solid-rock-seekers

What needs to be done to the bargain bin ones in order to make them "fully functional"?

I tried this yesterday and couldn't get it to work. I don't know what's going amiss, but when I try to do this the first route gets removed when the second one gets uploaded. I'm following these steps: 1 - Generate "First Half" route in Google Earth, save as KML file 2 - Generate "Second Half" route in Google Earth, save as KML file 3 - Go to "Caches along a Route" page, select tab for "Upload GPX or KML file". 4 - Use "Browse..." button to navigate to file one, then use "Upload" button to upload it. The file appears in the list below. 5 - Use "Browse..." button to navigate to file two, then use "Upload" button. The second file appears in the list below, but the first file is gone from the list... Has anybody had success with this approach recently?

I'm game for placing a cache (or a multi) for Franklin Pierce. Why a multi? Well, like many Presidents, he has more than one "home"... Birthplace, and Childhood Home. (PS: The above links to the Raising Presidents locationless cache is a treasure-trove of information for where these caches might be placed...)

For the record, I want to add to this thread that I was absolutely wrong with my above observation about the lack of stamping on the new TB tags! It turns out that the TB code is engraved into the new tags, with the black printing being in the recessed engraving! When I looked at the tag the night I found it in a cache by the light of my headlamp, I hadn't realized that this was the case and mistakenly thought that the TB code was only printed. In reality, the new tags do have engraved TB codes. The new engraved & printed style is easier to read than the older style where the TB code is only stamped into the tag. With the new tags, I am quite confident that even if the black printing wears off, the TB code should still be legible due to the way the code is engraved in the tag! Kudos to Groundspeak on the new tag! I apologize for my erroneous claims from yesterday. (This isn't the first time I've been able to sample some "humble pie" and it surely won't be the last, either!) Thanks to nielsenc for pointing out that the TB codes are clearly engraved if one takes the time to do an inspection under good lighting!

I'm reposting this note over in the New TB Design, Comments are welcome discussion. Future comments in this thread should be posted there, rather than here. Thanks, Eartha, for the encouragement to take the discussion over to the other thread.

I want to say that I DO like the new tags! Yesterday I had posted that I was very disappointed with the new tags since the TB code was just printed onto the aluminum tag. Well, it turns out that I was completely wrong about the TB code being only printed -- it turns out that it is actually engraved into the tag, with the black printing being in the engraving. When I looked at the tag the night I found it in a cache by the light of my headlamp, I hadn't realized that this was the case. I am quite confident that even if the black printing wears off, the TB code should still be legible due to the way it is engraved in the tag! Kudos to Groundspeak on the new tag! Thanks to nielsenc for pointing out that the TB codes are clearly engraved if one takes the time to do an inspection under good lighting! ----- (Original text of my post from yesterday has been deleted, since it is downright wrong!)

Eric, After reading your ideas again, I see that I may have initially misunderstood what you were proposing. The NECTF game featured two different regions of cachers (North vs. South) competing against one another. The TBs were just the pieces in the game. The teams were really cachers. If your game has only fictitious teams (green army against tan army) without any cachers "taking sides" with a particular team, then it can avoid some of the troubles with the NECTF game. If your game includes cachers "taking sides" with a particular team, then it is likely to run into trouble unless all the cachers involved know each other extremely well and value their relationships more than winning. The above is a very important thing to remember. One of the core problems encountered on NECTF is that different people have different perspectives on "serious vs. fun!" What might be "just fun" for one person may be "too serious" for somebody else. On the flip side, somebody who is trying to "just have fun" can really offend (even unintentionally) a more serious player of the game. It is really hard to resolve such issues via forums, email discussions, and even phone calls. As an example of this, a "serious player" might be inspired to drive a long round trip through the night (say 250 miles one way) for no reason other than to pick up a TB at a cache. Let's say that the serious player arrives at the cache to find that a "just for fun" player had picked up the TB a day before but being a "just for fun" player, hadn't realized the importance of logging the TB promptly, and the TB had already been picked up. Unless these two players know each other well and have a good relationship already, this situation is a recipe for disaster! Assuming that your game has some sort of rules, the "serious players" will follow the rules and expect others to do the same. The "just for fun" players may knowingly or unknowingly skirt some of the rules and end up ticking off other serious players on one team or the other, depending upon what happened. About the only way to avoid this is to have a game where everybody really doesn't care who wins. However, the problem with that idea is that if nobody really cares who wins, then will anybody even bother to play? I talked with cache_test_dummies at length on a couple caching trips to try to come up with a set of rules that would permit the "capture the flag" game to have a "round 2" that would avoid the problems we encountered. We couldn't come up with solutions that addressed all the problems at once. Closing one loophole opened another. Examples of the kind of problems: "late logging" of TBs leads to problems -- yet, coming up with a system to enforce / encourage "timely logging" raises new problems one cacher just taking a TB from cache to cache to complete a mission and "hoarding" the TB -- there are various ways to avoid this, but the solutions all have problems too coming up with rules that make officiating / tracking the game manageable A summary of some of this can be found in post #781 of the NECTF discussion. If you come up with something which is workable, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

This is a cool idea, and has lots of potential. I've been involved in a "New England Capture the Flag" travel bug game that involved North vs. South in New England being on teams much as what you describe. The game was lots of fun but also involved a fair number of problems. I seem to recall that there was a similar game being played in the NYC vicinity with NY vs. NJ. The game came to an end after a few months, just as some of the problems with the game as devised were becoming generally apparent. After much discussion with many participants with the game's organizer, cache_test_dummies, it was decided to not continue the game, as it was generating nearly as much ill will as good will. Personally, I don't know if I would participate in such a game again. (That said, I met *many* new geocaching friends, on both sides, due to this game, and did enjoy the game!) In any case, the web site from the New England Capture the Flag game is still online: New England Capture the Flag Contest Page. There are still quite a few of the TBs from the game traveling about, for example our "Antietam Remembered" TB. If you're interested in reading about some of the problems / possible solutions / difficulties, you can visit the Capture the Flag - New England discussion thread. Happy Caching!

I'm sorry if my making a new topic was a breach of etiquette. I was aware of the other thread (I even provided a link to it in the first sentence of my post above) but presumed (possibly inaccurately) that the other thread probably wasn't getting much current readership as it is now nearly two years old! I was interested to find out what others thought about this without burying the discussion in a thread that is two years old. Are you suggesting that I should add this same comment to the other thread?

I just found my first example of the new TB tags (as described in the New TB Design, Comments are welcome discussion) a few days ago. I like the new design, but I am very disappointed with what is probably the most important aspect of the new tag... I was stunned to see that the new tags do not have a stamped TB code, but rather a TB code that is simply printed onto the aluminum tag!?! (You can see what the new printed codes look like on the new photo in the Groundspeak store.) In my experience, the printing on the TB tags eventually starts to wear off. A wonderful feature of the old tags is that the stamped TB code couldn't wear off. With the new ones, however, the TB code is likely to wear off of the TB tag eventually. I am very disappointed in the decrease in quality of the TB tags by this new feature. For me, moving TBs around and watching the progress of my own TBs is a major part of my geocaching. Basically, I really enjoy helping TBs along on their travels! However, I see the new TB tag as potentially leading to a lot of "untrackable" TBs as the printing wears off. I'm glad that I still have a fair supply of the old ones to use for TBs I plan to release. Count me in as one member that is very particular to TB tags which have a "stamped" TB code, rather than a printed one. Can we please have the TB tags with stamped IDs back again? When my current supply of stamped TB tags runs out, I can't see myself buying any of the new printed ones. PS: I would also note that the text of the "Travel Bug for Hitchhikers" page still advertises that "Bugs have a unique tracking number stamped into the metal tag." Does this mean that the printed tags are a result of a temporary production glitch and the TB tags with stamped ids are coming back soon?

Clearly, breaking into another account (reviewer or cache owner) would be one way to get a look at prepublished caches. However, I don't think that's the kind of circumstance that NotThePainter is referring to. My speculation is that the prefinds to which NotThePainter refers have been exploting some sort of bug that allows a creative computer-savvy cacher to view at least the coordinates of a cache prior to publication.

Add us to the list of cachers who would like to see the "View All Logs" feature for TB logs, as there is for cache listings.

CTD, Thanks for the "Markwell" -- I thought the topic must have been asked already, but without a working search feature...

It used to be the default that TB pages showed all logs. There is now a "little at a time" sequence for showing TB log entries. It would be nice if there were a "View All Logs" feature for TB logs, as there is for cache listings.

TeamVilla5, I fully understand your predicament! Just last week, I met with a Park Committee to receive official permission to list an Earth Cache in the park. Surprisingly enough, even though this park is host to the oldest cache in New Hampshire and is home to 9 physical caches, the park advisory committee had never previously been approached regarding formal permission to place a geocache in the park. (One of those other caches is a hide of mine, by the way, so I'm not just blaming others for the lack of advance permission requests!) Using presentations assembled by other geocachers as a starting point, I put together a PowerPoint presentation describing geocaching, self-imposed requirements for geocaches, the geocaches in the park, and my request for listing the Earth Cache. My presentation included a satellite photo view of the park with each of the geocache locations plotted on the photo. I have also personally found each of the geocaches, so I knew where each is located. The committee had been aware of geocaching in general terms and knew that the park was used for geocaching, but the committee members had never before seen a geocache container, did not realize that they were intended as permanent placements, and did not have any contact information if there were to ever be any future concerns regarding the geocaches in the park. They were particularly interested in hearing of the popularity of geocaching, seeing the locations of the geocache placements in the park, and realizing that geocaches had been in the park for over 5 years without their ever noticing any of them on their park cleanup days or other uses of the park. Even though they had never before been asked permission, the fact that the geocaches had existed in the park for so long without a deterimental impact upon the park was a very positive fact about the unobtrusiveness of the caches. I would suggest that you suggest ways that geocachers can help the Parks and Recreation department. For example, at my recent visit, I mentioned the CITO activites of geocachers; the committee was also very interested in my sponsoring a CITO event in the spring to aid with annual cleaning of the park. (This will hopefully take place in April 2006.) The committee was also interested in partnering with geocachers on a planned project to map locations in the park for emergency purposes (police, fire, and/or EMT response to 911 calls). The committee did express concerns about the use of ammo cans as cache containers, stating that although they wouldn't ban the use of ammo cans, that they would prefer that ammo cans be replaced with clear plastic containers as appropriate, in order to avoid potentially "booby traps." I explained that I was not aware of any such problems with ammo can cache containers and that they tend to be a favorite container for many geocachers, as they are watertight, durable, and make a positive seal when closed. Followup discussions with comittee members have resulted in one of the committee members suggesting additional earth cache locations, a possibility of organizing a "GPS Tutorial" with a local BSA council, and having geocachers monitor a few areas in the park for prohibited activities. In sum, a mutually beneficial relationship between geocachers and the park advisory committee is off to a good start. Make sure that you are prepared for any possible criticism / concerns the Parks & Rec department may have. Present geocaching in a favorable light; show that geocachers have already anticipated possible detrimental impacts of geocaching, and have taken steps to minimize any possible negative impact, while encouraging environmental awareness and responsibility! Best Wishes! -- Solid-Rock-Seekers PS: Another thing you may want to consider is to "team up" on this presentation with one or more of the other local hiders in the area. PPS: If you have a high-speed internet connection and can send me an email with that email address, I'd be glad to send you a copy of the Powerpoint Presentation that I presented.

For what it's worth, at least you're not alone. I'm having the same troubles...

Interesting suggestion. It sounds like you already realize that you can edit the name field in the bookmarks list to include whatever information you desire, so the bookmarks list can be used as you describe, it just requires you to manually add the GC code to each entry. (Which is, admittedly, a pain.) I see how your suggestion would simplify things for your usage of the bookmark lists. Personally, however, I wouldn't want to see the GC code added to the "auto-filled" name, as I would generally need to take it back out to make room for the other stuff that I like to include with the name in the bookmark such as Town, State of the cache or a numerical prefix that I add to get the entries sorted in the order that I want for whatever purpose I have for that specific list. I suppose another possibility to satisfy multiple users would be to have user-based preferences on what the "default string" looks like. For example, the user could choose a subset of cache name, gc code, location, lat/lon coords, date last found, etc... Happy Caching!

This coming Monday, I am scheduled to give a presentation about geocaching to the advisory committee for a park in New Hampshire. I plan to give a brief powerpoint presentation to them explaining what geocaching is, how it affects them as park maintainers, what we (geocachers) do to minimize any possible adverse impact, and why geocaching is in their best interests. These folks are already geocaching-friendly, so I do not anticipate them to be a difficult sell, but I want to ensure that geocaching is presented in a favorable light in the presentation. There must be dozens of others out there that have given similar presentations to other land managers. Do any of you have presentations that you could share with me, or could point me to, so that I can leverage your good ideas in putting together such a presentation? Also, if you have "a list of questions" typically asked by land owners, I can try to preempt a lot of those questions by addressing them in the presentation before such questions are even asked. Thanks, solid-rock-seekers PS: After I have given the presentation, I intend to share it with the rest of the geocaching community via my profile page -- I'll also be sure to post a follow-up to the forum to let you all know how it went. PPS: I am sure this question has been asked before, but without the Search capability working, it is hard to find the past threads...

Here's a suggestion for a simple solution to permanently get around the hassle involved with archiving the locationless caches: Simply announce that the remaining locationless caches won't be archived after all. PS: A nice corollary would be announcing that all locationless caches will have a limited duration of availabity (e.g. 1 year?), and that only a finite number of locationless caches will be permitted (e.g. 250?). As "expired" locationless caches are retired, new ones could be introduced in their place, up to a maximum of 250 total. PPS: Some of the awesome new presentation tools from the Waymarking site could be used on the geocaching site of the future, to have better ways to present/search the logs for locationless caches... Just a thought...

Wisemyguy, Congratulations on finding one of the elusive Frank Lloyd Wright homes in New England. However, just FYI, there's more than one in New England. Indeed, three were logged on the cache page before it was archived. (See Distance-Sorted Frank Lloyd Wright homes from SRS find in Manchester, NH). I suspect there are a fair number more around, as well... Happy (Non-Locationless) Caching!

One of my best friends is a fellow named Skye!

Isonzo, Thanks for letting us know that you appreciated our final Dash for Cache log. We wouldn't have felt right about posting that find if we didn't have to work for it a bit - our pattern is to try to write fact-filled and hopefully interesting locationless cache logs - writing the log is sometimes the most time-consuming part of our caches! We were surprised at how much fun it was to go back and look at all our dash for cache finds and put the collage together - brought back a lot of good memories.

Locationless caches have been a major factor in our enjoyment of geocaching. No, the locationless caches are not the same as regular caches, however, they have been fun in a different way, involving just as much of the "thrill of the hunt," albeit in a different sort of way. We've made at least a dozen drives of over 50 miles one way simply to go after a locationless cache, and have generally learned far more history from many of them than from normal caches. We have had many favorites amongst our locationless cache finds, and have been keeping a Favorite Locationless Caches List for quite a few months, which highlights some of our favorites. Also, as we mention in our final log for "Dash for Cache", we'll definitely miss locationless caches. Count us amongst those that really wish the locationless caches were not being moved off of the geocaching.com site completely. Personally, we'd love to see some sort of "time-limited" locationless caching solution (time-limited like "Dash for Cache" was) that would continue to reside on geocaching.com indefinitely. Happy Caching!

One thing that I do is send explanatory emails to the cacher when I see that they have forgotten to log a travel bug online or have mis-logged a travel bug. I also send a similar explanatory email on how to "mark travel bugs missing" to cache owners who have a TB listed online as being in the cache even though the TB is long gone. Doing the above is admittedly a bit of a hassle and can become frustrating and tiresome. However, sending such emails really does help educate new geocachers as to how to appropriately log TBs. After having done this a few times for different situations, I now have a set of "form letters" which I send when I see such problems arise. Being the hider of a popular TB hotel here in Southern NH, I get plenty of opportunities to send such explanatory emails! I reckon I send about a half-dozen such emails each month. I consider this a small price to pay for raising the "knowledge level" of TB logging in our area. I've also found that those that receive such friendly "TB logging instructions" are also then likely to similarly assist other cachers in the same way. Happy Caching!

... I've been using City Select for 4 years know and can count the number of times being disappointed on one hand. ... Cheers, Olar Olar, On what GPS have you been having great success with the City Select maps for the past 4 years? I wonder if it has a different routing engine than the GPSMAP 76CS? I think I still need to play with the options as others suggest here to see when/why the nRoute and GPSMAP 76CS routes differ. I did notice that I had firmware revision 3.80 in my GPSMAP 76CS. I just updated to firmware 4.00, even though there weren't any bug fixes listed related to autorouting. I have confirmed that I did have "Best Route" selected in the menu that Sputnik57 mentions. I've also confirmed "car/motorcycle" was selected, and have reloaded maps ensuring that "autoroute info" was checked. In so doing, the maps are now City Select v7 as well (for both nRoute and GPSMAP 76CS). I haven't been able to find the "speed for road types" settings in the GPS. Does anybody have specifics on which menu to try to find these?