va griz
-
Posts
533 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by va griz
-
-
When you have a unique container and stating the size may give it away, then I can see the need for a "?" size. But when it's used to artificially up the difficulty it strikes me as the same level of creativity as soft coords.
But that's just me, I still look for them.
-
I think there were more than 126
Sure looks like it. Fortuneatly I am used to being wrong
-
In July 2001 I'll bet that 126 caches was most of the caches that existed.
-
The following is fron this article from Car & Driver magaine.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/02q2/...al!-feature
In the U.S., manufacturers voluntarily follow the standard set by the Society of Automotive Engineers, J1226, which is pretty lax. To begin with, manufacturers are afforded the latitude to aim for within plus-or-minus two percent of absolute accuracy or to introduce bias to read high on a sliding scale of from minus-one to plus-three percent at low speeds to zero to plus-four percent above 55 mph. And those percentages are not of actual speed but rather a percentage of the total speed range indicated on the dial. So the four-percent allowable range on an 85-mph speedometer is 3.4 mph, and the acceptable range on a 150-mph speedometer is 6.0 mphAlso interesting is out of over 200 cars tested at a true 70 MPH, 3 read less than 69, and 90 read more than 71 MPH. So (if you believe them, I do) the good news is speedometers in newer car are pretty accurate, but they are optimistic on average. They said tire wear from brand new, to ready to replace, made about a 2 MPH difference.
-
Every time I've seen real measurements, be it a test done by any of several magazines or a vehicle I've checked myself, the speedo reading has always ranged from correct, to up to 10 percent faster than the actual speed. (for a vehicle with stock tires and gearing) That doesn't prove that the manufactuer are doing it intentionally, but it seems likely and I can see why they would do it.
By the way, the odometers are often off by the same amount. That makes your gas mileage seem a little better than it is.
-
You already have some good advice on finding them, and it's good to get more than a handful of finds before hiding your own.
Regulations on hints/ pictures/ cordinates...Hints can't be misleading, but they can be tricky, funny, or a giveaway if you want. The only clue I don't like is something like "none needed". If that's true, just leave it out.
Pictures are your choice, lots of pages have none.
The coordinates for you cache should be as close as you can get them. Even to the point of visiting the site at different times to get readings under different conditions if that is practical. Sooner or later you will stumble on a cache with the coords off by 70 feet or so and probably come to the same conclusion.
Good luck, enjoy, Griz
-
Sometimes we do this just to see if anybody is paying attention.
OK, admit it, you also created that cache page out of thin air for that one I DNFed and everybody else seems to have no problem with!
Or is my tin foil hat just a little too tight? 
-
That makes sense. Curious, but not antsy.
-
I just received a notice that GC20XE4 was published, followed by one that said it was archived. I can understand that, things happen. What I don't understand is why the page for it says it isn't published yet. Not really a big deal, I just don't understand how it was de-published. (is that a word?)
-
Can you scroll down to the bottom of the page?
-
That's weird. The chances of randomly finding a cache are pretty slim. The chances of finding one by a particular owner must be almost zero.
-
Pay attention to the distance as you get closer, but don't fall into the trap of believing that when it says one or two feet you are standing on top of the cache. Due to small errors it can be anywhere from 0 feet to 20 feet, sometimes even more.
Good luck and tell us how you did.
-
I'm not sure that the train wreck photo is off topic. I think it is more of a statement on the condition of the topic itself.
The cat, regardless of ownership, is most likely off topic.
If the reviewer had not implied that the cat was there when clearly it can not be known if the cat is or is not there........
Sorry, physics humor
-
Looks like I'm with the majority that doen't mind a difficult one if it's "good". Good seems to vary from one cacher to the next, but like several others I like one that is in plain sight but well hidden from muggles. I remember one micro in the woods that took me two trips. It was a piece of wood on a stump, but somehow wasn't a needle in a haystack. Just perfect camo in the most obvious spot at GZ.
-
As soon as the jabs stop flying at me, my friend! I am more than happy to treat others as they treat me. Want to play games and belittle, let's play. Want to be serious and have a real discussion, better yet. If you've been paying any attention at all, you'll note that sbell has been slapping at me for the last few days now and not just in this thread. If he wants respect, he's going at it quite wrong. And you're quite right, the jabs at me are completely uncalled for. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you should continually subject me to jabs and slams...you being general here. As for not participating...are Clan and I the only ones who remember I did post my thoughts? Sorry if I'm not willing to play games (that IS what both sbell abd TTJ were up to btw, not trying to hear my view since I've been more than happy to give it all along), that doesn't mean I'm not willing to have a serious discussion as I have repeaedly demonstrated.
You may note that was a response to him shooting out spew in his post....or are we only concentrating on me?
You are not in that discussion, you already declined. You are only saying you have already spoken about it (but are too lazy to find the comment) and will not repeat yourself. But the pot shots continue. To me that's just slinging mud, not a serious dicusion.
-
PLEASE, lets not let this thread drift over into a rehash of the "other" thread about a cache archived after years of DNFs.
My question is about caches that are so tough that they may take large numbers of cachers many attempts to find. Apparently (I'm going on info from local cachers on the other side of the country) some hiders make a nano NIH hide and even throw out washers to thwart metal detectors. I just don't get it. Is that really the object, to make an unfindable cache? To me it's not a cache if I can't have another cacher find it.
By the way, I'm not trying to get any policy changed or outlaw caches with more than X number of DNFs. I guess I'm just saying they aren't for me. What do you think?
-
Wouldn't that be YOUR shenanigans....my friend?
On a more serious note than my last post, since you have already declined to participate in an ongoing discusion of how to handle a difficult situation, pointed jabs at those talking is really uncalled for.
Just sayin', my friend.
-
OK, I think I get it now. Tell me if this is correct:
When you boil the question down to its essence...
RR and others are saying the situation was handled poorly regardless of whether the cache was really there or not., Right? This is a valid opinion and he really doesn't need to supplement it with anything else (although he does.)
Another group is engaging in a fruitless debate about whether the cache was really there or not.
A third group (myself included) says, if the cache was bogus we have no problem with the way Groundspeak handled it, but we'll probably never know.
A few fringe wackos
have actually tried to answer the question asked, namely has anyone ever seen this happen on another cache?Does that about cover it?
Nice summation, but it doesn't do it for me.
[snark on] I am just about to change my mind on this topic, and need some help. Maybe if one more person would describe how offended they are at having an insult cross their path. Perhaps another tortured analogy would do it*. At least help me by telling me who the burden of proof falls when somebody is trying to find the truth about something somebody said about something that might not have been. One more circular argument might work. Please help, I've almost decided which way to think. [snark off]* guilty of this one myself
-
Everyone wants to keep saying that SuperFly should have provided proof that his cache existed. AT NO POINT DID GS QUESTION THE EXISTENCE OF THE CACHE, NOR DID THEY ASK FOR PROOF
You don't think SF could figure out that GS needed proof of the cache when the reviewer said it did not exist? That would be like trying to defend yourself against a ticket for no drivers licence without bringing the licence to court.
-
Nomex disabled the cache with a note saying that the cache was in need of maintenance because it had never been found. He asks the owner to check the cache and either replace or archive it. Super Fly responded saying he checked the cache. Note he did not replace or archive the cache as Nomex asked. If in fact the cache didn't need to be replaced because everything was in place, he should have contacted Nomex via email as was stated in the note.
First, I'll add to the chours in thanking you for the well reasoned responces. Second, I will avoid saying who is right here due to the overwhelming lack of evidence.
My real comment is on the bolded part of your quote. From my reading of the note he clearly asked for the owner to check on it, but I would not say he asked for an email if the cache was good to go. He only reminded the owner that he could contact him, not should. I mention this because it seems to get to the root of the "handled badly" comments. I have no reason to think it was intentional, but as a learning opportunity I would suggest the reviewers be a little more pointed in their comments if they expect a specific responce to a request.
Again, I lean toward support of GS position in this and most matters, I just have that one suggestion for future difficult situations.
-
As far as I know there is no way to fool the map displayed on the cache page. More or less echoing what RC said, the purpose of the map is just the convienence of not having to enter the coords in a seperate map page, and you can't fool all the map sites.
-
This is one I found. Not so much a CCC, but I enjoyed finding a real log BOOK in a micro.
And this is one of my easy ones. It has a film can inserted in the other end, and is "hidden" in a decorative ship.
-
Maybe your friend misspelled youe name and got a different player? Devita, for instance, has no hides.
Edit: Never mind, I see the post now that shows all the other info correct. I don't have a good answer.
-
I guess I/we are in the minority as we have a seperate account to log team finds. What sparked the question were mentions of teams such as a group of military folks who logged their collective finds (from all over the world) as a team find in addition to their individual accounts.
Just looking for other ways of enjoying the game.
Or is my tin foil hat just a little too tight? 
[snark on] I am just about to change my mind on this topic, and need some help. Maybe if one more person would describe how offended they are at having an insult cross their path. Perhaps another tortured analogy would do it*. At least help me by telling me who the burden of proof falls when somebody is trying to find the truth about something somebody said about something that might not have been. One more circular argument might work. Please help, I've almost decided which way to think. [snark off]
Sometimes the cache comes to you
in General geocaching topics
Posted
If I was the cache owner, I would beg you to log another smilie on the cache just to have that great story on the cache page.