ibycus

Looking over there site, it seems like they got the people who designed/host the site to put it together (probably not open). It also enters in to some degree of competition with them, so I don't know how helpful they would be (I also don't really like the way the Canadian GeoCoins are tracked, but thats another story). Thanks for the suggestion though.

Well since no one out there has replied, I'm going to assume that no one has/knows of anything. As a consequence I just started up a project on Sourceforge with the aim of developing just such a solution. Any one interested in helping out? It will probably be well in to next week before the project actually gets through their review process, but I thought people around here would be the best to ask.

I think it adds to the exclusivity of the experience. You came here, you saw the thing just like everyone else, but you were such a smarty you got to go and find this little bonus as well that only a select group of people know about. I do think virtuals can have a certain exclusivity factor to them as well, its just a lot harder. A few months ago, while out, I was going through a wooded area (pretty well grown over). Anyways I happend to come across a 1920s or 1930s truck, mostly intact (nothing under the hood though) in the middle of the woods. This thing had obviously been there since it was new and wasn't going anywhere any time soon. I spent a good twenty minutes just looking over the thing and trying to figure out how the heck it got there. I know it must have some story behind (especially as to why it wasn't moved when it was intact), and it just makes you wonder. Just seeing that makes me go wow anyways. And since there are no real paths to it, not many people have actually seen in. Now if this had been in a no-caches allowed area, I probably would have tried to place a virtual there, luckily it was in an OK place, AND I had a cache ready to go with me, so I stashed it away and marked the coordinates.

I think in part this is very true, especially once you've done a good number in an area. When I first started though, I found geocaching was getting me to all kinds of places I'd never been to within my own city (more the thanks for the general location, rather than the specific) Now though, it gives me a good reason to go back there (so again thanks for getting me off my butt and out there). But I do think 'the hunt' is a very big part of the game. A big part of the fun lies in finding something that other people don't know about. Even if its an easy hide, there is still the fact that you're looking at things in a way that other people don't. That to me is a big part of the game. Virtuals don't (normally) work like this. You're going to a well known spot, to look at something that many people have seen, to answer questions any one can answer. Its not to say that a virtual *can't* incorporate this aspect, its just a lot harder.

On further reflection, I think I'm going to have to change my maybe vote to thumbs down, for the following reasons. 1. I think mtn-man is right, ANY statue is placed for a reason. One can always make an empassioned plea as to why this statue is significant over another, but in the end what is it that makes this one particulary special as opposed to any other statue? 2. Yes this is an iinteresting spot, but what makes it a cache? There are lots and lots of interesting spots on the planet, but what makes it "cache worthy". I don't think this is a problem with your spot per-se, I think this has to do with virtuals in general, which is why I don't think many have been approved in a while. 3. I disagree with the placement of the cache 'cheapening' the experience. I think what you get out of it is entirely up to you. I know at many virtuals I've been to, once I've gotten the requirements for logging it, I generally leave. I've never sat in quiet contemplation of a site, but thats just me. I fail to see the difference between "A Lame Micro" and answering a silly question. I would however like to know if there is anything special about recent virtuals that have been approved that this one doesn't meet. It certainly complies with "The language of location" ideal, but that doesn't mean its a cache <rumour mongering> perhaps this is one of Groundspeak's future projects </rumour mongering>. I can tell you right now why the most recent virtual around here was approved, it is essentially a Benchmark, but seeing as how its up here in Canada, we don't have Benchmark Hunting, and hence the closest cache type is a virtual. So, reviewers, what was the most recent virtual you approved? Any particular reason? or were you just feeling generous that day .

On days when the site is particularly busy, it would be nice to be able to 'log' all your visits offline, and then submit them all at once when the site is less busy (could be automated to work in the background). Anyways, first question: 1. Would something like this be an allowable use of the website? 2. Anyone know of anything that will do this? 3. Anyone else think this is a good idea? Thanks

I'll add an "I'm not sure" to the list . On the one hand I can see the reviewers position. There are lots of neat things around that people might want to see. That doesn't mean there should be a geocache at each one of them. Things could VERY easily get out of line. I personally can't think of a single situation that *couldn't* be part of an offset, or some kind of muti. Virtuals are a lot easier to 'place' than a standard cache, so some might be tempted to make them more and more to push up their numbers. The question is, how do you draw the line. There will always be someone who says, "My cache is at least as cool as that one that was approved, so why wasn't mine". Of course this make one wonder why virtuals haven't gone the way of the traveling caches. I guess that there may be some very unique situations in which one *might* be approved, but my guess is that pretty much everything is turned down. Yours does sound pretty cool though, so I think it may be border line. I'm curious as to when the last virtual was actually approved. Around here, it was GCGH93 (July 25, 2003), and before that, it was GCA5CB (November 8, 2002). Sounds to me like the reason yours wasn't approved is the 'higher standard' thing.

Don'r know, but I can't imagine it harming the unit. Just make sure you have fresh batteries in all your electronic devices, as you'll have to turn them on at security.

Horray, I'm not completely nuts (only partially )

Another case I can imagine is with traveling caches, but I doubt that was the case here... Also there is a cache here of Alberta Survey Monuments (kinda like benchmark hunting), I wouldn't have a problem if the owner of this cache logged it as found (even multiple times).

I am trying to get a Calgary GeoCoin minted, if things go ahead, we're going to need some way to track them. It would be nice if people could search for the closest coins to their location. What I would like to do is once the placer of a coin enters the waypoint code, to go out and then pull off the lat-lons for the cache location from the geocaching.com website. I imagine though based on other discussions in here that this would violate the ToS of the website. If so, any chance of getting special permission?

I'm trying to get a Calgary GeoCoin minted. If the effort goes ahead, we'll need some way to track the coins. Seeing as how this is nothing new, and there are lots of custom coins out there I was hoping there might be a ready made solution available. Anyone know of anything, or do people generally roll their own?

I'm sure I'm doing something silly, but for the life of me I can't figure out where to go. It seems to me like in the new version, in the offline cache description, there is no longer an indicator as to which caches have "corrected coordinates", all the filters still work perfect, but the indicator no longer comes up. Knowing how well Clyde has done things, I imagine there is a check box somewhere where I can re-enable this feature, but I can't see it.

*deleted duplicate post*

Yeah, I kind of guessed that might be the case, the thing is this bug is pretty bad, and if bad people figured out how to exploit it, it wouldn't be a good thing. It can probably wait a couple of weeks, but I'd like to know that someone at least knows about the problem (shouldn't be too hard to fix either, just needs doing).

Just wondering if there is somewhere I can e-mail a semi-serious bug in the geocaching infrastructure to? I'd prefer not to discuss it on an open forum. I e-mailed the contact@ address, and no responce (yet), and the bug still exists. It involves certain information being released by a couple of servers that really shouldn't be released.

I think there isn't a whole lot you can do to stop it, but I do understand why in context it could be offensive. It seems to me like if he wasn't trying to make a political statement (anti-gay) he probably would have talked about it, and maybe stopped doing it. I don't think generally there is anything offensive about the statement, but most people here aren't from Oregon, and probably don't understand the context. Imagine the KKK started using the slogan "Unity for a stronger, America" and you started seeing this phrase appear in log books. I imagine you'd be highly offended, there still isn't anything you could do about it, but I can understand being offended by it.

I've visited some other geocaching sites, but generally found them wanting. Probably for the very reason that they don't have the user base, so it isn't worth the time/capital investment. I'm glad they exist though, I think there job right now is to keep Jeremy et al. honest. If ever Groundspeak were to do anything supremely stupid, I could see them growing in popularity, and usefulness very quickly.

Come on, that long integer or what ever has to run out sometime (doesn't windows limit you to 65535 items in a list box?). Just wondering how all of you create these massive pocket queries (like an entire state). Do you do it in dozens of queries, or is there something I'm missing?

Any chance of a beta? I'd just like to dump my list so I can calculate cache density around each point (don't care if its otherwise functional in anyway shape or form).

Well I've read most of this thread, but it is getting pretty long, so I skipped a few a bit here and there (heading to bed...) Anyways, one problem I can see with rating say 1 cache for every hundred you find is a rather regional one. Around here, our local big shots have 777 and 371 caches to their name. I get the impression reading these forums that in some areas these kinds of numbers can be picked up in a weekend (or say a week). In this area, I would say that if either of these people recommends a cache, it is probably worth doing (regardless of how many they actually recommend, or how many people have done the cache). On the other hand, imagine we have a 'number-puncher' move in to the area, with 3000+ finds to their name. Should this person have more of a vote than the guys who have done pretty much every local cache, who *know* which caches you should go visit? My set up would be something as follows: 1. Each cacher has a 'favorites' list, containing their top ten caches. 2. Each cacher has a 'favorite cachers' list, maybe containing their top three area cachers. 3. Some kind of ability to search for 'top cachers' in an area (maybe based on home coordinates, but you'd have to make it fuzzy enough not to comprimise privacy), having nothing to do with number of finds. Then you could look at their 'favorites' lists if you were heading in to an area. (you might also dissociate this from their actual user profile, if privacy is an issue) 4. You might still want some way to search for on at least n favorites lists Just a thought anyways. It also might be an idea to have a good for locals vs a good for travelers list, but we might be getting a bit complicated.

Hey Clyde, Am I dreaming, or did a while back did you say that there was a tag to get the UTM coordinates? Or was that in a Beta? Or just 'on the list'? Anyways, I can't seem to find it anywhere...

Wow someone came up with a new idea? When do I get to come up with something new I can see the possibility of it being useful. Lately I've only been uploading only smallish subsets of points, and it might be nice to have a record of just what I really did upload (as it is, I tend to re-select any which I might want, regardless of whether they are in the GPS or not). On the other hand, its not too much trouble in my situation anyways, so I guess it depends on how though it is for you to add something like this.

Maybe a repair/defrag of the database will sort things out? (Database->Repair/Defrag)

Did you modify the default XP style layout to make it look more like Win2K? If so you might have more luck looking under the "Add Remove Programs" control panel (and then selecting "Set Programs Access and defaults" on the left)