7rxc

Glad it worked out for you. Doug 7rxc

Before the coq? Not a hope if you mean From the Fraser... I said the other side... I can see the BC/ Alberta border ridge out the window. IF I'm still in the area, the fishing is good (later on) and a few caches around... Look up Elkford (me), Sparwood, and Fernie. A bit far for pickup caching I'm afraid, but not for a short trip. IF I have to move, it won't be far though, Cranbrook would be a worst case... but that would be good caching, just too big for me other than visits. For here, just follow 3 to Sparwood then 43 North to Elkford... maybe 20 km from AB. Doug 7rxc

Those old VW Enclosed 2Wheel Motorcycles are rare! Even has the optional stands. Doug 7rxc

Let's hope! Hey! I'm in BC, but it's the other side! Just across Hwy 3 and north a bit. Never know for how long, but I'm here. Doug 7rxc

And I would not discount the efforts of various animals. They often clean out hollow logs and stumps looking for their food, or even for nesting spots. Doug 7rxc

Always a good idea to check out local geocaching groups, you can find some in the Canada forum topics. The BC Geocaching Association has an active site. Make sure you are receiving the GC weekly newsletter and that your home location is correct... that lists a lot of the local to you events (and new caches). Anyway, don't give up on hubby, since it's almost always possible to plan caching trips that are local to good fishing spots... many cachers fish and do both that way. I can think of several near here, but that's not local to you. Of course right now rivers are a rising, but once they peak out and recede, that's an option. I always try to find a few while travelling from place to place. However I agree that it's nice to have company on others that are slightly more removed from the world. Good luck! Doug 7rxc

Busy Weekend... For us, a 3day holiday for Victoria Day. Friday was a regular cache maintenance trip by bus... like to make sure The World's Biggest Truck is all good to go for the busy weekend... as well as some others. Saturday, decided to go out caching, and first off to meet up with a cacher who was trying to FIND the WBT cache... Meet we did, and after discussing his previous attempts and things he could do to improve his approach (which was getting him close), find it he did. I only snickered a little bit. After that there was lunch at the Subway (I like fine restaurants) and then down valley a bit to try and clean out a forestry road of it's unfound by me caches. Got them now, repaired one that needed a tiny bit of help as per previous logs, found another that has migrated a bit. Advised the owner of both. Oh! took a pic or two, sun was out of the clouds briefly for this one... the other is just a friend who was along. This looks southward towards Hosmer, BC from the hill above Sparwood's south edge. After that one we finished working from the top down to clear the caches... then back to Sparwood for supper at A&W. Then home to Elkford. Rest of the weekend was spent finishing off my middle age. Monday I became a legal Senior (65)... and for some reason I now feel achy and a bit testy... I suppose that comes with the title... or maybe it's just the weather changing again... Back another weekend! Doug 7rxc

Don't know what you were using for a tracker... our APRS rigs were using handhelds for transmitters... and I can say that just because you can't receive a signal does not mean it isn't transmitting. Had one where the antenna was folded under the payload and on the ground in a gully, but a portable APRS rig could hear it... not to mention the RDF rigs. Even just using HTs and listening was useful in finding that one. Even if you used something like a SPOT or Inreach unit they have to transmit something. Good luck, Amateur Balloons are fun. Not so much to find sometimes. Doug 7rxc (VE7RXC)

Okay then... still not sure what is happening, but you can find what I was referring to in the General topics section Topic about Eliminating the Old Cache submission form. Think there are other topics about the rejection thing and locking up on here as well. As for the E30, that will help since I have the docs for the e10/20/30 GPS already, and know the 20 pretty good... aside from compass and alt. You will probably attract a Lackey in the mean time... but I'll keep thinking. I DID re read one part of that thread that made it sound like you would get a RED proximity alert, but could bypass that and proceed until you could use the edit page. Not good to ignore totally though and submit for publication, just to save a draft to edit. I guess that would be on the preview map... or proximity map whatever they call it now. Reminds me I have to place a cache to see what the newest version looks like... only used the new one once. Mostly I just edit other peoples caches when they get problems... one local can't figure out editing at all, or maintenance logs. Sigh. edit: Take a look at this other topic on this forum... Cache Submission Hang up Doug 7rxc

I don't see any mention of elevation change for both sides, but from the leaf to trunk scale, I don't think more than 15 feet on the other side, probably closer to 12 feet. Hard to tell, I don't think that going straight up would be first choice for many either... a bit to the right from the log and then way left then back to the right would make sense, even looks like there's an old path there anyway. more like 20 to 30 degrees max. Around here that wouldn't be even mentioned as a serious obstacle to anything unless it was in flood. So lets see, no wheelchairs for sure from this side (although I know a few WC riders that probably would take on the challenge in their off road chairs), and maybe not many on crutches, walkers etc. (again it really depends on the cacher and the approach). No mention of the distance from parking either. I'd say we don't know enough. From the Canadian Rockies, I's say 2 to 2.5 with a moderate distance of easy ground to cross. Most of that would be for the 'dip' and distance of course. As we all know or should, terrain ratings are dependant on location... on a scale of 1 to 4.5 it's hard to make my scale of terrain match that of a flatlander. Except maybe for the upper and lower limits (1 and 4.5). My only cache so far barely raises a sweat when hiking up to it... (I just turned 65) and is rated a bit higher due to elevation change and round trip distance, T is 3.5, the nearest cache up there is a 4.5 and the further cache is a 3.5 as well... Giving a slight hint, my cache is about 450 metres above the summer parking lot, but the angle looks to be about the same 30 to 40 degrees on a trail, and several areas are much worse than what I see. Round trip would be about 4 km. The other two are higher again and one is bushwhacking and a bit of scrambling, the further one is a long slog with good views. Just not the same rating them as this one. Doug 7rxc

A few years back there was a post in the GPS tech forum from a chap who always found whatever compass he used it never worked properly, but mostly the one in his GPSr. I had the thought that perhaps he should check what he was WEARING... and it seems I was at least mostly correct. Nylon jacket, wool sweater etc. especially when you take one layer off, and you build up quite a static charge. That in turn is more than enough to affect compass readings... One reason why I try to 'ground' out the charge before doing higher accuracy readings with any hand compass... In his case as I recall he was a welder and didn't have to often remove layers to build up a charge... more like a large capacitor effectively... even riding in a vehicle would charge him up, messing up the compass. He did some experimenting and went away happy. Never did find out how he made out overall though. Anyway, it's something to consider with 'recalibration' problems... but I don't use cel phones at all. Will look up a link for that one. There were other possible issues as well of course. edit:Found it... Link to Topic Doug 7rxc

All I wanted to know was what (exactly) you were entering in, and what (exactly) it was changing to... examining a problem is never a waste of time. So go ahead, it is MY time. Others might see something else, I just like 'problems', I treat them like puzzles for entertainment. Don't forget you GPS type (make, model) I can look up the manual if I don't know it already. Might be something in there, but I doubt it since it seems to be the site doing the change. Reproducing it would be a start... I know that the Lackeys would ask that as well. The aerial photos are known to put it out of position as I said, but what is changing the numbers? That could be indicative of a more serious problem or just an offshoot of the fixing process.. So send away... no answers guaranteed though, I just like to play. Doug 7rxc

Ok... you've checked the format (DD MM.mmm), datum is WGS84 (GC standard).. but the numerals change on the map. Was going to ask WHICH map, but I re read and assume it's in the create page as you said... preview. Just for interest, which GPS do you use? Might help. Also have you tried seeing where your coordinates and the changed ones take you outside of GC pages... that is using Google Earth or Google Maps... I prefer GE since you can place map pins there for comparison. I wouldn't get too upset with any of the maps being a slight difference off since the photos don't always register well with reality. Many known locations (identifiable) on the map photo don't show right, and some are spot on. That and I'd check the GPS settings completely as far as I could... just to be sure. One feature of GE is the ability to switch formats around... you can enter the changed numerals to see where they take you and what they convert to. under options. I'll think some more. If you want to keep things 'secret' you could use my profile to email me the two sets of coordinates so I can play... or use the PM 'envelope under my avatar here, I answer both... No need to reveal the cache location.. but I obviously can't see your project until it gets published... I do see that there have been some problems with the cache creation form recently, perhaps you are just caught in one of them... there have been comments on problems some have with figuring out the correct way to enter coordinates, and not from new cachers either... Doug 7rxc

The Scout 'temp' also states that it will be removed by Fri 23rd May 2014... that's the bottom line! Perhaps they put it out for training purposes rather than bother GC caches... In fact I just read it again and it says for "exercise", or they might not even be aware of the OPs cache, just a convenient spot... and of course it's not listed anywhere. Doug 7rxc

THAT explains Charlies Cache near Frank, AB. I take it you are that Moun10Bike. I always use that cache as a jibe at people who 'hate' caches in rockpiles. In fact I just made a recommendation to a person I'm meeting tomorrow at WBT as a good stop to make on the way over... my first searches for his username failed to find him in the logs, but the 4th one did for some reason.hmm Maybe he'll try the second one. edit: Don't see your username in the logs... aha! Doug 7rxc

Here's one that is arguably a Geocaching vehicle amongst other things... some should not be published... at least the names it gets called. This one is at a cache I look after (maintenance plan thing) but do not own. Micro of course. World's Biggest Truck Doug 7rxc

Agreed. Checking for that is somewhat easy... are the digits the same or do they change... That is: 12.34567 (DD.ddddd) as opposed to 12 34.567 (DD MM.mmm) in both cases... or do the numerals change value? That would indicate that some conversion of the numbers was happening rather than mis entering the numbers. Given the UK location and some of the gallery shots, another thing would be to check the datum... Geocaching uses WGS84 and I'm suspecting that a person there might use OS survey maps for navigation, and forgotten to switch datum while marking a cache... I've done that on other topo maps using NAD 27 for navigation aids... have to remember to switch the GPS back from time to time... most of those are disappearing nowadays.. slowly. Doug 7rxc

I like the idea of having them archived... but why wait so long to do so? Just do it following the event date. Archived events can still be logged after archiving, photos uploaded etc. Perhaps the only function that should be limited would be 'Will Attend' since that would be pointless. Archived does not mean LOCKED. Also agree that recurring events would be a problem child for logging, but I thought policy was to have a new listing already. Doug 7rxc

I bought that one in 2006 when I was moving up here. It was a rush purchase and I was hoping it would last at least one year... it did!. It is getting a bit long in the tooth though. Still it drove us down to Ontario and back in 2010 and a lot of other trips. However, it is taking more time to keep it running now. Don't think it will be easy to find a replacement... so it will likely just go on a bit longer. Me too, I hope! Doug 7rxc

While I don't really stick to the five minute rule, I definitely do agree with the second part of his sig. CO's, please rate your hides accordingly. I don't understand what any of that has to do with the title of this thread: "Cachers who do not reply to emails/pm's" Shouldn't the title be something about appropriately setting the Difficulty rating of a cache? I suspect the title refers to the Blue part... CO's who don't respond to queries. For the OP, Do you mean PM or the anonymous email via profile. PMs cover forum users, but not all come to the forums. If it's the 'send a message', do you make sure they are getting your email address (check box). Even then many see the 'noreply' in the sender line and can't figure out how to use your profile to answer, and never notice that simply never see that they just have to click on Reply anyway. Of course if the box is not checked then they should use your profile route. On the other hand the old school way is to provide your email IN the body of the message you send. Beyond that though, many simply don't ever read their emails or it is simply a dead end address. Good luck on that part. Doug 7rxc

I had to recycle this one of my vehicle... if first was posted in How I Spent My Weekend thread.. but was part of that story... This is about a photo of my vehicle (or whatever it ends up being). Taken last fall when the days were about the same as now... snow in the mornings and melted mid day. That was some nice late afternoon. Stayed out until dark after a trip to the next town for business and shopping. I think this one could almost qualify for late day, geocaches and snow (melted), and vehicle, maybe more of these threads, but here it will land. This is a parking spot for This Place is the Pitts! and a very nice view... that said despite posting a DNF on the cache... but time was short that day. My 89 'Jimmy' was not at fault for that. Doug 7rxc

And I would guess that it is (since then) almost the first thing you do while reading a puzzle for the first time, even before reading the page. The AHA! method of learning is proably the best way to not forget lessons. There are other basics as well, and most are well covered in NiraD's famous listing for beginners (for those that have not read and explored it.) I'm pretty sure you would have. As for winter solving of puzzles... Yep that is my standard, hopefully there will be some in range as spring begins... soon... had some short lived snow today up here in between days of sun. Not many new caches of any type yet. Just a few 'impossible' to find ones from last year, now a few fewer. I need to update a few that had really bad coordinates a bit... they were findable last year... IF you were used to older GPS's with 2 decimal points not 3..ha. and low EPE levels. Doug 7rxc

By whom? Who decides who is adequately qualified to vet puzzles?Vetting in my context was meant to mean, have it checked by someone (or more) other than yourself.But if this vetting of puzzles is going to be required, then how will we determine whether the required vetting has taken place, unless we have some standard for who is (or is not) adequately qualified to vet puzzles? If I tell the reviewer that my wife vetted my puzzle, then is that adequate? Does that fulfill the required vetting of my puzzle? Please understand that I am not arguing against vetting/alpha-testing/beta-testing/prechecking puzzles. I'm just trying to understand how you expect this required vetting to play out in practice. I'd be happy with it being checked by your wife... assuming she has some approriate skills... reading and some simple logic / math would be adequate. A hard puzzle might or might not require someone else. A vetter should be capable of finding the cache as well if they are testing the whole thing beyond the puzzle. As far as HOW, probably not more than how they deal with permissions. Adequate or Explicit box. If the reviewer tries it and finds any holes in the puzzle (or cachers later on for that matter) it would be about the same to explain why as lack of permission. Only repercussion would be disabling until it worked. It might make a reviewer leery of the CO if it became normal for them to submit puzzles that were flawed in some manner. I doubt that my Finland example would pass today simply because of the 2 mile/3.2 km rule on coordinates for example when it was published. That should have been caught by the CO, probably should have been caught by a vetter, was caught when the CO came to the forums for help making it 'right'. Anyway, I would gladly rephrase my original comment to "should be vetted by someone else before submission" if that works better for everyone. BTW I think that it applies to any cache to some degree. Someone should be able to find a cache with the posted coordinates (or solution). There are many out there with 'soft' coordinates. That is something that new COs need to learn about, some the hard way. And I'm not talking about ones with deliberately 'soft' coordinates, just the ones made with one 'mark' and then posted. People now advise strongly about averaging, some mention doing it over several discrete visits to the site over days or at least hours, then trying to duplicate the results. Vetting there avoids the temptation to simply go where you put it. I expect that many experienced cachers do averaging and testing automatically, I know on my one cache that I averaged over 4 days almost a year from 1st to last, and the last 3 had at least two sessions each. Still not happy with the coordinates, but it was found without problem by the FTF... with my extra hints available. When the snow is gone I'm going to check them again another year later. Maybe with another vet as well. And NO I don't expect that kind of effort as normal, it's quite a walk/climb to get up there. It's a navigation point, and a good pre conditioning walk for anyone going after my FTFs two caches further up above. Hope that helps. Basically I think that caches should work as offered, and fixed before publication if at all possible. Helps to take the load off anyone else. Doug 7rxc

Uxorious is loading the thumbnail version... it exists as a large, but it's not in a his gallery... but somewhere on the system... Doug 7rxc

By whom? Who decides who is adequately qualified to vet puzzles? I know that some reviewers sometimes ask for a guide to the solution to be posted in a note before they'll publish the puzzle - but not all, not always and, with all due respect, some of the puzzles around today can be too complex / can require too much of a reviewer's time for them to give a cast-iron guarantee that a puzzle is solvable. I suspect that the best they can do sometimes is to verify that the puzzle is solvable according to the description of the solving process offered by the CO and free of obvious errors. Vetting in my context was meant to mean, have it checked by someone (or more) other than yourself. The skill levels can be from novice to expert as far as I'm concerned, but whether in Alpha or Beta testing mode, it is helpful to all to do that. I've been to far to many puzzles with glaring errors, and tested a few more. I figure that it is doing the reviewer a favour too, they won't have to deal with many complaints about the puzzle, and if mentioned in the pre publication stages, could be a big help if the reviewer isn't a strong puzzler. To be honest I suspect that most have a fair bit of experience there themselves, however. Very simple puzzles should be easy to vet or at least check over. The harder the puzzle, the stronger the vetting. It should include both the puzzle itself and finding the container too, since errors can occur at any stage. However I agree that it should not be a major effort, just adequate to the cache in question. The cache owner should do most of the work, and then let his tester try it. Then correct if it turns out to be either impossible, or harder / easier, too many problems etc. Yes and no. A common description for this type of phenomenon is confirmation bias - our tendency to pick out and amplify that which supports our observations / assertions / beliefs and to dismiss or devalue that which does not support them. I think it's entirely possible though for people to be more objective and less subjective about their own puzzles if they put their mind to it and to carry forward feedback from solvers into their subsequent puzzle design processes. I think part of the art of the puzzle creator is they ability to include sufficient, adequate clues to allow a person of reasonable intelligence who is willing to invest adequate resources in solving the puzzle a fair chance of doing so, while maintaining a satisfying degree of challenge - and that can be a fine balance to achieve. Face Pareidolia is another example of this. That is seeing things like faces in inanimate objects. Faces are common, but you can imagine anything you want to see. Puzzlers can use this both directions of course. See what you want to see or not see what you don't want to see. On Tomnod, people were seeing aircraft wreckage everywhere, and much of it very real, but it seems much was seeing what they expected or wanted to see. It was often clear that what they were looking at was simply NOT what they thought it was. But that is another tale. Razzle Dazzle camouflage works the same way, so garish the mind/eye set simply rejects the image as valid. I fully agree that puzzle setting/creating is part art, part science, and often not as good as it could be. I can easily subscribe to these views - some sound advice Okay, I try to be helpful, not always sucessful, typing in real time is difficult sometimes. Not sure I agree with this one though - a perfectly good puzzle can be completely ruined by too many false paths - or red herrings if you prefer. And I'd have to say that there's nothing worse than a weak puzzle that's been jacked up with red herrings to 'make it more challenging' - I like to at least find some wheat after I've sifted through all the chaff - not more chaff. Again I agree. There should not be an excess, but done well a few false turns or simply options can work to make one think. I remember one where the result was simply between two locations, both valid solutions, but the information was there to figure out which was the true location and that one passed the checker. Not quite how I see it. All to often the logical conclusion of puzzle setters and solvers trying to outsmart each other is the unsolvable puzzle - the guessing game - the mind read - which ends up being no fun for either party and all too often ends up on the scrap heap like a failed experiment. To my mind the relationship between setter and solver actually benefits more from a certain degree of symbiosis, where the challenge is at - or just slightly above - the abilities of those being challenged the net result is more fun for everyone Yes, being challenged is a good part of it. Myself I'll tackle anything, but time can be limited. On the other hand, I consider it terrible if I let the puzzle setter outsmart me, don't you. They can beat me on advanced math types though, but I have just enough skill at seeing things differently to make up for that on other types that fool many. Going back to vetting again, that process helps keep the lid on excessive caches, IMHO. Anyway, nice to have this chat, I hope the OP gets something from it. Doug 7rxc