The White Family

Congratulations to both of you on your achievements yesterday and on finding your 900th cache.

Normally the best response to threads of this nature is to ignore them and hope that those involved grow tired and seek amusement elsewhere. However, since some of you seem determined to keep the thread going, and as it's causing distress to Steph, we feel obliged to respond to this thinly-veiled criticism of us. This thread started by suggesting that some matters are better dealt with by email rather than in logs for all to see, and encouraged us to remember that there's a person on the receiving end. How ironic that the thread then descends into public vilification. Does the word "hypocrisy" mean anything to you? At least you know that we read this forum, so we could respond if we chose to. The other person you've decided to publicly hang probably doesn't even read this forum, so she has had no opportunity to defend herself. And even if she had, do not the rules of this forum prohibit ad-hominem remarks? Is that why none of the critics have had the courage to name your targets? You may not agree with our decision to request that "Nuclear Bunker" be archived, but we stand by it. The reason why is in our logs. Geocaching is not a licence to trespass or damage other people's property, nor should cache owners encourage these. The response to our SBA was in the hands of the owner. Dan could have chosen to move the cache somewhere close by; he could have chosen to ignore our SBA, in which case the reviewers would have decided what to do. The end result might well have been that no action was taken. That's fine with us: we met our responsibility to the hobby by reporting a cache that is likely to bring the hobby into disrepute. Our 900+ logs reflect our experience of the hunt. They are always factual and, we hope, polite. Unlike many logs we see we always take the trouble to thank the owner for placing the cache. We enjoy this hobby greatly and this thread has caused us great sadness over the last few days. If that was the intention of our critics, well done, you got what you wanted. Now go back and re-read the thread and see how you might employ your own suggestions.

1. http://www.globalpositioningsystems.co.uk/ Search for Groundspeak 2. 31st For submissions, usually 15th of the following month. Brian will be along shortly....

Surely there are many more than that? Our GSAK database gives 5208 available caches, with a further 274 temporarily unavailable, giving a total of 5482. For comparison, G:UK gives 5467 available. And GC.com gives 5382 including temporarily unavailable.

OK, that's an assumption on my part because it seems the most likely explanation. If I've not visited GC.com from a particular computer for a while then I have to log in. No, I don't know what "a while" consititutes in this case. Just tried it on the laptop, which hasn't visited GC.com in weeks, and had to log in manually. Of course, any of this could be down to settings on my PCs. Any advice gratefully received.

Which is the sensible option. When the cookie expires and I need to log in, I don't want to be taken to a different page and have to navigate my way back to the page I was looking at.

13 is me (Alan).

Yes. If G:UK showed you the link to the cache page then a non-member would be able to view the cache because G:UK is a member. Be (kind of) thankful. Until recently the MOCs weren't included in the stats on G:UK. I only noticed when our stats went down because the owner of some of our finds made them MOC. All of which is why I don't like MOCs. Or, at least, don't like the way they're currently managed. Alan

They are: as a container size. Which is correct as that's what it is. In what way? If the cache is properly classified then the PQ wil include/exclude it as you choose. And if it's not properly classified then a mail to the owner or, as a last resort, a reviewer, will fix it. I'm afraid I don't see the point of this thread. If you don't like micros, don't look for them. It's that simple. Alan

Thanks, everyone. It's been fun so far. Only another 4900 or so to go

Quite agree, I have foumd some great walking places due to a micro being set up there. wouldn't you rather walk to the aforementioned 'nice location' and find a dry, well stocked ammo can rather than a damp micro?? Don't mind, really. It's the location, not the type of container, that matters. Caching takes me to places I wouldn't otherwise have gone to. I don't recall finding a damp 35mm canister - maybe we've just been lucky. Breath strip containers, however, appear to be porous. Alan

There's no reason why we can't discuss this in the UK forum. It's more likely to be seen here by those who would place MOCs in the UK, and may even cause them to consider their position. Also, one of the moderators is quite high up in Groundspeak, and is probably best placed to want to avoid the unpleasantness and damage to the hobby that this issue causes. Personally, as a premium member I have few concerns about MOCs themselves. What upsets me is the consequent bickering that results from their existence.

I'm happy with those. There's a fourth, probably even more controversial option, to make all caches MOCs. Some sites already do this. Not an option I'd support, but it is a way of avoiding the unpleasantness every time this issue comes up.

OK, it has been discussed, but not resolved. The rights of cache owners must be considered in the wider context of the effects on the sport. MOCs are clearly divisive and for the good of the hobby measures must be taken to prevent this.

As can GSAK, but as I said, each to their own. The hobby would be somewhat less interesting if everyone did things the same way.

The MOC discussion comes up time and time again, and usually becomes heated and personal. This is obviously a shame, and it seems to me that there are two simple options for preventing this. 1. There should be no MOCs. There are in any case very few - especially in the UK - and IMO the value of them of them is limited. The real value in membership is PQs and the satisfaction of knowing one is contributing (and is able to do so). or 2. It should not be possible to change the status of a cache. It's either MOC or public from the start. Discuss.... Alan

We have that. Mio168, CoPilot, Fugawi, GPXSonar. All works a treat.

As I said, all those are IMO better served by GSAK, but each to their own. And for FTF near your home (or any other location), you don't need a PQ, just this http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...n_long=-0.9&f=1 There's a link to the one for near home on http://www.geocaching.com/my

Obviously I can't testify to the accuracy of that, but my impression is that many UK cachers do download the PQs for loading into GSAK or similar. Other than for testing, I can't see the value in just previewing the PQ. The queries you mention are much better and more easily answered in GSAK rather than by the PQs themselves.

Me too. I currently have the whole SouthEast of England on a 512Mb SD card. Hear, hear. This is the major missing item of functionality IMO.

Fugawi does have a version for PPC. Both PPC and Palm versions are included 'free' in the desktop software [1]. I wouldn't give Northport too many compliments, but personally I have very few problems with Fugawi, on either desktop or PPC. I find it invaluable and the best of the similar products I've looked at. [1] For the avoidance of doubt, since I know you're using a different version, I refer to Fugawi UK with v1 OS maps.

Fugawi shows that cache very definitely on the south of the river. There's a lot of water there, though

When I run this macro REPLACE Settings="Clear User Sort" from a toolbar button GSAK successfully executes the replace, then hangs and has to be killed from Task Manager. If the same macro is run from File|Run Macro it works fine, as do other macros run from toolbar buttons. I'd send debug info, but GSAK is hung...

One of the risks of geocaching and other country pursuits is that you often have to leave the car in isolated spots, so here's a reminder to take care when you do so. Yesterday we visited http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b3-4d06a881d1cc We chose not to park at the recommended coords but rather at an obviously well-used parking spot for walkers on the Wayfarers Walk. When we returned to the car we found the side window smashed and some, fortunately low-value, items taken from the boot. The thieves had smashed the side-window so as to be able to drop the back seat and so get to the boot. We aren't so daft as to leave valuable items even in the boot so all they grabbed were our coats and a torch. They didn't even want our wellies. Another vehicle in the same parking spot was similarly attacked. The owner of that vehicle said that she'd heard there was a gang of opportunist thieves targeting the area, so it sounds like it probably wouldn't have mattered where we'd parked. It's a nuisance, but it's one of the risks of country walking so this is just a reminder to adopt sensible security procedures.

A common occurrence in software development, Jeremy. It's a sign of success.