OzGuff
-
Posts
918 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by OzGuff
-
-
Problem seems to be solved. (At least for me...)
-
I can't log trackables anymore. I assume this is temporary but every time I try to log one -- by clicking the Found It? Log It! link -- I then get the An Error Has Occurred page. Am I the only one?
-
Hypothetical: Cache is placed and then goes missing. The local cache maintainer replaces missing cache but relocates it a few hundred feet away. Cache owner revisits and "finds" cache in new location.
Find? No find? In the big picture does it really matter?
-
My first out-of-state find was actually my second find! A few days after finding my first cache -- in NC -- I was headed to pick up my mother at the Atlanta airport -- found two on the way. (Think I also had my first DNF on that trip...)
-
Aren't we all missing the point here? The red dot in the uploaded photo shows the location of a geocache. Did the OP find it or not?
The cache in question is T-A-B ~ TN 78: At the Colonel's
-
I seem to be unable to adopt a cache. It is an earthcache and two traditionals. It gives me the An Error Has Occurred blank box. Do you need more info on the cache?
-
Here are a few caches between Cherokee and Boone that are accessible FROM the BRP. They are probably not located physically on BRP property but you should be able to park on the BRP and take a trail to the cache from there.
GC13Y5Y
GC3FF8 Highly recommended!
GCXF67
GCH5TQ
GCG28M Highly recommended!
GC5B1B Highly recommended!
GC1BEYZ Highly recommended!
GCJGCE Highly recommended!
GC3FFA Highly recommended! (And there are 6 additional caches along the route.)
GCFAF5
GC1FGP5
GC1K1H6 A park and grab
GCGW8R
GCCED1 Highly recommended!
GCG4ZP
GCG4ZT
GC1CZ29
GCXXQ9
GCXXQH
GCXY65
GC19GAX
GCYJEE Solve puzzle first
GC16HMM The Folk Art Center is highly recommended!
GC16HKR The Folk Art Center is highly recommended!
GCJ7TV
GCJ7TM
GCHNYC
GCGVE5
GC1D5R9
GC1Q8QG
GCH0ZJ
GCGNFP
GCH8XF
GC1NFHC
GC3E03
GCM7W4 Highly recommended!
GCJKMB Highly recommended!
Hope this helps! Be aware that a decent chunk of the BRP is closed -- from Craggy to Mt Mitchell. Enjloy your drive!
-
Glad to see we haven't lost sight of what is important in this story.
OK then, Grumpy. Here's the "archive note" that appears on the TC page:
This cache has been archived. My humble apologies to the terracaching and law enforcement community. This cache was listed on Geocaching, Navicache, and then Terracaching. I have not visited this site and checked my caches in awhile. I am actually an advocate against this sort of container and should have followed up more carefully.
Despite this statement, I'm pretty sure it was never listed here. But I did find the old Navicache listing
The cache WAS listed on GC.com -- Ware Shoals (GC17EK2) -- and was archived about a year ago.
-
Everything you need to complete the cache is described on the cache page.
-
I received a Kindle 2 today as a birthday present from my family. It was a total surprise and I am sort of enjoying it! I hadn't even thought of using it as a geocaching accessory but I am able to access the regular site pretty easily and -- thought it is a little slow -- the graphics are decent enough. And the screen is way bigger than the crap cellphone I have been using to check gc.com when necessary.
-
I hear rumors that they confiscated the hillbilly nut scratcher though...
-
This is the image which google maps displays if your API key usage is over quota.
Did you do a LOT of cache page viewing that day? Or, are you behind a proxy with lots of users?
See: http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documenta...ticmaps/#Limits
"Use of the Google Static Maps API is also subject to a query limit of 1000 unique (different) image requests per viewer per day. Since this restriction is a quota per viewer and not per key, most developers should not need to worry about exceeding their quota. Additionally, note that requests of identical images, in general, do not count towards this limit beyond the original request."
That could be it, though I don't think I got anywhere close to 1000. I was changing some info on a whole bunch of my caches and likely looked at a couple of hundred cache pages. Maybe more.
Thanks!
-
A few hours ago the maps on any cache page I try to access disappeared. I now see this symbol in the upper map location and a smaller version in the lower map location:
I can still use the Map It icon on the account page to get to Google Maps but once I try to go to a cache page I see the same symbol.
Windows XP
Firefox 3.0.5
All cache pages seem to be impacted
-
Most of the time it is pretty obvious in which state/territory/province/country a cache is located. But there are many caches out there that are situated pretty darn close to a state/territory/province/country boundary line. Cache owners could inadvertently -- or "advertently" -- choose the wrong state when listing new caches. And this could find the cache sitting in a gray zone of sorts.
I understand that many boundaries are inexact and were surveyed long before technology could make them more definite. But using the databases currently available to us -- Google Maps, MyTopo Maps, MapQuest, Microsoft MapPoint, Yahoo Maps, Rand McNally, Terraserver, Tiger Census Maps -- it seems that cache placers should be able to make a reasonably accurate determination.
My questions for discussion are:
1. Should the accuracy of the state/territory/province/country a cache is located in be something we need to care about?
2. If so, how far from the currently accepted border should any "gray zone" be allowed? None? 50 feet? 100 feet?
3. Should the state/territory/province/country be a cache owner selectable option or should it fill in automatically based on the provided coordinates?
This thread is NOT about any specific cache but endeavors to address an issue that may -- or may not -- be deemed important by geocachers.
-
In the big picture I understand that this issue is a molehill. But the state in which a cache is listed is relevant to some -- the reviewers for example. It is my understanding that the state/territory/country "selected" by the cache owner is used to direct caches to the appropriate reviewer. Most of my caches are located in North Carolina and I have inadvertently attempted to list caches in North Dakota once or twice. When that has happened the reviewer responsible for ND caches has disabled the cache and posted a log requesting that I change the state to NC so that the correct reviewer can review it for possible publication. If the correct state wasn't important then why wouldn't they just review the cache and if all is in order hit the "Publish" button?
Different states have different rules/laws/guidelines with regard to geocaching. What if this cache was located on State X land but listed as being on State Y land due to State X's restrictive policies with regard to geocaches? The State X reviewer publishes the cache because there are no State X issues but the State Y reviewer would not have published the cache.
Much of what has been said about the quality of the cache is in my opinion irrelevant. I agree that it IS a great cache, and enjoyed finding it in early 2007. (At which time I mentioned that the cache was 100-150 feet inside the NC border. And that comment sat untouched for almost two years.) My guess is that every cacher who has found the cache (whether they logged it online or not) would have also found it had it been correctly listed as being located in NC. And any cacher who might have logged a DNF because they didn't find it would likely still not have found it had it been correctly listed as being located in NC.
As I am not a reviewer I cannot speak to their actions, but let me make some assumptions. I assume that if the coordinates appear to possibly exist within a reviewer's purview then they likely review it and publish it (or not) on the merits of the cache. I assume that if the coordinates appear to NOT exist within a reviewer's purview -- for example, North Dakota vs North Carolina -- than they kick it back to the cache owner for cache owner review or forward it on to the proper reviewer. From the default maps that appear on the cache page this cache looks like it could be located on SC land, and without zooming in to take a closer look it would be easy to assume that the cache owner selected the correct state.
As with most potentially contentious issues in these threads there has been no consensus. (Though there have been more than their fair share of "Who cares?" comments.) I will live and continue to enjoy geocaching if the cache remains listed as an SC cache. But I repeat: I have no axe to grind but feel that caches should show up in the correct states. Period.
-
...but feel that caches should show up in the correct states. Period.
I feel the same about the "placed date" actually being the date the cache was placed or listed--either one--and not a year in the past just so one can screw with the FTFers.
If accuracy is paramount, it should swing both ways.
Point taken.
-
I have now accepted the reality of the side issue -- post #52 -- I brought up. I'm still not sure that the archived but extant cache is "new" but accept that the cache will not be unarchived and re-listed. Thanks to all for their comments.
-
It has absolutely nothing to do with being new, it has to do with the guidelines. A direct quote from the guidelines:In many cases archived caches that have been unarchived use the same cache container because it was never removed. So if it isn't "new" how does it violate the current guidelines with regard to "new" caches on Cracker Barrel properties?
It's there in black and white, not very fluid, eh?Grandfathered caches may not be unarchived.You reference a section of the guidelines which applies to grandfathered cache TYPES -- specifically webcam and virtual caches. It does NOT seem to apply to this cache.
The current guidelines are silent on this situation. However, the guidelines do say, "However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is." There is no language in the current guidelines that mentions grandfathered caches losing their grandfathered status upon archival.
The cache in question is not even mine so any vested interest is slight at best. I'm trying to get an answer from someone in the know based on the current guidelines. I know that at least one reviewer has mentioned that the guidelines seem to preclude this cache from being unarchived, but I see no language in the current guidelines that supports that.
And the quality of the cache is irrelevant.
Thanks to all for their input!
-
I'll let post #42 speak for itself.
As I said in my initial post:
Should this cache be correctly re-cataloged as a North Carolina cache? Or is state location a variable over which the cache owner has total control? Would anyone be upset if someone pointed out that a cache they owned was listed as being located in the wrong state?Continued thanks for your input!
-
May I recomend counseling and mediation? I think the whole thing is silly, but that was over the top.
And, in the main, off-topic.
-
It would depend how they pointed out the error, if in fact it was an error. Being wrong would not upset me, I've been wrong before. But I could be upset if the person was rude or demanding. (not saying the OP was in this case, just answering the question).
When I first noticed the potential discrepancy a few months ago I sent an email to the NC reviewer, who apparently passed the info on to the SC reviewer. Not long after that the cache was archived with the cryptic comment "Done." I added a note to the cache page that I was sorry to see the cache go as it was really a great area, and I also included a sentence about how I believed that the cache was located in NC. Here is the full text of that note:
This is a great area and I am sorry to see that this cache was archived! Hopefully the other two caches in the area will be enough of an incentive to get folks up to the top! Or maybe someone else will hide a new one...BTW -- though the peak of Sassafras Mountain is in SC the cache was actually located about 150 feet inside NC.
Thanks for placing the cache!
Later that same day my note was deleted along with my Find log for the cache from early 2007 where I also mentioned the NC/SC issue. A couple of people in this thread have asked "Who cares?" It appears that the cache owner cares. And I am pretty sure that I was not "rude or demanding."
Based on all available data this cache is located in NC. Shouldn't the cache page reflect this fact?
Hmmm... I just checked on benchmarks in the area and there is one 180 feet away placed by the SC Geodetic Survey and listed as being in SC. Can't wait for the NC/SC Boundary Commission to finish!
OzGuff, I truly hope you do not think I said you were rude or demanding. I merely stated I personally wouldn't be upset at being shown where I was wrong, but politeness does come into play when dealing with others. I would prefer if someone has a question or problem with something I've done they talk to me first instead of taking it to an official, it would more of "did you realize" and less of a "reporting you for your mistake" that way. I have been around enough to realize not everyone thinks the same way and there are times when going through a third party is more comfortable or even at times more advisable. One good thing about this is I had forgotten about this cache and now I'm putting it on my to do watch list so I do not forget it again but instead turn it into a caching trip with my friends.
You definitely should! The area is great! The only downside is that you can actually drive to within a few hundred feet of the cache; it doesn't seem right that you can get to such a great view without actually having worked for it a little. (And I was pretty sure you weren't saying I was rude/demanding -- though I am pretty sure that I am capable of such actions.)
All in all this is a tempest in a teapot. When a cache owner doesn't respond to my inquiries I sometimes resort to asking forum dwellers for their opinions. Some agree with me and some don't. If the cache remains listed as "SC" I am pretty sure I will survive.
Thanks to all for their responses! I will leave the thread open for any and all to continue to throw in their two and three cents.
-
Hmm, me thinks you missed your window of opportunity. You should have gone out and placed a cache while it was in archived status. Then you could have chose the location as NC and the commission could have taken that into consideration in determining the status of that chunk of the mountain.
This post made me laugh! There is plenty of room out there so maybe I WILL go out and place another cache on Sassafras Mountain...
-
It would depend how they pointed out the error, if in fact it was an error. Being wrong would not upset me, I've been wrong before. But I could be upset if the person was rude or demanding. (not saying the OP was in this case, just answering the question).
When I first noticed the potential discrepancy a few months ago I sent an email to the NC reviewer, who apparently passed the info on to the SC reviewer. Not long after that the cache was archived with the cryptic comment "Done." I added a note to the cache page that I was sorry to see the cache go as it was really a great area, and I also included a sentence about how I believed that the cache was located in NC. Here is the full text of that note:
This is a great area and I am sorry to see that this cache was archived! Hopefully the other two caches in the area will be enough of an incentive to get folks up to the top! Or maybe someone else will hide a new one...BTW -- though the peak of Sassafras Mountain is in SC the cache was actually located about 150 feet inside NC.
Thanks for placing the cache!
Later that same day my note was deleted along with my Find log for the cache from early 2007 where I also mentioned the NC/SC issue. A couple of people in this thread have asked "Who cares?" It appears that the cache owner cares. And I am pretty sure that I was not "rude or demanding."
Based on all available data this cache is located in NC. Shouldn't the cache page reflect this fact?
Hmmm... I just checked on benchmarks in the area and there is one 180 feet away placed by the SC Geodetic Survey and listed as being in SC. Can't wait for the NC/SC Boundary Commission to finish!
-
Can anyone point out a case in which an archived cache was brought back using its "grandfathered" status? I would think that archiving a cache would negate its "grandfathered" status. At least that is how I look at it.
I have no problem with the current guidelines being used to determine the publish-ability of an archived cache being unarchived. My question lies with whether or not that cache should be deemed "new". The archived cache seeking to be unarchived -- if unarchived -- would have the same GC ID number and the history from the cache page would still exist as is. In many cases archived caches that have been unarchived use the same cache container because it was never removed. So if it isn't "new" how does it violate the current guidelines with regard to "new" caches on Cracker Barrel properties?
I never said it was a new cache if it was unarchived. What I said is that it has lost its grandfathered status when it was archived. Meaning that in order to be unarchived it needs to meet all current guidelines and restrictions.
An archived virtual can't be unarchived because it does not meet current guidelines. Same with OYR caches.
OK. I had not ever been informed that archival removes any grandfathered status. Those guidelines sure are fluid... ;-) Thanks for setting me straight!
"U-store-it" storage units as cache containers
in General geocaching topics
Posted
The cache in question was The Whoo Hoo Cache! by Laineybug. Ask anyone who found this cache -- LB is certifiably insane!!! The early stages were cool but likely seen elsewhere. The final was amazing! Based on Internet research you wound up with the password to enter the establishment and the building number and storage container number. Once you opened the storage container -- one of those roll-up doors -- you found a whole bunch of cardboard boxes stacked to the top. You had to move them around to finally find the cache -- a bubble-gum machine where you had to pop in your two quarters to get a fortune cookie-like quote that needed to be included in your online log. The boxes were labeled with the names of local cachers and cachers that had helped Laineybug with various caching issues.
When you saw the final spot you just had to let out a big Whoo Hoo!