Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by shearzone

  1. sorry, I should have noted before that I just made this today and anyone who would like to use it is free to do so :laughing:


    Nice diagram, but if you are going to label limbs, it could use a fold hinge label as well. Also, flat is confusing, because in structural geology, a flat implies a fault that doesn't cut through stratigraphy. A better label might be horizontal.

  2. The picture was taken in SW Virginia.


    I have looked at pictures of folds and have seen some that look like the picture and some that look totally different


    I can show you pictures of folds that range from sub milimetre-scale to kilometre-scale with every possible interlimb angle between parallel limbs to a very gentle warp, with angular hinges to very rounded hinges. However, maybe the lighting is less than ideal, but I do not see a fold in the picture you posted, and I have an eye for these structures. Can you perhaps repost the picture with a circle outlining them or an arrow pointing to the folds to help us know where to look?

  3. What scale of folding do you see? It is difficult to tell from this picture if the strata are in fact folded. Irregular topography and an oblique view of the structure can both create an illusion of folding. All I can say for sure is that bedding is inclined here. What part of the world is this?

  4. I was pretty sure it was in Manitoba. I pulled out my trusty atlas and found...Tyndall, Manitoba about 35km NE of Winnipeg.


    Correct, Tyndall Limestone is mined in the Garson-Tyndall region of Manitoba. The rock is from the (Ordivician) Red River Formation. I would tell you to ask the next question, but I see that you already have!

  5. Sweet, it's been a while since I last asked a question.


    Let's stick with the rock theme. The Tyndall Limestone is one of the most widely used decorative building stones in Canada. It lines the Manitoba Provincial Legislature in Winnipeg, the Rimrock Hotel in Banff, the inside of the Banff Springs Hotel, the Empress Hotel in Victoria, the museaum of Civilization and the halls of the Parliament Building. Where in Canada is it mined? Looking for town and province, or distance and direction from nearest major centre.

  6. 3.576832 billion years - as of yesterday ! Oldest rocks in Canada are in province of Ontario.


    Nope, and the answer to #2 is still NWT, followed by Labrador


    This is a trick question, because you can't assign a single age to the shield. It is collage of rocks ranging from 4 Ga to less than 1 Ga (giga annum = billion years). Last I heard, the Acasta Gneiss found 3oo km north of Yellowknife has been dated to be about 4 Ga old; the oldest known rock in the world. However, that distinction may not last, because some friends of mine were working hard on proving that some rocks not too far from the Acasta Gneiss might be even older!

  7. On an EarthCache, what would you consider a 5 star difficulty? Sure 5 star terrains can be very common with an EarthCache but what would you have to do to give an EarthCache a 5 star difficulty?


    Is difficulty looked at differently on EarthCaches?


    Do you have any examples?


    An earthcache that requires a degree in geology to be able to answer the logging requirements correctly!

  8. Simple one this time folks... no need for the lat/long... just tell me this:


    What are the Northernmost, Southernmost, Easternmost, and Westermost points in Canada? (names)


    I am pretty sure all of these have already been asked as seperate questions. I know the answers, but I'll leave it to someone else.

  9. I guess I should be more specific here. In 2006, I introduced the city I was living in at the time to an event that I called Cache and Release. Since then, the Cache and Release bug has caught on and the event has been held in other cities by cachers I have never even met before! Most of these events have already taken place and are now archived. What I would like to do is start a bookmark list of these events to document the occurences of this event as it spreads across the land!

  10. Hi all, I'm not exactly new to the sport, but I've never made a bookmark list. I just haven't seemed to want to make one until now. I have no problem creating a bookmark list, but I can't seem to add any listings to it. All I have now is a blank list of bookmarked caches. Can someone tell me how I can go about adding listings to my bookmark list please?

  11. ALL HAIL JUICEPIG!!!!!!!!


    On your suggestion of it being worm traces, I did some research, changed the listing, and it is published!!!


    A fossilized table? (GC1EFNP)


    Thanks to everyone!!!!!!!!!!


    Just because you got the earthcache published, I wouldn't be so quick to attribute these traces to worms. Depending on the age of these rocks, a number of different organisms can produce quite similar looking trace fossils, many of which may not be worm-like at all! For all we know, the largest, sinuous traces could conceivably have been the tracks of a lazy jellyfish dragging its tentacles along the seafloor! Traces only indicate organism behaviour (resting, feeding, farming, burrowing, location, escape, etc.), they are not specific to any one species. From the pictures alone, I can see more than one different type of trace fossil, which likely indicates a happening place that likely had a large biodiviersity at the time of deposition. The problem with jumping to conclusion as to what organism could have created these traces can be called the unscientific method. A more logical way to find out what an ichnologist would call these traces (I suggested two types, above, but they could be wrong), then figure out what depositional environment (estuary? beach? delta? inner shelf? outer shelf? deep water? etc?) these are likely to have formed in, AND THEN you can suggest a narrowed down list of organisms could have been responsible for the creation of these traces. Try taking a sample to your local university or college's geology department and ask for a sedimentology, stratigraphy or ichnology specialist. It helps if you call ahead and book a meeting. Professors and grad students are often willing to help, especially when the identification of something like this could take less than a few minutes once you've found the right person to ask! Then, you can be confident you got it right, and keep skeptics such as myself quiet. As I said earlier, calling these worm tracks is an admission to not knowing what else could have created these tracks. If nothing else, at least call these traces as being the tracks of a worm-like organism, because all we know is that these were likely soft-bodied organisms.


    To Juicepig: no offence meant here towards you, you suggested a good idea, I'm just saying that there is likely a more answer definitive answer out there that one can hang their hat on. That's not to say that saying worms made these is incorrect, just that all other possibilities should be eliminated before settling on worms.

  12. I am going to guess that these traces are either Planolites or Paleophycus, but not being an expert in trace fossils, my untrained eye can't tell the difference. I don't normally bother trying to identify these things, I only use these things to tell which way use to be up in deformed rocks! :)

  13. I am guessing the picture is taken in the plane of bedding rather than perpendicular to bedding? Also, have you taken weak HCl to the rock? A strong fizz would indicate that this is a limestone, a weak fizz would suggest that this is a dolostone and no fizz at all would likely mean that this rock contains little or no carbonate at all (thus probably a clastic rock). The fossils most obvious in the picture are no doubt trace fossils, but I am no ichnologist so I can't tell you what they are. However, I do know that guessing that these are worm tracks is an admission to not knowing what else these could be (see my Tyndall Limestone Earthcache).


    edit: spelling

  14. Could we add the following:




    Many of these elements address solving problems brought about by geology.


    The rocks and the earth processes that act on them were here long before we were, and the world was perfectly fine. Don't blame geology, it's the humans exploiting it that are making a mess!

  15. There are two along with a office of other geologists working in the same building.


    Perhaps they can use the help of network of people around the world that can do some groundtruthing on earthcaches before they are published. I've seen a few earthcaches out there that were published with incorrect information, but without going to these places or having pre-existing knowledge of the geology in the area, geoaware and co. would not be know the statements made in the listing were incorrect.

  16. Hello all,

    I am in the process of developing an Earthcache for an alluvial fill terrace. The site is within a state historical park. Would anyone have suggestions for logging requirements for an Earthcache for this type feature?


    What size are the largest clasts? Are they imbricated? If they are pebble size or larger and imbricated, you can state that imbrication indicates flow direction, and ask what direction are they imbricated in?

  17. As a big fan of earthcaches, I have noticed that many more earthcaches have been developed (earthcache fans rejoice!) since their reintroduction to geocaching. However, I have noticed a marked decline in the quality of earthcaches, perhaps because too many people want an earthcache icon under their hides column. As the most scientifically-related of all caches, should earthcaches be upheld to a certain level of quality? Shouldn't the facts be verified before the cache is published? I have visited a few earthcaches that I know are wrong, and I have no where to report the misinformation to. I am in full support of the work that geoaware is doing for earthcaching, but I think that there should be some quality control on earthcaches to help geoaware, since there is no way for one person to know everything there is about geology. I propose two levels of quality control, though more may come to light given this discussion. First, I think that newly developed earthcaches should be reviewed on a regional level. For instance, I live in Alberta Canada, if I develope an earthcache, a non-biased Albertan geologist cacher can review my submitted earthcache for any glarring inconsitences. Second, perhaps earthcache specialists can be nominated for every category of earthcaches to review earthcaches. For example, if I submit a fold feature for an earthcache, a structural geologist can review my earthcache and approve it before it is published. If the earthcache does not meet the standards of both the regional and specialist geologist, then the earthcache is returned to the peroson that submitted it with suggested edits that need to be incorporated before it is approved. I would be more than happy to help out with such a process! Geoaware, if you are interested in such a process, please contact me and I can let you know what I am good at and help you out with. Finally, I think that all earthcaches should be published with a list of references, even if part of the information is from an interpretive panel or wikipedia so that the inofrmation can be verified if there is any dispute or disagreement. However, no plagiarism should be allowed because this is stealing intellectual property and unethical. Please be aware that these suggestions have been made with the intention on preserving the integrity of earthcaches. I say this because I am a fan.

  18. EarthCache Master of the 4 Elements.






    I think this is a bunk idea because everybody knows that the true elements are from the periodic table. This category is as fluffy as astrology.


    I think there should be a few new pins for "placement" of Earthcaches - Though, since I have placed 12, and am the Master of New Zealand earthcaching ( where is that place?? :lol: ) might sway me to think that :D


    I don't like this idea, because it encourages people to develop earthcaches in bulk, and those are generally of poor quality. I am all for preserving the integrety of earthcaches. In fact, I can already think of a number of earthcaches that should be archived because they are really uninteresting.


    This would also help earth cache hiders get out of their "pet" earth cache types and branch out. Since recently catching the earth cache bug I have discovered that I <3 erosion features!

    Sounds like we have a budding sedimentologist!


    I have a couple of spots in my head that would be perfect for erosion earth cache. Another friend of mine has a thing for BIG glacial erratics.
    Tell your friend to come to Calgary. It seems like every rock that has been moved by a glacier has been turned into an earthcache. The first one was cool, the tenth one was...yaaaaaawn!


    As a geologist, I expect a certain level of quality from earthcaches and I hope this can be maintained, or even raised. I know not everyone is a geologist, but if you just copy an interpretive sign word for word or copy and paste your description from wikipedia, you aren't really adding anything to earthcaching. Please do the research, list your references and you will have a quality earthcache! If you aren't sure about something, there are a number of geocaching geologist, just ask one of us for advice! Most of us would be happy to help out.

  19. I have a couple of earthcaches (soon to be three) and I make the requirements simple. I am even very leniant with the answers, as long as they take a stab at the questions. If they are wrong, I politely tell them that they are wrong and give them the right answer. There have been occaisions where the cacher doesn't even bother with the questions or picture (usually a cacher with less than 100 finds). In that case, I send them a reminder email immidiately, then another one the week later. If the cacher has failed to meet the requirements in two weeks, the log gets deleted and I invite the finder to log the find again if they bother to meet the requirements. I find it is important to preserve the integrety of my earthcaches. My cache, my rules.

  20. Ha! That fixed it. Thanks! Wonder how that happened, because I didn't change it and no one else uses this computer. OK, problem solved, no need for this topic to continue.

  21. Huh?


    The way I see it on my computer, for every forum topic, all I see is the first post. If I want to see replies, I have to click on links beneath the first post, and they are revealed one at a time. Don't tell me I'm going crazy?

  22. How are people liking the newly-added mouse button click to view every reply to a topic? I for one find it annoying and I think I am rapidly developing an RSI (repetitve strain injury)...well not really, but I could if I was a forum junkie. However, I am having a problem with the GeoPub Quiz. If I click on any reply beyond the first page, I am returned the follwoing message:


    Board Message

    Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.


    The error returned was:

    Sorry, some required files are missing, if you intended to view a topic, it's possible that it's been moved or deleted. Please go back and try again.


    As far as I can tell, others are replying to the quiz, so the topic hasn't been moved or missing. My question is, is anyone else having this same problem? Does anyone know how to get around this problem? I don't really want to look through Groundspeak's help files for more information.

  • Create New...