ParrotRobAndCeCe

Good Lord, I never thought I would find myself putting anyone from these forums on ignore....

How, exactly, are you going to "refresh my memory" about what I agreed to when I joined 17 years ago? You have no idea what the T&C's or disclaimers looked like at the time, nor do you have any idea what one may or may not have agreed to in 2003. Frankly, you can take your smug derision somewhere else, it's not working here. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had enough of it.

"Old timers" who have "lost focus"? I think you forgot an "OK Boomer" in your insults.

I have, thanks. I appreciate your concern.

And you try rereading MY posts. YOU (HunterAndSamuel) didn't issue a disclaimer, so if course you're not protected. Why on earth would I say that YOU were protected? The "you" in my posts is a generic "you". Let me try this again and see if you (HunterAndSamuel) understand: A simple disclaimer will not necessarily protect the ISSUER OF THE DISCLAIMER. YOU claimed that GS can not be sued because of their disclaimer. I said don't be so sure about that because issuing a simple disclaimer might not protect you. "You" being the disclaimer issuer. I apologize if English is not your first language.

Regardless, can you recall with 100% certainty that you actively accepted that disclaimer? Like I said, enforceability generally requires proof that you actively agreed to the disclaimer. If I'm on a jury, the fact that a website "says something" is inconsequential. Are they able to prove you read it and agreed to it. That's the standard for enforceability. Again, it matters not to me. Personal responsibility and all. But don't kid yourself that a simple disclaimer will protect you from liability.

That's not even close to being true. Anybody CAN be sued by anybody, at any time. Just because Groundspeak posts a disclaimer certainly does not prevent them from being sued. It's been a long time since I signed up for a Geocaching account so I don't recall what I agreed to, but a big part of enforceability, when it comes to disclaimers, is active vs. passive acceptance. That's why you so often see disclaimers that force you to "check a box" (active acceptance) indicating you accept terms and conditions, rather than the passive "use of this website indicates acceptance of our terms". That almost certainly won't hold up in court. I'm not a lawyer, either, I'm just pointing out the fact that a simple disclaimer on a website is far from an ironclad guarantee that you can't or won't get sued, nor is it a guarantee you'll win if you do. That's up to the six people in the jury box. Edit: all that said, I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility. If I get myself in trouble, it's no one fault but my own.

I wonder if anyone of the powers that be have considered a way for newcomers to "try" geocaching - maybe allow the first 50 or so logs to be on any cache, including PMO, before forcing the paid commitment.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. I recently came back from an extended hiatus from the hobby, and it used to be much more heavily promoted. CITO, that is.

I was going to reply and say I thought that CITO was still a thing, but I don't see any reference at all to it on the Geocaching home page. If it's there, it's buried pretty well.

I can go one better. Grabbed a bison tube and jumped in the car. Wife fished out the log while I logged online. Put the bison tube back together, re-hid and got ready to drive off. Log roll was still in my wife's lap.

I've hunted deer by archery, but never by turkey. :-D

I originally read this as "chocolate FLAVORED". I didn't want to ask how you knew.

Yup, that's it. I understand that the skirt is merely "cosmetic" and meant solely to hide the mounting bolts, but I still think messing with the light poles is (generally) not a good idea, and it "irks" me, which was the topic of the thread anyway. C'est la vie, they're not going anywhere and there are some places where they're the only caches available.

So I only have 144 finds in many years, so I'm sure my opinion isn't particularly valuable, but since this is about things that irk you, here's what irks me: 1) People who use prescription pill bottles for cache containers in urban areas. Nothing looks more like a drug drop than placing or retrieving a pill bottle from a lamppost in a remote corner of a parking lot. 2) Placing caches on, under or around electrical utility boxes. There seems to be a trend of this in the area where I live now. I've found about a half dozen recently where the "container" is a metal faceplate from an electrical box attached to a metallic surface with a magnet, with a ziploc'ed log sheet sandwiched between. I don't like them, and I don't think the geocaching community should be tampering with electrical/utility boxes. Lamp posts either, to be honest, but it is what it is. Doesn't mean it doesn't "irk" me.

But I thought Macs could run anything PC's can run? Isn't that what Mac users are always saying?

Remove the cache and archive it

When you DO get caught, can you please tell them you were doing something else? There are too many people working very hard to give Geocaching a GOOD name for people to undo that reputation by breaking the law just to get a precious FTF. Thanks.

Just an update - Miragee, thank you for the tip. I changed my PQ immediately after I read your suggestion and changed the center of my search to the waypoint of the nearest cache to my home. The GPX file in my mailbox today has all 500 waypoints in it. Thank you so much for the help. I wonder if this is a bug that someone is working on?

Thanks, I'll give it a shot.

Well, two ways. One, only 78 caches get imported to GSAK when I open the GPX file. So, of course, being an engineer I decided to dig deeper and opened the GPX file in my favorite text/script editor, and found there are only 78 caches actually in the file, so it's not a GSAK issue, it's the GPX file itself.

I asked this over in the Software forum, but I guess it's more appropriate here. I have set up a Pocket Query that is configured as follows: Show me 500 caches Of any type Any container That I haven't found Terrain is <=2 Difficulty is <=3 Within: None selected From Origin: My Home Coordinates Within radius of 100mi Placed During: None Selected Attributes to Include: None Selected Attributes to Exclude: None Selected Output to: This account's email address In GPX format Compress into ZIP format Now, when I preview the thing I get all 500 caches. The radius is smaller than 100 miles, but that's expected because I only have to go about 35 miles out to get to 500 caches. However, when the GPX file shows up in my mailbox, there are only 78 cache records in it. Any ideas what might be going wrong?

The radius I'm requesting is within 100 miles, but it doesn't get nearly that far. You only have to go out about 40 miles before getting to 500 caches that meet the criteria.

Attributes, no. I am filtering by difficulty and found status. The query is set up to return the 500 caches closest to my home coordinates that I have NOT found and with difficulty less than or equal to 3. Like I said, previewing it returns all 500 as expected, but the .GPX file in my mailbox only has 78 in it.

My pocket query is set up to return 500 caches. If I preview it on the web site, I get 25 pages of 20 (500 caches). When the GPX file shows up in my mailbox, 78 caches. Any idea why?