Jump to content

Uncle Alaska

+Charter Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    356

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Uncle Alaska

    Self Driving Car Caching

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    I have to wonder about this situation (when it comes self-driving-cars): What happens when a car has to make the following, split second decision and cannot stop in time (due to the obvious limits of physics). Going at high speed, vehicle coming head on in a two lane road. Mountain wall on the right, cliff dropping thousand feet on the left. Robot car can A) skid against the right wall and head on into the car in front. B ) hit the school bus full of kids the car in your lane was passing, or C) drive off the cliff. Who programs decisions that the computer is going to choose? Isn't that like playing god? Aren't those the kinds of decisions humans in control of the situation should make? Or do we let a corporation make that call? And, can the computer be fooled into which is the best choice?

    Updated Geocache Hiding Guidelines

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted · Edited by Uncle Alaska

    1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

    I often meet up with friends in a restaurant across the road from the local railway station but no-one has ever claimed that's a security risk. Why should a geocaching event be any different? I can understand them not wanting events inside train stations (or airports or cruise ship ports) but near them? These vicinities often have lots of cafes and restaurants where they want people to gather and enjoy themselves.

    My guess is only based on what "near" means to Groundspeak. It may not mean across the road.

    Updated Geocache Hiding Guidelines

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

    The actual wording is:

    Events cannot be held in or near transportation centers such as

    • Airports
    • Cruise ship ports
    • Train stations

    I don't see anything there to exclude events requiring some hiking to the location. Some of the most enjoyable events I've attended (and one I hosted) have involved a hike of a few kilometres.

    I note that the list isn't exhaustive so presumably events can't be near other transportation centres like ferry wharfs and bus interchanges. Is the intention to stop people using public transport to attend events? If so, why?

     

    I am guessing as a security precaution?

    Introducing Virtual Rewards!

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted · Edited by Uncle Alaska

    7 minutes ago, on4bam said:

    Point is that some very good caches are now TD affecting the cachers who enjoy "something more" than LPCs. Something similar happened when new rules went into effect regarding caches in nature reserves. Some disabled their (highly rated) caches and some even archived later.

     

    Well, they should go ahead and archive them and walk away. Makes room for other cachers to place new and exciting caches. Plenty of people in the community that can see beyond their own egos.

    • Upvote 2

    Introducing Virtual Rewards!

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted · Edited by Uncle Alaska

    5 minutes ago, on4bam said:

    I haven't read this whole thread, it may have come up before but updating my database I saw some caches (series) that are on my "to do" list are now "temporary disabled". Since I was curious why the whole series was TD I looked at the logs and found a long explanation by the CO for disabling.

    The bottom line is:

    Groundspeak did NOT have to draw a line somewhere!
    When 4000 new virtual caches are to be created it would have been way better to ask the whole geocaching community for ideas and give every cacher the opportunity to create a listing.
    And let the reviewers select only the best ones to be published.

    That would give some high quality virtuals. For sure better then the top one percent of a vague algorithm would create. This top one percent was rewarded for creating nice containers.... Exactly the opposite of a virtual.
    No algorithm is perfect. And certainly not this one.
    If no algorithm is perfect.... no algorithm should be used.

    By just giving a few people with a few nice traditionals the option is in the opinion of a large group of cachers not smart.
    But the worst thing that HQ did this way was dividing the community in several groups.

    We feel sad that a division in groups has been created which nobody wanted.
    We would like to see that everybody gets the chance to at least tell about their plans for a virtual.
    All geocachers should have equal chances.
    And let the best ones be published.

    We are hoping HQ will clarify what makes up for a top 1 percent hider. Because we do not understand it.

    On behalf of a large group of geocachers who are responsible for thousands of geocaches this cache is therefore temporarily disabled.

    Perhaps more caches will follow..

    I don't think that this was the purpose of these new virtuals.

    Yeah, I gotta say...let them take their toys and go home. In my honest opinion, this kind of stuff is childish. Even more of an embarrassment as they seem to be encouraging others to follow in their footsteps.

    • Upvote 3

    Introducing Virtual Rewards!

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, niraD said:

    I would expect certain "active community volunteers" to have known about this opportunity well in advance. And I would expect some of them to have had a cache listing ready to go as soon as TPTB flipped the switch to enable the necessary functionality.

    A few years back when I took a tour at HQ, someone whispered in my ear that "virtuals may yet return someday". I guess this is what they were talking about. Seems fairly well thought out (IMHO).

    Introducing Virtual Rewards!

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    I am guessing there will be a certain amount of hand wringing and/or sour grapes over why someone was not chosen to place a new virtual. Can't please everyone all of the time. I like the way that GC has rolled this out. I am interested in going out and finding some of the new placed virtuals. I hope many of them are great spots!

    • Upvote 3

    Still sad.

    in General geocaching topics

    Posted

    On 7/21/2017 at 3:51 PM, Manville Possum said:

     

    Nevada historical marker #26  is listed as two WM's and will likely fit in other categories as well, but I don't think it would be fair to not allow Waymarks or request them archived because they sometimes "spoil" virtuals.

    So what again is the issue, the virtual could be armchair logged? That is the cache owners responsibility, and looking at other virtuals in the area where the owner has not signed on since 2011, I see where that could be a problem and that is how virtuals get archived because of armchair loggers.:)

     

    Yeah,

     

    I chose to make some changes to my remaining virtual cache. I added a question not found on the plaque, something not likely to be picked up on a Waymarking photo. And I will likely rotate certain questions, just to keep the arm-chairing in check. Note, I remember founding the Waymarking Nevada Historic Marker category (while Waymarking was in early beta). Even met up with the NV State employee responsible for their upkeep, let them know about the website so they could track the condition of the plaques ( I added a specific variable to show if the marker was damaged or not). I know some don't think a historic plaque may be worthy of a virtual. However, I have logged many virtuals that are far less worthy and far less interesting.

×
×
  • Create New...