Lion's Pride

Check out this link: http://www.gpspassion.com/upload/world_gps_map_database.xls (Excel document listing GPS-capable map solutions for every country in the world.)

Let me add two other tips. http://www.damnsmalllinux.org provides a business-card size CD-ROM (which you can buy or burn yourself) with bootable Linux on it. It can be used with any computer, no installation necessary, just boot it and you have Linux up and running. http://www.metropipe.net/ProductsPVPM.shtml : Portable Virtual Privacy Machine: the same thing but the "dadgum small linux" running under an emulator, so it doesn't have to be booted. Linux will run in a window within Windows (can be enlarged to full screen as well). Can be carried around on a USB flash drive.

It does overlap on my work computer where the setting is 1280x1024, large fonts (125%) in Display Properties.

Because it's the font in the countries dropdown list that should be bigger if you want to see the overlap. You can achieve that by setting a higher DPI or larger fonts in Display Properties.

Just look at the browser image. Does the page display correctly? No. Conclusion: the web design is bad. Most modern guides on web design will tell you that 1. using tables for layout is bad and obsolete, 2. specifying absolute pixel sizes is bad practice. Now the gc.com main page is nothing but a bunch of nested tables with hardcoded pixel sizes throughout.

This is not a browser issue. This is a web design issue. The solution is to fix the design of the web page. There is nothing wrong with how IE handles the page. It's the page that is badly designed.

My understanding is that the reason why he doesn't remove them is that gc.com doesn't publish a list of archived caches for each day, so there is simply no way to learn from the web site which caches have been archived. (Unless Buxley scans each cache page every day to see if it's archived, but I don't think gc.com would be happy with this solution.) So it's not that Buxley "doesn't agree" to remove them, it's that it's technically not possible. If gc.com wants to have the archived caches removed from Buxley's maps, all they have to do is to provide a list of these caches every day.

I found that changing the DPI for the display is not a universal solution. Whatever you do, some web pages and some programs are bound to appear messed up, especially those where pixel sizes are hardcoded (like on gc.com). Finally, I have resorted to setting my screen resolution to 1024x768, even though the monitor could display resolutions up to 1600x1200. But when I set the resolution to 1024x768, font sizes to normal and DPI to the default 96, everything everywhere is displayed correctly. gc.com illustrates why using hardcoded pixel sizes on web pages is a bad idea.

I have also seen this on some computers. The reason is that the font used in the dropdown list for the country names is too big. Although the width of the table containing the search form is specified as 200 pixels, the dropdown list becomes wider than that because of some long country names and this causes the gray part of the page to be around 250 pixels wide or even wider. This is apparently not easy to fix by the user because (at least in IE) changing the text size doesn't seem to affect the font used in the dropdown list. The solution would be better web design. For a quick fix, the long country names could be shortened or a stylesheet could be applied to the form elements, or the entire page (the white area) could be made 100 pixels wider so that bigger fonts can fit, too.

So, will this be done? Any comments from TPTB?

There are several threads about the eXplorists already, try the Search feature. In short, the eXplorist is only good for people who don't mind entering each and every waypoint by hand. That's because the eXplorist cannot be connected to a computer at all. Therefore, it is rather unpopular among geocachers.

Do you still have that problem with the compass? You know, the "hold level" warning.

Apparently it uses a comma instead of a dot for the decimal point.

Come on, there are two Dutch words in the program, the rest is international. Bereken means Calculate, what else do you need to know?

You mean decimal degrees, decimal minutes, etc.? Try this: http://145.53.24.230/GC.html

To me, it's pretty obvious that this cache is soliciting. Looking at the cache page, one can see that the solution of the puzzle requires searching the Bible for quotations that are usually used for proselytizing. The nature of the puzzle is such that it tries to make people read the Bible. The "you should be ashamed" part is telling, as well as the "study the POI" part. And reading the logs, it turns out that the cache is filled with bibles, free for the taking, nothing expected in return. So I think that this cache doesn't meet the guidelines.