Geofellas
-
Posts
332 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Geofellas
-
-
Squirrel - Dray or Scurry
Bee - Swarm, Grist or Hive
-
... sled dog racing in Nevada ...
Drat - you just solved my next puzzle cache
-
Up to GCZYR6 allocated
-
I don't remember if I posted my quess before, but it is Jan 13th 2007.
I bet that they will not let it run all the way to GCZZZZ. If they did then there would be a huge hit on the servers as everyone stacked up a bunch of cache listings (all with the "cache is ready to go" thing unchecked of course) waiting to hit the "Go" button at what they thought was the right time. I think we will be surprised when GC10000 happens before anyone expects it to.
The lack of caches called GCZ, GCZZ, and GCZZZ - or even anywhere leading up to those numbers - provides a precedent.
If I were running the show that's what I would do to save undue strain on my system.
-
What is the number after 999 in base 10? Is it 0001? 0000? No? Then why would you expect that behavior in base 31?
Not sure it is really base 31 but it could be I suppose - if so then I guess we should expect to see GC10000
Instructively none of the following caches seem to exist:
GCZ
GCZZ
GCZZZ (makes you wonder if GCZZZZ will ever exist
)GC0
GC00
GC000
GC0000
GC01
GC001
GC0001
but
GC10
GC100, and
GC1000
do exist
-
I found a cache the other day that was in need of some serious TLC. I logged it as "Needs Maintenance" and after logging it my number of caches found didn't increase. Its no big deal I'm not in this to get as many caches as possible, I'm in it for the exercise, to see the outdoors, and have fun. Anyone else have this happen? Should I log it again as found just to get my numbers right?
Yes - log a "found it" as well as a "needs maintenance"
-
Everything needed to find the cache should be available on the cache page.
PDAs, Laptops or a trunkful of reference books are not part of the average geocachers tote bag and therefore should not be required to make the find.
Puzzles are typically not expected to be solved "in the field". For those who seek extra mental challenge (and there are all types involved in caching so we should all acknowledge that not everyone likes the same kinds of cache as others), an imaginative puzzle can be part of the fun. There are a LOT of cachers round here, and I suspect worldwide, who share that opinion. I typically try to cater to all tastes by setting a mixture of straightforward caches and puzzle caches. I personally tend to get more fun out of solving puzzles (which I can do when I can't get away from the house for example) than simply going to some coordinates somewhere (although some of my most memorable finds have been of the latter type)
-
Javascript - not allowed for security reasons. That is reasonable.
I don't see this as a software issue at all - it seems to be more a matter of concern over negative reactions to caches that have issues with the listing not working as intended. Which brings me back to the point I made earlier on which no-one has yet commented - "why is the obligation that the cache owner has to maintain the availability of the information required to solve the puzzle any different from the obligation that the cache owner has to maintain the availability of the actual cache container?"
If the cache container goes missing or is broken, the owner can either fix the problem, or disable or even archive the cache listing. Often the owner won't find out about it until someone has made the trek to locate the cache and reported it missing. Similarly, if the cache description is "broken" or "missing" the owner can either fix the problem, or disable or even archive the cache listing. Whoever discovers the problem can post a Needs Maintenance or an SBA just the same if they feel so inclined. And in this case people would not have wasted their time going out to find the thing before reporting the problem. This would typically be less aggravating than having the actual cache container go missing.
I would like to hear TPTB's thoughts on this logic.
Edit: fix typos
-
My reviewer told me that the reviewers were being instructed not to approve any caches that weren't wholly self-contained. That is, all of the elements needed to solve whatever puzzles are there are either on the Groundspeak servers themselves (as description text or uploaded images ... no scripts nor executables) or rely upon researchable information that is widely available (such facts in an almanac or encyclopedia). She also said that such constraints will likely change from informally enforced to a hard requirement in the near future.
A further thought on this topic - why is the obligation that the cache owner has to maintain the availability of the information required to solve the puzzle any different from the obligation that the cache owner has to maintain the availability of the actual cache container?
I fear this may be a "knee jerk" reaction to some particular incidents - but I can only speculate.
It would be helpful if TPTB could provide some definitive comments on this subject so that it can be discussed rationally with the community before a decision is made that could cause upset.
-
My reviewer told me that the reviewers were being instructed not to approve any caches that weren't wholly self-contained. That is, all of the elements needed to solve whatever puzzles are there are either on the Groundspeak servers themselves (as description text or uploaded images ... no scripts nor executables) or rely upon researchable information that is widely available (such facts in an almanac or encyclopedia). She also said that such constraints will likely change from informally enforced to a hard requirement in the near future.
Well - I can understand the rationale - to some extent - but, unless GC.com allows broader capabilities in the type of webpages you can create, and stops munging uploaded image files, there would be many puzzle caches that could no longer be created which would be a shame.
The following caches of mine would no longer be possible for example:
A 440 (I acknowledge that this does have the now banned BGSOUND tag in it - so if you don't like sound, turn it off or don't click on the link - even without this the cache would not be possible in another form were this rule to be implemented)
all of which have got generally positive comments.
I fear this might end up being a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" unless gc.com provide satisfactory alternatives for puzzle caches like these. There is usually a good and valid reason why people host parts of their cache description off site.
Would this also mean that one could no longer include links to coordinate checker sites?
I would hope that TPTB will carefully think through all the implications before implementing such a policy.
-
Won't the first 5 digit one be GC00001?
Why would it not be GC00000 ?
Edit: Incidentally I just got GCZY18 - still a ways to go...
-
One minor disadvantage I can see is that if you're holding 50 TBs, ...
That seems like a major advantage to me. Why would anyone hold onto 50 TBs? TBs are supposed to move not be held onto. Perhaps it would encourage those selfish people who hoard TBs to do what they are supposed to with them.
If you were to say "but this includes all my own TBs/geocoins" then there are various ways to avoid getting irritated by the long listing such as marking them as being in an unknown location or dropping them into your own, not yet approved, cache that you keep for exactly that purpose.
-
Of course everyone who attended The Bone Chilling Hunt for Leweena Gizzardstone actually had to put the body back together again!!
(Apparently there is the possibility for a sequel)
-
I beg to differ, you still need to be careful with even this approach,Mark it as completed and out of circulation - give final coordinates (my home).
Create a cache listing with coordinates of your home (maybe called "Home Sweet Home" or something equally corny), or wherever else you want if you are concerned about someone figuring it out (not that they can with this approach), but don't ever submit it for approval. Log the bug into it et voilà
if you are concerned about the privacy aspect,
it is still very possible to find the coordinates of any cache (yes, even un-published geocaches) if it has even a single Trackable dropped in it.
Edited: For clarification
So obfuscate the coordinates as I suggested if you are really paranoid
-
As there are more and more smart phones out there.. how about a low-graphics user interface for mobiles? It would be handy to be able to use the normal site, with all of its functions, even on the road.
Try the Google website shrinker
-
If not, why not?
Because the software is designed by the same people who think that MM/DD/YYYY is a sensible format for dates
-
Just wondering
-
Mark it as completed and out of circulation - give final coordinates (my home).
Create a cache listing with coordinates of your home (maybe called "Home Sweet Home" or something equally corny), or wherever else you want if you are concerned about someone figuring it out (not that they can with this approach), but don't ever submit it for approval. Log the bug into it et voilà
-
13 US States/DC
3 Canadian Provinces
27 countries (or 30 if you count England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland separately)
(not counting Locationless or Virtuals nominally located where we haven't actually physically found a cache, nor attempts butDNFed)
With date of our first find there and a note of how many FTFs we have found in each jurisdiction
2004-01-18 Canada - Ontario (24 FTFs)
2004-04-18 UK - England (1 FTF)
2004-05-08 New Zealand (1 FTF)
2004-08-10 US - Florida
2004-08-18 US - DC
2004-08-18 US - Virginia
2004-08-19 US - New York
2004-08-30 US - Connecticut
2004-11-01 Canada - BC
2004-11-02 US - Washington
2004-11-13 Belgium
2005-01-10 US - North Carolina
2005-04-24 US - Massachusetts
2005-05-14 US - Nevada
2005-05-16 US - Arizona
2005-05-20 Spain (2 FTFs)
2005-05-25 Portugal (2 FTFs)
2005-08-05 UK - Wales
2005-09-11 Andorra
2005-09-14 France (1 FTF)
2005-09-14 Luxembourg
2005-09-14 Germany
2005-09-14 Netherlands
2005-09-19 US - California
2005-09-21 US - New Jersey
2005-09-27 Canada - Québec
2005-11-05 Japan (1 FTF)
2006-03-21 US - Maryland
2006-05-19 Switzerland
2006-05-20 Austria
2006-05-20 Liechtenstein
2006-05-20 Hungary - note also that one cache found (and physically located) in Hungary is at the Hungary/Romania/Serbia tripoint so these two additional countries were also visited on 2006-05-22 in the course of finding this cache.
2006-05-20 Czech Republic
2006-05-21 Poland
2006-05-21 Slovakia
2006-05-23 Croatia
2006-05-23 Slovenia
2006-06-23 Ireland (1 FTF)
2006-06-23 UK - Northern Ireland
2006-09-14 Denmark
2006-09-14 Sweden (1 FTF)
2006-09-14 Norway
2006-09-15 Finland
2006-09-26 UK - Scotland
-
-
Jeremy said here that the problem was fixed. However, having just installed IE7, I am finding that I am getting cut off images from cache page listings.
-
There use to be a cache here A Comet in a Cave
It is a bit shady on the bottom right but I think you should be able to make it out.
There still is a cache there AFAIK - part of a multi - I remembered this spot as soon as I saw the photo since I found it on a recent trip to Washington state. I think this is the spot referred to as "Martin's Bathtub" in A Fractured Fairy Tale
-
This might be fixed now - there were problems with one ISP in Canada but it is now working there - apparently there was a DNS server down in Chicago - see this thread
-
According to Rogers, there was a DNS server down in Chicago.
I figured it was something like that. Looks like all is OK now.
Strange that this didn't affect my access from either my Telus mobile or from Xplorenet or for many people from their work computers.
)
"Famous" Cache Spots
in General geocaching topics
Posted