mpconnick

My scheduled pocket query didn't run yesterday or today. So, add me to the list. However, My Finds ran just fine last night when I requested it.

He is a premium member. Look again. He/she is not.

Actually, this would be a trivial coding project. However, certainly subject to abuse. If not intentionally, because ratings like this are subjective by nature rather than objective. I don't like micros in the woods, so I'd be likely to rate those lower. I bet others like them a lot.

35 in one day is my record, set today (7/18/09). I wasn't going for beating my previous daily record of 25; it just turned out that way. I was, however, trying to pick up some additional counties in my quest to get all 83 counties in Michigan during my first summer of caching. Got 7 counties today, but had hoped for 9. That brings my total to 34 counties in just under 2 months. Also, just passed the 300 cache mark today and ended with 317. So, it was a good day for caching. As far as states go, I'm purposely focusing on Michigan until I achieve certain goals in my home state first.

Wow, which state is that? That's awfully shortsighted.

The owners of the site decided that virtual caches aren't caches. At one time all Earthcaches were archived and transferred to Waymarking also. One of the biggest arguments against keeping Virtuals when they were still being published (late 04- 05 I believe), was that land managers preferred the placement of Virtuals instead of physical caches. Groundspeak wanted more physical caches. I believe it was the famed "dead animal Virtual" that nailed the coffin shot. Thanks for the info ... Virtual Caches are as much caches as Earth Caches are caches. Neither of which fit the definition of cache (i.e., dictionary definition of the word). So, it's a bit arbitrary. Not knowing the history and therefore hypothesizing, it seems that maybe Virtual Caches would still be allowed to be published if Groundspeak had made them accountable to rules/guidelines like those required of Earth Caches by the Geological Site of America. Instead, the inmates ruled the asylum and eventually the warden took back control by casting off much that is good into the wasteland (my opinion after seeing some of the stuff listed) of Waymarking. Don't get me started on how Benchmarks don't fit any better than a Virtual Cache that is a physical object/location ...

Even though it's apparently a dead horse (I haven't been in the caching community long), here are my two cents. I get the impression from looking at the Waymarking site that Waymarking is, well, a failed spinoff. I've looked at many waymark listings and a great number of them have never been logged. Some that you might expect to easily have lots of logs just because they are touristy don't have many visits (e.g., Graceland). It's a shame, because there are some interesting things ignored because they are Waymarks rather than Virtual Caches. Virtual Caches in my area have many more recent visits than the Graceland waymark example cited above. Also, to me, it's odd that Virtual Caches are out but Earth Caches are in. They are conceptually the same thing. Yes, I know about the Earth Cache rules and process, but that doesn't change the conceptual match with Virtuals. I realize some people aren't into Virtuals. As a general rule, I personally prefer Traditional Caches over Virtuals. But, there are some interesting Virtuals (and Waymarks). If I see an interesting Virtual, I'll go visit it. But, I'm not likely to bother with waymarks. Point being, if you don't like Virtuals, it's easy enough to filter them out to ignore them. If you like waymarks, it's a pain to incorporate them into geocaching. It's a simple case of artificial separation that confuses the market. Marketing 101 stuff. Note that I'm not advocating that some of the absurd things that are considered waymarks on Waymarking.com become Virtual Caches. In reality, I think there should be something similar to Earth Caches in terms of being of a high quality that can still be created as a Virtual Cache. A wifi hotspot would not qualify. A historical location of recognized significance could.

That's a nice script! Great work. I wish I were a Firefox fan, but I much prefer Safari. I might have to give Firefox another try though. Last I used it the interface wasn't quite polished enough for my tastes. Downloading Firefox now ...

Thanks for the suggestion! I can use that as a workaround, but I'd still like to see an indicator right in the bookmark list. Especially since I have bookmarked some bookmark lists in my browser.

It would be great if while viewing a cache page, most recent status for that cache was displayed near the top with the cache's metadata. For example, it might say: Status: Found 7/11/2009 or Status: Not found or Status: Ignored on 7/10/209 etc. Furthermore, clicking on the status (if appropriate, such as when found) could take you directly to the appropriate log entry for the cache.

This may have been requested before, but it would be great if while viewing a bookmark list it would indicate those caches you've already found. For example, I've done many cemetery caches around me from this bookmark list: Eaton County Cemeteries While viewing this list it would be great if it would show the caches I've found.

Another one to try is GCStatistic. You can view my profile to see that output it created, with the exception of the county map at the end of my profile. The county map was created with: It's Not About The Numbers More information about GCStatistic is available here.

The short answer is yes, that would be trivial to do. There are also several redundancy systems that could be simple to implement at a modest cost, depending on the architecture of the servers. That said, it's easy to Monday morning quarterback when you don't know the whole story.