Jump to content

Dr. House

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dr. House

  1. I was wondering if this part of the update can be elaborated upon a bit? Just wondering what scenarios this change is intended to address? Thanks!
  2. Since the question was posed, I sat down to crunch the numbers for Ontario cache distribution by County. For the purposes of this list, I used the counties as listed here. --County-----------------Population-------------Active Caches 01. Ottawa-------------(pop. 812,129)---------------2880 02. Simcoe-------------(pop. 422,204)---------------1997 03. Durham------------(pop. 561,258)---------------1683 04. Niagara------------(pop. 427,421)---------------1609 05. Middlesex----------(pop. 422,333)---------------1406 06. Peel--------------(pop. 1,159,405)---------------1278 07. York----------------(pop. 892,712)---------------1124 08. Waterloo-----------(pop. 478,121)---------------1097 09. Halton--------------(pop. 439,256)---------------1096 10. Hamilton-----------(pop. 504,559)---------------1078 11. Frontenac----------(pop. 143,865)---------------1042 12. Essex---------------(pop. 393,402)---------------1021 13. Thunder Bay-------(pop. 149,063)----------------982 14. Hastings------------(pop. 130,474)---------------936 15. Algoma-------------(pop. 117,461)----------------919 16. Toronto----------(pop. 2,503,281)----------------910 17. Leeds&Grenville-----(pop. 99,206)----------------909 18. Muskoka-------------(pop. 57,563)----------------842 19. Wellington---------(pop. 200,425)----------------750 20. Peterborough-------(pop. 133,080)---------------742 21. Lambton------------(pop. 128,204)---------------732 22. Lennox&Addington---(pop. 40,542)--------------707 23. Brant--------------(pop. 125,099)----------------656 24. Elgin---------------(pop. 85,351)------------------630 25. Kenora--------------(pop. 64,419)----------------624 26. Renfrew-------------(pop. 97,545)----------------608 27. Parry Sound---------(pop. 40,918)----------------512 28. Grey----------------(pop. 92,411)-----------------508 29. Northumberland------(pop. 80,963)--------------504 30. Kawartha Lakes------(pop. 74,561)---------------503 31. Greater Sudbury----(pop. 157,909)---------------494 32. Stormont, D&G------(pop. 110,399)--------------475 33. Nipissing-----------(pop. 84,688)-----------------468 34. Bruce---------------(pop. 65,349)-----------------446 35. Cochrane------------(pop. 82,503)----------------441 36. Norfolk-------------(pop. 62,563)-----------------406 37. Oxford-------------(pop. 102,756)----------------366 38. Prescott&Russell----(pop. 80,184)----------------359 39. Haliburton----------(pop. 16,147)-----------------330 40. Haldimand-----------(pop. 45,212)----------------326 41. Timiskaming---------(pop. 33,283)----------------324 42. Huron---------------(pop. 59,325)-----------------302 43. Chatham-Kent-------(pop. 108,589)--------------277 44. Dufferin------------(pop. 54,436)------------------257 45. Lanark--------------(pop. 63,785)-----------------242 46. Sudbury-------------(pop. 21,392)----------------195 47. Perth---------------(pop. 74,344)-----------------189 48. Prince Edward-------(pop. 25,496)---------------150 49. Manitoulin----------(pop. 13,090)-----------------77 50. Rainy River---------(pop. 21,564)-----------------44 (Apologies for the horrible alignment )
  3. Thanks Team Laxson... that's exactly the feedback I'm looking for since helps me seek out more Charter Member cache locations. I'd previously done the search by state method for oldest in state caches, but that isn't necessarily all I'm interested in finding. Again, thanks for helping with my query.
  4. I like to search them out because often their choice of location is rather top notch, thus making for a prime area to visit for someone who's never been to a particular region previously. By your response, I'll assume you don't know of any. Thanks!
  5. Hi Folks, Given the time consuming nature of trying to search for Charter Members, I'm hoping that someone from Colorado might happen to know of any existing Charter Member caches in the state. If so, could you provide GC codes for those caches by responding to this thread? Thanks for your help! - Dr. H
  6. Hi Folks, Given the time consuming nature of trying to search for Charter Members, I'm hoping that someone from Kansas and/or Nebraska might happen to know of any existing Charter Member caches in these states. If so, could you provide GC codes for those caches by responding to this thread? Thanks for your help! - Dr. H
  7. If I had info to pass along, I would have. CD Absolutely understood, and precisely the reason I requested an update from Groundspeak, and Sandy in particular given her participation on this thread. I can appreciate that certain business decisions would not trickle down to various levels of membership, but nobody knows for sure unless someone starts to ask questions. Please understand that I speak for myself when I say that I certainly don't expect any answers at all, but I would certainly appreciate hearing the rationale, one way or the other, from TPTB regarding this trial.
  8. Having not heard anything back regarding this test run, I've submitted an email to Groundspeak in hopes of obtaining an update on this. We'll see what happens.
  9. Hi Groundspeak, I'm wondering if some sort of update regarding this test run can be provided? There seemed to be some good momentum toward this project seeing the light of day for the masses, but that seems to have waned. If it's coming, when should we expect it? If it's not, why not?
  10. The OP is talking about using a 3rd party app on their Blackberry, not their PC. As such, I'm not sure their reported issue would have anything to do with the Google policy change, though I'm open to be corrected. I haven't used any of the 3rd party apps much for caching on my BB. I tried Cachesense for the trial period once it became part of the API, and it seemed pretty capable and gave me no issues. Decently accurate on my 9900 I have to admit. Like any basic troubleshooting on a BB, I'd start with a battery pull and also perhaps check for an update to the caching app or Blackberry Maps and go from there.
  11. I've wanted to grab some Sawyer's spray in the US since it doesn't seem to be available here, but I don't want to have it confiscated at customs for being a restricted item. That being said, there's a cacher in my area that uses this stuff. It's actually designed for use on horses, but works just as well on clothes apparently, and as a bonus, he was able to buy it in Canada. I'm told that it comes in regular 0.1% permethrin and an "Ultra Strength" 0.5% formulation, and it can be found at Tack Shops and other places where farm animal care products are sold.
  12. Can we get an update on how your meeting with the OPP went? Yes. I'm all giddy with anticipation to hear the results, too.
  13. Agreed. Unless there is some new location pointer upcoming that is not yet showing through on the maps, this is rather counter-intuitive and should really be corrected ASAP.
  14. As I understand it, the files that determine county lines were provided to Clyde for use within GSAK by ky.m.guy, the same cacher who'd created the macro you were initially using. Stands to reason that there might still be some errors here and there similar to what you're describing. I really enjoy the county information, and would appreciate it more if it were updated to be spot on, but I don't know anything about creating that information to help him out for what is probably a fairly involved process, so I'm very thankful for all his work in getting us to where we are now.
  15. There are a few different ones that will do the job, but the one I use now is CountyStateUpdate by The CEO.
  16. I'd thought of that, and in theory that makes sense to me for the most part, but I wanted to ensure this was the answer. Many counties currently don't have this information at hand via OSM (the Kenora/Rainy River boundary in Ontario is non-existent, for example and I'm sure there are others) and as such it would seem to me that you couldn't, therefore, substantiate your qualifications via the website consistently until such information was available across the board. Yup. Simple. Tell the would-be CO to update OpenStreetMap then resubmit The current OSM map puts Peel Region in the middle of Milton, so yep they need edits around here. Worldwide though the data is likely better in other places. Haha.. yep. And since it's simpler to change items on these OSM maps, I think I just might change the boundary line for Oxford west 2km to suit my needs.
  17. I'd thought of that, and in theory that makes sense to me for the most part, but I wanted to ensure this was the answer. Many counties currently don't have this information at hand via OSM (the Kenora/Rainy River boundary in Ontario is non-existent, for example and I'm sure there are others) and as such it would seem to me that you couldn't, therefore, substantiate your qualifications via the website consistently until such information was available across the board.
  18. As I read it, since nowhere on the cache listings currently lists the counties in which a particular cache is located, a new Challenge cache requiring this sort of information to substantiate its completion would be pushed back to the CO and not published since it will solely require the use of third party software to determine the counties. Correct? Maybe I'm off-base? Well, I am not a VR but you don't *have* to use software to verify that. A paper map will suffice, would it not? This type of challenge falls easily into the personal goal vs being competitive type so ... I hope they would publish it. Since that paper map would appear to be from a third party, I read it as though it would not suffice since it is not something verifiable via Geocaching.com.
  19. Is it possible that you've reached the maximum number of unique .gpx files on each of the units? Most of the units will only hold a certain amount of these file types (say, 200) whereas the units may be able to hold 1 .gpx file of up to 5000 caches. Try removing all the GC code .gpx files that appear in your garmin\gpx folder, and starting the transfer again to see if that helps your issue.
  20. Once a VR looks over your new Challenge cache listing pre-publication, if they can't see a means to verify that you or a finder will be able to substantiate that the requirements of your challenge have been completed by using only the tools provided at Geocaching.com, I'm guessing they'll ask you. As I read it, if you say that you'll be using something other than Geocaching.com website provided statistics or geographical information, your listing would be pushed back to you to work on further. Previously listed Challenge caches would be allowed to continue as you describe as it pertains to demonstrating qualifications.
  21. I'm wondering if I could get some clarification on how the Canadian VR's will be interpreting one part of this revised guideline? Specifically, I wonder how new county-type Challenge caches (similar to Juicepig's "Yours To Discover" or some of my own "OCD" caches, or perhaps even a DeLorme style Challenge cache) will be handled going forward? When I read the portion of the guideline How will you know when the challenge cache requirements have been met?, I get stuck on this text: As I read it, since nowhere on the cache listings currently lists the counties in which a particular cache is located, a new Challenge cache requiring this sort of information to substantiate its completion would be pushed back to the CO and not published since it will solely require the use of third party software to determine the counties. Correct? Maybe I'm off-base?
×
×
  • Create New...