Whidbey Walk

quote:Originally posted by bigredmed:The naval Observatory has a website that will do it. By appointment to the Court of HRM Queen Mikki I. Here's the link. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/ I've seen a couple other places that do it, but I've never seen one that will do more than one day at a time. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

quote:Originally posted by FISUR:welch: Haven't found enough? How about the best so far? Whidbey Walk: Found too many to choose one as best? Think hard, there has to be that one that was especially dear to your heart. Step up to the plate. Team FISUR Ok, I’ll step up. Best, humm….. Only one…… It would have to be Excel…. No wait it is defiantly Let Us…..ARGUHH!!! I just can’t do it. Sorry http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

quote:Originally posted by FISUR:welch: Haven't found enough? How about the best so far? Whidbey Walk: Found too many to choose one as best? Think hard, there has to be that one that was especially dear to your heart. Step up to the plate. Team FISUR Ok, I’ll step up. Best, humm….. Only one…… It would have to be Excel…. No wait it is defiantly Let Us…..ARGUHH!!! I just can’t do it. Sorry http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

I've found too many to choose one as best. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

I've found too many to choose one as best. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

I understand the financial need of the park system. I understand the logic of user fees. I would actually consider myself a supporter of a day use fee for our state parks. What I can’t support is a system that charges fees considerably higher than surrounding states. I also have a problem with a system that could cost up to 40% of the fees collected. I just don’t feel right throwing so much money away. The State had WSU conduct a survey of residents to find “data on the maximum acceptable day-use rates for charging per person and per car, and for an annual pass. “ Unfortunately, only half of the respondents had even visited a state park in the past two years. I don’t think they got an accurate view of park user opinions. I don’t think Washington residents should be willing to pay twice what is charged in Oregon, Idaho, and even California. Let’s let the State Park Commission and our elected officials know how we feel. Summary of Washington State Parks Customer Focus Survey Research by Washington State University, June 2000 http://www.governor.wa.gov/quality/archive/parks/survey.htm Oregon State Park fee structure http://www.oregonstateparks.org/dayuse_permit.php Idaho State Park fee structure http://www.idahoparks.org/parks/passes.html#State%20Parks California State Park fee structure http://cal-parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=737 I’ll step down now. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

I understand the financial need of the park system. I understand the logic of user fees. I would actually consider myself a supporter of a day use fee for our state parks. What I can’t support is a system that charges fees considerably higher than surrounding states. I also have a problem with a system that could cost up to 40% of the fees collected. I just don’t feel right throwing so much money away. The State had WSU conduct a survey of residents to find “data on the maximum acceptable day-use rates for charging per person and per car, and for an annual pass. “ Unfortunately, only half of the respondents had even visited a state park in the past two years. I don’t think they got an accurate view of park user opinions. I don’t think Washington residents should be willing to pay twice what is charged in Oregon, Idaho, and even California. Let’s let the State Park Commission and our elected officials know how we feel. Summary of Washington State Parks Customer Focus Survey Research by Washington State University, June 2000 http://www.governor.wa.gov/quality/archive/parks/survey.htm Oregon State Park fee structure http://www.oregonstateparks.org/dayuse_permit.php Idaho State Park fee structure http://www.idahoparks.org/parks/passes.html#State%20Parks California State Park fee structure http://cal-parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=737 I’ll step down now. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

quote:Originally posted by RobiNeil:So when you post a new cache and it says that it hs not been approved yet, it is not waiting for someone to go to the cache itself and verify its existence? basically the waiting period is just to ensure that your submittal conforms to the rules outlined? Thanks for the reply... - Robin & Neil Correct. The cache approval process is strictly administrative. Nobody actually visits the cache site to verify its existence. Check this thread for tips to speed the cache approval process. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

I just read the article linked to by citrix at tri-cityherald.com. I then went and found this summary of the survey done by WSU. http://www.governor.wa.gov/quality/archive/parks/survey.htm http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

I just thought I would throw this out to the group. Now would be the time to let officials know if you have an opinion about these new fees. http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=84&cat=23&id=7682 http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=stateparks14m&date=20020914 http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

I’ve had this problem too for a while. I had read another thread in the GC.com discussion forum about this problem a little while back. I don’t have the time to go and find the exact thread right now, but Jeremy made a comment about working to keep the site up with the growing popularity. It was also suggested that you can speed things up by logging off the site then viewing the state map. The caches you have found won’t be listed differently, but the map will operate much much faster. I don't think the feature has been disabled since I checked the map right before this post. It came up fine. (not logged onto the site) http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

quote:Originally posted by dave and jaime:is it good manners to place a cache where less than 1000 people visit per year? Place a cache there and you may have 1001 visitors. Caches are placed in all sorts of remote locations. They don't get visited frequently, but when someone does it is usually a memorable experience. I would suggest checking out these web pages. About Geocaching Geocaching FAQ Markwell's Geocaching FAQ http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

quote:Originally posted by dave and jaime:is it good manners to place a cache where less than 1000 people visit per year? Place a cache there and you may have 1001 visitors. Caches are placed in all sorts of remote locations. They don't get visited frequently, but when someone does it is usually a memorable experience. I would suggest checking out these web pages. About Geocaching Geocaching FAQ Markwell's Geocaching FAQ http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

By the way, this looks like a really cool place. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

By the way, this looks like a really cool place. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

That’s what my reply would be to any request to remove the listing of a virtual cache located on property open to public use. A virtual cache is simply the sharing of a location utilizing latitude and longitude between individuals. Could they “request” that park visitors not speak of the park to others? Well, they could request, but I think most people would laugh at such a request. That’s how I hope you respond to their request to remove the listing of the virtual caches. The reasons they state for their decision are valid concerns for land managers. I can’t say they did not observe geocachers leaving the trails or the park boundary. However, I have a hard time believing that this is behavior confined to geocachers. I have to believe that there are others rule breakers among the number of hikers, bikers, joggers, birdwatchers and horseback riders who enjoy this space. Geocaching is just a subset of any of these activities. They have the authority to regulate the activities within the park but not to regulate an individual’s reason for participating in that activity. Quote from http://www.co.larimer.co.us/parks/bbone.htm The Devil's Backbone Open Space provides abundant opportunities on a seven-mile trail for outdoor recreation including hiking, running, horseback riding, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, observing nature, as well as enjoying close up inspection of the rock outcrop and long vistas of the area. Just don’t show up with a GPS receiver in hand. Keep the virtual caches. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

That’s what my reply would be to any request to remove the listing of a virtual cache located on property open to public use. A virtual cache is simply the sharing of a location utilizing latitude and longitude between individuals. Could they “request” that park visitors not speak of the park to others? Well, they could request, but I think most people would laugh at such a request. That’s how I hope you respond to their request to remove the listing of the virtual caches. The reasons they state for their decision are valid concerns for land managers. I can’t say they did not observe geocachers leaving the trails or the park boundary. However, I have a hard time believing that this is behavior confined to geocachers. I have to believe that there are others rule breakers among the number of hikers, bikers, joggers, birdwatchers and horseback riders who enjoy this space. Geocaching is just a subset of any of these activities. They have the authority to regulate the activities within the park but not to regulate an individual’s reason for participating in that activity. Quote from http://www.co.larimer.co.us/parks/bbone.htm The Devil's Backbone Open Space provides abundant opportunities on a seven-mile trail for outdoor recreation including hiking, running, horseback riding, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, observing nature, as well as enjoying close up inspection of the rock outcrop and long vistas of the area. Just don’t show up with a GPS receiver in hand. Keep the virtual caches. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

quote:Originally posted by Moun10Bike:Whoo-hoo! Thanks! http://www.switchbacks.com/geocaching.html Ditto! http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

Send an email to: contact at Groundspeak dot com Include the cache ID and user name you want to receive ownership. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

That’s a lot of questions. I’ll take a crack at some of them with non-technical answers. I’ll leave the in depth answers to someone who knows more than me. 1. Set your GPS to WSG84 and enter the WSG84 coordinates. Then switch your GPS to NAD27. The GPS will automatically convert the coordinates for you and vice versa. 2. Simple answer: NAD27 old. WSG84 new. Geocaching.com uses WSG84. Unless you need to use a map that uses NAD27 I would stick to WSG84. 3. Pass 4. Pass again. 5. That would be a very long answer. Try http://www.map-reading.com/ or http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/booklets/symbols/index.html 6. If you are searching for a cache that specifically requires a compass (like an offset cache) use what ever the cache hider states to use. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter as long as you know which you are using. The most common use for a compass while caching seems to be to zero in on the final location. At that short of a range it wouldn’t really matter if you did mix up true or magnetic. 7. Sorry, wrong part of the country for me. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

That’s a lot of questions. I’ll take a crack at some of them with non-technical answers. I’ll leave the in depth answers to someone who knows more than me. 1. Set your GPS to WSG84 and enter the WSG84 coordinates. Then switch your GPS to NAD27. The GPS will automatically convert the coordinates for you and vice versa. 2. Simple answer: NAD27 old. WSG84 new. Geocaching.com uses WSG84. Unless you need to use a map that uses NAD27 I would stick to WSG84. 3. Pass 4. Pass again. 5. That would be a very long answer. Try http://www.map-reading.com/ or http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/booklets/symbols/index.html 6. If you are searching for a cache that specifically requires a compass (like an offset cache) use what ever the cache hider states to use. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter as long as you know which you are using. The most common use for a compass while caching seems to be to zero in on the final location. At that short of a range it wouldn’t really matter if you did mix up true or magnetic. 7. Sorry, wrong part of the country for me. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

It looks like you found out how to edit a cache since your log on Cache Cache has been edited. You can’t avoid an edit note on the log entry; however, if you edit a log a second time you can delete the edit text from the first edit. You still have the note but only one. I’m not sure what you mean by counting you finds correctly. If you mean the number next to your user name on the log entry, that’s a running total of all your finds and will be the same on all your log entries. If you mean the order they’re listed on “My Cache Page,” they are listed by date logged with the most recent on the top of the list. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

I don’t actually use a receiver myself, but most the aircraft I control use them. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

I don’t actually use a receiver myself, but most the aircraft I control use them. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

We've been griping about this over here. http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/