Happy Landins
-
Posts
49 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Happy Landins
-
-
-
This is a great idea, since currently we can't place caches on such sites. And there are dozens and dozens of fascinating and largely unresearched sites in our country UK
But do you mean archaeological digs? Harder to find, and more transient.
If you manage the archaeologcal sites I will send you some iron age fort locations soon! They are are already lined up in my mind . . . and on the map!
-
I like it a lot.
This is the WOW factor again - I think WOW should be an element of whatever categories are finally decided on.
But maybe some people do say "WOW" when they see a distant McD's!!!
-
This discussion shows that there is bound to be cultural bias in the voting - a US ancient monument may be a european "two-a-penny" item - that is no criticism - we don't have many Grand Canyon type things here in Europe! So cultural bias is a serious factror when it comes to voting.
But on the theme of grave markers - how about these as less common categories that might still be found worldwide:
- graves of people who LIVED to be over 100 years
- really out of the ordinary headstones. For example we have one round here that was made in 1920 (almost 100 years ago!!) in the shape of a flying motor cycle wheel. It is one of my regular cache sites, but certainly has a WOW factor for cachers who visit it. There are also weird messages on headstones. These would certainly be an interesting category to me!
-
What about Famous graves, I have visited the grave of Johnny Cash, JFK, Adolph Rupp, etc.
How about it?
Yes I do like this idea, but on a broader scale such as
Category: Famous People Life Landmarks
So this could also include significant places in the person's life not just their burial spot.
I think this category has enormous scope and interest - could cover historical people, presidents, sports, pop, famous scientists, artists, religious leaders, etc.
-
Let's say the rules for an acceptable waymark category include the following:
1. Must be able to record globally (no regional waymark categories).
2. Must be visitable (no moving or temporary waymarks)
3. Must not be too many or too little amount of waymarks to record for this category (1 is too little, 1 billion is too much...definitely subject to interpretation)
I like points 2 and 3, but . . .
I don't agree with global because there are certain types of things that are commonly found in one area but not another. Here are two examples - UK Trig points, Iron age hill forts.
I think both of these are reasonably common in the UK, but not globally. So they would not fit the global criterion.
However, I feel certain that both of these categories would be majority voted YES by UK waypointers. It would be a shame if our great hill forts were voted NO by the larger number of USA cachers who might never get to visit one.
In other words, there is likely to be cultural bias in the voting.
-
In loc-less caches the logs were basically waymarks, but there was no way to visit the logs. We've just moved them up one level so that people can actually "visit" the logs. A locationless cache is a waymark category. A locationless log is a waymark.
Yes but surely there must be a qualitative difference in Waymarking a McDs, at the bottom level, and, for example, Waymarking an Earthcache where the "owner" has to research and provide some validated educational information, and really make an effort to get the best location for observing the site.
I hate to think that an well planned earthcache is only as good as a drive-by McDs sighting!
With Waymarking are they REALLY equal???
-
The waymarks will all be virtuals. We used to be told, "You must only place caches close to home, so you can maintain them"
Does this mean that the old restriction of no longer applies?
There are some great virtuals I've seen in Europe, Africa and Asia!
-
If I register a new waymark in a category, will I get a point, or are points awarded only to those who subsequently "find a waymark" ?
I think both the "person who registers the waymark" and the finder should get a point - up until now, there has been no point score for placers of caches, and they often take a lot of work.
Also will the "person who registers the waymark" get feedback on people who visited "his/her" site, or is is just the category owner? If you have done the research, written it up etc, I think it is only fair to get the feedback too.
-
I think one key difference between locationless caches and Waymarking is that the former doesn't have "cache owners" - only category owners.
Locationless caches say "find a windmill" (and often each one can be found once). So I find a great windmill, but it won't benefit any other cacher, and they probably won't even know it exists if is near the bottom of 500 other logs of visits to windmills.
An example of this is the . "UNESCO world heritage sites". Each is a fantastic place, but if someone finds one, then that blocks it off from everyone else, since it is "finders keepers". So there is no incentive for others to visit the same site, even if they knew where to look. So you could drive by a brilliant site and not have any idea it was there.
On the other hand, Waymarking says "here is a neat windmill." we want to share it, and you will get a Finder's point too if you want to count points. So this is more about sharing good experiences, rather than grabbing them for MEEEE!
Mind you, I think some of the proposed categories are silly, and very transient. I want to go to/ know about places that will still be there in 30 years time. Preferably ones that are not in the guidebooks. So a tailgaters party category should be a non-starter, but award winning architecture could be in.
And I owuld like a single page of stats please.
-
For example - churchill - Tracking the homes, cities, places and other key locations for a specific well know person - e.g. birthplace, school(s), parliamentary seat, homes, burial place etc.
-
I put in a kiddies blunt, rounded, non-pointed scissors in a cache, which someone didn't like.
-
I've got a couple of very old caches that I placed but didn't work out and they have since been archived. Really they have gone - there is nothing there at all in terms of real caches - - except the message that they have been temporarily removed
Anyone know how to finally wipe all traces of these non existent caches from the geocaching web site? I can't find the answer.
-
I've just bought some of the new Addis "Clip and Close" range whihc are like the "lock & Lock" ones.
Addis claim that these are 100% airtight. My niece said she saw a TV ad for them where someone accidentally throws their box of sandwixches inside a Clip and Close box into the WASHING MACHINE!!!!!!!!
The sandwiches emerge dry as a bone!
I also found similar clip lock boxes in a Netto supermarket - but this may have been a special offer.
Happy Landins
-
Well done guys! Hopefully in our slower pace we too will reach 200 one distant day!David and Rachel
Happy Landins
-
Hi Dave: Thanks for your note about this event, (You are a great event arranger!
) and yes Mr and Mrs HL are planning to be there. In fact I have dragged out my own personal pickup stick (wicked prize from The Times newspaper) and also MADE !!!! another "Blue Peter" pickupstick from a pair of cut down kitchen tongs (99p Morrisons) two aluminium tubes, and a quantity of sticky tape. Will it hold up???????????- that is the question!!!!!!!!!!
Also I have got a couple of those "pop up" laundry basket thingies for putting the trash into as we walk about.
So we are kitted out for the trash heap, sorry castle Keep!
David and Rachel
-
Dispensing chemists have nice pill containers just a useful bit larger than a film canister - ideal for micro caches. If you ask they will save them for you instead of binning them. Great when painted brown and green with spray paint!
-
NICE FREE MAP BITS
I frequently use the OS Grid references, and this is why and how . . .
I have found this useful link on the OS site
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/getamap/
You can punch in the OS ref (leaving no blank spaces) e.g. SJ1234576543
and it will give you a 1:25000 high res printable map showing the exact location of the cache. If you choose the 1:250000 scale this lets you see the roads in the area so you can find where the 1:25000 is located (again centred on the cache)
This is a handy hint because it gives you the exact part of the map you want, at the best available scales and, best of all, at no cost!
Thank you Mr OS Map maker!
-
I have noticed a problem in the Geocaching site's conversion from LAT/LONG to the British OS Grid reference.
The Geocaching algorithm knocks off any leading zeros. This means that with any place with a leading zero the British OS map references don't reflect accurately the LAT/LONG
The correct British Grid format should be AA 11111 11111 (2 letters followed by 2 sets of five digits). But the Geocaching algorithm wipes out any leading zero at the front of either of the two sets of five digits.
For example
For waypoint GCJV0P Geocaching incorrectly gives the British OS Grid reference :
SJ 5238 65821
It should read
British Grid: SJ 05238 65821
or
Similarly, for waypoint GCHW76 the Geocaching British Grid reference shows:
TF 62075 1762
It should read as
British Grid: TF 62075 01762
I've written to GEOCACHING HQ about this but only had a "got your email" reply so far. This is a serious problem that will need fixing soon. But at least you know why it screws up your OS map reference.
-
This may have been discussed before, but what is the best way to hold your GPS to get the most accurate reading? Here are some suggestions, but I'd like to know the answers
- horizontal or vertical?
- above your head?
- away from your body - e.g. on the ground? at arms length?
If you mark a waypoint several times in succession, does averaging the results really give the most accurate answer?
Has anyone done any scientific research on this? I use an e-trek.
-
I think the idea of linking sites together - daisy chaining - is not what I'd like to do. Often the relevant "Great Person Sites" may be scattered over large areas of the world. For eample, the guy I'm interested in, who went to India, also lived in England (and he also moved round quite a bit in England).
So it's not really practical for one person to do the whole job. And anyway it would be better for a TEAM of people interested in that particular person to log additional sites where he/she was - but still linked together as a themed group. For one thing, a team would bring together a wider range of knowledge on the subject's movements.
CAN ANYTHING BE DONE?
On a practical level, is it possible that "The Geocaching Powers That Be" ever read this correspondence?
Did the mandate about "fewer virtual caches" come as a democratic decision? Or was it a big-government style, top-down mandate? Are they open to petitions from the people? Can anyone tell me where is the White House of Geocaching established? To Whom do we address our humble thoughts, requests, and ideas?
-
I have an idea for a whole new type of "caching".
Really, not everyone is interested in the traditional aspects of the hidden cache, the nicknacks and the log book.
I think there is a large group of other people who would be more interested in what might be thought of as "Historical Trails" - where famous people in the past were born, visited, lived, were buried. These could be a whole new series of themed sites - perhaps named Great People Sites (=GPS). More of a historical/intellectual pursuit than a wild-country, hide and go seek adventure
Often these historical places are in cities and towns, so don't lend themselves to the traditional cache type of site. They are much more suitable to the virtual cache model, which I understand is going out of fashion amongst the purists.
For example, I am particularly interested in a couple of people who lived in England - one in the 14th century, and one in the 19th century who travelled to India. I would like to visit places where they lived and (along with other GPS people) compile a Great People Site trail that other visitors could then follow. This would be accompanied on the web page by relevant quotes from books and documents referring to the places where they lived/died etc. This is quite a different approach, and geared more to a book oriented search rather than the bracing wilderness style. It would definitely appeal to a different audience, and would provide a valuable educational aspect for children.
The scope for this type of search is as wide as the number of famous people in history - from Marilyn Monroe to Mary Queen of Scots, from Julius Caesar to Jack the Ripper, from the Pilgrim Fathers to Peter the Great.
I think it would be important to name the "GPS" trails using the name of the famous person, rather than an arbitrary name. For example, Marilyn Monroe #1 , Marilyn Monroe #2 etc.
I wonder - are the "highups" in Geocaching open to such a new branching out of the hobby?
-
I'm interested in developing a couple of "trails" about famous people in the past - e.g. where they were born, where they worked, where they were when unusual events happened to them, where they died. Of course, other GPS users could add to the trails , if they know other link houses, places and sites.
I've seen the "stone circles" pages, and wondered if you think these themed trails are something similar that might be allowed on the Geocaching site? Maybe an answer to a question could be provided as "proof" that the person has been there, as an alternative to actually burying a cache - some of these places might be unsuitable for a real cache.
What do you think?
Well done guys! Hopefully in our slower pace we too will reach 200 one distant day!
) and yes Mr and Mrs HL are planning to be there. 
Category Proposal
in Recruitment and Category Proposals Archive (Read-Only)
Posted
In the UK the "ruins" are all on the government produced maps, so they are not secret, but they are not always indicated on the land itself.
I would like to "take people to" sites I know about by GPS - like eartchcaches - with an educational paragraph aimed at mid high-school level. And I'd also like to visit the places others had waymarked and look.
I do agree there is a danger of fools digging the stuff up and metal detectorists finding things. But we also have strict laws about unauthroised digging on listed sites here - it is not allowed. And the population is being ediucated by lots of pop archeology programs on TV