derangedlunatech

jjreds, The new changes are awesome! I do have one question/feature request: How difficult would it be to separate the functions of the "use my own icons and sounds" into "use my own icons" and "use my own sounds?" I have been manually replacing the wav file every time I run the macro because the default "DING!!!!!" is way too loud on my 200w, and I'm worried it's going to blow out the speakers. If I turn the volume down, it goes so low I can't hear directions on it. It would be nice if I could somehow set it up so that I don't have to manually change out the wav every time I set up new files to export. Or maybe if there was a manual way I could do this without having to swap the file every time, that would be cool too... And if not - then oh well - I'll live with the extra step

Absolutely agree. I just think that the micro begs to be "shotgunned." Small, cheap, minimal maintenance, can be placed anywhere. I mostly cache in an urban environment, where stashing an ammo can, or even a decent sized lock 'n lock can be pretty challenging. There's a few locals who do it very well. In fact there was one I fund recently that I commented not only on its location, but also how it was hidden almost in plain sight. It really amazed me - there's an art to that. The same hider stuck a micro in a great spot almost literally right across the street from my house, and it took me 6 tries before I found it. Again - it was a great use of a micro. I tend to think (and I could be wrong, of course) that spend 5-10 bucks on an ammo can, + stocking it, + camo (if desired) to hide somewhere (especially in an urban environment) and you put some care into the hide - especially that it be unlikely to be muggled - or worse yet, set off a bomb scare. But a micro? Heck, like you said - a buck and a piece of paper, throw it anywhere. I recently made up 6 caches to be placed...when I find the right spot. 3 micros and 3 lock 'n locks. Been carrying them with me for 2 weeks now - and although there are plenty of places I *could* put them - I'm looking for places where I *want to* put them. Might take me a while, but that's how it goes.

Yes, I apologize to all. In my quick read of the post, I had assumed that OReviewer was actually addressing the issue that was presented, not a completely different one. The issue itself, and related questions about it still stand unanswered.

Please go back and reread what you posted. You stated: In response to the point that it is difficult with caches that are not at the posted locations, like puzzles. I asked specifically what tools I have available to tell me that I am in the vicinity of a cache that is not at the posted location (which is the topic of the thread), and you went on to illustrate the problem presented by the OP. Your point is well taken that some people may not check the posted coordinates before posting their own. But that wasn't the question presented in this thread. Again, I'll bring up the illustration that I asked about earlier - there is a park right down the street from me. It is a puzzle cache that essentially has the solver walk the entire perimiter of the small park. There are places that I could hide in this park that would be > .1 mile from the posted coordinates. There are places where I could hide that would be >.1 mile from the actual location. There is nowhere that is > .1 mile from the various waypoints along the way. Supposing that I wanted to do my due diligence before submitting a cache to a reviewer, how could I possibly tell that any cache I placed in this park would not be OK, short of doing the entire cache myself? THAT is the topic being addressed - and I imagine that it is not all that rare of an occurrance, based on some of the responses in this thread.

For the record, OReviewer stated initially: ...then went on to illustrate that we can't really do it, which was the OPs point to begin with. That statement was what i was addressing. Please follow the quotes.

So far, from what I've seen in my limited caching experience, it strikes me that larger caches seem to be better thought-out and more interesting locations. I have seen a few micros where the locations were great, and a micro was the only thing that would work well there. I've also seen several where the deciding factor to place them seemed to be "there's no other caches within .1 mile."

White Castle is like the "pointless micro-spew" of fast food

There aren't tools - we're just discussing the possibility. I am aware of this. OReviewer said there were. Please follow the quotes.

TFTDP

Go to http://www.geocaching.com/seek/ On this page, enter the coords at the "Latitude Longitude Search" area. The next page will tell you how close it is to another cache. Again, this will help you with posted coordinates only but it still helps! Example, I want to hide a cache at N 39° 59.498 W 075° 11.772. I put the coords in, hit search and get thi page. I can see that I am only 93 feet from another cache and that won't fly. Well therein lies the problem. If the published coords are incorrect, that does me no good. As one person in the thread mentioned, they ran across a puzzle cache that was 3 towns over from the published coords. That's no good. Please don't say that there are tools in place that address the problem when there are not.

Help a newbie out here - how can I check the location of a cache with a location that is not published, short of doing the cache and finding it myself? For example - at a park near my house, there's a puzzle that basically takes you for a walk around the perimiter of the park. The only published coords is the start point. Let's say I wanted to hide a cache in this park, saw that it was > .1 mile from the published coords, how could I tell?

...and I choose not to eat at Wendys because I think that square hamburgers are unAmerican. Which I'm sure everyone on here cares as much about as they do your choice not to eat at CB *shrug*

More like .1 mile, I would think - since that is the distance limit for placing caches. Or maybe just not count puzzle caches when judging proximity.

How exactly do you mean? The way I have changed mine in the last few days is by cache size. But that has its limitations as well. (BTW - when I said overlapping physically, I don't mean the entire search overlaps - I mean that I have different centers for the search, and parts of some of the circles overlap)

It seems to me (and I'm just making a SWAG here) that the saturation issue (as it applies to geocaching) is not a concern of the BLM manager. His or her concern is the impact on the land itself, not the impact on geocaching. The reviewer, on the other hand, has to balance the 2 - what is in the best interests of the land manager and the best interests of geocaching. Not saying that I agree or disagree with this - just my thought as I read this.

Godwin's Law

Utah

Was that based on random samples, or were all caches counted?

I run GSAK on Vista Home Basic with no problems. Can't help with much more than that.

No-one said anything about genocide... Perhaps what you meant was "geocide" - and that wasn't mentioned until post #30.

HAH Truth!

First to Find. You might want to take a gander at this thread - lots of good info in there, including a lot of the common abbreviations and terms.

Actually, what I said was more of a jab at the constant micro whining. I'm not a huge fan of them, but I don't hate them either. But since most of my caching is done with my 6-year old, and for him the fun of the caching is "the treasure hunt" (not much treasure to be found in micros), so I don't usually bother looking for them. Doesn't mean I won't grab one if I'm near it tho...

I can see a good and practical application or this - if you have PQs that overlap physically, it would be kinda nice to have some way to filter out caches that appear in PQ A when you run PQ B... But generally speaking I agree - it would not be good to spend a day looking for a cache that had been archived a month ago...

The easy solution to this problem is to plant bigger caches (Sorry - I couldn't resist...)