Harry the furry squid

IE6 customers continue to have ONE problem; that being that maps will not display. I have repeatedly asked Goundspeak to make a statement on whether they intend to support IE6 at this time or if they will be obsolescing it - retro effective as of Jan 12, 2010. To date Groundspeak has not replied. It is a simple question and one that Goundspeak’s customers have a right to know. What is it going to be Groundspeak?

Yes, likewise. (The rule in this case being that a little personal use of the internet is Ok, but don't extract the urine.) However, I'm not convinced that turning this into a huge argument over the morals of using the internet with work equipment/what kit we think large IT companies should issue their staff with is actually going to do anything to help the GC.com techy people identify what the problem is and how big a problem it is. So: Anyone else having this problem, and if so what kit are you using? Anyone getting this with a browser other than IE6?

I can understand why *my employers* would have something of an issue if I was spending enough time on the internet to impact the amount of work I get done, but why on earth would the owners of GC.com/the BBC/UKC/ebay/metcheck/mwis or any of the other websites I may be browsing care whether I'm getting any work done or not??

Yes, quite! Can't get the cache pages to load at all, IE just stops responding. Using windows XP and IE6, don't have any choice in the matter as this is the corporate standard build and attempting to make unauthorised changes is something that you can, potentially, get the sack for. (It's probably worth pointing out that when you have to roll out a change across tens of thousands of PCs in umpteen offices even something like a browser upgrade starts turning into a major project in its own right.)

Can't get the cache pages to load at all. :( XP and IE6, don't have the option to use anything else as it's a work PC.

Same problem, also XP and IE6. It's a work computer and I have no control over the software build! The IT department have decreed that all our PCs will have windoze XP and IE6, so the tens of thousands of PCs the company owns across umpteen offices will have XP and IE6. Us grunts who merely use the things don't get any say in the matter.

FWIW, one way I've found that works is to have laminated cache lists* on a clipboard (bottom edge bungeed down to prevent unwanted flappage) and add notes with a permanent marker. Waterproof, pretty much indestructible and the clipboard makes a handy prop if you need to come up with a quick excuse** as to why exactly you were groping a tree. :) *No, not the full listing for each one. Condensed summary, 20 caches per side of A4. ** "Tree survey, Sir. If you have a look on the council website when you get home, you can see where we're going to be next . .. "

Hey, what's wrong with being a geek? :)

The "ooh, I wouldn't want to go in there" factor is in itself subjective. The hardest one - from my point of view - I've done to date is GCWK44. That isn't (very) dangerous - the worst that's likely to happen is that you get very cold and wet and end up needing stitches and a tetanus jab. It isn't hard to find either - it's a big box in a well-described pile of rocks. For me, it still felt harder than GC39E4 (which I did in pitch darkness and pouring rain), and GC1XVM2 (which I set with the aid of a helmet-mounted torch). With both of these, if you get it wrong you are talking about a hospital visit as a bare minimum. But, as a climber, they weren't hard. However, the vast majority of cachers aren't climbers, and they aren't cavers/scuba divers/extreme pogostick riders either. If everyone logs their take on the "ooh, I wouldn't want to go in there" factor, then we'd end up with an average take on it from the point of view of the average cacher. And yes, it does mean that some caches will end up looking easy from the point-of-view of whose of us who are lucky enough to have "specialist" skills already. (Interestingly, climbing routes in the Uk are starting to get a bit of consensus grading going on via the Rockfax voting system and UKC logbooks. Funnily enough, the grades don't seem to be "spiralling upwards" - they seem to be mostly averaging out at - with the exception of the well-known long-standing arguments like Three Pebble Slab - the grade they started with. These would be classical cases of "I don't wanna go there" . . . but there doesn't seem to be huge amounts of upwards grade creep going on.)

Some people will use the Clayjar rating wossname, and some will guess based on their experience of similar rated caches. Even using the rating thingy, there's still room for interpretation when the terrain problems are due to something other than steep bits or impenetrable vegetation. I'd suspect that the source of a fair few over-rated 5/5s is the "Finding this cache requires very specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment. This is a serious mental or physical challenge" bit. What, exactly, constitutes a serious mental challenge? For some it could be a total sod of a puzzle, for others it could be one of those "You want me to go in *there*??!!!? You are joking, right? No ****ing way!" moments. I don't think it's possible to create a rating thingy that covers every last possibility, so there are always going to be some caches where the rating may be a bit skewed based on what the CO thought when he placed it. It's a shame we don't have a means for people to vote on what they think the D/T rating should be when they log a find . . . that might be a way of getting the ratings to end up being more or less correct even if the CO was having an off day and got things a bit wrong in the original listing?

I hate those. :(

Trouble is, at what point does requiring specific skills to access the area start to become a difficulty issue as well as a terrain issue? There's quite a difference between "long walk, mostly up to your waist in water, take a torch as the tunnel is rather dark" type caches and "careful selection of abseil anchor is crucial, don't forget your prusik loops"*. One will be merely highly unpleasant, the other one needs specific knowledge and experience (in this case, the ability to identify and use a suitable anchor which may not be entirely obvious) to mitigate the Messy Death Potential. Both would probably get terrain 5, but I'd suspect that difficulty 5 would be (mis-) used for the second one, the probable argument being that the difficulty is in learning what to do to avoid killing yourself.

Seen on the logs for one near me: "Had a look at the location and ran away." DNF on one of my own caches: "oh for some obvious stickoflage!!" One I DNFed: "Couldn't find it, was with one of the cache owners who was fairly sure that was where it *wasn't*, ...." And one I've often felt like logging (but won't as this is a family site) especially when confronted with another pointless hunt for a film can that probably wasn't there anyway: "F*ck knows. :("

It'd also make it easier to identify which of the several big noisy groups in the pub is the geocaching meet! (I really will have to get a furry squid t-shirt made up. :)

I probably look as though I've suddenly stopped . . . I have a particular cache I want for #1000 but it needs a combination of good weather and me and my climbing partner both being free on the same weekend. Currently on 998, so have things on hold a bit. (Using the time to put together a series which people will probably find a tad frustrating . . . I hope. And it won't involve a single film can in an ivy-covered tree.)

You only have to ask! Mark Cool, I may well take you up on that! (Nearest unfound is a Wherigo . . . in a park approximately 3 mins gentle amble from home!)

I've had something similar . . . set a (hardish) puzzle and had it found by accident by someone looking for somewhere to place a cache of their own. Location wasn't anywhere wildly exciting (although useful to make a note of if you're a local walker, which I suspect might be why we both had the same idea).

I use it to ignore wherigos . . . I don't have the hardware to play those and none of my friends do either. ("Don't look down" was my 300th geocache . . . in the dark and the rain.)

Another option would be to see if you can pick up some of the current charity walks . . . the idea with these is that you pay (usually) £2.50 towards the charity being supported and get a clue sheet with the bearings and (sometimes) GPS co-ords. http://www.dartmoorletterboxing.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=9 might be a good starting point.

Camo micros Ok? (No, not a film can painted green or a ready-to-use magnano, but something a bit . . . sneakier.) Come to that, if you've got the space, could you have some sort of interactive exhibit where visitors get to give it a go themselves? Some "grass" (that stuff greengrocers display veg on, anyone know what it's called?), part of a fence, a log . . . anyone know whether you can get fake ivy to stick on a fake tree?) After all, camo containers make way more sense if they're displayed in the environment they were camouflaged *for*! (This is, of course, a somewhat sanitised version . . . if you wanted *proper* simulated geocaching then you'd have to have neck-high nettles, some rusty barbed wire and a dog turd in a plastic bag in there as well . . . but you're trying to entertain/impress people, not kill them! ) [Edited to remove the smilies as the forum software insists on turning them into $%^*%$$!! stupid graphics that mean something completely different!]

>>What's your technique for caching in a busy, "muggly", location like a high street or outside a tube station? Dunno, what's a tube station? If it's one of those underground things way down in Londonshire, how do you get a GPS gignal down there anyway? If looking properly is a problem, come back with dogs and small children to create a distraction. Or, if it's one that needs an abseil*/thorough poke in a rather public location, come back with a white van and if questioned grouse loudly about not being paid enough. >>What time to people like to cache? Between work and bed? Or, at weekends, between rain and climbing. *NB: Remember that Rope Access types have two of everytheing. (Edited to remove smiley which message board software insists as trying to re inerpret as something compeletely opposite. .)

Since the last update, I've started getting the same problem.

I've been looking at doing this too . . . anyone know of a campsite in the area? (Doesn't need to be anything posh - six feet of flat-ish grass, a tap and a toilet will do!)

*Please* don't archive these ... if the CO's packing it in, could anyone local consider adopting?

Make-up, what's that? :)