The J J Noodle Fan Club

Hello All, Gosh, it must be Friday! I don't think it's fair to assume that every cache owner reads every email from gc.com that starts "[Log] Owner: cachername found ..." To me they are just unnecessary noise in amongst the daily email deluge and my ego is not such that I need it stroked by reading about my caches. In fact I have a filter specifically to pull such emails out and put them into a specific folder which periodically I clear out, almost all of the emails unread. Similarly I don't habitually go and browse the logs on the website looking at the logs for my own caches. As such apart from the 2 needs maintenance logs of which more below, I have been in blissful ignorance of the plethora of found it logs where people comment on the state of the cache. I've always assumed that if a cache really needs maintenance someone will post a needs maintenance, such emails from gc.com are not trapped by the filter and I do read straight away and as far as I can see there have been 2 relevant ones on this cache. A needs maintenance was posted on the October 25, 2009 saying log book nearly full. OK - nearly full, so no rush, someone will surely post another needs maintenance when it is (and I've done caches before which have said log nearly full and when you get there you find loads of empty reverse pages if you look back through the book so take it with a pinch of salt when someone says it's full). In the meantime I'd forgotten that a nearly full had ever been notified - what with almost a year passing. If I had say in March remembered it then as nobody had posted a needs maintenance to say it actually was full I would in any case have thought some cacher had put in a new log (as I've done to other caches on several occasions - not to mention adding pencils/pens, wiping out, removing rusty/manky/edible/inappropriate swaps, new camo bag etc. etc. - our last caching trip I could have got rid of 3 pencils/pens to replace missing/broken ones but sadly I didn't take any spares) but I didn't remember it so didn't think anything was wrong until August 6th when needs maintenance was posted saying log book full. OK - now it really is time to sort out. (Not that I saw the needs maintenance until several days later as I was on holiday without email). Options are take off-line until then or leave it on-line so that people can still do it. I chose to do the latter on the basis that anyone attempting it would read the logs, see that the log is full, and be aware of it. In the meantime the email with the subject "[LOG] Owner: Razorfishy reported Chosen Hill (Traditional Cache) needs maintenance" is starred and in bold in googlemail precisely so I see it every time I check my email and don't forget it. Since seeing the needs maintenance email then there have only been 2 weekends and they've all been busy with pre-planned events so I have not been able to get up there. It may still be several weeks before I can but as it seems to be causing some problems I think it's probably best to just take it off-line. Right, I'm now off to read through recent logs on the other caches to see if they have found it logs indicating attention is needed but haven't actually been flagged as needs maintenance... Cheers, Jon.

This was seriously looked into about 2 (or maybe 3) years ago. It even got as far as websites being coded up. In the end it was dropped as just not being a feasible alternative to gc.com. Jon.

Bounce + is anything happening on this idea? Jon.

Hi Folks, Is there still room on the bus? I'm interested in this. Cheers, Jon.

Well done folks! Thanks for chosing one of our caches for the attempt. Jon.

But if we write them down they won't be unwritten any more

Glos/Wilts/Zummerzet would see us try and make it. Jon.

Blimey - and it's the 3rd time they've run this! Jon.

Whopeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scan this very long thread. You have to manually re-enable them after every run. It's a "temporary" measure. It's already been "temporary" for too long! Jon.

Spy Cam (best done at night). http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...95-c59c78809c96 Jon

I've created 2 PQ's today to download stuff ready for the weekend. Both say they've been run. (8/25/2005 12:18:21 AM PST and 8/25/2005 5:57:39 AM PST) No emails have come through. Running the preview gives lots and lots of results so it's not an empty query. Jon.

Excellent work all (but you're all mad - wouldn't catch me down there, even with the lure of a cache). Jon.

SSSI - tick my vote. WHC - already is a locationless and the owner has already posted a note there saying it will be moved to wm.com Jon.

But that's my point. The definition you've found is in a US-centric dictionary (nothing wrong in that). The dictionary on my bookshelf (OED) doesn't recognise 2 of the 6 definitions on the webpage. That doesn't mean either OED or the webpage are wrong - they are just different (Although I would take issue with n. 2 on the webpage - the tailgate in a canal lock is always the lower one). In terms of that the OP meant "tailgating" is meaningless to English speakers in the UK and possibly in more of the English speaking world. I'm only proposing universal clarity. Am I to take it from the definition that the tailgating referred to is an informal affair? Jon.

Divided by a common language again! In the UK tailgating is following the vehicle in front too close. What is tailgating and can the category be renamed so as to be understood by all? Jon.

100 years would be too easy here in the UK. How about pre 1750 headstones - they are unusual - and this avoids the shifting timescale problem? Jon.

Get's my vote.

In Places | Buildings Jon.

I'm not a lawyer but from the small amount of contract law I did in my degree ... in UK there is "no contract without consideration". Consideration here means payment of some kind (not necessarily dosh). I presume the £1 is simply to make the agreement enforcable otherwise if you were not paying anything for their permission anything agreed between you about how things should be done would not be enforcable. I'm not sure what it would achieve in this instance but I suspect it's just what their lawyers insist on. Jon.

I've never disabled WAAS and never noticed the problems you've had (doesn't mean I haven't had them I suppose, just not noticed them). Occasionally we do find a cache seems to be off by 10m or so but that happens WAAS on or off and is just a likely to be the behaviour of the placers GPS as ours or a combination of both producing cummulative error. Normally however WAAS on or off we find cache co-ords bang on. FYI: Our GPS is a SporTrak Pro. Jon.

Does this mean there are situations where a landowner does not have to have given permission? (Just asking - not making a point or anything). Jon.

I beg to differ on the first one. On an OS map a pinky red dotted line (there are 4 types) is an absoloute indication that the path is a public right of way. It's only other paths that may not be a ROW. Cheers. You would think so, wouldn't you. But OS maps aren't dynamic. Our local area has a few public footpaths marked on the most recently printed map that are no longer ROW. The land owner can apply at any time for a change to the route or to remove a ROW; a planning notice goes up for a couple of months and if there are no serious objections then the change can be made. The map isn't updated until the next major revision. A reprint doesn't update the map features or ROWs. Point taken - any map is only as correct as the day it was drawn - perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "absoloute". You can probably safely rely on 99% of the public RoW marked on any current OS map as being correct though and on the rare occasion where one has been moved/withdrawn there will almost certainly be signs to that effect in the vicinity (if only to act in the landowners own interests and stop people with old maps trespassing).

The text on The Churches Conservation Trust website (they own the church) here suggests they would rather like people to visit the church. I suspect between Alibags in January and Phillimore in April one or more cachers who didn't enter a log gave a less than favourable explanation of what they were doing and/or argued about it being a RoW (which it looks like it isn't) and the wrong impression has been acquired about what we're doing. Jon.

Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire A year ago there were 36 Today there are 100 (and we haven't done/don't own 26 of those - what slackers!) Jon.