dak's Emu Mob
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dak's Emu Mob
-
-
G'day,
I have been enjoying a thread on Cool Cache Containers elsewhere on the Forum. That thread is the best place for posting pictures of camouflaged containers.
I believe this thread was set up for telling people about materials, techniques, and so on. For example, I'd like to know what glue people use to stick magnets to plastic or metal. I've used epoxy, but have found it to be unreliable on plastic of smooth metal. It eventually just falls off. So, what do you use?
Cheers,
dak
-
G'day -e^ip,
There were two caches in that area that had "dirt bike" in their name. They were placed by s.d.m. geo, who has apparently dropped out of the sport. He archived all his caches a couple of months ago.
The two caches were:
Dirt bike and buggies raceway.
They are both archived, of course, but you can still log your find.
Cheers,
dak
-
Here is a rough breakdown of how we built the container. Hope this helps.
Thanks very much for that. Now to find an el-cheapo deadlock.
P.S. I'm impressed by the graphics too.
Cheers,
dak
-
I tried this one just for kicks. The lockset I was using made it very difficult. The actual keyhole presented a problem since the tumbler mechanism comes out when you gut the lock.
I also was considering this one seriously. Now that I think about it, I believe that *all* of these mechanisms would be the same, that is, the keyhole is an integral part of the tumbler. I wonder if Kazack could let us know if he/she had the same problem, and how it was overcome?
Cheers,
dak
-
One of our fine & experienced cachers has a site from which you might garnish a few additional tidbits in conversions & feet per thousandth of degree at specific latitudes etc.. please review :
http://members.aol.com/marklent60544/myhom...rkwellgcfaq.htm
"Markwell" is an outstanding & contributing member of the geocaching family & I'm sure he'll be willing to assist in your endevour.
Thanks to everyone for the feedback so far. It's much appreciated. There have been some good suggestions. I'll check out Markwell's web site, to see if the information is appropriate for the objective of the document.
I think its overkill. Some of the background info is great for novices, but 21 pages for what is a very simple procedure?
I agree that 21 pages seems a lot, but I couldn't pare it down unless I removed the descriptions of the various methods people use, and I consider them to be an important part of the document. I also agree that it should be a simple procedure, but it often isn't for new cachers. Only yesterday I logged three caches from a newbie who had used AUS66 datum.
The coordinates for all three caches were 200m (600 feet) out! Experienced cachers usually record accurate coordinates; they use the principles in the document without thinking about it, because experience in finding caches leads to an intrinsic understanding of how GPS works.This looks like a great document with all kinds of useful and interesting information, however it's unfortunate that the pdf document is password protected and is not allowed to be printed. I'd much rather sit down and read a paper version than scroll through it on the computer.
Yes, sorry 'bout that. I also like to have hardcopy when reviewing documents. However, in this case, I wanted to restrict the distribution of the document until it is in its final form. When I finalise the document that security will be removed.
Cheers,
dak
-
G'day All,
The document attached below describes how to record accurate, reliable coordinates with a GPS receiver.
When people start geocaching, they are often so taken with the activity that they want to place their own cache as soon as possible. In general, this is a good thing, because it leads to a perpetuation of the sport, and allows people the chance to give something back to the geocaching community.
However, sometimes the new geocacher's inexperience results in a cache placement that is some distance away from the advertised coordinates. This not only frustrates the people trying to find the cache, but it also harms the new user's reputation in the sport. Placing a geocache is more involved than hiding a container, and pressing the 'mark' button on the GPS receiver.
Having been frustrated by looking for caches whose coordinates are 15-20m out, I decided to write a guide that describes how to record accurate, reliable coordinates.
The document outlines several tried and true methods for recording coordinates. The initial intention was to describe a general process for recording coordinates. To this end, I contacted twelve active geocachers from all Australian States, and asked them to write down their preferred method of recording coordinates. My plan was to describe a single process, based on the common components of each method.
It turned out that the methods varied so much that there wasn't a single 'approved' method for recording coordinates. So, I decided instead to describe some general principles of GPS operation and the conditions that affect the accuracy of readings, and then reproduce the methods that I received in response to my request, in the language used by each geocacher.
I've been working on this document, on and off, for many months. Now I would like to seek feedback from experienced geocachers before finalising the document and making it generally available.
Please leave your feedback in a reply to this thread. Feel free to comment (positively or negatively) on the technical aspects, the layout, the organisation of the material, the grammar, the diagrams, or anything that you think could improve the document. If you think something could be left out, or if there is something missing, please let me know. Please try to be constructive, not destructive. The idea here is to provide feedback on how to improve the document to make it useful for the intended audience: geocachers (especially newbies), or anyone who wants to accurately record the position of something.
I promise to value all feedback, but I can't guarantee that I'll agree with or implement all feedback that I receive.
Cheers,
dak
Download: Recording Accurate, Reliable Coordinates Using GPS (581kB)
-
G'day All,
Thanks to all who have responded to this topic. I apologise for not responding earlier. I must have forgotten to check the "Enable email notification of replies" box, so I was unaware that people had responded.
Unlike US cache pages, there is no map displayed on the normal cache pages over here in Oz. However, when you view the 'print friendly' page, a map is displayed. This results in the following across the page:
Coordinates etc. -> map -> text version of attributes (on top of) TB info.
Look at GCR3N3 for an example of an Australian cache page.
Depending on how wide your screen is, it probably looks OK. However, when you print the page the coordinate information was squashed, with line breaks added to make the whole lot fit into the page width. It looks ugly, and makes the coords harder to read. It's not a big deal, just an annoyance. You could argue that it is the map that is causing the problem, because when a page doesn't include the map, the problem disappears.
Also, it seems that something might have changed. When I posted the original note, I thought that the text version of the attributes was printed to the right of the TB info, not above it. My memory might be faulty, if nothing has changed, but I seem to remember that this really exacerbated the problem.
Anyhow, my original question related to the approver requiring the use of attributes. As CO Admin suggested, I'll take it up with Approvers@geocaching.com.
Thanks for your input.
Cheers,
dak
-
G'day,
Has there been a change in policy on terrain one caches? Or does it only apply to us here in Oz?
Lately, the Australian approver has been "requesting" that placers use the optional cache attribute to indicate that a terrain one cache is wheelchair accessible. If the cacher doesn't want to use these icons (I don't), then the only option seems to be to increase the terrain rating to 1.5 or greater. The cache is not approved until one of these conditions is met.
Is this happening in the US too? Are these cache attribute icons now mandatory? (By the way, I don't like them, because they screw up the formatting of the 'print friendly (no logs)' version of the cache page.)
Cheers,
dak
-
G'day,
Could someone please clear up a couple of things for me.
What does TPTB mean?
What is a Charter Member? I have seen this in people's profiles, but have never known what it meant. This discussion seems to be telling me that they are some sort of "super" Premium Member.
All help will be appreciated.
Cheers,
dak
-
I thought I had discovered a bug in GSAK when I discovered that coordinates I had attached to a log entry had also been attached to the three logs prior to mine.
However, all my testing was in vain, because Clyde pointed out that the erroneous coordinates were in fact in the GPX file that I had received in my Pocket Query.
So, the bug is as follows:
I generate a PQ that includes a cache I have found in which I have attached a waypoint. (An example is "Bridging the Gap": GCPQWR.) My log in the GPX file has the following XML code:
<Groundspeak:log_wpt lat="-33.9954" lon="151.070367" />
The problem is that the previous three logs also include this XML code. The live cache page does not show the coordinates in the previous three logs. I say 'three logs' here, but I have also seen instances where the coordinates are erroneously attached to one or two previous logs.
This only seems to occur with my own logs, as I have checked a cache that has a waypoint attached to a log by another cacher, and those coordinates are not repeated in previous logs.
I'm not sure where to report this to. Previously, when I have made a suggestion about the site, I have been referred to the Forum, but I can't find a more suitable place to report it.
Cheers,
dak
-
I can appreciate that Zipcode search is the most popular: that's why it's on the Geocaching.com Main Page.
My point is that, given it is on the Main Page, it is redundant to have it as the default option on the Advanced Search page.
I think it's fair to assume that if someone has clicked the "Advanced Search" link, then they don't want to execute a search on Zipcode, because they could've done it on the Main Page.
I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.
Cheers,
dak
-
I regularly use the Advanced Search page to locate caches. One thing that I always do is change the search criterion to something other than "By Postal Code", usually to "By Keyword". Given that the Main Page offers the opportunity of searching for caches, based on a postal code, it seems redundant to have the option available at all on the Advanced Search page, and it certainly needn't be the default option.
How about making "By Keyword" the default option when a user first accesses the Advanced Search page?
What do others think?
Cheers,
Dave Kruger (dak)
dak's Emu Mob
Australia
-
G'day All,
I will be visiting the Sacramento/Roseville area for two weeks between 12 January and 23 January.
I'm looking forward to doing some geocaching while I'm there. I have a Magellan Map 330, but I don't have any street-level maps for the U.S.
Can anyone help me? All help will be really appreciated, and reciprocated. For example, I can help with maps for Oz.
Cheers,
Dave Kruger
dak's Emu Mob
The coordinates for all three caches were 200m (600 feet) out! Experienced cachers usually record accurate coordinates; they use the principles in the document without thinking about it, because experience in finding caches leads to an intrinsic understanding of how GPS works.
Question about the PQ 500 limit
in Website
Posted
I, too, have wondered about this. When I visit California, I generate PQs, based on the coordinates of the hotel I'll be staying in. If the PQ returns more than 500 caches, I have to keep reducing the distance until it returns <500 caches.
It seems to me that if the PQ returns over 500 caches, it should drop off the distant ones first, but that has not been my experience. It seems to randomly drop off caches instead. I have generated PQs many times (in the US, and here in Oz), and loaded them into GSAK, in an existing database that was generated from a past PQ. Then I sort them on 'Last GPX' in an attempt to weed out caches that have been archived since the previous PQ (which could have been months ago). I have found many instances of caches that were quite close to the origin point of the PQ, but that were not included in the PQ. I have to download them separately, or change the distance to get the PQ to return <500 caches.
So, in my experience, the PQ is not strictly distance-based, but uses some other algorithm when limiting a PQ to 500 caches.
By the way, if the PQ returns <500 caches, I have never experienced the omission of nearby caches.
Cheers,
dak